Did I lie about Matt Chandler?

This is the most obvious case of mirroring I’ve seen in a long time. Many of their accusations about you refer – quite obviously, imo – to themselves.

–Larry Kummer, Editor of Fabius Maximus

In OKRickety’s transcript, the men of Pastor Bayly’s Clearnote Church accuse me of lying by misquoting Pastor Matt Chandler:

[47:14] – Look, nobody in this room has any great respect for Matt Chandler. Nope. Correct. But, come on, you can accuse Chandler at all kinds of things. You can accuse him of all kinds of things. You can accuse him of not going far enough, you can accuse him of playing strictly to women of the crowd, you can accuse him of all kinds of things. You can accuse him of not asserting a woman’s own responsibility to resist temptation but to say that he somehow in this specific quote asserts anything more than a good husband is a good protection against temptation” is just a lie. It’s just a lie.

– Well. You know,  I’m guessing the Chandler in the rest of the sermon probably doesn’t go far enough. I mean, if I had to guess, I don’t know, nothing on Earth could compel me to bother to actually listen and find out honestly, but probably he doesn’t.

Note that after calling me a liar, Nathan says he couldn’t be bothered to actually check to see if my characterization was accurate!  They were referring to this quote (see the full exchange).  Note that I provided a link not only to the audio, but the transcript:

Pastor Matt Chandler makes the same argument in his sermon Women’s Hurdles (transcript). Chandler explains that if a Christian husband fulfills his responsibility to love his wife, she can’t be tempted into feminist rebellion:

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

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

This stuff is flat out nuts, but no one notices within conservative Christianity because it is so common and it has been going on for so long.

I urge anyone who is interested to click on the link Nathan and company couldn’t be bothered to click.  The way I characterized Pastor Matt Chandler’s argument was not a lie.  He really did tell men that they way they should gauge their performance as a husband was if their wife could be tempted into resentment by secular feminism.  He didn’t just say as Nathan asserts:

a good husband is a good protection against temptation

Chandler went so far as to tell husbands that if they thought their wives could be tempted into feminist resentment, they should apologize to their wives.  Moreover, he said this in a sermon on women’s sins!   I included Chandler’s line about husbands needing to apologize if their wife feels tempted by feminism in the quote I shared with Nathan, but Nathan and the Warhorn crew left it out when pretending that I had misrepresented Chandler.  Here is the extended quote from OKRickety’s transcript:

[44:25] – All right guys welcome back from the break. End of Devil’s advocacy. We’re all on the same page here. So let’s talk about Dalrock’s methods, because there’s a larger point we want to make about this guy. You can read the whole interview with Dalrock for yourself Warhornmedia.com to get the full context. But we’re going to pull a few quotes, talk through how Dalrock does what he does. And what it says about him. To do that let’s play a little game I call “Who said it?” Matt Chandler. You guys know Matt Chandler, right?

– Oh, he’s famous. He’s the lead pastor of teaching at Village Church in Flower Mound, Texas. He’s the president of the Acts 29 network of churches.

– The very same Matt Chandler. Now Matt Chandler can be, I don’t know, lame, pretty weak sauce about some things, lots of things. But, that being put to the side, let’s play “Who said it?” Matt Chandler, Dalrock, or me, Nathan Albertson? Ben, read the first quote if you will.

– Sure.

– We’re going to read three quotes. One of them was said by Dalrock, one of them was said by Nathan, one of them was said by Pastor Chandler. Go ahead.

– Okay. “If the most secularized feminist in the world showed up in your home and began to try to coach your wife toward freedom and liberation from tyranny, our wives should be so well cared for, so nourished, so sowed into and loved, they would say what you are describing is actually tyranny.”

[45:44] – Jake read that second quote please.

– “If a husband loves his wife and rules over her well, she will be less likely to be tempted to rebel just the same as if a king loves his subjects and rules over them well, they’ll be less tempted to rebel.”

– And, Ben, read the third quote please.

– “Wives with good husbands can most easily overcome the temptation we dangle to not respect and submit to them. Likewise for children of good fathers.”

– Hmmm. Those all sound kind of similar but alright who said it, fellas?

– Kaiser Skulzi said them all. It’s a trick.

– Nope!

– Big twist! Nathan really is Dalrock and he’s working with Matt Chandler.

– Nope. Also gross.

– Okay okay. Ben. Real answer for your first one.

– The first one is Chandler.

– Second one?

– Nathan.

– Oh, interesting. And third?

– Dalrock.

– I am the meat in this truth sandwich, guys. Delicious! Wow. All right but those quotes do all kind of sound the same, especially if you read them with any degree of charity.

– Yeah. You guys would think so. Okay, so in our interview Dalrock characterizes this stuff as follows: “Chandler explains that if a Christian husband fulfills his responsibility to love his wife, she can’t be tempted into feminist rebellion” and again “women can’t be tempted into feminist rebellion if their husbands love them sufficiently” So that’s his characterization of what Chandler is saying.

– I just can’t believe that. That’s completely dishonest.

– What? Dishonest? Jake, Whatever can you mean?

[47:14] – Look, nobody in this room has any great respect for Matt Chandler. Nope. Correct. But, come on, you can accuse Chandler at all kinds of things. You can accuse him of all kinds of things. You can accuse him of not going far enough, you can accuse him of playing strictly to women of the crowd, you can accuse him of all kinds of things. You can accuse him of not asserting a woman’s own responsibility to resist temptation but to say that he somehow in this specific quote asserts anything more than a good husband is a good protection against temptation” is just a lie. It’s just a lie.

– Well. You know,  I’m guessing the Chandler in the rest of the sermon probably doesn’t go far enough. I mean, if I had to guess, I don’t know, nothing on Earth could compel me to bother to actually listen and find out honestly, but probably he doesn’t.

– Duh. There’s lots of pastors who don’t… they won’t call women moral agents. And these are women who…they are in simple rebellion against God against their husbands, and their pastors are not going to call them out.

[48:08] – Yeah, and we have to deal with those guys in real-life situations all the time. So that gives Dalrock license to lie about Matt Chandler. Duh. Right?

This entry was posted in Complementarian, Nathan Alberson, Pastor Matt Chandler, Pastor Tim Bayly, Turning a blind eye, Warhorn Interview, Warhorn Media. Bookmark the permalink.

117 Responses to Did I lie about Matt Chandler?

  1. vfm7916 says:

    Let’s see:

    SJW’s always Lie. Check
    SJW’s always Project. Check.
    SJW’s always Double-Down. DINGDINGDING We have a winner folks!

    SJW and Gamma characteristics are not solely the province of leftist atheists.

  2. Basedangemon says:

    What I can’t understand is why Nathan felt the need to be “brutal.” In every instance of their personal interaction that I’ve been shown, Dalrock acted the perfect gentleman. Nathan himself acknowledged as much (somewhere, saying something about “however respectably [Dalrock] comes across…” or something to that effect).

    Far be it from me to speculate, but I do note that Roissy has a new post (from 3/4/2019) entitled “Shitlib Self-Delusion And Psychological Projection” that tempts me to do so.

  3. Lexet Blog says:

    He couldn’t be bothered to go 4/20 pages in. Lol

  4. Barnie says:

    It’s really not worth dwelling on this much. You should just move on with your work.

  5. The Question says:

    This is how you deal with SJWs and gammas. You hit them back hard and without hesitation. Remember, these are “spiritual leaders,” not some random bloggers. They made a critical miscalculation that warrants the criticism, especially when they double-down in their error.

    If nothing else, others will learn not to make the same mistake. At best, they might eventually realize what they’ve done and change.

  6. JRH, Esq. says:

    Barnie’s right. At this point, you’re in “you’re covered in mud and the pig is just having a good time” stage of pig-wrestling.

  7. Joe Ego says:

    “Duh”

    Yeah, between that and not actually reading Chandler’s words for themselves (while dumping on him too) I really have to wonder who they are trying to target with this podcast. Are these guys 16? Is their audience 16? How often do they “L.O.L.”? They come across like Mean Girls, But for Christian Bros – The Podcast.

    Personal commitment time: I’m going to be charitable and listen to this episode just to hear how they come across. They can’t really be this unserious. Can they?

  8. Gabe Ruth says:

    This seems like a variation of the “toss the other guy out of the troika” strategy, recently observed by Sailer among geneticists who want to do interesting research. Sounds like they agree with you about most things, they just think you’re obnoxious about it and that is unacceptable to them. I suspect there is internal conflict within their house on these issues (they admit as much with regard to the military question), and regard your overly frank line as politically untenable, which is sad and not a good sign for them.

    On a side note, as a Catholic, it is always surreal to hear the inside baseball wrangling about legitimate authority that goes on among protestants. God knows we have no grounds to mock others in such matters, but really,

  9. Zadok says:

    @Barnie
    I don’t think so, this is one of the closest things Warhorn offered to evidence based criticism. Warhorn and Bayly think Dalrock is disingenuous with his criticisms. I think their blindspot is just too big to comprehend what Dalrock is pointing out, and their arrogance prohibits the possibility of one. This is one reason why they are convinced Dalrock is a bad man, but have such a hard time coming up with anything concrete.

  10. Oscar says:

    According to the Warhorners, we’re all “too lazy” to follow links and find out for ourselves what anyone other than Dalrock wrote.

    Except, several of us – myself included – actually listened to the entire Warhorn podcast. Two of us even made transcripts. And it was actually the Warhorners who are “too lazy” to follow the links Dalrock provided them.

    Talk about projection.

  11. Random Angeleno says:

    @Barnie and JRH, Esq
    That’s no pig over there, that’s a Churchian version of an SJW. Hard to say which is worse. Nathan created the mud, spent hours stirring it up, now he’s got his buddies squealing about him having to stand within the stench of his own words? Oh, please…

    If Nathan was just another blogger or just another poster on a forum, no one would bother to keep this going, least of all Dalrock. But Nathan’s perfidy needs wider exposure precisely because of the forum he used and what that forum purports to represent. I hope Nathan sees this as a teaching moment from which he could emerge a better commentator and critic, but I doubt it.

  12. sipcode says:

    “Thus saith the Lord God;
    Behold, I am against the shepherds;
    and I will require my flock at their hand,
    and cause them to cease from feeding the flock;
    neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more;
    for I will deliver my flock from their mouth,
    that they may not be meat for them.” Ezekiel 34:10.

    The church, as we have known it for 500 years, is coming to an end: the full-time paid pastor and staff are swiftly on their way out of His temple. This scripture is coming home to roost.

    Men, reading scripture for themselves, is the coming temple, and as iron sharpens iron [as is going on here], proving all things to His Word, to Jesus Christ, His Son.

    Good riddance, merchandising pastors and theologians….

  13. That Brotha Pedat says:

    Dalrock you’re a good man…way better than I. In that regard, I’m mad WITH you and I’m mad FOR you.

    This little stunt Nathan pulled with you is some bitch nigga shit. Seriously. Dal has been coming with receipt upon receipt and this dude still pulls this crap. It’s rather infuriating.

    I know…people will say who are we (I) to be pissed about (Dalrock) being lied on; after all, wasn’t Master Yeshua more persecuted than anyone…?

    Yeah, but I’m not Master Yeshua…and I don’t appreciate being lied on about anything. I’ve never shirked my comeuppances, and have been brutally checked by many of my big brothers and elders in Christ, and they came with receipts.

    But one thing that has not been completely mortified in my flesh is people lying on me. Believer or no, keep it up and eventually you’re gonna have to “catch me outside”. And I have very heavy and fast hands.

    But..this isn’t about me. It’s about Dalrock firstly, and ALL of us on the extremities. I don’t appreciate this fuckery they’ve pulled.

    Dalrock, I’m mad with you and mad for you.

  14. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Pedat.

  15. From the comments to Dalrock’s posts about the Warhorn incident, it appears that many misunderstand what those guys were doing. Dalrock is setting the record straight, but the Warhorn boys succeeded fully in their aims from this exercise. As C. S. Lewis said in “The Screwtape Letters” (esp. note the last paragraph).

    —–

    My dear Wormwood {a junior fellow at the Center for American Something or Other},

    It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy’s clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chair of reasoning.

    But what with the weekly press and other such weapons, we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false”, but as “academic” or “practical”, “outworn” or “contemporary,” “conventional” or “ruthless.” Jargon, not argument is your best ally in keeping him from truth.

    The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy’s own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting he has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below. By the very act of arguing, you awake the patient’s reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result.

    … Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!

    Your affectionate uncle,
    Screwtape

  16. seventiesjason says:

    This is turning into a real jr high drama Dalrock. Really? Who cares? Your readers and follwers? Warhorn and their ilk won’t see their the error of their ways…..and come round to your way of thinking….and before you ever mentioned them….I had never heard of them…..as for their podcast……30 listeners or whatever…….

    The more you dig-in on what words were said in what context and by what inflection or definition or version of the truth…………it’s not causing them any harm.

    They don’t care. Why would they?

    I’m lost in all this, and no I am not the smartest person around………but I can bet most Christians “out there” are at my level more than yours, or the intellectual elite here…….

    Just my take from a nobody……..and the people you are hairsplitting with are nobodies, they won’t get it.

  17. 7817 says:

    Like VFM say, make the rubble bounce Dalrock. As far as it goes I’d enjoy a regular feature post of beating up on Warhorn in some way. The guys telling you to let off need to read some Vox Day. It’s not over until Warhorn fears to hear your name.

  18. Matt says:

    I’m trying to think of an example from the Bible of a follower of God being told “Eh, you’re right but really this is just undignified. It’s making you look like you care about truth. And really that’s just a hop skip and jump away from… uncool.”

    But for some reason I can’t think of one. So as far as I’m concerned you should say as much as you think needs to be said. Let everybody who searches their names see what they do.

  19. seventiesjason says:

    Yeah Matt….Jesus called out the “teachers of the law” but didn’t spend day after day, after day, after day “Well, they tried to say this about me…..and that was a lie, so I have to defend myself to them”

    No one said “undignified” you did

  20. 7817 says:

    day after day, after day, after day

    Jason you freak out when you get insufficient attention, and you want Dalrock to quit defending himself? Please.

    Store up some of your concern to spend on yourself next time you have an emotional meltdown all over a comment thread.

  21. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    The gossipy old hens of Warhorn, messing up their own hen house. Love it.

    Churchians just gotta go Gamma — every time.

  22. Eidolon says:

    I think Dalrock is going past the quote itself a bit, so in that sense they weren’t totally wrong. But when they admit to not reading or listening to the whole thing to see if it’s a mischaracterization, their criticism becomes ignorant sniping.

    They were very focused on the specific quotes, although at times they seem to have trimmed them down to fit their narrative better. Obviously Dalrock writes about these people a lot, and so he sees a bit more in a quote than they do, (intentionally) lacking that context.

    It was interesting how they try to defend Doug Wilson, for example, by only quoting a few passages that sound pretty good, despite Dalrock having demonstrated very clearly and at great length that anyone with any view can find support from Doug Wilson, that being one of the major criticisms.

    I was mostly struck by the lack of any substance in their entire podcast, as well as their immaturity and inanity. At least one pastor, maybe all three, I don’t know, and that’s the best they could do? I feel like you could pick a commenter out of a hat from this very comment section and they could attack Dalrock more effectively.

  23. princeasbel says:

    This is turning into a real jr high drama Dalrock. Really? Who cares? Your readers and follwers? Warhorn and their ilk won’t see their the error of their ways…..and come round to your way of thinking….and before you ever mentioned them….I had never heard of them…..as for their podcast……30 listeners or whatever…….

    This is the kind of attitude I struggle with on a regular basis.

    Jason, think about it- if Dalrock took your advice, his blog would not exist. Charlatans like the Warhorn boys would never be exposed for what they are. The last thing men like Dalrock need is people like you or me dragging him down. Quit your concern trolling. If you think few people care what these morons say, or what Dalrock says about them, think of how little anyone cares about what YOU say, especially when all you’re doing is dragging him down! If you have to comment, be an encouragement. At the very least, you can keep your disease to yourself.

    Life is difficult enough for men. Don’t make yourself detestable around the few allies you have on the net.

  24. Eidolon says:

    For example I suppose they credit Chandler’s weasel words (“you should probably repent and confess before the Lord to your wife”) as though they were worth anything and not just obfuscation to allow him to back out of what he clearly said.

    The whole premise of the thing collapses if a man’s action is not the cause of the wife’s obedience. If a man’s action can either bring about a woman’s obedience or not, mostly depending on other factors, then the whole thing is nonsense.

    Also I don’t think “not going far enough” is a problem there. He goes entirely too far in the wrong direction.

  25. Eidolon says:

    Does anyone think the “it’s Genesis 3, not Genesis 2, dummies!” defense works? I still don’t see any reason to interpret “all have sinned in Adam” as “Adam is responsible for Eve’s sin,” which is a direct quote from them.

    I always took it as “everyone descended from Adam inherited his sin,” which obviously excludes Eve. She sinned first, and was not a descendant of Adam, at least not in the same way as his children. She came from him in a sense, but he was sinless at that time, so she can’t have inherited his sin.

    It seems to me that to hold Adam responsible for Eve’s sin, even in a metaphorical, “federal headship” sense, goes a long way to explaining how wrong they are on a lot of these issues. It’s certainly reminiscent of the PCA document that theoretically thinks women might be sinning but it must be men’s fault really.

  26. Lexet Blog says:

    About a year ago I became convinced that the western church is on the “threshing floor,” and the denominations are being shifted to separate the sheep from goats.

  27. Lexet Blog says:

    Gen 3:6 infers Adam was right there when eve ate of the apple. It would be different if he weren’t.

  28. Pingback: Did I lie about Matt Chandler? | Reaction Times

  29. BillyS says:

    Lexet,

    The text says he was “there” not that he was standing next to her. You would be “there” with your wife if you were in the basement and she was in the 2nd floor master bedroom.

    He was in the Garden with her, we are not given any more details. Though God would have charged him with not interrupting the serpent and protecting Eve if he was right next to her. Don’t build a sin that is not part of the Scriptures.

  30. ray says:

    “– Oh, he’s famous. He’s the lead pastor of teaching at Village Church in Flower Mound, Texas. He’s the president of the Acts 29 network of churches.”

    Note how one of Nathan’s toads-in-training immediately knows which celebrity preacher of which church is where.

    It’s a big club, you see. They write the forewords for each others’ books and pitch each others’ conferences and their wives yak on the phone. There’s an entire sub-culture sausagefest hierarchy thing going on there. OK actually frozen mini-sausages, let’s stick to facts.

    Who has the biggest church and who has the most parishioners appears the common currency.

    Thus, all the faux outrage, because somebody poked a hole in their paper-thin churchianity woo-woo. Crashed their clubhouse.

    Toad Jr. supra even knows about the Acts 29 network of churches, of which I am ignorant and intend remaining so. It’s quite entertaining watching these boys stumble over themselves jockeying for position in make-believe ministries. I don’t doubt Jeshua gets a chuckle off it, but that’ll stop eventually.

  31. Poptarts says:

    Whenever I hear/read someone say “let’s play a little game” I know that leftist propaganda is about to ensue. Sure as day follow night.

  32. Barnie says:

    Nah, Warhorn isn’t bothered by you parsing every word of the podcast. Just makes it look like they got to you. You want to strike them? Dig through material from Tim Bayly. But really you should just do what led them to attack you in the first place, your usual material.

  33. seventiesjason says:

    Princeasbel….

    Do you think “Joe Christian” who breaks bread, attends church….is struggling to hold “Frame” because if he doesn’t, his wife is gonna rebel and leave him beacuse its her nature….and if Dalrock doesn’t hairsplit over what a few guys who happen to say on a podcast or don’t say or how they misquote him, or lie or spread untruths about him in the man-o-sphere is going to make “Joe Christian” somehow not be a real Christian and man????

    No. Joe Christian is too busy working, striving, and just being there as a man to be the best bhe can for his wife and children.

    He doesn’t and won’t have time to go over the thirty plus “back threads” and Lord…..the trillion comments from the brainiacs here about “who said what and when”

    He may come here for some info, but you all can BET if he made a commet about his Christian life, wife and children……he would be doing WRONG according to all of you

    This is drama, and its a waste of time. This meltodwn, and knit-picking like two chiurch ladies who bicker on Sunday between Dalrock and Wartberg? Warton? Warthog (whatever…who the freak cares) Media is really just fodder for the comment section to tell Dalrock how “smart” he is

    Your comments are making this into a really trite scvene from a 1980’s “mall movie”

    And to me…..some immature Christian…..who doesn’t have “all together” and is PERFECT like the rest of you really is now smirking over how mature you really all are.

  34. seventiesjason says:

    7817

    No, I don’t freak out when I get a “lack of attention” I am in PAIN, something none of you never have had evidently and you have your friends, your wife, your children….you know the thing God made for men to help them weather through a storm…something to strive and live for.

    I have a “meltdown” on a THread….this goes on for weeks now…..Networks, podcasts, who said what and when…..what the word “IS” means……..what this Chapter of what context, and all the names that are being thrown around from media groups, to ACts 29…..to all the actors (Chandler, Byly…..some guy on the podcast,…..Nathan should hold this guy accountable……..this pastor knew what he said and doesn’t have control of this guy……what Dalrock said, meant…didn’t say….

    Please.

    Look in the mirror…..the Dalrock comments section is feeding this 1000X more than Dalrock is…….

  35. white says:

    Idk man I thought Dalrock’s constant posts about the Warhorns are great. “Christians”/conservatives like Warhorn are the biggest obstacle to any sort of change within the church, and this is a great opportunity to learn from them. Besides, unlike many commentors here I see this whole episode as very humiliating for the Warhorns. Not only did they not find any dirt on Dalrock (as much as they want to), they also brought a lot of attention to this part of the internet, and made many of their own followers seriously question their credibility.

    Hopefully the Manosphere can also finally address the problem of modern Christians taking “you shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16) verse as license to ad hominem. A problem that needs to be addressed sooner or later anyway.

  36. squid_hunt says:

    1 Kings 22:6-28
    6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.
    7 And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides, that we might enquire of him?
    8 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the Lord: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.
    9 Then the king of Israel called an officer, and said, Hasten hither Micaiah the son of Imlah.
    10 And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, having put on their robes, in a void place in the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them.
    11 And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them.
    12 And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the king’s hand.
    13 And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good.
    14 And Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak.
    15 So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.
    16 And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord?
    17 And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the Lord said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.
    18 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?
    19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
    20 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
    21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.
    22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
    23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
    24 But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee?
    25 And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself.
    26 And the king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back unto Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son;
    27 And say, Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I come in peace.
    28 And Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me. And he said, Hearken, O people, every one of you.

    People don’t like it when you tell the truth on their lies and gimmicks. Doesn’t mean you should stop. It absolutely is a club. And they’re all in it and they’re all in on the lie. And they made their pretty horns and they practiced their speeches, but they’re liars speaking to lazy, dishonest congregations. Dalrock exposed their lies and now they’re angry. Why should he have to back down because they continue on to destruction?

  37. That Brotha Pedat says:

    People don’t like it when you tell the truth on their lies and gimmicks. Doesn’t mean you should stop. It absolutely is a club. And they’re all in it and they’re all in on the lie. And they made their pretty horns and they practiced their speeches, but they’re liars speaking to lazy, dishonest congregations. Dalrock exposed their lies and now they’re angry. Why should he have to back down because they continue on to destruction?

    Exactly! Da hell with them wankers.

  38. seventiesjason says:

    Men…..they’re not angry……their podcast was a joke…..and made to be “cocky funny” and who listens to this?????? The average guy in Chandlers congregation is more concerned about football than this narrative……….and Chandler isn’t losing sleep over any of this.

    Nobody liked the Truth when Jesus spoke it………but for the love of the Father, he didn’t get bogged down in who said what at what time, and what was taken out of context, and what txt message said and when….

    If the Savior did that, there would have never been the ministry…..He would have spent all day and all night in “the temple courts” going back and forth about who said what and to whom….

    He stated the Truth, answered questions when asked, and got on with telling the people of the Good News of His Fathers kingdom…..

    Men like me, who are *not* leaders expect and need more from them……..like Dalrock…….its’a fact, now does Dalrock put his shoes on just like me? Yes…….but if you are going to be a leader in this aspect, more is just expected of you.

    I have difficult clients and tennants in the property I manage. I cannot get bogged down daily over what they don’t like, or what is sticking and prodding their menstrul cycle at the moment. I gently but firmly have to say “The lease says, tennant agrees” and END the conversation and own it.

    Dalrock will do what he wants, and I won’t respect him less……..and if he believes he has to choose this as the battle…..fine……with that said, I expect conviction from the other side and a real debate.

    He won’t get it from these folks. He’ll get juvenile replies, and the peanut gallery here suddenly getting “holy” and self righteous. I won’t say anymore on this topic. Not that what I say matters anyway. Just one mans opinion

  39. squid_hunt says:

    I don’t expect conviction. I expect them to deflect. This is a business to them. They can’t afford to be exposed and by responding too much they create a Streisand effect. Bayly appears to know this, judging by his response.

    Nevertheless, their podcast is out there and people are going to wonder what it was all about. It’s been proven drama builds ratings on the internet. And when viewers come here, Dalrock’s responses are clear and intelligible compared to their simpering giggles.

  40. seventiesjason says:

    No Squid, Dalrock responses are lost, muddled in a long chain of threads, and the comments have muddled it further. I was lost after the second one. I know he’s right……..what do I care if Warton said what to bylay about Chandler and what Genseis 3 said and the Bokk of Kings versus who in the Cats 20 Network owns a stake in what protion of the maedia and how Nathan sias this, but meant this………

    In 1967, there was a Senator who told then President Johnson about the sinking siuation in Vietnam. “Declare victory and leave!” Probably some of the wiesest counsel ever on that war, at that time. No debates about treaties, and dominos, or pride, or what the world expects, or how we have to prove and stand evil in the face…….

    Perhaps……perhaps…..Dalrock could do this……..if he doesn’t, it’s just a debate club for more intelligent Christians who Greek, Heberew, proper interpetation of what verse and what Paul, Jesus, or some King really meant………….

    The people he wants to convice……the 30 or so Joe Christians who listen “daily” or whatever to this podcast are not going to be convinced…..they are going to be “lost” in all of these threads

  41. squid_hunt says:

    Dalrock has been accused publicly He has a right and possibly an expectation to defend himself. These men are acting deceitfully and they deserve to be called on it. As has been mentioned a couple times through this discussion, Dalrock does not name drop. He’s not resting on his credentials, only his word, his public responses. Their accusations strike at the heart of his credibility. He’s either telling the truth or he’s not.

  42. Warthog says:

    Long ago in the world of political activism we used a matrix called ”The Red Fox Four” to evaluate positions/decisions before we committed to them.

    Win or Lose
    – Will it attract new money or people?
    – Will it help friends or allies?
    – Will it hurt enemies or their allies?
    – What is the value of the policy if we win
    or the cost to freedom if we lose?

    The Warhorn interview helps us and hurts Warhorn, win or lose. Warhorn had nothing to gain, because they were not going to win followers from Dalrock, nor gain new Christian feminists by doing that podcast.

    However, by Dalrock taking the time to ”bring the receipts,” as another commenter said, he puts the truth out there for anyone looking to dig into it.

    Most people won’t bother to read all this, but it doesn’t hurt Dalrock because they just skip to next topic.

    Amazon and Ebay built their businesses around ”the long tail” which means the ignored outliers of the bell curve. Dalrocks followers come from the long tail. Taking the time and space to document what Warhorn did is a good strategy for you, Dalrock. Win or lose, you come out ahead on this.

    Bayly was correct that their only winning strategy was to ignore Dalrock. Bringing attention to him hurts them.

  43. Warthog says:

    Interesting that applying Red Fox Four to wife spanking shows exactly why it is a dead end issue. There is nothing to be gained from discussing it. Dalrock is also wise to ban that topic.

    Though, that didn’t stop Nathan from trying to pin it on Dalrock. Nathan basically did a podcast ridiculing what he wished Dalrock had said. Strategically he has proved himself to be a moron.

  44. squid_hunt says:

    @Warthog

    I’m pretty sure I’m going to adopt that. Thank you.

  45. princeasbel says:

    Guys, you will not believe this… But the Warhorn guys are thirsty for more!

  46. Mitch says:

    @seventiesjason
    This is drama, and its a waste of time.

    I consider the back-and-forth between Warhorn and Dalrock to be edutainment. I have learned from this exchange and it has helped me see how durable Dalrock’s arguments are by how illogical and immature the opposition to them is. Given that I have had some bit of respect for Tim Bayly in his pushback against the Revoice conference and gay christianity, it was interesting to see just how far out he is in this Universal Binding Obligation doctrine where all men are morally responsible to protect all women with no reciprocal obligation other than to allow men to sacrifice themselves.

    It has been entertaining because conflict is essential to drama and getting someone from the outside to mix it up with Dalrock is just plain fun. Maybe I’m just easily amused, though.

  47. MGX99 says:

    FYI Warhorn has a new episode “Manosphere part 2” https://simplecast.com/s/d4beb638

  48. JRob says:

    Guys, you will not believe this…

    Yes we will. It’s double down time.

  49. Oscar says:

    @ princeasbel

    Jason, think about it- if Dalrock took your advice, his blog would not exist.

    Huh… it’s almost as though… nahhhh…

  50. OKRickety says:

    Eidolon said: ‘It seems to me that to hold Adam responsible for Eve’s sin, even in a metaphorical, “federal headship” sense, goes a long way to explaining how wrong they are on a lot of these issues. It’s certainly reminiscent of the PCA document that theoretically thinks women might be sinning but it must be men’s fault really.’

    Well, I find the Federal Headship concept interesting, especially in light of its connection to the idea of Original Sin (and I might study it further out of curiosity).

    Its relevance here is that, in my current limited understanding, it leads to confusion on the topic of responsibility. Specifically, are we talking about responsibility in the sense of Federal Headship or responsibility in the individual sense?

    For example, the Warhorn guys (at 56:45 of the podcast) say, “I mean, the Bible says Eve was deceived. She was responsible for her sins.” Shortly afterward, they say “It’s Adam’s sin. Adam is the one who’s responsible. That’s just the classic doctrine of original sin.” I understand those quotes to be two different uses of responsibility.

    This leads to difficulty in understanding, because it is often difficult to know which type of responsibility is being considered.

    Of course, this is all exacerbated by the Warhorn guys insisting that their understanding of Federal Headship is the truth that all Christians must understand and accept. There are a great many people who don’t really care how long Doug Wilson (or anyone else) has been making this point.

  51. 7817 says:

    it was interesting to see just how far out he is in this Universal Binding Obligation doctrine where all men are morally responsible to protect all women with no reciprocal obligation other than to allow men to sacrifice themselves.

    This was an interesting find. It is chivalry taken to one of its logical extremes, which just shows where Dalrock has gotten it right in getting to the root of the matter.

  52. JRob says:

    Harworn X2 on ad hominem. Almost entertaining.

    Their main problem up to the hallway point (I gave up at a ridiculous skiy) IMO is they without question CANNOT grasp the truth that no man has any true authority in the home. Or in the gynarchy at large.

    They are stuck in their own caricatured version of the 1950s.

  53. Mitch says:

    @7817
    It is chivalry taken to one of its logical extremes.

    Tim Bayly derives Universal Binding Obligation from a commentary by a 19th century Presbyterian leader named A. A. Hodge: http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/1-278.html

    That’s not only centuries after the beginning of the courtly love idea but also after the Puritan adaptation of it to marriage. It seems that Hodge was trying to take chivalry and cover it with a veneer of biblical support by pointing it back to the Federal Headship of Adam. The problem is that Federal Headship is a doctrine of sin and redemption as Adam has headship over sin and death and Jesus has headship over redemption and life.

    But trying to derive a doctrine that makes all men responsible for the safety of all women is an odd doctrine. First, God has not established “manhood” as a divinely ordained institution. God has ordained the family of which the husband and father is the head. He has established the church of which Jesus is the head of the Universal church and the elders are head of the local church. He has established the institution of the government, where kings or presidents or prime ministers have authority given to them by God but are selected by birth or elections.

    But nowhere has God established the institution of manhood such that men corporately are responsible to God for protecting the other institution of corporate womanhood. The duty for protection lies with the government in the larger context and to the husband/father in the family context. Since women compose slightly more than 50% of the electorate, they are part of the decision making process that leads to women being put in front line combat duty.

    Bayly has acknowledged that there is a limit to what husbands, fathers and brothers can do to prevent the women around them from joining the military. But blaming men corporately for the actions of specific women is ludicrous given that women have full moral agency and can decide for their own damn selves whether they want to join.

    The PCA’s use of the Unversal Binding Obligation as justification for blaming men for women in combat is exactly what Dalrock says it is. Cowardice from the pulpit. Bayly signed it. It isn’t Dalrock’s job to start going over every subsequent word Bayly has ever said about it to come to the justifiable conclusion that the PCA is soft on the sins of women and assigns false blame on men to sound courageous when they are, in reality, gutless.

  54. JRob says:

    “skiy”=skit

  55. Mitch says:

    One other thing. If my adult son is in a burning building and an old cat lady is in the apartment next door, I’m saving my son and letting cat lady burn. Universal Binding Obligation, my ass.

  56. 7817 says:

    But nowhere has God established the institution of manhood such that men corporately are responsible to God for protecting the other institution of corporate womanhood.

    Really good point, along with the rest.

    The elephant in the room is that this universal obligation results in woman worship, regardless of what the Warhorn/Wilson folks say, because if I unnecessarily lay my life down for a random woman in trouble, how can i fulfill my obligations to my own family? Or, if I am single, how can I fulfill my obligation to God in whatever He wanted me to do?

    It’s pretty sad when a person like Rollo Tomassi who does not even claim to be Christian understands how the feminine imperative [things like Bayly’s universal obligation] is goddess worship better than Christians do.

    The first step in salvation is confession, admitting that God is right and I have a problem.

    A lot of these warhorn/wilson guys are refusing to admit the problem, and they are going to reap a harvest from that, whether or not the manosphere exists.

  57. TCGent says:

    Longtime reader, first time commenter.

    I note all the unfamiliar names urging Dalrock in effect to “get over it already and shut up.”

    Why? Probably because they are not friends. Dalrock is taking a page from the SJW book: exploit a narrative harmful to your enemies and hammer it home to win decisively. The main difference being that SJWs use lies and distortions, while Dalrock wields the truth.

    Seem to be a whole lot of white knights or SJW “Surrenderhorn” allies out there who just can’t stand it.

    Too bad, girls. You started this fight for no good reason, and you lost. We’re in the “exploiting victory” phase of the operation, and you’re not used to being on the losing side. Deal with it.

  58. squid_hunt says:

    Adam’s sin was eating the fruit and condemning man. His failure in federal headship was not killing Eve when she ate the fruit. God stated that the day you eat the fruit, you will surely die. When Eve ate the fruit, Adam was required by God as the head of the home and patriarch of mankind to institute judgment. He isn’t responsible for Eve’s sin. He is responsible for maintaining his home.

  59. Jake says:

    I realize it’s your show but i have begun reading all of jasons comments as: seventiesjason cries out in pain as he strikes Dalrock.

    If there was an ignore option, I’d flip it on and forget this guy existed.

  60. Mitch says:

    I just went through the entire Matt Chandler sermon and it actually has many statements many of us would appreciate. So with the following quotes in mind, did Dalrock lie by omission?

    Matt Chandler said:
    It’s this comparison where women will use their bodies to get the upper hand. They will flaunt what culture has called their strengths, not history, but culture has called their strengths. By and large, throughout human history, curvier women have been viewed, and curvier, pastier women have been viewed as beautiful. It is a modern idea that six-pack abs make one feminine.

    Fantasizing about a different color of hair or skin or a different sized waist or chest, a different husband or boyfriend, which will always lead them (see, we’re spiraling out of control now) to coveting and jealousy.

    You live with a quarrelsome wife. You might as well put a sheet over your face and then just pour water on you forever. God is saying that. You live in the house with a contemptuous, emasculating woman who is an expert on your weaknesses and delights in cutting you with her words.

    When perfection is your goal, any type of conflict is very difficult, so you will rarely, if ever, stand on what you believe to be true. You will be shaped by those around you because in your quest for perfection, you will have no conscience. You will absorb the conscience and conviction of others.

    There is a lot to be appreciated in this sermon. The opening line (sarcasm alert) is this:
    Well, a man talking about the sinfulness of women. Just not dangerous at all, is it?

    So with his first line he acknowledges the phenomenon that Dalrock identifies which is that it is dangerous in today’s Christian culture to get too specific about the sins of women. Chandler does a pretty good job as the sermon progresses even with the absurdity about men apologizing to their wives for making them susceptible to feminist rebellion. Later in the sermon he acknowledges that Historically, when this text is taught, what is taught out of this text I believe correctly is that women oftentimes will try to usurp the authority of husbands. They will usurp the authority of the man. They will refuse to submit to a type of headship, even when that headship is for the woman’s edification, growth, encouragement, and flourishing in the Lord.

  61. Matt says:

    seventiesjason, at this point you have probably written more in the comments of the Dalrock/Warhorn posts than Dalrock has in the posts themselves.

    You have a hard row to hoe, no doubt about that. There’s no reason to make it harder.

    Mitch, those are good quotes, and Chandler deserves credit where credit is due. But that doesn’t make the rest of his remarks any less wrong.

  62. ray says:

    Mitch — “But trying to derive a doctrine that makes all men responsible for the safety of all women is an odd doctrine.”

    Well it might be odd, but be assured it is accepted doctrine amongst Christian and ‘conservative’ men in America. I know because I butt heads with them often concerning that very subject — their (non-Scriptural) assumption that all males have the duty to ‘respect’ and defend all females.

    They’ll huff, they’ll puff, they’ll gather allies and shout, they’ll project astonishment at my caddishness and cruelty. It’s just pathetic to witness. Over and over again.

  63. OKRickety says:

    “Mitch, those are good quotes, and Chandler deserves credit where credit is due. But that doesn’t make the rest of his remarks any less wrong.”

    Ironically,I think this is what the Warhorn guys say about Dalrock. Even more ironically, I think this is also what Dalrock says about some, for example, Doug Wilson.

  64. squid_hunt says:

    @ray @mitch

    their (non-Scriptural) assumption that all males have the duty to ‘respect’ and defend all females.

    One might almost suspect it’s a deliberate inversion of the non-scriptural assumption that all women must submit to all men.

  65. Dalrock says:

    @Mitch

    I just went through the entire Matt Chandler sermon and it actually has many statements many of us would appreciate. So with the following quotes in mind, did Dalrock lie by omission?

    Nathan made a very specific claim:

    You can accuse him of not asserting a woman’s own responsibility to resist temptation but to say that he somehow in this specific quote asserts anything more than a good husband is a good protection against temptation” is just a lie. It’s just a lie.

    Is this your assertion, that Chandler was merely saying a good husband is a good protection against temptation, and I twisted Chandler’s words to make it sound like he said if a husband was good enough a secular feminist wouldn’t be able to tempt their wives into resentment? If so, please show your work.

    Nathan made a testable claim. Did he tell the truth?

  66. BillyS says:

    His failure in federal headship was not killing Eve when she ate the fruit. God stated that the day you eat the fruit, you will surely die. When Eve ate the fruit, Adam was required by God as the head of the home and patriarch of mankind to institute judgment. He isn’t responsible for Eve’s sin. He is responsible for maintaining his home.

    I assume you are being sarcastic squid, but in case note keep in mind God never told Adam to enforce the penalty, so that was not a required or necessarily desired option. It is possible Adam are to be with his wife, but I don’t see enough evidence to fit that assertion, contrary to the claims of a few preachers I have heard.

  67. Dalrock says:

    I should also add that Nathan twisted my own words in that same exchange. He wanted to make it sound like I was saying the same thing he claims Chandler was saying when I wrote:

    Wives with good husbands can most easily overcome the temptation we dangle to not respect and submit to them. Likewise for children of good fathers.

    Here is the quote, in context:

    Ironically, the very people we claim to be helping by making a habit of denigrating married fathers are the ones we are harming most. Wives with good husbands can most easily overcome the temptation we dangle to not respect and submit to them. Likewise for children of good fathers. It is the wives and children of marginal and failing fathers who will be most susceptible to the temptation we gleefully and consistently put in front of them.

    But my point was entirely different even than what Nathan claims Chandler was saying. I wasn’t saying “a good husband is a good protection against temptation” with that quote. He took it out of context to make it sound that way, but I was saying something entirely different. I was saying that we are cruel to wives and children of bad husbands and fathers when we throw stumbling blocks in their way by encouraging them to blame their own temptation to rebel on the imperfections of their husband/father.

  68. squid_hunt says:

    @BillyS

    Without making a modern application to men killing their wives, because I don’t think there is one, I’m not being sarcastic. The punishment was death. Adam was the ruler of the earth. You cringe from it because we don’t execute judgment with the same sincerity as we once did. Only once Adam sinned was the earth condemned. Eve was fallen and condemned and not to point out the obvious, but Adam had other ribs. I think if he would have condemned his wife, the earth would have been saved. How is that any different than how God reacted?

  69. squid_hunt says:

    “We took apart his arguments because he was a little critical of our pastor.”

    These guys….

  70. squid_hunt says:

    These guys have really brainstormed how they were going to respond to this. I’ve never heard such equivocating out of a Christian minister.

    “What we meant was…”

    “He’s so dishonest…” – Dalrock literally posted all their communications

    “We just wanted to provide a jumping off point…”Apparently they weren’t interested in Dalrock’s views at all. They just wanted him to explain some of their questions about other people.

    They’re still trying to associate Dalrock with secular “manosphere” even though he has very clear positions that oppose their views and stated them. You know, all those dishonest changings of the subject. Which really speaks well to Dalrock’s insight in their motives.

    They are seriously presenting themselves once again as a group of hysterical women. Wonder who their target audience is.

    Again they are ignoring what you’re saying in context and talking about what else these pastors are saying. Which you’ve pointed out. Repeatedly.

    It’s like these guys spent the week reading our comments and are rhetorting “Nuh uh! You are!”

  71. squid_hunt says:

    Hahahahahaha!!! He won’t listen to our podcast! Why?!?

  72. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Mitch
    Tiptoeing up to the edge of yet another theological food fight, I ask….

    So Wilson, Bayly, etc. are getting this grand, unified theory of headship from a 19th century pastor / writer? Not from actual text in the source document but some man’s reading / interpretation of it, 150+ years ago.

    No doubt every century has wrongheaded writers, but the 19th century seems to have had a bumper crop.

  73. squid_hunt says:

    “His words say one thing and his actions say another.”

    What other actions do they have than Dalrock’s words?

  74. BillyS says:

    Squid,

    Then I would disagree with you. I can find nothing in the Scriptures that indicate the requirement for Adam to do anything to enforce that. It is like saying I would have to push someone if they had been warned that standing at the edge of a height would cause them to fall. The falling does not inherently require any action just because it has been proclaimed.

  75. squid_hunt says:

    @BillyS

    What do you think Adam’s response to Eve’s sin should have been?

  76. Mitch says:

    It’s pretty clear you did not lie about the specific quote. I also don’t believe you misrepresented the meaning of that quote because Chandler elevated this responsibility to include a mandate on the husband to apologize to his wife if she feels temptation to rebel as if her temptation would not have existed without his poor husbanding. Nathan called a lie what was not a lie in that instance. But later in Chandler’s sermon he says this:

    Historically, when this text is taught (Gen. 3:16), what is taught out of this text I believe correctly is that women oftentimes will try to usurp the authority of husbands. They will usurp the authority of the man. They will refuse to submit to a type of headship, even when that headship is for the woman’s edification, growth, encouragement, and flourishing in the Lord. It has been taught that way. That is a right way to interpret this text. I just think it’s a symptom and not the full on meaning of the text. Let me explain why I would land there. “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” It actually starts to explain the twisted, disordered desires of both the male and female heart that lead to a breakdown in the kind of complementarity that our hearts are so hungered for. Jesus’ own brother James taught us about this in James 1:14-15 when he said this.

    Chandler is acknowledging the proper understanding of Genesis 3:16 (re: Susan Foh: https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/foh-womansdesire-wtj.pdf). At that point, Chandler should have left well enough alone and just maybe Nathan might have had a case against you. But then Chandler ruins it by saying that Foh’s understanding of the passage relates to a “symptom and not the full on meaning of the text.” He says the passage should be understood as the “breakdown in the kind of complementarity that our hearts are so hungered for.”

    What exactly is Chandler saying here? I agree with the Susan Foh understanding of Gen. 3:16. That the wife will sometimes rebel even if the husband is loving. I think that’s your point. Chandler does not want to leave it there, though. He wants to make the fault mutual for all of the wife’s rebellion so that even if the husband is loving, his wife’s rebellion is still the husband’s shared guilt because of this “breakdown of complementarity.”

    A “breakdown in complementarity” sounds like gobbledygook. But it serves the purpose of obfuscating the wife’s responsibility.

    Chandler does say a lot of important stuff about the sins of women and I do recommend everyone read the full text. But I don’t for a minute think Nathan read it all or fairly assessed your conclusions from it. Sometimes the devil is in the details and I think this requires that we all read with discernment. If Nathan thinks your readers are all mindless stooges who don’t read the links, then he just hasn’t paid attention.

    Unfortunately, I would love to engage him on this point on the Sound of Sanity blog. But he has the unfortunate habit of shutting it down when it gets too difficult.

  77. Matt says:

    I think if he would have condemned his wife, the earth would have been saved. How is that any different than how God reacted?

    That’s a rather dismal condemnation that applies with as least as much force to you and I, since we Christians are after all collectively the bride of Christ.

  78. squid_hunt says:

    What’s wrong with Dalrock:

    1. Reduces male authority and responsibility – Lack of understanding about the fall (Federal Headship) – Calls Adam to account for everyone’s sins. Fathers responsible for what happens with daughters and wives. I still think they’re comparing apples and oranges and think it’s deliberate disingenuity.
    2. I totally missed this one in their rambling. Not going back.
    3. Dalrock doesn’t understand fatherhood. Pretending the problem is the women is to deny how God created the world. (Repeat of 1?) Delves off into general authority. You just don’t understand the scripture. You should listen to us. Jesus righteousness is imputed to the Church…The husband’s righteous is imputed…to…the wife…?

    Dalrock’s like the devil, but I’m not comparing Dalrock to the devil. (Bonus fault. Not in the list.)

    I think they are talking theory. Which is funny because they accuse Dalrock of not having practical solutions. When you get to practical, which is where Dalrock lives, they have nothing. Can you give me an example of a man demonstrating ruling his house well, how does he defend himself, how does he impose his authority which is where most of the men here are living and where churches seem to want to avoid like the plague, they have nothing. They won’t go on record talking about men ruling their houses in a practical sense. They can’t afford to.

    I also think they are deliberately misconstruing federal headship with literal sin and responsibility. They blur the lines, I think this is also deliberate and that is what made me so desperate for Dalrock’s writing in the first place.

    Their condescending talk about his lack of their superior knowledge of the scriptures, which I think Dalrock demonstrates without vomiting out verses upon verses to show how smart he is just comes across as more smarmy talk.

    These guys cop to nothing. They make no apologies for their behavior or presentation, except that they might not maybe have been totally clear (maybe). They equivocate. They are big about justifying themselves. Their presentation was better, but the content is just more of the same. Disgusting.

  79. squid_hunt says:

    @Matt
    How many billions will end up in hell because of God’s judgment? That’s not to cheer, but it is to say God’s not shy about instituting judgment.

  80. BillyS says:

    Squid,

    What do you think Adam’s response to Eve’s sin should have been?

    I think he should have come before God and said what happened and asked what to do. We have no idea what would have happened, but I would trust God myself more than even my own pre-Fall brain, if I were Adam. (I was not, so I may be missing things he knew.) This is the only area where I can see why he might have decided to follow his wife, since he didn’t want to be without her. That was his sin, not “a failure to enforce the death penalty on Eve.”

    Why did God say nothing about that if it was a requirement? His sin is limited to what God charged him with.

  81. BillyS says:

    How many billions will end up in hell because of God’s judgment? That’s not to cheer, but it is to say God’s not shy about instituting judgment.

    No one ends up in hell because of God. He provided a way to escape that applies to all humanity. How it works out for some, especially those before the Cross, I leave up to Him. The Scriptures say it is our own choice. Rejecting His sacrifice is what determines someone will Go to hell.

  82. squid_hunt says:

    @BillyS

    God put Adam in charge of the earth which would have included judgment. I can’t prove it, as you said, but I think if he had refused, Eve would have been condemned and God would have started over with Adam. Adam would have been right to impose God’s judgment on Eve.

    Hebrews 11 says Noah built the ark in faith and condemned the world. I think there’s a similar verse about our belief condemning the world, but I can’t think of it right now and may be wrong. As long as God’s had a remnant, he has been willing to condemnt the unbelievers. Even Christ’s obedience is used as the condemnation of Satan.

    I’m not arguing that we don’t have a choice. Eve also had a choice, but God will judge them and find them guilty and put them in hell.

  83. Opus says:

    I have just skimmed through Warhorn Media digging a bigger hole for themselves in Dalrock Part 2. One thing I have learned however is that I have been mispronouncing Dalrock: apparently it is dalROCK as opposed to DALrock. Americans!

    I see that in their reading of the blessed Jane’s’ Persuasion they are up to the scene at The Cobb where our hero Wentworth manages to drop Louisa. Not much of a hero is he to drop a young girl even though Louisa is obviously a gold-plated bitch. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. (ps it is Jane AUSten not Jan ausTEN).

  84. Mitch says:

    @Opus,

    It is DAL-rock because that’s the way we pronounce it here in the northeast Dallas suburbs. It comes from Dalrock Road, one of the two main north/south arterials in the city of Rowlett, Texas. It follows the boundary between Dallas County and Rockwall County. I believe the picture on the top of his blog is from Lake Ray Hubbard that surrounds the suburb of Rowlett.

  85. Dalrock says:

    You are right Mitch. When I created the moniker it was to comment on other blogs, I wasn’t thinking of blogging at the time. Dalrock came to mind because I liked to launch my kayak from the boat ramp at the Dalrock offramp from I 30. The road is on the county line and is a mashup of the two county names. As for my email showing my first name as Dal and my last name as Rock, the email provider made me enter both a first and last name so I split it up.

  86. Dalrock says:

    Regarding your other comment Mitch I’m on a mobile device right now so I’ll respond later from my desktop.

  87. Mitch says:

    I’ve launched my ski boat from there but found the water south of I-30 way too choppy for tubing. North of the freeway is a lot calmer. Still prefer east Texas lakes, though.

  88. Lost Patrol says:

    People in El Paso think east Texas starts at Odessa.

    For Opus.

    https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/united-kingdom/texas-usa

  89. Opus says:

    Apologies then to Americans and obviously Warhorn Media are not from North East Texas. Whenever I type Dalrock into my search engine – or is that the browser? (DuckDuckGo) the first site to be seen is Dalrock’s Diner somewhere in Texas. I am afraid a very bad habit has in recent years made its way across the Atlantic which much grates with me when an English person does it (Americans I forgive and excuse as knowing no better): that is when a word, say, regurgitate is pronounced REgurgitate rather than as it should be pronounced reGURgitate. Literally a pronunciation Nazi is allowed to comment at this blog.

  90. Opus says:

    @Lost Patrol

    Those are great maps: England is about the size of New York State but with a much larger population (50 Million). France and Texas are about the same size. France is pretty empty but has twice the population of Texas so Texas must be even emptier. One might therefore think that there is little green space in England but a quick visit to Google Maps will show that about ninety per cent of the country is rural. My theory as to why Americans do not walk in the country (as do characters in Jane Austen) is because being so much bigger one will never reach a viable destination – everything looks the same. I do not believe the expression Public Footpath is known in any part of the United States – I am not talking sidewalks either – just paths that meander from field (enclosures) to field. This is why every year in England one or more people are killed by Cows (I mean Cows not Bulls). This does not happen in America because people treat the countryside – the agriculture – the way they treat industrial plants and not as we do as if it is a publicly maintained park. There are reasons for this.

    At McDonalds today the man next to me referred to the young lady with the McJob as lovely. ‘Thanks lovely’ he said. Sometimes they say ‘Thanks Pet’. Would this be thinkable in America? The McJob wished me a nice day. They always sound as if they mean it.

  91. Il Deplorevolissimo says:

    But blaming men corporately for the actions of specific women is ludicrous given that women have full moral agency and can decide for their own damn selves whether they want to join.

    In a sense, he is correct that we are corporately to blame because if men were to repent of Liberalism en masse women couldn’t stop us from rolling back all of the things that make modern female behavior possible. The only problem is that men like Bayly, Chandler, Nathan, etc. are Liberals, committed to Liberalism and would never do such unseemly things as strip women of the right to vote, impose patriarchal norms in our laws (particularly no fault divorce and the child support system as it currently functions), felonize the distribution of birth control to unmarried couples (and married couples without children) and all that would be needed to concretely enact a “biblical worldview.”

  92. Mitch says:

    @Il Deplorevolissimo

    In a sense, he is correct that we are corporately to blame because if men were to repent of Liberalism en masse women couldn’t stop us from rolling back all of the things that make modern female behavior possible.

    Men don’t need to repent of liberalism. Liberals do. A biblical worldview cannot be imposed. If people don’t believe in it then we will suffer. But all we can do is pray, debate and persuade.

  93. Warthog says:

    > In a sense, he is correct that we are corporately to blame because if men were to repent of Liberalism en masse women couldn’t stop us from rolling back all of the things that make modern female behavior possible.

    The vast majority of the decisions that led to women getting further into the military and combat roles have been made by federal judges. These persons are not elected, and are dominantly of a religion different from the majority of Americas (Roman Catholic and Pharisee).

    In the current American government system there is literally nothing men could have done to stop those decisions other than armed insurrection. Is Warhorn advocating armed insurrection to keep women out of the military?

  94. BillyS says:

    Squid,

    Believe what you will, but making up things that are not in the Scriptures is dangerous and leads to heresy.

    God provided redemption for Adam. Nothing indicates He would have just killed Eve without some provision for redemption. That is much more likely than your “off with her head” idea.

    As I think about the teaching, Hebrews says that Jesus was the second Adam. So the first Adam laid down his life for his bride and the second Adam did the same. I am still not sure I am convinced, but that is the core idea.

  95. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Opus

    You are highlighting once again how the cousins can be (or at least once were) one people separated by a common language. It’s true across the Atlantic but works locally as well. My friend Carter from Boston, that’s COTah from BAHStan, has little in common with my friend from Birmingham (pronunciation not reproducible in print) Alabama not England. That’s AlaBAMa.

    My father, who grew up in Dallas by the way, once won from his company a trip to London. Upon his return to the US he never lost the idea that for a person to be born in England, a corresponding person would have to fall off into the sea.

    We have hiking along designated trails through wilderness areas and parks, but striking out willy nilly in most of the country will only cause one to fetch up against endless barbed wire fences, locked gates, and keep out signs. Out west you can walk about in places like Wyoming (the least populous state) for many unfenced miles but as you say will not get anywhere that day or the next. Bring lots of water, which is heavy.

    Yes, there are some few women and even fewer men that can get away with thanks love and/or pet at a random retail establishment. The women need to be old and the men need to have “game” but that is another conversation entirely as you know.

  96. Dalrock says:

    @Mitch

    It’s pretty clear you did not lie about the specific quote. I also don’t believe you misrepresented the meaning of that quote because Chandler elevated this responsibility to include a mandate on the husband to apologize to his wife if she feels temptation to rebel as if her temptation would not have existed without his poor husbanding. Nathan called a lie what was not a lie in that instance.

    Thanks. This is no small thing, because Nathan’s claims that I lied about Chandler and the PCA resolution are his core charges against me. Yet as I showed it is actually the other way around, he is the one taking my quotes out of context and lying about what I wrote. Moreover, there is also something fundamentally dishonest about having an exchange with someone and deciding they are lying, but keeping that to yourself for a month and a half so you can publicly accuse the other person of lying. This would be the case even if we hadn’t agreed specifically to a back and forth. If you look at the thread in question we were in fact having a back and forth conversation. But once he had what he wanted to (falsely) accuse me of, he clammed up and held it in reserve for future outrage. And he is still falsely accusing me of being a liar. See their current tweets. They are truly shameless, and are doing it in the name of Clearnote Church*.

    But later in Chandler’s sermon he says this:

    Historically, when this text is taught (Gen. 3:16), what is taught out of this text I believe correctly is that women oftentimes will try to usurp the authority of husbands. They will usurp the authority of the man. They will refuse to submit to a type of headship, even when that headship is for the woman’s edification, growth, encouragement, and flourishing in the Lord. It has been taught that way. That is a right way to interpret this text. I just think it’s a symptom and not the full on meaning of the text. Let me explain why I would land there. “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” It actually starts to explain the twisted, disordered desires of both the male and female heart that lead to a breakdown in the kind of complementarity that our hearts are so hungered for. Jesus’ own brother James taught us about this in James 1:14-15 when he said this.

    Chandler is acknowledging the proper understanding of Genesis 3:16 (re: Susan Foh: https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/foh-womansdesire-wtj.pdf). At that point, Chandler should have left well enough alone and just maybe Nathan might have had a case against you. But then Chandler ruins it by saying that Foh’s understanding of the passage relates to a “symptom and not the full on meaning of the text.” He says the passage should be understood as the “breakdown in the kind of complementarity that our hearts are so hungered for.”

    What exactly is Chandler saying here? I agree with the Susan Foh understanding of Gen. 3:16. That the wife will sometimes rebel even if the husband is loving. I think that’s your point. Chandler does not want to leave it there, though. He wants to make the fault mutual for all of the wife’s rebellion so that even if the husband is loving, his wife’s rebellion is still the husband’s shared guilt because of this “breakdown of complementarity.”

    A “breakdown in complementarity” sounds like gobbledygook. But it serves the purpose of obfuscating the wife’s responsibility.

    Chandler does say a lot of important stuff about the sins of women and I do recommend everyone read the full text. But I don’t for a minute think Nathan read it all or fairly assessed your conclusions from it. Sometimes the devil is in the details and I think this requires that we all read with discernment. If Nathan thinks your readers are all mindless stooges who don’t read the links, then he just hasn’t paid attention.

    Unfortunately, I would love to engage him on this point on the Sound of Sanity blog. But he has the unfortunate habit of shutting it down when it gets too difficult.

    Keep in mind that Chandler only gets to women’s sins (the topic of the sermon!) after a lengthy preface explaining that men need to apologize to their wives if the wife is tempted into the most pressing woman’s sin of our age. How many wives checked out at this point and only heard that their husband is to blame?

    Here is what we said. We said that the man was given by God what we called headship. This is the unique leadership of the man in organizing or building out and ordering for human flourishing. We just said you can’t argue with that definition because sociologists, those who study economics, everyone would say where men are present, where they are serving, loving, and kind, everything flourishes. The home flourishes. The economy flourishes. Cities flourish. Where men are men, things go well, and where men refuse to enter in the space God created for them to walk into, things just don’t work well. You get into the poorest neighborhoods imaginable, and let me tell you what you’ll see. Fatherlessness and women who have been consumed and not honored or loved. That’s what you’re going to find, women who have been used as playthings rather than as those made in the image of God. We said that’s the role of the man.

    Where this happens, where men exercise biblical headship, where they are sacrificially loving, they are creating environments that honor and uplift the name of Jesus Christ, they’re establishing a place where the Word of God is seen and honored, and we understand God as he has revealed himself, and where they provide for, where that happens, and where women come underneath that, the idea of male headship might be attacked as a philosophy, but if they came into our homes, our wives would not want to be freed from anything.

    [segment I quoted in the email to Nathan]

    Men are prone to do that. They tend to be selfishly passive or selfishly aggressive. They’re overbearing and dominating, or they are meek and refuse to engage. Any sin you could list to me that a man operates in can fit in one of those buckets. Do you want to talk pornography? That’s selfish aggression. Do you want to talk about domineering? That’s selfish aggression. Do you want to talk about abuse and violence? That’s selfish aggression. Do you want to talk about won’t lead, won’t engage, won’t love? That’s selfish passivity. Right? All the sins of man can be found in one of these two buckets.

    It is a special type of well poisoning, and there is no excuse for it. And again, this is an extended preface to talking about women’s sins. You noted that he acknowledges in the beginning that the women in the congregation will be prone to resent the idea of a man like himself preaching on their sins. I don’t read that as bravery, I read it as an apology, especially given the fact that he then goes into a long apology of sorts for women’s sins. I just dropped it into a text editor, and he writes 1,650 words essentially blaming men for women’s sins before he gets around to women’s sins, in a sermon about women’s sins! He also explains that women aren’t weaker because they are helpmeets, but that the fact that men need help means that men are weaker. It is all tuned to pander to the women’s feminist sensibilities, when what he should be doing is calling out that very sin.

    We immediately needed to do some work around that definition so we could understand it most fully. God, most often in the Old Testament Scriptures, is our helper, is our helpmate. The woman being called a helper for the man is not and does not mean she is inherently inferior. Actually, God being the helper has elevated the role of helpmate to a position of honor. What we said a helper does is a helper serves the one who holds the primary responsibility. If you are helping me, it’s my responsibility, and I am too weak to get it done, so I need your help. I am unable. Either I don’t have the bandwidth, or I don’t have the ability. I’m missing some pieces, so I need your help because I cannot get it done.

    It does not mean that you are weak for having to help me; it means I am weak and therefore need your help.

    Moreover, notice how he characterizes women’s sins once he finally gets there. He sounds like a women’s studies professor. Women sin by being too hard on themselves (perfectionists), and by body shaming themselves and other women:

    What I want to do today fearlessly, mind you, is lay before you the two buckets women most often find their sins filling. Here are the two buckets. We’re going to just tease them apart.

    The first bucket where we will find most of the sins of women is the bucket of comparison. The second bucket we will find most of the sins of women would be called perfectionism. As men are prone to selfish passivity and selfish aggression, women are prone to the disordered desires of comparison and perfectionism, and both of those lead to a type of darkness and destruction as to erode the very feminine soul, so women will carry with them under the weight of comparison and perfectionism the stench of death just like men carrying and walking in selfish passivity and selfish aggression will reek of death.

    It’s this comparison where women will use their bodies to get the upper hand. They will flaunt what culture has called their strengths, not history, but culture has called their strengths. By and large, throughout human history, curvier women have been viewed, and curlier, pastier women have been viewed as beautiful. It is a modern idea that six-pack abs make one feminine.

    Throughout human history, history behind us would say, “Eat something, girl. Eat something.” We compare beauty, body, style, fashion. God help us.

    But as you say, aside from the myriad of bad teaching in the sermon, Chandler does manage to work in some good teaching as well. But keep in mind the context of my quote wasn’t “Is Pastor Chandler’s sermon good?” I quoted Chandler along with other examples to back up this main assertion that I made in the beginning of the email:

    The problem is that the most ridiculous things are being claimed as male responsibility in order to deny reality and therefore shirk responsibility. Feminists openly and methodically marched through all of our institutions for decades. Conservative Christians responded to this by simply denying that it was happening. Changing the subject to men, no matter how ridiculous, is the go-to coping mechanism here.

    And this more specific assertion further into the mail (immediately before the CBMW/Kassian and Chandler quotes):

    Examples of this are everywhere. One common claim is that feminism is the logical reaction to Christian men shirking their responsibilities. In one sense they are acknowledging feminism, but at the same time they deny what is really happening.

    I could have discussed all of the pros and cons of Chandler’s Women’s Hurdles sermon, but that wasn’t the topic at hand. The way I used the quote from his sermon was in fact accurate, yet Nathan decided to be uncharitable (by hiding his objection even as I pressed him for responses) and then lie about what I had done, all to claim that I was uncharitable and lying!

    *If you think I’m making too much of them lying in the name of their church, remember that their other main criticism of me is that I’m not writing under the name of my pastor and church.

  97. 7817 says:

    If you think I’m making too much of them lying in the name of their church, remember that their other main criticism of me is that I’m not writing under the name of my pastor and church.

    By the standard you use, it will be used against you is really tough. You are using their own standard on them as far as I can tell.

    Warhorn is making this binary, and it’s pretty clear that they are the ones guilty of lying. https://mobile.twitter.com/warhornmedia/status/1103076483998928901?p=v

    Have you ever seen a ministry self immolate like this so rapidly? It’s strange to watch.

  98. Jake says:

    Yes roast these pigs. The PCA is garbage. The laodicean church made flesh. Started as a reaction to the pcusa it suffers from the exact same problem every conservative movement has. Whoa progress slower please is a useless weak position. Not to mention the pearl clutching about authority. If you are familiar with their bylaws you’d see why. Getting ordained under the pca is extremely difficult and you can see the fruits in their reaction to the laity reading the bible.

    I bet you could find many blog posts worth of content in pastor apostle high priest tim baylyly’s sermons.

    General side note. Playing what if games with bible events leads to heresy. Look at the closeness between what you guys are talking about and the lilith heresy. The words that are there are perfectly sufficient.

  99. seventiesjason says:

    “We have hiking along designated trails through wilderness areas and parks, but striking out willy nilly in most of the country will only cause one to fetch up against endless barbed wire fences, locked gates, and keep out signs. Out west you can walk about in places like Wyoming (the least populous state) for many unfenced miles but as you say will not get anywhere that day or the next. Bring lots of water, which is heavy.”

    Where? I have hiked, and bushwhacked in the northern reaches of New York State. You can walk days in the park in the thick forest and not find a sign of human presecnce. It strikes awe in me how the French and Indian War was faught up there……..been to Sunapee region of New Hampshire. Get lost in the deep White Mountains……you are gonna be alone for awhile. Maine too.

    I have been deep in the Applachains in Georgia. Walk off that trail? Days of no fences, roads….and California?

    Let me tell you something. 40 million people live in this state. Stand on the cusp of Madera Peak, Atop the Dardanelles……….Walk out a half mile off the Tioga Pass Road in Yosemite…..and look. Not a soul in sight. Sonora Pass…….through the foothills, and even in the Santa Cruz Mountains at Big Bend…..or even closer by where I live…….in nearby Marin, Stand atop the golden oak dotted hills and LOOK out past Walker Creek. Not a car, not a road. Not a fence…for miles around you. and San Francisco is a short 45 minutes drive south once you get back to the main road.

    I have not even mentioned Alaska…..

    The USA is big, and that was a major fault in the Revolutionary War by the British. They underestimated its vast size……..thick, deep forests…….even when the USA was “small” landwise than it is today.

  100. 7817 says:

    The accustions from Warhorn that being pseudonymous means a person’s arguments should not be taken seriously are top shelf hypocrisy.

    1st, the Warhorn folks bleating so loudly about this earn their living from preaching. They have a base of support, church people who love them and donate. Their families are taken care of.

    The rest of us out here have no such safety net, not even a guarantee of support from our churches if we lose our jobs for telling the truth. Do you think Warhorn would help you? It is to laugh.

    2nd, the Warhorn folks will not go as far as us in pursuing the truth, they are still holding closer to the line of approved speech than most manosphere guys. So what have they proved by being non anonymous while staying mostly within the evangelical overton window?

    The pseudonymity thing is a con. It is to get naive people to dox themselves. Please, no one do this. You will prove nothing. Do you think Warhorn will suddenly respect you and your arguments if you tell them your name?

    It is a compliance test, and the only way to win is to not comply.

  101. Timothy B says:

    Not by the sound of their voices on their latest installment. No fun being had on their part, despite the attempt to appear unscathed.

  102. Timothy B says:

    Not that the following will suprise almost any of the readers here; but someone pointed it out to me and it bears noting.

    In Wartcorn’s latest episode of Sound of Shannanigans, a clean-up attempt entitled “Gluttons for punishment (Manosphere 2),” the following subtle comment is made at 1:09:39…

    “(If) you are a woman, you’re called to submit to the authorities that God has placed over you; and to honor them, insofar as they honor and respect God…”

    Insofar as they honor and respect God?

    Apparently they assume that the unbelieving husband of 1Corinthians 7:13 is God-honoring and God-respecting. Apparently 1Peter 3:1-6 is just a neat little cute idea.

    Such weasles are always trying to bring a “balance” that is not required.

    Even the unbelieving wife who consents to live with the believing husband, would in Paul’s mind still submit to the husband as her head, and the believing wife is expected to live under the unbelieving husband as her “lord” according to Peter.

  103. Opus says:

    I just charged my electricity key meter and the female handing back to me the key fully charged said: ‘Thanks love’.

    A comparison – which one can now easily make courtesy of YouTube – of British Model Railways with American Model Railways is instructive as to the difference between the two countries. American sets are largely wilderness with great marshaling yards; the British much more manicured and specific with lines passing through villages, ladies pushing prams, motor cars and sheep on the hills. Model Railways are not in my view about the little automata but about Nostalgia.

    At whichever of the D.C. museums is a Steam Engine larger than anything I had ever seen (I can recall the days of steam) and that is probably what you need for crossing a continent at speed. Apparently more of this will by 2030 replace the jet airplane. To criss-cross your country even to our (reduced) post-Beeching level of train-ness is unthinkable. In England everything is very close to everything else and what one needs and gets is local services not inter-city services. The roads are chock-a-block – let the train take the strain – indeed in a few minutes that is just what I am going to do – take the train to the next town to see if their larger Poundland has what ours doesn’t. I am cassette hunting.

  104. Opus says:

    As I mentioned Persuasion, I may add that there is a scene therein where all the main characters go for a walk in the countryside; I recall the plan was to visit a relative a few miles distant. A conversation behind some hedges is overheard, the heroine twists her ankle and then they come across the Admiral and his wife driving a pony and trap and the heroine is given a lift home. Intriguingly I cannot recall that even though there is dismissive reference to a lowly prelate (not good enough for our hypergamous heroine) no one in Persuasion ever goes near a church. This is NOT a French novel where the heroines are always in church. Austen’s heroines are all hatched matched and dispatched Christians (three church visits in a lifetime) . The only book the heroines Father ever reads as is explained in the first paragraph is Burke’s Peerage – not The Bible. The only books the Heroine and her Beta Orbiter Mangina Captain Benwick ever reads are Romantic Poets (sheeesh). You know the heroine knows she is promoting nonsense because she sets her sight on a man who has surely never read any book in his life (other than the ships-log) and when he proposes, no further mention of poetry is made. I of course refer to the wealthy Captain Wentworth dumpster diving with the wall–banging Heroine. I should be a literary critic.

  105. Il Deplorevolissimo says:

    Mitch,

    Men don’t need to repent of liberalism. Liberals do.

    I am referring to Classical Liberalism and its descendants, which includes “conservatism.”

    A biblical worldview cannot be imposed. If people don’t believe in it then we will suffer. But all we can do is pray, debate and persuade.

    The history of Christendom would disagree with you. It is quite doable to make people obey the moral precepts of Christianity, including not challenging the divinity of Christ, without resorting to tyranny. Most will not be saved, but that is not relevant to the state. We also scandalize everyone by functionally living and governing as non-Christians and our government denying Christ by living and governing that way. Jesus made it clear that there is no secular neutrality; “he who is not for me is against me, he who does not sow with me scatters.”

  106. squid_hunt says:

    @BillyS

    Applying biblical principles and doctrines to situations isn’t “Making things up.” The fall didn’t happen until Adam ate the fruit. Mankind was condemned through Adam. Eve was out of Adam. The punishment for eating the fruit was death. Adam ruled the earth. Rulers are expected to execute judgment in God’s name.

    As it is a moot point because Adam did eat the fruit, there is very little harm in speculating what would have happened. The point is that by not executing judgment in your home and going along with it, that’s the sin and failure of federal headship. Another example would be Saul failing to kill the Amelakites.

  107. squid_hunt says:

    @Timothy

    I had a preacher teach it more clearly than that. He literally said if you aren’t right with God, your wife isn’t required to obey you. You have no authority in your home. I turned to my son right in front of him and said, “That’s nonsense. If you’re the husband, you have the authority in your home, period. What you do with it is a different matter.”

  108. BillyS says:

    Squid,

    Applying biblical principles and doctrines to situations isn’t “Making things up.” The fall didn’t happen until Adam ate the fruit. Mankind was condemned through Adam. Eve was out of Adam. The punishment for eating the fruit was death. Adam ruled the earth. Rulers are expected to execute judgment in God’s name.

    You cannot demonstrate that anywhere in the Scriptures and must instead make it up through mental hoop jumping. I will take what is Written instead.

  109. Opus says:

    Reflecting on the secularism of Miss Austen and wondering why it should appeal so much to those arch-Calvinists Warhorn Media, I began to wonder what English Novels had Church settings. With the exception of one of Dickens’ and at least one of Trollope’s which are set in Cathedral cloisters I could think of nothing. I came to the same conclusion with English Opera. Consider then how different European Opera is. Cavaleria Rusticana commences with everyone exiting Church, Meistersinger begins in church with a Lutheran Hymn tune, Act 1 of Tosca in its entirety is set in a church, Suor Angleica and Carmelites are about Nuns and nothing else and if I recall there are a bunch of Nuns in Trovatore and the heroine of Forza Destina spends some time in a convent. Conclusion: Church is big in Europe but not in Britain. It is true that we have mind-numbing Oratorios which perforce are not staged as if somehow we find it too embarrassing to see what we may hear. What of America? Rather like Britain save for Catholic movies like Bells of St Mary’s. This is puzzling.

  110. squid_hunt says:

    You know you just claimed that God would have redeemed Eve anyway. Is that mental hoop jumping?

    You also quoted me and left off the example I gave that demonstrated the principle I was discussing. Same ol’ Billy.

  111. Basedangemon says:

    @7817

    https://www.patreon.com/soundofsanity

    Though why anyone would donate for a sub-sub-par production like theirs is beyond me. I’m guessing they know the guys personally and love them, but don’t listen to the show. There are some amazing podcasts and YouTube channels out there — anyone who voluntarily chooses to waste time with SoS isn’t there for content (zero), but because of a cult of personality. You know, the type of people who listen to Joe Rogan.

  112. Sharkly says:

    Whorehorn Media Says: (quoted by Timothy B)
    “(If) you are a woman, you’re called to submit to the authorities that God has placed over you; and to honor them, insofar as they honor and respect God…”

    That teaching is exactly anti-Christ. The direct opposite of what 1 Peter 2-3 teaches.

    Basedangemon says:
    Though why anyone would donate for a sub-sub-par production like theirs is beyond me.

    But that is what makes sense, in that those hirelings have their hand out for money in everything they do. After all, to them their work is all about earthly money, power, fame, respect, and pleasure. The antichrist cunt-worshippers won’t get my money or my respect for selling their souls to the goddess worshipping crowd. I condemn them and ask them to repent of their wickedness in the name of Jesus Christ.

  113. Oscar says:

    @ Sharkly

    Whorehorn Media Says: (quoted by Timothy B)
    “(If) you are a woman, you’re called to submit to the authorities that God has placed over you; and to honor them, insofar as they honor and respect God…”

    Our government doesn’t honor, or respect God, so that means that I don’t have to submit to, or honor the government. Right?

    Oh, wait. I’m a man. That rule only applies to women. Silly me.

  114. Sharkly says:

    Oscar,
    LOL
    It starts out: “(If) you are a woman, …”
    Oscar, you’re not the image and glory of a goddess, so, no churchian reverence, or pussy-pass for you.
    You and the God you resemble, are responsible for every evil ever. The both of you should be shamefaced and cover your heads when you come into the presence of the goddess. I think there are verses or something to that effect. /S

    Leave it to the cunt-worshippers at Whorehorn Media to completely invert God’s word. (1 Timothy 2:9-14, 1 Corinthians 11:3-7)

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

  116. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    The comments here are often too vicious but I cannot blame Dalrock for that. To respond in kind to the vicious attacks from the Clearnote people is sinful, counterproductive and unwise.
    I will say that a “good” husband (only One is Good, but we speak in relative terms) is a hedge against the temptation of feminism; but any hedge can be mowed down by the evil that lurks in people’s hearts of both sexes.

Comments are closed.