Transcript of the second podcast.

A reader was kind enough to listen to the second Warhorn podcast and transcribe it.  This kind of thing takes a great deal of work, and I very much appreciate the time that clearly went into it.  He said that after listening through a few times he could identify Nathan’s voice from the others, so he noted it in the transcript.  Also, he said he left out the skits.

What strikes me after reading it is how difficult the men of Pastor Bayly’s Clearnote Church find it to state things plainly.  Their natural inclination is clearly a kind of circle talk, where they carefully skirt around an issue.  This is what makes their communication style so painful (beyond the skits and funny voices).  For example, I published the entire original exchange I had with Nathan Alberson to show that he had gone back on his word.  Nathan never acknowledged or directly challenged this, and instead published select excerpts of the exchange as if they were the whole.  The implication here is that I’m lying, that I made up the latter half of our exchange.  But why is he being so careful not to say what he is implying?  It can’t be that he doesn’t want to call me a liar, because that is his and Warhorn’s charge against me (aside from my anonymity).  Clearly he knows calling me a liar in that case wouldn’t stand up to even moderate scrutiny.  So he hopes no one will notice that we did the interview with the revised list of 9 questions Nathan sent me and not his original list of 7.

But this kind of slipperiness takes a great deal of effort, and you can see how hard they had to work to achieve this in the podcast.  It also makes it painful to listen to, or even read.

March 10th Update:  The reader notified me that a section was missing.  This was due to my error, not his.  I’ve added the missing section along with notes indicating where it was added back.  Search for “previously missing section” to see the segment.

—————- Begin Transcript —————-

Nathan – Hey everybody welcome to Sound of Sanity. My name is Nathan Alberson. I’m your humble and obedient host. We’re back. Let me introduce you to our fine crew of panelists. We’ve got Benjamin Sulser, associate producer Benjamin J Sulser over there. How ya doin Ben?

– I’m doing fine Nathan.

Nathan – I’m glad to hear it sir, and of course, Pastor Jacob Mentzel. How are ya doin Jake?

-Little under the weather, but otherwise pretty good.

Nathan – Yeah I’m also a little under the weather Ben?

– Well, me too.

Nathan – Three for three baby.

– Three for three.

Nathan – Guys, we are doing a follow up episode to last weeks episode which was entitled Into the Manosphere. Ben would you like to summarize that episode?

-We wanted to give our listeners a rundown of the manosphere since I had started reading one voice in the manosphere who happened to be the best representative of the Christian manosphere that any of us knows of. I just think it’s an interesting place. It’s interesting to see how men have begun to react to the feminism of our culture, what they say, and what a Christian guy who’s kind of part of a broader reaction against feminism says. Anyway, we tried to give our listeners an overview of things. And then we honed in on the specific guy we interviewed, a man named Dalrock, who is actually not named Dalrock, that’s a pseudonym. And we took apart his arguments, since he’s critical of our pastor.

Nathan – That is a thing that hppened Jake, true or false?

– More or less true, yeah.

Nathan – Yeah more or less true, it’s kind of a hard episode to describe. It was a hard episode to do. We spent alot of time putting it together, and I think it’s probably good to say off the bat the episode ended up being a little dense and maybe a little, uh not dense in the sense of stupid, but dense in the sense of packed with a lot of information without a really clear through line for people who maybe weren’t as familiar with the format of the show. It was our first one back after a little hiatus, or people maybe just not familiar with the manosphere or familiar particularly with the philosophy of one Dalrock. So I apologize if anyone lost their way in that episode, I could see how that could have happened. This week we’re going to come back and hopefully give you a few footholds to think about this a little bit further.
Lets start with a story of, a little bit broader, the story of what happened last week and why. We were going to do an episode on the manosphere. That was our intention right?

-That’s right, we wanted to do an episode on the manosphere and everything that entails, so these terms that you see and that you heard us throw around last week

Nathan – Red pill, MGTOW, MRM, MRA, whatever it is, men’s rights movement yeah MRM…

– Yeah Game.

Nathan – all that wonderful stuff

-And we didn’t want to be the ones defining our own terms. And so we decided the best thing to do would be to interview somebody who’s representative of the manosphere and somebody preferably who’s a Christian and one of the best and most reasonable voices in the manosphere.

Nathan – So we reached out to a pseudonymous blogger who goes by the handle of Dalrock. He writes on Christian manhood, sexuality,

– That sort of thing.

Nathan – that sort of thing. Ben you were familiar with his work, I think you were the one that first brought him to me and Jake’s attention.

-I was and I appreciated the way he took certain things apart like that book Every Man’s Marriage which is really gross and…

-I think maybe that was the first time I had heard of Dalrock was from you positively praising that book, or, not the book but his takedown of the book.

– Praising his takedown of the book, yes.

Nathan – Right, and Dalrock can be fun to read and insightful when he’s eviscerating a target that deserves it, more about that in a minute. Um, If you listen to last week’s episode you know we don’t, I guess its worth saying, we don’t like Dalrock, we don’t support Dalrock, we don’t think people should read Dalrock. But just to get the story done, because we wanted to just kind of get an overview of the manosphere, what was going on there, I sent an email to Dalrock, I got ahold of him. He responded with an email directly to me, and then I emailed him. I’m going to go ahead and read this email, because it’s been the subject of some controversy and some confusion. I’m just going to read this entire email.
Hi, this is an email to Dalrock from me, Nathan Alberson.
Hi, We’re putting together an episode of our podcast Sound of Sanity on Red Pill, Game, MGTOW, all that good stuff. I wanted to see if you would consent to a phone interview sometime in the near future. I’d like to get as clear an articulation of your views as I can, and present it to the world. The questions would be quite simple I prefer simple questions that allow for more elaborate answers, as needed.
And then I listed seven questions. These are the same questions that you can actually see if you read the transcript of our email exchange, who are you, what are the problems facing men today, basic questions about who he was, what he was doing, how his work interacted with the manosphere, and what the manosphere was, which was what the episode was going to be about.

– Yeah, what we were going to be able to do with that hopefully would be to have a couple of audio clips for you guys of someone in the manosphere saying this is what it is, this is what red pill is, this is what mgtow is, this is who I am, this is what I’m concerned about, this is why I do what I do, and then be able to go with that, build off of that, into explaining to you something of this world.

Nathan – Uh, so just to finish the email, I said, after I listed those questions I said full disclosure: as you probably know, we don’t agree on everything. If I’m not mistaken… which, given where we’ve landed on Dalrock now it might sound like I’m being a little soft on him. But I actually didn’t know him that well at the time, and so I was really just wanting to understand his point of views. But I did know that he had said some negative things about my pastor, so here I say quote If I’m not mistaken, you see the work of my pastor and others like him as somehow undercutting the concept of female moral agency. I see your work as needlessly undercutting male responsibility in the name of establishing female moral agency. The podcast may ultimately reflect these differences, but I’d like to give you a fair chance to say your piece. This won’t be “gotcha journalism.” Actually, in that spirit, I’ll warn you about the potential “gotchas” right now: I would like to press you a bit on the misogynists that work like yours seems to attract. I’ve seen more than one commenter in your archives say that a woman needs a good old fashioned spanking. I see in your “comments policy” you ask people to refrain from discussing marital corporal punishment. It seems to me that if you have to ask people to refrain from that topic, you may be attracting the wrong sort of people. I’d like to ask you frankly about that and let you answer however you choose. I hope that sounds amenable to you. Thanks, Nathan

– You could, if you pull that quote out of context, “I want to present your views to the world” you could get the idea that we want to do a whole episode on Dalrock and on promoting his views and giving him a chance to speak and use our platform to promote his views.

[Music stops]

But that’s not what the podcast was ever supposed to be about, it was clear from the beginning. And, when Nathan said “I want to present your views to the world” he was talking about his simple perspective on these definitions, what he’s doing and why he’s doing it, in the manosphere at large.

Nathan – He’s presented it as if I came along and said Mr. Dalrock, I’d like to give you a platform to expound your entire philosophy and to have a long form debate with me and my crowd about that. I never said that or…

– No, it was an interview, and it was simply a way for us to have a credible entry point into dealing with the manosphere and what it represents.

Nathan – Right.

– But the point is, it was clearly an interview, and it was meant to be an interview from the top. And why Dalrock, again, because he seemed to us to be the best, maybe not the best representative of the whole of the manosphere but maybe the most Christian, the one that Christian men would be most likely to be attracted to and even helped by.

-Yeah, the one that they’d have the best reason to read, I mean, the voice that would be most useful.

Nathan – Now, I do want to say though before we move forward, just so everything’s out on the table in terms of what was and wasn’t said, I did agree that he could post these things, post our exchange on his blog if he thought it would be helpful. In the back of my mind I kind of thought, well, it’s going to be pretty simple, like simpler maybe than…

– Yeah, I saw that email and I thought well ok he’s going to put up one post and it’s going to be him defining red pill and mgtow for his audience…

Nathan – Right, maybe as long as he’s defining these terms maybe he wants to use them as a primer, as long as he is giving a solid defense of his views on marital corporal punishment for example it might be nice for him to just make that into one post, which is fine, you know, which I said was fine. I did also offer at a certain point to provide written material you know if he needed a more clear articulation of our point of view in order to engage with it, but we never went into this thinking it was going to be a debate or going to be a chance for him to have a full platform.

[Funeral music starts]

– Yeah but then one we got into the email exchange, for one, and saw how he was running with the questions and using them as jumping off points for him talking about his hobby horses… so then we have all… these big long responses to deal with. And then we start looking more deeply into what he actually says, and it’s just deception and lies, all through it.

Nathan – Right.

– Just complete dishonesty. And the way that he hijacks and diverts things, Nathan says I think that rebellious women should be rebuked, and called to repentance, and he says no you don’t, you’re a pastor, and now I’m going to talk about women in the military and the PCA report from 2002 for, you know, three pages…

Nathan – Yeah, he really…

– Of email exchange, and, in that, I’m going to lie about your pastor and about other people. And it’s like what? Come on man. You can’t accept that we think that rebellious women should be called to repentance? Your response to that is to then lie about our pastor, and to do it publicly as if we now have an obligation to deal with all of this garbage that you’re putting out there, it’s like, that was never the intention, it was clear from the beginning, and so ok, now we have a decision to make. Has this gotten out of hand, do we need to deal with Dalrock, or do we need to ignore it, and we decided to lean in, and just go ahead and deal with Dalrock and his dishonesty.

Nathan – And we had this 17 page transcript, 17 single spaced page transcript of our email exchange to deal with, which is what we, basically last episode, just to understand what was going on in our minds if it was a little unclear for you to follow it dear listener, we decided to do some skits and stuff like we normally do, do the devils advocate segment…

-open up the question of the manosphere, and some of the people in it, and there’s no question that some of the things that we did, like we were talking about, were manosphere stuff, these are all, like that conference that we were talking about, the 21 whatever its called, these are the guys, like, Rollo Tomassi is the guy, and he’s kind of a father of the whole thing. And he has Dalrock on his blogroll and Dalrock has him on his blogroll, and [inaudible] these are the guys, this is what they represent, and they have these conferences, and they promote BDSM and all kinds of stuff like that. And, they talk about wife spanking, and all this stuff you can find in the manosphere.

Nathan – You can also find people who, disclaimer, you can find people that don’t like BDSM. You can find people that don’t like wife spanking, you can find all kinds of things in the manosphere.

– It’s a broad broad movement which is why, you know, we talked about the mens rights movement vs the mgtows, right?

Nathan – Right, so just from our point of view if you understand what was happening last episode, just imagine, we barrel through talking about the manosphere, trying to give people some footholds to even understand any of this, and then, we have the 17 page thing from Dalrock which he’s already published on his blog that we have to deal with, so we attempted to deal with… I think we could have been more clear.

– I think we should have been more clear

Nathan – And should have been more clear, as far as what we were doing last episode, and why, so that’s what we’re doing now. Let’s just make sure everybody’s on the same page. Ben, explain everything that I just talked about in the simplest terms possible.

Ben – We wanted to do an episode on the manosphere, and we wanted the help of someone in the manosphere that we thought could give us clear definitions and would be worth quoting, and worth in some measure I suppose referring people to.

Nathan – Or engaging with at the very least.

Ben – Engaging with as an authority on certain definitions and questions.

Nathan – In other words you’ve got Rollo Tomassi who’s a pick up artist, you’ve got texas dom who’s, you know, texas dom, BDSM, you’ve got people that as Christians in good conscience we cannot engage with, and then you have Dalrock, who does at least present himself as the most reasonable, biblical voice that we’re aware of in the movement.

-And he’s been called by other Christians in his comment section like a kind of founding father of the Christian men’s sphere, Christian manosphere.

Nathan – Well and the thing about people who are, look I’m not sure what other word to use, the thing about people who are slimy, is that they don’t actually come like Uriah Heap, wringing their hands and cackling, and being nasty. They present themselves as reasonable, and if they’re good at it,

-On the surface.

Nathan – you know some one who is duplicitous isn’t someone who says, hey, I’ve got something to tell you, that’s what someone who’s bad at being duplicitous because they sound like someone duplicitous. Somebody that’s good at being duplicitous Is somebody that seems normal, stable, reasonable, [soft organ music continues in background] which is how Dalrock presents himself.

– Yeah, and listeners have said, in various places to us, hey I used to think Dalrock was great, until I saw what he said about Doug Wilson and reforming marriage. And I thought, wait, I’ve read that book, I love that book, I know that book, I was helped by that book. What he says about Doug Wilson and reforming marriage is not at all what Doug Wilson and reforming marriage say. And one listener in particular was saying was look, I was prepared to believe all his criticisms of the evangelicals I already didn’t like, that I was prejudiced against, then he picked on Doug in a way that i knew was wrong, and realised suddenly, wait I can’t trust this guy to be honest.
A lot of people have had or been having that experience. We even in our last episode said you know, ok he might be right about Chandler, right, and we’re not going to even bother looking because he probably is right about Chandler.

Nathan – Yeah, i bothered looking, for whatever reason, followed the link…

– Yeah, after you said nothing could compel you…

Nathan – Nothing could compel me. Well, one point for Dalrock, you compelled me sir. Yeah i actually went to Chandler’s sermon. Let me just read a quote, this is from Matt Chandler’s sermon, quote you see women with their words, brutalizing each other, emasculating men, gossiping, slandering, even the Bible will say this is a real issue specifically for how women brutalise men with their words. Men can intimidate and use size. Women will most often use their words. And then he quotes the scripture a wife’s quarreling is a continual dripping of rain, and he says waterboarding. You live with a quarrelsome wife, you might as well put a sheet over your face and then just pour water on you forever.

– Yeah. Matt Chandler doesn’t believe that…

– Women sin…

– Women sin…

– Have moral agency…

– Or have moral agency…

– It’s only about like if their husbands…

– In the very sermon that Dalrock quotes!

Nathan – right

– It’s just like, come on guys.

– Well, let’s be charitable to Dalrock, maybe he’s not.. as I’m listening to this stuff I wonder what’s the most gracious we can be to Dalrock. Dalrock, maybe you’re not being deceptive in an intentional sense, but guess what, we decieve ourselves and it looks like you’ve definitely deceived yourself. You’ve become willfully obtuse. Like, you are unable to read.

-I mean, this is going to sound edgy. I don’t actually mean for it to be. I think the most charitable reading is that he’s stupid. Honestly. If he just doesn’t know how to read…

-He either is masterfully deceptive or he’s dumb. And those are your two options. And if he were to just respond and say
ok you’ve made a point and I’m dumb, then all could be well and good in the world [laughter] and we could be moved towards something…

-But there’s got to be some more gracious construction, like here, let’s try this: his bitterness at Christian leaders failures has made him stupid. So it’s not a comment on your natural intelligence Dalrock, it’s about how your bitterness leads you to be unable to read at this point in time. And if you repented of your bitterness you could become able to read again and maybe…

– Maybe even useful to the church.

[soft organ music continues]

-And I consider myself qualified to speak on this point since I know what it is to be bitter and unable to deal with someone’s words fairly. I know that for myself, so it’s not like I’m spouting off about what I don’t know.

Nathan – Well the weird thing about this whole thing is that I’ve wanted to believe him. You know know, when somebody says like, I’m trying to be reasonable you want to believe that they are trying to be reasonable. Even if they are not doing a good job you want to believe that’s what they want. And so when Dalrock turned around, published several private emails that I had sent him, emails that he actually calls, quote/ unquote private emails, and was just very spiteful in saying I didn’t listen to the podcast but obviously Warhorn media is incapable of logic, obviously blah blah blah… When he just got nastier with us than I’ve seen him get nasty with anyone maybe, I was a little surprised.

– Well, isn’t that one of the chief things going on here, is his supreme belief in his own reasonableness. Isn’t that what comes out?

Nathan – It’s interesting to contemplate the idea of, he hasn’t listened to our podcasts.

-Mmmhmm

Nathan – If somebody published something like that about me, and then sent me an email like I sent him, saying this is brutal, and you need to repent, and we talked about how you need to repent, I think I’d want to listen to the podcast. What kind of a man doesn’t listen to that podcast? Even if he just thinks it’s a nasty hit piece…

-I’ll tell you what kind of a man, a man who doesn’t want to face up to the possibility that he’s wrong, who doesn’t want to think about the possibility that he’s wrong, who wants to posture himself to his followers as being above that sort of thing.

Nathan – Right.

-And so, you know what, criticism hurts, and it cuts, especially if it’s on the mark.

Nathan – Well, we’ll get back to Dalrock, but I want to talk maybe bigger picture here. Another reason that we actually dealt with this stuff in the first place, that we wanted to talk about the manosphere, that we wanted to ask questions of Dalrock was what Jake?

Jake – Well it’s just increasingly attractive to men in our church who have been hurt by their mothers, by their wives or ex wives, and who are very tempted to go down the rabbit hole into bitterness… and the kids that are affected by this sort of thing. So I meet every week with a couple of boys whose mom left and is strung out on drugs. Dad has custody and they have a stepmom. They are tempted to be bitter and angry with God, with their mom, with everything. And this is something I’m always working with them and talking with them about, helping them try to acknowledge the sinfulness of their mom, and also to understand the forgiveness of God, to deal with their anger and their bitterness in a way that’s healthy, right? This is like, what we talk about, every week. I talk all the time with a man who’s going through a nasty divorce right now, whose wife up and left and took the kids. And the thing is, when you get into these situations it’s not clear and clean. You don’t get to say man good woman bad or woman good man bad when you’re dealing with actual real people. Because it’s complicated. And the responsibility is carried differently. Is a man responsible for his house and what happens in his house, and outside of his house? Yes, he is. Is a woman who leaves her husband or who commits adultery or who gives herself over to drugs, is she responsible before God for her personal behavior? Yeah, she is. And she’s responsible for the consequences. And those consequences have far reaching implications, not just to her husband and not just to her kids but to everybody that she comes into contact with. And we deal with it, exactly the kind of pastor that Dalrock is going to be critical of. The pastor that takes in the woman who has ran off, who has sinned against her house and her husband, and says you know it’s the mans job to love her back and win her heart and pursue her and if he had just done a good job of that then she wouldn’t ever and his job’s to go and to win her back and she’s just free to fly off the handle, fly off the rails until she’s just loved enough. And that’s just like, that’s the kind of garbage that we’re always dealing with.

[Previously missing section]

Nathan – And so you have to rebuke that pastor. You have to rebuke that woman. That woman was excommunicated, I think we can say. At the same time, does the fella in the situation have responsibility? Is it possible that…

-Of course he does!

Nathan – sin has tendrils and is sticky and sticks to all kinds of people in a situation like that?

– Of course he does and that’s, I mean that’s something that we’ve been setting up in our storyline podcasts, right?

Nathan – Oh yeah it’s hilarious in the Ville with Matt and Erica Rosebloom right, our characters, people always…

– Listen, before you say anything, you listener are tempted to do this one way or another and a good test for which side you’re on is how you respond to Matt and Erica Rosebloom.

Nathan – Yeah and people it’s hilarious, nobody ever wants to say it’s complicated, which if theres any moral to our podcast I think the moral is probably something along the lines of it’s complicated.

– it’s complicated.

– Some of our listeners may not have heard any of our story podcasts yet but that’s what we’re talking about is two of our main characters, Matt and Erica Rosebloom and their really really messed up marriage which features in a number of the episodes.

Nathan – Right and so people always want to say it’s the husbands fault, he, if he was just willing to discipline his wife, if he was just strong…

– Or, they want to flip and be on the other side and say Matt’s actually a pretty good guy, he just married a horrible nasty shrew of a woman, an emasculating woman. And so it’s not really Matt’s fault, Matt could’ve been a great guy, Matt could’ve been a great husband and father but Erica won’t let him.

Nathan – And it’s like: they’re both true. Maybe there’s even some external factors that are outside of both of their [inaudible] I mean it’s, sin is complicated. Responsibility is complicated. I mean, there are heroes, there are villains, there are good guys, there are bad guys, there are people that are following the devil and people that are following the Lord, that’s not what I’m saying. But ultimately, parsing these things, you just can’t do it simp… you can do it sometimes simply, you can never do it simplistically.

– I’ll tell you how you can do it simplistically. If the only way that you’re doing it is on the internet, in paper, behind a mask. Then you can be as simplistic as you want to be. And, in your simplisticness, I think that’s right, in your simplisticness you will attract exactly the crowd that is bitter, and that wants to see it as a one sided thing and that doesn’t want to face up to their own responsibilities.

Nathan – About that crowd, people will hear us be pretty sarcastic, some of our skits have been very sarcastic about Dalrock’s followers in particular, and the bitter, nasty, verbally abusive kind of people that they are. We all three of us come from broken homes, right guys?

-Yep.

-It’s true.

Nathan – We are all three children of divorce. Jake, your mom left when you were how old?

Jake – My mom left when I was 5 or 6 years old.

Nathan – And Ben?

Ben – Uh, my parents got divorced in, just as I was starting college.

Nathan – My parents relationship fell apart in slow motion and I got to watch it all through my childhood, and then I think I was 17 or 18 when they finally divorced but they’d been living apart and things had been terrible for a long long time. And and and I feel the pain, I feel the impotence of a system that wasn’t in place, of a church in some respect that wasn’t in place, of a society that allowed this to happen. I understand that, it’s one of the reasons we do what we do. It’s one of the reasons Sound of Sanity exists or Warhorn media exists is because we care about something besides trying to reform ourselves because there were real ramifications and there are real ramifications and feminism did put my mom in a nasty position and it [inaudible] make it easy for my dad to do the wicked things that he did, and I understand that, I feel…

-It also encouraged my mom to believe a whole lot of lies.

Nathan – Yeah. The kinds of lies…

-And my mom too.

Nathan – Yeah yeah yeah. Um, so we feel that…

-And it’s interesting, the Bible says that women are easily deceived, did you know that?

-Uh, I think I heard that once.

– And that they’re weak, and that they need to be protected by men from false teaching and that’s why women shouldn’t be teachers.

-Hmm, it’s almost like we should come back to that and make more of a point of that later in the podcast.

-I think we should come back to that point later.

Nathan – Yeah, well, we’re also going to come back to the point about our own pasts, but I just wanted to get that out of the way here. We, we get it, right? Even the most angry, nasty, horrible caricature of a Dalrock commenter who’s just being gross…

-I’ve said those things in my heart.

Nathan – I get it. I’ve said those things in my heart, I’ve probably said them out loud.

-And so, the temptation, to be bitter is real and a real one that we’ve all felt. And not just that we have felt but that we have worked with other people, and I’m the pastor in the room, uh I’ve got more experience with that sort of thing but it’s not like you guys don’t either.

-You know, Nathan you’ve got, in your small group, this very issue, that you lead.

Nathan – Yeah yeah yeah, I mean…

– And people that you care for and are actively helping to fight their bitterness and to be there for their kids, because the reality is, man you can be bitter, and then you’re just going to recreate the problem for your kids, or you can [with emphasis:] man up.

-And to be fair to Dalrock, he often talks about not giving into the temptation to bitterness, from what I’ve seen. He’s willing to bring that up and acknowledge it’s a point.

Nathan – You know his words say one thing…

[/Previously missing section]

– But his actions say another.

Nathan – and his actions say another, and his followers…

– Heh, display another.

Nathan – display something completely different. Guys, let’s find out what, uh, you know it occurred to me last time, probably the reason that episode didn’t quite work is because we didn’t bring in the number one manliness experts in sanityville…

-How did we not think of it?

Nathan – I don’t know what we were thinking. The hemanologians of course, they’re going to have good things to say about this.

-Dude. Those guys are awesome.

Nathan – Yeah [laughter] those guys are awesome. So let’s listen to the hemanologians and we’ll be right back after this to get more into the meat of this issue.

[Skit]

Nathan – And we’re back, thank you hemanologians. Alright guys, let’s reiterate what’s wrong with Dalrock. I hope everyone’s been able to follow what we’ve been talking about so far, the reasons we engaged with him, what happened, why. I want to come back though. Last week we tried to really sort of get into the weeds with some specific quotes and things got really dense and I’m just afraid it was a little bit hard for people to follow. So let’s talk more generally about what’s wrong with Dalrock, why people shouldn’t read this guy. Once again just in case anyone’s not tracking Dalrock is a popular Christian manosphere blogger. We are warning people to stay away from him. That’s become the purpose of an episode, of two episodes that initially started to as just an overview of the manosphere. What’s wrong with Dalrock. I think we figured out 3 fallacies right? 3 Dalrock fallacies. So Dalrock fallacy number one, Jake, what is Dalrock fallacy number one?

[Slow serious piano music starts]

Jake – The first fallacy is that he reduces male authority and responsibility. The easiest way to demonstrate that is his lack of understanding about the Fall. Now he thinks he understands the Fall because he thinks that he’s saying something if he says that women are fallen and sinful. He thinks he’s saying something that nobody else is saying and the reason that he thinks that is because the Bible emphasizes male authority and responsibility in every place and at every turn. And there’s something called federal responsibility or covenantal responsibility that comes to just being a man.

Nathan – Yeah we referred to this without quite explaining it last time, so…

– Yeah and so here’s the thing: God places Adam and Eve in the garden. God gives his commands to Adam. Eve listens to the voice of the serpent, is deceived. Adam listens to the voice of his wife and rebels, right? All of that God comes to and calls Adam to account for, and in Adam we’ve all sinned. In Adam we have all fallen. So God comes and He talks to and addresses Adam first! Why? Because Adam was responsible for everything that happened. Responsible. Did Eve sin? Yes. And yeah Adam was responsible for Eve and responsible for himself. Scripture always addresses masculine authority and responsibility. The Scripture says in 1st Timothy 2 that because Adam was made first and then Eve, and because the woman was deceived, the Apostle Paul does not permit a woman to teach. He tells this to a man and it [inaudible] that man’s job to tell women that they’re not to teach and to forbid women to teach or have authority in the church. Why? Because women are easily deceived. And so you can’t have people who are easily deceived teaching. And so women are weak, they’re easily deceived and so the antidote to women being deceived and teaching bad things and believing bad things is for men to stand up and say no and to lead and to exercise authority, preaching and teaching. It’s for fathers to have responsibility over what happens with their wives and their daughters.

– Right. And the irony here is that that’s like what Dalrock’s whole life mission is, to it’s it’s like to, it’s related to this anyway, it’s to tell all the Christian men on the internet that hey, that no one will tell women no. And we’re like, hey, one of our churches purposes is teach men [laughter] to tell women no, and he’s like: Stop it. You’re reducing women’s moral agency. It’s like: dude, like, are you blind? And then we answer our own question, we’re like, yes, you’re blind.

[Laughter]

-Well that’s the, that is the thing, that is how Scripture approaches it. And all throughout Scripture if you look at Numbers 30 where it gives a father the ability to invalidate the vows that his wife or daughter took without his approval… Why? Because he’s responsible for them. He can say no, he has authority to say no. In 1st Corinthians we were talking last week there churches out there to go to. “Well there are no good churches out there.” Well the Church of Corinth was a church, right even though it, the Apostle Paul says a man has his father’s wife.
That struck me after the fact. Hey, that’s interesting, a man has his father’s wife. Huh. It doesn’t say a woman has her husband’s son even though the son is… the son

– and presumably younger than

– younger, right, presumably, at least than the Father. No, a man has his father’s wife.
Well Scripture always approaches sin first, just like God came first to Adam in the garden through the man. And it is a man’s responsibility to step up and to correct and deal with it. Which is why the answer to all of this is not really on the internet but teaching fathers to love and discipline their wives and their daughters…

– Right, which is not to say that Scripture…

– and to therefore protect them from the lies of feminism.

– Which is not to say that Scripture doesn’t ever directly address women, of course it does.

– It does all the time, it directs women, it addresses women. It addresses women’s sin and rebellion. It calls women to repent and it lays out how women are to behave, through the voice of a man. And so, what’s the model? The model is men teaching men and women how to behave and men teaching other men how to be good husbands and fathers and to lead and discipline and love and guide and protect their wives and their daughters. That’s how this problem gets solved, right? Even in the place like in Titus Chapter 2 where Paul’s exhorting the older women to teach the younger women, he’s actually telling Titus to tell the older women what they ought to be teaching to the younger women.

– That’s right.

– And how they ought to be serving the other women by teaching these specific things. And so yes, it’s so profoundly ignorant of all of Scripture and Scriptures emphasis on fatherhood and the fatherhood of God that is reflected down into all of humanity to simply say that calling men to take responsibility for their wives and daughters and pastor’s to take responsibility for the families in their churches is somehow denying feminine responsibil… It’s not what it’s doing, what it’s doing, yeah what it’s doing is our second fallacy which is Dalrock underestimating feminine weakness and dependence on men.

– Which is not, it’s not the same thing as underestimating feminine moral agency which is what we’re actually not doing.

Nathan – Yeah let me read a Scripture. This is Paul talking to Timothy. Second Timothy 3: But understand that in the last days there will come times of difficulty, for people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women burdened with sins and led astray by various passions. Now why did the Apostle Paul in talking to Timothy single out women as the ones that would be led astray by these wicked men?

– Because women are weak, just like the Apostle Peter says. Live with your wives in an understanding way as with the weaker vessel. Which isn’t to say that women are weak in all ways, but that they are weak in very specific ways.

– Including a liability to deception.

– Which is just clear Bible.

– And so to say that if we, if we understand feminine weakness, and dependence, that we’re undercutting their moral agency is just…

– Again it’s to have a very narrow, rigid, small minded view of authority, responsibility, strength, weakness, masculinity and femininity. It’s just so small minded.

– And it’s the only kind of small minded that I really truly believe can only happen in a world of ideas where you’re not actually living with and working with real people.

Nathan – Yeah you watch like my, your parents go through a divorce, now Dalrock’s going to come back and say oh well I’ve had real experience, I have a wife, I have a blah blah blah… But, I mean, come on. You watch anyone go through a divorce for example, you’re going to see there’s sins on both sides. You are going to see it’s not that easy always to parce, and there is no simplistic… I keep thinking of, I keep thinking of the Garden of Eden and I keep thinking of Satan saying to Eve has God really said you may not eat of any tree of the garden, and I just think the devil, the real devil, always exaggerates and distorts and makes more rigid and dichotomous than it actually is, the position of God.

– The nature of deception can be seen by examining the deception of the devil.

Nathan – Am I comparing Dalrock to the devil? No, but I am saying deception, duplicity of his sort does take a certain form and it is very often exaggerating and making much more rigid and confining the roles and the things that God has put in place, right? And so Dalrock says you know: has Warhorn Media, has Tim Bayly really said that women have no moral agency? And it’s like, no we just said that men were… responsible, and that fatherhood’s a real thing and that it has ramifications and that maybe in order to reform a culture you start by talking to the fathers, and to the men. It doesn’t mean you don’t talk to the women. It means your emphasis, though, is on the men, because the men will [inaudible]. It’s reaganomics, it’s trickle down theology, right?

– Yeah, which brings us to fallacy number 3 actually, which is that Dalrock doesn’t understand God’s fatherhood and this we infer from what we have said so far.

-Yeah and it is just essentially what follows. God’s printed His fatherhood onto mankind. And it’s everywhere. To pretend, again, like this is just about women, is not just to deny the problem, it’s to deny the way God made the world and the way God governs the world. The world that we live in is patriarchal by nature because it is founded and rooted and grounded in the fatherhood of God. And it’s a good and benevolent patriarchy. But that’s not something, it’s just again, it’s like talking to a brick wall. Like the man really does need to study the Bible and study the authority that men have and responsibility that men have in Scripture, and the way that corporate responsibility is connected to headship. So whether it’s a king being responsible for his people and a king’s and God visiting a people for the sins of his king, or visiting a king for the sins of his people, and holding that King accountable, or a priest, or a father, it’s just all over Scripture. Achan sins and puts the stuff in his tent: his entire family: dead. He’s responsible and everybody under his headship suffers. What if one of his children had taken it and hidden it? Achan is going to be held accountable for that.

Nathan – [Sarcastic voice] But Jake the levitical law also says that a son shall not be held responsible for the sins of his father and a father shall not be held responsible for the sense of his son…

– Yeah…

– Well, I think, I think actually in the, in the Achan passage what you see is that the entire nation of Israel is already held responsible for Achan’s sin. Now they aren’t all put to death, but they are held responsible. They do fail in battle, they [inaudible] suffer.

– They lose 36 men or something like that.

Nathan – Yeah my only point in bringing up that argument or that caveat was just to say it’s not simple, again and we ain’t going to in this podcast solve every question you might have about corporate responsibility in federal headship. That’s not our design. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t good answers to those questions and ways to think them through.

– Yeah, and part of what these, but part of what you have to understand is that people who want to isolate original sin, the salvific work of Christ to just Adam and Jesus and pretend it’s not of a fabric, the idea of corporate responsibility and of federal headship is not of a fabric with the way everything else in the world works? They’ve not begun to understand the Scriptures on sexuality, or on headship, or on covenant. Ya’ll got a lot of Bible to read.

Nathan – You better hope that there’s corporate responsibility because that is the hope, that, that is why you’re stuck with original sin in the first place and that is the hope that comes through Christ. If you want to deny it in every particular and then just magically believe in it when it comes to Jesus because yay, Jesus…

– And see this is, again, this is so ridiculous to have to say: the church is the bride of Christ. And so Christ as its head imputes his righteousness to the church. When God looks at the head, at the church, he sees the head, which is Jesus. That’s just like…

Nathan – You know, maybe it’s not ridiculous to say because, okay, sure, you had to learn it sometime. Maybe some of our listeners are learning it for the first time. I want to have sympathy for them, and I want to…

– We are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Jesus came to save his bride, his people.

Nathan – If it’s just, if it’s something that you’ve never thought about that’s fine, but start thinking about it now.
Hey guys, those are Dalrock’s fallacies. Why don’t we go to another break and we’ll come back and clean this all up. I understand that old Chip and Lance are up to some kind of an adventure right now.

– They usually are.

Nathan – They usually are. Why don’t we find out what’s going on with them? Okay?

– Sounds good.

Nathan – All right.

[Skit]

Nathan – Ok thank you for that Chip and Lance. That was enlightening.
Guys, what do we want to say? Just to reiterate one more time last episode we attempted to expose Dalrock’s dishonesty. We tried to do it as straightforwardly and honestly as possible. An interesting thing that happened is that Dalrock’s commenters and Dalrock himself really seized on some things. I’d like to just take a minute to talk about this. They really seized on some things I said in last week’s podcast during, I think part of it was in the Devil’s Advocate… and so to be charitable part of it was in the devils advocate segment and if it was your first time hitting the podcast and you don’t understand how that worked I can see how that might have been a little confusing, who was representing what point of view and which ones we actually believed.

– We made it doubly confusing by switching roles.

[Talking over one another]

– Which I think was my idea. I apologize for that. Here’s the way that our show works. Our show is we come out of the gate and we lay something down and then we fight with ourselves about it and somebody plays the role of devil’s advocate and tries to put us in a corner. That devil’s advocate’s not always fair or honest in the characterizations but does try to deal with us the way that we are, we think people might deal with us.

Nathan – Well its also a good segment to deal with any prejudices or biases we might have and I admitted to some last week. I admitted that I smelled a rat with Dalrock, that I thought this guy’s doing something wrong. I mean I didn’t put it like this but what I was getting at last week was that ever since I first encountered Dalrock I’ve felt instinctually bad about him like as if he’s doing something wrong. And I haven’t always been able to articulate it like I can now thanks to working through it but I always felt bad and I expected or suspected that when I engaged with him he might trip up. He might say something bad, which he in fact did. I think I can admit to those things and I think I should admit to those things. You know, me and Jake sometimes have conversations between the two of us when we’re calibrating on Warhorn Media stuff, trying to decide what to do. I might say for example to Jake, I really don’t, this is actually not a real example but this is the kind of conversation: well Jake, I really don’t think that you should take this interview on this other podcast. I’m not sure though, it might be that I’m jealous of the attention that you’re getting. I’ll actually throw that out. I’ll put that on the table. And then, we can argue about it and we can figure out maybe that that wasn’t my motivation, maybe that it was. But I just think it’s always a hundred percent helpful for me to say: here’s my prejudices, here’s my biases, here’s the bad things that might be influencing. Let’s put those on the table. Let’s be honest about them, so then we can talk. Like it doesn’t do us any good for me to pretend like I’m an unprejudiced, objective guy who is just floating in the, in the world of ideas…

– Yeah, the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it. First step to being able to have an honest conversation about anything is to acknowledge that, right? We don’t come to anything unbiased or unprejudiced. So, we like to lay it out. And you laid it out actually in your first email to Dalrock. You said in the same email, I want to represent your views fairly but these are the biases that I’m coming with to this discussion. And, simple-minded people are going to take that and say, you said you did it in good faith and then you said you were biased.

Nathan – I’m going to be a little hard on them here. They seized on that and they roundly mocked it, and they just made me, that was one of the things, places where they painted me the most nastily. Like, well he says, he said he wasn’t, didn’t even have an open mind. No. That’s stupid. That’s just wrongheaded. That’s not what I did. I admitted to where I’m coming from which is a good thing to do…

– And a helpful thing for our listeners to know coming into anything that we’re saying.

Nathan – Hey here’s an idea: maybe, just maybe, it would be easier to get something of value or nutrition from Dalrock if he told you where he was coming from and why, how that might be affecting his point of view…

– [Mocking voice] No, it’s just pure ideas.

Nathan – Here’s why I might feel tense about these guys seeming to take away from female agence… moral agency. Here’s, here’s why I’m so hard on those ideas. Actually knowing those things about Dalrock would go a long way towards making his position palatable and understandable. Here’s why I balk when you Mr. Warhorn Media argue this. Here’s why it’s hard for me to even begin to wrap my head around it. If he just admitted to some of those things… I’m not saying it would solve the problems that we’ve been talking about with him. But I think it would go a long way towards making his point of view understandable and sympathetic. So that’s one thing. We were honest about our biases in the podcast.

– And that’s what the whole devil’s advocate segment is about. Not just being honest about our biases, but honest about our argumentation, right? We are trying to put ourself in the corner, and fight our way back out of it, and prove to ourselves, and to the listener that we have a point to make. But our goal with that is always, as we say over and over and over again, not always even to convince everybody that we’re right, but to help people think Biblically for themselves.

Nathan – Right. It would be completely disingenuous for us, for example, not to say he went after our senior pastor, a man who we love, a man who is like a father to us. Dalrock attacked him.

– And so what do we do when we go, when we are preparing to defend our senior pastor, we say…

Nathan – This time it’s personal.

– This time it’s personal. Right, we’re tipping our hand. We are letting you know, hey, this is a place where, we’re coming at this, and it is in fact personal for us but we also think that we’re right.

– Yeah we, we actually have a loyalty. So you should spit on us [laughter] because that’s, that’s certainly Biblical.

– I just find it so ironic when there’s some anonymous, of course anonymous commentator who came to the Warhorn forum, Sanityville to talk about this issue and he said, uh you guys did a bad job in your conversation about Dalrock. I’m a regular reader of Dalrock. Of course, I don’t have any loyalty to him, but…

Nathan – Dalrock followers as a general rule, I’m generalizing here, Dalrock followers will be very quick we found to disclaim any sort of loyalty to Dalrock…

– As they show up all over the place to defend…

Nathan – To defend Dalrock. Just so you know I’m an objective guy, and you suck because you went after Dalrock!

[laughter]

-I also have a pseudonym.

– I signed up anonymously to be a member of your forum just so I could say this. Not because of any personal…

– Just come on.

Nathan – Any personal animus. It’s like, admit to your personal animus, it’s fine.

– Yeah then we can be honest.

Nathan – You love Dalrock. Dalrock is a father to you. You feel like he helped you understand your marriage or something like that. You feel like things were bad…

– He helped you talk to your kids about a movie you watch.

Nathan – Right, just uh, just uh…

– Ok fine.

Nathan – Great! That helps us, you know?

– Admit it, and now we can have a conversation about it.

Nathan – Now we can talk. A lot of having arguments, good arguments with people, is just simply a…

-Is just self disclosing but the problem is, and the problem has been in this case is that every aspect of self-disclosure has been trotted out as an example of disingenuousness.

Nathan – Not just trotted out but seized upon with extreme rancor and just used to…

– Yeah, well, you know what, again, that, this is exactly the kind of deception that we were talking about. Why we said in last week’s episode if he would simply be honest in his characterization of Tim and that PCA report we could have a conversation about the emphasis placed on male responsibility versus female responsibility in that report.

Nathan – And there’s real criticisms you could make of Tim. There’s real criticisms you could make of Doug Wilson. There’s definitely real criticisms you can make of Matt Chandler.

– Yeah, there, well there is truth to the fact… and we’ve acknowledged all these points in the last episode, but there is all kinds of truth to the fact that evangelical complementarian pivot is to just blame men for everything.

Nathan – Oh sure.

– And to, and to let women off the hook, right? Yeah there’s truth to that. Yeah. Even as, as you move, as you move from the feminist position that has been inculcated in you from your youth, there are steps along the way, and it is easy to jump, once you discover the Biblical doctrine of that is real of male responsibility, to just lay right there because it’s easy, and it is a coward’s move. He’s right about that. But the fact is you can’t talk with him about that because he’s not going to allow you to admit, unless you just lay down and say, you’re right about everything. I’m wrong about everything. I always have been. Please teach me.
He’s not going to allow you to say anything about female moral agency in the context of masculine responsibility. He’s not going to let you do that.

Nathan – It’s just so immature.

– If you insist on male responsibility as a principle, no matter how abused, or misused, then he is not going to let you say female responsibility. He is going to undercut you and he’s going to lie about you, which is what we demonstrated last week he does. He just lies.

– Yeah and that kind of echo chamber way of dealing with things, I mean, it showed up immediately in his response to first blog post on the podcast which was: I didn’t listen to it, but they are stridently against me, and that shows that they can’t handle my arguments. Well, dude, like grow up, no it doesn’t.

– Again, again this is something that Dalrock…

– So I can take your logic, you are stridently opposed to us, that shows that you can’t handle our arguments. You see how easy that was Dalrock, like come on dude.

[laughter]

Nathan – You want to paint someone that way all you’ve got to do is paint them that way.

– Yeah and if you’ve got an army of, of people just ready to swallow everything you say…

Nathan – Disclaimer, are there two or three people in Dalrock’s comment boards that do call the others to be more reasonable? Yes.

– Sure.

Nathan – Do I feel completely fine making broad generalizations about the rest of the 9,000 people in his comments board? Yes. [laughter] I actually had to learn this lesson and it was really hard for me. Jake remembers this. When I was first working around the church and working with people I really thought that in order to be a man, I needed to box people into a complete corner with every argument, and just destroy their argument and demolish it, and show how they were stupid, and show how, you know the worst possible characterization of them and their argument was true. I just thought that’s what it was to be a man. Guess what, that was just immaturity. It was just something I needed to, it was just something very simple that I needed to grow out of it, and praise Lord, I think I did. And the way that I did was just simply by being around people and interacting with them and being tempered by them. You know, not being pseudonymous on the internet but having friends, and people that I had to have real arguments, and I realized, hey, you know, maybe if I accept a charitable view of this guy’s argument we might get somewhere. Maybe if I don’t mischaracterize him, he’ll like me better. Maybe if I give him an inch, I can take the mile. Maybe, actually a good strategy for winning an argument is give and take.

– Is give and take. But to engage in give and take you have to be capable of living with tension. You have to be capable of living and dealing with nuances, and that’s the problem with, with Dalrock. He doesn’t want any of that work. You see this sort of thing so much in young men what which… what we always see is that a young man discovers masculinity or whatever, right?

And then what does he want to do? Or even reformed theo… whatever it is, right? What does he want to do? Well he wants to pop off on Facebook about it in memes, or he comes alive to the horror of abortion. He wants to go down to Planned Parenthood and yell at the doctors, or at the women that are going in.

Nathan – And if you for example plead with the women, please don’t do this, instead of saying, you are sinning against the Lord! he might judge you.

– That’s right. If you say, you don’t have to do this…

Nathan – They’re about to go kill their baby. How dare you appeal to anything but…

– God’s vengeance.

Nathan – God’s vengeance.

– Yeah, but the reality is what he’s doing is he’s overcompensating for the fact that he’s lived as a coward so it’s another cowards move. And it’s not that you don’t go down to Planned Parenthood or whatever and call people to repent and to not murder their babies. That’s not what I’m saying. And it’s not that you don’t, say, engage with, uh, arguments on social media firmly and directly and it’s not that you don’t do all kinds of things but you have to…

Nathan – It’s not that you don’t bring God’s Wrath into a discussion of guilt and sin.

– No you have to do all of those, there’s a time and place for all of those things. But, if you’re not willing and able to look somebody in the eyes and to have those conversations and to call them to repentance… uh… you’re probably, you’re probably just reacting immaturely and your real goal here is not to be helpful to anybody but to absolve yourself of some guilt that you feel and to have a cathartic moment.

Nathan – Man I’ve been hit with this lesson again and again and again lately. I feel like a cartoon character that keeps getting hit by different buses or trains or something. It’s because… I have a fiance… and I have to be in a relationship with a woman, and it’s complicated. There’s tensions, and there’s places where I have to like, discipline her and then there’s places where I have to be patient, and then there’s places where I have to say that she’s right and I’m wrong. And just like any kind of rigid systematic approach that I have, any kind of moral of the story that I come up with that I think is going to make the relationship work, it doesn’t work. It turns out there’s a million little tensions that I have to live with as a part of loving this person and being, you know, an aspirational, I guess, authority over this person. I have to live in relational tension which is what, I don’t mean that in a bad way like I feel bad, or unsure of myself all the time, I just mean…

– It’s just much more difficult than having clear edicts that you issue from on high.

Nathan – Yeah, it’s much easier to say [inaudible] your job is to be the wife and to obey me. That’s, that’s one way to solve all of our problems and feel really good about myself. Or another way is to say I’m a loving servant leader. We’re just going to do everything her way. There again, problem solved, tension resolved. But actually, the answer is more complicated than that.

– Yeah, of course it is, because people are complicated.

Nathan – Can we talk about Dalrock’s pseudonymity? This was something that we got into quite a bit last time…

– Well you were just in it just now, because you were talking about how not being able to be pseudonymous and remain pseudonymous tempered your style of argument and tempered your understanding of how to engage complex issues.

Nathan – Yeah it did.

– And how that was a blessing to you.

Nathan – Yeah it was. It was a great blessing, I mean thank God. I don’t like myself when I think about myself from from years ago when I was like that, when I was so rigid and so unkind to people and so angry about [inaudible] you know. It wasn’t good. It wasn’t the fruit of the spirit in me. It doesn’t matter what I was… you know the fruit of the spirit is X Y and Z and that wasn’t present in me when I was doing that.

– And so [Inaudible] we think that if, Dalrock if you had accountability you would probably be less rash and you would be more tempered, and know the guys that you talk with on your own forum, or the guys on other manosphere sites who you trade points with, you know, and you appreciate each other’s insights and stuff. That doesn’t count.

– Yeah, no, it’s people who are actually able to look you in the eyes and say, no, you’re wrong about this, no.

Nathan – Well, there again with pseudonymity people tend to prefer the binary so it’s like either we’re arguing that pseudonymity is always wrong or that’s always right. Ehh. Not so much actually. There is good pseudonymity, I think in history that you can point to blah blah blah. We can have that argument. But the point is…

– As we did try to have.

Nathan – As we did try to have. But our point isn’t so much, I don’t think, that dalrock is like sinning, he’s absolutely a hundred percent wrong because he’s pseudonymous, as that, it’s extremely unwise. Our judgment is that it is extremely unwise, and it’s because he doesn’t have the tempering of accountability and authority in his life and…

– And even the fact that he’s admitted that the only person capable of disciplining him, cuz they know about it, is his wife.

Nathan – Someone under his authority.

– Someone under his authority. Someone the Bible has said, is not to be, to teach or exercise authority over a man.

Nathan – Right, that’s the only person capable of teaching or exercising…

– It’s his wife, his wife and his children. And of course our wives and children discipline us all the time. I mean come on. No ok, now you said your wife disciplines you. This is what people do, right, it’s just like, it’s this endless loop.

Nathan – Guess what, your wife can, through being someone that lives with you, and being the awesome woman that she is, she’s going to discipline you all the time. Is that her primary role in your life? Is that her…

– No it’s not, for one, and for two the Bible tells her how to do it. The Bible gives her a prescription in how to discipline her husband. And if you want to read 1st Peter 3 go ahead and there’s a good place to start. We don’t have time for that sort of thing, to endlessly go over everything we say with nuances and caveats is just absurd.

Nathan – But the fact is…

– Come on man, you want to be an authority and that’s what it is to have a public teaching ministry, and I don’t care what you say about just being a blogger trafficking in ideas among peers. What Dalrock does is set himself up as an authority, a teaching authority, and how people look at him is as a teaching authority and that’s why they call him a father.

Nathan – Mmhhmm, they literally call him… father.

– And there it is again, fatherhood, right? To set yourself up in that way while not having that teaching, be under anybody else’s authority, but without other authorities being able to look in and speak into what you say and how you say it and why you say it, you’re just a loose cannon out there.

– A handful of people have said, your fallacy is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Well, you know what? I have this thing in front of me called the Bible.

Nathan – Right. [laughter]

– And every pagan’s going to call me on the fallacy of appeal to authority by appealing to Scripture.

Nathan – And then they’re going to turn around and appeal to the authority of their own reason…

– Exactly.

Nathan – Or to the authority of… their senses and what they percieve, I mean, we all appeal to authority.

– That’s exactly right. What a bogus, bogus, argument. Everybody appeals to authority.

Nathan – You just better appeal to the right one.

– That’s right.

Nathan – And you should be honest about which one you’re appealing to.

– If you want to bow to the god of the Enlightenment, reason, be a part of the destructive fruit that has happened since and because of that, including the entire feminist revolution that you’re railing against, go ahead. Appeal to reason. But we’re going to appeal to Scripture, and the way that we appeal to Scripture is through the authority structures God has put in place to govern how people appeal to Scripture, and how people teach Scripture. And so you know what? I feel pretty safe, because I am within the framework of biblical authority as laid out and defined in Scripture. I am a man who is, who is under authority. What I say is under authority. I have an authority of my own that people out there on the internet ought to have some respect for.

Nathan – They should, and they don’t, and it’s…

– We’re all égalité, liberté, fraternité, here, you know, in this, in the wild west of the manosphere where we deny the fatherhood of God, and the authority that he is written into all of creation, and think that somehow by denying the fatherhood of God, and denying how it is written over all of creation, and written into the authority structures that God has placed in the world, we’re somehow going to undermine the feminist rebellion. Oh please! You just don’t know the first thing. And this is why we said last week: just go to a church.

– There are no good churches.

– Well the church of Corinth was still a church, for one, and for two, you listen to Dalrock, so shut up.

[laughter]

Nathan – Before we wrap things up, I just want to talk the women. Women might be listening to this podcast, and some of them might be thinking, well where exactly does this, all this stuff that you’ve been talking about, about responsibility and authority, where does that leave me? Do I just have to sit around and wait for a man to take responsibility? Is that what the non Dalrockian point of view is, that, that I just, you know, it’s just like, well, I hope I have a good husband that cultivates me and is responsible for me.

– Eh no, no, God’s commands to you are clear, and they’re direct, and they are not contingent on the men in your life. If you’re a woman you are called to submit to the authorities that God has placed over you and to honor them and to respect them insofar as they honor and respect God. To adorn yourself with a gentle and quiet spirit and all kinds of other commands like that that really ultimately are not contingent upon the men in your life. They are God’s commands to you, and they are commands that you will answer for being obedient to or rebellious to.

Nathan – The final thing to say about all this is, it’s clear, to me at least and probably I’m guessing to our listeners, that this issue is personal, and and and painful for us, right? As we talked about, and not Dalrock and his responses but the whole…

– Oh I don’t care about Dalrock and his responses. But the issue of masculinity and fatherhood, teaching men how to be godly men who take responsibility for themselves and others in their lives and who love and protect their wives and their daughters, who refuse to be bitter, yeah that’s personal. That’s really personal. The day after the episode dropped I finished dropping my kids off from school and I had just been reading some of the comments and commenters out there and just being overwhelmed by just the bitterness, that is so evident in them. I have to admit, I got pretty emotional. And it wasn’t because I care about Dalrock or what they were saying about me. It was because I was thinking about my dad and how he had every reason and opportunity to become a bitter, nasty man when my mom left.

Nathan – To become a Dalrock commenter…

– Yeah, to become that. The farther and farther away I get from it, the more I’m amazed by the fact that he refused to do that, because he decided he was going to be a man and take responsibility for us and protect us and so he fought, and he won custody, and he worked his tail off to provide for us, and he found a good woman to marry, and he refused to allow bitterness to define his life. And that’s what I want for any man who has gone through that sort of thing.

Nathan – You know, I have a dad who I trusted and looked to to hold my parents marriage together. That dad’s name is not my earthly father actually. It’s pastor Tim Bayly. He was my parents counselor, through many many many, I want to say 20 years, he counseled them. The hilarious irony of all this, Dalrock accusing Bayly, as he calls him, of not holding women to account… where Pastor Bayly happened to make a mistake in that counseling, I don’t think he’d mind me saying this… There was a day where Pastor Bayly came up to me in the parking lot. This was after my parents were divorced. I think I was about 20, and I was sitting in the church parking lot. Tim comes running out, and he says, Nathan, I hear that you’re angry with me. And he said you’re angry because I failed your parents. I said, yeah. And he said, I’m sorry. I made a mistake I misread the situation. I didn’t get it. I’m sorry.
Now how did Tim misread the situation? He blamed my mom, actually. He put a lot of the blame on her. So anyway all of that to say not that Tim failed, but that Tim tried. He was there for me and at a certain point I had a choice to be bitter about the ways that he’d failed and the ways that the system had failed me and the ways that my earthly father and my earthly mother had failed me. It all sort of snowballed into me being angry at Tim. And I had to decide to let that go. I had to decide, I love this man. This man bled for me, this man pleaded with my parents. This man exhorted, rebuked, with tears, with literal tears. He was there for me. He was a father to me. He is a father to me. And I may not be bitter.

Nathan – Alright guys, so to sum it all up and bring it all back around, here’s Dalrock’s narrative as I understand it, narrative, quote unquote as I understand it.

– We agreed to a fair exchange of ideas where it was us and Dalrock, where we agreed to disseminate his ideas across our platform for all of our listeners. And then we’ve stabbed him in the back and went on a character assassination mission. The reality is, a lot of our listeners have been introduced to the manosphere because they’re interested in the topic of masculinity. We had Aaron Renn on the show who has a email newsletter called the Masculinist. Michael Foster, who once upon a time had a podcast with Warhorn Media called Practical Ecclesiology has gotten into the manosphere with his, It’s Good to be a Man .com, or whatever it’s called. And so they are getting introduced to these ideas and terminologies and we wanted to introduce people to them from a Biblical perspective and give them the tools they need to deal with it. We wanted to allow somebody from the manosphere who is well-established to define the terms Iraq and said hey let’s have an interview about yourself they need to deal with it we wanted to allow somebody from them in a sphere whose well-established to define the terms. We went to Dalrock and said, hey let’s have an interview. Tell us about yourself, what you do, why you do it, how long you’ve been doing it. Define red pill. Define, a couple other things.

Nathan – Address these basic concerns people might have about your work.

– And then we were going to lean on his answers for that, in a podcast that was much, much bigger in intent and scope than Dalrock.

Nathan – As we directly told him in our initial email…

– Which we quoted at the top of the podcast. He’s made it out to be as though we were supposed to just always do something that was about him, and it was always going to be about him. It was never going to be about him. In his answers he promoted lies about our senior pastor and put them on the Internet and also said and look, [inaudible] they don’t even have answers for what I have to say.

Nathan – Well so here’s the million dollar question, for you as a listener, and I’ll leave this question in your hands. One of us hijacked the conversation and made it about himself. One of us is duplicitous. Both sides are saying that the other side is duplicitous. You have to choose who you trust and who you see the fruits of the spirit in. I mean, Dalrock says that we are liars and he says that our senior pastor is a liar. He says that our spiritual father…

-He also says that Doug Wilson’s a liar…

Nathan – Doug’s another spiritual father, in a sense, I mean. He says that they’re… liars. And we’ve spent two podcasts now saying that Dalrock’s a liar. So it’s just to make things really clear, one of us is right. One of us is wrong.

– One of us is fundamentally untrustworthy.

Nathan – One of us is fundamentally untrustworthy. You need to look at the fruit and you need to decide for yourself.

– Yeah, the goal of this show is that you be a more discerning christian when you walk away from an episode. So here we are at the end of the episode. Be discerning.

Nathan – Thanks for listening, everybody.

[Skit]

Nathan – Sound of Sanity was associate produced by Benjamin Sulser, produced by Nathan Alberson, executive produced like all fine Warhorn products by Jacob Mentzel and Nathan Alberson. Again, you can go to Patreon.com/soundofsanity to support this work, and until next time…

– Stay sane.

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

155 Responses to Transcript of the second podcast.

  1. Ye cats this is dull.

  2. Novaseeker says:

    The meat of that is what I said in the Complementarianism on women in the military thread. Namely that they see women as having agency but that agency is contained within/conditioned by/constrained by (or enabled by) men’s agency such that while both have agency, men have responsibility for both. It’s a clever way of being able to preserve female moral agency in a technical sense while still holding men responsible for how women exercise their moral agency (creating moral agency without responsibility for women … or at least without the same degree of responsibility as men have for women’s agency). All stemming from a misreading of Genesis 3.

    Oh well, at least I wasn’t inaccurate in my assessment I suppose.

  3. Eidolon says:

    This one is difficult to even read. They’re so feminine in their way of discussing an issue — it’s all about people, and relationships, and I don’t like how he did this, and how dare he do that, and he does it because he feels that way, and why would he give us a comprehensive answer that was 17 whole pages, that takes time to read.

  4. Eidolon says:

    What’s the point of the reference to Numbers? So the Hebrews/Israelites were told to organize in such a way that a father could invalidate a daughter’s vow. They also weren’t supposed to have multiple types of cloth in one garment, and had capital punishment for blasphemy.

    Numbers doesn’t express God’s commands for our society, except where specifically noted. And if it did, which it would have to in order to be relevant here, surely Bayly should be using church discipline on women who join the military? If he’s responsible for that woman joining the Navy, why didn’t he stop her?

    Surely he’s in sin for her joining, right? Has he repented and used his authority to force her to quit to the extent he’s able, since he’s responsible? Or is he just another one of those irresponsible guys who don’t make sure women do what they’re supposed to do?

  5. Eidolon says:

    Quote 1: “I’d like to give you a fair chance to say your piece. This won’t be ‘gotcha journalism.'”

    Quote 2: “Yeah but then one we got into the email exchange, for one, and saw how he was running with the questions and using them as jumping off points for him talking about his hobby horses… so then we have all… these big long responses to deal with.”

  6. Eidolon says:

    Quote 1: “And, when Nathan said ‘I want to present your views to the world’ he was talking about his simple perspective on these definitions…”

    Quote 2, Question #4: “What does a man need to do to live a satisfying and productive life in today’s culture?”

  7. Eidolon says:

    Why did he write these long responses? It’s like he thinks we want to let him say his piece or something! Where would he get that kind of idea?

  8. Lexet Blog says:

    Douglas Wilson subscribes to a theology that every other denomination has declared to be apostasy. Warhorn says their spiritual father is Douglas Wilson, a failed philosopher turned pastor who can’t shepherd well, has a weird history with sexual abuse, who cannot write clearly, and who defends Federal Vision and signed the statement affirming it.

    Warhorn tipped their hand. As a member of the reformed community, I am 100% comfortable in labeling Warhorn as heretical.

    Dalrock, email me sometime. This is just the beginning of the Wilson crowds attempt to destroy you.

  9. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nathan – In other words you’ve got Rollo Tomassi who’s a pick up artist,

    Not even close to the facts. Just reading the “About” page at rationalmale would make that clear. Once again, either they did not do the research they claimed, or they did and they are lying about what they found.

    These people are not very smart. Certainly not as smart as they tell each other…

    The pastor that takes in the woman who has ran off, who has sinned against her house and her husband, and says you know it’s the mans job to love her back and win her heart and pursue her and if he had just done a good job of that then she wouldn’t ever and his job’s to go and to win her back and she’s just free to fly off the handle, fly off the rails until she’s just loved enough. And that’s just like, that’s the kind of garbage that we’re always dealing with.

    LOL! As far as I can tell from reading both Wilson and Bayly that’s “Federal Headship” nicely sumed up in one paragraph. In fact, I’ve bolded the tl;dr of “Federal Headship”. I don’t laugh out loud while reading turgid, murky stuff like this very often, but this is very special.

    Question: How can they call their own employer’s doctrine “garbage”?

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    That is a whole lot of mean-girl gossip, but towards the end when we find out that Nathan’s parents were counseled by Bayly but divorced anyway, obvious emotional connection is obvious.

    It might be just me, but there is a distinct whiff of the cult-of-personality to both Wilson and Bayly’s followers.

  11. 7817 says:

    They are gamma males. Like Vox Day or hate him, these guys fit his gamma male description to a T.

    In fact, from his recent post: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/03/mailvox-getting-past-gamma.html?m=1

    First, let me make it clear that what I dislike so intensely about gammas is their common pattern of behavior. It’s nothing personal. I just dislike dishonesty, posturing, false poses of superiority, unasked-for criticism, passive-aggression, and cowardice, all of which happen to be behavioral attributes of the average gamma male. – Vox Day

  12. feeriker says:

    MEGO just glancing at that transcript. I can’t even begin to imagine reading the whole thing. Whoever transcribed that podcast must have either been 1) a masochist, 2) bored to the point of insanity, or both.

  13. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Namely that they see women as having agency but that agency is contained within/conditioned by/constrained by (or enabled by) men’s agency such that while both have agency, men have responsibility for both.

    Yeah, that’s become clear. They are in bubbles, though. One thing worth noting: Wilson’s church is in Moscow, Idaho and Bayly is in Bloomington, Indiana. Both may be big towns in their state, but they are kind of remote in flyover country. It’s easier to get into a bubble, an echo-chamber, when you are in a town or small city that is hours away from anything bigger.

    Duluth still applies, though, and Plan B is almost certainly for sale at the local chain pharmacy or available at the local college clinic. I’m sure that I could take them on a tour of bars near Indiana University and show them hypergamy close up. Ditto Moscow – Pullman. No different than East Sixth in Austin, just a much smaller scale. Their eyes might hurt at seeing Wonderful Women actually behaving rather badly, but…it’s there. All around them.

    So there is definitely some deliberate “not looking at THAT!” willful blindness going on. They can chant “women sin…women sin…women sin…” all they want, but their own doctrine says “Nah, not really. Anything a woman does bad is All Men’s Fault”.

    “All Men [Bad Thing] affects All Women so MEN BAD!”

    All Men’s Fault. Just like the feminists they claim to oppose…

  14. Novaseeker says:

    All Men’s Fault. Just like the feminists they claim to oppose…

    Oh exactly. But again, they will say “yes we know that women are behaving like whores on 6th street and the Bloomington/Moscow equivalent, and getting Plan B and so on, but they are only doing that because some man (father) or men collectively have acted in ways that permit/encourage/enable it.”

    This is why you cannot argue with them. That worldview trumps all argument, in their eyes. Arguing with them is a waste of energy.

  15. Novaseeker says:

    In their worldview, women are similar to younger children.

    When a younger child transgresses, of course they are rebuked for wrongdoing, chastised and so on. But the primary emphasis is on reaching the parent, so that the parent can act in ways that constrain the child from doing what they were doing. In their view, you can basically replace “child” with women and “parent” with men — when women transgress, they are transgressors and should be rebuked for their transgression, but in order to change their behavior you appeal to the men (the parent) so that they can change what they are doing in order to evoke different behavior.

    So, yes, women have “agency” in this view, as children do, but it is the agency of a child, whereas a man’s agency is the agency of a parent. That is a dogmatic view, as well, so you can’t “argue” with it. It’s best to note it and shake the dust from your feet, really.

  16. Eidolon says:

    So what if a woman is an orphan, raised by nuns, and then goes into the military? I guess it was on their priest to tell the nuns’ mother superior to tell the nuns to tell the woman not to do that, so it’s his fault, despite never knowing she existed?

    This isn’t really any different than Dalrock’s Law, it’s just men talking about how awful men are because of the failures of women, and expecting men to fix it, rather than women doing the complaining.

  17. Scott says:

    In the discussion at sanityville re: the second podcast, the basic rationalizations of why the men who read comment in the manosphere suck boil down to:

    1. The women in churches in the heartland are not like that.
    2. Why don’t they move their families (or if they are single, move to find wives) to these places?
    3. Why did they marry feminist wives?
    4. Maybe most of them are losers who can’t get chicks like us?

  18. Eidolon says:

    @Novaseeker

    I think you could make the “women have reduced moral culpability like children” argument, if you were honest. I don’t see it that way, but there is some support for it.

    But that would still require disciplining the women, and supporting things like eliminating the franchise for women and excluding them from positions of political and economic power, which I assume these guys would be horrified by, despite it being the obvious implication of this “Federal Headship” idea.

  19. 7817 says:

    I had just been reading some of the comments and commenters out there and just being overwhelmed by just the bitterness, that is so evident in them. I have to admit, I got pretty emotional. And it wasn’t because I care about Dalrock or what they were saying about me.

    Kind of funny to think we made one of them cry. That’s kind of pathetic.

  20. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    when women transgress, they are transgressors and should be rebuked for their transgression, but in order to change their behavior you appeal to the men (the parent) so that they can change what they are doing in order to evoke different behavior.

    Duluth still applies. So their worldview requires men to paint the bullseye target of “Wife Abuser” on their backs. Given the breathlessness over “wife spanking” in the first show, it is quite obvious how they would react to any accusation of “abuse” no matter how false.

    Like the feminists they claim to oppose, these boys want married men to be placed in no-win situations. For their own “patriarchal” good, of course…

  21. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    1. The women in churches in the heartland are not like that.

    Yeah, NAWALT is such a convincing argument. Except I am sure I could find girls Like That in churches in Bloomington. If Clearnote is big enough and has enough college girls, yup. Even in their church there’s likely a couple or three.

    Because….AWALT.

    2. Why don’t they move their families (or if they are single, move to find wives) to these places?
    3. Why did they marry feminist wives?
    4. Maybe most of them are losers who can’t get chicks like us?

    Ignorance and arrogance are not a good combination. Not sure which part of the Bible teaches it…anyone want to help me out?

  22. drifter says:

    Bottom line:
    You exposed their leader’s faulty teaching, making him look bad, which made them look stupid for following him. But they haven’t seemed to notice just yet that they are way too short for this particular ride.

  23. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    Kind of funny to think we made one of them cry. That’s kind of pathetic

    Yeah, its, but remember: their employer, Tim Bayly, has repeatedly complained about how the feminists on the committee in 2002 were mean to him, hurting his feelings.

    Attitudes flow from the top down.

  24. BillyS says:

    I could not stomach reading the whole thing, but Nathan did have a good point at the end:

    One of us is fundamentally untrustworthy.

    Nathan just can’t see that he is the one that is untrustworthy to his core.

    Most People are Idiots, including podcasters it seems.

    And they can claim others are heretics with a straight face.

  25. Novaseeker says:

    But that would still require disciplining the women, and supporting things like eliminating the franchise for women and excluding them from positions of political and economic power, which I assume these guys would be horrified by, despite it being the obvious implication of this “Federal Headship” idea.

    Sure, but they’re of the view that, in individual families, if the men were husbanding/fathering properly, women wouldn’t act out the way they do — just like the idea that if parents are properly parenting, children will behave better. It’s the same idea. At the end of the day, you will always end up with men being responsible, either in an individual or collective way. Individual father/husband present? Individual man responsible. Not present? Men as a collective are responsible. Men are always responsible, ultimately, in this view. From their point of view, the franchise and political and economic power and so on are irrelevant — if men were doing their jobs properly as fathers and husbands, women having the vote would be of no concern, because women would be voting properly, etc.

    Do you see? Women’s agency is always conditioned by men — specific men (fathers/husbands) or men in general. Everything women do is men’s fault because their own volitional acts are due to what men have permitted them to do — again, either individually or collectively. That’s the worldview.

    Duluth still applies. So their worldview requires men to paint the bullseye target of “Wife Abuser” on their backs. Given the breathlessness over “wife spanking” in the first show, it is quite obvious how they would react to any accusation of “abuse” no matter how false.

    Like the feminists they claim to oppose, these boys want married men to be placed in no-win situations. For their own “patriarchal” good, of course…

    Well, but again, even if you were to get them to agree that Duluth is a sham, they would turn around and say “the only reason we have Duluth institutionalized is because men permitted it to be institutionalized — either directly by institutionalizing it themselves, or indirectly by permitting women to do so — so men are ultimately responsible for Duluth”.

    You can never get around that — they will always find a way that men are responsible for women’s volitional acts. It’s a dogmatic view.

  26. Eidolon says:

    One insidious thing about their concept of Federal Headship is this — you don’t discipline those under someone else’s direct authority. You don’t administer discipline to someone else’s kids; even a pastor would be overstepping his bounds to do that.

    If every woman is under some man’s authority such that he is responsible for her, then only that man should actually discipline her. It would be overstepping boundaries for someone else to do it.

    Then you realize that whoever he is, he has no legal ability to do it, so it will simply never happen. So in theory they favor discipline, but in practice it’s impossible for it to ever happen.

  27. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Well, but again, even if you were to get them to agree that Duluth is a sham, they would turn around and say “the only reason we have Duluth institutionalized is because men permitted it to be institutionalized — either directly by institutionalizing it themselves, or indirectly by permitting women to do so — so men are ultimately responsible for Duluth”.

    Because “some” and “all” are the same thing on Planet TradCon, just as on Planet Feminism. Two sides of the same coin.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, real men are really suffering because of ignorant fools such as Nathan and his band of boys.

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    You can never get around that — they will always find a way that men are responsible for women’s volitional acts. It’s a dogmatic view.

    It is also a very feminine view. Their mean-girlish style argumentation fits perfectly with their feminist worldview.

  29. Eidolon says:

    Federal Headship creates a situation where not only do they not discipline women, they should not discipline women, because that would be interfering with the man with direct authority over her.

    It fundamentally means that every pastor can shift the blame for every failure to discipline every sinful act by every woman at all times, since there must always be some man who’s closer to being her authority than he is. At the same time they can wholeheartedly believe that such discipline should happen, and how dare you suggest they don’t take female sin and rebelliousness seriously! Ridiculous!

  30. bigjohn33 says:

    That was really weird. I don’t think they actually quoted anything Dalrock wrote. I don’t thing they even quoted one single sentence from the whole e-mail exchange. Nathan quoted himself but they did not read anything Dalrock wrote. Not even to mock it. Maybe they did and I might just missed it. Nor did they give any definition of terms like red pill Game, MRAs or anything like they said they would at the outset.

    Dalrock, you should be encouraged from this. As frustrating as their slander is, listeners to that podcast are going to come here because they have no idea what you actually believe other than that it is bad. It’s like telling a girl “stay away from that guy, he’s trouble” always backfires.

    It would have been great if they honestly discussed your ideas, but the next best thing is exactly what happened with them actually quoting nothing from you and making you out to be a bad guy. Because that will just make people curious.

    It would have been worse if they took quotes of yours and twisted them out of context. Because then people would say “that’s a direct quote of what dalrock says and I agree it is wrong” then they wouldn’t bother coming here. But they didn’t (or couldnt) do that because you were careful and thoughtful in your responses. Good work! Keep it up!

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    There is a phrase that gets bandied around from time to time, “Iron sharpens iron”. Often it’s used by some churchgoing AMOG trying to explain why he’s being obnoxious, but not always. One thing I have learned the hard way both on Usenet and again more recently in comboxes: not every man is a “piece of iron”.

    Some men are a block of cement. Iron can not sharpen a block of cement.

    PS: I tried to listen to the 2nd cast and just could not do it, it’s like 3 pajama-boys nattering over cocoa.

    https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.idc4i_kpGgDwcnCAq319aAHaHX%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nathan? Or one of the other boys?

    “Eeeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh…could be!”

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    What Dalrock does is set himself up as an authority, a teaching authority, and how people look at him is as a teaching authority and that’s why they call him a father.

    Huh. I can’t seem to find anywhere on the blog, nor anywhere back to 2010, where Dalrock claims to be an authority or a “teaching authority”. Once again, either Nathan and the rest of the boys didn’t do diligent research, or they are just lying.

    Again.

    They aren’t as smart as they pretend to be.

  34. Pingback: Transcript of the second podcast. | Reaction Times

  35. Warthog says:

    > “And we took apart his arguments, since he’s critical of our pastor.”

    > “Of email exchange, and, in that, I’m going to lie about your pastor and about other people. And it’s like what?”

    > “But I did know that he had said some negative things about my pastor, so here I say quote If I’m not mistaken, you see the work of my pastor and others like him as somehow undercutting the concept of female moral agency.”

    You would think from this that Dalrock had attacked the honor of Tim Bayly in some way. Prior to the Warhorn interview debacle, Dalrock had merely pointed out two inconsistencies in what Bayly had said/written. His conclusions did not impugn Bayly’s character, merely his reasoning.

    Men respond to arguments by debating them and answering them, not circling the wagons and declaring that you have criticized our pastor so you must be evil.

    These guys literally are acting like NPCs.

    “Dalrock, bad pseudonym man!”

  36. white says:

    Someone here owes me 5 bucks for guessing those clowns will be back

    A far greater deed than transcribing this podcast would be extracting the actual arguments and points raised

  37. Warthog says:

    > “Douglas Wilson subscribes to a theology that every other denomination has declared to be apostasy. Warhorn says their spiritual father is Douglas Wilson, a failed philosopher turned pastor who can’t shepherd well, has a weird history with sexual abuse, who cannot write clearly, and who defends Federal Vision and signed the statement affirming it.”

    @Lexet, don’t start with that. Half of it is not true. I would sign the statement of Federal Vision myself. You’re just dividing the camp against itself if you go down that road.

    Doug Wilson’s error regarding men and women is what it is. All those other things are not even related to it and have no bearing on it. It’s better to stick to the argument like men, than to start painting with a broad brush. Women love to paint with a broad brush, but that is not a manly form of debate.

  38. Warthog says:

    @Eidolon

    “One insidious thing about their concept of Federal Headship is this — you don’t discipline those under someone else’s direct authority. You don’t administer discipline to someone else’s kids; even a pastor would be overstepping his bounds to do that. If every woman is under some man’s authority such that he is responsible for her, then only that man should actually discipline her. It would be overstepping boundaries for someone else to do it. Then you realize that whoever he is, he has no legal ability to do it, so it will simply never happen. So in theory they favor discipline, but in practice it’s impossible for it to ever happen.”

    You are actually mis-stating Wilson’s position there.

    Wilson holds that a husband has authority for and is responsible for his wife and children, and I think most Christians through most of history have agreed with that.

    A husband has disciplinary power over his own family. An elder/pastor/priest has disciplinary power over his own church, within limits.

    A king or president has authority only over members of his own country. A police officer has authority only in his own precinct. It goes on and on.

    Nobody has every taught that all men have authority over all women. Authority is always limited.

    The problem with Wilson and Bayly is that they do not admit that:

    1. The state has confiscated the authority of father/husband. If a man “disciplines his wife” by taking away her credit cards or doing anything she doesn’t like, the divorce courts will reward her with bonus cash and prizes for it.

    2. The church doesn’t back fathers up. Wilson wrote a piece last year justifying a woman leaving her husband. Dalrock commented on it.

    So both Bayly and Wilson tend to ascribe responsibility to husbands/fathers while denying them any authority in practice. That, as best I understand it, is Dalrock’s primary criticism of both.

  39. Warthog says:

    I’ve seen some criticism of Numbers 30, the passage about how a father/husband can nullify his wife/daughter’s vow. The head-covering passage in the NT repeats the same idea.

    In the ancient world, vows were taken extremely seriously. This gave women a loophole to disobey their husbands. “Sorry honey, I took a vow to do (or not do) X.”

    I’m pretty sure God put Numbers 30 in the Bible to close the vow loophole. It basically says that when a woman’s family head hears of her vow, he has 24 hours to annul it. If he says nothing it stands and you are stuck with it. It doesn’t apply to divorced women or widows, who have no husband.

    In the New Covenant, 1 Corinthians 11 deals with a similar loophole. In the 40 year era between the Crucifixion and the destruction of the Temple (the last days), you had a lot of women with spiritual gifts. They could pray to God, and in some cases prophesy from God. This situation leads to a similar loophole that vows offer. 1 Corinthians 11 is telling women that they have to wear the sign of her husband’s spiritual authority on their head in order to pray to God, or prophesy from God, because God doesn’t want them getting the idea that they jumped the chain of command by talking directly with Him.

    Numbers 30 is why up until the 1970s, a salesman selling something on credit or installments, would insist on getting the husband’s signature on the sales contract. He might talk the wife into signing, but the husband could annul it. I think this was actually a good thing.

    Women have moral agency for their own actions. But within the context of a family, a woman should not be able to commit her self to future performance without her father or husband’s consent. Because, as we’ve seen, it’s the father or husband that ends up being responsible for paying off that debt she just signed up for.

  40. Eidolon says:

    @Warthog

    I wasn’t talking about Wilson. I was talking about Bayly and the Warhorners’ position. Recently Bayly was involved in the following exchange:

    Nereus:
    But the “use of women as military combatants” does not deal with the question of women who volunteered to become military combatants, and sued to be given access to all combat arms branches of the military. Who is at fault there, Mr. Bayly?

    Bayly:
    Good question. The entire way up the line from enlistment to basic to deployment, this woman you say “volunteered” is under the authority of man and men. She has a pastor, elders, husband, father, brother, commander in chief, DOD staff, enlistment officer, basic training instructor, and on it goes–every last one of whom has, whether passively or actively, approved her wearing the uniform of a man and violating God’s Order of Creation. Every last one of those men sinned against that woman and against God.

    Now in what way does that statement leave the woman guiltless? If each of these men sinned by allowing this woman to volunteer, she sinned also. The action was not just sin on the part of the compliant and complicit men, but also on the part of the woman herself. How or where does assigning the major blame to man deny woman’s moral agency?

    This is the disconnect with the men who inhabit the manosphere. As it is inherent to the nature of woman to help, it is inherent to the nature of man to lead. If a woman helps sinfully, it is her pastor, elders, husband, father, brother, commander in chief, DOD staff, enlistment officer, and basic training instructor’s duty to stop her. Every one of them sinned against her by not telling her “no” and stopping her.

    I don’t think I’m misstating his position. If there’s any man anywhere who was supposedly responsible for her, and there always is, then it was really his fault — he gets the “major blame.” He sinned against her by not stopping her.

    If that’s true, then the man she’s under the closest authority of should really be the one to discipline her. She’s in the same position as a child, and like a child, should be disciplined by her nearest approximation of a male guardian, not by others. At most they would just point out the problem to him so he can deal with it. Bayly himself will never be the closest, so really it’s always some other guy’s fault.

    Of course he also said he was proud of a woman in his congregation serving in the military, so apparently he’s proud of his own sin against her and against God. Not really the kind of pastor I’d want to listen to.

  41. Warthog says:

    @Eidolon. I agree that Bayly’s explanation is unintelligible.

    In the law today, a father could stop his 17 year old daughter from enlisting. But once she turns 18 he has no authority in the law to prevent her or annul her decision if she signs that paper.

    Now, maybe the father/husband could ask the church to excommunicate his daughter or wife who signed such a paper against his instruction. However, thanks to Bayly’s PCA resolution, sorry, the PCA will not discipline women who volunteer for the military.

    Reality is that no father or husband has any authority recognized by church or state to stop his daughter from enlisting.

  42. Sharkly says:

    Nathan – You know, I have a dad who I trusted and looked to to hold my parents marriage together. That dad’s name is not my earthly father actually. It’s pastor Tim Bayly. He was my parents counselor, through many many many, I want to say 20 years, he counseled them.

    So apparently after 20 years of Tim Bayly’s preaching and marriage counselling, Nathan’s parents decided to get divorced, and He then talks about Dalrock having bad fruit, and thinks the guy who preached home-wrecking federal headship until it bore the fruit of divorce, is a father to him.

    I had to decide, I love this man. This man bled for me, this man pleaded with my parents.

    Sorry about your parents, Nathan, but Bayly was preaching his own kooky federal headship nonsense. If he had been unashamed of God’s word and used the full authority of the church to enforce Biblical behavior upon both of your parents, There is a good chance they might not have separated. Unfortunately you’re like a sucker who doesn’t want to admit he fell for a scam, and is still sending money to the guy in Nigeria, hoping to God, he hasn’t been lied to and that the guy is “legit”.

  43. Sharkly says:

    1. The women in churches in the heartland are not like that.
    I live in the heart of the heartland, the buckle of the Bible belt, and although it may not be as bad as the coasts here, It is only a few years behind culturally, thanks to the churches being run by a homogenous professional non-working class of metrosexuals trained in soy-menarys.

    3. Why did they marry feminist wives?
    Dude! You told us to man up and marry theses whores.
    And you preach Feminism.

    4. Maybe most of them are losers who can’t get chicks like us?
    LOL Sounds like projection. That’s not my issue. I’m actually trying to get my local churchian folk to help me rescue my failing marriage from divorce, and they don’t want any part of asking my wife to stop the divorce. I don’t doubt I could trade up to a newer whore, in a heartbeat, even in their churches, but to not blaspheme the gospel, I’d like them to try to help me to get my existing wife to keep at home.(Titus 2:4-5)
    Also, for many, it isn’t that they can’t get chicks. Unlike women thrown off the cock carousel, the ride many of us men have gone on, isn’t something we want to get back on. I got ruined my first time on the marry-ho-round. Why would I want to ride it again?

  44. Luke says:

    OT but interesting, e.g., This Won’t End Well Department:

    https://www.thepeoplesledger.com/professor-says-she-plays-chicken-with-men-while-walking-to-empower-women/

    (It’s a Brit twat, so her odds of eventually encountering a muzzie who’ll just knock her off the sidewalk into the gutter, and either walk on ignoring her or foully curse her, are fairly high.)

  45. Lexet Blog says:

    My experience in the PCA involved the conservatives on this issue, and others, being asked to leave and being threatened with discipline.

    The congregation split.

    It’s a dying denomination more concerned about adherence to its BCO (wcf) than applying scripture.

    The typical PCA report has minimal scriptural support.

  46. Nereus says:

    There is writing in leadership theory about the five bases of power: expertise, relational, positional, reward, and coercive.

    Expertise is being recognized by those around you as someone who knows what he’s talking about. Relational is the ability to form positive relationships and call upon them when needed. These two combined you take with you anywhere and are considered charismatic leadership.

    The other three are based on the job or position. Positional is the “because I’m the boss” fact. Reward is the ability to give rewards to followers, and coercive is the ability to give negative consequences.

    The huge problem I’ve seen in military, corporate workplaces, and in this churchian writing is that someone is given a leadership position but reward and coercion are taken away and they have no ability to enact real positive or negative consequences. Unless the person has charismatic leadership (and game seems a version) then they are left with a toothless position saying “do it because I say so” and they get ignored because everyone knows they can’t actually do anything about rebellion.

  47. Bee says:

    Warthog,

    “Men respond to arguments by debating them and answering them, not circling the wagons and declaring that you have criticized our pastor so you must be evil.”

    You have done a good job of revealing the root of the disagreements by Nathan, Tim, and their boys. They conflate constructive criticism from Dalrock as being “attacks”.

  48. Lost Patrol says:

    “the only reason we have Duluth institutionalized is because men permitted it to be institutionalized — either directly by institutionalizing it themselves, or indirectly by permitting women to do so — so men are ultimately responsible for Duluth”.

    It really is an all purpose, bullet proof model. Change Duluth to fill-in-the-blank, and you are ready for every contingency.

  49. Lost Patrol says:

    It should be noted that Pastor Bayly’s church, which in this photo appears to be exactly what one would expect, also shows in this photo at least half a dozen women wearing head coverings, and only one woman plainly visible with the traditional church lady short haircut; and even she may be wearing a dress rather than the de rigueur skin tight jeans sported at most evangelical venues.

    http://clearnotebloomington.com/worship/services

    This might be an interesting church to visit given all that has transpired, to get a real feel for the vibe there regarding intersexual dynamics on the ground. Anyone near enough to hazard a recon?

  50. Lost Patrol says:

    Clearnote church.

    There are 8 pastors, all married, no reference to co-pastrix type wives or their certificate producing activities. From the captions and photos one gets the idea their women are mainly wives and mothers. Three is the least number of children noted and it goes up from there.

    http://clearnotebloomington.com/our-church/pastors

  51. George Tasker says:

    @Novaseeker – Regarding Genesis 3 what these folks need to do is study Genesis 2 and if they were to understand the implications of that chapter they would understand that the woman came under the authority of the man the moment he laid eyes upon her.

  52. Wraithburn says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    I live in Southern Indiana. Bloomington is a college town, as is Moscow Idaho. It’s rather interesting that both Bayly and Wilson set up shop near centers of hypergamy, and then work very, very hard to blame men for women’s sins.

    Given the behaviors and the facts we’ve discussed here about Wilson and his sordid history of covering for abusers in his church, the recent reveals about the Baptist church abuse problem, and Nathan’s personal divorce experience with Bayly, I vote for projection. These men know that men are bad because they are in it up to their necks in some capacity.

    Same as the Hollywood elite, just not quite the same levels of depravity.

  53. Wraithburn says:

    @Scott

    Women in the heartland churches are totally like that. These men pretend not to see it because they are getting the sweet end of the deal. If you’re one of the unwashed masses of men who still attend the church, you’re likely invisible.

  54. Wraithburn says:

    @Nereus

    That sounds very similar to Machiavelli’s admonishments to the Prince. A leader has to be able to enact consequences, and has to have the will to follow through, or his subordinates grow to despise him, mock him, ignore him, and ultimately destroy him.

  55. @Wraithburn I’ve worked in Hollywood for decades.

    Rather than being MEN by getting to Hollywood and being some of the few Christians

    that have had success in Hollywood

    by outworking everyone else

    (the industry believes that Christians are the laziest people on earth)

    As you know,

    lukewarm is worse.

    Revelation 3:15-17 King James Version (KJV)

    15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

    16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
    The lukewarm false prophets are spreading dogma

    that is deceiving men into taking away from The Kingdom of God

    instead of advancing The Kingdom of God.

    Whatever church(es) are involved have the resources to fund “Warhorn Media”

    which attacks TRUE Christians that actually do God’s Purposes!

    With that kind of funding, think of the documentary films that could be made

    for The Kingdom of God!

  56. Warthig says:

    @wraithburn wrote, ”Given the behaviors and the facts we’ve discussed here about Wilson and his sordid history of covering for abusers in his church…”

    Wilson has his errors and problems, but that isn’t one of them. There are two cases the feminists browbeat him with. But the one involving a woman is a classic case of woman in lust feels bad afterwards and decides she must have been raped. I think Wilson handled both cases reasonably well, though I would have urged the judge to execute the child molester… In neither case was there any kind of coverup.

  57. seventiesjason says:

    Rollo is a Christian now? Wow. I would have never guessed

  58. Wraithburn says:

    @Sambotta

    Sign of the times, every kind of flavor of false prophet you could possibly want. Just don’t let the unvarnished truth join the smorgasbord.

  59. cnystrom62 says:

    It reads like they were really unclear to themselves what they were trying to do. Were they trying to:

    1. Explain and expose the manosphere in general.

    2. Expose Dalrock and his work in particular.

    3. Defend their pastor.

    They would have been much better off picking one of the above. No wonder their podcast is a mess.

  60. cnystrom62 says:

    ” that that’s like what Dalrock’s whole life mission is, to it’s it’s like to, it’s related to this anyway, it’s to tell all the Christian men on the internet that hey, that no one will tell women no. And we’re like, hey, one of our churches purposes is teach men [laughter] to tell women no, and he’s like: Stop it. You’re reducing women’s moral agency. It’s like: dude, like, are you blind?”

    It is odd that they are so strongly opposed to Dalrock, while at the same time claiming to be on the same mission.

  61. Jake says:

    Ugh.

    I submit no man with an earthly father loved a whore more than hosea did gomer. i believe this story blows their extra biblical notion of federal headship out of the water. He was a prophet of god who loved his wife who ran around on him. Did his sin cause it? No. Her sin alone. The submission is always voluntary. Even in ot times it is shown to be voluntary.

    For the Presbyterian cucks in America to deny sanction to women in rebellion is further compounding that no one will stand up to women. Not our government, our church, and many of their husbands.

    Ha look at us our women wear head coverings. They are apparently the worst of pharisees. Congrats?

    You hold audience over truth, baylyly & co. The documents you signed confirms this. You hold position over truth. That you didn’t resign confirms this. Enjoy your treasures you are building up. They only last as long as you do.

    Usually there’s some discussion down here. These guys put up such a weak showing not even Jason is here wringing his hands.

    Pca delenda est

  62. Jack Russell says:

    Warhorn is one of many examples of the Church following the world and not doctrine. Lyndon Johnson ( one of the worst Presidents ever) brought in the 501C3. Many religious groups then put their money before morals and were afraid to criticise governments, feminism, and abortion to name a few, lest they lose their tax exempt status. Churches were tax exempt before.

  63. @seventiesjason

    Rollo is a Christian.

    He does not use Christian-ese in his writing.

    If he did, he would turn away the majority of his audience.

    I believe that God has drawn millions of men to Himself by leading them

    in their deep despair,

    to “THE RATIONAL MALE” blog, books, Kindle books and audiobooks.

    In Hollywood, in the early days,

    I lived out of my car and showered at the gym.

    I voice acted for free knowing I’m not the most talented,

    but I’ve always been obsessed with mastery of skills in my work.

    “You might be more talented than me, but no one will outwork me.”

    As a Christian that’s known that the industry

    understandably sees Christians as the laziest people on earth.

    Say what you want about the beliefs

    of those that actually control Hollywood.

    Most of them, you’d be surprised, aren’t famous

    (though their decisions affect the course of human events across the whole earth).

    I learned other skills, too, that had nothing to do with voice acting,

    but are valuable to the actual people that have the most influence over decisions made

    that affect whether the most popular Hollywood content

    is going to advance the darkness or the Light.

    By doing work for free for those influencers

    and always being someone they could trust never to reveal their private information

    wonderful things happened,

    and I was the only Jesus follower

    with the level of success I had as a voice actor.

    It’s what Jesus would do as it’s what Jesus did: Mark 2:13-17

    Let me elaborate a little more on this,

    as I understand Biblically why he Rollo Tomassi writes as he does,

    and I’m trying to explain this via my own experiences.

    God gave me a dream when I was a small child, and that’s why I’ve worked in Hollywood for decades.

    But why, Sam, would God have you work there?

    “Sam, I’m praying for you because I know you’re going to hell because you’re successful in Hollywood”

    But the success I had using pseudonyms (advanced and continues to advance) the Coming of and the Purposes of The Kingdom of God. While I was doing work they assumed I’d be going to hell for, those that told me I’m going to hell for having success in Hollywood… they themselves had WASTED their best years going against God not utilizing the talents and gifts they’ve been given by God to do the clear purposes God gave them, but they had no faith, and today they continue to live in fear of what I call Ask. Seek. Knock – they only Ask, but they don’t take action based on Faith! They pray, but they do not do, therefore, it is they that should be concerned of what God will say to them when time, for them, comes to an end.

    After dying and seeing the most vivid wonders words cannot express, I know my new purposes and the reasons I was brought back to this life and so much more including that I have to use my real name in my work from now on even though I’ve intentionally avoided fame – which was easy to do as a voice actor that refused all on camera work.

    And further…

    Again, after I died from the hit and run accident,

    the rampant evil agenda have exponentially sped up years later

    as the work that I and those I’d hired did ran its course.

    Once the last of all of that popular content aired,

    played, sold etc,

    the darkness that my work stopped from advancing,

    was unleashed and became popular

    which is why you see such depravity suddenly taking over.

    It’s because the true Christians chose to go against God

    by not following God’s purposes for them,

    so they remained Hollywood’s best and most easily influenced consumers

    as they worked mundane jobs far from Hollywood that, ultimately,

    continue to be a waste of the life and time God continues to gift them with

    here on earth.

    Much of the work that I did using pseudonyms

    continues to be The Light

    still affecting large swaths of the population

    toward The Kingdom of God

    including all of my years of building and consulting

    Contemporary Christian radio stations and networks

    including K-Love, WAY-FM, The Fish and Air1 and others

    which used to sound ridiculously amateur

    now still do what I and my teams put in place

    and K-Love recently (finally) did what I’ve demanded for decades

    …replaced David Pierce as station I.D. voice with

    my close friend and mentor Charlie Van Dyke

    as their official station I.D. voice everywhere

    which was a decision they were able to make thanks to the exponential increase in donations

    during this decade

    since they did as I demanded which was to fire Jon Rivers as host of its morning show.

    Mark 2:13-17 King James Version (KJV)

    13 And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them.

    14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

    15 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

    16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

    17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

    So again, those verses relate back to Rollo Tomassi, a Christian:

    Rollo has stated on his Red Pill 101 on his YouTube channel that he’d originally thought

    when he was starting his blog

    that he’d write posts similar to what Dalrock writes,

    but he realized that Dalrock is doing the best job at writing for the “Christo manosphere”

    …and let me ask you this:

    As you know, Rollo Tomassi owns brands in the liquor industry including high end brands of whisky.

    Is he evil for owning high end brands of alcohol that people consume?

    Here’s the answer:

    Would you rather a true Jesus follower own the brands,

    or would you rather someone that’s not a believer own the brands?

    His owning the brands makes for safer products,

    and his ownership of those brands has given Rollo Tomassi the time freedom to write

    what’s kept thousands of men from killing themselves

    and will, over time, bring millions of people to God

    who, in their Faith and gratitude,

    will advance the purposes of and coming of The Kingdom of God.

  64. Did Warhorn convince Dalrock to be interviewed

    via his PRIVATE email address

    which DALROCK has not made public

    in order to DOX Dalrock?

    @DALROCK, if I were in your shoes,

    I would have already reported Warhorn Media and the church entities that fund them

    To the FBI

  65. Dal, just so you know, these Warhorn guys are moral-fag hacks stabbin’ you in the back:

  66. Patrick says:

    They flagged and removed this comment of mine as abusive: “Are you guys going to discuss the manosphere at some point?” But then Bayly responded to it directly. Nothing they do makes any sense.

    I honestly would like to see them do better though because I find the subject matter interesting. Since they read the comments here here’s a suggestion: watch Vox Day’s Voxiversity videos on the Sociosexual hierarchy and examine that thru your Reformed lens. That’s a better approach to the manosphere than trying cat fight with a superior thinker aka Dalrock: m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-_QyhYfReQ

  67. Nereus says:

    @Wraithburn
    Machievelli’s advice would be excellent advice if Nietzche’s worldview were true instead of the Bible. As it is, there are many astute observations about the material world, just as game can make many correct observations detached from a biblical worldview.

    I have seen junior enlisted straight up tell senior enlisted and officers “no, I won’t follow that order because it’s too much work.” I have seen cubicle workers drop their manager’s requests in the trash can as soon as he walks away. In both cases, they knew the top dog had removed the immediate supervisor’s abilities to offer rewards or consequences, and the immediate superior was left only with the ability to plead and beg and insist that you must because he’s in charge. If you refused he could start paperwork and documentation that might have consequences a year or two down the road.

  68. Wraithburn says:

    @Nereus

    Yep, I find it funny how many people who haven’t read Machiavelli don’t realize much of his work is descriptive about the world, and not a theology. I view it as tactics, like with rhetoric or game, that a Christian should be familiar with and use as they see appropriate based upon their foundation.

    Going beyond that point is rather similar to what Darwin did with natural selection. It becomes a religion and a poor one at that.

  69. It’s time to put up billboard signs about Warhorn Media in the cities where their little pastors are so famous

  70. @DALROCK As you know I’m not using a pseudonym here, and I’m no longer using pseudonyms in my work since I was killed by the hit and run driver.

    Ben – We wanted to do an episode on the manosphere, and we wanted the help of someone in the manosphere that we thought could give us clear definitions and would be worth quoting, and worth in some measure I suppose referring people to.

    Nathan – Or engaging with at the very least.

    Ben – Engaging with as an authority on certain definitions and questions.

    Rather than an (interview via) email exchange,

    they want to do an audio (video?) interview with that:

    is a true Christian

    is in this space

    is not using a pseudonym

    is an authority on certain definitions and questions

    will give them clear definitions

    is worth quoting

    is worth referring people to…

    I’m happy to be interviewed by these ridiculous, embarrassing wimp bags. I look forward to calling them out on the clear lies they’ve told about you Dalrock. It’ll be fun to hear them trying to explain away their attempts to defend pseudo-christian pastors and authors that mislead men in their hatred of (and fear of) masculinity in men.

    Yeah, what we were going to be able to do with that hopefully would be to have a couple of audio clips for you guys of someone in the manosphere saying this is what it is, this is what red pill is, this is what mgtow is, this is who I am, this is what I’m concerned about, this is why I do what I do, and then be able to go with that, build off of that, into explaining to you something of this world…This won’t be “gotcha journalism.” Actually, in that spirit, I’ll warn you about the potential “gotchas” right now: I would like to press you a bit on the misogynists that work like yours seems to attract.

    I’ll debate any pseudo “Christian” that supports the extermination of masculinity in men.

    Even (non-believer) agnostic Sean Penn says that groups (with views like Warhorn media and the pastors they support) exist to divide men and women… and I’m very suspicious of a movement that gets glommed on to in great stridency and rage and without nuance. And even when people try to discuss it in a nuanced way, the nuance itself is attacked.

    Does Warhorn media believe that hating masculinity in men will make them attractive to women?

    They’d be better served to learn to become MEN from believer IVAN THRONE and interview IVAN THRONE.

    They should learn to take care of their health from believer JAY CAMPBELL.

    They should learn how to keep their wives attracted to them from MEN they’ve falsely accused like Rollo Tomassi and Dalrock.

    Instead of living under the dogma of false prophets, they’d be better served to learn from The actual Word of God rather than the out of context parts their little pastors use to destroy masculine men and healthy marriage.

    Finally, they must gain skills and knowledge from my buddy Tom Bilyeu and those he interviews which most Christians should utilize to more effectively do the work in the purposes of The Kingdom of God.

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Nereus @Wraithburn

    The difference between “descriptive” and “proscriptive” is obvious to a thinking person.
    “Your house is on fire” is not at all the same as “Your house should be on fire”.
    Emotionally-driven persons often have a real problem seeing this difference, though, because an accurate description makes them have bad feelz just as if a command of let it be so had been issued.

    Emotional, romantic [1] men take AWALT very personally because they prefer pretty lies to reality.

    [1] “Men are the true romantics” — Rollo Tomassi – who is still not a PUA.

  72. Yer says:

    I’m amused by the repeated use of the term “dense” to describe the first podcast. They spent a bizarre amount of time complaining about anonymity, and then spent the rest of the episode arguing Dalrock makes false distinctions between his theology and their pastor’s. Not exactly dense–try “long-winded.”

  73. Joe2 says:

    I couldn’t finish the transcript; it was just too tedious to read. From what I read, I was left with the impression they are very immature, sophomoric and even seem effeminate. Do they really know what BDSM is even though they said, “they promote BDSM and all kinds of stuff like that?” I doubt it.

  74. Mr. XLoveli at foetos.wordpress.com says:

    @joe2

    Yes, they sounded like the intellectual content of what they were talking about sailed over their heads at times, as if a frisbee of ideas just went skimming over their scalps, giving them a haircut.

    *X steeples fingers*

    In the long history of the church, there has been great drama. Indeed, you might say drama MADE the church.

    There are traceries of activity going back to the early days. In a way, this transcript we’re reading above is an attempt to reiterate some ideas that were chewed over by earlier theologians. The key point is that THE MEN HERE ARE TOO OVER-CIVILIZED TO GET TO THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF ORIGINAL THINKING.

  75. Bee says:

    Lost Patrol,

    “also shows in this photo at least half a dozen women wearing head coverings,”

    That is more women wearing head coverings than in most churches in North America.

    I am thinking of changing my attendance to a church that encourages the women to wear head coverings.

    Tim Bayly and his wife have 5 children. That is commendable for church growth.

    Tim and Doug Wilson have their large blind spots, but they are still better than most Christian leaders.

  76. seventiesjason says:

    Most of you still seemed very surprised by this media group, the pastors, the commentators…….what were you expecting? Really. Them to “convert to DalrocK”? I mean, even if they did….most of you here would still be smarting about how it’s “too little too late” or “they don’t mean it”

    Talk about cultural marxism

    I’m no fan of these men…..but really….for a crew that is intelligent as you all make yourselves to be….and more than a few of you actually are…….what were you expecting?

    How about all you guys take this “fight” into your own churches and challenge the board, the deacons, or the doctrines of what your church is not standing by….and rewarding what they are standing by?

    I just cannot believe everyone of you goes to some deep masculine church that thinks and believes like it is purported here on Dalrock and otehr blogs…..where men are men and women keep silent, and you are challenged to think, ponder and fellowship within the church framework with other men. I don’t know about icons, Mary and Liturgical texts make a man either in a Christian framework….or bold….or “standing up”

    I wish I had an answer…but I am not a leader. 99% of you in here supposedly are. I see a lot of calling out, and littel inspiration for a man like me.

    I’ve been in churches while traveling through the South…….didn’t see one like this. California? Heck, the Salvation Army is one of the more ‘conservative’ or traditional ones in doctrine and the nonsense that goes on there caused me to take off my uniform and when they are ready to slog in the trenches like they did in Victorian London, I’m ready to don it with purpose, love and exceptionality.

    I don’t know……….great…challnege a two-bit Christian media / publication company……..take the charge into your own churches, or leave. Again, this is looks to me as a “see how masculine we are” and we’re calling out Christians……but in your churches? Where is the reform? The change?

  77. LiveFearless says:

    @Joe2 Listen to the podcasts so that you can hear the sickening tone of their angry, jealous, little voices. Then use the link to share with iTunes how these pseudo christian SJWs lied to Dalrock to get his personal contact information. https://buy.itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZFinance.woa/wa/reportPodcast?id=1270775226

  78. Prompt Critical says:

    Bee,

    “Tim and Doug Wilson have their large blind spots, but they are still better than most Christian leaders.”

    Any idea that is simultaneously both true (or at least more descriptive of reality than the established orthodoxy) and controversial will attract gatekeepers to sit on the fringes of that idea, nominally advocating it while turning people away.

  79. LiveFearless says:

    Nathan – It’s interesting to contemplate the idea of, he hasn’t listened to our podcasts.

    -Mmmhmm

    Nathan – If somebody published something like that about me, and then sent me an email like I sent him, saying this is brutal, and you need to repent, and we talked about how you need to repent, I think I’d want to listen to the podcast. What kind of a man doesn’t listen to that podcast?

    NO

    What kind of MAN would listen to this podcast? I had to take a testosterone injection early after listening to these whiny high-estrogen, self castrated effete, out of shape weaklings that are seething with envy for Dalrock and actual MEN!

    Tell iTunes here https://buy.itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZFinance.woa/wa/reportPodcast?id=1270775226 about the bitter, vicious, solipsistic effete weaklings that “host” this “podcast” that believe that demonizing the male gender is somehow going to every make a woman feel arousal toward any of them (this will NEVER happen unless they change)

  80. Spike says:

    I’m not inclined to write a book in my life, but were I to do so, it would be along the lines of Jordan Peterson’s ”Twelve Rules For Life”, and in this case, for a Christian audience.

    Since Jesus said, ”Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’, ‘No ‘ ” – in other words, a command to speak plainly, my first chapter would be entitled ”DON’T WRING YOUR HANDS” – an indictment against Christian men, very often clergy – who cannot bring themselves to speak plainly on a subject. Instead, they wring their hands and bloviate at length about the subject. I’m not talking difficult matters here: illegal wars, same-sex marriage and abortion-on-demand.

    The men Pastor Bayly’s Clearnote Church seem to be of that same ilk. Talking in circles. Unable to take a stand. And they are unable to take a stand for a very good reason: they have not grasped Jesus’ words about loving something or someone more than Him makes you unworthy of Him (Matt 16: 25).
    When you take Jesus’ words and apply yourself to them, you become transformed and unafraid. If they talk in circles, they haven’t done that.

  81. @seventiesjason

    This attack was initiated by Warhorn Media!

    Dalrock trusted that they were sincere, and he even promoted their podcast because of the interview. When the false church attacks, they are going to experience more attention than they want. It would be wise for these effete weaklings to apologize to Dalrock and his readers NOW.

    They seem to think that the truth will not be exposed on a much larger scale that the large audience they believe they have.

    There’s no change in the local megachurches as they are dangerous places for masculine men.

    Jesus called the “churches” like most churches are today “money changers”

    There are a few pastors remaining that aren’t taking a salary like Dean Odle.

    He remodels kitchens and bathrooms, but his calling is teaching the actual Word, ALL of it.

    I knew him when we were kids, and he was not a good person.

    When he was offered a contract to be an A-list actor, Jesus appeared before him, and he’s been a pastor since then. I’ve never seen such a transformation as his.

    His is the kind of church the Bible talks about.

    There’s no changing these 501c3 MONEY CHANGER “churches” as they’re controlled by the government!

  82. @Spike, you’re a man that reads Dalrock, therefore Jordan Peterson hates you.

  83. MEN, stop reading Jordan B. Peterson.

    Notice how his voice is oddly similar to the lukewarm SJW “hosts” of Warhorn Media “Sounds of Sanity”

    Any man listening to Jordan B. Peterson is filled with self hatred.

    Read IVAN THRONE instead.

  84. Sharkly says:

    take the charge into your own churches, or leave.
    You’d be wrong to assume I haven’t already done both. I have shared stories of some of my many encounters. I am attempting to badger the hell out of my wife’s church, and am ready for another round after giving them time, and hearing and seeing no results from them. And it literally is my wife’s church, not Christ’s church, they follow women’s feelings above God’s commands. Many of them no longer answer my e-mails or phone calls, to their own condemnation. I make clear to them which parts of the Bible they are ashamed of, and they can’t defend themselves except to deflect and distract and to try to flip the frame and make her rebellion into a sign that I must be all wrong. I also mock them for not knowing the Bible. It makes them sore that I know the Bible better than any of their church leaders, and that isn’t because I’ve studied it a lot. It is because of how little concern they all have to ever wield God’s word. I think it is useful to point out Whorehorn Media’s errors, because most of these fools share the same false teachings and reference each other as backup for their heresy. Why, if I already contend with and condemn these sort of false teachers and their teachings privately, and in my community, would I not also condemn their deceitful teachings on the World Wide Web, as I do before the whole host of heaven?

  85. blu says:

    If I may, perhaps I can go in a slightly different direction in this discussion.

    You see, Nathan and his ilk, though extreme examples of what is happening out there, by no means have the market cornered on refusing to hold women accountable. IMO dealing with the extremes is the easy part. But what happens when its those close to you; your friends, your family, your brothers and sisters in Christ, your Pastors and church leaders, etc?

    I’ve been involved in an 8 yr custody battle. My daughter is an abusive situation; and I’ve been able to prove it as such for a very long time. False allegation after false allegation. I spent 25 days in jail, lost everything. Even my parents were attacked because I refused to back down. Even my wife and other children. Terrible things, guys. Horrible things.

    A couple of years ago, I explained the circumstances to a very wise Christian brother. One of the very few Christian men out there that lives in a traditional marriage with a submitted wife (a lovely God fearing woman, btw). He cut me off midstream and said the following words:
    “It’s your fault.”
    He was being facetious, obviously, but he knew the score. He summed up the entire issue in 3 words.

    Now fast forward to a few months ago. In desperation, I reached out to the 2 strongest Christians that I know, the 2 strongest Christians that I’ve ever met. Far better men than I am, far better men than I’ll ever likely be. Men of authority and position. I asked for help in exposing the injustices and abuse. They were sympathetic; they’ve prayed for me, but otherwise, nothing.

    Even today, my wife and I were having a conversation about it. I asked her, “if you reached out to either Pastor and said that I was abusing you, do you think they would have done something?” Of course they would have. Then my wife asked me what they could do to help my daughter and my family. I started making suggestions. One of them was to reach out to the Pastor of my daughter’s church. My wife: “Did you tell them that your daughter has a church?” Implication- that their lack of action was my fault. It was my fault for not explaining the situation well enough.

    My wife is not the issue. She has been tremendously supportive and is a believer in Jesus. Its that the enemy is so dug into this issue, it’s so pervasive and deeply imbedded in the collective psyche of our culture that it’s the natural response of 90+% of the people out there.
    IT’S YOUR FAULT.

    What is happening and what needs to happen:

    For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
    1John 5:4

    This is something that needs to be received with faith. See 1 Corinthians 3 as to what I’ve tried to do for the longest time, and it doesn’t work. I’m talking about wrangling, fighting, struggling, strife with believers that don’t or can’t see the truth. The carnal way of doing things.
    Honestly, I don’t have the answers, only God does, but I believe that the truth needs to be brought out into the light. Something that it certainly appears Dalrock is committed to.

    BTW in case anyone is wondering, God is about the do a miracle in my daughter’s life and restore her to me.

    God bless, everyone.

  86. seventiesjason says:

    Sam…..agree with you. But what of it?

    Back in the early to mid 1990’s, you could “call in” to ‘Larry King Live’ and in 1995, just after the OJ verdict he had Alan Deshowitz on. I called, and got on “live”

    Larry did his classic “Jason, from San Jose….you’re on Larry King live!”

    And I posed that Deshowitz was using the word “persona” in the wrong context in his discussion about OJ (he thought he was innocent, and agreed with the verdict). I was then put on mute, and shortly cut off (hung up on), Deshowitz glared at the screen as if speaking to me, and accused me of inert white racism, and blatatntly said that “I though OJ was guilty from day one” and went on with Larry about a lot of other nonsense about the “dictionary police” instead of the matter at hand, OJ was innocent, the case was over, and white people “get over it”

    You are forgetting how media works. They, the ones “conducting” the interview, podcast will still get the last say, their opinion or their idea as the last word. Expecting a different outcome is a little naive. They can splice and dice your comments to anyway of their thinking to make you look like an idiot, or how they are right and you are wrong.

    This wasn’t an episdoe of the classic “Firing Line” where the otehr side or opposing view could actually score point or tacit explanations of their view or why they held it.

    They lied about Darlock. Church leaders lie? Why I never! Really? ALso I will state it again, who care about this media group? Really? I never heard of this group until Dalrock made the initial announcement…and researching them………they themselves are nothing spectacular.

    I was told once by an Vietnamese Catholic woman that I was “going to hell, because I was not Catholic”

    I mentioned this offhand when speaking to my mother about it when visiting my parents back in New York. This was the late 1990’s. She herself not born again yet said “Prostitutes in Cardiff when I was a teenage girl being tarty all night with various men, and front pew and running over each other to be the first to get Communion…..all saintly and holy they was…..plenty of Catholics will be in good company I am sure when judgment comes.”

    Who cares. We know Dalrock told the truth in these mattters. We know Christ told the truth, he confronted the Teachers of the Law, stated what was true…….and continued. The Savior COULD have wasted his remaining time going back and fourth, over and over and over about what tye said, and how they lied.

    He called them vipers, stated facts and that was it.

    Look, I don’t know what world you live in…..but the very real one I live in………this incessant “they said this, look at them now…….look what they said today…………here is the newest podcast….they lied, they did this, said that”

    Male version of “the view” and if this is going to convince men for the case for Him……..I don’t know, and the folks at Warhorn media only care about numbers, ratings, hits and money…..and Dalrock is probably giving them some serious attention.

    Maybe…..maybe at this point would be to not cast any morre pearls before the swine

  87. anonymous_ng says:

    Jason, you really hit the nail on the head. I know quite a few people who patently refuse to give interviews because they have learned that they will never be shown in a good light. What they said will never be conveyed accurately.

    There is no point in engaging in any forum except one you control.

  88. Warthog says:

    @Jason The women keep silence in the church I attend. Wish they wore head coverings, but, all said, it’s a pretty good little church. For all the griping about Doug Wilson, I’ve visited several CREC churches, and a few RPCNA, and never seen a woman speaking in Sunday worship at any of them. If you want to find a conservative presbyterian church, you have to go with the micro-brews.

  89. Dalrock says:

    @Sam Botta

    Did Warhorn convince Dalrock to be interviewed

    via his PRIVATE email address

    which DALROCK has not made public

    in order to DOX Dalrock?

    @DALROCK, if I were in your shoes,

    I would have already reported Warhorn Media and the church entities that fund them

    To the FBI

    Nathan reached out to me via a comment and I emailed him. To my knowledge they haven’t published that address or otherwise doxxed me.

  90. seventiesjason says:

    thanks Wart……..I am not trying to be a “dink” here on this topic or these matters……but Dalrock IS a leader, and as he gets more popular, this is going to happen more frequently. Coming from a nobody here, and man who is NOT a leader (and most are not if you really break it down….no one here is Steve Jobs, or Henry Ford, or a Billy Graham) and the leaders I just mentioned did not waste all their time on their critics with every detail of a an interview, and what came thereafter…..and who said what, and who replied this way or that way and lied here, or inferred who meant what in which context.

  91. 7817 says:

    Another reason that we actually dealt with this stuff in the first place, that we wanted to talk about the manosphere, that we wanted to ask questions of Dalrock was what Jake?

    Jake – Well it’s just increasingly attractive to men in our church who have been hurt by their mothers, by their wives or ex wives, and who are very tempted to go down the rabbit hole into bitterness… and the kids that are affected by this sort of thing.

    The admission that they are dealing with men in their church who have turned to the manosphere is pretty interesting. I would think they would want to keep that quiet if they truly believe the manosphere is a place with no redeeming qualities, at least until they have an airtight case against it.

  92. Spike says:

    Sam Botta (@sambotta) says:
    March 10, 2019 at 5:56 pm
    @Spike, you’re a man that reads Dalrock, therefore Jordan Peterson hates you.

    Thanks for the ”Heads Up”, Sam.
    I am a man that reads Dalrock . Indeed, reading Dalrock has rebuilt my marriage after I accidentally swallowed a Red Pill one night, woke up and thought, ”Shit! The world is different”!

    I’ve read JBP’s book. What I do understand both from what I’ve read and what I’ve watched of him is that he is a Gnostic, not a Christian, as many academics are. This means he doesn’t read Scripture as a historical narrative as most evangelicals do, but rather overlays it with archetypes and presuppositions that he has learned from his studies. To date, he is unwilling (not unable – important distinction) to take the Bible at face value as he should. I therefore take him – and other ”gatekeepers of the intellectual Dark Web of Controlled Opposition” – with a grain of salt.

  93. Lost Patrol says:

    Bee

    That is more women wearing head coverings than in most churches in North America.

    I don’t know what it may mean that they have some women (but not most) wearing head coverings in that one photo, but it caught my attention because I have been to so many services both Catholic and Protestant in multiple churches in a dozen US states; and I’ve never seen it one time. Not even old ladies. I understand that it does happen but I’ve never seen it myself.

    And I have unreformed toxic masculinity that causes me to notice women everywhere I go, so I’m thinking it would have registered.

  94. seventiesjason says:

    Peterson has caused more people to be interested and to at least learn about Christianity than any church has done in the past 30 years or longer.

    Sadly, these curious are going to come to church and get turned off immediately

  95. BillyS says:

    I am reminded of the “shut up Wesley” phrase for a certain participant here that doesn’t like anything here, yet keeps coming back.

  96. Jake says:

    Sorry. Never say his name

  97. info says:

    Voxday have a book on him:

  98. Dalrock says:

    @seventiesjason

    Most of you still seemed very surprised by this media group, the pastors, the commentators…….what were you expecting? Really. Them to “convert to DalrocK”? I mean, even if they did….most of you here would still be smarting about how it’s “too little too late” or “they don’t mean it”

    I of course can’t speak for others, but I never expected to win them over. As I wrote when I announced the interview:

    I doubt the exchange will change many (if any) minds on either side, but at least it will help us better understand where we disagree.

    I also wasn’t looking for exposure. There may be a handful of their listeners who would be interested in reading the blog, but I think the overlap is very small. Moreover, from what I can tell their audience is dwarfed by mine. My blog is small in the scheme of blogging, but their podcast is tiny by comparison. I benefitted from the opportunity to take on a hostile questioner. From their response it is clear that they couldn’t anticipate the strength of my arguments. They set out to embarrass me and ended up embarrassing themselves. It didn’t have to be that way, but when faced with superior reasoning they sold out their integrity. I wish it weren’t so, but it isn’t in my power to make them different.

    I don’t regret doing the interview, although I’m not interested in doing more of the same (for hopefully obvious reasons).

  99. Dalrock says:

    Regarding women at Clearnote wearing headcovereings, I can’t see any way that reflects badly on Pastor Bayly. Criticizing him on that is like them criticizing me for being polite and courteous while disagreeing with them.

  100. Lost Patrol says:

    Regarding women at Clearnote wearing headcovereings, I can’t see any way that reflects badly on Pastor Bayly.

    Me neither. If anything the opposite. So the project to refine my communication skills continues…

  101. seventiesjason says:

    So if they embarassed themselves…..why are you concerned about lies, falsehoods or anything else they say about you Dalrock? Why the exchanges all transcribed here to “prove” you didn’t lie? We know you didn’t. Is if for any of their listeners who may come here?

  102. Dalrock says:

    Seventiesjason, they lied about me, acting as if they could control the narrative. But my platform is far bigger than theirs. Either way, of course I’m going to use my own platform to set the record straight. If you aren’t sufficiently entertained for a post or two, suck it up and read something else. I created this particular post because a reader did an incredible amount of work, and while they are afraid of their audience seeing my arguments, I’m quite happy to have mine see theirs. It only makes sense. If you don’t appreciate the work of others, why bitch about it?

    I have a couple of simple posts I’ll roll out starting tomorrow, and this is my (planned) final post on the topic. And a year from now when someone goes to understand what happened, the record will be there.

  103. Scott says:

    Dalrock-

    I won’t say that this hasn’t been entertaining, nor that I have even grown weary of it. However, the impact it has had on me has only served to confirm where I have been going with my thoughts for a while now. I believe that the Christian worldview is receding from the earth and will probably not be established as the dominant perspective until Christ returns to claim what is His.

    The collosal amount of subjectivity that passes for Christian thought in the absence of a heuristic based in authoirty makes “Christians” look like idiots of a completely disorganized type to the powers of this world.

    Psychiatrist Scott Peck, in his book “People of the Lie” discussed how trendy treatment modalities that have come and gone in the mental health world always seem to be most popular based not on the scientific evidence that undergirds their philosophy and claims, but rather on the charisma of the individual who creates it.

    Aaron Beck, BF Skinner, Carl Rogers, you name it–they all were able to convince people of the thing they were selling by sheer strength of personality.

    Likewise, in Americas hodge poge of denominations and personalities, it’s the same thing. Max Lucado, John McCarthur, whomever. And people stand behind these individuals and they all say the same thing.

    “He tells it like it is!”
    “He’s a straight shooter!”

    Whatever.

    Like I said, Christ will straighten all this out when he is ready. Not a minute sooner, I suppose.

  104. Scott says:

    The reason people do this is because they want a fire and forget theological guidance system.

    For all the crap we Orthodox get for “following the traditions of men” every die hard follower of these guys is doing the exact same thing, and claiming to be thinking for themselves.

  105. Dalrock says:

    The reader notified me that a section was missing.  This was due to my error, not his.  I’ve added the missing section along with notes indicating where it was added back.  Search for “previously missing section” to see the segment.

  106. Anonymous Reader says:

    Thanks to both Dalrock and the reader for all the work involved in this.

  107. feeriker says:

    trained in soy-menarys

    DAYUM! That’s a keeper. 😂😂😂😂😂

  108. scrutinising says:

    Puritan Thomas Manton, one of the Westminster Divines, on his anonymous Smetcymnuus:

    “This work, which the stationer hath now revived (that it may not be forgotten, and, like a jewel, after once showing, shut in the cabinet of private studies only), was penned by several worthy divines of great note and fame in the churches of Christ, under the borrowed and covered name of Smectymnuus, which was some matter of scorn and exception to the adversaries; as the Papists objected to Calvin, his printing his Institutions under the name of Alcunius, and to Bucer his naming himself Aretius Felinus, though all this without ground and reason, the affixion of the name to any work being a thing indifferent, for there we must not consider so much the author as the matter, and not who said it, but what; and the assumption of another name not being infamous, but where it is done out of deceit, and to another’s prejudice, or out of shame because of guilt, or fear to own the truths which they should establish. I suppose the reverend authors were willing to lie hid under this onomastic, partly that their work might not be received with prejudice, the faction against which they dealt arrogating to themselves a monopoly of learning, and condemning all others as ignorants and novices not worthy to be heard; and partly that they might not burthen their frontispiece with a voluminous nomenclature, it not being usual to affix so many names at length to one treatise.”

    Manton, T. (1871). The Complete Works of Thomas Manton (Vol. 5, pp. 502–503). London: James Nisbet & Co.

  109. Charles says:

    “What’s the point of the reference to Numbers? So the Hebrews/Israelites were told to organize in such a way that a father could invalidate a daughter’s vow. They also weren’t supposed to have multiple types of cloth in one garment, and had capital punishment for blasphemy.

    Numbers doesn’t express God’s commands for our society, except where specifically noted.”

    All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

    All Scripture means all Scripture. To think that Numbers doesn’t have relevance to male-female relationships is just to treat the OT as an interesting interlude before Jesus. But everything in the NT was contained in the OT, and they are one harmonious whole.

    We can disagree about how something from the OT ought to be applied or understood. But it all is useful for teaching, instructing, rebuking, not just then, but now.

  110. Charles B says:

    @LiveFearless,

    Man, that bit about being amazed tha Dal doesn’t care enough to listen to them is hilarious and telling. No, I’m not interested in listening to the half-baked ideas of people who can’t or won’t honestly represent the opposing view either. Shocking to their odd minds.

  111. BillyS says:

    The reason people do this is because they want a fire and forget theological guidance system.

    For all the crap we Orthodox get for “following the traditions of men” every die hard follower of these guys is doing the exact same thing, and claiming to be thinking for themselves.

    You are unfortunately far too correct Scott. Few in the “Sola Scriptura” camp really want to find out what the Scriptura says, especially if it contradicts their current beliefs.

  112. AnonS says:

    This was the most telling segment. Growing up the main rule was “don’t make momma angry”, and they bring this into adulthood.

    Nathan – You know, I have a dad who I trusted and looked to to hold my parents marriage together. That dad’s name is not my earthly father actually. It’s pastor Tim Bayly. He was my parents counselor, through many many many, I want to say 20 years, he counseled them. The hilarious irony of all this, Dalrock accusing Bayly, as he calls him, of not holding women to account… where Pastor Bayly happened to make a mistake in that counseling, I don’t think he’d mind me saying this… There was a day where Pastor Bayly came up to me in the parking lot. This was after my parents were divorced. I think I was about 20, and I was sitting in the church parking lot. Tim comes running out, and he says, Nathan, I hear that you’re angry with me. And he said you’re angry because I failed your parents. I said, yeah. And he said, I’m sorry. I made a mistake I misread the situation. I didn’t get it. I’m sorry.
    Now how did Tim misread the situation? He blamed my mom, actually. He put a lot of the blame on her.
    So anyway all of that to say not that Tim failed, but that Tim tried. He was there for me and at a certain point I had a choice to be bitter about the ways that he’d failed and the ways that the system had failed me and the ways that my earthly father and my earthly mother had failed me. It all sort of snowballed into me being angry at Tim. And I had to decide to let that go. I had to decide, I love this man. This man bled for me, this man pleaded with my parents. This man exhorted, rebuked, with tears, with literal tears. He was there for me. He was a father to me. He is a father to me. And I may not be bitter.

    Are men responsible?
    -Yes, because of federal headship.
    Is federal headship true?
    -Yes, because men are always responsible.

    This law avoids placing responsibility on women, should we change the law?
    -No, its not worth talking about; men are the ones that are really responsible anyways.

    Do women sin?
    -Yes.
    Are women moral agents?
    -Yes.
    So women are responsible?
    -Well…… responsibly is a complex web that has lots of factors.
    Are men responsible?
    -Yes, of course.

  113. DR Smith says:

    Dalrock
    Glad this is your post on the subject. However, you could have saved some time if you would have read Vox’s book https://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Thought-Justice-ebook/dp/B014GMBUR4

    Nathan and his merry band at Warhorn are classic SJW, and what they did was so very typical for them. No need to engage with them, as you can,t convince them of anything other than you are wrong and they are right…because they lie to themselves every day else how could they live with themselves and their wacky beliefs.

  114. squid_hunt says:

    @AnonS

    Imagine the twisted logic that said “My parents divorced. It’s the pastor’s fault. Well, really it’s my dad’s fault. But definitely not even in the slightest my mom’s fault. She’s not to blame for any of it.”

    This is the reasoning of a child.

  115. seventiesjason says:

    Scott……I still attend AA / NA once a month to just “check in” and be there for newbies who do need a sign of hope that “life indeed goes on” post drink / drugs and yes that it will be hard but it will go on……life will be infinitely much more dull but you will have a ton of sanity back.

    When I first got sober, and cleaned up I was attending a few meetings a day. What I did admire about the program was the pure, unfiltered wisdom I got from people. Colorful language and all. Even now, I still attend meetings that are “single sex” (no women) and the ones that allow cigarette smoking.

    After enlisting in the Salvation Army, I was gently encouraged to attend a more “faith based” recovery program called “celebrate recovery” down at the large non-denom church in the area.

    It was basically a church service, and it covered every addiction under the sun…..codependancy, materialism, alcohol, drugs, and porn (which was for men only…….christian women never have a problem with porn according to protestants)

    Half the evening was “praise” of course and the usual one verse, and repete twenty lines of the chorus. The sermon was a “general” covering of why we are all here. The small groups allowed ZERO cross talking, and I didn’t see any solutions or breakthroughs, or real talk. It was just pure enabling. No questions could be asked, and anything offered “helps” was only Biblical.

    Meanwhile in AA / NA I used the 1966 edition of the “Blue Book” which uses open and explict Christian thought, verse and what Christ said. The newer editions since the 1990’s have removed anything Christian. In NA, I saw a few near fights break out. Serious rage about their past, mistakes, and now “dealing” with the bill the waiter brought……..and you can’t pay.

    Celebrate Recovery will never tackle these issues. They want a co-dependant program. I went back to AA / NA after a few months. I am still lectured that AA / NA is no longer “faith based” and probably not as good as “celebrate recovery”

    I wanted to get well. I was sick and tired of being “sick and tired” and I just liked the real talk instead of “God has a great plan for your life, read this track, ummmmm….no questions, God is taking him / her as he / she is”

    I liked the cross talk, and some of the actual wisdom I got from people in the groups HELPED. Advice on not just how but why. Practical advice…..sure a few jerks there too, but some real healing. Some real confrontation and I had more than a few moderators that were excellent.

    This pop psychology and the like you were talking about has infected recovery deeply, thus not making anyone get better, and actually in many cases “rewarding” you if you break edge or “fall off”

  116. 7817 says:

    About that crowd, people will hear us be pretty sarcastic, some of our skits have been very sarcastic about Dalrock’s followers in particular, and the bitter, nasty, verbally abusive kind of people that they are.
    – Nathan “Good faith” Alberson

    >podcasters call Dalrock’s commenters verbally abusive

    >say Dalrock is stupid or can’t read

    >this is charitable

  117. purge187 says:

    The whole Warhorn thing is growing old. Just sayin’.

  118. OKRickety says:

    Novaseeker said: “… if the men were husbanding/fathering properly, women wouldn’t act out the way they do — just like the idea that if parents are properly parenting, children will behave better.”

    If I were debating this issue, I would point out that this is inconsistent with the many examples of Christians, the bride of Christ, acting out when Jesus Christ, being perfect, must be husbanding perfectly>.

    If the perfect husband, Christ, has a wife, the church, who sins (“acts out”), then WHY would you believe that wives sin only because their husbands are not perfect?

  119. squid_hunt says:

    @OKRickety, @Novaseeker

    It also ignores the fact that there is clear guidance in scripture for punishing children when they misbehave, which we agree would be inappropriate for wives, so…inadequate simile.

  120. Anonymous Reader says:

    The added segment reveals a lot, starting with the endless smearing of the manosphere as “bitter” or filled with “bitter” men. Yes, there are bitter men in the androsphere, because there is a constant flow of newbies who just discovered it. Many men eventually work their way through the various phases, and some get stuck in anger.

    However, for children of divorced parents to spray-can an entire group of men they don’t even know as “bitter” is a clear and obvious example of projection.

    It is also painfully obvious why Nathan certainly regards Bayly as a father-figure and why he bristles so much at the very idea that some nameless commenter may have sorta kinda said the same about Dalrock. ‘It’s personal” ,he said, and indeed for him it is so, for many of the rest of us he just looks rather emotionally unbalanced. There is also projection in their use of the word “follower”; because they follow Bayly unquestioningly and are all of one opinion on issues, they assume the same about comments here. This absurd view can be demolished by just reading a few articles and comment streams, but they don’t do that.

    Novaseeker’s observation about all of this goes deeper than one might expect at first glance.

    There’s a huge emotional investment by Nathan and the rest of the boys in following Bayly no matter what, and facts just don’t matter to them. Bayly has a huge emotional investment in his own, somewhat peculiar and private reading Bible parts; aanything contrary to that is just going to be dismissed without a thought.

    Again, there is a real whiff of a cult-of-personality here.

  121. @purge187
    The whole Warhorn thing is growing old. Just sayin’.

    Dalrock will be done with this when he is done with it.
    Until then, there’s a whole lot of other sites that you can read. You could even start your own blog.

  122. Bee says:

    Dalrock,

    “Regarding women at Clearnote wearing headcovereings, I can’t see any way that reflects badly on Pastor Bayly.”

    I agree, I meant my comment to be positive about their church and Pastor Bayly.

    [D: Agreed. That is how I read it as well.]

  123. JRob says:

    more “faith based” recovery program called “celebrate recovery”

    Celebrate Recovery came from Rick Warren, of the seeker sensitive/church growth movement.

    A great example of what he’s all about is Fighting for the Faith’s “Rick Warren Timing is Everything” on YouTube.

  124. Nathan Bruno says:

    I pity them. They are broken children of divorce pretending to be able to teach appropriate family life to the world.

    They hate you, Dalrock, because you are happily married, and you show compassion to those who have been broken by divorce. They are angry dogs who want to bite the hand of the veterinarian that is only trying to help them.

    Even in their direction to women, they cannot be Biblical; they must set her up as judge and jury even in her alleged “submission”:

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

    What did a much more sanctified Peter tell Christians who were dying every day because the Roman Emperor had put a mark on them for death?

    “Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.”

    What do they intend to rob women of, by convincing them that they only need to submit to a husband acting appropriately, and thus ultimately their goal is to try to cheat God of someone elect (as if one could; the women won’t listen to these broken little boys, playing soldier games to be Lord of the Flies):

    “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.”

    I pity them. Sad, broken little boys. Scarred by divorce. Hating their own fathers. Believing that they can teach others when, from this transcript, it’s clear they’re just pretending they aren’t scarred little rabbits. Talking about manhood while giggling like girls.

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

  126. 7817 says:

    Nathan – Guess what, your wife can, through being someone that lives with you, and being the awesome woman that she is, she’s going to discipline you all the time. Is that her primary role in your life? Is that her…

    – No it’s not, for one, and for two the Bible tells her how to do it. The Bible gives her a prescription in how to discipline her husband. And if you want to read 1st Peter 3 go ahead and there’s a good place to start.

    I’m curious where 1st Peter 3 talks about a wife disciplining her husband. Never saw it in there myself.

  127. Oscar says:

    If you aren’t sufficiently entertained for a post or two, suck it up and read something else. I created this particular post because a reader did an incredible amount of work, and while they are afraid of their audience seeing my arguments, I’m quite happy to have mine see theirs. It only makes sense. If you don’t appreciate the work of others, why bitch about it? ~ Dalrock

    That sure is a good question, to which no answer is forthcoming. In the meantime…

  128. Daniel says:

    What caught my attention was their references to “disciplining wives.”

    Well Scripture always approaches sin first, just like God came first to Adam in the garden through the man. And it is a man’s responsibility to step up and to correct and deal with it. Which is why the answer to all of this is not really on the internet but teaching fathers to love and discipline their wives and their daughters…

    “Love and discipline” sounds good. There are thousands of books and videos out there to teach Christian parents how to rear children, including proper discipline. But I have never seen one that teaches men how to discipline their wives. We know that physical chastisement is out, right? So how is it done?

    The model is men teaching men and women how to behave and men teaching other men how to be good husbands and fathers and to lead and discipline and love and guide and protect their wives and their daughters. That’s how this problem gets solved, right?

    “Lead and discipline and love and guide” sounds good. Still waiting to hear how that is supposed to be done.

    I have a fiancé… and I have to be in a relationship with a woman, and it’s complicated. There’s tensions, and there’s places where I have to like, discipline her and then there’s places where I have to be patient, and then there’s places where I have to say that she’s right and I’m wrong.

    Nathan is engaged, and he says he disciplines his fiancee. Very interesting. I wonder what that entails?

    And of course our wives and children discipline us all the time. I mean come on. No ok, now you said your wife disciplines you. This is what people do, right, it’s just like, it’s this endless loop.

    Nathan – Guess what, your wife can, through being someone that lives with you, and being the awesome woman that she is, she’s going to discipline you all the time. Is that her primary role in your life? Is that her… No it’s not, for one…

    OK, now I’m really confused. Are they serious, or joking? “Your wife disciplines you?” If they are serious, I assume they mean that she makes you suffer when she is unhappy with your behavior…

    … and for two the Bible tells her how to do it. The Bible gives her a prescription in how to discipline her husband. And if you want to read 1st Peter 3 go ahead and there’s a good place to start.

    But they refer to I Peter 3, which I won’t repeat because you all know it. “Disciplining their husbands” is *not* in there. On the contrary, I would say that disciplining your husband is the opposite of the spirit engendered of wives in I Peter 3.

    So we are left hanging. When these guys say “love and discipline their wives” what do they mean?

  129. Cane Caldo says:

    At one point they gripe that Dalrock is right, but it’s unfair of him to expect others to admit they (including Tim Bayly) were wrong.

    – And to, and to let women off the hook, right? Yeah there’s truth to that. Yeah. Even as, as you move, as you move from the feminist position that has been inculcated in you from your youth, there are steps along the way, and it is easy to jump, once you discover the Biblical doctrine of that is real of male responsibility, to just lay right there because it’s easy, and it is a coward’s move. He’s right about that. But the fact is you can’t talk with him about that because he’s not going to allow you to admit, unless you just lay down and say, you’re right about everything. I’m wrong about everything. I always have been. Please teach me.
    He’s not going to allow you to say anything about female moral agency in the context of masculine responsibility. He’s not going to let you do that.

    Nathan – It’s just so immature.

    That’s what these two podcasts have been about: Dalrock showed that Pastor Tim Bayly has at times carried water for Christian Female rebellion. The revelation shocked Nathan and his friends. It can’t be explained away, and it offends them. This is where pseudonymous names come in.They resent that Bayly had to reveal his name and so he had to accept the false doctrine of his denomination or lose his position. Meanwhile Dalrock hides his name but reveals true doctrine.

    It’s a darkly humorous rhyme of Luke 19:40. Humorous because it would have been so simple and awesome if the response to Dalrock’s criticism of Bayly had been, “Yeah, that was foolish, but in the moment resigning my position on the council in protest seemed like a bad option, too. I can’t influence the council if I’m not on it. Now it looks like we’ll leave the PCA anyways!” No one had to “lay down”. They just had to extend a hand in friendship. But they have pride which they falsely believe Dalrock shares because they envy his blog’s traffic. Pride and envy destroy friendship.

    The truth is that the work of a pseudonymous blogger who writes for free gets nothing out of it but more work.

    So that explains, to my satisfaction, thirty minutes of the two and a half hours of podcasts. The other two hours are because they are products of their surroundings. I am more than willing to believe that Bloomington–the home of Indiana University–is a cesspit of SJWs of which they are just outside the fringe. From their position so near a hub they can’t even imagine a perspective further out towards the rim. Can’t we see they’re busy conserving previous liberalisms here!

  130. Anon says:

    Nathan – It’s just so immature.

    Another example of a vastly off-base accusation being projection.

    Nathan’s voice tonality, style, and dishonesty are vastly more immature than anything on this side. These are things be obviously dislikes about himself, which leads to it being leaked out in the form of accusations towards others.

  131. OKRickety says:

    squid_hunt,

    “…inadequate simile.”

    While I quoted Novaseeker’s reference to parenting, please note that my point only referred to husbanding, and I would restrict any such debate to that relationship.

  132. OKRickety says:

    Regarding Bayly’s and the Warhorn boys usage of Numbers 30, I believe it was one of the passages that Artisanal Toad was fond of using to support his beliefs on polygamy.

  133. squid_hunt says:

    @Daniel

    But I have never seen one that teaches men how to discipline their wives. We know that physical chastisement is out, right? So how is it done?

    I’ve found the most effective tool is to first state the problem. If she wants to argue, I tell her why her arguments are unfounded. If she wants to continue to argue, the best response is radio silence.
    If she comes at me aggressively, then it’s radio silence. I’m not engaging in the argument for the sake of argument. That’s a trap. I won’t pretend like I’m 100% successful in implementing, but the method is 100% successful.

    I’ve also heard preachers teach this is the biblical method using Song of Solomon as their reference because he comes to her and she rejects him (I’m already in bed, my feet are washed) so he withdraws and then she feels bad and goes looking for him.

    Please be careful talking about wives and physical chastisement. Nathan over at Warhorn gets excited about that sort of talk.

  134. 7817 says:

    Numbers 30 is not made worthless because r3tards abuse it. It is a chapter that shows the veto authority God has given husbands and fathers pretty clearly.

    The modern idea that wives have veto power does not come from God (not that you were saying that OKR).

  135. Anonymous Reader says:

    squid_hunt
    I’m not engaging in the argument for the sake of argument. That’s a trap.

    Yes, it is. Also it is a textbook example of contentiousness. Better a tent on the roof, etc.

    @OKRickety
    What a pity we could not have found a way to introduce Artisenal Toad and his 3 ninja-wives to Nathan and the boys. Popcorn for all! Pass the salt!

  136. squid_hunt says:

    @7817
    Agreed. When people make it say what it says and quit trying to make it say something it doesn’t.

    @OKRickety
    I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I was agreeding in that if you’re going to compare a husband’s influence on his wife to his children, you have to distinguish the differences as well. Although I realize I misread the conversation a bit and that had already been stated.

  137. OKRickety says:

    Oscar, if you read the wording on that meme closely, it asks “Are you not not entertained?” What does one do with a double negative?

  138. thedeti says:

    This is the crux of it right here. This is what Novaseeker pulled out of the discussions a few days ago in another thread. I wasn’t sure that the actual evidence was there; but now i see it. And i heard it when i listened to this podcast over the weekend.

    From the transcript:

    Is a man responsible for his house and what happens in his house, and outside of his house? Yes, he is. Is a woman who leaves her husband or who commits adultery or who gives herself over to drugs, is she responsible before God for her personal behavior? Yeah, she is.

    God places Adam and Eve in the garden. God gives his commands to Adam. Eve listens to the voice of the serpent, is deceived. Adam listens to the voice of his wife and rebels, right? All of that God comes to and calls Adam to account for, and in Adam we’ve all sinned. In Adam we have all fallen. So God comes and He talks to and addresses Adam first! Why? Because Adam was responsible for everything that happened. Responsible. Did Eve sin? Yes. And yeah Adam was responsible for Eve and responsible for himself. Scripture always addresses masculine authority and responsibility.

    And there it is right there. To Bayly and the Warhorn guys, the man is always responsible for (meaning, “accountable to God and society for”) everything that happens in and out of his house. So if his wife sins, her husband is responsible for it. If his wife falls into adultery and drugs, ultimately it is his fault. So, she is a child — his wife is a child. His wife is an irresponsible minor who cannot be trusted to handle her own affairs and must have a responsible adult handle them.

    It’s based on what I think is a faulty reading of Gen 3:8-13, which describes God confronting Adam and Eve (both of them, not just Adam) about their sin. The ACTUAL verses are:

    8 And they heard the [a]sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the [b]cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

    9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

    10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

    11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

    12 Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

    13 And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

    The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

    They, BOTH OF THEM, heard God coming, and THEY BOTH hid because THEY BOTH knew they had sinned.

    But God asked Adam where they were. Not what they had done (He already knew what they had done), but asked him to answer first. Yes, God asked Adam first where they were. But Adam answers only for himself. He told God what he had done (and why, and how he felt about it).

    And then God went directly to Eve and asked her to answer for herself. God did not go to Adam and tell him to tell God what she did. God did not demand that Adam answer for Eve, describe what happened, or to account for what Eve had done. And then Eve answered for herself.

    After God cursed the serpent for his role, He then meted out the consequences to Eve first, then Adam, for their individual sins:

    To the woman He said:

    “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
    In pain you shall bring forth children;
    Your desire shall be [c]for your husband,
    And he shall rule over you.”

    17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

    “Cursed is the ground for your sake;
    In toil you shall eat of it
    All the days of your life.
    18 Both thorns and thistles it shall [d]bring forth for you,
    And you shall eat the herb of the field.
    19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
    Till you return to the ground,
    For out of it you were taken;
    For dust you are,
    And to dust you shall return.”

    Note what happens here, because this is very important, and it completely undercuts Bayly and Warhorn’s “theology” here. First, God goes DIRECTLY to Eve (not through Adam, not through anyone else, but directly to her, and gives her the consequences for her sin, and why. God tells her it is because SHE sinned. She sinned, of her own free will and volition. And then he gives her her own consequences/punishment. It is unique to her, and is not visited upon Adam.

    What’s more, he simply metes out the consequences to Eve. He does not tell her it is “because Adam didn’t stop you from doing this”. Nor “because Adam wasn’t there to keep you and the serpent away from each other. Nor “because Adam is responsible for you”. Nor “because Adam” anything. It’s clear God is putting a specific consequence on Eve, because of her sin. HER sin. Not her sin “through Adam”. Not her sin which is lesser than Adam’s sin. (God’s pretty clear that all sin is pretty much the same to Him. The consequences might be different, but to God, sin is sin is sin.)

    And then God tells Adam not only what his punishment was, but also specifically what his sins were: First, listening to his wife (and not to God), AND THEN eating from the tree. It is almost as if to specifically warn Adam against this in the future: “From now on, make sure you listen to Me and not your wife, because you listening to her and not Me got you into a lot of trouble here. If you had listened to Me and not her, you wouldn’t be in this mess right now. Maybe SHE would, but YOU wouldn’t.”

    Importantly: God goes to Eve, alone, and punishes her sin. He then goes to Adam, alone, and punishes his sin. Eve alone is accountable for and bears the consequences for her sin. Adam alone is accountable for and bears the consequences for his sin. Eve is directly accountable to, and responsible to, God for her own sin.

    The only thing God did in addressing Adam first was calling out to Adam and asking where he was. He did not ask Adam where he and Eve were. He asked only where Adam was. He did not ask what anyone had done. He asked only where Adam was. At no point does God say that Adam must give an account to God for Eve’s acts or decisions. Nowhere does God demand that Adam answer for Eve for her sin. And God did not punish Adam for Eve’s sins.

    Traditional theology holds that every individual human being who ever lived will stand before God and be judged. Those who are Christians are judged righteous in Christ, and accepted into heaven. TThose who are not are condemned. And then all believers stand individually before God to account for their lives, the good and the bad, to receive their heavenly reward.

    It does not say that husbands will stand before God to give an account for themselves and their wives and children. It does not say that husbands are required to answer for their wives when they get to heaven. It does not say that the wife will get to look over to the husband to blame him for her sins or bad acts when she stands before God to account for her own life. No. A woman, married or no, will stand before God, alone, and account to God, by herself for her life and acts and decisions.

    So I don’t buy this whole false theology of “the man/father/husband is responsible for everything his wife does” thing. I don’t buy it.

  139. thedeti says:

    Do the Warhorn guys realize what they’re saying? They’re saying women are children. The position is that women aren’t really responsible for their sins. (Well, they kinda are, but not as much as men are.) All women have to do is bear the consequences for their sins. They don’t have to answer for them to society or to God. No, their husbands have to do that. They are responsible, but men are more responsible.

    Husbands are ultimately responsible for their wives, at all times, including for their wives’ sins. Women are responsible, but men are more responsible. This is positively Orwellian: First, it was “All Animals are Equal”. That soon became “All Animals are Equal, but Some Animals are More Equal Than Others”.

  140. Opus says:

    I am saddened: I had a look on-line at the Clearnote Church site. From the photographs this is the America I like; white men with white wives with British sounding surnames, and many children; a church (which I have to admit looks more like an Amazon warehouse than a church) set back in luxurious grass, ordinary looking men in the men’s group and American looking women (of the fly over-christian type) in the women’s group, and although not to my taste a rock band singing the sort of melody that Elton John would write on an uninspired day. Yes, I like that even though calling a church Clearnote (rather St Peter or St James) strikes me as unusual.

    I look forward to Podcast no 3 where Alberson explains his word-salad from Podcast No 2 and why I am an embittered neck-beard living in my mother’s basement (and probably a future school shooter).

  141. 7817 says:

    Right on Deti. Saving this comment. Blows federal headship or whatever it is that Wilson/Warhorn is preaching right out of the water.

  142. thedeti says:

    7817:

    Well i might have made a couple of errors in that analysis. First, the words of Gen 3:8-10 (NKJV) are that God calls to Adam “and said to him“, “where are you?” This says to me that while both Adam and Eve are hiding because they both knew they had sinned, God’s looking for Adam here. John Gill’s commentary on this verse is that God is addressing only Adam. Returning to my reading, Adam answers only for himself. There is no later query “well, Adam, where’s Eve? Why isn’t she answering me here? And why are you telling me only about you? I want you to tell me where Eve is too.” God is not saying that. At that point He addresses only Adam. So i don’t think God is addressing Eve here. Not yet. He doesn’t address her until He asks here “what is this that you have done?”

    God does not at this point or any other tell Adam to answer for Eve in any way, not even to tell Him where she is. I don’t know why God isn’t asking saying “well, Eve, where are YOU? Huh?” But he did not. So i think Warhorn is in error in suggesting God is calling on Adam to explain it all, including to explain Eve’s actions.

    But what i can tell, and what is clear from the plain reading of Gen 3:8-19, is that Adam and Eve are responsible for their own sins, separately and individually. Adam’s sin – his consequence. Eve’s sin – her consequence. Different people, different consequences. At no point does God tell Adam “this is all your fault”. At no point does God tell Adam that Eve’s sin is his responsibility.

    The second error i made is in saying God told Eve what her sin was. He didn’t; he simply asked what she had done after Adam said it first. She offered up her excuse (like Adam did). God then imposed the consequence directly upon her. Eve knew she had sinned. She told God “the serpent deceived me, and I ate.” We know that Eve knew she had sinned, because when she first meets the serpent, she tells him:

    And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” (Gen 3:2.)

    She knew she wasn’t supposed to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Either God told her or Adam told her. Either way it doesn’t matter. The point is she knew what God’s command was. She also knew that it applied directly to her because she says, paraphrasing, God’s command is “you” (meaning we, meaning Adam and I) cannot eat fruit from that tree or even touch it. She specifically tells the serpent that God says Adam and I are not supposed to eat or touch that fruit, and if we do, we’re going to die.

    That command was first given to Adam before God created Eve. But she tells the serpent, very clearly, that she understands that that directive God gave to Adam applied in full to her, independently of any obligations Adam had. She very well understood that God’s directive “Do not eat or touch the fruit of that Tree” applied directly to her. She also very well understood that her obligation to obey that command rested directly upon her.

  143. 7817 says:

    I don’t understand how those 2 errors invalidate your big picture explanation. Appreciate the full disclosure though.

  144. Eidolon says:

    @thedeti

    Excellent. Very clear. Pretty much exactly what I was thinking from the first time they started talking about this stuff.

    The weird thing to me is the expansion of “all have sinned in Adam” into some sort of accountability on Adam’s part for the sins of mankind.

    I always thought it was obvious this meant that everyone alive is a descendant of Adam, and inherited the sinful nature that he had already developed before having children — fruit of a poisoned tree, you might say.

    They seem to want to turn this into some kind of responsibility, as though Adam is accountable for the sins of his descendants. Obviously he’s “responsible” in the sense that his sin was inherited, and if he hadn’t sinned it wouldn’t have been.

    But we also see that at least in most cases, fathers are not called to account for the behavior of their descendants, except insofar as it was actually their fault (teaching them to do evil, say). Nor did Adam know that his sin would have this effect. I don’t see any reason to expand this idea beyond the obvious.

    The basic interpretation of “all have sinned in Adam” excludes Eve. She wasn’t a “descendant” in the traditional sense and anyway he was sinless when she was made from him. She would’ve had to acquire her sin on her own. The Bible isn’t extremely technical so I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that “all” doesn’t have to literally mean “every single human that ever existed.” We know it excludes Jesus, since if He was a descendant of David He must also be a descendant of Adam, so it has at least one exception already.

    So there are two weird twists here: 1) That “All have sinned in Adam” for some reason has to include Eve, even though I think it’s obvious that “all” means “everyone descended from him.” And 2) that somehow by having sinned and then had descendants, Adam is accountable for their behavior. I don’t see any justification for either of them.

  145. Eidolon says:

    I also don’t see how their interpretation works for Jesus.

    If I’m right, the idea of Jesus being “the second Adam” is that everyone (except Eve) inherited their sinful nature from their forebear Adam, and the citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven inherit a sinless nature from Jesus by his substitutionary atonement for them. Both started sinless, but Jesus was the better Adam because He stayed sinless. While Adam brings his descendants into death through the inheriting of his sin, Jesus brings them into life through the substitution of His righteousness.

    If they were right, it seems to make Jesus a sinful failure. Adam is responsible for our sins, because he sinned and he was responsible for this sins of his descendants. If Jesus is the second Adam, and He now takes over as our progenitor, then He’s…responsible for our sins now? Is His substitutionary atonement ongoing? Does He inherit our sin each time we sin, since He didn’t shepherd us properly, and have to go back to the Father to be forgiven again? Doesn’t that mean that, rather than the sinless Son of Man taking on the sins of mankind, He’s taking up a position in which he incurs actual guilt Himself since He’s then responsible for leadership over the world, and is thus responsible for not preventing the sins of man? Wouldn’t this make Jesus actually guilty, and not sinless? Maybe I’m not understanding fully, but it doesn’t make any sense to me.

  146. thedeti says:

    Eidolon:

    My impression of the Warhorn guys’ claim that “all have sinned in Adam” is that sin, all of it, including Eve’s sin, can all be traced back to Adam.

    Their basic viewpoint seems to be that if Adam had been obedient and doing his job, Eve would not have sinned. Adam should have stopped her. He should have been there. He should have kept Eve and the serpent away from each other. He should have done this or that to prevent this whole thing from happening.

    Some commentators claim or speculate that Adam was standing right there, watching the whole thing go down. He listened to the conversation between the serpent and Eve, and watched her while she ate, then said “yeah, not bad, and she didn’t die. So I guess it’s OK.” So those commentators like to claim Adam is just impotently standing there like a dumb dolt, letting his wife sin. And they claim that as further support for the position that Adam’s culpability is greater than Eve’s. “If only Adam had said no/stopped her/been there/done something, there would have been no sin.

    Some commentators also like to put Eve on a higher moral plane because she didn’t try to blame Adam for her sin (even though “it was really his fault”). She just “owned up to it” and said “the serpent deceived me”. But Adam? He pussied out and blamed his wife, these pastors/teachers tell us. “The woman whom you gave me to be with me….” So to them, Adam’s weak justification and glaring blame shifting shows greater culpability.

    The last thing that comes to me is that God didn’t really put Eve “under” Adam or require her submission to Adam until after the Fall. He created her as a helpmeet for Adam. A companion. But God did not require him to “Love” her nor did he require her to “submit” to or “respect” him. All that’s said about the nature of Adam and Eve’s relationship to and with each other before the Fall are that they were joined together and became one flesh, and they were naked (open, vulnerable to each other) and not ashamed (there being no reason they should not expose themselves to each other).

    It is only AFTER the Fall that God gives them each distinct gender roles. It is only AFTER the Fall that God puts Eve under Adam’s authority. Note: He does not put Adam over Eve. He puts Eve under Adam.

    God does not tell Adam to lead Eve. He does not tell Adam to “rule over” her. He doesn’t tell Adam anything other than “now you have to work, and your body will fall apart and you’ll die.” He tells Eve she will submit to Adam because “he will rule over you”.

    Eve will bear children in pain (heaviness, fatigue, weakness, vulnerability, neediness; she needs help, she needs the protection and provision of a strong man). She displayed her sin nature in eating the fruit: Rebellion against authority put over her: First, God’s authority. In the Garden, God had DIRECT authority over her. So the other half of the “curse” is that she will want to rebel against Adam, as she rebelled against God. She will want to disobey Adam as she disobeyed God.
    But she cannot. Here on earth, outside the Garden of Eden, Adam will now rule over her.

    (Importantly, he did NOT rule over her before. Now, after the Fall, that will be his position, because God has put Eve under him. Eve won’t like it. She’ll butt up against it. But she has to submit to Adam.)

    Before the Fall, Adam did not have to protect anyone from anything nor provide anything to anyone, even for himself. The Garden had everything he and Eve needed. Before the Fall, Adam did not have to work. He did not have to get anything, make anything, build anything, process anything or do anything. The toughest thing Adam had to do was to name all the animals. There were no dangers, so there was nothing to protect against. They didn’t need a house. They didn’t need food – there was all they needed in the Garden. They didn’t even need clothes.

    Now, after the Fall, Adam has responsibilities. Adam’s curse: He will have to work. He will have to go out and get what he and Eve need. Whatever “it” is that he and Eve need, he will have to find it, get it, kill it, grow it, create it, invent it, make it, or build it. He and his wife need clothes. (God helps them out there – He made skins of animals for them.) They’re kicked out of the Garden, so Adam needs to find them a place to live. He needs to make them shelter. He needs land to grow food. And once he gets that land he has to cultivate it and make it work somehow.

    And they have to do it this way because they can’t be the equals in the Garden. God had given them everything they needed so there was no need for his provision or her submission. In the Garden, they were both equals before God. Now that they’re out in the world, they have to do it themselves. Out in the rest of the world, out from under God’s protection, they have to get what they need themselves. So God put Adam over Eve. He told him he had to work. He told Eve she’ll be weak and vulnerable, and will need Adam.

    And he cursed them both with “your bodies will fall apart and decay and deteriorate, and you will suffer pain and debilitation, and you will die.”

    In the Garden, Adam did not have authority over Eve. Eve did not have authority over Adam. They both had personal intimate relationship with God. They both talked to God directly. They both were equals before God.

  147. thedeti says:

    So God put Adam over Eve. He told him he had to work. He told Eve she’ll be weak and vulnerable, and will need Adam.

    That’s wrong. Should be “God put Eve under Adam.”

  148. thedeti says:

    And, finally, it’s not true that before the Fall, Adam was responsible for Eve. He was not. He did not have to be. That was not the nature of Adam and Eve’s relationship before the Fall. Again: They were almost childlike. They had an awesome Garden to live and play in. All that’s said about the nature of their relationship is that they were joined together and became one flesh; and they were naked and not ashamed.

    That second part, “naked and not ashamed”, i take to mean there were no secrets between Adam and Eve. They were exposed fully each to the other. There were no walls, guards, dysfunctions, hangups, or baggage. No drama, no problems, no pasts. They knew and understood each other intimately.

    There is nothing in scripture I’ve been able to find establishing that before the Fall, Adam had any kind of authority over Eve. I see nothing in scripture saying that before the Fall, Eve “had to submit to Adam”.

  149. thedeti says:

    In Gen. 1:26-28, there is this:

    26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over [g]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that [h]moves on the earth.”

    God created Adam and Eve as equals. Both created in God’s image. Neither one was to have authority over the other. They, together, were to take authority over the earth, fill it, subdue it, and take dominion (lordship, authority) over the earth and all animals.

    So, before the Fall, in addition to being joined together as one flesh and being naked and unashamed, Adam and Eve were intended, together, as equals, to multiply and take dominion over the physical earth and everything in it. Nothing in there about Adam being told to lead Eve, Eve being required to submit to Adam, Eve having a tough time with having babies, or Adam having to work.

  150. Eidolon says:

    @thedeti

    I thought about Adam not being Eve’s leader before the fall, but I don’t think we have enough information to know what roles Adam and Eve had with respect to each other initially. We do know their relationship was not equal, since she was created for him to be a helpmeet. That means she must have had a subordinate position. She can’t be a helpmeet if she doesn’t help him in his work, so it’s a naturally submissive position.

    The contentious passage about him “ruling over her” I take to mean that there will now be conflict between you, since you both will now sin, whereas before there would have been harmony. I don’t think it changes the relationship from equals to superior and subordinate, I take that as having been there from the beginning. Perhaps before the Fall it wasn’t codified as “you are the leader, you submit,” but more like “Adam is doing this work, and you’re here to help him.”

    Either way you take it, though, Warhorn is wrong. Adam was not ordered to be responsible for her, as far as we know, nor does God charge Adam with a failure to lead Eve properly after they sinned. If Adam had in fact been responsible for Eve, the first sin would have been his failure to lead her and prevent her from sinning, since that would have to precede her eating of the apple.

    The first sin, the Fall of Man, is a very important issue, and it’s not plausible that God doesn’t address the first sin at all. Thus we can safely conclude that the idea that Adam sinned by not preventing Eve’s sin is definitely false.

  151. Pingback: Authoritative Love, Marital Discipline, and BDSM | Σ Frame

Comments are closed.