The unbearable cuteness of complementarianism.

There is a cuteness to complementarianism that I struggle to name, but it is a form of gleefully smug cynicism.  I’ll offer two examples in this post.  Exhibit A is How Jesus Trains Husbands by Guy M. Richard.  Richard absolutely drips cuteness as he contorts biblical marriage into feminist orthodoxy.

Exhibit B is Dr. Everett Piper* explaining to Rollo that he would oppose the feminist destruction of biblical marriage if he wasn’t so firmly committed to biblical marriage (alternate link).

*Dr. Everett Piper is President of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, and should not be confused with Dr. John Piper, cofounder of the CBMW.

H/T Emperor Constantine & OKRickety.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Complementarian, Dr. Everett Piper, Rollo Tomassi, Too traditional to be traditional, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

208 Responses to The unbearable cuteness of complementarianism.

  1. Expat Philo says:

    Way OT:

    Notre Dame Cathedral is on fire.

    [D: Devastating.]

  2. Dalrock,

    How often do these pastors tell wives how to love their husbands? And explain how wives can tell if they are doing so as Scripture commands?

    Some posts about that would be a useful contrast. Perhaps some readers could give links in the comments!

  3. AnonS says:

    The beta grimace or fear grimance. A display to show submission to higher status individuals (women have higher status), to please them and avoid punishment.

    “The bared-teeth display, also referred to as the fear grin, or grimace, is one of the most conspicuous and well-studied facial expressions in ethology and has been reported in a variety of mammalian species from canids to primates…

    Among primates, the function of the bared-teeth also has different meanings depending on the species and their type of social organization. Among macaques species that have despotic social systems characterized by strict, linear dominance hierarchies, i.e. rhesus monkeys, the bared-teeth display appears to be a signal of submission, or rank recognition in that it is only given by subordinates to higher ranking individuals”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2555422/

    Its of form of Republican NPC humor. It comes off as extreme cringe to people that prefer to think things through instead of just rely on canned responses.

    Its the same thing as the facebook posts about “cleaning muh gun when my daughter goes out on a date, ROFL!”. “I’m so lucky to have my wife because I’m a worthless piece of trash and she is so smart and wonderful, ROFL!”

    You see it in every commercial.

  4. Daniel says:

    They never appreciate what you sacrifice in being a provider and ruler of your wife and children.

    daily sacrifice our pride, our reputation, our selfishness, our perceived “rights,” or our desires to be served

    They want you to accept humiliation and defeat. Give up your right to rule. You are her servant, not her lord. Your needs will not be met, and you’ll take it lying down.

    If you think that you love your wife enough, you’re fooling yourself. Is your wife becoming more holy and without blemish? No? It’s because you aren’t sacrificing enough. Grovel harder.

  5. I had a debate discussion about marriage with Dr. Piper on the Pat Campbell radio show last Friday:

    http://kfaqam.streamon.fm/listen-pl-224?smc=2

  6. I think maybe I expected more from Dr. Piper. I was hoping to find some common ground, but I think he maybe committed to a doctrine that panders to the Feminine Imperative without really realizing it. When we got to the part about headship (Corinthians) he came right out the gate with pre-qualifying headship vs. being a domineering a-hole. I’ve come to expect this from a female-primary church that deemphasizes male authority. In fact it redefines that ‘authority’ as responsibility before you get to discuss any other aspect of what women might allow as “headship”.

  7. “I’ve come to expect this from a female-primary church that deemphasizes male authority.”
    It is the action of a man reaching the end of his leash.

  8. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo

    When we got to the part about headship (Corinthians) he came right out the gate with pre-qualifying headship vs. being a domineering a-hole. I’ve come to expect this from a female-primary church that deemphasizes male authority. In fact it redefines that ‘authority’ as responsibility before you get to discuss any other aspect of what women might allow as “headship”.

    At 29:30 he starts by noting the rebellion against headship that defines our age. He then goes on to explain that the source of the rebellion is a misunderstanding of headship. He strongly implies that if Christian headship were properly understood it wouldn’t offend our feminist sensibilities. It is bizarre because he starts boldly as if he is going to gore the feminist ox, then clumsily shifts gears to present a feminist friendly explanation of Scripture.

  9. Frank K says:

    then clumsily shifts gears to present a feminist friendly explanation of Scripture

    Well, if he or any pastor says something that bothers the “ladies” there will be a mass exodus of them out the door to another church down the street, and with them goes the collection plate.

  10. Scott says:

    In under 13 minutes the host gets us to the ridiculous assertion that women are more likely to ask “what can I do for this man” and men are selfish in marriage asking only “what can I get out of it.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I’m out. You are a stupid fool, Mr Host. Stupid.

  11. Scott says:

    Rollo, my hat is off to you for staying engaged in a conversation like that.

    This is what I would have done returning from the first break.

    “I just want to get this out to the listeners of this podcast. Our host made a claim right before the break that is a perfect example of why we will never move forward with talk about these subjects. He stated that, as a sub-sample of the general population, women are motivated by more moral, selfless internal agendas than men. He makes this ridiculous assertion in spite of the fact that men have, for generations signed up to lop off literally years from the end of their lives because of the incredible amount of stress they take on in sacrificial stress for their families. They work higher risk positions for the same reason. They go to war so women and children never have to see war. This man is virtue signalling to the women of his program, in hopes, I can only assume of getting laid by one of them at some point. What a moron.”

    Then I would have hung up.

  12. TheWanderer says:

    Loved the ad spot on the radio show Rollo was on, from a DIVORCE attorney. Totally coincidence I’m sure. 😉

  13. vfm7916 says:

    There’s nothing like a mix of AMOG’ing and virtue signaling r-type complementarians to show how much they fear women. They certainly don’t Fear God.

  14. feeriker says:

    How often do these pastors tell wives how to love their husbands? And explain how wives can tell if they are doing so as Scripture commands?

    Maybe a more important question is how often do they tell THEIR OWN wives to do what Scripture commands them to do as wives? The answer to that is, of course, never. They are as terrified of their own wives and their not-so-hidden inner feminist destroyer as the men of their congregation are of their own wives. Thus the exhortation to defer to the wife at all costs, to the point of not only abasing themselves, but of shredding Scripture and defying God’s commandments.

  15. Name (required) says:

    Well, if he or any pastor says something that bothers the “ladies” there will be a mass exodus of them out the door to another church down the street, and with them goes the collection plate.

    I’m sure that a significant number of the seats would be emptied by preaching it like God wrote it. Not sure the collection plate would be emptied. How many of those apostate butts filling the seats actually tithe?

    When the church in which I was a deacon was talking about an expansion project, I told the pastor that if he would just preach on difficult subjects like tithing, volunteering and wifely submission for a few weeks in a row, we wouldn’t need to expand the building, and we wouldn’t lose any Christians in the process. He didn’t try the experiment. When we did go through some little difficulties later, the congregation shrank a bit, but giving shrank significantly less.

    God provides for His work.

  16. Scott says:

    Vfm

    It’s absolutely bizarre. The lack of any internal self-regulating mechanisms or cognitive dissonance when confronted by simply looking around at human behavior freaks me out.

    I used to talk JUST LIKE those guys to the married men that came to me for counseling in my church job.

    I should go to hell for it. I am hoping to redeem myself just in time for the great reckoning right at the moment before my death.

  17. feeriker says:

    When we got to the part about headship (Corinthians) he came right out the gate with pre-qualifying headship vs. being a domineering a-hole. I’ve come to expect this from a female-primary church that deemphasizes male authority. In fact it redefines that ‘authority’ as responsibility before you get to discuss any other aspect of what women might allow as “headship”.

    They’re so terrified of the modern female and the awful temporal power of the State and the greater society that she has in her power to deploy as a weapon that they’ve abandoned any faith in God that would lead them to defend his Scriptural prescriptions for male and female behavior.

    TL;DR version: They fear woman and her husband, Caesar, more than they trust or fear God.

  18. 7817 says:

    @Scott

    I don’t agree with Pat (the host) either, but appreciate the platform he has given Rollo. He doesn’t use him as a token crazy to beat up on. He lets Rollo speak his piece and then responds as your average purple pill Boomer. Can’t really fault him for that, that’s where he is in life. He’s more open to this stuff than any of the official Warhorn or Reformed crowd.

  19. 7817 says:

    On the other hand, I think it’s absolutely incredible that Rollo (or Pat Campbell) found a complementarian willing to debate these issues. So far he’s ticked all the right boxes, such as covenant not contract, and stressing that marriage means the guy’s gotta die.

    Do you think Piperunderstands how clueless he sounds to the average guy listening to this? This is an epic win just in that department, it’s like debating the hidely hodily howdy neighbour from the simpson’s.

  20. feeriker says:

    Way OT:

    Notre Dame Cathedral is on fire.

    [D: Devastating.]

    Looking at the news reports of this, I was as horrified as anyone else. However, the thought then occurred to me: “No one any longer reveres, nor even respects the One for whom this place was (ostensibly) built, nor do they any longer worship Him there. I therefore doubt that He cares that it’s being burned to the ground. Matter o’ fact, He probably considers the place to be a temple of abomination nowadays and is rejoicing at its ruin.”

    I imagine that I (and maybe even the Almighty Himself) will feel the same way when (not IF) St. Paul’s Cathedral in London and Cologne Cathedral in Germany also go up in flames, almost certainly at the hands of the Nouveaux Europeans (people with names like Muhammad, Ali, and Abdullah).

  21. Scott says:

    7817-

    Well sure, he even manages to get Piper to double down and crap on the idea that something like the Benedict option is infinitely more RATIONAL.

    Even though, the state will never say during your wife-initialed divorce “oh, why didn’t you say something from the beginning? We didn’t realize you had read Rod Dreher! Please, have marriage YOUR way, and pardon us for the interruption.”

    Still, Rollo does a fantastic job of pointing out that the state does not care what you or your wife said you believed once upon a time.

    I’ve written about the stupid notion of women initiating more divorces because of how shitty men are. (This is conventional wisdom today).

    The conversation about who goes into the marriage with more commitment is wrongly configured.

    Men are the least likely to enter the arrangement with a list of deal breakers. “If you do x I’m gone!” That’s women. He’s confused there.

    What men do is go into it with a sincere “I’m not going to make that list. Rather, all things being equal, I will choose to never divorce. There may be some conceivable level of betrayal that I won’t tolerate, but let’s not go there. I’m just going to try as hard as I can until I die.”

    That’s what men do.

  22. 7817 says:

    @32:15 is where Piper reveals himself completely. Under the guise of not conceding the battle, he bravely refuses to stand for his principles and marry couples in a covenant only fashion, with no government contract.

    @33:20 According to Piper standing on his principles and only recognizing covenantal marriage would be letting the culture go to hell in a handbasket, and so he is boldly sacrificing his principles to not be in a cloister. It’s his orneriness that is causing him to fight the culture and submit to marriage as a contract, instead of standing on his principles and only recognizing covenant marriages.

  23. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    They’re so terrified of the modern female and the awful temporal power of the State and the greater society that she has in her power to deploy as a weapon that they’ve abandoned any faith in God that would lead them to defend his Scriptural prescriptions for male and female behavior.

    Therefore, it concludes that Piper has a complete lack of genuine faith.

    Once again, a complete lack of genuine faith.

    I bet at this very minute, he is telling some church fatties that they are ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’ (three times).

  24. seventiesjason says:

    Great……let’s say tomorrow, the church adopted Rollo’s ideas and ways. Preachers started preaching the word of God. We all decided to be “welcomed home” and all left to the Orthodox church.

    Headship is preached and all women would just accept it? Marriage rates would suddenly be climbing, and all women inside the church would say “we were wrong, following what the Bible says and I’ll bow to icons…….will not speak unless spoken to, and will obey my husband on everything”

    Not going to happen, and even if it did……..the women would still be “damaged goods” and you will still warn them not to marry any woman who had an n count greater than her first time. You would expect men to make decisions based on Christ, and most men can barely balance a check book. You would still claim all these other baseless metrics (ISTJ, EMFTPD77, deltagammasigmundfreud, alpha, purplepill, redpill, blackpill,ioi’s, and countless others that have nothing to do with Christ, or following Him).

    I just don’t see the point of any of this anymore…….the only people that seem to be allowed to have “good” marriages are the men who married the unicorn, and no other man is allowed to have that…..unless he holds Frame 24hrs day. Sounds exhausting. Part of the ppeal of a Christian life, is a fresh start, a introspective looking at “I was, but now”

    People may want to change, people can change……but many of you won’t allow it, believe it, or put down anyone who tries. Hence a dying church, and church filled with people who indeed have itchy ears.

  25. 7817 says:

    @Scott

    Totally agree with you about where Pat is wrong, even though I appreciate his show.

    Here’s Piper’s problem in a nutshell:

    <Again, I don't know what you mean by feral, and base.

    snip

    I don’t want to get into criticizing women for going base and feral, and not also saying men can do, you know, bad things too.

    Oh man. These complementarian pastors have no clue what’s going on. Living in an imaginary world of their own making.

  26. Name (required) says:

    Headship is preached and all women would just accept it? Marriage rates would suddenly be climbing, and all women inside the church would say “we were wrong, …

    Yes, some women would accept it. Mine did. The ones who refuse to follow God’s word weren’t going to stick with their marriages anyway. This would prevent more divorces than it would cause, because some women would accept God’s word when they heard it, versus none who will accept it if they never hear it.

    Insisting that nothing can change is not going to help anyone change anything. Don’t be a whiny despair-monger.

  27. Scott says:

    Im not perfect, and occasionally internalize, process and regurgitate all the incoming data dreadfully wrong.

    In fact, having a slight touch of the old Autistic Spectrum cluster of symptoms, I have done a tremendous amount of work on myself in this regard. In fact, it has made it much easier to have empathy for my patients with similarly configured personality pathology and idiosyncrasies.

    Still, I’m amazed at how often Jason does this.

  28. Warthog says:

    ”People may want to change, people can change……but many of you won’t allow it, believe it, or put down anyone who tries. Hence a dying church, and church filled with people who indeed have itchy ears.”

    Are you really suggesting that unwillingness to believe people can change is what killed the church?

    Jason is our passive aggressive troll.

  29. Warthog says:

    One area that is majorly lacking in redpillandia is study of marriages that work, and women who stay faithful to their vows.

    Is Proverbs 31 pure fiction, or do some good women actually exist?

    If they do exist, why and where are they most likely to be found?

  30. feeriker says:

    @Warthog

    Such women do exist, but they’re so few in number and so rare that it’s probably difficult to gather a large enough sample size to do any kind of meaningful study on “marriages that work and wives who stay faithful to their vows.”

  31. 7817 says:

    From the first article, he shares an opinion with Doug Wilson:

    If I am giving myself sacrificially to my wife, then I should expect that over time my wife will become more and more beautiful. Her beauty is the test by which I know how I am doing as a husband. If she is bitter or beat down with discouragement or feelings of insignificance, then this is an indication that I am probably doing something wrong.

    It’s like a mental illness with these people. If a wife isn’t perfectly happy and beautiful it’s the husbands fault. It’s a disgusting view of marriage which can only increase unhappiness for the average Christian couple because there’s no way to keep a woman happy all the time, and, age means women are going to get old. It’s part of life, and it is enough for a woman to age gracefully without these pastors trying to brainwash men into thinking that any lack of beauty is their fault.

    I’d rather have a beer with any semi popular manosphere blogger than share a meal with any of these complementarian pastors. The sooner complementarian culture withers away, the better.

  32. Opus says:

    @Feeriker

    The news as to Notre Dame is indeed terrible and I trust that your predictions do not come to pass,
    however I cannot help but mention that within living memory (although not mine) The Luftwaffe tried without success to destroy St Paul’s and the the RAF tried the same against Cologne’s Cathedral and likewise unsuccessfully. St Paul’s being a more recent building (built in the Papish style) may not be as incendiary as those from the twelfth century.

  33. seventiesjason says:

    No….I’m posing what a man of average intelligence would read on here after years.

    As for being whiney? Look at the replies here. Upset by all these “weak beta men” annoyed and complaining about how “wrong” they are, and “right” you all are….yet, you don’t seem to be convincing anyone of importance to really see where you are coming from….and the few pastor types I have seen, many immediately tear into them about how “beta” they are…or how they are “wrong” and some passive aggressive, snarky remark that makes me look weak on mine on a “good day”

    I am not suggesting an unwillingness to change. I have met countless men and (gasp!!!!) women who have indeed repented, turned their lives around. A good many of you here really see the worst in people. As leaders as many of you *think* you are, coming from a nobody…….how do you expect someone like me, or many like me to be inspired?

    Scott I’m still amazed that everyone just cannot be like you. All we have to do is become Orthodox.

    Look….posts that always call out some nobody pastor on how wrong he is, and that pastor (though he may well indeed be wrong) is losing no sleep over what any of you think.

  34. JRob says:

    BOHICA.

  35. seventiesjason says:

    Didn’t know you were in Vietnam Jrob.

  36. feeriker says:

    The news as to Notre Dame is indeed terrible and I trust that your predictions do not come to pass,
    however I cannot help but mention that within living memory (although not mine) The Luftwaffe tried without success to destroy St Paul’s and the the RAF tried the same against Cologne’s Cathedral and likewise unsuccessfully. St Paul’s being a more recent building (built in the Papish style) may not be as incendiary as those from the twelfth century.

    I’m certainly not hoping that this event is repeated either, Opus. I do, however, suspect that one of the reasons, if not the MAIN reason, that both St. Paul’s and Cologne Cathedral were spared from the destructive wrath of the Luftwaffe and RAF Bomber Command, respectively, is that there was still even at that time a remnant, however miniscule, of true believers who worshiped in and tended to both of those structures. Thus God spared these two structures, not only for the sake of the believers who used them as houses of worship, but as a sign that there was still the possibility of redemption even after the dreadful events of the last century (particularly during the years 1914-1918) that nearly destroyed European Christian civilization.

    I’m not sure that today even a truly believing remnant remains that uses either of those two structures as a place of genuine Christian worship. Europe collectively is hellbent on committiing cultural suicide, which includes excluding Jesus Christ. Both St. Paul’s and Cologne Cathedral are structures treated more as museums than as churches (much as are the Catholic St. Patrick’s Cathedral and Episcopalian Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York). It just might be that since God is not sought in those places, or even genuinely respected by anyone there, He will feel no reason to accord them any protection; they are now in His eyes merely a relic of man’s own vanity rather than His adoration of God.

  37. Frank K says:

    Last time I was in London I attended Evensong (Vespers) at St. Paul’s. They had the church divided for the tourists (in the nave, so they could come and go) vs, those who came to worship, who were seated under the Dome. I would say that it’s not fair to say that nobody worships there, even if the overwhelming majority are just gawkers who get bored and leave after 5 minutes.

  38. Swanny River says:

    Some of the snippets posted by commenters here of Piper’s quotes are discouraging. That “men do bad things too” would really tee me off. I’d be tempted to respond with,”you mean like what you are doing right now, abusing the mind God gave you by claiming an equivalency that doesn’t exist just because you are a proud twat and think you are calm, thoughtful and even-handed.”

  39. Novaseeker says:

    One area that is majorly lacking in redpillandia is study of marriages that work, and women who stay faithful to their vows.

    Is Proverbs 31 pure fiction, or do some good women actually exist?

    If they do exist, why and where are they most likely to be found?

    Hmm. Dalrock is married and has written posts about how to vet potential wives, how to act in a marriage so as to make it easier for your wife to behave in a Prov 31 way, and so on. Deep Strength is married and has written posts about how he eventually found his wife, what he did to look, and how he vetted. And now he has written a book that translates TRP ideas into a Christian perspective. Rollo is married, most of his commenters are married as well, and there’s a lot of discussion about what the guys there do to make their marriages work, etc. (of course it isn’t from a Christian perspective there, but it IS about how to make marriages work).

    It’s all around, really. I think you just haven’t read a lot of the stuff that’s available.

  40. Spike says:

    Guy Richard makes many mentions of the word ”serve” in his article. Sacrifice and serve.
    True. But this mindset is to run both ways if a marriage is to be a team effort and not a servitude (slavery) for the serving party, in this case, the husband.
    There is a very, very common tendency to call out men in church but never women, and this is yet another example. Do women not sin? Do they not have any obligations in marriage, family, in the church or in the greater society as a whole? I can name a list of exclusively women’s sin off the top of my head:

    -Initiating divorce on a no-fault basis at a ratio of 2.5:1 as opposed to men.
    -Abortion, the current rate being 1in 4 women requiring one. According to Abby Johnson, about 70% of women requiring Planned Parenthood’s ”premium service” profess being Christian.
    -Gay rights, SSM: Women have voted for what the Bible describes as wrong at a ratio of at least 2:1
    – Written porn: Men don’t read FSOG. Women do in droves.

    If I can do that, then the clergy’s refusal to look hard at sin and women’s role in it must be wilful.

    And since Rollo knows Dalrock and has made many, many contributions both here on this blog and made mention of Dalrock on his own blog, he must be laughing out of the side of his face when Piper conflates biblical marriage with feminist ideology.

    (Off topic) BTW Dalrock: A while ago I wrote here that I had clashed with an ardent feminist in my church during a series of Parish Council meetings regarding the role of women in the church. I was the lone dissenting voice in a bunch of seniors that decided, against Scripture and by torturing the Greek exactly as described on this blog, to allow women, specifically a woman, to preach and teach.
    She has now been made Associate Pastor.
    I have made my decision to leave.

  41. 7817 says:

    It is sad that the best actionable advice you can get right now on how to have a good marriage is not found in the church. The marriage advice in most Christian bookstores will lead to grief and frustration, take it from one who tried it.

    Right now anyone would be far better off reading Athol Kay’s Mindful Attraction Plan and The Rational Male books than any number of religious books on marriage.

    Everett Piper and Guy Richard are among the last people I would take marriage advice from.

    Boycott your local religious bookstore. Read the Bible and old books, you’ll be better off.

  42. Scott says:

    7817-

    I’ve contemplated the dilemma you cite often, but I have no idea if I could contribute to the number of great sources you have listed. I stumbled through life, college, graduate school, divorce, the army, nominally “Christian” living a basically libertine lifestyle along the way. (Doing pretty much whatever I wanted sexually).

    Now I have a stable marriage with a wife who tells me (or shows me) every day that the sun rises and sets with me. I have no idea what I did right, really. Just grateful.

  43. Dal, what got me was his marching back headship authority, but also the question about separating a ‘covenant’ marriage from the ‘contractual’ marriage. This is something I’ve discussed with MGTOWs occasionally. Would marriage work if you removed the state and the inferred cash & prizes liabilities from the equation?

    I was genuinely surprised to hear Dr. Piper disagree with that separation at the time, but to have him state that he wasn’t willing to somehow give up on the heroic fight to reform the ‘contractual’ marriage was, in hindsight, kind of disingenuous. In both instances, with respect to headship and authority, and the reluctance to let go of the contractual definition of marriage (especially after making such an impassioned case for a covenant marriage) I can only come to the conclusion that Dr. Piper’s position on marriage is influenced by the feminist undercurrent prevalent in the church today – and without his really realizing it too.

    Once again the fiscal considerations of not offending women’s (feminist influenced) sensibilities comes to the fore in another religious leader. Churches are business franchises today and if you want to keep the tithe checks forthcoming in order to keep the lights on pastors and church leaders need to prioritize the sensibilities of the primary consumer in the western world. It’s gotten to the point now that church leaders have internalized that women’s eyes and ears will be judging their words minutely in sermons and public appearances to ensure their pastor is on ‘team woman’. This is why opposing a separation of covenant marriage vs. the contractual is literally a ‘no brainer’ for these men. To endorse that separation is to deny women their potential for cash & prizes if a man displeases God by making them unhappy.

  44. Rollo that was excellent. I listened to the whole podcast.

    It was pretty clear to me that Dr Everett had NO IDEA what hypergamy was nor would he even dignify the concept around marriage being a “government contract.” Of course he had to refuse to dignify it. To dignify it means, you win the argument. That is a non-starter. So, refuse to dignify reality. And that is too bad and very sad. That is what red pill aware men have to deal with when discussion “rational” things around marriage the way you just did.

    Anyway, Kudos Rollo.

  45. Rollo,

    In both instances, with respect to headship and authority, and the reluctance to let go of the contractual definition of marriage (especially after making such an impassioned case for a covenant marriage) I can only come to the conclusion that Dr. Piper’s position on marriage is influenced by the feminist undercurrent prevalent in the church today – and without his really realizing it too.

    Perfectly said. He does not realize it. He CAN’T realize it really. Perfectly said.

  46. Hmm says:

    “Boycott your local religious bookstore. Read the Bible and old books, you’ll be better off.”

    Thank God the major Christian bookstore chains (Family and Lifeway) are either out or going out of business. They were the ones that made Joel Osteen and the feminist Jesus ladeez popular.

  47. It’s like a mental illness with these people. If a wife isn’t perfectly happy and beautiful it’s the husbands fault. It’s a disgusting view of marriage which can only increase unhappiness for the average Christian couple because there’s no way to keep a woman happy all the time, and, age means women are going to get old. It’s part of life, and it is enough for a woman to age gracefully without these pastors trying to brainwash men into thinking that any lack of beauty is their fault.

    The “You should’ve vetted better” or “You should’ve married a ‘real’ Christian woman” excuse is something I encounter a LOT from Christian church leaders. As I’m working my way through my 4th book on Red Pill & Religion this is one cop out I get regularly. Apparently no ‘real’ Christian woman would ever initiate divorce and if men were Godly and wise (and apparently at about 19-21 years of age) enough to discern from the outset of ‘courting’ that their “bride” wasn’t a fully devoted woman of Christ then it’s their fault for marrying her – or their fault for screwing up God’s perfect plan for his married life later in the marriage.

    It’s basically another play on the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. “They not ‘real’ Christians” should be the subtitle for my 4th book, I’ve heard so many times.

    Also, when it comes to debating church leaders I simply cannot win the “God says so” clause. It’s an appeal to faith that is always the go-to response to issues I bring up that they have no real answer to, or else they don’t want to answer for fear of offending the Feminine Imperative in the church today.

    “Contractual” marriage is an all-downside proposition for men today. I tried to make my best case for why men shun it in the discussion. Naturally, there’s a common impulse for pastors to AMOG from the pulpit and shame men for avoiding marriage, but they can’t argue against the marriage stats and the life-destroying fallout of divorce for men. It’s all too verifiable, and the marriage & divorce rates today are unignorable, so men deductively go with the pragmatic response and avoid marriage or go MGTOW.

    All that means nothing to the faithful Christian mindset. “It doesn’t matter if contractual marriage is one of the worst decisions a man can make today – God says you should marry.”

    “What about the incentive of cash & prizes women have in divorce?”

    “Doesn’t matter, God said get married”

    So I can’t argue with the divine creator of the universe. God says jump, so you jump. That’s the absolutist-moralist win button for any rational argument to the contrary.

  48. Jake says:

    @jason anyone of importance? This is idolatry at best. Who gives a flying fuck what the product of our abominable seminaries think? I forget who said this but he said that our seminaries were miraculous. They can take a young man on fire for god with a desire to serve him and kill that fire, so he’s a dead man walking. This lusting for the approval of experts rather than reading the bible yourself is the rankest heresy. These prophets look first to the world before writing anything.

    Little christianity pro tip: if the world doesn’t hate you and want to see you on a cross YOU AREN’T DOING IT RIGHT.

    The people who you say are important are important in the eyes of the world. Their opinion is dreck! Offal! God likens our good works to menustral rags! How much less he must think of the opinion of pastor doctor preachers who seek the approval of the world over the grace of their king!

  49. seventiesjason says:

    Jake. you have to type English in order for me understand. As for reading the Bible, it speaks a lot about pride, and grace, and love, and courage, and righteousness….something I have heard very little of in here over the years.

  50. bigjohn33 says:

    Rollo, you are absolutely right. Im glad you pointed that out. The fact that he was unwilling to separate the marriage contract with the State from the “marriage covenant” was reeeeally interesting. He went hard on that too. Like double, triple, quadrupling down on it. He said something along the lines that even if he were the last person in the entire world to hold a covenantal view of marriage he would still want it to involve the State.

  51. From within then crucible , big surprise, this is bulshit

  52. Scott says:

    Empath! How are you, brother?

  53. feeriker says:

    Also, when it comes to debating church leaders I simply cannot win the “God says so” clause. It’s an appeal to faith that is always the go-to response to issues I bring up that they have no real answer to, or else they don’t want to answer for fear of offending the Feminine Imperative in the church today.

    Whenever a churchian starts spewing the “God says so” nonsense, the very first thing I demand is “Scripture reference, please.” If they refuse to provide one, or just waffle and double down. I immediately call “bullshit” – using that exact word.

  54. 7817 says:

    So I can’t argue with the divine creator of the universe. God says jump, so you jump. That’s the absolutist-moralist win button for any rational argument to the contrary.

    Well, that’s where a Christian has to go along with what God says.

    Pastors that use that as an argument had better be sure that they are right though, because it’s a bad deal to speak for God and not say what God says. According to the Bible there’s judgment involved with that. It’s something I’ve been guilty of, but now I try to speak for God as little as possible beyond reading the Bible. Putting words in God’s mouth is a horrible idea.

    So the win this argument button comes with a cost. Especially when it comes to a grey area like civil vs covenantal marriage that is not clearly addressed in the Bible (if I understand it).

    Another point to consider is that when a pastor used to describe a covenant to his congregation, do you know what word he used? CONTRACT. To me this whole covenant/contract thing looks like sleight of hand to keep from having to go against the feminine imperative.

    Finally, studying marriage can fundamentally change views regarding the once saved always saved question. When you read the Old Testament and see how many times God talks about rejecting those that are unfaithful to Him, as He talks about Israel as His bride, it’s hard to hang onto the modern church notion that you can test God or treat God like dirt and have Him just forgive everything even if you always run away or rebel. In fact, there is a case to be made that the idea of once saved always saved has fed into this idea that a husband is just stuck with a wife who behaves badly and can only love, sacrifice, and hope things get better.

  55. Mitch says:

    What are the implications of covenant-only marriages on the issues currently dealt with by family courts for contractual marriages? Is there no divorce allowed whatsoever? Is sexual immorality still grounds? What about child custody and property distribution? Where can I go to get a full description of what would happen under a covenant marriage model that does not involve the state? My understanding is that the state has historically involved itself in marriage mostly because new American citizens are being created within this institution and somebody has to be legally bound to their care and feeding or else the state is on the hook. Getting the state out of the marriage business is not necessarily as easy as it sounds. Even without a contract marriage, what’s to stop a wife from suing for cash and prizes in family court even without the marriage certificate? Right now, you don’t even have to be the father of a child to be forced to pay child support.

    I just don’t think there is any easy answer to the problem of the hardening of hearts that lead God to give us divorce in the first place. Hardened hearts will find a way to screw up even the most logical and thoughtful system ever devised.

    I guess I am cynical about every solution. Pastor Piper wants to hold out hope because he thinks we ought to fight for state sanctioned marriage as part of the covenant. I think he is really naive. The state is screwing up marriage beyond all recognition. But the advocates of covenant-only marriage are naive as well. The reason the state is screwing up marriage is because the secular culture and the Christian culture are screwed up about marriage and not following the biblical model. The system is a product of messed up theology and messed up people. Fixing the system doesn’t fix the people.

    My solution is to obey God and get married if you burn and don’t get married if you don’t. Follow God and depend on him to overcome the distortions and corruptions of Marriage 2.0. If your wife decides to screw you in family court for cash and prizes, remember and pray the words of Psalm 69:19-29:

    Thou knowest my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonor: Mine adversaries are all before thee. Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: And I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; And for comforters, but I found none. They gave me also gall for my food; And in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. Let their table before them become a snare; And when they are in peace, [let it become] a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see; And make their loins continually to shake. Pour out thine indignation upon them, And let the fierceness of thine anger overtake them. Let their habitation be desolate; Let none dwell in their tents. For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; And they tell of the sorrow of those whom thou hast wounded. Add iniquity unto their iniquity; And let them not come into thy righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of life, And not be written with the righteous. But I am poor and sorrowful: Let thy salvation, O God, set me up on high.

  56. Proudly Unaffiliated says:

    So glad after my failed marriage that I did not remarry, on the rebound, like was presented a few times shortly afterwards. I was tempted because I then still believed in the fairy tale. Oddly, many men could not and still do not understand. I now understand and am so grateful for my good — no, great! — decision.

  57. bigjohn33 says:

    Mitch,
    So is your advice to men who burn with passion is to get married, establish a covenant with a wife before God AND make sure to fill out the paperwork to ensure they are also party to a one-sided contract written and enforced by a secular feminist State which opposes the very covenant they are trying to create?

  58. wodansthane says:

    Pat Campbell is my local host. I listen faithfully to Dr. Piper and Rollo each week, and was stoked to have them on at the same time to debate marriage. I have a lot of respect for Everett Piper and was truly appalled to hear him roll over and play dead when Rollo brought up headship. Apparently, to Dr. Piper, the only relevant point from Eph 5:22-33 is for husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church. That wives are subject to their husbands in all things is…what? A bridge too far for a Christian man submitted to the FI. I was thoroughly saddened by Dr. Piper’s abdication of faith the he claims to defend. I messaged him on his blog and took him to task for this, so far…no reply.

  59. That wives are subject to their husbands in all things is…what? A bridge too far for a Christian man submitted to the FI. I was thoroughly saddened by Dr. Piper’s abdication of faith the he claims to defend. I messaged him on his blog and took him to task for this, so far…no reply.

    I don’t think he can reply to that. He has a mortgage to pay and kids to feed. To reply Biblically means an empty offering plate and empty pews next Sunday.

    The best Pastor is a lay Pastor. Have another job and do your Pastoring for no pay. If the feminist harridans storm out of church when you command that they obey their husbands, well, that is okay. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, lady. What is the church going to do, fire you? You are a freebie.

  60. Mitch says:

    @bigjohn33

    So is your advice to men who burn with passion is to get married, establish a covenant with a wife before God AND make sure to fill out the paperwork to ensure they are also party to a one-sided contract written and enforced by a secular feminist State which opposes the very covenant they are trying to create?

    When I asked how this non-contractual covenant marriage would work, I was being sincere not merely rhetorical. I really don’t know what happens when divorce occurs under this thing you call covenant marriage. It was my understanding that covenant marriage is just simply a description of marriage as God created not some new institution that individual couples create out of their own imaginations. So I still need specifics about what we are talking about regarding a marriage without a marriage license and without state involvement in the particulars about what happens when there is a divorce.

    My main point is not to depend on a new system of marriage to protect you from the corrupted one we have now because the system now is only corrupted because the people are corrupted. Even without state sanctioned marriage, are wives ever prevented from suing their husbands for cash and prizes, even without a contract? You can sue for anything. What exactly is it that is going to protect men from the devastation of frivolous divorce except not marrying in the first place under any system. And unfortunately, most men do not have the gift of celibacy so, biblically speaking, they must marry to have sex.

    That’s why my advice is to obey God and depend on him for ultimate justice. You can fight for justice in this world but you have to be prepared to be disappointed most of the time. Go ahead and get married without a contract. Be my guest. Just don’t think you are going to be protected from your wife going “feral” as Rollo put it. As long as women are perceived as victims in every situation, there will be a judge who will rule that her dastardly husband manipulated her into not marrying contractually to keep her from her rights. That judge will impute a contract out of thin air and then take away your children and income anyway.

  61. Mitch, everyone….

    When I asked how this non-contractual covenant marriage would work, I was being sincere not merely rhetorical. I really don’t know what happens when divorce occurs under this thing you call covenant marriage.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage

    Arizona, Arkansas, and Louisiana, and that’s it.

    Prior to entering into a covenant marriage, a couple must attend premarital counseling sessions “emphasizing the nature, purposes, and responsibilities of marriage”[5] and must sign a statement declaring “that a covenant marriage is for life.”[6][7][8] In contrast to no-fault divorce’s more lenient requirements for non-covenant marriages, a spouse in a covenant marriage desiring a divorce may first be required to attend marital counseling.[9][8] A spouse desiring a divorce must also prove that one of the following is true:[9][10][8]

    The other spouse has committed adultery.
    The other spouse has committed a felony.
    The other spouse engages in substance abuse.
    The other spouse has physically or sexually abused the spouse or a child.
    The spouses have been living separately for a minimum amount of time specified by law (one or two years, depending on the law of the state).

    Couples married without a covenant marriage may also accept the obligations of a covenant marriage at a later date.

    Basically, you pre-negotiate your marriage contract (with the state) that you can’t just file no-fault-divorce. Both husband and wife sign paperwork with the state to deny each other the right to frivorce.

    We are talking less than 1% of all marriage contracts in these three states.

  62. Jack Russell says:

    Hmm says:
    April 15, 2019 at 8:17 pm
    “Boycott your local religious bookstore. Read the Bible and old books, you’ll be better off.”

    Thank God the major Christian bookstore chains (Family and Lifeway) are either out or going out of business. They were the ones that made Joel Osteen and the feminist Jesus ladeez popular.

    Not to mention these two books which were sold in supposedly Christian stores. Conversations with God. My sister had it and I read a few pages and knew the author was having a conversation with a demon. I heard him on Coast to Coast AM and a caller asked him what “God” sounded like and the author said it was a feminine voice. Another piece of literary garbage which was last year the number one selling “Christian” book was Jesus Calling. Nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity. More like Ekhardt Tolley or Deeprak Chopra and other new age dribble authors.

  63. info says:

    @Frank K
    ”Well, if he or any pastor says something that bothers the “ladies” there will be a mass exodus of them out the door to another church down the street, and with them goes the collection plate.”

    One cannot serve both God and Mammon. Likewise in his submission to the “ladies” he rebels against God.

  64. info says:

    @Frank K

    In his submission to the ladies. He rebels against God.

  65. Frank K says:

    Look….posts that always call out some nobody pastor on how wrong he is, and that pastor (though he may well indeed be wrong) is losing no sleep over what any of you think.

    And those pastors have no idea that we are over here talking about them. They live in their little bubbles, were they think that they are traditional and biblical, when in fact they are feminist and progressive. But it’s what sells in the “current year”. Those women might not be generous when they contribute to he collection plate, but when they are 90% of the congregation they add up.

  66. Jake says:

    I don’t know why people still invite the state into their home. No such thing as common law marriage anymore and in my state if you take a man to court for palimony they will just laugh. You don’t need civil permission to fornicate anymore and in my state they tend to fifty fifty child custody. No child support. This won’t stop dv claims, but that is lower risk than frivorce anyways.

    Just find a willing pastor.

    @jason
    You are the….. last person to comment……. on someone’s English. If you have any questions…… maybe you should…….. read a primer on…….. sentence structure.

  67. JRob says:

    @Nick Mgtow

    Bnonn is associated with Doug Wilson and loosely with Warhorn. It’s more truth-skinned lies IMO. One example:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/02/04/bnonn-pastor-foster-and-the-power-of-women/

  68. bigjohn33 says:

    Mitch,
    Not understanding what it would be like to not involve the state in a marriage is not a very good reason to involve the state in a marriage. Especially if you do understand the horribly lopsided feminist nature of the marriage contract with the state. That’s what rollo was saying. There is zero benefit to men of signing on to a marriage contract with the state. And if you could have the benefits of a covenantal marriage without the state, why not?

    Because you might get sued by a woman or have to pay child support even if you aren’t contractually married? That’s guaranteed if you are married according to the state.

  69. Novaseeker says:

    Because you might get sued by a woman or have to pay child support even if you aren’t contractually married? That’s guaranteed if you are married according to the state.

    In a lot of places it is, but you have to know what the law is.

    Jake above says that in his state the custody is more often 50/50 physical — if that’s true, that dramatically cuts down on c/s, the way the formulas work, because it’s related in part to how much time the child spends where. (Note this is 50/05 *physical* custody, where the child spends 50% of its time with each parent … not “joint legal custody”, which gives each parent the right to have a say on major decisions but has no impact on where the child lives, and therefore no impact on c/s). Many states still generally award physical custody to the mother, and if you are in one of those states you will pay c/s to the mother whether you were married to her or not (not “palimony” … palimony is like alimony in that it has nothing to do with children … and it’s also very uncommon, only a few states have it).

    State law is wildly different on these things. Some states have guaranteed lifetime alimony (CA, MA), others have alimony caps (TX). Some states forbid any kind of payment like that if there wasn’t a marriage (FL). You really do need to know the law where you live, because the laws are different, and also the practices of the family courts are different. I would say that in 2019 most places still award physical custody to the mother, but there is a trend underway to make it closer to 50/50 physical custody as well … if that continues, it will depress c/s payments for men. Also in general the trend is *against* alimony. Both of these trends reflect the fact that, in terms of finances, women under 35 are outperforming men now, so things are being adjusted to reflect that slowly. We will see if the trends continue to go the way that they have been going.

  70. bigjohn33 says:

    *obviously you aren’t guaranteed to get divorced if you get married. My previous comment was poorly worded.

  71. Anchorman says:

    The ARROGANCE of Guy Richard is appalling. He implies a husband can do the same for his wife as Christ did for the church.

    He implies a husband can make his wife holy and sanctify her. Further, he makes it clear (by omission) that God was wrong about women. While Peter says a believing wife can move even a non-believing man to Christ, Richard waves that away when he implies a wife of a struggling Christian husband will only be more beautiful and holy when the husband alone takes actions.

    A man who doesn’t “serve” as Richard wants is dooming his wife to unholiness. Theee is no other explanation. You see, he knows he’s being a good god when his wife is transformed and there is no other reason for her transformation. Likewise, if she is unholy and in-beautiful, there is no other reason but a husband-god’s failure.

  72. Michael S. Foster says:

    @JROB,

    “Bnonn is associated with Doug Wilson and loosely with Warhorn.”

    And some people associate us with Dalrock. Associations aren’t non-factors but I’d urge men to measure other’s by their own stated positions.

  73. 7817 says:

    @Michael S. Foster

    Good effort at muddying the waters.

    To imply that you are not associated with Warhorn, and that you are associated with Dalrock is disingenuous.

    If you want to siphon off men from the manosphere you’re going to have to do better than this.

  74. JRob says:

    Richard is just another occupant of the Churchian Nest teaching this feminist drivel, doormat-ifying young men and raising the fem expectations even higher than they already are.

    In spirit of.the Nest, it would follow the god-husband’s performance can be tested by the (non)burning bush (Dalrock’s term):

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/how-to-tell-if-you-are-a-godly-man/

    These two Nesters are now co-hosts of Family Life Today radio, having replaced Dennis Rainey. And it’s more of the same. Here is what’s on tap for today:

    Marshall Segal, a writer and managing editor for DesiringGod.org, knows that most singles want to get married. But how do they prepare for that day, especially when they’re not dating? Segal encourages young women to wait on the Lord and keep their eyes open for men who love godliness. You want a man to love Jesus first and foremost. No one is calling you to be joyful about singleness, but joy can still be found in the presence of Christ.

    Dalrock and Rollo are desperately needed to refute this crap.

  75. Michael S. Foster says:

    @7817

    I’m not implying that I have no connection to Warhorn. I’ve written for them, my podcast used to be hosted by them, I attended Clearnote Church for 6 years, and I graduated from a pastors college at Clearnote. That’s all public information. I don’t deny it. I’m not ashamed of it. I also not ashamed to read blog likes this or let others know I do.

    Also, we have been associated with the so-called “bitter sectors of the manosphere” by many. I’ve caught crap for recommending The Rationale Male to friends. So on and so forth. Again, I’d urged men to judge a man by his own statements.

  76. Damn Crackers says:

    Could Dr. Everett Piper direct me to the passage where God punishes Samson for whoring? He was punished for his oneitis with Delilah. People on this blog looking down on Samson should realize he was more righteous than 99% of Churchians.

  77. 7817 says:

    I’ve written for them, my podcast used to be hosted by them, I attended Clearnote Church for 6 years, and I graduated from a pastors college at Clearnote.

    Good on you for this honesty.

    Also, we have been associated with the so-called “bitter sectors of the manosphere” by many.

    It’s Good to Be a Man, your group, is the one calling red pill folks bitter. Saying so-called is disengenuous again. Own your words and the words of your group.

    Forthrightly, I no longer trust what a Pastor says about marriage just because he is a Pastor. To you guys this may come off as bitter. To me it’s once burned, twice shy. The onus is on you guys to prove good faith now.

    I’ve read your words on these issues, and continue to do so.

  78. Michael S. Foster says:

    It’s true that we see bitterness often rear its head in the context red pill conversations. I connect it to the red pill rage. That’s doesn’t mean being “red pill” or part of the “manosphere” makes you bitter. Or at least that isn’t my view. I don’t believe Bnonn would disagree.

    All I’m saying is that I think it’s prudent, while factoring in associations etc, to give the most weight to what a man has explicitly said.

  79. 7817 says:

    Who wrote this?

    The manosphere uses two fallacies to write men off or to disregard their arguments: – Guilt by Association – Guilt by Followers Both do matter. You know something about man by the company he keeps and attracts. But… it should only be A factor in forming a judgment.

    And who wrote this?

    “The amount of Doug Wilson there is uncomfortable…”

    Wilson is no where as uncomfortable as Jones, Tomassi, and Bell-Metereau.

  80. Michael S. Foster says:

    “Who wrote this?”

    I did. It’s fallacy I see a lot in these conversation. It’s would be like writing off Rollo’s arguments/research because he’s past connections to PUA.

    “Wilson is no where as uncomfortable as Jones, Tomassi, and Bell-Metereau.”

    I did. To the average evangelical, Jones, Tomassi, and Bell-Metereau will be more shocking to Doug Wilson. Remember I was recommending that people read Jones, Tomassi, and Bell-Metereau.

  81. Michael S. Foster says:

    Correction:: “will be more shocking *than* Doug Wilson”

  82. 7817 says:

    Good. Glad to have you on record that you are far more uncomfortable with The Rational Male than Doug Wilson.

    Thanks for owning your words.

    I haven’t come around to your side, but I respect that you didn’t run from what you said.

  83. Michael S. Foster says:

    “Glad to have you on record that you are far more uncomfortable with The Rational Male than Doug Wilson.”

    That’s not what I said. I said “the average evangelical” will find Jones, Tomassi, et al more shocking. I’m not uncomfortable with reading any of them. I agree in areas and disagree in others with all those authors. I think we have a tendency to have a “all or nothing” approach with authors and don’t believe that is helpful. Personally, I like to ask “where are they right” before jumping to “where are they wrong.”

  84. Cane Caldo says:

    @7817

    It’s Good to Be a Man, your group, is the one calling red pill folks bitter. Saying so-called is disengenuous again.

    Exactly right. Foster chooses what he says, or doesn’t say, based on which audience he wants to manipulate in the moment. One day he lumps Dalrock (and I) with the “bitter red pill”; another he recommends him. One day he (in South Carolina) is excited to start a social media venture with his buddy on the other side of the world (in New Zealand) to help men via Twitter and phone calls with randos; another day he says that only in real life can there be real accountability. There are many of these contradictions in his words. One wonders if he asks his flock to slide into his DMs if they need pastoral guidance.

    Though, as far as I know, he hasn’t written a newsletter or multi-part Twitter rant against the duplicity, ignorance, and cowardice of his Warhorn Media and Clearnote friends. So he has that going for him.

  85. 7817 says:

    No. In your tweet the way it was worded you were less comfortable recommending Rollo than Wilson.

    I think you are trying to play both sides.

  86. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo

    The “You should’ve vetted better” or “You should’ve married a ‘real’ Christian woman” excuse is something I encounter a LOT from Christian church leaders. As I’m working my way through my 4th book on Red Pill & Religion this is one cop out I get regularly. Apparently no ‘real’ Christian woman would ever initiate divorce and if men were Godly and wise (and apparently at about 19-21 years of age) enough to discern from the outset of ‘courting’ that their “bride” wasn’t a fully devoted woman of Christ then it’s their fault for marrying her – or their fault for screwing up God’s perfect plan for his married life later in the marriage.
    ..
    Also, when it comes to debating church leaders I simply cannot win the “God says so” clause. It’s an appeal to faith that is always the go-to response to issues I bring up that they have no real answer to, or else they don’t want to answer for fear of offending the Feminine Imperative in the church today.

    All that means nothing to the faithful Christian mindset. “It doesn’t matter if contractual marriage is one of the worst decisions a man can make today – God says you should marry.”

    “What about the incentive of cash & prizes women have in divorce?”

    “Doesn’t matter, God said get married”

    So I can’t argue with the divine creator of the universe. God says jump, so you jump. That’s the absolutist-moralist win button for any rational argument to the contrary.

    The problem isn’t complementarians pointing out what God commands. The problem is the internal contradiction and insincerity of their arguments. If they are serious on the careful vetting, then at a macro level they are saying Christian marriage is only for the elite. For clarity, I (and I assume you) agree that careful vetting is in order. But we must think through the ramifications of this. At the micro level (individual men), encouraging vetting is simply wise advice. But if this is our macro solution to the problem of the culture wide destruction of Christian marriage, we are saying that Christian marriage is only for the elite few. If only a few women are worthy of marriage, then an equally small number of men will be able to marry. The only question is which men will win the competition for the small number of marriageable women.

    There are a few logical approaches we can take to manage this contradiction, but none of them appeal to complementarians. One might interpret 1 Cor 7 as allowing flexibility for extraordinary situations where Christians as a group have decided to stop honoring biblical marriage. But either way, we have to acknowledge that we are in an extraordinary situation because as a group we have turned our backs on Christian marriage; that should humble us greatly. A crucial part of our response should be repentance and a commitment to change what we are doing. One very obvious answer here is for churches to take church discipline seriously.

    But this isn’t what complementarians want. They want to claim they are so serious about biblical marriage that they will do whatever it takes to accommodate the feminist destruction of biblical marriage. And again, the problem here isn’t complementarians acknowledging what Scripture tells us. The problem is only holding that up long enough to facilitate feminist rebellion.

  87. Michael S. Foster says:

    Internet-based relationships are fine as a supplement. There are no replacement for flesh and blood relationships. It’s fine to make time for “randos” here and there but the priority must always be on those in your immediate community (e.g. church, work, neighborhood, etc).

  88. Charles B says:

    Michael, good for you for coming back even though we’re constantly hostile. Now you’ve just got to make your case.

    My beef with bnonn in that article is that he seems to be denigrating Dalrock and Rollo as though they are simply unthinking slogan makers, instead of insightful and analytical men.

    Now if he means that men who read them tend to simply parrot a few lines instead of thinking, then that’s a different argument. But it doesn’t make our host or Rollo less valid. Because if they are correct, then the failure of men to use their work properly is not their fault or an indictment of their efforts.

  89. Michael S. Foster says:

    “Now if he means that men who read them tend to simply parrot a few lines instead of thinking, then that’s a different argument.”

    This is what we were dealing with early on and certainly colored our assessment. Lately, I’ve had some very encouraging conversation with readers of Dalrock. I had one over for lunch at my house not too long ago. I’ve adjust my assessment based on those interactions.

    I want to see the feministic structures of society destroyed and a masculine Church revived. That’s my goal. I’m not interested in fighting with people that have the same goal if it can be avoided.

  90. Charles B says:

    I’ll go a step further and expand on Dalrock’s point regarding the complementarian issue and how I see it tied to bnonn.

    Folks like Piper only adhere to scripture when it meets the approval of the ruling secular orthodoxy. But if pressed he would drop other scriptural prescriptions in order to maintain some kind of murky “peace” or “understanding.” Which he won’t do for scripture that can be used to browbeat men. So he uses one set of rules for his overseers, and another for his flock. Which one is the true rule?

    The same question applies to Bnonn’s argument. How are men meant to strive for peace with everyone, when speaking the Gospel and truth causes them to revile us and say that we speak hate and evil? Am I obligated to seek a peaceful state in social/political life, at the expense of truth? And if not, what exactly is the acceptable and effective means of spreading the Gospel and dispelling lies?

  91. Charles B says:

    Michael, thanks for the clarification.

    I agree, I’d rather have no enemies in the body of Christ. To badly mangle an old political adage. You likely see quite a bit of prickly hostility from folks like us because we’re used to everyone still blue pilled (liberal or conservative, atheist or believer) attacking us with an intense vehemence for disagreeing with their first principles.

    So we are used to fighting back, and hard. But if you look deeply here, you’ll also see intense debate among peers that care deeply about the same goal, even when we disagree on particulars.

  92. Charles B says:

    I’ll be open and say I absolutely don’t expect you to actually have an answer to my questions, I think they’re difficult and painful to deal with and will vary by the man, and in our modern world carry considerable risk.

    But I think that if you honestly and diligently apply your mind to them, you will walk closer to Christ than anyone else in your vocation. Deus tecum.

  93. 7817 says:

    @Foster

    I’m not uncomfortable with reading any of them.

    That’s not what the tweet was about and you know it. You are not being honest.

    Right now it looks like you want to be the manosphere’s Intellectual Dark Web. That’s not good. No one should trust you until you prove this is not the case.

    Rollo has proven himself. After what I’ve learned from Rollo, I am still married, and thanks to God now have another child.

    What an embarrassment to honest Christian pastors, that the churches marriage advice has led us to the place we are now, and that someone not openly associated with the church is more effective in saving marriages than they are. I hope it causes soul searching. From Piper’s reaction in the interview in the OP, it looks like there is no corrective action yet.

  94. JRob says:

    An example of the distrust of the evangelical PTB can easily be seen in Warhorn’s attempted Trojan horsing of this blog’s host. Instead of debating with fact and Scripture they extended a false olive branch with no intention of debate, only deconstruction.

    The argument can be made, “Well, Dalrock’s commenters are associated with him so there.”
    One crucial difference is we don’t work together from a large platform to promote the *identical* anti-male, feminist, Scripture-twisting nonsense we see in modern evangelicalism. The complementarian teaching destroys marriage and families, period.

    I’ve learned more here, from Cane Caldo, and the high thinking commenters than I EVER learned in 40+ years sitting under modern pastors.

    Call out FotF, Family Life Today, desiringGod.org, etc etc on their evil teachings then get back to us about association.

  95. vfm7916 says:

    I married and had children not because of God’s commands factored directly into the decision, but because I had a choice. One road enjoyed the decline, but no matter what purpose I might have chosen and been successful in, at the end I died alone and nothing survived me. I might as well have never lived.

    On the other road I envisioned leaving my legacy, in mind, body, and property to my children who would be a tangible expression of my existence. As they do the same It proves that I truly lived.

    In any event my body will be dust, but it gives me hope now. Ultimately that’s the reason why I married and made children; I have hope for the future, and I took action. Though all the evils and risks of the contractual world stand against me I will not give up.

    That’s my perspective. Take or leave it as you will, but I’ll not be talked out of it. I’ll advocate for it. It is the Good.

    @Dalrock @Rollo

    It’s always such a pleasure to see you guys in action. Thanks.

  96. white says:

    @Foster

    “I want to see the feministic structures of society destroyed and a masculine Church revived. That’s my goal. I’m not interested in fighting with people that have the same goal if it can be avoided.”

    Half the pastors say that, yet their other words, teachings and actions reveal their true intentions. I don’t think anyone here cares anymore what any pastor “wants”, but rather what you are willing or going to do to achieve the goal you claim you want.

  97. AnonS says:

    The Church operates under the shadow of the law.

    Solving the civil problem involves removing the right to vote from women and welfare, but male public figures can’t say this without being destroyed. So it remains among anonymous figures.

    To try to operate the Church to do its best under oppression does not involve shame tactics telling men to man up. You also have no traction among telling women what to do until you have massive cultural power behind you that can excommunicate disobedient people (Orthodox groups, maybe Mennonites / Amish).

    It is helping men to get out of debt, put their assets into a trust fund, getting prenubs signed, and finding serious women to marry (even importing from other states or countries). And keeping a fund for divorce lawyers reserved for the male to ensure mutually assured destruction if the women goes off the rails.

  98. Michael S. Foster says:

    @White

    “Half the pastors say that, yet their other words, teachings and actions reveal their true intentions. I don’t think anyone here cares anymore what any pastor “wants”, but rather what you are willing or going to do to achieve the goal you claim you want.”

    You’re right. Talk is cheap. A tree is known by its fruit.

  99. Dalrock,

    The problem isn’t complementarians pointing out what God commands. The problem is the internal contradiction and insincerity of their arguments. If they are serious on the careful vetting, then at a macro level they are saying Christian marriage is only for the elite. For clarity, I (and I assume you) agree that careful vetting is in order. But we must think through the ramifications of this. At the micro level (individual men), encouraging vetting is simply wise advice. But if this is our macro solution to the problem of the culture wide destruction of Christian marriage, we are saying that Christian marriage is only for the elite few. If only a few women are worthy of marriage, then an equally small number of men will be able to marry. The only question is which men will win the competition for the small number of marriageable women.

    If you confront a Pastor with this reality of the “vetting process” they are likely to want to change the subject. I don’t think many of them thought this through, or if they did, this is most certainly NOT the conclusion at they wanted to draw. But math is math and this can be calculated mathematically.

    The solution to the “vetting question” as to limiting Christian marriage only to the elites is obvious: no vetting. But there is far too much risk not to “vet.” But there might NOT be risk if every single Christian Church in the world stipulated that the wife must simply obey the husband in all things. And then, enforce that principle in church. And (on top of that) government alters its laws such that if the wife goes feral and refuses to obey her husband, he has the authority to leave her with nothing but the shirt on her back. This may have been the way it once was hundreds of years ago (to prevent today’s overwhelming need to “vet a wife”) but it most certainly is not the way things are done today. And they will never be this way again (certainly not in any of our lifetimes.)

  100. 7817 says:

    Interesting for Game theorists: the

    -Had lunch with Dalrock commenters, and they’re not so crazy after all

    is what the PUA says to the girl, as in, “you’re winning me over” after the girl literally does anything.

    Game can be used for good or bad.

    Foster, you’re right that a tree is known by its fruit. All your friends fruit is sour. The Sound of Soynity hates Dalrock. Your friend Bnonn writes articles about how horrible we are. Go build your good man project, and if the truth is found there you’re sure to have good followers. If its typical of your friends, your followers will be soy.

    Tell your little friend Alberson hey from the guys, hope he’s quit crying from the last time he read here.

  101. Junkyard Dawg says:

    @ Dalrock

    “…he starts boldly as if he is going to gore the feminist ox, then clumsily shifts gears to present a feminist friendly explanation of Scripture “

    Chuck Swindoll did the same sleight-of-hand in a recent radio talk about Ephesians 5. He said, speaking to the women, “You know I’m getting ready to set you up, right? You’d fight to the end for submission to the Lord. The husband is the head, as Christ is the head of church. As the church is subject to Christ, so ought wives to be subject to their husbands.”

    And then came a very smooth (not clumsy) shifting of gears. He said that, for the wife, submission means: “To know and respect herself so well, that she can give herself to her husband without hesitation.”

    Having provided this apparently sufficient and exhaustive explanation of submission, he then moved on to the next topic. Now, where does it say in Ephesians that the wife, or anyone for that matter, ought to have so much self respect that they can take on an apparently difficult task?

  102. Scott says:

    I personally have set the bar very low on what to expect, as a bare minimum from “pastors” if I were still Protestant. In fact, it’s mixed up with other dimensions of the problem in ways that I cannot seem to get my mind around entirely. My attempt at a “pack” of men online ground to halt over essentially ecclesial issues, namely the 5 of us were 3 orthodox and 2 Protestants and my orthodox friends dismissed themselves over the church issue.

    Full disclosure— I have engaged with “its good to be a man” offline, tentatively. I never heard of it until yesterday

    All I want is this:

    If I tell my clergy member (confessor/spiritual authority, whatever) that I made a unilateral decision in my home — even I tell him this because my decision backfired— the reason I am doing so is because I want to discuss what went wrong with my decision.

    I want him to NOT BAT AN EYE at the fact that I made decision. Not one bit of second guessing my authority to make it. Not one damn word about “servant leadership” or whatever. None. Just move on and help me figure out what went wrong. Total support of my authority to make the decision in the first place.

    If the clergy member cannot do that basic level of supporting me, I will never go to him for guidance again.

  103. JRob says:

    Another typical complementarian tactic is to use Ephesians 5:21 out of context, to make it walk on all fours, to qualify verses 22-33 to the feminist jackboot, er, mutual submission.

  104. Three states allow couples to choose a covenant marriage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage

  105. white says:

    @Foster

    Pray tell us then, o great Pastor: How exactly do you intend to the destroy “the feministic structures of society” and/or “a masculine Church revived”? What is your plan? What are you going to do? How can this be achieved?

    Be as detailed as possible.

  106. Anonymous Reader says:

    Foster
    “Now if he means that men who read them tend to simply parrot a few lines instead of thinking, then that’s a different argument.”

    This is what we were dealing with early on and certainly colored our assessment.

    Well, for one thing, your eyes hurt because you had not been using them. There are truths in the manosphere that aren’t visible anywhere else, and the raw, unfiltered, bright-light-in-your-eyes truth is disorienting.

    A lot of men, probably the majority, find their way to the androsphere during a crisis in their life, most often involving a long term relationship or wife. Search terms such as “why won’t my wife have sex with me anymore?” or “why is my wife only interested in our children?” or “why is she such a bitch now?” lead to articles such as Rollo’s War Brides. Raw truth is jarring.

    What you and every other preacher has missed so far about the manosphere is obvious: unplugging from the standard narrative about women is difficult, time consuming, and involves a lot of changes in thinking. The process often looks a whole lot like the Kubler-Ross “coming to terms with death” process. Depression / despair, bargaining, anger, etc.

    Because the larger society – especially churches – tells pretty lies to boys and men about women, there is a great deal of resentment and anger that wells up inside a man at some point in the unplugging. Some men get stuck in anger. It happens. Most men don’t.

    tl;dr
    You and Bnonn were ignorant when you first encountered the manosphere. That’s no big deal, all men are that way unless they were raised very differently. The fact that the two of you projected your ignorance onto other men is also typical. The fact that you did so while thumping your Bible is also typical, however it is also unfortunate, because every little complaint you two mustered up about “teh bitter men!” is not new. It’s been seen before over and over again. Yes, some men are bitter, generally for reasons you may not understand. A lot of men are not bitter, but they do know things you do not know and find your ignorance to be annoying at the very least.

    The arrogance of preachers when it comes to the realities of men and women is predictable but tiresome. There will be pushback, often from men who have had their own lives damaged by that arrogance.

    I can’t recall where in the Bible anything is mentioned about “pride” but I’m sure you can find it. Book of Oprah, maybe?

  107. seventiesjason says:

    eh…..it boils down to “some men are more equal than others before the Cross” speaking of “church family” (congregation, synod, Corps, conference, parish).

    The dirty, the mentally slow, the poor or unattractive usually are politely put up with…..the ones who just were not born with the right connections, the intellect, looks, or prowness, or status are given a pat on the back like a good dog to “just keep coming”

    All men are equal before the cross. It’s a big problem today. Church is the ‘check pants republican, old golfers’ or the younger crowd that married the “virginal” hot chick and the club is only for the elect. Yes, in the church today, marriage is for the supposed elite and elect. There is no hope for the rest of you…….well, there is….but if you don’t succeed you didn’t follow DS, Dalrock’s, Rollos, or the pastors “servant leader” advice that all Christian women really, really want in a man….and if you don’t follow this advice 100% perfectly. It’s your own fault! You’re just not a real man! Then the slight of hand comes “God doesn’t promise you a wife!!” “Be happy with what He gave you!”

    yet…….some men are more equal than others………just because I did not do a biological act, somehow disqualifies from leadership, many positions and a modicum of respect from fellow men. Not that I am losing sleep from this……I did at one time…….no longer.

    I saw Chuck Swindoll speak at a men’s prayer breakfast in Fresno about two years ago. He made the play that many men would feel more at home, comfortable and welcome walking into a local bar, or pub than their local church. Gasps and some guffaws from pastors, priests, and (cough) church elders came from the crowd when he said this. I yelled “Oh boy! Come on now!” wanting more of this direction.

    He had a great point, and I found it funny as the whole place was leaving so many were shaking their heads “our church uplifts and equips all men!” “He obviously has not been to our church…” and “how can a well respected man like that say that kind of thing?”

    Even my fellow Soldiers were a bit perturbed at that. I wasn’t.

  108. Anonymous Reader says:

    In a way it is good to see the celeb pastors nattering about “vetting”, because it’s a possible first step to seeing clearly. The act of “vetting”, the concept of ‘vetting”, the talk about “vetting” carries with it the premise that not all girls are suitable for marriage. This is a step away from the standard “Women are Wonderful” fallacy – a fallacy far too common in the West and therefore in the churches.

    Vetting is necessary but not sufficient.

    Day to day leadership / headship / management / call-it-what-you-will is also necessary. This requires a man to have a strong internal frame of reference; secular or religious, it is the same.

    I have a lot of thoughts but they aren’t clear. I’ll point to Scott’s comment above: he doesn’t want a church officer second guessing him, he wants to bounce a decision-and-results off of that church leader in a from of failure analysis. This is rare and getting rarer.

    Day to day leadership of a woman is an art, and the only place one can find any discussion of that is in the manosphere, typically based on Game techniques. This is offensive to preachers.

    But it works. That is the bottom line: these techniques work, the standard church-taught methods fail. No doubt that gets many sets of pastoral panties all twisted up, but that is not my problem. Not anymore.

  109. Jake says:

    You can also enter a child rearing agreement that says any products of your union will spend 50% of their time with each parent. I don’t knowif this is a thing yet before a break up, but it seems enforceble. It’s like dread game all written out. “You want to leave honey there’s the door, it’s always open.”

  110. seventiesjason says:

    Anon, who is a celeb pastor nattering about vetting? where? You mean Pastor Foster? Never heard of him. He can’t be much a celeb.

  111. feeriker says:

    He made the play that many men would feel more at home, comfortable and welcome walking into a local bar, or pub than their local church.

    Yup. He could have added “street gang” to that list and it would have been perfectly true.

  112. seventiesjason says:

    feeriker…..true….I mean, it was in Fresno

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    seventiesjason
    Anon, who is a celeb pastor nattering about vetting?

    I believe that Everett Piper mentions it in the podcast interview with Rollo, but I have not yet slogged through that podcast. So I could be wrong. Also “vetting” is implied in some of Bayly’s recent essays (“Well, you married her!”). It can be argued that Wilson has also sideswiped it.

    Why do you ask?

  114. seventiesjason says:

    These men are celebrity pastors???? Never heard of any of them. Is it because they have a “podcast”? Is it because they published a book? They preached a big church last year?

    These men are inconsequnetial. Men out and about on the street for the most part could care less what these men have to say. They have a degree, now they are an expert. I have a degree, and for the most part I’m dumb as rocks on many things.

    A pastor has to be able to ask the right questions, and Billy Graham I suppose is the one who did come the closest on that level……but these above men you mentioned……..and this Pastor Foster. Never heard of them, and most men have not

  115. Asaph says:

    You do know that getting rid of current system also means getting rid of the laws that can be maliciously used to sue for cash and prizes

  116. seventiesjason says:

    Could care less about vetting……you could spend a decade vetting a woman, and still won’t know how she will react when the kid is born with Downs Syndrome and blames you, she decides “she’s not happy” or just meets a man that she just “couldn’t help fall for and she slept with…happens to everybody”

    Marriage,dating, sex is pretty much like any other dangerous activity like getting up in the morning, going to work, or driving a car. Kudos to the men who did find the perfect one. Most men, even the ones who are married will be lucky enough to have her not gain 30 to 50 pound a few months after the wedding

  117. Asaph says:

    Which state is that?

  118. Matt says:

    Rollo – as I was listening to the audio of the debate between you and Dr. Piper, a couple of things seemed to be clear. I have been a christian for 31+ years and married to the same woman for 25 of those years. I have an amazing life. Having stated that, I have often been at odds with the structured church systems here in the US for what I think is the same fundamental reason you and your message are necessary in our time. It has taken me years to be able to articulate this issue. Christians (and humans for that matter) usually espouse one thing or set of things while often behaving in apparent opposition to what they say they believe. I’ve come to the conclusion with the help of a few friends over the years that what we espouse and what we believe are most often not the same thing. The problem is that we operate out of what we believe and not out of what we espouse. We often think they are the same and we are really bad at recognizing they are not the same thing. So, you have a Dr. Piper espousing marriage is a covenant, which I agree, the problem is when you bring up the fact that the behavior driven data does not support that even in the churches. So, we have Dr. Piper holding to the ideological imperative of covenant and the total breakdown of that translating into behavior. As soon as my Christian friends start to tell me that marriage in the church is different than it is for those not in the church, I ask them why the divorce rates are similar, and now are often even higher in church settings. Especially when I get opposition from a man when I say that his Christian wife might cheat on him with the loser at a biker rally if he doesn’t get himself in order. I often get looks like, are you stupid? I’m used to it so it doesn’t bother me, but the issue I see you encountering is that you (Rollo) don’t oppose the notion of various theological beliefs but if it doesn’t translate to life i.e. behavior then it’s just another story we tell ourselves is true and you’re calling the world to account for this. I think you are necessary. It doesn’t matter what I think, the fact we are having this discussion means that you and your message are necessary if for nothing else to confront the idea that what we believe is likely not the same as what we say we believe. If the data supported those with a covenant marriage I think you’d probably be inclined to follow the data regardless of the origin of the belief. It when the data inside and outside the churches is similar it’s hard to claim the church is living by a covenant. It seems to me, it would be more effective to acknowledge that a covenant is the ideological goal and to honestly assess where we are at as an individual, rather than to say I have a covenant relationship along with my other 2 million worldwide christian brothers/sisters when in reality Christian marriages are often in relational disarray to be put it lightly. Thoughts?

  119. thedeti says:

    Interesting discussion.

    The Church, and pastors, and Christian leaders, will never be of any help to men until they get back to the truth about women and the way they relate to men. We all need to get back to the truth. It’s right there in the Bible.

    Women can be intelligent, industrious, hardworking, devout, and altruistic? Women can also be shallow, grating, treacherous, duplicitous, vicious, and destructive. For every Deborah there is a Jezebel. For every Abigail, a Sapphira.

    What does the Bible say about women:

    Prov. 21:9:

    Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop,
    Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

    Proverbs 27:15: A constant dripping on a day of steady rain And a contentious woman are alike

    Ezekiel 23:11-21:

    11 “Her sister Oholibah saw this, yet in her lust and prostitution she was more depraved than her sister. 12 She too lusted after the Assyrians—governors and commanders, warriors in full dress, mounted horsemen, all handsome young men. 13 I saw that she too defiled herself; both of them went the same way.

    14 “But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans[a] portrayed in red, 15 with belts around their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers, natives of Chaldea.[b] 16 As soon as she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17 Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and in their lust they defiled her. After she had been defiled by them, she turned away from them in disgust. 18 When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her naked body, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. 19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

    (Translation: Hot guys really turned those girls on. They really enjoyed cheating on their husbands with hot guys. And “hot guys” are not pastors, meek quiet men, or humble men. “Hot guys” are masculine warriors with money, power, big muscles, great clothes, and really big cocks, and are usually guys they don’t know very well. And they let those hot guys use, manhandle, and have sex with them, repeatedly, and they absolutely love it.)

    THAT is what women’s base nature is: Giving their husbands hell, finding the hottest men available and having illicit sex with them, and cheating on their husbands with more attractive men. Degeneracy. Defiance. Rebellion. Lying. Treachery. Making war upon their families and husbands.

    Dalrock has chronicled this almost from the inception of this blog in 2010: Women are not “wonderful”. They’re HUMAN. And they have human foibles. It does none of us any good to ignore it any longer. The evidence is all around us.

    Foster, Bnonn, Piper: If you really want to start addressing what’s going on in the church and Western Civ, start with THAT UP THERE.

  120. Asaph says:

    I just read the article that nick shared. It primarily just dissing dalrock and rollo

  121. thedeti says:

    We also need to get back to the natural order of things, which is:

    22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

    33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

    Men didn’t make up these rules. God did.

    Men aren’t telling women they need to submit because they all aspire to be tinhorn dictators putting women under their feet. They’re telling women to submit because that’s what God said, that’s the rule God made, and because there’s work to be done in a marriage and someone’s got to submit and God decided that that someone should be the woman. That’s HOW IT IS. That’s WHAT HE TOLD US TO DO.

    Yes, ladies, we know it’s not easy to submit to us. You think it’s easy loving you? Go up and read those Proverbs verses again. That’s why we men have to be commanded to do it. It’s not easy, but we still have to do it. And part of “loving” you is telling you what the rules are and encouraging you to follow them. And one of the rules is you’re to submit to your husbands. Period. End of discussion. And, yes, men have been doing a terrible job of that. Pastors and Christian leaders like Piper and others have exacerbated that by creating an entire false theology that relieves you of your duty to submit. And it’s time we stopped it.

  122. Novaseeker says:

    You can also enter a child rearing agreement that says any products of your union will spend 50% of their time with each parent. I don’t knowif this is a thing yet before a break up, but it seems enforceble.

    Yeah in most places it’s not “enforceable” like aspects of the pre-nup relating to pre-marital assets are. The court generally, in most states, makes an independent determination of what is in the “best interests of the child” in terms of deciding custody, regardless of what a pre-nup says about it. In an increasing number of states now there is a presumption of 50/50 going into that determination (i.e., the court is supposed to look for whether there is a reason to deviate from that), but in many states there is no such presumption, and the court simply looks at what it thinks is best under the circumstances. If it thinks that 50/50 makes sense, it will go there, and if not, it won’t. A key issue in places where it isn’t a presumption (which I think is still most states) is whether the parents *agree* on 50/50 at the time of the divorce, because it’s considered difficult to do well where the parents are bickering about it and not in agreement about it … so in states where there is no 50/50 presumption going into the proceeding, and the wife decides she wants full custody, you’ve got a situation. It doesn’t mean you will lose, but it means that it will be expensive to win, and that everything you’ve ever done that would look bad to a judge will be brought up and you will have to explain/defend it to the judge.

    Things are slowly improving, as more women are not seeking full custody because they want to maintain their own careers more fully, but it’s uneven and not changing everywhere at the same time.

  123. Anon says:

    Things are slowly improving, as more women are not seeking full custody because they want to maintain their own careers more fully,

    And they want to have the revolving door of men cycling through their bedroom more unfettered.

    The desire of newly divorced women to slut it up ironically is saving the divorced father from additional expense.

  124. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage

    Arizona, Arkansas, and Louisiana, and that’s it.

    This isn’t what he is talking about though. What he means is either:

    1) Christian marriage is “more than a mere contract” (true).
    2) Christian marriage is different than a contract in that it can’t be broken/dissolved due to non performance.

    I list both because he implies both without ever clearly defining what he means. Number one is true but he is using “more than a contract” to provide cover to wives who aren’t upholding the contract. They owe much more, so he lets them skate with delivering much less. This is considered clever in a fruity, cute complementarian sort world. Not so in a world of serious men.

    Number two is nonsense, because he goes on to describe under what conditions the unbreakable contract covenant can be broken (adultery).

  125. anonymous_ng says:

    My kids alternated weeks between my house and their mother’s. My ex accused me of wanting shared custody of the kids to save on child support, but she was the one who couldn’t handle them for more than a week at a time. I would have gladly had full custody of the kids.

    The view of the world from the boxed white wine crowd never ceases to amaze me.

  126. seventiesjason says:

    church leaders don’t really want to help men. that would require actual work. fellow men don’t want to help other men. that requires actual work. it’s easier to in the end to tell men to read a book, listen to a podcast, go to a conference.

    The short of the long of it is, in the end…you are responsible for your own actions. not God, not your wife, not your husband, not your pastor. we’re all dealt a hand, and sadly……..sometimes its just a roll of the proverbial dice……………and if you have a poker hand of a pair of “2’s” with a 5 and 7 on the second draw……well……..pretty much game over. No matter how much you read about bluffing, poker face, faking it, or “holding your frame” the odds are someone is gonna call your bluff if you are puffin’ and you will be made the fool. Hopefully not for your soul.

    I wish I had an answer. The same men here that quote scripture with the best of them usually didn’t have to worry about the hand they were dealt like I mentioned above. Is it fair. No. Is it reality. Yes.

    Folding a hand should not be considered MGTOW, or some other invented term to fit the times. A man should know at some point its game over. For me, it was in the area of women. Painful for the fact men base so much of their everything on how many, how hot, and how often a woman got horizontal with them.

    I also am learning that I never knew the heartbreak a woman could cause. Never knew or met an STD, or kid that I fathered and ended up loathing the mother. Never stood in front of a judge and had it stripped from me (rightfully or not). Never had to deal with the complexities of being a father…….and I do know its not easy (for you men that actually do it). Never knew all of this, and probably a ton more things that I have not even thought about.

    I’m good a few things, things that really don’t matter…….but when you fold a hand, you will still have that nagging of “could’ve bluffed………oh, he had nothing either……should have just anteed up another round…….”

    In the end, I have noticed most men in the ‘sphere are all talk…..and the church it’s amped up because there is only one “big man on campus allowed” and that’s the pastor,

  127. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    Yes, ladies, we know it’s not easy to submit to us. You think it’s easy loving you? Go up and read those Proverbs verses again. That’s why we men have to be commanded to do it. It’s not easy, but we still have to do it. And part of “loving” you is telling you what the rules are and encouraging you to follow them. And one of the rules is you’re to submit to your husbands. Period. End of discussion. And, yes, men have been doing a terrible job of that. Pastors and Christian leaders like Piper and others have exacerbated that by creating an entire false theology that relieves you of your duty to submit. And it’s time we stopped it.

    Bold emphasis mine. Hilarious, and true. What most won’t consider is our culture has done so thorough a job of teaching this command that we can’t imagine why it has to be taught at all, and most assume that it (mostly) just happens naturally.

  128. Dalrock says:

    Jason,

    From your incessant complaints I can only assume you feel that I and others in the sphere have failed to provide you what we owe you. However, while I’ve asked before you have never made it clear precisely what you feel we are cheating you out of. I have also given this some serious thought and can’t identify what we owe you that we have withheld. This isn’t to say that I don’t wish we had something more profitable to offer you, but that your posture is that we have withheld what is your due. You complain both that you have been given advice, and that you haven’t been given advice. You also complain that you have been given one type of advice (game), while complaining that my advice to you didn’t focus on game. Please, for our sake, if we owe you something we have withheld please be gracious enough to help us correct the error.

    I get that you really dislike this place, as you make that perfectly clear on a daily basis. What I can’t understand is why you persist in hanging out in such an awful place.

  129. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Deti @Dalrock

    I have come to the tentative conclusion that “love” is a verb much more than a noun. One doesn’t have to learn koine Greek to understand this, and the differences are deep.

    This ties directly back to my point up thread: vetting is necessary, so is daily leadership. Daily leadership of a woman requires her daily followership, or compliance. Where can a man learn how to test a woman’s ability to comply? (Yes, this is rhetorical)

    PS: “Comply” is a synonym of “submit”…

  130. seventiesjason says:

    Dalrock, just ban me if you don’t like what I have to say.

    [D: Fair enough.]

  131. Anon says:

    Dalrock said :

    What most won’t consider is our culture has done so thorough a job of teaching this command that we can’t imagine why it has to be taught at all, and most assume that it (mostly) just happens naturally.

    Yes. Not just tradcon Quistianity, but secular culture as well. Note how young women are losing out to video games in terms of how young men want to spend their time (and the cuckservatives who bash young men for this never consider that women ought to become better).

  132. thedeti says:

    >What most won’t consider is our culture has done so thorough a job of teaching this command that we can’t imagine why it has to be taught at all, and most assume that it (mostly) just happens naturally.

    Well, but the way the command “Husbands love your wives” has been taught is:

    –Husbands, you must never ever ever do or say anything to make your wives feel bad

    –You must never ever ever expect her to submit to you. You are not to remind her of that command. You do not get to decide what “submission to my husband” looks like. Only she and your pastor/appellate court get to decide that.

    –you must climb onto a cross and let your wife nail you to it

    –you must give her everything and meet all her needs while you get nothing and all your needs go unmet

    To our modern Church, “Love” means never feeling bad and getting everything you want. It especially means not having to do anything you don’t want to do. Because a husband expecting things from a wife is nasty and mean spirited. The idea of wifely obligation in a marriage, the notion that wives have duties to their husbands, is anathema, even for Christians.

  133. Daniel says:

    Re: The Rollo/Piper discussion:

    A covenant is basically a contract. The catechism definition is an agreement between two or more persons. There are usually duties and sanctions involved – negative consequences for breaking the covenant. The Presbyterian covenant theology proponents like to make everything a covenant. Just like the Roman Catholics like to make everything a sacrament.

    But who has the authority to author a marriage?
    1. The government claims the legal authority to issue a licence to marry legally.
    2. The church traditionally claims a supernatural authority to bestow marriage like a sacrament and declare you man and wife in the sight of God.
    3. Complementarians think that marriage is a pact made between a man and a woman who are equal partners in a covenant
    4. God gives each man the authority to take a wife. A man negotiates a deal with his future father-in-law for his daughter. The father-in-law gives her to him, and the husband assumes ownership including responsibility and authority. Jesus Christ came and paid a price to secure his bride, the church. He owns her. She belongs to him. That’s the model for Biblical marriage.

    Rollo and Piper discussed the difference between legal marriage and pact marriage. But you can’t build a true theology of marriage without the Biblical foundation.

  134. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jake
    I don’t knowif this is a thing yet before a break up, but it seems enforceble.

    NovaSeeker already explained why it is not enforceable. I’m just going to add that the US divorce / child support industry has 40 or more years dealing with men, and there’s no idea that someone hasn’t already tried. Leaving theology and religious faith aside, there’s zero way for a man to have children without the state as a third party in some form. There’s actually more protection for married men than for unmarried men – not much, but some.

    Novaseeker and others may not like this observation: Contracts are only as good as the ability to enforce them.

    Personally I find discussions of “covenant marriage” as an ideal to be pointless, and discussions of it as a real-world, practical thing to be even more so. Because imperfect humans cannot hope to live up to a perfect contract or covenant, because in the practical sense they won’t be upheld by any court, including church courts.

    Humans are fallible and tend to screw up, although women’s bad behavior doesn’t look the same as men’s bad behavior. In Bible terms, the sin of Adam is not the same as the sin of Eve, although preachers are mostly confused about this for some reason or other.

    In Bible terms, a man marries a sinner. He should be informed of this fact, and should be told some of the ways that he can expect her to sin against him, in order that he is prepared to deal with it. However this would require preachers to admit that women are sinners, and not just in a handwaving, “everyone knows THAT” way but in a specific, detailed, “expect this” way.

    So, not gonna happen. Enter the manosphere…

  135. Anon says:

    [D: Since Jason can’t reply I’m removing this comment.]

  136. thedeti says:

    Anon Reader:

    Yes, “love” is a verb. It’s a decision you must make and walk out every day.

    I’ve seen it said in a few places that our modern society has taught women to disrespect men, and from that, men hate women.

    Used to be women had a healthy respect for men qua men, meaning women understood that if nothing else, the average man commanded simple common courtesy simply because the average skinnyfat dude could kill her with his bare hands if he really wanted to.

    And it used to be that men liked women. No, all men didnt “love” all women. But men at least didn’t hate them. Men at least gave them some common courtesy, if for no other reason that he might have a shot at getting laid with her someday.

    What do we have now? Women hold all men in open, seething contempt. Women say and do whatever they want, when and where they want, to whomever they want. Women take roundhouse swings at men in fast food restaurants and on roadsides, all of them seemingly believing they’re ScarJo as Black Widow or something. Women have no respect for men at all.

    And men are really starting to “hate” women. Men are just increasingly walking away and having nothing to do with women. It’s giving rise to 4chan and the subreddits. MGTOW could be called “hatred” of women if we mean it in the biblical sense, meaning “shunning”, “avoiding”, and “having nothing to do with” women.

    Surprisingly, except for a few isolated pockets here and there, despite the vicious vitriolic disrespect and disdain women have for men, men’s “hatred” isn’t seething, boiling over, murderous rage. At least, not yet. Men’s patience and restraint has been quite remarkable, really.

  137. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti
    To our modern Church, “Love” means never feeling bad…

    Thus we have the Church of Nice, where women’s feelze are the top priority.
    Ya know, this hypothesis is testable.

  138. Anon says:

    [D: Since Jason can’t reply I’m removing this comment.]

    Agreed. I posted it before the reload revealed your boldface response.

  139. Dalrock,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage

    Arizona, Arkansas, and Louisiana, and that’s it.

    This isn’t what he is talking about though.

    Oh I agree. And I further agree that what you described (his version of Covenant Marriage) IS what he is talking about. I only mentioned the “law” in those 3 states to show that it is legally possible (in just 3 of our 50) for men and women (both) to protect themselves from frivorce. You just need to set up a different kind of marriage contract within one of those 3 states.

    I was pleased when I read that. I assumed you would be as well.

  140. 7817 says:

    Women hold all men in open, seething contempt. Women say and do whatever they want, when and where they want, to whomever they want.

    I know know you are telling the truth Deti, but in my experience some of that can be avoided. There is still a great equilibrium that man haters have to continually fight against, and that is that woman need something from men all the time, whether attention, alpha seed, beta support, validation, or simply love. Women NEED. It’s part of their nature.

    My response to the women you describe is to do as much as possible to cut them out of my life. I try not to validate them or care for them or give them attention of any kind, except gentle contempt. It can be done to a fairly large extent, at least for some men. Women know what’s going on. Starve the beast while giving attention to women who are trying to be good.

  141. thedeti says:

    There is still a great equilibrium that man haters have to continually fight against, and that is that woman need something from men all the time, whether attention, alpha seed, beta support, validation, or simply love. Women NEED. It’s part of their nature.

    Add to that… Protection. Restraint.

    Men protect women from other men all the time.

    Men also restrain themselves from injuring and killing women. In large part because the consequences are severe, probably in equal measure because men have been thoroughly socialized against displaying and deploying violence and brute strength against women. That said, women have been really pushing the envelope here.

    Note to dumbasses reading this comment: Before you misquote me at your blog and take this out of context: No, no, I am not suggesting that men should snap and start beating or killing people, especially not women. What I am saying is that women need for men to restrain themselves from beating up and killing them.

    Because, well, let’s go there. If men really wanted to do it, they could start beating up, raping, and killing women. And there is nothing women can do to stop them, short of getting stronger, more powerful men to do it for them. Yes, the individual woman can shoot an individual man with guns or attack him with knives or other sharp objects. But if men qua men decide to deploy brute violence upon women qua women, nothing will stop them unless men decide to restrain themselves.

    Thus, women need men for protection. They also need men to be more clearheaded and forward thinking, and restrain themselves.

  142. Anon says:

    There is still a great equilibrium that man haters have to continually fight against, and that is that woman need something from men all the time, whether attention, alpha seed, beta support, validation, or simply love.

    Oh, there is no such thing as an independent woman. No such thing.

    A radical feminist is in fact MORE dependent on the generosity of men in order to even exist than almost any other type of woman.

  143. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rollo way up near the top of comments:

    The “You should’ve vetted better” or “You should’ve married a ‘real’ Christian woman” excuse is something I encounter a LOT from Christian church leaders.

    Traditional conservatives are very big on this, whether religious or not. There is a distinct whiff of “s*cks to be you!” smugness, but beyond that there’s a huge blind spot of ignorance regarding how people can and will change.

    The androsphere is full of stories from men that reduce to
    “I met this girl and she was pretty hot and fun, the sex was good, we got married and it cooled of a little, then she got pregnant and it cooled off a lot, now the kid is 2 years old and she’s turned into a fat bitch. What happened?”

    The hormonal effects of pregnancy on women are not trivial and not exclusively physical. Connections are made in the brain during pregnancy. Most men aren’t ready for that, and they have no clue what to do about it.

    One of Tim Bayly’s retorts is “Well, you married her!”. But plenty of men with 2.1 children and 5 years in would reply, “She’s not the girl I married!” and both statements would be accurate.

    Vetting is required. It is not sufficient. It’s waaaaay too easy to use “your VETTING” as a cop-out.

  144. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti
    Add to that… Protection. Restraint.

    Women need protection from their own bad behavior, from their own foolishness.
    That is a huge part of the modern problem.
    Example: Proverbs 14:1 isn’t just a quote for married women to memorize. It’s for women to repeat to each other, and for men to teach to women.

  145. Joe says:

    Well it can be done. We celebrate 31 years today.
    We love each other, but moreover, we LIKE each other. We just prefer each others company.
    And she’s just 8 lbs from her wedding day weight, So that can be done too. We both take care of our bodies, and have no need for medications, even at nearly 60.

  146. There is still a great equilibrium that man haters have to continually fight against, and that is that woman need something from men all the time, whether attention, alpha seed, beta support, validation, or simply love. Women NEED. It’s part of their nature.

    So is submission. Women NEED to submit to men. They need it as that is also part of their nature. Unfortunately they sometimes just go all feral and dig their feminist heels in and needlessly fight that need. But I’ll get back to that in another post. I want to focus on women needing to submit here for a moment (as I have a little personal experience you all might find amusing.)

    It took me 6 years to earn my bachelor’s degree. Well, 5 and a half, but I was 6 years out of high school before I walked down the aisle and got my BS Comp Sci degree at age 23. And the reason for that (as most of you know) is that I worked my way through college driving a forklift in a warehouse. So I worked full time to pay all my tuition, lived at home (Boston Massachusetts), and commuted to university. Worked for me and my parents loved that arrangement, saved them tens of thousands of dollars.

    I said all that to say this: in working full time as a part time student I always had money. I had lots of money in my pocket. I lived at home for free and I lived an incredibly cheap lifestyle. As such I was able to “afford” to buy things that most really young people can’t afford to buy. One such thing I bought (at the ripe old age of 21) was a red week, 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom timeshare condo in March in Daytona Beach. This was not motel conversion either, this was a 5-star, Gold Crown unit. It slept 8 (comfortably) which meant I could sleep 20 students in it if I really wanted to.

    Anyway, my girlfriend in my last year in college, she and her friends had already graduated college a year earlier and they were working. But they were still very young and very much enjoyed being around college students such as myself. I told my girlfriend about my week in March and I don’t think I ever really asked her if she wanted to come, I just assumed she would be coming with me. Well, to say that she was enthusiastic would be an understatement. She got on the horn and called all her friends up and down the East Coast. So I set up the rules:

    #1) We are driving because I am cheap and we are going to need a van down there (I borrowed that from my folks for the week, they didn’t care as they weren’t using it)
    #2) We had to leave Thursday Night and drive all night on the I-95 because my week ran Friday to Friday and each of them had to be ready when I got to their homes to grab them (one girl in Connecticut at 7PM, one girl in New Jersey at 10:30 PM, one girl in Virginia at 2 AM)
    #3) We would be going to Disney World at least one day in the week, preferably two days because I loved EPCOT and I didn’t care whether they liked EPCOT or not
    #4) No matter what happens, I get the master bedroom suite
    #5) They had to keep the place neat because I was the owner and I didn’t want to see my maintenance fees increase
    #6) We would be cooking breakfast in the unit because I am cheap
    #7) Each one of them had to kick in $100 for gas and what-not

    And you know what? They submitted. Entirely. Not only did they submit, but for the whole week they treated me like Christ anointing my feet with oil. I never once asked them what they wanted to do. I just did whatever I wanted to do and my girlfriend (and her 3 friends) all 4 of those women did exactly what I did and went wherever I went. I felt like a polygamist. There were 7 people who stayed (two of my friends) and those two guys were completely useless. They were drunk the entire week. But whatever I wanted to do, I told the women and they did it. They submitted.

    Well it bothered me a little bit afterwards. I realized I never asked my girlfriend or any of her friends what they wanted to do and she said that is what they found so attractive about me and the vacation. No man in their lives was ever as organized and structured as I was. Had I not made all those plans and told them what to do, they never would have gone and done anything like that.

    She NEEDS to submit.

  147. 7817 says:

    That was a good read IBB. Sounds like good times.

  148. Thank you 7817. It was a great time, and a great life lesson for me. I guess you could call what I was doing a version of “game.”

  149. Hmm says:

    The best game is the game even you don’t know you are running.

  150. feeriker says:

    For every Deborah there are 100,000 Jezebels. For every Abigail, 100,000 Sapphiras.

    Fixed. If the good-to-bad ratio was 1 to 1, we wouldn’t be in the state we’re now in.

  151. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Anonymous Reader said:

    “One of Tim Bayly’s retorts is “Well, you married her!”. But plenty of men with 2.1 children and 5 years in would reply, “She’s not the girl I married!” and both statements would be accurate.

    Vetting is required. It is not sufficient. It’s waaaaay too easy to use “your VETTING” as a cop-out.”

    Agreed. This is all part of the Tradcon “Courtly Love” theory of matrimony, as Dalrock has brilliantly outlined.

    The wife is inherently good. The husband? Inherently bad.

    That’s why she NEVER has to change, improve, or measure up.

    Because m’lady is the standard no matter what, and you need to measure up to her.

    The opposite of Biblical marriage, and guaranteed to kill any attraction she has for you.

    The manosphere propounds the exact opposite. She needs to be proving herself to you.

    And she needs to understand if she doesn’t, she will be replaced forthwith.

    In today’s climate, some level of dread is absolutely required. Legal marriage is an impediment to doing this right.

  152. Jake says:

    I just know the courts in my state want to know what changed before heading with any agreement. Yes they are willing to do more against child custody agreements than other ones but failure to prove exigent circumstances just reinforces the statutory position the judges are required to take.

    This covenant marriage thing is a joke. You are still inviting the state to referee your marriage. She moves to the next state over and bam you are paying alimony.

    Never giving her a legal marriage takes a lot of tools out of her toolbox. I’ll go ahead and generally say most women don’t want their exhusband in jail and want to play the coparenting so well virtue signal game.

    It doesn’t matter i’d go fugitive before i payed a lick of alimony. But i wouldn’t want to have to abandon any children God may bless me with. I’m talking the full carthage on my assets level no cash payout. Alimony for no fault seems like the craziest invention of our society

  153. Vektor says:

    “Doesn’t matter, God said get married”

    This sounds rather similar to the retort most women give when you present real world facts and reason to them. Usually: “why do you hate women” or the ever popular: “who hurt you?”

    Both seek to simply disqualify your point of view rather than come up with a valid rebuttal.

  154. Scott says:

    This sounds rather similar to the retort most women give when you present real world facts and reason to them. Usually: “why do you hate women” or the ever popular: “who hurt you?”

    When I first started talking about the things I was figuring out here, this is the kind of visceral lashing out I got.

    I would point out calmly that at any point she could destroy me, take my kids and a large portion of my earnings for the rest of my life it was “I can’t believe you think I would do that!”

    Those were dark days. No matter how rationally I tried to point out that it makes no difference what I think she will or will not do, incentives matter. No matter how calmly I tried to describe the raw deal that marriage is as a legal predicament for the man, the basic response was that this only happens to really shitty abusive husbands who deserve it so I should stop perseverating over it.

    If you survive that part of sharing the red pill with your wife, you can potentially gain an ally in the fight, but the anxiety you feel over the extreme risk is only something she can abstractly relate to.

  155. Scott says:

    Her fear drive (and socialized bombardment of rhetoric) causes her to believe she “needs” that authority to protect her from whatever she decides is “abuse” later.

  156. Dalrock:
    I’ve got your “nauseating cuteness” metaphor. It’s “Equal,” that wretched-tasting excuse-for-sweetener in the powder-blue packets, for those who cannot abide the (manly!) taste of black coffee and fear to use ACTUAL sugar (like true femininity) in its proper sweetening and counterbalancing role.
    How’s that fit?

    J. G.

  157. rpranger says:

    Does anyone have a link or other information about getting a church marriage without getting a civil marriage. Are there churches who do this?
    Scott and Novaseeker, in particular, how does the Orthodox Church deals with this?

  158. Maybe I’m alone in this, but I found the interview with Rollo on Pat Campbell’s show to be really depressing.

    I think religious leaders like Dr. Everett Piper are just clueless leisure class theologians residing up high in Ivory Towers when it comes to the reality of the field of play out there for things like courting and marriage. He mentioned “courting” as if it even still exists! My God man, where the hell have you been?

    He even admitted to being confused or surprised with the 75% of all divorces initiated by women no fault! WTF?

    He then simply doesn’t want to talk about contractual aspects of marriage and divorce, and instead prefers to wax philosophical on the poetic, “beautiful”, “exponential power” of biblical convenantal marriage – which no one even aspires to anymore, least of all women/wives, who go into marriage precisely because it is a legal and financial insurance policy to be “taken care of”.

    He fumbled the contractual aspects of marriage as well as the marital authority question. According to Piper, yeah, yeah, man should have authority in marriage, but this fact only means you need to not wield that authority and instead pull the cart like a draft animal and sacrifice ALL THE MORE as the husband and father!
    This is why traditionalism falls on its face over and over. It demands more and requires more and shames those who don’t step up and sacrifice and show deference, while should you EVER dare to ask – what will my experience, reward o benefit be?

    F*&% you buddy, that’s your reward.
    You will go to heaven and get to sing devotional praises to God for eternity.

    I think Dr. Piper is feigning ignorance here, because he knows deep down Christianity has lost the argument on marriage. He knows its over by the tone of his voice and his side remarks. Christians gave ground and gave ground to secular ideals and now it’s lost. There’s no way to recover what once was.

  159. Maybe I’m alone in this, but I found the interview with Rollo on Pat Campbell’s show to be really depressing.

    You are not alone but everyone that feels this way, everything that you have said about the man has already been said. Rollo handled himself wonderfully in the exchange and the pastor was clearly out of his league in the debate. He handled it more like a lecture trying to “correct” Dalrock with his questions instead of handling the questions maturely. Yes, the pastor has no clue and he didn’t want to get a clue.

  160. AnonS says:

    Unbearable.

  161. feeriker says:

    I would point out calmly that at any point she could destroy me, take my kids and a large portion of my earnings for the rest of my life it was “I can’t believe you think I would do that!”

    Those were dark days. No matter how rationally I tried to point out that it makes no difference what I think she will or will not do, incentives matter. No matter how calmly I tried to describe the raw deal that marriage is as a legal predicament for the man, the basic response was that this only happens to really shitty abusive husbands who deserve it so I should stop perseverating over it.

    It used to be that this sort of visceral, emotional, logic-free reaction was an almost exclusively female phenomenon. No longer. Nowadays the soyboy contingent, both churchian and secular, indulges in it, as do pussy-whipped betas.

    Civilization could survive as long as nearly all men were able to process and respond to reality in a rational and adult manner. That’s no longer the case now that a growing majority of them are becoming feminized.

  162. Dalrock says:

    @J. J. Griffing

    I’ve got your “nauseating cuteness” metaphor. It’s “Equal,” that wretched-tasting excuse-for-sweetener in the powder-blue packets, for those who cannot abide the (manly!) taste of black coffee and fear to use ACTUAL sugar (like true femininity) in its proper sweetening and counterbalancing role.
    How’s that fit?

    You’ve got it.

    There is also a mommy’s boy’s sense of triumphalism. Something on the order of:

    Look Mom, I fixed that nasty Scripture that always bothered you! It sure won’t bother you any more!

  163. feeriker says:

    I think religious leaders like Dr. Everett Piper are just clueless leisure class theologians residing up high in Ivory Towers when it comes to the reality of the field of play out there for things like courting and marriage. He mentioned “courting” as if it even still exists! My God man, where the hell have you been?

    “Professional Christians” (i.e., career clergy) are like career politicians. They have ZE-RO clue how real people in the real world work and live, having lived all of their adult lives in a protective bubble. They have ZE-RO desire to learn about the real world (are actually viscerally afraid of it) and actually look down upon the unwashed little people who have to live and survive in it and feel contemptuous of the pains and trials these serfs suffer. Also like career politicians, most clergy have “jobs” that demand very little of substance from them and that they rarely have to worry about losing.

    Given the similarities they have with politicians, is it any wonder that clergy are becoming just as despised as politicians?

  164. Lost Patrol says:

    I wish there was such a thing as an accurate survey and that I could conduct one with women married to the men that write and believe this stuff.

    Are the women that are married to exemplars of the complimentarian religion happy?

    Their husbands understand that the model for marriage is responsibility, sacrifice, and service, from husbands to their wives. If wives have reciprocal obligations is mostly unknown, or at least not addressed. These men generally submit to the will of their women, accord them automatic virtuous status, and fear above all else the displeasure of the wife. This is viewed as loving them in the same way Christ loves the church. No one knows why, since Christ does not treat the church in this fashion, but there it is.

    Holding all the cards, near absolute control over a husband that obeys only her will, attending a church that reinforces this and does not challenge her to reciprocate in any way – does this make that woman happy?

  165. 7817 says:

    When I first started talking about the things I was figuring out here, this is the kind of visceral lashing out I got.

    I would point out calmly that at any point she could destroy me, take my kids and a large portion of my earnings for the rest of my life it was “I can’t believe you think I would do that!”

    I went through some of the same thing. My conclusion was different though, it didn’t bring her to me or anything. In my case I was exhibiting low value behaviour, bringing my problems to her. Things improved after I stopped doing that.

  166. Scott says:

    Novaseeker will probably chime in with s more sophisticated and nuanced explanation but it appears the issue of sacrament-without-civil marriage is to sorted out by the individual priest.

    Fr Patrick Reardon (antiochian) is a canonical Othodox priest who no longer performs the civil part (doesn’t sign the documents) but only performs the sacrament. He is a pretty big name priest.

    Fr Drago Popovich (Serbian) at the last place we worshipped also is ok with this if you ask.

    Theoretically, the Orthodox Church has no regard or concern for what the state calls “marriage.”

  167. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    When I first started talking about the things I was figuring out here, this is the kind of visceral lashing out I got.

    I would point out calmly that at any point she could destroy me, take my kids and a large portion of my earnings for the rest of my life it was “I can’t believe you think I would do that!”

    It’s not just you, Scott. Lots of men get part way out of the Blue Pill world and want to share discoveries with other people in face-to-face real life. This can be “problematic” as the kids say.

    It is a reasonable thing for a man who is figuring out a problem to discuss the problem and options with a co-worker. However, a wife is not a co-worker. That kind of discussion can be downright alarming or scary to a woman, because her hindbrain is flashing “danger, danger” signals; the part of the hindbrain that wants to feel secure and know that “he’s got this”. The part of her that wants “you can and will kill a saber-tooth tiger trying to get into the cave” level of security.

    Women are not men, they process emotions differently
    https://www.psypost.org/2015/09/brain-imaging-study-shows-women-experience-negative-emotions-differently-than-men-37932
    and the lashing out was probably largely based on fear and insecurity.

    With one more part. Women may ruminate a lot, but IMO they may not really self-examine much. They do know about their own darker side, and don’t want to think about it. Bringing a woman’s mean/cruel side out into the light, “Many women do this to their men. You might do it to me, and there’s not much I can do to stop it” is beyond criticism (which most women cannot take) and into “Here is your dark side, see?” which is close to unbearable for a lof of them.

    tl;dr
    What’s the first rule of Fight Club? That’s the first rule of Red Pill / The Glasses club.

  168. Damn Crackers says:

    Jesus was one of the only, if not the only, speakers 2000 years ago to actually state it’s ok not to get married and have children.

    Why are Christians surprised when men drop out of the marriage game? Tolstoy thought humanity becoming childless would be a great thing, since it would bring on the end of the world.

  169. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    Theoretically, the Orthodox Church has no regard or concern for what the state calls “marriage.”

    Given the history of the Eastern church that should not be a surprise.

  170. Scott says:

    Anonymous/7817

    Those are the areas where I simply part ways with game guys. I confronted her with truth.

    “I’ve seen something I can’t unsee. I am aware of the predicament I am in. Now let’s move on amicably” worked for me.

    The truck in my case was to hold what canonical red pill adherents call “frame” and simply not get rattled by the hysterics.

    “You can thrash around and protest the fact that I know this stuff. But I am not going stop knowing it and sharing it with our boys.” She shares it with them now too.

    I care basically zero about displaying low value behaviors or whatever. (Or I just don’t have the energy to monitor myself that closely when I have so much on my plate).

  171. Scott says:

    If I had to label my approach I guess it would be a hybrid. Maybe I’ll call it “MGTOW/husband.”

    Already married? Check

    Learned some stuff I already kind of knew and didn’t want to face? Fuck it!

    It’s kind of a scorched earth fly by the seat of my pants like I have nothing to lose mentality.

    My marriage is way better as a result.

  172. Bee says:

    Lost Patrol,

    “I wish there was such a thing as an accurate survey and that I could conduct one with women married to the men that write and believe this stuff.

    Are the women that are married to exemplars of the complimentarian religion happy?”

    I do not know the full answer to this. But, many of these wives enjoy the attention and respect they get by being married to the AMOG of the church or group. The larger the ministry, the more attention they get.

    A good follow on question is, Why do so many of these Christian leaders have children that are divorced?

    Billy Graham, John Piper, James Dobson, TD Jakes, Chuck Swindoll, Beth Moore are just the few I could recall off the top of my head.

  173. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    I wish there was such a thing as an accurate survey and that I could conduct one with women married to the men that write and believe this stuff.

    It would have to be as anonymous as possible to get accurate answers. The little survey on “number of partners” at Waterloo, Canada years ago showed that clearly.

    Are the women that are married to exemplars of the complimentarian religion happy?

    Yeah, that would be a good question. It would take a lot of different approaches to get that info.

    Depends on a lot of things, I’m sure. Kathy Keller smashing up her wedding china then to gain the upper hand may be “happy enough” now as she gets to push for lady deacons in the PCA.

    Or / and / also it could be they were more compliant from the start.

    Or…these complimentarian preachers might not always practice in privacy what they preach in public…

  174. AnonS says:

    “clueless leisure class clergy”

    Yep. Many are unaware of the status boost of being a pastor and the number of girls that grow up just wanting to be a pastor’s wife (instant status). All they know is that they used “just be yourself” and found a wife, therefore all men should be able to.

  175. Frank K says:

    In some countries (such as Mexico) clergy cannot perform the state wedding, and thus to have a state sanctioned wedding one must go to “El Registro Civil” to get that performed. To not do so means one ends up in a “union libre”, which comes with a few legal disadvantages, at least for the woman, as the Mexican state won’t enforce child support for bastards.

  176. Frank K says:

    Yep. Many are unaware of the status boost of being a pastor and the number of girls that grow up just wanting to be a pastor’s wife (instant status).

    So true. I knew a dude who was a Baptist pastor. His wife was in her 40’s when she died of cancer. He had a new wife just a few months later, like 4 months later. Since it was common knowledge that his wife was dying, I wouldn’t be surprised if his second wife had their courtship all planned out, ready to swoop in after his wife died. And the dude wasn’t a superchurch pastor either and it was known that they were “poor” (his son didn’t have to pay to play club soccer, as the club gave him a scholarship, even though he was only an average player)

  177. Oscar says:

    @ feeriker

    I imagine that I (and maybe even the Almighty Himself) will feel the same way when (not IF) St. Paul’s Cathedral in London and Cologne Cathedral in Germany also go up in flames, almost certainly at the hands of the Nouveaux Europeans (people with names like Muhammad, Ali, and Abdullah).

    Those cathedrals won’t go up in flames. They’ll be mosques.

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2761/converting-churches-into-mosques

    The latest churches destined to become mosques are located in Germany, where the Roman Catholic Church has announced plans to close up to six churches in Duisburg, an industrial city in northwestern part of the country, due to falling church attendance.

    Duisburg, which has a total population of 500,000, is home to around 100,000 mostly Turkish Muslims, making it one of the most Islamized cities in Germany.

    Muslims in Duisburg are now clamoring to turn empty churches in the city into mosques, according to the Germany daily newspaper, Der Westen.

  178. thedeti says:

    I had no idea James Dobson’s son Ryan had been married and divorced.

    Ryan Dobson (age 48) was married to one Cezanne Williams. They were married for a very short time. He has since remarried.

    Danae Dobson is James Dobson’s daughter. She is 53 and has never been married.

  179. Bee says:

    theDeti,

    Does James Dobson have any grandchildren?

  180. OKRickety says:

    “Danae Dobson is James Dobson’s daughter. She is 53 and has never been married.”

    However, unlike Wendy Griffith, I don’t think she writes or speaks on how she is “a prize to be won”.

  181. thedeti says:

    Bee:

    Ryan and his current wife Laura have one son, Lincoln Dobson.

  182. thedeti says:

    Bee:

    Charles Stanley, senior pastor at First Baptist in Atlanta and leader of the TV/Radio ministry “In Touch”, was divorced from his wife of 38 years, Anna Stanley. She divorced him. Based on her public statements, it was because Charles spent all his time working and almost no time with her. But technically he is a widower now, as Anna has since died.

    Charles Stanley was separated from her for a time and said that if his then-wife divorced him, he would step down as senior pastor. Anna filed for divorce. He took some time off but never resigned his position, publicly stating that First Baptist needed him and its staff and junior pastoral staff prevailed upon him to remain. So he did.

  183. thedeti says:

    Ryan Dobson also did poorly as a college student at first while in college in Illinois. So his father pulled him out of school and made him work. He eventually graduated from Biola University in California.

  184. AnonS says:

    Charles Stanley was separated from her for a time and said that if his then-wife divorced him, he would step down as senior pastor. Anna filed for divorce. He took some time off but never resigned his position, publicly stating that First Baptist needed him and its staff and junior pastoral staff prevailed upon him to remain. So he did.

    They never, ever leave the money train. Their church can collapse in scandal and they will just quietly go somewhere else and start over. They don’t care about any scripture that disqualifies them, and their pay pigs don’t care either.

  185. @Daniel

    You are quite correct….In your model stated above, ONLY number 4 represents a true biblical marriage.

    This poses a huge, monumental problem for Christians though……They are going to have to admit that for decades they falsely accused those who chose to reject state sanctioned marriages, and lived with each other in a common law type situation, as being fornicators and living in sin, when the truth of the matter is, they were the ONLY ones who got married the way God intended.

    We have been absolutely brainwashed to think that if you don’t get married in a church building, with a marriage certificate, i.e “legally married”, or to exchange vows in front of a justice of the peace or a Pastor, then you’re not really married, and you’re fornicating. We’ve believed this lie for decades and it has been sold by every guilt ridden teacher/pastor in the body of Christ since the 1800’s, ……we should feel absolutely ashamed that we have adopted the world’s way of getting married, instead of God’s way, and then judged those who didn’t do it the world’s way as being filthy sinners. As far as I’m concerned we have blood on our hands.

    Do you want to get married God’s way?, this is how you do it, and it will be rejected by 99% of believers who call themselves Christian, yet it is entirely bible based:

    1: Find a single woman you are attracted to
    2: Get to know her for a week or so (the time frame will vary extremely)
    3: Ask her if she wishes to be your wife, not a partner, not a gf, A WIFE
    4: Ask her if she is happy for YOU to be her husband
    5: I am deliberately leaving out going to her father and asking his permission to be with his daughter, as so many women these days do not live under the authority of their fathers, so it’s almost pointless
    6: Once she agrees to be your wife, take her back to your home/tent and physically make her your wife by sexual intercourse, as that act seals the covenant bond. There needs to be NO witnesses, no advising others of what you both just did, it is a private act between 2 consenting adults
    7: You are now married to your woman, now go and rejoice in your new wife
    8: Let your other family members know that you are now married
    9: Let your church know you are now married and are now living with your new wife

    There was no witnesses, no formal exchanging of vows, no marriage certificate, no wedding, no justice of the peace, no pastor mediating etc

    NOW THAT IS A TRUE BIBLICAL MARRIAGE, and that is the ONE type of marriage that Christians/pastors/teachers will not allow, because it cuts out their part and their authority from their lives, and Christians are desperate to conceal this truth from their flock/sheeple

    The very idea that you can get married only by permission with a state license/certificate is not only unscriptural, it makes you an adulterer because there is not 2 parties involved, there is now 3, THE STATE
    You Christians were sold a lie and you believed it, and you condemned millions of couples of fornication by rejecting state sanctioned marriages in favor of common law, cohabitation

  186. feeriker says:

    Those cathedrals won’t go up in flames. They’ll be mosques.

    Then we can only hope and pray that God will have them burn to the ground after that.

  187. PokeSalad says:

    I’m not implying that I have no connection to Warhorn. I’ve written for them, my podcast used to be hosted by them, I attended Clearnote Church for 6 years, and I graduated from a pastors college at Clearnote. That’s all public information. I don’t deny it. I’m not ashamed of it. I also not ashamed to read blog likes this or let others know I do.

    Also, we have been associated with the so-called “bitter sectors of the manosphere” by many. I’ve caught crap for recommending The Rationale Male to friends. So on and so forth. Again, I’d urged men to judge a man by his own statements.

    Then tell us your position on the recent interaction of Dalrock and Nathan. Speak carefully.

  188. Oscar says:

    @ feeriker

    Then we can only hope and pray that God will have them burn to the ground after that.

    Amen. My hypothesis is that, when Muslims reach about 20-30% of the population of European countries, they’ll try and take over, but it’ll be too early. They’ll overplay their hand, and the backlash will be brutal.

  189. PokeSalad says:

    Charles Martel.

  190. feeriker says:

    Charles Martel.

    Let us hope and pray that his modern-day successor is waiting in the wings somewhere.

  191. Damn Crackers says:

    @feministdestroyer-

    “There was no witnesses, no formal exchanging of vows, no marriage certificate, no wedding, no justice of the peace, no pastor mediating, etc.”

    Not sure about your entire post, but this is absolutely correct. Most Christian weddings, if celebrated by the community, were not performed in a church for several centuries after the foundation of the religion. Many early churches didn’t perform weddings there because the priests thought it would “pollute” the church.

  192. Scott says:

    Dalrock-

    Going back and reading the first article by Guy RIchard, I see the cuteness now too. It really is as you describe.

    Falling over himself to show (presumably his wife) that he has slain the ickiness of verses women don’t like and stuff.

    “Lording over” and “Jesus came to serve, not be served” are like worn out cliches. I hear the sound of a trained parrot.

    “SQUAAAAK!!! Lording over! Lording over! SQUAAAAAK! Servant leader!”

    Don’t these people know that when a parrot does that, you aren’t actually having a conversation with it?

  193. thedeti says:

    HI feministdestroyer.

    Are you sure you’re not Artisan Toad?

  194. Scott says:

    thedeti–

    I know, right?

    There are those inthe hardline Church of Christ (the tradition I grew up in) who teach the sex=youre married thing too.

    Man did I feel weird as a teenager after my first several girlfriends.

  195. @DamnCrackers
    Yeah, that is true.
    The Bible says word for word that men should not get married.
    So I don’t understand all of the overt concern, other than church pews are empty of men, loaded with high mileage female divorcees, and the offering plates are perhaps not quite as full as they were before.

    Most of it also comes from married Christian men who want their sons to marry, I guess. Misery loves company, I don’t know.
    I’m aware that there are some great women out there, and that a happy married life is not impossible.
    With the soil, air and rain thoroughly polluted by feminism and misandry, most seedling marriages are so doomed from the very start, it’s not funny anymore.

    Maybe we should all try a little harder to be a heaven of a lot more like Jesus?:

    Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 1 Corinthians 7:27

    For I would that all men were even as I myself…. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 1 Corinthians 7:7-9

  196. thedeti says:

    @Scott:

    When I first started talking about the things I was figuring out here, this is the kind of visceral lashing out I got.

    I would point out calmly that at any point she could destroy me, take my kids and a large portion of my earnings for the rest of my life it was “I can’t believe you think I would do that!”

    Those were dark days. No matter how rationally I tried to point out that it makes no difference what I think she will or will not do, incentives matter. No matter how calmly I tried to describe the raw deal that marriage is as a legal predicament for the man, the basic response was that this only happens to really shitty abusive husbands who deserve it so I should stop perseverating over it.
    _____________

    I got the very same responses from Mrs. deti. This is one of the reasons “you don’t talk about Fight Club”.

    When I pointed out how easily she could destroy the family, it was “You hate women!!”

    When I calmly pointed out she could at any time drop dime to the police and meekly mutter “I feel unsafe” at which point i would be frogmarched out of my home, it was “You think I would do that to you? You are being so hurtful!!”

    When I suggested that women have been known to sic their pastors on their husbands to “overrule” and “supervise” them, it’s “You don’t know me at all. Do you really think I would do something like that??!!”

    When I suggested that marriage is a bad deal for men, it was “But it’s different now for us.” And the same “this only happens to really shitty abusive husbands who deserve it so you need to stop perseverating over it”.

    This is because women have a very hard time handling the truth about themselves and their natures. Or, they don’t understand what the laws empower them to do. I saw this on a daily basis at Giggles’ now dormant site. Whenever the dark underbelly of female sexual nature was exposed, she and her minions would run screaming from the room. Whenever it is pointed out how easily and casually women can deploy viciousness and cruelty toward men they no longer want or have use for, it’s “No that never happens that’s only shitty crappy low class white trash ghetto women who do that”.

    Whenever women’s wanton and reckless sexual depravities are pointed out, it’s “But Not All Women Are Like That”. And “But women just want to be wives and mommies. Women have casual sex because they are trying to get Hot Men to wife them up. These Hot Men are tricking and duping innocent paragons of sweetness and virtue into sex. These are Bad Men mistreating and using Good Women.” And “Only sluts act like this. Not all women are sluts.”

    And Mrs. deti actually saying to me, “But Christian women don’t do all these bad things you manosphere guys talk about. They just want to be wives and mothers. They don’t sleep around and they dont’ mistreat men.”

    Women have a very, very hard time facing the truth about themselves. This is because of their abhorrence for judgment and rejection, in my opinion. Women do not like being judged in any way. Because judgment opens them up to possible rejection, and women really do not like it when men reject them. Women literally dissolve into puddles of raw emotion and nervous breakdown when a man rejects them.

  197. anonymous_ng says:

    @TheDeti, after our divorce, the kids asked if I would talk to their mother about a certain behavior of hers. The predictable course of the conversation went like this:

    – Hey, you do this thing that bothers the kids
    — You do it too
    – Yes, I’m a horrible person, but you do this thing that bothers the kids
    — I’m a horrible mom
    – No, you’re not a horrible mom, you just do this thing that bothers the kids
    — Fine, I do that thing

    And, nothing changed.

    What a complete waste of time.

  198. Daniel says:

    @feministdestroyer

    What you say describes the ancient customs as illustrated in the marriage of Isaac. But in that example, Rebekah’s father was negotiated with, the servant gave gifts to her father and to her, and her father asked her if she consented.

    By the time of Christ, we see that many marriage customs had developed, in addition to the Law. Jesus did not condemn these customs, but used them to illustrate the spiritual truths concerning himself as bridegroom and the church as bride.

    Important elements include:
    – betrothal,
    – groom buys the bride for a price,
    – groom leaves to prepare a place,
    – surprise return of the groom to fetch his bride,
    – bride makes herself ready,
    – private wedding ceremony,
    – consummation,
    – wedding feast

    All of these are mentioned in the new testament with regard to Christs actions toward the church. And so each of them becomes a useful illustration, and something to be emulated. I don’t think that we are commanded to follow these Jewish customs for a modern marriage. But there is certainly good reason to make much more of marriage than simply taking the woman of your choice into your bed and declaring yourself married.

    Nevertheless, the authority to take a wife still rests with the groom alone.

  199. thedeti says:

    @ Anonymous ng:

    the kids asked if I would talk to their mother about a certain behavior of hers. The predictable course of the conversation went like this

    I’ve had the same things happen to me.

    Me: women are doing xyz and it is bad for society.

    Her: But men do that too.

    Me: But it’s different when women do it because ABC.

    Her: That’s so sexist.
    _____________________________

    Or try this one.

    Me: Mrs. deti, you are doing this X thing to me and it hurts and is offensive.

    Her: You did that same thing too.

    Me: When I did that, you didn’t have a problem with it.

    Her: Why are you so mean to me?

    Me: I’m not being mean to you. I am telling you I need you to stop doing X. It’s hurting me.

    Her: Yes you are. You are judging me. You obviously HATE me. I’ve seen what you man-0-sphere guys are writing about.

    Me: What does that have to do with you not doing X because it hurts me?

    Her: Now you’re rejecting me!

  200. Name (required) says:

    The “You should’ve vetted better” or “You should’ve married a ‘real’ Christian woman” excuse is something I encounter a LOT from Christian church leaders.

    Rollo, the problem with marrying a ‘real’ Christian woman is that they are all sinners, eager to be led astray, just like the real Christian men.

    “Doesn’t matter, God said get married”

    God also told us not to be unequally yoked. State-sponsored “marriage” is totally unequal, a trap to lure even real Christian women into divorce. Yes, marry. If you take out a marriage license, you haven’t accomplished that, at least not properly.

  201. farmlegend says:

    It was difficult for me to get through the podcast, entirely because I had to put Dr. Piper on pause so many times.
    The worst part was toward the end, when he went on about how he never ever has to worry about his wife abandoning their “covenant”, going feral, etc., because their marriage is so special and because he knows his wife, her convictions, her everything so well that he knows that she would never, ever behave badly, and never do anything to break their sacred covenant. Ie., since he did such a good job of vetting his wife, his marriage is utterly and completely inoculated from the possibility of his “quality wife” going feral.

    I can well imagine millions of divorced Christian men laughing out loud at his ignorant bullshit.

  202. Pingback: Never forget the eager role of the conservative anvil. | Dalrock

  203. Pingback: Raiders of the Lost Covenant

  204. Pingback: Raiders of the Lost Covenant – PushUP24

  205. Pingback: Too traditional to be traditional | Dalrock

  206. Pingback: Raiders of the Lost Covenant - The Rabbit Hole

  207. Pingback: Late stage complementarianism. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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