Late stage complementarianism.

Commenter 7817 noted:

TBayly on Twitter has begun posting #manup beatdowns on a daily basis.

I pulled up Pastor Bayly’s twitter page to see what he was talking about, and it struck me that Bayly doesn’t have his heart in his man up rants anymore:

The magic is clearly gone for him, and he is reduced to phoning it in.  A bit further down there is perhaps a spark, although not much of one:

It is possible this is just a short term bout of complementarian blues, and one day soon Bayly will once again be able to deliver full throated man up rants.  But it would be understandable if he finds he can’t snap out of his late stage complementarian funk.  All of the doublespeak is exhausting.  It is supposed to be exhausting for the listener.  That is the point, to wear would be critics out not with scripture and reason, but with sheer volume of traditional-but-not-traditional doublespeak.  Yet it has to eventually become exhausting for the double-speaker as well.

In November of last year Bayly boldly tweeted that husbands need to exercise their headship muscles.  Prince Asbel asked for concrete examples of how a husband might do this.  When distraction failed Bayly was forced to backtrack, laughably explaining that husbands “exercised authority muscles” by lots of pleading:

After that embarrassment Bayly can be forgiven for being gun-shy when it comes to bold man up rants.  Even his tepid taunt of men who don’t marry comes with the risk of being soundly called out.  Imagine for example that Bayly’s man up tweet is just what it takes to convince a man in Bayly’s congregation to marry.  He marries and then his fear, the fear Bayly says is justified, comes true.  His wife rebels.  He tries pleading, and more pleading, and then yet more pleading.  But somehow this makes him seem weak.  So he follow’s Bayly’s other advice and goes to Bayly and the elders (the session), asking for help admonishing his wife.  Bayly’s response is going to be that it isn’t his problem, and (adding insult to injury) he will suggest that the husband was foolish to marry a woman who might rebel!

If you were the husband asking me this question in my office, I’d say to you, “Don’t ask me—she’s your wife!” and we’d both laugh a little nervously. This precise exchange has happened before in my work as a pastor and one of the reasons I’ve responded this way is to reassure the brother he’s not alone in his problems, but also that they are his problems—not mine.

…I’d suggest you not haul your wife before the session. This counsel may surprise some, but it’s my experience most domestic problems involving the sin of women are best handled quietly by the Titus 2 “older women” of the Church, not the elders and pastors…

Sadly, the sort of husband who demands his pastor or elders reduce his wife to submission to him is the sort of man who is generally pathetic. Often he can’t face his own failures in leadership, so he drops his wife on the pastors and elders demanding they do what he couldn’t or wouldn’t.

Don’t let him manipulate you into feeling responsible for his dilemma. You can pity him. You can sympathize with him. You can help him. But don’t let him place the responsibility for his wife’s conduct in his home on you. He married her.

The thing is, the doublespeak mostly works. The intended audience will mostly give up trying to follow and simply assume Bayly really is being traditional.  They will stop thinking about it because the doublespeak makes their heads hurt. But the longer the complementarian ruse goes on, the more doublespeak it requires.  At the very least, since it is fundamentally a delaying tactic the need for more doublespeak never goes away. The quote I shared above comes from an 8 part series of doublespeak Bayly wrote on the subject of a husband’s authority in marriage.

Not long before his 8 story tall wall of doublespeak text around the authority of husbands, he wrote another post explaining that good Christian husbands should follow Martin Luther’s example and call their wives lord:

First, let it be said that Martin and Katie’s home was not Martin’s fiefdom, but Katie’s. Luther was a wise man who didn’t patronize women. He saw the division of authority God had decreed between man and woman and he didn’t infringe on Katie’s turf. She presided over the home and its domesticity, and he presided over the church and its instruction. Katie was the minister of internal affairs and Martin the minister of external affairs.

Is this heinous to our twenty-first century ears? If so, read on while asking yourself if any woman you know today has as much breadth of leadership, strength of influence, and personal authority as did Martin’s dear Katie?

Did Martin respect Katie’s authority over the home?

Yes. Martin affectionately referred to his wife as “My Lord Katie.”

Bayly delights in the thought of Lord Katie putting her husband in his place in front of guests:

After the evening meal, Martin retired to the living room with a small group of friends—and one woman, Katie. Here was the place where Luther’s “table talk” was recorded. Being the only woman present, Katie was no shrinking wallflower. She didn’t hesitate to express her disapproval of the talk—Martin’s in particular.

In fact, Bayly explains that the problem with modern Christian marriage is that it lacks this chivalrous bit of gender bending:

What John and these other reformed celebrities lack is “My Lord Katie.” She’d quickly put them in their place, and what a blessing it would be to the church of our time.

Bayly demonstrates in a note at the end of the post that he and his wife “My Lord Mary Lee” play the very same chivalrous game (emphasis mine) *:

Originally, I included the names of reformed celebrities in each of these particulars, but My Lord Mary Lee told me to take them out

I won’t try to sum up all of Bayly’s reversals in his complementarian doublespeak, because it is as it is intended to be, exhausting.  But eventually the sheer weight of decades of duplicity will become too much for even the most energetic complementarian to bear.  Eventually the cuteness wears off, and we are left with only exhaustion.  Even worse, all of the cool complementarians have moved on from selling traditional-seeming-feminism to selling traditional-seeming-homosexuality.  At least they get to move on to a new fresh form of doublespeak, something they can practice for decades before it becomes as wearisome as the feminist form Bayly and a handful of others like Pastor Wilson restrict themselves to.

*Moderator’s Note:  As I asked in a previous post, please keep the focus away from Pastor Bayly’s wife.  Any comments that are unkind to his wife will be deleted and the commenter will be placed in moderation status for future comments.  As disturbing as it is that a pastor would play such games with his wife, the much larger harm comes from him virtue signaling and modeling this role inversion via Warhorn media.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Chivalry, Complementarian, Courtly Love, Crossdressing Theology, Headship, Marriage, Pastor Tim Bayly, The only real man in the room, The Real Feminists, Too traditional to be traditional, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Warhorn Media. Bookmark the permalink.

200 Responses to Late stage complementarianism.

  1. Lexet Blog says:

    Perhaps many evangelical pastors who were home schooled and went to seminary are insecure, and feel the need to rip other men apart, rather than build them up. While they act like hippie millennial whiners, they distinguish themselves from SJWs because they aren’t pagans, while SJWs are.

    These guys don’t exude masculinity. They sit there and read books, drinking lattes all day. Then they go on social media (created for females), to bitch about straw men, so they can elevate their status in their gynocentric church.

  2. The Question says:

    “Did Martin respect Katie’s authority over the home?

    Yes. Martin affectionately referred to his wife as “My Lord Katie.””

    Perhaps the word he was looking for was “facetiously.”

    Aside from that, Luther is not the standard we are to follow.

    1 Peter 3:5-6

    “For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.”

  3. grandadd63 says:

    I guess I, who thought I was just an ordinary man until this moment, am an “effiminent” (if he wanted to call me gay or an incel he should have just gone for it).

    Beta as heck, I was excluded from the dating market, to say nothing of the marriage market.

    I guess me and my tax dollars will just go mgtow.

    The suddenly emptying churches and bridal shops can fight over the remaining bad boys and omegas. I’m out.

  4. Charles B says:

    I’m still most amazed by Bayly’s amazing double standard of excoriating men for not marrying and practicing headship, and then blaming them for the problems when they do.

    It betrays the perfect input, perfect output thinking that they’re all slave to. Of course it can never work that way because other people get a say as well.

  5. Charles B says:

    Bayly is the CO who orders his men to take an enemy position without specifying what means they can use, and then when his troops call for arty because the enemy has the temerity to resist, refuses on the grounds that they wouldn’t need it if they’d just done the assault right in the first place.

    Lord, save your children from such evil men.

  6. Opus says:

    I count eight uses above by Dalrock of the term doublespeak and so I felt it was time to learn the provenance of the term. It is not as one might suppose Orwell’s 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty Four which does not use it, but, according to Google’s Ngram was first used in a book in 1943.

    Interestingly I see that Bayly has written (I presume critically) of the Gay Mafia and Ngram shows that the term Homophobic originated sometime in the mid seventies.

  7. Nathan Bruno says:

    This man Bayly is so intent on demonstrating inversion as normative, he has declared that, when an entertainer hires a business manager, that entertainer is slave to the business manager, and should call him something like, “Lord Don King”.

    I agree with you, The Question; it must be effeminate if Bayly were to admit facetiousness or verbal irony. It also would undermine his Wilsonian declaration of a proper house despot.

  8. vandicus says:

    I knew about the whole Luther being a monk and marrying a nun thing, but is this true? It sounds so bad as to make me skeptical.

  9. Damn Crackers says:

    I’ve been hearing a lot of shaming of single men as “effeminate” and all sex other than procreation as “sodomy”, etc. on the Red Pill blogs.

    I get that the Left Hand Path always leads to butt stuff, but to yell at all single men to hurry up and marry up those sluts so you won’t be gay isn’t a good rationale.

  10. dpmonahan says:

    People quote Luther without realizing he told a lot of jokes and used a lot of hyperbole.

  11. Gaza says:

    Somewhat of a tangent but something that has been grinding my gears of late. How cringey all of this is but somehow the message of the cringe is not finding its way back to the cringe inducer.

    One more consequence of the toxic progressive culture: disarming the cringe. Perhaps?

    These manlets preening on the twits and other girlish smartphone bongo drums should shamed out of business.

    But the physical buffers afforded by modern media tools have seemingly removed the innate feedback loop of face-to-face communication and its immediate and powerful comms and subcomms.

    So these ferries can soapbox on without the important feedback of the collective cringe when spewing such inane, irrational, and plain faggy soundbytes.

    The cringe is a physical manifestation disgust and embarrassment. With no shame, a vastly reduced (via social engineering) natural disgust reflex, and the inverted virtue of modesty, we end up with feral feminized emoting instead of masculine headship through action.

    I’d say relentless mockery and shaming is in order but then I think part of the problem is the platform; i question whether engaging in twitty badminton does anything.

    Which is why it is important to sling looks of disgust in person whenever these males act unbecoming.

    They can hide in the twitter but should be reminded that in meatspace the laws of nature, truth and beauty, still exist, and there are men who will not bow to their fiat status as peddlers of feminized fortune cookie philosophy.

    Maybe its a positive that he’s phoning it in, we have reached a saturation point. But I also think it is dangerous to be at a point where toxic ideas are so ever present that the cringe reflex has also grown fatigued.

  12. The Question says:

    @dpmonahan

    Exactly.

    I would add that as a Protestant this pastor should know better than to appeal to the authority of a flawed human’s example over what the Bible teaches, which clearly contradicts the example he claims (fallaciously in my opinion) Luther set in his marriage.

  13. AnonS says:

    I like the Molyneux approach.

    Tweet back at every cutesy, flippant statement with “Not an argument”

  14. Crank says:

    I don’t have a dog in this fight, but my impression from his twitter feed is that this “man up” Bayly poser claims to be against “Complementarianism”

  15. Jason says:

    Scripture says specifically that it is better for a man to not marry. “He who does not marry, does not sin”. I’m too lazy to look it up…

  16. The most damning thing here is how he condemns these men as pathetic and eschews all responsibility to exercise pastoral authority in defense of his brothers when the situation calls for it. That’s why it was truly pathetic to see him and his ilk say that Dalrock needed to come under some Real Man’s authority like Pastor Bayly when he directly disclaims any moral responsibility to wield that authority in defense of marriage in his congregation.

  17. Men have followers who love them. Effeminates have followers who admire them. #comeonman

    I’m a bit perplexed about this one. Admiration is basically respect.

    God tells wives to respect husbands. So anyone who is a husband whose wife respects him is an effeminate?

    Also, the Bible tells wives to respect their husbands not to love them. A wife is a follower of her husband. If a wife loves her husband, she’s often the head/authority in the relationship and will ironically “love him but not be in love with him.”

  18. Call me crazy but I think the “wild at heart” tweet was a weird snipe at John Eldredge. Eldredge was the first guy I ever read who basically said “the evangelical bubble isn’t really sustainable or good for you”.

    Plus I’m really not sure what he’s trying to accomplish here. Seriously, what would he consider a “result” with these tweets?

  19. Jake says:

    Eh the only reason we like luther is because he stood against indulgences and papistry. This defense of him that he exaggerated and used hyperbole is just complete protestant blather to cover for embarrassing quotes.

    I am both an exaggerator and prone to hyperbole but i have never espoused the heresy of the nicoleteans.

    One would think a lawyer would carefully consider the written word, especially in talking about scripture. Not say sin boldly, when it flies inthe face of the inspired counsel of the very man who you claim saved you.

    Nor do i think men of God end up mad (demonic oppression). Let’s not fly to defend Luther when his awkward words once again embarrass christendom. Perhaps it’s time to recognize that he wasn’t an apostle. Maybe go ahead and say “oh the guy who says we should take away Jewish property and exile them? So you’re antisemitic? You arent and we shouldn’t do that? Then you are saying he’s wrong about some things? So maybe he’s wrong about calling his wife lord? Maybe we should examine his statements in the light of the word, and weigh it against holy scripture? So let’s find the bible verse about calling your wife Lord then shall we?”

    I’m also sick of this lordof the manor bullshit being spouted because a complimentarian accidentally cracked a bible. Yes a king’s steward is completely in charge of running his house. Does that place him in a position of authority over the king? Or does he serve at and for the kings pleasure?

  20. This reminds me of Kennedy and Nixon during the 1960 presidential campaign. I suspect Bayly has a similar problem to that of Nixon.

    “During the 1960 campaign against Nixon someone had asked Kennedy if he was exhausted, and he answered no, he was not. But he felt sorry for Nixon. He was sure Nixon was tired. ‘Why?’ the friend asked. ‘Because I know who I am and I don’t have to worry about adapting and changing. All I have to do at each stop is be myself. But Nixon doesn’t know who he is, and so each time he makes a speech he has to decide which Nixon he is, and that will be very exhausting.’”

    — From David Halberstam’s “The Best and the Brightest.”

  21. Lost Patrol says:

    I know I’m exhausted, and I’m not even playing the game but only watching from the grandstand.

    Pastor to young men: Real men marry these godly church women. Don’t be a wussboy.

    Young men to pastor: OK, sure. No problem. I fancy a few of them quite a bit.

    Young men to young church women: We should get married.

    Young women to the same men: No thanks, let’s just be friends. Maybe later.

    Young women turning 29.99 years old: There are no good men.

    Pastor to men: Real men marry these godly church women. Don’t be a wussboy.

    And some people say there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

  22. Opus says:

    I suppose Bayly must be of an older generation who just does not understand what life now is like for younger men. Given that he has five children and twenty Grandchildren that would be understandable.

  23. white says:

    @greenmantlehoyos

    I don’t believe Eldredge ever said that. His work is mostly complementarian and many Evangelifish love him. Read his book “Captivating” for women to see some of the most white knighting stuff you’ll ever come across

  24. thedeti says:

    Lost Patrol:

    Now complete the cycle:

    Not-so-young women turning 29.99 years old: There are no good men.

    Pastor to men: Real men will marry these godly church women. Don’t be a wussboy.

    Not-so-young but still relatively devout men now 28 to 35 years old; OK, it’s later. So, friend, wanna get married now?

    Not-so-young women: Yeah, sure, OK, I guess. I gotta get this baby thing going anyway. But show me da money!

    Men: OK. Here’s da money. I’m gonna go to work and you will work until we have kids, K?

    Women: What what WHAT??? No way. I’m quitting working and I’m getting pregnant now. I’m running this show. Do this, do that. Where’s my gumbo? Shut up, “husband”.

    Men: WTF??? Pastor, help me out.

    Pastor: Not my problem. You picked her. You married her. If she’s not submitting, you need to ask her to submit. Nicely. If that doesn’t work, ask her nicelier. If that still doesn’t work, well, I don’t know what to tell you.

    Men: WTF????

  25. Bruce says:

    @ DS
    “Also, the Bible tells wives to respect their husbands not to love them. A wife is a follower of her husband. If a wife loves her husband, she’s often the head/authority in the relationship and will ironically “love him but not be in love with him.”

    Wives are told to obey and respect and not to love. Why?

    Maybe because there’s really little or no distinction between love and respect/obey in this context. If a wife loves (I mean really loves not “feels love”) her husband she will respect and obey. Love is what you do not what you feel.

    Just a thought.

  26. okrahead says:

    When my now ex wife left a few years ago I went to the elders of the church where we were members. They gave me a set of written directives. I’m going to share an edited (redacted?) version of some of what they told me so young men can know what to expect if their wives leave them and they go to evangelicals for help.

    1. You have to become the best house Dad in the world.
    2. Clean the house from top to bottom. Do the dishes, wash the cloths, learn to cook. Have supper prepared for her in the evening. Light a candle on the table and put some flowers on the table. You have got to treat her like a queen. You have got to get on your knees and beg her to come home. You must humble yourself.
    3. You don’t need a job.
    4. Get off the internet and turn off the TV and Fox News. (The whole internet thing was when my ex found out I was reading Dalrock, whom I had come across by way of the now defunct Christian Men’s Defense Network, which in turn I came across when I googled “your Christian wife cheated on you.”)
    5. You should have already been going thru personality disorder counseling. (As part of the divorce I went through counselling since we have a child and custody was at issue. My ex actually got to pick the counsellor I went to. After eight sessions, paid for at my own expense, he gave me a clean bill of health and said I was a fit parent, which really annoyed her. The elders decided to take my then wife’s diagnosis over that of the licensed professional she had picked. As a side note, the ex was on three psychotropic drugs at the time and had been diagnosed with two major disorders, and has since had to do a stint in rehab. But I’m the crazy one.)
    6. If it doesn’t work, you can say you did every thing you could but it was too late.

    Each of these items (sans my editorial comments) is lifted directly from the letter our church elders (at the time) sent me.

  27. thedeti says:

    Wives are told to respect and obey because it’s in their nature to rebel, and because they are the “weaker vessel”. They’re more easily deceived. Women are told to respect and obey because they’re prone to thinking with their feelings and emotions, and to become offended and angry at the “harsh rules” that life requires.

    Men are told to love their wives because it’s in their nature to deal harshly and logically with everything. Men are prone to ignoring emotion and gentleness in favor of logic and “getting things done”, and to get frustrated and irritated at having to stop and address how someone feels.

    You see this all the time in the modern church. Our modern (mostly male) churchian pastors have created an entire false theology about love, sex, relationships, and intersexual relationships. Why? Because women complained. Women said “submission = doormat” and “that’s not nice” and “you are just a bunch of meanies” and “sexist/misogynist”. And “If you don’t stop saying these things we are leaving and we’re taking our money and volunteer time with us. And we will call the media and put this on social media and it will go viral and you’ll lose your jobs.”

    Men are positively terrified at this. In part, because for a long time, these tactics actually worked. I think that worm is turning, though.

  28. colojohn says:

    @ okrahead on June 7, 2019 at 12:52 pm

    I wonder if the roles were reversed (a “Christian” husband philandering and the wife went to the elders) if she would receive basically the same set of instructions.

  29. 53 says:

    Bruce and Deep Strength:

    The Bible does tell women to love their husbands:

    Titus 2:4-5 ESV
    “And so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.”

  30. thedeti says:

    okrahead:

    What the pastor should have been doing is telling the wife in no uncertain terms that she needs to go home, submit to her husband, and humble herself before her lord and her God.

    What the pastor should have been doing is telling you to love your wife, meaning “put down guardrails for her behavior, expect and demand respect, and confront her wrong behavior directly”.

    The closest I’ve ever seen or heard pastors tell wives they’re in the wrong is to say things like “you don’t have grounds for divorce” and “what you’re doing is wrong” and “what you’re doing is sin”. Essentially

    “well, what you’re doing is wrong and destructive, but I’m not going to tell you to stop nor what you should do instead of your open rebellion and defiance. I am not going to tell you you must submit to your husband, approach him in humility and deference, express regret for your actions, and repent of your sin. Instead, I’m going to meekly tell you that you shouldn’t do this, oh
    won’t you please stop doing this, pretty please with a cherry on top, and otherwise wash my hands of this.”

  31. okrahead says:

    Deti,
    You are of course correct. Her actual complaint to the elders was that I was abusive by being “too controlling,” (Duluth wheel and all that), specifically I told her she could not do certain things (go to the bar with her girlfriends, go across country by herself to go to concerts, and carry on an online relationship with her ex-boyfriend from college). My ex and I had actually met with one of the elders and his wife previously, and to their credit they told her to knock off the online relationship. She later went to a few different elders (there were several at this church) until she found more sympathetic ears.

  32. @white, He doesn’t really write about men and women all that much, like 5% of what he does. I’m not going to blame a pre-manosphere guy for not being on board immediately with what we’re doing now. I’m not justifying what he gets wrong, I’m saying it’s missing what he’s great at.

    But no, that was definitely the point of Journey of Desire. I kind of hate that most people know Wild at Heart, but honestly Journey of Desire is the better, more important work. His whole point was that he was on the evangelical treadmill and it just wasn’t good, it was deadening. Checklists and pat answers, not real desire, not real walking with God. Trying to create the “perfect system”.

  33. Pingback: Late stage complementarianism. | Reaction Times

  34. dpmonahan says:

    “Eh the only reason we like luther is because he stood against indulgences and papistry. This defense of him that he exaggerated and used hyperbole is just complete protestant blather to cover for embarrassing quotes.”
    Being a “Papist” I have no personal interest in defending Luther but the fact is he intentionally said ridiculous things all the time, and this is likely an example.

  35. Bruce says:

    Outstanding comment by thedeti, thanks.

  36. P says:

    Protestant pastors don’t have any real authority except in terms of the social club they own access to. Anyone can leave Bayly’s church and go to some other church with a clean conscience. A protestant pastor is basically just a landlord. I think this might influence his understanding of the husband needing to plead and cajole his wife.

  37. Cane Caldo says:

    @P

    Excellent comment.

  38. Scott says:

    okrahead-

    Minus the details, your divorce and attempt to get the leadership involved went like mine did.

    First, I hope you are taking care of yourself.

    Second, this is why I offer my services and specialize in men’s issues.

    Third, based on how mine went, and my reaction to it, this Bayly guy would call me “effeminate.”

    F@&$ you buddy. Any time, I’m easy to reach. And have you done one damn thing to help men?

  39. Frank K says:

    Protestant pastors don’t have any real authority except in terms of the social club they own access to.

    I once tried to explain this to a Hungarian cousin, who happens to be a lawyer. As in most of Europe they mostly have 3 churches: Catholic, Reformed and Lutheran. When I tried to explain to her the concept of independent, “non denominational” churches, she just couldn’t wrap her head around the concept. “You mean anyone can start a “church” and people will actually attend those churches?” She asked. “Yup, that’s right.” She shook her head and simply said “That is so strange”.

  40. okrahead says:

    Scott,
    Thanks, I am doing pretty well. Things went better for me than most, as I kept custody (for the most part) of my son. Ironically, the divorce court gave me a much fairer hearing and much better outcome than did the church I was attending. I’ve followed you for at least two years now; my religious and cultural background is almost exactly the same as your own, which probably explains a lot of what happened.

  41. Scott says:

    Okrahead

    Church of Christ?

  42. American says:

    I used to think the type of person under discussion in the OT was simply ignorant and deceived. But over the years I realized they’re not just ignorant and deceived but also wholly given over to psychosis. Fools take his advice. Don’t be a fool.

  43. American says:

    @thedeti: She’s not going to humble herself of her rebellion, repent, and follow God’s instruction for wives. If she was in that ever shrinking minority of women who actually make good Christian wives, it wouldn’t get to the point where one has to drag his wife before the elders of the church.

    She’s going to rebel, divorce, grab the kids, take the goodies, and go off to do her own thing with her friends demonizing the male left behind to everyone who will listen while looking for the next thrill.

    That’s the point. That’s why we’re not marrying them anymore but creating productive Christian single lives, as Paul the Apostle suggested. Marry one and you’re sitting on a keg of dynamite. Tick tick tick… It’s just a matter of time.

  44. okrahead says:

    Scott,
    Yes, in Arkansas.

  45. Scott says:

    makes sense. That’s where my moms side is all from.

    Backwoods ozark mountain scots.

  46. okrahead says:

    Yep, we farmed potatoes. And rocks. Lots of rocks.

  47. JRob says:

    Never fear, Bayly will be healed of his complementarian depression just in time for the Father’s Day Evangelical Beatdown.

  48. Lexet Blog says:

    Virtue signaling. The bayly/warhorn guys are too tone deaf to realize their target audience isn’t on Twitter, and that they won’t expand their audience there either.

    The only people who will agree with him are those already in his insulated bubble

  49. That Brotha Pedat says:

    Bayly loves to call dudes effeminate. That shit is actually rather effeminate.

    @P regarding Protestant fuckery. I totally agree. I didn’t use to, but the years have taught me better.

  50. Lexet Blog says:

    For all men out there, your elders have no authority over your marriage. Their opinions are meaningless

  51. Scott says:

    Lexet Blog

    I am not sure the issue is “authority over marriage” as it is

    1. In a perfect world, the social pressure and stigma of the churches official decision making body to bring sinners to heel through excommunication (or “disfellowship” to use protestant terminology) and other sanctions.

    2. This coupled with the social pressure and stigma of elder, married woman to shame other wives into returning to their families and working things out would be a tremendous help to saving marriages that are on the rocks.

    3. In an even more perfect world, the entire culture and civilization would be in on this important social structure.

  52. Scott says:

    Currently, if you are a married Christian husband/father who is committed to the indisoluble nature of marriage, the only thing keeping your marriage together is how your wife feels about you at any given moment.

  53. SirHamster says:

    For all men out there, your elders have no authority over your marriage. Their opinions are meaningless

    If that were true, women couldn’t possibly get divorces. How is she going to overpower the husband and take half his stuff?

    Men exist in communities. Elders are leaders of the communities. The failure to wield authority correctly does not make the authority cease to exist.

  54. Charles B says:

    I actually predict a change from the cuckservative and complimentarian standard Father’s Day this year

    It will most certainly not be a call to arms and support of actual patriarchal Structure and authority. They will not call for wives and daughters to submit to husbands and fathers.

    Instead I predict that they will react to some of the most egregious examples on the left, And say that we need the protection of fathers (i.e. Fathers need to somehow be more sacrificial of themselves) More than ever and that all of this demonizing is making it too hard for man to appropriately destroy themselves to prevent this.

  55. thedeti says:

    the social pressure and stigma of the churches official decision making body to bring sinners to heel through excommunication (or “disfellowship” to use protestant terminology) and other sanctions.

    As Dalrock and others document, churches no longer do this. They do nothing to enforce doctrine. This does nothing to encourage women to stay in their marriages.

    social pressure and stigma of elder, married woman to shame other wives into returning to their families and working things out would be a tremendous help to saving marriages that are on the rocks.

    Presently, many older women are themselves divorced. The ones who remain married bitch about or deride their husbands in public constantly. Both groups of older women encourage younger women to divorce.

    But, when we look at how the church and protestant marriage ministries treat men, it’s nonstop shaming and derision directed at men merely for wanting their wives to act like wives. It’s nonstop exhortations to “man up”. It’s neverending commands to do more, work harder, be better. It’s incessant, relentless commands to have less sex and do more chores. And if you complain about any of this or point out that, hey, maybe SHE needs to do something, it’s “shut up and man up, you little nobody! If you can’t handle this, you’re not a Real Man!”

  56. Burner Prime says:

    If this is true about Martin Luther it only solidifies my belief that the Protestant branches are illegitimate, and the true Church descendants of Peter reside in the Catholic and Orthodox branches of Christianity.

  57. 7817 says:

    Protestant pastors don’t have any real authority except in terms of the social club they own access to. Anyone can leave Bayly’s church and go to some other church with a clean conscience. A protestant pastor is basically just a landlord. I think this might influence his understanding of the husband needing to plead and cajole his wife.

    This fact bothers Bayly and his group of pastors immensely. They are the most vocal protestant supporters of pastoral authority that I have witnessed. One of there main nitpicks with Dalrock was that, according to them, he was not submitted to pastoral authority. This focus on pastoral authority runs at least all the way back to the first Massachusetts Puritans.

  58. Scott says:

    OT

    Take care

  59. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Man Up is now apparently a romcom:

    But it turns out that Brits mean something different when they say “man up.” It means for a woman to find a man.

    This romcom appears to be about a 34-year-old woman, who some man mistakes for his 24-year-old blind date. He’s obnoxious and conceited, and gets mad when he learns the truth. But naturally, they fall in love. He realizes she’s better than any 24-year-old.

  60. TheTraveler says:

    “The magic is clearly gone for him, and he is reduced to phoning it in. ”

    The Devil’s ways ARE exhausting. They’re against nature. But not to worry, Old Nick has an endless supply. Soon, The Rev will be on to the next secularist fad!

  61. Lost Patrol says:

    Speaking of men, effeminates, what Scott is doing, and who is this guy really? – a link from Instapundit.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/no-sugar-pills-here/201906/reviving-romeo

    “Several of my male patients came to me after seeing therapists who advised them to abjure their masculine ways. In my work with them, I try to help them reclaim their manhood and realize the best version of themselves while respecting their intrinsic strengths and limitations.”

  62. Scott says:

    LP

    That guy practically plagiarized the text of my “about” page word for word.

  63. Lexet Blog says:

    In evangelical circles, we tend to view marriage issues as those that can be reigned in by church discipline, with elders/counselors leading the marriage. It’s wrong, and defies the husbands role and authority in a relationship.

  64. Lexet Blog says:

    I believe scripture allows for divorce in the case of infidelity or abandonment.

    The evangelical left first promoted divorce, but then infiltrated the “no divorce” circles once they realized they don’t screwed up. There is too much money in continuing bad marriages. Focus on the family and family life exist to promote terrible advice.

  65. Lexet Blog says:

    There isn’t a community on earth led by church elders.

  66. Tam the Bam says:

    Poor sod. Your man Bayly, that is. Seems to be having some sort of early-onset/breakdown thingies. My kid brother went the same way, started with ranting at (imaginary) male political (-ish) rivals on t’internuts. Now he’s basically a cabbage, looked after by his iron-willed wife. Maybe somebody should go and have a talk with him, get him to make a will and settlements and all that before it’s too late.

  67. Fundamental “problem” for Christians like Bayly is that more men today know that husbands and fathers have zero authority in marriage, even within the Church.
    Rebuking a wife? Hahaha. That’s a good one. Rebuking your wife is sexual assault and domestic violence now.

    So Churchian calls for “Man Up!” are effectively an overused punchline now that even your most ardent feminist woman knows will not work anymore.

    Like politicians chasing the female vote, the Christian Church has sold its soul and burned the pages of its own dogma in order to try to win over the female congregant and win her tithe.
    And it’s not working.
    Because women don’t tithe.
    And neither do all of the men who are absent from the pews.

  68. Frank K says:

    This fact bothers Bayly and his group of pastors immensely. They are the most vocal protestant supporters of pastoral authority that I have witnessed. One of there main nitpicks with Dalrock was that, according to them, he was not submitted to pastoral authority.

    He isn’t submitted to Bayly’s pastoral authority. So are about 4 billion other men and about 99.9999999% of Christendom.

    When you can walk across the street and join another church, which might not have existed even a mere year ago, what kind of authority can a pastor have? Just open a phone book, its a smorgasbord of choices. And those choices, much like retailers, are competing for your collection plate dollars.

  69. Kid Charlemagne says:

    Vandicus said “I knew about the whole Luther being a monk and marrying a nun thing, but is this true? It sounds so bad as to make me skeptical.”

    Have you ever looked into what Luther actually taught? The man was clearly psychotic. I mean, as in seriously deranged. And I would strongly doubt the judgment of anyone who promotes that whackjob…to put it mildly!

  70. Kid Charlemagne says:

    Check out this article, it is very much on topic. “Why the Church has No Room for ‘Christian Feminism’ “. Some fantastic quotes in here.

    https://onepeterfive.com/bride-christian-feminism/

  71. locustsplease says:

    You really have to wonder how beat down the men attending this church are. My church is fairly large 4-5k and attendance fluctuates with all kinds of things even seasons. How in the hell to you listen to a pastor on sunday who publicly posts garbage that you cannot decipher on Twitter. How is that not your moment you go church shopping? Why can you not realize then that you cannot trust this person to give you life or death information?

  72. Shari Vegas says:

    @Scott and @okrahead,

    I’m a Church of Christ guy myself, and let me admit: I know one church (mine) that actually sticks very closely to 1 Tim 3:1-13. Most in the CoC system have seen Elders chosen because they were popular or wealthy. The fact Scott has been through this does not surprise me, because most CoCs don’t follow the Bible as strictly as they should.

    Pray for us all, Brothers, that we may be able to exorcise complementarianism from the Church of Christ.

  73. CK says:

    “all of the cool complementarians have moved on from selling traditional-seeming-feminism to selling traditional-seeming-homosexuality.”
    Yes, the Soros Baptist Convention is now run by homo-hipsters.

    Best of luck with that, Southerners.

  74. feeriker says:

    The most damning thing here is how he condemns these men as pathetic and eschews all responsibility to exercise pastoral authority in defense of his brothers when the situation calls for it.

    That’s Churchianity 001: flatulate loudly and posture as a spiritual leader when it’s safe and doesn’t put you at risk of anything, but then turn tail, flee to the rear, and abandon the troops when the enemy draws near, armed to the teeth.

    Cowardly, worthless fucking frauds, every last one of them.

  75. @Kid Charlemagne

    The author and his brother are coming out with a book on this topic soon. Publisher will be Sophia press; keep an eye out for it.

  76. feeriker says:

    Currently, if you are a married Christian husband/father who is committed to the indisoluble nature of marriage, the only thing keeping your marriage together is how your wife feels about you at any given moment.

    NAILED it.

    As Dalrock and others document, churches no longer do this. They do nothing to enforce doctrine. This does nothing to encourage women to stay in their marriages.

    It’s been said that almost no “churches” today feed their flocks “spiritual meat,” only “spiritual milk.”

    I will assert that what passes for “churches” today provide doesn’t even rise to that basic level of spiritual nutrition. What today’s churches dispense is spiritual junk food, candy and empty carbs for the soul that tickles the ears and gives the victim a temporary high, but is not only of no spiritual nutritional value, but actually hazardous to the spirit.

    Most churches couldn’t feed their congregants “spiritual meat” even if they wanted to (and most of them most assuredly don’t), because there is none in stock. Even most “pastors” can barely digest spiritual milk. “Doctrine” based on deep Scriptural precepts is meat well-done that would probably kill the typical churchian.

  77. Hmm says:

    On elders and guidance:

    As an elder in a reformed church, one thing we do agree to is that we cannot command the congregation to do anything the Bible does not command. And we stick closely to that. So we’ll tell you not to get drunk, or date a non-Christian woman. But we won’t tell you what to wear to services, or how to educate your children (we have home, private and government schooling families), or to man up and marry.

    We play a major role in marriages when one party brings charges against another, which we work to adjudicate scripturally. Right now I am involved in a divorce proceeding of a church couple, trying to sort out the claims and counterclaims, and examining evidence. Whatever the courts or secular authorities decide, our job is to follow Biblical law regarding evidence and witnesses, etc. So the woman who walks out of court with cash and prizes may also face excommunication from us.

    We also offer to take a hand in “matters of conscience”, when one or more parties come to us with matters that they need to make a decision on, where they believe there is no direct scriptural guidance (“Should I go back to the mission field?” “How can I forgive that wrong against me?”) In such cases we try to use our combined wisdom (informed by our Biblical knowledge) and the “general equity” of Scripture – applying the heart of Scriptural examples to cases that have different details. But such advice is not binding.

    We do encourage marriage, and so far have a pretty good track record with those married by our pastors. But we are small enough to be able to watch over each other and head off disaster when we see it coming. And we do truly have older women teaching younger women how to love their husbands and children.

    It’s when I look back at the church we left 14 years ago (much more mainstream evangelical) that I see so many of the church and marriage dynamics talked about by other posters here.

  78. okrahead says:

    Scott has talked about this already, but I can affirm it… At one time the churches of Christ took a hard line against divorce. Growing up I remember being taught that the only acceptable cause for divorce was adultery. Since the churches of Christ practice congregational autonomy this varied a bit between some congregations; but all of them were, as far as I was aware, adamantly opposed to “divorce culture.” This seems to have changed rapidly during the nineties. Several prominent preachers, as well as several leading college teachers and respected writers, publicly changed their positions on divorce. Individuals who had written influential commentaries condemning divorce switched their positions 180 degrees in the space of a decade. It was almost like a “great awakening” in reverse. I knew many of these men, and as it turned out most of them (actually all that I knew of personally) had family members (daughters and/or sisters) involved in divorces before they suddenly had an epiphany that female initiated divorce could be okay for any number of reasons. My own former father in law had taught strongly against divorce… right up until his daughter filed for divorce against me, when he suddenly discovered divorce was not all that bad after all. It’s sola something, but definitely not sola scriptura.

  79. 7817 says:

    hmm

    re: reformed church

    Some of the reformed folks talk a good game but it is a niche culture. Takes a certain mindset to want to be part of that culture. For those that can be faithful to Christ within that system, good for them. But having been raised by a parent from the “holiness movement,” my opinion is that being Reformed is every bit as much cultural as it is spiritual.

    And when you think about Reformed in these terms, Wilson and Bayly’s own brand of unreflective complementarianism makes a bit more sense as a product of their culture as opposed to a complementarianism arising from theology.

  80. Anon says:

    Meh. If this pastorbator has just 1200 Twitter followers, does he even matter at all?

  81. info says:

    The smell of sulfur is very apparent from his inversion of the roles of husband and wife.

    This is what evil looks like. Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Sweet for bitter and bitter for sweet.

  82. info says:

    @thedeti
    If ” submission=doormat” Satan would be absolutely justified. And god would be an evil tyrant.

  83. info says:

    @Burner Prime
    Well catholicism at least is going through a crisis as severe or more worse than the protestant church. Does that mean its illegitimate too?

  84. Scott says:

    The Church of Christ, while obviously still holding a special place in my heart was formed out of rebellion, and as such is a quintessentially “American” sect of Christianity.

    Its main founders were Presbyterian Scots.

    The Stone-Campbell movement from which it sprung was a fiercely independent intellectual unity movement that attempted to distill the most stripped down, salvation dependent points of the faith using sola scriptura as it’s only fixed point of reference and with zero regard for anything that happened (or the church did) during the 1800 years prior.

    Looking back now as a newly minted Orthodox Christian, I see the folly of this. Like trying to understand where you are going while ignoring and being totally unmoored from the past, the CoC cannot conceptualize itself without pretending that everything that happened for almost 2000 was heresy while a small band of “real” Christians kept the faith.

    But okrahead is correct. For a very long time divorce was almost unheard of among its adherents.

    My own grandparents were married for 63 years until my grandpa died in 1983.

  85. RichardP says:

    @Deep Strength said: Also, the Bible tells wives to respect their husbands not to love them.

    The aged women likewise … that they may teach the young women to … love their husbands. Titus 2:3-4 (kjv)

    “Husbands – love your wives” was a goal for the congregants of the New Testament church.
    “Wives – love your husbands” was a goal for the congregants of the New Testament church.

    Why does one have to teach young women to love their husbands if it is something that comes naturally to them?

    ———-

    For the sake of brevity, let’s accept that God and Jesus and Christ are all one.

    1. For God so loved the world … (John 3:16)

    2. … as Christ loved the church … (Ephesians 5:25)

    ———-

    The Church is the Bride of Christ. Wife is to husband as Church is to Christ. Husband is to love his bride as Christ loves His bride.

    We get way far off out into the weeds if we do not understand that God loves the world and God loves the Church – and those are two different kinds of love.

    The Bible does not commend husbands to love their brides as God loves the world. No – husbands are to love their brides as God loves the Church.

    Are those who reject God’s authority over their lives members of the Church? Are those who reject God’s authority over their lives the recipients of the special ministrations that God pours out over the Church??

    God spits out of his mouth even those who are lukewarm. God encounters those who cast out demons in his name and yet rejects them because they didn’t obey him. Christ tells the disciples to shake the dust of of their feet as they leave the village that will not receive them.

    God loves the world. God loves the Church -> God loves those who are members of the Church. Two different kinds of love. And that special love that God has for the Church is not poured out on those who reject God’s authority over their lives.

    Husband’s – love your wives in the same way that God loves the Church — limit that display of affection and goodies only to those who accept your authority over their lives. That is the way that Christ / God loves the Church.

    And here is the kicker that is never discussed – so far as I can tell. The way that God loves the Church is to expell from his presence those who reject his authority over their lives. God doesn’t go all gooey trying to get the rebellious ones to accept his headship, so that they can again become part of his bride. Nope. He just flat out cuts them off. Because.some.things.can’t.ever.be.fixed. Weren’t.ever.designed.to.be.fixed. We can see this in that, at the final Trumpet sound, both the redeemed and the non-redeemed are going to be resurrected.

    If God’s love for the Church was such that he wooed all the rebellious back into accepting his authority over their lives, there would be no non-redeemed to be resurrected at the last day.

    God’s love for the world, God’s love for those who reject his authority over their lives and are therefore not part of the Church, is a take-it-or-leave-it love. It is not the same love as what he pours out over the Church – comprised ONLY of those who do accept his authority over their lives.

    To be lovin on someone who rejects your authority over their lives because Christ loves Church is to have missed what that statement means. No.one who rejects Christ’s authority over their lives is a member of the Church that Christ loves. And the Bible does not say to love your wife the way God loves the world.

    Love your ungodly wife if you want to, as God so loved the world (timshel; thou mayest). Just don’t think you can, or are required to, love her as God loves the Church (she is not part of the Church). Try to point out to her the errors of her ways; take her before the appropriate church body in that effort (timshel; thou mayest). But don’t be all snively and broken if it doesn’t work. Be like God, who chooses to love the world, who sacrificed his son because of that love for the world, but doesn’t break a sweat in swiftly rejecting those who reject him and the love he has displayed toward them.

  86. BillyS says:

    Lexet,

    Homeschooling has nothing to do with it. I bet most pastors today went through the same government education camps most Christians have served in.

  87. white says:

    @okrahead

    Sola Femina

  88. white says:

    @feeriker

    You’re still assuming the pastor here is even on the man’s team. Since “the enemy” in your analogy above is women, shouldn’t we conclude that the pastor has always been working for the enemy since day 1?

  89. Lee says:

    The Deti wrote:
    Men: OK. Here’s da money. I’m gonna go to work and you will work until we have kids, K?
    Women: What what WHAT??? No way. I’m quitting working and I’m getting pregnant now. I’m running this show. Do this, do that. Where’s my gumbo? Shut up, “husband”.
    Men: WTF??? Pastor, help me out.
    Pastor: Not my problem. You picked her. You married her. If she’s not submitting, you need to ask her to submit. Nicely. If that doesn’t work, ask her nicelier. If that still doesn’t work, well, I don’t know what to tell you.
    Men: WTF????

    My response:

    This is just more of the same exhausting double speak employed by feminists and complimentarians alike. Feminism, complimentarians and men’s rights activists all want all the rights of matrimonial marriage/patriarchy without the responsibility that goes along with it.
    Only the mind of an adolescent man would be foolish enough to believe they are in authority without having the responsibility of being the provider of their dependent wife. On the other hand, only the mind of an adolescent woman would be foolish enough to believe they are in authority as her husbands dependent. Children are not suited for the adult relationship of marriage. It would make little sense for a man to declare his authority in any form of egalitarian relationship which includes adultery, premarital sex or a same sex relationship You cannot mix the practice of egalitarian cohabitation with the language of matrimonial marriage without subjecting yourself to utter incoherence.They are polar opposites that cannot be mixed.

    Why say WTF to a pastor with no answers? Why would any man with any shred of confidence bring a Pastor in to his home to have his head covered by another authority? This will only lead to more rebellion because women crave security more than anything.

  90. feeriker says:

    @white

    Good point!

  91. TheOtherScott says:

    At the risk of hijacking the comments I would like to post a question that is way off topic. Feel free to delete if I am out of line.

    I have previously posted questions asking how to convince my putatively Christian wife to submit. Nothing I have tried has worked. I prayed for a long time for God to change her. He never answered in the way that I wanted Him too. Then I began to pray that God would help me understand. This he answered. It appears that I am married to a narccisist. I have been researching the topic for months now and I can come to no other conclusion. Although I am aware of the risk of attempting a psychological diagnosis as an amateur and even mores on a family member there is all kinds of evidence: No empathy whatsoever (we always joked her response to anyone elses illness was “suck it up.”, projection (she says I don’t love her), gaslighting to the max, inability to examine herself and take responsibility for her errors (I cannot remember the last time she apologised). Just as an aside, I’m not the only one that sees a problem. My adult daughter has gone “no contact” with her.

    If you know anything of the topic you know that the common advice from secular sources is to run away just as fast as you can. I really don’t think that I can or I want to divorce her (but the next time she makes an effort to leave me, I’m going to help her pack). My only strategy thus far has been to attempt to avoid contact with her as much as possible while living in the same house. This has helped my stress level some but is no way to live long term. I have yet to encounter, from any source, what I would consider to be sound advice on how to live with a mentally ill spouse in a Christian marriage. HELP! Any advice would be appreciated.

  92. Strike Three says:

    @TheOtherScott (from June 8 at 4:49 am).
    Good morning, brother. What you have written in your post sounds exactly like something I could’ve written two and a half years ago (when my wife finally left). I have had to play amateur psychiatrist for years, and I came to the same conclusion as you: my wife is a narcissist.

    But here’s where my two points of advice come in. First of all, I would encourage you to fine-tune your research regarding Narcissistic Personality Disorder. If you have concluded that your wife really is a narcissist, look in to the possibility that she is actually a Borderline Personality version of narcissist. Without going in to details about my marriage miseries, (and without knowing the details of your struggles), if your wife is a Borderline she ain’t never gonna get better. Watch some YouTube videos and do some reading on the subject; you are actually more qualified to diagnose her than a psychiatrist is, because you have been living with the “subject” for years. She may be able to bluff a shrink (and your church elders), but she can’t bluff you.

    My second bit of advice is this: never ever do anything that can be interpreted by your children as you leaving them. You mentioned an adult daughter who has gone “no contact” with your wife. But if you still have kids living at home, take every opportunity to draw closer to them in fellowship, in affirmation, and in fun. Narcissistic wives in general (and Borderlines in particular) will sub-consciously pull away from all the family members when they distance themselves from their husband. By withholding love from you and any kids still at home, your wife is trying to make you leave her. If you do leave she can then tell all the church ladies and old Christian friends she runs in to at Wal Mart that you “gave up on the marriage”, and just left (even though she was “really trying to make things work”, of course). In other words, no matter how much she makes you suffer, never ever move out of your home. If you have to sleep on the couch for years then do that. If you have to cook every single meal that you eat, then do that. And I guess you’ll get really good at doing the laundry, too.

    Tell her, to her face, “Look, I don’t understand everything that’s going on here, but I do know this. I’m not leaving. Our kids will never, ever, think to themselves ‘Daddy moved out on us.'” And Jesus will help you survive all of this. I don’t know how non-Christians get through these trials in an honorable way. But eventually, in my case, she moved out.

    I was never so lonely in all my life as I was when she still lived here.

  93. Iowa Slim says:

    @TheOtherScott

    Re BPD and NPD wives

    Book:

    “Stop Caretaking the Borderline or Narcissist: How to get out of the drama, by Margalis Fjelstad, Ph.D., LMFT

    Online info and support:

    https://shrink4men.com

  94. TheOtherScott says:

    @Strike Three

    Thanks brother. We have been married 32 years and have three adult children (two of them married and one in college). I actually had one marriage counsellor (the best of the three we have seen) tell me she was BPD. She found out about that and refused to ever see him again. She was abused as a child by her schizo/paranoid mother (this was hidden from me until after marriage) so she fits the pattern. Her sister has been diagnosed as bipolar. To me she seems to better fit the NPD pattern, but I don’t really see a lot of difference in practical terms.

    My daughter, who has gone no contact, told me recently she wished I had divorced her years ago because of the conflict. Not an option to me. I won’t leave, but I won’t stop her from leaving any more. And once she walks out that door, with suitcases in hand, its over.

    I spent 20 years trying to live up to her standards for me. I felt like I had lost myself. I discovered the red pill and spent the next 10 years trying to “be a better man” and thinking that would do the trick. Now I realise she is what she is and outside of a miracle she will never change.

    I really feel your loneliness comment. At the moment I’m just tired. Knowing that it really doesn’t depend on me is liberating. We are moving back to the States this month. I’m going to have an opportunity to talk to her Dad. I’m going to lay it all out and see what he says. He knows there are problems but I don’t know if he knows the extent of it.

    I’m learning to make better boundaries and enforce them even when she gets furious. I just no longer care about how she reacts. The feces are really gonna hit the fan when I refuse to buy a house with her because she has threatened to leave me so many times. There is no way I’m going to put myself in that position.

    Thanks again. It helps to know I’m not the only one.

  95. TheOtherScott says:

    @Iowa Slim

    Thanks. I will check it out.

    I’ve read a lot of the shrink4men website but it also tends to be advice of leave and divorce. As a Christian I cannot do that right now.

  96. Scott says:

    ToS

    What you have described is a situation that everyone reading here sounds like Hell. To live in the house with the person you have committed your entire life to, and having to sequester yourself in order to feel sane, seems unbearable. To have to put yourself on a passion/sex/romance/companionship diet when the person who is SUPPOSED to fill that role is right in front of you is a cruel existence.

    No matter what happens, no matter what you decide, be well.

    But if you are up to it, reach out.

    https://www.treasurestatepsychologicalservices.com/about

  97. drifter says:

    So, husbands are instructed to agape (love) their wives, and wives are instructed to phileo (love) their husbands. For wives in the west today, this should go without saying. They choose their own husbands. But back then, when marriages were still arranged, I can see how it might need to be said. What a wretched lot these women are today.

  98. TheOtherScott says:

    @Scott It´s been hard. My faith continues to sustain me but honestly, I have spent a lot of time asking God “Where are you?” I really want to do like David did and go hide in a cave. I’m praying for God to rescue me. I don’t know what else to do.

    I appreciate your offer but paying for services isn’t within my budget (poor missionary and all that) and would be, at the very least, awkward to explain. There is also a certain amount of power in knowing (at least I think I do) what’s going on and her having no idea. She very much overreacts to the idea that she might have mental/emotional issues (like her Mom).

  99. drifter says:

    Although, a woman having to be instructed to show affection to her children? That seems odd in any era.

  100. Iowa Slim says:

    @TOS

    “I’ve read a lot of the shrink4men website but it also tends to be advice of leave and divorce. As a Christian I cannot do that right now.”

    On the forum side of S4M a member recently put up a poll for length of relationships/marriages. The overwhelming majority of answers were 15-20+ years. The shorter ones paled into insignificance. It’s mostly not a group of guys who just pulled the plug when things weren’t going their way.

    There are a lot of men supporting each other against the narc/bpd reprisals that normally come up in response to a men in sicko domestic situations FINALLY drawing some hard boundaries. If I read correctly, that’s what you are doing now. It’s a resource that will be there for you if things go sideways in your situation.

    Best of luck to you.

  101. wilandmari says:

    Bayly is one of the good guys. His church is in a college town so he spends a ton of time with gays, former gays and metrosexuals. He has written the best critiques of the PCA’s downward spiral into acceptance of homosexuality and women exercising authority in the church (his work on the Revoice conferences is unparalleled). I have heard him preach a sermon on women sinning and when husbands need to tell their wives “no.” I think he should stop using Twitter and I am not at all a fan of Warhorn’s podcast, but for the most part, Bayly is a very good pastor who is trying extremely hard to fight the culture war the best he can. I have disagreed with him on issues of marriage (the degree to which the state and church should be involved in licensing and solemnizing, etc.) and he has always been very gracious. He is not a bad guy. I really wish there was a way for Dalrock and Bayly to meet. I think they actually agree on way more than they disagree.

  102. TheOtherScott says:

    @ Iowa Slim OK I haven’t looked at the forums much. I will check them out. Thanks

  103. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    General to make history as Army’s 1st female infantry division commander: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-make-history-armys-1st-female-infantry-division/story?id=63536514

    Brig. Gen. Laura Yeager will make history later this month when she becomes the first woman to command a U.S. Army Infantry Division.

    Yeager, a former Black Hawk helicopter pilot who deployed to Iraq, will assume command of the California National Guard’s 40th Infantry Division during a ceremony in Los Alamitos, California, on June 29, according to a news release from the California Guard. …

    Though Yeager left active duty service eight years later when her son was born, she continued her career in the California Army National Guard. In 2011, she deployed to Iraq as the deputy commander of the California Guard’s 40th Combat Aviation Brigade. …

    Outside of her own career trajectory, Yeager is familiar with military leadership. Her father, Ret. Maj. Gen. Robert Brandt, was also a helicopter pilot who served two tours during the Vietnam War and became a top commander in the California National Guard. Brandt retired in 1999 after four decades of service.

    My father has been a tremendous role model to me, both as a parent and as an officer and I have benefited immensely from his mentorship,” Yeager told the Defense Department’s news service when she was promoted to brigadier general in 2016. “He always had high expectations for me but I was given a lot of independence to pursue my own path.”

  104. feeriker says:

    General to make history as Army’s 1st female infantry division commander:

    Preparing the U.S. Army with appropriate leadership for its impending Waterloo/Stalingrad.

  105. Iowa Slim says:

    @ TOS

    No problem, man. I believe you can lurk as a guest and still browse the threads. There’s some static in there, but it’s overall the best online support community specifically for men in this situation.

    My children and I were trapped in this hellishness for a LONG time and for some of the same reasons you mentioned in your own case. I’m always liking the idea of another man being less ignorant and isolated than I was in the crucial times. Courage!

  106. 7817 says:

    He is not a bad guy. I really wish there was a way for Dalrock and Bayly to meet. I think they actually agree on way more than they disagree.

    This again.

    No idea on whether Dalrock and Bayly would want to meet, but I can tell you based on everything I’ve read directly from Doug Wilson and Tim Bayly there’s no way I would attend a Reformed church now.

    >Not a bad guy

    Literally the weakest argument possible after a blog post demonstrating how he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Who cares what kind of guy he is if he’s not telling the truth? For actionable advice about relationships you are literally better off listening to atheists like Athol Kay, Rian Stone or Black Label Logic than any church men who lie about these things. On spiritual things they are by definition not authorities, being atheists. That’s ok.

  107. JRob says:

    @7817
    Good point.

    Unlike the direct impinged M16, Bayly et al will not defecate where they live. He tries to play and please both sides.

    And to further beat the dead horse killed by the greats here years ago, if you stir the henhouse up too much you eventually have to actually work for a living.

    I liked Charles B.’s prediction upthread about the angle the Father’s Day Evangelical Beatdown may take. He may have read Bayly to perfection.

  108. Hmm says:

    @7817

    You are right that conservative Reformed culture is pretty niche. We’ve watched the large Dutch Reformed denominations (CRC and RCA) drifting into sexual oblivion for a couple of decades, starting with the ordination of women. There are a small handful of Reformed and Presbyterian denominations (and Reformed Baptists as well) that remain true to the Scripture and work hard to raise our children that way. We are largely successful in this, at present, partly because there’s a Reformed presence at most college campuses. Still some leakage, though, even in denominational colleges.

    Strangely, it helps us if we don’t identify as Evangelical – keeps the crazy theology away. And the movies.

  109. Dalrock says:

    @wilandmari

    Bayly is one of the good guys. His church is in a college town so he spends a ton of time with gays, former gays and metrosexuals. He has written the best critiques of the PCA’s downward spiral into acceptance of homosexuality and women exercising authority in the church (his work on the Revoice conferences is unparalleled). I have heard him preach a sermon on women sinning and when husbands need to tell their wives “no.” I think he should stop using Twitter and I am not at all a fan of Warhorn’s podcast, but for the most part, Bayly is a very good pastor who is trying extremely hard to fight the culture war the best he can. I have disagreed with him on issues of marriage (the degree to which the state and church should be involved in licensing and solemnizing, etc.) and he has always been very gracious. He is not a bad guy. I really wish there was a way for Dalrock and Bayly to meet. I think they actually agree on way more than they disagree.

    I’m guessing you aren’t aware of this, but in January of this year a member of Pastor Bayly’s Warhorn media (Nathan Alberson) approached me proposing to interview me on their podcast to essentially clear the air the way you would like to happen:

    We’re putting together an episode of our podcast Sound of Sanity on Red Pill, Game, MGTOW, all that good stuff. I wanted to see if you would consent to a phone interview sometime in the near future. I’d like to get as clear an articulation of your views as I can, and present it to the world. The questions would be quite simple (I prefer simple questions that allow for more elaborate answers, as needed):

    You aren’t the first reader to assure me that Bayly is an honorable man, so I (cautiously) assumed Warhorn Media were trustworthy folks. I declined the request for a podcast interview, and proposed instead a discussion over email using a set of 9 questions Nathan ultimately posed. This took several weeks, but it was an opportunity to address criticisms like yours above, and it also gave me a good starting point to explain my own views both to Warhorn and anyone else who was interested.

    What I learned was that the men of Pastor Bayly’s Warhorn media are not honorable men. Furthermore, I learned that Pastor Bayly is not an honorable man, because when what his men were doing in his name came to light, he complained about me and not his duplicitous men. Once the podcast dropped, Nathan explained that he never intended to provide a clear articulation of my views to his audience, which was the ruse he used to trick me into engaging with him.

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

    and

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

    But even worse, what became obvious after the podcast came out was that Warhorn media never wanted to engage on the ideas. They wanted to destroy me, and thereby avoid my arguments. For all of Bayly’s obsession with calling other men effeminate, that is truly effeminate. Nathan claimed he was outraged when I pointed out that Bayly’s PCA resolution held men responsible as a way of avoiding holding women responsible for their own sins. You can see the exchange for yourself and then listen to (or read the transcripts of) the podcasts. Nathan waited until I wrote something that offended him, and then clammed up. Until that point, we had a back and forth. This was pretty early into our exchange, and for the remaining weeks we emailed back and forth he kept his outrage to himself, fuming that I had wronged Bayly but keeping that secret to avoid any discussion that would have ruined the outrage he was going to base the podcast on.

    Before all of this, you could argue that Bayly and his ministry is just misunderstood (assuming you overlooked the whole “My Lord Mary Lee” business and similar cringeworthy stuff he writes). But you can see how they publicly handle themselves, and they aren’t honorable men. I wish it weren’t so. But it is true.

  110. white says:

    There’s something extremely disingenuous about these “you two should meet!”, “i’m sure you two actually agree!” comments. Can’t quite put my finger on it yet

  111. Swanny River says:

    White,
    I second that emotion.

  112. Swanny River says:

    White,
    Agree, something comes across as forced, or unusually naive.

  113. okrahead says:

    White,
    By the pricking of my thumbs,
    A would be doxxer this way comes.

  114. Eidolon says:

    Bayly has some chutzpah to call other men effeminate while working with the clowns at that Warhorn podcast. That Dalrock-semi-related podcast was one of the most effeminate performances I’ve ever endured.

  115. On a different note, it’s so easy to create fake text messages:

  116. Frank K says:

    Preparing the U.S. Army with appropriate leadership for its impending Waterloo/Stalingrad.

    We’re going to learn the hard way that life isn’t like in the movies. And it’s a perfect recipe for disaster: leftists are chomping at the bit to “teach Russia a lesson”, while our military becomes increasingly expensive and incompetent.

  117. Asaph says:

    A wolf howls as loud as it possibly can, as it draws its last breath!

  118. Robert What? says:

    I am going to a wedding next month. Girl in her mid thirties (first red flag). Talked the guy into a massive expensive wedding in a NYC Central Park restaurant (second red flag). I don’t see this ending well. I am not looking forward to being an onlooker to this charade.

  119. I think it’s safe to assume that if Bayly tried to meet with Dalrock, the ultimate outcome would be him and his ilk trying to doxx Dalrock.

  120. King Alfred says:

    Complementarians want women to have all the rights of men, while keeping the chivalry pedestal to demonstrate their total superiority. Here is a woman lamenting that radical feminists are threatening chivalry: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/carol-roth-restaurants-manners-etiquette-equality-feminists.

    Excerpts from the article:
    “To dote on a woman and to raise her up on a pedestal is a signal of respect, not a reflection of inferiority. While it may be a distinction, it’s not a discrimination, as it certainly doesn’t hold a woman back.”

    “I appreciate the fact that when the Titanic sunk, the women and children were allowed off first, and would appreciate the same courtesy today.”

    “I am very grateful to the women who came before me, who fought for my and other women’s rights including voting and equal pay.”

    “And to the chivalrous men, your courtesies are appreciated by many. I say thank you as I virtually curtsy in respect, not in deference.”

    Translation: “I’m a superior, strong, independent woman but I’m polite enough to say “thank you” when men genuflect and throw away their lives and their livelihoods to make life easier for me. But don’t expect me to submit or anything, because as a woman, I deserve to have both independence and chivalrous treatment.”

    For years, I wondered what churchians were smoking that made them so blind to reality, especially with regard to women’s sins. Thanks to Dalrock and others here, now I know exactly what they are smoking: chivalry.

  121. feeriker says:

    Robert What says

    I am not looking forward to being an onlooker to this charade.

    Is this a man you know well? Is it possible to give him a “red pill suppository” in advance so that maybe the whole disgusting charade won’t even take place at all, sparing everybody a whole lot of expense and misery?

  122. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Former FBI Director James Comey celebrates LGBT Pride Month:

  123. Frank K says:

    It’s good to see the FBI (and other Deep State orgs) openly admitting who they truly serve.

    And Embassies are defying Trump and are flying the homo flag,

    My wife and I went to the “The Secret Life of Pets 2”. During the previews there was one for a youtube propaganda piece on “Pride”. During a children’s movie. I sent a comment to the movie theater chain’s (Metropolitan Theaters) management, which I am sure will fall on deaf ears.

  124. Anchorman says:

    You married her!

    I wonder if he’s going through things at home and working them out through fake conversations.

    He presents his dilemma, then listens to the responses.

  125. Anchorman says:

    Comey never seemed interested in gay pride before.

    I think he’s trying to ingratiate himself to as many factions as possible, because he is more and more isolated as the noose tightens.

  126. Liz says:

    General to make history as Army’s 1st female infantry division commander
    A leadership position in the California National Guard is about the worst job I can imagine.

  127. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    It’s not just Comey. The FBI itself, on its official twitter page, is Celebrating Pride:

    I recall as recently as 30 years ago, the FBI barred homosexuals from its ranks.

  128. Anonymous Reader says:

    Liz
    A leadership position in the California National Guard is about the worst job I can imagine.

    Your imagination is limited. No worries, Bexar county today, many other counties next month. Because who wouldn’t want “refugees” from Congo?

    https://www.kens5.com/article/news/local/parle-vous-francais-city-searches-for-french-speakers-as-hundreds-of-congolese-asylum-seekers-head-to-sa/273-0c015995-05b2-4a0e-959b-fdc1d2991d6f

    “I was a stranger, and you took me in, along with my entire extended family, to live off of you and your family forever…” — Book of Nice

  129. Anonymous Reader says:

    @King Alfred

    Excellent summary of conservative feminism, and complementarianism – the same thing, different label
    A quick search reveals Ms. Roth was born in 1973. Therefore she is 45 and a daughter of 2nd wave feminism.

  130. jg1 says:

    At AR, I live in Bexar County too. Please pray for our health and safety. I saw the pics of downtown and it looks pretty scary.

  131. Liz says:

    Your imagination is limited.
    Perhaps so. But I’ve had a lot of shite jobs. Teacher in an inner city school that qualify for combat pay? Check. RN in indigent locations with all manner of nasty business. Check. Heck, I’ve even had a patient poo in her hand and rub it on my head. And I’d rather do any of that, every day again and again like Groundhog day, than be a commander for the California National Guard.

  132. Liz says:

    correction above, school that should qualify for combat pay.

  133. Gunner Q says:

    wilandmari @ June 8, 2019 at 9:10 am:
    “His church is in a college town so he spends a ton of time with gays, former gays and metrosexuals.”

    This is a violation of 1 Corinthians. Associating with people who are incidentally homosexual is one thing. Associating with them BECAUSE they are openly homosexual is another, forbidden thing.

    Does he keep company with them to lecture them on the evils of their conduct, or to demonstrate he accepts them for who they are despite open sexual perversion? Open sexual perversion being EXACTLY what 1 Corinthians talks about.

    “I really wish there was a way for Dalrock and Bayly to meet. I think they actually agree on way more than they disagree.”

    Cult Of Nice on both counts here. You like Bayly because he plays Nice with unrepentant Sodomites and you want Dalrock to play Nice with Bayly despite each having reasons for opposing the other.

    You have no comprehension of the concept “evil”.

    @white and Swanny River,

    The underlying assumption is that Dalrock isn’t educated enough to understand he’s supposed to support Bayly. It’s pure Atheism. All humanity is inherently good so if conflict between two humans exist, especially between an Approved Authority(tm) and an unpopular dissident, it’s because somebody has picked up bad information.

    That’s why the Soviets built “re-education camps” instead of interment camps. It’s not that the dissidents are evil… there is no evil… it’s that the dissidents have ungood ideas that need to be confronted and corrected. Preferably in a controlled, State-supervised environment.

  134. Anonymous Reader says:

    Liz
    I’d rather do any of that, every day again and again like Groundhog day, than be a commander for the California National Guard.

    Ok.
    Have you ever heard of Ebola?
    Can you name the country that currently has an uncontained outbreak of Ebola?
    Just asking…

    @Various
    The defense of Bayly is probably well intended and likely comes from a girl named “mari”. As with Doug Wilson, the female defenders can be more persistent. Evo-psych can explain it: in person, these older men can be authoritative and the Alpha Male Of Group, especially given the known habit of bashing “lesser men”. Girls respond to confidence. I’m sure back when Marc Driscoll was still running his “Mars Hill” church there were plenty of women ready to defend him, too.

    As I’ve stated before, there is a distinct whiff of cultism around these celebrity pastors, who seek to create their own little worlds.

  135. Incredulous_K says:

    @ToS
    I literally could have written 80% of your posts and nobody would have told us apart. Your experience is sadly not unique, and I’m starting to understand it as one of the fundamental afflictions of our age. Not divorce; I mean this stealth personality disorder stuff. Large numbers of good, good, good Christian men completely hamstrung for the Kingdom. A very clever tactic Satan is using on the devout men to neutralize them; the more committed you are to the Lord, the longer and harder you will try to keep the marriage togther, pouring energy into a black hole instead of spreading the gospel (which includes ‘full quiver’ methodology!).
    Sometimes you have to ask for grace to get through the week…sometimes you have to ask for grace to get through the moment. His grace is sufficient, and you will continue to find that as you look back at the times you are amazed you got through something and it was only His grace that sustained you. Try not to think of the grinding road far ahead, as our longer term outlook tends to cause us to do as men. It will drag you down. Keep talking to other men with similar expeiences and I will pray for you, brother. The revelation you’ve had so far is evidence of God’s continuing work.

  136. Liz says:

    Have you ever heard of Ebola?
    Yes. But this is the first time I’ve heard it referred to as a job.
    I imagine the job of ebola is awful. Along the lines of other jobs like bubonic plague and so forth.

  137. Anon says:

    As I’ve stated before, there is a distinct whiff of cultism around these celebrity pastors, who seek to create their own little worlds.

    True in general.

    But in the case of Bayly, you are too generous. It is a stretch to call someone with 1200 Twitter followers a ‘celebrity’, given that he in fact uses the medium extensively.

    If he had 100x that number, then maybe.

  138. Anon says:

    feeriker to Robert What :

    Is this a man you know well? Is it possible to give him a “red pill suppository” in advance so that maybe the whole disgusting charade won’t even take place at all, sparing everybody a whole lot of expense and misery?

    I think it is too late, given that the expensive wedding is already booked.

    It is amazing how high of a tax to the feminist zeitgeist these blue-pill people end up paying.

  139. TheOtherScott says:

    @ The Incredulous K

    Thanks for your kind words brother. You are right about how Satan works. He used her mental illness for years to beat me down while I didn’t understand it. Now he is using it to remove us from the mission field. She wants to go home. Its all because of her disorder. She can’t manipulate and come out on top in another culture and another language. To top it all off I am being successful and thriving in it. We can’t have that now, can we?

    The good news is that The Truth does set us free. Now that I see her for who she is, she has much less power over me and her power diminishes every day.

    I know that Jesus Christ suffered much much more than I ever will and He managed to do it without a comment. I pray that he will rescue me but I have little faith. I am mentally and emotionally tired. I read the Psalms a lot and I get a lot of inspiration from David. He had a manner of crying out in his anguish that resonates with me and I know that in the end God did rescue him.

    It looks like there is no strategy, no magic bullet for living with mental illness. I will do the best I can today and leave the rest to God.Thanks to you all again. Dalrock you are doing Gods work here. This place is a lifeline for me right now.

  140. BillyS says:

    No magic bullet OtherScott.

    I am not sure whether my exwife was clinically a narcissist, but it was close. She definitely only cares about herself, just like her mom. I am strongly opposed to divorce, but I partially wish that I had went ahead and filed for it when she told me (at a marriage conference of all places) about 10 years before she had filed that she had “decided to stay.” I had no idea that divorce was even an option in her mind and it would have saved a lot of my current pain to have split then. I would even have had time to build another family or at least establish myself better even if it was on my own.

    No way to please someone like that. She never willingly followed anything I even asked when we were married. Ironically, all her complaints about me seem to be projections based on her own behavior, thoughts and actions. I was much more forceful, so she didn’t get to do all she wished, but she definitely withstood me in her mind all she could.

    It made for a lousy final few years.

    I do share your struggle on asking God “why”. It really doesn’t matter why, since I will serve Him no matter what, but I did everything I could to build family and now have none. Really frustrating and I don’t have good answers for you now since I am walking through the same stages, just a bit farther along.

    I would not be so afraid of filing for divorce if that is necessary. Getting the strife out of your life has merit and I do not see God requiring us to stay in a situation where one partner has already left, at least in their own mind. Others her may disagree of course.

    (I also believe Jesus’ comments on divorce need to be taken in the context of the question He was asked, not applied to every possible divorce, though remarrying has huge risks even if you think like I do.)

  141. Swanny River says:

    Re: Mental wives. Maybe Scott knows this, but when men had authority, weren’t asylums more prevalent? Therefore, men would have a place for their ill wives to have potential help and to keep them out of the home. I have seen situations where the best solution would be is to have the wife forced to face her problems and the home restored to peace by her removal. Marriage stays intact and the woman gets potentially better help. It’s astounding the number of Christian women that are part of the fabric of church and appear whacked out. But that’s a reason for a professional to be part of the process, because I can’t distinguish between normal-feral and the disorders that were discussed above.

  142. wilandmari says:

    Dalrock, I am very aware of your recent episode with Warhorn. I read all of your posts (as I have for the past several years) and I listened to their entire podcast. I believe you were mistreated in that exchange. I spoke to my pastor about it because he is a close friend of Bayly. I don’t know what could be disingenuous about thinking that two Christian men should be able to reconcile their differences. It seems to me that the difficulty is that it is all playing out in the digital world by two strangers instead of in person. As an outsider, who has read and agreed with your blog for years, and who knows Bayly to be an honorable man, it was very unpleasant to watch that go so wrong.

  143. purge187 says:

    “I pray that he will rescue me but I have little faith. I am mentally and emotionally tired.”

    Ditto, just for different reasons. I haven’t been to church in weeks. My faith has been built on a foundation of fear and I’m questioning if it’s worth it anymore.

  144. BillyS says:

    Wil,

    You can’t have reconciliation if one side thinks the other is completely evil and operates with evil intent.

    Fix the Warhorn/Bayly side first.

  145. Dalrock says:

    @wilandmari

    Dalrock, I am very aware of your recent episode with Warhorn. I read all of your posts (as I have for the past several years) and I listened to their entire podcast. I believe you were mistreated in that exchange. I spoke to my pastor about it because he is a close friend of Bayly. I don’t know what could be disingenuous about thinking that two Christian men should be able to reconcile their differences. It seems to me that the difficulty is that it is all playing out in the digital world by two strangers instead of in person. As an outsider, who has read and agreed with your blog for years, and who knows Bayly to be an honorable man, it was very unpleasant to watch that go so wrong.

    Unless you are saying Bayly only believes a man should keep his word if he knows the person he gave it to in meatspace, your argument doesn’t make sense. They reached out to me with specific assurances. Then they stated that they deliberately didn’t honor those assurances. You saw that, and think “Hey, these are honorable men. Dalrock should trust them”. Why?

    You mentioned upthread where Pastor Bayly’s church is located. Here in Texas, a man’s word means a great deal, and a man who doesn’t keep his word is considered dishonorable. Is this different in your part of the country? If not, why do you argue that Bayly is an honorable man?

  146. wilandmari says:

    Gunner Q, I have no idea how you got that Bayly plays nice with sodomites from my comment. As a pastor in a college town, Bayly has to regularly confront the sins of sodomy and effeminacy. No one who knows Bayly would ever accuse him of playing nice when it comes to those sins.

  147. craig says:

    wilandmari says: “I believe you were mistreated in that exchange [with Warhorn]. I spoke to my pastor about it because he is a close friend of Bayly. I don’t know what could be disingenuous about thinking that two Christian men should be able to reconcile their differences.”

    Given how Dalrock was mistreated in that exchange, Bayly should be the one offering to make amends. It is plain from the emails posted here (not disputed by Warhorn) and the content of Warhorn’s podcast, that Warhorn lied to Dalrock, deliberately and maliciously, in order to create a false rapport. Warhorn’s “60 Minutes”-style plan was spring an interview trap on Dalrock and bait him into defending against a fusillade of have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet accusations. But the attempt to do him reputational injury backfired: Warhorn was revealed as the aggressor. So if there is anything disingenuous here, it is suggesting that Dalrock should expect a good-faith attempt from Bayly at reconciliation, particularly without any evidence of contrition on Warhorn’s or Bayly’s part.

  148. wilandmari says:

    Dalrock, I am simply saying that a man should not be judged as dihonorable based on the mishandling of one online encounter. I agree that you were mistreated in that exchange. I’m not saying that reconciliation is likely in this case. I am merely making an observation that these online back-and-forths look different when you know the people involved. I know Bayly to be an honorable man and that is why this was so hard to see. I understand your reasoning for anonymity so there is little hope for resolution. I just think under different circumstances it would be possible.

  149. craig says:

    wilandmari says: “I believe you were mistreated in that exchange [with Warhorn]. I spoke to my pastor about it because he is a close friend of Bayly. I don’t know what could be disingenuous about thinking that two Christian men should be able to reconcile their differences.”

    Given how Dalrock was mistreated in that exchange, Bayly should be the one offering to make amends. It is plain from the emails posted here (not disputed by Warhorn) and the content of Warhorn’s podcast, that Warhorn lied to Dalrock, deliberately and maliciously, in order to create a false rapport. Warhorn’s “60 Minutes”-style plan was spring an interview trap on Dalrock and bait him into defending against a fusillade of have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet accusations. But the attempt to do him reputational injury backfired: Warhorn was revealed as the aggressor. So if there is anything disingenuous here, it is suggesting that Dalrock should expect a good-faith attempt from Bayly at reconciliation, particularly without any contrition on Warhorn’s or Bayly’s part.

  150. Dalrock says:

    @wilandmari

    Dalrock, I am simply saying that a man should not be judged as dihonorable based on the mishandling of one online encounter. I agree that you were mistreated in that exchange. I’m not saying that reconciliation is likely in this case. I am merely making an observation that these online back-and-forths look different when you know the people involved. I know Bayly to be an honorable man and that is why this was so hard to see. I understand your reasoning for anonymity so there is little hope for resolution. I just think under different circumstances it would be possible.

    What level of duplicity would Bayly have to exhibit to me before you stopped making this line of argument? Is there anything? Do you think I’m unreasonable for judging a man as dishonorable based on whether he keeps his word, or expects his subordinates to do so when acting in his name? Why doesn’t Warhorn’s duplicity bother you immensely?

    Keep in mind, this wasn’t Warhorn merely being unkind. It was Warhorn reaching out to me and giving me their word, and then openly not keeping their word. If when Bayly learned his men did this he apologized and took corrective action, this would be a different matter. But when he found out what they were doing behind his back, he wasn’t angry that they lied in his name, he was angry that they did a podcast on me at all.

  151. Nathan Bruno says:

    @wiladnmari

    You stopped sounding real and you’re just playing the concern troll now:

    1. Bayly et al acted like worthless men.
    2. Bayly et al focused on Dalrock’s pseudoanonymous identity as reason to try to destroy him and to warn people off from listening to him.
    3. Bayly et all demanded an end to pseudoanonymity. Bayly claimed he had more risk as the paid pastor of a congregation in standing up for his opinions than a congregant in the pew who had to work for a leftist corporate structure with an HR department that existed to find and eliminate rightwing bad think as “bad for business” controversy.
    4. Bayly imagined being able to unmask Dalrock to Dalrock’s pastor and the Internet as some means of getting his revenge upon Dalrock.
    5. Therefore, you propose that Dalrock should do the Christian thing and give Bayly the gun after he’s loaded the bullets into it himself, and then put on a blindfold. You wouldn’t even ask the Warwhores to light his cigarette.

    Bayly and the Warwhores need to repend in dust and ashes for their unChristian behavior.

  152. BillyS says:

    He sounds like an SJW. Those pushing that are always honorable, even when they act dishonorably. At least that is how they see it.

  153. What is an “honorable man”? The language of the idiotically romantic? Could wilandmari point out some Scripture that would help give me guidance on what to expect from such a man? Is this honor attributal to the person of Jesus or is it an aspect of said man?

  154. Scott says:

    Swany River

    Mental wives, roger that.

    I can’t speak as an expert on the history of how such things were handled in the past, but I have personal experience with one such story.

    My own dad.

    He was married before and his wife (my two half-brothers’ mom) went legitimately psychotic. She was institutionalized where she remains to this day. My dad got full custody of my brothers and a divorce. That was, I believe in 1969.

    In the end I believe my father committed a grave sin by leaving her in that place and chasing after much younger tail (my mom was his secretary). He should have stayed with her, even though he effectively no longer had a functioning wife.

    It messes with your head though, because then I would not have ever existed.

  155. Anon says:

    ‘wilandmari’ is just another Warhorn spy trying to lure Dalrock into a trap again. They want nothing less than a full doxxing.

    Pastorbator Tim Bayly is pure sleaze. The ‘male feminists’ at Warhorn, such as Nathan Alberson, confirm the worst stereotypes of ‘male feminists’.

  156. JRob says:

    wilandmari, if not trolling and given the benefit of the doubt to be male and genuine, is beating his head against Humes’ “ought.” He needs to see this situation and Bayly/Harworn’s behavior for what they actually are.
    -butthurt attacks against a man’s falsely presented (by them) character instead of his well reasoned arguments. Honestly, my opinion is they knew they couldn’t run with the big dog so they lashed out. There’s envy below the surface.
    -random tweets with esoteric references to random men as “effeminate” is just ridiculous. It’s preening and gamma posturing. He must hammer on the men to keep the consumers in his Be Nice churchian diorama haaaaappy. Did he or did he not write, “Guys are effeminate, we’re all gay.” ???
    -look through all the Bayly-related content here. I’ll take my leave, I need to go work on parading my artificial muscles.
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/11/26/wont-someone-call-out-the-weight-lifters/

    Geez. This whole situation is a parody of itself and proves what Dalrock has been blogging about since 2011. Wake up, wil. Be objective. Think, don’t emote.

  157. Anon says:

    The funny thing about Warhorn is that they ‘didn’t want to publish Dalrock’s podcast’ because they didn’t want new people to start writing about the same things.

    Is it just me, or if someone is confident that they are in the right, they don’t need to suppress opposing views? If Dalrock is so bad, why is there so much fear that others will write about the same concepts?

    These left-wing SJWs can’t seem to reconcile how a need to make opposing view vanish means even they don’t think what they are trying to push is very compelling to anyone.

  158. emery says:

    @wilandmari” I know Bayly to be an honorable man and that is why this was so hard to see. ”

    Maybe you are just a poor judge of character and easily deceived. Once you see the fruits of his word plainly you cannot reconcile it with the white washed tombstone face he presented to you. I wouldn’t even blame you as Bayly chose counter-Christian cultism as his profession, so he must have some measure of charisma. Would you consider that line of thought for a moment? What would convince you that you are seeing the man in person with an even temper? Is Bayly unskilled?

  159. Emperor Constantine says:

  160. Mountain Man says:

    Wil,

    I think you may have fallen into a common trap. Perhaps you are just ASSUMING that Bayly is honorable because he is “clergy”. As “clergy”, you assume he is on a higher spiritual plane, and is your spiritual better. Therefore, you ascribe good intent to him as a matter of course. It’s very hard for you to evaluate him as you would a peer. Were you to evaluate him as a peer, it would be plain to you that he is dishonest, dishonorable, and also a bit of an arrogant asshole. But since that conclusion clashes with your definition of “clergy”, you ignore his bad behavior and just settle back into seeing him as your spiritual better, while dismissing or reinterpreting any criticism of him.

  161. Expat Philo says:

    To those whose faith is tested, wherever men gather in His name, He is there. An internet forum has no pastor/minister/whatever, and cannot be rightly called a church, yet we are here considering His Word. The tribulations of the mortal coil will pass, in time, I cannot offer more comfort than that here.

    As for asking God “why?”, the story of Job is relevant.

  162. @Jrob….Harworn?

    Whoreworn? If the purple robe fits.

  163. white says:

    “WilandMari” won’t be back. He claims to want to talk about Bayly, so Dalrock played along and brought up facts about Bayly. But Wil never wanted to talk about Bayly, he wants to talk about Dalrock. He tried and tried, but sensing Dalrock won’t be talking about Dalrock anytime soon, leaves.

    Similaryly, Warhorn never wanted to talk about feminism or the church. They wanted to talk about Dalrock.

  164. wilandmari says:

    Mountain Man, I am not assuming Bayly to be an honorable man because he is clergy. I know plenty of clergy who are not honorable. In my opinion clergy rank right up there with car salesmen and my profession (attorney). I know Bayly to be honorable because I have met him, talked with him, and because my pastor (who I trust because I have known him for years) has been close friends with him for years. I know these things because of real personal relationships. I ASSUME Dalrock to be an honorable man (for all I know he is a 500 pound one-legged whore in Australia). I am not defending how Warhorn handled this episode. I am simply noting that it seems uncharacteristic of Bayly. My whole point was simply an observation that these online debates look different when you know one or more of the people involved. You can’t really get the full sense of a person based on a blog or a tweet and I think people tend to communicate online (in comment sections) in ways they wouldn’t in person. I notice that I have already been called SJW, troll, and Warhorn spy in the comments. I can’t imagine that if we were all sitting around a bar having this discussion that anyone would accuse me of any of those things.

  165. wilandmari says:

    Dalrock, Warhorn’s duplicity in this matter does bother me immensely and that is why I brought the entire episode to my pastor’s attention to see if there was anything that could be done about it.

  166. Nathan Bruno says:

    @wilandmari

    We’d tell you straight to your face that you were wrong in that hypothetical bar scene.

    When a pastor walks up to a group of Christians, declares us to be outside the purview of acceptable Christianity, sends another friend of his to attack us and declare us to be non-Christian, and then sends his lackey to engage in subterfuge – he is engaged in inappropriate behavior per 1 Corinthians 3. He is creating divisions for the sake of making himself a powerful man in his little PCA splinter movement. Why? I do not know, but the warhorn was blown because he thought he could AMOG the Dalrock website and put butts in the seats and likes on the tweets.

    I point you also to Bayly’s actions with respect to James 4:11. Did he apply a test as in 1 John in the sweeping generalizations of commenters here being non-Christian? No; he came to declare – because of some pet theory and some perversion of the Gospel as championed by Warhorn’s Nathan – that we weren’t Christians because we weren’t in line with his weird Gospel-cum-Ms-Manners teaching. He’s a tin pot pope; he acts not as a good undershepherd.

    You then arrived to act as if Bayly’s the victim here when he’s the aggressor.

    “Stop fighting back when I hit you! Come sit and have tea with me after I poked you in the eye!”

    You act like he did not walk up and start throwing stones so as to earn his bona fides. Even Bill Clinton would recognize what Bayly’s motivation is – to look like a big man by taking someone else down.

    Forgiveness would be forthcoming, but it has to begin with a “man of God” who stops throwing stones and admits his wrongdoing, including the charges under him whose actions he approved. That has not happened. Why don’t you use your connections to Bayly to bring him before your own pastor and explain his wrongdoing of spreading lies and dissent within the body? You’re tight with the man; do your job as per church discipline.

  167. 7817 says:

    Are we talking to wil or are we talking to mari here?

    I know Bayly to be honorable because I have met him, talked with him, and because my pastor (who I trust because I have known him for years) has been close friends with him for years.

    You now have an inside scoop, information about Bayly’s character you would not have had otherwise, information he didn’t want you to have. Going to have to either re-evaluate your opinion of his character, or become like him yourself.

    I know these things because of real personal relationships. I ASSUME Dalrock to be an honorable man (for all I know he is a 500 pound one-legged whore in Australia).

    And it comes out. You are anti anonymous. In that case, how do we know you are not the proprieter of a gay brothel in San Fran? Live up to your convictions.
    Post under your real name or get the F*** out.

    I am not defending how Warhorn handled this episode.

    Bull. You’re trolling in the well established pattern. Hidely hodely howdily neighbour.

    I am simply noting that it seems uncharacteristic of Bayly. My whole point was simply an observation that these online debates look different when you know one or more of the people involved. You can’t really get the full sense of a person based on a blog or a tweet and I think people tend to communicate online (in comment sections) in ways they wouldn’t in person. I notice that I have already been called SJW, troll, and Warhorn spy in the comments.

    Those are the patterns you are exhibiting.

    I can’t imagine that if we were all sitting around a bar having this discussion that anyone would accuse me of any of those things.

    No, I would be thinking I need to find a new person to drink with. Anonymity enables honesty, so on here I can tell you this. Any SJW types I know in real life I cut ties with, quietly, to minimize the damage from being involved with a toxic person, much like backing slowly away from a poisonous snake when you accidentally got to close.

  168. JRob says:

    My whole point was simply an observation that these online debates look different when you know one or more of the people involved.
    Facts are facts. Depends upon what the meaning of “facts” is, correct? You know someone so the facts (truth) are thrown out of court to scratch someone’s back?

  169. wilandmari says:

    @7817

    You are not talking to wil or mari. You are typing to a complete stranger. I didn’t realize real names were required on this site (I assume 7817 is your given name).

  170. 7817 says:

    I didn’t realize real names were required on this site

    Since you’re slow I’ll explain it to you. You trust Bayly because you say you know him.

    You say that Dalrock could be something horrible, but that you don’t know for sure.

    That is the anti-anonymity argument.

    In order to live up to your values, to make sure that you aren’t a drug dealing rapist or abuser of women, you need to provide your real name when commenting. Otherwise we can’t know whether or not you are a homosexual moonlighting as a pastor.

    You started this.

  171. wilandmari says:

    @7817

    I said I assume Dalrock is an honorable man. I have not made an anti-anonymity argument. You just have no sense of humor or irony. I directed my original comment to Dalrock. He has my email if he wants to know who I am.

  172. 7817 says:

    Since no one can know anyone else personally when anonymous, the only metrics that matter are truth and consistency.

    Bayly didn’t fail a test that Dalrock isn’t also subject to. Dalrock is subject to the continuing tests of “Does he tell the Truth,” and “If he says something untrue, when he is notified of this fact does he align himself with the Truth or with his prior false position? ” The internet is a medium of discussion, so the way in which Truth is handled becomes the main metric by which people are judged.

    Bayly tried to squirm out of this initially by acting like Dalrock was bringing an accusation against an elder anonymously, which made the accusation invalid according to Bayly. But the truth is, the failure was all in the medium of the internet. Bayly was not treated any differently because he uses his real name, but was tested like any other online personality. Bayly’s error was a failure to correct his staff when they went all CNN on Dalrock. Bayly was not the injured party. Dalrock was.

    If Bayly wants to make this right, he can at any time admit his wrong, but he’s the one who has to initiate that. No meeting would have to occur for there to be resolution to this issue. Repentance would have to occur though.

  173. 7817 says:

    wil

    You are a gamma.

    Here is the passive aggressive anti anonymity argument you made:

    for all I know he is a 500 pound one-legged whore in Australia

    I called you out on it, and instead of backing down, you said I had no humor.

    Verdict: Gamma.

  174. @wilandmari

    An honorable man would not associate himself with a crew as despicable as the closet cases that run Warhorn.

  175. wilandmari says:

    @7817

    Pretty much summs it up.

  176. Nathan Bruno says:

    @wilandmari

    You know him. Stop wasting time with anonymous strangers on the Internet and be the change you want to be in the world. Go man up and talk to Bayly with your pastor. You have a job to do and you are dilly-dallying. Express your deep feelings of concern to him directly. You are shirking your duty.

  177. feministhater says:

    An honorable man does not post ‘man up’ rants on twitter. Only someone looking for attention.

  178. BillyS says:

    So he snowed you in person Wil. That is the exact characteristic of his type.

  179. TheTraveler says:

    This latest twist in the debate is the classic general vs. specific.

    “All politicians are scumbags. Except my guy. Yes, he does some things I might not agree with [translation: he is a complete sleaze], but I really feel he represents me well [translation: he satisfies my selfish desires, whether it’s bringing home the bacon, or just making me feel important.]”

    Many full-time clergymen are no different than sleazy politicians…because (wait for it):
    They ARE sleazy politicians.

  180. This is absurd x 8 says:

    Similaryly, Warhorn never wanted to talk about feminism or the church. They wanted to talk about Dalrock.

    Actually, they start off with goofy babble that tests the listener’s patience to the breaking point.

  181. info says:

    @Anon
    “Pastorbator Tim Bayly is pure sleaze. The ‘male feminists’ at Warhorn, such as Nathan Alberson, confirm the worst stereotypes of ‘male feminists’.”

    Inverting the meaning of masculinity and femininity as well as effeminacy. A mark of true wickedness. Inverting definitions as all satanic deceptions do. Woe to those who put sweet for bitter and bitter for sweet.(Isaiah 5:20)

  182. Emperor Constantine says:

    Speaking of late stage complementarianism…

    Also note Wade’s “lean-in”. Don’t lean-in Wade.

  183. Emperor Constantine says:

    WTF?

  184. Emperor Constantine says:

    One more:

  185. Emperor Constantine says:

    Again with the lean in.

  186. feeriker says:

    @The Other Scott

    I’ve read from a couple of sources that an estimated one out of every four American women are on some form of psychiatric medication or are undergoing mental health treatment. That’s one quarter of the entire American female population! And those are just the ones who have been identified and diagnosed. The true percentage of American women with broken heads is probably astronomically higher.

    That said, I think that very, very few of them have a genuine, organic mental illness. Like so much of our society, they’re reaping the fruits of not having had any boundaries put around their behavior and are suffering the inevitable wounds to the heart, mind, and soul as a result.

  187. thedeti says:

    Burleson’s error is in thinking that we still live in a state of complete union with God, as Adam and Eve did before the Fall.

    Paul’s writings, especially those in which he expounded on good church discipline and the relationship of men and women in the home and in church, are a recognition of the fallen nature of human beings. Yes, Jesus Christ is the Second Adam and the one and only Bridge between fallen Man and God. But man is still fallen. Even in a state of salvation and grace, men and women are still fallen. They are still imperfect. They must still live with each other, work with each other, marry, have sex, and form families and lasting relationships with each other, in their state of imperfection.

    And that is why St. Paul gave us his writings on male-female relationships, sex, male headship, and women’s proper role in church life. Because women are more easily deceived and are the weaker vessel. Because men, though they are far from perfect or even good at it, are better suited to headship. It’s older women’s role to teach and train younger women on how to be wives and mothers, and to otherwise keep silent in church and ask their husbands if they have questions. It’s men’s lot to love. It is women’s lot to respect/submit.

    Got a problem with this? Take it up with God. I didn’t ordain this or write it. Neither did Dalrock or anyone else in the ‘sphere. God did. So if you have a problem with this, your problem is with God and the Word, not with the manosphere, Dalrock, or me.

  188. JRob says:

    OT
    Ann Voskamp was featured for two weeks on DTW. Total loon. They this narcissist prattle on and on about nothing. She’s the author who in so many words wrote about a sensual relationship with God.

    If you can make it through an episode, you’ll hear error, heresy, mysticism, and many Voskampisms. She invents words.

    She was a cutter in her teens. Glad she’s teaching. /s. These are the female “preachers” these snakes promote with their white knightery.

    https://discovertheword.org/series/the-broken-way1/

    From:
    http://www.solasisters.com/2014/05/ann-voskamps-one-thousand-gifts.html?m=1

    A few excerpts from her book, in which Voskamp describes her alleged sexual encounter with God:

    “I fly to Paris and discover how to make love to God.” (One Thousand Gifts, p 201)

    “I think how lives, whole generations, were laid down to built this edifice, to find a way in. But they thought the steps to God-consummation were but three: purgation, illumination, union.” (One Thousand Gifts, p 208)

    “I remember this feeling. The way my apron billowed in the running, the light, the air. The harvest moon. I remember. The yearning. To merge with Beauty Himself. But here…….Now? Really?…….I am not at all certain that I want consummation…….And who wouldn’t cower at the invitation to communion with limitless Holiness Himself?” (One Thousand Gifts, p 211)

    “I run my hand along the beams over my loft bed, wood hewn by a hand several hundred years ago. I can hear Him. He’s calling for a response; He’s calling for oneness. Communion” (One Thousand Gifts, p 211)

    “This invitation to have communion with Love—is this the edge of the mystery Paul speaks of? “‘A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one” (Ephesians 5:31-32). The two, Christ and the church, becoming one flesh—the mystery of that romance. Breath falling on face, Spirit touching spirit, the long embrace, the entering in and being within—this is what God seeks? With each of us?” (One Thousand Gifts, pp 212-213)

    “God makes love with grace upon grace, every moment a making of His love for us. And He invites the turning over of the hand, the opening and saying Yes with thanks. Then God lays down all of His fullness into all the emptiness. I am in Him. He is in me. I embrace God in the moment. I give Him thanks, and I bless God and we meet and couldn’t I make love to God, making every moment love for Him? To know Him the way Adam knew Eve. Spirit skin to spirit skin.” (One Thousand Gifts, pp 216-217)

  189. Random Angeleno says:

    @wilandmari
    Bayly showed us his true colors as did his acolytes at Warhorn. Birds of a feather there.

    At this point, you are just plain obtuse. Until you recognize that, there is nothing else to say.

  190. Emperor Constantine says:

    @thedeti said:

    “Got a problem with this? Take it up with God. I didn’t ordain this or write it. Neither did Dalrock or anyone else in the ‘sphere. God did. So if you have a problem with this, your problem is with God and the Word, not with the manosphere, Dalrock, or me.”

    Amen. Well said.

  191. Anonymous Reader says:

    Liz
    ut this is the first time I’ve heard it referred to as a job.
    I imagine the job of ebola is awful.

    It’s not just a job. It’s an adventure!

  192. Liz says:

    It’s not just a job. It’s an adventure!
    LOL. 😆
    Heh, almost like working for Al Qaeda.
    Meet interesting people! Learn about new and different cultures!
    But the job’s a killer (and the big E has a slightly less generous benefits package)

  193. Anonymous Reader says:

    Just to cheer you up, Liz…

    https://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/2019/06/told-you-so.html

    …first confirmed Ebola deaths in Uganda. Containment in Congo has failed. Where next? We’ll see.

  194. Liz says:

    On the bright side, I don’t see Trump sending 4000 of our military folks over two the hot spot (as BO did a couple years back). And I’d bet he would insist on a quarantine after (as BO did not).

  195. Anonymous Reader says:

    Liz

    On the bright side, I don’t see Trump sending 4000 of our military folks over two the hot spot (as BO did a couple years back).

    LOL.
    Read the links posted above, Liz. Then we’ll talk.

  196. Liz says:

    I read it, AR.
    In 2014 more than 425 people contracted the virus in Uganda, mainly in the northern town of Gulu. More than half of them died. These aren’t the first cases ever seen in Uganda.

  197. Anonymous Reader says:

    Liz
    I read it, AR.

    But didn’t understand it.

    In 2014 more than 425 people contracted the virus in Uganda, mainly in the northern town of Gulu. More than half of them died. These aren’t the first cases ever seen in Uganda.

    Whoosh! Way, way over your head.

    HINT: It’s not 2014 anymore.

    Suggestion:
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Ginkgo_biloba

  198. Liz says:

    Whoosh! Way, way over your head.
    HINT: It’s not 2014 anymore.

    True, it’s not 2014. In 2014 there were tens of thousands of cases of ebola, and we had thousands of healthcare workers traveling to and from hot zones after working with the afflicted and not subject to quarantine during the period of possible asymptomatic contagion. There were no travel restrictions for asymptomatic individuals (who might be carriers) then either because, if you’ll recall, they believed restricting travel would adversely impact areas of need. And there also wasn’t an ebola vaccine. So at present, I feel far safer by comparison in 2019.
    So far….things do change and I cannot predict the future but based on the above I’m not overly concerned.

    Suggestion:
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Ginkgo_biloba

    Thanks…but if you are taking this I think I’ll pass. Seems to have the effect of making one overly argumentative and insulting for no real reason.

  199. Pingback: Out: Servant Leader. In: Servant King. | 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.