So some of the discussion in the comments to the previous post about angry husbands made me think of something else that needs saying.
It is not possible to say everything at once. If I write a post about angry husbands, it is not, by its very nature, a post about slothful wives. I could write a post about slothful wives, and maybe someday when I am a much braver man I will do so, but that hypothetical post wasn’t this one.
But I have noticed that whenever I address certain particular temptations that various natural groupings in the Body are in fact prone to, the troops sometimes tend to rally in problematic ways. Specialized admonitions have a long lineage in Christian epistolary exhortations. Husbands, do this. Wives, don’t do that. Children, think about this. Servants, take care to fold the linen right. Paul tells husbands not to be bitter, although I am sure he would grant that wives can be bitter too (Col. 3:19). He tells children to be obedient, even though parents are themselves capable of being disobedient. The Scriptures tell rich people not to love money even though poor people can also love money. Now when someone in the twenty-first century church undertakes this perfectly natural pastoral duty, loud objections begin. This indicates, I would argue, that the prevailing power of identity politics is seeping into the church. What do I mean?
The lines of the antithesis are between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Our identity is supposed to be Christ, and my only tribal tattoo is my baptism.
But feminist politics fights to establish identity politics, and if you accept the importance of their divisions you have actually joined them, whether or not you are their side.
As such, identity politics represent a false antithesis. For them, the division, the fundamental divide, is between men and women. But for Christians, the fundamental divide is between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, between righteousness and unrighteousness. The antithesis was established, in the first book of the Bible, between God’s people and those who are not God’s people.
But among God’s people, there are men and women both, children and adults both, blacks and whites both, Chevy owners and Ford owners, and so on. Identity politics wants to take one of these lesser identities, and turn it into a fundamental identity.
Unfortunately, Christians sometimes get swept up in this, or perhaps are just affected by it. Thus, if I write a blog post letting angry husbands have it, there is a tendency among some men to sympathize with the man, just because he is a man, and regardless of how unsympathetic I made him. If someone identifies with a fictional composite, created to be in the wrong by definition, then it shows how much our reflexes have been trained.
So back to my earlier example, if I were to write a blog post about slothful wives, there would be a tendency among some women to get defensive on behalf of all women. This is idolatry; it is it is identity politics. This is not a hypothetical, incidentally. It has happened here from time to time.
If a man defends an ungodly man, over against a godly woman, this is a display of the problem. If a woman defends an ungodly woman, over against a godly man, this is a demonstration of skewed loyalties. And that is one of the enemy’s great objectives — to skew our loyalties.
So you’re saying the angry man is Grendel?
So you’re saying that all men are angry, and all women are slothful? Shame on you! ;)
Thank you for adding this. It’s a source of frustration to me that whenever anything is written to criticize the behavior of one sex, the majority of the comments are “but what about [other sex]! Surely they, too, are sinners!” Actually, I have more sympathy when women respond this way – men, after all, are called to be leaders, and our failure to lead as well as intentional leading in the wrong direction has often led women astray. When someone writes an article about modesty and women respond that men need to lead better, they make an important point (so… Read more »
Don’t bother to have sympathy with women who try to shift responsibility back to the men. The purpose is usually to excuse themselves (especially where modesty is concerned, for some reason).
Posts like this should engender quiet reflection in the readers, not an immediate spate of “yeahbuts”.
It’s a cautious sympathy. I try to operate more often than not under the assumption that, as in the Fall, men have first responsibility. If a leader leads in victory, he also leads in defeat. Even sins committed by people being led are his responsibility. I believe that doesn’t diminish the responsibility of the sinner, but simply adds responsibility to those of us who must lead. Some women have become what they are because of terrible men in their lives, which is to say that they are still sinning by what they are, but how much greater is the responsibility… Read more »
Your letter was harsh, but beautiful. This is real pastoring. I notice that it was possible only because the pastor spent time walking about near the herd, not cloistered in his study preparing lectures.
Sometimes this reminds me of Wodehouse: Bertie Wooster: Jeeves, this Wilson fellow has written something about angry husbands… Jeeves: Indeed, sir? Bertie Wooster: He makes some points that may be spot on, but still… Jeeves: Sir? Bertie Wooster: Well, I mean to say, he seems to have overlooked the category of the slothful housewife. Jeeves: It would seem Mr. Wilson is employing the expediency of addressing a single topic. Doubtless he is hoping the reader will realize he might have strong opinions on other topics which he is not minimizing, even though he does not address it here. Bertie Wooster:… Read more »
Well played. Wonderfully, beautifully, extravagantly well played.
More, more, please!
I think pastors keep very busy going after cultmarx approved targets and just never seem to get around to chastising unapproved targets. Since I’m a cis white male that’s always going to look like tribalism on my part. In this case I’m doubly suspicious since the post will garner the approval of not only the many ladies of the congregation but also the low-T Millennials and neo-Victorian white knights. When aimed at an individual “angry dad”, this may be very helpful but when aimed generally at the culture it looks like drifting along with the tide. Also, you may get… Read more »
Barnabus–In the words of Nathan, “You are the man.” Go back and read the letter a few more times, recognizing that it’s talking to you. That’ll be a good start.
BS, in my home I’m a right jolly despot and my home is as tranquil as any can be with multiple young children. The witch hunter always says that if aren’t enthusiastic for the inquisition you must be a witch yourself.
Also, according to your logic, my previous statements on this forum regarding Crimea and the American Revolution reveal me to be simultaneously a Russian and a Loyalist Englishman.
Do you really think there are many, if any, careerist wives who have day cares raise their babies at Christ Church? I go to a reformed church and there isn’t one mama there who has the government let alone a day care raising her children. It isn’t a “rule” at our church, but I think with reformed types, it goes without saying that it is unlike us to be interested in such things! I think addressing his congregation on issues that pertain to them would be a higher priority. I don’t think there are going to be a lot of… Read more »
To those who would hold men responsible for everything that happens in their homes I would certainly agree with you as long as you also support his authority over every decision made in his home.
Speaking for myself only, I don’t expect my husband to take responsibility for everything that happens in our home and I wouldn’t support his authority over every decision – and he doesn’t want that anyway. I do expect him to take responsibility for himself. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. For instance, “You made me angry when you …” should be replaced with “I became angry when you …”. No one can “make” anyone else anything. If the wife has enough power over her husband that he is helpless to control his wrath because she asked him to… Read more »
“I don’t expect my husband to take responsibility for everything that happens in our home and I wouldn’t support his authority over every decision – and he doesn’t want that anyway. I do expect him to take responsibility for himself.” Laura, from what you have said here, I’d say that sounds like a reasonable way for a marriage to function. There is such a thing as placing burdens on spouses such that the result is worming one’s way out of responsibility, When I sin against God, it isn’t my husband’s fault, it’s mine – and visa versa. Blame shifting is… Read more »
Proper wifely submission manifests on more than one level. It’s one thing for a wife to refuse to shift blame to her husband when she sins (well and good), but it’s quite another if she also refuses to let him bear her shame, her consequences, and intercede for her forgiveness, and wash her in the Word. There can be a certain attitude that refuses this kind of submissive role to a husband who desires to image Christ by bearing the sins of His bride and cleansing her. That attitude is pride. Of course the standard reaction and defense will be… Read more »
Katecho, not being Reformed or Protestant, these kinds of discussions on blogs have me scratching my head a bit. Not because I’m not familiar with the Scriptures, but rather, how the Scriptures are interpreted and lived out. I’d never even heard of such a thing as Complementarian, Patriarchy or Egalitarian in the context of marriage as is commonly discussed within the Protestant camp until about a year ago. And I have only begun to understand the lingo and how it is applied. I can assure you that my husband would be dumbfounded if such terms were used in a discussion.… Read more »
Katecho, I’m still looking forward to a response. I realize life gets busy, but if you have a few moments to address my comment/s above, I’d greatly appreciate it.
I’m sure you’re right, but that makes me cringe a little. When a husband says, “Dear, I am leaving you after 23 years of marriage because a homeless woman I met online is a lot hotter than you,” does the wife have to say, “I became angry upon hearing this announcement”? Or, instead of saying “You broke my heart,” must she say, “I allowed my heart to feel broken by this betrayal”?
Well, you do have a point there. But it is not sinful to have your heart broken b/c your life partner abandoned you. It is sinful to “let” someone “make” you angry because they innocently crossed your path when you were having a bad day.
““I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.”
This might sound simplistic, but I think that it speaks to the essence of our King, and to the very core of who we are to be for our wives. To the last breath.
So glad you added this. I read your post and then the comments about how men rise and fall based on how we want them to act (paraphrasing). We are not gods, and it seems that the men who are saying this are putting an awful lot of power into our hands. I do not doubt that a woman can have an influence on her husband’s faith and other things, but it is God that ultimately does the behavior changing in the husband, not the wife.
In the comments section on Doug’s last post, I gave a hypothetical scenario in which all the women in the West inform the men that they will no longer sleep with them if they join the military (maybe they decide the military is evil or something). I don’t know if you saw that, but in any case, what do you think? Do you think that men would still go off and fight, knowing that when they get home, they’re not getting any sex? With regards to marriage, it’s the men who pursue and the women who decide, because of course… Read more »
“If a woman marries a man who is abusive, she’s rewarding and encouraging that trait in other men…” Ben, what if she didn’t know he was abusive? There are documented cases where this was the situation. Now, one might say she should have known, or there was some willful blindness at work. All I can say is that I am familiar with cases of domestic abuse where the woman thought she was marrying a pretty great guy, only discover otherwise after they walked down the aisle. And even if your example is the case, and she does know that he… Read more »
I’d be surprised if there was EVER a case where the woman was completely oblivious to the man’s nature until they were married, but even if that were possible, that doesn’t free her of responsibility for her decision. I understand that in the throes of infatuation, we are often blinded to certain things in our partner, but then where was her support system of friends, family, the church, etc., to watch out for her and give her an objective outside opinion? Was she going it alone all during the time she was dating this man? Did she not seek the… Read more »
Ben, I don’t know about scandalous opinion. Here’s the thing…both men and women have been known to choose mates poorly. Whether they knew or did not know or how much they knew or…or…or… The fact is once they’re married and in the thick of it, how advantageous is it to rebuke them for their poor choice? I think this is why marriage counseling is so necessary within the church. This way the couple have an objective person who can see things much better without the raging hormones. But once a person has married and discovers what the other person is… Read more »
Ben, do you think men bear any responsibility at all for their actions? If a man is abusive, is he at fault at all? Ever?
I never even remotely suggested that men bear no responsibility for their actions. I would suggest reading my comments with a little more nuance.
” Women are the gatekeepers. They decide what future generations will be like based on which suitors they pick out. If a woman marries a man who is abusive, she’s rewarding and encouraging that trait in other men, and she is helping to continue that cycle of abuse by having children with him.”
I see a lot of finger-pointing at women here. If you’ve pointed the finger at men, I’ve missed it.
Doug in his last post did some finger pointing at men, but that doesn’t mean he wants to absolve women of all wrongdoing, as he made clear in this post. All I’ve been trying to do is point out the disparity between how much men and women are blamed for the violence of men. It’s simply not 100% the man’s fault. Or zero percent. It’s more nuanced than that, as I’m sure you’d agree.
I think there is no excuse for physical violence unless you are forced to physically prevent someone from harming you or someone else. Can you agree with me there? Or no?
Of course there’s no excuse. Suppose a boy is brought up in a home in which his father hits his mother every day, and then when he grows up and marries, he does the same to his wife. Is he morally responsible? Yes. Can he use his dad’s abuse as an excuse? No. Did his dad’s abuse play a huge role in him becoming an abuser himself? Of course. The point is that just because the man’s violence can be partially blamed on someone else (his dad) doesn’t mean that he’s not morally responsible for his evil.
At last. Thank you.
Sometimes there comes a point when a person has to say, truly I am a foreigner in a foreign country. I can relate to the Sedevacantists better than most folks on this blog.
Except for the anti-Semitic ones (Sedevacantists). A little of that wickedness goes a very long way.
I’ve never encountered anti-Semitic Sedevacantists, but I don’t doubt that they exist. I did, however, read an anti-Semitic comment on this blog just yesterday.
I know, I saw it too. The Feeneyites were notorious; it was one of the reasons for their excommunication by the Vatican. Some of the SSPXers tend that way. I find it abominable.
I thought the Feeneyites were excommunicated because they rejected Vatican II. I had no idea they were anti-Semitic.
Jus to add a bit more. I think the pre-Vatican II church was much more insistent on the doctrine that there is no salvation outside Rome. This, plus a tendency in some cultures to blame the Jews as “Christ killers”, as well as envy of their perceived material success, led to a streak of anti-Semitism for which the church has formally repented. If you look at the teachings of splinter Feeneyite groups such as the Slaves of Mary, you can find this toxic brew. It led to their being put on the SPLC hate list.
Barnabas,
I think that you should rephrase this: “…if he [Pastor Wilson] were to be completely truthful…”.
I will extend to you, in good faith, that you are NOT suggesting that Pastor Wilson is being untruthful or less-than truthful, and that what you really mean is that you do not enjoy the emphasis of the instant issue.
(If, alternatively, you are accusing him of being untruthful or less-than truthful, then you as a Christian have an absolute obligation to support that with evidence. Absent such evidence, such allegations should not even be made.)
My statement doesn’t obligate me to do anything but Pastor Wilson will steer clear of certain issues or more frequently move with the nuance of a Shaolin on rice paper. This is far better than say The Gospel Coalition which will print outright malignant lies and I hate to even mention Patheos. As I thought I made clear, Wilson is about as candid as he can be and still continue to do what he does.
You said, “…if he [Pastor Wilson] were to be completely truthful…”.
That is a thinly veiled accusation of untruthfulness.
I think that you are out of line.
RFB out.
He means it in the sense of telling all the truth. To be completely honest or completely frank.
bethyada,
That is why I qualified my first statement. I think that being accused of not “telling all the truth,…completely honest or completely frank” is being accused of being duplicitous.
I think that type of accusation carries an obligation of providing evidence, and if not, then “have a nice steaming cup of shut up”.
I disagree RFB.
Tactful is the term or a similar synonym* that bethyada missed. Although I do disagree with Bethyada in that I have found Pastor Wilson to be dauntless..
*gah! similar synonym? Isn’t a synonym by definition similar?
One would probably wish to make some distinction between cowardice and rudeness, wouldn’t one?
To refuse to, in an unsolicited manner, offer your opinion on the physical attractiveness of every person you meet would seem virtuous. However, I imagine the type of person who refused to exercise any restraint in his truth telling would probably not be able to run a church or school and would also not be considered virtuous.
Speaking as a butt-ugly man, I appreciate your silence on this matter (:
Lol
This is exactly why I get so concerned by how many impressionable young Christians are getting seduced by the so-called Mens Rights Movement. It is tempting to join because they denounce feminism and promote manhood which young men are starving for, but it’s really an extremely toxic subculture. The problem is more widespread than people think – several normal Christian bloggers I used to read suddenly became foaming at the mouth MRAs once exposed to the ideas. Maybe church leaders just aren’t aware of the problem or the extent of the problem, but I have yet to see anyone really… Read more »
This is exactly why I get so concerned by how many impressionable young Christians are getting seduced by the so-called Mens Rights Movement. Seduced by it is one thing, aware of it and its tenets is another. The movement is interesting in that it is the Pagan response to the Pagan feminist. Women did not fair well without God and Christianity. Now, Pagan men did not fair well either and the Christian man is fully capable of holding fast to Christ in either arena. In my view the sin of the MRA is power of woman and the men in… Read more »
It saddens me to see the terms of contempt used for men who are just making an effort to be pleasing to God and exhibit the fruits of the Spirit (kindness, gentleness, self-control) in the way they deal with women. “White knight” is one; the other that comes to mind is a vulgar morphing of “man” and a woman’s sexual body part. No Christian should do this.
The term white knight implies taking advantage of a real or imagined slight against a woman to seek social status or sexual favors. In Christian circles it would also imply holiness signaling as well as poor theology with regards to the moral agency of women. No one is calling a man a white knight for exhibiting any of the qualities you mentioned. As for the other term, there are many less crude ways to refer to a weakling.
1 – Regardless of what the term implies, I’ve seen it used over and over when a man is simply defending a woman, or women, against unfair attack.
2 – Define “weakling”, please. I assume that you don’t think Galatians 5:22-23 is aimed at women only?
1. Sure. However, the concept of “misogynist” exists, and gets thrown around whenever a man says that a woman has behaved badly, whether his criticism be fair or no. Should we then ditch the concept? 2. Viewing the fruits of the Spirit outside of the broader context can lead to trouble. I.e., someone who thinks that strong language (note: strong, not crude or foul language) is an indicator of not being a true Christian, when such language is used throughout Scripture by spiritually mature persons. But yes, there is a disturbing undercurrent within the MRM of the reviving of the… Read more »
And the reason the Christian one is abandoned is because the current Church is staffed by a bunch of manginas, to borrow a term.
(Waggles hand) While I do think the church has become overly feminized, the fact of the matter is that it would help if the men would actually bother to show up at church. Going off of that, I wouldn’t say that the weakness of the pastors is the issue. The problem is similar to the reason most conservative Southern Protestants still hate drinking–they saw the negative aftereffects, and decided that those meant alcohol=evil. Same thing with assertive masculinity–the tendency is to veer off into the sort of “manliness” Wilson’s previous post, which results in bad stuff happening, and then the… Read more »
Are you a Christian? Do you think Jesus is pleased when you use that term to characterize your brothers in Christ?
Are you a Christian
Judge for yourself https://dougwils.com/the-church/an-open-letter-to-an-angry-husband.html#comment-2065980371
Do you think Jesus is pleased when you use that term to characterize your brothers in Christ?
I pray to God quite frequently about my assertive rhetoric on this blog and elsewhere; it has His purposes and ends in mind. He is very pleased.that I have taken Him at His word and stepped out on faith. I am open to correction and the advice of elders. Lukewarm finger wagging, has no effect.
Paul used similar words in Titus 1:10-13, btw.
Grace and Peace.
t
I don’t think Paul used a word that mashed vagina with man in order to put down anyone, let alone other Christians. It is wrong to do that, Timothy. It implies that there’s something inherently wrong with women, to use “vagina” as an insult to men. Is that warm enough for you? I don’t want to be lukewarm here. If you feel like you’re of Paul’s stature, that you can safely call people “liars” and “evil brutes” and not risk God’s wrath, that’s still miles away from insulting a man the way you do. Is that warm enough? I don’t… Read more »
I have no words. By all means, wag away.
“However, the concept of “misogynist” exists, and gets thrown around whenever a man says that a woman has behaved badly, whether his criticism be fair or no. Should we then ditch the concept?” If we peg our personal standards to the lowest common denominator, then yes we should.
OTOH, we can acknowledge that there exist people who use a term inappropriately, as a stick to beat people they dislike or disapprove of with, and still resolve, ourselves, not to do that.
Feminists are well aware of the chivalric tendency of some men to protect weak women. That phenomena is why Liberty University now has a radical feminist on staff. It is why Piper’s former church (in the link barnabas provided elsewhere) has begun the approach of the feminist culture to approach spiritual issues. As for Galatians 5:22-23, you are lacking the discernment that barnabas displays and fail to note that he does display those fruits. Furthermore, Galatians 5:22-23 is not a how-to on how to treat the devil. I suggest a discussion with barnabas (if he has the time and inclination)… Read more »
Here’s the link. If it takes radical feminism to come up with this stuff, then good for radical feminism. For people who don’t get how what they are doing is wrong, if they need lists like this, then it’s good that somebody is providing them. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I’ll ask you: Are you defending this Regular, harsh criticism; Constant questioning and challenging thoughts and perspective; Cold shoulders or silent treatment to punish; Frequent “innocent” sarcasm about the ideas of the other person; Instinctive defensiveness; Habitual dishonesty to avoid accountability and blame others; Using… Read more »
Well, if you were trying to maintain a congregation of couples living in a Pauling model of marriage or even the hierarchical model of marriage universal to all major human civilizations then yes, that list is a big problem. Any interaction not found to be explicitly pleasant may fall under some of the subjective complaints on that list. Based on that, the husband can be brought up on charges before the church or before the state over any conflict in the marriage and with no presumption of innocence. The ability to go above the head of the husband and with… Read more »
“Well, if you were trying to maintain a congregation ofcouples living in a Pauling model of marriage or even the hierarchical model of marriage universal to all major human civilizations then yes, that list is a big problem.” Somehow I don’t see “regular, harsh criticism” as consistent with “husbands, love your wives” or “wives, submit to your husbands.” I see a complete, major disconnect right there. Let’s break it down. Suppose it was your wife treating you this way. Would every single one of these behaviors be fine in her, directed at you? Are there any of these things that… Read more »
That list is given as a definition for ABUSE, not “could do better”, “abuse” with all of the downstream social and legal consequences of that designation. All of those are razor thin matters of perspective are not falsifiable. This is a blueprint for church embrace of divorce on demand. I would not appreciate any of those things from my wife but neither would I call them abuse or claim them as ground grounds for divorce as that would be patently unbiblical. My wife is a great woman but I’ve been on the receiving end of several things on that list… Read more »
Ha, “Pauling” model of marriage, nuclear family for sure.
I appreciate your quantumfication.
With lots of vitamin C.
Regular, harsh criticism is abuse, Barnabas. If the shoe fits, wear it.
As to the rest of your post: As for Galatians 5:22-23, you are lacking the discernment that barnabas displays and fail to note that he does display those fruits. Furthermore, Galatians 5:22-23 is not a how-to on how to treat the devil. I have not seen Barnabas display discernment or those fruits. And I don’t equate women with devils. I suggest a discussion with barnabas (if he has the time and inclination) such that you can repeat his argument back to him in terms he can agree with (similar to what Hitchen’s had the courtesy to do regarding Christian doctrine)… Read more »
Re: weakling. Dictionary definition works fine for me, I was just say no need to be crude. Stick with mangina for all I care.
So you don’t have a clear understanding of what you, yourself, mean when you use that word to characterize your fellow Christians, but you’re happy to do it and you intend to keep doing it. I’d suggest that you take a few moments to ask yourself what you DO mean but I don’t know if you have that much depth, frankly.
I have not seen Barnabas display discernment or those fruits.
When Barnabas wrote:
All of those are razor thin matters of perspective are not falsifiable.
This is a blueprint for church embrace of divorce on demand.
That is discernment.
I’m not impressed with this discernment. The concern should be, “How can I be a righteous husband and father?”. Not “How much can I get away with?”. If your concern is that you need to be able to act like a jackass with no consequences, I can see looking at it like “all of those…” but it’s not discernment.
Laura, the term “white knight” usually refers to a man who protects a woman, to one degree or another, from the consequences of her actions in order to gain sex. Some people on the extreme side of the MRM will use the term to refer to anyone who provides a woman resources in exchange for sex. They would consider marriage to be white-knighting. The point is that in some instances the use of the term represents a legitimate complaint, and in others it doesn’t.
I’ve seen the term used on the internet when the MRA and PUA guys start with their women-are-garbage stuff and a man begins to object. I’ve seen it used about a man who stops a woman from being harassed in public for no other reason than that he thinks it shouldn’t be happening. I see this in a comment right here: “As far as I’ve seen, the Church in our culture never talks about this, and I consider this to be white-knighting such women and helping alongside them to perpetuate this abuse cycle in future generations.” Is the Church trying… Read more »
No, it’s just that by not teaching about the female responsibility for violence and/or aggression in men as part of their general teaching, churches don’t foment an understanding within the church culture that selecting a bad man does carry with it some degree of moral responsibility and shame. And why does it carry shame? It’s because, as I’ve said before, the man’s glory is the woman’s glory, and the man’s shame is the woman’s shame. You can’t have one and not the other. Again, I’m not saying we should chastise specific women while they’re in bad situations. I’m saying that… Read more »
Ben, I just don’t live in Christian circles that think the way you do. Actually, your language above sounds quite foreign to me. Perhaps it’s because you are in the Reformed Protestant tradition and I am Eastern Orthodox. I’ve learned quite a bit in reading the discussions on this blog in the last several weeks, but I must admit, we live in two different countries, figuratively speaking. Time for me to move on.
It’s too bad you won’t actually tell me why anything I said above is wrong. Maybe I’ve said it in a jerk-like way, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Actually, the things I’ve said in this post are not even common within Protestant Reformed circles. That’s kind of the whole point of me talking about it; I’m addressing what I think is an area that is not being adequately addressed.
Laura, what is PUA?
Pick-up artists. They have entire theories about women, how they’re stupid and childlike, emotional and easily manipulated, immoral, and so on, and about how to get as much sex as possible by lying or whatever they have to do. I will tell you why I looked into this, if you like. A few years ago, my daughter, about 23 years old at the time, had a boyfriend. (In this day and age I feel compelled to specify that they were not physically intimate.) He started out very nice to her, polite, courteous, respectful, and then then it all went south… Read more »
Whoa! You learn something new everyday!
Do yourself a favor and don’t look into it. But when you see terms like “white knight” and that other one I don’t like, that should run up a flag for you. People who use those terms think women don’t deserve any kindness or consideration at all and they shame men who try to offer it.
Thanks Laura. That explains a lot of the, how shall I say?, communication I see in the comment section of this blog. I don’t encounter this mindset in my church community nor among other Christians outside my church community. So, it’s been an eye opener for me to say the least.
I’m glad you don’t. It’s one thing to see this sinful, Godless, woman-hating garbage among the heathen, but when you see the same from self-described Christians it gets to be like, et tu, Brute. One doesn’t know where to turn.
I think you’re broad-brushing a little on the “white knight”–although I will grant the portmanteau of “man” and “woman’s sexual organ” is generally used by jerks.
I think we should be slow in assuming underhanded motives in others. If you were sticking up for a woman because it was the right thing to do, would you appreciate having that term applied to you? There are those who would apply it to Jesus helping the woman taken in adultery – after all, he was shielding her from the consequences of her actions.
No, I wouldn’t appreciate it. On the other hand, if I was defending a woman for the wrong reasons, I wouldn’t appreciate the term either.
Personally, I don’t use the term, mostly for the same reason that I don’t throw around terms like “alpha male” and “beta male”–they’re generally unhelpful to the discussion, and you end up with a MRA vs. radfem vs. sane people flame war.
Yes. Those terms are unhelpful. They’re shorthand, and inaccurate shorthand at that; there’s a lot of metacommunication that goes with them, that people may get wrong b/c they have different understandings of the term. Better to say, for instance, “he keeps bailing her out when she gets into debt, so he’s enabling her problem,” or whatever it is. Or possibly ask ourselves if our conversation really is value-added here, or if we are talking about things that we may not know the whole story on (because it’s none of our business) and if the latter, shut it down.
Do look into it, it is important for Christians to understand. It is the counter-move by Godless men against what feminism has wrought in the secular world Those are the fields ripe for harvest and these series of comment threads are about how to harvest souls. Boilerplate feminism, when adopted by a church will not mitigate this destruction on either the feminist or PUA side. It is incorporating into the governance of the church the structural rules that have created the PUA. Christian and Scriptural relations when codified and lived by The Church will attract from both camps as it… Read more »
A response to feminism.
Once again, men have no moral agency. When they go astray, somewhere, somehow, it’s a woman’s fault.
Nagging will fix it Laura. really, it will.
Putting down people who are pointing out your error, though, fixes nothing.
I do not understand how, simultaneously, men are supposed to be leaders in the home, and helpless puppets with no moral agency whose every act is a reaction to women.
You are assuming that understanding a movement is to embrace it. C.S. Lewis could explain, with rigor, competing religious claims to Christianity. He did this as a means of clearly contrasting them with Christianity as part of his apologetics for Christianity. This did not make C.S. Lewis a Hindoo or and Animist. Where he alive today, I am confident he could engage Barnabas and BJ on the merits and bring his faith to bear on it. Do you think wagging your finger at C.S. Lewis would stop his inquiries into the matter? I hope not. Why do you think these… Read more »
“Young lady.” I am fifty-four years old, young man.
“Do look into it, it is important for Christians to understand.It is the counter-move by Godless men against what feminism has wrought in the secular world.”
Is this you explaining a view about MRA/PUA, that it is a reaction to feminism, or is this explaining your view? Because your comment looks like the latter. I’d be happy to think you don’t blame women for every stupid or wicked thing a man got up to.
“Young lady.” I am fifty-four years old, young man.
You write like a woman half your age.
Is this you explaining a view about MRA/PUA, that it is a reaction to feminism, or is this explaining your view?
The former. Emphatically, loudly, shouted from the roof-tops with cymbals clanging, drums beating, like King Theoden rallying the Rohirrim with The Former! The Former! The Former!
“You write like a woman half your age.”
Examples?
“The former”
Thank you.
It was a joke I say to people face to face. Since this is written communication I had to modify it. It usually goes like this..
Man: “I am 80 today!”
Me: “You don’t look a day over 79!”
or
Woman: “I am 54 years old, young man”
Me: “You look like a woman half your age”
Since this is written, I used
Me: “You write like a woman half your age”
(:
Okay, I get it. I’ll pull my stinger back in.
: )
“Boilerplate feminism, when adopted by a church will not mitigate this destruction on either the feminist or PUA side. It is incorporating into the governance of the church the structural rules that have created the PUA.” I am an Orthodox Christian and while we have our problems, feminism isn’t one of them. Perhaps that’s why the language used here on this blog has been a culture shock for me. My experience these last few weeks on this blog has been quite similar to my discussions with Pentecostals and their concerns about preparing for the coming Rapture. They possess a drastic… Read more »
Hi Darlene, Your initial comment on this blog contained many of the ‘trigger words’ that radical feminists use and you where on the receiving end of my hatred of the animating spirit that birthed feminism (BJ describes it well here https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/our-only-tribal-tattoo.html#comment-2070784031). I do not tolerate feminist doctrine in my daily life and have quit lucrative work when it was their way or the highway. To introduce that doctrine into The Church is to see me race with sword in hand to slay the dragon before it makes it to the threshold. I do hate it, or rather, I hate the… Read more »
Maybe I’ll look to see if there are Orthodox churches around here that I could visit.
Laura, I don’t know what your background is, but to give you a heads up, the Orthodox Church seems quite foreign to many who hail from Protestantism, especially low-church Evangelicalism. The worship can best be compared to pre-Vatican II Catholicism, or Orthodox Judaism. If you are truly interested, I would suggest you call a priest in advance. Just my $0.02 for what it’s worth. On a positive note, while the clergy is all-male as well as the acolytes, women are highly honored and valued. I think this connects directly to our deep reverence for the mother of God, the Theotokos.… Read more »
Feminists tear up the Chesterton fence of traditional marriage.
Societal chaos ensues with divorce rate topping 50% and bastardy 40% with downstream effects on crime, suicide and general social stability.
Christian feminist response, “Some pickup artist tried a-hole game on my daughter”
Oh yeah, forgot 55 million abortions.
I don’t know who your hypothetical CF is, since my response would be, “I don’t understand why you are promoting this unGodly garbage like you do. Seems to me that if you deplore the degradations of today’s culture you wouldn’t be echoing it and pushing it.”
And also, if you look at my comment: “I looked up the PUA stuff so I could help her identify the next one and not waste time on him. After looking at it, I think that’s not what was going on,” So I know you are not talking about me.
“Bastardy”
I am so stealing that word.
Pick Up Artist.
It saddens me to see men destroy themselves by the sexual conquest of hundreds of women all the while thinking that they are powerful and ‘winning’. The devil is wily. He has both feminists and the MRM thinking they are ‘winning’ and they are both destroying themselves. Meanwhile much of the organized Church is irrelevant to both sides and has nothing to demonstrate or say. To the MRA, the church-men are emasculated girly-men. To the Feminists, the church-men are irrelevant, retrograde conservatives who are dying out or evil. The knife that cuts to the quick in both instances is the… Read more »
“It saddens me to see men destroy themselves by the sexual conquest of hundreds of women all the while thinking that they are powerful and ‘winning’.” This too. And the view of women as things to get sex from, by lying and manipulation as necessary, is authentically misogynist – agree? To the extent that they are successful, it makes me sad for the women they have their way with, as well. You? “To the MRA, the church-men are emasculated girly-men.” Probably. (Are you describing yourself? Because you applied that term to church men.) “To the Feminists, the church-men are irrelevant,… Read more »
And your alternative, Christian approach to correcting feminist mistakes and to promoting manhood is…tell us, please? If some MRMers are right about some issues or some cases, even if right for the wrong reasons, is it OK to agree with them on those issues or cases, and give them credit for being right? (Jimmy Carter did some deregulating and got the stealth fighter underway, as an example of credit due to a President generally disastrous.) Don’t just say the MRM is wrong; address its valid points (if any.)
The MRM is the mirror image of third-wave feminism–or at least the Tumblr version thereof. It’s a bunch of people who combine some legitimate beefs and raging entitlement complexes to produce internet madness.
The MRM is right about the problems on the ground but their difficulty is the same of the rest of us as to how to respond. Do you use the weapons of the left and attempt to prove that you are the true victim? Since victim status is based on identity and not circumstances, this is a doomed project. That is a tactical error more than a moral one. The truth is that the Christian church has left an enormous vacuum by not addressing huge societal issues. Few were interested in the problem of divorce but are suddenly frantic about… Read more »
What is MRM? I’ve been learning quite a few acronyms and colloquialisms commonly used within Evangelical Protestantism that are non-existent in my neck of the woods. Interesting what one can learn when they venture out of their familiar parochial enclaves.
Men’s rights movement or men’s rights activists.
Griffith’s familiar parochial enclave is not Evangelical Protestantism? Perhaps Roman Catholic?
Katecho, I am Orthodox, as in Eastern. I attend a Greek Orthodox Church. If you know anything about Greek men, they are far from being effeminate. ;-)
In the same way that feminists have ‘theory about men’, the hard-core, secular MRA guys have a ‘theory about women’ . The gist is a Pagan power struggle between the sexes. Both lose while believing they are winning. Now, I have to be careful here, so it may take a few iterations… In the same way that Christianity Inc. has failed women so it has failed men. Christianity Inc. makes the mistake of importing ‘feminism theory’ in order to rectify that failure. It is equally a massive mistake to import ‘men theory’ in order to rectify that failure. The solution… Read more »
Barnabas
Thank you for articulating this stuff so well. The Holy Spirit is moving and working in places that ‘Christianity Inc.’ would rather not go.
Pastor Wilson,
Your post holds wisdom. thx
Paedobaptism is just identity politics in another guise. It turns the church into just one more natural human tribe with a “keep out” sign on the door. Israel was a cell, and a paedobaptistic church is a cell, but the church is a virus. Paul says our only badge is faith. The New Covenant fundamentally changed the nature of the covenant and its signs. So I take your point, but this is still the wrong kind of “us and them” in a major way because paedobaptism misrepresents the Gospel, which calls all to repent and believe.
I think I missed the part where someone mentioned paedobaptism versus baptism straight up.
Think about it. If baptism is just circumcision given a rinse like you gents make out, the Pastor Wilson is just pushing a slightly sprinkled but still carnal Jew vs. Gentile identity as the solution to all other carnal identities. Paul contrasts old covenant rites with faith, not with new covenant rites (and not the fictitious potato-, er, paedofaith invented by FVs so they can be intellectually satisfied sacramentalists).
What are infants saved by? Works?
Andrew, the New Covenant is about God’s children, not yours.
Mike, forgive me if I am not following, but do you then think there should be no baptism ritual at all. What about communion? thx
Exodus 24 gives us a good model. Moses and the representatives ascended Sinai to dine with the Lord, whom they saw on the crystal sea. There’s baptism and communion right there, for God’s legal representatives. The sacraments are knighthood and round table, lay ordination.
Can you break down your point more simply for me. I am sure I am being thick, but I am interested in this line of thought… thx
You’re not being thick. I’m notoriously bad at explaining things. In Israel, washing in the laver was for mediators (the priests and the sacrifices which represented them). Circumcision was the social boundary of the territory in which they ministered (Israel). Circumcision is gone, so there is no longer a social boundary – all nations are called to repent. Nobody is “outside” the Covenant any longer. So much for the ‘blood’ boundary. But the ‘water’ boundary is now baptism, the blameless mediators of the Gospel of Christ, those who repent, believe, and no longer require animal sacrifices. Baptism is the staff… Read more »
So your objection is not to baptism but to infant baptism because they can not voluntarily submit to the accountability? Whereas infant baptism is only there to mark the children as “one of us” so to speak?
Yep. You got it in one, which is why I posted here originally. 10/10
Mike, I’m not sure if you know this but other churches which practice paedobaptism have a different understanding of it than the Reformed Covenantal view. Lutherans, for example, and my faith tradition, Eastern Orthodox. But that would not be a discussion for these threads. I’m familiar with the CredoBaptism point of view and understand it quite well.
Mike, I don’t think this is the thread to argue about baptism. CFDD on Facebook would be happy to discuss said topic.
Probably not, but the fact that you don’t see it as closely related to this is part of the problem. You don’t understand baptism. Cheers.
I think you are seeing things that aren’t really there. This post by Wilson is inextricably connected to the prior one, which is about a husband’s inexcusable anger toward his wife. Unless you’re somehow connecting paedobaptism to domestic abuse, which would make no sense whatsoever.
See my comment below to jonswerens. I’m saying that presenting a carnal (tribal) demarcation as the solution for all other demarcations is not the solution. It just moves the problem to a larger arena, a bit like the bath ring in the Cat in the Hat Comes Back. So no I’m not relating this to domestic abuse. Yes, I might be seeing things that are not there, but I might be seeing things that others are missing because they are wearing blinkers. :)
Mike, I just read your response to jonswerens. I don’t have a dog in this fight since I am not a Calvinist or a Protestant. I am reminded of a hymn sung in our liturgy, “Those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” which is taken from Galatians. From the way you speak, it seems that you are a Reformed Baptist, holding to believer’s Baptism. Whatever the case, there are genuine Christians of goodwill on both sides of the aisle on this controversial subject.
Yes, I agree. I’m just saying that Doug is brandishing a carnal weapon in what is a spiritual battle. His problem is that he thinks paedobaptism is a spiritual weapon. Paul says tribal tattoos are poo.
So, babies can repent and believe. And a chosen sign (professor’s baptism) is more totemic than a more automatic sign, eh?
Andrew, paedobaptism, like circumcision, is a social demarcation (whatever amazing things are claimed about it by its defenders). You can tell this by who attends a paedobaptism and what takes place. Biblical baptism, however, is an allegiance which calls everyone – a bit like communism I guess. Nobody is born a communist, so no sign is necessary. You cannot fight the flesh with the flesh, and paedobaptism is all about flesh.
So how is a believer’s baptism different than this problem you describe above? It’s still a social demarcation isn’t it? I see your argument leading to no ceremonial baptism at all… ?
Carole, believer’s baptism is an ethical demarcation, not a social one. Anyone can repent, believe and be baptised, which is why only believers’ baptism pictures the Gospel. Paedobaptism does not testify to the Gospel at all.
Thank you for this follow-up post. You have a gift for explaining concepts in clear, understandable terms. Our identity is in Christ. Simple, yet profound.
The concern about a pagan influence over the concept of manhood is an interesting one that I have struggled with myself. You could just as easily say an Old Testament concept of manhood with David as a model. We are not fighting to establish an earthly kingdom so David cannot be a complete model for us but at the same time I think it is a mistake to completely reject the Davidic model in favor of a passive servanthood. Our ancestors in the church didn’t believe this or we wouldn’t be around or would be speaking Turkish. The synthesis of… Read more »
I resonate with Mike Bull’s bringing up the divisions we Christians maintain in our baptism identities and that’s the tip of the iceberg when it comes to “other” identities we hold more dear than that of being in Christ. I completely agree with Doug’s comment that the primary division is between those who are God’s people and those who aren’t, but that is so far from the truth when it comes to how we live as Christians. Our petty little denominational labels seem too precious to us, dividing us over the very things that ought to unite us. Until we… Read more »
This thread is a fascinating discussion. I hesitate to contribute because my education is sorely lacking, as well as the fact that my ancient brain is fading into incoherent thought. I always enjoy reading comments on this blog because they usually stimulate my thinking. Most of the arguments are well thought out and clearly understandable, and when they lack clarity, someone can be sure to come along and ask for clarification. I also appreciate the good harmony and restraint from allowing the discussion to devolve into ad hominem darts. I shared this post on my own blog so others may… Read more »
Doug, Your post on angry husbands was helpful and convicting. It also applies by analogy to many other sinful habits. So thanks thanks thanks.
The feminist wants the freedom to defect from the reciprocal relationships that previously have governed society. In these relationships protection and provision, as well as social status, were provided to women in return obedience to the father and the husband as well as chastity and loyalty to the extended family or tribe. The feminist would live as an atomized individual as she imagines that the man has always lived, free from obligation. But the feminist, like the Wall Street investment banker, wants to privatize profits and socialize losses. She wants freedom without risk, equality of outcome. The white knight serves… Read more »
Surreal.
He’s being one-sided.
The fact is that there are women who think and act the way Barnabas describes, and there are factions in our society that encourage such behavior. However, they are no more the mainstream than the population of men who act similarly and who are also encouraged by factions in our society.
As to the welfare state, it does mitigate the consequences of failure to plan ahead, which I’m okay with. However, over the long-term, this can lead to…issues.
I completely agree.
In strictly monogamous societies, one where women only have sex with their husbands, a sexual cartel is in place. Under this cartel, sex is very expensive for men, requiring a pledge of a lifetime of productive income. Women under this system despise a slut because she breaks the cartel. She undermines the value of sex and threatens the whole system. Once the cartel is broken, there is a race to the bottom and sex becomes nearly valueless. This is why the Slutwalk is a feminist act, as an overt rebellion against the system of monogamy. This is an old idea… Read more »
This reads exactly like Godless evolution, where the sole reason for the existence of any organism is to push its genetic material into the next generation.
“The PUA chuckles at the whiteknight because he increases non-monogamous sexual access. Women also quietly
despise the white knight as he has neither the value of the patriarchal provider
or the macho PUA.”
You have not only drunk the koolaid, you’ve drowned in it. (Where is this copy-and-pasted from?)
My own and I must say its some of my best work.
I believe you that you wrote it. Perhaps you typed it in Word and copy-and-pasted it in? I say this because of the formatting. Sometimes you can copy into Notepad and drop the formatting. It still reads exactly like the stuff I saw when I reluctantly looked into the game garbage. “Women also quietlydespise the white knight as he has neither the value of the patriarchal provider or the macho PUA.” If you are not quoting someone, can I ask how you know what women despise? When I see this written by the PUA crowd, they are justifying the pressuring… Read more »
Laura, In order to forestall a possible objection, which might come from my comment, let me state honestly that I have not read any of the GAME literature and I am not highly invested in the subject matter which that literature addresses, other than to say that the subject matter was of some interest for me during my single years. That being said: I find comments like “Women also quietly despise the white knight as he has neither the value of the patriarchal provider or the macho PUA” somewhat unremarkable if understood as a generality about secular women. Unless the… Read more »
I find comments like “Women also quietly despise the white knight as he has neither the value of the patriarchal provider or the macho PUA” somewhat unremarkable if understood as a generality about secular women. A, “secular” women wasn’t specified, and B, what I find remarkable about it is that I’ve seen this asserted but I’ve never seen any source for it. Was there a referendum of secular women, to find out who they quietly despise? I think it’s just a free-floating theory. I think most single men fear being put in the “friend” category for exactly this reason. I… Read more »
Laura,
If your family is all asleep in the middle of the night and suddenly you hear a loud noise that sounds ominous, what do you do? I know what I do, and I know what every woman I know does…Hollywood knows too, that’s why it is always played out that way in films. Why is that?
And may I ask, in the same scenario, would you be fine with it, if your husband leaned over and shook your shoulder whispering, “honey, I heard a noise!”
My husband works nights. If I hear a loud noise I get out of bed and check it out.
I know what you’re asking. Before he was working nights, actually we both got up. I never wanted him to face danger without me there beside him.
That was loving. But even as you worded your response, you were expecting him to face the danger, and you would be there beside him. It is beautiful and it puts the man in the lead role, doesn’t it?
I can’t seem to post without adding an edit….
Doesn’t that make you his helpmate? Being there beside him, as it is written in Genesis.
I don’t mind being his helpmate. The thing is, I see this symmetrically enough that sometimes I’m his and sometimes he’s mine. Normally the kitchen is me b/c if it’s not clean it bothers me. It bothers him too, but he doesn’t realize it. He doesn’t really see what there is to do, usually. We hosted Thanksgiving a couple of years ago, and at the end of the day I was exhausted and the kitchen was a mess. I started to walk into it. He came up behind me, putting his hands on my shoulders to stop me, and then… Read more »
My first reaction is that I like the story about the kitchen very much, I think it’s lovely that he did that for you. But then I think if you are the breadwinner how is the kitchen also your domain? That is my second reaction. And then my real concern for him being laid back is not whether or not you are okay with it, but whether or not God is. In the end, He is whom we must want to please, I believe.
“But then I think if you are the breadwinner how is the kitchen also your domain?” LOL! That’s a great question! All I can tell you is that not being a go-getter is part of his essential nature. And being one is mine. it’s one of the ways we complement each other. I think if God wanted all men to be go-getters, and all women not, he’d have made us that way. And I don’t see anything in the Bible that says it’s wrong for us to order our household the way it is. ETA: I interact with a lot… Read more »
1 timothy 5:8
I am sure you are very helpful at work and are an incredibly capable person where ever you are. I find it very fulfilling at home though, you might find, you would too, especially if you are blessed with kids!
Thanks for compliments.
We are very blessed, with one daughter. She’s 28 years old and living on her own, majored in biology, and is a quality supervisor in a food processing plant. it is her task to ensure the safety and quality of the products produced on her shift and she takes this very seriously and, she told me, finds personal satisfaction and meaning in knowing that all kinds of people, babies, old folks, people with compromised immune systems, can consume *her* products safely. I’m very proud of her.
In terms of A: if a person generalizes about women, they are generalizing about a predominantly pagan group. Wide is the gate and all that. In terms of B: surely you have also noticed that a lot of women are attracted to horrible men? Why is it the case? Also, please make a distinction between wanting to be friends and wanting to be “just friends,” and make a distinction between wanting to get married to have sex, and wanting to get married only because you want to have sex. There are masculine ways to pursue women and effiminate ways to… Read more »
Tim, I’m not trying to be contrary, but thinking back over the women I’ve known in the workplace and so on, if any of them were attracted to horrible men, they have kept it from me. They’ve either talked about their husbands or boyfriends being nice, or wished they were nicer, which is the opposite of horrible. Sometimes they have wished for more personal responsibility. Still not wanting them to be horrible. I can’t understand your distinctions. “Just friends” is friends without sex, right, or without romance? You’re saying you all don’t want this from us? I can’t answer about… Read more »
It has been a while since I have been up to date on the music the kids are listening to, but I did recently, and quite accidentally, hear Tailor Swift say that she loves the players… If that is not definitive proof of certain realities, then I do not know what is… I don’t know why you read “just friends” as friends without sex instead of “friends with no prospect of marriage.” We men, at least some of us, do want to get married and have a family. He who finds a wife, finds a good thing, right? It is… Read more »
I guess if you have no women friends then you are forced to base your view of women on Taylor Swift.
Just kidding, but actually that would explain a lot of the weird, weird theories about women that you see in the PUA crowd.
(You’ve not met women you liked, but who for one reason or another you know wouldn’t be marriage material for you?)
.
I am happily married by the way and do biblical counseling.
I was joking about the pop song… but now you force me to defend the joke. Pop culture is pop culture for a reason.
Also, look at the divorce rate.
What do you think women say when they are considering divorce? What do they say when they come to counseling? This guy is horrible. Barnabas has given acronyms for the guys they are referring to. If you ask questions of these women, you do see that the they were attracted to these guys at some point. Why?
I don’t want to look at Barnabas’ heathen acronyms. I reject that whole unGodly view where sex is a commodity and is all the men want, and all the women are good for. I cannot express how unGodly that is. If you want to set aside the Bible, and God, and creation, and being called to a higher purpose than just blindly pushing the species forward (and they pervert even that by freaking out at the possibility of making a baby with all the sex they supposedly have) then PUA garbage is probably right where it’s at. When the women… Read more »
You aren’t offended as a Christian, you are offended as a feminist. Don’t like to see motivations laid bare or confront the consequences of your ideology.
I am offended as both. What you are promoting is contrary to the Gospel. I overlook this stuff when it’s self-described atheists even though they really should know better. In a Christian it is inexcusable. I suggest you stop worrying about feminists and start worrying about how you are going to square all this with God.
This is the result of your wold view, not mine. I would have people joined in a Pauline model of marriage early and until death. The idea that there is an “Ungodly” way for single people to pair off for casual sex implies that there is a godly way. It is an appropriate concern for Christians that people join in stable marriages. It is not appropriate for Christians to concern themselves that casual sex be a fully authentic and pleasant experience for young women. By the way, you throw the word “ungodly” around a lot, especially for someone who undermines… Read more »
You haven’t considered my arguments. You’re too busy worrying that I’m a feminist. It’s funny for you to pretend to critique my arguments when you’ll call men weaklings and then refuse to state what you mean by that. If you made an attempt to view women, Christian or not, the way Jesus does, and he gave plenty of examples while he was on earth, you couldn’t write the things you do. Or men, for that matter. “In strictly monogamous societies, one where women only havesex with their husbands, a sexual cartel is in place. Under this cartel, sex is very… Read more »
This exchange has gone on far too long and been far too unproductive so I leave off with this and you are welcome to the last word. First, let go of the “weakling” thing. If you look back through the posts, this was my interjection on your exchange with someone else that if the crudity of mangina was a problem, there might be a more acceptable term. While the concept of weakness as character flaw in a male is something worthy of discussion, I think that it expands the scope of an already overly broad conversation. Feel free to argue… Read more »
“The onus is on you to show that the increase in individual autonomy is such an evident good that it outweighs the quite significant downside I have cited above.”
And here you demonstrate again a complete, total, (willful?) misunderstanding of my point.
You are right. There is no reason to continue this.
This back and forth conversation has brought to mind the woman caught in adultery. I’m led to believe that some folks here might actually be in the hate-filled crowd ready with stones in hand, to pummel that woman to death. They might even think Christ to be in the category of a “white knight.” I’d like to think I’m wrong about this, really I would. This conversation, and other ones like it on this blog, remind me of conversations I’ve had with Right-Wing Conservatives or Left-Wing Liberals. The former see the latter behind every rock and crevice. The latter see… Read more »
And others who see patriarchal cults just waiting to reach out and grab them!
I’ve spent quite a few years here now, and I am probably more “liberal,” theologically and politically, than many people who post regularly. From the vantage-point of a non-Reformed, non-fundamentalist Christian, I think you are wrong that any of the regulars would be hucking rocks at the adulteress. Human beings sin, and adultery is drearily ordinary. I think the objection is to any tendency to redefine the situation so that the woman is seen as an oppressed sex worker, or that adultery is viewed as a legitimate response to masculine hegemony. I think the word feminism has attained its potency… Read more »
Jillybean, I’m going to address one of your statements above. “I think the objection is to any tendency to redefine the situation so that the woman is seen as an oppressed sex worker, or that adultery is view as a legitimate response to masculine hegemony.” Your analogy is couched in extreme language. I would posit that umbrage is taken by some men (note I said some, not all, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease) on this blog when women assert that there’s more to being a female than getting married and bearing children, blessed as these gifts are –… Read more »
My purpose in commenting was somewhat limited. I found this comment somewhat unremarkable if understood as a generality: “Women also quietly despise the white knight as he has neither the value of the patriarchal provider or the macho PUA.” There are categories of people represented by the concept of “the white night,” and there are categories of people represented by “the patriarchal provider” and “the macho PUA.” I don’t care about the terms one way or another, except that it is easy to observe that people like this do exist. Similarly, there are women are are attracted to these stereotypes,… Read more »
There have always existed sinful people who don’t even try to please God. This is nothing new and it’s no justification for people (not talking about you, Tim) to pull in the PUA folks’ philosophy and try to palm it off on Christians. We’ve always been outliers. I think it’s probably easier to be an authentic Christian when the culture doesn’t give lip service to Christianity and then do what it pleases. Kind of like how Christianity flourishes under persecution – you aren’t going to drift into it, you are going to choose it (or it choose you, I guess;… Read more »
Barnabas is articulating the ideas that Ben has been trying to articulate. If you stand back and look at them dispassionately, you will see a counter-revolution to the feminist revolution. Since these ideas are in the wider (Pagan) culture you will see several things. 1. Various reactions by “Church Inc. Pastor mom-jeans version” 2. Various reactions by “Church Inc. Pastor Patriarch version” 3. Feminist reactions.(pagan women fighting pagan men) 4. MRM reactions to Feminisim (pagan man fighting pagan women) 5. The Holy Spirit moving in all camps to bring all under authority of Him. My interest is in the following… Read more »
What I believe Barnabas* is doing (Please chime in Barnabas if I am misstating this)
Is attempting to articulate Biblical 5->1, 5->2, 5->3 interaction in that they see 1,2, and 3 as utter failures. They cannot do this using the language of 1,2,3 as that language is antithetical to 5.
*And others as Barnabas linked to https://dalrock.wordpress.com/ for example
Here is an unofficial taxonomy. MRA – Men’s rights activist. One who advocates for the interests of men in matters such as divorce, child custody, alimony or child support, or with regards to employment preferences, etc. (Reading material – Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers Marriage and the Family, American Coalition of Fathers and Children on the web). Nothing evil or pagan about this though some may come off as whiney. MGTOW – Men Going Their Own Way – Men who believe the potential consequences of divorce, false rape aligations, etc are so severe that they swear off marriage… Read more »
Yikes! Almost forgot.
Hypergamy – The inborn female instinct to mate with the highest status male that she can attain. In the absence of strong legal, social, or religious constraints this leads to “trading up” mates when the opportunity arises. In the cultural milieu of 21st century America this takes on a spectrum from hook-up culture to serial monogamous marriage depending on a number of factors.
In order to escape accountability from lawsuits, most churches have replaced the tribal tattoo of baptism, with the sectarian tattoo of church membership.
The Holy Spirit is our seal of redemption. Our baptism is an act of obedience. You can be saved without baptism. Of course it would be best if the reason for lack of baptism is you are a new convert and the pastor hasn’t got to it yet or you died shortly after conversion, you make too much of baptism