In churches across the western world Father’s Day has become a day to reflect on the crumbling of the family. Given the mass suffering caused by broken homes, this is a topic worthy of serious reflection. It is in fact worthy of more than mere reflection. I propose that Father’s Day should become a day of repentance for Christians, and you can do your part by sharing this post with your pastor and encouraging him to join what will hopefully become a growing movement.
Before we get to the topic of repentance though, we need to look back on the last few decades and the destruction wrought on the family. While feminism started long before the 60s, modern feminism is often argued to have been sparked in that decade with Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique. In the decades that followed we have radically reshaped our society in an effort to free women from the patriarchal roles defined for women in the Bible. We have freed women from being trapped in marriage by passing no fault divorce law and moving from a marriage based family structure to one based on child support. Christian leaders have done their part by carefully avoiding the parts of the Bible which offend their now feminist congregations, which is nearly everything relating to women and marriage. Pastors across the land demonstrate their extensive feminist sensibilities by avoiding or playing down the repeated instructions to Christian wives to submit to their husbands, to the point where this has now become second nature.
What has followed our radical overhaul of the culture and the churches is euphemistically called progress. No longer constrained by the need to marry and submit to a husband, the modern empowered woman is now almost as likely to decide to have her children out of wedlock as within wedlock.
Add to this the pandemic of wives expelling their children’s father out of the home and we have a sea of human misery.
But sacrificing millions of children on the altar of feminist progress isn’t enough, and pastors across the land have shown that when it comes to feminism their faith knows no bounds. As feminists repeatedly warn us, women who defy God’s plan are forever at risk of feeling guilty. This jeopardizes the entire feminist enterprise, placing decades of progress at risk. Fortunately feminism has no better ally in this regard than conservative Christians. As women in the west en masse have come to fantasize and obsess over the “empowerment” of divorce, Christians blessed this unholy obsession with their own entry into the divorce fantasy genre. Now Christian women don’t have to expose themselves to secular ideas in order to fantasize about the empowerment of divorce, they can do so with their pastor’s blessing. But as we all know feminism is forever at risk of being rolled back, and outdated (biblical) ideas about the family are an ever present threat. Christian movie makers have stepped in once again to offer comfort to single mothers everywhere by pretending that decades of feminist rebellion never happened, and instead blaming men for the choices of women.
High profile Christian leaders now regularly explain that the explosion in women choosing unwed motherhood is not due to a mass feminist rebellion, but due to some inherent defect in the men the modern feminist woman finds herself surrounded by. The Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus On The Family explained in his book on parenting that:
Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies. But if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to, well… Our most pressing social problem today is a man deficit.
But it isn’t just high profile Christian leaders who have done their part in denying the recent and unprecedented (post fall) feminist rebellion while shifting the blame to men. The unsung hero of the feminist movement has been the lowly pastor. Pastors across the western world have quietly done the thankless work of promoting feminism week in and week out, without so much as a pat on the back from feminists. Yet without the continued support of these unsung pastors feminism would be in extreme jeopardy. Modern pastors have given today’s feminist woman the moral blessing of Christianity. Each year pastors take great pains to not only deny the feminist rebellion taking place in their very own congregation, but to heap effusive praise on the women of the congregation on Mother’s Day. Father’s Day on the other hand is mostly considered a special invitation to cut husbands off at the knees.
Not all pastors have supported feminism out of outright hostility to the Bible. Many, perhaps most, have chosen to remain silent on the feminist rebellion while blaming men because it was safe. As I mentioned above, the current rebellion by women is unprecedented historically. Pastors everywhere know that to seriously preach a biblical view of marriage would put their career in immediate jeopardy. There is after all a full fledged rebellion going on. Fighting such a rebellion is dangerous, so concessions must be made in order to be permitted to teach the rest of the Bible. But this just reinforces how craven the modern pastor has become. They deny the outrageous rebellion front and center out of fear of becoming a casualty of that rebellion.
Whatever the reason a pastor has chosen feminism over the Bible, repentance is what is required. While repentance is humbling and painful, it is the necessary first step to healing and redemption. This is true whether the pastor chose feminism over the Bible out of hostility or shame regarding God’s design for the family, or out of simple fear of losing wealth and prestige. Since the problem is nearly universal, what we need is a day of repentance. Given the widespread history of using Father’s Day to denigrate what the Bible tells us is the rightful head of the family, Father’s Day is the logical choice. With this in mind, I offer a list of bullet points which I would encourage pastors across the land to work into their annual Father’s Day sermons until the plague of feminist rebellion and broken families is overcome. This is just a start, and I hope my readers will be willing to help me complete this list.
- I repent for denying the feminist rebellion which was rampant in my congregation, and choosing instead to blame men for the ravages of feminism.
- I repent for cutting husbands and fathers down in an effort to secure my own power as a pastor. For decades I tore down the men I had an obligation to support as God’s designated head of the family, and I humbly beg their and God’s forgiveness for this.
- I repent for the countless times I shied away from teaching the Bible’s clear and repeated instruction to wives to submit to their husbands, and instead focused on the shortfalls of husbands as well as modern “relationship” theory based not in any book of our Bible, but from the Book of Oprah. I repent for my cowardice, and for the hubris of thinking I had found a way to improve on God’s design of marriage and the family.
- I repent for not protecting the children of my congregation by turning a blind eye to the widespread celebration of divorce by women in our culture. When given the choice between defending innocent children and defending my position and prestige, I deeply regret that I chose the latter. I sincerely apologize to each and every child I failed in this way.
- I repent for not speaking out against the accepted view that young women should delay marriage to avoid the risk of being a submissive (and therefore biblical) wife.
- I repent for my personal role in the tragic destruction of biblical marriage as an institution.
- I repent for the deep harm I have caused the women of my congregation and of our culture by encouraging them to the sin and misery of rebellion through both my words and my silence. I now understand that the choice is not between happy rebellion and miserable submission, but quite the opposite.
Have you given the list to your pastor, Dalrock?
I only hope that 50 years from now, men are looking back at these days with admiration. That raising awareness about social decay was the start of true reform.
Reform is difficult at this stage because we have not been able to contribute and culture seems to have passed a certain line (what this is would be quite the arguable point). A Church that wants to keep families and turn away denialists needs to show those families how following biblical principles is the smart, sensible, and fulfilling way.
Where some modern pastors lean towards glossing over the Bible, a strict to-the-letter minister can sap the life out of the Book.
Very powerful. I don’t have anything to add right off the bat, but your mention of the current women’s rebellion being unprecedented historically really struck me. A simple truth, but I think it answers some troubling issues I’ve been pondering. It seems over and over again women’s rebellion is the problem, but Christians really don’t know how to deal with this rebellion so they let it fly. And it could be they don’t know how to handle it because there is just so much of it that it is overwhelming and mind-boggling. Much easier to turn the other way. A little rebellion here and there a church may be able to manage, but this is a monstrosity like none other. All the churches in the world can’t fix the woman problem. Repentance is absolutely a great place to start, but I am skeptical. We truly need divine intervention or the end times are indeed upon us.
“I now understand that the choice is not between happy rebellion and miserable submission, but quite the opposite.”
Beautiful. Reminds me of another quote:
“Free love is neither free… nor is it love.”
Unfortunately, very few people change unless the pain of changing is less than the pain of staying the same. And as the near-entirety of mainstream culture, and quite a bit of church culture, seems to be designed to make women comfortable, they have no reason to change.
This is a quote from an article by Victor Pride: “You can go to any Christian church on Mothers Day and they will praise all that is woman, go to a Christian Church on Fathers Day and you will get a lecture about how Men have screwed up and how they should act better. How many times do you think a Man will continue to go to that church before he A) Quits or Believes it and turns into an effete weakling doing the bidding of every woman he meets.” Victor Pride further states that this is why men are dropping out of churches, regardless of religion.
Related to the intentions of your words about Pastors, Churches and Focus on the Family, it’s sad to see that the K-LOVE Radio Network has chosen to regularly accept interviews with Greg Smalley of FOTF. Every week in Hollywood I interview people that the listeners recognize and respect that give more sound advice on marriage, relationships and family than what I heard this week. (Interview on KLOVE Radio Network Morning Show Leading up to Father’s Day)
Listen: http://bit.ly/ZNSWqY Can you hear the message that will destroy marriage?
Basically, two weeks after getting married, Greg’s wife asked him her ranking on a scale from 1 to 10… HE calls her a ‘9.3’ … SHE says he’s a ‘5’ in response! He assumes, of course, that men should be fine with this. The truth is, if she is above a ‘9’ … she will likely not find a ‘5’ attractive (except that ‘he’ is slightly famous and earns > $200k per year because of the extreme amount of funding that continues to flow in from interesting sources that your readers should research).
KLOVE radio network, if you’re reading this post, you were doing well and having no problem growing and enjoying the benefits of donations on your listener-supported network. That is, until you went against my advice and hired that team I told you not to hire. That issue magically solved itself with an open letter on your main website.
Now, you’ve regrouped without improving the general format and sound, and you’ve chosen to accept FOTF assistance, and spent your prime air time settling for an interview with Greg Smalley before Father’s Day weekend. Really? In Silicon Valley this week, I chose to hear a couple of your stations from this network that my work helped design. I was happy about how the formulas you asked me for were working so well, but the entities temptations were too strong.
If the changes Dalrock suggests do not occur, what they call “mainstream” already has plans to expose it all sooner than you are willing to believe.
Dear Dalrock,
Might you have any insight as to why the feminist rebellion is happening?
Many churchians seem to treat it like a weather event, such as a thunderstorm on a humid summer’s day.
By I am of a different opinion.
Might it have anything to do with the abolition of the family being a central plank of the neocommunists’ platofrm?
An excellent litmus test.
And if the pastor refuses to read the above post and bullet points, in whole or in part, or denies and rejects the message, pointedly withdraw your person, family and support from that church.
@GBFM
Close, but you have it exactly backwards: Neocommunism is a plank of the anti-family platform.
Last Father’s Day, a year ago, one of the young pastors took the stage and said something to the effect,
“It’s common on Father’s Day to get up on the pulpit and condemn men, but, I’m not going to do that. Because I know a lot of you, and I know that you are good men, good fathers. You’re doing things right, and I just want to say, Good Job!”
A year later, I’m still stunned.
Thank you for this. Reading it is a Fathers Day gift in and of itself.
The phenomenon you write about here starts at the wedding. From day one the marriage is shoved off the dock out of balance and destined to either have a traumatic correction, or to fail, or have a man miserable in supplication by adhering to the vows.
Contraception – the PREVENTION of FATHERHOOD is not mentioned. Does the root of the feminization runs deeper and involves the severing of sex and procreation?
Withholding sex is a grave sin, but withholding the lifegiving potential of sex is OK? The husband can even demand the wife use contraceptives or even get sterilized so he can have sex without becoming a Father?
Is Fatherhood itself a burden, curse, trial, or a blessing, something holy? Or just something casual, ordinary, optional? You must first answer this question before you can say the first word about “Fathers” because it is about the nature, the reason, the end of why Fathers exist in the first place.
If you do not think of Fatherhood itself as God’s creation and a blessing, there is no reason to honor or recognize Fathers as something holy and special. Yet if Fatherhood is holy, on what basis can it be obstructed within one’s own marriage?
Is Fatherhood for the man an intrinsic part of marriage or not? Sex is – but is it only the unitive and not the procreative aspect? “Safe Sex”? This is not to cause shame to couples who cannot conceive, but it is a mockery to them to intentionally act crippled much as someone who can walk or run perfectly that insists on a wheel chair.
It isn’t “Husband’s Day”. And even on Mother’s day, women are honored more for taking a minimalistic approach to Motherhood itself.
What does the Bible say? Before 1930, there was universal agreement among protestant churches including the founders Luther, Calvin and Wesley as Charles D Provan documents in “The Bible and Birth Control”.
Free audio podcast version:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=121303195832
Inexpensive source for hardcopy:
http://www.puritandownloads.com/the-bible-and-birth-control-by-charles-provan/
Anyone can simply reject those “cherry picked” verses in favor of your “cherry picked” verses. The Bible can be bent to mean whatever its reader wants. Verses versus verses. Yet if you don’t honestly confront the issue of contraception and the change more radical than the other feminizations, on what basis do you condemn those who take things a few steps further?
If men can reject children and even be honored as “being responsible”, how can you honor them for being Fathers?
An excellent post.
As I see it, what is unprecedented is not the rebellion per se, but the fact that the entire institutional culture – including the church culture – supports the rebellion as such.
That women have a rebellious nature – or, rather more precisely, that they have a nature which is rather susceptible to being convinced to rebel – should come as no surprise. It’s in Genesis. Soon after we first meet woman, she is tempted to rebel, and succumbs to the temptation. And it’s a rebellion not against Adam, or against man, but against God, against the Father. This is also at the root of the current rebellion – it is primarily not directed against men, but rather against God who is the author of sex differences and who has ordained the proper relations in marriage and so on. What we are witnessing in spiritual terms is the sin of Eve run amok through the culture.
The unprecedented thing is that the entire institutional culture, outside of a few pockets of resistance, is supportive of this blooming of the sin of Eve – including the churches. I personally don’t see the main institutional origin of this in fear – fear of loss of position, or loss of relevance, or what have you. It’s certainly a significant part of the motive, but I don’t think it’s the strongest one. The stronger motive – whether we’re talking about individual fathers, or pastors of congregations, priests and bishops, or even politicians and the culture influencers – is a very strong yet ultimately misguided love. That is – they love women and want what is the best for them, and sincerely think that what “soft feminism” (i.e., feminist empowerment of women sans militant misandry, lesbianism, abortion and so on) is the best thing they can offer women as an act of love directed towards them.
Of course they are wrong in this, even in practical terms, but it’s perhaps most astonishing for clergy to engage in this precisely because it violates both scripture and tradition. But, again, the reason is a misguided and misdirected love. I think it’s quite appropriate to acknowledge that these guys generally mean well. They really do. And I think that’s why they’re so puzzled that the results are so bad. It can’t be because of the women – the women are good! Look at them! They come to church! They go to college! They don’t play video games or drink beer! And they’re so … cute to boot! So impressive compared to the men their age, aren’t they? No, the problem can’t be this generation of truly superlative and impressive young women we’ve all raised. The problem, and the reason things are not working, must be the men.
So they think that the men must be “encouraged” to do better. This explains what we usually see on Father’s Day in particular, but also in the culture at large – both inside and outside the churches. It’s often harsh because when men “encourage” other men it normally takes place in the context of cutting other men down, eviscerating them either verbally or physically or both, breaking them, “knocking some sense into them”, “taking them to the woodshed” and so on. That’s how men generally do it. Yes, sometimes men will quietly encourage each other over a beer or two, and, in particular, healthier relationships between fathers and their own sons do not work this way, but in terms of relationships of men to other men to whom they are neither related nor befriended (i.e., the other men in the culture at large, including the men in a pastor’s congregation), this kind of rough-housing as encouragement is the norm. And so that’s what we see on Father’s Day. The pastors, again, are thinking that they are doing the right thing and that they are only encouraging other men to do better in the way a man does, in a manly way – by knocking him around a bit, knocking some sense into him.
The key problem isn’t the delivery on Father’s Day, but what underlies it. And that is the fact that almost an entire generation of men is convinced that soft-feminism-as-empowerment is beneficial for the women in their lives – their wives, daughters, sisters, mothers, aunts, and so on. Most do not even think of this as “feminism”, really, because this “soft” variant is generally hostile to abortion, hostile to homosexuality (or at least neutral to it), pro-marriage and children (… at some stage …) and so on. “Feminism” is something related to Andrea Dworkin, not the cute-as-a-button pastor’s daughter/niece who is so strong and confident and is getting her master’s and was on the varsity lacrosse team at college and is just wonderful! And if you disagree with them, you’re immediately accused of hating women – not because this is a knee-jerk response like it often is when it comes from women, but rather because they are doing what they do because they love these women, and if you disagree it must mean that you do not love these, or other, women, and instead have a “problem with women”.
In all of this, the root is a misguided love. And that is why it is very, very difficult to uproot, both inside and outside the church.
A great post Dalrock.
One question- what about the prominent roles of leadership given to women in the church? I find that a subtle, yet dangerous (IMO), way that feminism has rooted itself into contemporary evenagelical (conservative) churches.
Women who lead in the church aren’t likely to submit once they get home. And the pastor obviously is legitimately fearful about speaking out against feminism when his own leadership team will be offended.
Do you see this as a concern?
You might just have to start up your own denomination. Call it the Christian Family Church or something like that. Start with a few enlightened souls (12?) and watch it grow.
Great post by Dalrock and great followup by Novaseeker. That’s exactly right: the feminists in the church consider themselves anti-feminists, because they oppose the most radical goals of the most strident feminists. Your average minister thinks he’s fighting feminism, not supporting it. As Nova said, he sees these empowered young women and thinks they’re wonderful. Sure, he knows they probably aren’t virgins, but everyone makes mistakes, right? They’re coming to church, they get involved in ministry, and they’ve accepted Jesus as their BFF — what’s not to like? If there’s a problem, it must be on the men’s side. And because of what Nova said about men being rougher with each other, he can call them out without feeling like he’s picking on little girls — in fact, he can feel manly while doing it.
I look forward to my local Vicar delivering a sermon on December 25th as to how Santa Claus can do better with presents (and probably one at the beginning of Lent as to how Satan is fulfilling his imperative by testing Jesus).
I can’t speak for all pastors. The ones in the churches I’ve gone to generally are conservative and preach a good message, except of course for the “Hallmark Holidays”.
No matter what the pastor preached, my soon to be ex-wife never would have submitted herself to his message. She never accepted accountability from the church, or from me. So while some, perhaps many pastors have sold out to feminism, the women have set their wills no matter what is said from the pulpit.
Although she did mention to me that a pastor’s wife she talked to told her “if divorce is on your heart, then you should do it.” That gives me little hope for the 21st century American evangelical churchianity.
Dear Eric,
If your pastor really preached the gospel, your wife wouldn’t be able to divorce you at whim.
lzozozzozozozozz
zlozozozozozoz
Pingback: FYI | Triple Take
Just out of curiosity, does anyone here comprehend that the family is consciously being destroyed?
or do you think that it is “just happening”?
lzozozoozozoz
Great post by Dalrock and great follow ups by Nova and Cail.
Let me add a couple of things:
I think the church has supported this “soft feminism” in large part because girls and women have said “this is what we want. We want to work, earn money, and contribute to our families. We want to improve ourselves, take advantage of educational and work opportunities. We want to help our husbands earn money. We don’t want to be burdens to our husbands and families.”
And the church said “OK. if this is what you want, we’ll support you. You can go to school, travel and get jobs, because you’re telling us this is what you want.”
They took girls and women at their word, rather than reading them with an eye towards female nature.
To follow up on the “knock some sense into the men” idea Nova mentioned, yes, this is used often. It many times takes the form of men’s bible studies and assignment of “accountability partners” who are supposed to help men with their “sin” of appreciating good looking women and, you know, actually kind of WANTING one for themselves. “Accountability partners” exist mostly to shame men into controlling and suppressing their natural sexual drives.
The same effect is seen in most of the Christian sexual advice books and tools for marrieds. Those books universally express the notions that the male sex drive is bad, evil, perverse, predatory and wicked; while women’s drives are pure, innocent, good, and right. Women want slow, soft, deep, intimate, “meaningful” sex by candlelight and soft music. The foreplay needs to last for hours on hours, she needs to orgasm 12 times, and actual intercourse must go slow and soft and nice. This is what REALLY turns women on. And women need lots of time to get ready and “worked up” for sex. Women are slow cookers, not microwave ovens. And you BAD men need to control your sex drives and urges, and slow down, and be nice, and give her whatever she wants sexually. And if you want quickies, and you expect blowjobs, and you just want to “get it in”, then you’re just evil, bad and selfish, and you deserve to get taken to the cleaners in the inevitable divorce.
The female “romance” drive must be freed and sated at all cost. The male sex drive is evil and perverse; and must be controlled and suppressed.
God forbid you EEEEVIL men should want something from your sex lives. God forbid you men should expect your wives to do anything for you. God forbid you men should actually expect satisfaction in your sex lives or marriages. You exist to serve your wives and it’s your duty to toss yourselves on the gears of society, because that’s the only way you can love your wives as Christ loved the Church.
At Mass yesterday the priest gave his homily on Fathers and Father’s Day. He had some interesting insights into God as Father, decried efforts to feminize God, and talked about how a man chooses to be a father. All very good.
In the middle of all this, however, came the men are leaving their wives, working too many hours, not nearly enough spending time with their children, and providing a father’s role model for their children. And generally the line that women are more spiritual than men naturally, etc. Not so good.
He did note, however, that it is only when the father is engaged in the religion that children become really Catholic and remain with the Faith, and quoted statistics that when the women attends Mass, 80% of her children will fall away from the Faith. When the father attends Mass and practices the Faith, 75% of children of both sexes will remain Catholic – with only a 20% loss.
Following Mass I spoke to the priest. I asked him why, considering that women cause 90% of the divorces, and prevent the father’s access to his children, he was not pointing the finger where it belonged. To his credit he said that he had never thought about it in that way, and that I was correct that he should have done so.
Priests and ministers need to be taken to task for unconsciously accepting the feminist rhetoric and false complaints, when it is women who have caused, and continue to cause, the problems.
Right. Part of the problem is that these things — school, travel, work — are not sinful in themselves. After all, our favorite nun in grade school eschewed marriage, went off and got educated, maybe traveled to do some missionary work, and then worked as a teacher. How could those be bad things if she did them?
It’s not like women said, “We want to ride the carousel, live lives of conspicuous consumerism, and wind up in years of therapy.” If that had been the stated goal at the beginning, maybe the churches would have stood against it. Almost no one realized that the latter ills would be the natural consequences of the former goods when combined with hypergamy and a libertine society. Almost no one realizes it today, so they go on encouraging it.
Actually Cail, not only did women say, “We want to ride the carousel, live lives of conspicuous consumerism, and wind up in years of therapy,” but they also did it!
You say, “If that had been the stated goal at the beginning, maybe the churches would have stood against it.”
But Cail, the churches are standing FOR IT. The churches are quite aware of the reality, and they fully support and endorse it! 🙂
So Cail, you are wrong.
Cail, if you still think you are right, please cite a church that is against the cock carousel, blowjobs, and anal in da butthzozllzolzolz.
Good for you Matamoros. We can’t let priests and pastors get away with those kinds of sermons without being confronted. As with your example, in many instances they are aiding the Enemy unconsciously.
Why would they repent? If they truely beleived they would not be in open oposition to what they claim to believe. In truth they are just grinding out a living slinging feel good words to people paying to hear them. Stop paying. Let the feminists pay them. If the churches dont want men then we should respect their wishes and not go. What does a man gain by going into that den of vipers, well save as treating it as a Sunday morning nightclub.
“Following Mass I spoke to the priest. I asked him why, considering that women cause 90% of the divorces, and prevent the father’s access to his children, he was not pointing the finger where it belonged. To his credit he said that he had never thought about it in that way, and that I was correct that he should have done so.”
It is good to call them on it, but my repeated experiences with preachers is that what they will agree with in private has little to do with what they will proclaim in public. After a few rounds of pointing something out, having them agree with it, then having them preach the old message again, it’s time to dust off the sandals and move on.
@GBFM
Naturally the culture industry drives culture changes. It is truely amazing how people refuse to look at the culture industry and beleive that culture changes just happen. One just has to ask, who benifits, look at the players and it all becomes shockingly clear.
Yes Shameful,
AS I have witnessed on this blog, as well as at the spearhead and other blogs, there is a strong, vehement HATRED for the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN, which exalt virtue, honor, and the family.
Many churchians warp the teachings of JESUS and use him to sanctify their buttc9ckingz and fornicationz, blowjobs and anal endeavors, and cowardly submission to the ruling elite. They actually use JESUS to abolish NATURAL LAW even though Jesus stated that he came to fulfill the LAW.
lzozozolzozozo
Conspicuous consumerism, career, alpha males, independence are what women want, in part, because feminists have grabbed the frame and made this the marks of high status. When being a good mother and having a stable domestic life was the mark of status, that is what women wanted. It is a bit more complicated because consumerism, alpha males, and the rest are in a sense what women naturally want when freed from the need for beta resources. I just hope that the devastation wrought by single moms and carousel riding become so impossible to ignore that we eventually address the problem and manage to create more productive status markers. Heartiste’s creating of the very concept of carousel riding is more helpful than a month of Sunday sermons.
When my husband and I went in for counseling because he wanted a divorce, one of the things the pastor told me was that the marriage was not about my happiness, but about submitting my will to G_d and to my husband. That might have eventually worked, but my husband was not interested by that time, so he stopped counseling, moved out and filed.
The thing that I didn’t understand (until I stumbled on this website) was the pastor’s odd and seemingly ridiculous statement that the marriage was not about my happiness. I didn’t contradict him because that would have been too rude, but I did think he was way too extreme. Now I realize that he is likely one who understands what is happening.
At this point I am going to the website to listen again to some of the sermons. I’m not sure because I didn’t hear them the first time with the mindset of listening for the right point of view. Truth be told, I’ve only been there since the divorce thing started. I have to admit that so many times I’ve been so absorbed with my own feelings that I sat there and barely listened at all. BUT – I do think it may truly be a church that does not support a feminist agenda among the women. His Father’s Day sermon did not berate the men, nor did his Mother’s Day sermon call the women perfect. He simply acknowledged both days from the pulpit, offered a gift to each on their day, and preached a sermon that was gender neutral on spiritual attributes. Also – there are no women in leadership positions.
Dalrock, I am not so optimistic as you are. The pastor who dares to repent is going to be fired. That is the truth. Why should women change when the current system rewards them? Even Obama is ready to denounce fathers.
Yet, despite all their power and pelf, feminism will die because of a “higher power”. I am not refering to God, but to the “hand of market forces”. Already changes in men are taking place. Men are refusing to marry – ever. Their sexual needs are being met through pornography, VR sex and toys. We are ten years away from artificial womb. What do you think will happen then?
If you look upon feminism as women coming together to ‘manage’ the supply of wombs (my body, my life, my choice), an artificial womb is creating an alternative that destroys the monopoly. The current system survives because some men are ready to marry – for it is a system based on child support. The day men have fathers by an artificial process, men will neither want sex nor marriage.
If you look upon traditional marriage as a trade between sex/procreation and provider/protector, it will not be long before men too start the ‘my life, my body, my choice’ game – work only at minimum to survive – so no taxes, refusing to be chivalrous, refusing to take risks for women in dire circumsdtances, refusing to enlist in army……
This I think is the natural course.
@Cautiously Pessimistic
This is why repentance is so critical. This is just as true if they did all of this unknowingly, perhaps even moreso. Until they confront what they have done, and why they did it, we can’t move past it. In this regard while I generally agree with Novaseeker’s well thought out description of the problem, it is extremely important to not let the pastors avoid accepting the enormous gravity of what they have done. There is a strong tendency to interpret it as them only wanting to be nice to women, a sort of good intentions defense. But this sweeps the much larger issue under the rug. What it boils down to is they knew God’s design for women and the family, they just didn’t believe that it was good. This is quite simply profound, and without repentance we will only see more of the same.
Frequently readers and fellow bloggers point out pastors who aren’t as bad as most of the rest. While I often agree with this as far as it goes, I continue to wait for one to be pointed out who has publicly repented for what he has done. The pastor who repents from this will in my esteem stand head and shoulders above the ones who managed to sort of fight the culture without ever really bringing it to a head.
I repent
I’m going to continue with tradition and bash men. Until Christian men choose to either marry virgins or become eunuchs as the bible commands, this will not stop. Until Christian men only marry women who will home school their kids, this will no stop. Until Christian men refuse to marry women using birth control, this will not stop.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/the-pill-and-divorce-the-real-connection/
“Until Christian men refuse to marry women using birth control”
Birth control pills also regulate the growth of cysts and fibroids and ease the pain of these conditions, which can post other health risks.
With respect, I would add the following to your list. While I respect your sentiments, I believe the underlying problem is much deeper and goes to the structural foundation of both the church and marriage as an institution.
I repent of organizing this congregation as a not for profit incorporated business entity, acknowledging that the State is our creator and master (read Hale v. Henkle, 201 US 43, 1906: “The corporation is the creation of the State… Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.”) I ask the forgiveness of this congregation and with the Elders will move immediately to close the corporation and return this congregation to the legal status of actually being a Church of which the Creator and Head is the Lord Jesus Christ.
I repent of maintaining a doctrinal position that supports and allows that which God says He hates, Divorce. I recognize that 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 is the clear teaching to Believers that divorce between Believers is forbidden. In light of the clear teaching of 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, I recognize the teaching of Matthew 5:31-32 is that God will not honor an illegitimate divorce.
I repent of marrying people in this church with a marriage license. For over 130 years the Supreme Court has held that marriage is a right and the requirements of the State that individuals who desire to marry obtain a license are “merely directory.” See Meister v. Moore, 96 US 76; 1878. This ruling has been upheld in every subsequent case on the subject of marriage. Marriage is a right and no license is required to marry.
The Lord Jesus said to render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and render to God that which belongs to God. Marriage was created by God, it has His likeness (marriage is a model of Christ and His church) and His instruction. To give authority to the State over that which clearly belongs to God is no different from offering a pinch of incense to the genius of Caesar. It is IDOLATRY. I repent of this idolatry and will never again marry two believers who have obtained a license to marry from the State.
I repent of not counseling individuals who wish to marry to do so with a Marital Covenant: a binding contract of marriage which acknowledges God is party to the marriage, that God’s Word is the authority under which the marriage is created and the specific instruction given in 1st Corinthians 7, 1st Peter 3 and Ephesians 5 are the specific rules under which the marriage will be governed, with other teachings such as 1st Corinthians 13 included by reference.
I repent of not teaching that the primary model of marriage between Believers is the law of the bondservant (Exodus 21:1-6), which demonstrates (in complete agreement with 1st Corinthians 7:12-17) that two bondservants of the Lord are not allowed to divorce. It is only when one leaves the service of the Master that the covenant is broken because the covenant is with the Master just as much as with the spouse. Neither spouse can ‘break the covenant’ without breaking faith with the Master. 1st Peter 3:1 tells the wife to submit to the husband “even if he is disobedient to the Word.” Adultery is certainly disobedience to the Word, but for believers it is not grounds for divorce.
I repent of not instructing this congregation that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce. Matthew 5:31-32 clearly states a husband who divorces his wife for any reason other than adultery causes her to commit adultery. This clearly means the certificate of divorce issued without legitimate reason is of no validity before the Lord and the two are still married. Since divorce between believers is forbidden (c.f. 1st Corinthians 7:10-11), the church now has many unwitting polygamists. Believing men who have been divorced by their Believing wives are not divorced before the Lord, the wife has merely separated from him. Should he take another wife, which he has every right to do, the second wife should be aware that if the first wife desires to return to her husband and be reconciled to him he cannot refuse this because he was commanded to live with her and love her.
I repent of performing marriage ceremonies in which the bride was illegitimately divorced from her first husband, a marriage which caused both her and the man she married to commit adultery. I repent of sanctioning such behavior.
I repent of the idolatry of giving the State control of this church (by incorporating) and the marriages within this church (via licensed statutory marriages which are subject to the jurisdiction of the State- which allows no-fault divorce). Christians have a way out of this mess, which is to not be incorporated and to marry using a marital covenant.
Our pastor never preaches these egregious Father’s Day sermons that everyone else’s seems to. However, he has not repented for his mutual submission sermon, nor of his many sermons in which he implies that women are more spiritual and just generally better at life than men. I don’t really believe that he will repent of it. I don’t believe he realizes what he has done.
“Until Christian men refuse to marry women using birth control”
Birth control pills also regulate the growth of cysts and fibroids and ease the pain of these conditions, which can post other health risks.
1)This is a partial truth. What you are leaving out either intentionally/unintentionally is that PREGNANCY eliminates/sends into remission such problems due to the high levels of hormones released during pregnancy, endometriosis being one example.
2)The rate of cysts/fibroids has increased dramatically due to the increase of abortion/STD’s which is exactly what is suppose to happen according to the bible.
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 1 Cor 6:18
You can not solve moral problems with technology.
Hopeful
That guy was just being an ass. This will not stop until the laws of misandry are gone. The church is just living with the laws of misandry and following the feminine imperative for economic reasons instead of following scripture.
If you had to guess: How many pastors would this “repentance” list apply to?
The one
It is in the law. What you see in the state of marriage and family is in the law. Nothing can be done outside of the law to change things. No man can spiritually or legally lead his family with a gun to his head with his wife’s finger on the trigger. Just the way it is.
I am rather perplexed why nobody gets this?
Does anyone understand that marriage is under assault?
@Michael
I’m not aware of any pastors who don’t need to repent on the basic issue, although the specifics and degree of complicity will of course vary widely. To the pastor who got it 90% right therefore it should be relatively painless for him to lead the way here.
“It is in the law. What you see in the state of marriage and family is in the law. Nothing can be done outside of the law to change things. No man can spiritually or legally lead his family with a gun to his head with his wife’s finger on the trigger. Just the way it is.”
You missed the main thrust of my post. Woman who are not fornicating and not using birth control are much less likely to divorce you therefore the legal law is irrelevant. You may also marry her before God, not legally.
Secondly since there aren’t enough of these virgins, many men will have to be eunuchs and therefore the legal law does not apply. But since men are unwilling to give up sex, thinking they are owed a wife (you are not), this continues. When more men become like Snowden, a non-christian, things will change.
If we simply returned THE BIBLE
to the CHURCH
and the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN
to the UNIVERSITIES
the family would again be exalted and endure.
But churchians and spearheadians
prefer to rage against the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN
and label the words of Jesus “noise,”
and state that HE CAME TO ABOLISH THE LAW
and not
to FULFILL IT.
And then they wonder why all their women have been buttcockedz
and are trying to buttcock them in divorce court
and destroying the family.
It is simple.
It is because so many men
H8 HATE H8
the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN
and the BIBLE
and prefer to serve the elite banker deocntsrctionists
lzozlzlzozolzzoozozoz
Beautifully written, Dalrock!
I would suggest only substituting the word “churchian” for your uses of “Christian,” but otherwise, you’re spot on.
While I do hope that this reaches many pastors of today’s churchian franchises and gives them food for thought, I’m honestly not optimistic about any of them paying it any attention, let alone acting on it.
Michael asks:
If you had to guess: How many pastors would this “repentance” list apply to?
If by “pastors,” you mean CEOs of typical churchian franchises, the answer is all of them. But being churchians, this of course means that the odds of them ever repenting in such a manner are somewhere south of ZE-RO. As for Chrisitan pastors (i.e., those who preach what the Bible says without any fear of consequences), the few that there are haven’t committed this transgression in the first place and therefore don’t need to repent.
Greyghost says:
It is in the law. What you see in the state of marriage and family is in the law. Nothing can be done outside of the law to change things. No man can spiritually or legally lead his family with a gun to his head with his wife’s finger on the trigger. Just the way it is.
EXACTLY. We can rant all day long about spiritual/covenant versus temporal/secular marriage, but at the end of the day, Man’s (Positive) Law reigns supreme in practice, whether we want to acknowledge that unpleasant fact or not. In other words, you might consider yourself the head of the ultimate Christian household in which you are the undisptued head, where your wife submits to you in the manner the Bible prescribes – until she doesn’t and decides she’s had enough of you and “submission” and decides to move on, maybe or maybe not taking your money, your kids, your house, and everything else that is yours with her. At that point there’s nothing, nothing you can do about it (if I were a believer in pre-determinism, I’d say that it just might be God’s punishment to you for having married the woman you did, a woman that he was probably telling you all along that you should have stayed away from.) The silver lining to that cloud, however, is that it serves as a pretty solid indicator of just how many women out there today are really willing to live as Christ followers (hint: they number a few hundred, at most, and I’m probably being generous with that estimate).
Isn’t this just a variation of,
“Women want the child of the alpha, but the dollars of the beta to pay for it?”
Meantime, it’s the fault of average men that women slut around.
P.S. No, the uglier girls do not “have better character”.
What nobody seems to be seeing is that the central bankers leverage the natural, base “Alpha fucks and Beta Bucks” instincts of womenz so as to profit.
Basically the teachers and preachers tell women “You can have all the “alpha” fucks your want, in your butthozlzizol whenever you desire, just as long as you help us collect money from hardworking men via divorce, alimony, child support and bigger government–just as long as you help us deconstruct the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN and property rights. lzozlzozozoz.” Naturally they also had to redefine alphas as secrtieve tapers of butthext and betas as hardworking, honest men.
lzozozozozozo
@feeriker
“We can rant all day long about spiritual/covenant versus temporal/secular marriage, but at the end of the day, Man’s (Positive) Law reigns supreme in practice, whether we want to acknowledge that unpleasant fact or not.”
Not so. Anyone who wants to get married with a contract can do so. The contract can be written such that no State court has jurisdiction because the parties waived their right to petition for divorce in equitable contract unless and until certain prescribed behavior takes place. At the end of the day, it is startling just how many men and women don’t want to be bound to Biblical instruction in equitable contract that would convert their duty to God into a duty to their spouse.
There is no need to change the law, just the procedure. Don’t get a marriage license, marry by binding marital covenant and get on with life. If and when the bar for divorce is met, the covenant has a built in settlement: the one who leaves gets nothing. Very simple and makes staying in the marriage and working things out far superior to bailing out.
I’m happy to report that once again our pastor said little about Mothers Day or Fathers Day (aside from “Thanks for what you do – here’s a candy bar”) and instead preached on more important topics.
In this regard while I generally agree with Novaseeker’s well thought out description of the problem, it is extremely important to not let the pastors avoid accepting the enormous gravity of what they have done. There is a strong tendency to interpret it as them only wanting to be nice to women, a sort of good intentions defense. But this sweeps the much larger issue under the rug. What it boils down to is they knew God’s design for women and the family, they just didn’t believe that it was good. This is quite simply profound, and without repentance we will only see more of the same.
I agree with you that they need to repent of their tendency to put the values of this world above those of God. The issue, though, is that they do not see these as being incompatible, or, rather, see what they are endorsing as not being “of the world” but simply being “loving and caring towards our women folk”. Getting them past that is the key point and it’s hard to do.
@feeriker
I am sorry, but that the law is supreme line is bs. I feel very bad for those already married, but those who are single Americans/western Europeans can easily change the legal law by moving to another country such as the Philippines. But they are unwilling to make a sacrifice because they enjoy their lifestyle in America or their friends are in America, blah blah, blah. In addition as Paul states in the gospel they can becomes Eunuchs and the divorce/custody laws no longer apply. Eunuchs can adopt by the way. These are all personal choices which is different from the meta which Dalrock addresses, but sitting on here and whining about a few hundred virgin women left in all of America accomplishes nothing.
The reason I am addressing the personal (mirco) while Dalrock addresses the meta is because historically there are many more cases of cultures imploding before recovering (Rome, USSR, etc) then there are of countries turning back from the brink (Nineveh)
I have a request for prayer from the manosphere. The church I’ve been in for years is relatively unfeminist (I know that’s not saying much) and Father’s Day has never been as bad as what I hear about elsewhere. But yesterday’s sermon hit me like a ton of bricks — about leadership and responsibility and etc. And no attention to women who refuse to follow their men. Of which I see many in the church.
Usually when something grates on my spirit like this, I keep my mouth shut and pray, because it’s the men’s job to lead. But in this case, I think nobody will believe it unless it comes from a woman. I have an appointment with the pastor tomorrow, and I hope he’ll see the dichotomy, and see the creeping feminism.
Thanks.
“Not so. Anyone who wants to get married with a contract can do so. The contract can be written such that no State court has jurisdiction because the parties waived their right to petition for divorce in equitable contract unless and until certain prescribed behavior takes place. At the end of the day, it is startling just how many men and women don’t want to be bound to Biblical instruction in equitable contract that would convert their duty to God into a duty to their spouse.
There is no need to change the law, just the procedure. Don’t get a marriage license, marry by binding marital covenant and get on with life. If and when the bar for divorce is met, the covenant has a built in settlement: the one who leaves gets nothing. Very simple and makes staying in the marriage and working things out far superior to bailing out”.
Do not try this fellas. Bullets will still pierce your flesh and still kill you. No woman is going to not allow the government to intervene on her behalf. I cannot believe men still think women have a sense of honor. Men have honor women do not they don’t play that shit.
@AT:
Anyone who wants to get married with a contract can do so. The contract can be written such that no State court has jurisdiction because the parties waived their right to petition for divorce in equitable contract unless and until certain prescribed behavior takes place. At the end of the day, it is startling just how many men and women don’t want to be bound to Biblical instruction in equitable contract that would convert their duty to God into a duty to their spouse.
You seem to assume that contracts are inviolable. They are not, and that certainly includes marriage contracts (think: pren-nups. Courts nullify these unilaterally all the time, no matter what both parties in the marriage agreed to when signing them and even if nothing within them violates any prevailing civil law). That two parties enter into the contract you describe is no guarantee that one party to that contract will not seek to have it voided. In fact, depending on the state in which one resides, such a contract is probably not legally binding at all.
You state: “…it is startling just how many men and women don’t want to be bound to Biblical instruction in equitable contract that would convert their duty to God into a duty to their spouse.”
Men and women who are committed followers of Christ don’t NEED a written legal “contract” to make them obey God’s laws on marriage and family. In fact, if they did require such a thing, I’d question whether the term “Christ followers” was even applicable to them. (To illustrate with another example, I don’t need a secular law stating that murder is illegal in order to prevent me from murdering someone. The natural law –God’s Law– precludes me from doing so even without the existence of a written fiat by the temporal State prohibiting it.)
@The One
So, let me see if I understand you correctly. Your position is that anyone who sees and seeks to redress the wrongs in secular law in America, especially where marriage and the family is concerned, should just roll over, leave, and go where the marriage grass is greener, and that because we’re all nothing but hedonists anyway, we have no reason to be concerned? Yeah, THAT’s helpful (reminds me of the “America: Love it or Leave it!” belching I hear from xenophobic bigots in a different context).
FWIW, having traveled in many other parts of the world that you describe, I generally agree that marriage is CURRENTLY less risky. But I must ask: exactly how does that help those who wish to enjoy or are trying to enjoy the benefits of a stable Christian marriage in their native country, one that claims to be founded on Christian principles (not saying that I believe that, BTW)? Do we just “give up” on our country? How does that accord with the Word of God? What of those of us who CAN’T pack up and live the vagabond’s existence and expatriate, even if we wanted to? Perhaps you would care to elaborate or offer some more constructive advice?
feeriker says:
That two parties enter into the contract you describe is no guarantee that one party to that contract will not seek to have it voided. In fact, depending on the state in which one resides, such a contract is probably not legally binding at all.
I wonder how that would be effected by a contract signed in a foreign jurisdiction? You could even include a choice of jurisdiction clause. Would the courts honor such an offshore contract?
@greyghost
Contract law is not about honor, it is a matter of signed, enforceable agreements. You have probably signed multiple contracts with various service providers in which you agreed to waive your right to sue the service provider and agreed all disputes must be settled in binding arbitration. Please don’t try to tell anyone this can’t be done between two people because this is basic contract law. As long as there is a way out, the contract isn’t unconscionable. I recommend the Marital Covenant stipulate that the required action to leave the marriage is to stand up in front of the congregation and announce to the church that you’re not a Christian and you renounce the name of Jesus Christ. Then move out. That settles the requirements of 1st Corinthians 7:12-17. If either party does this, they get their divorce, but all the assets of the marriage stay with the other party. That includes the children.
If the parties are willing to sign the contract in the beginning, it’s binding for life or until one of them chooses to break it according to the specified terms of the contract. If a woman refuses to sign such a contract, walk away. That simple. If she’s really a Christian who really wants a ’til death do us part’ kind of marriage, she’ll sign. If not, she won’t. The point is that the State has nothing to do with it until the contract says it does.
The contract can be written such that no State court has jurisdiction because the parties waived their right to petition for divorce in equitable contract unless and until certain prescribed behavior takes place.
Eh, no. The court determines for itself whether it has jurisdiction. Not your contract. And the family courts will never enforce a contract that deprives them completely of jurisdiction over family law matters. You would have to be willing to shoot the cops, and then live as a fugitive, if cupcake ever decided that she wanted out.
The one
You are on track. The eunuch you speech of are the MGTOW and the peter pan types that have taken themselves out of the meat grinder. You even have the expat thing in your comment. Good ideas are good ideas and are invented all over by different people. A male birth control pill accomplishes nearly all with out having to change the basic nature of men and women with the laws we have in place. The key to changing society is a change in the laws. Most of the discussions are survival techniques. mainly emotional understandings to stave off depression and rage (murder suicide) with the red pill. With out these blogs and the ability to learn why things are the way they are I have no idea where I would be. With women having the vote things short of an open shooting civil war must be done for women to selfishly demand the removal of the laws of misandry. If we fuck around arguing bible quotes we will have a shooting war with out the shooters knowing why they are fighting with the survivors doubling down on what they know today(feminine imperative, or worse a patriarchy based on what they were taught by the feminine imperative)
Females must be made to suffer from rebellion simple as that. Game says it can be done without a civil war. With out changing the basic nature of women they will with full wicked selfishness demand the laws of misandry be removed. More effort and thought needs to be there than at any appeal to women or men in any other way.
Would the courts honor such an offshore contract?
No, they will exercise jurisdiction over the family where it exists. If the contract was concluded under the laws of another country, and is governed by that foreign law, in a commercial case that law has to be proven to the court (that is the content of it) as a matter of fact, but in any case my guess is that a US family court, sitting in equity, would look to the substance of the contract and decide whether or not to enforce it on its terms, and if it didn’t match local policy, would not enforce it, period. They’re courts of equity — that means they do not enforce contracts based on whether they are legally binding, but rather based on what the result of enforcement would be.
Novaseeker
“Feminism” is something related to Andrea Dworkin, not the cute-as-a-button pastor’s daughter/niece who is so strong and confident and is getting her master’s and was on the varsity lacrosse team at college and is just wonderful!
This is an illustration of the “sea anchor” effect at work. The liberalism and feminism of 1973 becomes the conservatism and Biblical traditionalism of 2013. In my opinion, the way to kick the props out from under soft feminism is to attack the “men and women are just the same…” blank-slate nonsense.
It is clear from a growing body of science that men and women are not the same. The Bible abounds in examples where men and women are not the same, even as exceptions are noted and recorded. So if men and women are not the same, then maybe they have different skill sets, in the aggregate. And maybe those skill sets should be taken into account in various places, and times, and settings. Not just in the paid workplace, but other places where work must be done.
Challenge the soft feminists where they stand, on the pedestal of “sameness”, and challenge them with both science and Bible, as appropriate .
@Novaseeker
Where, exactly, do you practice law? And you’ve never heard of waiver or right in equitable contract?
Artisanal Toad, a very good list of sins against the sacrament of marriage, that have all but destroyed it in fact, if not in name.
If the parties are willing to sign the contract in the beginning, it’s binding for life or until one of them chooses to break it according to the specified terms of the contract. If a woman refuses to sign such a contract, walk away. That simple. If she’s really a Christian who really wants a ’til death do us part’ kind of marriage, she’ll sign. If not, she won’t. The point is that the State has nothing to do with it until the contract says it does.
this is off the charts naïve. This just isn’t how the world works and believe it or not is what we have now.
Novaseeker is dead on, on this one fellas. Any contract that doesn’t follow the feminine imperative is null and void. And the term equity is also defined by the feminine imperative not by the dictionary common sense or even a sense of fairness.
@ Novaseeker @ 2:37PM
Correct. You took the words right off my fingertips.
In the case of a marriage contract, assuming that the marriage license was issued abroad but that both parties lived in the U.S., the country of origin of the marriage clause would be irrelevant. Given that all U.S. states are now no-fault divorce states, the divorce proceedings would be judged on that basis alone (translation: in 99.999% of cases, the husband is screwed).
@Artisanal Toad
So long as the marriage doesn’t produce children.
Dalrock IRT AT @ 3:04PM
So long as the marriage doesn’t produce children.
Even that’s no guarantee that husband won’t get shafted. While he certainly won’t get “divorce raped” to the extent that he would if children were involved, many states still impose alimony, even if not on a permanent basis, even when children aren’t involved.
I concur with my learned friend Novaseeker
Dalrock says: “I’m not aware of any pastors who don’t need to repent on the basic issue”
THIS GUY: Monsignor Charles Pope. See: http://blog.adw.org/author/cpope/
He teaches about the need for structure and headship in marriage, the evils of delayed marriage, that wives are to be, in his words, “submissive, that is under the authority, of their husbands” and that husbands are to love their wives.
His online sermons are balanced – nobody gets off the hook.
http://blog.adw.org/2012/08/two-hard-sayings-on-one-day-a-meditation-on-the-readings-for-the-21st-sunday-of-the-year/
http://blog.adw.org/2011/08/an-unpopular-teaching-on-marriage-in-the-light-of-recent-debtes-and-interviews/
http://blog.adw.org/2012/12/recovering-gods-plan-for-marriage-and-family-a-meditation-on-the-feast-of-the-holy-family/
Once caveat: he likes the hated “Fireproof” but for the example of the love expressed by Caleb which I think is forgivable. You know – “God is love” and all that.
Also, regarding contraception, check out the writings of Pope Paul VI. He wrote prophecy for a living. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae
I can’t speak for all pastors. The ones in the churches I’ve gone to generally are conservative and preach a good message
Post up some texts from the sermons. Bottom dollar says that these “conservative” pastors are preaching soft feminism….see Novaseekers excellent comment up-thread. Great comment.
Dalrock writes in a comment above:
The pastor who repents from this will in my esteem stand head and shoulders above the ones who managed to sort of fight the culture without ever really bringing it to a head.
As to “sort of fighting the culture”…see here, below, a message from Focus on the Family where they demonstrate precisely what he is getting at, sort of fighting the culture.
Missing trees for potted plants.
Dear Friend,
Do you find it difficult to effectively engage the culture in which you live? To be a positive force for godly change in an environment that seems to be increasingly hostile toward Christian values?
If so, take heart—because you’re not alone. We all struggle with this tension to various degrees—the desire to be the “salt and light” that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 5, but also a sense of self-preservation that makes us hesitant about having conversations with people who don’t share our values.
It may encourage you to remember that our society isn’t the first to experience this. The early church was surrounded by similar circumstances—a pagan culture that had no reverence for sexual morality or the sanctity of human life. In many ways, they had it even worse than we do!
The Focus on the Family® Daily Broadcast this week featured Bible teacher Ray Vander Laan challenging us to engage the culture with parallels from the early church and how similar challenges face us today. Through tough and adversarial circumstances, early Christians lived lives that displayed the biblical truth of sacred one-man, one-woman marriage and a respect of human life.
And today, our lives can also be examples of biblical truth impacting society in many ways. That’s why Focus on the Family’s social policy efforts exist: to educate, inspire and equip Christians to engage in a loving, winsome, yet truth-filled way. Will you help provide the encouragement and tools to Christians who want to engage the culture but aren’t sure how?
As a donor-funded ministry, Focus on the Family is only able to provide the resources to help Christians make a difference for biblical and family values through the generous support of friends like you. Will you join hands with us to inform concerned, pro-family Americans about the issues that affect their families—as well as give them easy action steps to get involved?
Here at Focus on the Family, we take our calling to be “salt and light” seriously, and are dedicated to helping others get involved in a Christ-honoring way. In fact, a recent survey showed that at least 1.2 million families have engaged the culture through “biblical citizenship” as a result of the resources Focus on the Family provides. Your gift of $25, $50, $75 or even $100 or more will enable families to continue making a difference on behalf of their faith and values.
Thank you in advance for your support and may God bless you and your family.
If you had to guess: How many pastors would this “repentance” list apply to
Asymptotically approaching 100%
I am rather perplexed why nobody gets this?
Brother Kapner is awesome!
They’re afraid to get it. Because then they’d be labelled “anti-Semite.” Oh noes, the Jews!!!
Jews also dominate/run the porn industry, and they are proud of it.
God will punish them for their sins.
Where, exactly, do you practice law? And you’ve never heard of waiver or right in equitable contract?
What I am saying is that your waiver will almost certainly not be enforced by a family court if cupcake wants out. The family law courts are very reluctant to enforce pre-nuptial agreements, or any other extra-nuptial agreements, to the extent that they relate to anything other than the division of pre-marital assets. They will look at them, for certain. But their decision to enforce, in whole or in part, is determined by the equities of the case, and their own local public policy when it comes to family law cases. Keep in mind that family law is not just for people who are “legally married” — that’s only one factor in the analysis, and to be honest extremely likely to be disregarded if the couple in question did everything a married couple would otherwise do — including getting married in a church and holding themselves out as married husband and wife.
Yes, I am a lawyer. Keep in mind that I am stating general principles here, and not giving legal advice. Any legal advice would need to be obtained by a skilled family law practitioner in the state or other jurisdiction where you live, because family law and especially the practices of the family law courts vary significantly based on state and even the local court (and sometimes, to some degree, the specific judge).
I again concur with Novaseeker.
@Greyghost:
You wrote, “Most of the discussions are survival techniques. mainly emotional understandings to stave off depression and rage (murder suicide) with the red pill. With out these blogs and the ability to learn why things are the way they are I have no idea where I would be.”
I totally agree; same with me.
@Novaseeker:
You are correct about how the courts would view marital contracts. There is no guarantee how a family court proceeding would end based on preexisting contracts; especially if there are child custody issues looming.
@Dalrock:
Another excellent post. Thanx again bro…….
The others got it right compared to Artisanal Toad (who is being naive to the point of stupid), but I thought I’d point out a couple of things a bit further. When I wrote this, I researched a number of things on how marriages are treated. The results I found were complete insanity, but such are things.
Three parties are involved in a marriage contract and by the definition of marriage in most states no “private marriage” is legally binding at all, and in most cases is illegal (in that case, the State just forces Bernankified Fiat Marriage onto you whether you want it or not, from what I understand). The three parties thing was proven in the research sources by scanned literature of both Montana and Ohio, and I have no doubt that it’s universally the case elsewhere.
The State is a material third-party with its own interests in all marriage, even to the point of functioning as the dictating party in an adhesion contract. That means the husband and wife can’t materially agree to anything and have the State abide by it. The State will fight for its own interests rigorously (as it’s been noted several times on almost all manosphere blogs), and will unilaterally strike down any material agreements (pre-nuptual or otherwise) that coincides with its own interests.
Marriage has indeed been butthexted (to quote GBFM).
More that talks about the issue at hand: http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.sg/2012/07/the-right-to-marry.html
Many folks keep saying that we need to “change the law.”
What is wrong with Moses’ Ten Commandments?
Do we not simply need to teach and enforce these laws in our schools, churches, and universities?
Or is that why so many churchians preach that Jesus came to abolish the law, as Churchians want to rid the world of the Law of Moses, so as to enable fornication and buttcockingsz?
eunuchs have had their balls cut off, which remove a man from the assembly of God per the OT. The one should read the book he’s trying to support.
@NovaSeeker and (later) @ballista74
Let’s clear up a few points. I thought you were an attorney or perhaps a well-trained pro se, but I asked where you practiced law because jurisdictional quirks tend to color one’s thinking. However, I honestly don’t believe you’ve ever seen a case that would follow the path I’m describing. I’m writing in first person for ease of reading, not because it’s directed specifically at you. 🙂
First of all, a marriage by contract isn’t a magic bullet. Even under a binding marital covenant, either party can petition for divorce. Either party can seek to break the contract. Anybody can try to do anything but the question is whether they have a good chance of success. The proper response should be a motion for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, petitioner having waived the right to petition for divorce until specified contractual terms are met. Petitioner, having failed to satisfy the agreed upon requirements in equitable contract, has not met the bar necessary to petition for divorce. A copy of the marital covenant is included with the motion.
We are not talking about a licensed, statutory marriage with a prenup. Yes, I know that any court can call a sheep a pig, but that doesn’t make it so and there is recourse to such idiocy.
The court is free to either grant or deny the motion. If the court chooses to deny the motion, that order is generally an allowable interlocutory appeal in all jurisdictions because the issue is jurisdiction of the court/immunity of respondent. Waiver of right in equitable contract is an issue well settled in American jurisprudence, so this isn’t anything new. Since public policy in every State in this country is to promote marriage (really- it’s true) this is not an issue that can easily be dismissed because of the subject matter. Unless there are specific details that are particularly egregious, odds are long in favor of this being upheld either outright or on appeal.
One of the points to making this work is the marriage is created as a matter of right (without a license) under the fundamental right of religious free exercise and in accordance with the ‘fundamental right to marry’ that the Supreme Court has repeatedly referred to but can’t seem to quite identify in terms of source. 🙂 Getting a marriage license is the kiss of death because it’s the prima facie evidence the parties had no right to get married and are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State, which granted the license. A prenup is NOT a marital covenant. A prenup is ancillary to a statutory marriage in every State I’ve looked at (and ESPECIALLY where I am) and is completely at the mercy of a family court judge. An independent binding contract in equity is a completely different animal.
Anyone with any experience in the court system knows that nothing is certain. That leaves a choice: Either play the State’s game, refuse to marry or get married with a private contract by right and determine the authority and law governing the marriage from the beginning. As to saying I’m naive, I can only say that until you’ve taken a long and hard look at the underlying issues, precedent and current decisions, you’re shooting from the hip. It is a rebuttable presumption on the part of the court that the marriage in question is a licensed marriage; but an unlicensed contractual marriage with a good tight contract is not an easy thing to blow off in a high-handed manner, even for a family court. I honestly don’t believe you’ve ever seen a case with such facts, but if you have, please let me know. If you’re truly interested, take a look at Louisiana’s statutory provisions and case law concerning Covenant Marriage. You might be surprised.
As to prenups and things like that being regularly disregarded, return to the first premise: it’s their court and their rules. A license is permission to do something you don’t have the right to do and the grantor of the license has the authority to make the rules and change the rules at any time. If you marry by right, without a license, you place yourself in a much different position vis-a-vis the courts. It may not count for much at the family court level that no longer even deal with rights issues and are used to doing whatever they want, but appeals courts are there for a reason and waiver of right in equitable contract is not a concept that will be overturned simply because they don’t like the idea of a contractual marriage. It is a part of literally millions of contracts today.
The contract should have a clause that determines the outcome in the event one of the parties reaches the agreed upon bar to file for divorce. That clause is an agreement that in the event of divorce the one who leaves doesn’t get anything other than personal possessions. The assets and children stay with the partner who was left behind. Again, when it’s a signed contract that has an escape clause, it generally can’t be considered unconscionable and it would be the divorcing party’s burden to overcome the contract at that point.
By having an unlicensed marriage, by right, with a binding contract that was written correctly, the issues before the court are much different from the normal run-of-the-mill divorce case and rest on issues of fundamental right. Essentially, this means that at some point the question is not going to be whether (pick the state) had a rational basis to disregard the marital covenant, but whether they had a compelling interest. Set this up from the beginning to be a matter of fundamental rights and rational basis goes out the window, replaced by compelling interest. Essentially, the appeals court wants to know why the State is forced to violate the fundamental rights of the respondent to the divorce action. When the question is decided under the rational basis test, you can’t win. When it’s subjected to the compelling interest test, it’s difficult to lose.
Ultimately, I think that if either party (as Christians) really wants to be so disobedient that they’d do something they were commanded not to do and that God says He hates, I don’t see renouncing their faith before the congregation as a big deal. If they can do that, they get their divorce and they leave with nothing but personal possessions. The one who is left behind keeps all the assets and the children because it was already agreed to in the original contract.
The question is whether you’d rather be in a position of not having a contract and allowing the judge to determine everything, or having a fighting chance with a binding contract. Ultimately, that’s the question. Defending a contract with a good chance of winning is far better than defending a divorce action in which you have practically no chance of winning. As an issue of logistics, the average divorce attorney would not comprehend the issues in this type of case and wouldn’t have any experience dealing with the real issues of contract law and fundamental rights. If they were competent they’d immediately see the action was not going to be easy or pretty and they’d demand a healthy retainer.
Finally, as a matter of faith, my personal position is that it is idolatry to get a marriage license knowing all such laws are ‘merely directory’ and of no effect (Meister v. Moore; 96 US 76, 1877; never overturned). Said marriage license makes the State a party to the marriage when God should be party to the marriage rather than the State. For this reason alone I believe a Covenant Marriage is preferable to a statutory marriage. Likewise, I believe it is idolatry and blasphemy for a church to incorporate and thereby publicly claim the State as their creator and head, agreeing to be obedient to the State alone. In both cases I believe it is a matter of repentance and the church needs to put its house in order just as Christians need to get the State out of their marriages as a matter of faith.
@ballista74
You need to take a hard look at marriage issues involving fundamental rights. Meister v. Moore specifically says the requirement to get a marriage license is ‘merely directory’ and marriage is a right. Later decisions expanded the right to marry into a fundamental right, although, like the right to privacy it’s textual origin is elusive. If you can show me cases in which unlicensed contractual marriages are blown away on appeal, I’d like to see them. Seriously. Take a look at the definition of ‘private marriage’ and tell me how that differs from a public marriage via contract that’s filed with the county recorder. The high court of the land has been saying for over 130 years that marriage is a right. Failing to obtain a license does not invalidate or otherwise make illegal the marriage and there is NO requirement to get the permission of the State in order to have a valid marriage.
In a licensed marriage the State claims to be a party to the marriage. The State thereby claims an equitable interest in every asset of the marriage, the most valuable assets being the children. The State claims an ‘equitable interest’ in the children (now just an ‘interest’) in enforcement actions. Lacking a nexus such as a license, the State has no such valid claim, but it is a rebuttable presumption on the part of the courts.
You said “The State is a material third-party with its own interests in all marriage, even to the point of functioning as the dictating party in an adhesion contract. That means the husband and wife can’t materially agree to anything and have the State abide by it.”
This is a rebuttable presumption on the part of the courts that the State is party to the marriage. In the case you cited, it was a licensed marriage. In any licensed marriage it goes without saying that the State can pretty much do what it wants because it has a legitimate claim to being a party to the marriage. However, in an unlicensed marriage that would be valid under common law, the State would need to prove some nexus to demonstrate exactly how it became a party to the marriage. In a Christian Covenant Marriage that specifically states God is party to the Marriage, which is arranged under His authority and His laws, the State doesn’t have much of an entry. To insert itself the State must violate the fundamental rights of religious free exercise of at least one party to the marriage.
You are correct when you say the State will vigorously defend their police powers. However, they just as vigorously defended their right to make negros ride in the back of the bus and outlaw abortion. At that time, everybody knew that that’s just the way it was. Until it wasn’t. The case law is already on the side of anyone who wants to drop out of the game and the first step is getting away from marriage licenses and moving to binding contract.
@Arisanal Toad:
What if a couple is currently married with a state license? Can the couple “divorce” the state and alter their marriage from a state contract to a Christian covenant-binding contract?
vascularity777 asks Arisanal Toad:
Can the couple “divorce” the state and alter their marriage from a state contract to a Christian covenant-binding contract?
Not a chance. As others (Novaseeker most prominently among them) has stated here (and which I should have made clear when making my point), the State is the third party in ALL marriage contracts, at least in the Anglosphere, if not everywhere in the western world. Because it confers upon itself a monopoly on legally sanctioned force, you cannot “divorce” the State – ever, under any circumstances (hint: just try to get away with not paying taxes).
@ AT
Can you cite any cases where such contracts/covenants were upheld on appeal? Or is it all entirely theoretical? And do you have a link or example of what such a contract/covenant would look like?
“misguided love” my ass, guess the Hamster comes in both genders
the OP was correct, the false “pastors” of Womanianity caved in to the same beatdown going on everywhere else in western kulture
they lacked the courage and faithfulness to God to oppose the obvious matriarchal takeover of their nations, decade after decade — squeaking endlessly about abortion and perhaps giving a lame, annual “feminism isnt good” sermon while enabling it to the max innumerable other ways
the “shepherds of God” let Somebody Else take the hits (little boys and defenseless men) while they preened and pretended and enjoyed comfortable lives
and lo! the churches did fill with satisfied, enriched, empowered women
Artisanal Toad
Try this learn game and mack the pussy you want. Take a look at this while you are at it(http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/asia-pacific/indonesia/110224/indonesia-birth-control-pill-papua-men) and this (http://sartikaherbal.com/home/extract-herbal/gandarusa-justicia-gendarussa?vmcchk=1) Now if you want kids try the adoption route or for your own genetics do a surrogate. Don’t worry about that kids need a mom stuff. One of your girl friends will do just fine.
This is a much better path than signing some deal with a woman. Never include a woman in your life path.(unless you want something to stick your penis every once in a while) You can have kids a job and a home but you must think it out and do so with out a woman if you want to control your own future as a father and not live under the sword of Damocles. This is only a way of life with the laws of misandry. The other path is to see the laws of misandry removed. That path is a warriors path and you may never be a family man but you may be able to make a world where a young man is honest and of faith and actually have a woman in her best selfish interest gina tingle for him. Best it will get and ever has been. .
@Vascularity777
I have to agree with feeriker, although not for the reasons cited.
We now move from the empirical to the theoretical. This is a case similar to the Church of Rome’s take on Scripture: “We decided what Scripture is, therefore we decide what it means.”
The rule of law no longer applies within the United States. I say this as a statement of fact although I’m not inclined to argue the point with misguided graduates of third-tier law schools that are always looking for ways to impress others with their lack of knowledge.
You must be aware that the courts rule in a manner that will benefit public policy, and that, not necessarily what you are aware of. The State, for hundreds of years, has held that marriage is squarely within their purview with respect to their police powers. There is a fundamental conflict between rights and the powers of the State. This is being played out on the grand stage as we speak, vis-a-vis the State’s claimed right to snoop on everyone and their claimed right to lie to us regarding what they do. After all, it’s in our best interests… Fundamentally, Americans no longer have rights that can be enforced. The few “shining examples” are merely the exceptions that prove the rule.
When one obtains a marriage license, there is much anecdotal evidence that an adhesion contract has been administered upon the unfortunate souls who got the license. A legal divorce merely converts said marriage contract into a divorce contract. Once the State has the hooks in, it won’t let go.
In theory (I repeat: IN THEORY) said adhesion contract can be vitiated for fraud. This can be as simple as sending in a proper notice of fraud to the relevant State authorities (who will not respond) and waiting the appropriate amount of time. The assumption here is that the State abides by its own law. This is not the case!
Until there is a sufficient body of case law to support marriage by right, anyone who has a Westlaw subscription will say that such a thing does not exist.
If you have to use that many words to make your point, you probably don’t have a point
@greyghost
WTF? Dude… you don’t know me. While currently in the US, I’ve lived outside the US for over 10 years. I have multiple passports and I speak three languages. I know exactly how hard this country has been screwed. Starting a year ago, I decided to try to do something about it. This discussion is part of that.
@donalgraeme
I’ve spent the last year writing a book on Covenant Marriage. I finished the book about 3 months ago but it’s been held up by editorial (legal) issues. My editorial board consists of 2 family court judges, several constitutional lawyers and a couple of contract lawyers, all Christians who have volunteered their time. I have driven all of them crazy, although as time passes we are reaching consensus.
I have no examples of appeals cases in which a rights-based marriage was either upheld or slammed in any court of appeal. The subject is sufficiently new that I can find (with the help of my editorial board) absolutely nothing. That said, you can consider this theoretical. However, I know the fundamentals and I know that at the Federal level this isn’t an issue that will be blown off. At the State level, their issue is the preservation of their police powers. The question is going to be who brings the right case forward at the right time. That will decide everything.
The only area of fundamental rights that has any traction any more is that of religious free exercise. Nothing else works across the board. Forget property rights. In an America in which there is no way to get your rights enforced, religious free exercise is just about the only man left standing.
Agreed Ton – and uh Artistanal Toad; if you have to write; “Dude… you don’t know me” – then no, we probably don’t and won’t… but for the likes of us ‘laymen’ – if you want to be ‘known’ then write a bit less in quantity and distill it down to a frontal lobe’s capacity. “Less is more”.
@Highwasp
If your inability to grasp a complex argument that is unable to be expressed in a 30-second sound byte is a problem, I’m sorry. I have no desire to be “known” but greywolf’s links were offensive to me. I have seven children, all born within the bounds of matrimony. I have lived outside the US in several different countries for over 10 years and I could instruct you guys on how to pick up women south of the border. However, ultimately, my ability to communicate is hampered by your frontal lobe’s ability to handle complex argument on a complex subject. What I’ve written was structured in such a way that the ‘laymen’ could grasp the arguments presented. I could have put it in ‘legalize’ and shortened it by half and left the non-attorneys in the dust. I chose to go for inclusiveness rather than blow you off.
Sorry, that should be ‘greyghost’ rather than ‘greywolf’
Artisanal Toad
Not meant to start a fight. The idea you have just will not work because it requires female character. That lack of character that never even existed ever has been written into the law. And is the foundation of thought (aka feminine imperative) that is applied to everything done in society. I think it is cool we have men that give a damn and want to change the track we are on. Women have already had there solipsism and hypergamy written into the law we’re actually done with them.
That will change just as women will be pure with virtue only when it is in their best interest. (even that is not entirely correct as a statement) It should be …when is in the best interest of her hypergamy. The only reason women are not worse than they are is because of wicked self interest of having others think they are “good” people. Keep that in your thought process when coming up with a theory and solution.
BTW what were the other countries you lived in. And did you support yourself while there from the local economy? I always find it interesting how people did that.
In other words, everything you’ve typed is complete garbage, which explains the very sparse number of hits I found on the search engine for this. I was going to write back with a question, but this answers it. You can’t point to anything where a “private marriage” was successful.
If this is true, why haven’t there been more people rejecting things as they are? In fact, I belabored that very point in the comments section on Dalrock’s recent guest post on the Orthosphere. The traditional definition of marriage includes the license to the point that people wouldn’t think of anything else and wifey would dread not having her marriage be “legit”. The social pressure upon most people (proven by the “shacking up” nonsense) to get a marriage license is incalcuable as well. If a man and woman declares their intent to be married, then they’re married. But this is the world of ShudBe, not reality. Then there’s always the marital benefits and the “legal proof of marriage” issues and the like. Once an arbiter or observer of such a private arrangement gets involved, the government will get its mitts in anyway.
Reality has said to me (I’ve read too many things) that even irregardless of the license, if a matter comes before the State, it’ll decide things via “the second set of books”, aka its own interests as an active third party. This will even include whether a man or woman is married or not. I’ve read too many things that indicate this as well (co-habitation periods and the like indicating “marital rights” to alimony and child support for non-related children, even periods as short as six months). For instance:
It’s Canada but I’ve heard of similar things in the US. For instance, the Kansas sperm donation thing. The main question I have from this is not the material issues, but the justification for enforcement.
As you so eloquently pointed out, there’s no license involved on any of these kinds of things. Yet the State is involved anyway inserting its police powers in as judge, jury, and executioner. What you really speak of seems known as common-law marriage, and as the trend goes, the states are converting those into the regular “license” kind as they abolish common-law marriage by fiat. After all, with all the abuses being taken upon men and children in the name of the system that is justified by marriage licenses and birth certificates, don’t you think it would be reasonable that someone would have challenged Meister v. Moore by now, if that’s what you go off of? Or have tried “private marriage contracts” to the point that you can present examples of where they were upheld successfully, especially since you are claiming authorship of a book on the topic?
You haven’t presented anything compelling that a “private marriage contract” akin to any other business contract would be a solution to the issue and that the government wouldn’t take the intent to marriage and dictate its terms by fiat anyway. While I think you present as aware of the problem, I’m not sure you understand the depths to which it goes.
@greyghost
I disagree from the standpoint of jurisprudence.
Ultimately, the issue is the decisions the courts will produce. The courts will generate decisions based on the facts presented in light of precedence. The other issue involved is the “continuum” that’s presented. Courts want to be in line with prior decisions.
Sin is in the world. That we cannot deny. Women will do what they do, just as men will.
Those who desire to marry have a choice: do they choose the route of the State acting as God, or do they choose the route of God being God. It is an individual decision. Everyone makes the choice at some point or another whether they will be obedient to the Word. Everyone.
I’ve lived in Japan, Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Colombia and Venezuela. When I say I’ve lived there, we’re talking about six months or more. I’m not talking about a visit.
Well no wonder. Man I would have stayed in Thailand. That place was cool man. I only had 4 weeks as a marine there. (artificial money not from the local economy)
Or the issue of paternity fraud where one of the parties of the child is not party to the marriage? The State, unfortunately, is what it is has enforced child support obligations on the non-parent anyway…by what justification since no license is present?
As I’ve always presented (see part 2 of my originally linked thing for that), the only real solution is to kick the State out of marriage entirely. But, unfortunately, there will be no impulse from any group to make it happen.
@ballista74
I’m not sure if you are aware of the issues. A holding by the Supreme Court is binding on everyone. If nobody wants to deal with it, their position is “cool.”
“Sin is in the world. That we cannot deny. Women will do what they do, just as men will”.
Try not to get too cute with this men do it too kind of stuff. It will cause doubt and lack of action. The feminine imperative already hates you so stay hard.
I’m aware of reality and am going off of that and not living in ShudBe land. If it’s a binding Supreme Court decision that people don’t have to get licenses, then why isn’t that being lived out in marriages? Why are people getting exposed to “the second set of books” that never materially agreed to it? And if the State is enforcing interests in marriages and non-marriages where men and women never agreed by getting the marriage license, then why aren’t they being challenged and thrown out on appeal via the case you cited? You are materially arguing that a man and woman can agree to whatever they want in the course of cementing what they call “marriage” (e.g. nothing different than a business contract) and it will be materially upheld in all circumstances by the State, yet facts aren’t bearing that out (that second link is a great example, the contractual clause that a cheating spouse would pay a $50000 penalty to the other was not upheld because of the stated interests of the State).
You haven’t presented a compelling case that the State wouldn’t go in and mark up a private marriage contract (verbal or written) to its own will. I’ve presented a couple cases where this proved to be true. If you want to call that “not aware of the issues”, that’s fine, but I think it’s proving where things lie.
To clarify what I meant by “that second link”:
I think you need to understand how jurisprudence works. There is an effort to swing things on the part of some judges, but in reality, it isn’t quite what you think. When one sees an absence of cases in a particular area, there can be several solutions. One is that the issue has not been presented (squarely) before the ruling justices. That makes a huge difference. If they can dodge the bullet, they will. It is only when an issue has been laid squarely before them that they will respond. In the absence of that, you have nothing.
Give it shot Artisanal Toad The MRM needs men in that arena. Good to see you focus on the law and not some jackass thinking he has a wife. All men that give a damn are welcome and needed and we as you can see will do what it takes to keep a man form making the same errors over and over. Never forget my friend it is the laws we are after not some cunts pussy.
Interesting. Time for an alternative approach. Specifically this:
Where does the husbands responsibility begin and end when selecting the right church and Pastor for his wife and/or immediate family?
If the husband consistently feels his his Pastors Feminist anti-male leanings and yet continues to attend; isn’t he then failing to live up to his responsibilities as a Husband and a man?
People vote with their feet. Right?
Uh Toad, I did 2 internet searches in the span of 30 seconds and found your answer. But you can take it or leave it:
http://www.sandiegolawfirm.com/the-truth-about-common-law-marriage-palimony-in-california/
The rest of us can move on to more productive discussions.
@Greyghost
I went to class, but I want to address male birth control. It could have consequences about how one sees one partner just as female birth control does. Men might start blowing yup families as women do.
The CC would never accept it, nor would Protestants 70 years ago. They are wiser than us I am sure.
It will lead to a further plummeting of birth rates which leads to a faster collapse of the country or more of a dictatorship then we already have.
Try Catholic.
All male priesthood. Women hold no Church authority, period. Pastors can’t be fired by their congregation; they are appointed by male bishops and are only fired by them (Tit 1:5). Birth control, abortion, and divorce remain sins, like they always have been throughout Christian tradition (1 Tim 3:15).
Once the idea of Scripture alone, apart from tradition, became popular (2 Thes 2:15), individuals began doing their own interpreting. They didn’t agree on much (1 Tim 3:15, 2 Pet 1:20) and quickly proliferated into 30,000+ denominations (John 17:21). It was only a matter of time until women would rule the roost in churches today; women got the vote in in 1920 and said churches quickly follow whatever culture they are in (1 Cor 14:34).
@ballista74
“That’s right: in California, as in other states with a strong no-fault public policy, you can’t even voluntarily make a credible promise of marriage and expect it to be honored by the courts. ”
My question is why is everyone so focused on legality. The Muslims petition for their own courts and get them in the U.K, Jews had their own courts under the Roman empire. Christians continually lose (legally) on marriage, abortion, homosexuality, so why not try a different strategy?
@Vasc
What if a couple is currently married with a state license? Can the couple “divorce” the state and alter their marriage from a state contract to a Christian covenant-binding contract?
Despite what various people say, the state has not usurped the place of God in marriage, but the place of the fathers, and the community of believers. There are more than three parties to marriage. The
God
groom
bride
father of bride
community
Each of them have a role to play,
That community took it for granted that since such a high percentage of all communities was Christian (or at least Christian-friendly) they pawned off the responsibilities of the father community onto government bureaucrats. The logic of 18 the age of majority for both sexes, combined with common law makes it nearly impossible to restrict the rights of marriage to the fathers; especially in combination with ease of relocation, technology, etc.
Unless you marry in total secrecy, and the marriage remains secret, the state will assume that its father-like powers and community-like sanctioning powers (given to it democratically by former Christians) are in effect whether you sign a paper or not. It is up to them whether they regard or disregard paperwork.
The One asked:
My question is why is everyone so focused on legality. The Muslims petition for their own courts and get them in the U.K, Jews had their own courts under the Roman empire. Christians continually lose (legally) on marriage, abortion, homosexuality, so why not try a different strategy?
Short answer: because civil government, especially in Amerika, will NEVER, EVER allow a religious court to supersede secular legal authority.
Once again, it does not matter whether or not someone petitions “their own” courts for justice, either in law or in equity. The State will still interpose itself, by force if it feels that it is necessary, to ensure that its legal will is carried out, regardless of whether or not any of the other parties involved in a particular case agree to it or not. I really don’t understand why this is so difficult for people to grasp.
Also, concerning the examples of religious courts you cited, in particular the Jewish religious courts under the Roman Empire in ancient Judea, these courts were/are NOT absolute or independent in their authority from the reigning secular state’s legal system. If the secular government felt that it needed to interpose its authority for whatever reason, it did so without hesitation, particularly where religious law was perceived to conflict with secular political law. In such cases the State’s secular law ALWAYS took precedent (again, backed by raw force if necessary).
I do not pursue this point as something that I think is the ideal, not at all. I merely point out that this is the way things actually are in the real, temporal world. There will inevitably, at some critical point, be a conflict between Caesar’s law and God’s law. When there such a conflict exists it is up to believers to decide which they are going to follow – and be prepared to bear the consequences as believers should they decide to follow God’s law (the believers of the early church were no strangers to this dilemma).
The one
“but I want to address male birth control. It could have consequences about how one sees one partner just as female birth control does. Men might start blowing yup families as women do.
The CC would never accept it, nor would Protestants 70 years ago. They are wiser than us I am sure.
It will lead to a further plummeting of birth rates which leads to a faster collapse of the country or more of a dictatorship then we already have.”
That sounds great to me. Who cares what the churchians think. Those guys are a part of the problem any way. Imagine what a girl would do to survive that. I bet being a knocked up wife would be the new hypergamy. All she would need to do in her own selfish interest is to get a man to think it is safe to have a child with her. His answer is “it’s the law baby it’s not what you think it’s the law”. I may have some details wrong but some will see where I’m going with it.
And speaking of churchians you had a reply to Ballista74 about the Christians trying to get their own church based court. Too late for that they already sold their soul to churchian pussy worship. Western Christianity is feminized that means it is not faith based but based on pleasing man (woman). The irony about the whole thing if they had of stayed Christian women would gina tingle for it and it would have weight to have a Christian court for the women would desire to be apart of the church. Now it is just a title to say I’m a Christian woman nothing more.
Ye Gods.
As any lawyer will tell you there is nothing more time-consuming and tiresome than a layman purporting to advise as to The Law. In the case of Artisonal Toad, what hope can one have when at 02.31 pm and in his first sentence he asserts that all contracts are in writing (they aren’t). One is thus not exactly motivated to place confidence in any further pronouncements, yet he has kept this thread going with stuff like that all the hours I slept, including insults aimed at Novaseeker – now frankly I am happy to assert that hell will freeze over before Novaseeker seriously cocks-up.
It may of course be different where Artisonal Toad has been living, but, where I am, you cannot oust the jurisdiction of the courts, no matter how clever your device or how much you may wish it. I would guess that that is probably the position where you all are too. I have certainly never come across any successful attempt at doing so, although I wait with baited breath learning of the man who does so.
@Michael:
“Interesting. Time for an alternative approach. Specifically this:
Where does the husbands responsibility begin and end when selecting the right church and Pastor for his wife and/or immediate family?
If the husband consistently feels his his Pastors Feminist anti-male leanings and yet continues to attend; isn’t he then failing to live up to his responsibilities as a Husband and a man?”
18 months ago my husband and I were talking about plans for our weekend, and I mentioned doing something ‘after church’. My husband dropped it into the conversation that actually he’s never going back to that church.
Talk about speechless! I thought ‘where does this come from’, and doesn’t he know how HUGE this is?! How it will affect us, the children, and me?!
Thankfully I refrained from saying all this…. but asked him his reasons and then realised he was resolved. I prayed to God for wisdom and tongue control.
My husband said that he was sick of going, that he wasn’t learning anything, that the pastor didn’t know what he was talking about, that he’d rather stay home than ever go back.
He told me the children and I could go without him, but I said I didn’t want to separate our family on Sundays, and leave the spiritual head of our family at home. To which my husband said – ‘Ok, the spiritual head of this home is telling you not to go back to that church. If you can’t find a church with sound teaching then we’ll just have a family day on Sundays.’
And then, ‘I’m off to bed now Hannah… goodnight….’
I was grateful that God silenced my arguments, and that my husband chose to go to bed!
He would have hated my tears and we could easily have wound up fighting.
But after I cried, I prayed, then looked online for the church my dad had recommended we try 2 years before. God is good.
I was able to wake up the next morning and show my husband the local Calvary Chapel church website and he was very keen to try it, and he seemed happy that I wasn’t against him.
My husband is really enjoying the church which incidentally has about 70% male/30% female ratio, and we have been going along there ever since!
The word of God is being taught straight from the Bible which he is happy to follow, rather than one man’s experiences being taught from the pulpit, backed up by a couple of scriptures. I am so grateful for this change of teaching too. They don’t allow women to preach and we’ve heard the pastor preach on modesty/women remaining silent in church/not having authority over men. Amazing and refreshing – like a breath of fresh air!
God is so good.
He sees the picture when all we see is a dim reflection of what is going on.
6 weeks after we changed churches, the pastor at our old church apparently handed out brochures to a conference that was being run by a church that I believe to be false in its teaching. That would have caused much discord if we were still going, and imagine the difference in leaving because of MY issue rather than my husband’s?!
In any case, I am glad that I happily followed my husband’s leadership. It has turned out well for us.
But regardless of the outcome, I was in a place of freedom by living out the instructions God put before me of submitting to my husband. Any burden of decision making was lifted from me as I chose to follow him with a willing heart.
Rather a ship to sail the wrong way for a time, than two ‘captains’ tear it apart in different directions causing the ship to sink. God is leading my husbands’ course, not me!
Matamoros says:
June 17, 2013 at 10:16 am
The Catholic clergy is woefully and willfully ignorant of the true state of affairs in domestic relations law in the U.S. Thank you for doing your part to edify at least one of them.
Kudos to greyghost for recognizing that family courts dispense nothing that can be squared with the layperson’s understanding of equity.
Question for the attorneys here…
At the very first hearing in my divorce (initiated by wife, challenged by me), the presiding judge set forth his estimation of what spousal support (payable by me, of course) would likely be. This occurred before any testimony as to fault, etc. (my state is technically not ‘no-fault’ per se unless the parties stipulate incompatibility). The legal basis for alimony would seem to be compensatory damages for breach of contract – how could the process begin with an apparent presumption of breach on my part? Am I just naive as to the extent of the rot or is there some finer point of jurisprudence I’m missing? It seems to be a clear case of bargaining under the shadow of the law.
AT – When you finally get that book published I want to buy a copy as I have late teenage kids who will be looking at marriage within the next decade. I’ve already decided that I don’t want them having any government issued marriage document especially with the way marriage is going in most jurisdictions these days. Maybe you can get Dalrock to review a copy so that we can be aware of it’s arrival as I want to know when its out.
Agree with Nova in his analysis. My sense of how US family courts will respond to changing family structures is:
1. Contracts, legal agreements, etc. which purport to govern a marriage will be enforced only to the extent that enforcement isn’t considered patently unfair as applied to the woman.
2. Any contract provisions that purport to govern child custody, visitation or support will be null and void, and won’t be enforced at all, ever. The court will determine those issues based on the “best interests of the child” standard. Parents cannot contract away their obligations to support their child. As a practical matter, that prohibition applies mostly to fathers. That’s never, ever going to fly in any US family court anywhere, now or in any kind of future I can envision.
3. A man won’t necessarily be able to avoid alimony by avoiding legal marriage. The courts will use the “duck” standard: If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. So, if it looks like a marriage, the man and woman were living together as married and holding themselves out as married, then they’re married in the eyes of the law, and alimony will be on the table.
4. You can’t deprive a court of jurisdiction by stating in a contract that a court cannot assert jurisdiction over it or over the parties to the covenant. The entire point of a contract is that it can be legally enforced. A court asserts jurisdiction over the res, the object of the contract, and that res is the family or any member of it. Second, where the contract touches on family relationships, the court will assert jurisdiction over the disputes to facilitate “orderly” resolutions to the disputes.
5. Family courts are courts of equity. That means what will rule the day are general principles of fairness based on presently existing facts and circumstances. A US family court will not use rigidly applied legal rules and principles except within a legal framework that gives that court a lot of discretion.
Family courts are courts of equity. That means what will rule the day are general principles of fairness based on presently existing facts and circumstances. A US family court will not use rigidly applied legal rules and principles except within a legal framework that gives that court a lot of discretion.
this last point is the catch all and never to be forgotten. When it becomes “fair” to have an ex husband put to death for the sake of the children you can bet your ass it will be a part of family law. And princess wouldn’t have it any other way
Deti’s fourth point reminds me that probably a clause of the type that is being mooted or such a contract would be struck out as being void against public policy.
@Hannah:
Very cool story. You did the right thing, even though it was stressful, and your family was rewarded in kind. Your husband is a blessed man!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/17/marriage-trends-demographics/2424641/
Keep it up. Marriage rates to come down, down, down and then down some more.
@Opus
You said “in his first sentence he asserts that all contracts are in writing (they aren’t).”
The point is while oral or implied contracts are enforceable under certain conditions, a marital contract must be in writing to be effective. However, just as contracts can take different forms, so too can marriage. The State has its form of marriage as a licensed privilege but other forms exist as well. The assumption is the State has complete control over marriage but all the evidence presented is simply how the State’s courts have dealt with the State’s licensed marriages. Issues of marriage by right are not properly placed before the court because almost everyone has a licensed marriage.
It is clearly recognized that people have a *right* to get married. However, when they get a marriage license they are no longer acting by right but rather in privilege. Nobody is legally required to get a marriage license, thus, the act of getting a marriage license is a voluntary waiver of right.
Ask yourself- what actually forms the marriage, if anything other than present words of assent to be bound in marriage? The permission of the State? The solemnization by a ‘competent’ person? I’m sure you’d admit that a Christian man and woman can join themselves in marriage, by right, under a formal written agreement governing every aspect of their marriage. Such an agreement should cite the authority under which the marriage is entered (God’s authority- the creator of marriage), who the parties are to the marriage (God, husband and wife), what the governing law of the marriage is (cite the relevant passages of Scripture), how disputes are handled (mandatory arbitration- c.f. 1st Corinthians 6), and what the requirements are to dissolve such a marriage (the unbelieving spouse leaves- c.f. 1st Corinthians 7:12-17). As an attorney you’re aware that not all contracts are equal and there is a great deal of difference between a well-written contract and a poorly-written contract. Assume a really well-written contract that had a lot of input from a couple of appellate judges.
The question is, would having such a marriage by right and formed under contract make a difference when the time comes that either cupcake or hotdog decides they want out?
First, I think the likelihood that anyone willing to sign such a covenant would later file a petition for dissolution of marriage is quite low. However, if such a thing happened, what then? The State is being asked to resolve a dispute in which the parties already have an agreement as to how to resolve the dispute and that agreement precludes the involvement of the State. Essentially ‘cupcake’ wants to avoid her contractual responsibilities and wants the State to step in and break the contract for her. The position of everyone here is the court will do exactly that. My position is if the contract is correctly written and the two parties to the marriage have entered into the marriage by right, not by privilege, then the issues before the court will be much different from the normal petition for dissolution.
Under the current system, the marriage license grants the State the control it has over marriage because the State issued the license. Every state has a law requiring a marriage license in order to marry, so the presumption is all marriages are licensed and most family court judges assume they can do what they want (within the limits of state law)- so they do. However, at a certain level, when an issue of fundamental rights is placed squarely before an appellate court in such a way that leaves them no wiggle room, the rights issue usually wins. I say it usually wins because nothing is certain.
However: there will never be a case that gets to any appellate court with the proper issues unless people start getting married with a contract and without a license. It isn’t enough to get away from the State system of license and privilege, there has to be a binding contract that clearly sets in stone the issue of a marriage entered into as an act of religious free exercise. Once a sufficient number reject licensed marriage in favor of contractual marriage, soon or later the issues will be tested in court. Until that time, it’s all theoretical. What isn’t theoretical is that the current system is an abomination. Why not do all that can be done to avoid it?
The law is moot really. The State will do whatever it can, fairness be damned, to obtain or retain its power over you. If that means creating a marriage out of thin air where none existed before, it will be done. Creating stuff out of thin air is exactly the power of the FED.
We all live under a soft-tyranny, we have no rights at all. Remember this, your rights are null and void the second they become an issue for the State.
@Dalrock:
How does moderation work? For a couple of minutes after my last post it was indicated that my response was awaiting moderation, and then the indication was gone. Am I being moderated? Or is that some sort of automatic feature?
You’re on the list now, buddy! Phone your nearest NSA agent to require further particulars…
I have no doubt that everything I do online and via phone is permanently recorded.
@Artisanal Toad
I appreciate your long and patient reply to mine, however, I still think you are mistaken – though I take no view whatsoever on your interpretation of Scripture.
Where I am domiciled, a marriage is made under licence (banns) by the State; the marriage being made either before a Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages or an Ordained Minister of The Church of England. There had previously been the possibility of marriage on-board ship by the ship’s Captain, but I believe that is no longer possible. Perhaps there are a few other exceptions (I would not want to be dogmatic), but otherwise I know of none. What is not an exception (though everyone here talks as if it exists) is Common Law Marriage (whatever that may have been); cohabiting is not marriage (no matter the repercussions) and is thus not Common Law marriage. Intriguingly women never seem to regard cohabitation as ‘real’ marriage, but merely the penultimate step before marriage. There is no doubt (in my mind) that Marriage as an institution is in the most appalling mess, which doubtless accounts for the half-baked efforts by the state to ‘close the stable-door after the filly has bolted’.
I can only wish you luck with your endeavours but I feel that you are no more likely to be successful than others who have come before you to hold the State to task (e.g. Globalman aka Peter Nolan – who lately seems, like a cell, to split into two – the hours I have wasted trying to put some sense into is mind on Magna Carta – a red-herring if ever there was one).
@Hurting
I am going to leave any reply to your question to Novaseeker, as I am having a little difficulty fully grasping your purpose – and don’t want to write nonsense, though I am sure he will also tell you to consult your own lawyer.
now frankly I am happy to assert that hell will freeze over before Novaseeker seriously cocks-up.
Unfortunately I am not nearly as infallible as that, and not even close, but I defer to the judgment of my right honorable friend in these matters.
Deti’s fourth point reminds me that probably a clause of the type that is being mooted or such a contract would be struck out as being void against public policy.
Yes, exactly.
And a great summary as well, Deti.
I know we are off the main point, Dalrock, but I think this was a productive conversation despite that. Sorry for derailing, mate.
At the very first hearing in my divorce (initiated by wife, challenged by me), the presiding judge set forth his estimation of what spousal support (payable by me, of course) would likely be. This occurred before any testimony as to fault, etc. (my state is technically not ‘no-fault’ per se unless the parties stipulate incompatibility).
Obviously you need to ask a lawyer well versed in your own jurisdiction, but quite generally in the US it is not uncommon for judges to come out at the outset and give a quick “read” as to where they are likely to come out. That is intended to get cases settled and off the very clogged docket (Americans love, love, love suing each other) by tipping the hand as to what the lesser likely to win party would end up with if they went through the entire trial. It doesn’t mean that this is how it will eventually end up — what it means is that this is how the judge is leaning, based on what they know at the time.
@Vascularity
I just checked and I don’t have you in either comment filter (blacklist or moderation). Sometimes the included spam filter gets a false positive, and I periodically spot those and let them out before deleting everything in the spam bin. I think I freed one earlier this morning but to be honest I don’t recall 100%. When that happens what I think you will see is your comment simply disappears (vs showing pending approval). Then when I free it from the spam bin it will show pending moderation until I free it from that list, at which time everyone can see it. The amount of accurately flagged spam is quite large though, and it isn’t uncommon for there to be hundreds of real spam comments in the bin when I check. I only do a cursory scan so unless your binned comment is obviously legit I could miss it. Once or twice I’ve noticed legit comments which were vague enough that at first glance I was sure they were of the “Superlative read thank you for the information” spam variety.
@Father Marker the book has been written. The exact details are covered in detail, with U S Supreme Court Case numbers that back up each answer in the book — “In the Best Interest of the State: Escape from Slavery” found here http://www.theamericansovereign.com
@Novaseeker
No apology needed. Your explanation was helpful.
@Dalrock “No apology needed. Your explanation was helpful.” Thanks for opening this up.
I know people that have followed the steps in the book and stopped paying state-mandated child support, instead they’ve been able to support their children as Dad.
It’s here: http://www.theamericansovereign.com is not an affiliate link.
It’s not another book about the problem, it gives directions, beginning with step by step on how to stop child support abuse based on “the state cannot convert your right into a privilege and charge a fee for it”
Most men are amazed that the content of the book is unknown. The book is written for you if you cannot afford an attorney. Everything the author did, he did without an attorney. The author has freedom from paying state-mandated child support. He is able to support his children as the parent instead.
Nova, re: pastors who embrace feminism out of love, I would say the problem is deeper than that. The problem is that they are moderns first and Christians second. Moreover, they do not even know that they are moderns, nor do they know what it means to be modern, nor do they know how modern thought contrasts from ancient thought or from Christian thought (which is of course pre-modern).
Modernity is at root an attempt to kill Christianity and we may say that if failed, in that Christianity is still here but it also succeeded in that Christianity lost its ruling position in the West, has declined in strength and numbers, and is almost everywhere corrupt. Where it remains, it has been redefined—or even has willingly redefined itself—according to the tenets of modernity. This is in a way the reverse process of what happened in the Middle Ages, when philosophy was redefined by Christianity, which was in those days the senior partner. Modernity or modern philosophy is now the senior partner.
So any elements of Christianity that go against modernity are now discarded or else redefined and reinterpreted to fit modernity. And of course “gender equality” is one of those elements.
I’ll allow a bit of discussion on this, but will add the caveats to my readers:
1) Don’t misconstrue discussion on this blog/thread as legal advice. If you need legal advice, get legal advice.
2) Be very careful whenever someone claims to know a secret legal “out” the attorneys are somehow all unaware of or hiding from the rest of us.
@Escoffier
Well put. This is why repentance is a step which can’t be skipped, but ironically it is also why so many wish to skip repentance and talk about how their church/pastor is different and better than the rest. It/he may well be better than average, but if he hasn’t spotted where he fell into this trap, he doesn’t really get it. By comparison a pastor who got it worse in the past but has repented would be a far better bet.
“1) Don’t misconstrue discussion on this blog/thread as legal advice. If you need legal advice, get legal advice.
2) Be very careful whenever someone claims to know a secret legal “out” the attorneys are somehow all unaware of or hiding from the rest of us.”
Let me amplify these:
1. “get legal advice” means you talk IN PERSON (not on the phone. Not by email.) to a real flesh and blood human being family lawyer who has experience in family law matters in the jurisdiction in which you find yourself; you tell that lawyer everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) about the situation at hand; you get that lawyer’s considered opinion and judgment on an appropriate course of action; and you pay that lawyer for his/her time.
If you are suing or being sued in family court, you need to get legal advice.
If you are in a child custody dispute, you need to get legal advice.
If your wife has locked you out of the house and obtained a restraining order against you, you need to get legal advice.
2. There are no “secret legal outs” in family court. There are no real effective constitutional prohibitions or limitations on a family court’s equitable powers. All those arguments have been vetted and rejected by courts already.
I (being somewhat intrigued) was carefully re-reading Artisanal Toad’s 01.45pm comment. What he suggests, to avoid the rigours of the Divorce Courts is simply a contract in writing between the contracting parties. I fear that such a contract would merely be construed by any court as a contract for services. Now, how, pray, is that contract going to be enforced, other than by an action for damages or equitable relief. Would it, I wonder, be struck out as unenforceable bearing in mind its close similarity to a contract for sexual services i.e. prostitution. If it passes that hurdle would not the wife begin to look more like a domestic servant and thus the contract would be treated as a contract of employment, or worse still does it not perhaps bear a similarity to slavery?
I certainly do not claim to fully or adequately understand all that Artisanal Toad is writing or proposing. Even if he is correct in everything he suggests are there hidden disadvantages in his proposals?
Novaseeker says:
June 18, 2013 at 1:12 pm
I have assumed as much. It is just horrifically unfair, and I can not imagine it does not have a chilling effect on the outcome.
If the parties were to concede incompatibility (no-fault), then it seems the equitable outcome would be no alimony paid, just as not one would not expect, for instance, the parties to continue to perform their non-income earning activities on behalf of the other. If I want out of any other contract in this life, not only do I typically not get the other party to continue to perform any part whatsoever of his/her original obligation, I usually must pay for the privilege of voiding it.
Even is one assumes that both parties to a no-fault divorce are equally liable for its failure, the idea that the ‘deeper pockets’ party must continue to perform, at least in part, is analagous to a hypothetical car crash in a grocery store parking lot where a Lexus and a Ford back into one another with equal negligence on both parties’ parts whereupon the Lexus driver pays not only to fix his own car but the Ford as well only because he can ‘afford to’.
The problem in the US is not just with no-fault divorce but the residue of fault-based compensatory damages such as alimony, no?
The problem in the US is not just with no-fault divorce but the residue of fault-based compensatory damages such as alimony, no?
For a short period of time in the 70’s and/or eighties it was like getting rid of a girl friend then the feminist felt it was unfair that women lost so much and the alimony and men leave helpless women stuff started back into practice.
Pingback: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place
@Dalrock
I’ve waited a bit to comment here, to see if the desire would go away, but it hasn’t.
I agree with the OP, and I agree with the principle. Repentance is of primary importance. What I do not agree with is that we all get to be privy to this repentance. What you’re advocating for is not repentance, but public confession, or evidence of confession.
1) No Game site that advocates anything like the idea of imitating Alpha would subscribe to the method of public confession for a private crime. If it is kept private as private things should be, how would you hear about it? If you make it your business to demand private info, then you’re in error. For those pastors who have YouTube videos, books, seminars, etc. preaching wrong things, or (more commonly) always leaning on men, and never leaning on women then in such arenas, yes, confession should be made.
2) I have told you of one pastor I think has no need of confession or repentance in this regard: Voddie Baucham. He is, as far as I can tell, a Job in our time. Have you found differently? If so, I would honestly like to know because I keep recommending him to others. If not, does such a pastor–he may be alone–not deserve at least mention?
3) In the final examination, we all are servants of God, and it is to Him that our confessions are for sure to be made. We also have a duty to confess to those we have clearly offended. The Mohlers, Stantons, Driscoll’s, and such do need to confess publicly. But as influential and loud as those people are, there are many, many pastors who are just men making errors; like the rest of us in the Men’s Sphere. Your position of an evidenced confession leaves no room for grace, as I understand what you’ve written. If you came across a man preaching the clear scripture on male-female relationships now, would you reject him until you have satisfied your own sense of the depth and sincerity of his confession?
4) Despite the evangelical church lingo of “called to pastorship”, there really are not many gifted pastors out there. Most just want to be useful, and the pollution of the church is such that they want men to say something like “I’ve been led by the spirit to preach”, and they want to, so they say something to that effect. Many of them should probably be discouraged, but other Christians don’t discourage them, because then they might have to pick up the slack. So, they say, “Yes, we agree: You are led by the spirit to pastor us while we nap.” By-and-large, these men are victims and perpetrators of the feminism pollution just like the rest of us. To the extent that they otherwise do earnestly attempt to be Christ for their communities they are doing something; even if they are failing miserably at fighting the rebellious age. There will have to be more Joseph of Jackson vs. Pastor meetings to get this sorted out. What we need are more JoJ’s; not recordings of pastoral confessions.
5) There are even less gifted preachers among pastors, and preaching is a small part of pastoring. It’s not even listed as a requirement in scripture for pastors, per se. Nevertheless, are you not judging almost all pastors by the goodness of their preaching? Right theology and orthodoxy is hard to overestimate, but it is not the measure when what we want to know is how they counsel in private, and what the effect is. In this, your desire to know the divorce rates of individual churches would be more telling than their preaching. Of course, to find these things out, you have to attend.
6) In what other servant-master relationships should we hold to this abject confession model? I’ll tell you where I’ve seen it before: rebellious wives who hold their husbands in contempt. Using this same excuse, they leave their husbands; often not even for what they do now, but for what they’ve done in the past and have not “properly apologized and confessed”. Using this same criticism, children rebel from their “hypocritical parents”. In this same way, employees excuse their slack. Is the goal our satisfaction at their at these pastor’s debasement (“Ok, he said what I wanted to hear. You can get up, Jim.”), or is it for them to go the right direction? And to Whom is it really owed that they turn around?
@Novaseeker says:
June 17, 2013 at 7:38 am
That was a great posting, except it seems to accept the same heresy that is causing the problems in the church.
To state that a heresy exists, one must be able to define the heresy plainly and simply. And, most heresies are very simple, but very attractive. Which is why they are successful.
Here is the heresy that has destroyed Christianity in the US:
EFFECTIVE MALE LEADERSHIP INITIATES FEMALE SUBMISSION.
This fails by using common sense. But, more importantly, it fails biblically.
So, how did something so obviously wrong take over the churches of one or more nations? Simply put, men want to believe they are manly men, so it seems ‘logical’ that a manly man can make a woman submit by his manly personality. Hee, hee.
The truth is: FEMALE SUBMISSION INITIATES EFFECTIVE MALE LEADERSHIP.
Item 1: In Genesis, God, not Adam, was Eve’s leader. Unless you wish to state that God was a lousy leader, the only conclusion one can draw is that effective leadership by God was unable to initiate submission and obedience by Eve. But, Driscoll and Co. think ordinary husbands can do it, if they only man up.
Item 2 and 3 etcetera: In several places, the Bible refers to contentious women, and says things like it is better to live on a roof top than to live with a contentious woman. E.g. – Proverbs 21:0; 21:19; 25:24; 27:15. Nowhere does the Bible tell a man if he “leads” she will cease being contentious. Nor does the Bible give any effective way of a man controlling his contentious wife. If you are not clear what contentious means, see http://www.wisereaction.org/contentious_woman.htm A formerly contentious woman explains it very well.
Item 4: Starting roughly at Ephesians 5:22, there is a very clear imperative command for wives to submit to their husbands. The corresponding imperative command for men is to love their wives. The heresy often spends a lot of time in Ephesians, confusing Informative verses about the need for men to be the leaders, with an imperative command, Husbands, lead your wives. When all it is doing it telling everyone that men are to be the leaders.
There are other examples in the Bible of rebellious wives who did not respond to their husband’s attempts at leadership. The heresy simply blames the men, Moses et al. As if women are mindless ninnies who are incapable of making a moral decision to do wrong. The Bible says no one is righteous, no, not even one. It does not say no man is righteous but all wives are.
If any of you have a knee jerk reaction that what I am saying is nonsense, that is to be expected. When Satan causes a heresy, it spreads like wildfire. You have lived in a heresy culture most of your lives. The heresy support group is in the tens of millions in size. Why would you not be suckered in by it?
For much more detailed Biblical information, coupled with real life examples, obtain a copy of: ME? OBEY HIM? by Elizabeth Handford, a pastor’s wife, back in print on Amazon. She nails it, and she provides the supporting Bible sources in much greater detail. Her husband was getting requests for marital counseling from married couples, and was having no luck. His wife volunteered to help out, and her solution was: WIVES SUBMIT TO YOUR HUSBANDS. It worked when tried.
In the second edition she destroys all the usual female rationalization why it will not work. Summarized (my summary, not hers) as, God is clearly stupid and had no idea just how bad my husband is. Hee, hee.
Whoever sets the rules for the debate will always win the debate. If you debate these heretics while accepting their assumption that men manning up will somehow change their rebellious wives you will lose; lose; lose. And, it is not true.
Most MRA debates seem to accept this false premise. Until the truth sets you free, you are wasting your time debating. Attack the heresy.
No, I am not going to debate or argue about this. I have been studying this topic now for 29 years since a pastor told a man who later called me for help, that his wife’s adultery was HIs fault.
Another way to put it is, what is the modern clergy more afraid of, God or the New York Times? I think we all know the answer.
I agree. There is no secret binding for-life contract for men and women. Sure sounds like more Peter Nolan Bravo Sierra.
If you can get a woman to sign something like that, and she honors it, excellent. But, the document has no value beyond her acceptance of it. The minute she dials 911 and says, “I’m afraid,” you life is over, also your marriage.
@Cane Caldo
As I’m reading your argument you are asserting that public repentance isn’t required for public acts, since this would amount to a confession. Therefore (as I understand it), you are suggesting that I assume that a pastor who has done this in the past has probably repented unless I can specifically point to where he continues to do so. This is a giant game of churchian whackamole and denial, and it is exactly why we are in the present disaster. The problem is pandemic, and it is wrapped in intense denial. Even worse, great pains are taken to give the appearance of fighting the culture while avoiding doing anything which would truly threaten the status quo. We simply can’t burn through 40 years of denial and sleight of hand by assuming the problem went away. Those men who are the moral leaders in this area can help those who failed the worst by leading the charge, and they can only do this in a public way.
I don’t have any specific knowledge about Pastor Baucham either way, but I admit that I am skeptical that a widely accepted pastor has avoided this trap entirely. Our present Christian culture is so thoroughly corrupt in this way it would take a herculean task. But stipulating that Pastor Baucham has avoided this trap altogether in his career, then no repentance is required on his part; but where is he calling out all of the other pastors who are doing this to repent for succumbing to what he has to know is a massive temptation? Show me that and I’ll be delighted with him. What won’t impress me is arguments that he is really really concerned about the matter, but doesn’t want to ruffle any feathers. Likewise an explanation that he is so godly he hasn’t noticed the rampant corruption surrounding him.
Emphasis mine:
I’m not arguing that everyone has to publicly confess everything, but there is some biblical backing to the idea that we are to confess our sins to one another (James 5:16). This is a problem of rampant corruption and denial, and the only way to deal with it is to get it out in the open. On the second bolded part, you misunderstand my intent. I want repentance so we can move past it. Until then it will only fester. Part of the problem is the temptation to continue avoiding the “sensitive” topics and throwing men under the bus is huge. As several others have noted, it is extremely common for pastors to acknowledge the error privately when approached only to continue doing the same thing. In addition, part of this is a failure of men to women, and that can’t be made right without owning up to it. It won’t make any sense to suddenly call out the rebellion the pastor has been coddling without acknowledging the coddling. The women will know it isn’t serious, and they will be further harmed. I’m not saying (as they say in politics) “throw the bums out”, I’m saying repent, and do so in a convincing way.
This is your strongest argument in my opinion, and I’m sensitive to the problem here. However, absent public repentance we will simply have more of the same. This isn’t a one time or a one decade problem. It is at least 40 years in the making. Men like Stanton and Mohler write the most rediculous things because they know it will be accepted by their peers, as it has been for decades. You want a public repentance from them but not from their lower profile peers. I would honestly far rather join a church run by a repentant Mohler than a pastor who says a lot of the right things but manages to avoid truly stepping on the toes of the rebellion. We need to get it out in the open so we can move past it.
Voddie Baucham recently was involved with a group of pastors in the development of a curriculum called the Art of Marriage. He worked with many luminaries in the evangelical world, including Dr. Albert Mohler. I have always liked Pastor Baucham until I saw him on video in this series (my husband and I recently went through this study at our church). It’s the same old same old. Lots of false information about what generates attraction, lots of “servant” leadership (i.e. supplication by husbands) and mutual submission.
Ecclesiastes 7:20 tells us:
Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.
There is no unusual shame in the fact that these pastors have made mistakes and have sinned in this area because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but they have to confess it. They need to say this publicly because they will need to explain why they are suddenly reversing course. They will need to say, “I am sorry but I was wrong about this. Now I will be teaching directly from God’s Word because it is the only source of truth. Cultural trends such as feminism are not a source of truth. My mistake.”
A solution: they need only repent in front of the men in the church. Then there is no AMOGing. Problem solved. Of course, the women excluded from such an event would raise a banshee-like howl the likes of which have never been heard in God’s Church before. Cowardly men would not be able to stand in the face of it.
@SunshineMary
Wow. My wife showed me the material on the Art of Marriage a while back. It was so bad I decided it wasn’t worth doing a post on it. Maybe it is worth a post after all.
Getting back to the more average pastor:
Leaving aside the immense harm these men are doing to innocent children, as well as men and women, what about the men themselves? How many of these men will ever be able to confront the problem under the current sweep-it-under-the-rug model? Part of what I hoped to achieve with this post was to help everyone, lay people and pastors alike, seriously process the magnitude of the error and the harm being caused here. I had to show how incredibly ugly this is, because as you know you can’t really repent from something without truly confronting it. Only imagining what true repentance would look like can break through the profound denial here. You know these men, and I think you know I’m right about this; absent something very painful they won’t confront the truth, because the truth is unimaginably ugly and the lie is so incredibly alluring. The point isn’t to break these men, but to free them from the death grip of corruption. Once they free themselves, they will be in a position to lead the rest of us. We need them to be free of this. They need to be free of this. Hundreds of millions of innocent children need them to be free of this. But we can’t get there without the painful humbling of repentance.
It is bad, but it’s not worth doing a post on without the videos, which are copyright-protected and can’t be posted. The absolute worst video segment was of a pastor that I actually know slightly, Dave Wilson, who pastors a church near the one I attend and is the the chaplain for the Detroit Lions, some of whom attend the same church as me; he’s been a guest speaker at our church, too. He has always been a devoted husband, a loving father, and a hard working man, but his wife told him that she was done with him on their wedding anniversary because he didn’t pay enough attention to her and make her feel all loved and tingly all the time. The entire segment was him repenting and teaching other men how to beg their wives to rate their performance. My husband nearly had to restrain me from getting up and walking out during that part.
@deti
1. Contracts, legal agreements, etc. which purport to govern a marriage will be enforced only to the extent that enforcement isn’t considered patently unfair as applied to the woman.
We’d have to discuss the concept of patently unfair, but perhaps I could direct your attention to BDSM style ‘non-consensual consent’ type documents and how they’ve held up in court after cupcake decided she was assaulted/battered/raped after signing such a document and filed a complaint. It’s a mixed bag, but thoroughly entertaining reading if you’re into macabre. No, it’s not marriage, but it’s a good example of contractual relationships with behavior that’s about four standard deviations from the norm.
2. Any contract provisions that purport to govern child custody, visitation or support will be null and void, and won’t be enforced at all, ever. The court will determine those issues based on the “best interests of the child” standard. Parents cannot contract away their obligations to support their child. As a practical matter, that prohibition applies mostly to fathers. That’s never, ever going to fly in any US family court anywhere, now or in any kind of future I can envision.
Perhaps you should say “Any contract provisions that purport to govern child custody, visitation or support that this court doesn’t agree with will be null and void, and won’t be enforced at all, ever.” Of the judges I’ve interviewed (and I only interviewed judges in writing this book), most were not assholes by any means and I went to lengths to interview a lot of female judges. Many of them were disgusted with the system they’re required to administer and all of them expressed an interest in seeing a more equitable system. I agree that parents cannot contract away their obligations to support their children, within reason. However, when two people agree on a no-fault divorce and work it all out themselves, the courts tend to accept their agreement if the agreed-upon terms meet the State’s guidelines for child support and visitation. If the assets stay with the one who has the children, courts tend to accept that regardless of the sex of the one who gets the kids.
3. A man won’t necessarily be able to avoid alimony by avoiding legal marriage. The courts will use the “duck” standard: If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. So, if it looks like a marriage, the man and woman were living together as married and holding themselves out as married, then they’re married in the eyes of the law, and alimony will be on the table.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It IS possible to waive rights in equitable contract. A great deal of emphasis will be placed on whether the parties were represented adequately by counsel and knowingly entered into said contract with clean hands, but the fact is, it does work. There are, of course, some jurisdictions in which it would be very difficult, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
There is a twist to this, though. If you have a jurisdiction that says ‘common law marriages are not valid’ and they require a marriage license to marry… it creates a legal dilemma. Because the parties are not required to obtain a license, if they marry without a license the question arises as to whether they are legally married or not. If the State recognizes their marriage, it’s recognized a marriage that’s obviously not a State-sanctioned licensed marriage. If the State refuses to recognize the marriage (such as when a man marries two or more women at the same time) then it’s a co-habitation agreement and to the extent the contract isn’t for sexual services, it’s going to be enforced. All of this, of course, is wrapped in a double-layer of religion such that anything other than enforcing the contract will guarantee the violation of somebody’s rights of religious free exercise. That’s a ticket to visit the Federal judiciary and it’s a wild card as well, just look at what the issue of religious rights did for homeschooling.
4. You can’t deprive a court of jurisdiction by stating in a contract that a court cannot assert jurisdiction over it or over the parties to the covenant. The entire point of a contract is that it can be legally enforced. A court asserts jurisdiction over the res, the object of the contract, and that res is the family or any member of it. Second, where the contract touches on family relationships, the court will assert jurisdiction over the disputes to facilitate “orderly” resolutions to the disputes.
I think you misapprehend what I said. First question is *who* is going to enforce the contract if the contract specifically calls for arbitration? Think of a contract which specifically disallows actions in court and requires all dispute resolution to be in binding arbitration, or restricts the litigation to a specific venue. If by way of contract a couple both waives their right to petition for divorce until certain criteria are met and the contract requires dispute resolution by an ecclesiastical court for any disputes in which the bar to dissolution has not been met due to the inherently religious nature of the contract, the only question before the court would be whether the specified criteria for dissolution was ‘unconscionable.’ One purpose of such a contract is to make virtually everything about the marriage a matter of fundamental right, such that the easiest thing for the court to do is enforce the contract.
The real problem is that in order for this to work, the church has to be supportive to the point of providing dispute resolution per 1st Corinthians 6. Most won’t. Even those that would are hamstrung because they aren’t really churches, they’re not for profit incorporated business entities, created by the State and completely at the mercy of the State with respect to the State’s laws. A real church can have an ecclesiastical court but churchporations can’t because if it isn’t in the corporate charter… said organization has no capacity to do so. See Hale v. Henkle, 201 US 43 (1906)
5. Family courts are courts of equity. That means what will rule the day are general principles of fairness based on presently existing facts and circumstances. A US family court will not use rigidly applied legal rules and principles except within a legal framework that gives that court a lot of discretion.
I agree to an extent, but family courts are not able to disregard well-settled issues of jurisprudence with impunity. Appeals courts have far greater respect for legal rules and principles, and family court decisions and orders are subject to appeal. A contract of the type I’m talking about establishes not only an agreement but the frame of mind of the individuals who signed it at the time they signed it. If care is taken and both parties enter into the contract with full knowledge of what they’re doing and the specific nature of their agreement, it places the individuals involved in a position in which the easiest thing to do if they really want out is to fulfill the terms of the agreement.
If that happens, the one who wants out can leave, but with respect to the disposition of the assets and children the court is right back in the middle of a case involving significant fundamental rights with a contract in which asset distribution and child custody is already agreed upon. While children in the US are treated as chattel property in divorce proceedings, they also have rights and one of those rights is to be raised within their faith. If one parent renounces their faith and leaves, how can the Christian children be required to go with the unbelieving spouse who left when both parties specifically agreed the children should be raised in a Christian home?
In closing, this is taken from my notes from an interview with a judge in Alabama. I met him at his home and we sat on his front porch and had a conversation that lasted for several hours in the early evening while consuming the better part of a fifth of whiskey. We parted amicably and he called the police for me, an officer arriving within a few minutes who cheerfully drove me to my motel. The manager of the Motel drove me to the Judge’s house the following morning to retrieve my car.
“The entire system might be screwed up, but you’ll always be better off defending a position resting on fundamental rights with a signed contract than with nothing but he-said she-said…”
(later) “You may love your wife and want to stay married to her, but if she comes before my court wanting a divorce I’ll need to have a damn good reason not to give her whatever she wants. Women talk and they vote.”
What would you consider a good reason?
“Show me a solid, defensible reason, a guarantee of a messy appeal if I rule against you and a basis in fact that would play hell with my voter base.”
In other words, if it’s a choice between pissing off the Southern Baptists as a group or one woman… you’ll enforce the marital contract?
“Damn straight I will, provided you hire a good local lawyer to defend you. You try to do this pro se and I’ll give her what she wants and take my chances, contract be damned.”
@Dalrock
I think we’re miscommunicating somewhere: If the crime is committed against the public, then the confession is due the public. If the crime is committed against a local church body, then it is due the local church body. If against you, to you. Your post itself walks this line, but it seems to me the follow-up comments move from being conspicuous about who should repent into blanket condemnation. I’m extremely sympathetic to this mindset, but we should still hew to the innocent-until-proven-guilty model here. We should be ready to call out any and every instance of the betrayal and denial. It is not playing whackamole to only call out those who we truly know are in actual rebellion. The scorched-earth mentality is not just. Even when God wanted to torch Gomorrah He counted it to Abraham’s righteousness that He pleaded for restraint.
It seems to me that the “churchian whackamole” theme is particularly unfair and blames those who try to do right; when the whackamole phenomenon is the fault of those who won’t repent, and those who give them outright cover. We are not called to “efficient restructuring of institutions”, but to love one another.
Nor is the onus on every pastor to go around calling out the sins of every other pastor. They each have their own flocks. However; that does not preclude them from straightening out their own denominations, and therefore their doctrines. That ought to be done. The problem for someone like Mohler is that his denomination’s doctrine is sound. His flock, however, don’t give a crap.
I think Christian charity demands that we treat those who do well as if they do well, yes. By all means: Dig into their pasts and currents. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to write a church, “Our family is considering your church. What is your stance on the primacy of the Biblical roles of manhood, womanhood, marriage, etc.?”
As I said, I find him Job-like. He comes from a Buddhist single mother, became a Christian in college, and shortly thereafter a pastor; through the black churches. That matters because black churches don’t teach what white churches teach on men, women, and marriage. I believe his current church membership is only 500; despite his Internet popularity. He is popular in the same way Dalrock is popular, and I did say he does call out pastors for their rejection of Scriptures.
In a way he’s beside the point, but not really: What I’m wondering is if you’re really so interested in finding good, Godly messages with a consistent pastoring to match: Why haven’t you been anxious to find out if the good news is true? The witchhunt (and there are plenty of witch-pastors) will still be here when you get back. Please: Destroy my conceptions! Do your worst, seriously, and post them here.
The private acknowledgment is a problem. As I hopefully made clear above, I’m not suggesting we be satisfied with that. It’s possible that I have misunderstood your intent, but I do get the impression that you want the confession posted somewhere, or a continuing onslaught of pastor against pastor until they’re all sorted. That is unsustainable. They have to shepherd their flocks, too, and that means spending a lot more time dealing with the flocks problems than with confronting other pastors in rebellion…though we could certainly stand with a good bit of it.
But I am saying WE have to make the bums throw US out; to be there ready to hear and encourage repentance. Who do you think they are going to repent to? I agreed with your original post, that most of them need to repent, and even what that confession of repentance would look like. I’m saying we have to be there for the confession for it to matter to us. We have be willing to get involved for the confession to matter. The point of my comment wasn’t that it’s none of our business, but that until we make it our business, then what business is it of ours? That means getting involved. Well, before we get involved we have to make serious marriage-like considerations of exactly what body we are marrying.
What I read as your method of a posted or recorded confession is the only thing that will cut it for Dalrock in choosing a church–and Dalrock has a TON of influence. (The reason I think this is [among other things] because you seem to have ignored the guy [Baucham] I’ve recommended to you in good faith.) The final analysis is paralysis then: You can’t trust any accept those that confess, but those who need to won’t. Those who have no need to confess are suspect because they haven’t confessed. It’s Joseph Heller’s version of church finding.
It’s the same advice I’d give to any servant. “Do what he says; don’t do what he does.” When Jesus confronts the pharisees, it is usually while He is in the temple.
@SSM and Dalrock
Never heard of it. I look forward to your review, and I’ll check it out to.
@SSM
I’ve never heard one shred of such nonsense from Baucham. That being said: I’m hearing your words as filtered through the lexicon of these blogs; not Mr. Wilson’s. I’ve never heard of him.
To be expected, but a bummer. Also, I’m sorry, but Donal’s LAMPS vector stuff ain’t scriptural. Nor is “generating attraction” in general.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. It is badly taught by many, but leading as a servant is exactly to what you keep linking on my blog. Catchphrases are helpful, but we can’t just thumb our noses because we hear a phrase we don’t like. A message of servant leadership could be good if the restraints and conditions of leadership and service are well-defined.
Sorry, Cane, I wasn’t very clear on what I was objecting to about The Art of Marriage. Of course you are right; servant leadership is quite proper when properly understood. It is not properly understood in the modern church and its application to marriage is thus generally damaging. What you are describing as servant leadership is biblical and doesn’t make women despise men. I do wish you could see the videos; Mrs. Wilson is an unbelievable shrew and she is presented in these videos as being right and justified because her husband has not exhibited proper servant leadership. You can see a tiny bit of the video clip of her at 3:34 on this overview of the series.
I’m looking at my copy of the TAoM workbook, and it shows Pastor Wilson sitting, head down in a very submissive pose. while Mrs. Wilson stands over him embracing him, arms around him. Their roles are totally reversed. He looks properly chastised, despite being a large, muscular man who pastors the freakin’ Detroit Lions, for heaven’s sake. She’s got him totally whipped, and ladies, she’s gonna teach you how to do it, too! It is a great disappointment to me that Pastor Baucham was involved with this.
And here is one of the little vignettes that is part of the series:
Also, I’m looking at page 40 in the book, at a list of 25 ways that a man should spiritually lead his wife and family. Some of the 25 are quite proper, but then there are ones like this:
I’m not saying any of these are necessarily bad (except for the third one; my lawd, if HHG ever did that, I’d fall on the floor laughing at the sappiness of it. And that’s because I’m actually very attracted to him. If I found him unattractive, that right there would freeze any remaining vestiges of my desire for him.). What I am saying is that these things have nothing to do with a man exercising authority or (servant) leadership in his family, so why present it that way? Especially in front of the women; how many ladies left there filled with the spirit of the Bitch Goddess whispering, “Why doesn’t your husband ever “lead” you on a weekend getaway like those pastors say he should? Why, he’s a bad leader, that’s what he is. And God would not expect me to submit to a bad leader who never takes me on weekend getaways!”
I’ll stop derailing this thread real soon here, but I just want to share a little more about Pastor Dave and Ann Wilson (of Kensington Church; the church we are members of, Northridge Church, has a very close relationship with Kensington). These are the folks that Dr. Albert Mohler and Pastor Voddie Baucham made The Art of Marriage with. Notice the date on this video; they gave this sermon in 2011, in which she appear to repent of her bitchiness. Then notice the date on the Art of Marriage, in which she is applauded for tearing into her husband in the same way she speaks against at the PAO conference: 2012. She hasn’t repented of anything. Perhaps someone should email a copy of Dalrock’s post to Pastor Dave Wilson.
Pastor Baucham perhaps should read this post, too, and repent of his involvement with the Art of Marriage. Which I say with great sadness, because I had admired him very much.
in which she appear to = in which she appears to
I stopped having any interest in Voddie Baucham when I found out he was involved with this garbage. Just seeing the names of the ones he signed on with to do this says enough: Dennis Rainey, Mark Driscoll, Bill Bennett, Matt Chandler, and Joshua Harris. I haven’t researched the others enough, but that list tells me enough (along with the name of it) to know what garbage it is.
You can’t say you’ve ever lost money, churchgoers or followers by railing on men to man-up and submit to their wives.
@SSM
This is precisely what I am arguing against in these comments. Men standing ready to rub small circles on the backs of their pastors while they weep for their transgressions.
Those of you following the Catholic/Anglican lectionary this Sunday: King David cuckolded a man, had him murdered to cover it up, married the woman, and only confessed when confronted by God’s prophet, Nathan. Then, “David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”
No apology to dead Uriah–who was a steadfast servant/soldier of David. No apology to Bathsheba. No apology to his soldiers that David forced to abandon Uriah. Just: “I have sinned against the Lord.” When David’s child died,
This is what repentance looks like, but who in our age would accept it? There’s not a back-rub to be found! I’m being a bit unfair here, but I am trying to make a point.
I’m going through the Art of Marriage website now. It looks pretty bad; which I would expect from this cast of characters, with the notable exception of Baucham.
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Father’s Day & First Day of Summer Week Mini-Linkfest | Patriactionary
Off the Art of Marriage website:
All I needed to see to see what a piece of crappy-crap-crap it is.
@SSM
On what grounds? That Baucham was invited to say something, and then he said something good while everyone else said something bad?
Even better: Should we expect you to repent of your church, demand to your husband that you both resign from your church, under penalty of resignation of SSM from HHG? What’s the logic there?
@ballista
No it’s not. What we say matters. I share this combox with all manner of folks, at Dalrock’s grace. They are not a reflection on what I have to say.
By the way, ballista, your blog is one big man-up screed; just in the manner of MGTOW. I think that’s great. It’s still a call to man-up. For goodness sakes, man: You’ve taken your name and your blog’s name for a dude who man’s-up to spear the sinners. Manning-up is what men do. Love it.
Find me something clearly errant that Baucham has said.
Comment boxes are different than what Baucham is involved with. To use the blog equivalent, what Baucham is doing is more like if I (or you) started partnering with someone else in blog posts or allowed guest posts. It implies approval by association that a blog post exists on your blog. He may have not reviewed the material, but there’s implied agreement by choosing to partner with these guys.
Not really. It’s more a “live up to God and his standards” screed. Much different. Besides, if you want to use the lingo, “man-up” always means “mangina-up”. Submit to your wife. Don’t be the man God called you to be. Be the sniveling pathetic little lickspittle. That’s what passes for a “real man” now in the church.
BTW, when that program got introduced, I found two or three items on their blog pretty quickly that would rival the Mark Driscoll stuff Dalrock’s dealt with. But after you’ve seen so many man-up and marry the sluts rants, they all start sounding alike and getting boring.
@ballista
You’re cherry-picking. I link here. You link here. We comment here. I even “Like’d” this post, and still do. I don’t see much difference.
You realize that Dalrock has over 5 MILLION hits in two-three years, right? This isn’t “just a blog”.
You’re playing definitional games. Is it truly your position that living up to God and His standards is not living in a manly way? Is it not fair to equate the phrase, “living in a manly way”, to “man-up”? Of course it is. You happen to not LIKE the phrase “man-up”; to which I can only say: “I don’t care. It is what it is.”
I’m sure you agree that all men need to continually grow towards God and His standards. That man-up process is good for Him. Men know this fact about themselves and they respond to it. They want to be told they CAN man-up. They want this in the same way that women want to be submissive to a leader they respect. Nobody who has ever asked me for advice has asked me: “How can I just, you know, quit?” Game trades on this desire. Psychology trades on this desire. Church feminists trade on it too. That doesn’t make the desire to man-up bad anymore than woman wanting dick is bad because some of them bang alphas.
@SSM
The clip of Doug and Ann Wilson is heinous. That woman doesn’t belong anywhere near a microphone. Pruning…
However; I don’t see what’s wrong with the Counselor Vignette. What did you see that turned you off?
It’s very tempting to want to switch off people who use Christianese, but I didn’t immediately catch anything in the Counselor Vignette video that was un-Scriptural. No mutual submission talk. The counselor showed the man that he really should have a complaint against his wife. When the wife tried to protest, the counselor interrupted her and stated again that, yes, she was the problem. He reinforced their individual responsibilities to play their role regardless of what the other is doing…seemed downright Ephesians-like to me.
No, I don’t want anyone to resign from anything. And you’ll notice my husband had me sitting through this whole study because he wanted the chance to talk about it with the people in the small groups we all broke up into after the videos. HHG says we go, so we go. And believers are told in Hebrews 10:25 to go, so we must go.
Is your objection to pastors publicly repenting that it will damage their authority with their congregations? But if they don’t repent soon and change course, it will be a moot point, as women are taking over the pastorate in practically every denomination. Would you object to female pastors repenting publicly, too?
There were things in the video that he said that startled me, coming from him, but I don’t have access to the videos. But I don’t agree with you that his speaking on their videos is analogous to you commenting here. He was putting his name and reputation as a Pastor on this product. Would you say the same if Muslims asked him to speak on their video of Koranic teaching? ‘Course not.
Ewww, yuck. I certainly don’t want that. They needn’t weep. They can just say they were wrong, repent, and move on. Preferably in front of the men only. No circle-rubbing of any kind should ensue.
But you know what? I could accept them not publicly repenting if only they would show evidence of such repentance by immediately and unequivocally changing course.
OK, on that note, I’m truly bowing out of this conversation. I know your opinion, Cane, on women even weighing in on these matters, and I actually share your opinion about that, which of course does not keep me from doing it anyway.
If you find any pastors in Southern California who will sign this confessional, who ask other pastors to sign it… let me know. It’s be great to go to a living church, when so many churches locally seem to be more of the undead kind.
Well, I can’t stop talking if you keep asking me questions. 🙂
The wife in the video is disrespectful. She withholds sex. She has dragged her husband to a marriage counselor, a male one at that, which is the ultimate in being AMOGed. The counselor says the husband is the problem (though he later says the wife is, too) but I didn’t see that he had done anything wrong.
“Is your objection to pastors publicly repenting that it will damage their authority with their congregations?”
That is the question in the end, for all pastors. And many church’s pastors have answered wrong, and found out that not repenting of one’s sins is a quick way to become a lukewarm church or worse.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/06/19 | Free Northerner
@Dalrock I assure you and the few individuals that aren’t tip toeing around in comments on your blog… commenting about repentence… that the ones you wish would ‘repent’ have sold their soul before they began. They enjoy the power of utilizing wasted talent on small circles of influence. It’s like local politician that really could’ve gone George Clooney on the world… But instead sold his soul for a much smaller price and settled for a smaller pond, surrounded by the accolades of the illusion of influence. The toxic wimps that continue to feed this nonsense are the exact kind that’ve caused the ‘evil’ so many of them complain about because of their fear of being influential where it really counts. In their chosen life of waining testosterone due to habits proven to cause their obesity… In the midst of their obsessive sports watching… after being a good one by doing more around the house, following the old John Gray handbooks, they’re given permission to go see ‘Man of Steel’ and they cheer yet fail to see the thousand names listed. Those names create influence that affects the whole world. The wimps receive their accolades, and I have waited long enough for them to change. I’ve let go of embedding the narratives with concepts that’ve protected them from the consequences of their little words. The music, the shows, the books, the news… None of it will allow them to be the little respected wimp leaders anymore. My teams are thousands of individuals, and we’ve refocused the work. As for those leaders that’ve been protected by the narratives I and my teams have been responsible for… The content we have influenced will go away. Every show, every narrative is done then it is on air or in print or… But it all has a limited cycle unless it’s Supeman and the justice league, but we won’t get into that. Just know that the wimps writing all this ridiculous ‘they mean well’ and ‘they just don’t realize’ — please, @Dalrock, cut it out. These ‘leaders’ are aware, and now no one, not even Oprah, will protect them from the truth that will be revealed. Oprah and Deepak Chopra have a plan that doesn’t include these ‘leaders’ that are in fact trying to hitchhike a ride. It won’t happen.
The leaders you want to see ‘repent’ have thrown enough stones at the influential. When Deepak and I talk, he knows my intention (and yours too Dalrock) and he is putting his resources toward what I do. The leaders your commenters wrote about would never do this because they’re less than warm, and that causes vomit.
@ livefearless
I don’t understand what your talking about.
Yeah I didn’t get into the direct topic of the post, but I probably should. I wouldn’t hold my breath that any of these figures repent. As I noted, it’s all about the money, it’s all about the power, it’s all about the prestige, it’s all about being worshiped as a “god man”. None of these figures would throw any of that away for being right with God. They are the ones that clean the outside of the cup and platter and leave the inside of the cup to be disgusting. They are the whitewashed sepulchres but inside are full of death and uncleanness.
Where the repentance needs to lie is with the people that are supporting this garbage. You can cry and wail and moan all you want but if you go on and support them either directly or peripherally, you are just to blame for the wickedness as they! I hear and read things like this all the time, yet the same people never act on their voiced convictions, and that’s why this stuff continues. Stop justifying these men and start justifying God! Stop supporting these ravenous jackals that are only doing these things to please men (specifically women)! As it is written: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
sunshinemary says:
June 18, 2013 at 10:12 pm
“Discover her top three needs and over the next twelve months go all out to meet them.”
Big trouble if her need is to lose 50 pounds and get in shape. lolzlolzlolzzz
@SSM
I’d be perfectly happy if all phony pastors just sat down. Female pastors, by definition, are phony.
To the larger point: I think you’re misunderstanding me. I agreed with Dalrock’s post. It is his follow-up comments and replies that I’m arguing with.
Also, his method of discernment of repentance. Lady, I don’t even know the name of the pastor of the church two blocks from my house; much less if he’s ever publicly repented of a sin which I don’t know FOR SURE he committed. I have never asked a pastor if they’ve repented of lust in the heart while in the pulpit. Is that a public crime, or private? It has to happen: I see the dresses some churchwomen wear. Dalrock seems to be taking the stance that any pastor who has any measure of success is guilty until proven innocent of the crime of aiding-and-abetting Feminism in the first degree. I’m saying I’ve seen no proof of it. Furthermore: As of 2012 Baucham’s church had 500 members. If you know anything about churches, that’s nothing; particularly for a man who has been on TV as far back as 2008. If huge numbers are the sign of betrayal and capitulation (and they often are) then why aren’t we seeing a 10,000 member congregation?
I say it’s because he’s the real deal. More than that: I’m asking FOR some incriminating words…in context, please. Even the Lord gets taken out of context, and it’s no slight on Him.
I wouldn’t let anyone say anything bad about Dalrock unless they could show me consistent proof. It wouldn’t surprise me if others were embarrassed for me in the way I’m always promoting for him. For all I know, he might get promotions at work by accusing his bosses of trumped-up HR violations. But if someone’s going to try to sell me on that, they’d better have some evidence of him actually doing so before I’m even going to say, “Yeah, that wasn’t great thing to do.”
Until the parallel is shown of Baucham, I don’t give a damn about anyone’s proof-of-guilt-by-association.
Quick show of hands here of those out there baptizing others in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Who is offering communion? Who is passing out Bibles? Who is regularly visiting invalids? Who is regularly visiting prisoners? Who is organizing week-in-week-out food pantries? Who is making sure hymnals are in the pews? Who is conducting weddings? Who is blessing babies? Even more: Who is conducting funerals? Who is willing to pray with every pathetic slob of a man or woman who comes through the door? Are these unworthy endeavors if they are done by men who are largely unwitting criminals of Feminism?
Should they know better? Yes, in my opinion. Not that my opinion means a whole lot. I look around at the great majority of men and think, “All these assholes are pathetic.” I have to try to avoid picking up chicks. There’s no reason except that I use my brains to think about how people really respond instead of how to prove I’m so much better than everyone else–the consummate nerd/STEM shortsightedness. “All those girls keep going after losers who drink and smoke. I’ll show them by doing their math homework!” Real men of genius, they are not. Neither are pastors; most of whom are fellow nerds. Those pastors still think the same thing the nerds do. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t come straight out and say: Nerds only get play for pay. It’s in there, though.
Finally, let’s not forget these are early days. Most here did not know these things two years ago; much less in some cases–and they were raised in the same culture that produced these pastors. Seminary is not for studying your Bible. It’s for scholastic tutelage just like any other college. What we as a society have collectively put into those men, we get out. That being said: Whenever and wherever we see an ACTUAL need for repentance, and not a general complaint about the state of things, then we ought to call for confession of it. Write Mohler about his wife worship. Write Stanton about his daughter worship. Write Driscoll about his single-mother worship. If you know a pastor down the street is saying something heretical: Write him too. Ask for their repentance.
What we don’t have is a standing order to demand repentance before we ourselves do what we believe is right. That’s the heart of the trouble of rebellion. It’s justified in the eye of the self-righteous servant; as wives feel justified in withholding their submission to their unworthy husbands. The truth is that the wife may win her husband without a word if she is obedient. I haven’t even gone that far in saying parishioners should be silent, but I am saying you have to be a parishioner before you can bring someone to repentance.
I thought it was well-done. The husband–like many husbands here–are blindsided. He’s say’s “We have sex 9 times a year”, yet he rates the marriage a 6 out of 10! How many stories do we hear about men saying, “I don’t know what happened. She divorced me out of nowhere!” Two months of reading later, they say, “Oh my God, I was so beta I turned her off totally, and I didn’t even know it.”
Yes, the counselor tells the man first, “You’re the problem.” The man waits to see what else the counselor is going to say. He turns to the wife and says, “You’re the problem.”, same as he did to the husband. She starts to argue, and the counselor cuts her off and tells her that she’s going to have to accept it.
Seemed downright Red Pill.
Enough for tonight.
@TFH
Nolan had the idea in his head that Magna Carta granted him certain freedoms, that effectively put him outside the ambit of The State. And who was going to enable his outlaw-ness? Why the State of course courtesy of Magna Carta. [Shakes head] As we used to say as schoolboys ‘You and whose Army?’.
LiveFearless, any chance you have a link to that post by Victor Pride? I’ve been reading him for about a year and haven’t come across that one yet. He’s dead on accurate, but I never thought it was a topic he’d write on.
I was reading some of the comments on “Art of Marriage” when I couldn’t sleep this morning. Disgusting.
Is it just my sleep deprived mind, or does the church generally not expect women to repent of anything? The church treats women as if they’re somehow outside of the fall. How is a wife pulling what that Lion’s chaplain’s wife did acceptable in any context? (I know, it’s rhetorical, since keeping the wife haaaaaaaapy is the Christian husband’s imperative, even though it’s impossible- trust me, I tried. My ex-wife was impossible to make haaaaaaaaapy.)
I remember a church business meeting I was at several years ago. The leadership was toying with the idea of removing the word “Baptist” from the church sign because it was a huge turn off to the community. Legalists got PISSED! because somewhere in the Bible is the 11th commandment: Thou shalt have the word “Baptist” on thy marquee or thou ain’t a real God fearing, honoring church.
A new couple got up to say that they drove by the church many times and were afraid to come in because the image of “Baptist” they had. A woman stood up and yelled “If you didn’t like the sign, you should have kept driving!”
Pastor talked her down, and spent lots of time after the meeting trying to make her haaaaaaapy again. Never once was she called to repent of the sins of inhospitality, and idolatry.
Great deal of hair splitting here regarding repentance. Dalrock proposes that (some/most) pastors need to repent of a certain set of sins, sins that create and propagate sins that result in ruined families and manifest then in social pathologies as the children of generations of that rot are perpetually maladjusted.
I didn’t read every post following Cane’s first one. I didn’t see any specific and clear reference to the purpose and intended result of the confession and repentance Dalrock proposes. Repentance would be for the benefit of the pastor(s). In that narrow sense Cane is correct regarding the actual repentance aspect. It is arguable if repentance outwardly to others, groups and public, is even required or real for that matter. Confession, however, is.
And confession in this case is so much more than when one person confesses to another having done wrong to and against them…going to the brother and sorting things out, etc. Because in this confession the confession would necessarily be part admission and part explanation, and the explanation part would then be the beginning of the corrective action. Those listening to a pastor confess these things would, in the main, think he lost his marbles. he’d be “confessing” to the stuff they embrace and believe and saying it’s been wrong. Think of the crowds reaction. This isn’t a pastor crying and admitting an affair or something. This is him telling people he has been lying to them, that he KNEW deep down he was lying (or in some cases a pastor may not have known) He is telling them he has pandered and created family ruination systematically, over the course of lifetimes, because this sin is so subtle and so sweet is sells and sounds so much like truth. It is also conventional wisdom, and when sin and lies become conventional wisdom, there IS NO OTHER remedy but full on confession.
The is not even about the pastor at that point. Concern over his confession, should it be public, private, semi private, is irrelevant. he needs to fix the damned problem! It does no such thing as harm his authority, it enhances it and claims it….maybe for the first time he will actually HAVE authority as his words then align with those found in scripture and he can finally preach at and to everyone clearly. Imagine it, the women dragging the men to other churches trying to find a pastor who is still stuck on stupid in this way.
I have said before, when a pastor told me why he preaches the way he does on submission and divorce was because his wife was in the crowd, I knew for sure then that I had been right in my thinking.
The most important thing for the pastor is he repents and is forgiven. The most important thing for the body is that those among us sold out and bought into the lies he will lay bare will also be called to repent, and consistent teaching, not right with truth, will, just as teaching has done for generations on all other matters, lead many, not all, to see the the reality and re-order their own lives.
Pretty much this is all a daydream anyway if we believe what the bible says about the big picture. But that it could happen sometime, somewhere, is also inevitable for the same reason, the bible says so. Not specific to this issue, but generally, and it is undeniable this IS an over arching issue.
or is it for them to go the right direction? And to Whom is it really owed that they turn around?
Yes. It is for them to go the right direction. The analogy to the wife shaming her husband with confession doesn’t work. A pastor and his flock (of individuals) is not a husband and his wife (an individual, always one individual). The pastor has not broken a covenant with the church per se.
As to whom it is owed that he turn around? No one. The husband owes the wife, assuming he has a real infraction, through the covenant of the marriage. The pastors debt is to the Lord regarding truth. But would we not say the Shepard OWES the sheep safe leading?
As to Baucham he seems to be OK, and I would not throw babies with bathwater. I can still say that he has an obligation to try and correct the direction of the others more proactively. He may not be guilty by association, but he harms his good words, and he endorses the wrong words of others which is a problem. Shunning him may be counter productive but i understand those who choose to do so.
This right here is why I love the manosphere. BTW, some of you might remember me from a certain Christian blog that closed down about 8 months ago.
@Cane
There is a well worn game here, where Christian leaders pretend to be following Scripture while shying away from really doing it. They use catchphrases designed to seem biblical to hide a message that is anything but. The particular catch phrase is one of the bright red signs that we are dealing with someone who wants to finesse their way past the hard truth, with plausible deniability. If you challenge them, they play dumb. “What do you mean? What is wrong with servant leadership?” This is the game. I’m baffled as to why you have chosen to play it. You know this game as well as anyone.
@Empath
Brilliantly put.
@ Dalrock:
Happy third blogiversary!
Empath
It would violate the essence of who they are. But as the truth became a way of life they would feel like being with super powers. Those red pill eyes would see and hear so much that was hidden. What used to frighten or anger them would bring laughter. Other things would bring the proper indifference. The word of god would be so clear and vices would lose their grip on their lives.
Regarding catchphrases. In this case it must be jettisoned. Period. Because you can’t put the paste back in the tube. Period. If I could html fonts I’d write “servant” in massive letters and “leader” in tiny barely readable font to illustrate what is heard when that is spoken. We got into this a little on the emotional needs thing at my place. We have to consider what people, women, hear. This is decidedly not me saying we need to communicate LIKE women. It is to say we need to accommodate how they hear, how the hamster exploits language, and leave no alternative route but truth. That cannot be accomplished, ever, using the term servant leader, never mind that it is accurate. Not using it is not the same as disagreeing with it.
Cane, I get (mostly) your version of man-up and I agree with you. Dropping the lexicon that undermines men is not acquiescence to it nor is it rebuttal of it but rather its simply choosing to communicate it more effectively. Its a big mistake to get married to certain catch phrases when their omission can be powerful. The preacher using that term isn’t doing so because it is accurate anyway. He is doing it expressly because he knows it is safe, it flies.
@Eric S. Mueller – the @Victor Pride quote is here: http://bit.ly/13SNNNO … once there, type the word Christianity into the search box at the top right. This pulls up the article. Doing this will trend the article up in general searches.
Thanks for asking about that quote. The Victor Pride concept is the only one online that will rapidly change each man into the kind of man that attracts women and makes a huge difference in the world. This $9 book is changing lives. Any man of ‘faith’ that has not bought this book http://www.lifegivingshow.com and applied its requirements is evil (and, simply, a loser)
@Michael “Hollywood” is an illusion by design. It’s not a city, it is a philosophical concept that does what seems like magic to affect what Jor El would call “consciousness” of every individual and thing around the world. Instead of selling my soul, I chose to influence the most popular narratives which have later become the content embedded into the thoughts of people around the world.
They that teach and those that claim to have ‘values’ have continued to be abusive. They’ve never read the list of thousands of names and ‘job’ titles at the end of a movie like ‘Man of Steel’ … so they have never thought to encourage parents to send their sons to “Hollywood” to do ‘jobs’ where global influence via popular media comes from (even if filmed elsewhere)
So, the anonymous protective forces that have kept the popular content from being so far ‘gone’ into destroying the “minds and hearts” of people with ‘values’ … we have quit. Because the wimps have not followed http://www.lifegivingshow.com , with the simple concepts that take seven minutes to learn, fools like the leader categories mentioned in this THOUGHTFUL and intelligent post by @Dalrock… those fools written about will continue to be funded in their path with intention to destroy.
@Michael, now that we have quit, we’ve regrouped and you’ll see these ‘leaders’ @Dalrock refers to as they find themselves exposed. They will be abandoned and humiliated by those they actually worship (like Deepak Chopra) —
You’re worried about their souls when they sold their souls a long time ago. Since then, they’ve been too busy destroying everyone else’s soul in the name of saving souls. Less than warm, not hot, not cold … becomes rotten, so it becomes vomit. That’s the sum of their lives: Vomit.
Who complains the most about “Hollywood” but has refused to do the learning, thinking and mastering of talent and skills to create what influences from “Hollywood” ?
People that claim to be ‘of Faith’ … They never last here. It’s too difficult for most. They would rather seek advice from the losers that encourage men to do what causes testosterone to disappear.
Yes, all the personal relationship with Jesus” language is another great illustration. It’s safe because while one who doesn’t think things through and accepts things at face value can take it to be something accurate, while the majority takes it to be something so totally heretical as to be like an atom bomb on any body of believers. The phrase gets used because it’s safe, not because of any degree of accuracy. To describe what Jesus actually calls someone to be using Scriptural terms is very unsafe, especially in the hearing of women.
These wicked men learn very fast where their bread is buttered when it comes to personal gain before others and then simply just butter it. It’s nothing different than what has happened all throughout history.
@Dalrock
Just to make sure we stay on track, I want to reiterate that I agree and applaud the OP. What I disagree with are the comments which seem to indicate that it’s a sad but perfectly legitimate tactic to put off the responsibility to serve and worship in a church because the preacher is insufficiently confessional. Find another church then where you feel comfortable serving. Make one that is recognizable so that others who are searching can find it. Do something.
You’re right, this often happens. For me the crime is the misuse of the term; sucking people in with a perfectly legitimate catchphrase, and then pulling a switcheroo. I don’t like it when church idiots do that the traditional way (as you just described), and I don’t like it when secular morons discard perfectly salvageable terms in favor of newly minted ones that take a month of reading to decipher–and then with no real consensus.
I’ve had enough of inventing new words for old shit that everybody already knows. There’s always an excuse for why we should invent new terms for old things; when the truth is it has more to do self-aggrandizement and hate than it does for clarity of communication.
If, for example, we trash servant leadership, it’s only a matter of time before some numbskull comes up with new catchphrase. Next week–around the Manosphere campfire–half the people start chattering about this new “top-lifting” thing, and the other half are telling each other no loser is worth “top-lifting” for.
This matters because a lot of people who claim they only want to throw away the old bad words of servant-leadership actually want to throw out the idea as well. Discarding the term is a perfectly reasonable half-step for them. I’m talking here about people who call themselves Christian on this blog, and in the wider Manosphere. They play the slippery game the other way: Denying that the corpus of their words is anti-Christian and insisting they’ve just chucked the churchian terms.
@Empath and Dalrock
Yes. This has nothing to do with the pastor who has never gone down the road of enabling feminism from his position, or for the pastor who has already repented of this. There’s been a blanket accusation that every pastor is guilty on a structural/abetting level. I put forward one who I believe has not done this as a pastor. The response is he is guilty by association, and that we know that association is suspect because among all the sermons never listened to, there’s not enough sermons blasting those associations.
That’s wrong.
@Cane Caldo
I appreciate the clarification. But I’m still not clear as far as which comments, and by whom? One commenter suggested that this was a litmus test for pastors, and to refuse to attend if they didn’t pass it. This isn’t what I have in mind at all. This is an incredibly difficult situation, and I have no intention to tell others what the right answer is here regarding which church to join. Over the last few years I can’t count the number of times someone has brought me the name of the one pastor who has somehow avoided this rampant corruption. I always cringe because after a bit of digging the ugly truth starts to pour out. It is theoretically possible that there exist one or more pastors who have been able to entirely avoid this rampant problem. But after how many false alarms do I no longer have the onus to go figure out if the man really is secretly fighting the good fight? And if he really is secretly fighting the good fight, is he really untouched by this? The silence of pastors is as much part of the problem as what they say.
No. It isn’t wrong at all. You are saying I need to listen to every sermon the man ever preached or declare him free of the sin. If I can’t prove he is involved with the rampant corruption of the day, this is proof that he is extraordinary. Nonsense. You made the claim that he was extraordinary, and literally compared him with Job. As so often happens others have pointed out where he is involved with the exact same problems we are discussing here. I’m saying I don’t know the man (but his association with the Art of Marriage and his leading a megachurch doesn’t bode well at all). But by all means make the case. Show me proof that he is truly extraordinary. I’ll be delighted.
As for the bullet items of repentance, I’m not saying anyone should lie. If they truly haven’t done the item in the bullet, then of course they shouldn’t repent of it. But if they have, they should. I’m not looking for perfection. That would leave us without leaders in a time we desperately need them. But to acknowledge the problem and turn away from it, how can this not be a bare minimum for someone to raise a pastor up as being part of the solution?
No argument from me about the silliness of all the term evolution, up-defining, re-defining, etc. You would expect no argument from me on that.
Neither would I argue that there exists those who would throw out the term “servant leader” for other nefarious reasons, such as would be represented by the reversal of the font comparison I wrote above. Those would want nothing of the servant part and all about the leadership part (you, Cane, referred to them as taking a half step). But mentioning them in this context is an insidious part of the well worn game, as Dalrock called it. For the same reason we tolerate true hatred for women that comes through in comments, we will also tolerate those who WOULD be the over bearing ogre the totality of churchians use as the straw monster that scares preachers and women away from biblical truths.
I think about this in terms of what I know some people hear, regardless of whats been said, and Id rather they hear this real misogynists if they are to hear something incorrect than I would the white knights, because buried in the misogynists words are the reasons (not exscuses) that they have become such.
nest section
Some have made a blanket accusation of the pastorate. But Dalrock has framed that differently in that he has said, if there exists an exception, lets hear about it. Ive taken that approach in my life, and been reliably disappointed when I thought Id found one, and it turned out I had not. Still not compelling to condemn literally EVERYONE. But it is compelling to suspicion or cynicism of which i am guilty.
From what I know, I suspect you may be right on Baucham, and I will accept MOSTLY good as good, not letting the perfect be the enemy and all that.
Those two comments, Dalrocks and mine, were written simultaneously.
These wicked men learn very fast where their bread is buttered when it comes to personal gain before others and then simply just butter it. It’s nothing different than what has happened all throughout history.
I wish it was that simple. Nova wrote a very good comment about the motive for pastors to berate men to step up on Fathers Day. The dynamic he described seems very right to me. That some pastors do all manner of pandering for personal gain is not in question. This applies to all areas of ministry and preaching, not just gender and marriage.
But that is not the primary motive. I define primary by the number of congregants exposed, meaning some other motive (Nova’s) is what drives the numbers, not personal gain. I am assuming personal gain means monetary, job security, etc. If not….I’m off here. Because what I referred to as “the lift” is also personal gain, even if just emotional reinforcement and ego propping.
Simply, its Pavlovian, with emphasis on negative reinforcement. Its the comfy chair of conventional wisdom. And the way they yammer about men being over bearing etc., they edify themselves by considering themselves at the tip of a spear that is forged to protect women from something.
Personal gain would be, in my opinion, a far easier problem to highlight and come against.
First of all, I do not think that they pastors need to be interjecting themselves into the private realm of the family unless expressly asked by the family members. Secondly, berating men for not stepping up is very pointless as pastors are certainly not vested with the authority to determine what stepping up is. The truth is, people are slaves to local and Federal government as well as public policy. Give me a second and I will tell you what I mean. Dalrock mentioned that the judge had already made a predetermination as to the amount that would most likely be the outcome. First of all, you need to realize that this judge has a very specific fiduciary duty to the citizens. He can not just come to a conclusion based on skipping over the file. By doing this, he is showing bias and must recuse himself from the bench on hearing that matter. When I say that people are slaves to this system and to public policy, I mean that they are slaves to their own ignorance of the laws and the rules governing these public servants of the people. Let’s look at child support for a moment. This is where I would say that the people as parents are attacked at their core. The family courts regularly ignore the law in light of public policy and the seemingly endless amount of welfare monies that are being printed under title IV. Would it shock any of you to know that for every case that a state established child support for, that they receive a dollar for dollar match in Federal welfare funds? Would it be a shock to you if I told you that when it comes to child support that there is not one law on the books in any state that says that any parent has to pay child support to the other. There’s not. If you do not believe me, look it up for yourself in your own states statutes regarding child support. What you will find is that the statutes tell the courts that they must establish an order for child support. When you go into a courtroom for child support and they are trying to establish an order, they are doing so that you agree either verbally but with protest or by not saying anything at all which is the same thing as agreeing in law. What they have done is gotten you to contract with them. However, in order for any court to have standing to hear a matter before them, they must show cause. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this cause of action in many cases. Without a showing of harm or danger or a showing that the parent is unfit, they can not hear a case for child support. I detail all of this in my book; In The Best Interest of The State – Escape From Slavery and it can be found here: http;//theamericansovereign.com
Would it shock any of you to know that for every case that a state established child support for, that they receive a dollar for dollar match in Federal welfare funds?
Baskerville covered all this tidily years ago.
@Dalrock
I’m mainly addressing yours.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/a-fathers-day-call-to-repentance/#comment-85156
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/a-fathers-day-call-to-repentance/#comment-85171
Is it not a fair reading that you have made this case: You believe that a Christian is legitimately freed from the responsibility of serving in a church unless that Christian himself witnesses the confession and repentance of a particular pastor.
Well, if you ask me (and others) to tell you of such pastors, then the onus is on you as long as the request stands. I have. Now you state that it’s too unlikely for you to bother investigating. Well, ok then, but you cannot in good faith say that you’re interested in hearing of one. Never mind listening to all sermons: How about one on the topic you care about?
As far as I can tell, he is featured in the Art of Marriage; not a producer, or organizer of it. They filmed him. I’m going to check out the series more fully, but I expect to find several things I don’t like and will report back.
Baucham doesn’t pastor a megachurch. His church has a “whopping” 1,194 Likes on Facebook. That’s literally next to nothing compared to actual Megachurches.
Lakewood: 125000
Saddleback: 41000
Mars Hill: 54000
That level of popularity fits with what I’d expect to see from a church and pastor with a message people are dying to hear, but most refuse to accept.
If you go to their website, you will find a boatload of info and classes for men, and nearly none for women because they believe authority flow through men (specifically fathers and husbands) to their wives and sons and daughters. His critics accuse him of “patriocentric” teaching. They are a non-age-segregated church–everyone worships together as a family. This puts fathers front and center, and their families at their sides. The emphasis on the church equipping fathers to do the primary Bible instruction of their own families. That’s a two-prong attack on feminism in the church because it is decentralizing (protection against herd-mentality) as well as strongly backing each father’s individual authority over his family. The very nature of how they conduct their church services and organization is an offense feminist and churchian sensibilities. And, throughout out plenty of his sermons he calls out other pastors and Christian authors for misrepresenting the Gospel; for not believing the Gospel is good. I’ve listened to–maybe–15 Baucham sermons, perhaps 20 short clips, and read two books. I’m sold.
Finally, a personal appeal: I am at least somewhat respected on the subject matter. I do know the games that churchians like to play; from inside and out. I have recommended exactly one dude, ever, and him consistently. I am not prone to endorsing products, programs, ideologies, or flights of fancy.
If you go to their website, you will find a boatload of info and classes for men, and nearly none for women because they believe authority flow through men (specifically fathers and husbands) to their wives and sons and daughters. His critics accuse him of “patriocentric” teaching. They are a non-age-segregated church–everyone worships together as a family. This puts fathers front and center, and their families at their sides. The emphasis on the church equipping fathers to do the primary Bible instruction of their own families. That’s a two-prong attack on feminism in the church because it is decentralizing (protection against herd-mentality) as well as strongly backing each father’s individual authority over his family. The very nature of how they conduct their church services and organization is an offense feminist and churchian sensibilities. And, throughout out plenty of his sermons he calls out other pastors and Christian authors for misrepresenting the Gospel; for not believing the Gospel is good. I’ve listened to–maybe–15 Baucham sermons, perhaps 20 short clips, and read two books. I’m sold.
Yeah, I believe Voddie Baucham is the real deal. There are no perfect pastors, but he is as close to sound doctrine as I’ve seen almost ever.
Our unknown church (1500 members) is bigger than his times 3. In fact, they don’t believe in megachurches precisely because there is no way for a pastor know or be known by his parishioners in the context of a megachurch setting.
Had to toss in a good word for Voddie Baucham.
If that is the case, then why do people still ignore this fact. This is at the heart of the current problems. Why does anyone think that pastors berate fathers in church? It has become public policy to berate fathers on an accusation of not delivering the goods so to speak. A father is demonized publicly for “not stepping up and taking care of his children” because he refuses or cannot afford to support 2 households. If the father is taking care of his children in his household, then it is of no concern to him that he put money into the household of the mother. If his child’s needs are not being met in the household of the mother then perhaps the children should be living with the father. The system has made the dissolution of the family a fat payday for the mothers at both the expense and the public humiliation of the father both inside and out of church. Women have fought for years for equal rights and now that they have them, they sit back on those rights and proclaim to be the victims of men in the dissolution of the relationship when in fact it is these women the are the sole beneficiaries of the benefit derived from that very same dissolution. I think that if all of this has been covered, then people need to start listening and taking heed. Not doing so dooms the next generation to the very same oppression and encroachment of rights that are currently being eroded these days. If we do not exercise our rights as parents, then we lose those rights.
@Empath
You misunderstand me. They mean to do away with service and leadership. The half-step was towards total oblivion of the concept. “You don’t know me!” as a reasonable philosophy of life, or narcissism; whatever you want to call it.
To the larger point of your suspicion that I’m using scare-tactics: Please. Somebody dig up the comments where I advised a woman to call her less-that-appealing husband “lord”.
@Cane Caldo
This isn’t my case at all. As I wrote above, I have no intent on telling others what church they should attend. There are no easy answers here.
I’m not asking for a list of pastors to investigate. I’m asking if you can show me one who is different. By show me, I don’t mean give me the name, but point to something compelling. I can only assume you have seen some great things from this man. I’m asking you to point to them. Part of the problem as I keep mentioning is the denial and the sleight of hand. We’ve burned through a great deal of that in the manosphere, but it is a long hard slog. When I started blogging everyone, seriously everyone that I encountered who was a Christian was thoroughly convinced Fireproof was a great movie about Christian marriage. Likewise, with FOTF being pro traditional marriage. I know I also ticked a lot of manosphere Christians off when I wrote about “the one really good one” Pastor Driscoll. And it goes on, and on, and on. It never stops. So not only is there the issue of having been here before, but if a Christian leader is truly this extraordinary he must be aware of the disaster surrounding him. And if he is aware, he must be visibly fighting it. So it should be pretty easy to point all of this out, especially for a pastor with his own blog.
I have as I think (and hope) you know a great deal of respect for you on these matters. Part of my hesitation is I don’t want to find what I always find. I don’t want to lower the man in your estimation, especially given my great respect for you. But the other part is I could listen to 5 sermons which are really good (but come short of putting down the rebellion), and it still wouldn’t address the core question. It is from this perspective a lose lose proposition for me.
Your preaching to the choir there. I was raised Baptist and confirmed Southern Baptist. Our doctrine is very strict. What I am talking about is not biblical but political and social in it’s nature. Many churches today tend to bend to the winds of social change instead of adhering to doctrines.
@Dalrock
All right, I will yield the point on this.
I get that. However; when SSM brings up the Art of Marriage, suddenly you are keen to investigate and post on that. It appears to me that your stance is: “Possible good is only going to lead to despair, but possible evil is likely a goldmine.” I could say more, but I’d probably ruin the point. Just…food for thought.
Don’t let that factor in. I want good judgment more than I want to have said “the right thing”. When I’ve said the wrong thing, I’m just going to act like I didn’t anyways.
@Admiral Benbow
Bskillet?
LiveFearless, thanks. Should have occured to me to search. The divorce I’m going through is affecting my sleep.
I bought 30 Days of Discipline and read it last year. I should probably dust it off and run it again.
Cane
I was not suggesting you were using scare tactics. i was referencing their use of same how your comment could be seen as synergistic to that. Never mind, don’t want another difference vs distinction…..be sure….I know that you do not invoke those so if that seemed my charge, I retract it
@Cane Caldo
I may be missing your point, but my own point on Art of Marriage was my first thought was why bother pointing to the 137th version of the Book of Oprah. No one who reads my blog would have taken these folks seriously anyway. The other challenge is they do exactly as we have been describing, which is say things which could be mistaken for biblical, because that is the whole game. But their delivery is pure, over the top Oprah. Still, I haven’t watched the actual video series so I can’t prove that they really are the way their presentations suggests, vs the way the few sorta good catchphrases might lead one to believe. So when I 1) learned that it was associated with a pastor you took seriously, and 2) SSM described what is in the actual program, it reversed my thoughts on both counts.
But perhaps more to your main point, I am extremely tired, truly exhausted, of chasing the path of denial. The corruption is rampant. I want to move past that to healing, and healing starts with repentance. I’m not looking for a pastor who didn’t fall into this trap. I’m looking for a pastor who is willing to turn away from it. This may seem like a frame of despair, but I see it as a frame of hope and redemption. I truly believe that one day we will see pastors repent, and that those men will lead us out of the present mess. I think even just imagining that day is something we have been missing in the sphere.
Eric, while you are dusting off 30 Days of Discipline, you should also check out In The Best Interest of the State – Escape From Slavery. I know from having gone through a divorce exactly how it can affect you. Especially if there are children involved. Had I known then what I learned afterwards, it would have been a game changer that is for sure. It is always best to know what your rights are before walking in. I have yet to meet a family law attorney that is willing to stand up there and argue your rights in the divorce and in the ability to make decisions in your children’s lives (if you have any). My book will help guide you as to the law and what it means to you. It also covers how the judges are to interpret the law via their for a lack of better terms, instruction manual. I can assure you that my book is not built on speculation or a warped view of the laws. My book is built on the laws themselves and shows you how to build your own legal arguments should you decide to represent yourself (which I would hope that you would do). You can find a copy of my book here:
http://www.theamericansovereign.com
I am also available to help you with any questions you may have in regards to the book.
Cory
That lose lose proposition, dalrock, is what fuels my cynicism. Canes comment about how finding something bad is a treasure trove and finding something good is an Oh well was good. I hope someone finds enough good to make writing about it interesting, convincing, and hope inspiring.
Cory, what specific doctrine in southern Baptist are you referring to? What are you saying?
@sunshinemary
I didn’t understand you when I first read this. I haven’t seen the videos, but your description of them doesn’t surprise me. I was thinking of doing a post based on their marketing material. They have a website that is par for the course with this kind of thing, and a whole slew of youtube testimonial/marketing videos that made my skin crawl.
Sorry, I guess I was very general in my statement. When it comes to the family, I was raised that the man, husband, father always took the lead and the rest of the family followed. It was his role to lead his family. In regards to the marriage, I was raised that the wife should honor and obey her husband and that she had a role as wife to fulfill just as the husband had his role to fulfill. The father, husband was always the central figure to the family.
@Deti
Thanks! I had missed that today was the day. I thought about it on Fathers Day though because June 19th was Father’s Day in 2010. I also see that the site recently passed the 5 million hit mark. Astounding. Crazy. It seems like just the other day it was about to break 4 million.
Dalrock:
Sorry, I might not have been clear in the way I said it. The Art of Marriage is a teaching curriculum for churches to use. You get together (with hundreds of people, if you attend a large church like I do) and watch the weekly video segment, which has teaching from many big-name evangelical pastors, and then you break up into small groups to discuss the material by going over questions in a workbook (I wrote a post about that experience, Why do Christian women perpetuate myths about attraction?, but I didn’t reference the Art of Marriage directly). The worst segments were the ones I talked about above (the Wilsons) and also the teaching on headship, submission, and sex. The rest of it was okay, I guess.
Cane:
OK, I see your point. Something about the way the husband is portrayed bothers me…like he was an idiot or something. Probably I’m overly-sensitive to it now; it bothers me the way men are portrayed as bumbling fools in the Church. But if it seems okay to you, then I stand corrected.
[Wilson] has always been a devoted husband, a loving father, and a hard working man, but his wife told him that she was done with him on their wedding anniversary because he didn’t pay enough attention to her and make her feel all loved and tingly all the time.
This would be especially tragic if it were an aberration, but unfortunately it’s not. Adultery within and breakups of pastoral marriages are becoming disturbingly common enough these days to make one wonder just how careful pastors really are in their selection of wives.
The Art of Marriage is a teaching curriculum for churches to use. You get together (with hundreds of people, if you attend a large church like I do) and watch the weekly video segment, which has teaching from many big-name evangelical pastors, and then you break up into small groups to discuss the material by going over questions in a workbook (I wrote a post about that experience, Why do Christian women perpetuate myths about attraction?, but I didn’t reference the Art of Marriage directly).
It sounds PAINFUL to me. I never cease to wonder what is behind the fascination in today’s churches with books and videos about the Bible, books that are purchased by the hundreds of thousands of copies as “essential” to Bible study while than the Bible itself is mostly ignored. While the subject matter behind this Art of Marriage series is certainly essential for Christians to address (as deeply flawed as the series’ execution is, as you’ve revealed), is it really necessary to make a theatrical production out of it just to salve the short attention span/intellectual and spiritual laziness of the average churchgoer today?
The question I would have for any pastor is this: if your goal is to focus on biblical marriage, why not just do a series, either as a congregation or as small groups, on Biblical marriage that draws straight from the scriptures themselves? No workbooks, films, “books on the Bible” or other distractions as tools – just the Bible, whatever version you have handy. That way, there will be much less confusion about what the Bible actually has to say on the subject rather than the risk of confusion or misinformation resulting from some pastor-actors’ interpretation of the scriptures.
By the way, I asked the pastor of my last church exactly this question. His answer? “The bible’s too complicated for some people to understand.”
‘Nuff said.
About the Bible being too complicated…
A small group I’m in recently started a study of Joseph. After the first session, our group leader was afraid he was making it too hard. One person had never heard of Joseph. Another was crossing a wire between Joseph and the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke.
It never fails to amaze me how many “Bible believing Christians” would stare at you like a deer in the headlights if you asked them to open their Bibles to books like Habakkuk or Philemon.
@Cane Caldo
I’m truly confused. You said Please. Somebody dig up the comments where I advised a woman to call her less-that-appealing husband “lord”.
Why would it matter if you said that? 1st Peter 3:1 says that wives are to submit to their husbands even if they are in disobedience to the Word. I assume their disobedience would make them “less than appealing.” Peter also gave the example of Sarah, who called Abraham ‘lord’ and women are her children if they can do what is right without any fear. It’s pretty clear to me that wives are at the very least being advised… if not commanded… to work their way to the point at which they can call their husband ‘lord’ and all the more so if he’s ‘less than appealing’ in order that he might become more appealing.
How then could any person be castigated for simply repeating Scripture?
@Artisanal Toad
I wasn’t being sarcastic. That was the advice I gave.The woman I said it to was thrilled.
@feeriker
This, by the way, is exactly how we can know that such pastors’ fem-centric thinking is not just for show; not just to put butts in the pews. It’s not a con–they genuinely believe it.
I bought it, Cory. I’ll check it out.
SSM it bothers me too. It should bother you.
Dalrock, still in infancy at 5 million….you haven’t reached a major city worth of folks!
Obviously joking, how cool is that. Well earned attention to deserving topics and deserving blogger.
Cory, really? The full force of the SBC is stacked counter to how you say you were raised in the SB church. See Dalrocks dissection of same, and if you care to, my own letter to Russell Moore. I am not in any way doubting that you via your father and mother were so raised. It is hard to imagine much more than a veneer of same from the SB church, the church in which I was introduced to faith, or saved, or choose your term.
Should have made a combined comment….yes Cane it is one way to know they are not just profit motivated. Good catch. When they are hoist with their own petard the petard was. It built for their enrichment.
All I can tell you is my experience and upbringing. I will admit that while many churches carry the claim, many are diluted from the original doctrine. After leaving home and being free to choose my own church, I found that I was never happy with the messages that were being delivered. Eventually I stopped going to church and believing in organized religion. Do not misunderstand me. I study the old testament still to this day. However, I do not believe that in order for God and I to have a connection that I have to belong to an organized church. While I cannot relate to studies as for corruption of the word in churches, I can attest to common sense, history and what I have seen first hand for myself. Anywhere, there is organized anything there is always a skewing of the facts to meet a specific goal. I believe this to be true with churches as well. Take for instance the bashing of fathers on father’s day even. The is done I believe to guilt fathers as a means of altering their behavior to a more favorable light in the eyes of the community. I can go on and on with this subject. I do not see conspiracy everywhere and I am not paranoid at all. I just open my eyes and watch. It’s amazing what you can see when you actually pay attention.
People really aren’t familiar with their Bibles at all. I’ve heard this told as a joke, but I don’t know how real it might actually be. There’s a couple that wanted 1 John 4:18 on something related to the wedding:
When they finally saw it, they ended up getting John 4:18:
Whether it has any degree of accuracy or not is unknown, but it’s one of those ready-made sermon anecdotes for Biblical illiteracy.
@Dalrock
More to come, but here is a taste. Everything I’ve ever read or heard or seen of Baucham jives with this short clip.
One more. This is a classic, and I sort of assume everyone who thinks about the intersection of Christianity and feminism has seen it, but perhaps not.
Oh, that CNN interview is brilliant! I hadn’t seen it (we don’t do TV at our house), so thanks for linking to it. Of course, all I needed to know about Ms. Feinberg (interesting name for an evangelical Christian feminist speaker) was easily discerned simply by looking at her haircut. And it’s quite charming the way Pastor Baucham calls her “Miss Feinberg” but she calls him “Voddie.”
But anyway, Pastor Baucham has preached many excellent sermons and written fine texts. His eldest daughter (of eight children, I might add) is a wonderful young woman and has written books for other young ladies on biblical womanhood. I know he’s one of the good guys, so what is he doing in the Art of Marriage?
@SSM
The Christian marriage media market has four general groups.
1) Genuinely Bible-centric teaching. These are hard to find.
2) Family-war profiteers. There are a lot, and they don’t have an agenda except to make a buck.
3) Feminist propaganda. There are a lot of these too. They actively seek to weaken the Church.
4) The Desperate. They recognize there is a problem, but because they’re functionally illiterate when it comes to Scripture they are blind leading the blind.
These groups are not totally discreet, but you can generally categorize them under one predominant trait.
Art of Marriage strikes me as #4, with shades of #2. But the blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile. Being desperate, Biblically illiterate, and raised in a Feminist society they will lump Baucham with the Wilsons and never think twice of it.
If the Art of Marriage folks read my blog and asked me to write for them (not a chance; way too much dick talk) you can bet your booty I would write them an essay…for free, even. Only good can come of it if they get a little wholesome and nourishing food (by my estimation) mixed in with the garbage they’re going to eat already. I pity them; just like I pity men of the laity who have been abused. In both cases I can get my dander up about their sniveling, but that never lasts long. While I can’t speak for Mr. Baucham, I can easily imagine another “natural leader” having the same impetus; especially one so much greater than I.
Dalrock I believe and know you are on the right track with this RED PILL Christian men will be the most powerful force on earth. Five to ten million beta males with game. Christian and to a man not supplicating to the feminine imperative.
@greyghost it is too late. I was one of the beta males, and it took hours of focus for years to change all that. Even utilized our influence here to embed the most popular content with narratives that would teach beta males the paradigm of what it means to be alpha. Power is not seen in men these days… confidence, assertiveness, self-mastery and so on. Males aren’t getting it. They’re too addicted to watching sports instead of become solid and ripped with muscle with lower than 9% body fat. We have no time to wait for these followers to catch up. Further – they are willing to show up and watch those ridiculous videos and go through the sickening workbooks that clearly destroy her attraction to him. I’ve taken time to read through these comments from the cowardly and castrated defenders of the most evil influencers, and it is sickening to hear them defending the idiots that vomit these ‘teaching’ tools on the world. Their weak leaders will not change, nor will the defenders of the sick leaders.
That Voddie Baucham clip about fathers and daughters: Golden. I appreciate that because it is often overlooked in these discussions.
Thanks for sharing it Cane.
Livefearless
It took hours and years. Well then that is what it takes. One man at a time. If a churchian won’t learn game to be Christian then we make a PUA Christian. It looks like we are going to be the leaders. The next pastors and preachers will be from the manosphere period. Every high school boy should be logged on to Chateau Heartiste’s web site.
Dirty little secret for you traditionalist scripture churchians. The Bible has much more meaning and power through red pill eyes.
@Cane Caldo
😉
I looked at the clips of Voddie Baucham and he would be a great guy to introduce to the manosphere. One question is how old are those clips and what would he say today. That CNN set would start to bend a man to the culture. Just how it is done. Some like Focus on the Family if ever argued about their peaching as not following scripture they will say that they have advanced with the culture to appeal to as many as possible to bring the word of god to people that otherwise would never hear or some other bullshit.
Cane Caldo
Write an essay and then send it to them.
@ Admiral
You’re back?
*Joy!*
Um, will you be resurrecting any certain blogs or starting a similar one, by any chance?
Cane,
Those two videos are excellent. Probably the best I’ve seen. Still, when asked about feminism, he claimed it had a “foothold” on evangelical churches. This is the denial I’ve been writing about. Feminism has a “foothold” on the evangelical churches the same way Nazi Germany had a foothold on France, or better yet Europe, in WWII. This is a problem, because while the success and the utterly rampant nature of the feminist rebellion is denied or downplayed, there is this ever present desire to present a “balanced” view of the Scripture on these topics. Because of the denial of the rebellion, the balance ultimately ends up being between Feminism and the Word. Pastor Baucham doesn’t seem to fall off the edge here, but he insists on walking right along it. Why? Especially since the argument is there isn’t massive temptation to do this. My other concern is that I’ve seen nearly as good comments coming from Pastor Driscoll. When Pastor Driscoll isn’t cutting Christian husbands in half to please the wives, he is exhorting the wives to submit to their husbands (in a tediously careful “balanced” way of course, so the Bible doesn’t sound sexist). So while the videos are as I said excellent, there is the missing acknowledgement about the true state of the churches. Based on the bit you shared if he were a cop in Juarez I’m fairly confident he wouldn’t accept any bribes (and we might even catch him on film refusing a bribe), but he wouldn’t have much (if anything) to say on the topic of corruption of his fellow officers either. Don’t get me wrong, it is a huge start. But it leaves incredible room to feed the husbands of the church to the feminists should the need arise, and it leaves the lie in place that feminism only has a “foothold” on the churches.
I think the bigger problem is you are using Pastor Baucham as a sort of straw man shield to oppose me calling out the rampant corruption and calling for repentance. To follow the Juarez analogy, I said the men in the force need to repent of the corruption, and you trotted out 1 officer, Officer Baucham, and use him as a shield for the rest of them. How dare I question the honor of Officer Baucham by stating that the force as a whole is deeply corrupt? The reality is there may well be an honest cop in Juarez. There may be two, or three, or even a handful. But if they won’t separate themselves from the corrupt ones, and if they allow their names to be used to hogtie any discussion of Juarez corruption, they are very much part of the problem.
That’s it. Your comment Dalrock,
My other concern is that I’ve seen nearly as good comments coming from Pastor Driscoll
You likely try and avoid being driven by cynicism, as do I. Its nearly impossible. Because it isn’t cynical to see his “walking along the edge” as a vague symptom of either nascent or hidden but fully active disease because that has been my experience 100% of the time. I am not contradicting myself here, I am still supportive of all I know about Baucham.
Cane is not prone to nit picking so it is difficult to see him as simply holding one man out as a straw man, as you put it, to refute the validity of the generalization. It may be sheer coincidence that the two things are being discussed side by side. He can clear that up.
Remember, I’m the guy who accumulated sermons as well as lists of ministries from over a hundred churches in a fit of emotion driven “So-CD” (worse than OCD) looking fore one that lacked feminism. I was not looking for the presence of some right teaching, I was looking for the lack of feminism, and I found NONE. My sample was random, confined to churches across America that had websites with posted sermons. To whatever degree that makes a cohort, so be it.
Bottom line is that the problem isn’t one that, in my opinion, can be eradicated by omission of feminist doctrine and feminized scripture interpretations. In other words, if the preponderance of pastors just started saying those correct things Baucham, and even Driscoll say, it would not acknowledge the sin and devastation of what came before. Hence the confession cum solution idea. The stuff must be preached AGAINST, because it is not inert stuff. It will always be present, like any sin proclivity, and must proactively be kept at bay, which means saying things (in simple terms) like, “everything we have been saying about submission has been said wrong because we have been pandering and operating from fear”…then go on and without apology and without a wit of equivocation explain it the right way. When I hear someone describe being “balanced” I cringe, because that word is code for meaningless. If Baucham tries to be balanced, even if his head is on straight (which it seems to be), he will ultimately not do the good that needs to be done
@Empath
This is a good point, and I should clarify that Cane has advised me in the past that he prefers to be hit hard rather than diplomatically. I’m hitting hard, but I don’t question Cane’s integrity on the issue. Not even a little.
I did a bit of searching over lunch and very quickly found an even better sermon from Pastor Baucham on submission. It is excellent. Yet even there, the rebellion in the room is joked about instead of put down. It is I have no question a bit of tactical brilliance required to be permitted to teach what the Bible actually says to a fundamentally hostile audience, and at that level he has my admiration for his skill and his desire to go against the grain. But it still leaves the larger issue looming out there, and as you say we ultimately won’t make any real progress without confronting it head on.
Pingback: Emotional Needs, Secular vs. Churchian Boldness | Feminism is Empathological
Dear Brother Grey Ghost:
Dirty little secret for you traditionalist scripture churchians. The Bible has much more meaning and power through red pill eyes.
Word, my brother. Word. Even those of us skeptics who usually scoff at religion get wide-eyed as they read these ancient texts through the “they live” shades.
Aside from the Bible, read Augustine. Then go talk to a Catholic priest, of the right type. By this I mean one who is not an effeminate homosexual type (these seem to be a large minority). Among Christian priests you will find a manly, masculine, disciplined man who lives a life visibly not taking any shit from women, not responding to their fitness tests, and laughing when they approach for sex. These are fitting role models.
Regards, Boxer
@Dalrock
1) You’ve watched two short clips which I chose to reduce the initial investment in time. My investment was similarly small; I spent maybe 20 minutes searching and watching for clips.The choice of the word “foothold” was not scripted, but off-the-cuff during a live debate. This debate was–in all respects–set up against him.
-Liberal media controlled environment
-Two women for the “you can’t hit a girl” factor
-Ostensibly knuckledragging black preacher versus pretty smarty-pants white girls
-Arbitrarily imposed time constraints to control the direction of the argument
I think you’re confusing the strategy with the tactic. “Foothold” was the correct rhetoric considering the terrain and his enemy. If he had instead talked about a chokehold of feminism, then those women would have immediately backed away from the fight, and just pointed and laughed at this “Scawed wittle man afwaid of a few giwls in his chuwch”.
By choosing “foothold” he beckons them to engage in the debate; daring them to make the case that this foothold is a good thing. They predictably over-reached, and he used that conversational momentum to rip control of the narrative right out of their hands. He made those hos MAD, and they had to resort to wielding the full power of network broadcasting to even give a semblance of a draw. It was too late. Anyone who watched that saw that Baucham spanked those women, and looked cool doing it.
More importantly: We have to keep the eternal perspective even while dealing with temporal problems. Whatever purchase Satan has on the world can at worst can be described as a foothold, when compared to the coming onslaught that is Christ’s return. His church will be cleansed. Period. We are not fighting Nazis for control of Europe. The fight is over. The Nazis lost. Whoever Christ will claim as His, He will claim as His. We don’t actually “win them for Christ”, or “convince them of Christianity”. Those are euphemisms. We “represent Christ to them” because we have been commanded to do so. That’s what Baucham does, so when I point to him, he’s pointing on further to Christ. I’m not pointing to him as the answer to Feminism. I’m certainly not point to him as a reason why pastors don’t nee to repent.
Most pastors do this, and when they do it is a problem. I have never seen it of Baucham. Don’t trust me: Find out for yourself.
Churches aren’t blogs. They aren’t sermons. They aren’t even buildings. They are gatherings of Christians committed to worship God and serve others, together. They aren’t anti-Feminism camps. Serious question: Considering all that churches are not, and what I’ve said they are: Do you really feel you can confidently say you know the true state of individual pastors and churches, in a meaningful sense?
In the midst of your rightful call for repentance (again, which I applauded), you’ve made a basic error, and that’s what I’ve been trying to address (to widely-varying success.) That error was more pronounced in your comments, and is what moved me to comment. You’ve misunderstood the role of the pastor. In this, you appear to have fallen into the “being a man is about being a bad-ass warrior” trough. That’s only a part of it. Pastors simply aren’t cops in Juarez, Dalrock. It’s not a good analogy. Pastors are not anti-Feminist police. They are past-ors…shepherds. They don’t have city-wide jurisdiction, but flock-level responsibility. Cops are about responding to crime; they are the powers of government to punish. Spiritual cops are demons. Shepherds are about leading the way.
Most pastor-ing has to do with moving flocks from one good pasture to another; making sure they have food to eat, and water to drink. They dispose of the dead ones, counts their number, and pull the strays out of danger. They birth lambs and tend wounds.
Yes, they must have a vigilant eye for wolves. Yes, they are to stand between the wolves and the flock. What they cannot do is abandon the flock to chase every wolf seen. Any shepherd who finds himself spending more time fighting wolves than watching sheep graze is a bad shepherd! What he should have been doing is moving he flock to safer areas.
Nor does a shepherd make a habit of going around to scold other shepherds anymore than I[1] go around and tell other fathers they are in sin for having their kids in public school and whoring their wife out at a full-time job. If they ask me, I will tell them; though I probably won’t start off with “whoring your wife out”. We’ll work up to that, AFTER I’ve made common cause with them, and they at least have a sense that I do have their best interests at heart.
Here’s an analogy of why I brought up Baucham:
You are an American. You would nod in agreement if someone said: “Americans are Feminists”.
However; if I were in another country and my friend Julio said,
“Americans are Feminists. I despair that a non-Feminist American exists.”
First of all, I would know what is talking about, and agree with him. I would also know he is not talking about me; even though I am an American. My response–knowing Julio’s desire for American to NOT be feminist–I would say,
“You should check out my friend Dalrock. You–being against Feminism, Julio–would like what he has to say. He is solidly anti-Feminist.
Now would that be me using you as a straw-man, or would that be me lifting up an esteemed man for others to see? Is it not appropriate to do when the complaint has gone out that there are no decent Americans? By saying such a thing, have I taken away anything from the general truth that Americans are Feminist?
It is true that you have not made a case with this post for Christians to avoid church. However; you have given them plenty of reason not go to church, and no reason to go–ever, that I can recall. It’s a spirituality of aversion, instead of love. In addtition: You testify with your life that it is not as important to follow the Biblical command to go to church. Dalrock’s concerns trump God’s commands, in this. However well-founded those concerns are, they are nothing compared to the will and awesome might of God. I say all that as a fellow cringer.
[1]We write here as disembodied minds under assumed names, but Baucham is working in a world where he has no choice but to drag his name, relationships, and reputation behind him. Does he choose his battles carefully? I should hope so! That is wisdom, and that’s what we should all want to have. Even considering that his whole person–legal, physical, mental, etc.–is on the line, and he has to be careful.
Perhaps you misunderstood my reference to Baucham as a Job-like figure. I was not referencing Job’s patience. I was alluding to Satan coming before God–trash-talking humanity–, and God says, “Have you seen my man Job? Isn’t he good!” And Satan scoffs, asking to tear Job down. God says: “Be my guest.” Satan is a cop.
Cane, you misunderstood the analogy, surprisingly, or even more surprisingly, you decided to go at an easy if invalid aspect of it. The comparative portion isn’t cops to pastors, (Substitute A and B for cops and pastors), its the preponderance-ness of the pathology, feminism to graft. That he chose cops is irrelevant. The analogy is fine.
@Empath
That he chose cops suggests something about his frame of mind, and I didn’t miss the comparison, but rather embraced it fully. Graft is a paramount concern in a police force because tomorrow they will still be cops, i.e., still be dirty cops.
Today, a pastor is going give a sermon on emotional needs, and I’m going to want to choke him out as the analogous graft-taking cop he is. Tomorrow, he’s going to help someone bury their dead. Not a cop; still but still his main job. They are apples and oranges because a pastor is MUCH more than a cop, whether good or bad at that. He can be a dirty cop one day, and a healer the next, and still be functioning within his primary role. A cop might be a healer too, but that’s not his vocation.
@Dalrock
Best compliment I’ve heard in a long time. Thank you.
You are still missing it. You just are. You are over reading it and it is distracting you.
Dalrock…..help.
I’m not sure it matters in the whole scheme, but its a peeve. Your points in the reply still bank on the literal functions of cops and pastors and those are not relevant for the analogy.
Churches aren’t blogs. They aren’t sermons. They aren’t even buildings. They are gatherings of Christians committed to worship God and serve others, together. They aren’t anti-Feminism camps. Serious question: Considering all that churches are not, and what I’ve said they are: Do you really feel you can confidently say you know the true state of individual pastors and churches, in a meaningful sense?
In the midst of your rightful call for repentance (again, which I applauded), you’ve made a basic error, and that’s what I’ve been trying to address (to widely-varying success.) That error was more pronounced in your comments, and is what moved me to comment. You’ve misunderstood the role of the pastor. In this, you appear to have fallen into the “being a man is about being a bad-ass warrior” trough. That’s only a part of it. Pastors simply aren’t cops in Juarez, Dalrock. It’s not a good analogy. Pastors are not anti-Feminist police. They are past-ors…shepherds. They don’t have city-wide jurisdiction, but flock-level responsibility. Cops are about responding to crime; they are the powers of government to punish. Spiritual cops are demons. Shepherds are about leading the way.
Most pastor-ing has to do with moving flocks from one good pasture to another; making sure they have food to eat, and water to drink. They dispose of the dead ones, counts their number, and pull the strays out of danger. They birth lambs and tend wounds.
Yes, they must have a vigilant eye for wolves. Yes, they are to stand between the wolves and the flock. What they cannot do is abandon the flock to chase every wolf seen. Any shepherd who finds himself spending more time fighting wolves than watching sheep graze is a bad shepherd! What he should have been doing is moving he flock to safer areas.
This is bar none, the best analysis I have read-ever- on the role pastors should or should not play and to what extent when it comes to the way feminism has tainted church teaching.
I read it and said (out loud no less), “Wow.” And promptly shared it with e-friends.
@Cane Caldo
Fair enough. But does he ever actually get to that? Maybe not on CNN, but on his blog? The piece I found in a quick search is here, and as I said it is excellent. I didn’t listen to the audio but read it instead because I can read faster. Perhaps after I hear the audio I will think differently, but I highly doubt it. But either way, he is the best I’ve seen on the topic. From what I’ve seen so far I’m truly impressed.
What stands out to me though, is that he clearly is playing to a hostile audience. He is in fact clearly a master at this. But the hostility of the audience is the very rebellion we are talking about. So maybe CNN isn’t the right place to state the obvious; feminism doesn’t have a foothold on modern churches, it has thoroughly infested them. This is a fact, but it doesn’t change what we both know the ultimate outcome is. But speaking the truth in a time of denial is essential. The denial is 90% of the problem. If you talk to Christians outside of the manosphere about the issue (and even many in the sphere), don’t you get the same response I get? Boy, you are right about those other churches being in the grasp of feminism. I’m sure glad mine isn’t. Talk to enough people and one of them is bound to be right when they say this, but they are a tiny minority, and not the ones who need to be reached. They aren’t the ones who are surrounded by feminists and blissfully unaware.
Getting back to the hostile audience part, after eight really good, solid paragraphs on submission, he lightens it up with:
On the one hand, this is sheer brilliance, and a masterful way to try to move past the feminist shields. But on the other hand, as he points out this is the root of the fall. No sin is small, but this particular rebellion started it all. Can you imagine a pastor talking about the instruction on homosexuality, or pornography, or abortion, and then saying:
I’ve thought about this and I can’t see this as an indictment on Pastor Baucham. This simply has to be done if a pastor hopes to be permitted to continue preaching in this environment. I wouldn’t think of asking him to hobble his ability to preach the Word. But it also reinforces the main point. Pastors as a whole are operating in an environment where they don’t dare truly confront the rebellion for what it is. That probably 90%+ would deny that they make constant accommodations for such a rebellion is what makes this so much more of a problem. You are saying I don’t have the standing to call pastors out for this, and that men like Pastor Baucham are right in choosing not to do so also. Part of me seriously hopes you will convince me to stand down. I truly enjoyed the few weeks I took off. But is your argument that we simply have to live with it?
This is a bigger issue than I’m really prepared to take on. At its core is the Catholic/Protestant divide. But the question as I see it is am I commanded by God to go to any church which claims to be Christian? Every church will have flaws, but how flawed is too far? If the only churches available to me were the ones on this list, would I be required to bring my family and tell them this is where we will learn about sexual morality? Less extreme (perhaps), but what if the pastor is a woman, someone specifically commanded not to teach the very Book she has decided to teach? Am I commanded to bring my family there to learn about obedience? Perhaps even less extreme, if Pastor Driscoll’s Mars Hill were the only church available. Am I commanded to bring my family there, to have Pastor Driscoll do what he does in front of my wife and children? This isn’t about my feelings or comfort, but the message I’m sending my wife and children by bringing them there for instruction, and the real risk this places on a marriage. There is also the issue of submission to the church’s authority. As you pointed out JoJ’s pastor had to remove him from the church. Can I in good faith take my family to, or join, a church where I’m not prepared to submit to their moral authority? And must I use my station as head of household to submit my family to someone who will teach them to despise and question that role? Like I said above, this isn’t an easy question. I don’t raise these questions to convince others to not join or to leave a deeply flawed church, but you challenged me directly on this so I offer this to help you better understand my thoughts as well as why I don’t make it a topic of my writing.
With all of this said, I want to close by stating that you were/are right on Pastor Baucham. He is extremely impressive. I admit I didn’t expect him to be that good.
It is a good analysis of what they should do and not do. I’m not sure if it matters that scattered within it though are jumping off points that are not correct. That doesn’t change the analysis about pastors, but it changes the validity of the OTHER intention in writing it, which was rebuttal. I’m pinch hitting for Dalrock because I have time and I like the subject matter….and he can tell me to piss off if i get it wrong.
Churches aren’t blogs. They aren’t sermons. They aren’t even buildings. They are gatherings of Christians committed to worship God and serve others, together. They aren’t anti-Feminism camps. Serious question: Considering all that churches are not, and what I’ve said they are: Do you really feel you can confidently say you know the true state of individual pastors and churches, in a meaningful sense?
I do not see Dalrock asserting that he can know the state of an individual pastor or church per se, he can, by their fruit, know them ON THIS MATTER, but I can’t stop at saying that because that’s a cheap rebuttal. I explain later.
I do not see this either, that Dalrock is foisting a bad ass image on pastors necessarily as a role. Still cheap, I know.
Agreed
Here I think is some valid criticism, I’d apply same to myself, this notion of chasing every lone wolf. You are correct, and it is easy for us in the mode we operate to do that and want that, “and how!”
The comments aimed back at Dalrock are in my opinion based on misunderstanding and again, I cannot figure out why. He wasn’t obtuse or nebulous, used no subtext, implied nothing, and the words then stand alone. Ask yourself if Voddie had not been brought into this at all….imagine if possible if we’d stayed on the hypothetical pastor/church, would you see the same things?
left out tags….read carefully
[D: Did that help?]
Perfection
@Cane Caldo
Elspeth already commented on the beauty of this description, as I think did Empath. I’ll add my vote there as well. But part of it has me confused, and you reinforced it with this:
This has me confused, along with what seems to be you arguing that no man has standing to call out the kinds of things I’ve been calling out. Pastors don’t have standing to call out other pastors, and well the rest of us are subordinates. You suggest above that I’m flirting with despair for hoping for repentance, but I fear you are flirting with lowering the bar for what we consider a properly functioning church leader to a corrupt man who comforts people in hospitals and funerals, or perhaps following the destruction of their family.
@Dalrock
I’m reading this through again, but I want to point out real quick what Baucham did in that news segment that might be missed. They brought him on there to ridicule a conservative pastor. They wanted him to make the case FOR Sarah Palin, and abandon the Bible. Classic pharisees vs. Jesus stuff: Follow the law, or hurt this woman who
So, they brought him on to talk about Sarah Palin, and he lured them into a conversation about how the evangelical church is in female-led rebellion; a sign of judgment on our nation. And he did it with a smile. Did he say the word foothold? Yes. Was he talking about footholds? No. It’s truly genius.
This is very tough, and I don’t have a fuller answer than: We are to go to church.
This is exactly why I brought up Baucham: He exists. We should have faith that some like him exist, but this one I’m raising up and saying, “This is the real deal. We can know he’s the real deal because he in turn points on to the Real Deal.”
It’s not true that we have to pick from among the gay and women-pastored churches, so we can obviously disregard those off the bat. That leaves a whole mass of imperfect men. I can only tell you what I did.
In my heart, I am a Southern Baptist. Learned it, loved it, lived it. Turns out: I hate Southern Baptists. Ha. There are a lot of reasons, but none of them are doctrinal. And they’re not particularly Feminist-related either; though that taints nearly everything. They’re just largely ignorant assholes who are Hell-bent on extracting nonsense phrases from me, and I resent it. Plus, they wouldn’t marry me to their daughters. Jerks.
Anyways, you can see the problem is me, and I knew it, and I just needed to remove myself from causing division. So, I went Episcopal churches. You know: the female-bishop, gay-clergy denomination. I knew they were fighting the fight. Our diocese has always refused to accept female clergy even to this day; even when the fight seemed a lost cause. I mean: The Episcopal primate is female!
So, when out priests say something that I hits me wrong (say, blaming men for women’s ills), I put it in the balance: When everyone around the them was caving to female-led churches, they demured, and made the Episcopal church kick them out. When it happens, I’m annoyed because now I have to tell my kids the priest is wrong. It sucks, but it feels similar to every conversation I’ve had with my kids about my Grandpa and Grammie are divorced, and why I have so many parents! As tempting as it sometimes is to just quit going to see Grandpa and Grammie and their new spouses, I just go, and ask for the protection for my family, and the wisdom to guide them through my parents divorce.
That being said: If the feminism became pronounced in my church: We’re off to another church. Conservative Anglicanism/Anglo-Catholicism have a built-in buffer against this, though. There is very little emphasis on the sermon. They don’t even preach properly. Second, they are heavily restricted by tradition. There is no time to improvise Feminist nonsense when the script has been steadily built upon. The sort of fellow who puts on dress-like clothes and funny hats while swinging around incense just isn’t a dude who is concerned about appearing hip. They don’t go together….Though it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if they picked up a barbell now and then.
Bottom line: You have to search churches out, and test their spirits. There’s no way around it. When you find one, it will give you an appreciation for the pastor, too. As a last resort: You could always move to Spring, TX. Ha.
There’s two sermon’s on YouTube that I would suggest. The first is on Biblical Manhood, and another on Biblical Womanhood. I highly recommend them. The one on Biblical Womanhood might sound soft to you, at parts. Stick with it. It’s build-up to the end where he spends 5 minutes straight telling women to get their butts in the home, and take care of it; that they have not only no higher calling in life, but no other calling that matters until that one is satisfied; to maintain a home, raise and disciple children, and prepare the next generation of God’s army. Also, notice when the female audience DOESN’T laugh. It’s precious.
Spring is not far from Magnolia, my old home town for 12 years, it ain’t so bad.
After lugging chairs through a field in 98 degrees in Rowlett last weekend, Houston brought me one step closer to cool.
@Empath
I’m sorry, but I’m simply not understanding you today. I have truly tried, but I’m not able to even say to myself that I know what I think you might be trying to maybe get at. Some of that is that I’m trying to get out my thoughts to Dalrock, and you want to keep redirecting me to what you think he’s saying. You might even be right, but I am just getting confused and just cannot see it.
@Dalrock
Let me clarify first that every husband and father–by definition–has the standing to take his wife and children where he sees fit. Just as the pastor must move a flock from danger, so the father does too.
All Christians have the standing to make appeal for Christ’s cause; to represent Christ. As we see another leading Christians astray we have the standing to call them to account, and to repentance.
What we don’t have the right to do is judge that repentance act itself, or demand that it be made on our terms and in a manner that seems good to us. That is something that only an authority can do. We just have to accept that if they say they have repented, that they have. Then we watch their fruits like hawks over a mousefield.
As to the many hats, i.e., the singularity of the cop role, vs. the multiplicity of the pastor role.
I think it is an error to judge a pastor on the efficacy of his defense against feminism more strongly than on whether he is overall a good pastor. That doesn’t mean we can’t call him out on his errors. It means that in looking for a church, just like looking for a husband we want a lot more than just is he a good fighter. I’ll take a kind of weak fighter husband with high earning potential, a steady heart, and patience; over a rock-ribbed bar-fighter for my daughter any day of the week. My daughter’s tingles are gonna have to learn to provoke the oomph in him…but I don’t want a wimp either. It’s the same kind of choice.
Again, I was tying in what I read between your comments and what I haven’t seen from your posts. It wasn’t what your OP was about. The OP was great. I don’t keep saying that to curry your favor, but so you understand that I’m saying, “Regardless of what your OP said, I see this simmering under the surface; unsaid, but informing the whole discussion. In the absence of a call to go to church, the call for repentance of pastors is stillborn. What would be the point if we don’t HAVE to go to church? And if we have to go to church, then why aren’t we? Lackluster pastors isn’t enough of a reason. That’s a reason to go to church and call for repentance THERE.
@Dalrock, et al
I’m due at a baseball game. I’ll check in when I get back.
[D: Enjoy. The internet can wait!]
@Cane
I’m on board with this. My main intent with the post was to get the reader to imagine what repentance would look like. If I did that, then I’ll be very happy. But I think I failed in the process to paint the picture of what it looks like post repentance. It is something quite beautiful, as it should be. I am as you have pointed out fairly skeptical of claims that a pastor hasn’t run into the issue. But I am very eager to take a repentant pastor at his word. But if he doesn’t do it in a way I can know about it, there is no word for me to take. There is also the practical issue that Empath has brilliantly described above.
It never fails to amaze me how many “Bible believing Christians” would stare at you like a deer in the headlights if you asked them to open their Bibles (Eric S. Mueller)
Me neither. True story: I drive around with a bumper sticker which says “So Many Christians… So Few Lions!”… One day I hit a construction stop out on the highway, the 20-30 minute kind, where people turn off their engines and get out of their cars. The one behind me was driven by a young woman, who, when she approached, I could see she was wearing a cross. Her question: “What does that bumper sticker mean?”.
Damnatio ad bestias?
In a general sense it’s one of the central metaphors of our time.
One of the crimes that that was the penalty for was those who kidnapped children for ransom. Empath’s mention of Baskerville’s work “Taken Into Custody” (The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family) reminded me. That’s essentially what divorcing moms and their pimp-daddy the State are doing these days, kidnapping children from fathers and holding them hostage for extortion of child support.
“…like some fourth century citizen of Rome who is amused and intrigued by the Empire’s
collapse, but who still cares enough to mock the stupidities that are hastening its end.”
– Neil Postman, describing two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Russell Baker
Well actually, Martian Bachelor, to be fair to the young lady, I believe you will find – not that I claim to have read it – that there are no reference to Lions (Roman ones) to which your bumper-sticker refers (something one does not see over here – bumper-stickers I mean) in the NT. One can of course read all about them in Gibbon’s Decline and Fall – my source. Even so! – though I am not quite sure I quite get it either.
Cane, I knew I’d eventually succeed in being so far flung, so metaphorical, so barely empathetic (in its original meaning) that I’d be indecipherable . I’ve been reading a lot of some blog about things known or something or other…….:).
What? The Internet can wait?
Man….I wish someone would have told me that back when they started the damn thing. I’ve wasted years perched over this confounded machine in case it needed me.
[D: You and me both.]
@Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) on June 17, 2013 at 9:01 am
You wrote
“Dear Eric,
If your pastor really preached the gospel, your wife wouldn’t be able to divorce you at whim.
lzozozzozozozozz”
In other words, they cannot be trusted. Anyone not reading the content from Victor found here is destined AND intentionally determined to foolishly end up alone, clueless about why other men, even males that are less attractive in every way, are enjoying the love, commitment and kind adoration of the amazing women
they are pushing away with their choice to follow the advice of the sick. Learn here http://www.lifegivingshow.com or continue to regret that women are not interested.
Stop speaking so highly of the ‘leaders’ that lead concepts that aren’t even this church your religion explains. Your religion tells you that the church is You! Not the building. You fail to realize why more women from your religion are converting to Islam than are men. Women want to be around leaders. Then again, you probably think ‘Fifty Shades’ trilogy improved your sex life in marriage. http://www.lifegivingshow.com … Or be left behind … Alone.
“So many Christians, so few lions”- I laughed when I read that. Not that I’m eager for a date with a lion, but I get the reference.
I don’t want to sound too cynical, but that seems to be what my ex-wife and her co-conspirator the State of New Jersey have done. They made it so easy. In NJ, “irreconcilable differences” is a magic word that gets a rubber stamp. The judge won’t even question it. As a housewife, she has the “right” to throw me out and make me pay for it. Then pay for her. I put some stipulations in the agreement as triggers to reduce her support.
The only benefit is that alimony is a tax break, whereas child support is not. So on the bright side, she has to pay taxes on a portion of her “winnings” and I get a write-off. I don’t consider that a win though.
@Eric
Sincere apologies for having to break the news to you, but I anchored news nationally in a past life and one of my degrees qualifies me to report.
The co-conspirator included ________ name the leader(s) at whatever place you attended in your religion.
As for the state, it is the fault of every person that failed to lead his or her children that were going to choose a full-time job anyway… They did not lead the children to the place of global influence so they could reign in the places of decision… Washington, D.C.??? NO. He– No! No, no… NO! The magic of global influence is from here in a land that’s not a real ‘city’ … HOLLYWOOD — Holy Woodstock you didn’t know it then?
Fortunately you’ve got a chance now Eric and others reading here to stop talking about the idiots that ‘lead’ and teach on the Titanic ‘church’ … Your religion says You are the church!
I’ve risked my life to influence from here since the wimps rambling on about irrelevant false teachers have screwed us all. Now every one of them will be exposed and in misery over their choices because what you call the mainstream has finished holding you up, throwing you carrots and bones, appeasing your mind that’s glued to sports, games, porn, Facebook, TV and gluten filled bulbs of garbage.
See ‘Man of Steel’ and respect the long credits. If people had sent their kids here instead of educating them for a boring cubicle, you’d not call the state a co-conspirator. Hollywood is global influence. And Eric… Do as Vic says three hours dedicated to just those tips every day at http://www.lifegivingshow.com
Glad you found the artist. It will help millions.
Good stuff, Mr. Caldo. This bears repeating:
I’ve taken a lot of heat on my site for our continued attendance at our church despite some concerns. And I’ve side-stepped that discussion by just noting the fact that my husband says we are going, so we go. But the reason he says we go is exactly what you have described. We go to call for repentance there. And to gently influence those around us in small group settings in the church. And of course, to be shepherded ourselves; we are nowhere near perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).
By the way, I’ve mentioned Pastor Doug Phillips of Vision Forum here about a half a dozen times. I just want to add that he’s very similar to Pastor Baucham. In fact, they are friends and have collaborated in the past. And he’s right there in Texas, too, just like Pastor Baucham is. Just in case anyone is church shopping.
To answer the portion of Cain’s post quoted above…
I can’t stride into one of the megachurches and shout, ‘You have forgotten your first love!’ Most parishioners would lump me in with the anti-faith zealots. Christ overturned the tables of the marketplace within the temple (maybe that’s what had the Sanhedrin upset in the end)… but he didn’t attend that temple.
And then there’s the humility thing. I know I’m imperfect. That in the end is the first truth of Christianity. The compromised pastors misleading their flocks have forgotten that first truth. I’m realizing the shortest way to say it is… have you read C.S. Lewis’s Perelandria? The liar in the end wins the war of words. …and why throw the pearls knowing they will turn and attack? Out of the church, people who need to hear from me find me, without the audience that might cause them to defend their pride and close their ears.
Live Fearless sez:
You fail to realize why more women from your religion are converting to Islam than are men. Women want to be around leaders.
It’s a minor point, but something I know a bit about. I went through a phase where I seemed to be dating a lot of Muslim chicks (some who banged, some who didn’t) and I made friends with male members of the community as a result.
Western Christian/Jewish/Secular women who convert to Islam are not taken too seriously here, by real Muslims, as they have proven to be lackluster converts who apostatize in favor of something else in a very short time. That doesn’t mean that no converts are serious, but women who convert generally have a lot of social hurdles to jump, and a lot of work to do, before they are accepted, based upon the often poor behaviour of women who came before them.
The masjid in my area is also becoming increasingly feminized, with women demanding (and being allowed) to attend Friday prayers, with the preacher catering to them as a result. Hence one might have heard serious moral and philosophical teachings from the clergy in the past, those things are rare now, as the preacher is apparently castigating men for not doing enough for the Muslim women and etc. Pretty much the same story as with Jews and Christians, in other words.
Women do not tend to take religion seriously in general. They see it as a status thing, and for most women who convert to Islam (or anything else, I’d imagine) they first want to because it seems exotic or exciting, and after they see the truth — that it is a discipline that takes work — suddenly it is no longer interesting and they wander away.
Regards, Boxer
“Exploring Your Destiny” Sunday Service Webcast w/ Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. Topic: How women are building a shameless society.
@Tom
He most certainly did. There was only one Temple in Israel, and all the temples were the Temple.
Aside from that: While I would pay hard cash to watch you stride and shout in a megachurch, that’s not what I had in mind. We are to have relationships with them. We have to be willing to walk back the repentant steps with those we would call to repentance.
@8oxer Boxer — The phrase reference came to mind during my swim from an older post at http://bit.ly/13SNNNO … type Islam in search box. Regardless, the wimps will continue to believe they can change ones that have made the permanent choice.
@Cane Caldo We do not have to do anything with them. Time is better spent here with people of other religions that actually listen, they know how to work, work smart, delegate, dream big and create with speed of implementation… to do stuff that influences the whole world instead of sitting and listening to a toxic “leader”
@ Eric
Hey Eric, You need to get that alimony contract with your ex properly before the court again. You need to take the case law that you can dig up in the law library to support a valid argument for not paying her alimony. What you are going to want to do is make the court realize on it’s own just how ridiculous paying her alimony is. A simple yet effective argument without even using case law would be to say to the judge; “judge, I have not problem paying my ex alimony on one condition. As she is claiming a right to alimony as a right to be able to maintain a style of life that she has become accustomed to, I am also claiming a right to a lifestyle that I have become accustomed to and feel as though I am just as entitled as she. See your honor, it’s like this; throughout our marraige, I never had to go out with the guys looking for a one night stand or a piece of tail in order to have sex as I had my ex at home that made it readily available to me. With this being the case judge, I have not been out there in the field so to speak and my skills at picking up women to have sex are practically none existent at this point because after our marraige, I never had to use those skills again. However sir, as you can see, with this divorce I no longer have that vagina waiting for me at home and the fact of the matter is is that this will place an undue burden upon me as I will no longer have it waiting for me when I get home. So as you can see judge, if I am paying alimony to my ex so that she is not to endure any undue hardships in maintaining a lifestyle that she claims to have become accustomed to I believe that my ex should make her vagina available to me 24/7 so that I myself am not enduring any undue hardships that I would be subjected to from the absence of her vagina. It is also my understanding your honor, that for a contract to be valid, there needs to be a meeting of the minds and as you can clearly see, that unless I am receiving access to her vagina then I cannot justify providing a benefit for which there is no return”.
The point of this argument Eric is to show how utterly ridiculous it is for an ex spouse to make such a claim and the court will readily see it as well after you finish. The idea of you having access to your ex’s vagina after a dissolution of the marriage is in and of itself ridiculous just as her argument being that she has become accustomed to your money. If she wants to maintain a lifestyle that she cannot currently meet, then she needs to either find a job that pays the equivalent or work to jobs. Just as it is your responsibility, if you want to have sex to go and get it on your own. The point is, you are no more entitled to her vagina than she is to your money!
@Dalrock
Dalrock this is the real world reality that makes brave men cowards. He has to survive to fight another day. A tactical or strategic retreat may look like cowardice in the field but it does keep your forces intact. Pastor Baucham is a man we should speak to. He is immersed in a feminized world and has held up pretty well and still has a job. (damn fine work on his part) Maybe that guy and the fella sun shine mentioned earlier. Rather than repent the man can be encouraged to fight with more confidence and have bible classes on Wednesday night led by PUA. Image that a state of red pill Christians with ar-15’s and CHL’s . Texas would be the place to be One of the things we in the Christian manosphere can do is speak as we are and let the pastor’s take that and run it past the bible to explain it. The hit is on MRA warriors and not his and maybe a pastor can wean his flock off the blue pill and the feminine imperative and on to the red pill. Maybe he’ll have a sermon titled “The Cock Carousel: Riding That Dick for Her Empowerment” (I’m going to that one with a hundred dollar bill for the collection plate) The clarity of the “red pill” will add strength to the church. Caldo Cane is a different man than he was when he first got here and for the better. So it is possible.
Pingback: Should Christians be concerned about generating sexual attraction? | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: Murder, Righteous Anger, and Microbiology | Feminism is Empathological
Grey Ghost I definitely agree with your point on Pastor Baucham’s tactic, except I’m not sure what he did was a “retreat” and it certainly doesn’t strike me as cowardly. Either way it is enjoyable to see a master at work.
On quoting in comments, you don’t need to use special tags if you don’t want, but this page explains how to format quotes in wordpress. It is easier to point to the page than explain it in the comments because wordpress will interpret the tag as formatting if I type it out. There are ways around that, but this is easier/quicker. You can do similar tags swapping out “i” or “b” or for the text “blockquote” (keeping the less than and greater than symbols as well as the forward slash in the closing tag) to get italics or bold.
Grey Ghost I definitely agree with your point on Pastor Baucham’s tactic, except I’m not sure what he did was a “retreat” and it certainly doesn’t strike me as cowardly. Either way it is enjoyable to see a master at work.
Well not intended to make the pastor look cowardly but to make a point that different things are done to survive that are smart But on the surface may not appear strong and positive. I like the guy from what I was shown. I still think it would be awesome for a pastor like that to have red pill game in his corner. The understanding of this social actions that is fueling women in feminism would really help a solid Christian man. He could gina tingle his female members into lustful submission to their families with dread game.http://heartiste.wordpress.com/?s=dread
Too many foolish Christians think game will make a Christian man a PUA or a player. I see it as the perfect tool for leading women. because that is where woman are and will always be. It is romantic and irresponsible as a man to think otherwise. Game can calm a woman hysterical with fear, a father with game can lead his daughter to finish college, With game you can get good service at a restaurant, or as the motivation to even develop the social science itself get her out of those panties. Game also works well coaching the wife’s teaching career when she comes home in tears from the social interaction with other teachers.. (wife’s not good at the female social bullshit game)
Looks like that worked out
As an outsider, and having watched with amused delight the 2008 video of Pastor Baucham making toast of the perfectly-coiffured Caucasian Anchor and the impertinent know-it-all Jewish butch-lesbian in rebellion against her presently professed religion, I must say it looks to me like an example of America at its blue-stocking worst. I assume that only Baucham’s being black prevented the two women from going into complete man-hating meltdown – no liberal can risk appearing anti-negro.
If I say that such an interview would have been unthinkable on British television I do not wish to imply any superiority – our problems, are, I would say, far far worse – but religion and politics just do not mix here, and thus there is no one quoting scripture to justify female submission and no one attempting to re-interpret it, in support of female supremacy – that is achieved via a wilful misinterpretation of Locke’s views on tolerance and the blank-slate. Palin was always seen here as something of a joke – but that may of course be entirely unfair to her. All Americans look odd unless they have the non-folksy voice and rhetoric of J.F. Kennedy or B.H Obama.
Just as religion holds no sway, counselling unhappily marrieds is rare and largely seen as psycho-babble. Would it be that most English are more independent minded or would it be that they just do not care? Given the whining of those women in the videos I am amazed any man is married in America.
Writing on blogs helps eliminate our folksy voices, a little. Obama has the non-folksy voice but has no rhetoric whatsoever. A news reader.
Spot on about why they “tolerated” Baucham.
@Opus
I may be crossing wires here but there is a skit I saw years ago I believe by Benny Hill. In it the therapist asks an elderly couple a series of questions, with the pattern generally following:
Therapist: In the morning, do you wake up tired and grumpy?
Old man: (after some thought) No. I let her sleep.
@Opus….
From this side of the pond… I sometimes shake my head in amazement. Surely, God must have a sense of humor. Contemplate Isaiah 4:1. Seriously. We’re getting closer every day. While I certainly don’t have the “non-folksy voice and rhetoric of J.F. Kennedy or B.H. Obama” I can sometimes make a point or two. The real problem is the “not invented here syndrome” that has infected virtually every organized group. Dr. Fred Klenner cured a polio epidemic in his hometown using high doses of intravenous vitamin C in the 1930’s. The medical community was very much “ho-hum” about that… decades before Salk came up with a vaccine for polio… but surprise, surprise, surprise… Salk gave the vaccine away and nobody got to make a profit from it. That was a mortal sin for the pharmaceutical manufacturers association, but the point is the same: Vitamin C cannot be patented and sold for obscene profits.
I see much the same thing in the church universal. Voddie Baucham is a negro and therefore immune to attack by feminists. He’s off limits because of his skin color, not because of his message. We have indeed reached a sad day wherein the intrinsic message is determined by society’s view of our ability to share said message. The implied profit motive must be examined when doing an analysis of any preacher of the gospel these days.
@Dalrock
I tend to think that Counselling, Analysis, Therapy (and the like) is merely a more drawn-out and economically more profitable version of The Roman Catholic Sacrament of Confession. Whether any have ever benefited any penitent or analysand, I wonder (that is for more than a feel-good half-hour – do you realise that Amazon has for sale over 50,000 self-help books and always rising!) and although it is good to get things off ones chest, a friend, or intimate, and over a drink is usually the person for that. If they are not interested then that is probably an indication that one should keep ones mouth shut and ones thoughts to oneself – or that one needs a new friend. The English (as perhaps with the Benny Hill sketch, and vast amounts of M. Python) tend to become intensely embarrassed by any expression of feeling – one feels so stupid making the statement and equally ill at ease when one merely listens – Americans seem to be so good at listening and sympathy.
I once shared a motel room with a male friend (in Southern California) – two enormous double beds; I had been out but on returning he enthusiastically told me that he had been able, through the thin dividing-wall, to clearly hear the conversation between a man and a woman (obviously lovers, as this was a sleazy motel). ‘I always assumed that they only talked like that in the Films’ he said ‘but now I know that Americans really talk to each other like that in real-life’.
[No American was intentionally offended in the construction of the above comment.]
Voddie Baucham is a negro and therefore immune to attack by feminists. He’s off limits because of his skin color, not because of his message.
You are kidding, right? Whenever the ruling class wants to bash blacks in an overtly racist manner, they bring out some butch dyke of a feminist to do it for them. She’ll thinly veil her racist rage behind some pseudo-scholarship, but it’s white hot. bell hooks (who self-describes as a feminist herself) has pointed this out repeatedly. Look up Barbara Smith, one of the chief critics of working class blacks who want to organize and fight for their communities. That ugly bitch spins a good one, too.
This guy is quite crass, not safe for work, and not overtly religious (he’s a Catholic) and the feminists hate him like almost nobody else. Google his name. He’s a black Atlanta radio show host who has a lot of good stuff on youtube.
Bottom line is that feminism is an undercover racist movement. The way shit has gone down with Blacks in North America, I personally believe that one of the original goals of feminism was to destroy Black men first. Black men like Tommy Sotomayor have nothing to lose, so it’s not surprising that they are often found at the forefront of criticising the matriarchy.
Regards, Boxer
Nothing offensive about that Opus. The whoreish nature of American emotionalism is epic. Though Britain shares the tendency to grief porn, piling flowers and carrying candles, this individual one-to-one stuff may be ours to own.
8oxer
You have seen and heard of tommy Sotomayor? good. He has good stuff his latest video I have seen is him speaking on a video of a baby momma tossing a child (baby0 to another passenger on a bus so she could go and kick some other woman’s ass. The spearhead did an article on lynchings and what on the surface looks like racism is also founded largely in feminism white knightery. The easiest way to elevate your status as a woman is to be a victim of some kind of sexual assault. A huge amount of pain and suffering in the African American community is from African American culture that is founded and based on liberalism and feminism lose, lose, lose, lose. When things fail as they will it is due to racism and the solution is to double down and this time we’ll get the heterosexual white males.
@8oxer
Nailed it. That’s exactly why I said his race was a factor in why CNN chose him. If the interview went south (rimshot), the subliminal message is still: Don’t be like this backwards woman-hating nigger if you want hot white chicks. The fact that they get caught up in their own “toleration” campaign is just funny, and why the journalist literally had to pull a last-word tactic, and then cut to commercial. Watch that sheep bounce!
You could do a lot a analysis on this: The 2008 election was a fascinating mash-up of American idiosyncrasies and neurosis.
Baucham voted for Ron Paul both elections. You can read his reasons here.
@Empathologism
Maybe you are right – I’d forgotten about all that below-decks-sentimentality when Lady Di had her car crash.
Baucham was pretty fantastic though – calm but forceful and resonant of voice despite the female attempts at shaming – notice the Anchors resort to the use of the word Sexist. How can you Americans tolerate such awful women without taking an axe to their television sets?
Cane Caldo and Boxer obviously disagree with me about the effect of Baucham being Black. Perhaps they are right, and I must say where I am Diane Abbott a fat loud-mouthed black member of parliament is wheeled out for the cameras largely to see if she can excel her previous efforts in stupidity – but is there some clip of a white minister railing against biblical immorality and getting off unscathed by his female interlocutors. I’d like to see that!
I’ve been following Baucham for years and have read more than enough bashing of his views from white Christian feminists. He is not spared because he’s black. If anything, he’ a text book case of the “misogynistic ways” of black men, both secular and religious.
I only hope that voices Tommy Sotomayor (he’s great), Gillis Triplett, and Jesse Lee Peterson would gain more traction.
Well actually, Martian Bachelor, to be fair to the young lady, I believe you will find – not that I claim to have read it – that there are no reference to Lions (Roman ones) to which your bumper-sticker refers (something one does not see over here – bumper-stickers I mean) in the NT. (Opus)
A quick websearch turned up 2 Timothy 4:17, which is part of the NT.
Common knowledge ain’t so common.
Boxer was on the same track as I when he said “Women do not tend to take religion seriously in general. They see it as a status thing”… The cross is often merely a fashion statement of some indeterminate sort for women, esp. the younger ones.
They do the same thing with what is now called generically the peace symbol, which originally meant specifically Ban the Bomb (nuclear bomb, that is). We have one bizarre public service ad running here on tee-vee where a 9-10 y.o. girl clearly wearing big peace symbol earrings and t-shirt is surprised big time in the middle of her school classroom by the sudden appearance of her dad, who’s in camo, like he just got back from the war, which is where she evidently thinks he still is supposed to be. Tears and hugs ensue.
Anyway, one page I went by had no specific references to the practice of Christians and ad bestias, but did contain this enjoyable little quip from a Roman about those weird commie-monogamists in their midst: The Christians were those “fools who shared all their belongings” to which the Christians retorted that “they shared everything that every body else kept separate and kept separate the one thing which everybody else shared: their wives.”
We are to go to church.
And be exposed to error, misandry and feminism? Pass.
I sat in the pews for years, noting the constant stream of subjectivism, man up messages, and increasingly left wing doctrine that passes for moderate, nowadays.
Opus says/asks:
Given the whining of those women in the videos I am amazed any man is married in America
I guess it makes for a good argument that collective divine retribution really does exist and that American men must have done something to seriously piss off The Almighty. I just wish He’d be clear about what it was so that we could atone for it forthwith.
How can you Americans tolerate such awful women without taking an axe to their television sets?
Some of us make a point of avoiding TV “news” (read: propaganda) programs like we would avoid a plague ward, even at the risk of missing rare informative and inspiring segments like the one with Pastor Baucham. For every gem like that, one must wade through oceans of raw verbal and intellectual sewage that do nothing but accelerate the destruction of one’s faith in humanity, not to mention tempt one to destroy one’s own flat-screen TV, as you point out. Too much risk for far too little reward. (Incidentally, can anyone imagine garbage like CNN, MSNBC, or Faux News being the staple stream emanating from telescreens that George Orwell described in 1984? I would have to imagine that the collective population of Oceania would have committed mass suicide very early on.)
@Elspeth
It may be different over here where Black people are treated as a protected species. I’d say the pecking order in reverse order, is females generally then Black people (which will include Asians and Indians), then Muslims at the absolute zenith. This may seem strange to Americans.
It’s kind of the same here Opus, with one exception. Conservative Christians are fair game no matter what their race.
@Elspeth
The position of Christians here is very curious. The United Kingdom is a Theocracy and the state religion is Anglicanism. Our Head of State – presently one Elizabeth Windsor – is annointed as God’s chosen representative. (Anglicanism is, I believe, known as Episcopalianism in the United States). You might therefore suppose that as all the Anglican Bishops (other than Colonial Bishops) sit in The House of Lords (the equivalent of your Senate) that the position of Christians would be secure. This is far from the case, for in practice the preferred religion is Secularism. Christians frequently find that their beliefs clash with the ruling ideology, such that (rightly or wrongly) they cannot maintain their beliefs as against Islam, Militant Homo-sexuals, or Secularists generally.
Members of the Church of England nevertheless go around with that slight air of superiority which is born of having been top-dog here since 597 A.D. – even as their pastors appease Islam, cave in to Secularists, bow before Feminist and generally promote Homo-sexuality (this last is most popular and probably trumps everything else). They feel as if they are fighting off hungry lions and clearly feel happier wearing hair-shirts.
Maybe you are right – I’d forgotten about all that below-decks-sentimentality when Lady Di had her car crash.
That’s what I was thinking of, to be fair it was ONE thing, but I suspect the motive to congregate and do same is there in smaller, non-internationally known things as well.
As to the tolerance issue being what kept Baucham from more vicious attack, both sides are correct. To say his being black spared him, AND to say that the little academic-ish imp had seething racism are not mutually exclusive. Had he been white the dialog would have been uglier, but maybe no seething rage being held back.
it says something, and Im not sure what, that its more likely to find Bauchams among black leaders than white ones. Thats complicated, because as Peterson (Jesse) shows there are gender issues in the black community that look a little different than the white ones, in that in the maiin, by the numbers, there are less supplicating men, but more OVERTLY controlling women. Interessting
but more OVERTLY controlling women.
That word overtly, is the lynchpin Empath. Black women are no where nearly as controlling as white women in the context of marriage. While it’s true that any American woman can use any excuse to divorce her husband and ruin his life, I’ve seen black women stay with men after some horrid stuff that the average American wife couldn’t begin to imagine putting up with. Like a wife who caught her husband is mid-coitus, stayed, and still had 6 more children with him. They are still married to this day. About the
Black women are more likely to be single mothers over repeat generations, so family matriarchies get entrenched, hatred of the horrible men they chose to lay with colors the conversation, and you have the meme of the angry black woman, one that is not without merit since 70% of black babies are born to single mothers
The overtly controlling black woman is usually witnessed in that context, not the context of marriage, although it is increasingly common to find young black men (say 45 and under) who are more supplicating than their fathers would ever imagine possible. And as you and I have discussed before, black men are just as likely to bail on a marriage as black women are.
You are absolutely correct that the gender issues are different. The major difference between Baucham and Jesse Peterson is that Baucham’s message is received by a more white, mainstream conservative Christian audience (I suspect his congregation is mostly white) and Peterson’s addresses the problems in the black community more directly.
One of the premises of racism is that blacks are inferior. So it is very easy for a racist to not fully attack a black person as to not give full agency to a N*****. As one boogie man George Bush stated “the racism of low expectations” which is very true. Affirmative action is a good way to treat black people as the pets you think they are and have the them thinking you are there friend. My approach has always been train and educate the ability of your target audience to where they are the most qualified and capable. ( don’t wont the monkeys cages though. That is where rev Wright of Obama fame uses race to keep his negroes in line talking down America as racist.) Liberal white and minority do the same thing and call it culture and diversity. Just meant to keep the ruling elite the ruling elite.
Pingback: ZION'S TRUMPET » Unfortunately, There is a Lot of Truth in This Article
I agree elspeth. The armory of emotional passive aggressive crap the white woman unleashes is very different than the overt sort of archetype I mention with a black woman. I wonder how the white women’s manipulation a would fly with the average black man. I’m playing loose with terms but you get my point.
I wonder how the white women’s manipulation a would fly with the average black man.
Highest interracial divorce rate: Black man/white woman pairings.
Lowest interracial divorce rate: White man/black woman pairings.
YMMV, but I think you get the picture. It’s pretty bad with some of the younger black wives I’ve encountered in the past decade, but as a general rule, black married women behave pretty well in their relationships on the main. At least they are no worse than any other women.
It’s the matrirchs however, that drive the meme everyone is so familiar with.
hello everyone
my name is terri I run redonkulas.com a comedy site. my first few videos have been unflattering to women. I mearly speak about what I observe and I have been getting really cool hate mail from the the other sex “ie not male” . Can some one give me what are the typical insults given to men from angrey women? I am thinking on doing a video on it. I get the penis size insults, I wont get laid insults, but I would like to make a video that predicts what they will say in the future so I can respond with the video and assist in correcting there approach to insulting me.. any help would be greatly appreciated. and thank you in advance
terri
REDONKULAS.COM
Terri
start here and then go to the PUA player sites to get a better insight into women. The best retorts are the ones that sexually interest them into you. You already have them in a state of emotional arousal
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
Dear Elspeth et.al:
As the forum’s least ashamed race mixer, I guess I ought to give my own experience on this matter.
YMMV, but I think you get the picture. It’s pretty bad with some of the younger black wives I’ve encountered in the past decade, but as a general rule, black married women behave pretty well in their relationships on the main. At least they are no worse than any other women.
I am not one who indulges in NAWALT type talk, but I must say it is impossible to slap a label on Black chicks. There are millions of slim, hot Black chicks who have perfect manners, a modicum of feminine modesty and ample brainpower. There are millions more who are loud, stupid, obnoxious lard asses. Among those I’ve met, the Black chicks in the first group are more likely to be recent immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean.
I dated one Black chick from Detroit, however, who could compete with the best of them. The only downside to her was her job — she was a divorce attorney (LOL). I don’t know, exactly, what she could have seen in Brother Boxer at that point in his life, but she’s a fond memory.
Admittedly, I am not going to get married and have no interest in anything more serious than a medium term fling. Any of the African immigrants I dated would have been marriage material, though, and for you guys who are open to marrying outside your ethnic group, these would probably be a good catch. Most of these women are either virgins or single digit notch count women at most. Most want nothing more than to raise up children in a homemaker type role, though many are very bright and will probably work part time at a business to help you out. Many of these women are Muslims, but in my experience, their families would accept a Christian dude. I remember one amusing conversation I had with one of these chicks. “I really like you,” she’d begin, “but my family wants me to at least marry someone who believes in God, even if he’s not a Muslim boy. Couldn’t you at least go back to your Mormon church and pretend?”…
Regards, Boxer
I am confused – where in scripture does it say we have to go to a place that is not following God (in a multitude of ways) i.e., “the church”? Hebrews author tells us to “not forsake the assembly” of believers. Why does that mean we have to go to church? We are the church. If we are not allowed to confront our pastor when he is blatantly misinterpreting the word, than there is no point.
I heavily encourage you to look into house churches. It eliminates the waste of modern day church, increases member participation, and ultimately doesn’t allow heresy to spread past the 15-25 people that attend. In a house church, it is much easier to call someone out if they are saying something unbiblical. In a mega church, it is nigh impossible.
The churches overseas consist not of the western style church, but rather of house churches. Where people fulfill their ministry gifts (pastor, teacher, prophet, evangelist, and apostle) consistently. House churches spread faster and thereby produce more fruit. They can be “culturally” relevant in the sense that a group of people in a similar community and culture can meet (muslim background believers, graveyard shift workers, former hindus, etc). This facilitates better communication and a church that is more relevant to the community.
A most excellent book on it is “Nexus: The World House Church Movement” by Rad Zdero. He has been doing house church in the west for over 30 years and has assembled a ton of articles by other authors and experts in the biblical, historical, and practical basis for house churches.
Stop bitching about church and trying to change a system that cannot be changed. Opt out into something better and delve into something more biblical and demanding (in a good way) than consumer church.
Just a bit of housekeeping: since “LiveFearless” mentioned Victor Pride’s 30 Days of Discipline several times, here’s the official link:
http://30daysofdiscipline.info/
On Victor’s site, he said LiveFearless’ link was “rogue.” If you’re going to buy the book, at least buy it from the man who wrote it (Victor) and let him earn the profit.
Pingback: Links and Comments #13 | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Marriages Go Their Own Way, Part I « Artisanal Toad's Hall
Pingback: A Month of Silence, but not Quiet | Things that We have Heard and Known
Interestingly, my wife and I recently came to an understanding on our roles in the marriage… Biblically. She has acknowledged that her submissive (not oppressed) role is imperative to the success of our marriage and is really making an effort to avoid her habits of control… learned from virtually everywhere in society. We spoke to my pastor a few days ago and she asked him why, during all the times she had gone to him demanding that he convince me to change, he had not pointed out that she should try embracing the submissive role in the relationship. His reply was that she had not been ready to hear and accept it before. While I agree that the church and pastors could (and should) stand up more to the feminist destruction of marriage and preach what the Bible tells us, there is also the very practical need to soften the message in order to make sure it comes across at all. My wife, even two months ago, would have been likely to walk away from the church and never get the opportunity to learn the lesson that God offers us about how to make a marriage work. Feminism, as learned from society, had created a “pride” that would have simply blocked the message from getting through until there were enough cracks in the wall. It’s unfortunate that this attitude is so prevalent among women, but it is also a reality that we have to deal with. If we want things to get better, it’s going to be a long road of little victories and we all need to be willing to be in the fight for the long haul… especially when the going gets tough.
My pastor’s response, I feel, was wise given the situation. The idea is to save people, but unfortunately people don’t always realize they need saving. Convincing them of their sins in a way that fosters repentance instead of rebellion is a tricky business.
Pingback: Brilliant advertising. | Dalrock
Pingback: Fragging Christian Headship | Dalrock
@Dalrock, anonymous troll “John” has implied that Victor Pride does not profit when books are sold because of my efforts. I am an AFFILIATE of the books at Victor Pride’s blog BOLD AND DETERMINED … I was linking to Victor Pride’s blog and books like 30 DAYS OF DISCIPLINE through a forwarding domain temporarily – I had just been accepted to his affiliate program when I had to remain out of state for an extended period of time taking care of a relative. When I returned, Victor Pride informed me that he was told that I had copied his page verbatim. Victor Pride knows that I have no idea how to do that.
Now, I understand how to link to books like this… BODY OF A SPARTAN by VICTOR PRIDE by linking through simple hyperlinks. This was NOT simple to me since I’ve always outsourced the creation of websites. The technical stuff is not interesting to me, but I realize that I have to learn some coding.
I’m NEW to creating hyperlinks. Before I was using URL shortening services and linking from forwarding domains. I was and I AM an affiliate of Victor Pride’s website. @Dalrock, I know you’re busy with the success of your family, your work and this blog. Please, if necessary, outsource the management of anonymous trolls with no trackback address. “John” has been allowed to succeed at interrupting profits to Victor Pride. That affected mine as well. The trackbacks on my comments go back to my REAL NAME, and I have brought growth to your efforts. Victor Pride writes what men that are just finding your blog need to know. He teaches nice guys how to live, work and be more like solid men.
Since women are fundamentally the problem, we can agree that gay male marriages (in those states where legalized) will be infinitely more stable than straight marriages, as they don’t have the degenerative influences of women to deal with. And since gay men get all the sex they want from their partners, we can predict that there will be no divorce, infidelity, porn viewing, etc. among gay male married couples.
Pingback: Pastoral hypocrisy: only SOME of the sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God; the rest can lead marriage ministries. | Sunshine Mary