She was loud and rebellious,
Her feet would not stay at home.— Proverbs 7:11 NKJV
Some time back DeNihilist linked to a blog post titled: 21 Signs You’re A Rebellious Woman (language warning). The post begins by explaining that a rebellious woman doesn’t conform to cliché standards:
1. You adamantly refuse to be the kind of woman the world wants you to be. You shun the status quo and loathe outdated clichés of what it means to be a woman, knowing these antiquated views are holding us all back from expressing ourselves fully.
The rest of the list is of course a list of cliché standards, since feminism is no longer at all counter-cultural. Number four however caught my eye:
4. You will never be small or less-than or weak. Your presence is a roar, never a whisper.
This one stood out because it reminded me of a question Pastor Driscoll received at the end of his sermon on 1 Pet 3:1-6. 1 Pet 3:4 instructs wives to submit to their husbands and cultivate “a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.” A woman in the congregation was concerned that this spirit was meant to bear fruit. Driscoll invited his wife Grace up to answer the questions from the women in the congregation because:
if I answered all of the women’s questions it would go really bad.
The specific question was (emphasis mine):
Can an outgoing/boisterous wife also have a quiet spirit?
Mrs. Driscoll explains:
I would say yes. Also a quiet woman can have an unsubmissive heart and actions. So it doesn’t have to do with the personality of the person. I have many friends that are more passionate and outgoing but they are fully submissive and respectful of their husbands.
Proverbs 9:13 says: “The woman Folly is loud; she is undisciplined and without knowledge.” I think the question you need to ask yourself is are you without knowledge in your boisterousness? Are you undisciplined? Are you seeking the Lord? Are you prayerful when you are with your husband and even if you are energetic or boisterous are you praying before you speak words to him? And also consider asking your husband if your boisterousness is disrespectful at all at times to him and be willing to repent if that is the case. But just because you are outgoing or boisterous doesn’t necessarily mean that you are unsubmissive. It doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand.
The best part of her response is when she defers to the woman’s husband to answer. In fact, had she limited her answer to this suggestion, it would have been an outstanding answer. However, it would have been even better had Mark given this answer directly. Moreover, given that Grace is answering the question because Mark feared rebellion from the wives, I don’t think the woman’s husband is in a good position to answer with any real leadership. If Pastor Driscoll fears this man’s wife, no doubt her husband fears her even more.
But more interesting than Grace’s answer, and perhaps more interesting than Mark’s fear of answering, is the question itself. In our feminist era the idea of a woman being quiet and gentle is heresy. “I am woman, hear me roar!” is the anthem inspired by second wave feminism, with ban bossy being just the latest incarnation of the mindset. Even conservative Christians are now terrified that wives will lack moxie. That the Bible would call on women to suppress this central aspect of feminism is horrifying, and this leads to much rationalization. Of course it can’t actually mean cultivating a quiet, gentle spirit. That is flat out unimaginable.
And yet, not only does it say this, but the reflexive reaction by feminist Christian women against actually being gentle and quiet should only reinforce the importance of it.
My neighborhood tavern, just a few blocks from my home, used to be a great place to unwind and watch a game on TV with the other patrons – men from various walks of life and a few ladies. Now the place has been taken over by women in their 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s, who seem to compete with one another to see who can be the loudest, most obnoxious, and most foul-mouthed (once I asked, “Do you kiss your children with that mouth?). They don’t have to be drunk to behave this way, although the drinking makes it worse. And by all appearances they are proud of themselves.
Pingback: The sound of a rebellious woman | Manosphere.com
Pingback: The sound of a rebellious woman | Neoreactive
I honestly don’t know what to think about this. What you’re calling fear, others would call rhetoric, or taking advantage of cultural anomalies. I can say that my gut reaction is revulsion. It repels me in the same way I am repelled to see a television program where a woman or a homosexual has been invited on to talk about how misandrist is our culture.
I saw a picture of actress Lena Headey. She was wearing a T-shirt that bore the words: I’M NOT SORRY.
I Googled “Lena Headey I’m not sorry” to see if I could find it again. Apparently many websites are carrying photos of her in that T-shirt: http://www.morrissey-solo.com/content/1890-Game-Of-Thrones-star-Lena-Headey-wears-I-m-Not-Sorry-T-shirt-On-Kimmel
I’ve noticed that many celebrities on the red carpet (I live in L.A.) dress like trash, especially the women. Red carpet events, and they wear flip-flops, trashy t-shirts with trashy sentiments, all sorts of intentionally mismatched and ill-fitting attire.
I’ve noticed so many adults, even financially successful, middle-aged adults, on the streets in the trendy sections of L.A., wearing T-shirts with trashy or obscene sentiments.
Did this start in the 1960s? When “break all the rules” and “make your own rules” became admirable traits? Was it the 1970s or 1980s when such sentiments were mainstreamed by corporate advertising, selling Americans on the idea that they are special, because they “make their own rules” (provided they buy this or that product)?
@Cane Caldo
I really do think it is fear. Check out the link to the video I provided in the OP. Driscoll is very clearly afraid of the response he will get to this sermon, and it is visible in his words and his body language throughout the sermon. Now contrast that to the sermon he gave for the men the following week on the very next verse. He is not only not afraid, he opens the sermon with a prayer abusing the men and the abuse continues through the sermon including the closing prayer. That is the famous “How dare you!” sermon. Driscoll clearly has no fear of the men in the congregation, but is very afraid of the women. His instincts were right here, because when he finally quit the complaint was that he was too hard on the women in the congregation.
>His instincts were right here, because when he finally quit the complaint was that he was too hard on the women in the congregation.
Clearly the truth of the matter is that he wasn’t hard enough on them.
These mouthy, loud, obnoxious Iamwomanhearmeroar types are foul. They are training boys and men to be weak and submissive and to hate their masculinity mostly by punishing any boy who shows independent thought or actions. They are training girls and women to be hard and arrogant and to hate their beauty mostly by destroying it with poor dress and rolls of fat.
What could possibly go wrong?
If I wasn’t in /r/Marriedredpill I would be MGTOW. Marriage to a modern woman doesn’t offer anything a man could possibly want. We won’t be there for you ladies and you will die alone surrounded by filthy, unwashed animals with the last sound you hear a “Meow.” Enjoy your cats.
Driscoll is very clearly afraid of the response he will get to this sermon, and it is visible in his words and his body language throughout the sermon.
An elected pastor is (by definition) there to tell the majority what they wish to hear. Of course it won’t be counter-cultural. It’s why (historically) pastors are appointed by bishops with apostolic succession (1 Tim 4:14).
>6. You refuse to feel guilty for eating what you want or for not going to the gym. Your body, your fucking rules. No “guilty pleasures.” Only pleasures. Always.
A wicked woman wipes her mouth and says I have done no wrong. At least we can identify them now.
>8. You dress however you want to dress, refusing to listen to what anyone says about how women should or should not dress. Your clothes are not up for debate, nor are they up for being policed.
Because there are NO rules for women. No standards. No judgment. No rightousness. No not one.
>14. You completely and radically own your feelings and emotional reactions.
Ha Ha! But of course you do dear.
>15. You save yourself. You take responsibility for your own life and make yourself happy. You love yourself. You do not let anyone or anything dictate your worth.
Because…solopsism is a real thing Bro’s.
>18. You have LIVED. You have fought the battles.
You have scarfed down Alpha cauck like candy and been pumped and dumped more times than you can count. That is “Living” to a feminist because at least it fans and nurtures the icy flame of hate in their cold hearts.
>20. You live by one motto: nobody gets to tell you who the fuck you are.
Because when you do that you are soooooo happpppy. Wait, your NOT happy? Who knew?
One Catholic bishop seems to have woken up, a little:
https://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/patriarch-actually-supports-patriarchy/
In which I point out that when rebellious women dress how they please, they often look like idiots:
[D: Link below is NSFW]
https://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/do-some-women/
@Dalrock
I’ve watched/listened to that sermon a couple times.
Sure, and I’m not saying that Driscoll didn’t fear. Suppose he did: Does that mean that alone (or mostly) why he chose to have Grace do it? And does that mean he feared the women?
I believe the group Driscoll fears is the men. You can scream at men all day long. Some of them will even like it, and if they don’t they’ll just leave. Yet if you scream at a man’s wife you’ll get fired; as they (men) did to Driscoll.
It gets back to a topic you and I have discussed a few times about how a pastor should relate to the women (especially wives) of his flock, and a long unpublished post “Pastor, please bend my wife over” about men who want their pastor to get their wives to obey.
For me it’s also part of that larger topic that I mentioned above where we have women and effeminate men (i.e., the least manly) on the frontlines against feminists. I’m not sure what I should think about either of those phenomenon.
Just one quick note on the fairly recent film (made over a decade with the same actors) called Boyhood.
In the last “reel” so to speak, there were some real Red Pill truths being purveyed, including a recognition of women’s hypergamy. I was quite surprised. Not everybody in Hollywood is still clueless. (There was also a message that the main female character might have done better if she had stayed with her first husband.)
Not quite on point, but there were some very striking moments, made possible by the real-life ageing of the characters over ten years. It was very telling to see the confident, virile returned soldier morph into the dutiful, overweight, loserish, beer-drinking husband, who it seemed had had to take a job in “Corrections”.
Is it the fault of the women in the congregation that Driscoll was afraid of them? A meek and quiet spirit is not the same as having a quiet voice, so I’m not sure that I’d call that rationalizing.
Just one last point. In my experience, the only test of an obedient wife is if she actually obeys. End of story. If she somehow never actually seems to get around to obeying, ever, she is not an obedient wife. it doesn’t matter if she dresses like the Amish and speaks ever so softly, she is not an obedient wife.
I have known noisy women who are as obedient as a Samurai wife; and quiet girls who are as stubborn as you can imagine.
I believe there are three types of women. The first type will NOT obey you. She may feign an obedient spirit, but there is no way she will ever do anything other than what she really wants. The second type have read scripture and the books, and they try hard to obey, but it will always be a struggle against their nature. And the third type are just naturally obedient. They would be obedient in any culture, at any time.
@Julian O’Dea Can you please mark posts with nudity with “NSFW”?!
Red Pill Latecomer @ 9:32 am:
“I’ve noticed that many celebrities on the red carpet (I live in L.A.) dress like trash, especially the women. Red carpet events, and they wear flip-flops, trashy t-shirts with trashy sentiments, all sorts of intentionally mismatched and ill-fitting attire.
I’ve noticed so many adults, even financially successful, middle-aged adults, on the streets in the trendy sections of L.A., wearing T-shirts with trashy or obscene sentiments.”
This is at least partly a California thing. One the one hand, we have a major financial sector in which the worker bees have high dress codes and a perk of high rank is exemption from the dress codes. On the other hand, we have surfer culture. You start out looking professional and end up looking like a beach bum.
A joke in Los Angeles is the guy dressed like a hobo is the boss and the power suit burning up his cell phone is begging for a job. At least one car salesman I’ve known couldn’t laugh at it. He said it was too true.
Power, to some people at least, is the ability to “get away with it”.
Driscoll’s cowardice is the kind of thing that drives me crazy. I can’t stand the little jokes and side comments from pastors that basically imply “never mind all that stuff we say about women and submission and whatnot — we all know you’re really in charge. We’re just pretending.”
@Dalrock
“Now contrast that to the sermon he gave for the men the following week on the very next verse. He is not only not afraid, he opens the sermon with a prayer abusing the men and the abuse continues through the sermon including the closing prayer. That is the famous “How dare you!” sermon. Driscoll clearly has no fear of the men in the congregation, but is very afraid of the women. His instincts were right here, because when he finally quit the complaint was that he was too hard on the women in the congregation.”
Did you happen to catch his excuse for this discrepancy in how he treated men and women? As he put it, men are like nalgene bottles; you can hit them, run them over, throw them off buildings, abuse them, and they’re fine. Women are like fine china; they have to be handled delicately or else they break. Somehow the Old Testament prophets like Amos and Ezekiel skipped over that verse before they condemned the harlots and called them cows.
That situation is exactly why St. Paul instructed wives to inquire about these matters with their husbands at home and not at church. It was completely inappropriate to ask a pastor in front of the congregation that kind of question. By asking the question she was redirecting authority away from her husband and over to the pastor so that the pastor has the final say on their household matters. Mrs. Driscoll was wise to redirect most of the authority back to the women’s husband, but the fact that Driscoll had to bring his wife up also shows that he didn’t think even he had the final authority over the issue; it belonged to his wife.
@The Question
Now see I like this, but there is something of a conundrum here because of the culture we have right now. Four or five or more generations of women who not only innately and sinfully desire to be loud and rebellious, but have also been taught–in church and out–that loud and rebellious is the virtue of femininity rather than the vice of femininity. Even Paul spoke to the churches as a whole.
Perhaps the nature of written words is useful here since no one can be anything but silent in response to a letter.
I don’t think Driscoll gave up any authority here. You had it above when you said it was inappropriate to ask the question. The authority that Driscoll gave Grace was stolen from the husbands in the audience. Driscoll’s personal authority as a pastor was untouched. It could even be said he gained more because his wife “grew” in authority. He outranks her, and she outranks even the husbands!
@Dalrock & The Question
Suppose the following exchange:
Female Congregant:Can an outgoing/boisterous wife also have a quiet spirit?
Pastor: Go home and ask your husband.
Oh man, can you imagine! That’s the answer and more!
[D: Indeed.]
“Feminist Christian” is the oxymoron of our time.
Great observation Dal, however, I think it goes deeper than just “it would not go well”. Driscoll’s first, subconscious reflex with a feminine-primary question is for he himself to defer to his own wife’s authority on the subject.
His mental point of origin with regard to confronting feminine-primary memes, by default, begins with his wife. That he could be considered a valid authority over women isn’t even an afterthought to Driscoll.
Or, in the common secular terms, he’s a pussy-whipped bully who’s authority ends with the men unwillingly to challenge him.
Oh come on, let’s be fair! Society doesn’t demand men be quiet, ever! When I go out, all I ever hear is men screaming at the top of their lungs: “CAN I HELP YOU FIND SOMETHING SIR?”. “HEY JIM, HOW ARE YA?”. “THREE O’CLOCK, I BETTER GET GOING OR I’LL BE LATE” etc. So why should women have to be less than loud, hmm???
Pingback: The sound of a rebellious woman | Reaction Times
@Rollo
There is no evidence for this. Nowhere will you find his wife usurping him. Nowhere will you find her being anything but submissive to him. He has several times put her on gross display, and frequently mentions that she is submissive, and no one ever says otherwise except tif they say that she’s a doormat, or some kind of prisoner.
This isn’t accurate either. Driscoll eviscerated the lives of scores of men in his drive to dominate. It took a decade to bring him down. I don’t like Driscoll, but it’s important to understand what his appeal is if for no other reason that to be able to guard against it. All you’re doing is raising the bar on bullying. Essentially, “If he were a real man, then he could have bested those who took him down.” Dude, he tok down a lot of guys first; whole churches and whole leadership councils.
Driscroll gave up authority on the question by deferring to his wife. The wife asked Driscoll and he knew, as Dalrock mentioned, he could not get away with answering the question without rebellion, so he handed it over to his wife to answer because she “possessed” the authority which the wives would accept of her but not from him, even if it was merely to say the exact same thing he would say. If people are asked questions and defer to someone else, it’s because that person is considered a higher authority on the issue.
“if I answered all of the women’s questions it would go really bad.”
That is a declaration of a man who knows very well where his authority begins and ends. The question he was asked went outside of his boundaries.
@The Question
No, I disagree. You’re thinking too…directly…about speech and politics.
Suppose someone asked me, “What is the best way to use LEGOs?” I might very well answer, “You should ask my son.” Under your understanding of authority, I just gave away my authority. Perhaps my son would even be tempted to agree with you. But any adult observer will realize that zero authority has been transferred from me to my son. In fact, you could say that I created authority.
What Driscoll did was remove his authority from the equation completely, and pitted the husbands of the congregations’ authority against the authority of his wife; silenced the husbands (by virtue of the fact that they were not allowed to respond), and called it good.
Now he certainly knew that the husbands were uncomfortable with Biblical Submission. In fact he relied upon it. When he says, “if I answered all of the women’s questions it would go really bad. he’s not talking about himself because he and the congregation believe he can get away with anything. He was setting the game to favor his wife’s authority.
See also: Rhetoric, suggestion, charisma, game, etc.
Indeed, overall authority is mostly kept but the authority of how to play with LEGO was not. The more important the issue that authority has been deferred to someone else, the more overall authority that is ultimately lost.
See Cane Dog’s post about the Lady in Weighting, if I may make so bold. Bobbye’s pointed questions have become part of my catechism, so to speak.
Your Lego analogy deals with an opinion, not morality.
Suppose the kid goes to his dad and the following dialogue is exchanged.
Kid: Is it okay for me to play with Legos before I finish my homework?
Dad: Your mother can answer this question, because if I answer this question either way it will go really bad.
Or, let’s use a movie analogy.
Kid: Can I watch this R-rated film?
Dad: Your mother can answer this question, because if I answer this question either way it will go really bad.
Does he sound in charge in either scenario?
You guys are being too hard on Driscoll in this instance.
The Bible says that older women should teach younger women; I think this was a clever play by Driscoll, and certainly one that was Biblical. Moreover, this approach may have been more effective for the one who asked the question and the rest of the audience.
Now, there may have been some flaws in Grace Driscoll’s answer, as the Bible speaks often about controlling your tongue and what it means to speak w/ wisdom. But, her answer did get a good point out there.
@TQ:
By calling on his wife, Driscoll puts down the men and charms the women, elevating his status over both groups at once. It’s not too cynical to call it a calculated and deliberately brilliant move.
@DrTorch
The Bible doesn’t say that wives should ask the pastor’s wife, or that the pastor should defer questions from other men’s wives to his own wife. 1 Cor 14:34-35 says they should ask their own husbands:
Had Driscoll deferred to the woman’s own husband, this would have been appropriate. But he invited these questions, then had his wife answer them. For her part Grace was clearly submitting to her husband, so I can find no fault with her answering or her answer.
As far as Driscoll deferring to women in general vs his wife being submissive, I don’t think this is an either/or question. I do see what Empath refers to as “lift chasing”, which I would characterize as very similar to Rollo’s point above. It is also related to my own observation that calling men out is easy and feels good while calling women out is difficult and feels wrong. At the same time, his wife does appear to submit. The two are separate in my opinion.
I also think this is related to Driscoll’s own difficulty with male authority. After doing the research to write my string of posts on Driscoll a while back, I am convinced that neither Driscoll nor the men in his congregation had a healthy understanding of how a father leads. Driscoll offered, and the men sought out, a one dimensional Hollywood drill instructor style of fatherly leadership. Specifically, when I hear him scream things like:
I think he is almost certainly repeating what was modeled to him. Very often I get the strong sense that more than anything he is yelling at himself.
@Dalrock
“Had Driscoll deferred to the woman’s own husband, this would have been appropriate.”
But it would have been awkward or confusing for her, considering Driscoll has already torn her husband and other husbands like him down in sermons. Now wives are supposed to look to them for the answers? Bit of a conundrum.
@The Question
In some ways this is like explaining why a joke is funny. That’s difficult to do with someone who doesn’t think it is. I can only tell you why Driscoll, his wife, the husbands of the congregation, and the wives of the congregation thought it was funny. I can’t actually tell you why it should be funny to you, but I will try. I don’t mean to say only that you are ignorant, but that I’m equally ignorant of how to explain it. Mark is a superb speaker. He can pack a lot into little phrases; especially quips.
There’s a group missing from your analogy. There are (at least) four distinct groups participating in this question/answer group: Mark Driscoll, Grace Driscoll, The Husbands of Loud Wives, and The Loud Wives. Who is talking to whom changes several times; as is who is the butt of whose joke.
First of all: Mark talks to and about Grace in baby voice; every time and all the time. It sets the mood for their relationship to each other, and the overall tenor of their act when in front of the church. (I don’t mean they are merely pretending. They believe this is the way to be.) So understand that when Mark hands off the microphone to Grace, it’s a picture of a man handing it to developmentally stunted, fragile, little person. A child. This tendency among American Christians (AmXians) to view women as children is well-documented.
But this is America, and here, especially among AmXians, we worship the innocence of stunted, fragile little people as if it were wisdom; even when they’re neither wise nor innocent. As long as it has the trappings we go along as the precocious nine-year old girl helps grandpa discover the wonders of life that he’s never seen in his 60 years. Mark is hip to that game. (Grace, I think, isn’t hip to the game, but she likes it, and she plays it well.) He sees through it, and he knows people like to play it. So when he says, “if I answered all of the women’s questions it would go really bad.” he is planting the suggestion that now is one of those times where we listen to the little girl, and everybody gets to experience the wonders of wifely submission from a precocious and wise child. Mark’s identifying himself with the sentiments of his audience. It sells the suggestion.
The other thing to understand is that The Loud Wives (especially whoever asked the question) is a heckler. There are several ways to deal with a heckler, but the one Mark chose was to slightly make fun of The Loud Wives, and then to make fun of the Husbands of Loud Wives and in this way distract their ire.
Notice that the comment implies that women are Bossy. That’s a shot at them. Now I said that he has identified himself with the husbands by suggesting that they all play “Listen to the Wise Child” in the midst of a setting where good husbands baby-talk their wives. So the implication is: “I’m just like you and my wife is child-wise just like yours…except my wife is submissive. You’re doing something wrong.” This cues The Loud Wives to redirect their scorn away from Mark, and back to The Husbands of Loud Wives. That suits the The Loud Wives just fine because hecklers heckle to get attention, and to be spiteful. Mark threw those bitches a bone. (Now, you can frame that as “Mark being afraid of the wimmenz”, but I don’t think it’s anymore true than it would be to say that Cesar Millan is afraid of dogs.)
It’s in this setting that Grace answers, childlike, and (being the great Child-Wise players she is) she gives a textbook answer that lets The Loud Wives remain loud hecklers, and yet also has notes of truth from the Bible. Not only that: She gets to align herself with the woman in Proverbs 31, and makes an opening for The Loud Wives to be so, too! The Husbands of Loud Wives get the pleasure of being married to a newly-crowned Proverbs 31 wife, and they are relieved of the responsibility to challenge The Loud Wives at home.
See Also: Rhetoric, suggestion, charisma, game, psychology, politics, comedy, emotional intelligence, empathic speech, etc.
Later you wrote:
Yes, exactly.
Somebody mark this down for the record book. I’m about to defend Mark Driscoll.
1st Observation: We don’t know why he did what he did, we can only speculate. Here’s an alternate take (I’m not saying this is why he did it),
A married woman asked Pastor Driscoll a question, something she should not have done, per 1st Corinthians 14:34-35, which means the woman asking the question was in rebellion. Given the subject matter, Driscoll would have been furthering her rebellion if he’d answered. He could have quoted 1st Cor. 14:34-35 and simply told her that she was to ask her husband and receive his instruction with a quiet spirit.
However, he chose a different method of dealing with the problem. Older women are commanded to teach the younger women (Titus 2:3-5) so it was appropriate for Driscoll to get his wife up there to answer the question. That was well within the bounds of Scripture in terms of dealing with the problem this woman presented.
I don’t see this as an issue of Driscoll relinquishing or giving up authority, neither do I see this as a case of husbands being robbed of authority given the way it was handled. My only problem with the exchange is a wonderful opportunity was missed to preach sound doctrine.
It would have been far better if, after Driscoll had told her to ask her husband about it when she got home, to take it a bit further and suggest a few passages for them to study together under her husbands instruction (specifically Ephesians 5:22-24, 1st Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1st Timothy 2:11-15).
@Cane said
<I believe the group Driscoll fears is the men. You can scream at men all day long. Some of them will even like it, and if they don’t they’ll just leave. Yet if you scream at a man’s wife you’ll get fired; as they (men) did to Driscoll.
I disagree, but only to the extent of what Driscoll might have screamed at the women about. Setting and keeping frame when preaching a sermon is critical to overcoming resistance. If Driscoll had screamed at the women “How Dare You” on the subject of wrecking their families and depriving their children of their father by running him through the divorce mill, and then having the arrogance to claim the judgment of a family court trumps God’s Word… I suspect he never would have been kicked out because he’d be saying things the men in the congregation only wish they could say.
Of course, that would require a series on abuse culture and the divorce industry, which would lead to red pill issues like hypergamy and the female mating strategy, but I’ve come to the conclusion that God only hands out so much brains and so much balls to any given man. Blue pill theology is a direct and proximate cause of terminal testicular atrophy in church leaders.
Again, as long as he framed it in terms of women’s selfishness, the destruction of the family and the damage to their children… had he held the women to the same standard of accountability that he held the men he’d still be running that (much smaller) church today.
It appears that some responders here aren’t familiar with the distinction between “giving away authority” and “delegating authority”. They are two very different things.
Consider the distinction between the helped and the helper. The helped has the authority. It is the vision of the helped that is being pursued by the helper(s). Captains of Industry often credit their success to the fact that they surrounded themselves with very bright helpers – some of them even acknowledged as smarter than their boss. The captians of industry give their helpers tasks to do. And then delegate the appropriate authority to each helper so that they can actually accomplish the task assigned to them. Figuring out who has authority at the moment for any given task does not tell us who the captain is.
No matter how much authority the captain of industry delegates to his helpers, he is still in charge, still in control, still responsible for the overall direction of the enterprise. He has not given away authority. He has delegated authority. When authority is delegated, it can be snatched back in a heartbeat (the helpers can be relieved of their duties). When authority has been given away, can it likewise be snatched back in a heartbeat? Which scenario best describes the situation described above with Driscoll? Authority delegated to his wife, in this particular instance, and for a specific purpose? Or authority given away, never to be recovered? Driscoll had the last word when his wife was finished speaking, and he could have overridden what she said by saying other things if he disagreed with her. That sounds like authority retained to me.
@RichardP
I like it.
@Artisanal Toad
Driscoll invited the questions. This was a pre planned activity, and this was a sermon specifically to the wives. The women aren’t calling out questions, the staff asked the women for questions and then chose some to put on the television screen for him to answer. Check out the video starting at 46 minutes 20 seconds.
@Cane
I think you make some good points, but I strongly disagree on this point:
Watching this sermon he is either fearful, or feigning fear throughout the sermon. But feigning fear is an old trick not to pretend to be afraid when you are not, but to pretend to not be afraid. His “it would go very badly” quip is no different than the husband who jokingly defers to his wife because “wink wink” we all know she is the one who is really in charge.
Well said by Artisanal Toad and RichardP
@DrPinWV
“”Now the place has been taken over by women in their 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s, who seem to compete with one another to see who can be the loudest, most obnoxious, and most foul-mouthed””
I know where you are coming from my friend.My friends and I have left our usual watering hole(after work beers) to an Italian restaurant down the street.We got tired of the same old…”no I am not buying you a drink….no you are not sitting down with us…we have business to discuss which does not include you….so please go away”…..Of course..”you are an asshole” is the usual response.You have it made in WV.You want to see really obnoxious c***s,I suggest you come up here to Toronto,Ontario.You will witness,and “endure” the most screwed up women on the planet!
@BluePillProf
“”If I wasn’t in /r/Marriedredpill I would be MGTOW. Marriage to a modern woman doesn’t offer anything a man could possibly want. We won’t be there for you ladies and you will die alone surrounded by filthy, unwashed animals with the last sound you hear a “Meow.” Enjoy your cats.””
Preach it brother!!!!!!!!
@Dalrock
F*** Driscoll and the horse he road in on.He is a spineless,candy ass,mangina.Who bows to the Feminist Imperative in order to build a congregation and extort money from them via his “Christian Philosophy”.He is a disgrace!!!!
Driscoll implicitly claimed more authority than the apostle Paul, who said that women aren’t to speak in church.
This was a case of Driscoll deferring to his wife because if he were to say that the husband should have been asked instead, he would be hounded by those very same women. It was a calculated move to by him to get his wife to answer and skirt responsibility for answering clearly what should have been stated.
@RichardP
The idea of delegating authority would make sense if he hadn’t made this remark:
“if I answered all of the women’s questions it would go really bad.”
What does he mean by “would go really bad”? Either it means it would go bad because he would be overstepping his bounds of spiritual authority by answering all the women’s questions, or that it would go bad for him to answer all the women’s questions despite having the spiritual authority because enough would rebel to affect his pastorship. If it’s the former, then he’s not delegating authority by having his wife answer because he doesn’t have it to begin with. If it is the latter, rather than call them out for the rebellion when it occurs, he is preemptively placating the implied threat by bringing up his wife to answer the question under the presumption that she has the authority to answer.
Pastors who believe they have authority to answer spiritual questions don’t bring someone else up to answer the question while “joking” that it would go really bad for they themselves to answer. They bring them up because perhaps they have personal experience that gives them better perspective or they have better understanding. But they don’t do it out of fear of what people will think of them for answering, even if would say the same thing. Delegating authority out of fear of is not delegating it, it’s conceding.
Some may say he was just joking by that remark, but then why did he bring up her in the first place if he wasn’t afraid of how the women would respond? How many other times did he defer to other pastors, people in actual spiritual positions in the church, and have them come up and answer questions instead of him?
Seconded. Fortunately, there are a lot of little towns a couple hours away that are charming and full of normal people. Getting out of town on the weekends is a must, if you want to save your sanity.
It’s also possible to date normal women in t-dot… by just avoiding all the ones who speak English as their first language. Francophone white women there are often a bit more down-to-earth, and recent immigrants (I went out with a Somali and a Portuguese chickie this summer) are fun and tolerable.
Anglophone Canadian chicks who were raised in the city (Christian, Jew or Atheist, doesn’t matter – White, First Nations, Black, doesn’t matter) seemed hopelessly entitled and “bossy” in the extreme.
I went out to a fancy restaurant and witnessed a woman (East Indian) make a huge scene about something trivial, embarrassing her henpecked husband in the process, and nobody batted an eyelash — it was as though it were the most natural thing in the world, because in Toronto, it is!
Boxer
I thought Dalrock was referencing a satirical article, until I clicked on the link and read it. Jamie Varon (ironically, “varon” means “man” in Spanish) really is impossible to parody!
@Dalrock
I don’t see fear. I see an attempt to convey gentleness, humility, and sagacity.
This is the link you are supposed to create, based upon his suggestion. If you ask those husbands who quip and wink, they’ll tell you that they are just being gentle, humble, and sage. If you’ve never done it, I suggest you tell a group of AmXian husbands that their wives are not quiet or gentle. They will rage. (More on that in a second.)
Here’s the difference: We know they are afraid because you can look at their lives. We can observe the way their wives treat them, and how loud those wives are. Then look at Grace. She’s not loud. Does anyone think Grace would have asked whether outgoing/boisterous wives also have a quiet spirit? I certainly don’t.
The fear here–and Mark would know this–is that the husbands will feel that their wives have been impugned. Again: Look at what brought down Mark Driscoll. He trounced hundreds of husbands, and his church grew and grew while churches around Mars Hill dried up; because AmXians wives AND husbands love it. But when a critical mass of women were offended (which in comparison was a very small number) Mark had to go. The husbands’ anger galvanized around Mark’s mistreatment of women. Women didn’t rise up and kick Mark out. Men did.
I think your suspicions about his view of men and how they treat sons and underlings is on target. It would also explain his equation of fear with humility and gentleness. Driscoll is not another Rainey. He’s not a TradCon, and doesn’t pretend to be. He does, however, want their acceptance. A lot of them treated him with derision.
@The Question
Let me try to put it in other words.
Churchians are Blue Pill, and pedestalize women. If you take away their pedestal, the worshippers get angrier than the goddesses. Pastors, generally, aren’t up on pedestals. Most men think pastors are either lame, or mountain-top yogis who can’t relate to mortals; often both. That is especially true in the tattoo, mohawk, rock’n’roll, tee shirt-to-church world of Mars Hill and their Alternative Christian Outreach style. They’re not TradCons.
@The Question
Anyway, he did. He was only one of the pastors at Mars Hill. There were many others, and they all preached. Of course, everyone knew that Mars Hill simply was Mark Driscoll. That was proved when the other campuses rose up against him over allegations of mistreatment of women and showed they weren’t sufficiently Mars Hill. At the same time: When Mark’s career ended, so did all of Mars Hill’s ministries.
@Cane Caldo
Other pastors preached at their own respective church campuses (one of which I myself attended as a visitor for a while), but how many times did Driscoll have one of them answer a question instead of him specifically out of fear of what the congregation would do or think in response to him answering it, i.e. they felt like he had insufficient spiritual authority?
It seems as though you believe Driscoll was really afraid of the men, that if he had chastised the women in the congregation the men would have initiated the revolt on behalf of the women and not the women themselves.
The men would certainly have backed a wife-led revolt or exodus, but if their wives had sat back and conceded that there was a total lack of respect for their husbands in our society and culture thanks to feminism, that single motherhood was an indictment on what women are being taught, do you really think any of of the men would have confronted Driscoll afterward and insisted he stop preaching because they themselves had qualms with it, not because they feared the response of their wives?
The worshipper does not get angrier than the goddess. The worshipper gets angry because the goddess gets angry first. If the goddess accepts something, so does the worshipper.
”If I wasn’t in /r/Marriedredpill I would be MGTOW. Marriage to a modern woman doesn’t offer anything a man could possibly want. We won’t be there for you ladies and you will die alone surrounded by filthy, unwashed animals with the last sound you hear a “Meow.” Enjoy your cats.”
Damn straight!
“But this is America, and here, especially among AmXians, we worship the innocence of stunted, fragile little people as if it were wisdom; even when they’re neither wise nor innocent.”
I’m a Presbyterian. I respect my elders, not my juniors.
“His ‘it would go very badly”’ quip is no different than the husband who jokingly defers to his wife because ‘wink wink’ we all know she is the one who is really in charge.”
They learned this behavior from their fathers who really were in charge. They still do it because it’s what they were taught that husbands do, but it’s now an acknowledgement of a reality they feel powerless to change. The ones still in the pews are so beaten down they don’t even want it to change and will attack anyone who says otherwise.
They will either need to be dominated by the men no longer in the pews or the women in the pews growing tired of a role to which they are ill-suited.
@ The Question: “Delegating authority out of fear of is not delegating it, it’s conceding.”
Back to the Captains of Industry example: Guy creates a company. He’s realistically scared to death that he will ruin things if he tries to do his job plus handle all of the accounting. He knows of someone who knows more about accounting than he does. Guy creates an accounting department and delegates the authority for accomplishing that task to the one who knows accounting better than he does.
It matters not a whit what the emotions are behind the behavior. Delegating authority and giving authority away are two different animals. When Driscoll delegated the responsibility for answering the woman’s question to his wife, he did not give his authority away. He retained the authority to answer the next woman’s question if he wanted to. Someone who has given their authority away would not be able to do that.
I think you and I are talking past each other – apples and oranges. Because there is not just one kind of authority to be delegated or given away. I think you are talking one kind of authority (maybe moral authority?) and I’m talking another. But this is not the place to get into details on that.
I don’t agree that Driscoll was brought down by his mistreatment of women. Rather, he was caught out in a plagiarism scandal, buying a place on the NYT best seller list, and a series of allegations about donations that weren’t used for what they were ostensibly raised for in the Mars Hill Global account. It’s also clear there were a large number of people he had underbussed over the years who were nursing grudges and looking for their chance to get even. They smelled the blood in the water from these scandals and pounced. Without all these scandals that show Mark involved in things that look obviously unethical to outside observers, I don’t think he would have fallen. Also, Mark had the misfortune of attracting the attention of a blogger who spent a long time digging up and reporting dirt on Driscoll, interpreting anything he did in the worst possible light, and serving as a key clearinghouse for negative info on Driscoll. And no, I’m not talking about Dalrock!
@RichardP
I’m certainly not trying to split hairs over this but I think something absolutely fundamental is being missed: Driscoll had no authority to delegate the authority he did to his wife because it wasn’t even his authority in the first place. The entire setup of the sermon conformed not to Scriptures but to our current post-modern feminist culture in which husbands have been stripped of their leadership roles over their wives and children.
If he were adhering to what Scripture taught, he would have preached the sermon by first telling the women if had questions about what was being taught, they should wait and ask their husbands at home. The problem with this is that while it would conform to the Bible, it would have made it clear that their husbands were the heads of their households and held spiritual authority.
Instead, he setup the sermon so that the women would be able to ask him their questions, thus usurping their husbands’ authority. The Q&A was pre-planned. The woman’s question was not spontaneous or an outburst, but pre-selected. And Driscoll did not bring up his wife on the spur of the moment for that particular question, but in anticipation of what he knew would be resistance from the women in the congregation to the message. He handed her authority to answer the question because he knew it wasn’t his; but he didn’t realize it didn’t belong to his wife, either, but the woman’s husband (something Mrs. Driscoll seemed to realize, judging by her answer).
So instead of their husbands answering their questions and assuming spiritual leadership of their homes, the women received it from pastor’s wife.
I’m not trying to pick on Driscoll specifically, and I don’t believe he had ill-intent in what he did, but it’s important to understand what the root source of the problem is, particularly when the media and others tried to portray him as some sort of modern-day Charles Martel fighting the good fight against the feminists. It only goes to show how far adrift our culture is.
You do not let anyone or anything dictate your worth
Your “worth” is determined by others when you put yourself out there, sweetheart. As a woman you are “worth” how well you can satisfy my needs – if you can’t, you’re worthless to me. That is all that women are worth today – they have rendered themselves superfluous in virtually all other areas except for sex, in everything else I can hire someone who will do a better job. (And to be honest, I can probably hire someone who will do a better job in the sex department as well. If it weren’t illegal in the US.)
So sweetheart – you are worth exactly what others are willing to put up with from you based on what you bring to the table. You may “think” you are a priceless princess – but then, no one is going to pay for that “piece of sh*t” either – so that is what you are worth. Plain and simple – you may not like it but that is reality.
I also think this is related to Driscoll’s own difficulty with male authority. After doing the research to write my string of posts on Driscoll a while back, I am convinced that neither Driscoll nor the men in his congregation had a healthy understanding of how a father leads. Driscoll offered, and the men sought out, a one dimensional Hollywood drill instructor style of fatherly leadership. Specifically, when I hear him scream things like:
You change now, little boy! You change right now! You shut up!
Fathers shape children with more impact in far less time then a mother ever could. Makes the whole bastard child epidemic that much worse.
Off topic:
Mark Rippetoe’s articles aren’t typically relevant to this blog, but this one is.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/hypermasculinity-and-you-the-problem-with-your-biceps/?singlepage=true
“Citing an increase in the size of G.I. Joe’s biceps and of action heroes’ pistols over the course of 60 years — while ignoring (or more probably ignorant of) the fact that better physical training and firearms technology has made these obviously desirable developments possible — Katz concludes that being perceived as menacing is a necessary and increasingly more customary part of masculinity.
He prefers the emotionally vulnerable, sensitive form of masculinity (the estrogen variety?) to the standard American testosterone version: competitive, stoic, and aggressive.”
There are two reasons someone speaks loudly. Either they have something they think is important for others to hear, or they want attention. It’s unlikely her thoughts are all that important, and women have feminine means of gaining attention. Being boisterous is a masculine method. Completely independent of any religious considerations, being loud is inherently unfeminine. Or to use the language of another time, it’s un-ladylike.
If Driscoll can’t find it in his professional capacity to tell a woman her behavior is un-ladylike, what good could he have been in his role?
I watched the vid, its very strange to watch their dynamics. Just a psychologists wet dream really neither are comfortable with the other, their actions are just for show.
Also Dalrock, where did you find the question was asked by a woman ? was it earlier in the vid? I suspect it was but not for what you think, this was a wife looking for rationalisation of her actions and to give her husband a public beat down by marky boy.
Maybe this is why the instruction for wives to ask their husbands at home, as 99% of wives (and women generally) care not a jot about what the bible teaches nor for truth, but care hugely about social standing particularly having full control of the relationship/marriage and this involves public pressure of the other if required.
Note teh way feminists act if they don’t immediately get what they want, they will round up the social network and other men in authority to boot to get what they DEMAND and will not back down until.
Also when the question came us his wife told him “I am answering all of these” – she didn’t defer to his husbandry of her nor his (CEO Pastor 🙂 ) role, not get his permission – she asked him no question.
Also she seems like an Alpha widow and mark was the best synthetic alpha or sociopath she could find.
The first time I saw these two frauds, I got the same impression and said so (probably here – but maybe on The Spearhead). Anyway, I’m glad I’m not alone in seeing the artifacts. Madame Driscoll has slut tells.
Of course, in hindsight, this is probably obvious. Like attracts like often in this world. (I don’t know if that’s in the Bible, but it ought to be).
Boxer
Boxer,
Yeah, the fact Mark just HAD to tell the world that he had a dream whereby his wife was blowing some guy at bible camp or something, that is what a psyco does, because they can never let anything go. Not f***ing ever. They vent their rage by telling all and sundry.
You can just see behind Marks eyes in the vid, so dear, “do you want to tell us all about your first sexual experience – how was he ?” Its just on the cusp at all times. With his internalised rage I’m sure he will be dwelling on it daily.
Just watching the other questions (didn’t think there would be anything of note but just to see their body language)
All the questions are beatdowns for their men:
1): he’s a bad man who is committing adultery with pr0n
2) he’s a bad man who wants a prenup and not let me rinse him after the marriage
3) he’s a bad man who is too slow mentally
4) im a single mom what to do ???? Mark – single men, wife them up with no prenups ! Then Mark confuses widows with our generation of trashy single mom’s. Then uses Jospeh as an example of a man bringing up another man’s child. Was Mary 300lbs with tattoo’s and bad attitude ? Not really, she was knocked up by God (not by McBoyBandDrummer(TM)) AND still a virgin (technically if not hermetically) after the birth AND if an angel appears in your dreams and tells you what God has done, then its a bit different.
I’ve had the best laugh in ages. His inability to understand correctly even basic scripture brings a joy to my heart.
Although when he says at the end “If i answered all the womans questions it would go really really bad” – that seemed to be in response to criticism of Grace preaching to men – “You always let grace preach, No your helping answer questions…”. What he means is that if he answered all the questions he would get them wrong or they would be answered in the way the women would be upset. Even though every question was essentially criticism of their men or lack of.
They do have alot of attraction towards each other, and she is pretty hawt I have to say, Mark has aged massively since that vid was taken (as have I) been a tough few years for us all.
Feminists Fall For #PissForEquality Hoax
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/10/feminists-fall-for-pissforequality-hoax/
@MarcusD -Feminists Fall For #PissForEquality Hoax
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/10/feminists-fall-for-pissforequality-hoax/
that is genius at work…brilliant.
@Minesweeper:
On the dream and Grace’s past sexual history, I think too many view it from a purely secular lens and miss the brutal moral failure on Mark’s part. That was most definitely God finally getting through to Mark, but he took that information and went exactly to the place that would eventually cause his downfall.
It’s good to remember that Grace had been epicly blue-balling Mark for years. They had kids, but that was probably about the only times they had sex. (I think we finally have an answer for Rollo’s conundrum about how Christians have children: Ovulation eventually wins out & the Husband is the closest Man available.) Grace could never deal with being a Carousel Watcher and being a Pastor’s Wife. When you try to rationalize your failures, eventually the paradox gets taken out on the easiest source. In this case, it was Mark.
But Mark was stuck in his impotent rage. If he had any appreciation for when God normally deals with people in dreams (which he should have), he’d have known it’s far more common in the parts of the world without many Christians. It’s one of God’s ways of interacting with people that are not or cannot listen. Which is precisely where Mark was at and that was his failure.
Or, I can simply let Paul explain the problem. 1 Timothy 3:4-5 (KJV): “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” Mark didn’t get it. He didn’t want to get it. He took it out on everyone else. He is a Man of great ability, but everything he’s done was, in the end, only vanity for him. God will bring His to Him, but our reward in the process is predicated on getting on the Lord’s side. Mark, like most Pastors, was on his own side. It never ends well.
@Looking Glass,
“It’s good to remember that Grace had been epicly blue-balling Mark for years. They had kids, but that was probably about the only times they had sex.”
Does Mark state this in one of his books or sermons?
@The Question
Correct. Mark himself is like this. His perception of mistreatment of a woman/wife (Whether it is real mistreatment doesn’t matter. It’s his perception of it that matters.) sets him off onto epic rants.
Yes, I do. I’ve seen it, and I’ve had it happen to me (at a men’s conference, and at my previous parish’s men’s group meetings) when I said it. Most faces went slack with incredulity. Several turned purple and shook with rage. Only the octogenarian sided with me. His wife was probably different, and also now dead.
No, they don’t. They can’t because the goddesses only exist in the minds of the men; superimposed over the women they actually know and married.
“the goddesses only exist in the minds of the men”
I’m so glad I got this thinking out of my head. The aftermath is dealing with the stress of it. Anyhow the root of this mess is in our minds. Bottom line is to see through their women’s crap and deal with it on how it is. They don’t treat men any different.
@Looking Glass says: October 7, 2015 at 4:02 am
“It’s good to remember that Grace had been epicly blue-balling Mark for years. They had kids, but that was probably about the only times they had sex.”
How do you know this ?
And as for the dreams well, who knows what God meant apart from exposing his rage and foolishness.
@The Question
Do you believe that most married Christian men are aware they are bargaining in the shadow of the law and family courts? I do not believe they are aware. In their minds, they will not get divorced unless they are bad men who deserve to be divorced (whatever that means), and they are trying to be good men. Until their wife makes them aware (by threats of separation, accusations of abuse, etc.) that she is bargaining from a position of legal strength, he won’t consider it. That’s why so many Christian man say they are “blindsided”; they say, “I never thought she was so unhappy.” It’s nearly inconceivable to a church-going man. Divorce is something that happens to non-churchgoers. They know this because divorced men stop going to their church! (I’m saying here that because men who get divorced are embarrassed, blamed, and shunned, Christian husbands fit that into their assumptions…right up until it happens to them.
So, the source of their hyper-protection of women and their feelings is something else. Empath calls it “The Lift”; which Dalrock mentioned above. There is in men a desire to please women because they like women and they want women to like them. This is the source of the power of feminism. Women write books and invent movements and all that crap–they receive and conceive these forms of feminism, but the impetus is the desire that emanates from men. Men’s supplication is the hard-on; their indulgences of women are the sperm that fertilizes females unhappy eggs. Men do it because it’s pleasurable.
Dalrock has also talked many times about how uncomfortable it is for men to challenge the weaker sex. It feels useless and there is a risk of losing social standing because other men (of the same mind!) will scorn such men. The scorn is the result of pride and lust that men less-than-consciously believe would–if she were in his hands–make a shrewish woman happy and better in every respect: mentally, spiritually, and physically.
That’s a great point. I’d be very glad to see a repentant Mark Driscoll who realized that the primary problem of feminism in his life was coming from his own heart; who apologized to those men.
Last thing, at least for this comment
@Neguy
The book and funds scandal were the material causes, but that’s like saying the government took down Al Capone because he evaded taxes. I’ve read a lot of the bloggers and articles who dug dirt on Driscoll; Wenatchee the Hatchet, Wartburg Watch, several Patheos blogs, etc. There was one website (I tried to find it, but can’t now) where people (particularly those who had ministered with Mark) posted public letters of their grievances against him. In nearly every story, the decision point to stop ignoring Mark’s bullying tactics was the unhappiness of a wife. Before that, they just marched behind Mark and over the bodies of their fellow men.
@Cane Caldo
“Do you believe that most married Christian men are aware they are bargaining in the shadow of the law and family courts?”
It’s hard to tell because men don’t talk about it with other men and there’s no stats or poll to base my opinion on. All I have is my own personal experience, which says a lot of them do. Notice all the Blue Pill advice married men give to men about to get married; don’t rock the boat, happy wife happy life, if momma ain’t happy ain’t nobody happy; always say you’re sorry and apologize to her, even when she’s wrong. All of it has the man in a supplicating role qualifying himself in order to placate her, as if to keep her from doing something harmful.
Whenever I’m told this advice I reject it, and each time I get very interesting stares, as if to warn me of the danger without speaking of the actual danger.
All it takes is the wife implying in a subtle but unmistakable way that if she doesn’t get her way or if something doesn’t happen, she has the power to take his kids and house and half his stuff and spin it in a way so that everyone at church will support her and consider him the guilty party. I’ve seen wives also give their husbands the “don’t go there” glare that gets even the most masculine of men to shut up and obey. Who knows what kind of conversations go on behind closed doors?
I think some may not be wholly aware, but they know deep down their wife holds immense power through the state; he’s also aware, perhaps subconsciously, that society will side with her. He just may not fully realize it.
@Cane Caldo
I disagree. Secular entertainment is absolutely packed with warnings to husbands and encouragement to wives to divorce. Christian men get all of this, and then the extra dose in Christian form. They get both EPL & Fireproof. And they also get it constantly from FotF, FamilyLife, etc. If your point is they are in denial of what they are deep down afraid of, then I would agree. But even the denial is predicated not on denying the threat, but in believing it only happens to the other guy, as they are the real thing those poor slobs who get the whack are pretending to be.
@The Question
My guess (and it is just a guess), is that what you’re interpreting as a helpful warning of possible danger from your wife is a threat that you’ve said something that puts you at the edge of their cult; that you’ve outed yourself as a non-believer in the innate goodness of women, and that suddenly separates you from them. They just saw an outside on your face.
Otherwise, I don’t know what else I can say except what I’ll shortly respond to Dalrock. You and Dalrock agree that fear of female power and punishment is the root, but I believe that there’s a mixture of pride and lust.
@Dalrock
I would say that you are not appreciating how efficiently church-going men can wield the worldliness/godliness dichotomy to tell themselves that these things don’t happen to good Christians like themselves. In their minds, the secular shows don’t apply to them because they go to church, pray, don’t jerk off to porn, etc. And if they do or don’t do one of those things, they don’t get them all wrong like the guys in the movies; even the Christian ones. I haven’t seen War Room, but in Fireproof, Kaleb is presented as getting everything wrong. The Kendrick brothers present it as: He doesn’t pray, go to church, read his Bible, address his family’s financial needs, pay attention to wife’s mood/affair; wants a boat for himself, watches porn, yells… He does nothing right according to their checklist of right and wrong behaviors. According to this rubric, church-going men believe they won’t get railed with divorce. Any man who does disappears from church, and ~voila! reveals himself as a phony. “Little boy probably didn’t have a daily devotional, either, the jerk…”
Most of us live our lives without fear of threats to happen to other people. I don’t fear being blow’d-up by jihadis, or falling to drive-bys, or stockmarket crashes, or lots and lots of things. Again, as you’ve so well-documented: These are the people who, when speaking of divorce, being by clapping themselves on the back for a “mere” 40% divorce rate, and end the conversation by saying that “real” Christians hardly ever divorce at all. They have a delusional optimism, and to me that doesn’t say “fear”. It says “crazy”.
“No, they don’t. They can’t because the goddesses only exist in the minds of the men; superimposed over the women they actually know and married.”
I think you’re on to something. I only got free of that after having a falling out with my mother (the first time we’d fought in my life). It was amazing how much my SMV (and general sense of well-being) improved after that. I was married less than a year later and am enjoying a healthy marriage characterized by Christian headship and a wife who appreciates it.
Before that it was oneitis/pedestalization hell with a lot of white-knighting. I’m lucky I didn’t fall into a marriage in that state.
The rage/lack of ability to control their emotions you note point to an immaturity that suggested to me the mother issues.
@Cane Caldo
My argument is that the women are the source point of rebellion because our current culture reflects it. Everything is predicated on their happiness (if momma ain’t happy ain’t nobody happy). Husbands can play the enabler, but they are not giving the orders but acting on orders, either out of Blue Pill ideology or because they fear what will happen if they attempt to assert their authority as the legitimate headship.
What this means is that men cannot lead rebellions in the church if they have had their spiritual authority previously stripped or usurped. This goes back to the Garden of Eden. Adam didn’t lead the rebellion. He participated only after Eve had already taken the fruit and eaten it. He responded, rather than lead.
Where the rebellion originates is necessary in order to come up with the solution, which is that husbands need their authority restored and reinforced by the church and each other. Right now, churches all but acknowledge that the wife ultimately calls the shots and the husband submits to her will.
So saying that pastors like Driscoll actually fear the men rather than the women implies or infers that the feminist rebellion hasn’t happened or wasn’t successful and that men still have their headship intact.
If the pastor asked the audience to ask questions including the women, isn’t that ok? John Macarthur does this.
I think many men come here after figuring it out and say to themselves, “F*** it, I don’t care if she divorces me, I’m going back to my way of thinking and dealing with situations regardless of what she does.” That alone can bring back the tingles in the Mrs. They are fed up and realize the FI gets them no where in their relationship.
Dalrock, The Question and Cane-
Of course they know. Even if only subconsciously/in denial. And wives are terrified when their husbands start asking questions about it.
4 years ago, when Scott first starting hinting at the abstract possibility that American husbands are in considerable danger in the US, I responded with furious anger! (This is a common psychological defense mechanism).
“How DARE you accuse me! So you are saying I am going to leave?”
Woman personalize, and we are not going to give up our right to act however we want without a fight. In fact, I am a little embarrassed that I had to actually think of what this all means for my son, who is now of marrying age before I would listen to Scott, and his reasonable concerns.
It really has to do with inner wholeness, right? Introversion or extroversion or even boisterousness are personality traits instead of virtues. I think that’s why it’s a quiet spirit instead of flat out quietness.
The quietest woman I know is also one of the most rebellious wives I know.. because her quietness is a symptom of her brokenness. She’s a natural extrovert who was crushed into quietness and passivity. Her quietness comes from timidity, excessive fear and self consciousness, which also causes her to have a hard heart towards her husband.
I also know a very loud woman who is a natural introvert, but her need for attention dominates everything else. Her noise level is also coming from inner brokenness and dysfunction.
I guess to me a quiet spirit is more about restfulness, trust, contentment, peacefulness. You can be restful and cheerful, peaceful and animated, content and chatty. As long as she’s becoming whole inside and submitted to God, a woman’s personality will be becoming more of a blessing and asset to those around her.
@The Question
I think my analogy of conception explains it a lot better. Women have these “eggs” of desire, and that’s not men’s fault. However; these eggs of desire are inert until a man fertilizes them. To do that: He has to have a hard-on for the woman. He just does.
Men’s headship is still intact! Women don’t directly wield the power. The state (which can be described as organized men with force) are the ones who actually punish. Women’s power always has been, and ever will be submitted to men. Period. That’s the non-biblical explanation. Biblically, whatever God establishes is, really, established. God established the headship of men and while we are doing our best to divest ourselves of it, we still find ourselves where we must have men to deal with men. Imagine a jail full of men and wardened by full staff of female wardens. They’d be overpowered, seduced, pregnant, and helping men escape within a month.
@Desi
Mother issues could be related. They almost certainly are in one way or another. When my mother divorced my father, I immediately had had enough of her selfishness. Perhaps that helped me.
@Mychael
Scott had already been divorced. So yeah, he knew.
@ The Question – you said:
“I think some may not be wholly aware, but they know deep down their wife holds immense power through the state; he’s also aware, perhaps subconsciously, that society will side with her. He just may not fully realize it.”
He is also, at some level, aware of how very, very, very easy it would be for her to step out on him any old moment she wanted to, as much as she wanted to, undetected, or in his face. When I was married, not onlt did she wield all that other power, but we all know how easy it is for a chick to dial up some misc sex, esp now with smartphones.
God help you if you displease her.
The pain and cruelty she can visit on you is even more immense than the dull roar of white noise cruelty she runs daily with her eye-rolls and snide remarks and disrespectful moments large and small. So terrifyingly immense, the looming pain.
@The Question
Some more thoughts around the topic.
Authority and power are not the same thing. For example, the term “rebellion” betrays the fact that one doesn’t have authority. (“For no one ever hated himself…”) So the term “female rebellion” unavoidably implies that they do not have authority. Since we are still in the age of female rebellion, then men still have the authority; even if they wield incredible power. That power of female rebellion exists only in the hands of those men who are willing to uphold it, and, yes, the state does uphold power for women.
Don’t misunderstand me! I do NOT mean to say that all men hold authority. I meant that when it is held, whoever holds it are men, and they are never women.
In fact, it is very similar to Mark Driscoll. My description of his transfer of authority from the husbands of the congregation to his wife (and therefore himself) is really analogous to how authority in America has transferred from men to women through women’s suffrage. Ultimately, women still aren’t in power, but the men in power have more authority than ever.
Toronto,Ontario.You will witness,and “endure” the most screwed up women on the planet!
I remember in 1989 when I was going to college in a small BC town, I met this woman from TO. She was just as you described. Bossy, homosexual rights supporter, etc. She did hookup with a married guy from Kelowna who worked for “Royal” Paper and was there on business.
@LeeLee,
I think you put it really well!
On a somewhat related point, I’m sure you’ve noticed that church programs for women rarely if ever focus on the biblical admonitions to wives and mothers — e.g., Prov. 31, 1 Pet. 2, Eph 5, Titus 2, etc.
In the Catholic Church a lot of the “elite” groups (like Opus Dei) talk about being “generous with God.” I don’t think they ever mention being generous with your husband.
Pingback: Stet | Things that We have Heard and Known
@crowhill
Crowhill, I’m afraid it’s really about putting it well as inner wholeness.
LeeLee,
You are saying that a gentle and quiet spirit equals “moxie”. I can understand the desire to equate the two, but not the logic. Keep in mind that the context is wives submitting to their husbands. So the woman who is outwardly quiet and gentle but seething with rage at her husband isn’t demonstrating a quiet and gentle spirit. However, the problem isn’t that her husband wants her to submit; the problem is her feminist spirit of envy and rebellion.
@Boxer
“”Francophone white women there are often a bit more down-to-earth,””
Good point! If you go to Quebec you will see a big difference in the women.Not Montreal(even though it is my favorite city in NA).If you go into the “Eastern Townships”,around Sherbrooke…about 1 hour north of the New Hampshire border.Or go North of Montreal towards Quebec City…or even further North towards Chicoutimi.You will find women from a different culture.They barely speak English(brush up on your French!),they are from large VERY Catholic families.They are VERY respectable and not even close to Toronto wimminz.I have met quite a few of them as I have traveled that area extensively.I read a biography a while ago of one of my favorite Blues guitarists,Stevie Ray Vaughan.One of his idols,Eric Clapton,told him “go to Montreal…the greatest city in the world”.He did…and he is LOVED in Montreal.He and his band(Double Trouble) used to rent a car and cruise these areas.Now this guy is from South Texas.He arrives in Wrangler jeans,snake skin cowboy boots and a cowboy hat.Quite the “oddity” in that neck of the woods(except Alberta).But,he loved it.The small towns,the women,the food,the language etc.etc…..and they LOVED him.
@JR Terrorist
“”I remember in 1989 when I was going to college in a small BC town, I met this woman from TO. She was just as you described. Bossy, homosexual rights supporter, etc. She did hookup with a married guy from Kelowna who worked for “Royal” Paper and was there on business.””
Nice to see a fellow Canuck here at Dalrocks! Your comment is Soooooooooo believable.Her daughters are probably here doing the “Slut Walk” by now.Toronto wimminz(and surrounding area) are the most pathetic creatures that I have ever had the misfortune of meeting.Two reasons.#1…I have slept with loads of them….and most importantly…#2…I have been around the world several times.So I have something to compare them to.And,they are the bottom of the barrel!
@Cane Caldo
I think I see your point now and would agree in that regard. In the end, men can blame rebellious women all day long for the problems, but the reality is that it is other men who are necessary to make it viable, the necessary cog in the machine. It also shows that men need to stop enabling such behavior, so much of the emphasis on change needs to be on men.
@Solomon
“The pain and cruelty she can visit on you is even more immense than the dull roar of white noise cruelty she runs daily with her eye-rolls and snide remarks and disrespectful moments large and small. So terrifyingly immense, the looming pain.”
I believe it; I’ve seen that look of terror on many a married man’s face, which is why I think they instinctively know of their position even if they don’t understand how it fits into the greater picture.
@Dalrock
“So the woman who is outwardly quiet and gentle but seething with rage at her husband isn’t demonstrating a quiet and gentle spirit.”
I understood that to be exactly what LeeLee was saying – that outward quietness is not an indication of the heart.
@SeriouslyServing
She is saying much more, in an attempt to reframe gentleness and quietness into moxie/self esteem:
Submission becomes “crushed into quietness and passivity”, because as we all know there is an epidemic of abusive Christian husbands. Then she throws out another red herring, the loud woman who is loud because she (wait for it) lacks self esteem. Note that there is no such thing as rebellion in LeeLee’s world, just women who aren’t empowered:
What she is carefully avoiding is accepting that a quiet and gentle spirit should bear fruit. As I pointed out in the OP, a woman being quiet and gentle is heresy to feminists, Christian or otherwise.
Her point that outward display doesn’t prove the right internal spirit is correct. However, then she twists this to claim that the internal spirit shouldn’t manifest itself externally. It is true that one’s actions can be correct, but their heart can be in the wrong place. However, if one’s heart is in the right place the actions should follow.
“She is saying much more, in an attempt to reframe gentleness and quietness into moxie/self esteem”
Right, I hadn’t seen it like that. Thanks for explaining further!
What does it matter where a woman’s heart is. If her behavior is right she is rewarded and praised. The most effective way to change and order our society is to open teach men to spot and judge poorly behaved women and to treat then with indifference and scorn. Including laughing at and enjoying their suffering from their bad behavior. Well behaved women are wives that are treated well by their husbands. The rest are openly described as slut to be used and discarded or ignored.
As leelee was trying to do keeping men stupid and bluepill so she cold profit from rebellion. If dalrock had a post on how rebellious women and their children don’t live as well as submissive wives and her children the rebellious women would make her I’m strong argument and the nice guys would supplicate out of concern for her which only succeeds in telling her men will concern themselves with her well being so rebel with confidence. Explain to men how to spot such women and that those women are completely unworthy of any mans concern and the tune changes.
Dalrock , Cane Caldo
This. The two of you together have the key wisdom of the foundation of any thoughts on the family , Christian and otherwise. Outstanding. Because the women and the MGTOW types already know this.
a quiet and gentle spirit should bear fruit.
This is true and not just for women. There are many Bible verses about being quiet directed at men and the fruit of the Holy spirit includes gentleness.
It’s never long until the “but what about men? / it takes 2” argument to arrive.
Lilac – Men are told often and always what they should be doing. It’s way past time someone tells women what they should be doing.
To me it sounds as if LeeLee does not understand that when a woman rebels it’s not a man’s fault. We are all responsible for our own behavior even if another person is wrong too. In addition, women notoriously rebel for no other reason then the fact that they are selfish and wicked (like the rest of mankind).
@Lilac:
And there are plenty about the killing the enemies of the Lord. It’s a fun balance.
“Brokenness” is a recent Buzzword. It’s an intentional dodge, about 99% of the time, for personal responsibility of your life and your interactions. (When it’s not, it’s when dealing with people that have broken their body, normally with hardcore drug usage.)
Lilac-
This is a blog and thread about the specifics of Christan marriage.
While gentleness is a generalized fruit of the spirit for all Christiahs, Men are not singled out in the scripture to a life of gentle/quiet/submission in deference to their wives.
@ Scott
@ Scott
While gentleness is a generalized fruit of the spirit for all Christiahs, Men are not singled out in the scripture to a life of gentle/quiet/submission in deference to their wives.
There is a hierarchy of authority and I don’t see where anyone here suggested otherwise. However Christians are called to a life of gentleness, quietness, meekness and submission. This is true even at home and in marriage.
And here comes the mutual submission canard… right on schedule.
Lilac is why civilization and the church should not depend on women. Rather than speak to her speak to men with her present on how to deal or not deal with her. Instead of seeing her behavior and changing her mind see her behavior as a marker to seek more worthy and say so out loud. She maybe lost for ever that is fine and is a good thing for the well behaved women to see.
We are not maintaining a civil society we making one
…and submission. This is true even at home and in marriage.
For men?
@Lilac,
I don’t remember the verse where men are called to a life of submission “even in marriage”… where was that again?
But seriously… even as men are called to lives of “gentleness, quietness and meekness” (and yes, submission to God), this will look different in men to women, as men and women are different.
Lilac-
How exactly does the “hierarchy in marriage” work if the commandments for both men and women are identical in that context?
>@Solomon
>“The pain and cruelty she can visit on you is even more immense than the dull roar of white noise cruelty she runs daily with her eye-rolls and snide remarks and disrespectful moments large and small. So terrifyingly immense, the looming pain.”
>I believe it; I’ve seen that look of terror on many a married man’s face, which is why I think they instinctively know of their position even if they don’t understand how it fits into the greater picture.
and @CaneCaldo- who is trolling again, obfuscating the fact that while men ultimately enforce the legal tyranny under which we live the system they enforce- the Matrix- is for the benefit of women. While it may be men who come to the house, beat the husband, chain him, and throw him in a cage, it is the woman who stays in the house. While it may even be a male judge, his orders benefit the cheating whore wife and harms the man in almost every case.
In a relationship, in a marriage, women hold all the power except one tiny little piece- we can just not give a fuck (fortunately not giving a fuck has the added benefit of generating the tingles).
If you think men hold the power read Solomon’s post quoted above.
“But even the denial is predicated not on denying the threat, but in believing it only happens to the other guy, as they are the real thing those poor slobs who get the whack are pretending to be.”
This is the jist. You two are saying the same thing.
“the goddesses only exist in the minds of the men; superimposed over the women they actually know and married.”
Funny. I seem to recall God had a commandment against Idolatry. I seem to also recall God not being very open minded about his house being full of idols.
@bluepill
I feel confident to say that you didn’t actually understand what I wrote. I’m not sure you understand what you wrote.
Lilac @ 9:07 pm:
“There is a hierarchy of authority and I don’t see where anyone here suggested otherwise.”
It’s a short hierarchy. Wife obeys husband. Done.
“However Christians are called to a life of gentleness, quietness, meekness and submission.”
You mean male Christians like Paul?
“Hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” 1 Cor. 5:3-5
“As for those [preachers of circumcision], I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” Galatians 5:12
“Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.” 1 Timothy 1:20
“I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent: On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others.” 2 Cor. 13:2
Suspicions about my Wife… What to do?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=981962
Single mom: Sex education for my son?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=981920
Pingback: We Have Seen The Enemy… | Donal Graeme
@ SS and Mychael:
Lilac is gone, never to return. There’s no way she’s going to answer your questions honestly, as there is only one sensible answer to each of them and they would force her to expose herself for the troll she is.
Interesting part starts at 7:00 (re: dropping kids off at daycare, etc).
what is rebellious?
all the young women at my church keep talking about how men should cook, and men should not expect their wives to run the home
everything should be shared
the young men who cook are praised and are given leadership roles
the men who refuse to marry a man ( let us be honest, if you marry a woman and there is no role difference- it is like a gay marriage)
are mocked…
are they rebellious?
yes, and unworthy of marriage
@ seriously serving
I don’t remember the verse where men are called to a life of submission “even in marriage”… where was that again?
But seriously… even as men are called to lives of “gentleness, quietness and meekness” (and yes, submission to God), this will look different in men to women, as men and women are different.
Christians are to lay aside their own rights, not insist on having things their own way, and sacrifice for one another. This submission to one another is commanded of all believers with no exception made for married men. That doesn’t mean that the husband is not in a position of authority.
I was going to summon my inner GBFM like this:
LOLZLOLZLOLZLOLZLOLZLOLZLOLZLOLZLOLZLLLZZZZZZZLOOOOOOOLZZZZZZZ
But this:
Christians are to lay aside their own rights, not insist on having things their own way, and sacrifice for one another. This submission to one another is commanded of all believers with no exception made for married men. That doesn’t mean that the husband is not in a position of authority.
Is of course nonsense and Greyghost was correct–engaging with rationally from scripture is folly. I have made the appropriate internal corrections and it won’t happen again. I have also instructed Mychael to cease and desist, and she immediately complied without either of us being struck by lightning for not “mutually submitting.”
So how about those Cowboys?
This submission to one another is commanded of all believers with no exception made for married men.
“submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
You’ve got the context of Eph 5:21 wrong. Submit yourselves one to another does not mean husbands submit to wives and wives submit to husbands. It means wives submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ, as children submit to their parents, as slaves submit to their masters, and as Christ Himself exemplifies by submitting himself to the Father. The “mutual submission” concept being taught today is bad teaching based on feminist thinking.
@Dalrock, I never intended to give an impression that I believe that inner quietness shouldn’t bear outward fruit, that rebellion doesn’t exist, or that my quiet friend’s husband is doing anything wrong (he is also my dear friend).
I acknowledge that my quiet friend is extremely rebellious, tearing her husband and her home down with her own hands, and is in spiritual danger. At the same time, I have compassion for her because I know her story and the pain she suffered as a little girl which crushed her and brought her to this place. Women like that need compassion, gentleness and understanding in order to feel safe enough to acknowledge the wrong within and surrender. It’s up to her ultimately to surrender to God for healing and help.
I was just trying to say that personality (cheerful/pensive, chatty/reticent, introverted/extroverted, animated/serene) can’t be equated to virtue because personality is a God-given gift, and a quiet spirit will bear fruit in that personality traits will be controlled and channeled to bless others instead of being hurtful, damaging or an uncontrollable storm.
The fruit of a quiet spirit in a chatty, animated extrovert could be showing warm hospitality that refreshes others, making sure outsiders are included, encouraging others, lightening the mood of a depressed person with her humor, etc.
The fruit of a quiet spirit in a quiet, pensive introvert could be the blessing of carefully chosen words when they do come, creating quiet and serene places for people to rest, peaceful companionship, etc.
@BluePillProfessor “… the fact that while men ultimately enforce the legal tyranny under which we live the system they enforce- the Matrix- is for the benefit of women. While it may be men who come to the house, beat the husband, chain him, and throw him in a cage, it is the woman who stays in the house. While it may even be a male judge, his orders benefit the cheating whore wife and harms the man in almost every case.”
It is true, but some (quite a few in our area actually) are waking up. My husband has had calls from the wife who when he got there, he actually ended up arresting her (and she is usually making up all the drama or seriously provoking it). It gives him a lot of satisfaction when this happens. But overall, you’re right, it has largely been men who have made the mistake of giving women the benefit of the doubt or trusting everything they say.
Lilac, it’s very simple.
There has to be a leader, and there has to be a follower. There cannot be two leaders.
So if one is the follower, then that one has to submit to the other in decisions overall.
I just want to add that if you hear a pastor begin a study on the roles of men and women by discussing the “abuse” of male authority, be aware that this man has already been compromised to some degree.
If he can actually believe that in this day and age Christian marriages are filled with men abusing their God given authority, he has to be blind to reality and blind to genuine biblical teaching to some extent.
Any Christian who does not see that one of the most rampant problems in churches today is rebellious women has to be deluded and living in a fantasy world. If a pastor cannot address this problem without first placating the women, he has accepted the feminist view to some extent.
“Any Christian who does not see that one of the most rampant problems in churches today is rebellious women has to be deluded and living in a fantasy world. If a pastor cannot address this problem without first placating the women, he has accepted the feminist view to some extent.”
+1 !!!!
JDG-
On target. The preemptive disclaimers about men “it takes two, etc” prior to discussing anything the Bible says about roles absolutely kills anything said after. I catch myself doing it sometimes. It is very hard habit to break.
It’s like when people say “I’m not racist, but” or “I don’t mean to offend you, but”
Just tell the truth. No warnings first.
@ Dragonfly
Lilac, it’s very simple.
There has to be a leader, and there has to be a follower. There cannot be two leaders.
So if one is the follower, then that one has to submit to the other in decisions overall.
Yes, this would be the hierarchy and authority that I mentioned in more than one comment. However Christians are still required to submit to one another, lay aside their rights for the good of others (as Jesus did on the cross and when he washed the disciples feet) and to bear the fruits of the spirit. This includes married Christians.
Lilac… you’re changing the structure of the Scripture to fit your own definition of “mutual submission” in marriage. Read all of chapter 5 in Ephesians to fully understand what that context is for “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
That sentence is at the end of long list of instructions to Christians in the body of Christ. It is NOT part of the instruction of how marriage should go, which is the next set of verses. It is completely separate from the instructions on marital submission, let’s take a look:
Read all of Ephesians 5:1-21, it is talking about instructions for the children of God to behave toward each other in the body.
Then 5:22-33 are the verses on marital instructions, and you know what… it NEVER tells the husbands to submit to their wives, but it tells the wives to submit to their husbands ***in everything.***
“22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”
Read the whole chapter here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205&version=ESV
However Christians are still required to submit to one another, lay aside their rights for the good of others (as Jesus did on the cross and when he washed the disciples feet) and to bear the fruits of the spirit. This includes married Christians.
You are mixing things up. Laying aside imagined rights is not an example of “mutual submission”. Putting others before yourself is an act of love and in no way requires the husband to submit to his wife, parents to submit to their children, masters to submit to their slaves, or Christ to submit to His Church. Furthermore, wives are not only to be subject to their husbands but are also told to obey and respect their husbands.
Don’t confuse the responsibility and roles of unmarried Christians with married Christians.
@Scott
Right on. Kudos to you both, and also greyghost.
What a cacophony to prove the wisdom of Sts. Peter and Paul. Blogs aren’t church, but we must remember that church walls do not suppress women’s proclivities.
– LeeLee simply cannot let go of the idea that her job, when confronted with the simple encouragement to be quiet, is to talk a whole bunch of nonsense to, somehow, through arcane perversion, convince us that women can be quiet while not being quiet and that a quiet spirit does not bear recognizable fruit.
– SeriouslyServing will say anything to make peace, with both sides, at once, so that neither she nor any other woman can ever actually exhibit or experience peace. “Blown about by every wind…”
– Lilac is either functionally illiterate, or a mouth-wiper.
– Dragonfly quotes BPP’s argument against me and my recognition that men still hold the authority and power only in the hands of government men. Then she relates an anecdote that is meant to show things are improving, but the anecdote serves to reinforce my argument that the power is still kept out of husbands hands. A husband would be jailed for a use of force waaaaay below the handcuffs and jail that cops apply after a mere few minutes of knowing her. She then gives credit to BPP for my argument; when BPP had actually denied my argument.
And they all speak as if their particular version of chaos will bring order to the other women.
@ dragonfly
I am not sure how I can make it more plain for you. I am not speaking of “mutual submission” where no one is in charge. I am saying that even those in charge should have the fruits of the spirit, (which include meekness and gentleness) and should not be self seeking.
@JDG
You are mixing things up. Laying aside imagined rights is not an example of “mutual submission”. Putting others before yourself is an act of love and in no way requires the husband to submit to his wife, parents to submit to their children, masters to submit to their slaves, or Christ to submit to His Church. Furthermore, wives are not only to be subject to their husbands but are also told to obey and respect their husbands.
What do you mean by “imagined rights”? You seem to see the difference between submitting and obeying. You can put someone else’s well being ahead of your own without obeying them, but you are submitting to them when you do so. That doesn’t mean that you are no longer in charge.
You can’t have two people mutually submitting to one another or nothing will ever be done and neither will have a happy life. One person needs to be the Leader and it will always happen that one will step up and lead and they will get all their wants/needs met. The Leader is the man it says in the Bible. The Wife in the Bible when it talks about marriage in Ephesians 5:22-24 talks about wives submitting to their husbands because he is the “Head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church.” the Church submits to Christ and the Wife needs to submit to the husband because if we had mutual submission with Christ we would do anything we wanted and he had to submit to our needs and wants not his. When you continue in Ephesians 5:25-33 that talks about the Husband needing to love his wife and lay down his life for her like Christ did for us that way he will not abuse his leadership. This part of the Bible in marriage gives two verses to the wife and all it says is submission, the husband has 9 verses and gives them great detail because they are called to represent Christ in their house to their wife, children, family and friends. The husband can listen to the wife’s ideas and when he deems fit he can agree with the idea, however, when a husband and wife try and submit to each other nothing will get done because they will get to a point where neither wants to submit. Like with my wife we can talk and if I can tell what she says is better I will agree and make the decision for the betterment of my family. In my family when we cannot agree on a decision I make the decision and my wife follows even when she knows it may be the wrong decision. When I make the wrong decision she does not rub it in my face and remind me for the rest of my life she may flirt with me because that’s how we are but she does not get angry with me she knows she is called to be submissive to me and allows me to lead which sets a good example to our children and allows me to do what I am called to do.
@ JDG
Any Christian who does not see that one of the most rampant problems in churches today is rebellious women has to be deluded and living in a fantasy world.
It is interesting to me that you would say this under a post about Mark Driscoll who refused to submit to the authority of his church, on a blog where men frequently complain about the authority of the government and the leaders of their churches. I’ve even read a few comments where people left churches and refused to attend any church ironically because the leadership didn’t preach enough about how women should submit for their liking.
It would seem that people are having problems submitting across the board. Rebellion is hardly a woman’s issue.
@ Cane Caldo
Proverbs 11:12 Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense, but a man of understanding remains silent.
When God wants people to be silent it is plainly written. A quiet spirit does not mean that a person won’t speak.
@Lilac
Are you married?
The government enforces rebellion Lilac. Must we submit to that?
You need to do a better study on Eph 5, among other things.
====
Here is the content of a reply I made to a ministry who claimed mutual submission. It may or may not help anyone. Hopefully it is not too off topic.
====
You completely missed the point, though that is not surprising.
The model for the husband-wife relationship we are given is Jesus-Church. You are basically saying that v 22 is meaningless because it was already covered by v 21 and the comparison to Christ and the Church is not important.
I did not think anyone had really thought this issue through, though I was hoping perhaps you had a bit more Scriptural support for the position, yet you can only repeat what is written (which is certainly correct) and then waive it away by explaining that it doesn’t apply, without any evidence to support the claim. How is this placing the Scriptures foremost?
This is a fairly simple issue. Either Jesus Church is a model for husband wife or it is not. If it is, then anything that applies to one applies to the other. Perhaps you can explain to me which part of what is there makes everything meaningless and only requires husbands and wives to be in mutual submission, but not the other relationships that follow.
You might also want to start earlier in the thought. It seems quite clear that v 21 is the end of a series of thoughts, not the start of some.
[Eph 5:15-21 KJV] 15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, 16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord [is]. 18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; 21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
(From http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=5&t=KJV#s=1102015, pick the version you like the best, but the meaning will remain similar.)
The clear concept here is that we are to:
– Walk with wisdom, not like fools.
– Redeem the time, because we live in evil days.
– Don’t get drunk (with wine), but be filled with the Spirit.
– Speak to one another in edifying ways.
– Give thanks to God the Father in all things.
– Submit to one another.
The context/focus then shifts to other relationships, with some clarifications on how they work out. Nothing indicates that the final point should govern the next several verses and especially nothing indicates that an outside submission (Christ –> God the Father) should impact the others. And you only apply mutual submission to the first relationship anyway, so what is your real point?
You are correct that the chapter divisions were not present in the original, nor were verses, but human thought has been human thought since Adam and Eve. Lets go with the simple view that groups things in a logical manner rather than making up a doctrine that completely negates the value of what is said.
I would be curious on a couple of other things:
– What is the exact purpose of even having v 22 in the view you put forth?
– What do wives have to do in a marriage? (Based on this section of course. Clearly that can and would be a couple of teachings, if not more for this and the next question.)
– What do husbands have to do?
– Why is the mutual submission limited to husband and wife in this case and not tied to the rest of the Church/church? Should a husband or wife submit to others in the church based on this? Why or why not?
I don’t know a lot of Greek and I do need to dig into that part a bit, but I noticed that the word used in v 21 was different from the one used in v 22. The implications of that would be good to know.
====
General questions that arise out of this interpretation:
==>> Do wives have any specific responsibility in marriage?
Note the use of specific, not a generic “submit to one another” where the wife drives things with her consent or lack thereof. A party that can always veto an action is in charge, whatever their sex. It will always come down to one party making the decision. That may sometimes be with the agreement of the other, but that is still leading.
==>> Is submission, or the expectation of it, really the problem with marriages today? How many are breaking up because the wives had to submit to their husbands and how many are breaking up because the wives have lost respect for their husbands due to the inability of the husband to really lead?
==>> Does Pastor XYZ submit to you and let you make the decision in cases where he strongly disagrees? Why do you not have the right to control things if a wife does in a marriage? Would that not be implied by the view of v 21 presented here?
This seems a clear case of
[Mat 15:6 KJV] 6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
They used on Scriptural command to negate another one. v 22 is neutered here and means nothing as you interpret it.
You did repeat the passage, but then made arguments completely outside what is written. Either what is written supports any positions we take or we need to modify our positions to conform to what is written.
I don’t know if this will get back to you, but I suspect this will be the core of a book I may be writing as few take a principled stand in this area, letting the world’s ways run over those in the Church and leaving many children without proper fathers to guide them in life because those fathers have been completely neutered of any power and ability. The cost of such errant teaching is very high and is destroying the sanctity of marriage. Christians have already redefined it, so is it any surprise the world pushes it even farther with the other variants that are popular today?
====
I never did get a reply back, which is not surprising.
I am saying that even those in charge should have the fruits of the spirit, (which include meekness and gentleness) and should not be self seeking.
Which is normally twisted to mean “does whatever makes the wife happy” even though her happiness is in her control, not that of her husband. You choose to be happy or not. The rebellious wife mentioned earlier was feeding her own rebellion. Excusing that because of childhood abuse is idiotic. She needs to get healed, delivered or whatever, not stay in the bad situation. Rebellion now is not justified because of past hurt, especially when that hurt came from another source.
Lilac,
Here is your fundamental misunderstanding:
You can put someone else’s well being ahead of your own without obeying them, but you are submitting to them when you do so.
No. That is not what submission means. Look up hupotassó in a good Greek dictionary (http://biblehub.com/greek/5293.htm is a good start) and you’ll see that it inherently carries a meaning of obedience to authority. You are redefining a word, thereby starting from a false premise, and drawing incorrect conclusions because of your false premise.
@Robin Mumm..
“No. That is not what submission means. Look up hupotassó in a good Greek dictionary (http://biblehub.com/greek/5293.htm is a good start) and you’ll see that it inherently carries a meaning of obedience to authority. You are redefining a word, thereby starting from a false premise, and drawing incorrect conclusions because of your false premise.”
You beat me too it. I was not about to allow myself to be baffled by Lilac’s foolishness, so I had to conclude, as you did, that she simply doesn’t know or understand the actual definition of submission.
We surrender to our Father’s will.
Wives surrender to their Husbands will, which is formed by the Love of Christ, which, ideally, will have the best interest of the household at heart. And she trusts in this Love, which is, by proxy, Christ’s love. Period.
Again..if a woman doesn’t submit, she doesn’t trust her husband and the Christ in him, which is Christ himself. Period.
@Lilac, I’m trying to understand what you mean by “submission” then. If you refer to placing the salvation of others ahead of your own desires, I get it, but it’s not the right word in this context.
RE: leaving a church where the opposite of revealed truth is taught. I’m glad you picked that. It’s an example of men refusing to follow false teachers, who command husbands and wives to behave in a manner the exact opposite of what God has told us. That is not rebellion, it is obedience to God. The rebellious are those who contradict God, and those who follow them.
Lilac, you won’t get what we are talking about until you can answer the question: what does it actually mean when you say someone has authority?
“Christians are to lay aside their own rights, not insist on having things their own way, and sacrifice for one another. This submission to one another is commanded of all believers with no exception made for married men. That doesn’t mean that the husband is not in a position of authority.”
If these requirements are upon all Christians, no exceptions, then let’s take a look at other situations outside of marriage. Is a Christian manager at the workplace expected to lay aside the right to direct the performance of work by his employees? Is a Christian mother supposed to submit to her toddler’s desire to run free in a crowded parking lot? Should a bishop alter doctrine, or suppress talk of sin and judgment to avoid troubling his flock?
It appears you have absorbed a sort of anarchist-collective false image of how Christian society should operate, in which all things get done through cooperative consensus and nobody actually ever needs to give orders, only suggestions. But if it means anything to say that a man has responsibility for the well-being of his family, it must come with the authority to act for their best interests, even against their consent.
If St. Paul could teach even in the days of Nero that Caesar wields the sword for good and so Christians should obey the secular authorities, then it’s not asking too much for Christians today to teach that a man is head of his own household and so wives and children ought to obey his authority.
Brad,
Did you put that on gty with a John Macarthur teaching? It seems I’ve read that and was floored that it wasn’t deleted as I have tried writing similar in the blog comments on gty and mine never get posted. Great write up by the way. I am going to save that on Word!
I actually had that exact conversation with a well known pastor face to face at a kitchen table and he looked at me with Knowledge and Understanding yet would not acknowledge it’s accuracy. He does speak against feminism, but I am not sure very well read pastors and authors (such as he) see the underlying message they give women when they do not delve into applications and subtlties with which women can manipulate those verses.
It was another major ministry, one that claims “verse by verse” teaching. Yet you clearly can mess that up if you don’t apply the right underlying principles.
People will believe their traditions over the Word even when confronted with that. We are all stubborn that way.
What a cacophony to prove the wisdom of Sts. Peter and Paul. Blogs aren’t church, but we must remember that church walls do not suppress women’s proclivities.
Cane- I could probably use your keen ability to organize thoughts on this. But in the wake of the total collapse of state and culture sanctioned “marriage” I have become much bolder about this issue in public, on social media, etc.
It’s like since the word “marriage” pretty much means whatever the user of the word subjectively intends, I can also play that game. When my “conservative” and libertarian friends get testy about the way my marriage is structured, I just say “hey man, who are you to judge me? How does my marriage affect your marriage in any way, you bigot? You want eight wives, 6 husbands and a catfish? That’s cool. I have a submissive wife. What’s it to you? Go live your life.”
@LeeLee
You are assuming the Apostle Peter wrote his instruction to wives with the expectation that they would also read the epistles of Meyers and Briggs. But no such epistles exist. I understand that people have different personalities, but there are two problems with your reframe here (aside from the fact that you continue to do so):
1) Not all biblical instruction is equally easy for all people. That someone finds an instruction more difficult than others to follow does not mean that only those who find the instructions easy are to follow.
2) Even Meyers Briggs doesn’t claim that extroverts have to be loud and/or incontinent in their speech, just like they don’t claim that introverts have to be shy recluses. Those who match either stereotype are signs of immaturity. The focus is on what activities each personality type will find refreshing. Extroverts can sit quietly and read, and introverts can mingle at parties.
Someone who tends to be undisciplined and loud can still work to become controlled and quiet.
Ironically feminisim is founded on the premise that if we only change what we teach women, we can change their natures by exhorting them to be loud, bossy, etc. Yet when the Bible exhorts women to be quiet, gentle, and submissive, the feminist answer is suddenly that women can’t be changed, as they are born bossy and loud.
Until Lilac’s head shows up, you guys are just talking to tits. They are great to hold, squeeze, pinch, and flick, but talking to tits does no one any good.
@Scott
I’ll reply when I get back to a PC.
Again..if a woman doesn’t submit, she doesn’t trust her husband and the Christ in him, which is Christ himself. Period.
PERFECTLY summarized!
@JDG
What you are saying is that there is no ‘mutual submission’ in the chain of command, am I right?
You are assuming the Apostle Peter wrote his instruction to wives with the expectation that they would also read the epistles of Meyers and Briggs. But no such epistles exist. I understand that people have different personalities, but there are two problems with your reframe here (aside from the fact that you continue to do so):
1) Not all biblical instruction is equally easy for all people. That someone finds an instruction more difficult than others to follow does not mean that only those who find the instructions easy are to follow.
2) Even Meyers Briggs doesn’t claim that extroverts have to be loud and/or incontinent in their speech, just like they don’t claim that introverts have to be shy recluses. Those who match either stereotype are signs of immaturity. The focus is on what activities each personality type will find refreshing. Extroverts can sit quietly and read, and introverts can mingle at parties.
Someone who tends to be undisciplined and loud can still work to become controlled and quiet.
Ironically feminisim is founded on the premise that if we only change what we teach women, we can change their natures by exhorting them to be loud, bossy, etc. Yet when the Bible exhorts women to be quiet, gentle, and submissive, the feminist answer is suddenly that women can’t be changed, as they are born bossy and loud.
This entire line of thinking is the only way I have been able to remain both a psychologist and a Christian.
@Sheepdog2013 “In my family when we cannot agree on a decision I make the decision and my wife follows even when she knows it may be the wrong decision. When I make the wrong decision she does not rub it in my face and remind me for the rest of my life she may flirt with me because that’s how we are but she does not get angry with me she knows she is called to be submissive to me and allows me to lead which sets a good example to our children and allows me to do what I am called to do.”
Even when it’s happened… which is extremely rare… God’s always allowed it or used it for good in some way, and taken care of us. I love you.
@Dalrock, I completely agree that literally being LOUD is a problem. It’s dominant, chaotic, unkind and uninviting. Obviously “incontinent” speech is a horrible problem too 😉 I’m just making the case that bubbly, cheerful chicks don’t need to snuff out their personalities to be submissive to this teaching.
On “mutual submission”:
Proponents of “mutual submission” claim that proponents of Biblical submission take Paul’s instructions in Ephesians out of context, but it is the “mutual submission” side that takes Paul’s instructions out of context.
Ephesians 4:1-6:9 is a code of conduct for the Church. Those three chapters explain how members of the Body of Christ should behave towards one another. You can’t understand it if you only cling to sections of it.
Paul begins…
Ephesians 4:1 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
He then explains how to accomplish the task of keeping the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
If you understand all that, it becomes clear that when Paul states…
Ephesians5:21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
… he’s explaining which members of the Church are supposed to submit to which other members of the Church. In the military we would call this a chain of command, without which good order and discipline are impossible.
Wives submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24).
Children submit to their parents (Eph 6:1-3).
Slaves submit to their masters (Eph 6:5-8).
Knowing that human nature abuses authority, Paul also gave instructions to those in authority.
Husbands, love your wives (Eph 5:25-33).
Fathers, do not exasperate your children (Eph 6:4).
Masters, do not mistreat your slaves (Eph 6:9).
All of it goes together. All of it. Paul intentionally addressed wives and husbands first, then children and parents, then slaves and masters, because the family is the basic building block of the Church. If the family falls apart, the Church falls apart.
Rebellious wives raise rebellious children. And rebellious children grow into rebellious adults.
If it’s true that Paul meant for wives to submit to husbands AND husbands to submit to wives, then it’s also true that Paul meant for children to submit to parents AND parents to submit to children, and for slaves to submit to masters AND masters to submit to slaves.
For some odd reason, I’ve never – NOT ONCE – heard a pastor state that parents should submit to children, or masters should submit to slaves, because that would be a self-evidently ridiculous interpretation of the text. Yet, for some reason, pastors (as most modern Christians) do claim that husbands should submit to wives, which is an equally self-evidently ridiculous interpretation of the text.
Let’s look at the text of Eph 5:22-24.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Note… “as you do to the Lord”… “as Christ is the head of the church”… “as the church submits to Christ”…
Does the Lord submit to us?
Does Christ submit to the church?
Obviously not!
The “mutual submission” model of marriage is not Biblical. It’s proponents didn’t learn it from the Bible. I’ll leave it up to others to explain its origin.
Well stated, D.
Related: I can’t help but chuckle. The current thinking is, “I can choose my sex, but I can’t choose my sexual preference.”
Annnnnd reframe….
Excellent observation.
Oscar says:October 8, 2015 at 1:19 pm On “mutual submission”:
great answer
@Cane, it’s not about Grace usurping Mark’s authority, it’s about Mark’s mental point of origin with Grace and women in general. He’s been thoroughly pre-whipped to the point that he defaults to deferring authority to the feminine when it comes to issues that affect the feminine (and by association men).
He doesn’t pander to Grace as being an authority over him (she’s submissive), he panders to the Feminine Imperative and Grace is the most immediate, 3rd party spokeswoman of the FI he has available for his own endorsement.
That was the context of my reply. I had sent a note to the pastor asking if Christ submitted to the Church. His associate pastor replied, “no” and then went on to quote the Scripture and claim that “but, husbands do mutually submit to their wives. This was valid because the original had no chapter divisions.
That is not a valid claim since the target relationships are different as I and others have noted.
You know, this thing about trying to provide exegesis of The Ephesians 5 Instructions to Husbands and Wives to those in the mutual submission camp is tricky.
We know that rebellion can be subtle, and not so subtle, and we know it’s hasatan doing this shit, and we know he has cohorts who are complicit in this ruse.
We reason, it’s just that simple, or is it? Because I’ve often wondered, how the fuck anyone who is truly hungering and thirsting for righteousness, who is studying the Word like a Berean, can read The Ephesians 5 Instructions to Husbands and Wives and get the shit so twisted.
Is it because they are confused…rebellious…cold-blooded daft…or all of the above?
Then I noticed that they obviously have help in their fuckery…right? Not just from brother so and so who is a flaming effeminate white knight or sister whachamacallit who is a harridan and a hag, but also is the Superintendent of Sunday School at the Nigel Barrister Leroy Jackson Jones Babtist Church in Compton Liverpool Valley Bay Borough of MLK Boulevard.
They have help with the shit.
Check out how Biblegateway frames the chief passages…
See how the heading starts here, with verse 21 directly following? Could that be confusing the internet Bible student?
But this same passage on Bible Study Tools does it differently. It starts with verse 22. Biblehub.com also starts this way.
However, fear not, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops goes back to the confusion with their framing of the text.
Be subordinate to one another? In marriage?
But check out the footnotes from the USCCB…
I split these footnotes up, so you can see what I’m to emphasize, which is this passage below:
This all reads very well. Feels good. Makes sense. Feels good. Feels good. But it’s LEAVEN!
And then there is FEMINIST LEAVEN, the well from which those in the mutual submission camp drinks.
Leaven.
Leaven.
Have you guys ever seen the e5 Men site?
One can also be an e5 woman. What are the duties of the e5 woman, you ask? Support the e5 man as he fasts for her.
Leaven.
I’m not confused at all. But some might be.
There is so much weirdness out there that is ancillary to Scripture. No wonder people are lost.
Brad,
If there were no comas, periods, sentences, paragraphs or chapters Jehovah’s Witnesses might be right then when it He says, “Today you will be with Me in paradise.”, meaning I am telling you today that you will be with Me in paradise, not you will be with Me in paradise today. A JW told me that pagans have switched the coma to fit pagan’s theology of the thief going to heaven that day with Jesus. How on earth they have switched John 1:1 around I will never understand, but any way that pastor probably went to Denver TS or Moody BS.
@MarcusD
Here is a cool link for you:
http://financialsurvivalnetwork.com/2015/04/heather-wagenhals-watch-out-for-virtual-gigolos-especially-in-canada/
We are in the wrong business my friend!…..L*
Exfernal says:
October 8, 2015 at 12:05 pm
@JDG
What you are saying is that there is no ‘mutual submission’ in the chain of command, am I right?
I am saying that “mutual submission” is NOT a biblical teaching. It is a false teaching. It seems to me that a chain of command with mutual submission is self contradicting.
“the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.” I Cor. 14:34-5 ESV
Let’s try this again.
“…the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” I Cor. 14:34-5 ESV
Lilac says:
October 8, 2015 at 9:39 am
What do you mean by “imagined rights”?
It’s too deep for you.
You seem to see the difference between submitting and obeying. You can put someone else’s well being ahead of your own without obeying them, but you are submitting to them when you do so. That doesn’t mean that you are no longer in charge.
I don’t think you know what the term submit actually means.
Robin Munn says:
October 8, 2015 at 10:35 am
Yep!
Lilac says:
October 8, 2015 at 10:05 am
It would seem that people are having problems submitting across the board. Rebellion is hardly a woman’s issue.
It is a woman’s issue on this blog. Have you made sammiches for a man lately? You sound like a woman who hasn’t done that for a while.
Mark
I’m 50 now. I know what I’m going to be doing in 12 years as a retired asshole with game.
@ Cane Caldo
talking to tits does no one any good.
Reminds me of a story my wife told me.
A woman with very large tracts of land whom my wife knows went to visit her lawyer. He explained a point of law to her as he stared continuously at her norks. The woman finally got tired of the attention and jiggled her boobs and said, “Wake up! He’s talking to you.” The lawyer got red-faced but never broke his patter, though he stopped staring at the jugs.
Exfernal says:
October 8, 2015 at 12:05 pm
I forgot to add: Yes you are right!
jeff,
I know it had no punctuation in the original. I don’t buy JWs theology, but I do not see that verse as necessarily saying they would both be in Paradise that very day. I believe Jesus had a bit of a delay, based on other things. (Some would claim I am a heretic for believing that, but such is their problem.)
Believing marriage is a not a case of mutual submission merely requires a brain and a recognition for the patterns of what is written. It does not require any extra punctuation or such.
Lilac is right in that men as well should also be submitting to authority when appropriate. It’s hypocritical to insist the wife should submit to the husband, the husband also practices mutual submission to other Christians, and submits to Christ and the church. The husband/father is not some lone cowboy who rules his home like a castle, unchallenged.
It is a hierarchy. In any well-functioning hierarchy the “underlings” are expected to have plenty of voice, and their word should be taken when they have more knowledge or expertise than the patriarch. Which happens plenty in any hierarchy. The hierarchy is there to ensure all parties are treated with respect.
Getting back to a church, I do encourage people to find a good church for the social benefit and influence. The perfect is not the enemy of the good, and it’s good to be pushed by different perspectives.
My church has not done most of the things complained about on this board. No Mother’s Day or Father’s Day messages of any kind, none of that. The pastor last week did talk on divorce. Wasn’t perfect, but he did emphasize that commitment is what holds together marriages, not love. Which is very true. People need to hear that, and I’m not the only one there.
Striver we know all about the evils that men do (including Christian men) from church, academia, and every other source of media. We don’t need the Lilac’s of the world to give us their perspective on “but men are bad too” here and now.
We already know that men are sinners and can openly discuss that anywhere any time. Feminists everywhere will happily join in. This is one of the few places where we can discuss the evils that women do with out having to openly confront others who are offended at the very notion that women can do wrong.
I know because I have oft ended up in such confrontations for merely opposing a lie.
Off Topic:
I’m sorry to ruin the mood of this fine forum. I thought this was a fitting illustration of the process of turning an innocent young girl into a filthy skank-ho, before she is old enough to realize what is going on. Particularly disturbing: Note that the little girl boasts that she has “pretty boobs”. How old is this child? 4 at most.
http://video.breitbart.com/Mom-uses-child-to-promote-Planned-Parenthood-abortions-29787441?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Lilac and leelee do not appreciate the attempt to save them.
A question to all
Know female mind set did any believe that they saw no need to stop the rebellion for their own well being? You all’s concern for them met they wee free to pursue “happiness” and empowerment through rebellion and bask in the joy of freedom from oppression. We loved these women with out any conditions and the response was as commented by JDG at 838 PM.
What of the women lurking that cheered them on so they could enjoy their rebellion? And worse what of the women lurking that want to give up the rebellion and don’t know how. How belittled and socially outcast from the herd would a woman be giving up the rebellion for peace of mind.
Let the rebellious fall have faith is what we know of women. She will repent to save her ass not out of love of God she is a woman. “no rings for sluts” has real merit . Imagine the response to LIlac would have been show her comments as a training aid for men to sot rebellious and unworthy women and how to have the social courage to allow her to suffer as she should for her behavior. Only non rebellious women deserve the love of strong men with concern for her well being.
@Cane Caldo
“SeriouslyServing will say anything to make peace, with both sides, at once, so that neither she nor any other woman can ever actually exhibit or experience peace. “Blown about by every wind…””
You’re half-right. Making peace is certainly a priority for me, and I have found it an effective way to conduct discussions in the past, by first looking for points of agreement.
But I won’t “say anything” to create a false peace. And I am not “blown about by every wind”.
Striver @ 6:56 pm:
“Lilac is right in that men as well should also be submitting to authority when appropriate.”
Lilac is a liar who thinks God is okay with women telling Christian men how they should behave.
“It’s hypocritical to insist the wife should submit to the husband, the husband also practices mutual submission to other Christians, and submits to Christ and the church.”
Don’t muddy the water. Wives submit to their husbands, period. Whether the man should submit to some other man or authority is completely irrelevant to the fact that the husband is the wife’s highest authority.
“Mutual submission” is an oxymoron anyway.
…
Greyghost, are you okay? Your grammar has become unnaturally bad.
@Boxer
What the f**** is the west coming to?
DragonFly said:
>My husband has had calls from the wife who when he got there, he actually ended up arresting her
That is great. I know of two couples where the wife called the police, claiming her husband was violent. The cops came, and there was no violence to be seen. But nothing happened to the wives for making false statements to the police, unfortunately.
If that is you SheepDog, then kudos to you.
What the f**** is the west coming to?
A violent end? A slow decay into mud huts? Unparalleled tyranny? What ever is coming for the West will be preceeded by a loud splash as we land in the moral cesspool at the bottom of the slide. Yes it even gets worse.
they don’t ask men to submit to their wives
now they call it sacrificial servant leadership…
so the women now see single men who expect women to cook dinners , look after the home etc as misogynists and misogyny is sin…
cbmw
cripple gate blog
the author of cripplegate invited a woman to speak on her book on gender roles
in there she provides and example of how a woman should prepare for marriage – a woman asking whether her fiancé will cook the dinner and look after the kids so she can work long hours
boundless
everything is reversed now
men are to be women
and women are to be men
tbh it is unfair on most younger women
they were not raised to be women
they were raised to be men
raised like men
and taught what men were taught
expecting them to suddenly stop behaving the way they were raised is a bit silly
Cost of Childcare Exceeds Cost of College
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=982051
What is the value of a wife?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=982138
“Why is everybody trying to dress little girls like skanks for Halloween?”
http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/sexed-up-halloween-costumes-even-for-little-girls/
“And this lack of choice isn’t limited to Halloween costumes. Parents struggle to find modest clothing for their girls every day of the week. Whether it’s too tight, cropped T-shirts with suggestive phrases displayed across the bust line or the skinny, low-slung jeans or barely-there sundresses, it’s a chore and a challenge to find clothing that doesn’t make little girls look like objects of desire.”
“Parents” don’t buy kids’ clothes. Moms do. Who do you suppose created the demand for this stuff?
Parents” don’t buy kids’ clothes. Moms do. Who do you suppose created the demand for this stuff?
THIS.
Anyone also wanna bet that the overwhelming majority of mothers who dress their preschool daughters up to look like little whores in training also happen to be single mothers?
Gunner Q –
Don’t muddy the water. Wives submit to their husbands, period. Whether the man should submit to some other man or authority is completely irrelevant to the fact that the husband is the wife’s highest authority.
“Mutual submission” is an oxymoron anyway.
It’s actually quite relevant to this discussion, because it shows the real meaning of Ephesians 5:21, which is NOT that “mutual submission” nonsense. The real meaning is that all of us in the church have someone in authority over us whom we should be submitting to. Our “masters” (now called “bosses”) on the job, our husbands if we’re married women, other people higher in authority in the church structure… So all Christians who are in a subordinate relationship to other Christians, should be submitting to those others out of reverence for Christ. And when addressing the church as a whole, the simplest way to say that is “submit to each other”. That’s what “submit to each other” really means, and when people actually hit on that meaning, I think they should be praised for getting it right. It’s not irrelevant at all, because once you understand the real meaning of “submit to each other”, the rest of Ephesians 5:22-6:9 easily slots into place: it’s three examples of what an authority relationship should look like in the church. The one under authority submits, and the one in authority uses his authority for the good of the other one, rather than for their harm.
Gunner Q
Not smooth at all. . No posting while tired I have done this before here and it was bad.
The bible quote Esp 5:21 needs to be put in context, and this becomes difficult at times with sections of the bible as the original texts (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) have been translated into English. Sometimes into Latin first and then English.
The Knox bible (a Catholic version …see Wiki) has an interesting rendering of the text of Eph 5:21 …
Eph 5:21 and, as you stand in awe of Christ, submit to each other’s rights. 22 Wives must obey their husbands as they would obey the Lord. 23 The man is the head to which the woman’s body is united, just as Christ is the head of the Church, he, the Saviour on whom the safety of his body depends; 24 and women must owe obedience at all points to their husbands, as the Church does to Christ.
So the context of mutual submission of husband and wife is not in all things, but to the rights of the other party that marriage confers.
From a Catholic dictionary …
Marriage : Considered as a natural social institution, marriage is a contract between a qualified man and woman by which they freely yield to and accept from each other the perpetual and exclusive right to the marital act.
It’s a contract and both parties have rights and obligations. Both parties to the marriage (man and the woman) have the right to request the marital debt (act). Also, both husband and wife are required to live in common. So in these instances, (and whatever other mutual rights marriages confers in Catholic moral theology) there is a “mutual” submission. As the subsequent text of Eph 5 states, the husband has the marital right of authority in the family, so the wife submits to this right of the husband.
Most of the various bible translations of Eph 5:21 are similar or variations to the …
KJV … submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
NRSV … Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
… which if interpreted to mean mutual submission in all things is a misreading of the text, and the clear context that the subsequent text of Eph 22-24 makes about the authority of the husband.
@ Striver
Lilac is right in that men as well should also be submitting to authority when appropriate. It’s hypocritical to insist the wife should submit to the husband, the husband also practices mutual submission to other Christians, and submits to Christ and the church. The husband/father is not some lone cowboy who rules his home like a castle, unchallenged.
It is a hierarchy. In any well-functioning hierarchy the “underlings” are expected to have plenty of voice, and their word should be taken when they have more knowledge or expertise than the patriarch. Which happens plenty in any hierarchy. The hierarchy is there to ensure all parties are treated with respect.
I am surprised by how many Christians don’t understand this.
@ Gunner Q
Lilac is a liar who thinks God is okay with women telling Christian men how they should behave.
God is OK with women telling men how to behave.
8 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Dueternonomy 21:18-21
Also Christians are to rebuke each other when necessary. That includes female Christians rebuking men.
Lilac @ 8:47 am:
“God is OK with women telling men how to behave.”
Is that why Christ had ZERO female apostles and disciples? Because He was okay with the idea?
“Also Christians are to rebuke each other when necessary. That includes female Christians rebuking men.”
You lie again. 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” Now apologize and be forgiven.
“Parents” don’t buy kids’ clothes. Moms do. Who do you suppose created the demand for this stuff?
You really believe it is all demand driven? People making the stuff have an agenda too, and part of it is to continue the age old trend of parents living life through their children.
Also Christians are to rebuke each other when necessary. That includes female Christians rebuking men.
Which Scripture supports that idea?
It is a hierarchy. In any well-functioning hierarchy the “underlings” are expected to have plenty of voice, and their word should be taken when they have more knowledge or expertise than the patriarch. Which happens plenty in any hierarchy. The hierarchy is there to ensure all parties are treated with respect.
The one in charge still makes the ultimate decision and it should not be grudgingly followed. You are picking some nice edge cases here. (Another poster, but you were agreeing.)
GunnerQ, I emplore you. This is round three with Lilac in this thread alone.
The title of this post should have been “Rebellion: The Smell of Lilac”.
Pedat Ebediyah for the win.
@ Lilac smells like vaginosis
“God is OK with women telling men how to behave. ”
You must have excised 1 Cor. 14:34-5 from your Bible. Inconvenient for churchian equalists.
“That includes female Christians rebuking men.”
Says the odoriferous, feministic, spiritually vaginostic Lilac. Not God. Christian mothers are to rebuke their sons–especially young sons. Christian women are not to rebuke men, generally.
@Rollo
What you are calling the “Feminine Imperative” comes from men. In this case it came from the men in the Mar’s Hill congregation. We can tell that because that’s how he talks to them. We can know he’s a skilled communicator (knowing what his audience wants) because he built organizations of tens of thousands on cult of personality alone. We can also tell that Mark, personally, is not subsumed into what you call the Feminine Imperative because his wife is submissive to him. Everything points to Mark pushing down the men in his congregation for his own sake, and not for the sake of elevating women.
This error is like the error that pastors pander to women because it is women who give the church money. It’s totally unfounded. It’s men who give the majority of tithes to the church. Women drop a bill or two in the plate every time it’s passed, but it is married fathers who are writing the monthly checks on which the church operates and upon which missionaries are floated overseas.
Your assumptions are wrong, which makes your model wrong, and so your conclusions are wrong.
@Scott
The Biblical instruction for women is to ask their husband’s at home. It is not to argue it with men in Bible study, or in bars, or on a blog.
We have to believe that GunnerQ believes he is the man who can get the job done that Lilac’s father, husband, and pastor can’t.GunnerQ persists in plodding ahead. He ignores that passage because of pride. If he’d thought it through he’d realize that even if he chases this particular evil thought out of Lilac (or any other woman) it will just return later with seven more (Lo, it did, and now she’s stating that Christian women have a duty to rebuke Christian men) unless there is someone in Lilac to keep cleaning her.
Whatever he might say his reasons are, there is no other explanation for any man’s continuance to engage Lilac or any other woman directly.
@ Cane
Why do you believe that Lilac is married or even Christian?
@ Cane
Why do you believe that men give more than women?
https://philanthropy.com/article/Most-Women-Give-More-Than-Men/159623
Why do you think that Driscoll doesn’t appeal to Blue Pill white-knighting men when he pedestalizes women?
@ Cane
Shouldn’t the Feminine Imperative be viewed as a spirit which can be active in both men and women?
There’s no question that women today are pedestalized. There’s no question that the Bible supports the view that spirits are real. Isn’t it the Feminine Imperative that is responsible for the pedestalization of women? If you think that it isn’t the FI, then to what do you attribute the ancient motive to pedestalize women?
@asdg
Suppose she’s not married. GunnerQ is not her father and not an older woman. Whether she’s Christian or not, she’s arguing from a perspective as if she were a Christian.
If you read the article, it was based on a study of 8,000 households headed by single men and women. Churches aren’t full of single men or single women; nor was it a study of church giving. In other words: That article has no bearing on my statement.
If you re-read my comment to Rollo, I said that Driscoll DOES appeal to BP/WK men. Rollo said he’s appealing to women directly, and BP/WK indirectly.
No. I’m not a fan of the term. If the term Feminine Imperative points to anything, it points to the pride and lust in men. It is the hard-on I spoke of above.
I have said somewhere that the term ought to be called the Masculine Impairment. The fact that women have desires is certainly related, but so what? Other men have desires too, and we don’t see men as general people-pleasers; lining up to serve those. Just the opposite, actually.
@ Minesweeper
“2) he’s a bad man who wants a prenup and not let me rinse him after the marriage”
A prenup won’t even protect you anymore. A Long Island woman’s case set a precedent set a precedent is 2013.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/03/long-island-woman-wins-groundbreaking-prenup-battle/
“”If you are too greedy and marginalize a spouse, it’s a lot easier for an Appellate Court to agree with a legal argument that would invalidate a prenup than it otherwise might be if that prenup was fair. It’s not a given that the prenup is going to rule at the end of the day. It levels the playing field with couples dissolving a marriage with a prenup.”
A judge ruled that a payment of $25,000/year of marriage to be paid at the time of divorce was unfair and overturned the prenuptial agreement. This win emboldened the wife/monster to start a company Divorce Prep Experts to assist other vampire harpies to do the same to their husbands.
https://twitter.com/divorceprepliz
But wait, it gets better!
“He’s a good father. He’s a very successful businessman. But this prenup was a thorn in our marriage, and he didn’t want to give in,” said his former wife.
She lied. She reason she wanted a divorce is H Y P E R G A M Y. She cheated on him for Alpha f*cks and wanted the Beta bucks for doing it. ABCNews.com writes this up as she’s feminist superhero breaking new ground in the fight against patriarchal oppression, but she’s just another lying, scumbag adulterer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302295/Millionaire-s-wife-won-landmark-pre-nup-victory-actually-left-having-AFFAIR-cousin-s-husband.html
Even after being exposed by the cousin who’s marriage she’s ruined, the wife/monster still manages to believe she’s the victim.
Don’t even lie to yourselves and say it can’t happen to you. The only way you can truly protect yourself from women today is to not interact with them or leave the country. In the future, that won’t even help.
@ Brad A
Which scripture supports that idea
Matthew 18:15 -17
The fact that women have desires is certainly related, but so what?
It’s a massive “so what” Cane. Women have always yielded a tremendous amount of power over men due to basic biological realities, but this has been exacerbated massively by things such as universal suffrage, BC pill, the “threat-point” in marriage, etc. Trying to understand our current state of affairs without addressing FI is akin to trying to understand space travel without addressing gravity. You cannot understand one without the other.
This error is like the error that pastors pander to women because it is women who give the church money. It’s totally unfounded. It’s men who give the majority of tithes to the church.
The appearance of power is not the same as the reality of power. Who writes the check is not the same as who calls the shots. See the modern advertising industry and how it explicitly caters to women, knowing full well that it is the woman who is making the buying decisions, even if she is not the one paying.
Women tend to yield their influence indirectly. Focusing only on the “figure head” and stopping there is inappropriate, and misses what is truly going on behind the curtains. You don’t seem to care about what is going on behind the curtains. Either that or you are purposely trivializing what should not be trivialized.
By the way, where the hell did TFH go. This is the sort of thing he dines on.
@ Cane
The Bible doesn’t say that men cannot instruct women. There’s nothing that remotely says anything like that. Nothing in the Bible suggests that men keep quiet on a public blog.
Women are to keep quiet in church and where public instruction of men is going on. Women may learn as well, of course, but they may only ask questions at home. This has nothing to do with how men on this blog ought to deal with women.
@ Cane
If you read the article, it was based on a study of 8,000 households headed by single men and women. Churches aren’t full of single men or single women;
Churches are certainly full of single women. Single men tend to shy away from churches. The article explained that the study excluded married households because of uncertainty about who made the buying decision. Women tend to outgive men.
nor was it a study of church giving
It was a study of charitable giving, which includes church giving.
The article was on point.
There are lots more women than men in churches. Women are the sex which mostly funds the churches. You have produced absolutely no evidence that it is primarily men who fund churches other than your say so.
@ Cane
Ok, you don’t like the term, “Feminine Imperative”. Then, do you suggest that feminism has roots in ancient Greece? What term would you use instead? Certainly, chivalry promoted the interests of women and it predates modern feminism. We still feel the effects of chivalry.
Obviously, there is an ideology being pushed on society which pedestalizes women and that ideology is a whole lot more than “pride and lust in men”. You need to somehow deal with the impact of that ideology in the Driscoll affair. The fear of man and the cultural narrative are key.
The article explained that the study excluded married households because of uncertainty about who made the buying decision.
This is key. Notice how modern advertisers have no such “uncertainty” about who is making the buying decisions, even if it is the man who pulls out his wallet. Why would this dynamic suddenly change when done in a church or synagogue rather than a supermarket?
@PJ
It’s certainly true that the devil is in the details, but the main point stands.
Babies want to be held all day everyday. That doesn’t change the fact that mothers who want healthy children have to live through the the “pain” of putting babies to bed if they want them to ever learn to sleep peacefully.
The child’s desire is not the source of the pain. The source of the pain is in Momma.
@ASDG
I don’t have time to address all your questions. Perhaps I’ll make a post of it later.
@ Cane
I’m not nitpicking. I think your emphasis on men’s role in the problem and trivialization of women’s role has it exactly wrong.
Take your child-mother analogy. Yes it is fair to say the source of pain is with the mother as she has power and authority to get the child to do what she wants. But men today have been stripped of all such corresponding power and authority (or they possess “authority” without power, which is they have no authority at all). What if the child could vote and imprison the mother without trial merely for not conforming to its wishes? Would you still lay most of the blame with the mother?
@Minesweeper:
You responded in the other thread, but I legitimately missed your reply.
On the topic, if I have some time this weekend I’ll search back through the discussions that came up on the Driscolls that I’ve had. It’s probably been a year or two at least since that point came up, but it wasn’t stated that way. Which should be fairly obvious. But I do remember the only logical way to break down the issue and the language used was that this was a long term problem going on for years. So I’m willing to take correction that “epicly” was a stretch.
@LG, I look forward to your reply !
@jonakc1,
“a woman asking whether her fiancé will cook the dinner and look after the kids so she can work long hours”
This role reversal where a man is expected to be his wife’s helpmeet is a perversion of Scripture. It sends bad messages to the children and is physically unhealthy for the husband. Dr. Daniel Amneus references a study that the husbands of college educated career girls had reduced life expectancy. It is one of the footnotes in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Garbage-Generation-Daniel-Amneus/dp/0961086459/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444475100&sr=8-1&keywords=garbage+generation
IMHO being her helpmeet was a major factor in Sheryl Sandberg’s husband’s death at a young age. She “leaned in” and his body “leaned out”.
http://www.people.com/article/sheryl-sandberg-husband-died-heart-related-causes-dave-goldberg
most of the Christian men I know see it as a blessing
and they establish their dominance and feel superior, the more domestic they are
one of them stopped expanding his restaurant business and stopped working for it for a year- to care for the baby- to show servant leadership- his wife goes for ladies days, and ladies bible studies and he looks after the kids to prove that he is a real servant….
my youth Pastor would always put his baby to bed, always change his diapers ( even if the baby is in the mother’s hands , or the pastor is preaching/teaching the wife hands the baby to him for him to change in front of all the high school boys)
when they go out for dinner etc, my pastor leaves earlier with the baby- same in bible studies, if the baby needs to be fed or changed- the wife stays in and engages in discussion while the husband is in the nursery…
what I find more disturbing is in church- the wife openly asks the male pastor questions on how to live, while her husband is outside looking after the baby…
on weekends- all housework is done by the man
the more domestic a man is the more Godly he is… and men who expect their wife to run the home are misogynists…
and if a man does have a housewife like my youth pastor, he has to EARN that right by being more domestic and feminine than her when he is at home…
these people claim to love God, they take strong stands- left churches that allowed women to preach etc
but live like the culture in their marriages…
they dislike Patriarchy and prefer complementarianism
it is really stunning
I was so used to women doing the childcare and homemaking ( my parents liked to do as the bible says)
but this church is completely in reverse….
the thing is if you tell them they are wrong
they call you a misogynist
and say that I am not really a Christian
etc
etc
I always wonder though- if their standard of manhood was applied to the Bible, God should have rebuked all of those men for expecting their wives to run the home and look after the kids!
http://www.jonathanparnell.com/new/review-of-malestrom
the last 2 paragraphs some this up clearly
notice he says male servanthood and female trust
NOT male love and female submission- you know like the bible says!
and only if his wife is happy, is the marriage happy
male unhappiness is selfishness
female unhappiness is due to husband’s selfishness!
men expecting women to be women and look after the home is selfish
hence the new young Godly Christian men are all practicing the domestic arts…
I just DO NOT understand this….
what I also find astonishing is how when I state that
if they endorse female rebellion
they should also logically endorse gay marriage
they call me a troll
or stupid- my Pastor said I lacked logic
I always wonder
which countries are the most feminist/egalitarian?
the nordic countries
which were the first and most accepting of gay marriage?
the nordic countries
hmmm
honestly this blog is a breath of fresh air
I wonder what kind of churches you guys attend…
@jonakc1,
Malestorm is an evil book. That review by Parnell was awful, he says he is always the one to apologize to his wife.
You are correct, homosexual advocates are using the same strategy that divorce and remarriage advocates used to inject homosexual lifestyle acceptance into evangelical and charismatic churches.
The church my wife and I attend is blue pill.
Sorry for the late reply, been busy and just catching up. Didn’t read all the comments so perhaps this has been discussed. I would say that Driscoll has fear alright but perhaps not what you imagined. In most mainstream churches these days … the entire church body is controlled by women. Single mom’s being catered too and men who attend ONLY with their lives. Men have been driven out. That’s my experience anyway and why I walked away a couple of years ago. I would say that in my last church the demographics consisted of 60% married couples, 10% unmarried couples (termed loosely), 25% unmarried women, and about 5% unmarried men. With the “couples” I would say that over 1/2 of those were there only because of spousal pressure. Normal male christians were probably 20% of the congregation … just rough estimates.
The fear Driscoll has is that be teaching real Christianity and how women should be submissive to their men… it would contradict the brainwashed masses sitting in the pews. The single mom’s would refuse to accept that their beliefs are wrong and wives would revolt and not be so willing to drag their husbands into church for fear he’d start acting like a real man (christian man). These women want to and do believe in Feminism … not Christianity.
So Driscoll’s fear is that the aisles would empty and he’d have to double down on his man-hating and pro-woman stance in order to get people (women) to come back. Or perhaps like the men who’ve been driven out of the church … they’d never come back. So essentially, he’s looking out for his own pocketbook.
Just my opinion.
“In most mainstream churches these days … the entire church body is controlled by women” + AMOG
@BEE
what I do not understand is why these men choose to be like this?
also how are they Christian? do they not read the bible?
and why are they so scared of admitting that women sin as well
while husbands should apologize to their wives as we are all sinners
to say he is the only one
basically sums up their beliefs
WOMEN ARE NEVER WRONG
what kind of Gospel do they believe where Christ came to die for the sins of just the male populace!
why are they growing?
their churches are expanding
online they are becoming stronger etc…
another one is Andy Crouch
and boundless
boundless endorsed the idea that a man should abandon his pursuits for his wife
http://www.boundless.org/blog/five-questions-with-bestselling-author-andy-crouch/
why does no one critique them?
he thinks there is nothing wrong with young women, and men need to support their careers, like he did with his wife…
and that is Godly sacrifice!!
what?!!!!
if we applied their standards of marriage, Ruth should have started her own farms and expected Boaz to sacrificially lead by following her and supporting her farming endeavors while abandoning his…
http://www.boundless.org/blog/what-marriage-might-do-to-your-big-dreams/
here he talks about how his wife refused to support his career goals so he SACRIFICED that…
I thought the sacrifice what men are to nourish and cherish
not abandon their work and submit to their wife
how are they christian?
@jonakc1
http://www.boundless.org/blog/five-questions-with-bestselling-author-andy-crouch/
“2. Unwanted singleness among Christian women is becoming more and more normal in the church. ……. Do you see any way for us to turn this ship around and rescue a generation of families that we are losing as young men wait indefinitely to get married?”
Incredible, note the disconnect. Could it be the young men are waiting indefinitely to get married because she hasn’t got her masters+2 years in her ideal career yet ?
From same article, this is hilarious.
“The key to changing the current patterns is to unapologetically call men to greater risk and sacrifice, including what is in many ways the greatest risk and sacrifice a man can make, binding oneself to one woman in marriage.”
“Frankly, given the disparities of available men and women in the church, I don’t think many men should question whether they have a “calling” to singleness or to marriage — I think that barring clear guidance otherwise from God and your community, you should assume that you are called to marriage and fatherhood and proceed as quickly as possible in that direction. And for God’s sake, stop playing video games. ”
waow, just, waow.
@jonakc1,
“what I do not understand is why these men choose to be like this?
also how are they Christian? do they not read the bible?”
Many are pursuing a “Big Tent” strategy of evangelism and church growth where they don’t want to offend or turn away any existing and new people by talking about anything controversial. This includes the political incorrect things the Bible teaches about male dominance, female submission, divorce and remarriage, women being a helpmeet, women having more than 1.5 kids, excommunication, etc. These churches are trying too hard to be “Seeker Friendly”.
Many pastors, especially if they lead a large or rapidly growing church, are able to spark and maintain attraction from their wives because of these reasons:
1. The fact they lead a growing, public organization demonstrates a type of “business” success which is attractive to women
2. Social Status; they are the leader or AMOG and that is attractive to women including their wives.
3. Their confidence and ability at public speaking sparks attraction and respect
Because these things spark attraction and respect from their wives, they do not need understand that the average family man sitting in their pews does not automatically get the same attraction and respect that they get from their wives. Instead of teaching male dominance and female submission they blame the husband because the wives are not submitting spontaneously. These pastors have emphasized their personal experience with their wives naturally being attracted to them, instead of emphasizing what the Bible says in these areas.
They read the Bible but they compartmentalize the unpleasant, difficult parts by ignoring and not thinking about those parts. They assure themselves that their church growth and success with their own wives are proof that they have the correct balance and interpretations. Success, not truth becomes the measuring stick.
I wish this was not true, but the two red pill churches I have heard about were not large and growing. One was the church Doug Phillips co-pastored. Before he got engulfed in a sinful scandal, that church only had 60 families as members. The second is the church JDG attends.
Boundless and Christianity Today promote a lot of bad information.
@jonakc1,
Another large contributing factor is that feminist churchians (egalitarians) and some complementarians are entrenched as professors at most Seminaries and Bible Colleges. Example, the Malestorm author teaches at a Seminary.
hmm your reasoning for pastors makes sense
but what about for normal men and women?
http://9marks.org/article/complementarianism-the-single-man/
this young guy cannot fathom having his wife washing dishes
and he thinks he is responsible for homemaking
he cannot say , washing dishes is primarily his wife’s duty as her role is looking after the home
50 years ago this would have been NORMAL
now a man saying this is sinning and selfish
I thought christianity was continuous, what is sin should not change with culture?!
almost all young christian men around me are like this, ALWAYS trying to prove their domesticity to show how eveolved they are
before the measure of a man was- does he provide, does he protect etc
now it is base don how domestic he is
the men lead in domesticity to ensure their wives can flourish in their gifts ( aka careers)
the guy in the article says this as well
and in the options of washing dishes he cannot suggest just telling his wife to do it…
the lay women are worse
http://fromthejensens.blogspot.co.nz/2014/02/what-im-getting-for-valentines-day.html
she apparently gets so tired she makes her husband work all day and come home and look after the kids while she rests
and do all the night duty ( even though he has to work the next day and she does not- so much for being a helpmeet and enabling her husband- more like a burden)
and this is seen as Godly
yet somehow with all her exhaustion she has the energy to write a blog, write book reviews and tweet nonstop…
in many cultures a woman who makes her husband do her homemaking after he has slaved for her all day at work is seen as selfish
and the women look down upon such women
now it is CELEBRATED
not one man in the bible does God praise for being domestic so the wife can be lazy our plow her own fields!!
yet now this is what is taught
http://jenwilkin.blogspot.co.nz/
this one is the worst
travels around the country to speak and teach while her husband is at home looking after the kids
claims to be a Godly woman…
everything is reversed
what is sin is NOT sin
and what is NOT sin is sin!!!
@jonakc1,
“but what about for normal men and women?”
I think you know the answer to that. It is because they do not hear pastors, priests, marriage counselors, Seminary professors, and Christian College professors teaching that men should lead, dominate and women should submit and be helpmeets. That Christian couples should attempt to have large families.
Unfortunately it is not neutral, it is inverted. They actually teach the opposite as you have documented with your links.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
(1Co 11:7-9 KJV)
Have you ever heard a sermon that focused on I Corinthians 11:7 – 9?
Have you ever read a book about marriage that had a large section discussing I Corinthians 11: 7 – 9 and how it relates to passages in Genesis?
Even Liberty University has jumped the shark and is now promoting women in leadership with Christine Caine:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2014/september/christine-caine-liberty-university-to-launch-lean-in-type-p.html
Jen Wilkin is doing what most evangelical and charismatic churches have substituted for the wife being the helpmeet. The inversion is that the wife needs to be busy founding and building her own ministry. They teach that all wives should be emulating Christine Caine, Beth Moore, Kay Arthur, etc.
@ Bee and jonakc1:
What all of this simply indicates is that modernism has completely poisoned the Western church, to the point where it is indistinguishable from and has been completely co-opted by the culture. Unfortunately, this isn’t likely to reverse itself anytime soon, if ever.
If you’re a member of one of these churches you can (and should) “fight the good fight.” Just know that it will be an uphill battle (who would ever have imagined that evangelism and outreach are more desperately needed inside the church than in the world [“physician, heal thyself”]?).
Pingback: Mutual submission | chokingonredpills