One of the more striking aspects of complementarianism is the over the top cartoonish chivalry. This in turn derives from a caricature of masculinity which is hyper violent (to men) but simultaneously non threatening to feminist sensibilities. It is a chivalry devoid of male leadership with a kind of vicarious blood lust for men and even little boys to be killed or injured in the service of women. In this cartoonish chivalry it is better for a man to be killed in the service of women than for him to successfully guide a woman to safety. There is also an over the top feigned bravado.
As an example I’ll offer a segment from the same Pastor Chandler sermon I referenced in my last post. In the sermon Chandler is defining manhood, and he is careful to clarify that leadership isn’t a defining quality of manhood:
When I was trying to draw up a sentence on the unique responsibility of men, I wanted to, as best I could, stay away from the word lead. I’ll tell you why. I think men do lead, and they do lead in a unique way. I also know women who can lead and who do lead. In fact, I’ve come across some women who are bosses. Do you know what I’m saying? I mean, they get stuff done. They lead. They put together teams. They help those teams function rightly, and they lead out.So saying that a man leads as a kind of attribute of manhood that is not true about women would be incorrect. I want to introduce the word and maybe redeem the word headship. Doesn’t that sound old school right there? Headship.
In doing this Chandler is taking complementarianism full circle, because complementarians originally moved away from the term headship to servant leader because the latter was less offensive to feminists. Chandler objects to the word leader and therefore is trying to redefine, to redeem headship as a non threatening servant/protector who minds his own business. He ties this back to Genesis, explaining that Adam’s sin was not that he listened to his wife when he should have rebuked her, but that he didn’t protect her from the influence of the serpent:
What happens is the Serpent deceives Eve with Adam standing right there. Eve takes the apple, believing the lie of the Serpent, takes a bite of the fruit, and then hands it to her passive idiot husband, who also takes a bite.
Do you know who God blames for sin introducing itself into the cosmos? Adam. Because he had the role of spiritual headship, of covering and protection. He didn’t step up. He did the spiritual equivalency of, “Go check it out, baby.” He did the spiritual equivalency of, “You head to the front line and get dismembered, raped, and slaughtered, and I’ll be back here.” The boy goes down, and the girl goes free.
Chandler then switches to address unmarried men in the congregation and their obligation to protect and serve (but never lead) Christian women:
What if you are a single man? How are we to think about this as single men? If you’re a single man, you’re going, “Well, I don’t have a wife. Well, I’m not an elder, so how would I practice your definition of manhood if I don’t have a wife and aren’t an elder at the church?” Okay. A single man images headship. He doesn’t have it as much as he images headship with a borrowed authority. Single men have no authority over any woman in this congregation unless they are your young daughter or you are an elder in this church.
To illustrate men’s generic obligation to protect and serve women without corresponding authority, Chandler offers an odd anecdote from his childhood:
Let me unpack that. I have an older sister and a younger sister. Here was a frequent conversation my daddy had with me. “Buddy, at school, you look out for your sisters. If some other guy is messing with your sisters, I want you to tell a teacher. If that teacher will not listen, I want you to punch them in their face and keep punching and keep punching and keep punching until an adult drags you off of that little boy. When they drag you off, what I want you to do is be like, ‘Get off me! Get off me!’ You go back at them until they… There needs to be a healthy kind of fear of you when it comes to your sisters. You protect them.”
Let me say this. I had zero authority over my sisters. Zero! I could not come home and go, “Stephanie, clean my room.”
He uses a straw man here, because the authority which would naturally go with an obligation of protection would be to direct his sisters on how to behave so they didn’t create risks to their safety. But aside from the obvious straw man, I find the story as presented very hard to believe.
I can imagine a school environment so rough that a young boy’s father might repeatedly remind him to be prepared to protect his sisters, but the specifics of the story are off. I felt it was off just reading the transcript, but seeing the sermon made it all the more incongruent. Someone like Pastor Driscoll could sell this kind of hyper-violent-yet-non-threatening (to women) masculinity. But coming from Pastor Chandler it seems like a pure boyhood fantasy. It isn’t just his inflection, but the way he swishes his hips while he tells the story:
This is the oddest only real man in the room sermon I’ve ever seen. He is saying the right words, calling the men in the congregation boys who can shave, etc, but his voice and gestures don’t match the tough guy message. At the same time he is telling men to be men like him, he is also telling them to marry a woman who can teach them how to be men, just like he did.
It’s like logs that continually get thrown on a fire as you watch your wife love and serve the Lord, as you watch her mature, as you watch her grow, as she becomes the type of iron that sharpens your life. This is where we should be pushing into. Single men, you should be pursuing godly… I grieve for some of our godly single women here, just ferociously godly women stuck around a bunch of boys.
Here is the same sermon, but starting further back (you can also drag the cursor to the beginning). If you let it play through you will see the cartoonish chivalry story of the boy in the wagon (the boy goes down so the girl goes free):
See Also: Sunday Morning Cartoons
Pingback: Mad Dog Chandler | Neoreactive
Cartoonish is right. Your comment about the hip swishing part is dead on. I turned the sound off the second time I watched this guy and the word that immediately came to mind was “fey”. Don’t know if your younger readers ever heard that word before but that describes prissy little Pastor Chandler to a “T”. Where do these guys come from and what kind of man sits there and listens to such hogwash.
I just read this yesterday, a college study that asserts nice guys are more sexist.
https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/3/23/study-proves-men-who-are-nice-to-women-are-sexist-evil
So, we preach and legislate that men must serve women and be nice to them, then tell women that men who do this are sexist. Then we wonder why women are so suspicious of and miserly of their husband’s acts of kindness, while being so responsive and accessible to bad boys.
With rules like that, why on earth would men “man up” and marry when respect and sex are only encouraged outside of that relationship?
Why would he call the Forbidden Fruit an “apple?” Isn’t that a rookie mistake?
Pingback: Mad Dog Chandler – Manosphere.com
“ferociously godly” women? Ughhhh.
Great find Mr. D., I lolled hard at that first video. What a goon.
Starting the magic countdown until this guy is indicted for something (my guess is sexual misbehavior, but stealing his congregation’s tithing donations also possible).
Chandler then switches to address unmarried men in the congregation and their obligation to protect and serve (but never lead) Christian women:
But service is leadership. Leadership of women never means calling your wife out for bad behavior, but you as the husband are allowed to do the dishes, hold your wife’s purse, buy her a Valentine card, and go to Walmart to buy her tampons (male leadership stuff). Of course, she is allowed to call you out, but never the other way. You know, in the church, there are women and sinners. “Sinners” = “Men”.
Odd phrases…”imaged headship”…”borrowed authority”…reminds me of idolatry and rebellion
I have to say, albeit as a paid-up un-believer, that I have, over the years, attended Church services many times (I like the music) but I have never heard anything by way of sermon like Chandler’s, nor seen that sort of physicality or mufti. Perhaps it is an American thing – your advocates (at least on television) strut around the court-room though again somewhat under-dressed for my taste or perhaps jeans and open-necked over-pants shirt is just the way of the Mega-churches. With the sound off Chandler looks somewhere between a stand-up comedian and effete.
Am I really to think that Americans (those who attend Mega-churches) bully women – in general – into doing their will?
I used to appear in front of Judge whose nickname was Mad Dog.
The proper response to Chandler is…”lol”. Treat these fey manginas like women.
Sooo, I’m not a man unless I’m serving a woman? And since I’m not married, I’d better buckle down and find a church goer of the female persuasion to wait on hand and foot? She obviously needs the help, since being a land whale makes it tough to get around.
Yup. They need to be ridiculed and mocked. They’re worthy of nothing else.
This guy behaves like a down-low pooftee.
So let me get this straight…
Complementarians believe, according to their Davisson/CBMW/FOTF feminism, that women are free from original sin, as evinced by their being “light years closer to God.” As such, they believe, while never coming out to say it directly, that women ought to be the ones with authority over men.
Add to their belief that men should fight for, work for, and serve their women to the point of death – lest she be given carte blanche by the Church and State to commit divorce theft and rob him of his children- and the only thing left for them to propose is mandatory castration.
Without actual leadership given to the husband, what does marriage offer a man? Sex? The woman gets that too, and controls it. Honor? He won’t be honored by his household or his church or his society. Love? Perhaps in the way the South loved their slaves. Children? Provided the wife doesn’t lower the boom, maybe.
No good thing is offered by this kind of marriage. They can scream and criticize men all they want, but you can’t convince someone to be a slave when they are free – people eventually wise up. Now how does a man get his marriage in order when complementarians are trying to warp what’s already there? Game. Game Game Game that woman.
@Opus, this sort of thing is pretty common among the new generation of megachurch pastors. Look at the top dogs like (formerly) Driscoll, Chandler, Steven Furtick, or the folks at Hillsong. The presentation is as much the draw as the content.
I will serve as *I* am served. *I* will serve women as women serve me. And women will respect my interest because my interest is also HER interest. If she or the good reverend don’t see it that way, then they have a hell of a nerve demanding that I sign on, especially to marry, for any other condition. That’s MY deal, the only one that matters. Follow MY word, MY rules, or I will happily remain alone in the world. Women are weak, stupid and ignorant, yet money-hungry, greedy and malevolent toward even the men they claim to “love”, no matter their beauty. Single men would be wise to follow MY way and word. This is a manifesto for men.
Otherwise, hang it up your azz, reverend(s), especially you weak-kneed cowards that beg at the feet of feminist women in your “churches”. They are not churches and these reverends are not men and no woman is my leader, nor the leader of any good man.
Over the last 5 or so years in various parts of the ‘sphere the term “feminized church” has been used, usually in reference to “Jesus is my BFF” teachings, female control of church functionality, and so forth. But there’s more to it, clearly, and seeing this vid in combination with meeting some younger preachers sure makes it obvious.
* Sometimes when I’m in a coffee shop I see a group of 2 or more men, and from their body language, vocal inflections, hand gestures I figure they are gay. Yet more than once I’ve ambled by such a group around the table and instead discovered Millennial churchgoers engaged in discussing something out of the Bible. A stack of ESV or NIV Bibles along with something by Keller, and more careful observation shows them looking at the girls as young men do. More than once I’ve encountered 20-something churchgoing men who act and talk like male homosexuals, ie. gay, but who are apparently straight. Men who chatter like girls…
* Younger preachers (20-something, early 30’s) increasingly are totally betaized. I’m thinking of a couple of specific young men met in the last 2 years – men who stand with their hands on hips reversed, like a woman; who tend to uptalk? ; who giggle rather than laugh; who tend to be pudgy if not outright fat; who “debate” any issue from a position of pure emotion. These are the youth leaders of today and the church leaders (preachers) of tomorrow, up close. Totally betaized chumps who simply are not very masculine.
It’s ironic that some Trad Cons will accuse the PUA’s of being effeminate because of peacocking, because frankly the most effeminate men I’ve seen in the last 5 years have been churchgoing men who are very public about their Christianity. In other words, the young men who have done what Trad Cons told them to do in terms of pedestalizing women, submitting to teh authoriteh, etc. The betaizing of men in churches goes a lot deeper than many of us previously believed.
This in turn reminds me of Joseph of Jackson’s experience – a man with the slightest hint of masculinity can pretty much collect IOI”s from the majority of women in a modern church, because there’s no real competition. Perhaps this is why cult-leader wannabes like Driscoll and some others do well for a while, because there aren’t that many men to stand up to them?
Here’s an interesting experiment.
Watch these sermon clips with the audio off. Observe the pastor’s mannerisms.
Then watch this video of Jack Donovan, again with no audio. Observe his mannerisms.
Question: If you were trying to figure out what it meant to be masculine, how to be a real man, which one of the two would you approach based off of their demeanor alone? Which one would you think knew what he’s talking about?
The answer becomes even obvious when you add in the audio and listening to their voices, tenfold more when you listen to what they say.
Full on blue pill mangina playing to his female audience. Perhaps he gets sex once a month for all his work.
He tries to bring down his male audience to lift himself to his female audience and thus get paid. He’s a shill, plenty of con artists like this is the Church. Nothing new.
At the same time he is telling men to be men like him, he is also telling them to marry a woman who can teach them how to be men, just like he did.
If I can expand on this concept of women teaching men how to be men, I think there’s something even more basic going on here. It’s not so much about being “in control,” but being the woman who makes her man into someone more moral or more desirable or just plain more than he already is. It’s like that joke about how a woman would find Lucifer sexy because they can “change” him. There’s this fantasy of being the women who’s ENOUGH, who matters ENOUGH.
It’s not really about the man at all. What kind of man you have, as a woman, is a reflection on your own character and value. We want to possess the intrinsic virtue to inspire the best out of the men around, to be a moral woman worthy of male sacrifice.
There was probably a point in time where that inclination helped keep society on point and focused. (Like, back when things were brutal and survival depended on your man loving you enough to protect you and the kids when shit hit the fan). I don’t think it’s necessarily a negative instinct. But female morality and male strength has been so demonized by the feminist movement that these natural inclinations/desires have to be recast for the modern culture. We have to condemn regular men/male behavior in order for women to have something to reform, and we have to ignore female sins in order to give them the moral authority to do that reforming.
It’s such a disservice, though. You can’t change anybody, not really, and while you can override a man, you’ll destroy him in the process. Too, one of the side effects is this insane desire to control everything, constant nagging… it’s a sign of extreme insecurity on the part of the woman. And obviously, from a Christian perspective, we’re all fallen; women are not inherently more moral.
The irony is that telling women they are naturally more moral and virtuous than men means that they are far less likely to put in the hard work needed to develop virtue, and thus, less likely to be the kind of woman who can command a man’s respect in the way we want to. The effect is the opposite of our desired end state.
We want to be the woman this pastor is describing. Where he goes wrong is telling us we already are. It’s the substitution of fantasy for reality.
Pastor Chandler says, “Single men have no authority over any woman in this congregation unless they are your young daughter or you are an elder in this church.”
Why the emphasis on “young”? Is it because a man is expected to lose authority over his daughters as they go to Uni and start sleeping around? And what’s this about single men who are elders, if an elder is required to be a husband?
“Yo, Stephanie, clean my room!” He, like most of his kind, confuse the possession of authority with a caricatured manner of exercising it.
The clips are hard to watch. Yet another preacher speaking “to the men” in order to pander to the women. Those are some effeminate gestures, and he is reading his script. The women must flock to his church.
Opus
With the sound off Chandler looks somewhere between a stand-up comedian and effete.
A-yup. It’s not at all uncommon in the Evangelical Protestant churches, especially the bigger ones. Perhaps the showmanship required to put on a good peformance every Sunday before a large audience tends to select for such individuals? People in the theater are much more tolerant of homosexual men & women, and the larger churches tend to be quite theatrical in their services.
I’ll call him ‘Mad Hatter Chandler” more suitable to his sort of craziness.
Could someone please quote the scripture in Genesis where it states that Adam was standing right by Eve when she was tempted by the serpent, ate the fruit and passed it to her idiot husband?
Ironically Jack Donovan is in fact gay.
cynthia
Too, one of the side effects is this insane desire to control everything, constant nagging… it’s a sign of extreme insecurity on the part of the woman.
The desire to control everything is not “extreme insecurity”, it is normal in many women (but not all), and so far as I can tell it is a feature (not a bug) in any / every woman with children. A woman may be quite happy to not be in control of things around her when she’s single, or married with no children, but once she’s reproduced – control of the world becomes essential to her.
See, the world is full of big, scary things, therefore the world must be controlled, men are capable of doing that therefore men must be controlled. All men, not just whatshisname on the couch although he’s certainly first on the list of men who need to do what they are told.
This controlling nature in women is something that men used to be aware of. Now we are supposed to pretend it doesn’t exist, except when we are catering to it as Chandler et al teach.
Rollo, why did you have to go and spoil The Question’s neat little trolling job so soon?
Question — well played.
Addendum: When Jack Donovan used to post on Spearhead a bit, the Catholic uber-den-mother-blogger Laura Woods clutched her pearls and had a serious moment of the vapors that those bad men at Spearhead would dare to associate with A Homosexual Man rather than be good boys, listen to her teach about proper masculinity, and do as she told them to do. Because an uber den mother obviously knows so much more about masculinity than A Homosexual Man ever could…can’t make stuff like this up, the irony is so thick no one would believe it.
@ Rollo Tomassi
I find that ironic as well.
We live in a world where straight Christian men are effeminate, homosexuals like Donovan act masculine, and the much of the women are androgynous at best.
I honestly see the church eventually accepting transgenderism when boys raised to be girls from birth, including in the church, mutilate themselves in droves and become a “she,” while the actual girls are raised to be so masculine they kill any natural attraction in straight men, or they end up like those women in that radio documentary you posted here a while back. The transgendered “women” will be more feminine than the girls because they’re the ones who are encouraged to be so. In order to make it all work, the church will concoct some theological rationalizations (nothing in Scripture expressively forbids it, right?) to allow straight men to marry transgendered men, because it’s all about maintaining the institution of marriage, right?
Now if you’ll excuse me; I think I need to go to the liquor store.
Small typo in the OP — “simultainously” should be “simultaneously”.
[D: Thank you. Fixed.]
@AR:
Friend has a pretty young child. This past Sunday they walked around 30 feet from people that were smoking, outdoors. She came almost completely unpasted about. My friend was laughing it off, but she really was extremely worked up about it.
It’s a feature, but like the cruise control in your car, it has to be used in the proper context and controlled otherwise. This goes to a point I made a few days ago. When Men assume Women have the same “tether” effect on reality, they don’t break the rationalization spiral before things get off the rail. It’s one of the decisively unique aspects of Men, and the few Women that are much closer to Men in this regard always have a massive advantage over other Women.
I live here in Houston, and I have attended a few of Matt Chandlers seminars just to see whats up.
First off Matt Chandler runs in the same pastoral social circle with Mark Driscoll. He had admitted this before Mark Driscoll had his “incident”. He even mentions that Mark talks about the same subjects in a more “blunt” fashion. It should come as no surprise that the mindset that permeated through Mars Hill church is also found (albeit a bit more polished) in Matt Chandlers ministry.
Second, on of Matt’s favorite stories to tell is about how he runs off “players” in his church. He tells a story about an attractive successful single man who was actively looking for women in his church. Skipping over the fluff, the story ends with Matt ejecting the man from his church telling him to never come back. What amuses me about the story is Matt never puts 2 and 2 together to understand that players wouldn’t be targeting his church as a pickup grounds if there wasn’t ample game afoot so to speak.
@Anon
The desire to control everything is not “extreme insecurity”, it is normal in many women (but not all), and so far as I can tell it is a feature (not a bug) in any / every woman with children.
I’m not saying that the desire to control things isn’t part of the female character, what I’m saying is that it’s a derivative of a deeper need (the desire for external validation of personal value). It’s not about control for control’s sake, but control for the purposes of ensuring one’s own sense of self-worth. Women who are more insecure about this tend to be more controlling. It kind of goes back to that self esteem issue from a few days ago. We derive our sense of self worth from others; if we feel worthless or undervalued, the solution is reach outward, rather than fix things internally. An unhappy woman is going to try to fix her environment first.
A woman may be quite happy to not be in control of things around her when she’s single, or married with no children, but once she’s reproduced – control of the world becomes essential to her.
You’re flat out wrong about women only caring about control once they have kids. Kids obviously can exacerbate this – they’re dependent on you for resources and in turn, you’re more dependent on others- but they don’t cause it on their own. Little girls are equally as brutal in attempting to control things as adult women are, and they’re usually a lot less subtle about it.
I understand that men usually only see women’s behavior as it relates to them, but we deal with each other our entire lives. I’m just saying it’s a lot deeper than what it might appear to be from a sexual relations perspective.
When I was a kid, my mom used to wear her shirts and jeans just like Pastor Chandler, and my dad thought she looked really cute that way. But when my mom raised her arms like that in shirt sleeves, you could see some pretty serious muscles because she did a lot of gardening and liked to swim.
Pastor Chandler is wearing socks at least, right?
@HamOnRye:
How old is that story about running a “player” off? Because I honestly would be surprised if he could actually spot one that’s practiced. And there’s one hilarious possibility that comes to mind.
Chandler is wrong. Men do need to lead. He’s scared of that word because it would agitate the Feminine Imperative’s conflation with the Holy Spirit and he’d lose speaking engagements where women endorse his Build-A-Better-Beta christian man. He’s a Blue Pill christian Uncle Tom extoling the benefits of being enslaved to feminized christianity.
Christian men like Chandler aren’t complemetarians, they’re egalitarians, or they ostensibly subscribe to egalitarianism insofar as it serves the ends of the FI. Christian women (like Cynthia above) ache for a man who will lead them, dominate them, trust them with making decisions for them and their families. Women don’t want a man to cheat, but they love a man who could cheat. They want a man who other men want to be and other women want to fuck.
Chandler is uncomfortable embracing this feral masculinity because he’s never had the capacity for an Alpha mindset. Chandler’s headspace is one of begging permission from women, even for his loose definition of ‘headship’.
Chandler’s answer to this is to double down on a very weak form of Christian AMOGing in an effort to come off as a Godly Alpha, but there’s not a man in the audience who isn’t doubting his act. Chandler doesn’t Get It:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/08/22/just-get-it/
To add insult to injury, Chandler’s message is one of keeping men ignorant of their inherent masculine power and attraction in dominance and control. Thus, any man actually internalizing his message doesn’t get it either. He doesn’t understand the power of men’s dominant masculinity being a commodity women will compete for, feel anxiety at the possibility of its loss, fell security in its decisiveness, and the rush women feel in submitting to it. That dominance is a compliment to a woman’s quality and her capacity to attract and sustain his interest in her. His leadership, headship and dominant confidence is a reflection on her own ego just by his association with her.
My guess is that Chandler’s wife is aching for a husband who can embody this masculinity, but she’s stuck with a posturing egalitarian Beta who expects his servile, feminized respect of her to be some well of attraction to her. I’d also wager she’s made ‘God’ the Alpha for whom she’s the Alpha Widow of.
So shouldn’t the commenters here ensure that this gets sent to Chandler and his followers? These demolitions don’t get full justice unless the object sees what is written about them…
I would agree with cynthia that women can be controlling monsters at anytime regardless of whether she has children. Best to not be with these types of women, but often it is not foreseen until too late. It is not worth the effort to fix the dynamic in a marriage where one seeks to make the man a leader if he isn’t already one. Such things are determined from the outset. An assertive women with a passive man might appear to be an optimal arrangement for you can’t change the man to be more assertive. However, an assertive women could change to be more aggressive, thus overpowering the man. This may happen with two assertive partners too. Ultimately, the sermons present an interesting topic, but I think they are wasting their energy. He shouldn’t cater to such a narrow demographic. Cast a wider net.
@Looking Glass
I dont know how old the story is. The last time he trotted it out was March of 2015 when he was pushing his Song of Solomon book and paid sermons at the 1st Baptist Church in Houston.
As an interesting tangent, I usually drag my wife with me on these little excursions when I go digging for material. My wife is fairly intelligent, but let me tell you what she bit hard on this material he served up. It literally took me weeks of having to explain to her why his teachings are so detrimental to family dynamics.
Driscoll & Gang serve up some of the sweetest poison to women that can be found in the American Church today. They come away with the latest book or sermon thinking that they are both Godly and yet different from the Feral Feminists. However at the end, aside from from good intentions there is little difference in the wreckage they leave in their wake.
Women’s need for authority and control is directly proportionate to the degree of certainty they feel about their Hypergamous optimization with the man they’ve chosen to pair with. Hypergamy is rooted in doubt – doubt that the man she’s with is the best she can do in terms of sexual benefits and provisioning & parental investment – the less secure she feels in that pairing the more she feels a need to control the direction of the relationship herself.
Some women come to the understanding that no man will ever satisfy that doubt (in exchange for what she realistically has to offer) long before they even pair with a man. Thus you get the ubiquitous bossy-bitch who doesn’t need a man.
@The Question
I like Donovan a lot too. Don’t care if he is gay he has a much better message for men than pantywaists like Chandler. However does anyone else pick up a bit of an Ernst Rohm vibe from Donovan? Not that there’s anything wrong with it……….
@HamOnRye,
Chandler took over Acts 29 when Driscoll stepped down as head of it (before Driscoll and Mars Hill were officially booted from the organization). And Chandler has called Driscoll a “really good friend” and says “he’s got a unique gift”:
You may also want to read up on the divorce controversy there last year:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/may-web-only/matt-chandler-apologizes-for-village-churchs-decision-to-di.html
Now if you’ll excuse me; I think I need to go to the liquor store.
I’ll take a bottle of Templeton’s, if you don’t mind….
So is “Mad Dog” intended to be sarcastic, or does this mincing poof really try to use that moniker himself?
This is another thing the church doesn’t get and won’t get anytime soon; godliness and masculinity are not the same. In other words, you can be a masculine heathen or a masculine Christian, you can also be an effeminate heathen and an effeminate Christian. Christians do not have an exclusive claim to what is masculine, nor do they have an exclusive claim to the Red Pill. So when pastors like Chandler discuss manhood they only talk about selected aspects of male godliness, which also conveniently serve the FI.
While discussing the four tactical virtues of masculinity, Donovan brilliantly pointed out that a man can be good at being a man while not being a good man. And you can be a good man but not be good at being a man.
The church is obsessed with churning out “good men” who don’t know the first thing about being a man. What’s worse, the church is actually hostile to the idea of men being good at being men because the moment they assume dominance over their own life and no longer define their masculinity by what women or the church say, they can’t be manipulated. Good men who are good at being men are more of a threat than a bad man who is good at being a man because the latter can be dismissed on moral grounds. The former cannot.
It’s really “figureheadship” that they are selling more than anything else. Sort of like the man is the titular head of the family, but in reality the wife is the one who has the superior virtue, and whom is more worthy in general, and therefore the man is really her servant. So you can call him “leader” all you want, but in substance she is the leader and he is the servant. He’s simply a figurehead and nothing more.
@ PokeSalad
Hehehe. I’m sure Rollo would appreciate it if we got some of that Tap 357. Mind as drink the same numbered whiskey as the caliber I shoot.
@Neguy
I wasn’t aware that Chandler took the mantle of leadership of the Act 29 network. So its no longer Driscoll & Gang, its Chandler & Gang.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…
So shouldn’t the commenters here ensure that this gets sent to Chandler and his followers? These demolitions don’t get full justice unless the object sees what is written about them…
There’s no point. I doubt he or his followers would read anything here with an open mind.
It’s useless to talk to someone who refuses to listen.
As others said, his body language is fey. It’s similar to over the top gay/bi men who is or thinks he is funny. Very incongruent with the message.
A woman may be quite happy to not be in control of things around her when she’s single, or married with no children, but once she’s reproduced – control of the world becomes essential to her.
Cynthia
You’re flat out wrong about women only caring about control once they have kids.
Please note that the word “some” and the word “all” are not synonyms. Also note that women behave towards each other differently than you behave towards men, as a general rule. You are telling me that my own experience is not relevant or true, that your words are truer – that I should ignore my lying eyes, things that I have seen and experienced first hand, but pay attention to your words.
Do you see how this comes across? Both condescending and arrogant. You might want to avoid doing this in real life.
Kids obviously can exacerbate this – they’re dependent on you for resources and in turn, you’re more dependent on others- but they don’t cause it on their own.
I’m assuming that you are not married, you are not in any kind of LTR and above all you have never born children. Because the hormone storm that goes on in a woman’s body during and after pregnancy changes her brain structure, it literally changes the way she thinks, the way she emotes, it changes the way she relates to the world, and therefore changes the way she relates to the nearest man in both superficial and profound ways.
Little girls are equally as brutal in attempting to control things as adult women are, and they’re usually a lot less subtle about it.
That’s true, but pretty much irrelevant. I’ve been around enough married couples pre and post pregnancy to have a very clear picture of what sort of changes a woman goes through due to childbirth, and even though women tend to be “the most responsible teenager in the room” that still is not the same thing as being a little girl.
I get that women often regard men the same way a horse whisperer regards a horse: big, not too bright animal that can do a lot of damage if not properly controlled. What I’m pointing out is the need for control varies not only from woman to woman, but within the same woman across time.
Novaseeker
It’s really “figureheadship” that they are selling more than anything else.
Gold. Threadwinning gold.
It’s really “figureheadship” that they are selling more than anything else. Sort of like the man is the titular head of the family, but in reality the wife is the one who has the superior virtue, and whom is more worthy in general, and therefore the man is really her servant. So you can call him “leader” all you want, but in substance she is the leader and he is the servant. He’s simply a figurehead and nothing more
Yep. This is the line from “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” (ironically an Orthodox family) about the “man is the head, but the woman is the neck, and the neck moves the head.”
Then the head is worthless.
Or to put it another way, cynthia: a woman’s hypergamous nature can be quite satisfied early in a marriage, which means she is willing to surrender control to her husband. However childbirth ups the ante by making her feel more vulnerable and thus her hypergamic needs increase; if her husband doesn’t up his own Game / leadership / headship / etc. at the same time, she will become more insecure, leading to an increased need to control everything around her. Her fitness testing will increase, possibly increase quite a lot; this is one stage of life when a woman can in fact destroy a relationship with ever more extreme fitness tests (“test to destruction”).
Thus her need for control may be minimal at first, increase seemingly without limit later on, and then perhaps decrease as children get older. From the man’s point of view, early on she has no need for control (not overtly, anyhow), then with childbirth his wife vanishes and is replaced with some sort of 1950’s science-fiction pod-person who demands total (overt) control over everything in the world, starting with him. “For The Children”, as it were. You might see this as merely a switch from covert control to overt, and you’d be right, but please bear in mind men don’t as a rule “get” all the subcommunications that women observe.
@Looking Glass
How old is that story about running a “player” off? Because I honestly would be surprised if he could actually spot one that’s practiced.
Not sure how old it is, but Chandler is still using it. He recently wrote a book on marriage and romance (because every beta pastor fancies himself an expert on both) called The Mingling of Souls and included it in the first chapter:
Let’s hear it for Mad Dog Chandler: If the evil, predatory men want to pursue the women of his church, he’ll show them a thing or two! Until they stop, and then he can begin denouncing the single men of his congregation for being “boys who can shave” and refusing to grow up for all the ferociously godly single women of the church who want husbands.
You’ve probably already guessed that Pastor Matt has a much different attitude towards the women of his congregation who take an approach identical to the single man he spoke with. Here he is in chapter 2 of the same book:
Bet you $50 that if a young, single virgin man in the Village Church congregation asks Matt Chandler what he knows about this woman that the pastor will inform him that an Alpha widow like this is “an incredibly godly woman who’d be a great catch as a wife.”
@ Rollo
That Adam was with Eve as she was tempted is generally inferred from Genesis 3:6b, “She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.” That ‘who was with her’ clause strongly implies he was there the whole time.
What Adam should have done was speak up and tell Eve not to eat of that fruit, despite what the serpent had said, and that if she did he would not be joining her. A little Dread game & outcome independence would have saved us all a lot of trouble.
Chandler’s correct that Adam took the ultimate blame for sin since he was in authority over Eve, but then (as everything-is-backwards feminism is wont to do) he turns around and instructs men to make the exact same error: Out of fear of losing fellowship with women, wordlessly stand by and watch your sisters make their own decisions, then bear the consequences for their decisions.
Adam went along with what Eve was doing rather than lead her in a different direction. Yet Chandler preaches that men have no authority to lead women in a different direction, and ought to go along with whatever they’re doing and take responsibility for it to boot.
@Darwinian Arminian
That always reminds me of the phrase “You cant con an honest man”. While the phrase is not %100 in all situations its applicable here. If his wonderfully little “Village” wasn’t replete with easy women, the players wouldn’t be visiting.
By comparison imagine Matt Chandler was walking through the woods and stepped in bear shit the size of a dinner plate. Everyone else would be running as fast as they can to get out of the woods, meanwhile Mr. Chandler is busy scraping crap off his shoes with a stick.
Novaseeker: It’s really “figureheadship” that they are selling more than anything else.
Anonymous Reader: Gold. Threadwinning gold.
I second that emotion.
I’ve listed to quite a few Chandler sermons and he is constantly making references to how he might beat somebody up and makes endless references to playing high school football.
Anyone have a link to the story of Joseph of Jackson? I’ve seen it referenced in the manosphere a few times over the past several months but have been unable to learn more. Maybe this was before my time? (2-3 yes ago?). Thanks!
Rollo: I’ve met Chandler. He’s a tall good, looking gracious man and a kind man, but a complete blue pill pastor. He may be more alpha at home vs at his church. He’s overcome cancer, founded a church of 10k+ and many many women would want him as their husband. Wouldnt that alone make him alpha in his wifes eyes?
For sure if he wasnt famous or leader of a huge megachurch, his wife would be an alpha widow but by the sheer fact that so many women love/want him his wifes hypergamy would consider him alpha no?
It’s a sad day when men who love God, like Chandler, are deceived due to the FI. He comes across as a serious blue pill white knight here. I imagine the millions of men like him who dont have his fame/position, man they have no chance with their wives.
I don’t agree that was the equivalent of saying go ahead eve get raped while I stay in the back. I wonder what would’ve happened if Adam would have said No and only Eve expelled from Eden.
No he did not. He sinned by not obeying God, not because he failed to lead Eve. Before the fall, he need not lead Eve at all. They were both responsible for their own lives. Eve brought sin into the world by eating the fruit, till that point, there was nothing Adam could do that would have been sin. He did not have to lead Eve until God caused Eve and Adam.
Enough with this foolishness, men are not responsible for women. Never are and never have been.
That should be…. ‘God cursed Eve and Adam’..
I agree. I have been up on the pulpit and I think I’m the Alphest young man to go up there. I just think God wants men, not boys, to lead because that’s the way He intentioned it.
Stryker7200, you can find the “Joseph of Jackson” account starting from this comment in October 2012:
Dalrock post – Debasing Marriage
@ the bandit
Well said.
The West is doomed if “Religious” men like him are espousing this claptrap.
Chandler is gay. I will bet a month’s paycheck that he has inner demons focused on sexuality. This is why he wants to tear down masculine men, he just cannot relate.
The church is done if they allow this guy to continue on. It doesn’t even seem real. There is no way he actually lives like that. .
Who are these pathetic “pastors” and why does any man listen to them?
If Adam is responsible for Eve’s sin than God is responsible for ours. Let that sink in. If Adam is responsible for Eve’s sin than every man is responsible for his wife’s sins. This is ludicrous.
You chaps espousing this claptrap need some serious help. No man can be everywhere watching over his wife’s every more. If God couldn’t stop Eve, neither could Adam and nor should he. In the end, you can only control yourself, nobody else, they are responsible for their own actions.
Adam Man
his “alpha’ is based on social status. His wife wants to be seen as a Christian woman and so do the women at the church. So in this case he wins. He is a salesman ,manager or even a doctor with that shtick he has and he is a cuckold. Doing the “the boy goes down so the girl goes free” routine with him out with his wife looking for a guy to invite over to screw her.
This guys sermon is no different than the sermon the serpent gave Eve. The serpent told Eve she would know what Gods knows. look at the sermon this guy gives the worthless cunts in his church. Any woman that applauds this is completely worthless and a burden anyone that involves themselves with her.
@ OKRickety – thanks for the link. Interesting story for sure, I’ve thought about taking the same course at my church as well. Seeing as Joseph’s blog no longer exists and from what I’ve briefly heard, things did not end up working out too well for him.
founded a church of 10k+
The material in Dalrock’s archives alone are more than enough for about 5 of the commenters here to get together and found a church of 1M+. With Web Video, it can reach all geographies. Women will flock to it too due to the alphatude, and the attacks that the cuck churches level will only increase its visibility. When attacked, just keep pointing to the Bible. Just conflate attacking your church with attacking the Bible. Done.
It may save Christianity and the world.
So what are you waiting for? Put forth what your best skills are, decide who wants to be the frontman preacher and who wants to be the CEO (neither can be anonymous). But the web guy, the video guy, the marketing guy, etc. can be behind the scenes.
Second, on of Matt’s favorite stories to tell is about how he runs off “players” in his church. He tells a story about an attractive successful single man who was actively looking for women in his church. Skipping over the fluff, the story ends with Matt ejecting the man from his church telling him to never come back. What amuses me about the story is Matt never puts 2 and 2 together to understand that players wouldn’t be targeting his church as a pickup grounds if there wasn’t ample game afoot so to speak.
As LG says, Chandler probably wouldn’t know a genuine practicing player if one of them kicked him in [the place where] his nuts [should be].
I’m betting that this guy was probably just a poor deluded Christian man of beta-plus/alpha-minus character who thought that maybe, just maybe, a church is the best place to meet and eventually marry a chaste Christian woman. Of course churchian franchises don’t tolerate the formation of Christian families within their congregations. Christian families, after all, are created from moon dust that gathers on church pews during the winter solstice and will take care of themselves. Doubly intolerable is any man exhibiting masculine traits who might actually ignore the FI rewrite of Scripture that is now sola scriptura in evangelical churches and try to exercise ,,,***GASP! The Horror!!!***… biblical headship!
It would be interesting to know how many other poor, earnest Christian men seeking a Christian wife and family Chandler has “run out” of his church after mistaking them for playahs. Quite frankly, methinks that any man with more testosterone than Chandler (i.e., ALL men who are not overtly flaming faggots) is one he considers a playah.
founded a church of 10k+
10,000 deluded heretics do not a church make. A mere ten people gathered together and grounded firmly in Scripture are more powerful and useful to the Lord.
In other words, the numbers game is for churchian frauds.
@feministhater
Adam is not responsible for Eve’s sin. Adam was responsible for abandoning he charge of authority.
Genesis 3:17 …And to Adam he said “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you…”
Note here in this passage God is cursing Adam not simply for eating of the tree but because he expected Adam rebuke his wife when she asked him to eat of the fruit.
Well, rebuke sure, if you mean to tell her ‘no’ but he was not responsible for leading her. There was no need to lead until the moment she ate that fruit. That is when sin entered the world, not a moment sooner.
Matt says single men “image headship with borrowed authority by serving and protecting women as sisters.”
Where is the authority in that?
You guys are mean to pastor Chandler, accusing him of being unmasculine.
I believe he beat up the guys who pestered his sisters. He beat on the socially inept nerdy guys who made clumsy approaches, and made his sisters go eeeeeewwwwww!
While Chandler was fending off the dweebs, I bet his sisters were trying to attract the attention of the hawt guys. Chandler didn’t notice.
The Joesph of Jackson story was on Sunshine Mary’s blog.
I think that’s been taken down now.
It would be interesting to hear how Joesph is doing.
It was my prediction the gynocracy would crush his efforts.
It would be wonderful to be proved wrong.
Image headship=imaginary headship.
The fellow is delirious or disingenuous.
Mad Dog “The Accuser” Chandler.
Get thee behind me.
(And every man in your congregation,
“Elders:” MY ASS
If J of J is still out there pitching the red pill I am certain he is doing so in “silent running” mode, i.e. zero web presence that can be easily traced to him. Because of the first rule…
Time Magazine had an article that said mothers don’t have the authority to stop daughters from dressing like whores after age 14.
You know fathers don;t have any rights at all!
Want to see some sick subversive propaganda?
Time advertises “heforshe dot com”
(All men are rapists,men must stop raping)
There’s a special place in HELL for men like Driscol and Chandler,
men who don’t support men.
ht “castrator” shillary
Feministhater,
All we know is the two charges that God mentioned against Adam. We do not know what was not said or that led up to that. Those were the most important issues. God didn’t go into further details nor did He say everything ended there. It is not accurate to claim knowledge purely by omission in this case.
Adam certainly would not have listened to his wife if he had interrupted the conversation with the serpent, or stomped its head and then kept Eve from eating of the tree.
It would also be wise to examine the rest of the Scriptures for principles of what God expects from a husband to see what was almost certainly expected in that case.
Point me to the woman who allows, lets, whatever the right word is – to ‘serve’ her. She doesn’t exist.
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, respect and obey your husbands in the same way.
Yet another example of the sin that is in womens lives that the blogger in a previous post could not identify.
And another …
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
And another …
Ephesians 5:33 (b) and the wife must respect her husband.
And while you are at it, would you point me to the sermon where Chandler or Laurie or Keller speak to this ? Or to the Beth Moore book or Bible Study that speaks to this ? Hello ?? Hello ??
(smile)
Sorry – hit ‘submit’ on previous post without editing. Meant to write:
Point me to the woman who allows, lets, whatever the right word is – ‘her husband’ to ‘serve’ her.
He compares family protection to protecting churchian female peers. Believe me, the young women at my church would barph at the thought of the average male peer trying to protect her. Christian chivalry was killed as well by the evangelical princesses. And then he makes a joke about headship by saying he couldn’t get away with telling his sister to clean his room, even after standing up for her. Apparently, a husband gets no more benefit from headship from his wife than a little brother does from his sister.
Then at the 44 minute mark, he gives out the standard, poor advice for his average beta church guy to double down on what’s already not working for him: “If you do not have the gift of singleness, then you image headship by seriously pursuing Godly women in a friendship relationship in the hopes that the friendship relationship will lead to marriage…..And to not do that is to be outside the bounds of what God has called you to in purpose and design of Manhood.”
Then we get the great myth coming in at 46 minutes. The preface is that attraction matters a little, but basically shames men for looking for a pretty wife because…someday they will look horrible anyway. Nice.
“In a good friendship, you’ll find godliness to be sexy. Godliness is extremely sexy in a way that just physical sexiness cannot be. Physical sexiness has some mystery, until the mystery has gone away. ”
What I believe he is describing here is only his perspective as he talks about his wife becoming more sexy through her godliness. See, this is the problem. He may be right. Wife Goggles do exist.
I am afraid that husband goggles do not exist, though. And this is why his advice is bad. He also acts like the bible provides a dating manual where friendship must come first. Here he is simply pushing his personal ideal of what he believes to be a great asexual friendship leading to marriage.
See this other video of his, which appears to be his Driscoll manup speech copy. I have quoted it below.
************
“I am primarily provoked in spirit by our men. Why are men going to bed these days with so much energy. That’s not what God designed you for. God designed you to go to bed tired. Why you going to bed so strong?
We work hard at work for the glory of God.
We pull into our drive way, say a prayer, go into the house
We love and Serve Mama
Because the bible is put on our shoulders by the holy spirit of God
That our wives would look like well-watered vines, that they would grow in their gifting.
That they would feel cherished and loved.
We get on the floor and play with our kids. Tuck them in bed and pray.
And we lead out spiritually in our homes.
When everybody is down, we sit with Mama some more. Check on Her Heart.
Pray, and then go to bed exhausted. Wrung out for the kingdom of God.
…God has not designed you for a bunch of free time. He created you to make war and you are punting on that. A bored man is a dangerous man.
…There is no room in there for dumb stuff that jams men up. There is a call to our wives, children, and church. ”
*************
He closes with this gem on fairness. I guess men should not be allowed to have joy.
“We don’t want fair. We have been designed by God for war. Our masculinity comes out in fight.”
Somehow, he thinks the comparison of men in battle for something noble, is the same as going to battle at home by serving your wife and getting married.
Somehow, they have to convince young men that the raw deal they get with a marriage contract is akin to a noble battle. It is not noble to take on a horrible contract. In fact, it may be the case that it is now ungodly to marry a women under the current state-defined contract. I really do wonder what it would take for Christians to say that a state-based marriage contract is no longer godly. I’m willing to bet they would be fine with men being required to send 90% of their income to their wife forever after a divorce no matter how long the marriage. It’s a good question I think. When does a state-based marriage contract become ungodly? Can giving women unlimited power ever be ungodly to these simps?
They just don’t get it.
He did get the boys who can shave thing. Must have warmed up with the Driscol Video
Oops, gotta go serve Mama…
He needs to tuck his shirt in and stop wearing the same watch that a 12 year old wears while playing Navy Seal in the woods. Same for Driscoll. Their clothing gives them away. These are not grown men at all. I googled Driscoll and he was in a suit a few times but also (literally) a mickey mouse shirt, and of course the multi-function little boy’s watch.
After a year and a half in the manosphere, I’ve gone from seeing feminists as the problem to guys like this as the real problem. Their lives are wrecked by the FI, they know it on some level, and their only recourse is to get as many people on their sinking ships as possible. This is to stave off the mountain of regret that would come down on them if they admitted what had happened. The more people on board with them and the more shaming of any other option, then the less regret they have to shoulder. That is such a bitch move. Feminists are just dumb animals doing what they do; preying on weakness. But manginas are really kind of evil. They are the worst cowards.
“God has not designed you for a bunch of free time”
Challenge accepted.
“Figure out how I can serve her.”
This one is just so in your face. Wow.
It does not say “did not tell your wife no”, it says “have listened to the voice of your wife”.
That is an ass. I never thought an ass could chase The Lift. Now Ive seen an ass chasing a lift.
Because when the Bible was first translated into English by the Catholic Church, in the English of the day ‘apple’ was the word for any tree fruit. That’s how far back the Catholic Christians have been translating the Bible into English and other languages. By the way, the word ‘fruit’ had a much broader meaning in common speech than it does today. We no longer speak of the fruit of the womb in everyday speech, for example.
No. The “rookie mistake” is not knowing why modern translations of the Genesis text use the word ‘fruit’ yet in verbal retellings of the Story of the Garden the word ‘apple’ is the usual term.
@empathologism:
“The Lift” has to be one of the best insights the manosphere has figured out. You deserve more credit for that.
@Darwinian Arminian:
If it’s the same story, it looks like I was right. That’s not even a player, it was a guy trying to find a functional wife. While I would fault him for not getting his Soul straight with the Lord first, he wasn’t being illogical. Chandler just had no understanding of what walked in the door.
What is “The Lift”?
Chandler, shouldn’t you be making sammiches for your boyfriend?
make animated gifs like this at MakeaGif
Man up Boys!
The real question is why are so many pastors telling men to serve women inappropriatly? The answer is that Christian men cannot reconcile their sexuality. It’s the Madonna-whore complex. A man marries a woman and turns her into his mother by trying to please her and ask her permission for everything. If a man tries to sleep with his wife who he secretly sees as his mother, it will create strange dynamics. Jesus was celibate as far as I can tell and I think Christians try to emulate Him. In the tribal days men initiated young men and taught them how to be with women correctly. Usually the young man was taken from his mother at about 12 years old for about one year to break the mother-son bond. We lost this when we became civilized. Christian men are trying to be good in the eyes of their mother; especially pastors. They are trying to be Christ when they are fallen men. Fallen men have trouble with celibacy. Most men fall in love with their mothers. This is how men learn to love a woman, but it needs to stopped by elders who understand this. If there is not an older, initiated man to guide them out of that relationship, then we will have a continuation of this behavior from most Christian men. I think all men suffer from this affliction whether they are religious or not. Try this: Go against your wife’s wishes on purpose and see how you feel in your gut. I bet you will feel fear and that you are doing something wrong. That’s where the feeling of betraying your mother comes in and by not following her orders, you feel the disapproval of your wife who you see as your mother. If you can feel that without acting out some sort of apologetic or supplicating behavior, your escape from the Madonna-whore complex has begun. You must pass through this perceptual illusion before you have a chance of success with your wife.
“Eve takes the apple, believing the lie of the Serpent, takes a bite of the fruit, and then hands it to her passive idiot husband, who also takes a bite.”
Matt Chandler and pastors like him just make me angry. They are the reason the current generation of 18-30 years old men don’t go to church.
Why should they? The prevailing media tells them they are “passive idiots”. The females in their lives tell them they are “passive idiots”, the various women in their lives who have taught them since childhood consider them “passive idiots” and if they aren’t they get Ritalin to turn them into “passive idiots”. Their female bosses – who Chandler praises – call their workers “passive idiots” despite men’s competence and despite women bosses calling their employed men from under the cover of the ability to hire and fire, where men can’t answer back – a stark show of cowardice. Women in leadership positions themselves make very poor logistical managers. Equipment that they consider “should just work” breaks down because they are oblivious to maintenance, or don’t care enough about their workplace to schedule repairs. In fact the only thing female managers are good at is making big shows of bullying men who can’t repay in kind, thinking this shows how awesome they are.
Micha Ely trolled:
Because when the Bible was first translated into English by the Catholic Church, in the English of the day ‘apple’ was the word for any tree fruit.
Sigh. I should know better, but…
What year was that, dearie? And who was the translator?
Pingback: “Passive idiots” | chokingonredpills
Spike says:
February 17, 2016 at 9:23 pm
+1000
If Chandler was right in his description of what a marriage should be, then it is safe to say that God must be a heartless tyrant to create marriage, and put the natural desire in men to be married.
O boy, if marriage for men means to serve mama. I wonder what marriage means to mama? Maybe to her, it means to be served.
Just got here and haven’t read any comments, but this is just gold:
“[T]he authority which would naturally go with an obligation of protection would be to direct his sisters on how to behave so they didn’t create risks to their safety.”
This is the most overlooked aspect of what has gone haywire in today’s culture with respect to the expectations between men and women.
Thanks, Dalrock.
Matt Chandler and pastors like him just make me angry. They are the reason the current generation of 18-30 years old men don’t go to church.
They’ll never consciously admit it, but megalomaniac churchian hucksters like Chandler and Driscoll don’t really want men in their churches. The prevalence of testosterone in the pews would be too much of a risk, a direct threat to the ability to affect an AMOG posture and indoctrinate the women in the FI heresy that enables the huckstor (is that an appropriate portmanteau of “huckster” and “pastor”?) to control them in a manner well familiar to cult leaders. In this sense huckstors are leading women down the same destructive path that the feminized Big Daddy Government is leading them.
As for men, the shaming and belittling is the huckstor’s way of weeding out all but the most pathetically gamma of mangina wusses, as no other class of male human will tolerate sitting through such bullshit, especially not one with gonads and a normal level of testosterone. In effect, the manginas who obediently sit through Chandler’s and Driscoll’s misandric and heretical screeds are really women with vestigial, non-functional penises.
>>>>>”It is not worth the effort to fix the dynamic in a marriage where one seeks to make the man a leader if he isn’t already one. Such things are determined from the outset.”
You are wrong. Men can change. Men can wake up and take the Red Pill. Men can decide they have had enough and change their life.
@Cynthia: “even though women tend to be “the most responsible teenager in the room” that still is not the same thing as being a little girl.”
WAAAY to many so called Red Pill guys don’t get this and so many Blue Pillers completely reject Red Pill because of the Bratty teenager analogy. A teenager can be bright and even brilliant, motivated, competent, and capable. A teenager is not a helpless 5 year old. My wife is a business lawyer who makes 6 figures and has an IQ north of 130 but she is beyond doubt the most responsible teenager in our house and when I treat her that way life is sooooo much better. 🙂
megalomaniac churchian hucksters like Chandler and Driscoll don’t really want men in their churches. The prevalence of testosterone in the pews would be too much of a risk…
In the same way the presence of another masculine man would not be welcome in a harem. The risk is simply too great.
I managed 34 seconds of Matt Chandler, thanks. Reminds me why I don’t listen to ‘Christian radio’ any more.
Soft placating voice, non-threatening effeminate presence, check check check.
I don’t think he’s an outright homo but God’s got his work cut out.
My favorite part is when they call one another ‘men of God’. :O)
This (advising women to behave in a way that doesn’t create risks to their safety) was the initiating event that ushered in the whole SlutWalk phenomenon. I guess such common sense is now deemed just as outrageous inside the church as it is outside.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk
Yet you gents are the ones claiming knowledge that just isn’t there.
Why would he interrupt the conversation with Eve and the serpent, what makes you think he was right there to do so? If you go into a grocery store with your wife, she goes to buy fruit and you look around. You are there with your wife but at no time are you going to interrupt a conversation between her and a lady at the bakery counter. However, your wife can still buy a fruit and hand it to you and say ‘eat this’. And guess what, you probably would..
The idea that Adam should have stepped in when no ‘sin’ existed and that he should have been leading Eve and stopped her from eating the fruit is such a stretch as to be ludicrous. It’s handing women the get out of jail card they all need.
Adam sin is twofold, not because he needed to stop Eve but because he one, ate the fruit and two, didn’t listen to God by saying ‘no’ to Eve when she handed it to him. That’s it, no further sin rests on Adam’s shoulders.
One thing the manosphere/red pill brigade has done is illuminate the myth of the naturally pure woman. As you all know, when a man points out that women are naturally treacherous and hypergamous, the women and their white knights will squeal like weiners on a barbecue.
Well, here’s something that will make many of you squeal: none of your pastors is worthy of your following him. They are hirelings, with the possible exception of the tiny number who won’t accept money for preaching. Some of them are well-meaning goofballs, but they are all serving a different agenda than the man who truly wants to know and walk with the eternal God.
None of your pastors can be trusted to tell you what God wants from you. God put His spirit in you, if you are His child. This spirit will lead you into truth. Pastors (and their loyal followers) scramble around, trying to find out what some man said about God, instead of doing the heavy lifting of finding out for himself.
It is God’s prerogative to conceal things from his royal children. It is the childrens’ job to do the spiritual archeology. But 99.9% of today’s followers of christianism are terrified of “getting into trouble” by going directly to their Father instead of to some paid pulpiteer.
“Oh, but MY pastor is a good man….” Okay, fine. Then why are you at the same exact level of spiritual maturity that you were when you first put your butt in the pew?
Pingback: Feminism is the promotion and glorification of rebellion | Christianity and the manosphere
Anonymous Reader says: “What year was [ when the Bible was first translated into English ], dearie? And who was the translator?”
(Yes, it’s Wikipedia, but) you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_Bible_translations
“You are wrong. Men can change. Men can wake up and take the Red Pill. Men can decide they have had enough and change their life.”
Yes, but that’s after the marriage fails. They can say that’s enough with their current aggressive wife and find a better one where he wears the pants.
You do know that “Old English” is a completely different language from the one that we’re now writing in, right? Or are you telling me that the following is easily understandable to you without the benefit of Google?
Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum, Sī þīn nama ġehālgod. Tōbecume þīn rīċe, ġewurþe þīn willa, on eorðan swā swā on heofonum. Ūre ġedæġhwāmlīcan hlāf syle ūs tō dæġ, and forġyf ūs ūre gyltas, swā swā wē forġyfað ūrum gyltendum. And ne ġelǣd þū ūs on costnunge, ac ālȳs ūs of yfele. Sōþlīċe.
Modern German has more in common with modern English than Old English does. Heck, even Middle English — the language of Canterbury Tales — is hard to understand today:
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.
Kirk Forlatt says:
February 18, 2016 at 8:26 am
Word, brother.
The problem is two-fold. First, almost no one really trusts God to lead them through this earthly life in a path of righteousness. This why nearly all churches in the western world today have surrendered to the secular culture and why the people whose arses warm church pews for two hours on Sunday morning are indistinguishable from the same people whose arses warm office chairs or school desks the other five-plus days of the week.
Second, and directly related to the above, is the fact that 99.999 percent of those who claim to be Christians are the laziest of the lazy in spiritual and intellectual terms and cannot be bothered to read, absorb, and internalize the word of God themselves or put its precepts into action. They’re the spiritual equivalent of baby pelicans who prefer that what passes for a spiritual adult vomit-feed them pre-digested spiritual pablum that requires no effort on their part to digest. The problem of course being that such pablum is all too often adulterated with impurities that rob it of most, if not all of its nutritional value.
As for pastors, part of me is actually tempted to cut the younger ones a little bit of slack. So many of these guys have been lied to over the course of their young lives, just like the rest of us laymen. They’re also not being done any favors by being admitted to seminary right out of high school without getting a decade or two of “life in the real world.” No one, and I mean NO ONE is as clueless about people and human nature and how to relate to either one as is some young 20-something kid straight out of seminary who is put in charge of a church. It sets the poor young schlub up for almost guaranteed failure and reflects very poorly on the denomination that ordained him. Last but not least, far too many of these guys enter the ministry with the mindset of it being a profession rather than a calling. Given the way many of them act, it’s obvious that there was little or no fervent prayer or clear direction from God prior to their decision having being made.
It would certainly be wonderful to see all of this turn around and to witness the end of churchianity as we’ve long suffered it.
It sets the poor young schlub up for almost guaranteed failure and reflects very poorly on the denomination that ordained him.
No worries, there’s always lots of “women of the church” around to set him straight….
@Novaseeker. “It’s really figureheadship that they are selling.”
Exactly 100% correct. Said another way — responsibility without authority. This is a recipe for disaster on so many levels that only simpletons and/or desperate losers with no other options would sign on to such a deal.
Churchian marriage is clearly for losers. Period. Full stop. The fact that it is dying is good news for people of God.
On a related note, these pastors blatant pandering to women is, frankly, nauseating. I cannot believe that deep down any woman really likes or finds true comfort or peace or wisdom in this schtick. It’s purely phony and false and can’t last.
Can it?
feeriker @ February 17, 2016 at 10:16 pm:
“They’ll never consciously admit it, but megalomaniac churchian hucksters like Chandler and Driscoll don’t really want men in their churches.”
Modern pastors were Gamma-type guys who realized they could get the status and respect they desired just by going through seminary classes. The magic Priestly Collar of Power gave them Alpha status but they’re still Gammas at heart, doing the things that made them Gammas in the first place, constantly worrying that the magic will glitch: that women will recognize their heroic protector is the fat smelly kid they never wanted and abandon him for the sexy guys he’d always envied and resented. So they pedestalize furiously and deny other men, ESPECIALLY bachelors, any respect or power that would make him an attractive alternative to Gamma Boy, Agent of God.
That’s also why their churches focus on families and kids instead of doing good and fighting evil, because the Gamma pastors wield a sword they don’t have the heart to swing… because having enemies is a great way to be revealed as the fraudulent leader they know themselves to be.
Gunner Q has a good grip on the current situation. Doing good and fighting evil is low, low, low on the to-do list of christianism’s little country clubs.
Micha Elyi ,
As far as I can tell, your point here, even if 100% accurate:
Because when the Bible was first translated into English by the Catholic Church, in the English of the day ‘apple’ was the word for any tree fruit. That’s how far back the Catholic Christians have been translating the Bible into English and other languages. By the way, the word ‘fruit’ had a much broader meaning in common speech than it does today.
doesn’t disprove my statement here:
Isn’t that a rookie mistake?
The common language of the early English translators isn’t the common language of today. Nowadays, when someone says “apple” in regards to the Genesis story, it has a specific connotation, and the person saying it is simply repeating a common assumption and possible misconception that they’ve heard other people repeat. You simply pointed out where that common assumption or misconception comes from (or might come from). By the way, I doubt Chandler got “apple” from reading the early Catholic Bible.
feministhater,
No. I am saying we don’t have enough details to make blanket statements that it was not a leadership problem. That would go against principles elsewhere that note a man is responsible for a wife’s (or unmarried daughter’s) action once he learns of it.
I already noted, it depends on what “with him” means. The text is not specific enough on that. God also did charge Adam with listening to the voice of his wife, not merely eating a piece of fruit she handed to him.
It would be nice to know which exact words he listened to. Merely handing him a piece of fruit doesn’t have any words to listen. What is written doesn’t even say that she said “here, eat this,” though some might read that in. I would read it to imply that she made a case for eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, but that part is not detailed.
It would be wise to know how it all played out, but God chose to not tell us those details.
Don’t oversimplify things just to fit your preconceptions.
I am not certain. I had been convinced that what is written implied he was standing there the whole time, and that still seems like a possible valid conclusion, but that does not account for any words from her he could have listened to, so it may not be accurate. God said he listened to the voice of his wife, not the serpent. Yet the only words to eat we are shown indicate words the serpent spoke, with actions by Eve and then Adam.
Think of someone involved with being in a situation where his wife beat a child and then he killed the child. The focus would be on the death of the child, not the beating. That would not mean the husband had no role in stopping the beating, but that the murder was the culminating crime. It would not remove the sin prior to that point.
Though it seems like you are really falling into the idea that a husband has zero responsibility for his wife. Would that be a correct assumption? Should a husband do nothing to lead his family? What would leading his family really mean if we weren’t so whacked out today?
His use of “apple” is so far down the list of concerns that it is laughable to focus on that. Plenty of other important issues have been noted here.
Sounds like those griping that Trump said 2 Corinthians at one point, claiming that he should have said “2nd Corinthians” like all rational people. Turns out that many preachers say “2 Corinthians” as well. It may or may not be completely correct, but it is not worth wasting time on.
Focus on the true issues in both cases, not stupid semantic games.
Bill Smith, I’m actually happy enough to concede I don’t know exactly what happened and thus only have the words of the Bible to go on. However, the Bible doesn’t state that Adam was punished for not leading or stopping Eve either.
I am on the side that thinks both men and women are responsible for their own choices. Even though a wife must submit to her husband and a husband must lead his family, it does not denote that if the wife or child sins, it is the husband’s fault. In the end, you can only be responsible for yourself, that is the person you live with and can control, no one else. However, the overriding contention is that when a husband leads, family life and society are better.
I’m not saying my interpretation is right, merely conveying that the idea that Adam could have stopped Eve or led better which makes him more responsible than her for bringing sin into this world as an equally contrived position, one that provides perfect cover for all feminist rebellion.
http://www.minglingofsouls.com/marriage-conference/
Who’s in? Just $19.99
or it may show up on youtube in a few months
feministhater,
I completely agree with you that we should not hold Eve blameless because it was all Adam’s responsibility. I also agree that each of us is responsible for the sin we commit. We appear to be in agreement there.
I do expectations for husbands to lead woven throughout the Scriptures, so I would lean toward holding more accountable than for just his own self in a sense. We are told that Jesus was the last Adam and that He did everything right. Nothing is mentioned about a last Eve, so clearly God holds Adam to some higher accountability.
This would not justify holding a husband in today’s environment responsible for a wife who will not follow him and let him lead, but I believe it would if the order were ever properly supported by the surrounding culture again.
That means that I read the story of the Fall in the context of Adam not being the leader he should have been. It is extremely ironic that many of those who preach such completely ignore that being responsible also gives the right to control another, something that would go against the grain in most modern churches.
They are off, but it doesn’t mean we have to go off the other side of the track. Men should lead and be held accountable. Women should follow their husbands (and fathers before them) and be held accountable through that.
I liken the modern church system to project management. A project manager normally has all the accountability, but none of the authority, making it a very challenging job role. A husband today, at least in the eyes of those who preach similar to Matt in the OP put husbands in a project manager role.
This doesn’t mean project managers are no longer responsible for managing their projects, but that they need some form of authority if that is going to occur properly. We cannot expect husbands to lead in a similar way, unless we (society/the church/etc.) give them the authority to do so.
Deeper than you were likely thinking.
Does this help?
Bill Smith, Chandler and Trump are welcome to use whatever language they want. I just haven’t seen anything from either one of them that would cause me to get the impression that they’re experts on the Bible or righteous living. Chandler’s use of “apple” and Trump’s use of “Two Corinthians” just simply don’t do anything to help with those impressions.
Yup. Revolutionary idea eh? I can’t believe this is even being debated. Of course Adam can’t be blamed for someone else sin. It’s idiotic and just pathetic white knighting to think otherwise. She’s responsible for her own actions. Period. Full stop. Was it Lot’s fault that his wife looked back? Nope. God turned her to salt not Lot.
As others have, I will reiterate that the Bible and Jesus therein always treated women as having agency. It is man’s sin when he treats women as NOT having agency. The Bible and Jesus never did that.
If you want to learn about true authority and headship, Jesus can be a good example. It was said that he taught as one with authority. Yet he always expected those he was teaching to strive to his own example. His students were allowed to challenge him when they had valid points. Even when he was alive, Jesus was not always physically present, and his disciples and others had to take their own authority; more so after he was no longer there.
Jesus was never AMOG. He never built himself up by cutting other people down. So the “teachers” like Chandler here that demean men in general are in error. A proper teacher should be seeking to build up all men.
Bill Smith, you are channeling the “servant leader” trope where the “leader” is constantly abasing himself when his “followers” sin. Jesus never did this. You are in error.
He is right and wrong on Adam. There is no authority without responsibility.
It is Adams sin because Adam has leadership authority. It does not matter why Eve did it, he is not to blame but he is responsible because of the leadership position God gave him. Adam was not deceived and Eve was. But we we should not be too hard on Adam or Eve. THe buck stops with Adam. If you want headship than you must accept the burden of responsibility for the consequences of the actions of the people you lead.
Finally for reasons known only to God, like many things, we only have a snapshot not a comprehensive picture of the garden of Eden. Did Satan go to Adam and get rebuffed? Did Satan wear down Eve? Did Adam stand near by or were they separated? We only know what we have been told.
Must post this
http://injo.com//2016/02/540895-girlfriend-designed-t-shirt-to-keep-ladies-away-from-her-man-and-2-million-people-love-it/
Kirk Forlatt says: “One thing the manosphere/red pill brigade has done is illuminate the myth of the naturally pure woman. As you all know, when a man points out that women are naturally treacherous and hypergamous, the women and their white knights will squeal like weiners on a barbecue.
Well, here’s something that will make many of you squeal: none of your pastors is worthy of your following him. They are hirelings, with the possible exception of the tiny number who won’t accept money for preaching. Some of them are well-meaning goofballs, but they are all serving a different agenda than the man who truly wants to know and walk with the eternal God.
None of your pastors can be trusted to tell you what God wants from you. God put His spirit in you, if you are His child. This spirit will lead you into truth. Pastors (and their loyal followers) scramble around, trying to find out what some man said about God, instead of doing the heavy lifting of finding out for himself.
It is God’s prerogative to conceal things from his royal children. It is the childrens’ job to do the spiritual archeology. But 99.9% of today’s followers of christianism are terrified of “getting into trouble” by going directly to their Father instead of to some paid pulpiteer.
“Oh, but MY pastor is a good man….” Okay, fine. Then why are you at the same exact level of spiritual maturity that you were when you first put your butt in the pew?”
Preach it brother!!!! That last statement about spiritual maturity pretty much nailed the 21st Century Apostate Church. The same people who wax the pews with their arses will spend hours upon hours pursuing wordly activities, whatever they may be, but spending time with the Lord who they claim to love, and studying his holy word, to most churchians, is an anathema.
Since the vast majority of churches today are 501 C3 organizations, they are basically an arm of the federal government. Hence, the paid “hirelings” are careful not to offend the feminist crowds for fear of being sued or simply put, losing a lot of money once the offended “Christian women” pack their purses and relocate to a more palatable “mangina of the cloth”. I oversimplified this for sure but from a 30,000 ft view, I’m not too far off.
Anyway Kirk, great post and excellent analysis. One of the best I’ve read on this subject.
Thinking about this more, it becomes harder and harder to draw conclusions not explicitly stated in the text because we know so little.
Romans says by one MAN sin entered the world. 1 Corinthians says as in Adam all died. Certainly though not deceived the prophets hold Adam as the leader and as the place the buck stops.
The question really is does this mean anything for us? Was Eve standing next to Adam? Did he fail her? Who knows? And that leads to who cares? We do have guidance. Ferreting out what happened in the garden beyond what God tells just leads to wierd pastors once again trying to make everything mens fault.
Jim says:
February 18, 2016 at 11:55 am
Oh, but don’t you get it? Women have complete moral agency when they’re in a situation where they can gain something for themselves. When it comes to taking responsibility and being held accountable? Well, then they’re infants who need daddy/hubby/boyfriend/SomeMan[TM] to step up amd ManUp(c).
There is no authority without responsibility.
You have that exactly backwards; there is no responsibilty without authority.
Thanks, Bdawg16…very kind of you. “Mangina of the cloth…” good one!
From the minglingofsouls bull shtick:
Matt and Lauren Chandler met in the mountains of Colorado in the summer of 1997—he, the dramatically converted and passionate preacher; she, the good girl and a fixture in her church’s youth group. Both brought their share of baggage and immaturity, but by God’s mercy, they grew up together in grace and forgiveness. They married in 1999
Sounds like a typical churchian fair-tale magical unicorn farting pixie dust type relationship. No doubt who wears the pants in that relationship!!!
Robin Munn says: “You do know that “Old English” is a completely different language from the one that we’re now writing in, right?”
Motte-and-bailey argument. Now you’re complaining that the filthy papists didn’t translate into a language that didn’t exist yet?
“Or are you telling me that the following is easily understandable to you without the benefit of Google?”
Oh stewardess, I speak jive…
It’s actually not hard to see the structure of the Our Father (sans doxology) in your quotation, and make out certain words. But extracting information from patterns is in my job description, so perhaps I have an unfair advantage.
“There is no authority without responsibility”.
oh ya? look at modern women…
“You have that exactly backwards; there is no responsibility without authority”.
oh ya? look at modern men…
Off topic by miles, but maybe there is some interesting info here for parsing. In any event its a cool chart
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-who-marries-whom/
RAY:
Soft placating voice, non-threatening effeminate presence, check check check.
Exactly. The hair on my neck has been standing up against this for over 20 years now, starting with Smalley and through Rainey and most of all Arterburn, the thrice divorced marriage guru. they are all cruise directors now and the champions of middle aged churchian harlots
Kirk Forlatt above speaks some of the clearest and most concise crux. Sobering, especially in the recognition there is very little that can be done about it. Thanks to Dalrock for standing in the gap despite the odds and the adversaries.
Feeriker as well. Knowing you men are out there emboldens me to move forward in Truth as well. There are many things that are true, but only one Truth.
@Bdawg16 Dude, sounds like I’ve got a hard road ahead of me…
I’m in Bible college now, and have taken an oath of sorts to preach the truth without catering to the sensibilities of anyone. No apostasy or FI indoctrination here.
Any pointers to how I can be the kind of guy that you’d wanna hear preach?
@bkillbour – ‘how to be the kind of guy that you’d (we’d) wanna hear preach ?’
Use this blog as the basis for all of your lessons, combined with instruction/references from the Bible ! Dalrock provides some great thought on a consistent basis. Your church will be full ! (of only guys of course (smile))
@bkilbour
That’s an excellent an awesome question. Couple of things off the top of my head
1) Consider creating a strict mens only group. The reason I say this is as soon as any female gets into the mix (with society being what it is today) the pressure is going to be on you to “accommodate” your message to be more “inclusive”. No man is an island and we all succumb to influences, thus just remove the influence.
2) Make a point to study the Greatest Generation. This was the last generation that lived with American sensibilities and is the point of demarcation for downward trend of American Culture. This is not say this generation were saints, but frankly if we could get people aimed in this direction this would be a positive development.
@bkilbour:
The first thing: realize that all of the Church Structures you know don’t work. It’s hard to “teach” when the lowest common denominator of the group is middle schoolers. Separate people up for teaching and do worship together.
I’ve been a reading Dalrock’s blog, Alpha Game and a few others for 3 or more years now; I’ve also been a member at The Village Church for 5 or more years.
I was there for most of this sermon series (newborn/baby = missing services). There were a few times when I disagreed with Matt, but this stuff is basically disagreements over details – it’s not a core-definition issue that makes-or-breaks salvation like the deity of Christ, existence of the Holy Spirit, inerrancy of the Bible, etc.
In general, TVC does a good job teaching from scripture, and presenting a scriptural foundation for the decisions that are made. Off all of the churches I’ve been in (all Baptist), it’s actually one of the ones that is least favorable to divorce. The controversy Neguy referenced was because the church was working to reconcile and prevent divorce between a missionary couple where the husband got caught looking at child porn. They will very, very strongly push for frivorced couples to get re-married to each other, rather than to marry someone else, and also have a very long and thorough process to try to head off divorce. Criticism usually comes from those who are upset at how hard our church makes it for people to divorce, even when there is what most people consider a legitimate although not Biblical cause (including at least one case of closed-fist physical abuse).
I am disappointed at what I see as unwarranted name-calling in this post disagreement; I’ve liked about 95% of what he’s preached on marriage, which is pretty good. I don’t get the ‘gay’ thing – he’s a big tall guy (6’6?) with a lot of presence in person, and I suspect he picked up the “act goofy” thing when he was a kid to compensate. Keep in mind that straying off of what his words are to “he looks like he has X” problems can fall into the same rule about making accusations against an elder without two witnesses.
TVC makes it a point to have other pastors preach sermons regularly – Matt has made it clear that he does not believe that the church is about him and that he doesn’t want it to be the Pastor Matt Show. In the meantime – people are being saved and the church does a good job challenging both men and women to live in a Godly fashion and confess sin and engage in real community instead of playing the traditional “everything’s perfect” game that goes on in most churches.
No pastor, and no church, will ever be perfect. I’m reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s book “Life Together” right now, and he makes sure to point out that anyone who expects perfection or fulfillment from Christian community will inevitably be disappointed (I am not doing him justice). If you haven’t read Bonhoeffer – pick up any of his books. He writes dense, concise, soaked-in-the-Word truth and has swiftly become my favorite theological writer.
Applause Dalrock.
#1 Dwellerman with the scalpel-esque precision. Nice take.
#2 “Matt and Lauren Chandler met in the mountains of Colorado in the summer of 1997—he, the dramatically converted and passionate preacher; she, the good girl and a fixture in her church’s youth group. Both brought their share of baggage and immaturity, but by God’s mercy, they grew up together in grace and forgiveness. They married in 1999”
‘She, the good girl who brought her share of baggage’ Hmmm…that sounds like a way to re-write the fact that she indulged in a few thugs while dating him. Why else would there be ‘forgiveness’ involved in a brief year and a half courtship?
Also, he likes to see himself as ‘dramatically converted’ with ‘baggage and immaturity’….hmmm….maybe he is straining to re-write his past as akin to a few of those bad boys that out-cocked him early on? She only knows him as the converted and passionate preacher. He wants her to be sure that it wasn’t always the case. He is ‘converted’ i.o.w. “I used to be a baaaad man. Believe it.”
There is a whole lot of reading between the lines that needs to be done with such a short passage.
HamonRye and Looking Glass are both correct.
Just off the top of my head…
Sex segregate and age segregate any class. The whole “youth group” concept is bankrupt – putting 13 year old girl into the same room as an 18 year old man to “fellowship” is so stupid, only girlish Gamma “youth leaders” could have come up with it. Even stupider concepts such as “lock ins” are not even worth discussing.
College coed groups are a total distraction for both men and women, for hormonally obvious reasons.
All of these are the result of the equalitarian / egalitarian errors that have permeated the West, where a 4 year old is supposed to be just as ready to be a functioning member of a church as a 40 year old.
craig points to Wikipedia.
So let’s look.
Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne (b. 639, d. 25 May 709) is thought to have written an Old English translation of the Psalms, although this is disputed.[according to whom?]
Psalms do not contain Geneis.
Cædmon (~657-684) is mentioned by Bede as one who sang poems in Old English based on the Bible stories, but he was not involved in translation per se.
Irrelevant.
The Venerable Bede (b. c. 672, d. 26 May 735) produced a translation of the Gospel of John into Old English, which he is said to have prepared shortly before his death. This translation is lost; we know of its existence from Cuthbert of Jarrow’s account of Bede’s death.[1]
Does not contain Genesis.
The Vespasian Psalter,[2] (~850-875) an interlinear gloss of the Book of Psalms in the Mercian dialect.[3]
Eleven other 9th-century glosses of the Psalms are known, including Eadwine’s Canterbury Psalter.[4]
Does not contain Genesis.
King Alfred around 900 had a number of passages of the Bible circulated in the vernacular. These included passages from the Ten Commandments and the Pentateuch, which he prefixed to a code of laws he promulgated around this time. Alfred is also said to have directed the Book of Psalms to have been translated into Old English. Many scholars[who?] believe that the fifty Psalms in Old English that are found in the Paris Psalter [5] represent Alfred’s translation.
No evidence of Genesis.
Between 950 and 970, Aldred the Scribe added a gloss in the Northumbrian dialect of Old English (the Northumbrian Gloss on the Gospels) to the Lindisfarne Gospels as well as a foreword describing who wrote and decorated it. Its version of The Lord’s Prayer is as follows:
Nothing from Genesis.
At around the same time (~950-970), a priest named Farman wrote a gloss on the Gospel of Matthew that is preserved in a manuscript called the Rushworth Gospels.[6]
Not Genesis.
In approximately 990, a full and freestanding version of the four Gospels in idiomatic Old English appeared, in the West Saxon dialect; these are known as the Wessex Gospels. Seven manuscript copies of this translation have survived; they apparently had some currency. This version gives the most familiar Old English version of Matthew 6:9–13, the Lord’s Prayer:
Not Genesis.
At about the same time as the Wessex Gospels (~990), the priest Ælfric of Eynsham produced an independent translation of the Pentateuch with Joshua and Judges. His translations were used for the Illustrated Old English Hexateuch.
Ah. Is Micha claiming that this is the source of the word “apple” commonly used? Seems a bit far fetched, doesn’t it?
The Junius manuscript (initially ascribed to Cædmon) was copied about 1000. It includes Biblical material in vernacular verses: Genesis in two versions (Genesis A and Genesis B), Exodus, Daniel, and Christ and Satan, from the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus.
And here is a manuscript, in a language that died around 1066. Again, is this the source of the word “apple”, I wonder?
Of course we will never know, because Micha Elyi doesn’t actually discuss anything. She drops her little trolling efforts and then scurries away. It’s rather like a bird leaving droppings on a car, an annoyance and an inconvenience, but nothing substantial. Nothing at all substantial.
PS: It doesn’t take much searching to turn up a couple of names in the context of an English language Bible (old and new testament in toto, unlike all the other partial translations listed above):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
Oh, and in conclusion, the whole “apple” rabbit trail is IMO merely an attempt to distract attention away from the Original Posting and its very clear points.
“As you all know, when a man points out that women are naturally treacherous and hypergamous, the women and their white knights will squeal like weiners on a barbecue.”
That’s pretty good, there. Hear the image.
@transportman:
The interesting part is you get part of the issue but miss part of it as well.
The first thing you need to realize is that, of the collection of us that still attend a church, we’re taking the good with the bad. We’re quite aware of the problems that all churches have, and we’ve all sat through some stuff that’s raised the blood pressure. Correction in this area is going to be a long process, so we need a bit of patience with it. It does, however, not excuse royally faceplanting on a truly core failure of the Modern Church. And that core failure permeates so much of the interaction & preaching set that getting the “basics” of Christianity correct isn’t a selling point. We teach 5 year olds that without much issue.
The wrong assumptions effect most exegesis. It’s always subtle, but the subject has to be something really technical for it to not crop up. And it really, really botches up most preaching on the Old Testament. (Much of the historical parts being the history of Kings & Leaders, and since they can’t understand Authority properly, they really don’t understand why certain things happen.) So, it is very important. Though since so much of exegesis is actually from “what’s in the water”, there’s an entire path open for changing this. Clean the Water. It’s the proper approach. (And expect better from a Preacher. They often preach as Authority when they have no Understanding. It’s pathetic and vile.)
As for the “fey” comments, it’s actually the modern preaching style in general. It’s very fey. A lot of it due to too much sitting throughout the day, so the preacher simply has a weak upper back, which forces the weight to shift forward. They can stand & walk around, but they’re always hunched a little and thin in the shoulders. This is more of a problem when the church is held together mostly by your personal charm more than the work of the Lord.
Lots of instructive comments here, feeriker, gunner, kirk and others.
Hm…. alrighty, I’ll make sure to set up a men’s group and have it meet faaaaar more regularly than once a week, no women allowed. I’m gonna start off as a youth pastor, so segregating by age and gender is a good idea; here’s to hoping that I can get away with it.
@Dalrock, what do you think is best for a pastor going against the egalitarian grain? What would you like to see?
Robin: Thanks for those “English” samples. Very interesting.
@bkilbour:
People learn best, when being taught in a group setting, among those very similar to themselves. This is actually why the “group them by age and put the mentally disabled kids in the classroom” approach is so inefficient. That’s the vector by which to rearrange the Youth Ministry. It would look like a modified “small groups” approach, but it works really well for both producing “buy in” and teaching proper doctrine. We’ve only been using this approach for 2000 years.
And look to get a set of adults involved that aren’t specifically parents of those teenagers. Sure, they’ll bring in their own baggage, but they can learn right along with the kids. Though never rush things with Churches. Slow & step-wise changes are things they never notice. They’re almost incapable of it, at some level. Which is how they almost all got converged.
Anonymous Reader
Oh, and in conclusion, the whole “apple” rabbit trail is IMO merely an attempt to distract attention away from the Original Posting and its very clear points.
I brought it up, and that’s a negative on my end. For me, Chandler’s repeat of the apple myth is just further evidence he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in regards to the Bible. I already voiced my problems with Chandler’s message regarding the church’s treatment of men and women in another thread and didn’t see the point in repeating myself here.
Hm…. alrighty, I’ll make sure to set up a men’s group and have it meet faaaaar more regularly than once a week, no women allowed.
Perhaps 15 to 30 minutes multiple days per week will be easier to fit into modern schedules than the usual 2 or 3 hours once per week. But if once a week is all that can be done, do it. “No women” has to be an unbendable rule because the communication style has to change to fit even one.
I’m gonna start off as a youth pastor, so segregating by age and gender is a good idea; here’s to hoping that I can get away with it.
If you can’t split them up by age and sex, then for sure split them by sex. Because that’s the first step to pushing back against the feminist notion of egalitarian / interchangeability. There’s multiple ways to sell that idea; “the boys distract the girls and the girls distract the boys” or “the boys act up too much to impress the girls”, or whatever. You’re likely going to be working for GenX White Knights with one or more aging Boomer White Knights in the background, so segregation by sex can be sold in terms of “protecting da wimmenz”. But it’s got to be done, because it’s essential for instructing young men – there’s things you can’t say in front of the girls at this point it time, like “The sins of Adam are not the same as the sins of Eve”, a statement that should be trivial to make but apparently is very radical in far too many churches.
And do not let any women instruct the boys over 12. Do. Not. Let. Them. Those boys and young men are in a feminized society, in a feminized school system – most definately including homeschoolers – and they desperately need some instruction by men. Women can’t teach boys how to be men, if the androsphere has demonstrated nothing else it sure has made that clear.
Hank Flanders
I brought it up, and that’s a negative on my end. For me, Chandler’s repeat of the apple myth is just further evidence he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in regards to the Bible.
You’re right, I confused your point with Micha’s trolling. IMO you weren’t rabbit trailing in your point, but Micha’s “Catholics translated the Bible SO THERE” most definitely was.
Looking Glass
And look to get a set of adults involved that aren’t specifically parents of those teenagers. Sure, they’ll bring in their own baggage, but they can learn right along with the kids.
Yeah, if possible. I’m reliably informed that some of the homeschooling helicopters can’t abide the idea of little darling special snowflake actually receiving instruction from someone other than Mommy, so Mommy has to be part of all church activities. That way she can correct any errors or mistakes made, often right there on the spot. Nothing adds to any kind of study like Mommy correcting the teacher in front of the class…
Mat Chandler has threatened to “beat up” and has “thrown out” guys who are there to pick up on the women of his church(es)?????????????????????
I doubt the guy could “beat up” anyone without the help of calling the local police.
No hate here….but seriously? More of this “false manhood” from men that look and behave less “manly” and “masculine” than me….while they tell me “yet again” how to be man. It’s laughable. These pastors have ego’s the size of God Himself, and like the Pharisees of Christ’s time these pastors seem to always have the quick-witted-one-line answer and they have the right “Scripture” to quote at that moment (Satan knows Scripture too btw) and know how to quickly and effectively rebuke men very quickly.
This same man and others like him will then ask “Where re the men? Why don’t they want to learn about Jesus?”
Coming to a place to be belittled, shamed and not even helped to become a Disciple of Christ….just fed worn scriptures and questions squelched will keep any intelligent man away from His Good News. I have a solid prayer life and I am daily in the Word, and I give Him the praise for this because if I wasn’t………………I would be a glutton for punishment to sit in a church and put up with this week after week.
Anyway…..lots of insightful comments here. To Christ be the Glory.
What’s really sad to me is the thought of all those churchians in his Texas megachurch, lapping this crap up like manna from heaven. Depressing.
The ironic thing is, most of his congregants would sneer at Joel Osteen, blind to the fact that Chandler and Osteen aren’t that far apart….different hymns, same hymnal.
@AR:
I think the best other adults are either some older retirees (even if they’re deeply blue-pill, a 30+ year married couple that doesn’t look angry part will have a lot of practical experience to help with) or parents with some younger grade-school aged children. The former because everyone loves a little respect for “having wisdom” and the younger because in the back of their minds they want to be prepared.
Also, the approach is to think through all practicalities with regard to teaching/instruction. If the group is large enough, there’s the one guy that’ll love deeper theology, but nearly all of the teenagers there really just need some practical & functional guidelines. “This IS the way things work, if you want to know ‘why’, that can be taught over time.” It’s always incumbent upon those working with the younger generation to realize how insanely cynical they are. They’ve been lied to from Day 1 with a massive machinery intended so they never truly know anything. There’s a reason the Lord tells us to be Salt & Light.
@PokeSalad
Two different commenters have said Chandler’s sermons are usually good. I’ll take them at their word on it. The problem is that when he starts teaching about men and women, headship and submission, his teaching is really bad. This is made worse by the fact that this is a signature issue for him. As was mentioned above (or perhaps another thread), he is the president of Acts 29. Part of their core teaching is ostensibly being true to biblical manhood and womanhood.
Is there a single website, article, or book that sums up the Biblical issues with the complementarian view?
Is there a single website, article, or book that sums up the Biblical issues with the complementarian view?
No. These views move “left” over time as the cultural views move “left”. What was complementatian dogma 10 years ago is different today which will be different ten years from now.
Anoymous Reader
You’re right, I confused your point with Micha’s trolling. IMO you weren’t rabbit trailing in your point, but Micha’s “Catholics translated the Bible SO THERE” most definitely was.
Thanks, I see.
“And do not let any women instruct the boys. Not. Let. Them.”
FIFY. Having women instruct boys of any age on anything having to do with maturity and manhood, even –especially– from a biblical perspective is unacceptable.
Not only is it amazing how many of these self-styled Protestant pastors are stuck in this sugar-spice-everything-nice view of modern women, but you also have to love how they go to great pains to try and disqualify as many people as possible from the possibility of having been called to live life as a single. “Only the very smallest handful of NOBODY — I mean, only one in a million people are truly meant to be single…and trust us, you are not one of them! So don’t even think about it, mister! Your job is to protect, serve, obey and prostrate yourself to these ferociously godly angels and beg them to let you kiss their feet, and then (to parapharse Perry Noble I think) you get down on your knees and you beg God to have her let you do it again!”
And then they wonder why the pews are filling with women, and all the men are going away…
I’d tell this sucker that I’m proud to be a “little boy”, if being a man means being a quivering mangina. These guys are too out of touch to realize that being such a doormat will get you no women at all, not ever “ferociously godly” Christian women. Sure, maybe you’ll end up with no woman either way, but at least you’ll still have your dignity.
Pingback: Sunday Morning Cartoons | Dalrock
I watched a couple of painful minutes of Mad Dog’s ‘sermon’. I reckon that even Mad Dick Chandler’s predominantly wimminz audience hate him for being such a dickhead. Watching with the sound turned down, yes, I agree comedian, but definitely not funny. What a dick. I may not be an alpha, but after watching Mad Dick, I’m assured I ain’t no beta (and maybe I am an alpha after all!). In fact Mad Dick makes 95% of the male Aussie population look like alphas.
@bkilbour: What to preach?
Unfortunately I believe your attempt will turn out the same as @Jason who attempted to start a red pill men’s church group and was quickly put out of commission, along with his church membership, by the angry herd. Very few Christian (Protestant) denominations allow pastors to depart from the herd.
Much of what we talk about on Dalrock is NOT a focus of even the simp preachers because really these apostate messages of female empowerment are a fairly rare condition and occurrence. I think what most men just want to hear is SUPPORT. Women get the Jesus is your BFF all the time but there is no support for authority in (Protestant) Christian churches today and no support for men as traditional leaders and head of the family. So I wouldn’t change much of your preaching to accommodate the objections we raise on this blog.
What I would expect is a pastor who understands the burdens of leadership and supports the husband.
Perhaps once a year I would expect a sermon on headship and wifely submission, perhaps explained in terms of Captain/First Officer which most women seem to appreciate. Or perhaps taught completely from Scripture Readings without any commentary. The words are clear and really need no explanation. What an amazing service on Mother’s day! Have a succession of (female???) readers quote Ephesians and the other relevant Paulian scripture ending with (the pastor reading) Proverbs 31: The Characteristics of a noble wife. It is all in the Bible so what is the need for this “preaching” of which you speak.
I would expect that the tearing of good men down as this joking, inappropriate “Married With Children” type of self-effacing “Al Bundy” humor would be completely absent from the message.
I always thought if you want to go full monte Christian Red Pill the only way to do it is to start a non-denominational Bible study group and reserve a conference room at the local recreation center or YMCA. Do some activity- dodgeball, whatever. Then file into the conference room for the Bible study. Don’t limit it to a single church. Include only men. Impose the rules of Fight Club- don’t talk about it with others at least until your have been a member of the club for 6 months and understand when- and what- you are allowed to say and think in American society.
Matt Chandler sets off the Gay-Dar faster than that picture of Rubio and wife. Every segment contradicts the last. With these “Pastors”, you’re getting a cucked message and his every word is crafted to as not to offend the feminist agenda being installed into their own lives and Churches and to keep the men off-balance and unsure. They really are gender-traitors, these tender feminist men masquerading as “leaders” of other men. But then, “men” that go to phony men of God for their advice on women knowing full well these “Pastors” hew to the feminist imperative are fags anyway, or at best, are budding cuckolds lined up for the Marriage Slaughter anyway. Who even sits and contemplates this man’s words for actual guidance to their own lives? Insane.
I JUST now found your blog. I’m glad I did!
I grew up in DFW (Rowlett to be exact. Is your name taken from the street “Dalrock”?), so I am well familiar with Chandler and his ilk…and I’m a fan to some degree because he is a VERY gifted speaker and the ONLY reason (let’s not kid ourselves) that the Village has grown the way it has.
But one common thread I have found with Calvinists such as him (Tommy Nelson, Piper, etc.) is they are SO concerned with personal effort and following every rule to a T, and frankly they just come off as arrogant to me. Yes, they will make mention of things like God’s grace and mercy…but more from a standpoint of how Christians are to respond to it…almost in a “guilt trip” sort of sense.
Anyway, glad I found you!
Pingback: God’s Drill Instructors (language warning) | Dalrock
This article about Matt could not be more stupid. Yeah he doesn’t have ultra masculine mannerisms…who cares? Since when does that constitute manliness? And since when does serving and living your wife constitute a prissy male? I believe Jesus served His bride the Church to the point where He died for her. Is that prissy too? I’m also wondering what you’re recommended treatment of women would be. You did a thorough job of pointing out Chandler’s mistakes, but seemed a bit light on the whole recommending-a-solution thing. Maybe next time you’ll actually be a man and try to solve the problem instead of pointing out someone else’s perceived weaknesses.
Love the female shaming language, Jake. Or is it Jaqueline?