Jen Wilkin explains that male pastors need women to preach to women because:
- She holds an authority you cannot hold.
- She brings a perspective you cannot bring.
I wrote about the authority question yesterday, but it is worth reiterating that she says this is especially the case whenever Scripture directly relates to the roles of women. If someone must preach to women on 1 Pet 3, Ephesians 5, or 1 Cor 7, by this logic it should be a woman and not a man.
But what does a woman’s perspective on Scripture look like? What kind of insight springs forth when there isn’t testosterone poisoning the process? We will start with Wilkin explaining 1 Peter 3:17. Wilkin claims that these verses are not general instruction to married Christians, but are specifically to Christian men and women with unbelieving spouses:
Peter’s comments to husbands are a subset of a discussion about how to live among unbelievers in a God-honoring way, urging submission to others as an expression of submission to God. Having just addressed how a believing wife ought to live with an unbelieving husband, Peter addresses believing husbands about how to live with an unbelieving wife, describing her as the “weaker vessel”.
This is obviously not the case, because the Apostle Peter tells us what he is saying to wives is timeless, and is based on what is beautiful to God:
3 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives,2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fineapparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.
There can be no dispute that Peter is instructing all wives in this passage. He includes the “even if” instruction to make it clear this also applies to wives with unbelieving husbands, not to exclude wives with believing ones. This is reinforced by Peter’s message that this command is timeless; this goes back to Sarah in Genesis, whose progeny God made the original covenant with. He also tells us a wife submitting to her husband is beautiful to God, and we know that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Similarly, does God only want Christian husbands with unbelieving wives to dwell with them in understanding?
7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
If anything, this verse is aimed more at husbands of believing wives, as unbelieving wives would not be “heirs of the grace of life”. But the verse starts with “likewise”, which ties in the previous verses to wives; Peter’s instruction to dwell with them with understanding applies to husbands with believing and unbelieving wives.
Next Wilkin claims that Peter’s instruction was specific to the times. Peter wasn’t telling them what was beautiful to God, he was merely advising Christian wives to take drastic measures to avoid being beaten or killed by their unbelieving husbands. Likewise, he was only urging Christian husbands not to beat or kill their unbelieving wives:
This is where historical context becomes our friend. At the time Peter writes, Roman law had begun to soften towards women. During the first century A.D., laws began to be passed giving women rights of property ownership and protection from domestic abuse, but for hundreds of years before this, the concept of the pater familas had reigned in the lawbooks and in the home.
The pater familias, or “family father” held sway in the home on all decisions regarding property and family. All property remained legally his until his death – should he live to be eighty, none of his adult sons could hold property. Moreover, he held the power of life and death (vitae necisque potesta) over every member of his family. Infants deemed too expensive to be raised could be left on the temple steps at his order, either to die from exposure or to be taken and raised as slaves. Adult children could be executed by fathers who believed them to be rebellious or deceitful. And most relevant to our discussion, wives whose husbands held the legal power to put them to death could hope for little protection from domestic violence.
So, the Rome to which Peter writes, much like the American South in the eighty years following Abolition, is a Rome in which new laws are on the books but practices remain much the same. Peter instructs wives on how to live carefully with an unbelieving husband who could cause them (or their children) physical harm for having converted to a new religion, and then he admonishes husbands of unbelieving wives not to deal harshly with them, even though the culture would allow it.
Note the game of heads I win, tails you lose when it comes to historical context and feminist interpretation. In this case wives were to submit in the ancient world because their husbands were brutes who would beat or kill them if they did not. Since husbands are (as a group) far less violent/dangerous now there is no longer any need for wives to submit. But the other claim from feminists is that wives cannot be expected to follow Peter’s instruction today because modern husbands are too brutal. It would be suicide to submit to a modern man; he would only beat and/or kill them if they did!
If you want more wisdom from Wilkin on 1 Peter, you are in luck. She wrote a book on the topic and published it under The Gospel Coalition.
But it isn’t just Wilkin bringing a unique feminine interpretation to the Bible. I’ve already covered Mary Kassian and Kathy Keller’s testosterone free interpretation of headship and submission, as well as Kassian’s exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:6-7. Several years ago I also shared Sheila Gregoire’s unique interpretation of Ephesians 5 in her signature book To Love, Honor, and Vacuum: When You Feel More Like a Maid Than a Wife and Mother:
Whether we like to be reminded of it or not, the Bible calls for wives to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22).
…
Many biblical commentators think that the meaning of “the husband is the head of the wife” in Ephesians 5:23 implies something similar to “source,” like the head of the river. The wife draws energy and support from her husband, and the husband finds part of his identity in supplying his wife with what she needs.
…take the opportunity to show him he’s needed at home, too. Often men feel superfluous at home, like they don’t even belong, because you manage everything. Make honest requests of him that allow him to help support you and feel involved in building your home.
…
If you want your husband to take responsibility for certain chores on his own, without being asked, you need to find a delegation method that conveys to him what needs to be done without threatening him.
…
My husband is motivated by lists. If I just tell him I would like him to help clean up after dinner, he doesn’t know what to do. But if there is a list of daily and weekly chores on the fridge, and he can see what is left to be done, he’s like a Tasmanian devil whirling around the house, cleaning.
Gregoire also has a testosterone free interpretation of 1 Cor 7:5, which she offers in What Does 1 Corinthians 7:5–Do Not Deprive Each Other–Really Mean? Gregoire is all over the map, but some of my favorite examples are:
And that’s my point of contention today: too often these verses are used as weapons, which makes sex into simply an obligation…
That is no fun.
…
If her husband’s body belongs to her, then she has the ability to also say, “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.”
Pingback: She brings a perspective you cannot bring. | Neoreactive
Good Gravy, Dalrock. It is almost like these women are more easily deceived and are using some heretofore unknown mental process to conjure up interpretations like this. It also appears this unknown mental process is absent from the psychology literature and is denied to even exist. Yet…you can HEAR the wheel squeecking with every word of this feminist exigate.
>I don’t want you using your body sexually with me….
Now, now, ladies let’s try a scene, shall we?
Bad Man: “Did God REALLY say that you were not supposed to deny your bodies to your husband?
Good Woman: “Yes he did and he even imposed specific consequences for disobedience.”
Bad Man: “He is lying! You will not have any problem if you really do that…..in fact, your eyes will be open and you will be just like God and understand the REAL interpretation.”
Good woman: “MMMMmmmm that information tastes sweet. I will give some of it to my husband…
I am pretty sure I read about a scene just like that somewhere in some old musty book.
Pingback: She brings a perspective you cannot bring. – Manosphere.com
As I mentioned two threads ago, if you consider as Wilkins’ does, that Peter’s instruction was specific to the times and he wasn’t explaining what was beautiful to God, and he was merely advising Christian wives to take drastic measures to avoid being beaten or killed by their unbelieving husbands, you entirely disqualify the divinity of the Bible.
If the Bible’s divine authority is dependent upon how the authors’ historical context informed their texts then the Bible is nothing more than a historical set of guidelines for those epochs. We can even apply that standard to the gospels since those authors wrote for specific historical demographics and thus how they recounted the words of Jesus were informed by cultural biases that don’t exist today.
By Wilkins definition, there is nothing metaphysical to the Bible, though she will claim divine providence in it when a particular aspect serves the Feminine Imperative. Either the Bible is the divinely inspired binary word of God for all ages or it is a history book from which we can pick and pull various truisms that flatter our egos and agendas.
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. – Isaiah 40:8
According to Wilkins Isaiah was just rattling off some bullshit that sounded right for the audience he was hoping to reach at the time and we can take or leave this one as it works for us in 2016.
According to her when two become one, that one is her.
I think the biggest trouble with most Christians isn’t understanding the Bible but actually doing what we know it tells us to do (let me pause to pull the log out of my eye before continuing) when the command contradicts other views we assume true and rightly observed. Or we just don’t want to. Everybody has a part of the Bible they don’t like because it contradicts their desires or its a greater temptation for them. There is a difference, however, between struggling with obedience and trying to sell rebellion as obedience.
The modern American Church doesn’t look to the Bible to tell us what we should do. They take their cues from society/culture/government and then see what the Bible says. If the Bible fits, great, If not, its the “living, breathing” Word of God.
They don’t ask “Does it conflict with what the Bible says?” They ask, “How can I fit what the Bible says into something else that I believe that I am unwilling to give up?”
In other words, I don’t think a lot of them are arguing in good faith. They don’t really think that’s what it says. That’s what they want it to say, so they don’t have to give up other values or beliefs they hold dear.
Read this judgement in our Constitutional Court and tell me if there is one single freaking reason on this planet to get married anymore.
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2015/18.html
For heck sake, it’s the most degenerate institution now, with no backing for the man at all. It is utterly insane to enter it. I’m sorry, it is done.
Why worry with all the crap about, the institution is dead and buried, the ideal of women being the helpers of men is dead. It won’t work anymore. Trying to rehash it and then being faced with the above just shows how utterly pointless the whole deal is. Leave women to their own mess, let them be deceived by their own mouths for they have already destroyed every and all things that were worth sacrificing for.
Should read… “why bother with all the crap about women teaching or preaching…”
Some wife-worshipping pastor was on the local [ultra-conservative] Christian radio with his wife yesterday admonition the husbands to listen [i.e. obey] to their wives.
They were literally saying (I’m not interpolating here): women have this thing called woman intuition which is a spiritual gift from God; a direct line to God that allows her to point out things/actions/sins the husband can’t see. He talked about the few times he failed to heed her opinion he was always wrong and had to come back and apologize to her. They discussed how when God created wives helpmeet was a bad translation and the word was otherwise used of God and really means she’s a strong rock of support for their husbands to lean on. The serpent in the garden went after Eve because she was the strong one protecting them from sin and to succeed the Devil had to get her out of the way.
This seemed targeted at men with the husband doing most of the talking with the wife on set chiming in on occasion. The script set her up as the intelligent fount of wisdom as she was the one to read all the scripture quotes or to explain the meaning of greek/hebrew words behind the translations.
The only surprising thing to me here was how blatant they were; usually they’re much more subtle/crafty about it. It seems Rollo’s open hypergamy is breaking out in the church too. To get much more brazen about this they’d have to admonish husbands to call their wives mistress and start saying prayers to her 3 times a day.
It really all comes down to idolatry. These preachers and husbands would rather disobey God than cause feelbads amoung the women.
In other words, I don’t think a lot of them are arguing in good faith. They don’t really think that’s what it says. That’s what they want it to say, so they don’t have to give up other values or beliefs they hold dear.
Question for the churchgoing men: how many times have you run into something in a modern church that was just flat out contradicted by some plain language in the Bible? Women pastors or elders / board directors / priests is a prime example. Did you question it? If you did, what kind of response did you get? In my very limited experience, asking an Episcopalian about lady priests (just one example) gets a lot of fuzz and really fine-grained hair splitting in response, or the “That was just historical” excuse given here, or some babble about Debra / Esther / Phoebe / etc.
Leaving all the details aside, I think what I see is this: people make up their mind to do what they want to do, and then they go digging through the Bible and various reference books in order to find a quote or a clause or other text that they can then torturously re-re-interpret to justify what they want “because it’s in the Bible”.
Step back once more: here is the Fine Manual. Either you can take your innovation to the Fine Manual and see if it’s permitted, or you can implement your innovation and when challenged then trawl the Fine Manual to find something close enough to what you want.
So one path: Read The Fine Manual first.
Other path: Do what you want, then scramble through The Fine Manual for rationalization.
I leave the theological implications of this to others.
I wonder if I can join two entirely unrelated events and produce secular support for this interesting and excellent series of essays – and Rollo’s comments are unanswerable.
1. She brings a perspective you cannot bring. Sunday was Mother’s Day here; that did not stop BBC Radio 3 from running no less than two programmes about strong empowered women. One of them concerned a course for aspiring conductors of choral music, which only females might attend. Was this not a form of sexual apartheid and further what specifically female insight might assist in the conducting of choral music? – insight different from what has provided the Church in England with a thousand year choral tradition. I call BS on this; what the women actually want is a ‘safe space’ free from the possibility of being raped by a man, and if not that made to feel sexually uncomfortable. One can thus only suppose that the men that were de-facto turned away from the course are considered unlikely to be sufficiently attractive.
2. Should Wives obey their husbands? There has recently been a murder where I reside, in a picturesque local village (Village Green, Norman Church, Public House – that’s about it and thus des res) and what is especially unusual about it is that the alleged murderer (presently in custody) is an alumni of Cambridge University where he read Classics. Superficially, he, a man in his fifties with four grown children all with UMC Xtian names one of whom is an organist had it all. His wife however lies dead, strangled. We do not yet know what he will say about any of this but we are told that whereas he wished to move closer to his work in The City (he was rising at sparrow’s crack and arriving back often after seven) she, also in her fifties, was working part-time as an assistant at the local school in the village and did not wish to move. One can only guess what led up to the terrible event (financial problems). I told my girlfriend about it and said that the matter had quite upset me for one wonders whether in the heat of the moment one might do the same. Her response was to tell me that in the country where she lives this happens on a weekly basis and that something needs to be done about D.V. I was not looking for an argument (we have never argued) and the phone was not the best place to explain that almost all murders are of males and by other males. I merely said that to call it D.V. was to overlook what it was Murder.
I e-mailed my sister and mentioned the verse in Timothy, but she (a supporter of the newly enthroned female Bishop) has yet to respond other than to say disingeniously that she does not recall a disagreement. The BBC spent all of yesterday (the 8th and thus International Women’s Day) attempting to demonstrate that in addition to a grasp of Harmony and Counterpoint what is also needed is a Uterus. The first non uterus piece broadcast after the Twenty-Four Hour Vaginathon was Mozart’s Cosi Fan Tutte which you will recall is about duplicitous women. Someone is making a point, I thought. They’ll have to ban it.
Its to the point now that the church has flipped the hierarchy of scripture (1 Cor 7) and has placed the husbands below the god-wife. Good is evil and evil good. All one has to do to cause fits of rage and terror now days is quote the direct commands of scripture. But men can see the truth and have left in droves.
Which makes me wonder, are we primed for a Trumpening in the church. I.e. a prophetic voice who builds a big following simply by causing controversy in saying the plain truth of scriptures. One who helps restore marriage by building up men to be men again rather than tearing them down to please women.
You can say marriage is dead and all that but women are all the more desperate for a real man to follow. The same women who would incel their soft husband would do any indecent or illegal thing a bad boy demands of her and enjoy it too!
I will say it is dead. The evidence is around for all to see.
As for following a strong man… ha, only as much until she swings to another branch. There strongman is the government, the bad boys provide the entertainment, they do not follow the bad boys at all. It’s done. Put a sock in it!
…. ‘their strongman….’
“The wife draws energy and support from her husband, and the husband finds part of his identity in supplying his wife with what she needs.”
This sounds harmless until the reader thinks about alimony.
…
Anonymous Reader @ 1:19 pm:
“Question for the churchgoing men: how many times have you run into something in a modern church that was just flat out contradicted by some plain language in the Bible? Women pastors or elders / board directors / priests is a prime example. Did you question it? If you did, what kind of response did you get?”
The megachurches were too impersonal. Most smaller churches, the pastor likes to handle such concerns in 1-on-1 meetings which made me easy to ignore. Alternatively, my questions were considered “politics” and therefore violated church bylaws enforcing separation of Church & State. In Bible studies, it never came up; they mostly concerned irrelevant or harmless topics, I suspect deliberately, or maybe it was just reserved for the Married Bible Study.
When I had the personal ear of the leadership, I was told Paul was a “task theologian” and his Biblical teachings were only to solve local problems for the local churches he wrote them to. We are much wiser now, you see.
While I was being ignored or reassured by clergy, enough married men over the years quietly told me to avoid marriage that even without the Red Pill, I knew something was going on.
So this woman who is not permitted to teach men is teaching men that they can’t teach women. Seems like she missed that part where she’s not allowed to do that. Which you obviously know. I just think that’s hilarious.
iamadamalan @ 1:37 pm:
“Which makes me wonder, are we primed for a Trumpening in the church.”
No, we’re primed for a massive persecution. That’s the standard procedure for Church restoration. Following a charismatic leader does nothing to encourage belief in Christianity; watching Christians suffer and die because they think Christ is real does.
People always want a king who will make all their (current) problems go away. That’s never a good thing.
http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/07/the-feminine-mystique/
Pingback: She brings a perspective you cannot bring. | Reaction Times
The church is currently undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Please be respectful of her at this time and remember – Do not show disrespect by using improper pronouns.
She expects to be fully passible by 2020.
Speaking of women being envious of male accomplishments :
http://www.antifeministtech.info/2016/03/for-international-womens-day-female-contributions-to-science/
The ‘women of science’ effectively do nothing other than claim that E = mc^2 is a misogynist concept, and that carbon fiber and glacier movements are misogynist.
“”You can say marriage is dead and all that but women are all the more desperate for a real man to follow. The same women who would incel their soft husband would do any indecent or illegal thing a bad boy demands of her and enjoy it too!””
After coming of out of a 40 year (yes that’s really 40 years folks) mainly incel marriage I’ve seen this first hand. One of the first women I dated wanted to do anal with me and readily gave me bj’s. After some pillow talk one night I asked her if she ever did this with her former husband of 24 years and the answer was “absolutely not”…….. She considers me a “real man” so maybe that’s the reason. Anyway one of Rollo’s most powerful posts describes this situation. http://therationalmale.com/2013/12/03/saving-the-best/
As far as the church goes…..it’s over. Generally speaking the american church has failed God dramatically. It’s supposed to be (and always has been in the past) a male dominated space for the worship and service to God. In America is has become a fem-centric mush of blandness that God will spew out of his mouth. Men are driven away from most churches by the hostility and over critical denunciations of anything masculine. The churches job is to beat down every man in it’s midst to abject betahood. Absolute servitude to the female imperative (as Rollo likes to call it)). It’s sad………….
The ‘women of science’ effectively do nothing other than claim that E = mc^2 is a misogynist concept, and that carbon fiber and glacier movements are misogynist.
I am getting more convinced everyday that people are going mad through their exposure to feminist concepts.
No, I am not implying that they are “acting crazy”, but that they are literally going insane–as in being diagnosed with a medical condition. How in the world could someone’s thought processes be so disturbed as to see oppression in fluid vs solid mechanics? In the study of physics? in Einstein’s theory of light? In carbon fibers? How can someone like this be trusted with being a doctor? A judge? A teacher? A police officer?
I mean, who among us would want a mad person to perform a surgical procedure on us or our relatives? Or to pilot a plane of which we are a passenger?
@ Rollo
Is Rollo also numbered among the prophets? Very good comments lately.
@ Dalrock
I’ve learned more in the last 2 months from the discussions here than the last 30 years. Thanks for all the hard work and thought that goes into it.
“”You can say marriage is dead and all that but women are all the more desperate for a real man to follow. The same women who would incel their soft husband would do any indecent or illegal thing a bad boy demands of her and enjoy it too!””
After a 40 year marriage (yes, that’s really 40 years) which was basically incel I’ve started dating again. I’ve seen this first hand with a woman I’m dating. She likes to do anal and readily gives me BJs. After pillow talk last night I asked her if she ever did this with her former husband of 24 years and she said “absolutely not…….” I don’t get it but maybe she considers me a “real man”. One of Rollo’s best blog entries talks about this. http://therationalmale.com/2013/12/03/saving-the-best/
Now onto the church. The american church has become so infected with feminism that it has become a hostile place for men. Men used to dominate anything spiritual (the church) but now it has become a stalwart for anything feminine. One of the church’s main goals today is to beat every male in it’s midst into complete betahood, Complete servitude to the feminine imperitive, (as Rollo likes to call it). All the while telling these brainwashed betatized men they are the real men No wonder real masculine men are fleeing for their lives.
It’s sad………
No wonder real masculine men are fleeing for their lives.
Fleeing from what, and for how long?
Fleeing is precisely the wrong thing to do. Where will they flee to? How far will they run? Feminism has already taken their kids, their wives, their jobs, their play spaces, their government, their military, their voices and now their churches…and men are still fleeing?
Heck No! It ends here.
It is time to turn the tide and fight back. It is time men not only refused to support feminist churches, but to create a replacement for them. It is time for men established a church, a ministry or a fellowship group which extols biblical principles. It is time to hit feminism and its cancerous doctrines head-on.
It is time to stop fleeing.
Dave,
How in the world could someone’s thought processes be so disturbed as to see oppression in fluid vs solid mechanics? In the study of physics? in Einstein’s theory of light? In carbon fibers? How can someone like this be trusted with being a doctor? A judge? A teacher? A police officer?
An alternative conclusion is that women were never fit for those things in the first place, and that every society that ever progressed restricted women into a very tightly regulated role as wife and mother. Civilization itself is incompatible with women being allowed to make major decisions.
I bet an asteroid is going to hit Earth and cause immense damage, because the men who could have pre-emptively stopped this disaster declined to go into that field on account of having to worry about losing their career because their shirt offends some random ‘feminist’.
“Fleeing from what, and for how long?”
Dave, your pep rally is wasted here. Men are fleeing or MGTOW from the manipulations of those in power. Chivalrous old fools and white knights in power who destroy men, on women’s behalf. Blue pill buffoons in politics, law, church, academia, community who will in time either wake up or die out, until then walking away is the smartest move. Fight back? Like blood and guts? Hell, I’m locked and loaded but its still to early for that. Fight back with what else Dave? Rhetoric? Why don’t you;
“refused to support feminist churches, but to create a replacement for them. It is time for men established a church, a ministry or a fellowship group which extols biblical principles.”
Meanwhile if just a third of a generation of young men refuse to support the FI it’s back will start to break. A civilization is ultimately propped up by the strength, energy and drive of its young men not its otherwise useless women. If men in any significant number start looking out for just themselves and tell the rest of society go to hell it won’t take long for things have to change. Until then women and their worshippers simply won’t be motivated to make changes they’re far to comfortable. They’ll first need to feel real fear and pain. Until it happens there will be no change.
“…when there isn’t testosterone poisoning the process?”
^ I’m wiping away tears of laughter here. That was the funniest thing I’ve read all day.
Just want to stop by and say how encouraged I have been by you Dalrock. I have been unable to express the opinions you describe here in my life because of their unacceptability by women and men in my life. So good to know that oppression isn’t everywhere!
[D: Thank you. Welcome.]
It’s one thing to say that the text of Bible books must be understandable and applicable to its original audience and another thing to say that that text is limited in application to its original audience. Paul directly addresses certain people and certain problems at a particular church. Those texts can still provide wisdom for today even if we aren’t those people and don’t live in that particular city.
What Jen is really doing is putting on spectacles when she reads the Bible that filter out stuff she doesn’t like. This is pretty common. Those who have systematic theologies do this all the time. Feminists do it. Theistic evolutionists do it. Genesis-1-24-hour-day creationists do it. Our ego-investments require that we do this. We need to be aware of our ego investments. Self-examination and self-awareness aren’t optional for Christians. Not even for Christians who are testosterone-deficient. 😉
In response to a fb post that a woman posted about things husbands should do for their wives, I said,
Ask not what your husband can do for you, ask what you can do for your husband. One man had the balls to like my comment.
I hope everyone gets the point of Christian men learning the concepts of ‘game” and the red pill in general. This has allowed men like Dalrock to see the evil in our church and to be able to explain it for others. Ironically red pill mindset does not cause misogyny the way blue pill frustration does.
Does this mean a father brings something that a single mother can’t bring? I mean, it’s implied, but not logically necessary. What am I thinking, men aren’t necessary for anything.
Lol, this is the logical fallacy of their statements. To them, men are brutes that bring nothing unique to the table that a woman cannot do better and that women are unique in their special ways that allow them to see things and understand, intuitively, those difficult inner spiritual and emotional needs of children and other people, that brutish men just cannot grasp. To them, men are not needed for anything beside being a walking semen producer and wallet. Men are nothing to them and are treated as such. And it shows in their sermons.
Let it burn, to the ground, baby! I love the smell of napalm in the morning! Ohhhhh, that burns!
@greyghost,
“Ironically red pill mindset does not cause misogyny the way blue pill frustration does.”
Yes. My wife is much happier since I began applying game to our marriage. She likes it. We are both having more fun. She feels more desired. She also feels more secure and safe, protected in my more masculine leadership.
I am a Christian and a husband; I have never used Dread game or Dark Triad on my wife. But, my wife has never threatened me with divorce. In a case where a Christian husband is threatened or hinted at about divorce, it would be good for that husband to apply Dread game to save the marriage.
It seems we’ve reached the next phase of moral relativism, messenger relativism. Truth is only relative to who the messenger is. A man can’t communicate truth to a woman, because that would offend her feelings. It can only be true to her if it’s delivered by someone just like her. That’s what we see across our anti-white male culture. Apparently non cis white males can’t hear the truth if it’s delivered by a white male, only the oppression. This has to be concerning for any environment that values objective truth.
So this woman who is not permitted to teach men is teaching men that they can’t teach women.
Excellent!
This is a tangent, but I wonder if anyone has traced any possible relationships between the ‘megachurch’ phenomenon and Scriptural heresy. I know that a 10-person church can get it wrong just as badly as a 10,000-person church, but the heresies seem more prominent the larger the congregation. Has anyone done a study on this? I’d be very interested in reading it.
I am getting more convinced everyday that people are going mad through their exposure to feminist concepts.
No, I am not implying that they are “acting crazy”, but that they are literally going insane
Ya think?
http://www.freerangekids.com/my-childs-toy-has-a-pedophile-symbol-on-it/
PokeSalad @ 8:10 am:
“I know that a 10-person church can get it wrong just as badly as a 10,000-person church, but the heresies seem more prominent the larger the congregation. Has anyone done a study on this? I’d be very interested in reading it.”
There’s no mystery to it. Human predators follow the food. There’s much more loot & prey in Seattle than Podunk. Also, predators like having a large crowd they can blend into, preferably one far away from where they grew up because childhood neighbors might remember those early signs of sociopathy.
A fascinating way to read history is looking at where & how the sociopaths turned up when their natural habitat, central government, wasn’t available or worth taking over.
I think it is within the proper Biblical context for women to teach women, but given our propensity for twisted theology, it shouldn’t be done without the oversight of a higher theological authority of male origins… be it the husband or the priest/pastor.
Their theology should line up and submit to the higher authority.
—
This woman’s theology on 1 Peter is something i’ve argued before but never really bought it. It was usually to stubborn women who read “wives submit” and their brains automatically picture “abusive, overbearing husband”. I have since abandoned such an idea, holding to the belief that even if it is sinful, a wife leaving an abusive husband would be much like divorcing an unfaithful wife (man was not created for the sabbath). My internal sense is that submitting to our husbands is the servant-Christ whose humility and gentle love softens hearts.
The female Christ imitation v the male Christ imitation has always been distinct to me (correct me if I’m wrong). Women are (to be) the humble, servant-Christ while men emulate the king-Christ, who leads with authority, protects, guides, and sacrifices. While both roles are sacrificial (the submissive wife often will sacrifice her pride or the pursuit of her sense of “justice”) but the wife’s is more internal and the husband’s external.
@cm
The Bible does not allow women to teach other women. The Bible only allows women to teach other women to be good house wives. It does not authorize women to teach anything more than that, which is to be good housewives. It alliws women to teach other women yo be submissive house wives. No authority on “teaching” above that, which again, is to be submissive house wives
@rpp
I guess I assumed that was what she was discussing.
But I guess teaching the theology of to be a submissive housewife is different from teaching a woman HOW to be one.