After my last post I looked up the origin of the feminist fish/bicycle slogan, and it turns out it has its roots in a rejection of God:
I was paraphrasing from a phrase I read in a philosophical text I was reading for my Honours year in English Literature and Language in 1970. It was ‘A man needs God like a fish needs a bicycle’.
 | Woody on Message heard. |
 | Christmas in The Chr… on Mistaking fecklessness for… |
 | Quiet Desperation on Farewell (for now at least), a… |
 | whiteguy1 on Message heard. |
 | Vektor on Farewell (for now at least), a… |
 | John O. on Message heard. |
 | Iowa Slim on Message heard. |
 | wodansthane on Message heard. |
| wodansthane on Message heard. |
| wodansthane on Message heard. |
And this is why I say those espousing views antithetical to God’s teachings should be labelled correctly and not given respect with titles such as Pastor etc…
Until we realize these people are tainted by evil and need to be removed, they will continue their march into our institutions.
Pingback: Fitting – Manosphere.org
I am not surprised that feminist radicals and atheists think along the same lines. Feminism is the rejection of God’s order an design, His rule and ultimately Him. Divorcing women are a picture of an apostate church, single women riding the carousel are pictures of idolaters and baby aborting women are modern Moloch cultists. There is nothing new under the sun, daughters of Eve are still trying to be like god, a contentious wife is still a dripping faucet. The slogans do not need to be true, they do not need to have meaning, all they need to do is express rebellion and make the gals feel like they got girl-power like they are a goddess. “Just man up and serve the goddess” might very well be the next slogan; misandry and pedestalization in one small phrase of god rejecting rebellion.
Elton sang about this long ago…
Hey kids, plug into the faithless
Maybe they’re blinded
But Bennie makes them ageless
We shall survive, let us take ourselves along
Where we fight our parents out in the streets
To find who’s right and who’s wrong
With her paraphrase, Dunn implicitly recognized by analogy that a man is to God as a woman is to a (particular) man. A man’s rejection of the rule of God as a principle changes nothing of the hierarchy or of the laws of nature; it changes only his quality of life.
Irina Dunn was privileged enough to read English at The University of Sydney, which was where she coined or rather adapted her famous quote. As everyone knows, women do NOT need men, but Opus’ second law states, and on the basis that women always assert the opposite of what they are going to do, that the more women deny that they need a man the more likely they are to fall for a really Bad Boy. Ms Dunn married a convicted Bank Robber.
ROFL
What a find!
Opus, you leave the best comments.
Dalrock,
The dialogue on this issue is both needed and healthy in my opinion. I realize that your readers disagree with me that the essential and primary identity of every woman is found in Jesus Christ, and not their husbands. I also understand that you and others seem to believe I’m a “feminist.” Words are tools of communication, and until the definitions are clear, it’s impossible to dialogue with one other. I assume that your definition of “feminist” (from this post), is “one who rejects God.” With this definition, not only am I not a feminist, I am anti-feminist. 🙂 I am firm believer that unless someone is “in Christ” by grace through faith, he (or she) will be judged for their sins and experience the second death. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” So, with that matter settled, I would have just one question for you and your readers. Do you believe a woman married to a man on earth will be married to that same man in heaven? The Muslims and the Mormons believe so; but I think you might be in agreement with me that Jesus Christ says, “No.” So if the Word of God is true, then it seems to me that my premise that a woman should find her essential and primary identity in her relationship with Jesus Christ – and not her man – is a premise with solid foundation in the words of Christ.
Wade,
Do men need women, and if not, why should men get married and provide, protect and sacrifice for women? If we chose your understanding, men and women don’t need each other and should instead marry Jesus… crazy…
Your whole premise dismisses the very identity of humanity. Women were created from man to be man’s helper. Women cannot marry Jesus. Not on earth. They don’t need to. Your argument is flawed.
Go away.
“A woman may need a man like a fish needs a bicycle, but a man needs marriage like a shark needs an aquarium.”
Wade,
You are a feminist, because you believe that female well-being is a higher priority than male well-being. You may not admit this outright, but your actions, if examined, will indicate this to be a core value of yours.
Wade, the eternal fate of marriage is no excuse to subvert the order of things as established by God in His Scriptures. That requires headship. “Needing” and submitting to her husband is the wife’s act of obedience to God, and we ought to approach it from there. Yes, there is no marrying or being given in marriage in Heaven. No, that does not take away from the seriousness of the matter here, that pronouncements from Neo-Orthodox pastors on egalitarian heresies have wrecked marriage in the Church at large.
Any other interpretation of the Scriptures is an indication of Barthian style exegesis, which claims only that the Bible “contains” the Word of God. Those who hold to it ensure that the Bible says what they want it to.
Just flip Wade’s script and he would be providing an excuse for every male on the planet, currently married, to get a divorce. Done, dusted, his argument is crazy talk that appeals to the delusions of grandeur that women have. That they, like Eve, think they are almost as Gods.
Wade whispers into their ears and tells them what they want to hear, that marriage isn’t what the Bible says it is, that they have a right to be happy, that they don’t need their husbands because they are closer to God and thus divorce is permissible. Everything in the Bible says different. I would ban the fucker without a second thought.
The definition of feminist is “one who rejects God?” I haven’t read that anywhere on this blog or any where else for that matter.
Dalrock,
I’ve been happily married for 33-year years to a wonderful Christian woman who is my equal in every way. She’s my best friend, the mother of our four grown children, and a fellow believer in Jesus Christ. She has her doctorate from Vanderbilt. She went back to school after our children left home, and is now a Professor of Nursing. Does she “need” me? No. Does she “love” me? Yes. Do I “need” her? No. Do I “love” her? Yes. Are we delighted to be married and reflect the love of Christ to each other? Absolutely. “My God will meet all your needs according to His riches in glory.” (Philippians 4:13). I will “go away” as you request. If you find it possible to do so, I would love an answer from you to my original question. If not, I understand.
@Wade Burleson
Since you know this, then shouldn’t one assume that your perversion of the word need is intentional?
To wit, you wrote:
What the Bible says is that If a woman has husband then she is to get her needs (spiritual, emotional, and material) met through him. Likewise, any husband who is not meeting his family’s needs is worse than an unbeliever. Does this mean a wife’s every need can only be met by her husband? No. Only Christ can save her soul–her biggest need. Nevertheless a man meeting his wife’s needs, and her relying on him for her needs, is the pattern that is given. Likewise (again) it is a wife’s to obey her husband, and it is his to be gentle with her and keep her from harm. This pattern of working-together, we are explicitly told, is to be an example to the world of the relationship of Christ with His Church.
Your words mean to destroy that working-together; that communion. One could wonder if you were merely careless, but your definitional insistence here puts the boot to that possibility.
Emily,
“After my last post I looked up the origin of the feminist fish/bicycle slogan, and it turns out it has its roots >in a rejection of God.” From today’s post.
@Wade
…a woman should find her essential and primary identity in her relationship with Jesus Christ
I think you are playing word games. First you say a wife doesn’t need a man and then you make a linguistic switcheroo from wife to woman and from need to essential and primary identity.
But you make another fallacy in that you try to distill down to one thing what is essential when her identity consists of not just one but many. Even as Jesus is the Christ of God, the Son, and man incarnate, and one substance with the Father it is folly to exclude all the essentials to find just one, you are bound to miss the breadth of His essence.
Likewise, a wife is a joint heir of grace, but as a creature of God she is also subject to His design, if unmarried she is a daughter under under the authority of her father, if a wife then under authority of her husband. Neither displace her relationship in Christ they are expressions of it. It is the independent woman that displaces Christ, she is proud and foolish. If a woman is in Christ, she is under his rule, His delegated authority and subject to his providence that is realized through dominion taking men, namely father or husband. To reject this authority and provision is to reject the means of grace that God has provided to her and to rebel against his rule.
What is a believing wife’s essence? A sinner saved by grace, under the authority of God as delegated to her husband, a help mate to her husband for the cause of dominion, dependent on God and His normal means of provision, particularly her husband’s headship, expressed by his teaching, protection and physical provision. She is to image the Church’s relationship to Christ; she is under His authority, dependent on Him, instructed by Him and live fear of Him.
@ Burleson
Your pious declaration that everything is settled and that you’re not a feminist earns only contempt here.
You tempt women daily to defy God, and violate the Second Commandment. You tell women to set themselves up as idols, above God and certainly above Christ. They don’t marry Christ, and their relationship to God is through their husband, who stands as the church to her.
Your heresy is plainly in view, and more people are coming to know it.
@ Wade
“Do you believe a woman married to a man on earth will be married to that same man in heaven?”
In the Bible Jesus clearly said no.
Here is my question to you.
Do you believe that a married woman, whose primary and essential relationship is with Jesus Christ, will follow His instructions as to how to be a wife for the husband He gave her?
@jonadab
I can’t hold a candle to how you express these concepts.
@linx
And more significantly, follow the instructions of the Apostles as an extension of the Word of God.
Cane,
I need to provide for my family. I need to love my wife when I’m unloved. I need to be kind to my enemies when they hate me. I need to love those who despise. I need to reflect the character of Christ. I don’t disagree.
I don’t need my wife to need me.
Nor do I need to convince my wife she needs me.
Rather, I will love my wife the way Christ loves me and I remind her my love is but a reflection (albeit sometimes a poor reflection) of the only love she really needs – the love of Christ. I am convinced that the only real and lasting happiness in life comes from “learning to be content” in Christ and every circumstance I find myself in by His gracious providence.
Wade Burleson says, “I realize that your readers disagree with me that the essential and primary identity of every woman is found in Jesus Christ, and not their husbands.”
I reject your accusation, because while your premise is narrowly true, the implication that you draw from it is false. Let’s unpack what you mean by that statement.
St. Paul instructs (in Romans 13), “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” He reinforces to Christians the obligations that fall upon subjects and citizens. Yet it is also true that pretty much the oldest Christian creed in existence is, “Jesus is Lord”. Jesus is Lord asserts that His authority is higher than Caesar’s. Since these two ideas cannot be in conflict since they are both from God, it therefore logically follows that obedience to God does not dispense Christians from obedience to human authorities. God sanctions and blesses hierarchies at the societal level.
Sts. Peter and Paul also instruct wives to be subject to their husbands, in exactly the same fashion as Paul instructs Christians to be subject to their rulers. So when you posit that women are to obey God and not their husbands, you create a false dichotomy. In every Biblical example I can think of, women who obey their husbands’ instruction about something were not held to blame, even if the instruction resulted in sin. I’m not going to waste time splitting hairs about precisely when to disobey Caesar (or likewise Husband) in order to obey God, so long as you can agree on the normative principle that a Christian is to submit to the proper authority. Can you agree on that much?
The definition of feminist is “one who rejects God?” I haven’t read that anywhere on this blog or any where else for that matter.
You don’t have to. The primary objective of feminism is and always has been to place the feminine imperative above all else, an objective which itself is a rejection of God’s design and desires as clearly outlined in Scripture. This leads logically and inexorably to a rejection of God Himself.
Linx,
You asked me: “Here is my question to you.”
“Do you believe that a married woman, whose primary and essential relationship is with Jesus Christ, will follow His instructions as to how to be a wife for the husband He gave her?
Absolutely.
But since I’m a man and a husband who finds my essential identity in Christ, I find it completely unnecessary to focus on my wife’s shortcomings or failures in her relationship with me, because when I love her the way Christ love’s me, I love her without conditions, without expectations, and without reciprocations. In other words – I love her. I love her not because she “follows instructions,” nor because she “knows how to be a wife,” nor because “she performs to my expectations,” but I have chosen to set my love upon her and reflect the same kind of love Christ has for me.,“
I’ve enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for the questions. I have some business to conduct (a funeral and a wedding out of state), so I’ll be unable to answer any further questions.
The Lord’s continued grace and abundant riches to you all.
You mean the head of man being Christ, and the head of woman being man (Cor 11:3)? Great catch. Even in their rejection of both God and nature they unknowingly reflect it.
@Wade Burleson
Marriage is one of the most common ways of how needs are met. Here is the context of the passage you quoted (Which is Philippians 4:19, not 4:13)
Perhaps you missed the part where Paul’s needs were supplied by God through humans. It follows that Paul is saying that the needs of the Church in Philippi will be met by God through other humans. In the same way: God has designed husbands and wives to have their needs met by each other. It would be incredibly ungratious for Paul to say, “I don’t need you Philippians.”
Here it is again, and let us remember that those who are married are one flesh; one body.
That was Paul to the Corinthians. Here’s Wade to the Internet:
Which should we choose: The Bible and its embrace of husbandry and patriarchy, or Wade and his good vibrations and isolationist egalitarianism?
@Wade Burleson
As Cane noted above, you stress the importance of definitions, but are playing with the defiinitions at the same time. More accurately, you are playing a careful game of Motte and Bailey. In the post I quoted you make it clear that you are deliberately driving a wedge between Christian wives and “Patriarchal” husbands. You are teaching them to be more holy than their husbands, and if their husbands don’t like what you are teaching them, it is after all proof that their husbands aren’t following God, and the husband must either follow his wife or free the woman to find another husband.
Moreover, while couched in biblical language, your core assertion is coincidentally a clunky feminist slogan, one which even makes many modern feminists cringe. Yet here you cry foul that I have called you a feminist, while claiming to not understand what feminism is.
I did not say that the definition of feminism is “one who rejects God.” Feminists do rebel against what the Bible teaches about the roles of men and women. Feminism is rooted in envy, and miserliness with love. But it is not the only form of rebellion against God, nor have I ever claimed that it is.
Just a quick point. I am not Dalrock, he has not asked you to leave himself, not that I have seen. I was speaking as to what I would do.
Feminist Hater,
Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for confusing your request as Dalrock’s.
@Wade
The problem is that you have set this (which is true) against the idea that husbands and wives don’t need each other (which is not true). You created a false dichotomy. The truth is that if one takes up marriage, then one has chosen to need his or her spouse; one has chosen marriage as the path for having needs met by God.
You can say all you want that you don’t need food, but the fact is that God created food for your needs. It is no slight to God to say you need food. He made us that way. Jesus ate at the end of his 40 days in the wilderness.
Wade Burleson says: “…I find it completely unnecessary to focus on my wife’s shortcomings or failures in her relationship with me…”
Your duty as husband is separate from your duty as a teacher of Christians. You draw a salary for teaching other men’s wives, if not your own, how to understand and carry out their roles as Christians. Yet you are evidently uncomfortable even discussing in principle the responsibilities of the female half of humanity (as we have seen in this conversation with your personalizing and redirecting it toward your own marital situation). Beware of that discomfort, as it will lead you to ignore your duty toward that half, and to subtract from the gospel.
Dalrock,
Last word: I’m late leaving.
You write:
“As Cane noted above, you stress the importance of definitions, but are playing with the definitions at the same time. More accurately, you are playing a careful game of Motte and Bailey. In the post I quoted you make it clear that you are deliberately driving a wedge between Christian wives and “Patriarchal” husbands. You are teaching them to be more holy than their husbands, and if their husbands don’t like what you are teaching them, it is after all proof that their husbands aren’t following God, and the husband must either follow his wife or free the woman to find another husband.”
I see your point.
It’s never my desire, however, “to drive a wedge” between any couple – even if the woman is married to a patriarchal man. It is, as you rightly point out, my desire to show how patriarchy is not the pattern of the New Covenant Scriptures. I don’t expect everyone to accept that last sentence, and I do appreciate how my writing comes across as “condemning” to patriarchal husbands.
Truth is truth.
Either my interpretation of the equality of all men and women (husbands and wives) in Christ is New Testament, OR your interpretation that the man is the head (e.g. “authority”) over the woman is New Testament.
I think discussion is healthy on these points of disagreement.
I just wanted to clarify that it’s never my desire for a wife “to find another husband” or for a husband “to find another wife.” In point of fact, it’s my desire for both the wife and the husband to love their spouses as they are and where they are.
Real love “speaks the truth in love.”
You and I just disagree over “what is truth” when it comes to the equality of the wife with the husband in terms of Christ.
Cane,
You make some excellent points on a false dichotomy. I’ll reflect on your points in my travels.
@ Wade if you return. You have shown moxie for participating, I hope you are still learning and that the Holy Spirit is working repentance in you.
I find it completely unnecessary to focus on my wife’s shortcomings or failures in her relationship with me, because when I love her the way Christ love’s me, I love her without conditions, without expectations, and without reciprocations.
Houston we have a problem!
Do you also think that Church elders should not discipline unrepentant sinners or focus on the prevailing sins in their midst. I think your idea of love is romanticized eisegesis and not found in scripture. God is love and yet in the following passage from Hebrews 10, God does focus on shortcomings and failures i.e. sins and has conditions and expectations and threatens a wrathful response.
Love dies not turn a blind eye to sin, love does not justify sin, love justifies the sinner and sanctifies them by leading them in a life of holiness. Christ alone can justify, but husbands facilitate and sanctify by the washing and watering of the Word and by their rule. I am reminded of the essay by Dietrich Bonhoeffer on cheap grace. I think it is fair to think of grace as agape love in that essay from the Cost of Discipleship.
BTW – The book of Hebrews also refers to obeying those who rule over you and Timothy instructs Elders to rule their own households well. Your attempt to make rule and love antithetical is contrary to scripture, but I’m sure the chicks dig it anyway.
“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
We’ve entered the feminst frame when we get into a discussion about whether or not a woman needs a man; that’s the fem-centric model. She was made to serve, not be served.
Paul is clear in 1 Cor 7 that men are over women in God’s hierarchy. The entire purpose of woman’s existence (see Genesis) is to serve her man. Feminism is rebellion against God. You couldn’t have a much clearer example of the vessel rejecting the use for which potter made it than feminism.
@ Wade
“Absolutely.
But…..”
If you are so sure then why did you ad the caveat regarding your duties as a husband?
Because if I were to follow your statement then the same standard will be placed upon your wife and her duties to towards you as instructed to show her love for Christ.
Thus a wife needs her husband to show her love for Christ.
lol.
This conversation is way above my pay grade – even Dalrock’s charts give my head less brain damage and despite the fact that Pastor Burleson has now apparently departed I could not help but notice that despite his protestations to the contrary Burleson seems to exhibit all the signs of being a fully paid-up male-feminist. Only such a person would think it worth saying that his wife was his equal in every way (whatever that means) and then go onto mention her Doctorate and Professorship. We are all impressed, of course, but her C.V. and the like is usually found to belong to persons of the ideology to which he denies belonging.
I thus looked at his web-site, which I regret to say only confirmed my unflattering opinion. Apparently women ruled the ancient world because they wrote the oracles at Delphi, Adele writes her own songs and there is a female F16 fighter pilot – with film star looks – who now trains future pilots in this onerous task (pity the men). Even if (local girl) Adele does write her own songs (if so by-the-way, why did she feel the need to call in both Phil Collins and Damon Albarn for her
last album?) the fighter-pilot really had flown in combat and those oracles were written without any male assistance (none of which I think even vaguely plausible) only someone who has swallowed Feminist Dogma whole would on his site and in such a manner be waxing lyrical. This is idol worship of the female.
Somehow (and as at best a sceptic) I find it very hard to think that Christianity just happens to be a perfect fit for Feminism and that despite this no one these past two thousand years – that is until the last decade or two – even noticed. At the very least (and were I minded to embrace Jesus as my Salvation Army Lady is always hoping that sooner or later I will) if that is Christianity then I at least would be rushing for the exit.
@burleson
“I find it completely unnecessary to focus on my wife’s shortcomings or failures in her relationship with me,”
“I find it unnecessary to focus on the sins of women at all since I’m teaching heresy and will lose the power, money, and adulation I’ve come to adore from rebellious women if I do.” FTFY
Corollary:
“I have no issue with ripping apart marriages and vilifying men, and that’s where my focus will be, as I have the godly marriage and I’m the most Christian man in the room and you’re not.”
Most of the time, the people Dalrock posts about don’t show up to defend themselves. We’ve got a live one! Anyway, this isn’t my blog, but I would like to request that people be polite, and let the debate happen, if it in fact does. Wade is here, among his detractors, so give him a little credit for that.
Allow him to make his case, and Dalrock to make his, and may the Truth win.
“New Covenant”
Dork.
If the New Testament is egalitarian between the sexes, and not Patriarchal, I’ll quit Bible College. It would take some seriously Gnostic readings of Scripture to come up with feminist egalitarianism, and if it’s the case, I’d have to throw my life away trying to appease the Aeons.
Instead of that, however, I’ll use proper hermeneutic and wash my wife in the Word, instruct her, and be a Patriarch. She won’t be reading your blog.
@Wade: The second thread in a row where a churchian pastor responds to Dalrock! I love a good and honest debate. However, unlike the last guy, you are not even making an attempt to unplug and accept the true nature of women. This is very disappointing because scripture makes it very clear from the beginning the nature of women. I suggest you start with Genesis, Chapter 3 and then take the time to review every major female character in the Old and New Testament. It really is all right there.
On a tangential point, please educate yourself about the sexual attraction cues that men and women experience for one another before disseminating your false and very damaging information. While this is also in scripture (in the Song of Songs) it is not quite as clear as the solipsistic usurpers portrayed so clearly in the rest of the book.
For a quick primer, thousands and thousands of direct observations report that women experience sexual arousal when a strong, Godly man takes control and tells her what to do (kind of like Christ and the church, get it?). Many thousands of observations report that women turn off sexually when a man is supplicating, weak, mousy, or caters to her every desire. You advocate men supplicating, being weak, catering to every desire and GREATLY exacerbate the problem of low sexual desire in marriage. You are harming men with this demonstrably false teaching. Instead of preaching rebellion and girl power to the women, you should be teaching strength and leadership to the men.
>>Do you believe a woman married to a man on earth will be married to that same man in heaven?
This is a false flag because we KNOW the answer and hopefully so do you. Jesus addressed this specifically. You are arguing that because husbands and wives are like the angels in Heaven and are neither given nor taken in marriage that women should follow Jesus and not their husbands and thus all the other commands of Paul and Peter about behavior WHILE YOU ARE ON THIS EARTH are null and void?
Scripture is clear a wife is supposed to submit (aka have sex), obey her husband, love her husband and children, and not deny one another (that sex thing again- Geez Louse, it seems the Apostles were aware that sex is kind of important in marriage). Paul instructs the woman to “ask her husband” if she has a question about the lesson. He doesn’t tell her, as do you, to pray about it, find the issue herself, and then confront her husband about his sin. She is to change his mind using her gentle spirit and submission, not her yougogirl churchian hepped up super powers to pummel her man into submission. You have inverted scripture in an obvious and very damaging way.
because when I love her the way Christ love’s me, I love her without conditions, without expectations
So, when you have achieved this most exalted plane of ‘love’ for your wife, you will know it when….you have absolutely no expectations of her or her behavior.
Whelp, I think that pretty well sums it up.
@Wade:
>>Either my interpretation of the equality of all men and women (husbands and wives) in Christ is New Testament, OR your interpretation that the man is the head (e.g. “authority”) over the woman is New Testament.
Oh for the love of all that is Holy and good! Do you not see what you have done. Either MY interpretation is right about “equality” (which is nowhere in the Book anywhere- except equality in grace and in our places in heaven or some such) or “your interpretation that the man is the head” (which is CLEARLY stated over and over again in Scripture).
>>>22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.…
>>>But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
>>>Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,
So, should we accept “your” interpretation OR the interpretation that is clearly stated- even the same words like “headship” which you deny. This is amazing.
Wade, I will take what is actually written in Scripture over and over again and not the pretzel shaped parody you try to twist.
@bpp
“Scripture is clear a wife is supposed to submit (aka have sex)”
Are you saying the scriptures are using submit as a polite way of saying have sex or simply that when we’re arguing over submission its really just a proxy fight over whether or not the woman has to have sex with him (we are talking about beta christian ‘men’ afterall).
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. Burleson’s counsel is not good faith error. It is not mere FI status signaling. It is not even mere heresy.
It is diabolical.
The proof is in the fruits. We’ve seen the fruits of this particular strain of modernism over the past 40 years and our society won’t survive them.
@ Wade
…a wonderful Christian woman who is my equal in every way…
Please tell me you don’t mean that, it is ludicrous on its face. Let’s look at some ways at which women and men are not equal, if only one is true then your statement of every way is false or at best hyperbole.
– Married women are commanded to be subject to their husbands in everything ,(Eph 5:24) husbands to lovingly (Eph 5:25) rule their wives (1 Ti 3:4, Eph 5:24).
– Women are commanded to keep silent in the assembly (1 Cor 14:34), men are not.
– Women are to learn from asking their husbands at home ( 1 Cor 14:35) not husbands of the wife or any woman. (1 Tim 2:12)
– Women are commanded to wear a symbol of authority on their head in worship, men are to worship with their head uncovered. ( 1 Cor 11:6)
-Women bear children men do not. (1 Tim 2:15)
– Women are weaker vessels (1 Pe 3:7)
– The woman was made for the man, no the man for the woman (1 Cor 11:9)
– The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man (1 Corinthians 11:3).
I could go on and on, but the point is that very many and significant ways your wife is not equal to you. Egalitarianism is contrary to the Word as shown above.
Now Wade, I beg you to search the scriptures with a heart of humility for when you speak of the independence of a wife and her lack of need you speak against 1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. Instead of eviscerating male headship and stirring up women to discontent, learn to rule your own household and teach women that they are not the equals of men nor their moral superiors, but weak sinners with desperately wicked hearts, easily deceived and in need of grace including the grace of the rule of a godly husband.
Like the fingerprints of God found in his creation, the fingerprints of Satan can be found in the corruption of God’s creation.
OT: Who knew Metallica was so prophetic about the modern SJW?
“My Friend Of Misery”
You just stood there screaming
Fearing no one was listening to you
They say the empty can rattles the most
The sound of your own voice must soothe you
Hearing only what you want to hear
And knowing only what you’ve heard
You, you’re smothered in tragedy
And you’re out to save the world
Misery
You insist that the weight of the world
Should be on your shoulders
Misery
There’s much more to life than what you see
My friend of misery
You still stood there screaming
No one caring about these words you tell
My friend, before your voice is gone
One man’s fun is another’s hell
These times are sent to try men’s souls
But something’s wrong with all you see
You, you’ll take it on all yourself
Remember, misery loves company
Misery
You insist that the weight of the world
Should be on your shoulders
Misery
There’s much more to life than what you see
My friend of misery, my friend of misery
Misery
You insist that the weight of the world
Should be on your shoulders
Misery
There’s much more to life than what you see
My friend of misery
You just stood there screaming
My friend of misery
@ jim “…Christian woman who is my equal in every way.”
lol.
Perhaps Wade means this? “In marrying…. I should not consider myself as quitting that sphere. He is a gentleman; I am a gentleman’s daughter; so far we are equal.” – Pride and Prejudice
Launches into song.
Bicycle, bicycle…..
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my bike
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride it where I like.
“When a pastor declares a female can’t pastor a church, I immediately reply every Christian female is the church, and she’s more qualified to pastor herself than he is.” Wade Burleson website
Then there was no reason for the fall of mankind in the garden if (she is more qualified to pastor herself than he is) 1 Timothy 2:12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
According to St. Paul, women are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority. But good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of true religion. Also, women must not think themselves excused from learning what is necessary to salvation, though they must not usurp authority. As woman was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression. But there is a word of comfort; that those who continue in sobriety, shall be saved in child-bearing, or with child-bearing, by the Messiah, who was born of a woman…. –Matthew Henry Commentary
Either my interpretation of the equality of all men and women (husbands and wives) in Christ is New Testament, OR your interpretation that the man is the head (e.g. “authority”) over the woman is New Testament. -Wade in response to Dalrock
Wade, it is about God’s word and God’s authority. You can (free will included) however, can change your mind on WHOM you serve. God does not change His mind. “For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake,” (1 Cor. 11:9). God called everything into creation, Adam named the animals, and was placed in charge of taking care of the garden. Eve was not commissioned to do so. She is called (by authority) helpmeet. Leaving that *sphere* of God’s teaching only causes problems.
That is called authority.
@ Dalrock and the regular commenters here
I have a question for you guys, a serious one. Are pastors like Wade the norm in modern Protestant Christianity? I live close to numerous Churches and if I walked into one at random, what are the odds of someone like Wade leading that congregation?
@Dota
Between 99 and 100%. You could say it’s the norm.
Despite what he says, does anyone really think that when the neighbour starts practising his Electric Guitar at two in the morning or from next door there are sounds as if Gypsies are nicking [stealing] lead from next door’s roof that Mrs Burleson is the one who responds to her husbands fears and says, ‘Leave it to me dear. I’ll see what is going on and make sure it stops – I may be a little while’ as she dons her Dressing-gown and heads out into the night?
If so, what kind of man is Pastor Burleson? If not, then his protestation of equality is humbug.
@ dota
Yes. If you’ve been following Dalrock’s posts for the past about 4-6 months you’ll see the corruption of so-called complementarism.
Unless a Protestant Church declares it is a Patriarchal Church you can be rest assured that it has been corrupted, probably to a large extent.
I don’t see many Churches nowadays claiming they are Patriarchal Churches. It’s not “culturally relevant” and “too offensive.”
Wade Burleson @ 11:59 am:
“It is, as you rightly point out, my desire to show how patriarchy is not the pattern of the New Covenant Scriptures.”
Jesus was male. The 12 disciples were all male. The 12 apostles were all male. Paul’s proteges were all male. That’s a statistically significant pattern of patriarchy.
I don’t know if “needs” is a good framework to start from. The Bible talks about “needs” in terms of food, drink, and clothing.
In relationships it speaks more in terms of passion (burning with desire), property (body is not your own), and what is good (it is not good for man to be alone). You don’t “need” others to survive, but God seems more concerned about what is good not just what is needed to survive.
“It works for me without doing it your way”; but is it AS good and proper? Is marriage just for our satisfaction or is it also a sign post for eternity.
@Dota:
I’d put it at 85%. You may have some far more old-school style churches in the area. (As we don’t know your region.) Though most aren’t quite to the same level at Wade, even if they mostly just aren’t there yet.
It’s a credit to the comments section to engage Wade in the basics of Logic and Theology, but, sadly, we all know it’s probably a lost cause. My hope is the that Mr. Burleson finds his Soul before it’s gone. He doesn’t have much time left. The Lord is full of grace, but the repentance that will be required will be brutal upon the fair fool.
If I walked into one at random, what are the odds of someone like Wade leading that congregation?
Difficult question. In my experience, few church leaders will directly address the issue at all, unless in marriage counseling, special events, etc. You could walk into a random church and odds are you could attend for several weeks to several months before an explicit red flag is thrown. You’ll see plenty of yellow flags, if you know how to see them, though.
Now the odds of a pastor who professes the beliefs of these guys if asked directly? In my experience it’s all of them. I’m willing to concede the actual number could be less than that.
@Dota
It depends what you mean by “like” him. Region matters, too. Many pastors I’ve me probably would not call themselves egalitarian, but if you question them you’ll find under their words is an egalitarian mental structure. I think a majority of pastors and priests could have a conversation with Wade on the topic of men and women and come away thinking they basically agree with each other.
To say that Wade is arguing in bad faith is to assign more forensic validity to his content than it deserves. He is playing with words. His use of passive aggressive voice is well hewn, and he deploys the trick where he makes a statement that is 100% true, and somewhat related to the over all topic, but irrelevant to the individual facet being debated, and because the fact he states is tangentially relevant and it cannot be refuted he moves along as if he has put an issue to rest as evidenced by the person he is in dialog with not attempting to refute the irrelevant but true fact.
Much of his wording comes from a place of emotional (as opposed to literal) primacy. His wording seeks a certain feeling. If the response jousts him out of that feeling his response will not be so much to engage the other argument but to put his feelings back as they had been. He feels bad if he lets himself think about women freely, He must find ways to maintain his frame of reference which is blissfully unaware and unwilling to be come aware.
The comments about his wife are the most telling. For the emotional communicator whose discussion partner manages to put his emotions in tumult by finding the place in his brain where unequivocal things are unequivocal, he must blurt out an anecdote or better, a platitude about his own wife as defense mechanism. This usually works because no one knows his wife and wouldn’t directly debate a subjective claim he makes about her anyway. So, he is therefore safe in the emotional cocoon.
I’d like to thank everyone who responded to my question. I have a couple of points to make.
One, what about the pastor of that Erikson woman who frivorced her husband Leif? As I recall, her pastor took her to task for blowing up her family. So clearly not all of them are like that.
Second point; a while ago, a close friend of mine (a Mennonite) invited me to speak at his church as part of a Muslim-Christian dialogue initiative. During the talk I channeled my inner dalrock and stated that north American culture is a rebellious one. I specifically mentioned women’s rebellion against men and I noticed that everybody nodded in agreement. I didn’t sense any discomfort from the women either. The Mennonites seem like a decent and solid lot. What makes them different from other protestants?
@ cane caldo
I live in Saskatoon, Canada. Very protestant province, agriculture, old fashioned.
@ Dota
Region, as Cane said, might be the biggest causality. If you are in blue state America or bordeline Communist Canadian provinces, the likelihood of finding egalitarianism increases substantially. A church in the PNW or Toronto, Ontario, is far more likely to be worldly than one more rural or (actual) conservative.
Because, as we all know, we’re instructed to be just like the world around us. /sarc
Dota,
SK hasn’t always been that way. I present Douglas, Tommy, and the SoCreds as evidence.
Mennonite society is very patriarchal. Just watch them oot and aboot as a couple or family. There is no question who is in charge in such a gathering. The children behave, she might be borderline attractive but she’s feminine, and the father looks like a father.
Also Western Canadian here.
Empath,
I believe he was talking about his wife’s accomplishments after she raised the kids as if, “see how equal she is and has respect from me and others”, but makes the wrong conclusion that we respect her as he does. We do not know her, and by all means she might be the Proverbs 31 woman. What his wife is like and what he teaches can be two totally separate things completely divorced from anything he did in his marriage. She may be the outlier and he thinks it was him and not Christ who graced this in their lives.
I do agree with you. He is in his pastor shell and is protecting his on emotional attachment to his beliefs in women and what he has learned and teaches.
I was truly embarrassed for him though in his writings and his comments here. It was almost like he had never studied the passages or compared scripture to scripture. Many lay bible studiers (is that a word?) seemed to put him to shame and rightly so. Their understanding of the very scriptures he gives are better than his, but I also highly respect him coming on her to defend his position and hope that he continues to read through TRP writings of yours and Dalrocks.
I have always been irritated by that slogan since the first time I saw it as a university student in Australia in the 1980s. It was made into a bumper sticker.
Got even with it when one of my wife’s gay feminist friends quoted it to much laughter. The next week she had a flat tyre and looked at me expectedly.
“Didn’t you say last week that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle? Well hey – there’s your bicycle!”
“Now you’re being immature!”
“Not immature. Just consistent”.
Feminism is just cultural Marxism. Always has been, always will be.
The rebel heart doesn’t want to submit to anyone. But it’s easier to faux-submit to one authority while using this to reject another authority
oot and aboot
Heh — one of the true Canadian distinctives!
Man.
One thing I am eternally grateful to the manosphere for-
I have learned to be VERY tight with logic and reason or go home.
This thread should be required reading at any serious seminary.
(I am mostly referring to the opening salvos with Wade)
@Iam: “Are you saying the scriptures are using submit as a polite way of saying have sex or simply that when we’re arguing over submission its really just a proxy fight over whether or not the woman has to have sex with him ”
Both! Scripture is very, very clear about wives denying husbands. The traditional marital vows are very, very clear- have and to hold from this day forth can only mean what it says! “Have” in the Biblical sense literally means to have sex with. He “had” her. He “knew” her. Saying it as “Have and hold” leaves no room for misinterpretation. Of course the true vow is more than mere sex. You are vowing to give yourself to the other. Body, mind and soul. The body part = sex but giving it makes also giving your soul and mind SOOOOO much easier. This is why denying the body, or withholding sex to gain power or an edge is just as clear a violation of the vows as the “forsaking all others” part.
The interesting thing is if she will just literally shut the Hell up and have sex with him, he suddenly calms down and treats her better. She feels better about her relationship. One of the top things marriage counselors do is tell the couple to have more sex and it is just about the only thing they reccommend that actually works.
There is a reason Paul said this even more directly: “DO NOT DEPRIVE ONE ANOTHER.”
Something else that’s happened to me since finding this part of the net.
When I saw “studied at Vanderbilt” all I think of was “that’s nice. Is she a good wife?”
Sean
Interesting stuff. I moved to SK from Toronto and while I think Ontario as a whole is generally friendlier, I find SK to be more authentically Canadian. The Hutterites are another group of people I respect whereas the mainstream media rubbishes them from time to time. I have met plenty of stout Christians in SK and I think its great.
On the whole I’m quite impressed with the Anabaptists and can’t figure out why the other Protestants are so pathetically wimpy. The Anabaptists are devout, ethical, and patriarchal. I even know some ultra religious Muslims in town who have an abiding respect for the Hutterites and Mennonites so they must be doing something right.
because when I love her the way Christ love’s me, I love her without conditions, without expectations
Even God, the Creator of the Universe, and the One whose name is Love, does not love us without expectations.
I suppose that men don’t usually have one single Red Pill (or, They Live! glasses) moment, because it’s a process that deepens.
First, somehow a man will have Life smack him upside the head about RP/BP facts, but at a time and place where he can get it that his [BP] Frame for interpreting relations between men and women is not just wrong in the moment, superficially, but has always been Wrong, Deeply.
If he is lucky, he will stumble across the Manosphere, or have an 80-year-old uncle put him straight, or whatever. If he is unlucky, he has to live alone in Cognitive Dissonance Hell for a while, and try to figure it out on his own, if he can.
Either way, it — Red Pill Frame — deepens.
And as his eyes are opened, he sees more, and he has to process that, and his RedPillification deepens, opening his eyes more, so he sees yet more, and so has to process that too, and his RedPillification deepens further.
But there’s always that initial part, where somehow a man will have Life smack him upside the head about the fact that RP/BP facts, are facts.
Mine (I think this was the moment) occurred while I was a student at a university, and a much younger man, enrolled at a university in a program of studies that was top-heavy with professionally Feminist professors, and in which a preponderance of my classmates were feminists, too.
Anyway, there are Alpha women, also, as everyone here knows: women who are the leaders of their pack (“Queen Bees”, I’ve heard them called). And so, inevitably, there was one woman who was the Alpha amongst my Feminist female classmates.
Not yet knowing who she was or what she represented, but knowing she was very smart and pretty damn fine looking, I fell in love with her basically at first sight. And I pined for her. I did not have the language for it (nor obviously, my present contempt for it) at the time, but basically I became one of her Beta orbiters.
And of course, she didn’t give a rat’s. Didn’t even appear to be aware that I existed. Didn’t stop the pining, mind. But, all the regulars here understand the inter-personal dynamics I am describing, so I’ll move on in the story.
A year went by, and I pined. Then I pined more, then I pined yet still more.
And another year went by — her and her misc. feminist female acolytes wandering around with “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” T-shirts from time to time, etc., as you can all imagine. And still I pined for her.
But then I began to pine less (beta orbiter exhaustion, basically), and then still less, and then less.
Until, one day, I basically and (to all external appearances anyway) I didn’t give a sh!t anymore about her (almost). Heartsore, but not knowing the Term of Art for it yet, because I knew nothing of the Manosphere then, basically I went MGTOW.
But I was still a deeply, deeply Blue Pill MGTOW.
Anyway, we were finally nearing the end of the program of study we were in, maybe two or three months off of graduation.
And, one day around then, I was in a class she was taking also, and where on that day she had to make a presentation (as we all did each in our turn) as part of a senior project, in front of — I dunno, perhaps fifty of us.
I won’t disclose the details, but that particular course was completely orthogonal to All Things Feminist — it was to Feminist Critique, as paperclips are to Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon.
But, nevertheless, in Full-On “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” mode, she tried to cram it in sideways. And, it didn’t fit very well. Like Siskel & Ebert using their Film Critic knowledge to assess the relative merits of different manufacturers’ microchip designs, or something. No fit. At all.
And, perhaps because this particular course had a disproportionately male enrollment (within the over-all program of studies), it was a comparatively Male Space.
So, perhaps feeling safe in that place of (comparative) masculinity, some of my classmates began to openly snicker, and roll their eyes (etc.) — and that was contagious, and it spread throughout the classroom, and her entire presentation basically fell apart.
I didn’t participate at all in this mockery (nor did everyone else), but I very much noticed it.
And she was emotionally crushed by this, of course. Fortunately for her, the class period was also coming to an end, so she euthanized the remainder of her presentation and left the front of the classroom, and then the room.
Recall that, at this time by now, I was MGTOWing, and probably over-correcting by being a somewhat aloof b@stard — and would have been in that state for some time. Sort of a pale, pale shadow of Alpha game.
Nevertheless, not an hour later, I happened to go to the Student Lounge (probably to buy a chocolate bar from one of the vending machines there, or something), and I noticed her sitting in a far corner, alone, just being quietly emotionally devastated.
Perhaps motivated by some vestigial remnant of my earlier feelings, and still being BP enough to think that White-Knightery was obligatory, and I went over to her and simply sat there for a bit, and said one or two kind things, but then I had to go. So I left.
And, in that moment, although I didn’t realize it at all in that moment, she fell Head Over Heels In Love with me.
All because I had met her emotional needs. But with me in a Frame where, now, I didn’t give a sh!t. So I probably walked away in a cold and distant manner. (I don’t really recall … indifference doesn’t really register in the memory.)
Now, I was in a slightly different program than her, and so she graduated about a half-year before I did, just a few weeks after the incident in the Student Lounge that I describe above.
And so she was soon gone from Campus. But she had long, long since gone from my Heart. (I was simply being kind, in the Student Lounge incident.) And so I thought little of it, I suppose.
Later, with me still not yet quite graduated, she literally flew half-way across the continent (without me knowing this would happen, at all), in the hope of having a relationship-starting conversation with me.
And so she went and found me somewhere on Campus. To let me know her feelings for me.
And — well, there I had been all Mr. BP Beta-Orbiter for the better part of three-and-a-half years, crazy obsessed with her glacial, “woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” self — and she hadn’t give a notice, let alone a damn.
And — later, my heart, like a spent capacitor, had been empty for her, but I had been kind to her in a moment of her emotional need, and she Fell Utterly for my then-aloof self.
And so there she was, having flown hundreds of miles to Get Her Bicycle, standing (a strikingly beautiful as ever) before me …
And — well … I just walked away. I broke her heart completely in two, but, you know — suddenly, I Got It, and my head was about to explode from all the Cognitive Dissonance, and I simply had to get out of there.
The woman who had been This-Fish-Needs-No-Bicycle Incarnate, desperately needed me. Badly, badly Needed Me. As Her Man, in case that isn’t blindingly obvious to you by now.
I wasn’t being vindictive or spiteful in walking away. Indeed, I later somewhat regretted it. Somewhat. But I simply had to get away from her because the Cognitive Dissonance of the moment was going to make my head explode.
So, the saying, “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” IS my own, personal “Life smacks me upside the head about RP/BP facts” moment.
This (did I mention she was stunning, gorgeous beautiful, yet?) woman, who might have been at all times the most Feminist person within a hundred miles of wherever she was standing, flew half-way across the continent to tell me she needed me, AS HER MAN, simply because I had, not as part of any PUA knowledge whatsoever, but just by chance, been both aloof and kind to her in a moment of her deep emotional distress.
Therefore, getting to my point, finally, “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” is a Fat F*cking Lie. Period.
And as for my later occasionally “somewhat” regretting what I had done … you know what?
There’s another important Life Lesson (this one for both Men and Women, also) buried in my above tale: believe it or not as you will, but I assure you that it is possible to regret (highly intelligent, stunning, gorgeous beautiful, lusted after by every straight man in the program, suddenly telling me She’s Mine …) doing the right thing (… — but, sorry, no thanks).
But the main point of my tale, Gentlemen, is and remains this: “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”, is a Fat F*cking Lie.
The story of my own life, and of Hers, wherever it is that she is now, personally pivot around the factual Truth, that this Feminist Proverb™, “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”, is a Fat F*cking Lie.
Period.
=======
Pax Christi Vobiscum
Reject God and you will be afflicted South a strong delusion
Dota @ 2:48 pm:
“I have a question for you guys, a serious one. Are pastors like Wade the norm in modern Protestant Christianity?”
By California standards he’s a good guy. He went out of his way and at least listened to our objections. Most pastors here are in total denial about society and only want to go through the motions. They all preach to their choirs but Wade tried to preach to his critics. That’s respectable.
…
@ 4:07 pm:
“The Mennonites seem like a decent and solid lot. What makes them different from other protestants?”
Depends on the sect. Broadly speaking, they reject the Great Commission and civic duty in favor of isolated communities. The latter makes them more like the ethnically oriented Orthodox Church than cosmopolitan Protestantism in my estimation.
Your friend has some hard choices coming. Anabaptist types are known for nonviolence and if Muslims are moving in, his people will either learn to kill or they will be killed. Remind him Muslims have Allah’s permission to lie and break promises to non-Muslims before he holds another “dialogue”.
For the record, we Protestants are sabotaged not wimpy. Don’t forget we built America and the British Empire before that.
Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:
May 18, 2016 at 9:30 am
and
May 18, 2016 at 11:23 am
You are knocking them out of the park today. Well said.
Cane,
You make some excellent points on a false dichotomy.
Yep!
I for one hope Mr. Burleson is sincere and stays and learns.
If I actually thought that parts of the Bible could be completely discarded or ignored I don’t think I would believe any of it. Either it’s all true or none of it is. If the Bible is true then wives are to submit to and obey their husbands. If wives are no longer supposed to submit to and obey their husbands, then nothing else written in the NT can be said to still stand.
Unbelievers are laughing at us because of this hypocrisy. They laugh because egalitarians will insist that scriptural teachings against homosexual behavior are valid, but at the same time deny the undeniable teachings about male authority in marriage and in church leadership. Egalitarians, you cannot have it both ways.
Dota
One, what about the pastor of that Erikson woman who frivorced her husband Leif? As I recall, her pastor took her to task for blowing up her family. So clearly not all of them are like that.
More accurately, Jenny Erickson was kicked out of that church and the denomination by the elders of that particular church. If I remember right, that was due to her divorcing for frivolous reasons, i.e. it wasn’t due to adultery or abandonment. The elders of that church gave her a choice: give up the divorce plans, or be kicked out of the church. She chose divorce, they kicked her out – her original letter was a tower of outrage that some bunch of men had actually done what they said they would do. So whatever that denomination is, however small it may be, it would seem to be patriarchal to some degree.
Second point; a while ago, a close friend of mine (a Mennonite) invited me to speak at his church as part of a Muslim-Christian dialogue initiative. During the talk I channeled my inner dalrock and stated that north American culture is a rebellious one. I specifically mentioned women’s rebellion against men and I noticed that everybody nodded in agreement. I didn’t sense any discomfort from the women either. The Mennonites seem like a decent and solid lot. What makes them different from other protestants?
The Mennonites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite tend to live apart from their more worldly neighbors in various ways. Like the Amish, they intermarry a lot within different branches of the same faith community. Since they tend to prize a simple way of life, a lot of the SJW crap has passed them by, so far.
Wade Burleson @ 11:59 am:
“It is, as you rightly point out, my desire to show how patriarchy is not the pattern of the New Covenant Scriptures.”
Sorry Wade, you don’t get to make insane, easily disprovable assertions like that and expect what you say to carry any weight with those who know better. Feel free to preach your Burger King Theology to those who choose to be deceived by you, but when it comes to Christ, he’s under no obligation to let you “Have it your way!TM”
The Mennonites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite tend to live apart from their more worldly neighbors in various ways. Like the Amish, they intermarry a lot within different branches of the same faith community. Since they tend to prize a simple way of life, a lot of the SJW crap has passed them by, so far.
Interestingly enough, he married an Asian woman and converted her to Christianity. He also lives in the city and doesn’t segregate himself. He is a pastor himself and would never agree with Wade’s theology here. He’s a very lucky man because his wife respects him. Whenever I visit, she keeps out of sight to give us guys some space. When she speaks, she address him respectfully and never raises her voice. It’s obvious he’s in charge and that his household is a patriarchal one, but everything works. His daughter is well behaved, his wife is content, and he’s overall happy himself. He’s active at his Church and his neighbours respect him. Visiting him is like stepping into the 1950s. This is ultimately the sort of life that most men want , and in the non-western world they usually get it. Here in the West it seems to be a distant reality for many. I think that is feminism’s greatest crime.
Jonadab: Thanks for taking the time to type in the list of Scriptures at May 18, 2016 at 1:56 pm. Great.
@Burleson: While everyone else throws Bible quotes at you that you will undoubtedly reject the interpretation of, lets take a look at the real world where “women don’t need men.”
1) Child birth – oh how women LOVE to go on tirades about how the GOVERNMENT should require paid maternity leave. Even Hillary has been singing that tune lately! You’ve also got women who think they should be entitled to “light duty” while pregnant like a recent UPS worker who took it to the COURTS.
2) Health Insurance – Men used to enjoy cheaper premiums until the GOVERNMENT decided women paying more is discrimination (P.S. – never mind men pay for for car insurance no discrimination there). In fact I read an article where the main group the GOVERNMENT was target was YOUNG MEN because since they will pay but not use, they make it cheaper for women.
3) First Responders – How many times has a woman come crashing through a window to save a life in danger? They are usually running around hysterical crying in the street waiting for the MEN to show up!
Lastly, who is the GOVERNMENT and the COURTS??? Answer: MEN! Feminists keep reminding us of that little tid bit every election! So the fact of the matter is women need men a whole lot more than men really need women. Sure, women bring us into the world but reproduction is hardly a necessary function. If the human race ended, the universe would go on unabated. God has known all of us before birth (Jeremiah 1:5) so we clearly existed quite fine before we were born. The fact of the matter is woman is unnecessary for our spiritual existence. God has that covered! Woman however IS dependent on man for sustaining her physical needs / well being as man is dependent on woman for his mortal presence on Earth.
Jonadab-the-Rechabite,
Dalrock, now look what you’ve done! The Word of God has broken out in the comments of your very blog!
Preach, brother.
Wade,
I’ve been where you are. Still am, in some respects (I’m happily married to a very talented professor, for instance). In others, not so much – my wife often tells me how much she needs me, and enjoys doing so, as do I (enjoy it and need her). That’s a good marriage.
There’s a long road and a lot of humble pie between where I was then and where I am now.
It’s a road worth taking. Dalrock (and friends) are decent guides.
“Houston we have a problem!”
This is the heart of the beast, i.e. non-judgmentalism.
Dota,
“I have a question for you guys, a serious one. Are pastors like Wade the norm in modern Protestant Christianity? I live close to numerous Churches and if I walked into one at random, what are the odds of someone like Wade leading that congregation?”
It’s the received conventional wisdom of the last 50-odd years coming from both the mainline and the wider culture, so unless the church sees itself at odds with both (which is somewhat rare, with the mainline now seeing itself as progressive/alternative to the culture and the anti-mainline as being more relevant to/in tune with the culture) you’ll get that take in the water.
That said, there are fewer every day who hold to it out of their own conviction since experience has proven its emptiness – i.e. it’s not something you’ll come to on your own, in contrast to the great truths with may be initially counter-intuitive but do ultimately line up with experience. That’s why Burleson showed up here – he’s curious about the alternatives.
So Steinem thinks men are God… ultimate victim porn, an all powerful enemy who cannot be defeated. Silly hippy.
(oops I always thought that was Steinem’s quote)
Just as Moses and the Korah rebellion. So it is with feminism. Both are rebellions against delegated Authority under God and both are defacto rejections of the God who delegated such Authority.
Those who claim to worship God and reject his delegated Authority(Patriarchy) rejects the Authority(God).
“After my last post I looked up the origin of the feminist fish/bicycle slogan”
Who coulda guessed, turns out it’s slander against Father. Then they went about destroying fatherhood in the nation, and across the West. Along with the ‘conservatives’ and ‘christians’.
All these decades and nobody bothered to look it up. The Kingdom doesn’t arrive magically and Jesus does not throw down satan for us. Not what the Bible says.
You aren’t indignant at the joy our cultures display in dissing Father, Jeshua, their servants? You can’t be bothered to make an extra effort? Then why should Jeshua care about you? Because you say you’re a Christian? You go to church and you’re against abortion? Kind to animals too probly.
Our King is very unhappy right now, and if you’re not upset with him, and feeling his Lion, then you’re not really part of him, nor of his Kingdom. Otherwise you’d be making war against his enemies, and you would expend great effort on his behalf, and your life and person would show the trauma of your obedience, of your thirst for his Kingdom. You would be hotter than the furnace around you, and it would get noticed to your unbenefit. Lots.
Sometimes I think, well not too bad, I’ll just take some time off here, seeing as how. Then the world pulls something else, and whoosh it’s flame-on. Boss says Did I make you dead yet? Get back to work.
@ Wade
You have shown more courage than most and you deserve credit for that. I do not desire that you leave, but that you stay and be a Berean, to see if these things be true. As a shepherd you are held accountable for you teaching. If you are in error, I would think you would desire to repent. That takes humility and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. I pray that the Holy Spirit will work in you with many of the comments here including the following. I want to give you something to meditate on, it is in response to your statement:
I submit that patriarchy is not a polity, character or pattern that is of the created order, rather it is intrinsic to God and so transcends the created order. Much like truth is not a characteristic that is created or can rightly be used to judge God as if it is extrinsic to Him, God is truth and truth is a quality intrinsic to Him. We would not know what truth is, if God was not truth. In a similar way God is patriarchy. The economic trinity, (the relationships between the persons), is revealed as a patriarchy. Christ is the son of the Father, who does His Fathers will. The Father sends the Son to redeem the elect and blesses Him; “This is my Son with whom I am well pleased”. Christ is for all eternity past and future the Son of the Father. This is the rule of the Father which is literally patriarchy.
Beyond the economic Trinity is a patriarchy, redemption is also fashioned in scripture as a patriarchy. Christ the husband, elects, redeems and rules His bride the church. She is to worship, obey, fear, submit, serve, be subject to her husband, Christ. The rule of the husband as the head of the wife and the household is patriarchy.
Holiness is a quality that is intrinsic to God. We say that something is holy because it resembles godliness. Patriarchy is also holy. Christ is making His bride holy and a Christian husband sanctifies his wife (makes holy) with the washing and watering of the Word. Thus patriarchy is not a pattern of the New Testament covenant, nor dispensation nor administration et al. Patriarchy transcends human history and nature, it is the very nature of God. When Christians live in patriarchal families they reflect the very holiness of God and bear witness to His sovereign rule.
Dal,
“I don’t need my wife to need me.”
I think this may be where Wade goes off the tracks. It’s a sort of de facto married game/continued courtship where he advertises his non-neediness to his wife (and neediness is in fact a turn-off, though acknowledging needs that are intrinsic to the marriage bond is not, if done manfully) through his ideology.
He’s (likely subconsciously) choosing this place to advertise his non-neediness because it’s where feminists have concentrated their attacks upon the marriage bond. Men don’t necessarily need to feel needed, but it’s certainly conducive to our well-being, whether one is speaking of a marriage, a family, a profession, a church, or whatever. It may well be that we need to be needed, which is distinct from appreciated. The former taking precedence over the latter.
“I’ve enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for the questions. I have some business to conduct (a funeral and a wedding out of state), so I’ll be unable to answer any further questions.”
Oh look Wade is a Busy Important Pastor, with real business to conduct, due to great demand for his presence. So that The Lord will be represented at all those important weddings and funerals and so forth. Yoop. Important Pastor Wade’s important time is far too precious to waste instructing the recalcitrant ingrates here!
Wade you cannot even write the truth about ‘enjoying the conversation’ here. Passo-aggresso expresso! You hated the conversation here because, apparently, nobody has ever told you with the truth before. Well welcome to church.
I sure don’t hate you Wade, but you are chock full of pride and bible-school bullshit, and if you keep cucking-out the nation’s sons, you are toast. Most of these men don’t hate you either. You are in a burning building and they are passing through it, calling. You are not extricating them, they are trying to extricate you. I mean . . . your wife’s doctorate, Wade? You keep bad social company, and it shows.
Wade speaking of limited time, somehow somewhere you are going to have to locate some balls and humility, pretty much simultaneously, and that’ll mean overturning your pretentious, arrogant, materialistic life, wholesale. You are not an anointed priest, Wade, you are not a teacher, you aren’t even a student at this point. The Lord lets you into class for a couple minutes and you spew some diversionary Pastorist nonsense, then run off to ‘preside’ over stupid weddings and salve your ego.
Hey Wade what’s your wife’s doctorate in again? Advanced Theory of Rebellion? :O)
Merciful Father all of us are utterly guilty, none of us is even vaguely worthy and we know it, but please help pore lost Wade to seek your faithful Christ, if you will.
@Wade Burleson
I realize that your readers disagree with me that the essential and primary identity of every woman is found in Jesus Christ, and not their husbands.
If Pastor Burleson truly does want a constructive dialogue on this issue, it’d be a great help if he didn’t start things off by making an argument in bad faith. I’m pretty sure that I’ve never heard Dalrock say at this blog that a woman’s “essential and primary identity” is to be found in her husband. I don’t believe that myself, and I’m guessing that many — probably even most — of the readers here would probably say something similar.
But I also believe that as Christ Himself said, male and female he created them. Both are made in God’s image, and both will find any final absolution they seek only in Him. But on this earth, at least, there are things that each of them are specifically created with, and things that each provides that only they can provide. Christian marriage is in part a recognition of this — a man joins himself to a woman because there are blessings on this earth that he can receive only from and with her, and she joins to him in the knowledge that there are certain gifts on earth that she can receive only from and with him.
Many today will be more than happy to dispute this idea. The feminists will argue that there is nothing that a man can provide that a woman herself was not created with or cannot gain on her own. This idea has driven a rebellion that promotes a female independence that tells women they don’t need men for money, for children, or for families even as it hypocritically demands a greater responsibility in the behavior of males that is enforced through a series of increasingly odious new reforms. Abortion on demand and easy “no-fault” divorce were pioneered by and are the legacy of this kind of feminism. In a like manner, the LGBTQ movement has promoted the idea that there is nothing inherently unique — or essential — to either sex, and thus it shouldn’t matter if two men want to marry or two women want to do the same. There is even the new innovation in which one can be born a man, but one day wake up to realize that in his mind he (she?) is actually a woman — and thus start using bathrooms publicly designated for them.
Does Pastor Burleson think that any of these are ideas worth promoting and building upon further? I’m guessing he’d probably say no — except that he’s halfway there already when he goes out of his way to emphasize that women are going to do just fine without the involvement of the men. Why should a woman marriage to a man when any attribute or gift he offers is a blessing that she can and is allowed to have from many other sources? She loves him! — she just doesn’t particularly have any need for him. Or as Maureen Dowd put it, “The man is not necessary.”
I could ask what might happen were a man to say, inversely, that he loved women but didn’t really have any need for them. But I suspect Pastor Burleson would stop him right there — because he’s already used his blog once before to shoot down the notion that a man in his own abilities will be enough:
. . . . It almost seems as if he’s saying he believes there is something unique to women that the men don’t naturally have. But wait — there’s more! Not only do men need women, but apparently there are also a series of behaviors called “chivalry” in which the man performs certain homages to the woman as a public recognition of this — and not just husbands for wives, but all men for all women!
Wade Burleson has already taken care to emphasize that a woman secure in Christ has no inherent need of anything a man — and only a man — can offer. So now I’m asking: Why does he insist that the man cannot say the same of the woman? If the woman has no “need” of the man, then why should a man behave as if she did by following a formal code of conduct pledging himself to her safety? Should there be a similar code of respect mandated for women to show to men — or would only a “controlling, manipulative and patriarchal” husband want that? Why does he tell the men that there are no qualities that are unique to their sex while implying to the women that there are gifts that they alone possess?
Why does he continue to preach one gospel for the women and an alternate version for the men in the cowardly and hypocritical fashion that is the hallmark of today’s American preacher?
Link for the chivalry post is here: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2014/02/five-acts-of-spiritual-chivalry-for.html
@Wade
“I’ve been happily married for 33-year years to a wonderful Christian woman who is my equal in every way.”
If I may I would like to ask you another question regarding equality. Do you believe that because Christian men and women are of equal worth to Christ means that He made them equal in function?
The reason I have no respect for Wade’s view is his utter lack of respect for the things men do, day in and day out, for the survival of society and women, yes women. Women would not survive a damn day without the things men do for them.. To even suggest that a women does not need her husband is the complete disrespect of his existence, his purpose and reason for being. Wade need look no further than himself and men like him to understand why boys and young men have no interest in getting married or keeping on keeping on doing the shit required for society to survive whilst being told they are unnecessary – a direct stab in the heart. A vile and despicable twisting and ruining of scripture to comport with a feminist view point of the world.
@Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:
…When Christians live in patriarchal families they reflect the very holiness of God and bear witness to His sovereign rule.
Very well said. Amen to that.
The island test should be applied to most christian men, especially pastors and priests.
Say a man and a woman end up alone on an island. The man has a choice, he can either help support the woman knowing he will eventually fornicate with her or he can flee to the other side of the island knowing she will die without his help. Who a man choose to “sin” against says a lot about about his character and his God.
Wade Burleson says:
May 18, 2016 at 10:50 am
“Do you believe a woman married to a man on earth will be married to that same man in heaven?”
Red herring
Wade Burleson says:
May 18, 2016 at 11:22 am
“I’ve been happily married for 33-year years to a wonderful Christian woman who is my equal in every way. She’s my best friend, the mother of our four grown children, and a fellow believer in Jesus Christ. She has her doctorate from Vanderbilt. She went back to school after our children left home, and is now a Professor of Nursing.”
Irrelevant
Wade Burleson says:
May 18, 2016 at 11:28 am
“I don’t need my wife to need me.”
Red herring
Wade Burleson says:
May 18, 2016 at 11:34 am
“But since I’m a man and a husband who finds my essential identity in Christ, I find it completely unnecessary to focus on my wife’s shortcomings or failures in her relationship with me, because when I love her the way Christ love’s me, I love her without conditions, without expectations, and without reciprocations. In other words – I love her.”
Facepalm
It is evident to me that Burlson is here to defend himself – not to learn – and he is simply not yet (may never be) at that place in his life where a crisis forces him to revisit decades of conventional wisdom. Virtually all of us are here because we started out from a Burlesonian posture and then were one day inescapably confronted with the real nature of women – not the one we had been sold – usually through some treacherous behavior of their’s that was initially a shock. After all, how could our special snowflake turn out to be such a selfish, spoiled, cunning, deliberate sinner? But, but, but, she’s a princess!
We first thought it was only “our” woman and was merely an anomaly – a sample size of one from which no conclusions could be drawn. But we began to open our eyes and hear from the wisdom of the ages along with other men that this was not an anomaly – it was there in plain sight throughout virtually every passage of scripture dealing with women. They, like men, are SINNERS in need of redemption, with their own unique besetting sins, which we have conveniently swept aside in order not to offend contemporary sensibilities – and to not disrupt the sexual provision wagon (which never works anyway).
Wade will learn when he is ready to learn – which evidently isn’t now. His presence here has everything to do with maintaining his pride and nothing to do with resolving that problem in his own life which is acute and inescapable.
It is sales training 101: people do not buy when they perceive no problem with status quo. He needs some external problem like a frivorce in his immediate circle or family. Even then, the programming runs many millions of lines and he may find it easier to deny what is in front of him and simply reboot with the same old code than question the operating system’s veracity and need for an upgrade.
The word that Burleson seems to have forgotten is: Family.
When a man and a woman become husband and wife they form a family. Christians will hope that that family will be blessed with children, so that the man and woman will then become father and mother.
Most Christians, but not just Christians, would agree that the Family is greater than just the sum of its parts. Christians believe that the Family is a church in microcosm, and should thus be encouraged and nurtured as set out by the Scriptures.
If the above is true, a woman/wife/mother will indeed need a man/husband/father to form and grow a Family. This need is clearly reciprocal for the man and I think it is a waste of time to discuss who has the greatest need. Both have.
In saying that a woman does not need a man Burleson is effectively attacking the Family and, through his attack on the Family, the Church and Christianity in general.
There is little hope for the Christian Family in a world in which Burleson can portray himself as a pastor and man of Christ.
@ Wade Burleson:
“when I love her the way Christ love’s me, I love her without conditions, without expectations, and without reciprocations.”
That’s not the love a man is to have for his wife. A man’s love isn’t to be unconditional, to expect nothing from her, and to expect her not to reciprocate with biblically commanded respect.
Also, men and women are equal before God. Both sin, both need repentance and forgiveness, and both are equally amenable to salvation and redemption. But men and women are decidedly not equal in relation to each other. And a man and wife are not equal in relation to each other. God’s word is very clear how a husband and a wife are to relate to each other, and your egalitarianism is not reflective of God’s word on that subject.
He is also completely wrong deti that Christ has no expectations of us. He has a load of them. Start with “be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.” We must continually change to conform into His image. He does not conform into ours. His entire message is broken on that, even if you ignore the rest.
>>”Even God, the Creator of the Universe, and the One whose name is Love, does not love us without expectations.”
The “pastor” needs to read the book he preaches. How about the book of Jeremiah where God shows us exactly the nature of this “unfailing” love. I wonder what God would do with an unfaithful, disobedient bride? Will he be the Best Friend Forever and forgive her no matter what she does and let him walk all over Him, and never, ever, ever expect consequences for her bad behavior? Why, let’s look at the book and see:
Paul wrote several times that a man should love his wife as Christ loved the church. In other words, a husband’s love should resemble God’s love of his own bride and he advocates this in several places.
This is certainly a tall order and it has been used to bludgeon men for many years now. The rallying cry of the modern Christian woman in rebellion is: “I don’t have to submit if you don’t love me like Christ loved the church.”
So perhaps we should consider precisely the nature of that love.
In the New Testament, the “Bride of Christ” is the Christian Church which is the heir of the original “Bride” wooed by God- the nation of Israel. Do you have any idea how many examples there are in the Bible explaining in exquisite detail how God deals with his “Bride” when she is rebellious? How about the entire book Judges, Lamentations, most of Isaiah, Jerimiah and several others.
If you haven’t read these books I hate to spoil the plot but let me give you a hint: When the people of Israel turn against God, He does not remain their Best BFF. God does not play the part of the weak Beta man who is all forgiving, ever merciful and kind while she walks all over Him, mocks Him, and abandons Him. The Lord will not be mocked, and neither should you be mocked as a husband. Read it and know this is God Almighty Himself speaking as recorded by the prophet Jerimiah, Chapter 12, specifically about how He deals with His rebellious wife
I will forsake my house,
abandon my inheritance;
I will give the one I love
into the hands of her enemies.
8 My inheritance has become to me
like a lion in the forest.
She roars at me;
therefore I hate her.
9 Has not my inheritance become to me
like a speckled bird of prey
that other birds of prey surround and attack?
Go and gather all the wild beasts;
bring them to devour.
10 Many shepherds will ruin my vineyard
and trample down my field;
they will turn my pleasant field
into a desolate wasteland.
Over and over and over again in the Old Testament God’s “Bride” turns away from him, often to “seek other Gods.” Over and over again the Lord then turns his face away from His people and lets His Bride be raped, and tortured, and abused, and humiliated. He turns His face away from them and lets enemies seize the lands and starve, enslave, and butcher the people.
The Lord ONLY returns His favor on the people of Israel, His bride, when they cry to Him and beg his forgiveness.
The Lord will not be mocked, and neither should YOU be mocked as a husband.
From Twitter: “Once a man says, ‘partner,’ instead of girlfriend, wife, or ‘my woman,’ I’ve already pegged him as an imbecile.”
Whether here to learn or not, the likelihood of a major shift in opinion for Wade is very low. I don’t like to use this expression but Wade argues like a woman. I don’t use that descriptor often because some read it as just a cheap insult and do not understand that it is stated because of the similarities one finds when laying Wade’s arguments beside those we see routinely here and elsewhere when some women attempt to engage the local topics. It describes the use of false dichotomies, for instance as Cane pointed out, which are actually valid dichotomies to Wade and others who use them. They are valid because the dichotomy is not between one action and another and the value judgements of the actions, but rather it is between the emotional evocation that one action has versus the emotional evocation of the other action. The dichotomy is one of feelings. You can do this, and feel good, you can do this and feel bad. The dichotomy may be valid or not but not on the basis of how one feels about it. Especially when the suggested ways one should feel about each choice are also arrived at using further dissembling and obfuscation based on pinging certain emotions.
I saw this latest blog entry by Wade:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2016/05/the-problem-is-mindless-sex-not-gender.html
It is having to do with transgender matters. The title is a false dichotomy.
There is no dichotomy there at all. These are not opposing choices. One needn’t somehow be for one and against the other so to speak. But this tactic is deployed over and over in the mechanics of -arguing like a girl.
A pause for some facts. I was discussing the transgender matter with my wife and mentioned that more women are OK with, for example, the Target posture than men are. I expected her to bock, but she really was exercised about the notion that I was suggesting it was not men pushing what has been framed as a banner issue for perverted men. I showed her multiple polls reflecting women’s permissiveness on the matter. She rejected them all saying if I could produce a Rasmussen poll, then THAT would be a different matter.
So, I did. I bought a membership for a month and found polling showing it is women more favorable to the gender bending bathroom chaos than ii is men. I printed it and left it on her seat at the breakfast table. I didn’t raise the subject and have heard nothing more about it…which is the bountiful spoils of war for men debating wives…..subject erased.
I’d assume Wade shares my wife’s belief, even in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Which is why he reliably goes after Christian men in a well overdone push to shift focus off of transgendererd indivisuals and onto Christian men and their porn addictions. In a wild segue he says:
I didn’t see overt Lift Chasing in his other comments because those comments are jumbled so much that many women would stop following along (The Lift comes from simpler assertions made for short attention spans) but here his-men and porn are the ones opposing transgender things and they have no right because they use porn-diatribe is blatant Lift chasing. Not to mention it is nonsense. Can two loosely related things not both be wrong? Can a sinner not openly discuss the sinfulness of some other sin action? Is Wade pure at heart and without sin therefore he is more free to have opinion? Or, is it that women are so pure it is they who hold final verdict on the whether something is sin, and what the weight of said sin is (based on how it makes them feel naturally)?
Finally Wade goes on to celebrate the virtues of eunuchs as a justification for today’s pick-yer-gender pathology. He speaks for Jesus several times, here saying several things:
Wade is not here to learn. He is not able to learn from discourse. Some rightly say it takes trauma, a frivorce for example, to teach men with picc line infusion of blue pill medication.
Wade is the rare man who has severe allergies to red pill medication. If he accepted a taste, someone needs to have an Epi pen handy.
D-
I know you have discussed previously the DOD/transgender issue, and I have a post up that is related. Thought I would add it to a more recent/active thread. Carry on.
https://morallycontextualizedromanceblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/can-the-government-require-a-sincerity-test/
The persistent ignorance of the egalitarians has to be largely intentional. Jesus gave His life for His bride, as the Christian Husband us commanded to do. His bride mist definitely needs Him. As a covering and a provider.
The myth of feminine empowerment allows guys like Burelson to suppose that the role of a covering is obsolete. They ignore all evidence in our culture that it isn’t.
I don’t need my wife to need me any more than Jesus needs us to need Him. That doesn’t change the fact that we do.
My wife’s dependence on me is a reality that is an affront to feminism. It just is, it is not some contrived machination to keep her down as Burelson seems to suppose. Instead I see it as a responsibility to bear.
Do you have any responsibilities to bear at all Mr. Burelson? Your arguments beg the question.
Empath:
In Burleson’s blog entry about “transgenderism”, he obliquely suggests that men who are in sexual sin or “having mindless sex” should consider castration.
“The Greek word eunuch means “being good with respect to the mind” (eu nou ekhein), the opposite of what the ancient Greeks called “mindless” (a nouta). A eunuch is one without the necessary physical parts to perform sexual intercourse. Some, according to Jesus, can be eunuchs from birth, or made eunuchs by others, or have made themselves eunuchs “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”
“Eunuchs throughout history were the entrusted servants of emperors and kings. They could be entrusted with state secrets, they could be counted on to not steal the king’s wives (thus, they were “bed keepers for the queen”), and they were counted as the most loyal servants because they never participated in coups since they had no heirs to pass down the kingdom’s riches. In other words, the eunuch’s mind was a mind devoted to service, not self.
“The best servants of the King of Kings are those whose minds are devoted to love for others in service to the King, and not wrapped up in mindless sex.”
And then suggests the State castrate sex offenders, again obliquely suggesting ALL sex offenders are men:
“I would be in great favor of the state castrating any person who sexually violates any man, woman or child. Just maybe, that criminal who loses his male parts and testosterone may actually find his true identity and worth in Jesus Christ.”
Burleson is taking a decidedly feminine approach to all this. It’s clear he’s arguing from his feelings and is quite emotional about it.
Wade Burleson:
“I don’t need my wife to need me.
“Nor do I need to convince my wife she needs me.”
You don’t need your wife to need you. But your wife does need you. And God expects her to relate to you according to scripture: She is to respect you and submit to you in all things, and she is to get her spiritual, emotional and material needs met through you.
Her submission and respect is her duty to God, and reflects her obedience to God. Her getting needs met through you reflects obedience to God. It is necessary because God commands it, not because you need it or you need her to need you.
@deti
Yes, I noted an almost fascination with the idea of the eunuch. Romancing it and the glorification of celibacy. He does .so not to magnify any biblical concept of Christ centered focus or even an esthetic notion. He does so expressly to derive that marriage has no special place in the kingdom, that being merely a switchback on the way to same sex marriage and transgender affirmation, here again, not because he has given so much as a paused thought to those, rather to use those as rhetorical devices to get at men and porn.
A+ for meandering, for passive aggressive, for masquerading, for obfuscating, all to get to the Lift Chasing of berating men for wanting and needing sex, which necessarily (he may say) leads men to porn use and worse acting out.
@Empath
Your post @ 09.54am prompted me to read Pastor Burleson’s latest article – and with care – and which is all about Eunuchs. Jesus apparently had comparatively little problem with men pretending to be women – the relevant passage, one I have so far failed to locate – and how convenient then that is also Burleson’s view. Burleson thinks, however, that men who violate women, men or children – and we know how Feminists and their lackey Judges would interpret the word Violate down to such exotic infringements as eye-rape or ‘offensive’ speech – should be castrated. Converting to Islam a religion that seems to go in for that sort of thing might thus seem a natural step for the Pastor or perhaps he will just take his own advice and have his manhood removed so that he too can have less testosterone-filled trouble, lose muscle and body-hair as he gains weight and goes all girly.
I thought Christians were to control – even with the aid of the Holy Spirit or if Catholic any Saint of their choosing – their sexual impulses, not indulge in the pleasures of self-mutilation?
@Poke Salad
Though I do not much myself care for the term partner, it has some provenance. John Adams (your number 3?) uses the term and I think more than once in reference to Mrs Adams.
Wade follows the same script we’ve come to expect. No punishment for the worst of female crimes, e.g. abortion, but let’s castrate males because ‘forgiveness’ or some such. Why so judgemental Wade, surely the man’s sin is between him and God, right?! Don’t judge you bigot!
Cool how both of those guys made it to your blog Dalrock. Did any offer to have a personal conversation with you? Maybe one day you will be a commencement speaker at a seminary graduation. Let me know when that happens I would love to attend that.
PS there are three seminaries list in the Dallas/Fort worth area. rock on Dalrock
What’s the difference between a philosophy professor and a large pizza ?
A large puzza can feed a family of four.
GIL
The persistent ignorance of the egalitarians has to be largely intentional.
Hmm, not so sure. I’m going to use a word that can get a lot of emotions stoked up:
Cowardice.
If the worst thing in a man’s world is woman-tears, or woman-anger, then it logically follows that some form of appeasement is necessary. A man who is in some way afraid of his woman – either because he feels responsible when she cries, or has been scalded by a contentious mouth to the point he’ll concede anything just to get some peace and quiet if only for a moment – that man won’t confront her. He won’t correct her. He won’t rebuke her.
He won’t lead her, and he won’t be her head in any way.
Now, this leads to a larger question: how is it that so many men have learned to fear women?
I wonder if Burleson fears any of his wife’s emotions?
God’s word is very clear how a husband and a wife are to relate to each other, and your egalitarianism is not reflective of God’s word on that subject.
Which is why he and his fellow egalitarians have tossed most of God’s word into the trash can. What little of it they pay attention to they clownishly take out of context or deliberately distort either by inserting text that isn’t really there or by playing semantic games with what is there.
I wonder if Burleson fears any of his wife’s emotions?
My reading of his description of her is that she probably doesn’t really have any emotions. That’s why she “doesn’t need” him. I guess also that getting a PhD in nursing involves surgically removing emotions – as well as making you a StrongIndependentWoman[TM].
I’m also curious if her surname is hyphenated, in proper SIW form.
I’m always amused how ‘education’ used as an example of meaning something like strong or independent or don’t-need-no-man. I guess feminists thought that because men were getting degrees it was important or meant something to them. It’s just utility for money and/or family provision. Jealousy is a terrible thing.
I mean, really, who actually wants to grind out hours in a job, even if you’re fulfilled at it?
Now, this leads to a larger question: how is it that so many men have learned to fear women?
Men fear women because of the lethal legal arsenal they’ve been given control of and that they’re free to use without restraint. It’s as if the world’s entire nuclear arsenal were placed in the hands of spoiled, mentally retarded children who needed to be constantly pacified and appeased to keep them from unleashing Doomsday.
Here’s another example, the antagonist being a metaphor for collective Western woman:
@feeriker:
Great reference and very apt.
There are jobs where a boss will compliment you by saying “A days pay for a days work.”
All things being equal I don’t think any egalitarians work at those type of jobs while simultaneously bemoaning the “wage gap”.
My reflexive thought is: God needs man like a bicycle needs a fish.
I’m also curious if her surname is hyphenated, in proper SIW form.
I’m curious if sammiches makes she does
I’m curious if sammiches makes she does
Highly unlikely. Methinks if we had more sammiches and less feminists the world would be a better place.
A Padawans learn to make sammiches they do.
Teaches many important things it does
A word for Pastor Burleson, gleaned from Rollo:
“Whoever needs the relationship the least has the most control”.
This would mean that your relationship, however long-lived that it is, is inherently unstable.
Both you and your wife would be competing in a race to the bottom for who can need, and therefore care, the least.
Women are NOT “independent”. Such a concept is laughable in the modern world. Your average feminist wakes up in a bed made by men, puts her feet on a floor made by men, walks to a bathroom made by men, runs a tap whose water arrives to her from a complex system of pipes made by men, eats cereal , milk bread and other breakfast goods made by men, brushes her teeth with toothpaste invented by men, locks the door of her abode with a lock made by men, goes to her car invented designed and built by men, runs with oil and fuel drilled out of the ground and refined by men, gets to her office block built by men, sits at her desk built by men, turns on her computer built by men – in order to tell the world in a redundant article that she does not need men.
Are you understanding the appalling arrogance associated with feminism yet?
Bingo.
Anonymous,
In the end I agree, it has to be cowardice. It’s not the lift-chasing to get ahead of their peers, but rather a sort of lift-chasing to try to appear equal with men of even average masculinity. To pretend that masochism is noble, they try to diminish actual courage.
It’s common enough in current culture, instead of confronting the real evils of the world, they appeal to the mutli-culti sophistry of relativism. That’s why they are always telling you that you shouldn’t be a hero when confronted with evil, not because they actually have concern that ‘you might get hurt’, but because they can’t have anyone being any less a coward than themselves. Likewise, for men married to contentious women, there must be an attempt to make believe that castration is sacrosanct amongst men who are still intact.
A Personal Account of a Single Catholic Woman Telling of Her Vocation Confusion and Fear.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1011432
Why doesn’t God send me a good man?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1011265
feeriker
That video is what it is like to be married. especially if you have children. When the SHTF a lot of people are going to be killed be people with smiles on their faces.
Not to be cold, but is it worth losing your life to prove your heroism to someone who does not need you, and wouldn’t even hesitate to say so?
I’m also curious if her surname is hyphenated, in proper SIW form.
I’m curious if sammiches makes she does
Sammiches for men women with hyphenated surnames make they do not.
Sammiches for men women with hyphenated surnames make they do not.</em
As hyphenated surnames are to patriarchs and men of understandingn so are sammiches to feminists.
Blast it! I missed a marker. Only the 1st sentence should be in italics at 1:26 am.
Why doesn’t God send me a good man?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1011265
This multiply reincarnated question simply would not die. God must be very stingy, not sharing them hordes of good men in his closet. Or his storehouse. Or wherever he hid them.
But the truth is, He is no more obligated to “send you a good man” than he is to keep the weather warm so you could go and shop at the mall. You want a good man? You must get him the same way you get other things from God: by showing you are serious, and that you really, really want it, and won’t quit until you do. Solomon gave an example on how to get wisdom from God; that is how to get a good man:
Proverbs 2:
Ruth followed a similar path to get a husband: before she set her eyes on Boaz, she proved herself to be a good woman; she secured an experienced mentor in Naomi; she then pursued Boaz, and placed herself in his paths; and did not think he was a creep for being an older guy; but did everything her mentor advised her to do, and she got this good man to marry her—or “God sent her a good man”.
Trouble is, women of these days are too lazy and too self centered to put out any efforts to find a good man to marry. Even if Jesus were to ask to marry them they would complain about his lack of material wealth. Paul would be too short for them. Peter would be too impulsive. John the Baptist would be too uncivilized. John the Beloved would be too much of a nice guy. And of course, Boaz would be considered “a creepy old man” leering after young girls.
They would plow through all the good men in Christendom and will never be able to find a suitable one to marry. Fools.
…Christian woman who is my equal in every way.
Really? Are the women registered for the draft? Did they volunteer for Vietnam? They get to vote for politicians who start wars the women don’t have to fight in.
Lol! Video being torn to shreds! Still touting the ‘benefits’ of marriage to men and thinking it means something… The marriage premium is for society and women and children, men get less out of the deal compared to when they are single.
New guy here. Love this place!…
My problem with Burleson’s comment started with the word, “need”. It seems to mean something different in every context. The need for food and the need for redemption, for example, are both needs, but without the necessary context Burleson simultaneously obfuscates his meaning (leaving him a way out, if cornered), and confuses his readers. I never got past that word, and dismissed the rest of what he said.
One day I hope to have integrated the wealth of wisdom and experience available here and handle the truth half as well as many other commenters have.
Cheers!
Qwck.
FeministHater,
I cannot even bear to watch the video at all, knowing what garbage it surely contains.
But the comments are a relief. To receive so many downvotes across 500,000+ views is delightful. Some men are finally waking up.
FH,
Oh, that video is from the same Brad Wilcox who runs the ‘National Marriage Project’, which manages to deeply study marriage yet never mention that the laws might have some effect on the incentive structures around marriage and divorce.
Here is a picture of the man. If betas have a ‘look’, this guy has it :
He was polite in conversing with Dalrock in the past, but he surely disagrees with everything written here…
Thanks, he just knows which side his bread is buttered. He knows full well the problems with marriage, he chooses to ignore it because to say so would be the end of his career.
Him and Glenn Beck should share a room. Two beta cucks in a pod
I left a lengthy anonymous comment on Pastor Wade’s latest post about Shame vs. Transformation.
@ Feminist Hater
Brad Wilcox’s entire video is the argument that marriage makes a man wealthier, ROFL! Both in marriage and in divorce, you can hardly claim the man has rights to much of anything except to make his wife wealthier at his expense.
I make $75k a year before bonuses, and I can honestly say a man who makes $110 a year still won’t see the Net gain that I have being a single man. This is exactly the situation with one of my best friends, I make $75+/year and he makes $110+/year. Take a guess who…
…wasn’t able to keep his motorcycle because his wife just HAD to have that BMW that turned out to be a lemon?
…is financially and emotionally burdened with bastard children he didn’t sire?
…can’t afford to eat out at expensive restaurants with his friends?
…was forced to listen to the outrageously entitled complaints from his wife about a new washer/dryer set that was toploading instead of frontloading after just buying her a new 2,400 sq/ft home in a UMC neighborhood?
…was embarrassed by his wife belittling him in front of his friends when the hours and hours he spent on remodeling the kitchen for her wasn’t appreciated?
…is up to his eyeballs in crushing debt with only $100 leeway to spare every month for expenses?
If he would have made the argument that marriage makes a man wealthier in other areas such as emotional, social and spiritual, then he may have an argument on a case-by-case basis.
Statistically, married men may live longer, but I’m skeptical it will remain that way in the future.
LOL, this guy is oblivious.
When you are steeped in the blue pill and live in Manginaville, like Glenn, Brad and Wade. Of course men need marriage. It makes perfect sense. You see… men only exist to sacrifice for women and society. That is the entirety of their belief. Wade believes women don’t need men but men sure as hell need women, so that men can sacrifice. A perfect circle jerk.. To Wade and Brad, man’s sole existence is to sacrifice himself for women, anything that brings about that reality is a benefit to man. Once you understand their belief system, their wording makes sense.
The fact that a married man must give up free time, friends, having fun – you know, the good things in life – and work longer, die sooner and sacrifice more, whilst have less money for himself and generally living a very stressful life compared to a bachelor who earns less but has more free time, less stress and more money to spend, just reenforces the self-sacrificial paradigm these men have created.
The reality that men have wants and needs doesn’t enter into their thoughts, to them, those are boys, not men. Funny how it’s ‘be a man and get married’.. as if a man is only a man if he gets married… I fondly await them saying that to women and they had better start doing it, if they want to maintain a shred of decency.
@feminist hater
Sarah was commended for calling her husband “lord”, modern wives are taught to castrate their husbands so that he can perform as a good eunuch to serve the queen of the castle. Churchian men are found of praising their wives as their “better half” they don’t deserve etc. The church will not only tech her how to perform the castration (see Al Mohler for a complete set of instructions), but then will mock the poor fellow for his lack of masculinity. “She would follow if he would lead”, but he can’t lead she is an equal, yet she is more than equal on account of her moral superiority and the fact that her husband is not a real man…” and the hamster wheel goes round and round and round…
Anon @ May 20, 2016 at 10:15 am:
“Here is a picture of the man. If betas have a ‘look’, this guy has it :”
I’ve learned to hate and fear that style of glasses. They’re an unspoken uniform for sexual damage. Maybe a lurking FBI profiler could explain why that is.
…
Feminist Hater @ May 20, 2016 at 10:42 am:
“To Wade and Brad, man’s sole existence is to sacrifice himself for women, anything that brings about that reality is a benefit to man.”
What’s most remarkable about this is how it would be an excellent attitude for a wife to have for her husband. I think instead of cowardice or AMOGing, these guys are simply so feminized that they see themselves as their wife’s helpmeet: nurturing, serving, and praising the male of the relationship. That implies they see our efforts to unplug them as inciting unholy rebellion and disloyalty against the Mrs.
Wade’s self-described powerhouse of a wife certainly struck me as masculine.
‘One day I hope to have integrated the wealth of wisdom and experience available here and handle the truth half as well as many other commenters have.’
You sound like a qwck learner. Cheers.
If you guys think Wade is feminist you should take a look at the CBE Scroll. I got into numerous disputes over there before they deleted most of my comments and banned me from post! The guys spend so much time writing poetry to the female reproductive organs is physically nauseating 😛
On the money side, a good wife, that gives her husband a good name with the city elders, is frugal… is good at home ec. …ala Solomon’s description of a good wife… being married to that kind of wife will make a man wealthier.
But the majority of women these days? Who say they want to ‘share’ the chores, but actually mean they don’t want to do any of them? And they’re certainly not raised to be frugal. They definitely aren’t going to make a good name for him at work functions or in any other way to improve his earning ability. She certainly won’t be giving him any kind of encouragement day to day, as she’s been taught by pop culture to have contempt for him when she’s in his presence.
As a bachelor, you can tighten the belt when you need to. You can spend the time at the end of the day figuring out how to conquer or avoid obstacles to your professional success. You can also reflect on their success as the strategies are applied, retool, and charge forward again. You can also broaden your base of knowledge, consume as much intellectually as you like. All of this makes you earn more than you otherwise would if you just went with the flow.
If you’re married to a bad wife, you come home and first, must console her for how lonely you’re making her by keeping a roof over her head and food in the refrigerator. Then you have to clean up after her and run whatever errands she couldn’t be bothered with… and after all that, maybe you get to bed in time for eight hours of sleep. There’s no time to improve upon your professional potential and there’s no energy left to do so. You don’t make more money married to such a woman.
More of our women are being raised to become bad wifes rather than to be good ones, and as a result marriage is not a sum of parts is greater than the whole kind of equation.
If you’re married to a bad wife, you come home and first, must console her for how lonely you’re making her by keeping a roof over her head and food in the refrigerator. Then you have to clean up after her and run whatever errands she couldn’t be bothered with… and after all that, maybe you get to bed in time for eight hours of sleep. There’s no time to improve upon your professional potential and there’s no energy left to do so. You don’t make more money married to such a woman.
Sounds like the life of my brother, who has been married for the last three decades to 350 pounds of bitchy, lazy, useless, sexless lard. I used to feel sorry for him, then tried talking some red-pill sense into him, which he of course violently rejected, being the ultimate beta that he is. Now I just figure he’s one of those guys who will have to learn the hard way, if he ever does at all.
Sounds like the life of my brother, who has been married for the last three decades to 350 pounds of bitchy, lazy, useless, sexless lard.
So he has three wives? How did he manage that?
Oh, wait….
Pingback: The Patriarchy Part 2 | Christianity and the manosphere
Wow was this thread what I needed to hear. Or my STBX/Pt NJ needs to hear since she is one of them there “tough Alaska independent women” who cant pay the only damn bill she is responsible for yet she thinks she can afford this house and the mortgage in a divorce…HA! and I say again HA!
>>Trouble is, women of these days are too lazy and too self centered to put out any efforts to find a good man to marry. Even if Jesus were to ask to marry them they would complain about his lack of material wealth. Paul would be too short for them. Peter would be too impulsive. John the Baptist would be too uncivilized. John the Beloved would be too much of a nice guy. And of course, Boaz would be considered “a creepy old man” leering after young girls.
@Dave: Do more, do more. I have an idea for a picture book called: Where are all the good men?
Each page features a Biblical man rejected by the modern woman with her Hamter-ized explanation. Adam would fail shit tests to easily and she would walk all over him and get bored. Abraham is a patriarch who cheats on his wife. Issac is a scoundrel not suitable for a long term relationship and is only for Alpha f-cks. Joseph is a mommas boy who thinks he is so smart. King David may be a good looking King but he refuses to help with the housework and spends his time writing abstract poetry instead of paying attention to HER. Nathan is to bossy and controlling. Solomon thinks he is smarter than her….
@ bluepillprofessor, May 24, 2016 at 4:47 pm :
… so, I’ve misunderstood all along, and the crowd shouting “Barabbas, Barabbas! We Want Barabbas!” was actually a Girl’s Night Out skankmob demanding their favourite McBadBoy?
Denis Prager:
“Fourth, men benefit from the advice and encouragement of their wives….”
-Tell me Denis: When is this advice EVER in the family’s interest, or the man’s interest? It never is. Unless it serves the wife, it isn’t advice.
What is missing from his clip (Thanks, feminist hater) is what assurance men’s sacrifices have, when no-fault divorce can turn his whole life into a pile of manure in a second.
This HAS to be the Beta-Of-The-Year clip
Listening to what a wife says is quite wise in many situations. It is stupid to completely discard that.
If she really wants to go to Chili’s and I don’t really care, then I would go to Chili’s. I would also value her input on very important decisions, even if I ultimately make the decision.
You don’t have to go to the extreme of completely ignoring your wife to operate in reality. That is just as stupid as letting her lead.
Pingback: Comment of the month. | Dalrock