In 5 Key Ways to Cultivating Biblical Manhood in Your Church Dr. Allen writes:
Fifth, as preachers, we must intentionally enlist, equip, and empower men into leadership roles in our churches. Biblically, theologically, and logically, the indispensable ingredient to complementarianism is biblical manhood. One of the recurring arguments that undermines male leadership in the church is the absence of biblically-qualified male leaders. Let us determine to make the red herring, “What if there is no man to lead or preach?” an extinct species.
This is an interesting statement, because while he calls the argument a red herring, he doesn’t dispute it. In fact, his solution (training more men) suggests that the argument is in fact true*.
This leaves two possibilities. The first (and I believe most charitable) is my assertion from my last post that he is making a similar case regarding church leadership that complementarians make about the military; women are being forced to fill a leadership vacuum in the church because there aren’t enough qualified men willing to lead. This claim is of course absurd, but as I wrote I think this is the more charitable reading of his statement.
A less charitable interpretation would be to assume that he understands that the real problem is that women are in full rebellion and are using claims of men not being available to lead as a cynical smokescreen for their rebellion. This is less charitable because given his insistence that the answer to the problem is not to tell women no, this would mean that he knows what the real problem is but is too fearful to do what is right. The reason for his refusal to act against the rebellion could be fear of the wrath of the women who are rebelling, or fear of acknowledging a key lie underpinning complementarianism. It could also be a combination of fear of backlash from rebellious women and a fear of backlash from other complementarian men.
At any rate, what is without question is that Dr. Allen is focusing his attention on other men’s leadership failures (men who unlike him aren’t even in leadership) while allowing a very open rebellion from women in his own organization. The article his seminary published in January, The Problem With Our Complementarianism, is without question the most unabashedly feminist complementarian piece I have read to date; I was surprised to see a complementarian seminary publish something so overtly hostile to men in leadership. The article is indefensible, and that it not only was published but has not been retracted tells us a great deal about the status quo of his seminary. That this rebellion is going on unchecked in his own backyard is striking in and of itself, but it is all the more astounding given his very public complaints that there aren’t enough men in leadership.
*Labeling an argument a red herring only means that the argument isn’t relevant. In this case, he appears to be arguing that women really are feeling forced to take over leadership roles due to a lack of qualified men, yet the lack of qualified men doesn’t change the fact that only men should hold those positions.
Lore (pron Lor-ee) is an interesting person. She’s a Village Church protege’ and if you think from her complementarian blog she’s a mess then you should take a look at her public Facebook wall. None of her blog posts seem to have anything about the Word in them, they are all “FEEL-lings.’
Pingback: Red Herring – Manosphere.org
Here is her blog: http://sayable.net it’s something!
By Lore Ferguson Wilbert
That should say it all. No hyphen, but using her last name as her middle name to hide the pretense that she is not a feminist.
Eh, this “red herring” statement appears to be…a red herring. Rather than acknowledge the active efforts by conservative feminists to usurp duties and responsibilities given to men, he instead drags out the stinky, tired “no good men” line, if only to defeat it. But it’s not a straw man, because this “no good men” line is really quite common.
It’s telling that even a little bit of a hint of a whiff of a dab of recognition of the rebellion of women sends these tracons scurrying to attack men, even if by a bit of reverse-spin red herring.
Bonus for all the times in the “5 ways” posting he refers to the Bible, and claims to oppose twisting language. Twisting language is what conservative feminists do all the time. All. The. Time.
“Male Leadership” in the church amounts to 0% authority and 100% accountability to a church doctrine steeped in the Feminine Imperative. It’s not a Red Herring and it’s not rocket science, it’s simple male deductive pragmatism; just as in marriage, there is little incentive for men to participate in an institution that requires he volunteer to be little more than a tool, and later a scapegoat.
That’s the definition of a “biblically-qualified” man in a church founded on feminine primacy. It goes back to your posts on incentives for marriage Dal. What right-minded man wants to sign up for his own indenturement? And we’re not even talking about drawing new men to the church. Even Beta chumps raised into fem-church servitude are questioning their roles with every “men’s retreat” that attempts to ‘return’ them to a feminine-distorted definition of masculinity.
Allen make’s vichy-male pleas for ‘biblically-qualified’ male leadership in the church, but it’s important to point out that he (by default) is the self-styled model of that leadership, and thus represents the model of the type of men he would like to see “step up to the plate” and volunteer to be beholden to a “christianized” feminine power base.
If he is the man that christian men ought to aspire to be in roles of church leadership what message are the men he’d like to join him getting from him? For someone so convinced of the righteousness of his purpose and conviction one would think there’d be thousands of biblically-qualified men lining up to fill this vacuum.
Coloradomtnman – Lore (pron Lor-ee) is an interesting person…. None of her blog posts seem to have anything about the Word in them, they are all “FEEL-lings.’
Her emotion chip is working overtime.
At any rate, what is without question is that Dr. Allen is focusing his attention on other men’s leadership failures (men who unlike him aren’t even in leadership) while allowing a very open rebellion from women in his own organization. The article his seminary published in January, The Problem With Our Complementarianism, is without question the most unabashedly feminist complementarian piece I have read to date; I was surprised to see a complementarian seminary publish something so overtly hostile to men in leadership. That article is indefensible, and that it not only was published but has not been retracted tells us a great deal about the status quo of his seminary.
If Allen, in his own mind, thinks that he is an example of what “effective male leadership” looks like, then it is no wonder that the Amazons are storming the ramparts and are taking over. Truly one of the most pathetically spineless and dishonest individuals ever to curse the top chair of a “Christian” institution, even by TradCuck standards. He might as well just castrate himself.
The only real takeaway message from this is “stick a fork in the American church; it’s DONE.” (We already knew this, but the prevalence of Allen’s attitude across the denominational board, and the increasing frequency and boldness with which it is being broadcast, just confirms it.)
In a red-pill church, one question that any prospective officer (preacher, board member, etc.) would have to answer is simple: “When was the last time you said “No” to your wife and made it stick?” and answered with no hesitation, hemming, hawing, umming, etc. That’s after all the theology questions, and it’s just as important. Because it’s all very well for some man to beat his chest and claim that he’s all about “headship”, but actions speak louder than words.
That would screen out all the pedestalizers, the White Knights eager to excuse bad female behavior, the mommy-issues types. Of course it would cut out Keller, Piper, pretty much the entire CBMW, a big chunk of the leaders of TGC, maybe some entire denominations…but, so?
Some regulars here won’t like this, but it’s becoming pretty clear to me anyway that “servant leader” and “doormat” are synonyms in the modern churches. There’s more than enough doormats in “leadership” positions right now.
Rollo,
I have to agree there. One of the traits of a leader is to mentor and “raise” up those that they lead to have them someday be leaders themselves. One of those characteristics is to overlook or turn someone you are leading from his small inconsequential mistakes toward a habit of productivity.
What these pastors fail to realize is that they are the leaders in that church organization thereby making them the failures in raising up men to lead in specific roles. The irony is that they do not see that they are guilty of what they accuse men under their leadership of doing!
This is a gamma character, not even beta. Not realizing something and lying to yourself and others while at the same time blaming others for something you are responsible for producing. There is no wonder that church pastors are no better than politicians in that they couldn’t run a business that relies on giving consumers a product or service that they are willing and gladly pay for instead of relying on guilt and/or the wife’s nagging to pay a tithe.
In a red-pill church, one question that any prospective officer (preacher, board member, etc.) would have to answer is simple: “When was the last time you said “No” to your wife and made it stick?” and answered with no hesitation, hemming, hawing, umming, etc. That’s after all the theology questions, and it’s just as important. Because it’s all very well for some man to beat his chest and claim that he’s all about “headship”, but actions speak louder than words.
It would require even bolder action than that. It would require the delivery of a message –or more likely, a series of messsges– on the Pauline instructions to women throughout the New Testament, backed by relevant portions of Old Testament law. It would all begin with a message stating in no uncertain terms the following:
“The accommodation of modern egalitarianism, and its faux offshoot known as complimentarianism, that have infected the church for the last half century are, as of today, right now, this minute no longer operative in this congregation.
“Effective today, this minute, right now, the men are in charge in this church, as God commands in Scripture that they be.
“Ladies, if you have any objections to this, take a moment right now to stand up, lift your faces and fists skyward, and let loose on God with all the wrath you can muster, because He’s the one you have a problem with – not me, and not the other men here. And after venting your spleens, you can then turn around and go right out the open doors in the back of the sanctuary and go find another church that will let you continue to pretend that you can accommodate the ways of the world, at the paltry cost of your eternal soul. And you can go ahead and take your (so-called) husbands with you. By your behavior they will have demonstrated that they’re the farthest thing imaginable from the kind of men this church needs as leaders. We are no longer ‘playing church’ here!
“So go ahead and take five minutes to make your decision. After that time elapses, this will either be the smallest New Testament church in the western world, or I will be blessed with a family of true Christ followers that I never fully appreciated before. A third possibility is that I’ll be tarred, feathered and run out of here, but at least I’ll go out having tried to do what God wants rather than what man –or more accurately, WOMAN– wants.
“Anyway, I’ll wait. Regardless of what happens in the next five minutes, this morning’s message will be Part I of a five-part message series on male headship in the church and in the home and on the proper roles for women in service to the Lord.”
This is the kind of male leadership Allen’s words claim that he wants to see in the church. He would, in reality, defecate all over himself and probably stroke out if any pastor or male elder in a position of authority actually ever showed such fortitude. Imagine also his reaction if women in massive numbers reacted POSITIVELY to such a red-pill message and stepped aside to ACTUALLY LET THE MEN LEAD.
Pingback: Biblical Patriarchy. [Eph 3] | Dark Brightness
Feeriker, nice counterfactual (hope I’m using that correctly). Something came to me yesterday that may offer a third possible understanding of Allen’s play-dumbness: when I start looking at TGC churches as sources of UMC values, then things start to make more sense for me. It explains the book learning, the coffee, the business model management, and the bible teaching. There is overlap between UMC values and true Christian growth, which is why I think it’s hard to distinguish between the two. Pauline teaching is one way to show the difference between the two, and that might be one reason it is ignored. It helps me understand why politeness seems to be idolized, because it is a big UMC value. So in Allens case, he’s unknowingly advancing feminism by pushing UMC values while purposefully staying away from headship because it would be divisive and by golly, his identity demands niceness. So he could day he believes in headship but chooses to stay away, not because he is fearful, but because he is a strong believer in calm deliberation and peacefulness.
I want to shower off after writing that, but thats my attempt at bringing something to this.
What’s amazing to me is that these problems are noticeable to people like Dalrock in Texas and other places around the world’s churches. I can understand it for urban and university-area churches. It’s surprising to think that if I moved to rural Texas, I might still face a headship struggle in the local churches?
Something came to me yesterday that may offer a third possible understanding of Allen’s play-dumbness: when I start looking at TGC churches as sources of UMC values, then things start to make more sense for me. It explains the book learning, the coffee, the business model management, and the bible teaching. There is overlap between UMC values and true Christian growth, which is why I think it’s hard to distinguish between the two. Pauline teaching is one way to show the difference between the two, and that might be one reason it is ignored. It helps me understand why politeness seems to be idolized, because it is a big UMC value.
You’re definitely onto something here. It is axiomatic that Americans tolerate true Christianity only to the extent that it doesn’t disrupt their comfy MC/UMC lifestyles.
Nice makes the wheels of the church business move smoothly, and many believe Jesus was above all, nice. He wasn’t always nice, ask the Pharisees. No, Jesus was always good and his goodness ruffled many feathers
“It is axiomatic that Americans tolerate true Christianity only to the extent that it doesn’t disrupt their comfy MC/UMC lifestyles.”
MC/UMC Americans.
That’s a rapidly shrinking category.
This guy already has a side piece he wants in the church. He is just clearing the way with this talk.
“Fifth, as preachers, we must intentionally enlist, equip, and empower men into leadership roles in our churches.”
So he delegates authority and shares the pulpit with laymen, right?
“One of the recurring arguments that undermines male leadership in the church is the absence of biblically-qualified male leaders.”
Per basic Protestant doctrine, any Christian layman who meets the criteria of Timothy & Titus is a biblically qualified leader. Between professional clergy and disdain for Scripture, many Protestant churches act quite Catholic. That would be fine if they were Catholic but do these guys even know what it means to be Protestant? Less expository Greek exegesis and more dead white male history, please.
Pingback: Red Herring | Reaction Times
Between professional clergy and disdain for Scripture, many Protestant churches act quite Catholic. That would be fine if they were Catholic but do these guys even know what it means to be Protestant?
This is yet another symptom of just how thoroughly Progressivism and its obsession with credentials, dogma, and blind faith in institutionalism has co-opted North American Protestantism over the last 100-125 years.
@Swanny River, I responded to you in the previous post.
The referenced blog post here is powerfully ironic. The church is bereft of male leadership, just not in the way this guy thinks.
True dramatic irony a la Oedipus the King requires that the protagonist be unaware of the true state of affairs. Candidly, it’s difficult to even conceive that this guy doesn’t know what’s up. But you know what? Four years ago I would have been him and entirely, sincerely convinced.
Coloradomtnman – Lore (pron Lor-ee) is an interesting person…. None of her blog posts seem to have anything about the Word in them, they are all “FEEL-lings.’
Her emotion chip is working overtime.
Clever you are.
Analyzed the Data well you did
Thought you’d appreciate this, especially the quote about worshiping male power.
http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarianism-a-quick-observation-about-where-weve-been-and-where-were-going/
I’m inclined to go with the more charitable interpretation. It’s just so deeply ingrained.
“A less charitable interpretation would be to assume that he understands that the real problem is that women are in full rebellion and are using claims of men not being available to lead as a cynical smokescreen for their rebellion. This is less charitable because given his insistence that the answer to the problem is not to tell women no, this would mean that he knows what the real problem is but is too fearful to do what is right. The reason for his refusal to act against the rebellion could be fear of the wrath of the women who are rebelling, or fear of acknowledging a key lie underpinning complementarianism. It could also be a combination of fear of backlash from rebellious women and a fear of backlash from other complementarian men.”
Reading through the less charitable interpretation I can’t help but thinking that it’s a bit optimistic to think he secretly understands the real problem. If he really understood the real problem then there would have to be other men who also saw the real problem… women in full rebellion. And if there were multiple men in these leadership positions who saw the real problem eventually we’d come across one of them who couldn’t take it anymore and would speak out. Or am I being naive and overly optimistic? They know exactly what the real issue is and the fear is that crippling to so many.
I’m a newly-installed deacon of a church and we have a woman deacon. Obviously not Biblical and to make it worse we have no elders and end up doing a lot of spiritual leadership that should be reserved for men. Our woman deacon was recently delegated a task that should properly be with a man… a borderline discipline issue. I approached the Chariman/Vice-Chairman discreetly after the fact and let them know I believed we were being disobedient to Scripture. I got nowhere. I’m wrestling with how much I should fight this. Am I the man who understands the root issue and is too fearful to do what is right? Do I dig in on this issue and force a discussion/confrontation of the issue?
The pragmatic side of me says this is a long fight… don’t stake everything on a battle and sacrifice the strategic goal. I’m currently writing a Sunday School curriculum geared toward men that seeks to draw out Scriptural truths on the genders (men and women) and their headship/helper relationship. Teaching that class is my strategic goal. The change has to start with the lay men of the church… I’ve given up on finding a pastor who teaches this properly.
Am I missing the truly faithful and obedient churches out there when it comes to headship/helper? I would love to find a church full of like-minded families where men lead and women have gentle and quiet spirits. In their absence I’m praying for the fortitude to point men to the truth.
Something that is cool about my church is that the leaders actually run a leadership training program for all the young men. It runs in two year cycles, and it’s not only for church leadership but all kinds of leadership. So basically any man with the slightest desire to lead in our church gets a chance to be encouraged and mentored in that.
I was reading about “The Matthew Effect” in education, basically the idea that education can actually exacerbate inequality. Studies have actually found that when you introduce supplementary programs to help close gaps between boys and girls (visuospatial for girls, reading for boys) actually what happens is that the boys excel even more greatly than girls where they were already advantage and the same with the girls, and the gaps are bigger than before.
So I think the fact that we have this program for men and not for women is significant. There’s this push to make sure that women are getting the same amount of resources and support as men now in complementarian churches, but I think that’s just going to expand the gap that’s already there — the “ferociously godly” (masculine) women that no man can apparently live up to… or want to live up to.
Women are good at being obedient students. I think women are more likely to organize a Bible Study where you pop in a Beth Moore DVD and fill in the blanks than men are… do men even have an equivalent to this? That will add up to something that might look like fitness for leadership, but isn’t.
@LeeLee:
No, it’s pretty insulting to “fill in the blanks” for Biblical discussions as an adult. Men don’t like the disrespect involved.
From my observation, God is never in favor of the so-called equality.
When you look into God’s creation as a whole, you will quickly realize that He deliberately created hierarchies into the world, not equality. As a matter of fact, we can safely state that there are no two things that God created to be equal. Even the Persons in the Godhead are not equal. The Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28), who is greater than the Holy Spirit (John 15:26, implied, because you cannot “send” your superior to go do a job for you).
When God gave talents to His servants in the Parable of the Talents, He never gave them equal amounts. One received five, another two and yet another one received only one talent (Matthew 25:14-30). That is unequal by design. They were talented “according to their abilities” to manage those talents. “Abilities” that were in all probability created in them from the start.
At the end of time, we still will not be equal. Each person will be rewarded “according to their works” (Revelation 20:13; Romans 2:6). Thus, God is better called “The God of hierarchies, not equality”.
The very idea of “equality” originated with satan himself. First, he wanted to be equal with God, and “be like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14). When that failed, he peddled his nice-sounding but destructive doctrine to Eve, seducing her to join him in his failed mission:
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God (Elohim) doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be [equal to] gods [Elohim]… (Genesis 3:4,5).
God created everything uniquely, not equally. And this applies to men and women.
And after venting your spleens, you can then turn around and go right out the open doors in the back of the sanctuary and go find another church that will let you continue to pretend that you can accommodate the ways of the world, at the paltry cost of your eternal soul.
They would do that. They would stomp out and attend one of the many churches that validates and celebrates their feeeeeelings…. whoa, whoa, whoa, feeeeeeeelings.
Eternal soul be damned! Husband be damned! Right now this instant I’m not haaaaaaapy!
“The reason for his refusal to act against the rebellion could be fear of the wrath of the women who are rebelling…”
I think it is much worse than even that. If any man tries to lead the White-Knights go full out Duluth model to accuse the leader of abuse and so put down the male attempts to lead. The Citadel of female rebellion is well defended while the patriarchal threat faces the full brunt of assaults. It is most telling that on the one hand they lament about the lack of male leadership and on the other encourage contempt toward male leadership. The feminists and white-knights have made life one big fitness test that is framed as heads the matriarchs win, tails the patriarchs lose.
@Dave – Interesting take on equality. But, I don’t know if all of the Enlightenment can be considered “Demonic.” Equality under the law is ok in my book.
I think if the churches want to bring back male leadership, they should look into the brothels the Popes set up in Rome during the Middle Ages.
@Damn Crackers
I hear you. I am for “equality before the law” as well. In God’s book, I think that is called “justice”, and that is different from the brand of “equality” being pushed by the liberals. Justice is letting the guy with one talent enjoy the work of his hands, just like the guy with ten talents. But when we try to make both of them to become “equal” in their lifestyles? That is not justice and God is not for it.
Years ago when I was a younger Christian, I did spend time with older Christian men. They could have told me some Red Pill advice in privacy. Seriously, my Catholic friends and I do. In fact, one Christian pastor told me when a married Christian man seeks marital advice/counselling on his own without his wife, it’s almost always a path to divorce. I’m still married 14 years later because of RP and returning to Catholic Church. Although now I take my kids to Methodist because they serve food and have videos that my kids are wired to automatically view.
“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.”
Dr. Allen’s problem is that he takes the “red herring” claim in good faith–if only the church did better, said the right things, strived to cultivate male leadership, raised up more godly men, etc.–the whole dilemma of females in leadership positions would disappear. He fails to understand, due to a lack of shrewdness no doubt, that there will always be forces of darkness against the biblical model of masculinity/femininity and hierarchy. Every church in America could spend a full year cultivating male leaders with sound biblical doctrine and you’d still get the feminist argument there isn’t enough leadership. What is first needed is a defense of scriptural teachings and male leadership as it stands in the churches today, as any gaps or wanting in this leadership can be addressed as traditional norms are reinforced to a people which has largely forgotten them. If Dr. Allen were shrewd, he’d reframe the debate by denying the premise of the “red herring” altogether and instead attack feminism and liberalism.
As Americans we are given individual rights, not group rights. Liberals love social justice for victim groups while despising the individual rights of the other 99% who aren’t special snowflakes. We are all unequal in all ways. Not a problem if you exploite your talents, work hard and save your money.
And after venting your spleens, you can then turn around and go right out the open doors in the back of the sanctuary and go find another church that will let you continue to pretend that you can accommodate the ways of the world, at the paltry cost of your eternal soul.
They would do that. They would stomp out and attend one of the many churches that validates and celebrates their feeeeeelings…. whoa, whoa, whoa, feeeeeeeelings.
No doubt most of deh wimminz –and their eunuch “husbands”– would indeed vote with their feet. Fine. As my hyopthetical preacherman said, that would just make this hypothetical church one of the smallest NT churches in the world. Quality over quantity (substance over form).
Eternal soul be damned! Husband be damned! Right now this instant I’m not haaaaaaapy!
I’m tragically forced to conclude that nearly all women, as well as a significant majority of men, are going to require the ultimate Judgment Day “ass whuppin'” to show them that “high time preference” (to put it in economic terms) is a very bad, very destructive thing.
The red herring is failed Church Leadership lead by weak men.
The problem is not one of churchian culture but is a symptom of the larger female rebellion and takeover of our society. The central commandment of our culture and of Churchian culture is:
THOU SHALT NOT MAKE ANY WOMAN FEEEEEEEEEEEL BAD.
Like we say, if you want to know who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize. Women are a protected and highly privileged class that has managed to wrap itself in the flag of oppression and exercise special rights even while continuing to whine about nonexistent oppression. It is like the old Soviet leaders, the local Chair of the “Soviet” who has special shops and whose word means life or death…but he is merely an oppressed Proletarian and so long as his power is used to help the oppressed Proletarian/women, then it is fine.
So we have the Holodomur and 15,000,000 Ukrainians starved to death. We have Pol Pot and 2,000,000 regular city living people slaughtered and starved, we have “people’s Revolutions” all over the world with carnage to put the Muslims to shame. All of it is justified actions by the TRUE rulers (women/communists) in order to take revenge on the previous rulers.
Do you think 10’s of thousands of men blowing out their brains warrants a microsecond of introspection? Do you think boys checking out and refusing to participate in marriage and even society itself matters in the least? Do you think boys only being 35% of college students and continuing to drop is a concern? Power to the people! Crush the patriarchy.
60,000 men kill themselves! But the REAL problem is 4,000 women also killed themselves. See! Women have it just as bad as men. Quit being a baby. Quit whining. You must have a small penis. No wonder your wife divorced you.
The only thing that matters is the Feminine Imperative. This is why I, a married man who moderates a Reddit for married men, who wrote a book for married men, argues so passionately for MGTOW. We cannot get a foothold for social change because, like the Bonobo’s before them, whenever a male shows any signs of awareness or even aggression, ALL the females gang up on him and beat him down. Then, because bonobos are more rational and intelligent than human females in order to pacify him they usually take turns and screw him into a coma.
Thus, faced with screeching, emotional monkeys, the ONLY way foment change is to inconvenience the monkey/women who are the rulers. The subjects, men, dying by the thousands and later by the millions ONLY warrants comment when it begins to inconvenience women. On the macro level as well as on the micro level we men have ONE card to play- our commitment to them and to the whole female pyramid scheme. Take it away and watch them collapse and fall back into line. Continue to fight them in their frame, and you will be worn down.
Try to fight them on their own turf? Ha! Watch the Bonobos in action fellows. The women will all join in on the beat down along with a horde of White Knights. Then, NOT like the Bonobos they will fuck you into a coma. Except there won’t be any actual sex, just women fucking with you. They will get on that telephone and you will be ostracized from the church immediately. They will order the husbands to stop socializing with you. I don’t think this is a battle that can be won. Although I applaud the Kamikaze pilots flying at top speed into burning deck and believe you will die an honorable, even glorious death, at the end of the day your cities will be glowing, radioactive piles of rubble.
A strange game professor. The only winning move is not to play.
Apologies for exceeding the maximum number of allowable mixed metaphors in my previous post.
I think it is much worse than even that. If any man tries to lead the White-Knights go full out Duluth model to accuse the leader of abuse and so put down the male attempts to lead. The Citadel of female rebellion is well defended while the patriarchal threat faces the full brunt of assaults. It is most telling that on the one hand they lament about the lack of male leadership and on the other encourage contempt toward male leadership. The feminists and white-knights have made life one big fitness test that is framed as heads the matriarchs win, tails the patriarchs lose.
I really do think you’ve nailed it.
I don’t think that it’s any exaggeration to say that any Christian man now or in the future who seeks to lead a movement to restore the proper biblical roles for men in society and in church and who takes up that struggle as his cross is literally going to be martyred – whether that means actually being put to death or “merely” having his life destroyed by losing his job, his home, his family, and/or being thrown into prison. I can also guarantee you that he will be a very lonely man; you can rest assured that nearly all of society —including his church— will foresake him and be looking to hasten his destruction. True violent criminals and non-believers will be afforded more respect by both society at large and by “Christians” than this man will.
@Rollo
This is it.
At the same time, a pastor usually harbors resentment towards men because he finds himself surrounded by women. He’ll attach all kinds of uplifting qualifiers to those women (helpful, blessed, God-centered, seeking, whathaveyou) because “One must assume the best, afterall.” or so he says to himself. A pastor won’t allow himself to see merely the fact in front of his face: Women seek attention for themselves. That would be a failure to be charitable according to the (false) idea that Jesus came to bring us niceness. So who can he be mad at for being left alone with all these “needy” people? Everyone is mad at men already. And men aren’t beating down the doors to church events; nor do they seem to need anything from him so they must be skating-by off his good works…
TL;DR version: Pastors are usually mommas-boys.
@feeriker
I have wondered several times if this thought is why Voddie Baucham left America to be a dean at a university in Africa.
It helps me understand why politeness seems to be idolized, because it is a big UMC value. So in Allens case, he’s unknowingly advancing feminism by pushing UMC values while purposefully staying away from headship because it would be divisive and by golly, his identity demands niceness.
Feminist concepts made progress in MC/UMC homes, b/c the women kept a pleasant house for the man of the house who was out doing work that was often dirty, so he conceded many points of control to her. These concepts include the one you mention: politeness. Women told men to be “polite” in their own homes, and men did so, believing it to be reasonable at the time.
Those concepts then infiltrated other institutions, including the Church (as well as schools, gov’t, etc) as many of the MC/UMC were often members of several, and usually had great influence. Politeness began to trump many of the previously used guiding principles b/c it’s so versatile that it can be presented as meaning the same thing (i.e., in the Church it’s often said that being polite is showing Christian love. In gov’t it’s said that being polite is being “civil”.) But this then allows for this new word “polite” to be redefined over time, corrupting those institutions.
Polite now means to be tolerant, or really, accepting of any deviant who comes along. Even though this is in stark opposition to Christian love or civility, (well Western Civilization) it has deep roots and is hard to shake.
TL;DR version: Pastors are usually mommas-boys.
IME they’re always at the extreme ends of the spectrum, either milquetoasty omega Momma’s boys or ueber-alphas. Either way, AMOGing is always a key part of their order of battle, which explains the hostility toward men. The motivations are just different depending on their personality type.
After rereading the link, it actually wasn’t half-bad. He called for a return to a serious treatment of scripture, fostering masculinity, strong preaching that appeals to men, clarity in the differences of gender roles, and cultivating gender distinction. I still believe him taking the “red herring” argument (that there is a dearth of male leadership in the church) in good faith as naïve, but he isn’t far off here.
@ feeriker
“any Christian man now or in the future who seeks to lead a movement to restore the proper biblical roles for men in society and in church and who takes up that struggle as his cross is literally going to be martyred … I can also guarantee you that he will be a very lonely man; you can rest assured that nearly all of society —including his church— will foresake him …”
I am a sample of only one, but I can attest to veracity of your statement from personal experience and I was the pastor (emphasis on the word was).
OT: Lying SJW churchcucks score another victory: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/controversial.get.them.married.teen.retreat.cancelled.after.outcry/85489.htm Basically the entire article is a misrepresentation of course, but truth be damned. Don’t try to meet like minded families and find good spouses for your kids guys, musn’t let anything get in the way of the female imperative.
“any Christian man now or in the future who seeks to lead a movement to restore the proper biblical roles for men in society and in church and who takes up that struggle as his cross is literally going to be martyred ”
Yep, another example of the lying SJW churchcucks doing exactly that just occurred http://www.christiantoday.com/article/controversial.get.them.married.teen.retreat.cancelled.after.outcry/85489.htm
A gross misrepresentation of an article of course, but truth be damned, the female imperative must not be questioned. I know the man, he’s getting death threats to his family now.
On leadership: We are supposed to be behind the leader, wherever he is. He is not supposed to be in front of us, wherever we are. Leadership is not possible without the presence of someone willing to follow. Rulership has no such restriction. God told Eve that she would be ruled. He did not tell her that she would be led.
So – in view of the turmoil described in this thread and the posts above, can we consider what God actually said (as Himself, and in the form of Jesus)?
1. Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”. (John 14:6)
2. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him … (John 6:44)
Can’t get to God, except through Jesus. Can’t get to Jesus unless God draws you to him. Lazarus can’t call himself out of the grave. And Jesus says that no one can come to him unless God draws them. God, not us.
Do we think if we try harder, and just find the right words, we can get around the truth of those two scriptures? Define the problem correctly (rebellion). Come up with alternative solutions based on a correct definition of the problem (male rulership – not leadership – per God’s words to Eve in Genesis). Implement the solution. Then peace comes and the Lion then lies down with the Lamb. Really? I invite you to re-read Points 1 and 2 above if necessary.
I don’t think God gives us any reason to think this problem will ever be solved before the Resurrection. Adam’s father did not give him the kind of wife that these parts would describe as desireable. Adam’s father gave him a wife of the type that is being criticized in these parts. Seems like it’s a feature, not a bug – with the reason why known only to God.
If Adam had done the “right” thing and chosen God over Eve, he would have been left alone by himself as Eve was expelled from the Garden. The first member of MGOTW. That is the true message of the Genesis story. In God’s story about our beginnings, it wasn’t the woman who got raised up to the man’s level of respect for God. It was the man who chose to be on a lower level with her. That is the story God chose to share with us through Moses – as an example of our lot in life?
I’m not pushing an agenda, other than asking you to seriously consider what truth there may be in the following paragraphs – and then let that truth inform your attitude and choices going forward. The writings linked to and referred to above may be part of the process of building an empire, but they don’t reflect what God actually said (see Points 1 & 2 above). Nothing we do by ourselves will solve the problem of rebellion. By design, it seems.
Perhaps Adam didn’t know the truth of Point 2 above. At any rate, Adam did not choose to go his own way by obeying God rather than Eve, and leave the outcome up to God (God could have drawn Eve back to God and to Adam). In truth, every man faces the choice Adam faced: go your own way, alone if necessary, do what God says, and leave the “drawing” up to God – since that is his domain and we really cannot counteract it. Or don’t. The Bible does not describe a third way.
Our story is complicated by the following reality. In Genesis, God said that it was not good for man to be alone. Up to that point, it had just been God and Adam. And yet God declared that it was not good for Adam to be alone. God’s statement was an admission that God alone was not sufficient for Adam. And so God created for Adam an entity that God knew would force Adam to choose between God and her. God knew that Eve would do this, and created her anyway. And God signalled in advance that he knew the choice that Adam would make when Gad said that it was not good for man to be alone.
Choose God over her, and be in a state that God described as “not good”. Choose her (in her rebellion), and be expelled from God’s presence until the Resurrection. Our story, as expressed through the Adam and Eve story, is more complicated and nuanced than they ever told us in Sunday School. For starters, did God really intend for Adam to reject the rebellious woman he created to cure Adam’s aloneness? God had already stated that it was not good for Adam to just be alone with God.
The only thing we know for certain is that God told Eve that Adam would rule over her. He did not tell Eve that Adam would lead her. Leadership requires a follower. Rulership doesn’t. Leadership cannot exist in the presence of rebellion (are you really a leader if no one is following you?). Rulership suffers no such restriction. Saying that Adam would rule over her implies that Eve would not ever tame her own rebellion. Adam’s rulership would need to contend with that.
As Rollo has already dealt with upthread, I cannot think of any reason why any man should want to “lead” rebellious women in church. But I can think of several reasons why a man might embrace the opportunity to “rule” over rebellious women in the way God instructs him to. The New Testament church that would result would be nothing in scope and size like the religious empires we see today. Perhaps that is why so much emphasis is placed on “lead” (a word which God did not use) and not on “rule” (a word which God did use).
@Yoda Lore married her husband after knowing him for three months about a year ago; this qualifies her somehow to be a complementation blogger! Hey, if you don’t want it discussed then don’t place it out there in the public domain.
@RichardP:
One of the fascinating traps they set Men up, since it goes to our Western sensibilities, is that if you just “God Harder”, it’ll all go “your way”. It’s an evil & cruel trap that no one wants to talk about.
@ArchimedesOnce:
Get your friend a copy of “SJWs Always Lie”, or send him the Survival Guide. He needs it, ASAP.
http://www.voxday.net/mart/SJW_Attack_Survival_Guide.pdf
ArchimedesOnce says:
May 10, 2016 at 4:43 pm
After reading that linked article, the Salvation Army is going to be removed from my list of charitable organizations that will ever again get another dime from me.
Oh, and where can I contact Vaughn Ohlman to give him my support and encouragement?
Interesting news story in the Washington Post about the rise of single motherhood: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/18/the-unbelievable-rise-of-single-motherhood-in-america-over-the-last-50-years/
The story relates the problems faced by children raised in fatherless homes, but then adds some choice excerpts:
None of these findings mean that children would necessarily be better off if their biological parents married. … we should give less-educated women more reasons — like educational and career opportunity — to postpone motherhood. … the rise of single motherhood charted above is an economic story as much — if not more so — than a cultural one.
@RichardP
“If Adam had done the “right” thing and chosen God over Eve, he would have been left alone by himself as Eve was expelled from the Garden.”
“And yet God declared that it was not good for Adam to be alone. God’s statement was an admission that God alone was not sufficient for Adam. And so God created for Adam an entity that God knew would force Adam to choose between God and her. God knew that Eve would do this, and created her anyway. And God signalled in advance that he knew the choice that Adam would make when Gad said that it was not good for man to be alone.”
These are interesting points. However you are presupposing that God would not have made another mate for Adam for being faithful to Him and obeying His instructions. What you are saying is that God would have punished Adam either way.
“In this case, he appears to be arguing that women really are feeling forced to take over leadership roles due to a lack of qualified men, yet the lack of qualified men doesn’t change the fact that only men should hold those positions.”
Goes back to the last post, “Where have all the good chimps gone?”. The good chimps withdrew and handed it over. Nothing worse than trying to impose the rational on irrational feminist church mice. Who needs it, especially in football season, motorcycle-riding season, skiing season, baseball season. Chimps find other things to do in all seasons, especially the high-IQ chimps.
You ladies wanted it, you got it. The educations, the jobs, the military, sports broadcasting, you own it all, you’re dominant in all fields and even twisted Christianity into a feminist, nonsensical perversion, all fields hostile and hateful to men. Now go, take it, YOU make it work. We chimps basically are saying, “Fuggoff”. Somewhere, we will find safe spaces of our very own. We will find some peace, some solitude, some fellowship with men of similar ilk that all have said, “Fuggoff” to pushy, annoying, entitled broads. From the church to the workplace, to entertainment, sports, bars, clubs, the military, there’s no escape from the inane and vapid nonsense of feminist women and now we’re to tolerate the perverts of the alphabet soup of sexual depravity no matter how perverted and lewd and profane. Feminism is hard at work crushing the chimps. But little-by-little, we are accomplishing our goals of withdrawal and everywhere, the missing chimps are noticed.
It’s reflected in falling marriage rates, birth rates and the increase in the age of nagging, over-penis-ridden 30ish women that just can’t find a chimp–errr, MAN to marry. Hey, beeotch, go marry a woman and have a turkey-baster baby. We chimps will use you, but marry? Only the stupid chimps, but they’re learning too. The evidence of the chimps moving off the reservation is even reflected in the dead-man-ratings of ESPN. The the chimps have left the ESPN room owing to the nonsensical Social Justice hiring of feminist “broadcasters” and sideline reporters-with-vaginas that don’t know anything about sports but need a job. And so ESPN is dying on the vine, the least valuable property in the Disney stable and why? The original premise, “Where have all the good chimps gone?” comes to mind. The chimps aren’t watching. Everywhere the question, “Where have the good chimps gone?”.
Someone better figure out how to entice the chimps back, but it is going to start with good women. Yeah, sure, that’s gonna happen. That day is long, long, gone. And it never will, not in this world.
Enjoy the decline, gentlemen.
The evidence of the chimps moving off the reservation is even reflected in the dead-man-ratings of ESPN. The the chimps have left the ESPN room owing to the nonsensical Social Justice hiring of feminist “broadcasters” and sideline reporters-with-vaginas that don’t know anything about sports but need a job. And so ESPN is dying on the vine, the least valuable property in the Disney stable and why?
I haven’t seen any ratings stats, but if ESPN is indeed dying, its terminal breath can’t come soon enough. OTOH the slow decline and death of sports broadcasting is, in a way, men’s fault. If sufficient numbers of us had had the balls back in the day to tell ESPN and the other sports broadcasting franchises to “get those ignorant c***ts off of my sports channel and back into the weather room where they belong!” and voted immediately with our feet and our dollars to reinforce that message, we wouldn’t be seeing the death of another male realm right now. Alas, too many of us let our “little heads” take over and voted for incompetent eye candy over real sports journalism, with predictable results soon manifesting themselves. This is a completely self-inflicted wound; sports broadcasting is one of the few –if not the ONLY– media markets where it is men’s money that talks, not wonen’s. And yet we refused to make our voices heard in the marketplace.
ESPN is completing a whole-house cleaning, dumping Ditka, Cris Carter, Ray Lewis, Schilling was already gone, Skip Bayless left because the Dindu Stephen A. Smith was making 4 or 5 times more.. ESPN/Disney thinks those guys are the problem. They aren’t. It’s the broads, and the loud and shrill Dindu driving away male viewers, that is, WHITE male viewers, but no one dares say it. But the advertisers know it and the rates are falling below production costs. I’m a typical football fan, but if the Patriots aren’t on Monday Night Football (or any other day or night), I don’t watch anyway because WITH all the ads and the dopey broads on the sidelines especially, a game is 4-1/2 hours anymore. Every gap in the game an excuse to go to more commercials, it’s too much. Advertisers know THAT, too. Doesn’t matter over the long haul because ESPN is part of ABC and Disney, even with failing ratings and ad dollars except during Monday Night Football, they’ll be propped up. Disney has lots of dough.
Man has no idea why there aren’t droves of guys signing up for maximal responsibility/minimal authority scam on offer from the Churchianity crowd.
Amazing.
feeriker,
After reading that linked article, the Salvation Army is going to be removed from my list of charitable organizations that will ever again get another dime from me.
While that is the correct sentiment, that does not matter because lefty causes get billions in government money via taxes you paid, plus billionaires are their trustees.
Any money you give or don’t give makes no difference.
Guys complaining about chicks and commercials on sports have heard about TIVO right? You can watch an entire football game in 45 minutes by fast forwarding past the commercials and annoying chicks who don’t even know what a downup is.
@coloradomtnman
Lore is a prototype android and the brother of main character Data and of B-4. However, while Data is virtuous and B-4 is primitive, Lore is sophisticated, clever, jealous, and self-serving, making him the evil twin brother of the group.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation_characters#Lore
@feeriker,
“Oh, and where can I contact Vaughn Ohlman to give him my support and encouragement?”
Vaughn’s website:
http://letthemmarry.org/
@Vaughn, find another location!
I think the main point is being missed – We are nearing the end and Rev. 18 will be applied – These “Churches” are a part of Babylon the Great and they will pay a price as will any who do not flee them. Find God, Believe in what he says, Take Responsibility for your family as is your duty to God. Then get lawn chair and watch the fireworks as she is burned down.
Pingback: Seek SJW scorn. [Eph 4] | Dark Brightness
RichardP @ May 10, 2016 at 5:14 pm:
“In Genesis, God said that it was not good for man to be alone. Up to that point, it had just been God and Adam.”
Right, but what did God mean by “good”? Obviously not that Adam would be a better man with Eve around.
…
feeriker @ 2:35 am:
“After reading that linked article, the Salvation Army is going to be removed from my list of charitable organizations that will ever again get another dime from me.”
Out of curiosity, what charities are still on your list? Mine’s empty. The last was disaster relief (earthquake country here) until Convoy of Hope decided to provide feminism along with food & shelter.
Now I just stockpile MREs instead of helping society. Didn’t renew my First Aid/CPR certification because of all the STDs infecting the Bay Area. So much for being a good Samaritan.
…Convoy of Hope decided to provide feminism along with food & shelter.
Could you explicate on what exactly that is, and how it’s providing feminism?
I’m sure to see it sooner or later. Forewarned is forearmed.
Speaking of stuff that goes on in a church that isn’t always Biblical, I’ll just leave this here:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/11/family-devastating-to-learn-fitness-instructor-killed-had-exchanged-flirty-messages.html
Define “flirty” for a married woman.
enrique says:
May 11, 2016 at 7:50 pm
And of course the pastor at her memorial service will no doubt eulogize her like she was a martyred saint rather than refer to her as the slutty, adulterous, hypocritical fraud that she was, and whose violent demise should serve as a warning to any other women tempted to similarly stray toward “bad boys.”
@GunnerQ
There are charities in non-feminist countries. HART is one. Although, you have to watch to which program(s) you give. Many charities foolishly think that helping a woman to be financially independent is helpful to society. They have pastors you can support however. And other charities would have similar.
Anonymous Reader @ May 11, 2016 at 7:43 pm:
“…Convoy of Hope decided to provide feminism along with food & shelter.
Could you explicate on what exactly that is, and how it’s providing feminism?”
Women’s empowerment is one of the charitable works they advertise. Helping women to have their own businesses and incomes so they can support their families (without a husband). I just checked and they brag it costs only $725 to so empower an Ethiopian woman.
I knew several Convoy of Hope workers, that’s how I first came across the organization. One eventually told me a story, it might have been Haiti, in which they were having civil unrest distributing food and supplies because they gave it out directly and prioritized women and children over men. When as an experiment, they tried giving supplies to the men first for redistribution to their families (as if their families were a separate entity!), things proceeded much more smoothly.
All Convoy of Hope had to do was food & shelter to newly flattened communities but they saw it as an opportunity to undermine fathers by denying them even the appearance of supporting their families. To displace men by building replacement businesses owned & operated by local women.
When you think about it, a freshly-ruined, desperate community is a perfect target for this kind of social experimentation. Chairman Mao’s Charities.
@Coloradomtnman, in fairness, she says she did know him before they started dating:
http://sayable.net/2015/10/the-non-coffee-date-and-trusting-god-not-man/