Commenter Amy Wilson asked in response to Four legs good, two legs better:
I am also very concerned about the slippery slope we see of feminist redefining of the plain words of Scripture. However, I’m still not clear on how “Women may teach other women” is a feminist compromise, given that Titus explicitly tells the older women to teach the younger, and no limiting contexts are given, only the required content.
This is a common question. The answer is there is no conflict between 1 Tim 2 and Titus 2, because the kinds of teaching referred to in the two passages are very different. 1 Tim 2 is talking about teaching Scripture and doctrine. As Dr. Moo explains in the CBMW founding book (emphasis mine):
In light of these considerations, we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching (note 2 Timothy 4:2: “Preach the word . . . with careful instruction” [teaching, didache ̄]), and the teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries. Other activities-leading Bible studies, for instance-may be included, depending on how they are done. Still others-evangelistic witnessing, counseling, teaching subjects other than Bible or doctrine-are not, in our opinion, teaching in the sense Paul intends here.
So far, so good. However, Moo then claims that since Paul instructs older women to teach younger women how to behave in Titus 2, that women must be permitted to preach to other women:
Paul’s position in the pastoral epistles is, then, consistent: he allows women to teach other women (Titus 2:3-4), 17 but prohibits them to teach men.
This doesn’t follow, because Titus 2 is about older women teaching younger women how to conduct themselves. Submit to your husband. Love your husband and children. Be self controlled and pure. Don’t be a drunk. Take care of the home. In Titus 2 Paul is saying to teach the older women (and men) to live in such a way that their lives are “appropriate to sound doctrine”. It is about setting an example with their lives so that no one will malign the word of God. This isn’t about the older women teaching sound doctrine, it is about them living in a way that is congruent with having been taught sound doctrine, and teaching younger women to live this way as well.
All of these things could be taught by atheist older women to younger women with no need to reference (or even know of the existence of) the Bible, if they wanted to teach this behavior. The reason this is hard, and the reason there is a controversy, is women really really want to teach doctrine*, in a way that the average man simply doesn’t and can’t understand. Men aren’t consumed by this burning envy. We don’t sit in church festering “Why can’t it be me up there teaching everyone? Why does it have to be him!”
This is why the women who set themselves up to teach doctrine so often receive requests on how other women can do the same thing. It is a burning interest for their target audience.
Priscilla Shirer is the well known women’s preacher who played Elizabeth Jordan in the movie War Room. In her FAQ for her ministry Going Beyond Ministries, the fourth question is:
How do I pursue a full-time career in women’s ministry?
Shirer isn’t offering to teach other women to become a preacher like she is, but she gets the question so often she put it in the FAQ anyway. The answer starts with (emphasis mine):
We want to congratulate you on accepting God’s assignment for you. There are so many of us who run from what God wants us to do because it isn’t what we had in mind for ourselves. Priscilla has certainly tried to, but she has found that true contentment and peace comes only when we surrender to His will for us.
There are so many women who ask Priscilla about how to pursue ministry. Her response is always the same—give back to God the gift that He has given you. Let God continue to be in control. In other words, if you believe that God has called you into ministry, you can be sure that He will be faithful to open the doors and make a way for you to serve Him. He will continue to give you clear guidance as you walk in obedience to Him. All He asks you to do is obey His instructions that He gives you moment-by-moment and day-by-day. As you continue to follow, He will continue to lead.
Shirer explains a bit further down that other women need to not focus on being the one on stage preaching sermons like she does:
One more word: Remember the Lord has a specific ministry in mind for you. Don’t allow what you think the ministry should look like to replace His desire. For example, there are so many women who desire to be a speaker and seek opportunities to minister at large events. They spend money, time and energy trying to “create” opportunities and in doing so they are missing out on the ministry God has for them in their own back yard…
Likewise, the preacher Beth Moore (Mandy in War Room) in her Living Proof Ministries FAQ has:
Do you have a mentoring or internship program?
During this season at Living Proof, we do not have any type of mentoring or internship program. Beth feels that God has called her to mentor corporately through her Bible Studies
*The other reason this is so hard is the idea of wives turning to their husbands for instruction (1 Cor 14:35, Eph 5:25-28) is anathema to our modern Christian feminist sensibilities. Setting up separate women’s ministries is the answer to anything but that!
Pingback: Why there is a controversy about women teaching/preaching Scripture and doctrine. | Aus-Alt-Right
“All [God] asks you to do is obey His instructions that He gives you moment-by-moment and day-by-day. As you continue to follow, He will continue to lead.”
This is something freaky, too. Women claim to hear God’s voice at a much higher frequency than men do. Maybe (hopefully) it’s Special Snowflake Syndrome. All the people in my area who claim to be modern-day apostles are female.
One time in a charismatic church Bible study, the pastor asked for a show of hands on who heard the audible voice of God daily. Half the room (of 40 people or so) raised their hand. I couldn’t find words. Did these people truly think their daily lives are that important to God’s plan?
Fortunately, the worship director was also shaking his head in disbelief. One of the few times I could commiserate with somebody in power.
What’s with these damned ads jerking the page back every few seconds?
This is something freaky, too. Women claim to hear God’s voice at a much higher frequency than men do. Maybe (hopefully) it’s Special Snowflake Syndrome. All the people in my area who claim to be modern-day apostles are female.
What’s especially frightening is that so much of what women claim to hear “from God” as instruction is in open contradiction to what Scripture says on the same topics.
One time in a charismatic church Bible study, the pastor asked for a show of hands on who heard the audible voice of God daily. Half the room (of 40 people or so) raised their hand. I couldn’t find words. Did these people truly think their daily lives are that important to God’s plan?
I should have permanent vision damage by now for all the times I’ve rolled my eyes into the back of my head from hearing such nonsense spewed from the pulpit, along with all the weepy “AMEN!”ing that follows. Maybe it’s been noticed by a few people, which is why I seem to have such a hard time connecting with anybody in evangelical churches (“Biblical Literacy and Critical Thinking Are Not Welcome Here!”).
Gunner- God is omnipotent and omnipresent, so He can certainly reach out to individuals on a personal level routinely. However, He doesn’t seem to do this often in recorded Scripture or church history, so it’s not clear that He does it now. But He could, and I’m not in a position to know all of God’s comings and goings.
I will add this though, that Micah 6:8 ends by telling followers that God wants us to walk humbly with Him. Humbly. That’s a word that doesn’t seem to fit w/ the people who crave to be the star of the stage or pulpit, who insist on reinterpreting (or ignoring) Scripture b/c they insist God called them to a special ministry, or to those who believe they’ve been given direction that supersedes their commitment to come alongside of their husband’s vocation.
@ Gunner Q says:
November 1, 2016 at 1:29 pm
“Women claim to hear God’s voice at a much higher frequency than men do.”
And this is how you know they haven’t actually heard God, because God is obviously a bass.
*The other reason this is so hard is the idea of wives turning to their husbands for instruction (1 Cor 14:35, Eph 5:25-48) is anathema to our modern Christian feminist sensibilities. Setting up separate women’s ministries is the answer to anything but that!
Yup.
A very useful barometer of your church’s commitment to the commandments of Scripture as written is to ask the pastor for his take on these verses specifically, whether this is a message he intends to enforce from the pulpit. Any answer other than an enthusiastic affirmative, or protracted evasion and dissembling as a response, is grounds for walking away. Be prepared to do a LOT of walking away.
Except that the required content given is the limiting factor of what that teaching is. It is for older women to teach younger women HOW to do something not the WHY they need to do it, for that, they must seek out their husband or father. It cannot be more simply explained than that.
@Gunner Q
I’ve known at least one woman I would suspect interchanges “I desire to” with “God wants me to” as though they amount to the same thing. I think that line of reasoning would describe Christian feminism quite well; If God didn’t want women to preach why would he allow them to desire to do so?
If these women are genuinely hearing voices, they need serious help. Prophecy was rare and most prophets only received a single prophecy in their entire lives.
By women teaching scripture and doctrine they have license to alter, ever so slightly, their meanings so as to meet the feminist imperative. Now they can teach women that “submission” doesn’t mean “doormat” and that a husband who doesn’t love his wife relentlessly is out of line with God and punched in the face, spiritually, by her ducking and allowing God a clean shot. It also allows them to preach “the word” on things like icky sex stuff your husband wants you to do that is totally wrong and sinful, as well as give other women a ruler by which to measure their husbands failure. I am very much on the verge of being convinced that women should teach nothing more than what is in Titus 2. Titus 2 teaching = A-Okay for sure; scripture and doctrine = questionable at best, completely forbidden at worst. Of course we are all called to share the Gospel, but that doesn’t require exposition of scripture.
This isn’t about the older women teaching sound doctrine, it is about them living in a way that is congruent with having been taught sound doctrine, and teaching younger women to live this way as well. All of these things could be taught by atheist older women to younger women with no need to reference (or even know of the existence of) the Bible, if they wanted to teach this behavior. The reason this is hard, and the reason there is a controversy, is women really really want to teach doctrine*, in a way that the average man simply doesn’t and can’t understand.
Nailed it. I also suspect that the part about teaching doctrine and not behavior is key for women because at some level they’re aware that role offers a far easier path for “re-interpreting” or working around the Biblical passages one might dislike — or might prefer to do away with entirely. Take Ephesians 5:22: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” It’s a simple command, calling for a certain behavior. You can choose to do it — or not. But if we turn it into a question of doctrine . . . . well now our job is a matter of breaking that down to decipher just what it really means. So we’ll start by first examining the verse’s surrounding text, and running that along the moral tenor of the times it was written in, then consulting the original Greek and Aramaic with the aid of our Cracker-Jack secret decoder rings, which will then lead us to the final and inescapable conclusion that what Christ wants most is EQUALITY! And so with that in mind the husband and wife should then engage in mutual submission towards each other in a likewise fashion of equals, with the wife able to expect from her husband anything he in turn should expect to receive from her.
When you can align being “Biblically faithful” with whatever your present desires might happen to be, the church is your oyster. Modern female “Christian leaders” and their many followers were not the first to figure this out, but they’re probably the ones who’ve leveraged the biggest gains out of it to date.
This is the real problem.
There’s nothing wrong with listening to God daily. The Scripture lays out how to do it. How often you want to do it is of your own prerogative:
1 John 4:Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
The real problem is that most Christian don’t follow this passage on testing the spirits, and then also don’t fact check their listening against the Scripture either.
Now to be a bit controversial…
I believe that God can use such women teaching and work it for His good, but it is certainly not God honoring or glorifying. More often than not, the fruit is rotten… As you can see from the current state of the Church. This is similar to God using CCM music to save some people or change their lives at the right moment. Generally not theologically sound, but God can use it in certain circumstances.
Note: This should not be construed as a reason for women to continue teaching. They should be admonished.
Shirer has women forming circles on the ground, either drawn or with objects like toys or even their children, in which they can stand and pray for God to act within the circle. This is blatantly lifted from the arcane and reeks of witchcraft and the occult. The fact that on her website she claimed that her twitter had been inundated with women posting pictures of standing within arcane circles is more than enough proof as to why women should not be teaching. No question there as to who’s voice she is hearing.
True men have endured hardship and solitude in which to reflect upon their calling, strengths and weaknesses. Modern gynocratic societies give women this feeling that they are also enduring the same types of hardships, glossing over the fact that there is a major difference in what each gender has to endure (n the case of men who claim to endure hardship on the road to salvation, there are ways to determine the veracity of this, beyond accreditation). Feminism makes women purposely seek out danger in order to claim they are survivors and brave, whereas the Bible instructs us in a different way entirely where it comes to temptation and mischief.
The real problem is that most Christian don’t follow this passage on testing the spirits, and then also don’t fact check their listening against the Scripture either.
You mean, like, breaking out the Bible and actually READING it??!! What are you, some kind of fudamentalist sadist??!!
Pingback: Why there is a controversy about women teaching/preaching Scripture and doctrine. | Reaction Times
When in doubt about what a passage of scripture means, the first response should always be, “Exactly what it says in the context of the totality of Scripture – no more or less.”
We need not err on the side of “giving an extra wide berth” to prohibited things: the boundaries are there for a reason and we are free to act right up to them as long as we don’t cross them. By the same token, the boundaries are there for a reason and we are not free to act as though they are mere suggestions.
I’ve known at least one woman I would suspect interchanges “I desire to” with “God wants me to” as though they amount to the same thing.
Actually, I would venture to say that every time a typical woman from the modern church says “God wants me to”, the “god” she meant was the triune “Me, Myself and I”, not the Jehovah God. These women can’t decipher God’s voice even if their lives depended on it.
Being able to accurately discern God’s voice every time is a skill that only very few have been able to master. Like the boy Samuel, our natural tendency is to mistake God’s voice for Eli’s, and run in the opposite direction to where God really wants us to go. Even Apostle Paul had some challenges accurately discerning God’s voice. It sometimes took the disapproving voices of some heathen at his chosen evangelistic outreach location, coupled with his dream of a man from Macedonia pleading for help, to make him think “Hey, maybe God wants us to go to Macedonia instead!
Yet, these carnal and perennially rebellious and totally useless women claim that god speaks to them constantly everyday, and they were able to accurately discern His voice.
Seriously?
Women claim to hear God’s voice at a much higher frequency than men do. Maybe (hopefully) it’s Special Snowflake Syndrome. All the people in my area who claim to be modern-day apostles are female.
It is sad when one’s ‘god’ is really just a hamster.
Didn’t Jenny Erikson say that every sinful action she took was because ‘god told her to’? How convenient….
My pastor had previously indicated that if allowing women to teach was wrong he would be convicted by allowing it, and since he wasn’t convicted and scripture “clearly showed that anyone can teach” (but women should never be HEAD pastor of a church), then he saw no reason to not allow women to continue to come up and act as pastor for the night. The prohibitions in the bible are first filtered through the filter of culture and feminist agenda. If it doesn’t offend too much then it will be taken at face value. If it stinketh too much it will be “massaged” into a more palatable form. The boundaries are stretched, so to speak, so that they remain, but they encompass more of the prohibited subject, making it easier to handle, mentally.
Pingback: What does it mean to teach? | Christianity and masculinity
Those quotes from women preachers just tell me that there is a reason God entrusted men with Scripture, and telling men to obey Scripture.
Men will understand the binary nature of Commandments: “Thou shalt…” and “Thou shalt not…” are the uncompromising standards used.
It is women, and feminized men who will rationalize away with a dialectic until there is noting left of the original meaning.
This is the “contextual morality” I spoke of in my blog post. Men will more often understand “good vs. bad” whereas women will make something good into something bad depending on the situation and vice versa. This is how they have justified divorce, abortion and homosexuality, by viewing something bad through the modified lens of the situation. A woman who frivorces her husband is bad, but if the husband was “abusing” her in some way then suddenly it was totally justified, even if the “abuse” was something as innocuous as limiting her spending.
DrTorch @ 1:53 pm:
“Gunner- God is omnipotent and omnipresent, so He can certainly reach out to individuals on a personal level routinely.”
Personally and routinely? Not lightly and NEVER for our personal amusement. Not even turning water into wine qualified for that. If God is personally contacting these people every day then it begs the question of why He is doing that? The answer is not “because I love you and want you to feel special”. Our symbol is the Cross, not the Puppy.
A Muslim has prescient visions that lead him to Christ and sustain him in persecution? I can believe that.. A pastor predicts his own martyrdom then walks into it calmly? Hey, it’s George Wishart. A fat chick in comfy America talks with God over breakfast every day? Ditch the Xanax, Barbie. “Jesus talks to me all the time! Well, not today. He coughed up a hairball instead.”
…
SnapperTrx @ 5:12 pm:
“My pastor had previously indicated that if allowing women to teach was wrong he would be convicted by allowing it, and since he wasn’t convicted…”
Proverbs 3:5 “Trust in the Lord your God and lean not on your own understanding.” Also, in Matt. 4:7 Jesus quotes Deut. 6:16: “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.”
“If God didn’t want me to do this then He should have stopped me” is logic worthy of a Darwin Award.
I’m on board broadly, but I still struggle with how this plays out in the details. For example, it seems that teaching other women to obey their husbands could involve teaching doctrine. I.e., “Suzie, you really need to trust John’s judgement when it comes to X. Scripture teaches us that a submissive woman is beautiful to God. Just look at the example of Sarah…” I also wonder about teaching children. With the exception of the teenage group, our church school program is taught by women, and they’re (with one possible exception) all submissive to their husbands or humble, devout spinsters. Furthermore, they’re under the authority of the (male) rector as it relates to curriculum. I know Sunday school programs are frowned upon in these parts, but judging by their fruits, I have a difficult time saying they’re in rebellion.
Full disclosure: My wife is co-superintendent of the program, so it’s possible I’m blindly uxorious in this matter.
Gunner Q,
Yes they are. That is one of the only things keeping me sane right now. I have no idea on the why of everything and I don’t hear God’s audible voice, but I talk with Him. I definitely realize everything is filtered through my own mind, but I know He cares about me. I could dump a bunch of Scriptures on that, but I won’t waste the time.
I would question the idea of God audibly speaking to most anyone, since we should now mostly be led by His Spirit, but the idea that we are on our own is just as ludicrous as the idea my wife has that divorce is justified because “reasons”.
What He says must fit with the Word, but I have lived my life with a very personal connection to Him and I pity anyone who does not have that to rely on.
I would disagree with you and feeriker on this, though you are certainly free to believe as you wish. He kept me when I was lone as a teen and then as a young adult. He will continue to keep me with an active care for my life. I do get tempted to blame Him at times, since I am still human, but I am His servant, so He can do as He wishes.
He did call me “friend” through His note to His followers, so I have to take that on face value too.
@ Ryder
These are the problems you get:
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/the-problems-with-intelligent-submission/
An old friend of min has a sister who decided to go back to college and get a degree in “ministry.” This was on her hard-working husband’s dime, obviously. She has four young-children at home, including one she adopted from Africa and uses as a virtue signal all over social media.
Anyway, she “preached a sermon” at an area church last Sunday. Of course, she plastered it all over the various relevant social media apps so she can emotionally masturbate in the “Christian” feminist echo chamber. My wife showed me the title of the sermon:
“Exploring the justice of the Holy Spirit, which often shows up as a holy disruption and upsets the status quo of an unjust empire.”
The thrilling frontier of female preaching.
I would disagree with you and feeriker on this, though you are certainly free to believe as you wish.
Billy, I can’t speak for Gunner, but if what I said came across as a generic “God never speaks to anyone,” that absolutely is NOT what I meant. What I meant was that people who assert that God, on a daily basis, pulls up a chair at their kitchen table, sits down, puts His elbows on the table and His chin on His fists and says “So, Kim … what’s on your mind today?” and then proceeds to play cosmic bartender/emtional tampon are probably in need of a prescription refill.
As others upthread have pointed out, God does NOT make a habit of communicating in this way. On those rareoccasions when He does so, as Sctipture illustrates, it is for a very clear and specific purpose, one of genuinely monumental importance that is about anything other than the person being spoken to. This eliminates pretty much one hundred percent of those who currently claim to be on chummy terms with the Almighty and who chat with Him like He was their BFF. Also, when God speaks to someone in this way, He is asking them to do His Will in accordance with Scripture (as others have noted here, He gave it to us for us to read, heed, and obey, not be entertained by or to adapt for our own lifescript). Any “prophet” who says [s]he was commanded to do something contrary to what Scripture clearly says (i.e., nearly all “prophets” today who just happen to be women) needs to be called out.
“Exploring the justice of the Holy Spirit, which often shows up as a holy disruption and upsets the status quo of an unjust empire.”
Dare I ask what denomination is the “church” that allowed such drivel to be spewed from its pulpit (and yes, “drivel” is the right word; the title alone eliminates any need to hear the actual sermon)?
Also, somebody needs to put her husband in contact with a good divorce lawyer. All early signs indicate that he’s gonna need it sooner rather than later.
@Feeriker
Presbyterian.
@Feeriker
Presbyterian.
What a surprise. /sarc
“*The other reason this is so hard is the idea of wives turning to their husbands for instruction (1 Cor 14:35, Eph 5:25-48) is anathema to our modern Christian feminist sensibilities. ”
Yes, because then women would be responsible for marrying mature Christian men, not wallets and bad boys whom they can teach or lead. Women know this; why else do they avoid men raised with sound doctrine.
A word of caution here. I don’t think the folks identified in the scriptures below as speaking their own vision, another gospel, and not words from the mouth of the Lord, are all women. And it may be that none of them were women.
There are folks of both sexes who present their own words and visions as though they were the Lord’s. And there are folks of both sexes who don’t do that. Whether the teaching/preaching/expositing comes from a male or female, the verses presented below call us to judge whether the speakers’ words are presenting another gospel. If they are, we are to reject them and their message – regardless of their gender.
The problem is the incorrect message, not the gender of the speaker.
Point is: the Bible declares that no one whose teaching is “another gospel” is to be tolerated within the church, regardless of which sex is teaching. Therefore, the decision to not let women teach/preach/exposit must be based on a different distinction than “they get it wrong” – because men get it wrong also. Perhaps a distinction no more complicated than “that’s the way God ordered things” is sufficient.
——————–
This is what the LORD Almighty says: “Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. (NIV) Jeremiah 23:16
But you must not mention ‘a message from the LORD’ again, because each one’s word becomes their own message. So you distort the words of the living God, the LORD Almighty, our God. (NIV) Jeremiah 23:36
I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. (NIV) Romans 16:17
… Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! (NIV) Galations 1:7-9
… if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. … And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. (NIV) 2 Corinthians 11:4-13
Therefore, the decision to not let women teach/preach/exposit must be based on a different distinction than “they get it wrong” – because men get it wrong also.
Obviously this is true, but I think a strong biblical argument can be made that women are naturally more prone to “getting it wrong” than men. It goes beyond simply “that’s the way God ordered things.” He ordered them that way for a reason. Women are more emotional, more gullible, more susceptible to false teaching, and thus inappropriate for teaching roles.
The primary supporting scripture would 1 Timothy 2, where after Paul instructs women to be quiet, submissive, and not to teach or exercise authority over men, he justifies his argument by stating “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” What could this have to do with women teaching, except that Paul is saying that female human nature makes them unfit to teach doctrine?
Scripture aside, I think we all know from personal experience that women, on average, are more gullible, emotional, and irrational. These traits preclude sound doctrinal teaching.
@ RichardP
These things are not mutually exclusive. We are to reject false teachers, and we are to reject women leaders and teachers.
Analogy: Even if a “wife” is more “fit” or “smart” or “capable” or “insert reason here” than her husband, her husband is the head in the marriage. It’s not about ability: it’s about calling and position.
God has instated men to lead the Church and families. Women are not called to be leaders in the Church or family, nor teachers in the Church.
Even if a woman is leading or teaching sound doctrine, she still shouldn’t be leading or teaching.
Now, I would contend there are definitely reasons for this. One being women are more easily deceived (as stated in 1 Tim 2). One being to defer to appropriate authorities (1 Cor 14). Another being that men tend to have a better sense of judgment than women. Still others such as internal emotional processing as opposed to external. Men tend to be more impartial and concerned about overall welfare everyone as opposed to self and cliques (see enfranchisement in our country).
Also, single mothers cannot reliably raise sons and daughters to be solid men and women while single fathers can (for which the statistics bear this out). There is no “parenting” only fathering and mothering, but fathering seems to be more important to raise well adapted adults.
If one studies ancient Church history, the ones with whom God speaks to directly are men of great personal holiness. This holiness is conspicuous by its absence in today’s modern, materialistic churches.
feeriker,
Then I would retract what I said about you and Gunner Q if I misread his statement, which I may have from your post.
Frank K.
The holiness is not our own, it is that of Jesus Christ. The holiness of even the best of us is just filthy menstrual rags as Paul noted. God speaks and connects with us because we are reborn. Too many make that a strange thing to our detriment.
Any personal conversations with God must be aligned with the Word of God however, as He will not violate His word. Keeping that standard would prevent a lot of the foolishness noted in the OP.
Therefore, the decision to not let women teach/preach/exposit must be based on a different distinction than “they get it wrong” – because men get it wrong also. Perhaps a distinction no more complicated than “that’s the way God ordered things” is sufficient.
That latter distinction is sufficient (or rather, should be for those who are genuine Christ followers) and it’s also pretty clearly stated in several places in the NT. However, modern churchians flat-out just don’t like a lot of parts lf the NT because they clash with the World’s values, which are obviously what really matter to them. Thus the U.S. Supreme Court-grade torturing of Scripture to make it say something other than what it clearly does say.
Dear BillyS: Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect. (MT 5:38) While our personal holiness does not earn us salvation, it most certainly pleases the Lord. And of course, we cannot achieve that holiness without Him. But we do play a role, even if it is by merely saying “yes” to the Lord and obeying His word. By their fruits you will know them.
“However, modern churchians flat-out just don’t like a lot of parts lf the NT because they clash with the World’s values”
This is what I mean when I speak of the lack of holiness in the modern church. We should always strive for holiness, always. And we do that by obeying the Word, not by twisting it to make it “seeker friendly” or “relevant in modern times” or what I personally consider pure heresy: the so called “Prosperity Gospel”. Broad is the way that leads to destruction.
“(1 Cor 14:35, Eph 5:25-48)” typo – I think you mean Eph 5:25-28
feeriker,
That latter distinction is sufficient (or rather, should be for those who are genuine Christ followers)
But alas, these churchian fems and cucks have a complete lack of genuine faith…
I would argue that even children who become accustomed to seeing their mother as their teacher instead of their father, are going to be more likely to jump onto the feminist bandwagon once they grow up. What children nowadays are learning is how to pay lip service to their father, ie faux submission/obedience, to get what they want.
Pope Francis reaffirms Catholic Church’s ban on women priests: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/11/01/pope-women-banned-priesthood-forever/93118528/
Branches of evangelical churches in the Ukraine often have women preaching.
Martin Luther had the doctrine of canon within the canon as mentioned here in this blog. That means he put the letters of Paul above the four gospels. (This accounts for what I see nowadays that preachers as a rule go straight to Paul.) The problem is that some have noticed that there are internal conflicts within the NT. This creates a kind of dissonance. Therefore people–even reverently and fervently Christian feel free to ignore Paul. The questions that come up often in Christian history are often based on the question how to resolve some internal conflict in the texts.
if they wanted to teach this behavior.
Zing! But of course they most emphatically do not want to teach that behavior. You can’t produce trademarked SIW Christian feminists with that kind of antiquated curriculum.
The reason this is hard, and the reason there is a controversy, is women really really want to teach doctrine*
I decided to further research this concept by looking for evidence of a desire to teach doctrine using the two women named herein, along with the first two that came to mind from previous Dalrock posts. In an extensive effort encompassing literally less than five minutes, I selected one book from each, and recorded here a salient comment from the reviewers. (Book titles hardly relevant but available upon request).
– Kathy Keller: “she encourages women to teach and lead in the church in ways that may startle some complementarians.”
– Mary Kassian: “focuses on 35 Hebrew names of God that describe His character, His relationships, and His purpose.”
– Priscilla Shirer: “brings to life the invisible struggle ensuing in the spiritual realm and uncovers some of the truths from Ephesians 6:10-18.”
– Beth Moore: “Based primarily on the Book of Luke, this study is a careful examination of the life of Christ.”
So yeah – really really want to teach doctrine.
*The other reason this is so hard is the idea of wives turning to their husbands for instruction (1 Cor 14:35, Eph 5:25-48) is anathema to our modern Christian feminist sensibilities. Setting up separate women’s ministries is the answer to anything but that!
And another direct hit on target. Separate women’s ministries keeps the lights on at many modern churches, and their influences are the women that really really want to teach doctrine. In effect, older women are teaching younger women mostly the opposite of what would be best for both parties – I mean if you want to go by The Bible.
Also – do the husbands of these women look to them for instruction in spiritual matters? Just asking.
There is a reason for this and I firmly believe it lies in what men and women bring to the family table when raising children. Men instill discipline, a work ethic, responsibility, self-reliance and self-discipline. Women instill nurture, empathy, emotion, gentleness and a sense of caring about others. I know others will disagree but when those two play off of each other you get well cared for and well functioning adults. This also doesn’t mean men don’t care or cannot be emotional, it merely means what each adult is better at when it comes to getting that across to their children.
Furthermore, when there is no father, the most needed skills to be able to function as a financial and responsible adult are missing. The children also have no discipline, lack a work ethic and are not self-reliant. They are absolutely not capable of functioning anywhere near their full potential. However, when a single father raises children, he still instills these factors within his children thus creating adults who, even though aren’t that well rounded, can still function well when working and being self-reliant.
@Feminist Hater:
A Father’s primary role is the arbiter of Order within the family. For good or ill, it is their Order that the family works by. This is why the disrespectful Wife can be just as bad as the father-ejecting baby-mama.
One thing I don’t often see mentioned in discussions of original sin is the idea that, as well as the sin of our first parents being imputed to us, the nature of those sins differs between the sexes in us in the same way it differed for Adam and Eve.
Of course, both ate of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3), incurring God’s penalty. But the circumstances were different.
That is, Eve was deceived, and she disobeyed. She listened to the serpent rather than her husband (who would have been the one to tell her that the fruit was forbidden). BTW, “listened to” here means “obeyed”.
Adam’s sin, on the other hand, was precisely listening to (obeying) Eve, which he ought not to have done. He had God’s words directly spoken to him in the beginning.
Paul confirms Eve’s deception in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 – “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”
Eve was deceived, and this is cited (as well as the order of creation) as a reason that Eve is not to teach or hold authority over men. Adam was not deceived – he sinned with his eyes wide open, choosing Eve over God. His disobedience was conscious (which would actually seem to be the greater sin), but did not involve deception.
Paul indicates either, 1. that this difference in “deceivability” remain in force in subsequent generations; hence his own prohibition, or 2. that this difference in the beginning forever affected the balance of the sexes in teaching, regardless of individual competency now.
As in Eden, the issue now still comes down to doubt in the mind of the woman: “Has God said” (through Paul)?
I generally concur with what FH writes: “Men instill discipline, a work ethic, responsibility, self-reliance and self-discipline. Women instill nurture, empathy, emotion, gentleness and a sense of caring about others,” which encapsulates the general trend, although we all know there is a certain amount of overlap – while the sexes are specialized, we are not machine cogs with zero interchangeability (otherwise single parents of both sexes would always fail – and they don’t). As for women: I think most us (particularly those of us in our middle years and older) can remember a time when “work ethic” applied to both men and women, although the kinds of work done by the sexes was different. As for men: a quick look at war propaganda shows that one way to get men to act is to appeal to their sense of honor and duty with regard to the plight of others.
To me it’s more like comparing lower-order and higher-order functions wherein mastery of the higher-order function requires one to be at least competent at the lower-order one. Just as within mathematics, calculus is a higher-order function than geometry, so also within parenting fathering is a higher-order function than mothering. You can be very good at geometry and not know anything about calculus, but you won’t find anyone who’s good at calculus who isn’t capable of muddling through a pure geometry problem even if his work doesn’t directly require using geometry.
Therefore it’s no surprise that children raised by single fathers statistically do nearly as well as children raised by both parents, while the children of single mothers typically do not. When one sees a person under one’s care with a problem, the lower-order (feminine – maternal) function is to offer comfort, while the higher-order (masculine – paternal) function is to fix the underlying problem. One could write a book about the implications of that.
But even that is beyond the point to some degree – we don’t forbid women to remain silent in church and submit to their husbands because every man is more spiritually mature and doctrinally sound than every woman – to even suggest that would be absurd. Nor do we do it because of differences in the ways men and women address people who are lost or hurting. We do it because God says so in scripture, and that’s all we need to know to settle the matter.
RPchristian says:
November 1, 2016 at 8:01 pm
@Feeriker
Presbyterian.
How the presbysterian’s got subverted:
http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gncf.pdf
@Lyn87
Such sex roles are important given the nature of the Imago Dei in humanity that they properly image God through their respective roles giving glory to the creator thereof:
2Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you. 3But 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.
4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for it is just as if her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, let her hair be cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For just as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
1 Corinthians 11:2-11
For the same reason the husband is the dominant partner in the relationship since representing God he therefore images God in the relationship while the Wife as the one who is loved and led images man in relation to God in healthy communion with him.
To invert that is to pervert the design and Glory of God and hence a form of blasphemy to the one who made them male and female
The context of the NT writings is Jewish. The setting is a synagogue, reading the law, Sabbath, and a minyan / sanhedrin. Yshua was a STRICT Torah keeping rabbi.
Men & women were separated as seen in the Temple and exists throughout the history of Judaism. The priests, elders, Levites, teachers and sanhedrin were all men as to this very day.
The premise of women teaching men is ABSURD historically & scripturally. To say otherwise is Jezebel.
@The Bandit
Yes. Good catch. Thanks!
Being “deceived into transgression” was not a matter of believing a lie, as the Serpent did not technically lie; rather he exploited Eve’s intrinsic nature to beguile her into doing what she already wanted to do.
And I believe that her disobedience was against Adam (who had commanded her not even to touch the fruit) rather than against God directly. The authority of the Man was and always has been the primary target of womanly envy and satanic deception.
@Ryder
Do you disagree with the definition from Dr. Moo that I quoted in the OP? There may be some disagreement on the more murky areas, which he leaves room for. But this isn’t the area of contention. The area of contention is women teaching/preaching women’s ministries. Do you really assert that Titus 2 requires older women to preach sermons, or teach in a seminary, etc? If you believe this, have you ever had to do any of these things to share the word of God with someone who needed help?
Again, this isn’t hard because it is unclear. It is hard because the Scripture is painfully clear in contradiction to what we want to hear.
I don’t see Scripture forbidding women to teach children, provided they are in submission to male authority (at the very least this isn’t the point of the OP or the series). But I think there is a risk here similar to eating meat sacrificed to idols, at least in our feminist era. Having women teach Sunday school will for some women at least only fuel their desire to start preaching, or to assume a position of authority in the church (eg. co superintendent of the program). The way you could test the level of temptation this creates is to discuss removing women from these roles. The ones who submit graciously are the ones least tempted (and therefore least harmed). The ones who are outraged are the ones we are harming the most. Would your wife be outraged if the church decided a woman shouldn’t be co superintendent of the program?
@ Lyn87 says:
November 2, 2016 at 7:54 am
“Therefore it’s no surprise that children raised by single fathers statistically do nearly as well as children raised by both parents, while the children of single mothers typically do not.”
I’ve never been able to find statistics for that. Can you provide a source?
Lyn87 and FH,
I used to believe that women were more empathetic, but I no longer believe that as I have thought more about my mom’s behavior and considered my wife’s actions. I think Lyn87 noted it, but the fact that men and women approach things differently.
That is why I would argue both are really necessary, if at all possible.
But women are definitely not more empathetic in many cases, contrary to popular myths of that.
Oscar,
The data are murky because of all the factors that go into it, and the studies seem to focus on one or two aspects at a time, so one has to look at multiple studies to control for them. So the short answer is, “No” while the longer answer is, “Yes, but only by looking at the results of multiple studies relative to each other”
For example, single mothers are far more likely to raise their kids in poverty, but that doesn’t consider all the financial help that women get that men don’t get (single mothers are far more likely to receive substantial child support than single fathers, as just one example). Also, a single woman get easily get men into her life (although the quality varies greatly), while single fathers are basically persona non grata to quality women in the dating market, so the children of single mothers are more likely to have male beta-provider-types in their lives than the children of single fathers are to have maternal-type women in theirs.
What we do know is that any time women as a group perform as well as or better than men as a group – at anything – they’re either benefiting from a heavily-tilted playing field or they are getting help from some man or group of men, whether that help is obvious or not. From my parsing of the data: once you factor out the noise of women (especially women with children) having resources and advantages thrown at them every minute of every day from every direction, parenthood is no exception to that rule.
Of course stable, Christian, dual-parent, male-led households will always be the gold standard, though.
But women are definitely not more empathetic in many cases, contrary to popular myths of that.
Very true. I also won5der if they might have been more so in generations past, before feminism gulled them en masse into re-inventing themselves as fifth-rate imitations of men.
…while single fathers are basically persona non grata to quality women in the dating market, so the children of single mothers are more likely to have male beta-provider-types in their lives than the children of single fathers are to have maternal-type women in theirs.
Is this really true? I haven’t seen any statistical evidence supporting either side, but personal “anecdata” suggests that single fatherhood isn’t an issue –for either men or the women in their lives– where dating and marriage are concerned.
Anon says:
November 1, 2016 at 5:10 pm
Women claim to hear God’s voice at a much higher frequency than men do. Maybe (hopefully) it’s Special Snowflake Syndrome. All the people in my area who claim to be modern-day apostles are female.
It is sad when one’s ‘god’ is really just a hamster.
Didn’t Jenny Erikson say that every sinful action she took was because ‘god told her to’? How convenient….
PROVERBS 14:1
A wise woman builds her house: but the foolish plucks it down with her own hands
The Bible says to test the spirit. Not all that is supernatural is from God. Many new women Believers immediately assume that what is in their mind and desires is of God and part of the problem is that the world and the churches teaches them that they do no wrong. So whatever it is that they desire, hear or feel MUST be from God. I have no problem accepting the fact that some hears from God. But whatever they say must align with His Word. Sadly that is rare nowdays.
Feeriker said:
A very useful barometer of your church’s commitment to the commandments of Scripture as written is to ask the pastor for his take on these verses specifically, whether this is a message he intends to enforce from the pulpit. Any answer other than an enthusiastic affirmative, or protracted evasion and dissembling as a response, is grounds for walking away. Be prepared to do a LOT of walking away.
I’ve been exploring other churches in my area. After attending a service and talking to the congregants, I’ve often sent out feelers to the pastor to gauge their fidelity to scripture in these areas. One of them responded with their formal church stance on women teaching. Here is an excerpt:
There are only two passages in the entire New Testament that might seem to contain a prohibition against the ministry of women, 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12. Since these must be viewed in context with Paul’s other statements and practices and that of the New Testament Church as a whole they could hardly be absolute, unequivocal prohibitions of the ministry of women. Instead they seem to be teachings dealing with specific, local problems needing correction. Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians to “let your women keep silence in the churches” does not pertain to praying, prophesying, preaching, teaching or ministering as some evangelical scholars assert but rather to the personal relationships between husbands and wives (as is shown by Paul’s admonition in the next verse “let them ask their husbands at home”). Many evangelical scholars argue Paul’s statement to Timothy, “but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use certain authority over the man, but to be in silence,” is not a prohibition against women in ministry and leadership, but a reference to marital relationship because Paul goes on to say “notwithstanding she should be saved in childbearing.”
The dialectic at work…
feeriker @ November 1, 2016 at 7:52 pm:
“Billy, I can’t speak for Gunner, but if what I said came across as a generic “God never speaks to anyone,” that absolutely is NOT what I meant. What I meant was that people who assert that God, on a daily basis, pulls up a chair at their kitchen table, sits down, puts His elbows on the table and His chin on His fists and says “So, Kim … what’s on your mind today?” and then proceeds to play cosmic bartender/emtional tampon are probably in need of a prescription refill.”
Co-sign. I’ve had three supernatural experiences of my own so it definitely happens, but none of them were for my entertainment or to demonstrate how awesome I was to the people around me. Frankly, I would rather not have had two of the three I did.
Even in the Bible, few prophets were happy to be on God’s speed-dial.
…
Frank K @ November 1, 2016 at 9:20 pm:
“If one studies ancient Church history, the ones with whom God speaks to directly are men of great personal holiness.”
The total opposite of this is true, from the hilariously-behaved Judges to Saint “Ready, Fire, Aim” Peter to Augustine’s Confessions.
My conversations with God are not huge supernatural experiences, but like talking to a friend I have a mental connection with. My own mind can clearly get in the way, but I have had good insights, comfort, etc. from these conversations and they are consistent with what is written, so I see no problem with them and seek them out.
I see this as a part of “My sheep shall know my voice” rather than something else.
I wouldn’t command it on others and I would definitely question anything that came against what is written, which I know a fair bit of. I have learned things, but that came in the context of elaboration of what is written, not things pulled from whole cloth.
I value both the Word and the Spirit. Many today, unfortunately, go with only the Spirit, or even their own spirit.
Lyn,
Thanks for the response. I’ve been wondering for years how children in father-only households perform compared to father+mother and mother-only households, but found little data. My instinct tells me that children who grow up with a father-only households tend to do better than kids who grow up in mother-only households, but not as well as kids who grow up in father+mother households. Would you be willing to put your analysis in writing for the benefit of the group?
I have to agree with feeriker on this point, though.
“Is this really true? I haven’t seen any statistical evidence supporting either side, but personal ‘anecdata’ suggests that single fatherhood isn’t an issue –for either men or the women in their lives– where dating and marriage are concerned.”
My observation leads me to believe that single dads (whether divorced or widowed) have a much easier time finding quality mates than single moms do.
Further anecdotal evidence is the prevalence of single dad (mostly widowed, sometimes divorced) fantasies in women’s fiction.
I agree with everything said above regarding single fathers on an anecdotal level. Scott may know of some data to support it. However, be aware there is likely selection bias in play. Meaning, because the court system is so overwhelmingly biased toward the mother, the father often has to be truly spectacular in order to gain custody of the children. It also depends on how the father became single. Children of widowed/widower parents tend to me much better adjusted over time than children of divorced/never married parents, regardless of the sex of the parent.
But women are definitely not more empathetic in many cases, contrary to popular myths of that.
Of course. For one thing, there is almost no woman who is capable of teaching men how to become more attractive to women. There is nothing women want more than for more men to be more attractive, yet women are completely incapable of teaching men this. This is a damning indictment on female intellectual inadequacy.
Think about it. They cannot teach men to become what a) women want most from men, and b) what men want to learn most. Only men are teaching men Game…
@Ryder and Dalrock
I think this is key: Is the teaching contained within an organization? As soon as you start organizing a group you get into the question of female headship, and the question of trespass on the father, husband, or pastor’s authority and responsibility.
It’s recipe for disaster; especially for a young woman (i.e., not a 60-year old grandma). Their vanity can be limitless. As well, men are quick to abdicate because of sloth, Lift-chasing, and fear of reprisal from white knights and harpies…to one of which he might be married and therefore then bring the war home.
There is nothing women want more than for more men to be more attractive, yet women are completely incapable of teaching men this. This is a damning indictment on female intellectual inadequacy.
Think about it. They cannot teach men to become what a) women want most from men, and b) what men want to learn most. Only men are teaching men Game…
There is really a very simple explanation for this: cause and effect is involved. We know how hopeless women are at grasping that.
RPchristian says:
November 2, 2016 at 12:07 pm
WOW. Classic piece of Modernist hamsterbation from that pastor. No doubt that’s what most of his seminary classes were focused on.
As well, men are quick to abdicate because of sloth, Lift-chasing, and fear of reprisal from white knights and harpies…to one of which he might be married and therefore then bring the war home.
That bolded part. I can say with absolute certainty that many, MANY pastors are married to women who are the “real powers behind the pulpit.” This is obvious in many evangelical churches today, where even a glance at the church marquee or website homepage lists the wife as “co-pastor” with her husband (another red flag of a church to avoid, although unfortunately, even in churches where this is not advertised, it is VERY clear who wears the pants and has the gonads in the pastor’s family). The reason these guys never preach a sermon in depth on, say, Ephesians 5 or Titus 2 is because Mrs. Pastor would castrate them and banish them to the garage for the rest of their marriage if these guys ever did so.
This appears to be very recent trend. I don’t recall EVER seeing pastor’s wives listed as “co-pastors” prior to about 10 years ago. A further sign of the decay.
WOW. Classic piece of Modernist hamsterbation from that pastor.
Hence, pastorbator.
Many people see a person who is sympathetic towards others and confuse that with empathy. Pity parties are not the same thing as empathy.
Of course, the whole “men bad, women good” mythbuilding the feminists have engaged in for years, decades, generations has propagated the claim that women are more empathetic than men, even as the same feminists insist that women and men are interchangeable in roles.
Anyone who pushes for women preachers is a feminist, and should be opposed.
@ Anonymous Reader says:
November 2, 2016 at 2:27 pm
“Many people see a person who is sympathetic towards others and confuse that with empathy. Pity parties are not the same thing as empathy.”
Excellent observation. One can be empathetic towards ones enemy – place oneself in his shoes, look at the world through his eyes – for the purpose of predicting what he will do, fight him more effectively and even destroy him.
Conversely, one does not feel sympathy towards ones enemy.
Meaning, because the court system is so overwhelmingly biased toward the mother, the father often has to be truly spectacular in order to gain custody of the children.
Yeah, basically cases of 50/50 custody are generally (1) when the mother wants that and the father is not obviously unfit (happens with career mommies) or (2) where the mother doesn’t want it, but is somewhat unfit and the father is not obviously unfit.
Cases where the father is awarded primary custody almost always involve very unfit mothers (addicts, prisoners and so on), and even then if the father is not judged to be fit the kids will be sent into foster care rather than the father. So yes there’s a bias, but the dad doesn’t have to be spectacular — it revolves primarily around the mother, what she wants (i.e., does she want 50/50 — it’s almost never decreed over her objection unless there is a fitness issue on her part) and, if it is against what she wants, how fit she is (or not).
— it revolves primarily around the mother, what she wants (i.e., does she want 50/50 — it’s almost never decreed over her objection unless there is a fitness issue on her part) and, if it is against what she wants, how fit she is (or not).
See, this is why even marriages that technically don’t end in divorce are quite often a bad deal for the man. A 25-year period lived under threatpoint, that can flare up at any time (usually when you are dealing with another setback in life)? That isn’t fun. And even after the children are gone, then the woman will take her cash and prizes, and promptly lose it in a Nigerian romance scam, leaving the entire (former) family worse off.
Entering a marriage in the hopes of the 20% chance that it will make you happy, is just not a good risk/reward assessment.
@Novaseeker
You are correct. A better way to phrase it would be to say there are different fitness standards for mothers versus fathers, which contributes to more children being placed with crappy mothers than crappy fathers. So, it’s difficult to compare outcomes.
I think the best way to judge the intrinsic parental capacity of men versus women would be to compare widower single fathers to widowed single mothers. Even though men tend to die younger, these groups are at least close to randomized. Would love to see that type of study. A cursory Internet search doesn’t find anything.
Oscar,
I based that comment of mine on a vaguely-recalled survey that I can’t find now, as well as anecdotal evidence I’ve seen with my own eyes in my family. It stands to reason that single women would prefer men without custody of their children for the same reasons men prefer women without custody of theirs. (There’s an XOJane article about it that I won’t link because it’s a trash site and it’s anecdotal, but the writer says she won’t date single fathers for the sort of reasons you’d expect to hear from a 30-something girl with a “high-flying career.”) The difference, obviously, is that eliminating single custodial fathers from consideration is easy for women because they’re relatively rare, while avoid single moms is much harder because there are so many of them… like a plague of locusts in a lot of ways.
But this is another one of those things that’s hard to tease hard-and-fast conclusions from, because custodial fathers tend to be cut from different cloth than single mothers (as RPChristian noted), and the reasons they’re in that position tend to differ as well. There’s also the problem of defining what we mean by “single parent.” In the case of women, it usually means primary physical and legal custody, with a heaping helping of Dad’s paycheck. With men it’s much more likely to be visitation or, at best, shared parenting with little or no money from the mother. Current studies tend to look at any split with children involved and consider that there are suddenly two “single parents” even though their circumstances (and presumably dating prospects) are vastly different. I’m not sure there’s any way to untangle the apples-to-oranges aspects of all this short of conducting a study designed to control for “red-pill aware” variables, like separating what women say versus what they do, which are often diametrically opposed.
I think the pre-selection thing works both and against them: for one thing it shows that some woman gave him a child and some judge gave him custody, which makes him a steady “provider-type” which is either good or bad depending on how mature she is (or how close to the Wall she thinks she is). On the other hand, it also means that the same woman who did that found him unsuitable in some fundamental way, which is either good or bad depending on how her hamster views theoretical rivals.
Finally, single mothers have no trouble getting “dates” (POF has a piece on that), but we here understand that single moms flood the booty-call market – getting “dates” doesn’t mean they get the white picket fence… while the bar for men is MUCH higher. So once again, there’s probably a big difference between what single moms want and what single dads want, as well as a big difference between what everyone wants and what they actually get. Then the Heisenberg Effect rears its ugly head and most everyone eventually gets more pragmatic about the deltas (although it takes women a lot longer to do it given the female mind and all the YuGoGirl crap shoveled into their skulls).
I’m linking here because more comments and traffic. Please see my comment about male birth control controversy
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/men-on-strike-only-3-29-for-now/#comment-220887
Ryder @ November 1, 2016 at 6:33 pm:
“I’m on board broadly, but I still struggle with how this plays out in the details. For example, it seems that teaching other women to obey their husbands could involve teaching doctrine.”
Women can talk about Scripture. That’s never been a problem. The key is not wielding independence or authority when doing so.
“With the exception of the teenage group, our church school program is taught by women, and they’re (with one possible exception) all submissive to their husbands or humble, devout spinsters. Furthermore, they’re under the authority of the (male) rector as it relates to curriculum.”
Sounds fine. If I know Sunday School, the kids just want to play with Popsicle sticks and wood glue anyway.
“The total opposite of this is true, from the hilariously-behaved Judges to Saint “Ready, Fire, Aim” Peter to Augustine’s Confessions.”
True, but when that happens those men turn to the Lord and become holy men, and the Lord continues to speak to them. I’ve never heard of a case where the Lord badgered a man until he died only to be consistently ignored. What it does seem is that he called men to Himself, probably because he knew they would respond.
But my point stands. The men that the Lord would continuously speak with were holy men.
@ GunnerQ
Yep. That’s how my Church does things. Women can “lead” Bible studies, but all of the Bible studies are done off of a list of verses and points that the head pastor creates.
As such, the Bible study is ultimately under the authority of the head pastor.
but we here understand that single moms flood the booty-call market – getting “dates” doesn’t mean they get the white picket fence…
Hey, ‘white picket fence’ is a good 2016 metaphor to replace the outdated ‘pearl necklace’. Single mothers certainly get a lot of that.
They *do* get a lot of white picket fences. Sometimes from 20 men in the same calendar year.
Frank K @ 3:52 pm:
“I’ve never heard of a case where the Lord badgered a man until he died only to be consistently ignored.”
Saul.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3894424/Pope-says-believes-ban-female-priests-forever.html
IIRC, Saul responded the first time, on the road to Damascus. He was told to seek Ananias and he obeyed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3894424/Pope-says-believes-ban-female-priests-forever.html
So even the most left-wing prog Pope in RCC history makes it clear that female priests ain’t gonna happen. This should give pause to those so-called “conservative” Protestants (i.e., evangelicuckservatives) who have allowed stealth feminism to creep into their denominations. Instead, rather than have an instructional effect, it will just lead to more eye-speck highlighting while the tree grows bigger and bigger.
Lyn,
To be fair, I wouldn’t call anyone who writes for xoJane a quality mate.
I’m not ok with women teaching my 4 year old son from the bible(at church). So what if they only ask comprehensive questions, he is a boy, just keep him entertained so he is tired and likes coming to church. I am teaching him and if they want to help, then pray for us. I was visiting a church last week and pulled my son out and played outside with him. Missed the sermon but made the potluck afterwards. The late teen girl leading had a 12 year old boy helper too. She had the other kids sit for a half hour while she triedto teach from Isaiah. A loud mouth girl did most of the responding too. I’m so glad The Lord blessed our time after I pulled my son out of there. So that is the kind of teaching Dalrock and Deep Strength are okay with? Not me. This is one of my first serious disagreements with either of their positions. It’s partly an off topic disagreement because I don’t even want teaching at Sunday School until kids are 7 or more. Am I alone on this like it seems?
Agree with Swanny River. What is it that a young man can’t do that a woman can do? Why not use these as opportunities to groom young men as they may take on positions as heads of families (therefore, has the responsibility to teach their families) in future? What use is there for these women in doing the teaching as these are not their primary roles (married or not)? And “men not stepping up” or “there are not enough male volunteers” are not valid reasons at all,
“IIRC, Saul responded the first time, on the road to Damascus. He was told to seek Ananias and he obeyed.”
The other one. King Saul.
Frank K – I’m pretty sure he meant King Saul, not Saul of Tarsus.
Oscar – I agree, xoJane is a mess… my point was that most women would consider having custody of minor children to be a negative for a man: perhaps so much so that a woman with options might well decide that she can do better.
This window on female nature shows us the way to get women to turn against immigration.
Women are more likely to favor this, seeing it as something that brings them more servants, potential alpha lovers, and downtrodden people to volunteer for as they show off with their white-savior selfies.
Time for us to divide and conquer – create hostility between NATURAL adversaries – spoiled American women, vs hardworking Tiger Moms who are a threat to American women’s sweet dreams of a prestigious, managerial office job combined with part-time, show-up-whenever-I-want hours.
Lyn,
Yeah, I know. I was being facetious. When we don’t have data to analyze, we have to go with observation and gut feeling, which is why I can’t be emphatic on this subject.
And “men not stepping up” or “there are not enough male volunteers” are not valid reasons at all,
I will go so far as to say, based on my own experience, that if men in the church are not volunteering, or not volunteering in sufficient numbers for available leadership positions, it is because they have tried in the past to volunteer, but were turned down – repeatedly. Why?
Because many pastors see the men of their congregations as potential threats to their (often superficial) authority. AMOGing IS VERY MUCH A THING. That, and the fact that their wives often are the ones actually making the decisions.
I am in the process of exiting a church I’ve been attending for almost two years because, as of the first Sunday of last month, the male ushers -ALL OF THEM- have been replaced by women. Every.last.one.
While this is travesty enough, it’s not the only instance in this church where male leadership or presence is lacking. There is a twice-monthly women’s Bible study, but none for men at all (I’ve asked the pastor and the two men in the church who are the closest things to elders that there are why there is no regular men’s Bible study, but have never been given a satisfactory explanation). There are twice-a-year women’s retreats, but none for men. Women do all of the youth mentoring and event organizing. The pastor’s wife and two of his adult daughters do all of the Sunday morning announcements and lead all of the praise services (the pastor and his wife have six adult sons, two of whom are ordained pastors themselves, who seem to be locked in a dungeon somewhere on Sunday mornings, so rare is their presence).
I now believe that this church is really under the control of Mrs. Pastor, who takes advantage of her husband’s declining health to use him as her puppet. Her whole demeanor around him suggests that without her at his side at all times, he would be lost and unable to function.
Anyway, veering back toward the topic of the post, I am now certain that SheBehindThePulpit is actively erecting barriers to any serious male leadership or key involvement within the church and that her husband isn’t about to defy her wishes even if he wanted to (and I doubt that he does). For demographic and cultural reasons I’m really not in any position to seriously contest the status quo, so moving on seems to be the best thing to do (much prayer right now over this). I’m under no illusions that things are going to be significantly better or different in most other churches I visit, but I’m eager to let God show me otherwise.
This may be a stupid question, but why can’t a church move online?
MOOCs are displacing universities and webinars are very common, so can’t a church spread beyond its geography through modern media technologies? That way, even a gender normative, Bible following church can have a million adherents despite that million being a small percentage of the population…
People who crave gender-normative Christianity can find community this way too, showing them that they are not alone in wishing to avoid pastorbators preaching churchianity.
@ Swanny
This is my position on Sunday School
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/sunday-school-is-superfluous/
Basically, it’s not needed, which is straight out of the Bible. Fathers should be doing the teaching to their sons and daughters everyday.
At most it’s should be a supplement to your teaching. I agree with you that if they’re teaching things you don’t agree with then take them out.
Anon,
A few years ago I took my expertise in “Distributed Learning” and suggested to my then-pastor that we could broadcast the services in real time to people who couldn’t be there for whatever reason. That was like rocket science to him and especially to the older members of the congregation, but once I showed him how easy and cheap it was we started doing it. Total out-of-pocket expenses might have been $50. It would be cheaper now since everyone’s laptop already has a web-cam built in (we had to buy one). We ended up getting fancy and running the audio through microphones and mixer (which improved the sound a lot), but that’s only because we were based in a physical sanctuary. An exclusively internet church (with no sanctuary) could operate from any laptop.
We had a lady attending from hundreds of miles away who was a shut-in but knew someone in the congregation. One Sunday we got a bad blizzard and every church in town closed. The parsonage was next door to the church, so the pastor’s family walked over and had the service anyway to empty pews (well… almost empty: a visitor showed up and the pastor’s family was all in their pajamas and bath robes). While every other church in town was closed, we had 43 people attending over the internet… and six in the sanctuary.
The “infrastructure” is easy. Shoot, any one who felt the calling could do it right now for a few bucks.
Deep Strength
This is my position on Sunday School
Ok, let me guess what your position on “Youth Group” is…
Anon,
We had someone running the system, which mainly consisted of watching the computer, managing privileges, aiming the camera if it needed it, and relaying anything that came in over the IM window. I did it at the beginning because I was the only one who knew how, but I taught the pastor’s son and he took that duty over. Sunday night services were less formal than Sunday morning, and was more like a Bible study, so in addition to involving the people in the pews in the discussion, people attending via the internet could chime in as well by typing (we quickly discovered that we needed to silence incoming audio).
Cyberspace may be where some believers congregate as the screws tighten on the churches with physical buildings and 501(c)3 status.
The “infrastructure” is easy. Shoot, any one who felt the calling could do it right now for a few bucks.
I’m waiting for Skype or FaceTime to update to versions that enable conferencing. Once that happens “virtual church” will be easier than ever.
Once that happens “virtual church” will be easier than ever.
Call it the ‘Virch’…
But it will sure be easier to topple the feminist and pastorbator dominance under that model. Sluts, too, will vanish since Sunday Morning Nightclub is no longer automatic… They will have to get their ‘white picket fences’ elsewhere..
MOOCs are displacing universities and webinars are very common, so can’t a church spread beyond its geography through modern media technologies? That way, even a gender normative, Bible following church can have a million adherents despite that million being a small percentage of the population…
Sacramental/liturgical churches can’t do this because they need to be gathered in one physical place to have the liturgy and physically partake in the sacrament. This is why, in the Soviet times when the Orthodox Church was more or less completely banned (pre-Stalin), the underground church met in catacombs style, rather than going to a kind of “disperse yet communicate” model (which was also possible pre-internet, just slower … samizdat followed that model).
Virch (I like that one) is useful, but it really shouldn’t be the norm. There’s a big difference between watching Online and worshiping with other believers. If one looks at it more as a redundancy/outreach approach, it works well enough. Though the biggest issue among the modern church is we’ve obliterated any sense of “community” (however defined) for various reasons.
@feeriker
Based on that description you should not only go, but be sure to shake the dust off your shoes when you do. Finding churches that haven’t gone too far down that path will be increasingly difficult, but staying at one where they’re openly handing everything over to women doesn’t sound like an option at all. The “wilderness” would be preferable.
Online technology is great in many ways, but it does not replace the personal touch. You can’t “lay hands” on someone over the Internet, however much you can send media. That personal connection is still very important.
I like the tech, but it is not a full solution.
Tech is a good solution for people who CAN’T attend church for some reason. That’s great. I listened to Ravi Zacharias when I was in Afghanistan.
But human beings are more than just minds. We are spirits AND bodies. That’s important. God created us for communion with Him firstly, and with each other secondly. That includes the physical communion of looking your brother in the eye, shaking his hand and sharing a meal with him.
My wife had our 9th child (4th biological, we adopted five) recently. She had an emergency C-section and couldn’t drive for a while. People from church brought us meals and drove our kids to school (I picked them up from school) for several weeks. And we’ve served our brothers and sisters similarly. A virtual church can’t do that.
Hebrews 10:24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
By all means, let’s use technology to reach those we CAN’T reach physically, especially if (as I think will happen) persecution increases in the West and the Church is driven underground. But where possible, we need to assemble together physically. It doesn’t have to be at a “church building”. It could be at a brother’s house. But – Biblically speaking – it does need to happen.
feeriker,
That problem has been long-since solved… I was doing it for my church nearly a decade ago with a business-conferencing program that only cost a few dollars a month for a capacity of 50 unique sign-ins (IIRC). Skype already has such capability, as do about a dozen other companies – there are even free programs with somewhat less functionality. If you’re content with audio plus chat, there are programs like Ventrillo or Teamspeak that are used mostly by gamers that provide high-quality audio for pennies per day. (I had Ventrillo set up as my back-up system for times when my video conference had technical difficulties).
I can’t stress enough how easy it would be to set up a virtual church. It’s child’s play. Seriously, I could have a rudimentary one up and running in 10 minutes for under $20, and a full-function one going in under an hour for under $100.
As Novaseeker noted, you lose the ability to do some liturgical things when you’re not in the same physical space, and Lost Patrol is correct that physical gathering is preferable, but the true church WILL come under persecution (and I believe it will be soon), so while my church used it for shut-ins, people who were on the road or too sick to come to church, and during snow-storms, I think it will become a way (as opposed to the way) that believers will meet if/when they find themselves constrained with regard to routine physical gathering.
@ Lyn87 says:
November 3, 2016 at 9:00 am
“… the true church WILL come under persecution (and I believe it will be soon), so while my church used it for shut-ins, people who were on the road or too sick to come to church, and during snow-storms, I think it will become a way (as opposed to the way) that believers will meet if/when they find themselves constrained with regard to routine physical gathering.”
True, and it doesn’t have to replace the physical gathering.
For example; J. Vernon McGee preached through the Bible over the course of five years starting in 1970. Through the Bible Radio has been replaying the recording of Pastor McGee’s preaching every five years ever since, and translated it into more then 100 languages.
Today there are Christians throughout the world whose church consists of gathering at a brother’s house and listening to Pastor McGee’s sermons translated into their language. That may very well be the future of the Church in the West, and technology will make it possible for isolated groups of Christians to receive Biblical preaching as they assemble together wherever they are.
Has anyone else noticed the latest trend in which Conservative-leaning commentators on YouTube are having their videos flagged and/or demonetized? We’re rapidly approaching the point where even an online church won’t be safe.
@Swanny River
I’m not sure I understand where our disagreement lies. I had to go back and read my comment above, so I’ll paste it again here:
I don’t believe that Scripture prohibits women from teaching children in specific circumstances, but I believe the church is fully within its authority to make such a restriction. I also argue that allowing women to teach even when biblically permitted comes with a risk of feeding feminist envy. So I don’t disagree with you pulling your son out of what you believed to be inappropriate instruction. I also would support your church deciding that women aren’t to teach Sunday school.
But while this is related to the OP, I want to reiterate that the burning problem I see comes from the other direction. The Bible clearly forbids women from taking on formal teaching roles (preaching sermons, etc, see Moo’s definition) for both men and women. But since several decades ago conservative Christians capitulated on this, saying no to women here is unimaginable to nearly everyone. I’ve yet to be able to find anyone in the sphere who agrees with the CBMW’s torturing of Scripture to create the loophole for women teaching women (that Paul didn’t mean women were more easily deceived when he said Eve was deceived but Adam was not). This argument is absurd, but saying no to “women’s ministries” is unimaginable. Because of this, the focus becomes to change the subject. “What about women teaching children?” This isn’t an invalid subject for discussion, but in the context I’m describing it is functioning as a distraction. You clearly aren’t using it this way, but understand that this is the very strong temptation for those who want to condone women’s ministries without signing on to the asinine claim that Paul didn’t say that women shouldn’t teach because they are more easily deceived.
Chris,
Widespread censorship is coming – no doubt about it. The social groundwork is well underway to prepare people for the legal aspects that will soon follow. We are very near some sort of tipping point. When we reach it I expect things to tumble quickly. The question we ask ourselves is, “Then what?” Or perhaps, more to the point, “Now what?”
Oscar and I have been batting this back and forth for a little bit, and I believe all of us here understand the tautology, “It’s easier to operate in the absence of constraints.” But that’s not particularly helpful when those constraints begin to appear. It doesn’t take a degree in Church History to know that persecution happens, or that God has used many solutions for His people. That’s why I was careful to say, ‘A way rather than the way.’
Some groups will never meet in person. Others will with varying degrees of frequency – I agree with Oscar that small physical groups will probably be the “main” method in the West, but it will probably not be the only method. Different times and places will face different challenges and opportunities, and we have to face the fact that there will be martyrs… and betrayals from within. We have few guarantees in this life, and none for our personal physical safety.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about insurgencies and how to counter them. It was part of my job – and I was good at it. I’ve spent far longer as a Christian and a student of God’s word. The church under persecution has things in common with insurgencies, and we do well to understand how the successful ones operate and what their vulnerabilities are. One thing is to avoid “putting all your eggs in one basket.” But we can’t be so concerned about security that we lose sight of our mission – both as individuals and as a group. We’re called to unity, but gathering increases vulnerability. Ultimately we must trust in God, but we must also use the gifts and capabilities He’s given us… “Be ye wise as serpents” goes along with, “and harmless as doves.”
“This may be a stupid question, but why can’t a church move online?”
The most cogent theological answers have already been given above, but what makes you think that churches in the new scheme of things will be allowed to propagate their teachings on the internet? Especially when it is now in international control (you know, by Europe, now overrun with Muslims).
No church service broadcast over the internet can ever be considered secure,
@Chris & Lyn87:
The active political censorship has been fairly impressive. But it’s also the reason the next wave of Tech will be designed around preventing it. (There’s already been noticeable adaptation from a lot of sectors, whether they have done it intentionally or not.) And there’s some really interesting concepts that we might call “Block-chain Church” that could fairly easily be activated. It’s not like Christians haven’t been moving messages & money without trace for 2000 years.
As for the future civil unrest in the West, the real problem, I feel, is that everyone has a pre-WW2 mentality. The conflicts will look very little like the things before, most especially because the “lines” are so very different. But that’s not a topic to explain openly.
Hmm says, “No church service broadcast over the internet can ever be considered secure,” and he is 100% correct. Different things have different vulnerabilities, and that includes everything that happens in cyberspace and in meat-space. The simple fact is that nothing is secure… anything can be compromised… unless God makes them so. We dare not fool ourselves into thinking we’re invulnerable in our own knowledge and procedures. We are not. As for what we have in our hands: it’s a matter of using what God has given us to manage and mitigate vulnerabilities – not eliminate them. OPSEC, COMSEC, INFOSEC, Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence, etc… this stuff is fiendishly complicated. In fact, that doesn’t even do it justice. It is beyond complicated: it is complex. Only God knows all, and the church will rely on Him and survive. Individuals will sink or swim, but God will preserve His remnant.
LG: well said. Not only will new lines be drawn, but they’ll have all the stability of an Etch-a-Sketch. Interesting times. On the one hand my flesh wants to say, “If you’re not terrified, you don’t understand the situation.” On the other hand my spirit has to say, “If you are not at peace, you don’t understand anything about God.”
@ Hmm says:
November 3, 2016 at 10:51 am
“… what makes you think that churches in the new scheme of things will be allowed to propagate their teachings on the internet?”
There was a time when possessing a copy of the Bible translated into a common language (English, German, French, Spanish, etc.) would get you burned at the stake. Faithful Christians who risked their lives to translate Bible, copy it and distribute those copies anyway (many of whom lost their lives) are the reason we have Bibles today.
Lyn is right. We don’t know what restriction will be placed on us, so we don’t know how we’ll get around those restrictions. We can, however, determine now that – with God’s grace – we will find a way. God’s people have faced persecution since the fall, and yet they found a way to get the signal out, and that’s why we’re here discussing it today. We will do the same.
Hebrews 12:1 Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses [the saints and martyrs who went before us], let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
Dalrock,
You wrote “I don’t see Scripture forbidding women to teach children, provided they are in submission to male authority”
Couldn’t the exact same thing be said about women teaching women? This may seem like a trolling question, but it’s not. I really am curious about your take on this.
Karl @ 12:06 pm:
“Dalrock, You wrote “I don’t see Scripture forbidding women to teach children, provided they are in submission to male authority”
Couldn’t the exact same thing be said about women teaching women?”
Titus 2 is specific about what older women are to teach younger women. The gray area with kids exists because below a certain age, you might almost as well be teaching them about Santa Claus.
@Lyn87:
A point I like to make is that Christians have spent an extremely long time rejecting Wisdom, thus the Holy Spirit. There are many things that should have happened that never did because it feels “wrong” to be harsh as a Christian. And, because those didn’t happen, what comes next is always worse. (You can read nearly the entire Old Testament as this process, it should be noted.)
The real issue, I think, when we get to the “Black Flag” scenarios, is that people don’t realize how modern infrastructure changes things. Further, we’ve not had any true Insider warfare within the West since the 1800s. It would either be super short and somewhat bloody; or short and supremely bloody. I can’t say I hope that happens.
Is Titus 2 an “only this” list or a “these are valid” list? The latter would only say certain things are definitely allowed, not that other things are prohibited.
BillyS, I’m curious as to why you singled out Titus 2. Nonetheless, given what the Bible says elsewhere about women teaching, Paul gave us a “this is required” list for who may teach, preach, and hold ecclesiastical authority in both Titus and 1 Timothy. Anything that doesn’t meet the criteria, by definition, doesn’t make the cut. We can ponder the gray areas, like whether a woman can teach small children under the authority of her pastor, or husband, or elder, but the gray areas are pretty small, and most churches blew right past them a long time ago. Dalrock is correct that the endless search for the boundaries is less about doing all we can within what God allows and more about looking for ways to give people (particularly women) what they want. As I wrote above: I’m against constraining ourselves in ways that God does not require, but as Dalrock noted, motives matter.
“There are many things that should have happened that never did because it feels “wrong” to be harsh as a Christian.”
There have been plenty enough church splits and divisions in the Protestant world that we should not have been able to forget how to fight for our principles. Perhaps that should have been our first clue, when our pastors decided Biblical doctrine was no longer worth arguing about. Frigging Cult of Nice, let’s go back to fistfights over where to put the piano.
…
“BillyS, I’m curious as to why you singled out Titus 2.”
I cited it a few posts above.
I was just replying to the post that mentioned it as a constraint. I would need to take more time to one it all up.
The post said that Titus 2 covered what they could teach, but I am not sure that is a proper reading there. It may be valid to limit it to what is listed, but I am curious if anyone has clear reasoning for that position.
Pingback: To converge is to join the Antichrist. [Rev 17] | Dark Brightness
On Titus 2. Interesting women NEED to be taught to love. Men are expected to.
IBB,
For those of you who think that Bill Maher is against misandry, that may have been true in the 90s, but now he knows in no uncertain terms what narrative he has to follow. He is a complete mangina decrying the unrecognized misogyny in America :
For those of you who think that Bill Maher is against misandry, that may have been true in the 90s, but now he knows in no uncertain terms what narrative he has to follow. He is a complete mangina decrying the unrecognized misogyny in America :
Maher has always been a libprog douchebag, so his showing his true colors makes perfect sense.
Bill Maher says one thing but does another. He hates feminism. He’s pure red pill. His MGTOW status is well documented.
He’s amoral. He is not Republican. He is not Christian. He hates Evangelicals like many of us. He is a bleeding heart liberal. But even Bill would dignify feminism (and the feminist imperative) is cancer. You are not going to see him defend Jackie from UVa, Mattress Girl from Columbia, the Duke Lacrosse strippers, Jodi Arias, Casey Anthony, Amanda Knox, none of them. Instead, he will just “reframe” the discussion on the panel if one of them does. I even remember hearing him side with the late-great Phillis Schlafly when she attacked the Kelo vs New London decision.
He hates Trump NOT because he is disgusted by Trump and his lifestyle. Trump’s lifestyle (and all Trump’s female conquests) is not all that different from Bill’s lifestyle. No, he hates Trump simply because Trump sued Bill for his “…prove to me your mom is not an orangutan… ” comment. Trump dropped the defamation suit he was never going to win but it pissed off Maher.
His MGTOW status is well documented.
He’s the PUA branch of MGTOW, though, not the he-man-woman-hater branch.
Pingback: | Dark Brightness
Pingback: Prophets within the pews [I Cor 14] | Dark Brightness
IBB,
Watch that clip. He is quite enthusiastic about the narrative that any opposition to Hillary is misogyny.
Maybe he is just saying what he has to say to profit and stay on the air, but still…there are other things he could say and still be a Democrat-propaganda show..
Pingback: The desire to teach - Political Bias
by and large agreed, except that as a man with a gift for teaching, I often resent the charlatans on stage who were elected by men and not by God to preach. So, to your point that men don’t get angry that they have to listen to bad preaching and would instead prefer to do the job….I humbly disagree 😉
As for the rest, part of the reason is that women experience God primarily in a relational sense that is very surface level. This can sound bad, but the truth is, marriage would not work if not for a woman’s ability to keep the relationship surface level with her husband. In the modern church, pastors are like women and ought also to be removed from the pulpit; but the Christian men the church used to be led by and now kicks out routinely are men who seek out the deeper knowledge of God, things like this passage where there is one truth connecting two apparently disagreeing passages such that with deeper understanding of God’s consistent nature, the singular truth can be ferreted out to the edification of all who read or listen.
As you pointed out, this does not eliminate women from ministry but rather establishes their need to be in ministry, the same way Romans 12 does. It only places a restriction on women from introducing heresy when they begin to teach based on their surface level relationship because of their missing deeper knowledge of God. It is for this reason too that elders are expected to be married, because then a man has access to his wife’s wisdom for the things Christ is sharing with the family through her submission to her husband and the Risen Lord of Glory.
(Just to be clear, please do not think “deeper” implies gnostic heresy. Deeper only in the sense of being able to read beyond the surface level connections. Again, one can see when reading Paul that he ties in his thoughts with the revelation from the Old Testament to reveal how God is the same in both contexts and is saying something bigger than the surface meaning in either separate passage.)
@Dalrock
Sorry for the ridiculously slow response: life intruded in a big way for a bit. If only for the sake of posterity, however, I’ll still reply.
I have no problem with Dr. Moo’s definition, and I think I assumed greater strictures than what you actually presented. I have a hard time discerning what each of the bloggers in this sphere actually think about brass tacks rules for the line between teaching and other stuff, since most of the talk is theoretical or social commentary, and I incorrectly lumped you with Cane Caldo, who I believe has a more restrictive view.
Your proposed test would certainly suss out those who are overly tempted by their position. Looking at it that way, I don’t think my wife (or her co-superintendent) would be outraged. It would be a hard ruling to accept because of the work they’ve put into the program, but they would accept it if that was the ruling. They’ve also never presumed to address the adult congregation as teachers at the various pageants and assemblies that accompany a Sunday school program, which is telling.
Pingback: TGC on the importance of a complementarian feminist merit badge. | Dalrock
Pingback: It would be unchivalrous to tell her no. | Dalrock