As I mentioned in my last post, the Christian feminist lynch mob went after Dr. Paige Patterson for multiple crimes against feminism. From what I have found, there are three specific charges.
Charge #1: Objectifying women.
Patterson’s first crime against feminism was caught on film. The video is short and worth viewing:
Charge #2: Not assuming an accused man is guilty.
From the Washington Post Southern Baptist leader encouraged a woman not to report alleged rape to police and told her to forgive assailant, she says:
She said she had been dating the man she alleges raped her and had allowed him into her apartment the night she said he assaulted her. The two were kissing when he forced himself on her, she said. She said she reported it the next morning to the administrator who handled student discipline. That administrator then reported the incident to Patterson, she said, and she was required to meet with Patterson and three or four male seminarians she said were proteges of Patterson’s. She said she doesn’t remember the specific words Patterson used but that he wanted to know every detail of the rape.
…
The woman said she was put on probation for two years, but she doesn’t know why, saying it was perhaps because she was with another man alone in her apartment, which was against seminary policy.
We only have the woman’s account of the story. However, from her account it sounds like Patterson took the complaint seriously but after carefully listening to the details wasn’t convinced that it was really a case of rape. Not assuming that an accused man is guilty is itself a crime against feminism, no matter how ambiguous the circumstances.
Charge #3: Offering biblical instead of Christian feminist counsel to wives with abusive husbands.
Charge number three stems from Patterson’s comments here (alternate link):
This one is a bit more complex than the other two. First, there are multiple parts to this. For women who aren’t facing serious abuse, Patterson said he counsels wives to pray for their husbands and to remain submissive as much as possible. For serious abuse he counsels that wives separate but not divorce. Patterson is on solid biblical ground here on both counts (1 Pet 3 1-6, 1 Cor 7 10-11), but this doesn’t matter to the very mob he helped create. His advice is heresy against their true religion (feminism), and that heresy cannot go unpunished.
The other reason I find this last charge more complex is that something is very off in the story he tells to illustrate his point that 1 Pet 3 1-6 can actually work. Here is a transcript of this part of the audio from a critic of Patterson:
I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.” And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.”
And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.”
And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.” And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy.”
And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came. And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front. And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.” And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?” And he’s a great husband today. And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis.
And remember, when nobody else can help, God can. And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him.
Pingback: Patterson’s crimes against feminism. | @the_arv
The second half of Patterson’s story, about the husband giving his life to Christ, this is the whole point of the scripture that instructs wives to remain submissive, obedient and silent to even their unsaved husbands and is wonderful to read. Too bad the modern church and feminism have created generations of women, and men, who believe that God would never allow them to suffer for Christs sake, despite the clear warning that we most certainly will. That a soul was saved from the fires of hell means little because the wife had to suffer. Does it suck? Yes. Lord knows we all wish this man would have come to Christ without having first physically abused his wife, but amen that he did come to Christ and, through that, he will learn to love her as he loves himself. To the modern church, no soul is worth harming one hair on a woman’s head.
In all fairness, as far as #2 goes, maybe Patterson should have called the cops. However, if it turned out to be a false allegation, not only would the accused have his reputation smeared, but law enforcement officials would have wasted their time and resources. Plus, this shows the lack of logic most women show. By this point, and after the Cosby and Weinstein sagas, it should be clear to women that if a man invites them to their room, “things” will happen, whether consensual or not.
No kidding…why reference God in Scripture when the woman wants to be the goddess (and ruin everything).
After reading that story about abuse and how the husband turned it around because of prayer and submission…he had sound biblical advice for the wife. He actually referenced God and Scripture. Despite the fact feminism infected his organization…it sounds like he at least gave out good advice.
Obedience is the key to success…even if there is some pain along the way…rebellion is the key to failure with some short term pleasure followed by eternal pain.
@Snapper, great comment, saved me the trouble.
Just want to add that churchians are taught, implicitly if not explicitly, that only men should have to suffer. That teaching is, ironically, destructive to women.
I get a creepy feeling watching vids of men like Patterson (including lots of popular preachers). Weird face and expressions and mannerisms for a man. I associate that appearance with really messed-up minds. Won’t be surprised when some disgusting skeletons appear from his closet.
I don’t think its weird mannerisms so much as pastors try so often to be entertainers. Sure you see a guy giving a presentation at a convention open with a little light humor and maybe throw in an easy joke or two during, but pastors seemingly love delivering their messages like its some kind of stand up routine, complete with weird physical gestures, references to pop culture, overexaggerated facial expressions and reactions. Its weird, but they do it because they want to be THAT pastor, the one everyone loves soooo much because he is funny and charming and “teaches so well”. The congregation remembers his opening joke but remember little about the actual message.
About the husbands repentance in the story – who can come to the Lord without experiencing His grace and mercy? (Grace is when you get something better than what you deserve. Mercy is when you don’t get something bad that you do deserve.) It seems obvious that the false religion is seeking to eliminate grace and mercy from the equation.
Admittedly the process does appear ugly and ‘unfair’ from the human viewpoint, but the Lord deems our souls worthy of a sacrifice, even that of His Son, Jesus.
Praise God that he turned around! That’s the power of faith and obedience.
Thanks for laying out the charges. The original article didn’t say much, other than the apartment story. Can we conclude that women being spared suffering is above the saving of souls? If so, then shouldn’t we also assume that God erred in sending a saviour instead of a white knight? These people shouldn’t complain, they’ll soon enough have the church and country they want.
I have a lot of trouble believing that any man expresses himself in violence towards his wife without provocation, because women know innately how to push buttons with plausible deniability. I have a lot of trouble believing that any man accused of violence by his wife will ever get a fair hearing, because women tell stories in the realm or rhetoric and men deal in facts that no one cares about. I am inclined to believe that the ancients, rather than sanctioning abuse, were more inclined to observation about the nature of women; so rather than dealing with “abuse” at an institutional level they would rather send a wife home to her husband to his judgment. And if she would truly go seek his judgment I believe she would find relief, because a man is like that.
I tell my daughters, if you are in a man’s face, it had better be for intimacy and not for opposition, because you are not a man. Your influence is by pulling, drawing, (sucking), not pushing. In a direct confrontation, you will probably get your way, but if you get your way in a direct confrontation, then you lose, and everyone loses because that is contrary to propriety. You win by losing. You influence him at his feet, not in his face.
The pulpits are teaching wives to earn their husbands’ disdain and hatred and doing no one any favors.
Moral of the story…in order to save souls it’ll cost you something. Christ is the example of this…and anyone who is Christian should know this.
‘So if I can admit that, ladies, can you at least admit that every ass kicking doesn’t just fall out of the sky?
Language warning…it’s reiterates what you say.
I listened to that video. Taking the accusations together, I have to conclude he was a leader saying things I want leaders to say. Seems better than what I have read here about Wilson, but I didn’t listen to clip 3, but only read the excerpt. I hope he has no skeletons, because I like what I’ve read and heard.
Caspar,
So if I am understanding you and Dalrock correctly, that third story, and Patterson, are complex because Patterson may be lying? That sounds like a leading question, but I do just want to see if I understanding what is being talked about. That is, I don’t understand why that third example is complex, but that could be because I didn’t listen to it.
He shouldn’t lie, if that is the case, but his accusers didn’t even care if he did lie, that is how strongly they feel about that excerpt. That is scary in its own right.
@Swanny,
I take the story at face value but don’t agree there can be any objective discussion of it as long as “abuse” is a get out of jail free card. The husband is head of the wife, but “abuse” allows a wife to find a head who will give her what she wants at the moment, whether the the elders, a facebook consensus, or the police and courts. Citing scriptural admonitions to a wife that contradict her natural inclinations is itself “abuse”.
Gee, I was expecting to hear Patterson make some lecherous comments about a 16-year-old girl (like, wow, she was hot, I was looking at her, she had nice legs and etc.) which might understandably rile up feminist sensibilities and outrage. Actually it was pretty funny and in the context of God “wonderfully making women” or some such thing and some kid getting slammed down by a woman forbidding the kid to say that a girl his age is hot.
I haven’t looked at the rest of the material yet, just wanted to comment on this first.
The thing that is off is that her heart was still not right. She was mad at God and the world.
>And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.”<
She did was she was supposed to do, and it worked , but she was still feminist. She needed to repent as bad as he did.
Pingback: Patterson’s crimes against feminism. | Reaction Times
All she has to do is “turn on the tears” and lie. Seen it on “Cops” the dude is black and blue and he still gets arrested because the “tears” came on and she was *only* acting only in self defense………….seen it at nightclubs when I was attending AND as a bartender. Girl turns on the tears, lies……out come the white knights, security, bouncers…………hauling the guy out, calling the police and “roughing” him up a bit for the “harm” he dare caused a drunk, defenseless, helpless girl at a nightclub. Saw it at work at IBM when a man asks a woman out, she refuses. He asks again. He is hauled into an HR office for “harassment” and in order to keep his job, he has to take sensitivity training and all…..and will def not be getting a raise in the coming year.
Seen it in church where a guy asks a woman out…………….she says “no” but then goes to the pastor / deacon / Officer and claims she is “frightened” by said man. Said man is then ‘disciplined’ to not EVER ask women out in church. We’re here to worship God not date.
The man is now blacklisted as a “creep” inside the church.
Next weeks sermon then speaks about how all men are “wussies” and won’t “ask a woman out” and “live in a basement, play video games, watch porn” and men need to MAN UP and ASK THAT GIRL OUT!
cheers and applause from the women, but as usual………………………………….she had better be 100% ATTRACTED TO YOU BEFOREHAND.
TV actress Vanessa Marcil tweets:
… being a mother is a privilege & the most important thing you can gift your child is a mother who is not defined by being a mother but who has followed her dreams & who never has to apologize 4 being at work. To show your kids a mom with a full life without them is the only way to celebrate their full lives without us someday. Here’s to the brave mom’s out there. …
The New York Times targets the “extremist” manosphere (incels, MGTOW, red pills, alt right, etc.): https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/world/americas/incels-toronto-attack.html?recId=15Fj2RWpB5BSywtxFxAokSGu4pS&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=NJ&recAlloc=ctpf&geoCountry=US&blockId=signature-journalism
But incels are the latest manifestation of a much larger movement hidden just beneath the surface of polite society across the West. They are just one part of a set of ideologies, now growing in size and influence, that speak to broader resentments among men in Western societies, experts say. …
For white men across the Western world, special rights and privileges once came as a birthright. Even those who lacked wealth or power were assured a status above women and minorities.
Though they still enjoy preferential status in virtually every realm, from the boardroom to the courthouse, social forces like the Me Too movement are challenging that status. To some, any steps toward equality, however modest, feel like a threat. …
@ Caspar Reyes says:
May 28, 2018 at 1:22 pm
“I have a lot of trouble believing that any man expresses himself in violence towards his wife without provocation, because women know innately how to push buttons with plausible deniability.”
Come on, man. Some men are just plain cruel. They’re rare, thank God, but they do exist. Let’s not fall into the same trap that feminists fall into. They pretend that every woman’s bad behavior is a man’s fault. Let’s not pretend that every man’s bad behavior is provoked by a woman.
@ RPL
TV actress Vanessa Marcil tweets:
That is absolutely inspired. A work of art.
Hey mom, if being a mother is a privilege, why did you keep us warehoused at the child drop off center our whole young lives?
To show you kids how full my life is without you, so you can do the same for your kids someday!
OK then, thanks, I guess…
Caspar, thanks.
RPL and Lost Patrol,
That Vanessa Marcil hits the notes exactly right. How would Kassian, CBMW, TGC, Piper, Wilson, respond to it? Officially they won’t respond, so silent agreement is their position. After seeing what happened to Patterson, those leaders would be too fearful to tweet Marcil back. I doubt any of them disagree with her. What I should do, is ask my pastor and elders if they are well with it. They hedge and fudge, and not a one would be unequivocally upset with her.
For white men across the Western world, special rights and privileges once came as a birthright. Even those who lacked wealth or power were assured a status above women and minorities.
I can’t believe people still read this garbage and this is what is supposed to be journalism? No wonder the so called alternative media is kicking the lame stream media to the gutter where it belongs.
The religious college BYU caved on the same #MeToo issue as well. They have an honor code which Prohibits drinking and sexual activity. A girl reported she had been drinking (violation), brought a man back to her room (violation), and then was making out and she claims that he than raped her. The old standard was that she reported her rape and then also got expelled because of her other violations. But in the modern world women are exempt from consequences so BYU caved into pressure and granted all the women a get out of free card- if they break all the rules they just claim rape and the administration no longer will punish her for her other clear violations. They got a nurse who says that she receives reports of rape often but people are scared to report because they will be expelled (as a consequence of breaking other rules). Her numbers resulted in a yearly rape rate at BYU higher than the Congo – absurd. But the admin caved afraid of the feminists trying to destroy them. Hopefully men will at least be smart enough to use the get out of jail card first.
You know…..Mike Pence is right….and I got a belittling for defending him here in “tolerant, open-minded to all ideas California” and you men who have sons. You teach them this. All it takes is a false allegation, she suddenly gets “mad” at him and then RUINS his college career or his early years in the workforce.
No WAY since my IBM days I would never be in a room alone with a woman.
I had an admin in 2001, she was a temp until they hired me a full time one. My previous one retired.
She came to work one day in SPIKE heels. Dress with the slit WAY up the side like they were all wearing back then…..very tight blouse.
Now business code required me to “address” her dress at work.
I was smart enough back then to know the following:
*I say something, she will claim I was checking her out, and *undressing her with my eyes* or her clothing should have NO affect on me because I am supposed to view her as a professional and her dressing that way is obviously MY problem. NOT hers.
*I say nothing. My co-workers (male and female) will PERCIEVE that I *like* or *want* or *encourage* her to dress like this. If they confront her, her defense will be “Well Mr. Wojesleczylski never said anything to me about it.”
Thus absconding BLAME on to me.
She was a looker. I will admit that.
I closed the door to my office. Called my manager, who at that time was a woman. Explained the situation calmly……..and she said “Hmmmmmm, I get why you think you are stuck. I’ll come right over.”
She did. She came into my office and said “Yeah, she looks like she is going to swing off a pole with those shoes on. I’ll handle it.”
She did. This admin got NASTY with her. I cannot imagine her behavior if I had said something. She accused me of being a “boy” after my manger left saying I could not “confront” a “woman like her face to face” and “A real man would not have had a problem with this at all”
I told her I didn’t have to explain anything to her. “Go home, and come back to work when you want to dress appropriately”
She resigned the next day. She would have SCREAMED sexual harassment if I had confronted her.
Oscar — “Come on, man. Some men are just plain cruel.”
Yep. Some men, women, and indeed children are irreversibly and persistently cruel. Sadistic is the modern word. I’m talking the level of folk that pass their entire lives as predatory, looking for their own advantage always, no matter the situation. Enjoy hurting people and animals. These types absolutely exist, and worse than that, too.
Swanny River — “What I should do, is ask my pastor and elders if they are well with it. They hedge and fudge, and not a one would be unequivocally upset with her.”
If they don’t refute open rebellion, then they are themselves in rebellion against God, along with the vast majority of the female congregation.
In such event, they are neither pastors nor ministers nor elders, they are weak and apostate men, needing to submit themselves to real elders who are unafraid of expressing the truth. Seeing as how the aim and point of Christianity is worshipping the Truth.
From there, it is your responsibility to separate yourself from them physically and spiritually, lest you pollute your own soul, and give authority to them to lead others into disastrous rebellion.
‘For white men across the Western world, special rights and privileges once came as a birthright. Even those who lacked wealth or power were assured a status above women and minorities.’
They never seem to point out specifically what these ‘special rights and priviledges’ are from your birthright.
If anything now these speical things from birthright are the very groups they think don’t have them…women get them for having a vagina and minorities get them for having more melanin in their skin. Affirmative action.
I give it 2 years…
soon Christians will be calling this genuine sacrificial servant leadership….
cuckolding- the highest sacrifice a man can make to prove his love for his wife
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/25/health/cuckolding-sex-kerner/index.html
any man that disagrees will commit the GRAVE SIN of “misogyny” and will be CAST out…
this guy laments and claims it is sinful for a woman to make a drink and care for the home while a husband works…
I think half these church pastors re Jealous of men who have wives that love them and so they try and flip the roles and commands of the bible because they have no authority over their wife….
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/mans-place-home/
Feminism is all about controlling men’s sexuality and ensuring men sexual drive is directed to women’s best interests, while at the same time allowing women complete sexual freedom, ultimately giving women sexual privilege and power over men. That’s why men so easily lost their rights to presumption of innocence and due process with Affirmative Consent, MeToo and TimesUp. Men think they run the show when in actuality women do. Women now have complete power over male sexuality and are using that power to destroy masculinity. That’s because most men are simps and are willing to suffer feminists for sex, trading their liberty for potential sexual access through virtue signalling. Feminism is to male sexuality as Hitler was to Jewish longevity. Apparently, ‘men’ are willing to turn the other cheek as feminists beat them into submission.
I give it 2 years…
soon Christians will be calling this genuine sacrificial servant leadership….
cuckolding- the highest sacrifice a man can make to prove his love for his wife
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/25/health/cuckolding-sex-kerner/index.html
any man that disagrees will commit the GRAVE SIN of “misogyny” and will be CAST out…
Not 2 years, no. That article is what is called an “early trial balloon”. The pro-poly movement is floating articles like this out there every now and then to take the temperature of the secular culture (gauge reaction to it) and tweak the next round of messaging accordingly. Eventually, there will be advocacy of it, but not in 2 years time. There still isn’t broad acceptance of non-monogamy and polyamory in the wider secular culture at this point, and as far as I can read things we aren’t close to broad acceptance of it. But we will eventually see a push towards the acceptance of female non-monogamy, principally, in the secular culture — maybe in 10, maybe in 20 years, especially as the situation for women gets more acute in terms of the “where are the good men?” issue.
She came to work one day in SPIKE heels. Dress with the slit WAY up the side like they were all wearing back then…..very tight blouse.
Now business code required me to “address” her dress at work.
Of course today, those kinds of heels are not that uncommon at work. Thankfully, however, most workplaces don’t require supervisors to police the dress codes themselves today — they ran into too many problems like the one you’re describing by doing it that way. More or less today if a woman is stepping over the already quite low bar it is handled through anonymized complaints to HR (often by other women), and then addressed. But it’s not common anyway — I can’t remember the last time a woman was told to tone it down at work, and I’ve seen some quite provocatively dressed women at work over the years.
Another Reformed pastor claims submission doesn’t actually mean having to do anything you don’t want to do. https://www.challies.com/articles/its-submission-not-subjection/
Novaseeker,
Pushing that will just push MGTOW for most, and lead to an even more unstable society. It won’t work. Most BBs won’t work hard to fund that in the long run….
Pingback: What is off about Patterson’s “two black eyes” story? | Dalrock
does anyone remember if Paige Patterson is the “beautiful beautiful beautiful” pastor?
For those who don’t remember, there was a story a few years ago of yet another pastor lamenting why men aren’t manning up and marrying the single moms/single women in his congregation, and referring to these women as “beautiful, beautiful, beautiful”.
“I have a lot of trouble believing that any man expresses himself in violence towards his wife without provocation, because women know innately how to push buttons with plausible deniability.”
I have a friend who works as a prison guard. I have no trouble believing it at all.
Pingback: Patterson counseled rightly and apologized wrongly | Christianity and masculinity
M says: Another Reformed pastor claims submission doesn’t actually mean having to do anything you don’t want to do.
I read the piece. It is a piece of crap. It is just wrong. He is falsely teaching license, and giving cover to sinful wives. This is way too common. But most people won’t come out and say this nonsense quite so plainly. He is a fool. If you don’t use the same exact translation of the Bible that he uses, the whole argument falls apart, as many Bibles use the word Subjection where he claims the word is submission, and he then splits hairs over his favored word choice. All the while ignoring passages that say the husband is to rule over his wife, and family well. (1 Timothy 3:4-5)(Genesis 3:16) He is trying to ram permissiveness of Feminism into the Bible.
The fool says we submit to Christ, but are not in subjection to Christ, He wins us over to voluntary submission not forced subjection. All power has been given unto Christ, even over rebellious demons. And as such, we must be under subjection to Him upon the guarantee of eternal fire for those who do not chose subjection.
Hebrews 12:25 See that ye refuse not Him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him(Moses) that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him that speaketh from heaven:
…
Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.
The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and from Tim Challies’ writing I don’t see him commending the fear of God.
anonymous_ng
I have a friend who works as a prison guard. I have no trouble believing it at all.
There’s that pesky “some” vs. “all” problem again.
anonymous_ng @ 11:51 am:
“I have a lot of trouble believing that any man expresses himself in violence towards his wife without provocation, because women know innately how to push buttons with plausible deniability.”
“I have a friend who works as a prison guard. I have no trouble believing it at all.”
Batterers exist but they don’t usually get married. Why would they, when they’re getting lots of hybristophilia sex and don’t fear God? The girl never testifies against her thug-lover.
But the frustrated husband that she goaded into punching her one single time? Yeah, she’d put him in prison but that’s the “without provocation” part.
@Caspar Reyes
@anonymous_ng
Because every man in prison was guilty of committing the crime the state accused him of committing (and was sentenced appropriately), despite our corrupt criminal justice system that sentences men nine times longer than women for the same crimes (see The Myth of Male Power or The Boy Crisis by Warren Farrell), among many other sexist criminal justice outcomes.
That there are aggressively violent men who must be institutionalized there is no doubt. What I think Caspar Reyes was referring to is the ludicrous notion that the majority of men being accused of domestic violence were unprovoked. It’s clear to me from personal experience and my study of domestic violence that women initiate domestic violence at least (roughly speaking) 50% of the time, yet men account for between 85-90% of all domestic violence arrests. When men initiate or are provoked into committing or physically responding to domestic violence, they are arrested, generally speaking. When women commit or respond physically to domestic violence there is a much greater chance they will not be arrested.
Women are often the initiators of physical or verbal confrontation, but because men have greater physical strength, it is often only the woman who will have visible marks from a physical confrontation. Men are socialized to avoid using provocative words to antagonize another man, lest they risk a physical confrontation they might not win. Women are socialized to use words as weapons, to a far greater degree than men. Men are socialized not to hurt women. Women are socialized that a man must always protect women, giving them less to fear from uttering provoking statements. I could go on…
The point is that it’s clear that there is a huge imbalance when it comes to a confrontation between a man and a woman. What feminists have trained us to only see is the big, scary man, and the weak, fearful woman. However, there are many factors at play other than mere physical strength.
Pingback: He Should Have Fought Back! – v5k2c2.com
The SJW left eats its own young, even after they are well-fed and full. Their appetite for destruction is endless. Mao killed 100 million Chinese during the “re-education” part of the Communist takeover of China (and these were ethnic Chinese intellectuals!)! Stalling starved 12 million Ukrainians for fun, basically, even as Ukraine was always a stalwart defender of Russia from Western powers for 200 years. Move mogul Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, and NY Attorney General Schniderman all dedicated their lives to the left and were destroyed by their own at the drop of a hat. The wind shifts and so do the fates of the left’s own puppet masters, who become disposable puppets that are eaten by their own.
Now Paige Patterson has created a small SJW candle within the SBC and the American Christian churches that is now burning his own house down.
There is a lesson here somewhere…. Hummm…..Do not adopt, feed, and raise a snake to bite you later on may seem appropriate here? 🙂
Pingback: Breaking the Fifth Wall – A New Protocol for Post-Truth Debate | Σ Frame
Pingback: Pastor Wilson discovers the secret meaning of 1 Cor 7. | Dalrock
Pingback: Mad Dog Chandler on Toxic Masculinity. | Dalrock
Pingback: Feminists conquer the Evangelicals - Fabius Maximus website