Red Pill Ministries

What you see in the title is the second choice I had in my list when I was considering names for this blog. Red Pill Ministries is an often apt expression it seems for a majority of the things I’ve done in this blog so far, as well as other places. For those that don’t know from other posts in the manosphere, the Red Pill is a pop-culture reference out of the movie the Matrix, along with the Blue Pill. The Blue Pill represented the blissful ignorance of illusion, and the Red Pill represented reality, however harsh it might be.

It is used in terms of marriage and the manosphere of having your eyes opened to the truth of what marriage has become, the things that are involved on the path of it, such as the misandry, divorce rates, the fact that women initiate divorce about 90% of the time, preferential treatment towards women, the family courts and what they do and so on.

Another movie speaks to the Blue Pill almost perfectly: The Truman Show. To quote it:

INTERVIEWER: Why do you feel that Truman’s never come close to discovering the true nature of his world?

CHRISTOF: We accept the reality of the world with which we’re presented. As the show expanded, naturally we were forced to manufacture ways to keep Truman in Seahaven — demonstrating that every venture is accompanied by a risk.

In other words, we always accept what we are presented with as truth when we don’t know any different. To take it to Churchianity, for example, when a new person walks in, they take what they see as 100% factually what Christ and true faith represents. When they accept Christ, they accept what they see and hear around them, which is often the Personal Jesus and not the true Christ. Pushing towards the real truth requires being able to set that aside and evaluating what is going on wholly through the lens of Scripture. This is taking the red pill when it comes to Christianity.

The Bible speaks of this shadowing and deception as well. It uses the word tradition to describe this. Tradition is the Blue Pill. Tradition is man’s practice carried forth into general acceptance and practice to the point where people don’t think about it, they just accept it, do it, and even use Scripture to affirm it. Tradition is what men come to see as the truth and define their world after it. For example, feminists have successfully inserted their traditions of marriage into the church, which is why it is often taught so incorrectly. It has become so common place that they do not think about it, have that as a background, and interpret Scripture based on those traditions. It is like wearing purple-tinted glasses without knowing it, seeing everything as purple, and then calling everything shades of purple. It is that pervasive. Like the glasses, what people interpret can change drastically just with a small change in personal perception. Take the glasses off and the true colors of things shine forth. The faith that God expects can change drastically as a result, too. Scripture bears this out:

Then the Lord said, “Because this people draw near with their words and honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote, Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous; And the wisdom of their wise men will perish, And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed.” (Isaiah 29:13-14 NASB)

For the statutes of Omri are kept, and all the works of the house of Ahab, and ye walk in their counsels; that I should make thee a desolation, and the inhabitants thereof an hissing: therefore ye shall bear the reproach of my people. (Micah 6:16 KJV)

We go through Scripture and ask how so many prophets could come to the Israelites and issue correction from God, yet they do not turn. We ask how the Pharisees could have the very Son of God in their face and yet reject Him. Tradition is how this happened. Those things were accepted for so long that they just were. And when tradition is questioned, people react violently. Jesus was rejected and crucified for the sake of the Pharisees’ tradition. Churchianity has its power because of tradition. Jesus taught on the issue (Mark 7:1-13 is a parallel passage):

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. (Matthew 15:3-6 KJV)

Tradition is that powerful, and that potentially destructive when it countermands the word of God. In fact, Jesus says that man’s tradition makes Scripture of none effect! To explain this in a very simple way (the in-depth explanation is more text than I want to use in this post and goes slightly different than this but does not present a serious discrepancy), they could give korban, which in simple terms was a vowed gift. Now part of honoring your father and mother is financially supporting them in their older age. Jesus affirmed this. What the Pharisees allowed was outside of Scripture since they said the gift absolved people of their God-given responsibility. Yet this was not seen and not questioned yet readily practiced.

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:7-9 KJV, quoting Isaiah 29:13-14)

So to interpret that into a formula: GOD COMMANDED (this), BUT MEN SAY (something else).

I mentioned sunshinemary’s comment as an example of such things, to which I responded here.

The original comment functions as a great example of tradition as Jesus preached against because:
1. It redefines God’s Church into something it is not (a building and denomination). It negates God’s purpose that His Church be those who are called out of the world, possess the Spirit, and live in His Name. Many Scriptures can be used to point out that God’s Church is His people, not buildings and denominations.
2. It pre-supposes something that isn’t in Scripture, the idea of “attending church”, which is consistent with the error in #1. This negates numerous other Scriptural commandments, including the 2 which also exist within the same verse in context (Hebrews 10:24-25)
3. It interprets Hebrews 10:25 through that traditional lens, adding that information from man’s tradition to it, implying something that is not written. (I’ve seen that drilled enough by numerous people to know why it comes up, and can guess why she brought it up)
4. The context of attending a set event eliminates the possibility of fulfilling all the commandments God has given regarding the function of His Church. Just to use Hebrews 10:24-25, once you set out to exhort others and provoke them to love and good works, the next thing that’s going to happen is you will be exhorted and provoked right out the door.

The correct interpretation is to remember that Hebrews was written during a time of persecution. In reading the rest of the epistle, it was to former Jews who accepted Christ but were going back to Judaism because of the pressure. Hebrews 10:25 is as written, to not “forsake the assembling of ourselves together”, in other words, to not stop being the Church. It never referred to a set event in a set place at a set time, as many apply it towards. It refers to gathering together in any available place, doing all the “one another” commandments for each other, loving one another as Jesus commanded and supporting one another. It’s about being the Church, not attending church.

The use of the word worship is another great example. Again it is defined by most in the context of singing in a set venue at a set time. While there is no set definition of worship in Scripture, there are many Scriptures which point at what worship is. Most people aren’t at odds regarding the object and purpose of where worship *should* be directed, but is it tied to a location?

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:21-24 KJV)

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2 NASB)

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31 KJV)

Do these things really not indicate that worship requires only singing and at a specific location, but worship is something done continually in the life of a righteous believer? That as revering the Church’s true living stones and not dead stones to live holy lives that honor and give Him glory each and every day.

Part of my testimony as a follower mirrors that video in the Matrix exactly. Once I was prompted to look deeper into Scripture by that gnawing feeling that something isn’t right, once the question was asked about why that something wasn’t right, I definitely felt like Alice tumbling down the rabbit hole when the answers started coming. All anyone can do with anything is to show you the door. By the power of the Spirit can anyone walk through it and accept it. For as it is written on why Jesus spoke to the Pharisees in parables:

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Matthew 13:13-15)

May men finally choose to desire to understand and desire to see in this coming age!

Churchian Preaching Basics

So you’ve decided to become a preacher and make a difference in the Kingdom of God. So what do you need to know about how to get this done in the modern Churchian environment?

As we might recall, one of the principal duties of a pastor is to “provide an appearance of spirituality”. This is primarily done through the sermon or homily. We need to remember, first and foremost, that we aren’t to provide real spirituality as it would drive people away and give them a poor experience and they wouldn’t feel like coming back. Even worse, they might not feel good enough to commit to the Personal Jesus that wants a relationship with them, and we might offend people so they won’t give to our church. These two responsibilities are your first and foremost as a preacher in modern churches today.

We can’t give them too much, either, since if we give them too much they might see the real Jesus for who He is, see the Church He made for what it really is, and see us for the scoundrels we really are (let us remember the example of the Pharisees) for setting our ways into effect and calling them the way of Christ and reject us. There’s crazy people (they are few so we can portray them that way) that will actually read their Bibles and heed it instead of our words, take the words so seriously that they will actually do those things with a true fear of the Lord. They might even recognize that Scripture in a ready mind is the answer to all temptations, and can be twisted into things that it doesn’t mean when they look at how Jesus was tempted:

And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:3-4)

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (Matthew 4:5-7)

And they might recognize furthermore that Scripture says to try the spirits on whether they are of God and even points out that we will be following our own agenda instead of Christ’s:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

And horror of horrors, they might even take the Bereans, which Paul encountered, as an example:

And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:10-11)

But let’s set that ultimate nightmare aside, for it will never happen with a great many people, if we do our jobs right, and wed people into our churches. All we need to do is make it so the people believe that our churches are meeting their felt-needs, and give them the impression that this is true Christianity:

Short sermons (typically 20 minutes at most) are usually focused on self-improvement. Supporters of this movement will say that the single reason behind all the expense, state-of-the-art tech gear, and theatrics is to reach the unsaved with the gospel; however, rarely are sin, hell, or repentance spoken of, and Jesus Christ as the exclusive way to heaven is rarely mentioned. Such doctrines are considered “divisive.”

All we need to do is start with our own message. It’s our own hypothesis, our own “gospel” if you will. It doesn’t have to be Scriptural at all, because the folks that we want to save and support us don’t want to know what some stodgy 2000 year old book says about anything. Rather, it’d be best if you used very little Scripture, if any at all, and don’t directly quote it at all in context. If you want an example to look towards, look towards Oprah or Dr. Phil. They are doing the Lord’s work.

The goal is to make your own message as comfortable, non-threatening, and inviting as possible, but let it be helpful to them as well. This “helpfulness” is what we need to foster in order for people to see that their lives will be better, their relationships will be better, and their marriages will be better with Jesus in their lives. Again look to what Oprah and Dr. Phil is doing, for the audience we want to reach and keep is the same as theirs. They are women, they have unrivaled power in this society now, and will support us if we support them. Tell them what they want to hear, and give them a little Scripture since they’re at a church and expect that. Don’t give them all of it.

But what of those that have read their Scriptures pretty regularly? Let us remember that most people are lazy and will not take notes of your sermon, much less sit down to analyze it and be like those horrible Bereans. Only those crazy persons will consider doing that, and you remember what we wrote of them earlier. Do not fear even putting recordings of your stuff online, or having small groups to discuss your sermon. They won’t pick it apart, and even if they do find something wrong, no one will care to listen and can do anything about it. You are in control.

When we use Scripture, just take phrases that fit your message. You can tease out of Scripture any message that you desire, if you do it right. They can be out of context, so much so that they don’t have to have anything to do with the rest of the passage or the rest of Scripture as a whole. Just use the phrase and even the lazy experienced ones will take it when they hear it and fill it in the rest of the way in their minds and call it good. They won’t study it and think it out, and if they do they’ll just leave. And if they don’t you can just throw them out. Better off, too, that they are blessed subtractions than to stay and ruin all that you have worked so hard to build. It’s okay, many of us have done it in the past. Here’s Mark Driscoll approving of it (video about 1:41 in, but the whole video is good on this topic, I recommend it). We know it’s wicked and vile, but they don’t. And if they do, they can’t do anything about it anyway. It’s not about Jesus, it’s not about Scripture, it’s about YOUR VISION. Defend it unapologetically. It’s all about YOU.

There are many examples of such successful preachings. When we find successful ones, we share them and spread them. We have been especially successful as it relates to feminism. We have the personal Jesus, Headship theology, and other controls we’ve successfully gotten buy-in on as it relates to feminism.

(For those that missed the tag, this is indeed Satire, written from the perspective goals of the Churchian leadership, illustrating what goes on with most modern sermons. I thought it better this way to illustrate the point that most sermons and books today are filled with omission, twisted Scripture use, and half-truths. Most of them are real good exercises to point the errors out in, but are dangerous for those that actually buy into them.)

Marriage 2.0 Sexuality

As mentioned before, there’s much wrong as it relates to the current portrayals of men and women in society, especially when it has to do with marriage. The portrayal of men is especially problematic, since it not only serves to create the atmosphere for Marriage 2.0 to prosper, but it serves to dehumanize men. In other words, in the mind of women (and some men), it changes the perception of men as thinking, feeling humans with thoughts, hopes, dreams, a valid will of their own, and so on (just like the women), fully entitled to all of it, into something entirely different.

Now in Marriage 2.0, the husband submits to the wife. This is not an easy transition to make for many, since it’s unnatural, but the culture, such as school, church, and even to a certain extent his own parents conspire to remove the natural and God-given masculinity out of men from a very young age. The future wife herself also contributes to this pattern through their courtship, by using societal conditioning in her favor to bring about his compliance through the desire to be with a woman that society and everyone else has laid out before him. She has two tools available to her to bring about this compliance, the carrot and stick. In the case of marriage, her carrot is sexual access provided on compliance, and her stick is the ever-present threat of divorce in non-compliance.

Now this attitude of sub-humanity that women hold towards men comes out in various ways. You get women talking about having to “train their boyfriends” (ultra-feminist site Jezebel even gets that it’s wrong), or having a “well-trained husband”, and I know it’s common enough because I’ve been referred to in this way in the past by old girlfriends. You even see it in Laura Schlessinger’s book entitled “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands”. While the advice might be better than other sources, what the title implies is patently offensive. The fact that there’s not an equivalently titled book for wives, along with the obvious marketing value as it relates to women’s attitudes, should say something.

I won’t speak of the stick given the Marriage 2.0 wife within this post, but I will address the carrot in the form of the perceptions of comparative human sexuality that Sheila Gregoire has posted on her site. She hasn’t come out on her site in direct support of this model as much as her colleagues have, but her view of sexuality seems to fit it more than not.

It can be easily said that she believes that men lust and women love, given her comments. This means a man’s desire for sex comes from a raw animal instinct, while a woman only has sex as a sacrifice to placate her feelings for the man and keep him around. While she writes many things that can be laudable in this area if there was a true sense of mutuality, this is the common thread in most of her blog posts (for example) that address men in some way. As she writes:

And if we give this message that men “need” sex, and women therefore must perform, it’s all too easy to start seeing sex as something distasteful, and men as animals.

If this result happens, it’s not from the message, but from the distaste of women who are not in touch with their own “animal urges” who see sex as a chore with nothing in it for them. The mutuality pendulum is swung almost completely in the direction of women – they don’t have to do anything for men except bring themselves if they even want to do that at all, while men have to do everything to please and placate them so the cookie will come:

The young wife . . . explained how over a few years, the frequency of sex in their marriage had dropped to less than ten times per year. Amazingly, this fact alone had not cued her in that there was a problem until one day, . . ., he told her that it was really a problem for him that they rarely had sex. She told him that she hadn’t seen it as a big problem.

Almost everything I’ve read on Gregoire’s site regarding sexuality seems to have this undercurrent of sex being perceived for men as a physical treat that the woman hands out for good behavior, with nothing more behind it. For example, the Magic Mike post (third separate topic for that page!):

But there’s one stubborn thing that is preventing the wholesale rejection of marriage, and that’s women’s stubborn need to see sex as something more than physical.

So we have to ignore this side of women, and promote instead the idea that women’s sex drives are the same as men’s are.

So if we look to see a sum total of what is going on with women through the lens on Sheila’s outlook on sexuality, it seems that women are not in touch with their physical desires, and in fact discount them as Sheila has:

When a woman takes her shirt off at the end of the day, her husband immediately starts thinking sexy thoughts. When a man takes his shirt off, a woman tends to think, “Is he going to put that in the laundry hamper?” We don’t tend to think, to the same extent, “Oh, come get me, hubba hubba.” It’s not that we NEVER want to be taken; it’s just that our sex drive is far more caught up in feeling safe, and feeling cherished, and feeling loved, than it is in pure visual stimuli.

If there’s no “come get me” physical sexual mood from a woman, it isn’t normal. In fact, something is very off with the sex lives of women involved if they don’t exhibit a strong physical desire towards sex. In fact, all the Magic Mike ticket sales and all the Fifty Shades of Grey book sales provide abundant proof that the whole quote is absolute utter nonsense.

So how is Sheila wrong in her perception of the sex drive that men and women have? That can be encapsulated in the closing statement of her Magic Mike post:

The more we dabble in things like this, the more we create problems for ourselves responding sexually within marriage. The more we turn sex into something that is purely physical, and not emotionally or spiritually intimate.

Men and women both have both physical and emotional intimacy when it comes to these things, and crave both if they are in a healthy marriage. While both men and women are capable of setting emotions aside when it comes to sex, generally men and women want BOTH an emotional and physical connection when it comes to marriage. Unfortunately, Sheila seems to have polarized things when it comes to comparing the sex drives of men and women (men crave the physical ONLY, women crave the emotional ONLY). Perhaps it can best be described as seeking emotional connection through physical actions. If men and women differ, it is only by the means things are primarily expressed, and Sheila seems to be more accurate than not in this regard, yet wholly wrong in the implications of such things. But women and men are exactly equal in the benefits gained by healthy sexual interaction within marriage.

To conclude:

If you really desire true intimacy in your marriage, both parties should learn give and take. That’s the mark of the Christian life. It isn’t getting every physical need met; it’s learning to love and learning to experience intimacy. Isn’t that what we should aim for?

Unfortunately, there’s a whole lot of taking going on from the woman’s side and a whole lot of giving going on from the man’s in most of the advice that is posted. Wouldn’t it be better for both parties to acknowledge the physical and emotional needs of themselves and the other party, and then seek to help one another fulfill them? This is truly learning to love and learning to experience intimacy.

Your Legacy

In speaking about values and your reputation, we can look to the ultimate end game of what the legacy is of your life. In this sense, I mean what we leave or accomplish in our lives that is left to those around us.

In setting values to follow, we can do it either consciously or unconsciously, purposefully or by accident. We all are moving down a journey in life to the end of that journey which is this physical death. Now if you are a Christian disciple, you should be hoping for more after the physical death with a solid conviction of faith, and this should give bearing to what you do and set out to be in your life.

Stephen Covey (1) as many other authors both secular and religious have used the exercise of imagining and meditating on your own funeral in a process of career planning, leadership planning, life planning, and a host of other things. Covey (1) describes it as “beginning with the end in mind”, by which he means knowing your destination in life. In looking at your own funeral, it offers a tool in order to access what you are about as a person, your hopes and dreams, and what you hope to accomplish in the plans of your life. This exercise when done in group settings has often been accompanied by writing your own obituary (I know someone who carries one around) or writing a statement over your life that would go on your headstone.

In looking at the funeral scenario, it is painted in many different ways. Covey (1) paints this picture in this way: There are four speakers. The first represents your immediate and extended family. The second represents your friends. The third represents your work or profession. The fourth represents your church or other civic organizations. Now let’s say also that the number in attendance at your funeral represents in some way the number of people who you have impacted in your life. Now as Christian disciples, we know that God always has the final word when it comes to such matters using the Scriptures as the standard, but as an assessment tool this is pretty suitable since it is a good reflection of what kind of effect the grace that God has given us (1 Corinthians 15:10) has had for His Kingdom upon others, since a great many Scriptural measures are relating to others.

Now let’s look at those speakers. What would you want them to say about you? What would they say that your life is about, in other words, who and what you are? What would you want them to say about your character? What would you want them to say about your achievements and accomplishments? What kind of difference do you want to make in other people’s lives? So many haven’t even thought on these things and given their life direction, so they just move along tossed by the wind where ever they might go. This is wavering. This is not knowing what you want out of your life. Ultimately, this is a bad thing.

Now think on those speakers in another way. If they were to stand up and tell the truth as they perceived it about all of those things regarding you, what would they say? Praying, thinking, and meditating on this in comparison to the first list is one good measure of where your life is as opposed to where you want it to be. We often don’t know how others can perceive us in these ways, so it can often be good to talk about such things in a tasteful way with those you know that are open to such conversations and then giving good thought to the answers. For those who are Christian disciples, the Lord is a good resource, who Scripture states will do this:

Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. (Psalm 139:23-24)

Our answers to these questions will often reveal who and what we are about. The first set of questions represents our values and the second set represents our perceptions of our reputations. Our values stem out of what Covey refers to as our “center” (2). This is “who you are and what you are about”. Thinking on how you identify yourself first and foremost can be a great indicator to answer this question (“I am ____________”). Whatever your “center” is will reflect your values you uphold.

The possible answer to this question can be several things. Covey (3) identifies some of the possibilities of what people can center themselves on: Spouse, Family, Money, Work, Possessions, Pleasure, Friends, Enemies, Church, or Self. Other pursuits can be fit under these umbrellas or categorized in different ways. For example, those centered on work will often first identify themselves by occupation, and their values will be consistent with achieving in that occupation to the exclusion of most all else. This will come out in being a “workaholic”, their whole self-worth being wrapped up in that occupation, and their whole world crashing down if they were to be laid off or fired.

To bring this to the feet of the Christian disciple, the only Scriptural answer that we are given is to be Christ-centered and not church-centered (*). Numerous verses of Scripture all over the Bible tell us that to be centered on anything else is to put that other thing as an idol. This Scripture warns against a number of the categories mentioned above specifically, and all of them generically. Putting security in idols and the wisdom stemming from them will always fail, but putting security in Christ and His wisdom will never fail.

This wisdom includes how we are to define and see our lives. Paul describes his life thusly as a disciple of Christ, reflecting a view to the end goal:

I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:7-8)

Our Lord speaks of this end goal as well in one of His parables:

His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. (Matthew 25:21)

Our Lord also speaks of the negative in terms of those who profess His Name but do not keep the faith in Him by putting Him as the center of their lives and not wavering:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)

If we are to follow Christ, it should be pure joy to hear “well done good and faithful servant” and the purest nightmare to hear “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity”! Let hearing the former be the end goal of any follower of Christ!

(*) Covey (as well as Scripture) is particularly insightful in pointing out this difference in practice, which is why there is a thing called Christianity and another thing called Churchianity on this blog. Many are deceived into thinking that they are safe with Christ by just participating in the local church and not repenting of their sinful practices, and will find they will hear the latter quote of Christ in the end (4):

I believe that almost anyone who is seriously involved in any church will recognize that churchgoing is not synonymous with personal spirituality. There are some people who get so busy in church worship and projects that they become insensitive to the pressing human needs that surround them, contradicting the very precepts they profess to believe deeply.
. . .
Having participated throughout my life in organized church and community service groups, I have found that attending church does not necessarily mean living the principles taught in those meetings. You can be active in a church but inactive in its gospel.
. . .
Because the church is a formal organization made up of policies, programs, practices, and people, it cannot by itself give a person any deep, permanent security or sense of intrinsic worth. Living the principles taught by the church can do this, but the organization alone cannot.

(1) The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey p 96-97. (2) ibid page 109.
(3) ibid page 119-121. (4) ibid page 117-118.

In Defense of Values and Control Of Self

In watching this debate on game, I’m reminded of the issues that seem really at hand. It reinforces in my mind the importance of values and self-control. Despite the fact that the problem exists that no one can present a universally agreed upon definition of what “game” is among the others (I notice at least five separate definitions of it, “game is all things to all men”), there are a few issues that can be brought into the light surrounding the issue which do seem to be universally expressed.

In observing Scripture and the life I’ve lived so far, the value of a man that is important and gives him power are his values and his reputation. A man’s reputation is something he can’t control directly, but is a direct result of his morals, values, and actions.

Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour. (Ecclesiastes 10:1)

But what a man values is always under his direct control. His values are what represents him, and his values are what defends him, and exerts control over his person. He defends his values by sticking to them despite anything that happens. For example, I will not accept a woman that smokes. There is just no possible way that will change. She can be a 10, she can promise to give me sex every night (another thing that won’t happen for my value set), she can promise to wait on me hand and foot in return for each day she gets to light up but it just won’t happen. Holding to this value unwaveringly gives me a degree of power, as it relates to anyone, including women. The only way that a woman can come near me and remain is if she doesn’t smoke, ever, if I uphold my values and do not waver from them. This is just two of the several values that women have to meet before I even consider her.

The Christian measure of values is referred to as faith. Part of this definition involves holding to a certain set of beliefs and not wavering on them under any circumstances. The selling point of following Christ is when one recognizes that His ways are greater than our own, and that His ways are worthy of adopting over our own. The true Christian disciple (and not Churchian) adopts the words of Christ and conforms him or herself to these things. Conforming to these things bring power as well. Even the Bible states that wavering is not respectable in His sight:

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. (James 1:5-7)

Now given the corruption of the vast majority of Christ-professing entities (one reason why they are addressed as Churchian here) where they do not hold to the values professed by Christ and do other stuff, there exists much grave misunderstanding on what exactly is taught by Christ that exists within those threads. I addressed one of the many common ones that are there, but there is much occasion given by those who are professing Christ falsely in the mainstream to the non-believers to blaspheme the word of God just in the area of marriage, much less other things.

Now in compromising one’s own values, one can completely give themselves over to the control of someone else or something else. This is referred to as a loss of freedom. Instead of holding control of your own values, and therefore control of your life, you hand it over to someone or something else. The Bible acknowledges that we all are ultimately influenced by something. The question for the Christian disciple is whether it is Christ or one of the many other things that can control a person. Jesus points out this control along with His claim to freedom:

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. (John 8:31-36)

Men typically do not recognize the bondage that they are in, to whatever the things might be. These things can be multiple and varied, but all is classed under the term “sin”, which is anything that removes rightful honor from God. Scripture classes them into the three broad categories of the flesh (Romans 8:1 among others), the world (1 John 2:15-17 among others), and Satanic influence (1 Peter 5:8-9 among others).

Anything that presents a loss of control over one’s life where good formative values can’t be enforced can present a problem. One thing I’ve observed about the injunctions of Scripture is that they represent a guide of principles (or values) that are watches against going down a path that represents a loss of control. Control is preserved when you follow good self-interest (The Christian disciple’s is following Christ) and serve that interest accordingly. Good values are preserved by serving the right thing in your life and partaking of things under control with the proper moderation.

A great example of this is the use of alcohol (wine). Despite the work of the Abolitionists (mainly of Methodist and Presbyterian influence) to paint any alcohol use as a sin, it should be noted that the Bible addresses wine as a blessing from God which cheers the heart of man and God (Judges 9:13, Psalm 104:15, Proverbs 3:10, among others) and advocates it use throughout the Old and New Testaments even in the mandated rituals (Numbers 15:5-10, Matthew 26:27-29, among others). However, it also paints drunkenness (lack of control of alcohol) as a problem as well (Proverbs 20:1, 21:17, 23:29-32; Ephesians 5:18 among others). It’s not that one shouldn’t partake alcohol, but one should control alcohol and not let alcohol control him.

Sex is the same way. Like no one “needs” alcohol, no one “needs” sex (oddly enough, perhaps the only thing I agree with here). If sex controls you to the point that you are compromising your values and bowing down at the altar of the woman’s nether regions and supplicating yourself to women as many do within Churchianity and without, you’ve got problems. If you’re supplicating yourself to women in the hope that they’ll have sex with you (married to her or not) like most men are erroneously told to do, you’ve got problems. Like alcohol presents consequences if you get to the point of “needing” it, so does sex.

The solid man who holds to his values and desires self-control (or self-respect) does not compromise them in order to get women interested in them. It’s been documented much that in the end women respect men who stand on their values and will not depart them to supplicate to anyone. A man who knows what he stands for and doesn’t waver from it projects strength and confidence. To use my prior example, if every available woman to me smokes, then I guess I’m not going to have a woman. A man doesn’t “need” a woman, either. It’s his choice of whether to marry and if he doesn’t find that a woman before him that’s consistent with his values, the good man sends her on her way. Not “needing” a woman gives a man power, and doesn’t force his hand to make a poor decision and compromise his values. A man who upholds good values in the face of all, including the women he pursues, is a good man. A man who supplicates to women to get their interest is a nice guy. And we all know nice guys finish last. Women are repulsed by nice guys. Rightfully so.

(Ann Barnhardt)

The worst thing that feminism has done with men is that they’ve disarmed men from picking up good values and more importantly the willingness to uphold them at all and every cost. Feminism has gone at the source of men’s power and eliminated it, quite successfully. Turning goodness into “niceness” has been the downfall of many men and is causing the downfall of society. The feminists rail against all attempts of men to uphold their own values, especially when it comes to men rejecting the women available when it comes to marriage.

Now this moves us to the issue of PUAs and the “game” advocates. What are they doing to practice game? They’re practicing the lifestyle. What is that lifestyle? They’re changing their lives and everything they do in order to get women to sleep with them. They hold this up as a standard and their end goal of life. If you want to eat well and work out for you and your existence, fine. But doing things for the express purpose of garnering the favor of women outside of who you are and your value set is supplicating to them all the same. The only difference between the PUAs and the groveling nice guys is their method of approach.

The only thing I hear the game advocates saying differently than the groveling supplicators is “you don’t get women like that”. Just because there’s some truth in something doesn’t mean it’s the whole truth. Let us remember that men were getting women for a long time before “game” was ever imagined. Let us remember that most men carried dignity, self-respect, and immutability before the day feminism gained power, and absence of those things were considered shameful beyond all else. One thing that is certain amidst all the uncertainty of the game advocates is that “game” is a response to the sexual liberation that the feminists gained for women. Reading only a little Roissy or Athol Kay reveals this to be true of “game”. All the end goal seems to be is to get into women’s pants at any and all costs.

(barbarossaaaaa – NSFW)

I don’t begrudge men who have gotten into certain bad situations the means they feel is right in their consciences to deal with those things. Once invested in something, it’s very hard to back out of it. This said, knowing who you are, what you stand for, and being the unmovable rock with those things is of much more value than changing yourself over and compromising what you believe in to please others. To use the Matrix as an example, “game” seems akin to “The Prophecy”. It’s just another form of control.

So You Want To Become A Pastor?

I found it interesting to expand upon a comment I made on Dalrock’s site. What I wrote is there, but I thought on what I’ve heard in the process of my college classes as it relates to what most careers entail, along with the stories I have from my own life and from others. The fact is that jobs almost always entail something much different than what most people are led to believe. This is done for trying to get people in the door, along with the “paying dues” aspect of things. They don’t want the younger ones to have it any better or different than they did in breaking in. Counting the costs is always a good thing to get into when it comes to any endeavor:

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. (Luke 14:28-30)

The original comment from okrahead was:

Maybe more manosphere bloggers should look into becoming preachers.

To become a preacher within the realm of Churchianity requires becoming a pastor, minister, reverend, or whatever the title that is assigned. This usually involves going to a seminary, Bible college, or the like. Then in most cases, you are expected to go full-time as an official of either a local church or a denominational organization depending on the denomination in question. You will have to pick a denomination, since they have differing standards and will only typically allow their own to preach in their Churchian environment.

Given this schooling requirement, it is natural that there will be several men and women coming out of school and claiming they have “the calling”, but ultimately treat being a pastor as a vocation. These are expected Churchianity buzz words that people respond to, and there isn’t any way to independently verify an experience from God, and people don’t challenge them, so they go on. Despite the other issues that exist with the headship of Christ over each and every individual in His Church, there are some other things that can be said outside of Scriptural arguments.

First, it has been expressed several times that the seminary experience can be very destructive on a person’s faith, riding them off the rails of following Christ in any way. There can be various reasons for such things, from the environment to how the teachers push, but it happens. “Whitney from Candler School of Theology” notes that the atmosphere of sin bothered her:

What I didn’t expect, I think, is how challenging seminary would be to my faith. . . Then I come to this much smaller school where everyone is a Christian, and suddenly I’m encountering much more alcohol, sex, swearing, etc. than I ever did in InterVarsity at UNC! So these types of experiences have been forcing me to reconsider my own boundaries and the boundaries of what I consider Christian community to be—I am re-learning who I am as a person and as a Christian.

This person writes:

Several of my friends went through crises of faith during seminary, ranging from shock that Moses didn’t write the first five books of the bible, to textual criticism rendering that the bible is the “exact word” difficult, to feminist interpretations that challenged long-held theological assertions.

There are a number of other reasons why and how faith can be broken from the regular college student pressures, to seminary professors pushing on you to break your faith understanding, to having to speak doctrine that’s against your heart-felt beliefs to be accepted within the denomination. The second person notes that people can get through seminary with their faith intact, as well. But the point is, there are challenges in this light.

Second, being a pastor isn’t all about learning the Bible. The major thrust of a Bible college or seminary education is learning about how to “do church”. It involves managing the resources put under your control (the building, money, paid and unpaid staff) and carrying out the programs, policies, and procedures that are expected of you by the local church or the denomination, and getting results as defined by that group. Most all of the goals of Churchianity can be distilled down into these three non-Biblical goals, which all pastors will typically have to meet or exceed for them to keep their jobs:

1. Increase attendance. They do not have to accept Christ or believe in Him, just have to be attending. Needless to say, doctrine has changed in many churches to fit this goal.

2. Increase offerings. Increasing attendance helps in this matter, but the goal is to get them to give money to you. Regularly. And often.

3. Provide an appearance of “spirituality”. This is just providing enough Scripture to seem “spiritual” but going after feel-good things. Another way to say it is to “feed the hamster”.

Given this is an increasing burden upon people put in these positions, they can be swallowed up by fulfilling them. This burden can be quantified by the following business statistics (1), which could only have gone up since 2008:

• The value of real estate held by churches in the US: $230 billion
• Amount given by people to churches annually in the US: $50-60 billion
• Church building debt, service (major repairs and renovations), and maintenance consumes about 18% of that value.
• “Overhead” (as defined in a business sense – any expense that does not involve directly providing the good or service – in other words Biblical functions) consumes anywhere between 50-85% of that total (the average trends towards the 85% mark and some up to 90%).

In the end, a pastor just spends his time trying to stoke the machinery and keep it going week after week. It can be a spiritual drain as well as physical one with the pressure of keeping money coming for the increasing salaries and building expenses.

Then you’re supposed to fit a sermon in there somewhere. 95% of the people involved will only know the sermon as the only thing you do. And you would have very little control over what you say or do in some denominations as you would have to follow a ritual and lectionary to the letter.

Finally, the problem with becoming an actual factual preacher in these venues is that you serve at the pleasure of the people (be it the congregation, denominational authority, or otherwise). In short layman’s terms, you’re an employee. An employee with certain responsibilities, goals, and such to meet as any employee has to anywhere else in order to keep your job. These involve meeting the three Churchian goals listed above. In that way, it affords the people you act as preacher to a certain level of control over you and your message. If they don’t find the message pleasing (Isaiah 30:8-10; 2 Timothy 4:1-5), they’ll drop you and find someone that will, sending you away with bad references (insubordination) which will follow you elsewhere and really crimp your ability to preach anywhere else. These factors make it so you become a servant to men and not a servant to Christ (Galatians 1:10).

Jonathan Cooper writes:

Yes, preaching on women’s responsibilities is a great idea. I have seen it done. The women revolt and the pastor is quickly fired.

Pagan Christianity says it this way as part of relaying the conclusions of some statistics cited (2):

Imagine for a moment you were working for a company that paid you on the basis of how good you made your people feel. What if your pay depended on how entertaining you were, how friendly you were, how popular your wife and children were, how well-dressed you were, and how perfect your behavior was?

Can you imagine the unmitigated stress this would cause you? Can you see how such pressure would force you into playing a pretentious role – all to keep your authority, your prestige, and your job security? (For this reason, many pastors are resistant to receiving any kind of help)

Given the expectations placed on these men, is it any wonder that there will be bad results out of it. The book continues in making observations about the statistical survey results of pastors as it was given (3, 4):

• 1400 ministers in the US are fired or forced to resign each month.
• The average length of a pastorate in the US is four years. 40% of those resignations are due to burnout.
• Professional standards of conduct dictate how pastors are to dress, speak, and act. This is one of the major reasons why pastors live artificial lives. In this regard, the pastoral role fosters dishonesty.
• Most pastors state that they can not stay in their office without being corrupted in some way.
• The politics involved in the position is a huge problem that causes isolation and poisons relationships with others.
• Loneliness is common in the position. It drives people into other careers or (worse) into destructive behavior.

In conclusion, here is some of the truth that’s been found about what the position of pastor is about. Only your own conscience can decide what you do with all of this. Hopefully, if you have considered becoming a pastor, you’ve seen this and can use this as an aid to “count the costs” and see if that calling is really right for you. Otherwise, for those not considering it, hopefully it’s somewhat of a window into what is going on in the rest of the life of the pastor. Consider and do with it what you will.

(1) Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna 2008 page 41 (2) ibid page 139
(3) ibid page 138 (4) ibid page 140

Rebuking Feminist Headship Theology

I recently encountered this Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) page regarding marriage. Since I have found some of CARM’s pages useful in the past, I read it with great interest. However, I found that it reflects a commonly stated principle of religious feminism (or Christo-feminism) – the feminist headship theology. Since this happens to be the most succinct explanation of it I have encountered, this post will address headship theology and explain the error in this false theology through responding to this CARM page.

It is agreeable that marriage exists to bring God glory. After all, it was meant as a model of Christ and His Church. It is sensible that God would define what marriage is, and therefore glory would be derived by following God’s pattern for marriage to the letter (Marriage 1.0). Hopefully it could be further argued that departing from this model (as a husband or wife) constitutes sinning against God. However, the feminist vision of marriage (Marriage 2.0) does not do this and is a complete redefinition of marriage as God intended it. Unfortunately, it has permeated the church with very little challenge. It’s further hypocritical that the church chooses to challenge the homosexual redefinition of marriage, when they are operating under a redefined version of marriage themselves.

Christo-feminism has been extremely successful at removing proper examples of masculinity in society and in the family for their children. Religious feminists has vociferously opposed Godly masculinity when it has been expressed in church. As well, feminism has opposed proper masculine examples in society. This is well reflected through the media through the poor examples given by the author of the CARM page. The detestable examples of the bumbling buffoon, the child in a man’s body who has not grown up, or the male who can not control either his violent impulses or his sexual impulses are misandric (misandry is hatred of men) portrayals of men, which are devised by the feminists to lower the reputation of all men. These negative media portrayals have been quite successful in coloring the perceptions of who men are, and this has been shown through countless preachings, man-up rants, and other views that have been expressed of men. It has also been quite effective in eliminating examples of proper Godly husbands and wives within the church.

CARM, as a place whose mission seems to speak truth in light of falsehoods, would do well to challenge these hateful portrayals of men, especially since the last thing feminists want is an accurate portrayal of a truly masculine and Godly man. Unfortunately, this CARM page expressly embraces feminist headship theology, and embraced these views of men as a shaming tool for furthering the feminist agenda.

While the husband is indeed the spiritual head over the wife, CARM places all the blame for the faltering of marriage on men, and does not hold women to account for their very substantial part in the matter through feminism and good old fashioned rebellion. This is done through an incorrect view of Romans 5:12:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

While Romans 5:12-21 (the Scripture in context) is indeed difficult to understand in isolation, studying the whole thing reveals that Paul is discussing the need of justification for all through Jesus Christ (sometimes called original sin) and not anything to do with how marriage works in God’s plan. Since sin “infected” Adam as the first man, it took Jesus’ sacrifice to bring people back to God. Therefore this Scripture is irrelevant as it does not directly relates to marriage.

The CARM author further compounds the heresy by stating that God first addressed Adam, and not Eve. While this is indeed correct as it relates to the order of headship, it is not correct when it comes to how sin is handled. Reading Genesis and elsewhere makes it clear that women can sin and are held to account as much as men. Genesis reveals that both Eve and Adam were addressed regarding their sin:

And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat . . . Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3:13, 16)

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (Genesis 3:17-19)

Feminist headship theology has the effect of releasing women from accountability for their sin. There are people in the evangelical world who are now questioning if women have any original sin at all, any culpability for sin, or even if they are capable of sinning. If the wife gossips, it’s not her fault it’s the husband’s fault. If the wife commits adultery against her husband, the sin is all his fault. She is not held to blame for her sins. Needless to say, much sin occurs at the hands of wives when it comes to marriage and they are held to account for none of it.

Because feminist headship theology is well in force, even the women who are not married are affected. The reasoning used with the unmarried woman is that she sinned because any man pushed her into it. She did not do it of her own free will, therefore she is still considered blameless and pure in the sight of God. Most of the churches today do not allow admonition of women for any sin. A sure way for a pastor to add “former” to his title rather quickly is to faithfully preach Scriptural responsibility of women (for example Titus 2:3-5).

The chief reason why marriage is faltering is the sin that wives have made against their husbands, as well as the sins of the leadership in supporting and upholding the feminist view of marriage by not calling the sins of women into account and not enabling husbands to take headship over their wives. In looking at the full counsel of Scripture regarding marriage through sober eyes that are not tainted by feminism, it is easy to see that the historical Biblical view of marriage is not generally followed or supported by the majority of Christianity. It is also easy to see with sober eyes the amount of destruction that this has caused to husbands lives both during their marriages and as part of the divorce culture, as well as the sanctity of marriage as a whole.

Chief is the injunction given in several places that wives are to submit to their husbands. The elimination of stress on the Biblical text as written as a responsibility of the wife (Ephesians 5:22, 24, 33; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-2) is eliminated in favor of placing responsibility on the husband. Feminist headship theology stresses that the husband is to step up and lead the family, instead of the wife submitting to her husband and this is readily apparent in the CARM page. The assumption is made that the wife will just fall in line if the husband does this (again assuming that she is without original sin).

This plainly goes against the intent of the Scripture. No matter how much a man “leads”, he is no leader at all unless he has a wife that is under his submission and is not under rebellion. Since it is the nature of all men (and women) to rebel against God’s order, Scripture stresses the wife’s subjection and NOT the husband’s leadership. It is always dangerous to create doctrine that is supported by nine words in only one verse of Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:3), while contradicting several others in the process!

In the feminist view of marriage, the wife is the head of the family, and the husband is to submit to her. This vision of marriage is played out all over Christianity today, and is taught repeatedly by a majority of the pastors. In giving the call to leadership as many pastors and this CARM page does, it functions as a duplicitous and hypocritical call. This is because they also take steps to continually cut husbands off at the knees when they try to lead their families, do not support husbands in bringing their wives under Biblical subjection, and sanction ways the wives and the church itself can undermine the husbands position as head of the marriage before God. It is easy to list off the responsibilities of wives in marriage as CARM does (they leave out any direct mention of submission), but when they are willfully not upheld in churches and wives are allowed to rebel against God openly, husbands are left with very little recourse but to not lead. This is purposeful.

I have not studied any other CARM pages to see if the feminist doctrine is expressed, but hopefully this can serve as a warning to those involved, and hopefully CARM will repent of this unbiblical theology. CARM would do well to uphold the historical Biblical pattern of marriage by calling for the submission of wives and for husbands to start listening to and respecting God over his wife (Adam’s specific sin), instead of posting false feminist theology and passing it off as Scriptural.

Edit: Removed the note at the beginning. Upon reflection, it really didn’t add anything to the post at all.

Female Sexual Repression – A Perversion of Normal

One of the things that I’ve been kicking around in my head is the idea of how sexuality is treated within Christian marriage. This goes along with the increased popularity of female-oriented pornography in the form of 50 Shades of Grey and Magic Mike, in which I addressed the unequal perception of here.

The post I didn’t address in Sheila Gregoire’s recent posts on these things is this one, which was addressed already by bskillet81. It offered nothing substantial, except a window into the theories of a holder of a Master’s Degree in Women’s Studies. To summarize Sheila’s post outside the direct words about Magic Mike, she says that (to quote Bskillet81’s summary):

No, she’s just saying male sexuality is destroying morality and marriage and female sexuality is the only thing standing in the way. But that’s not to say men are worse people than women. No, of course not.

Of course, this is the same “men are evil, vile and reprehensible, while women are good, wholesome and virtuous” mantra that seems continually repeated in Churchianity and all over by feminism. My theory really doesn’t come from a better place of authority than hers, but I hope you find it interesting, and as well find it have some weight.

One thing I’ve noticed in my studies in the rare times that sexuality has come up in Christian writings in relation to a God-sealed Christian marriage is an expression of repulsion towards the act, as something disgusting, sinful, and a necessary evil for child birth. This goes for the earliest writings and even some of the writings into the last century. Anyhow, I notice that, while Scripture doesn’t speak of this denial of sexual urge directly, save 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, it does speak of a denial of things that God has allowed. Reading 1 Timothy 4:1-5 reveals that there will be those who depart from the faith and will forbid to marry and command to abstain from meats.

There should be no question, just from a reading of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, that God has allowed and even blessed sexual activity from both men and women within the context of marriage. However, if addiction “rewires your brain” like Gregoire writes that porn does, it is perfectly logical that the process can be done with any activity to encourage someone into it or stop them from doing it. Revulsion therapy, or the practice of associating a certain activity that might be pleasurable with unpleasurable things, is a practiced thing for several things like alcoholism and smoking. The brain can be conditioned to encourage an activity or discourage one. Dalrock points this issue of “negative conditioning” out as it relates to Sheila herself:

What Sheila doesn’t understand is that she has rewired her own brain in an extremely unhealthy way. She doesn’t feel the normal attraction wives who submit to their husbands feel, and she doesn’t even realize her situation isn’t normal. This is her brain on feminism. If she had a normal, healthy level of attraction for her husband, she would understand just how revealing these words on the topic are about her own marriage. Sheila is very much like the porn addict who can’t experience normal feelings of attraction and intimacy for their spouse.

As well, the typical argument of 1 Corinthians 7:1 and why it was written was that Paul attempted to dissuade the Corinthians from fornication and did too good of a job and dissuaded them from their marital partners. Sex within marriage, in the way God intended, is a God-given blessing, and a good thing. I know this relates to something else, but the bolded phrase is brought to mind when addressing this issue:

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)

This is indeed true of sexuality as well. It’s a part of the innate creation of men and women, and to deny it is to deny one’s self. God made its proper outlet to be within marriage, and anything outside of marriage is its perversion (be it fornication, porn for both men and women, and what have you). What God intended to be is never a bad thing in His eyes!

Of course, times have changed. We have Mark Driscoll and others being decried for sex-talk. It can be logical to assume that this change in attitude towards sexuality is coming from the more liberal worldly environment regarding sex. But any repression will express itself. I can gather from Gregoire’s posts on sexuality in the time that I’ve been lurking there that the sexual attitude there can be best described as “grudging femDOM (NSFW)“, where the wife is the dominant one in the bedroom, directs the action, and goes as far as dictating to the man what is acceptable and unacceptable for him. This is a noted expression of feminism in marriage, or Marriage 2.0. The use of the kitchen timer in this case is especially interesting as an example brought up previously. As well, her perceptions of how the sex drive of both men and women are wrong (colored by feminism), but that’s something to address in another post.

Now we know that God made man and woman a specific way, and it would be illogical to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as religious feminists like Gregoire or Albert Mohler would have us do. If God intended for wives to submit to their husbands, it would be logical to say that He intended this in a sexual way as well (NSFW).

This reasoning now leads me to my theory on why Magic Mike and 50 Shades of Grey are so popular with women. sunshinemary wrote in response to one of Gregoire’s quotes:

Given the popularity of FSoG, many women apparently feel safe, cherished, and loved when being beaten with a belt.

Sheila is wrong. FSoG is wrong too.

I keep telling women – Biblical submission is good for what ails you.

Then I responded:

When something’s repressed, as with any other emotional outlet, it ultimately will come out in very damaging and destructive ways. I believe this is what we are seeing with the FSoG phenomenon. It wouldn’t be anything if women just accepted the way that God made them and not tried to repress themselves to appear “holier” or whatever. They’d be safe, cherished, and loved while submitting to their husbands’ desires (and their own). Who knows, they might find some physical satisfaction in it, too.

Could it be that these women, who play Domme to their husbands in their marriages, (even Christian women, Gregoire laments), are finding expression of their pent-up repressed God-given sexual desires in unnatural, unhealthy, and excessive ways? Magic Mike and 50 Shades of Grey happened to have functioned as those outlets. We know women are the primary consumers of these things, and they aren’t consuming them for the articles (to borrow the common Playboy meme). Wouldn’t it be better for these women to just find proper expression of their sexual desires with their husbands in the first place?

As I’ve stated on the blog before, Magic Mike and 50 Shades of Grey are wrong. But Sheila is wrong, herself when it comes to these things. As Dalrock states:

Men do notice when their wives are losing attraction. The problem is what they are taught to remedy the problem is the exact opposite of what generates attraction. This is why Shiela’s quote in the OP is so dangerous:

It’s not that we NEVER want to be taken; it’s just that our sex drive is far more caught up in feeling safe, and feeling cherished, and feeling loved…

Again, this is pure nonsense, but you will see it everywhere. The same goes for the husband and wife article I quoted and linked to. It teaches husbands to do the exact opposite of what will make him attractive to her.

In the end, it’s just another way to reduce intimacy, push husbands and wives apart, and make it harder for women to stick to their marriages.

In conclusion, I hope this theory found some solid ground, if not at least I hope it was entertaining.

(I thought on reflection this post was too long and edited it to tighten it up word-count wise)

Single Christian Men Just Aren’t Buying What Is Sold

In writing and thinking on the dating market as it currently is, I’ve thought of the comparison to the business market and the buying and selling of goods and answered this post with the question “What Is Keeping You from Asking Her Out?” (H/T Unger, I highly recommend his posts there) by presenting that comparison. There’s really nothing different in it fundamentally to the dating market. There’s buyers and there’s sellers of something, and certain conditions have to be met for the exchange to happen.

Let’s say I have a business where I’m selling things, but my sales are down. What’s the natural answer? Do my goods have a demand in the marketplace where people want them? Is the marketplace aware of my business? Are the products bad for the task or defective? Is the service I provide with the product adequate? Is the price too high for the market or is it just in comparison to my competitors? Is there something else that is causing people to not buy the product?

These are logical questions to ask as a business owner to assess what I need to change. If I make excuses or complain over it, the customers will most certainly be repulsed by my company and in the end will leave. If I want my business to survive, I will need to correct what I’m doing that’s wrong if I want to sell enough product. My only answer would be to look into the mirror and fix the faults of my business. Otherwise my business would fold.

This is nothing different from any other discipline. If you want to lose weight and are completely healthy, you need to put the effort forth doing the right things. If you want to be good at anything, you got to be willing to work at it, for perfect practice makes perfect. No amount of excuses or complaints made are going to change these things.

Unfortunately for some reason, this isn’t the case with Christian marriage. Somehow in this scenario, it’s become acceptable for excuses and complaints to come from the sellers in the arrangement. To make the dating market comparison relate to business, men are the buyers and women are the sellers and marriage is the arrangement. The rant from the Driscolls and Bennetts and Mohlers of the world is for men to “man-up and marry”, not to the women. So the Churchians would agree, given the existence of all the man-up rants, that this arrangement is correct. Men pursue women and proposition them to marry, and this is the genuine Christian way.

Now to follow the pattern onward, this means that women have to be offering something that the men would want at a price that he can afford in order for the purchase to happen. If the man has any degree of wisdom, discernment, and masculinity, he isn’t going to be pushed into an arrangement that isn’t beneficial to him, no matter how many man-up rants he’s subjected to in his exposure to Churchianity or the media. In looking at the arrangement, this means that she needs to convince the prospective man that she has enough value for the price that she is asking to buy. In other words, she needs to sell him marriage with her.

With the feminism that exists in both wider society and Churchianity, it’s not hard to see that certain women have become unable to do this. They don’t know what men are looking to buy. Even worse, they have become both feral and entitled. They offer nothing to men of value in the marriage exchange, yet feel as if they deserve the world in return. Even more so, they have learned behavior which is of negative value to men in marriage.

If we look into history, one of the important functions of parents was to prepare their children for life. This included marriage. In the way society worked pre-feminism, it was even made to be in the father’s best interest (along with the family’s) to make sure his daughters were marriageable and knew the things they needed to know to be desirable as a wife to a man. Now this instruction and knowledge of such things has been lost to most of society. allamagoosa illustrates this lack of instruction in explaining a male anime character’s attraction to a female character (anime being from a culture that’s not been *as* feminized):

She’s feminine, quite pretty, has similar interests as him, is kind, sweet, intelligent, passionate, polite, and is an excellent cook. To her though, it was a complete headscratcher. It would have been a mystery to me too if I hadn’t come around a blog similar to this one and asked.

Now these qualities happen to be ones that allow women to be complimentary to men, and offer men something that they don’t already have. However from a logical standpoint, let us remember that people aren’t going to seek exchanges for things that they already have, and therefore don’t need. Unfortunately, most women seem to offer exactly what is unneeded (what a man can offer), offer negatives otherwise (exact opposites of many of the qualities listed in the quote above), and therefore not selling marriage.

We have several examples of these women in today’s day and age. Amy Young, Tracey, and others come to mind. “Jennifer” sprung to Amy’s defense and I responded then:

There’s something that you are missing (probably) as a new-age woman. But don’t worry, all of you seem to miss this. “Credentials” mean nothing when it comes to men. They almost always bring nothing to the table in a marriage to make you a better wife and can often bring negatives into the light. The thing with most women when it comes to genuine consideration for marriage is that they have nothing to offer but think they offer everything.

So, let’s bring the current conditions of the marriage transaction back to the business world. Women sell, men buy. As part of marriage, something is exchanged for something else to make it desirable. These are the presence of the desirable qualities of both men and women that the other does not possess. So to summarize the marriage transaction offered most men today:

1. The entitlement factor and overvaluation the woman makes of herself and her offerable qualities through her own hypergamy makes her set cost go higher.
2. The search costs and the noted lack of commitment mentioned in the last two posts makes the total surcharges to be high as well.
3. Men, like buyers of any product, can only offer what they’re willing and able to pay. For many the costs are out of line.
4. What men get offered for the price is often something that falls far short of the value expended.

I finalize this post with an example of a business transaction, which parallels the current offer being made to most men when it comes to marriage. How many would pay 100.000 USD for a 20 year old broken down jalopy of a car which has no guarantee that it will continue to run at any time in the future? How many have that kind of money to put down on a car in the first place? Who would even be foolish enough to consider such a transaction?

When marriage is an arrangement where next to nothing is offered to those who buy into it, while the costs are extreme, is it any wonder that men aren’t marrying?

Single Christian Men Don’t Seek Christian Wives (#2)

In looking at the topic of single men and Christian marriage, the next item that caught my eye actually is from a secular dating site called YourTango, which is a site that is described as (take it for what it’s worth):

YourTango is a digital media company dedicated to love and relationships. As the thinking woman’s media brand, we are leading the conversation that is closest to women’s hearts.

The particular page at YourTango serves to address the popular meme of Churchianity to blame men for not seeking women to marry (or “man-up and marry the sluts” as you’ll see in the manosphere). These man-up rants have been brought up before, but the YourTango page brings up interesting points. It’s been stated in several way, but the basic theme is there.

The choice of marriage is up to the man, the man isn’t making the choice to marry for reasons that should be painfully obvious but aren’t, and he fully has the right to not marry out of his own wisdom and discernment.

This Focus On The Family article makes the point a different way, which while softer in tone is still equivalent to the “man-up” messages of Mark Driscoll, Kevin DeYoung, Bill Bennett and the like:

But many Christian men, Joel and Brian suggest, don’t take the initiative to find a wife.

“A common complaint I hear from single Christian women is that Christian men don’t do anything,” Joel says.
. . .
In short, both men agree that guys should get busy and initiate!

It keeps being repeatedly obvious as to why Christian men aren’t seeking single Christian women, but the answers aren’t being sought by the Churchian proctors (even when they’re right in front of them). The YourTango article is different than most in Churchianity because it seeks to answer the question in some way. The article asks “Why Won’t Christian Men Date Women Who Go To Their Church?”, and brings some truth to the table. This initial quote says it all:

“I’ve only gone out with a couple of girls at church, and I won’t do it anymore,” says Luke*, a 40-year-old Christian man living in Southern California. “At this point, I’m happily resigned to not ask a girl out at church ever again.

Many (I’m sure) have taken the red-pill and gone MGTOW. Others however, are seeking outside of the church, maybe for women of the same values, but likely not. Given the existence of the man-up rants, the women are most certainly noticing, for reasons of reality or hypergamy:

When I was living in New York City, one of my female friends dropped a rather pointed allegation about the Christian male population: “They’re not pursuing us,” she said. “We’re all single, yet no one is being asked out. The men need to step it up.

But as I mentioned, the author is seeking answers and speaking some truth. She begins:

They do want marriage. Their frustration with pursuing women at church has little to do with laziness, or indifference about dating. All the men I talked to were searching for love.

The fact is, most single Christian men really want to be married if the conditions are right. The problem is that they mostly aren’t. There are several factors that are unique to church situations, but also unique to what marriage has become.

Unique to church situations are the closed environment and the potential for gossip and the painting of the reputation of the man involved, especially when it comes to the white-knight defensiveness of the older men (some summarized into brackets):

The men from Bel Air Presbyterian agreed, and said they never want to be seen as “that guy”—the one who goes to church to prey on women.

If I find it doesn’t work out with that girl, then I can’t ask out any of the rest of [her friends] because they’re all off-limits.

[T]he men in New York complained of the potential drama and gossip that can occur when people either date or break up within their small church. Rather than voluntarily placing themselves in the center of it all, they learned over the years to avoid the gossip mill by dating women elsewhere.

To continue (can fit in the block of text above, but a different page):

“It’s not appropriate in a Christian environment for us to be human.”

The mere idea of flirting with someone, or of asking a girl for her number within the confines of the church walls was too “shady” of a prospect for them to even consider.

“It’s not guilt,” Mark answered, “it’s fear. There’s the fear of not only being rejected as a man, but shunned as an inappropriate Christian.

The Churchian environment has in its place a huge magnifying glass on what people do, especially when it comes to dating situations. People do want to appear “Christian”. As well, they don’t want the gossip and drama that inevitably comes when trying to start a relationship with a woman. This is even without considering the nuclear rejection, which can be the death sentence for a man’s reputation in a Churchian environment. I’ve heard stories of tongues wagging even when a single man dares to talk to a single woman in any way. There’s always the other factors which are similar to the reasons why it’s not wise to date women in the workplace, which are equally applicable to those who are in steady church situations. It’s just not a smart thing to do.

Given the attitudes of people today, why is it that modern women realize that men are not interested in them, and then search for the flaw in the men to explain this? Why is it that the Churchian proctors can’t address what is really going on with dating instead of blaming the men everything, including scapegoating them for the problems the Churchian proctors created themselves?

When Churchian women are increasingly nothing more than entitlement princesses who believe that they are entitled to a husband, yet have nothing to offer a man other than anger and bitterness, and is unfit for Godly marriage is it any wonder why men don’t marry? And if these women and their Churchian backers throw up barriers and annoyances which discourage dating, is it any wonder that men don’t want anything to do with even trying to find a woman to marry under those conditions?