The Psychology of the Churchian Woman Worshiper

Occasionally, one just comes across some absolute gold when it comes to things. I’ve talked before about the typical state of men when it comes to the churches and marriage numerous times over the years. It’s rare to see an example of one so sold into the prospect of going against God’s plan for marriage.

As found on Reddit (screen-capped for obvious reasons), we have a perfect psychological study of Blue Pill Churchian female worship:

Unfortunately, this is more the rule than the exception.  While I’m tempted to leave much of this to the commenters here, the notables that haven’t been said are worth explaining.

This guy likely struggled for 18 years against this woman’s resistance, society, his church, and everything else, until finally he had that Fireproof moment where he finally gave into Satan’s tempting and followed into the sin of Adam by submitting to his wife. One could naturally say that things might get less hectic since he finally stopped fighting her resistance, realizing he had no control anyway in this modern age. Sadly to say, this poor tool bought himself a one way ticket off the narrow road due to his resulting abdication of his God-given role, not to mention the idolatry and goddess worship he exhibits in this post.

Regardless to say, this is a great illustration out of many of how Godly marriage (Marriage 1.0) has grown completely bankrupt. The wise will know that this inversion of marriage from one that glorifies God to one that glorifies Woman has unfortunately become the norm due to deliberate action of both the churches and society:

Marriage 2.0 is unfortunately the default these days. Sadly, it seems this man has not only taken the Blue Pill, but has started evangelizing it against the way and plans of the one true God, even reading Scripture into his worship of his wife. Can this man be saved? Likely at this point, he will end up getting the typical frivolous divorce because the wife grew bored and unhaaaaaapy, scrapping the witness of the Lord and His Church. It’d be nice if I could say this is the exception, but unfortunately it’s the rule for marriage these days.

With marriage like this, is it any wonder that men with any decent sense avoid marriage, when they see exactly what it means to man-up?

A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. (Proverbs 22:3)

Joshua Harris Has Divorced

It is notable that when you can find an ending to a story, and unfortunately we have a sad one in Joshua Harris, as he has divorced from his wife Shannon.

This might not be ordinarily note-worthy among the legions of divorces that happen in this country, but this one is special as he has written two books with the intent to instruct people on how to do “the dating thing” (specifically courtship) correctly with the point of producing Godly lasting marriages, both of which have gotten reviews here:

I Kissed Dating Goodbye
Boy Meets Girl

And other posts have been done on the text of his first book:

Here’s Why Christian Mating Is So Messed Up
Courtship: Rotten Stinking Fruit
They Only Want One Thing!
Christian Homeschooling: Raising Children or Controlling Them?

Given all the analysis above, sadly, this news was completely and wholly expected, given the content of his two books. Anyone with any drop of discernment would have seen this coming. Notably, his second book got many revisions due to the divorces his poster couples underwent after they were published.

While I grieve the waywardness from God, Harris’ hearkening to the Personal Jesus has led to a very expected result. His falling away from faith resulted in putting his trust in men and himself, as a super-majority of those that claim Christianity do. It is well noting that Harris didn’t even follow his own advice in IKDG, much less look into Scripture for his answers. There is no good end for anyone that does that, as a lot will be rudely awakened to sometime in the future.

A lot of the result can easily be traced back to Harris’ lack of discernment. As I noted in my review of the other book, Harris ending up fulfilling every one of the standard blue-pill tropes regarding Shannon to the letter, including the “man-up and marry that thot” one. I don’t think any of the articles or anything would tell us, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Shannon forced the divorce because she was bored and unhaaaaaapy.

Funny how a lot of this red-pill stuff (though a lot who claim that are really blue-pill) has a way of proving itself right. But like a lot of God’s precepts, men have a tendency to think that calamity won’t happen to them if they go off and follow their own script instead of look to God ways. As quoted from his Instagram post:

⁣⁣ The information that was left out of our announcement is that I have undergone a massive shift in regard to my faith in Jesus. The popular phrase for this is “deconstruction,” the biblical phrase is “falling away.” By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian. Many people tell me that there is a different way to practice faith and I want to remain open to this, but I’m not there now.⁣⁣

I would submit, as many probably would, that Harris was never really “there” with Jesus to begin with. Unfortunately, many men and women are in that exact same place, and then “fall away” when the ways of the men they follow disappoint them in some way. I’ve personally witnessed this in churches, where as many as 1/3 of the attendants will go away when some leader sins, as I’m sure many who will read have. The evidence is all over his books. He very likely had a personal relationship with his own Personal Jesus rather than submit in discipleship to the real Jesus and His teachings.

If there is a lesson out of all of this it is that. I do not rejoice in what has happened to Harris, but still it is a heavy proof of the wages earned for following men instead of God. Follow Jesus and follow Him alone.

Marriage Is A Feminist Tool Used Against Men

In response to my previous post responding to this one, blogger Derek Ramsey continued and tripled-down on his feminist man-shaming and has made himself completely clear in doing so. The only thing I can say it’s absolutely astounding to find myself arguing Red Pill 101 on a manosphere site, especially stuff Dalrock and others have covered ad-infinitum.

While it’s become obvious that blue-pill won’t ever turn into red-pill in Ramsey’s ridiculous assertions regarding my positions, I thought it might be enlightening to others to attempt to explain the role that marriage plays within feminism.

Defining the Feminist Marriage
Ramsey writes:

Marriage and family are not feminist concepts. They are the foundations of functioning society and must be embraced. They need to be taken back from the feminists, so to speak.

I never argued that marriage and family are feminist concepts in total. As I have always argued, marriage and family are concepts created by God as a building block of society. What I do argue, however, is that those things have been subverted into tools by the feminists in order to facilitate their control of men and perpetuate the view of female superiority that swims in the mind of every woman from birth. To that end, all women are feminists and a large degree of men that follow into the pattern taught them and function as enablers of the will of women into society.

To that end, marriage and family has been redefined from something that brings glory to God into something that brings glory to the woman. Besides leading men into committing the sin of Adam and forfeiting the grace of their salvation before Jesus, the idea of marriage has been changed to support these basic feminist concepts. I denote this change by using the appellation of version numbers. Marriage 1.0 is marriage and family as God intended it. Marriage 2.0 is the feminist redefinition. I posted a chart reflecting the differences here.

Part of the function of marriage is to secure the enslavement of men to women. This is reflected by the base definition of marriage to be the prostitutes deal of conditional sexual access for lifetime enslavement to the woman. Children further reinforce the shackles the man has been placed under, as the sole reason for the woman to have sex with him dries up after she’s obtained the number of children she desires. She has her hooks into her prey.

Now if we take Ramsey’s suggestion that men just need to man up and marry those thots to fight feminism, it becomes ludicrous on the face of it. I or any other man can’t make marriage into what they want or what God wants, even if one finds the rare unicorn that is both actually fit for marriage and doesn’t believe the world revolves around her. The legal system has set itself up to unilaterally define the parameters of marriage and put the full force of itself against those who would violate those parameters. Anything reflecting God’s word is automatically considered “abusive” in the eyes of society and of the divorce courts. There is no amount of game or “keeping frame” or otherwise that will change or stop this. Notably, this leads to the issues of no-fault divorce, the Duluth Model, child support, alimony, and the like when the woman finds her man unfit or she gets bored or “unhaaaaappy” in the marriage. Ramsey or anyone else has no answers for the men they bid to walk into the meat grinder when these men get served with their divorce papers. They will be long gone when that happens, just like others will for those that think they can avoid feminist control and yet be married.

Then we look at the period within the marriage. Say we find the perfectly marriageable woman who hasn’t been indoctrinated into the goddess, who doesn’t believe that the world should revolve around her and her desires (Satan generally takes care of that not happening anyway through the children). The rest of society is there to council her in feminist ways, including all the women in her social circles. His money is really yours, the sirens whisper in her ears. How dare that man of yours tell you “No”! These people, including those preaching in the churches, sway the woman into a feminist position. The men are not immune either, constantly being reminded of how lesser they are compared to their wives in society, and reminded they need to man-up and marry and then in the marriages “step-up and lead the family” – or in other words, submit to his wife and fulfill her will. This redefinition has been rationalized into the Scripture via tradition to the point that almost nobody sees this, including Ramsey.

There Is No Good Marriage
This leads into the next thing Ramsey wrote:

But make no mistake: if we don’t increase good marriages and the number of children in those marriages, feminism will win.

Feminists might breed themselves out of existence by refusing to reproduce, but who is going to replace them if the anti-feminists also refuse to reproduce? Where are the future anti-feminists going to come from? Feminism only needs to indoctrinate the children. Our counter is marriage and family. It’s the only one we have. We must find ways to do it and stop making excuses for not doing it.‡

As I just illustrated, there’s no such thing as a “good marriage”. Just a feminist one that continues to feed men into the fire while putting their resources in the hands of women, creating children to perpetuate the process. The marriage ultimately just produces children to feed right into the process, starting with the mother’s own feminist indoctrination from infancy. As aptly stated, feminism only needs to indoctrinate the children, which is done well within the home, schools, and wider society. This indoctrination is an inevitability with feminism in place – there is no place that anyone can go without being exposed to feminist messaging and consequences for not heeding that programming. Marriage is not a counter to feminism, but the vehicle in which feminism is effectuated and grows.

A lot of men have looked at the issue with wisdom and have determined that as long as feminism exists, marriage is a counter-productive activity which only perpetuates feminism instead of ends it. There can be no other answer until feminism is dealt with. Deal with feminism, then we’ll talk about marriage and children.

Solipsistic Fallacy
Ramsey writes:

When the Brothers scoff at having more children, their anti-feminist stances become meaningless.† Words and actions must go together. When they recommend against a proper marriage, they fight against the very tool required to solve the problem. Avoiding marriage and family is counterproductive, no matter how well-intentioned.

In looking at Ramsey’s parting shot, it shows just how illogical both posts have been. As shown, the tool required to solve the problem of feminism is not marriage, as lack of marrying is not what is creating the feminism problem. The problem is a systemic failure of wider society that has infested marriage, causing women to reject marriage for their goddess delusion and men to reject marriage for the factors mentioned above. As long as Marriage 2.0 remains the default and only expression, marriage is poisonous for men. I respect the choice of men to marry or not, unlike Ramsey and the other advocates of feminism that make their man-up rants. The more that men don’t enter into marriage, the more that feminism doesn’t work. This alone scares supporters of Marriage 2.0 into making these man-up rants, since married men are needed to make feminism work and when marriage is gone, feminism ceases to function. Add to this the effects that Marriage 2.0 have on society like the economic ones Ramsey points out and it scares them even more. The house of cards is toppling, deservedly so:

Jack makes a great point, describing most of the advocates of Marriage 2.0 in this day and age:

Brother Derek has had the luxury of having married a decent woman early in life. From this perspective, his viewpoints are pretty solid. The problem is that the vast majority of men (and women) can’t enjoy the same luxuries as Ramsey (and his wife), and we know this is because of the bastage of feminism.

After reading all the horror stories and general facts of life, it’s hard to not believe there’s an incredible amount of solipsism and deception out there. “Since marriage works for me, it works for everybody”. They do not heed the horror stories as a wise man would (Proverbs 22:3) and avoid them. They rationalize that they just didn’t do it right or some other such thing. Yet the facts on the ground are what they are, and can not be changed by those that would wish it all away.

As for men that have red-pilled themselves, the words and the actions are going together. In addition to speaking out, they are avoiding entanglements with women that will lead them onto the plantation. They see feminism for what it is and how it affects society, and especially marriage. Sadly so few men do, and still function to uphold and perpetuate feminism.

That said, barring anything fantastic, this is the last thing I’m going to write on this particular issue.

The Godless Goddess Woman On Full Display

In doing these things, it’s funny how certain things tend to drop into your lap right at the right time. After talking about a sterling example of the supplicating beta worm that’s the worthless worshipper of woman, we have one that comes around of the goddess woman.

I explained the dynamic that traditionalists have placed upon men, women, and marriage last time, so I’ll refer you there for the basic idea. As pointed out earlier, society including the churches have been deifying women and bidding men to submit to their wishes. This extends not to just marriage but all society.

Now to move to our current example out of many many women, we have 43-year old actress Charlize Theron. We are given the message as men that she’s “shockingly available” and “been single for 10 years”, and that men need to “grow a pair and step up”. Now this is language we’re used to hearing from women and their enablers, as there’s been legions of women crying this very thing. But it’s fascinating to see a man-up rant from a Hollyweird movie star.

The Goddess Proclaims Truth
The graphic to the left explains the general operation of feminism. This view of women as goddesses, created from the advent of Mary worship, kicks off things. Since we have female supremacy in operation, the average woman has absolute female moral authority.  This means any pronouncement that she makes automatically becomes true and right.  If she’s hyper-obese, she better be the best looking woman out there, for instance.  And if your her husband, you better provide the right answer back to her.  If you don’t, then you just aren’t providing proper devotion that she deserves.

The base expectation out of traditional feminism is that women deserve husbands as their birthright.  I’ve made the reverse statement in a supposedly Christian environment to howls and the blog owner consoling the poor wimminz.   They want what they want no matter how unrealistic it might be. After all, we’re reminded that 80% of men are below average according to women. She’s got to have the exact man she wants and the princess fantasy to go along with it. This effect is worse in churches and has been called the Evangelical American Princess (or EAP) by several bloggers. These women just aren’t finding men, so the howls of “Where have all the good men gone?” After all, men are supposed to fulfill every whim and desire of the women around them!

The Worthless Male Responds
So we have Mizz Theron, this entitled princess, howling like many other women about not finding her perfect man that fits all of her 463 requirements. For 10 years, even! And then bidding the men that are supposed to fall all over her and worship her. But it’s not happening! Maybe it’d be useful to look at the back of her baseball card:

• Single mom of 2 with her first partner.
• Later dated Sean Penn for a while.
• Ardent abortion advocate
• Ardent supporter of PETA
• Ardent advocate of same-sex marriage
• “not having much respect for marriage in the first place”

I could keep going on, but as our article states:

Unfortunately, for her, the only men in her social circle are probably pro-choice left-wing activists, given her history of abortion advocacy, which spans all the way back to the late 1990s.

So rightfully, any man that Mizz Theron would be attracted would likely reject some or all of this. So all that are left are the simpering soyboys for her to choose legitimately. But wait a minute! Men aren’t worth enough to have a choice! They need to be falling all over her trying to gain her approval. Don’t they know this is a Glorious Woman?!? This is what all “good men” should be doing to any woman that dare might consider letting him into Her Glorious Presence!

Remember too, what happens to men that complain like this. They are often reminded that they don’t deserve to have wives, or even standards for women and should take what they get. Remember that a man would (as many men already have!) get shouted down as a pathetic excuse and a waste of flesh if he made a similar pronouncement to Mizz Theron.

The Biggest Teenager In The House
We keep looking at Mizz Theron, as we do most women who fit the feminist bill. The traditional responsibility and burden of the man is to serve the woman and give her everything she wants without any responsibility falling on her head. But how do we convince men of that? The key is to feign weakness so that women may be thought of as children. Women can’t be responsible, so men must undertake this burden. This is the source of a lot of the diversion of blame you see out there in the churches and society. That adultery wasn’t her fault, that pathetic excuse of a husband pushed her into it! That divorce wasn’t her doing, it’s all she could do to get away from her terrible husband that wouldn’t “make her feel loved”!

This leads us to Mizz Theron. Like many women, the fact they are single is always a poor situation out of her control that the men put on her. It’s not that she’s a terrible relationship prospect that chose a life to put herself into that place by acquiring the feminist merit badges, it’s just that the men just won’t man up and marry her or even have a relationship with her. After all, she didn’t do anything that warrants that kind of treatment. She just can’t!

The Prototypical Entitled Woman
As we see, Mizz Theron is simply a prototype of what we see every day in the dating market as men. Many of us do realize that we have a choice in the women we marry or date. Simply put, Charlize Theron, as most women, are simply not worth it. Not necessarily because of the looks, but because of the person. We don’t hear figures such as Albert Mohler or numerous others tell women that they need to shape up. However, we get bellows to man-up or grow-up and marry these women and protests about video games or a number of other non-issues. A woman can never be blamed for anything she does, especially when it comes to relationships.

As for Mizz Theron, why don’t you step up, Seth Rogen? Then there’s always Glenn Beck and Chad Prather and his boys out there that could man up and marry this woman. Oh wait…thought so.

The Traditional Male Role On Full Display

I’ve taken great pains over the course of this blog to describe the traditional female and traditional male gender role, and have even come up with this graphic to describe the nature of traditional marriage:

Note that I have the woman in a deific role, while the man is in a chattel role. This means the woman is thought of as a god, while the man is thought of as a worshipper, who exists as long as he is useful to a woman and then is ultimately thrown into the fire to be burned.

Ultimately with male mother need conditioning both parties from birth, both parties are willing throwing themselves into this arrangement. Women are raised to believe that their will, whims and fancy are supreme and that all needs to be fulfilled, and they are pointed to the men in their lives. Men are raised to believe that the entire worth of their lives is wrapped up in the approval of and service of women. They are taught that women are greater and men are lesser, and that consequently men are put on this earth to serve women. Women are not the image of man anymore, but beyond images of God (gods themselves). Men are not the image of God anymore, but useful tools put on this earth to serve the gods in the flesh with the construct of Marriage 2.0 as the vehicle to do so.

This leads us into a video entitled “Chad Prather: There Is Nothing Toxic About REAL Masculinity”. (H/T Boxer)

This marks the second video I’ve encountered now in the history of this blog that I couldn’t get through all the way without losing my lunch. This is the “real” masculinity that the blue-pill idiots espouse:

Respect to a woman is a deference to her. It is manliness. That’s why I bow. That’s why I open the door. Whatever you want, I got it.

What is a man? What is masculinity? It is the bowing of my head to you, it is the bowing of my will to you. That’s what a man is. That’s what masculinity is.

You yield to the will of the woman. That’s a real man…

See the slaves/cucks extolling the virtues of their own enslavement. Gentlemen, if you didn’t believe me in modeling what marriage is, believe this:

• These are the “good men” and “real men” that you are expected to become in “marriage”.
• Her will is supreme and she has her friends, family, church and the full force of the court system to back it up if you don’t submit to her.
• The courtship and marriage exists to train and vet your ability to submit to a woman.
• This is not a facet of modern feminism. Before the advent of the divorce court and child support enforcement, women used societal disapproval to punish non-compliance where the man became persona non-grata to everybody. The only difference is that Christ and the Church was replaced with the State.
• Part of the delusion of traditional marriage is the idea that the man is the “head” of his family and that the wife will be a good loving wife who will submit to you. This “Driving Miss Daisy” submission is the hallmark of traditional marriage, where the woman in the backseat tells the driver to go somewhere and he does it.
• Marriage 2.0 is far from Scriptural or God-honoring. His design was not for men to take women as their gods over Him, following after the sin of Adam (Genesis 3:17).
• She is not really in love with you, but what you can do for her. Once you become useless to her, you will see exactly how “in love” she ever was with you. The marriage you thought you had will prove the sham that it always was.
• Part of marriage is that women gain all the rights and men gain all the responsibilities. You have the burden and cost of the marriage while she doesn’t have to do anything for you in return. Everything will be your fault, while nothing she does will ever be taken into account.
• If you are Christian and think Christian women don’t do this or believe this way, think again!

I can keep going, but the point is made. There is nothing honorable in the sight of God about “marriage” in this day and age to the point that it’s a falsehood to call it that. Men, you have nothing to gain and everything to lose in this day and age by marrying a woman.

To clarify, I’m not telling you to not marry, as I always believe it’s the man’s own choice in the end. I’m just telling you the facts on the ground, as it were. The Red and Blue Pill are before you – it’s the question of which one you will take.

The Red Pill Guide To Dealing With Churchians

When you travel online, there’s always the possibility of getting into discussions with people. This is very much true with those that claim to be Christian. However, you will find very quickly like Necron48 did that things will often not go the way you expect as a Christian man who has given himself to the Lord and has pledged to follow His teachings. I won’t blow-by-blow what happened, mistakes made, or link there as they don’t need the traffic. I explained what Necron48 saw in a previous instance, so I thought I would offer advice for being in such an environment. So, with a H/T to RedPillPushers, which inspired this post…

Deal With Them As You Would A Woman
Remember that any of the Red Pill advice you hear about women applies to almost anyone claiming to be Christian. Women are incapable of being objective, are solipsistic and take no responsibility for their actions. 90%+ of the time, you will find this to be correct. None of this changes when a woman becomes a “Christian”. Given the control women have exerted over men, it shouldn’t be a surprise that in this day and age, Christianity as it is typically practiced is of women, by women, and for women. Since the men have all most likely have been cowed into submission to their wives in their marriages, this is a safe assumption out of the men as well.

Stay in the Authority of God’s Words
As feminism is expressed in Churchian circles via the goddess/worshipper model of traditional feminism, the perception of women will take hold as doctrine. Much of this blog has documented such changes in solid doctrine to kowtow to the feelings of women. As things have grown, the Personal Jesus has taken over any view of objective truth, and Churchians will follow what they want instead of submit themselves to Christ and His ways.

Since Churchians feel, can not think objectively and consequentially can not recognize a standard for conduct, they will place tradition, reason, and their own experience in either equal place or above Scripture. Coupled with typical feminist doctrine, reflecting moral relativism, the Churchian will define the world and God by their own devices instead of looking to Scripture as the guideposts of their life. This is evidenced by the act of quoting Scripture being “triggering” to the people Necron48 dealt with, they are placing their own experiences over Scripture. They will generally only look to Scripture to bolster their own ways and interests. A great example is a woman rejecting the Biblical mandates to submit to her own husband because “men are abusers” (she or a friend had this happen to them). Where your truth is different than my truth, no one is wrong and no one can be challenged because it’s taken as an assault.

For one that desires to be about God, Jesus gives us the example in Matthew 4:1-11. Note all Jesus does in the face of opposition is quote Scripture. A tin pot authority (which each of us are) can not compare to the authority of God. His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Since the typical Churchian is pretty dull-witted about Scripture (he/she has no use for it other than to affirm themselves) and will also misinterpret it for their own ends, find something relatively simple and straight-forward and don’t cloud the issue.

Do not deviate by going into your own experiences, thoughts, or traditions you have learned, or give credence to the experiences of others as it cedes ground and places the battleground on their home turf and opens you up to typical feminist shaming tactics (if they don’t already engage you with them). And above all, stay calm and firmly state the truth. Ultimately, since they are solipsistic, they can not imagine that others think differently than them.

Don’t Belabor the Point
When you engage people in a discussion with these things in mind, you can usually tell pretty quickly that you won’t get anywhere. In reading the discussion, I noticed many many red-flags that things wouldn’t go anywhere productive long before “the dog house” happened. Often, you can even read comments and posts in a place, see red-flags and know your message won’t be received before you even make your first post. Wisdom is learning when people will hear you, and when things will be as this:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7:6)

This is what happened to Necron48. Ultimately when you see a red-flag, the only thing you can do is shake off your feet and move on (Mark 6:11). You can’t argue someone into a point, because all it generally does is set them deeper into their own position. We are never meant to be arguers or convincers, but simply heralds. Deliver the message of the King, but if they won’t receive you or hear you, move on. It’s better in the end.

Churchians Forfeit Their Mercy

Text: John 5:1-9

In looking at the state of the church, it’s amazing to see a number of parallels in the Scriptures. One of the works given the average Churchian is to read Scripture, but they never understand and apply it. A good case in point is John 5:1-9, another Scripture you will almost never hear preached accurately.

After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.
(John 5:1-9)

Those that just read would dance over the story of the disabled man and say “Jesus did a miracle.” This is relevant, but not the story we need to learn, as anytime a miracle happens in Scripture there’s always an underlying message.

In the story, we are told that legions of disabled people gathered at this pool in the hopes that (as the legend goes) the angel that stirs the pool would do it and that someone would get them to the pool and they could be healed. We are told of a specific man, who obviously (unwritten) found men to get him to this place to begin with. The man had been waiting 38 years for this to happen until Jesus happens along.

Think of it. 38 years.

To this disabled man, this is just another man who he can plead to to bring to the water. But Jesus is no other man, He performs the miracle and the man walked out.

So what has this got to do with us?
This story should remind you of something. What is the average pattern of the church going person? They invite their friends to a “church” in the hopes that somehow they’ll find Jesus’ healing grace and mercy. They either stop going or adopt the Churchian culture, listening to a man in the pulpit who proclaims “Look to me; to me, in some of my formulas, to me in some of my developments, and be ye saved.” in the hopes that they will find the answer that they seek to fill the hole in their hearts. They’ll hear others proclaim that they’re good and that “Jesus” changed them, when it’s really the “church” that hyped them up. By looking at the fruit of their lives (Matthew 7:15-20), the unbiased can see they are nothing but white-washed sepulchers (Matthew 23:27), putting up an image on Sunday and just living the same old lives the rest of the days of the week. There are legions that have showed up and either give up waiting or wait just as this disabled man did. 20-30-40-50 years in the hope that they find something different, with the belief that their only requirements are to show up when the church doors are open and tithing to the church, lives never changing.

In the end, all men are as this disabled man. Often though, they do not believe that they have a need and do not see a need for Jesus. Or they see the need but think they can do it themselves by chasing after different things of the world. Or they see the need for change, and men bring them to this special place where they suggest that following certain rites and rituals, that they will find their healing and peace there and believe that and follow it through their lives to a profession of “I never knew you”. (Matthew 7:21-23) Or as in this day and age, they find the call that they need to have “a personal relationship with Jesus”, ultimately putting that trust in themselves. While many of that ilk will take this Scripture as a proof of their “personal relationship” need, yet they are never confronted with their evils and never pointed out that they need to surrender to Christ and give up their own ways and thoughts to find salvation in their lives.

Look at what the disabled man was trusting in. A special “holy” place. Rites and rituals. Other men. Not Christ. We could argue that the disabled man didn’t know better since Christ healed him after his profession of faith in the pool. But many, sadly, follow in this man’s stead in their lives who have very ample opportunity to know better. Life is as Jonah wrote, or as Christ spoke:

They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy. But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD. (Jonah 2:8-9)

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Mat 7:13-14)

The crux of Christianity is so simple, yet men continually mess it up. There’s no other way to salvation but Christ, but men want to look to and depend on everything else but Him.

The Tithe: Robbing The People of God

Last time, I mentioned preachers that produce errant doctrines using the ideas of “exegesis” and “hermaneutics”, warping the plain reading of the text. While many doctrines are produced this way, nothing is more plainly warped and so violently and wrongly defended as the tithe. Unfortunately I’m sure this is familiar to most readers who have had anything to do with church, since it involves bringing in money for these same men to satisfy their own appetites (Romans 16:17-18) for building of their own empires. I mentioned one example in the course of reviewing this book. I heard another example of a pastor recently that warped the correct teaching of giving in the New Testament and then promptly brushed over the Old Testament Scripture as correct, misinterpreting both texts, and came off rather violently in doing so. Preachers have taken advantage of the average lack of knowledge or willingness to question (Acts 17:11) of the average Christian in order to force Christians to give to them out of fear.

The Prototypically Preached Tithing Verses
This post aims to discuss the proper interpretation of the texts involving tithing. It’s good to start with the exact text in question, which most of us have heard:

Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. (Mal 3:7-10)

Most preachers brush over exactly what this is saying and rain down the threat that you are “robbing God” by not coughing up 10% of your salary. But we won’t today. Most good teaching on Biblical interpretation will use the rule “context before content”. This establishes the audience and time. Or even simpler, we let Scripture define Scripture where possible and don’t try to make it into an allegoric passage as most preachers do. I’ll cover the sticking points of Malachi in understanding it as the original readers would have.

Tithes
If we look into the Old Testament for original Scriptures where God mandates the tithe, we’ll actually find that God mandated three tithes upon the Israelites.

I won’t go into each of these passages explicitly (please read them). The point to make here is that there is a divergence from what we typically hear about this passage. The tithes were the taxation system for the nation of Israel and ultimately called for 23.3% of what people got from the land. This requires special notice. We’ll see from reading Leviticus 27:30 & 32:

And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD’S: it is holy unto the LORD. (Lev 27:30)
And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD. (Lev 27:32)

Note that if they didn’t get it from the growth of the land or something that fed on the land they weren’t to tithe it at all!

Offerings
Offerings again present another term which is warped out of what the original readers of Malachi would have understood. References are abound in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 12:11 illustrates this as well as reading Numbers 18:21-31:

Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD:
(Deut 12:11)

Offerings relate to the burnt offerings, heave offerings, and wave offerings that were required of the people outside of the tithe.

Storehouse
“Storehouse” is probably the idea that is worst mangled in Malachi, as preachers make this into an allegory of their church. But Scripture offers a concrete definition in 2 Chronicles 31:11-12; Nehemiah 10:37-39; Nehemiah 13:10-13. Quoting one below:

Then Hezekiah commanded to prepare chambers in the house of the LORD; and they prepared them, And brought in the offerings and the tithes and the dedicated things faithfully: over which Cononiah the Levite was ruler, and Shimei his brother was the next. (2Ch 31:11-12)

This makes it pretty clear that there would have been rooms in the Temple to keep plants (grain) and livestock that have been given, like the grain silos we see around many farms.

Back to Malachi
Now given this Scriptural understanding, it’s pretty clear that Malachi was addressed to the Israelite people regarding the tithes and offerings required them. It requires no allegory or twisting to gather the plain meaning of this passage. The people were neglecting the tithes and offerings that were dedicated to the LORD, hence were robbing Him and robbing His interests. What were those? The Levites didn’t receive an allotment upon entering Israel and had no inheritance (and hence was “poor”). The Lord was to be honored by the festivals He called for in conjunction with the temple. And “the poor” included all those in lesser circumstances (the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow).

The message of Malachi we should take is that by neglecting their tithes and offerings, they were dishonoring God and robbing from the poor. These things at this time were meant to be good news to the poor. It’s ironic that in the imposition of the tithe in churches today that the lesson of the widow’s mites (Luke 21:1-4) is completely forgotten! The tithe in the modern church is definitely very grievous news to the poor!

Then we should apply another rule: For the Christian, things that have to do with ceremonial law or laws of the nation that God laid down are null and void! We don’t have to pay tithes and offerings as Christians any more than we have to offer burnt offerings of unblemished lambs for the remission of our sins or be circumcised. To any preacher or believer of the tithe, I ask where they bring their lambs for their sins.

Christ rid us of the need for justification by the Law, yet those that advocate for the tithe bring Christians back into the Law. Scripture points this out repeatedly (Galatians 5:3; Colossians 2:13-17; Hebrews 7:5). A litany of Galatians with “tithe” replacing “circumcision” is definitely warranted for anyone claiming Christ that believes in the tithe!

But what about Jesus? Didn’t he affirm the tithe?
Usually in opposition to their interpretation of Malachi, preachers will bring up what Jesus had to say to the scribes and Pharisees:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Mat 23:23)

Note again if sound rules of Scriptural interpretation are applied, this again points to Old Testament requirements. Jesus was not addressing His disciples and did not affirm the tithe for them!

History of the Tithe
Having established the idea that the tithe is a strange teaching to the First Century Church, it’s worthy to look at how the tradition came to be:

Charting the history of Christian tithing is a fascinating exercise. Tithing spread from the state to the church. Here’s the story. In the seventh and eighth centuries, leasing land was a familiar characteristic of the European economy. The use of the tithe, or the tenth, was commonly used to calculate payments to landlords. As the church increased its ownership of land across Europe, the 10 percent rent charge shifted from secular landlords to the church. Ecclesiastical leaders became the landlords. And the tithe became the ecclesiastical tax. This gave the 10 percent rent charge new meaning. It was creatively applied to Old Testament law and came to be identified with the Levitical tithe! Consequently, the Christian tithe as an institution was based on a fusion of Old Testament practice and a common system of land-leasing in medieval Europe.

By the eighth century, the tithe became required by law in many areas of Western Europe. But by the end of the tenth century, the tithe as a rent charge for leasing land had all but faded. The tithe, however, remained and it came to be viewed as a moral requirement supported by the Old Testament. The tithe had evolved into a legally mandatory religious practice throughout Christian Europe. (1)

Conclusion
It’s easy when your eyes are opened to tradition to see these things for what they are. I know I’ve seen the power of tradition in believing what was said instead of digging into these things myself. It’s a hard journey to get past “what we’ve always done” to see the plain teaching of Scripture and what is required. In the way are men who have grown to benefit from two other traditions that go against Scripture (constructing buildings and clergy pay) who vigorously defend their own interests instead of justifying God in all things. In the next post, I’ll describe the teaching that the disciples of Christ were given.

(1) Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna. p177.

Religious and Other Rationalization In Marriage

Previously, I wrote of the model of traditional marriage and how it’s developed into a model of a female goddess of high value and a male worshiper of low value. If this were my last blog presence, both of these posts would have large link-trees since I’ve developed these concepts in many ways over dozens of posts quoting people indicating these kinds of things, so I apologize in advance if anything looks strange at first glance.

Man Rationalizes His Own Behavior
It’s good to start out by noting the constructs of tradition and how they are developed. Men start out by doing things, and then the reasons behind them get lost and no one knows the “why” of anything. Jesus deals with the effects of these things in Matthew 15:1-9. Traditional marriage and gender roles is definitely a case where the commandments of men have transgressed God’s design on things.

Often, men (and women) have a way of also taking their own expectations and then Scripture-shopping or redefining Scripture to meet those expectations. I’ve mentioned this often in terms of the false gospel of the Personal Jesus, where man’s own expectation becomes God’s commandment.

Reconciling Traditional Marriage With Scripture
Often these manipulations of men require a number of deceptions for them to take hold. I’ve encountered and had to eliminate many of them by reading Scripture and allowing the Spirit to change my mind. Traditional and modern marriage has an exceedingly large number of deceptions that I’ve cataloged over dozens of posts.

Schlessinger took occasion to quote one of them in dealing with responses to the predictable uproar that women would do anything to “submit” to men:

The Reverend Shane Cornutt, from Alabama, was one of many in and out of the clergy who wrote me to clarify this issue:

“Over the past couple of weeks I have noticed that some of your lady callers have had questions on a wife’s submission to her husband and how it deals with their Christian faith when faced with a moral problem.

Nowhere in the Bible is a woman told to blindly submit to the will of her husband. In fact, the first act of submission is on the husband’s part! The husband is to submit himself to Christ and the will of God. When he does this he is not setting himself up as master, but rather as servant of the Lord. Only then is the wife to submit to the will of her husband—because the will of her husband will be obedience to the Lord. So the wife is not submitting to the husband, but to God.

As soon as the husband steps outside this and acts contrary to scripture, the woman is under no moral obligation whatsoever to her husband to transgress the moral law! Women are not, and were never meant to be, set up as servants to men in the kingdom of God.

A man is supposed to love his wife as Christ loves the church. That means that a husband is required to love, care for, nurture, protect, comfort and even be willing to die for his wife. That is love.”

The reverend ended his letter with an admonition to men, suggesting that if any man is upset because he feels his wife is not in “proper submission” to him, the problem is with the man! (1)

Now those who have read my blogging in the past (among many others), will recognize this argument as it’s been dealt with many times as espoused by many figures. Cornutt is carving out an exception to the Biblical dictates that wives submit to their husbands in everything. When some “moral problem” comes up, he is giving the wives carte blanche to not follow their husbands.

Now the question is this: Who is the authority that determines whether something presents a “moral problem”? The answer that many other commentators have come up with is that it’s the wife! So anything that goes against her whim and will becomes a “moral problem”. Again another question presents itself: Who is the one that determines whether the husband “submits himself to Christ and the will of God”? Again it’s the wife! So she has the complete freedom to pay heed to her husband. Or not. Whatever she wants.

Note how Cormutt casts the problem as one of the husband’s – blame is always cast towards him and never to the wife in religious situations. And if he doesn’t go for her will, she can marshal all the force of the church, and ultimately put the threat of divorce (and his devastation as a man in both the church and wider society) over his head in order to ensure his compliance to his wife.

Reconciling the Language With The Deception
So ultimately, marriage is rearranged into an arrangement where the wife is the one that is the moral arbiter and the husband is the one that submits to his wife. This fits the previous arrangement, and throws the marriage into a situation where the husband is continually chasing after her desires and wishes and if there’s a problem he just isn’t listening to her heart well enough. Her heart is holy and pure (she is a Vicar of Christ), and therefore must be followed at all costs! After all, a goddess always needs to be served! An illustration of this process is presented in this graphic:

However, we must remember that the concepts must be fit into the language of Scripture. Again this requires a rationalization of an untruth. I’ve often used the analogy of “Driving Miss Daisy” submission or a horse buggy to illustrate how this is done. The husband is driving the limo and the wife rides in back. The husband is the horse and the wife is the driver. But “Daisy” directs the limo where it is to go. The driver determines where the buggy goes.

In enforcing such a model, the church officials often do not call upon the wives to submit to their own husbands, but calls the husband to “step up and lead his family” (existing nowhere in Scripture). Again this puts the burden upon the husband to perform to his wife’s expectations. He is buffaloed into this model by his conditioning to male mother need, and ultimately is seen as the one leading (with the willing participation of the wife in the deception) – by seeking out his wife’s will on everything and then following it.  If he does not do this, then he is “not loving his wife as Christ loves the church”, and becomes a failure.

But what of submission as it is brought up in relationship to wives? The nearest meaning I can take out of Schlessinger’s book is a submission to the traditional gender roles as opposed to her husband. As quoted earlier, as long as she provides the 3 A’s and her demands upon her husband, all will be well.

In the end, all this deception, all this force of man against the God-ordained plan of marriage makes this transformation from Scripturally-defined marriage to traditional marriage:

Conclusion
In the end, all of this contributes together to make a marriage where the man continually falls into the pattern of Adam where he “hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife” (Genesis 3:17) instead of God. For those that choose to not see, marriage has turned from God-honoring to woman-honoring (violating Commandments I and II) and man’s tradition has been baked into people’s minds allowing them to not see anything different.

In the next post, I will address some of Schlessinger’s quotes that reveal some of the programming that has been given to both men and women that fits this model of goddess-worship that has replaced God-honoring marriage.

(1) The Proper Care & Feeding of Animals Husbands by Dr. Laura Schlessinger p149-150.

A Lot of Random Ramblings

Hello, everyone. I’m a blogger known as Ballista74. As I was reminded by the blogging notifications, I’ve been blogging under this alias for six years now. And by my count between all the sites I’ve blogged outside of my real name, this is post #384. I can’t say that road has been an easy one.

A lot of the stuff going on here and then some keeps happening to the point that I can’t really post as I like. One thing I keep facing is demands on my time that pushes this blog down farther and farther on the priority list. One day goes to months and you get periods like what you have just witnessed here. Unfortunately, when there’s a question of my survival, it’s hard to think about any kind of service to The Kingdom, including something like this, until something like that gets fixed. Of course, I don’t know how to fix it and I’m in way over my head. Add onto that the latent anxiety and everything else going on, it’s hard for me to even get started to write some days.

It’s so hard for me to be reliable in posting both for other priorities and abilities. I’m sure that’s hurt my efforts in getting any consistent readership and following. It’s not so much just my time (that six-year notification came on 04/27!), but my ability to write from a mental standpoint. I can definitely say that writing is one of my weak points. It takes me way too long to formulate something to do and too long to write things. Where others take an hour or two (or less!), I seem to take ten. Glory doesn’t belong to me, and I can say anything good that ever has happened from any of these posts I’ve made or things I’ve done in real life because of my own efforts, but because of His.

This brings me to a question I’ve never figured out in that six years: How to position your audience to what you’re writing. In every case, a particular audience has found me more than my writing finding an audience. The last audience that found me was one called the “manosphere”, largely in response to my posts about marriage and female supremacy (feminism) within the churches. But I couldn’t say it was a “Christian” audience that came with it that heard what was there. Of course, so much wasn’t heard by the readers at all.

In a sense, this paragraph will serve as an introduction since I’ve picked up a small audience of Book Review devotees on this go-around. While I appreciate your continued readership, an explanation is in order. My blog writings, taken as a whole, have to do primarily with Christianity and the errant teachings of the church. Books written by Christian authors are easily reflective of the typical teachings and waywardness of the average church today, so I’ll continue to post about books in some degree. But don’t be surprised if you see something a whole lot different, too.

Not doing well with positioning for an intended audience poses trouble, as I can’t say too many of the eyes and ears that need to find what I’ve written have. This is a special concern for the book I’m working on and want to finish and hopefully see the light of day. While proceeding at a glacial pace, I still have a lot of interest in seeing it get done, especially since the need has definitely been placed on my heart by many examples of waywardness.

The obvious problem right now is finishing the text (blog or book), but shopping it has always been my biggest concern. The question of money in relationship to the blog or anything Christian has always been a problem for anything I’ve written. Given the tendency of people to push for what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear, the issue of paying money has a way of ensnaring someone into serving men rather than serving God. After all, one can not profess the truth when they are being paid to not do it. One thing that I’ve been taught in the course of doing the blog is that a lot of truth is actively being denied in this day and age.

Of course, the problem with having 384 posts of an average length of 1000-1500 words is that a lot of it can also be organized into books of varying degrees of interest since these were often single topic. I often thought of restoring all of those posts to this blog, but the problem is gaining organization over it and then randomly pulling the ones that have something to do with any book text that might be prepared.

So money at every point of the line seems to be an unquestioned issue. If not my time I’m devoting to trying to find enough of it to survive, it’s not having the time after that I might otherwise want to post and do as much as I would like to find an audience and really make blogging worth it. Or serve full-time in the flesh somewhere. And then money always has strings attached to it, especially when it comes to any kind of preaching and teaching venture. The last thing I want to do is compromise the message and Gospel as so many other people have in this day and age.

As I can’t say most of the level of my problems are normal in comparison to anyone else’s, I can definitely say the question of money and survival in this world trying to devote yourself to the Lord after you’ve been shown just how wicked everything is in the churches isn’t a unique problem either. But I can’t say I have any solid answers on how to proceed in so many ways. All I can do is do what I know to do.