Movie Review: Kingdom Men Rising

As always, it seems there is a latest fad that goes around Churchian circles. The current one seems to be a movie named Kingdom Men Rising, and since I got the opportunity to view it, a review seems to be in order.

Foundationally, this movie is a documentary that purports to explore what it is to be a real man in a world where there is confusion about masculinity. Tony Evans appears predominantly in this film along with others such as Kirk Franklin, Jon Kitna, Tony Dungy, and others. They discuss their lives, bringing out a lot of the typical issues directed towards men such as pornography, sexual unfaithfulness, and other issues. As well, there are many admonishments directed towards men in order to push them towards “biblical manhood” as opposed to the definitions of manhood as given by the culture.

Functionally, the movie had some decent messages in and of themselves. In its messages, it pushes men towards taking responsibility for their own actions and for following the dictates of God. It pushes a definition and call to discipleship, and shows a message of pushing away from past faults into a message of grace.

However, it threads the same old pathetic well-worn path most of the Churchians pull, the sins common to Churchianity and to traditional feminism. It showcases the prideful nature (Phariseeism) that many of the pastors and other speakers have in churches today. They head worldly organizations which pander towards the world and encourage men into worldly vocations and interest. The segment where one of them talks about “those people that are just plain weird” was rather shocking, as Scripture itself will delineate that those of Christ will be called out and separate from the world. Christians very much should be different from the world (holy) because Christ is holy.

Then in the stress for discipleship, the proper focus of that discipleship was definitely questionable. In the talk about discipleship, the target wasn’t Christ, but Tony Evans or the others that talked about being “leaders of men”. Too often, people are discipleshiped into the man-made church, or to certain leaders instead of Christ. Fallible men are not worthy of being followed, nor are the works of their hands, but only the one that lived a perfect life on this earth and died on the cross. May His Name be praised!

“Biblical manhood” illustrated.

As to be expected, the traditional expectation of men to be the chattel servants of women are accentuated. While Evans correctly states the focus of men in this interview: “All of them should be shifted to God’s definition of man, which means a male who is consistently operating under the rule of God over every area of his life,” the problem is the worship of women is imputed as Godliness. By absence of calling out women for their very active roles in the decline of marriage and family by pushing away their children’s fathers via his-fault divorce, not calling out men for enabling the will of women over God (repeating the sin of Adam) and imputing the ills of this society onto men alone (because after all feminism just isn’t working because weak men just aren’t manning up and playing along) this film supports well the tenets of traditional feminism.

Ultimately, a man’s lord becomes his wife and his children, following in the sin of Adam, as illustrated by the wicked works of his daughter. And while many rationalize a definition of masculinity from Scripture, Scripture only lays upon men to love God and keep his commandments. Ultimately, masculinity is defined by women to service them and it is this definition that Evans upholds in this film. As Evans illustrates:

The culture, Evans said, has stripped men of their “divine responsibility” to be provider, protector and leader of the family.

“At the same time, men have made it easy for that to be stripped from them by how men have dishonored women, abused women,” Evans said. “So we have facilitated it, but that means it’s time for change.”

Note that “provider”, “protector”, and “leader” are traditional feminist sex roles imputed onto the men by women.

Overall, this movie is just another chapter in the long droning clanging noise that Churchian traditional feminists make in order to enforce the continuation of woman worship over God worship. They say, as this film does, that society isn’t working because men just won’t man-up or step-up (repeatedly said in the movie to the point I lost count). In the end, all this film turned out to be was an hour thirty long man-up rant, that unfortunately sought to slam men for being men, exalt women in their sin by comparison for the topic being completely absent, and debase the image of God that man put into Creation.

Hopefully men like Evans and all the others in Churchianity will repent of this idolatry for which we are being judged for in this society, but I’m not holding my breath. Sadly, most all of the men applauded this film at its showing. Which tells us the obscenely wicked nature of man. (Isaiah 5:20) It seems we will go down to judgment before the Lord to thunderous applause.

Rating: 3 out of 10.

Book Review: Love & Respect

Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs. Dr. Emerson Eggerichs. Thomas Nelson; 1 edition (September 1, 2004).

As always, there’s an interest in marriage, and especially Biblical-defined marriage on this blog. To that end, this book is of interest given its popularity. As requested by Jeff, here is a review.

Eggerichs makes the whole basis of his book one verse in Ephesians: However, you also, everyone, let each one love his wife as himself, and the wife, that she give deference to the husband. (Ephesians 5:33) In doing that he attempts to describe it using two acronyms in order to avoid the conflict in marriage that the author calls “The Crazy Cycle”: COUPLE and CHAIRS. In using the COUPLE acronym in relationship to men loving women, Eggerichs points to Closeness, Openness, Understanding, Peacemaking, Loyalty, and Esteem. In using the CHAIRS acronym in relationship to women respecting men, the author refers to Conquest, Hierarchy, Authority, Insight, Relationship, and Sexuality.

At 324 pages, this book offers an incredibly repetitive view of one Scripture and could have been shortened considerably. To that end, Eggerichs pulls in other Scriptures, but often pulls them wildly out of context to support his views. The author ignores other Scriptures in order to attempt to make his message more palatable to the world and to the sensibilities of women. In addition, the book offers a feelings-oriented, psychologically-based view instead of a factual-based covenant view of marriage as described in the Bible with the goal to honor God. Eggerichs comes close to this idea in the final chapters (“The Rewarded Cycle”), but falls short in relating this. This is a New York Times bestseller, and if the world loves you, watch out!

While the book contains some kernels thrown towards the men in the name of “respect”, the book fits the definition of traditional feminist marriage to a tee. The book offers no solid discrete Biblical definition of either “love” or “respect”, nor addresses Biblical submission of the wife to the husband sufficiently. Submission is defined as the husband’s responsibility to “protect and provide”, whereby the woman submits by simply accepting what he is expected to do by her will.

The bulk of the good in this book is found in the final chapters in that Eggerichs rejects the idea of the wife being the husband’s Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, the message to men is that “loving their wives as Christ loved the Church” is that they are to be doormats (or worshipers) to women in the guise of chivalry in order to allow her to “change” him. This book encourages the average immaturity of women, and places them as the sole beneficiary of the marriage. Ultimately, respect becomes as described by Dr. Laura in terms of praise and appreciation for all the good “tricks” her husband does to service her every whim.

Finally, Eggerichs shows a poor understanding of marriage and of the natures of men and women in general. He misses the import of what happened to Eve, Adam’s resulting sin and God’s resulting judgment (Genesis 3:17: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife” [rather than God]). He rather misses the rebellious nature of women in buying into the “women as responders” doctrine – “if he would just love her sufficiently, she would fall in line and respect him”.

The reviews of the book on Amazon illustrate a number of other topics that Eggerichs refused to deal with, such as the erroneous view that women need to be respected rather than honored (her desire that her husband submit to her, not existing in Scripture). The average state of rebellion that women exist in before God is a major issue of marriage, but sadly is not dealt with in this book in the name of “respect”.

Overall, this book is another excellent manual of what Blue Pill marriage (Marriage 2.0) looks like. While excellent as a chronicle of such things, it is ultimately useless for advice in dealing with the real and numerous obstacles the society, the churches, women, blue-pill men, and other entities have placed on men who have desired a God-honoring meaningful marriage that bears fruit to His Name.

Rating: 3 out of 10.

Book Cover Image Source: Amazon

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.

Pastor Opposes MGTOW. MGTOW Embraces Pastor.

In light of the last two posts, I thought I’d focus on something encouraging, and something that was in my “to be posted” list fits right into the current trend of discussion. While this guy opposes MGTOW, it elicits an interesting response compared to the others within and without the manosphere.

Notice something different and unique about him compared to the average way men are dealt with in the church? He’s showing respect towards the men in his audience as human beings and actually shows he is listening. He hits most all (if not all) points I hit back here regarding why women aren’t finding marriage. While I can find much disagreement with him on this and other matters, I can respect him and how he deals with men regarding this issue. He sees men not as chattel to be cudgeled into submission, but men with choices before God. More importantly, he actually acknowledges the reality on the ground men are facing with respect to women and quite obviously sees men as equal participants on the walk with God. He actually acknowledges women as just as sinful as men and actually rebukes women. He doesn’t shout down at men, doesn’t seek to break men at every turn. He actually treats the men in his audience as men and not as chattel that won’t know their roles and shut their mouths. He doesn’t accept the base tenets of feminist doctrine.

Let’s hear the response he got:

Funny how that works, huh?

When The Reformers Are Feminist, Abandon All Hope

In a typical feminist SJW tactic, rather than directly respond to what was written previously, David Murrow has posted this link to his facebook and done the usual “he’s just a woman-hater” response. A screen shot (to preserve the evidence) and response below:

He seems mad because I don’t trash women on my blog. The lack of men in church isn’t a man problem or a women problem or a pastor problem. It’s a system problem.

I’m “mad” because you are trashing men on your blog and making the lack of marriage in the church into a man problem. Beyond that it is a system problem and you are contributing to the problem. The problem is the “system problem” is quite routinely the “man problem”. In other words:

It would all just work right if men would just know their role and play along.

David, be the solution, don’t be the problem. I link to you on the side because in a lot of respects you do address problems within the church. The sole reason I bothered to respond at all, is because you are the problem in that post and not the solution.

As for the rest, note all the typical feminist shaming tactics, rather than directly addressing any of the points involved. Gentlemen, you have just seen what David Murrow truly thinks of you. Rather than reform the system problem, which is routinely defined synonymously with “the man problem” (which I *thought* Murrow understood after reading his book), he would rather simply sucker men into accepting the system as it is.

Why do men hate going to church? Because men don’t want to be unjustly vilified as the problem of everything wrong in the church and the world. You don’t need a whole book to answer that.  Place the blame where it properly lies.

Prejudice Is The Problem

Previously, the idea of the burden of judgment was brought up. The burden is such that we are too easily influenced in terms of the penalty or even executing that penalty. This is illustrated in the wisdom that has evolved in the justice system where jury, sentence, and execution are all divided so that no one person decides these things. I heard the question of what the punishment will be by more than one juror, and the only proper answer was the old phrase “that’s above our pay grade”. Just like deciding guilt was above the judge’s pay grade, and execution is above both the jury and judge’s pay grade. In such a system when it is righteous, it recognizes our weaknesses – our tendency for blood lust, and our tendency to be lenient to those we identify with. That said, none of it is easy and in the light of judgment of conscience, no one claimed that it was anything other than “very hard”.

Justice: Balanced and Blind (Source: Wikipedia.org)

Righteous judgment is a burden, which primarily involves objectivity, and impartiality. Scripture bears this out in spades. Firstly, it speaks of waiting to make up your mind until you’ve heard the whole story:

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. (Proverbs 18:13)

I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out. (Job 29:16)

Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? (John 7:54)

The other issue to bring to light is impartiality in terms of not holding favor to one party for other reasons than the case at hand.

Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; . . . And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. (Exodus 18:21-22) [the concept of the multi-tiered judicial system]

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. (Leviticus 19:15)

These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment. (Proverbs 24:23)

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. (John 7:24)

Justice is supposed to be completely impartial, but is also the place where the righteous are defended against the wicked (Psalm 82:2-4), especially the righteous weak against the wicked powerful. Righteous justice is the place where equality reigns. No matter what place you come from, or what you are. Impartiality is so prized that we were not supposed to talk to anyone else involved in the trial, nor discuss the case before the deliberations with the jury or talk about it period before the verdict was handed down.

If you followed this blog, you know where this is going. I mentioned in the previous post that this was an alleged pedophile.

This happened to be a woman.

Part of judging objectively with others is not bringing your prejudices to the party. When I talked about what I was doing, I left out the sex of the person as I should (and pushed myself to during the presentation of the case). It’s notable that two different people automatically interjected the word “he”. Women are good and men are bad.

So a woman could NEVER do such a thing. Right? Right?

This question blared in my mind during the trial. Is this woman being treated the same as if it were a man in that chair? If this woman is guilty, will she be sentenced the same as if she is a man and not get the p**** pass? If the victim were not a young girl, would it have even been considered?

Women are chaste, angelic beings who are closer to God – who could never do evil things, at least not without being pushed. Men are chattel put on this earth to provide and protect for women as penance for the evil sin of being born a man.

Prejudices like what I encountered above, are what men are running into with marriage, and what are creating the buzzsaw of the family courts. Prejudices like this are what is driving rape culture, where all men are seen as potential rapists. Prejudices like this are what causes men to not be seen as fathers and women as “natural mothers”. Prejudices like this are what causes the family courts to preserve the role of the husband in “traditional marriage” by requiring child support no matter what, but not requiring visitation of the children in return. Prejudices like this make people see a difference between what family courts do and traditional marriage. These prejudices are what causes so many blue-pill truths to stand, even in the vaunted manosphere. Unfortunately, prejudice is getting formed in the other direction, as well.

Prejudices like this color many of our judgments, and to be righteous it requires us to eliminate them. Being in these circles for three years found an interesting investigation into such matters. As discussed before, by necessity of this world, we cast judgments on many things. The two I mentioned failed in righteous judgment, as do many others. They did not hear the case fully, and by prejudice automatically assumed it was a man on trial.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matthew 7:1-2)

While discussed before, this verse found an interesting personification, that can be extended to any case and situation:

If I am in that defendant’s chair, would I want me as a juror, thinking the way I am?

My conscience was clean after the trial was over. I don’t believe I treated her any less nor any harsher because she was a woman. And while the case brought visions of Solomon to mind, I believe the right decision was arrived upon by this twelve. The Judge will be the one to decide all things in His appointed time, but He will in His loving-kindness, as the best possible job was done in that jury room.

Marriage and Child Alpha

One of the things pointed out in the definition of principles of traditional feminism is the idea that the results of feminism on women involve female infantilization. While the concept itself has not been explored much here beyond its existence, understanding that a woman has been morally conditioned to avoid any kind of responsibility with the blessing of society is incumbent to understanding the red pill of relationships. As described:

When you allow a young woman to remain undisciplined and shield her from the consequences of her own wrong actions, rationalizing them to be right, you get a feral woman. When you raise a young woman to feel entitled to have men shoulder all her responsibilities for her, you get a woman that hasn’t grown up. When girls aren’t trained up in the way they should go before God by doting fathers worshiping their daughters, you get the perpetuation of feminism.

To a certain extent, almost all grown women remain children in some respect. In this respect, a man does not seek an equal adult partner in traditional marriage, but Child Alpha – with the expectation that he must provide for her, care for her and see that she is not harmed by her own actions (this is those “traditional sex roles” coming out). As stated, this is the facet of tradcon feminism that modern feminism has sought most to eliminate, so it becomes hard for us to see this fully (this was more fully visible about 100 years ago).

Chiefly, this has to do with physical and moral responsibilities, which are still standing. A man must unconditionally provide for a woman, even if she can provide for herself. If not a specific man, the government must do it, thereby making all men pay. A woman must never be made to take responsibility for her own actions. A man must change his own flat while a woman gets out and waits for a man to do it. Of course, a woman never sins or is at fault for anything by her absolute moral authority. If a husband cheats, he’s a dirty bastard. If a wife cheats, poor dear that awful man pushed her into it!

So a man ends up with an enigma on his hands he must deal with: A woman who has absolute moral authority over him. One who knows what is best in all situations, whose will must be followed unconditionally as a Bride of Christ. Yet she is one who can not exercise responsibility for her own decisions and must be protected from herself and from the world. Heaven forbid that the consequences of her actions fall upon her head! Society and the woman herself will take numerous opportunities to remind a man of such things, even if they are not true (for instance the “rape culture”). It is to his own peril if he does not heed those things. This comes out in the idea that men believe women do not have “moral agency” or have “limited moral agency”.

While these things can and will be explored in future posts, talk of marriage often reveals such childish attitudes in women. The article 6 Biggest Regrets Most Women Have From Their Relationship After Marriage is illustrative of such things, perhaps more so since it is reflective of a more traditional culture. Note the opening sentence, which in itself will burn out the Hamsterlator:

As marriage unites a woman with the man of her dreams, it brings a lot of happiness in her life. The beautiful experiences, like being pampered by her husband, having someone to rely on for everything, being praised for anything done by her, and so many more things like these, simply make her feel exhilarated.

One could pick apart each phrase – it’s so loaded with feminist entitlement. But it’s very accurate as to what marriage is in the heart of the average woman, and can explain how women throw marriages away so easily for being “bored and unhaaaaapy”. But the message comes out:

It’s all about her and what she wants.

It’s a very child-like and immature view of marriage, or any kind of commitment. This comes out in the list of post-marriage regrets:

#1. I am not getting enough space
#2. I am not the same person anymore
#3. Wanted some more time to enjoy life
#4. Didn’t want kids so early
#5. Lost touch with friends
#6. Could have given my ex a second chance

Common thread: You mean something is expected of the woman? That it’s not her choice alone anymore in how to live life? That she might have to change or make certain sacrifices in the name of real compromise (and not feminine compromise that comes out in counseling – translated by all to mean “the woman’s way”)? That she might not get to EPL anymore? That she might have to buckle down and raise kids? That her friends might fade away? That she couldn’t take that second ride on the Carousel with that hot alpha?

If anything is underscored when it comes to the idea of responsibilities, sacrifice, or even honoring her vows, it’s how *horrible* it is for a woman to live up to those things. Hence the responsibility shifting to men, and the rights shifting to women. After all, she’s a powerful and independent woman, who should have it all when she wants it! And it’s her husband’s job to provide it for her!

Proclaimed Christians Aren’t All Christ Followers

One of the interesting things I’ve been following in recent days is the reaction to a post that NYCPastor put up entitled 10 Women Christian Men Shouldn’t Marry. In some respects, I found this post a complete surprise given what I expected from a graduate of the SBTS by Albert Mohler’s writings.

While I could strain some gnats on the post, Dr. Kim does a fantastic job in the course of counseling men on the choice of a woman to marry.

The more interesting and instructive thing is the reaction the post got. I noted this originally in that it is hard to escape that there is a prominent disconnect within Christianity as it is practiced in the United States. Dr. Kim points this out himself:

The case, however, is different for the self-proclaiming Christian man/woman. The Christian is called to believe in the inerrancy, sufficiency, authority, and infallibility of the Bible. For if we don’t believe in the Bible, we have no Christianity to speak of. This much is elementary.
. . .
If I’m an extreme radical for simply quoting the Bible verbatim, then I am afraid to see what “normative” Christianity looks like. Yet, sadly, this woman’s comment represents so many of the vitriolic responses that came from the “evangelical Christian community.” Which brings us to the conclusion that instead of changing the world, the Church–by and large–is becoming very much like the world. The Word of God is too narrow a road to follow in this age of gay-marriage and unwed motherhood (seems like the homosexuals are the only ones interested in getting married nowadays).

The interesting part out of all of this is that Dr. Kim is probably just discovering how the typical church really is in how it has departed from the real Jesus of Nazareth. Some lessons to be taken from those comments:

1. Women and a great number of men as well are not Christians even though they believe themselves to be. Rather the women follow The High Holy Hamster in the person of the Personal Jesus. To that end, the Hamster’s machinations guide her every thought and action, to the point that the will of “Jesus” is hers. It can best be thought of as the perfect romance where “Jesus” affirms her in every thought and every action. Those sins are gone, including all the consequences, and everyone else better recognize it.

How do you like me now that you know me, Dr. Kim?

This should not be mistaken to be anything but a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-10). Such is what you get with the typical false gospel that’s been going around. One that doesn’t focus on the insufficiency of men before God, but one that emphasizes connectedness (hearkening both to Gnosticism and the Goddess Cult) instead. Such is the Personal Jesus, the one that you have a personal relationship with.

2. Men are to listen to the women as if they speak the very word of God Himself – this is their function of following the Personal Jesus. This was NYC Pastor’s sin that drew all the responses. He didn’t know his place as a “good man” recognizing his need for absolution for being born a man. His proper function was to affirm women in all their thoughts and actions, and he failed in doing that by bringing the real Jesus into play. This constant affirmation of women despite their sins leads to the very thought in the modern church that women are without sin, which plays out constantly in the realm of marriage counseling and from the pulpit where mothers, even fornicating single mothers, are constantly affirmed, and fathers and husbands are constantly torn down for things they didn’t even do.

3. This is reflected in hearing them talk about “love” and “grace”, instead of matters of discipleship, or loving Jesus. Love, instead of being something one does in view of the truth of God becomes “feeling loved”. In other words, when they say “Jesus loves me”, they really mean “Jesus makes me feel loved”. Love is about feelings instead of deed and truth. Grace is along the same lines. Grace means “I can do whatever I want and no consequences shall come to me.” This refrain is all too common from women.

Therein, Jesus proclaims his friends as those who “do whatsoever I command you” (John 15:14) and those that love him “keep my commandments” (John 14:15) and puts the premium on hearing his sayings and doing them (Matthew 7:24-27). John furthermore lays doctrine as the measure (2 John 9) of whether you have Jesus, and Paul lays out that if you have grace to cease sinning (Romans 6). This is warped by the Personal Jesus (as they never accepted the real one in the first place) into self-esteem and personal affirmation. Therefore women are without sin and are not broken or failed. Most of the commenters affirmed that they hate Jesus.

4. Therefore, since women are without sin (and therefore have absolute authority as the Vicars of Christ) and men are base depraved creatures who are incapable of nothing but sin, they have the authority to both approve the standards that they have on men as husbands, and the standards by which men may judge women as wives. This was the major affront (i.e. unbiblical) in the minds of most of the commenters that posted as self-professed Christians. Since they are without sin, they get the right to pick and choose what is “biblical”. They do not follow Christ, but rather their own selves.

5. This is rank naked truthful feminism we are witnessing in action in the comment section – in other words female-supremacist hatred. Most are blind to it for numerous reasons (namely it’s coming from a moral stance), and deceptions (namely that it has to do with “equality”). But in other words, it’s pure naked rebellion against the Father on full display. The sad state of the Church as illustrated in so many places puts Matthew 7:21-23 in full view. There will be those that will cry “Lord Lord” and he will say “away from me evildoer, I never knew you”.

6. Given the haughty nature of most Christian women, as illustrated through feminism, women do not have to consider what they have to offer when dealing with men. Other women, men, and society at large enable them in doing this. They don’t have anything to offer, and furthermore don’t even conceive that they have to offer anything to a man in order for him to wife him up. In fact, her mere Glorious Presence is enough. Again the church and society supports them in this thinking. Women have rights, men have responsibilities. This explains the disproportionate response Dr. Kim received to his article addressing the men about their wives, compared to the one addressing women about their husbands. As Dr. Mohler teaches us himself, you’re supposed to leave the women alone in their sin, but you’re supposed to sock it to the men, no matter whether the men are at fault or not.

As Dr. Kim states, it’s a sad testimony that the atheists are the ones that get what is going on the most right in the responses he received:

Now, granted, I know what these sly atheists are trying to do. However, I couldn’t help but notice the sad irony in all this. Whereas I was receiving false charges by “Christians” that I was misinterpreting the Bible to falsely make my case, it was the atheist who saw through all that nonsense and correctly saw that I was simply and accurately just repeating what the Bible plainly said.

The sad testimony of the church today, is simply that: It’s supposed to stand for something, namely transmitting and enforcing the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth, but in seeking to please the feminist doctrine, it has fallen to the point that it stands for nothing but rank hypocrisy. Sick sad world isn’t it, when the atheists are against Christianity for what the Bible says, and the “Christians” are against Christianity because they don’t know and won’t accept what the Bible says.

Being in a church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than being in a garage makes you a car. There are those that will appropriate the name but will have nothing to do with the real Jesus of Nazareth. Do not expect that He will have anything to do with you, if this is the case.

And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:7-8)

Fireproof in Five Minutes.

(or For Better For Her: How Christian Counseling Destroys Marriage)

Keep hearing all about this Christian phenomena, Fireproof, and wondering what it is all about? But you don’t want to spend the time seeing the whole movie, but got five minutes, I got your hookup. Another video from the North Dakota Family Alliance (aka the gift that keeps on giving) does this for us.

We have the story of Hans and his wife Starr. Pay attention and it takes care of all the Churchian talking points in redefining marriage, and ultimately destroying it.

Naturally if you remember Fireproof, it’s the story of how Caleb the husband doesn’t feel “respected” in his own house. Eventually, the husband does the “dastardly thing” which gives the wife grounds to divorce him, viewing porn in the case of Fireproof. But there are a whole host of other things that make it excusable for a wife to break up the family, all okay with the “Christian” contingent. Meanwhile, she’s doing a whole host of things through the marriage (like pursuing the doctor) that presents no problems whatsoever. After all, she’s the woman, and she’s the victim.

To move to our couple of today:

Starr: I was a button pusher and I knew what buttons to push.
Hans: My anger would just flare out of control, and it would turn into an explosion.
S: From friendly to horrible in a matter of seconds.
S: I think he felt like things were swirling. I could outtalk him. I could, I could take the entire situation, no matter what I done in it, it could about Hans, it could be his fault.
H: We were in an argument and I grabbed her as hard as I could and I threw her down on the bed.

Repeat, the blog author doesn’t condone real physical abuse like what happened. But that’s not what is to be addressed, which is the rest of the video. The rest of the video presents a bigger affront to God than a man’s lapse in loving his wife. A useful place to begin is the bolded sections. There’s a definite admission there, which Scripture speaks to:

A gracious woman retaineth honour: and strong men retain riches. (Proverbs 11:16)

As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion. (Proverbs 11:22)

A foolish son is the calamity of his father: and the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping. (Proverbs 19:13)

It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house. (Proverbs 21:9)

But it could never be that a woman can ever do anything wrong. A woman will “develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally”, so perish the thought that a woman could actually sin! We go on in the story:

S: I was really afraid at that point, because we were married and we had a baby, and things were not getting better. So while he was gone for a week, I had become very involved in an affair.

H: I pulled up to the driveway, and Starr met me there with her bags packed, with our then two year old daughter Kylie, and we went through the exchange of what are you doing and she says I’m leaving, I’m like why, and she’s like are you kidding me, why?

Adultery is always justified of course. But so is divorce in the new Christian system. Divorce is not a hateful evil against the Biblical plan for marriage, and does violence upon both the marriage and God. Divorce, rather, is, as Dalrock describes of Caleb in Fireproof:

Fireproof is a movie about Christian conversion where the catalyst for God to change Caleb’s heart is Catherine initiating divorce.

As with all these stories, Hans and Starr go to “Christian” counseling and find out that God’s change in Hans’ heart is what is required:

H: I started out that counseling session ranting and raving about how Starr was doing this wrong and doing that wrong. I started throwing God’s word in there, and that you know she’s not doing this, she’s not respecting me. I mean the Bible says that I deserve to be respected. Right? [B: He’s right.]

He took a long pause and then he started to read Philippians 2 to me. Jesus came to this earth and deserved everything. He deserved for people to bow down at his feet. He deserved for all the riches of the world. And he had a biblical right to all those things, and yet he chose to take the nature of the servant. And he chose to surrender those rights to God the Father. And as I looked at my life and I looked at Jesus’ life and I saw the huge gap in between the two, the lights came on for me.

You can see the marriage dynamic just flip from Marriage 1.0 to 2.0 in that second paragraph:

And how is that done? Remember that the correct notions of Christ and Church are unacceptable to the feral women, which want to be the Princess and the Queen. Note Starr’s tendency in the first quote of this post: “I could take the entire situation, no matter what I done in it, it could about Hans, it could be his fault.” Note that feral nature. Note that sinful nature. And the church supports it by multiplying the unfaithfulness. First the wives, then them, and now marriage gets redefined, using Philippians 2:6-8 to cast the vision of marriage backwards instead of forwards. As the Marriage transformation chart indicates:

We go on with the story of Hans and Starr:

W: He was changing, and I didn’t like that. Because, everyone either knew or suspected that they knew what I was doing. And he was becoming this great guy, and no one really knew the ins and outs of why I left. We would fight, and I would push all the same buttons and he did not respond the way I was used to him responding.

H: And you have to understand, my life was radically transformed.

W: I remember being very drawn to the man that he was becoming, but now the relationship was dead. I decided I was going to go to counseling, two or three sessions and then be done, that way I could say that I tried and it just didn’t work. And so, I was going to pursue a divorce.

We have a radically transformed life, in that he has now taken the wife in the superior position – he now submits to her. He takes all her abuse, even the adultery (which he would have a Biblical right to divorce her for), with no consequences to her. No responsibility to her. Even note the shame that comes out. But alas, it still isn’t good enough for Starr to have mercy on Hans by not righteously lowering the boom on him. It takes him groveling before her feet in the name of Christ:

S: I vented everything to him about why there was just no way that we were going to make it. And he just listened and then he looked at me in the eye very intently and said “do you believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead?” And I said Yes, I believe that. He said, you think that God can take a dead man and raise him to life to save him, but you don’t think he can heal your marriage.

S: And so, I turned to God this much (holds fingers closely together).

H: It takes 100% dependency on Christ in the moment, in the now. And it looks like constant confession and repentance for me. A light that had been shut off came on, and I wondered, what if God could do it?

And note where all the confession and repentance comes from? This is a good illustration of what “Biblical marriage” has become. Not anything that honors “the biblical model and institution of marriage”. That is indeed under attack, but by the very ones claiming to defend the sanctity of marriage against homogamy, causing the breakdown of the family.

They put the women as above reproach. They cause the man to get frustrated in “leading his family”, leading him to do something “dastardly” that a woman can divorce with their full support. She threatens to lower the boom on him unless he “finds God” (namely submitting to her Personal Jesus). He accepts, putting him in the chattel position to her. But remember what kind of guys feral women like, in fact most women like? It becomes a vicious cycle, and sad to say it, Hans and Starr will likely be back in counseling, and the boom will still come.

It’s a travesty before the Lord, but the ones that should know better are doing it. The Master is not powerless that He won’t come back and deal with the wicked evil servants, appointing them a portion with the hypocrites!

Related:

Begetting Unfaithfulness

As this part is going to tie everything together, I’ll just point to the previous parts (Part 1, Part 2). See also Dalrock’s commentary on the video here.

When you put Stanton’s remarks together as a whole, the concept of unfaithfulness comes about. This is illustrated in a number of ways.

[56:19] As women run the sexual economy, which sexual social value do they universally desire? Monogamy. Monogamy is growing in developing nations. Men make nearly all the laws in all nations. But men are more interested in sexual diversity, having access to many women at a time. So why do men create laws that enforce monogamy? About 2 years ago, some scholars asked that question. Why is monogamy growing in the world as men are the ones that make the rules?

As a human universal, let us remember that feminism in all its forms can be driven back to the curse in the Garden (Genesis 3:16): “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”. The curse is a result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:17)” “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife” This means as a human universal, men in their failures listen to their wives and allow them to be in rebellion to God. Meanwhile, the siren call of the serpent continues to cry in their ears (Genesis 3:5): “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods”. Whatever that thing is that can be partaken of, the serpent is there in the woman’s ears crying out that same message.

Men have been listening to their wives instead of God, and not only have allowed them to partake, but have given them the tools to rebel against God. This means that we get to see what happens when they “develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally” as Stanton says.

[57:45] Again, that is when women argue for and get what they want, one man committed to her, good things happen for the society. So, what is it that shapes men for the better in every single human society and at every time? It’s women. And they do it through marriage and domesticity. Young men in gangs are typically not married young men. Just the opposite. But married men tend to be better men. They tend to buckle down. They tend to concentrate on the things they need to concentrate on.

With the feral woman unleashed, women are getting exactly what they want. This means that we are seeing those good things happening in the society. Things like the de-emphasis of marriage, in favor of attaining the feminist merit badges. Things like de-emphasising marriage as a lifetime commitment (women are the ones that don’t commit to marriage!) via no-fault divorce. Things like Stanton points out regarding cohabitation instead of “commitment”. Things like rampant divorce. Things like fornication. Things like a wife pushing the father of her kids out the door when she gets bored and unhappy, they’re even heroes so says Stanton! Things like the acceptance of fornication within the church – but only on the woman’s terms. The sad statement in this society full of good things is that the church, and people like Glenn Stanton are supporting these things, but for the woman. Her motives are full of goodness and light, so she must have all that she wants.

The truth is that women favor serial monogamy, over lifetime marriage. This is typified by the removal of commitment in anything to do with a pair bond between men and women. Instead of having husband and wife, it became “going steady”, it became boyfriend and girlfriend. More and more levels and more and more outs are given a woman to be able to jump away from a man when she finds something better. A woman is even given the out of no-fault divorce, if she even marries a man and finds that she is bored and unhappy

Stanton and me? Dude we’re best bros!

Enter sexual economics and these ideas of Stanton’s, and you get the idea of hypergamy, rooted in traditional feminism. A woman, left to her own devices, will select poorly. The graphic to the left as become a favorite meme photo of mine for a number of reasons. One of them is that it’s typical of the man she chooses. Instead of having the boring attributes of being Christian, in control of his life, a good goal in his life independent of her, she chooses the exciting guy that appeals to her flesh. The guy that looks hot. The guy that lives on the edge. The guy that’s just drifting through life. But he has a Harley! He’s a drummer in that rock band! He just looks soooo hot!

She can get with these guys, and it’s all okay. It’s not her own bad choices of putting her heart towards the feminist merit badges, while doing the eat pray love thing through Alpha McGorgeous and Harley McBadBoy. It’s all those guys that are just so not “commitment minded”. To a certain extent it is them too, because the church has rendered them into effeminate milquetoasts in the name of what women said they want (but not what they really need). Then there’s society and the church blocking men from acting like real Christian men instead of the Betty. There are too many rationalizations out there keeping this feminine Lord of the Flies going in the heads of the Churchians like Stanton who believe that women are without sin. The fact is:

This is what happened when women argued for and got what they want.

Let’s look at the question further. Stanton incorrectly alleges (the evidence in society is abundantly clear) that wives civilize husbands by whoring themselves out to them (and engaging the threatpoint that no-fault divorce gives them), using himself as an example.

[58:25] I remember Jackie for me. I started school when I was 28. Jackie and I got married when I was 20. After a while, Jackie said, I’m going to want kids. I don’t know if you do, I’m gonna, and you’re going to give me kids, and I want a house that we own to raise our kids in. That means you’re going to have to go to college, that means you’re going to have to get a real job. I didn’t walk away, because I like Jackie. I said, okay. Yes Ma’am. And I started, and I did okay. I never thought I would be doing what I’m doing today. But it was Jackie who cracked the whip and got me going.

One of the fascinating things I find in Scripture about marriage is the relationship between it and Christ and the Church. There’s so many lessons to be taken from both, because as I say, marriage is a physical representation of a spiritual reality.

Christ is the one that justifies those of us in His Church by His sacrifice on the Cross. This by the nature is the Gospel (1 Peter 2:24; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 5:1). He is the one that “also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (Ephesians 5:25-27) This is what is known as sanctification, or being conformed to the image of Christ (Philippians 2:13; Galatians 5:22-23).

According to Stanton, if women shape men for the better, then that means the Church must be what shapes Christ for the better.

This leads into the other reason I like that graphic so much. I associate the graphic with the concept of the Personal Jesus because once you recognize this dynamic, Jesus has to become something that the woman can shape into what she wants. The recognition of a powerful Jesus requires that you have to fear Him and recognize that you need to submit to Him so He can change you – a dangerous proposition to a feral woman. To make it harmless to the feral woman, the unfaithfulness to God must increase.

To look at Stanton’s commentary in light of the Christ is to Church as Husband is to Wife comparison, it becomes a clear that it presents a different gospel. If the Bride is what shapes the Groom for the better, then Christ becomes lesser. Christ becomes sinful (Hebrews 4:15). Christ becomes powerless (Ephesians 1:17-23). Then He becomes like what the feminists want to make each man into: An Effeminate man who submits to his wife.

It should be notable that an arriving naval officer is what resolved Lord of The Flies, not the introduction of a woman. This is because from the beginning of time, even to Christ, men are the ones who are the civilizing force on society, not women. This was even shown in the past as a woman’s father is the one who vetted his daughter’s boyfriends instead of her, resulting in things being much better for her. As with many facts, they have been forgotten in the name of enabling feral women.

And it will be to our deteriment.