Moore on Submission (and an epiphany)

Some personal reflection mixed with commentary about a sermon I sat through last weekend.

H/T Cane….thankye

Back in May of last year I wrote “Women Stop Submitting”, an entry about Dr. Russell Moore and his notion that the problem in the church, and our take on Ephesians 5, is that women are submitting to all men, not just their husbands.

Today, I returned to the same church I visited last week, and as providence would have it, Mr. Moore was there in the flesh as a guest speaker. His message? The same one I found on his blog, parsed and posted about as I mentioned above. I’d use the expression that this was kind of manna for the blog, but it set in motion a bad sequence of events. It made the day a bad day. It put me on my heels.

We have a comprehensive problem, and we have a comprehension problem. At the very very least, these messages are not unequivocal. People hear different things. I listen with the bias of a red pill Christian man. A middle aged wife, for example, listens with not so much a bias, but an innocent expectation that something that doesn’t overtly seem harmful is not therefore intended for anything but good, nor is it potentially heard in any way that could have ill effect. On that we would agree, it is intended for good. Dr. Moore is very charming and a gifted orator. He may be an interesting man to sit and talk to about many things. He would likely, however, be a supremely frustrating man to discuss this topic with; he has been marinating in (t)his message so long it is to the core. We know that it is exceedingly rare when that outlook changes and is usually only possible after presented with very personal disaster in the person’s own marriage or in the marriage of someone very close. In other words, the numbers and the big picture are somehow not compelling.

I have been sincerely contemplative about this lately, more so than ever, in the sense that I ask myself am I allowing my obsession with these wrong teachings to skew my perspective similarly to how I accuse the church of allowing its obsession with abortion, gay marriage, and a few “man sins” to skew its perspective. I’ve prayed about this. Ive concluded that indeed my perspective has been skewed similarly. Now I have to decide what to do about it.

Does this epiphany change my opinion about the issues? Absolutely not. But it necessarily changes my resource allocation, the resource being namely… Blogging, reading for the purpose of blogging, and reading blogs with the intent of making comments are all fine things in more moderation. I will try to own that.

It changes nothing about Mr. Moore and his misguided focus.

Mr. Moore’s point with his provocative blog entry title is that the problem is not that women are not in submission, the problem is that they are in submission to all men. He then explains that women are, “even in the church” filling rolls and posturing themselves according to widespread male expectations based on widespread wrong teaching of Ephesians 5. He asserts that it is the norm, and a growing problem, that the church is placing women in submission to all men. He goes on to explain that this means the women are constantly trying to meet expectations of men, expectations put on them through advertising in the secular realm, and again, false teaching in the Christian realm. He “calls out” the women telling them to stop doing this; this is his accountability lesson to women.

On his blog he has another post where he further confuses his already mixed message by explaining why women should not be in church leadership. It leaves the reader to make sense of the melange of opinions.

For men, he has a word. He starts with an anecdote about a man who came to see him in his office claiming discontentment at home due to his wife being lazy. The man explains that he is in graduate school (he never says what the field of study is) and that the woman is working to support them meanwhile. The man says his wife is depressed and cries weekly as she returns to work because she wants to stop working and have kids. The man says he tells her that they are on the agreed plan, once he finishes he will be the one to work.

I understand the opinions on that will be mixed. I hope that I can convey what Dr. Moore said to the man. When the man asked him what he should do, Moore said he asked if the guy needed him to show him with modeling clay (exact example). He told the guy he needed to lead, and if that meant he go to work and let her stay home its his place to see to it that her needs are met and they he is spiritually nourishing her dreams. The gist was simple, if mamma ain’t happy… that.

He then launched into a rant about men and “digital prostitutes”, and men telling women “go get me some chips”. People laughed as he explained…”that’s not what servant leadership is all about”. He used Jesus washing feet as the first example, then segued to Peter telling Jesus they would not allow Jesus to be crucified, that they would fight to defend him. Then he said, Jesus did none of this using his position of power, rather he lead as a servant leader.

I guess he missed “Get behind me satan”. Again, I was shocked.

As he summed up and then prayed, his admonishment to men was about porn, abuse, and cheating. He then admonished the women to “stop submitting other men” which as he put it was the source of female fornication and promiscuous behavior in general. Get that? Men are LEADING women into promiscuity, and into low self image. He referenced the Ad executives specifically, clearly never opening a woman’s magazine and reading its masthead to see the management hierarchy. (He should read Serial monogamy, hypergamy is polygamy” over at Society of Phineas. )

Thundering standing ovation…..a few thousand folks on their feet.

But what happened next really taught me more than all of the above. My wife told me she didn’t hear what I did. I could easily go down a path of criticism of my wife, and initially I did, but that path is neither fruitful, nor is it fair or correct. I realized again how insidious this meme is, that her and I could have such a very divergent recollection of what points were made. When she told me what she heard, amazingly it was all pretty sound exposition. So as to not belabor that, I concluded that my expectation was realized in the message, and I do not reduce my skepticism one iota, but that lots of people hear very different things. That is good and its bad. Its good in the case of my wife and those who may be of similar mind. But its bad that I am certain that there were men and women there getting just another male supplication message. Why am I certain? Because the big picture bears it out.

This phenomenon where pastors preach a form of truth, people hear something truth-ish, and whole groups of people may well be sincere believers but are left dangerously deceived and manipulated by minions, lying spirits, emotions, whatever can be seen from prosperity preaching, hyper charismatic Benny Hinn type stuff, liberal feel good pop psych type preaching, and this, the guise of hard core Christian conservatism serving a female imperative (not the coined term). We were told about this, about sheep’s clothing and false teachers and forms of knowledge and all manner of confusion. Its not surprising. There is a lot to know, isn’t there?

We are all subject to our vulnerability to manipulation. Dogged determination to stamp out false teaching on marriage and divorce can cloud the mind and harden the heart if allowed. That doesn’t change what happened. It hopefully changes my perspective a little though so I don’t bring problems that I do not have into my life just because I feel they are very real and widespread problems.

[ETA: I had intended to copy some comments here that were made on Moore’s blog. These comments support my my take on how the message was likely heard. To be clear, though he mentions a woman’s submission to her one husband as crucial, it is so de-emphasized and papered over with other things that stir indignation in the women, you can see here that they react viscerally in agreement to that part about the men they DON’T have to submit to.]

A mixture of male and female comments about the message:


Thank you, thank you, thank you for this. I am sending this on to all of my friends.


I second your gratitude. Dr. Moore, thank you so much for writing this. I found your words to be so healing and helpful in directing us toward God’s Word regarding submission. Through this post, the Lord has healed some of my past injuries and has helped me to more clearly discern ways in which I’m sojourning in this world and reflecting the Gospel of Christ through my marriage. I too shared this post with single and married ladies I’m currently ministering to. Dr. Moore, may His grace and peace abound to you, your family, and your church! …and to all of you reading, I pray your hearts be filled with anticipation and worship and thanksgiving for the manifold forgiveness we have been given in Christ Jesus, as we His Bride prepare to celebrate Immanuel, God with us!


I find no fault in your assessment or argument. The difficulty, as I see it in addition is that not only are we women misguided in our understanding of submission, we are also lacking strong, godly men (husbands) to submit to


Thanks for reminding us of the biblical standard and not the world’s in raising/encouraging young women for the gospel.


The submission of a wife to her own husband would be no problem at all if men would obey Eph. 5:25 & 31
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it;”


Good article. I think we too often read Eph 5:22 and forget 5:21,22-33. Indeed, there is more said about husbands loving and sacrificing for their wives–giving up their desires in favor of their wife–than there is about wives submitting to their husbands. Personally, I think if husbands did a lot more of the “giving up” and “sacrificing” we’d have a lot less issues with the “wives submit” part.


Why do we always forget the most important part of this section of scripture? Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the church. If we as men did this, then Hollywood and Madison Avene would not use sex for financial gain; because it would be looked upon with utter disgust. Instead, because we as men do not do our part, it creates the license for the world to do as they wish.


Very well articulated! The Church has really messed up on this issue in the recent and historical past. Sadly, submission has often been a club used by males to control females and the backlash has alienated many modern women to the truth of Scripture. (The abuses of power on this issue have resulted in wrong conclusions like: submission is hurting women and is wrong… Paul really was wrong when he wrote this… this could not be inspired by God… is the Bible all the inspired word of God?)
I have often observed over the years that many Christian women who have been manipulated by spouses and the body of Christ in the name of submission have become disheartened after many years, (left their husbands in frustration) and become disillusioned with Christianity


Please will someone hold the men accountable for their attitudes, their behaviors, their domination and control?
No wonder women fight back.


Well dangit. I got all excited about this post and read line by line with a thrill in my heart.

And then I got to the save-yourself-for-submission-to-your-husband part. This is still a patriarchal lens over the beauty of mutuality and otherliness that husbands and wives are commended in scripture.

Telling women to submit to their husbands is to tell a woman to detach from her personal sovereignty and give responsibility for her life to another. This is what we do with our children. And our pets. Women are not children nor pets.

Lets give up a round of applause for Dave who actually brought something back to the dialog. There were a handful of posts challenging the writer, but this one gets my “post of the blog” award.


Is it really empowerment to have more and more women economically at the mercy of men who freely abandon them and their children, often with little legal recourse?

When then is it that women are more likely to divorce there husbands than vice versa? (The research seems to suggest that one of the causes is that family courts and child support laws favor women rather than the reverse).


26 thoughts on “Moore on Submission (and an epiphany)

  1. Excellent post, Empath. Our situation is slightly different. I now hear the “man up” rants for what they are. My husband on the other hand, has always noted the imbalance and dismissed a lot of what these people have to teach. I think your closing point is really the heart of the matter:

    It hopefully changes my perspective a little though so I don’t bring problems that I do not have into my life just because I feel they are very real and widespread problems.

    When you come into the truth, you have to be careful not to make trouble where none exists. I think your decision to pause and reflect speaks well of your judgement.

    Oh, one more thing: This notion of women submitting to all men. I actually think I understand what this fellow was trying to get at. A lot of women (especially church women) tend to have a romantic, idealized picture of men in church leadership in their minds. The result is that they offer deference to the leaders that they wouldn’t offer to their own husbands.

    Back when I first returned to the faith and to the church as a young bride (alone) I was blessed that an older woman in the ministry I was involved in said point blank: “If the decision is between doing something we ask, and taking care of home, husband and home come first.” It was never an issue for me because having grown up with a father in church leadership at a very small church, I had no romantic notions about the infallibility of those in leadership or that they were better men than my husband.

    A lot of women struggle with that however, so I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss it. Even women who have the best intentions can fall into the trap of wrong thinking.

  2. I can see how I left off an emphasis, the man was saying, however, that the women are submitting not to church leadership, lay or otherwise, but rather to men in general…in the church, meaning the larger body of believers beyond even the physical church they are in. He was praising a saintly heart of service in women and suggesting that was being exploited by men, not just in detailed ways…..promiscuity….but in the larger context of just the hue and tone of the place(s)

    You get this better if you visit Moore’s blog and read some of his stuff. Also, now as I respond to you I forgot to add to the post some of the comments made by women following his post (the one in my post that I mention at the beginning). The feedback from women following his blog on women submit too much was exactly what I would have expected based on what I heard him say, which vindicated me to some extent in my insistence that I heard what I heard.

  3. Okay, I’ll read up on him. I didn’t realize he was saying that the women were submitting to all men.

    That just sounds ludicrous.

  4. Ah, now I see. That was absurd. First of all, women are doing most of the things he described at the behest of and because of pressure from other women.

    Additionally, women always have and always will do their level best to attract an acceptable mate. How is this some twisted form of submission rather than the smart thing to do?

    Finally, his post leaves little room for women to be held accountable as free moral agents. Decide to be a porn star? You’re submitting to men. Dress like a slut? That’s submission to random men. Fornicating? You’re submitting to men. Well, I have to admit that possibility but there is the equal possibility that said woman is doing exactly what she wants to do.

    I see what you mean now. He seems to be saying (though I’m sure he doesn’t mean to say this), that women don’t sin. We simply submit to the more evil inclinations of the patriarchy that keeps us oppressed. The advantages women have gained are all imaginary so long as women’s sin is a direct result of misguided submission. Men, not Jesus, need to save us from ourselves.

    Are we on the same page now?

  5. Good find Empath. This is some pretty insidious stuff here. Much more subtle than what SSM is talking about now. The Church’s problems do not come from without, as many claim, but from within.

    On only a slightly different note, I wonder if men like Moore are more like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, or the Sadducees?

  6. I think the core problem is the denial of female rebellion. There is a giant game of make believe where the last 40+ years of feminism simply don’t exist, or are entirely attributable to men. We literally have sluts marching down mainstreet in nearly every major city in the west. More broadly, over 40% of all children are now born out of wedlock and over 50% of children born to women under 30 are now out of wedlock. This is due to the other profound trend of our day, women taking great pains not to waste any more of their youth on their husbands than is absolutely necessary. Marriage rates for women in their 20s are in freefall, and as I pointed out above we have the out of wedlock birth rates to show for it. And this is without even considering the rampant wife initiated divorce rate. Yet the church slumbers, and if we get anything beyond a yawn it is something like Courageous which lays the problem solely at the feet of men. Feminism is just as pernicious in the church but it is papered over with passive aggressiveness. Moore at some level understands this, and then he perpetuates it in the sermon you reference. If looked at in the right way, it seems like a sound biblical message. However once you consider the context, during the middle of arguably the greatest time of female rebellion in human history, his sermon is obvious for what it is. Don’t shoot at me rebels, I’m one of the good guys! (and out of the other side of his mouth) Follow me men, I’m one of the good guys who will clean this rebellion up!

    Like you I have prayed about what my role should be in exposing this, and I’ve come to a place of peace in understanding that all of this will eventually come out in the wash. In the meantime, I think we are making a difference, but I’ve made it a point to draw lines on how much focus I will place on this. Unlike so many others, my marriage is fantastic. My wife and I more resemble teenage best friends at a sleepover than what so many marriages are going through. The irony is the rebellion is making women (not just men) absolutely miserable. Men and women who continue to provide fuel for the rebellion are not only sinning profoundly, they are directly harming the audience they are passively aggressively playing to.

  7. I too have a fantastic marriage, and would share the teenager descriptor, though its not always been so. For obvious reasons I cannot share too much about that, but wish I could.
    As you can see I worried about this a lot after I escalated something with my wife that was not really deserving of escalation, my bias and dogged passion has no business finding wedges in my home. Go looking and every one of us can find wedges, then if that wedge looks even a tiny bit like something of our ideological passions we can then blow that little wedge into a front on the full battle…..when that is plain ridiculous.

    How are we making a difference? That’s not to say one way or the other. I’m genuinely curious what YOU see as us making a difference because with your enormous scope and I assume lots of folks trying to email or contact you to agree or rebut, you no doubt have an unscientific but compellingly large view of this. If you prefer, send me an email if the nature of what you would say fits there better, but I think it would be encouraging to many if you have something tangible, if anecdotal, to point to that is progress.

  8. @Empath

    How are we making a difference? That’s not to say one way or the other. I’m genuinely curious what YOU see as us making a difference because with your enormous scope and I assume lots of folks trying to email or contact you to agree or rebut, you no doubt have an unscientific but compellingly large view of this. If you prefer, send me an email if the nature of what you would say fits there better, but I think it would be encouraging to many if you have something tangible, if anecdotal, to point to that is progress.

    I suspect what I see isn’t much different than what you already see. It took over 40 years to get to where we are, and I don’t harbor any illusions that we are going to suddenly turn things around. I also don’t as of yet see any signs that the churches and pastors are doing anything other than business as usual.

    But if you compare where we are now with where we were two years ago (or any time over the last 40 years) there are important advances. Much of the difficulty is addressing the rampant denial and emotional responses embedded within the denial. When you first started on your own path, I think it is safe to say that your first challenge was to even explain that something was wrong. Together we have formalized a great deal of thinking on this and have brought this together with hard data. Our core arguments are bulletproof, which is why no one bothers to try to argue against them and why we (sometimes maddeningly) focus our internal disagreement bickering about the smaller points on the periphery. In the past if someone wanted to understand what was wrong they had to do the work you and I did separately and figure it all out step by painful step. We’ve now created a space where someone who wants to get it can do so much more easily and quickly. This may seem small, but I would argue that it is an essential first step. Now for example someone who wants to have the conversation with their pastor can print off one of our posts (my recent one showing how similar fireproof is to EPL and Joel and Kathy comes to mind) and use that as a conversation starter. If the pastor tries to explain all is well, they can point to the census data showing the freefall in women marrying in their 20s as well as the skyrocketing out of wedlock birth rate, etc.

    We also can see the impact of our thinking on the larger conversation. Each month our mindshare grows. When I started there wasn’t even a term “manosphere” let alone a Christian Manosphere. I certainly wasn’t the first, but we have grown together to create something which didn’t exist just a few years ago. I’m proud of the small part I played in that, and you should be proud of the important role you have played as well. Also, note now how Zippy is participating in our discussions and applying the parts he agrees with in his discussions with more traditional bloggers and readers. This is the nature of the medium and I expect to only see more of this.

    Just as important, we now understand the issues well enough to give truly helpful practical advice to husbands and wives who don’t want to play the churchian game any more. One of the things which strikes me the most about Yahoo Answers is how often wives are grateful for the very counter cultural advice I give them. It isn’t the answer they were expecting, but very often they realize it was the answer they desperately wanted. My wife has incredible results working one on one with mostly women as well. In this regard Cane’s recent posts starting with Tacomaster are something of beauty.

    But lest you think I’m painting a happy face on all of this, at the macro level it is really, really bad. The bottom is falling out from under marriage, the nuclear family, and sexual morality, and much of the cost of this is baked in but yet to be realized. But even here there is reason for hope, because what has allowed pastors to play this game of denial for so many decades is the ability to pretend that it was mostly working. The reality is the results were just slow to show up, but now that they are showing up they are coming with a vengeance. Sooner or later enough Christians will have had enough of this game, and when they start looking for answers (just like we did), they will find a core group of like minded Christians who have laid a bit of the groundwork. Ultimately isolated congregations will repent and purge the corruption of feminism or new churches will spring up, but either way I have every confidence that a small but meaningful minority of Christians will ultimately repent, and as they reap the fruits of this others won’t be able to help but take notice. Today we are doing this one family at a time, but eventually this will become one congregation at a time. I have no idea on how soon this might happen, it could start in two years or it could start in 15. But I don’t have any question that the truth of what we are discussing will ultimately come out.

  9. Thanks, that was a good answer. And a bit of a pep talk for those of us pecking away, reading, and interacting.

    Ive prepared a rather long post that I’m holding. In it I lay out my pitch that finally got a pastors attention last year. I learned through years of trail and error, and while the mega church didn’t have an overt conversion, nor any real noticeable changes (yet), the man HEARD me. It was a first, after trying logic, proof, stats, anger, sadness, whatever, finally a succinct organized way of doing it that connected. So I thought Id share it, not that its for everyone because it involves some personal testimony (which we all have) and some just may not like it.

    If I am not here to see something happen, a man at a time, then I’m here for very wrong reasons. Joe of Jackson took it up another notch and tried to teach it and got scuttled. Maybe some effective narrative to the pastor in advance could have cleared the way a bit.

    These people are really lost in this. It has every force and all planets aligned to keep it as is. You have done a remarkable thing. I recall a few years back, likely when you were first starting, I stumbled on your blog and tried mentally bookmarking it without doing so on the browser. Laid plans… I knew then it NEEDED to grow and get out, and well, history …all that. Not blowing butt smoke just sayin’. Take a well deserved back pat because I spend lots of time just trying to create a decent product, how much more to generate and keep the attention of a diverse group like yours. My point other than the compliment is I was thinking the other day about the ebb and flow of your blog and how there is sort of something for everyone…in sphere terms-everyone, and how that serves to pry you into lots more spaces. I say this not about ginning up hits-per numbers but about effectiveness.

    Writing to those outside of the christian community, or writing that is interesting for that group is and then weaving in men’s issues in the church is a sensible way to influence the culture at large, on sphere issues, and in a form of witness. I know that witnessing to men can best be done intellectually at first. Engage the mind. Not only is nothing wrong with that, everything is right with it.

    With that I cease what could be seen as Dalrock pandering. Cannot have that among men.

    [ETA: I’d have sent an email but that would really be bad….something about boy scouts and stuff]

  10. @Dalrock: “Much of the difficulty is addressing the rampant denial”

    I couldn’t agree more. Thankfully, data and everyday observations are highlighting the problem, so it’s much easier to get traction. We are in a freefall, this is certain, and it’s getting harder and harder to whitewash the reality.

    Without the rampant distruction of families as a backdrop, I wouldn’t attemp to dislodge conventional thinking. Too much inertia. I would be content to pull my family outside of the camp and wait for the Lord to return. But now, the effects of sin are so obvious, that many are starting to question their programming. It’s an opportunity, albeit a sad one.

    Hmmm, sin is abounding, but grace even more so.

  11. Ah, I think I get it. Yes where sin abounds….so forth to grace. But there is no dichotomy here as there is no condemnation targeting the sinners with anything, coming from us I mean. In fact, the truth of the expression that ends with “grace also abounds” is one key aspect of the rationale the church leaders use to avoid confronting certain sin. They fear being seen as lacking in grace…..for the divorcED. Therefore they fail to speak on divorce, the thing, in the abstract in any way that would make those who have done it feel convicted. So any effort to stifle it in the future is gagged by the fear of offending those with it in their past. But not so fast. Actually the leader doesnt fear men that have been divorced, he calls them out on porn and cheating and abuse and all manner of neglect, and offers dire warning that it will destroy their family and lead to divorce. But not the ladies. They do not hear corresponding warnings. And they certainly are not told that divorce is wrong.

    Imagine church leader deciding between saying “homosexuality is sin” and “divorce is sin” openly, in the sermon. Which is the easy choice, the one that would garner AMEN from those sinner lovers in the crowd?

    There is no forced choice between calling out sin and extending grace.

  12. Empath, you’re missing my point.

    I’m talking about an opportunity. Generally speaking, the Church is in ruin, and it’s nigh impossible to claim otherwise. The tower of Babel was going great until the LORD frustrated their designs. It’s very sad that it took such devastation within the Church to penetrate our thick heads, but this is a unique opportunity to point out the problem. Start at the beginning and speak as to children (careful with the tone, I’m being glib on purpose):
    * Sin! Everyone got it? Good! Next, we need a solution…
    * Jesus and His marvelous work on the cross. Eternally effective. Wow, let’s praise Him.
    * How do we do that? Maybe God’s Word has a few suggestions…
    * Offer the sacrifice of praise and glorify His Name. Obey His will. Show Him the gratitude and reverence that He thoroughly deserves. Practical suggestions?
    * Sure! Marriage is supposed to represent Christ and His Bride, the Church. Will He be pleased to come back and find her spoiled and rolling in the gutter? NO!!! Everyone cries in unison…
    * Then let’s not encourage sin in husbands or wives. Let’s follow His teaching and spare ourselves the sorrow and shame of living in filth. Let’s glorify Him with all that we have.
    * There are several verses that might point us in the right direction…
    * Etc.

    Lead other believers through the process. Show one point after another that refutes the world. It’s difficult and it takes time, but this is our opportunity to teach scriptural truth and turn back the tide of delusion.

  13. Ok better (my understanding). I was a bit harsh on Canes blog so forgive me please, the harshness…Im going to stay with the content.

    We are talking about the leaders….some BIG TIME leaders.

    I do address the leaders respectfully, as you can see here tomorrow. I am posting the basic narrative that I use. It’s different than what you describe in that it takes on a different form. I cannot lead a pastor socratically using scripture nor have I found data and trends effective. Incidentally I have not found those things effective with individual believers either.

    Let me ask you, would you recommend exactly the same approach, the template I mean, if you were to take on other cultural issues that have crossed into the church including the churches two favorites, abortion and gay marriage or homosexuality in general…or how about pornography. My asking here corrupts the integrity of your response.

  14. “But lest you think I’m painting a happy face on all of this, at the macro level it is really, really bad. The bottom is falling out from under marriage, the nuclear family, and sexual morality, and much of the cost of this is baked in but yet to be realized. ”

    Its starting to be realized for Millennials. A young Christian, or even non-Christian, man who is looking for a good wife is feeling the full force of decades of feminism imposed upon society. I think that is where the most room for growth can be found for the “sphere.”

    The truth is that most Churches, at least Protestant Churches, won’t survive. The ability to Church Shop gives women the power and ability to simply move from a Church that starts acting Biblically to one that makes her “feel” happy. Lets take the example of JoJ. Assume that he had cleared things with the head Pastor first. Would that have made a difference? Doubtful, considering that it was politics which forced that head Pastor to toss JoJ out of the Church. That Pastor was afraid of the women in that Church, afraid of what they could do to him. He is far from alone.

    You will be hard pressed to influence a Pastor, much less a Church. But young men are another story. Most aren’t nearly as invested in their current positions as Church leaders. They can be reached. They will be receptive to the message. The “Red Pill” will come easily to most of them, where the effects of feminism are all around them. That is where real change can begin.

  15. @donalgraeme

    You will be hard pressed to influence a Pastor, much less a Church. But young men are another story. Most aren’t nearly as invested in their current positions as Church leaders. They can be reached. They will be receptive to the message. The “Red Pill” will come easily to most of them, where the effects of feminism are all around them. That is where real change can begin.

    I think you are generally right on pastors other church leaders. They will in my guess be the hardest to sell, since they have the most to repent for. The ramifications are staggering. All the more reason to repent, but I suspect it will be too painful for most, certainly at first.

    I disagree slightly on women though. Large numbers of women are starving for biblical marriage. This is counterintuitive given that women are in open rebellion, but the fact is very large numbers of wives hate not having a real, biblical, husband. It is killing them. Not all are or will be willing to walk away from feminism, but I think you would be very surprised at how many are even today open to returning to biblical marriage roles. Once you have one congregation getting it right, other wives are going to want to get in on that deal. No matter what feminists say, husbands mean status, and if we get it right the status competition among women can work in our favor. This is all built in to the way the Apostle Paul frames it in his letters to the early churches.

  16. I’m not quite sure what you mean by status competition Dalrock. Do you mean amongst already married women? Or unmarried women?

    I can see where a congregation filled with real men who act like men would draw women in. But are you trying to draw in already married women? The idea being that they will want their husbands to be in that Church in the hopes that it will make them more manly?

  17. Take the liberty to say yes, dalrock meant they will want to achieve that in their own marriages. I agree.
    I also see the point about the younger men who in the backwash of feminism and they know it. Look at this link, this poor young man trying so hard to get women to praise him, and see the comments below it from the young men who read him regularly. They are fed up, and they are raging manginas. I read this guy sometimes to see that my life and circles are better. I commented too, and rarely do.

    They are in a place where they have hard hearts to femism and culture at large. How hard will they be to see the point? I don’t know but it looks possible.

    On pastors, I like trying. If one adjusted himself and boldly told his crowd he had been off base, and wants to fix it, then as Alan said, builds a case in segments, easy scripture based truths, and lays out the big one,,,,the Women Step Up speech…..first I want a ticket…seriously though it would test my other belief that he would be pummeled with mail and threats of leaving,,,,some would walk day one,,,,and me would be dragged along, only after being given the time and place for men who wanted to hear Christian teaching to men about men that didn’t have porn etc as its focus, rather it was about restoration of home and family to the betterment of all in family, kids etc, men’s role laid out without apology and with Gods grace present.
    Then as Dal says a church splits,,,leaving behind something wonderful that will draw others, maybe even men will bow and drag women there. I getting riled up thinking on it,

  18. Empath, this ^^^^^ is where I am aiming. You got it.
    * Bread crumbs leading through important truths, one at a time, until…
    * Recognition dawns that there is a way to salvage families in everyone’s best interest. There should be several real believers present who see it.
    * A clear-cut biblical template for husbands and wives already exists.
    * Critical mass occurs and the message takes off.
    Yeah, it’s worth getting riled up. And it’s easier to submit to authority when you’re on a winning team — especially for the women who will form a collective around the idea. Show them a path to a better life and they will stampede to your cause. Men will naturally see the chance to build a better life and run with it — especially when they see a positive reaction from teh wiminz. Critical mass.

    I don’t doubt that Moore is trying to thread this needle, but it doesn’t came naturally after a lifetime of feminist programming. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not writing him off as a lost cause. Could a well-placed word bring him around?

    Cane seems like he’s spitting fire and brimstone. Maybe I’ll take up the scorched-earth issue over there…

  19. Michael McManus and Marriage Savers appears to be a group that is having a positive impact on whole churches, even communities of churches. Ive corresponded with him about it and am comfortable, so far, with what he says. I like him too.
    They enter a zone, the point being to pick a group of churches in an area to adopt their program then network the pastors together. Thats how they have shown the most effect, and if you google them and read their results, its very impressive

  20. @Empath: “a group that is having a positive impact”

    Bingo. That’s great leverage to squeeze out bad teaching. Play it like this: “I’m not comfortable with _____’s teaching, but have you heard about _____?” This is the hook.

    I know that this is a squishy approach, but it’s a female-friendly message — and will normally get through their filters. If you get the perfect follow-up question, “What’s the matter with _____? I thought it was great.” Then, you’re off to the races… “Well, it should follow the teaching of scripture better, here _____, here _____, and here _____. I get a lot out of this. I like it better.” This is addictive stuff for a woman.

    I’m not in favor of diluting the message or playing games, but these practical adjustments smooth out the delivery. A woman prefers confirmation over debate. Let her conform to a more truthful message. When she’s left the garbage behind, teaching becomes easier. Afterward, it’s more about maintenance than conversion. YMMV, but I’ve gotten good results this way.

    I’ll check out your references when I have a minute. Don’t want to recommend an unknown message. Hopefully, they’re on the right track. It’s encouraging to see positive ministry.

  21. Pingback: Her rebel yell, “Moore, Moore, Moore”, “Russelling” up a secular edition | Feminism is Empathological

  22. Pingback: Links #4 and Comments | The Society of Phineas

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s