Matriarchal Utopia? Or Rodent Gommorah?

In 1968 Garret Hardin published “The Tragedy of the Commons” in the journal, “Science”. In it he explored the concept that publicly shared resources could be overrun by users who being pressed by short term self-interest could destroy a resource that they should rather preserve by cooperation through the motivation of long term self-interest. Usually this is where Malthusian discussions of overpopulation kick in, I don’t intend to go there. Instead, I am thinking about another overpopulation experiment that essentially has a tragedy of the commons worked into it: John Calhoun’s Mouse Utopia and the concept of the “behavioral sink“. The concepts that flow from Calhoun’s work naturally work with Hardin’s ideas and are frequently discussed together with current events like urban population, crime and violence (which I think has merit). However, I think that the REAL tragedy was overlooked.

The overpopulation in Calhoun’s Utopia’s served as a stressor, primarily to rodent breeding, and rearing behavior. However, unlike Calhoun or any of his Malthusian Zero Population Growth proponents I’m not looking at the overpopulation except as a generic stressor upon society (that may be replaced with many others). By divorcing the particulars of the stressor from the outcome I think that we can learn a whole lot more about what other stressors may be accomplishing. Rather than looking at the stressor we look at the results of the stress. For example, in the mice, the destructive “behavioral sink” was caused by an excess of social and spacial pressures on the territorial behavior of the sexually reproductive males. Essentially pressure built to the point where they were unable to defend their territory, their breeding opportunities based on that space and the young rearing activities of their mates. The females responded to this stress by attacking their pups, driving them out of the nests and refusing to build or maintain nests suitable for the rearing of young. This ultimately resulted in the extirpation of the colony. No breeding, no rearing, and no going back. Sound familiar?

If I were applying Calhoun to humans, I would not be focusing on population as the chief stressor. We aren’t seeing waves of “dropouts” going on violent raping and killings sprees even after they have washed out socially and suffered what Calhoun described as “the first death” (think prison as the locus of our behavioral sinks). Instead the pressures on successful child rearing in the West take on a subtler form. The anti-family predations of culture which incite child destroying behavior. The universal destruction of male space, male “privileges” and male ownership. I don’t believe it all is an accident.

Examine Calhoun’s Mouse Utopia #25. What were described in the experiment as “dropouts” broke psychologically. They started congregating in the central space and lashing out with random violence, cannibalism and what is described as hyper and/or pansexualism. A mousy little Sodom and Gomorrah. Eventually these “miscreants” began impinging upon the behaviors of sexually productive mice causing THEM to dropout. Quickly the fabric of the mouse society devolved into a death spiral, breaking into several groups with the mosh-pit mice and the socially withdrawn mice. Socially withdrawn females and even a group of males who focused on nothing but eating, drinking and grooming which Calhoun dubbed “the beautiful ones”, little mousy MGTOWS.

After reading years of Dalrock, and many others, I’m becoming convinced that Western societies have essentially been driven to this tipping point. The “commons” are the ability for men to provision and lead their families. The “space” to have positive authority in the lives of their children. The moral suasion of the priest and head of their wife and children. Even to the point of having meaningful contact. The ability to shield them from the destructive forces of the depraved “first deather’s” (feminists, family courts, secular culture, higher education and on and on). The servant husband and father is on the brink of extinction and that his sacrifices are largely unwanted and despised. The incentives to male investment and feminism outside and inside the “church” is opposed to rewarding men for anything, most of all masculinity without which there is no protected space for family. I’ve been contemplating an inventory of these stressors, anything that causes disruption to the two parent (father/mother) and extended family, it might make a good series of posts.

For some reason “thinking about the little mosh-pit mice”, Robert Plant seems strangely appropriate:

On waves of love my heart is breaking
And stranger still my self control I can’t rely on anymore
New tides surprise – my world it’s changing
Within this frame an ocean swells – behind this smile I know it well

Beneath a lover’s moon I’m waiting
I am the pilot of the storm – adrift in pleasure I may drown
I built this ship – it is my making
And furthermore my self control I can’t rely on anymore
I know why – I know why
Crazy on a ship of fools
Crazy on a ship of fools
Turn this boat around – back to my loving ground

Who claims that no man is an island
While I land up in jeopardy – more distant from you by degrees
I walk this shore in isolation
And at my feet eternity draws ever sweeter plans for me
I know why – I know why
Crazy on a ship of fools
Crazy on a ship of fools
Turn this boat around – back to my loving ground
Oh no, oh no – ship of fools —

(tip to Johnnycomelately on Dalrock for reminding me of Calhoun).

Legalism and Game.

I grew up in a legalistic Church. Think Amish with cars. The rulebook for how to operate in this “fellowship” wordwise was somewhere in the vicinity of Atlas Shrugged. The elders had met over the years and decided upon the propriety of everything from bicycles to how to best hold up your pants and whether photography was “the debil”. Higher education was frowned upon and there was no doubt when the wifely submission verses came up they were NOT glossed over. I’ve really put a lot of my life into realizing what was wrong with all of this. While the rules would always be justified and many made a lot of sense they are reactionary. Worship songs were sung at Alvin and the Chipmunks recording speed in a capella because over 100 years prior people had danced to their singing. Plain was the watchword. They needed a preformatted answer to EVERY situation and the “right” answer could very easily be right because it was the opposite of what everyone else was doing. In short, they reacted to EVERYTHING. (I never joined that church to the dismay of many parents whose sons and daughters looked up to me).

It dawns on me that strict adherence to Game can be very similar. I’ve been reading Dalrock for a couple of years now and seen the pro and anti game arguments and have had something like a pragmatic ambivalence. I’ve been chided for making game-like or even white knight type correlations between a husbands good behavior and a positive outcome on the marriage front and I am better seeing why that is happening. My faith can easily be regarded as determinism, that if you follow the rules that nothing bad will happen. I know better. Tight game AND/OR epic feats of white knightery do not automatically result in a good marriage (quite the contrary); as I have stated even perfect obedience to God is often insufficient to keep a relationship together (Jesus and Judas). Here is the rub as I see it, having an understanding of hypergamy and the basic understanding of human nature is a useful tool as is having all of the verses which tell us to love our wives as Christ loves the Church memorized. The application of those tools is a field where many problems arise.

I suggest that game and white knightery are two sides of the same reactionary coin. They are both the feeble efforts of men trying to take control of an uncontrollable situation. The white knight supposes that he has a Godly blueprint for success with the opposite gender and that all he needs to do is more zealously apply himself to make the system work, following the rules and pressing harder will surely reap success. The gamer supposes that he understands the flesh nature of women and goes about trying to work it to his advantage and like the cocaine addicted monkey he thinks that as long as he keeps pressing the “right” button he will be assured game success. Both of these positions are in an orbit around women, not as it should be centering on God. We seek a rulebook like those plain folks of my youth to evade the facts, we don’t want to hear from God and we want to pretend we can handle it in bite size rules.

Turning to a rulebook to guide us in human relations is a mistake just as turning to God with a rulebook is. Yes, there are rules, but if they define the entirety of our interaction then we have NO relationship. Never fail a fitness test. Display higher value. Utilize preselection. Those can be rules that replace relationship, I’ve even seen this advocated (Don’t share your day to day struggles with your wife). This type of legalism can feel like it has all the answers, a solution for every problem, in our wives the appropriate reaction to every display of fitness testing, in the case of God a way to measure up in our own strength:

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(Mat 15:8-9)


Rules don’t replace relationship. That was one of the biggest lessons the plain folks taught me. Does my wife have a sin nature, exhibit hypergamy, test my fitness? Of course and it’s good for me to see that dynamic. Do I want to systematize my interactions with her? To turn my responses into a static “defense”? Absolutely not. I want to relate with her and that is the interaction that is under attack by Satan and his minions in the feminist movement.

If we are not careful we will be pushed into two reactionary tracks in response to this attack. I reiterate, game and man-up. The third way is God, who understands the sinful nature that we are fighting in ourselves and in our wives better than we do, He knows the plans and schemes of feminists and He knows how to beat them before they even show up. God is neither reactionary nor static.

I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
(Php 4:12-14)


Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
(2Co 3:5-7)


Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
(Mat 11:28-30)


It’s all about relationship. We turn to Jesus, and that life under His yoke becomes an organic way of dealing with feminism, our wives and each other (without pulling out a volume that rivals “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” for verbosity.) It’s no guarantee of marital success, but in my estimation it is far superior to the rulebook.

I have an analogy that I go to when discussing relationship. Jesus described Himself as “the way”, so I cannot claim originality with this picture.  I have a road map and a set of rules for operating my car, I can use them to envision a trip to Anchorage. For some people this seems like enough, they have the directions, the rules. I want to drive to Anchorage (rarely, but you get the point). I want to go there and interact (buy stuff). I want to enjoy the mountains on the drive. I have to get in the car and apply myself, understand the directions yes, but the trip is always about more than the directions in practice while not in theory. One is rules, the other about experience.

It’s all about relationship.

Duct Tape Dynasty

Arrrrrgh! Since the Phil Robertson “controversy” my wife has started watching “Duck Dynasty”, we haven’t had a television for over a year since I cannot stand watching it for more than 5 minutes so I have been watching it over her shoulder on her tablet. Apparently, growing a beard, wearing camouflage and acting like a red-neck is the new standard of masculinity. Taking up the reigns from the like’s of the Cable Guy, “The Red Green Show” and Tim Allen’s “Home Improvement” these guys lampoon masculinity for fun and profit. The formula is well established at this point. (Haha, look at the clown with the beard, or put another way, the “Duct Tape Dynasty” of ridiculing masculinity).

Recently I was watching feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian whine about the Bechdel test while she applied it to the Academy Awards. The test is intended to show that women aren’t making a significant dent in our culture. The test has three rules:

*The movie must have two female characters.
*They must have a conversation.
*About something other than a man.

I watch Anita Sarkeesian for comic relief and would note that not one single video of hers on YouTube would pass the Bechdel test. Sometimes I wonder if you took the average feminist day and applied the Bechdel test to it if they would “pass”. I doubt it, every conversation that they have with fellow feminists must be strewn with words like “rape culture” and “patriarchy”, so blaaaat, FAIL.

I’m wondering if we could start applying a test that would help us register the impact of the “patriarchy”. Call it the “True Patriarch” test, in keeping with the Bechdel test we’ll have three rules.

*The media must have a man that put’s God first.
*He must be respected by his family and/or show narrator.
*While having a sense of humor he maintains his dignity.

Now, go forth and see if you can find a man like that in the media. (I for one have all but given up, although I would say after all of my bellyaching that Phil Robertson probably passes the test). Also note by doing this that while the feminists are filling the bandwidth moaning about “the patriarchy” that it can scarcely be found. Maybe it’s time to break out the classic movies?

Amen, Bro…..ahem, Preach It?!

I’ve been doing some catching on the egalitarian front and I was reading over on Shirley Taylor’s blog where I found out she has a new book called “Women Equal-No Buts: Powered by the same Source”

No. seriously. that. is. the. title.


Anyway, I was reading on her blog and discovered that there is a call for schism. It has finally gotten to the point where churchianity is completely intolerable for some egalitarians. Tony Jones over at Patheos is throwing down his limp glove liner, incensed over the subjugation of women in Churchianity (oh, the humanity). His bullet points?

  • If you attend a church that does not let women preach or hold positions of ecclesial authority, you need to leave that church.
  • If you work for a ministry that does not affirm women in ecclesial leadership, you need to leave that ministry.
  • If you write for a publishing house that also prints books by “complementarians,” you need to take your books to another publishing house.
  • If you speak at conferences, you need to withdraw from all events that do not affirm women as speakers, teachers, and leaders.

Wow, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

That is, we who believe in the full equality of women need to break fellowship with those who do not. The time for dialogue and debate has passed. The Spirit has spoken, and we have listened. It’s time to move forward with full force.

Now all we need is a time machine so that we can send him back 100 years I think we could really solve some issues. Isn’t it ironic how his calling for schism from us makes me oddly united with him? In effect Tony Jones is beckoning his readers to the maw of the matriarchy.


Dying Dogs Porn.

(Subtitle: A male oriented argument against porn).

I’ve been thinking a lot about “Manning Up” (TM) since dad died. Specifically, what it means to bear the gravitas of a patriarch. His older brother (my Uncle) is still alive, but suddenly I find myself in a family of women along with a brother in law. It’s sinking in. I started letting my beard grow the day after dad’s memorial, his reached nearly to his belly. Call it a symbol of office, mine has almost as much white in it as it does red or brown.

Anyway, it has had me pondering authority in new and significant ways. Call it an understanding of the dignity of the office of patriarch. That’s one of the reasons that I start thinking about pornography, dignity. I’m glad that as I have aged the fires have died down significantly, that is a mercy.  Another result of my middle age has been young men approaching me on the subject of porn over the years. My advice has started to crystallize along the following lines:

It turns husbands into thieves and sneaks to meet a need that should be fulfilled in the marriage bed. It gives us an escape hatch where God meant for none to exist. Instead of taking the question of our “burning” (as Paul put it) into the teeth of the feminists, our wives, the church and society we slink off like sick animals to lick our wounds and die in the dark. Meanwhile, not learning to meet the legitimate needs of their husbands wives are in a decaying orbit of solipsism, being told by the enemy that they are to serve themselves first, mocking men and their sexuality as they go.

The problem is largely ours, we stopped rightfully insisting that they do their job, a job that they should desire deeply to do. A job that the Bible specifically instruct spouses to do, that is, not to defraud our spouses. Feminism has made it impolite and impolitic to discuss any of this. The modern feminist dialogue has made male sexuality taboo, an embarrassment and told us we should be ashamed of it, inside or outside of marriage, that we need to hide it. The Bible say that we are one flesh with our wives, so as I see it, if we are in a pressure cooker of sexual temptation guess who is in it with us? They need to know and they need to be charged with the shared burden of dealing with it. We need to own our end of it by seeing our wives as God’s sole provision and help them understand that’s what they are.

Many are naked, exposed by our nature’s and instead of going to the Lord’s provision- our helpmeet, we instead turn to the fig leaf of attempting to deal with this problem in the shadows.  The medicine has been making us sick, a lethal morphine drip that anesthetizes the pain of burning when we should screaming for the “nurse”. It enervates us when we should be suiting up and going to war with the those that sent our culture down this path in the first place. If we are burning tell our wives to bring marshmallows, hiding is undignified. We need to stop killing the pain and start using it as motivation to re-enter the fray.


BTW, I also point guys to:, specifically pointing out the “Coolidge Effect” (named after Calvin himself.)

Into the Maw of the Matriarchy

The Masai tribe in Africa call hyena’s the “doctors” because they have the ability to diagnose the weak and sick in their prey populations. (Side note: the hyena social organization is a hereditary matriarchy)

Over on my blog I was examining a verse in Isaiah considering the work that the Lord is doing in the world and how to discern what it is we are to identify with. Sometimes the most holy, appropriate, sane way of dealing with the doctrine of demons – the ideology of the insane is to realize that it is meant to perform a Godly function.

Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
(Isa 54:16-17)

Of course, here on Empath’s blog I’m specifically speaking of feminism, of which I am fully convinced is a “waster to destroy” sent by God to perfect the body of Christ; this can be counter-intuitive:

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2Th 2:7-12)

We can see this in the Church today as observed in the “Social Justice Jesus” movement such as with Shirley Taylor’s “Dethroning Male Headship” and the underlying ideas in her particular heresy. Judgement is in fact coming first to the house of the Lord in the form of this other Gospel, this other Jesus.

For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
(1Pe 4:17-18)

I realized today as I was reading Dalrock’s latest post “The Sin of Lacking Moxie” just how much traditional complementarians are getting it from both sides. The feminists despise the principle of headship as much as many Christian men in the manosphere despise the man-up messaging (as seen in “Fragging Christian Headship”).  At issue in this case is the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which Dalrock convincingly argues is embracing feminism. This aversion doesn’t stop feminists from also hating it as we can observe in Shirley Taylor’s call for redress from the Dr. Al Mohler in “No apology yet for the denigration of women”.   Man-up complementarians such as Driscoll and Rainey are sick with the heresy of feminism, and the hyena’s are circling. Cut-off from the truth of Biblical submission while embracing the lies of feminism all of their natural resistance is gone, they are coals being blown by the smith. Watch them disappear into the maws of the hyena matriarchy and remember that as you watch the truth of God’s word unfold:

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
(Gal 6:7-8)

Also, remember not to see this as an attack on the Body of Christ, it’s an attack on a cancerous tumor and God approves. You’ll sleep better at night. Psalm 2:12b reminds us: “Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”

What is the word for divorce in Churchianese?

Maybe someone should mention to Dave Ramsey:

For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts.

(Malachi 2:17 NASB)

And that he can find it in the same book that discusses tithing.

I was listening to what I consider his ridiculous financial advice and got a heavy dose of blue pill on the side. In his post “It’s Our Money” Dave gives some standard advice such as he does to any women that he radio diagnoses as “abused”.

QUESTION: Amber in Tacoma is a stay-at-home mom. Her husband says the money he earns is his, and he gives her an allowance. Amber is frustrated and asks if she should start billing him for what she does around the house.

Dave says they need marriage counseling.

Examine that question, what advice do you give this woman?

Now time to see how the “master” handles it:

Time for Dave to don his Shining White Armor!

ANSWER: No, you need marriage counseling. This doesn’t have anything to do with Financial Peace. This has to do with your husband treats you like a financial twit. Let me just tell you if Sharon Ramsey treated me the way your husband treats you, we’d have a haymaker problem. He’s treating you like a 4-year-old, and he’s an overbearing jerk. I don’t know how you approach that exactly—possibly duct tape and a two-by-four involved. I don’t know.

Scrambling abuse imagery in where none exist, and not just any imagery, graphic violent imagery. Comparing being placed on a budget as something that needs to be responded to with violence is a brilliant stroke by the master. He continues:

The attitude that you’re describing is so unappealing I don’t know how you’ve stayed in it, and I’m not surprised he’s been divorced twice before. It sounds like you guys really do need to sit down with a marriage counselor because this guy is untenable. You’re not going to stay in this situation unless you’re somebody who likes abuse. (all emphasis mine)

This is a verbal escalation, “unappealing” is traded up for “untenable” is traded up for “abuse”. You seriously have to lack imagination to see where this is going from here:

Your son is now learning how to be a man improperly. Your husband is not a man. He’s a scared little boy, but your son is learning how to be a man improperly because he’s going to treat his wife the same way. This is what’s being modeled before him. You have to fix this. This cannot stay this way. You have to get with it. Your husband is obviously a strong, strong personality. I hope that he can learn some humility and agree to work with his spouse because that’s what’s going to be required for your marriage to last and for you to model properly before your 5-year-old the proper way to treat a wife. A wife is a queen. She’s not the slave. She’s not the hired help.

Full on “Defcon 1” shaming language! As well as: “NO! The children!!!!” Note how “she’ becomes solely responsible for fixing that situation, not prayer, not God, her. Also note how the child is “her” child, that means that either it is biologically not his or that we have already stepped into all children are the women’s land (I cannot be sure). Either way she is the QUEEN. You go grrll!

What next? Is there any doubt?

I’ll give you a prediction. If you don’t do what I say, within three years, you’ll be divorced, because in talking to you, you’re not an unintelligent person, and you’re not going to sit there and continue in this level of emotional and financial abuse that you’re under.

Divorce! You knew it all along. Of course the “master” deflects expertly from actually advising divorce but he has led her right down the path. I’m curious if anyone knows what the word “divorce” translates into in Churchianese? Allowance?

Dethroning Male Headship

I have been making the claim that feminism in the Church has been targeting not just husbands but Jesus Christ as the head for some time. My last post concerning the idea that God simply asks too much discussed this at some length. As I started looking for sources that I could point to that could bear out this claim I discovered “Dethroning Male Headship” by Shirley Taylor and stopped looking. In her latest blog post “Mothers Like Sarah” Taylor goes on a very imaginative expedition into the 1 Peter 3:1-6 and strikes feminist gold!


Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
(1Pe 3:1-6)

Taylor derives:

We can interpret Peter’s words something like this, “That was the way it was done back in Sarah’s day, but things have changed. We are now under grace by faith, not under the law. You have done what is right in becoming Christ-followers, and are Sarah’s daughters—children of the freed woman—if you do not fear as you keep following Christ, and, like Sarah, you will birth this new nation of God’s people.”

Does anyone else get why she is interpreting what Peter said this way. It’s a head-scratcher to me. The prominent feature that stands out in this remark is that we are in fact looking for a full equality to the point of proof-texting a matriarchy. She muddles along until she get’s to the moral of her story:

Male headship is dethroned when Peter told Christian women that they will be like Sarah, mothers of a nation of believers.

Huh?? What Gospel is this?? Taylor makes the classical egalitarian arguments about equality in Christ that are in fact Biblical but any attempt by anyone to preach verses on submission such as from Ephesians 5 are shot down as “heresy”, as I’ll show.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
(Eph 5:22-25)

If you think this is some stray loon with a blog and a vanity book we need to realize that she is doing her best to promote herself within the Southern Baptist Convention and with considerable zeal. Like Empath she is reaching out to pastors and bending their ears:

(Please bear with me as I repost certain of my previous blogs. This is a repost of May 26, 2010.  In the past few weeks I have mailed over a hundred letters to Baptist pastors. I have reposted some posts that I really want them to see. Things haven’t changed.  What I said 2 years ago is still the same, and many of my new readers don’t have time to read all 270 of my posts.)

Here she is introducing the above passage as she is compelled to sneak her book into the Seminary library amongst the “heretical books”:

Sitting in the Fuller Theological Seminary Library in Houston, Texas, I began twitching. Something was wrong and my eyes went toward the books stacked on the table where I was sitting. They were books yet to be shelved and I picked up the nearest one to me. It was by Wayne Grudem.  The next book in the pile was by some unknown author, at least to me, and it made the same old tired attempt at explaining 1 Peter 3.

I had a copy of Dethroning Male Headship and laid my book on top of those heretical books against women, and thus dethroned them.

Copied below is an excerpt from my book explaining what this passage really means.

(Emphasis added.)

In light of that what do we think: “Dethroning Male Headship” is ultimately driving at? Her blog is a veritable trove of materials about equality and how women must demand it to the exclusion of almost everything else. Typical.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
(Php 2:5-8)

How can “submission” be made to be such and evil word and “equality” be the very vision of heaven on Earth?

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
(Isa 5:20-21)

I’ll end with the same statement as last time:

Remember, the Father asked Jesus to go to the Cross, He asks us to count the cost when He calls us to follow Him there (both men and women).

Christian Womens Advice Thread

This post is directed at Godly women and women that want a “Christ-like” husband. I wanted to make a thread here to help “make straight” the paths that many Christian women have when dealing with their husbands. Here are some key points.

A: Are you unhappy? Does you relationship with your husband leave you feeling unsatisfied with life, dry, meaningless and devoid of purpose? If so is your husband leading you spiritually and causing you to be completely satisfied in Christ?

B: Are you insecure? Do you feel as if your husband is not making your home and family like a “little church”? Do you feel as if Satan is robbing your family of the perfect blessing of God because of your husbands lack of leadership?

C: Are you neglected? Does your husband take an interest in your hobbies and interests? Is he interested in your spiritual development? Is he interested in the condition of your home?

D: Are you abused emotionally, verbally or financially? Does he not listen to you? Does he actually argue and use logic against you? Does he ever raise his voice with you? Does he insist on knowing what is being spent or limit your access to money?
So if your husband is not completely Christ-like know that he is not fulfilling God’s perfect will. But before you start filling out the divorce papers, consider this:

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
(1Pe 3:1-5)

Yes, Peter wrote that believing wives should be in subjection to those who are in fact IN DISOBEDIENCE! Unbelievers, ungodly, in fact NOT CHRIST-LIKE IN THE LEAST! If you are a believer and are walking in the light you are in a better place to obtain grace from God and obey Him. You can win your husband, how? By taking your God given role, under the headship of your husband.

Don’t miss this last part. Why would you do this? Why would you give your husband all that “power” when he clearly isn’t acting like he should, surely that is an evidence of his lack of trustworthiness? Here is the secret, don’t trust him, take Peter’s hint and trust God instead.
If you can’t begin to trust God, please quit pretending to be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, quit pretending to be Holy or that YOU are any more trustworthy than your husband. You aren’t.
Trusting God means repenting of our own rebellious ways and obeying Him, and leaving the outcomes and consequences in His hands. Surrendering to him.

I’ll leave you with this, a wife in subjection puts more Godly pressure on the husband than you might imagine. Give it a try, you might like the results. (And really the alternative is not just a broken relationship with your husband, but a broken relationship with Jesus Christ).

Love and Alpha

So its closing in on a year since I started getting traces of “red pill” in my water. It’s been a lot to take in as I have tried to separate my “blue pill” concepts from my faith. I slowly started seeing how the lack of restraint on the part of Evangelical Feminists was rotting the bottom out of the “church” and undermining every relationship it came into contact with. For me, it was a stomach turning experience. Even though I had some distinct “red pill” tendencies I still equated those with selfishness and wanted to love my wife into happiness through supplication, the “blue pill” path just seemed Holy (self-sacrificial even). That was the internal narrative I was operating on.

The problem was, it didn’t work. So then what? That’s what I asked myself. As I started digging into what actually seemed to make women happy I started reading about the principals of “Game” and processing that mountain of selfishness, while facing the undeniable truth that supplication never seems to bring a woman contentment (even when they crave it). Taking that into consideration I began to try and wrap my head around what my real obligation was to my wife. The Bible tells me to love her as Christ loves the Church, even giving His life. Evangelical Feminism conveniently converts that language to male supplication, very simply, submission to the wife IS sacrifice. The man must love sacrificially no matter what, no matter how depraved and twisted the woman is or becomes. I agree. With a twist.

It is under no circumstance a loving act for a man to submit, obey or bow down to his wife. That is truly the most selfish act of all in my opinion. It is forcing her into the role of parent, the role of leader, the role of God and she will not and indeed cannot be happy with that mantel (God Himself won’t allow it). It will lead to her misery. So, even when it hurts I must lead. Even when faced with impossible decisions I am the one who must humbly approach the Holy Spirit (and on every day decisions too) and seek guidance and be held to account. By shirking my leadership role (being lazy) I am forcing my wife into the role that God never intended for her.

It is the most loving thing for a man to do, to recognize the order of God’s creation, to express God’s authority into our families at the sacrifice of our own wants and desires. To set down our own will and take up God’s will. In our marriage that means being a strong leader that wins the obedience of his wife thereby establishing God’s order for her. Setting the world aright for her. Short of this, nothing else a man does is actually Godly love. Flowers, dinners, jewelry may be the frosting but Godly submission is the cake. In order to accomplish that a man must first submit to Godand then effect the submission of his wife, out of love and obedience to God.

Everything that I do now I try to filter through this new view. Am I establishing Godly order around me by his Holy Spirit or am I cruelly letting Satan and the world continue to promote chaos in my marriage? Am I winning my wife to the truth of God’s word or am I tampering with it in an attempt to satisfy her lack of contentment? Will I let the feminist sew seeds into my family or will I align myself with God and combat the pretty lies? Even at the expense of my reputation? Even when everyone is calling me cruel? Yes, that is sacrifice. I think that is the sacrifice that Jesus made. In that sense, Godly leadership IS love.