4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5 And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.”6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.
When I saw her, I marveled greatly.
I’m sure most of my readers are familiar with Dalrock’s repeated skewering of theological cross-dressing. So they’re also aware that in Protestant teaching and churches this happened under the teaching of the theology of Complementarianism. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was formed in 1987 specifically to spread that theology. They have been widely and wildly successful.
But did you know that complementarianism first becomes a thing in a movement called New Feminism? New Feminism is a conservative feminist movement of the 1920s supposedly meant to combat radical feminism by swallowing the radical conceits under a dress. There are overlaps in leadership with the suffragettes. It was also a Roman Catholic movement. The writings of John Paul II are supportive of New Feminism, and I do not know of a retraction from either Benedict XVI, or Francis.
What I observe when I look at Protestant or Roman Catholic clergy is that they are far-and-away more likely to be sons of their mothers rather than sons of their fathers. In short: Clergy are a collection of Momma’s-boys. This makes sense once we realize that the organizing thought of New Feminism, and therefore Complementarianism is around the concept of Mother; not wife, or sister, or daughter. Those are viewed as larval stages. Full-grown woman is Mother. But the Bible, and most of the vastness of Christian theology, teaches men that we are to be imitators of Christ. Christ’s emphasis is on being a son of God; even when full-grown.
Let me say the overarching theology of Christian Complementarianism clearly: The vocation of men is to be Sons of God, and the vocation of women is to be Mothers of God.
What I have also observed of the women of Christian churches is that the majority of them both affirm and excuse the abuse of sex as a means to get what they want (attention, material objects, affection, status, etc.) rather than as the enjoyable work of marriage. They abuse sex by fornicating while unmarried to get what they want, and by refusing sex while married; to either display their unhappiness, or with the full-blown sexual refusal which is divorce. This is the essence of whoredom. The rumors about Catholic school-girls are not unfounded, nor are those about the daughters of Protestant preachers and deacons.
Proposed: Complementarianism just is matriarchy. It was smuggled into churches under the guise of the goodness of motherhood which scratched itchy conservative ears. It has delivered to us whores, and delivered us unto whores.
Things that We have Heard and Known 
So, if Complementarianism (matriarchy) is whoredom, and whoredom is idolatry, then Complementarianism is mother worship.
That explains Mothers’ Day vs. Fathers’ Day sermons.
Matriarchy / mother worship. It’s all the same stuff, except in different forms of ancient Canaanite idol worship. For example,
Goddess worship, fertility worship, spirit of jezebel. Baal = god of fertility/storm. Asherah = goddess of heaven, creator of earth, goddess of the sea
Wrote a bit about that here, and other places.
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/04/27/victims-versus-perpetrators-why-it-all-matters/
It seems interesting to me that there is no incarnation of the ‘Trinity’ as feminine. We only have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps because it’s very easy for humans to get sidetracked into idolatrous worship of the feminine.
Great, insightful post by Tim Bayly –
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2016/09/feminists-and-libertarians-my-fathers-world
Cane, do you have any evidence/links which point towards the latter? I ask not out of disbelief, but because that would confirm some suspicions I have had for a while about the RC church in the US.
Gold.
Pingback: We live in a polytheistic culture | Christianity and masculinity
@DG
It began in the UK, not US. Look up Eleanor Rathbone. She was a RC, Independent MP, and all around SJW. You can also search John Paul II “new feminism” and find a whole bunch of theory and efforts. There is an industry of Catholic Feminism which, as far as I can tell, is accepted as mainstream. I think the theory is that the fight right now is abortion, so as long as the feminism is anti-abortion then it must be good. The emphasis on mother is obviously related.
So, if Complementarianism (matriarchy) is whoredom, and whoredom is idolatry, then Complementarianism is mother worship.
That explains Mothers’ Day vs. Fathers’ Day sermons.
Indeed. It would be very interesting to note the silver-cross-in-front-of-a-vampire reaction to the CBMWers when this logical progression is pointed out in undeniable terms. Either panic, fervent (if laughable) denial, or, just as likely, hamsterization that essentially admits the connection while going through unbelievable epistemological contortions to justify it.
Cane, thanks. I knew about some of JPIIs stuff.
Yup. I have spilled a fair amount of digital ink on my blog attacking it. It is a cancer rooted deep inside the Church.
The Mama’s boy pastors have fight, but it’s against patriarchy and strawmen. I get less frustrated by them now that I’m adjusting to the fact that they want to be on my side but in practice are just a millstone to the biblical establishment of my home.
@CC
”Let me say the overarching theology of Christian Complementarianism clearly: The vocation of men is to be Sons of God, and the vocation of women is to be Mothers of God.”
Where’s the source for this? Link me to evidence that proves this.,
If it’s rooted in the Roman church, (whether or not that institution IS the Whore-o’-Babylon as some assert), then it’s almost certainly spawned out of the Marian error (sometimes “Marian cult” or “Mariolatry”) of the middle ages. Thus also its relationship to the “Courtly Love” chivalry our culture also endorses (denounced by @Dalrock et al as just “Chivalry” — this is in error, I believe, as it is only one part (though a considerable one) of that whole).
It seems to me that both Garter-Chivalry, and Game in whatever form, amount to different versions of what John Eldredge calls “taking the question to Eve,” in his book “Wild at Heart”. In both instances we men are looking to the responses of women for our masculine validation. The righteous manhood we’re called to (and, I’d contend, the Chivalry of the Grail-Knights, Percival and Galahad) seeks its fulfillment and identity in the work of Christ.