A Caned Response to the Nashville Statements

Such is the case with the Nashville Statement, and the Nashville Statement Fortified. Read them and then come back.

The first says, basically, that:

  • men are men
  • women are women
  • marriage is only between one man and one woman
  • sex is only to be in marriage
  • homosexuality and transgenderism are not valid expressions of sexuality

I agree.

The second say basically the same things, but with addition declarations against effeminacy. I agree with that also. It is good to be against effeminacy, but a fortified version of a statement on marital and sexual relations is incomplete if it does not speak on how half of only two sexes are to behave! I have searched the NSF and it does say this under Article 3:

Explanation of changes: The original statement affirms the ontological equality of man and woman without also confessing man’s headship. The order in which God created man and woman has ongoing application for the relationship between the sexes, as taught in 1 Corinthians 11:1–9. In an egalitarian age it is not faithful to confess the equality of Adam and Eve without also confessing Adam’s headship.

But where is the directive that wives must choose to obey their heads? Where is the article in which they deny that wives should be irreverent, rebellious, or usurpers? Where do they affirm that wives are to be sexually available to their husbands except for agreement of a limited time? What is more important to marriage than that the wife be submissive to her husband? These are serious and timely issues of marriage worthy of writing in these statements; more so than sodomy and transgenderism.  All the more so because they make us uncomfortable.

Until I see some evidence to the contrary, I am convinced that this current generation of church leaders will always refuse to allow women to be held to account in any way real. And as far as I can tell, this leadership believes that women can only really be guilty of bad feelings and regret.

Advertisements

Go to the Mattresses, Female Edition

New commenter Joe was kind enough to drop some hilarious history here which does not speak well for the shield maiden trope.

During the late stages of the [American Civil] War, the town of LaGrange, Georgia, had an armed all-female militia unit which drilled with weapons and which mustered in the street apparently ready to fight when the Federals arrived. The Yank in command, a gentleman and a diplomat, sent a messenger under a white flag to tell them that their homes would not be burned and that (as I recall) “they could surely do more damage with their eyes than with their old squirrel-rifles”.) Reassured, they stood down. LaGrange was not burned, but in a touch suitable for the worst of novels, the Federal in command later married one of the members of the “Nancy Harts” girl militia unit.

Otherwise: They would have been slaughtered. The Union force was strong enough that the Confederate cavalry fled them; according to a link provided by Dalrock.

In mid-April 1865 Major General James H. Wilson led a Union raid on west Georgia. As the Union troops approached LaGrange from West Point, the local Confederate cavalrymen fled, and the Nancy Harts stepped in to protect the town.

…which was accomplished by entreating the Union soldiers to spare the town, and then surrendering to the strong handsome Union soldiers; even unto the mattress.

Real Men Make Riots Safe for Women.

That thought is at the heart of the the conversations about Ann Coulter’s decision to bail from Berkley. The idea that Real Men make _________ safe for women is a particularly effective seduction to use against men. It infers that he–who wants to be a Real Man–has the power and authority to do something about whatever circumstance some woman or women wants to be made safe so that she or they can participate. He usually doesn’t.

Whore Mother May I

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. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.”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.

Poles Tell Us Confronting Women Ineffective

Pro-Lifers[1] tic neurotically about doing what is politically expedient. Namely, if a woman is heading into an abortion clinic then you shouldn’t warn her that she is about to solicit murder, or plead with her to reconsider the murder of her baby. They’ll tell you, if you do that, what will happen is that the woman will defiantly march into the clinic and have her baby murdered. In other words: The hostage-taker will bolt and kill the hostage. And, I am inclined to believe that this is true. But there are at least three big problems with taking this tack.

The first problem for the Pro-Lifer is that we’re not at a sidewalk demonstration. Whether it is me writing on the Internet, you talking amongst friends and family, or a politician’s answer to a talking head: There is no hostage-taking pregnant woman immediately on the scene to woo with soothing words. It’s not politically expedient here to say, as Ted Cruz did

Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.

As I said towards the end of my last post:

Understand that no babies are saved from abortion by ridiculing Trump for his submission to unavoidable logic.

Lies like that don’t save a single baby. Maybe, sometimes, such pandering to would-be murderesses just before they walk into a baby-slaughtering facility is effective in saving the hostage’s life. Outside of that context, such worshipful terms are only that: Worship. The worship is rendered lest some unknown goddess of life and murder out there feels insufficiently served.

The second problem is that giving in to hostage-takers’ demands is a very good way to incite the taking of more hostages. Everyone, including Pro-Lifers, knows that is true, but they do it anyway. WHY? If you want to stop the killing of hostages then the thing to do is make taking hostages at least unprofitable. Even better is to make is punishable. That they don’t (And when the stakes are so high!) leaves me with the inescapable conclusion that the real point of joining a Pro-Life group is that it is the sanctioned method for social-conservatives to bow before women as goddesses. It is a way to pretend to tradition while practicing feminism. As several commenters have rightly noted: They are bowing to the Asherah poles which have been erected in the Temple.

Here’s the biggest problem and here is where it is unavoidably a matter of worshipping the false idol of women: Pro-Lifers are blaming the Lord for abortion. If it were true that telling a woman not to do something–that it is a sin and a crime to commit sins and crimes for which breakers of the law should be and will be punished–pushes women to commit sins and crimes, then it would be the Lord’s fault for bringing sin into the world because He told Eve, through Adam, that if they eat of the Tree of the Fruit of Knowledge they would surely die.

It would be the Lord’s fault that the Ten Commandment’s are broken because He gave them to us and warned us of sin and death.

It would be the Lord’s fault that the Israelites perpetually broke the laws that were given to them through Moses, and that they made and worshipped a golden calf.

It would be the Lord’s fault that the Israelites ignored, mocked, and killed the prophets He sent to warn them, and the Lord’s fault that the Israelites bowed to other gods.

It would be the Lord’s fault that many ignore the Bible because He gave it to us chock full of warnings against sin and death.

It would be the Lord’s fault that many shun the Holy Spirit because He sent Him to us, and bade us listen to Him lest we die forever.

It would be the Lord’s fault that many don’t accept Jesus Christ as their rightful King and Savior because He warned that Hell awaits those who don’t.

All this should sound familiar because it’s been said for a very long time.

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

It’s time to get up from among the Pro-Life goddess worshippers, you sleepers.

[1] Can I say too many times that I am anti-abortion?

Throwing Out the Baby to Conserve the Bathwater

A commenter at Dalrock’s tires of explaining the reason for all the lies that were exposed when Donald Trump make the amateur mistake of joining the Pro-Life movement in earnest…

I have already posted enough on this. It’s hard to separate strategy from deep held personal belief. I don’t know what the people who actually dedicate their lives to fighting abortion and not just making blog posts beleive in their deepest heart but I know 100% that their desire to not focus on punishment is largely a strategic decision. As I have posted, to many common people the nuance of explaining we want to punish women for destroying a few cells is so esoteric as to be counter productive.

I, like Zippy and GKC, was surprised at the scorn which was poured on Donald Trump by Pro-Life groups and leadership. I would have previously confessed to be Pro-Life[1], Amateurs, the lot of us. Personally, it is embarrassing to contemplate my rube-ness regarding the Pro-Lifer movement. Days later it would dawn on me that the filthiness Pro-Lifers bathe in is even worse than what prompted my initial shock!

I take it as fact that Donald Trump switched his allegiance from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life and that this was a matter of political prudence for him. I have no problem with that. If someone does the right thing for personal reward, then he has at least worldly wisdom and deserves reward as long as he actually does the right thing.

Having said that: It’s possible that Trump, should he become President, has no intention of changing one dot of abortion law in the US. My suspicion is that Trump has no personal convictions either way. If that’s true, then it should be easier for “real” Pro-Life politicians to entice him to sign-off on some anti-abortion legislation in exchange for support from them on other policies. But I simply don’t know. Regardless, here’s what happened:

  1. Trump decides to run for President as a Republican and claims to be Pro-Life.
  2. Ted Cruz, “Socially Conservative” groups, and the whole breadth of media call bullshit on Trump and accuse him of mere politicking. Another way to explain Trump’s conversion would be to call it adopting an intellectual position rather than naked emotional response. For whatever reason: He thought about it, and changed his mind (correctly) to anti-abortion
  3. Trump, because his conversion was intellectual and not instinctual, got harassed into a logical corner by an openly pro-choice Roman Catholic journalist[2] and confessed the inescapably true argument that the commission of crime is itself a crime, and therefore hypothetically it should be met with “some form of punishment”.
  4. Cruz and Co. pounce on Trump out of both instinct and political expediency; trashing truth and justice in the process.

To me, that is pure monstrosity. They disgust me. Understand that no babies are saved from abortion by ridiculing Trump for his submission to unavoidable logic. What’s important to the Pro-Lifers is conservation of the politically feminist pro-choice bathwater in which they’ve become comfortable; no matter that it’s a tepid 98.6 degrees and red as the Nile on the Passover.

[1]That is to say that I have always been against abortion and thought it to be murder. And, yes, I have fought it personally; against some other Roman Catholics, no less.

[2] Welcome to the whorehouse of mirrors.

Yes, I Meant Worship

Some people have taken exception to my pronouncement that “Pro-Lifers” (who are really and essentially pro-choice) worship women. But I am just using the language we all accept because we all understand (even when we don’t want to) that to say and do worshipful things is worship whether we confess the gods or not.

So When Lydia at What’s Wrong with the Girl writes of the legalization of assisted suicide in Canada she says

Choice devours itself. Every time. Make death your god, and death will make sure that a little thing like “choice” doesn’t get in the way. I predict there will be plenty of outright murders under this new law in Canada.

I doubt Lydia believes that there are little idols of robed and scythed skeletons in the homes of Canadian officials. Nevertheless: She can (rightly, I should add) see what and who those officials truly serve with their deeds.

Likewise, when Doug Wilson wrote of government officials’ efforts to make us bow to every kind of perversion he said:

 First, notice that to make “secularism” the approved religion is to establish a religion. The religion you have established has no candles, altars, or pulpits, but it remains the reigning worldview, the one that reserves to itself the authority to sit in judgment on all other religions. Thus, a secularist magistrate reserves to himself the right to pronounce that Ahmed the Jihadist is not a “true Muslim.” Good to know, good to know. I didn’t know that the State Department was issuing fatwas now. Well, they are. And when the Bible tells me not to love the world, the secularist tells me that I must applaud the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. In fact, when the pride of life in a codpiece swanks out in front of us all, I am now required to applaud like a North Korean at a missile parade. If I don’t applaud the courage! the courage! I am guilty of hate. And, come to think of it, I am. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil (Prov. 8:13). Unfortunately for me and my verse, a gent named Marcion at the Department of Justice has recently determined that Proverbs is “in the OldTestament

So while secularism claims not to be “a” religion, they do claim to be the arbiter of all religions — the faith of faiths, the religion of religions, the king of ki . . . better not go that far yet. Let’s give a few more months.

Lest anyone accuse me these of quote-mining these instances where Wilson and McGrew attributed spiritual reality to the material acts, or otherwise missing context: Please note that both McGrew’s and Wilson’s essays were both posted April 22nd. The date I posted on the worship of women by feminists and Pro-Lifers? April 20th.

It’s Like an Amen

If you (as my father says) get a wild hair up your nose and decide to speak out against the darkness, then do not be surprised when you are met with spiritual-sounding mumbo-jumbo from thralls of the goddesses. If often sounds like normal speech, but if you are unsure whether their speech is an argument or a prayer, just wait until they end it. At some point during their prayers of abjuration against consequences and repentance for women, they will say something along the lines of “And if I had my way the men would suffer!” It’s like an “Amen”, and therefore appropriate anywhere after the first word of a prayer.

An example would be a discussion about abortion. You say, as any sane person would, that crimes and commissioning of crimes ought to carry sentences; so if abortion was a crime then the commission of it would invoke some sort of sentencing. The Pro-Lifer will respond with the sophisticated argument “That’s not fair!”, and say that a doctor deceived her by telling her that she, a human, wasn’t pregnant with a human and so abortion isn’t murder.

“Hmm”, you say, and before you can work out how it came to be that humans didn’t know that their offspring will be human, the Pro-Lifer will say, “Anyway, if I had my way, we’d punish the man who got her pregnant.” even though the truth is that in by the vast majority of cases the woman and the man chose to have sex with each.

Abortionists, you see, seduce women and thereby remove the woman’s culpability, but women never seduce men. It’s a mystery to Pro-Lifers why novels, plays, movies, songs, television, and even the Bible depict so many ruinous scenes begun by seductive women. That doesn’t happen in their spirit-world.

Somehow, it is never her fault. It is as if they saw her as supernaturally superior in morals, and wish they had the power to sacrifice mere humans to her goodness.

The Shadows Cast by Goddess Idols

In my previous post I limited myself to the narrow and easily observable fact that Pro-Lifers view every woman as living fertility goddesses over their own little clans. But this worship has gone on for awhile now, and, like all, religions these idols have accreted spheres of influence under the ministrations of their devotees, as each one seeks to please the goddesses better than other rival worshippers. Zippy pointed out the obviously related sphere of sex itself fell under the shadow of women’s authority even though the centrality of sex belongs to men.

And not just babies, but children too. Before now there was the invention of the “Tender Years Doctrine” which provoked judges to deny the fruits of marriage from the farmer and leave them to the fields. (One eyes might perceive such a phenomenon as letting the fruit rot and the field go fallow.) Then there’s modern alimony and child support. The sacrament of No-Fault Divorce was key. It’s a ceremony of “pastoral exception” with two applications:

  1. Allow a goddess to discard her husband without refusal or compunction
  2. A husband can discard his goddess without publicly shaming her, and therefore avoid the offense of shaming a goddess

both of which pastorally except women from pondering consequences, repentance, or any other act that might anger her.

Now the cult’s shadow advances rapidly and we have passed quickly through the penumbral age of No-Means-No into the silent dark of Yes-Means-Yes and Marital Rape; when every man must first pray to his woman for sex, and then wait for an audible acceptance lest he trespass.

All that is just a broad (rimshot!) sketch to give you the lay of the land of where we are now so that I can talk about one little prayer to the goddesses that tires me.

 

The Shared Essence

Over a year ago I wrote about the Israelites conquer of Canaan. At that time, Lydia McGrew was saying that:

  1. If God kills babies (as with The Flood or The Passover in Egypt) then we must accept it as just even though babies are innocents. The justification is that, because we belong to God and because He has power over life and death, He can do whatever with us.
  2. If humans kill babies it is unjust and no matter what they are murderers because babies are innocents.
  3. If it looks to us as if God commanded those people to kill babies (as a plain reading of the Old Testament does look), then either something is wrong with those people, or with our vision.

This is consonant with the Pro-Life position that abortion is a crime of murder. However; it is also the position of Pro-Life groups that women who buy an abortion are not guilty of having bought a murder. This is because…

Well, that’s where it gets impossible to understand what they say. Every other explanation they put forward is a contradiction to the one before it; yet they keep on as if it weren’t. The result is that anyone trying to follow the logic or to make a sound and consistent judgment–anyone trying to be just–is stymied. We are kept from justice by the arguments. The result is one must simply walk away from the debate without ever seeing what justice would look like in the case of a mother who buys her child’s death. I think this is done on purpose. I think that people are being warded-off from seeing something.

I also don’t think anyone is so stupid as to try to hide from everyone that mothers who buy abortions are guilty of murder, and (hypothetically, if abortion were illegal) a crime which should be punished. So that’s not what they are hiding with the lies and contradictions. Five year olds can follow that logic. So what are they hiding?

Here’s what I think: Pro-Lifers, a multitude of whom are professed Christians, are hiding their belief that, on the issue of babies, women are like God. They believe that the child belongs to the mother as its creator, just as Christians believe we all belong to God as our creator. They believe that because women give birth, women–like God–have power over life. They believe that therefore we must not trespass on a mother’s power to kill their creations.

My theory of their belief is consistent with the Feminist belief that a woman’s body is her temple to herself, and whatever is within is hers to do with as she will. Feminists are merely more honest about it. It also explains why they have called themselves Pro-Life instead of Anti-Abortion. The term “pro-life” is benign and soothing, while the term “anti-abortion” inherently denies the goddesses . Above all, it distracts from the essence shared by both the Feminist and Pro-Life movements. That essence is the desire to worship women.