Pastors across the western world have quietly done the thankless work of promoting feminism week in and week out, without so much as a pat on the back from feminists. Yet without the continued support of these unsung pastors feminism would be in extreme jeopardy. Modern pastors have given today’s feminist woman the moral blessing of Christianity. Each year pastors take great pains to not only deny the feminist rebellion taking place in their very own congregation, but to heap effusive praise on the women of the congregation on Mother’s Day. Father’s Day on the other hand is mostly considered a special invitation to cut husbands off at the knees.This repentance isn't merely necessary for the sake of the individual pastor, but for the health of the Church institutions themselves. Excess worldly influence contra the Bible has always been the main route for institutional decline. And as one of the pillars of Western Civilization, curing the Church of its feminist disease should be a primary goal of Christians and non-Christians alike.
Not all pastors have supported feminism out of outright hostility to the Bible. Many, perhaps most, have chosen to remain silent on the feminist rebellion while blaming men because it was safe. As I mentioned above, the current rebellion by women is unprecedented historically. Pastors everywhere know that to seriously preach a biblical view of marriage would put their career in immediate jeopardy. There is after all a full fledged rebellion going on. Fighting such a rebellion is dangerous, so concessions must be made in order to be permitted to teach the rest of the Bible. But this just reinforces how craven the modern pastor has become. They deny the outrageous rebellion front and center out of fear of becoming a casualty of that rebellion.
Whatever the reason a pastor has chosen feminism over the Bible, repentance is what is required. While repentance is humbling and painful, it is the necessary first step to healing and redemption. This is true whether the pastor chose feminism over the Bible out of hostility or shame regarding God’s design for the family, or out of simple fear of losing wealth and prestige. Since the problem is nearly universal, what we need is a day of repentance.
Monday, June 17, 2013
A call for Church repentance
Dalrock issues an important call for Christian pastors to repent for elevating the wisdom of the world above God's Word:
28 comments:
Amen
Nothing new, etc.
Isa 3:12 My people - children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your leaders mislead you, and confuse the course of your paths.
We've divorced procreation from sex so much, it even has warped the definition or at least the discussion on Fatherhood.
Even on on both sides of the debate, "Father's Day" is about husbands and men. Not family or children. Even if they don't have or want children, we need to honor men on Father's day?
Yet contraception is about the prevention of Fatherhood (contra the understanding of the Protestant Church Fathers).
Fatherhood (and Motherhood) is to be prevented and minimized yet honored?
"we need to honor men on Father's day"
Yes, we need to honour men on fathers day
Its called fathers day for a reason
We confessional "Lutherns" as it is so commonly misspelled, suffer few illusions in this regard. Part of the genius of Luther was his understanding of "vocation" and the responsibilities attendant to one's vocations.
We each have several vocations (I am a pastor, husband, father, and bread-winner), and they must be fulfilled no matter what.
Without going to Vox's "alpha versus gamma male" - and despite risking those who reject the absolute authority of Scripture - men have followed Adam and taken a bite of whatever women insisted. I have often wondered what would have happened had Adam told Eve . . .
"No!"
But as the Gospel of Christ breaks through supposedly unbreakable barriers all the time, likewise, Biblical vocation breaks through the myths of feminism as though it were melted butter.
My wife is a woman. She is her own person. I am a man, and likewise, my own person. We are related by marriage, physical mutuality, and likewise (blessedly so) separated by virtue of the way each of us approaches life in our vocation. She does not think in the same manner as do I - but she is wise in that she will hear me as I hear her.
She is completely UNafraid that I am a WCW (Weird Collar Wearer), so that really never comes into play. She knows I am male, and that she is female. We both understand our vocation in that regard, and truly rejoice in our responsibilities owed to one another.
I have to be Christ, and give myself for my Bride (the Church), and she humbly accepts that. That our entire family below us us (I mean "below" only in age) is healthy and prosperous and vocations and roles within are known and used properly are, I believe - a direct result of our relationship, which, of course, comes from He Who is far greater.
Feminism is like every "ism" - a siren call (Σειρῆνες), yet the shoals and rocks await those who sail too close.
Feminism exists as the modern version of Eve's bogus answer to satan. I have to live in a goofy world that keeps playing that "DVD" loop over and over again, but not at home.
Home. John 16:33. Peace. :-) jb
I noticed something yesterday that I blogged about: it seemed that many women were heaping praise on the "good fathers" out there, while heaping disgust on the "bad fathers" (sperm donors, no-shows, deadbeats, etc.) and even giving praise to single mothers who are "wearing both hats".
And yet (a) there was no praise for single fathers, who, at least as often, are in that position due to circumstances not of their choosing, and who go the extra ten miles for their kids in spite of a system stacked against them, (b) there was no disgust directed toward the "bad mothers" out here: the women who knowingly sleep with men of iffy character, the women who shack up with bad men who--in turn--abuse their sons and/or daughters, the women who shut good men out of their children's lives.
And it's not like the men were ripping the bad moms out there in the runup to Mother's Day.
But yes: Dalrock is on the money.
At Mass yesterday the priest gave his homily on Fathers and Father's Day. He had some interesting insights into God as Father, decried efforts to feminize God, and talked about how a man chooses to be a father. All very good.
In the middle of all this, however, came the men are leaving their wives, working too many hours, not nearly enough spending time with their children, and providing a father's role model for their children. And generally the line that women are more spiritual than men naturally, etc. Not so good.
He did note, however, that it is only when the father is engaged in the religion that children become really Catholic and remain with the Faith, and quoted statistics that when the women attends Mass, 80% of her children will fall away from the Faith. When the father attends Mass and practices the Faith, 75% of children of both sexes will remain Catholic - with only a 20% loss.
Following Mass I spoke to the priest. I asked him why, considering that women cause 90% of the divorces, and prevent the father's access to his children, he was not pointing the finger where it belonged. To his credit he said that he had never thought about it in that way, and that I was correct that he should have done so.
Priests and ministers need to be taken to task for unconsciously accepting the feminist rhetoric and false complaints, when it is women who have caused, and continue to cause, the problems.
matamoros -
While your priest is and said what he did, it is not your place to project his opinions upon those who faithfully approach their task. I wished a Happy Mother's Day AFTER awroship, as I did yesterday with Father's Day. Those are secular (profane) holidays, and they, like all the others, do not mount the pulpit with me - ever.
Again - I I did a post or two above, focus as did Luther, on vocation. It is there that one encounters the working reality of God's economy in this world. He was by no means the first to say what he said - but he cut to the quick with what he did have to say.
When God created woman, he used a rib. He did not use gonads. Hence, the difference is left, obviously, hanging in the balance.
Not being bound by the false imposed celibacy of the RCC's theology on that count, I harbor no illusions about vocation, arbitrary societal rules, or ambiguous sexuality.
Genesis 5:2 is for real. Those that play around the fringes of the gender game will get burned in the end.
It is inevitable.
koivwvia4444: "it is not your place to project his opinions upon those who faithfully approach their task."
Your post is not very clear, nor are whatever points you think you are making. I fear you doth protest too much, as your ox was seemingly gored by the truth.
And, certainly it is our right as Christians to remark to our priest/minister, or what have you, about what is incorrect in their teaching.
If you just don't like Catholic theology, from which Protestant theology stemmed, then that is your problem.
As for your other "points", note:
Genesis 2 tells us that the man, who is made in the image and likeness of God Himself, is Adam - who is given dominion over every living creature, and as such names them.
Gen: 2:21-22 - God makes a helpmeet for Adam.
Gen. 2:23 - Adam, as Head of God's creation names her woman, because she was taken from his body.
Gen:3:20 - She is renamed Eve after the Fall (which she caused), as the mother of all living.
Gen: 5:1 - Repeats that it is MAN who is made in the image and likeness of God.
Gen. 5:2 illustrates the woman having the man's name - as they were called here collectively "Adam".
In many more conservative churches across the "Bible belt," while feminism is never endorsed as such and appropriate lip-service to a more or less scripturally accurate conception of manhood or fatherhood is given, the assumption is that men in the church will be like this by default. This of course is not true, they must have strong and godly men to serve as examples.
There does seem to be a slow and inadequate but growing awareness of this, and some churches have taken small steps in the right direction. Let's hope it increases and continues on a large scale. There is still an entirely pervasive idea of one's wife as one's "better half" and the assumed more godly of the couple, probably because proper Christian traits for a woman are assumed to be the normative ones in a feminized church, and men are taught to think they're being good husbands by exalting their wives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKg5a4SPmpg
Starting 10:45.
Question: "What would be the best way as a wife to teach my husband about the Lutheran confessions?"
Answer Given: ['Oh, crap, here we go' chuckle] "Well, Peter does say, and I think we need to take this seriously, that you can win him over just with your gentle and quiet attitude, I think implied it's with prayer, and that by your own believing in the Gospel in your life, I think eventually you can bring him around, so certainly the last thing you want to do is start nagging.
"I know, I know, I'm a man and I actually said that in our 'anti-sexist' (which is actually very sexist toward men) culture."
-- Rev. Fisk, Worldview everlasting, LCMS.
LCMS is very much a mixed bag, having gone pretty liberal in the past, so check out your local church, and if they are super-feminized, maybe just plain check out. But the official position is Biblical, and the church as a whole has been drifting more Sola-Scriptura.
The Wisconsin Synod is a better straight-up choice, but as long as the LCMS keeps moving back, I'm staying on board throwing coal on the fire.
My last Pastor was spot-on, and fully expected to risk arrest in his life time. My next one has a wife who is working on her Ph D. dissertation, so ['Oh crap, her it comes' chuckle] We'll see how this goes.
matamorous -
I am not sure you would really like to debate Catholic theology with me - having been raised Catholic and steeped in the theology - I get it.
Likewise, were you properly and historically informed, you would never call a "confessional Lutheran" a "protestant." Calling me so presupposes a bit of historical ignorance on your part.
Emrys Myrddin - Fisk is one smart cookie, but even he knows that the doctrine of fellowship, along with their revisions to the creed and Scripture, are a good bit off the mark in Wisconsin.
Be that as it may - "C'mon down, sit a spell."
Palacios and the water are spectacular this time of year!
Pax - jb
There's no need for Christ if it weren't for Eve.
Woman is the reflection of who rules the world. Where the divine rules woman shall reflect that. Where evil rules women will reflect that as well. Because it has been since the beginning of time that woman leads a man to sin. Since without her corruptive influence there would be no original sin, no one to fall prey to the whisperings of evil, no one to destroy paradise. There would be no fallen state, no judgement, no blood on the cross.
Man's burden is woman which he both loves and hates. He fears her power which she wields through her sex and yet is inexorably drawn to that sex. For we love what we fear because that love reveals us as vulnerable. For that he will live and die, toil and labor. He will make a mockery of himself. He will sell himself into slavery. He will destroy his brothers, forswear his father, and destroy himself all in the hopes of achieving the impossible: to obtain love from a loveless vessel.
koivwvia4444 "I am not sure you would really like to debate Catholic theology with me - having been raised Catholic and steeped in the theology - I get it."
Having been to Protestant seminary and entirely conversant with Protestant theology of various stripes; and a real student of Catholic theology and history which led to conversion, I'm afraid you not only don't get it, you don't have a clue.
I don't buy into your little name games. "Confessional Lutheran" is simply your flavor du jour to slightly differentiate yourself from other Lutheran and Protestant denominations. Meaningful to you, perhaps, but not really important.
Did you know there are 36 different Lutheran Church groups/bodies in North America alone? But of course, you have convinced yourself that yours is the one and only, I'm sure.
There are thousands of flavors of Protestants, yours is simply another. Enjoy yourself, but learn to keep your theological complexes and guilt trips to yourself.
koivwvia4444 "I am not sure you would really like to debate Catholic theology with me - having been raised Catholic and steeped in the theology - I get it."
Having been to Protestant seminary and entirely conversant with Protestant theology of various stripes; and a real student of Catholic theology and history which led to conversion, I'm afraid you not only don't get it, you don't have a clue.
I don't buy into your little name games. "Confessional Lutheran" is simply your flavor du jour to slightly differentiate yourself from other Lutheran and Protestant denominations. Meaningful to you, perhaps, but not really important in the larger scheme of things.
Did you know there are 36 different Lutheran Church groups/bodies in North America alone? And about 15,000 different Protestant bodies? But of course, you have convinced yourself that yours is the one and only, I'm sure.
There are thousands of flavors of Protestants, yours is simply another. Enjoy yourself, but learn to keep your theological complexes and guilt trips to yourself.
Man - Dude -
What IS your problem?
Hoist your flag and hold your parade. I play neither name games nor head games.
But I bow before a master of those in you.
Pax
And to enlighten you, my dear matamoros, there is but One Holy Church, and it has specifics marks and signs by which it is known to Jesus, and it is not by the names we mortals give it.
You can play Trent's game - I could care less. It is a mind game which detracts from the One Holy, and attract no one to it. While somewhat to the side, I was agreeing with your original posting, your ego appears so fragile that you took it as an affront. I am not the one who determines how your ego or mind works. You are.
But since you took offense, I apologize.
But grow you some callouses, Bubba. Seriously! Alpha males do not loose their s**t over minor matters, and they are willing to discuss major matters.
You simply wish to dismiss those with whom you disagree. Fine by me. I am dismissed, and I remain completely unpersuaded by a single word you wrote.
Find another audience.
None of these issues with Islam. Which is why I think it's going to be very attractive religion wise in the West.
Islam has all of these matters and more . . .
Sunni . . . Shia . . . are you kidding?
Islam has all of these matters and more . . .
Sunni . . . Shia . . . are you kidding?
K probably wasn't referring to your side-debate with matamoros, but to the topic of Vox's post.
Stick
I addressed both in full.
Actually koivwvia4444, it is you who need to find another audience.
You are the one who cannot keep his/her mouth shut. Who aggressively denigrates (do you know that word?) my beliefs. I have said nothing about yours other than to laugh at your idea that "confessional Lutherans" are somehow not Protestants.
Why do you want to try and turn Vox's site into a polemical one for "confessional Lutherans"? That is not its purpose.
Nevertheless, as I will not allow you to slander Christ's Church, I will respond to your willful ignorance.
The one, true Church of Jesus Christ does have 4 specific marks. But not as you erroneously think.
1. It is ONE - not 15,000 groups claiming divine inspiration. It is one specific body with a defined fullness of doctrine and praxis - a unity. Which the Catholic Church has and you do not.
"There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."
2. It is HOLY - The number of saints which the Catholic Church has produced by her teaching of Christ's truths over 2,000 years are undeniable. Many are still incorrupt after hundreds of years. Not only that but the Catholic Church actively seeks to bring all men to Christ, and to teach them to become Christ-like and personally holy.
The Catholic Church is holy because it is Christ's Church:
"...upon this rock I will build my Church."
3. It is CATHOLIC - In case you don't understand the word, it means Universal. This means that the Church was physically founded by Christ, and has existed at all times since that founding, and has the complete Faith of Jesus Christ.
Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which limited the ecclesiastical application of this term to upholders of the teaching of the First Council of Nicaea. These alone were authorized to use the title of Catholic Christians, while others were ordered to be called heretics.
Further, the phrase "all peoples" in the Great Commission implies universality
It is not like your "confessional Lutheran church" which supposedly was founded more than 1500 years after Christ by someone as sinful as Luther.
4. It is APOSTOLIC - This means that the true Church has apostolic succession; i.e, that the Bishops of the Church can directly trace their lineage back to the original Apostles of the Church - not to an apostate monk like Luther. And that it is ruled by these successors of the Apostles; which the Catholic Church is, and yours is not.
In Matthew 16:18 our Lord clearly said:
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
The Catholic Church has been ruled by the successor of the Apostle Peter since the beginning - for over 2,000 years. It is the longest lived continually existing institution on earth.
Luther and the "Reformers" stated that the Catholic Church which was founded by Christ, had become so corrupted that they had to "reform" her by founding new churches.
Jesus, however, said " the gates of hell will not prevail against it". The "reformers" said the Catholic Church failed and they replaced her.
Tell me, who lied, Jesus or the "Reformers"?
koivwvia4444:
"Seriously! Alpha males do not loose their s**t over minor matters, and they are willing to discuss major matters."
Christ's honor is a "minor matter" No real Protestant would agree with that. It is a major matter.
It is obvious that you are a Beta. Alpha males are fighters, not warblers.
You are right that Alphas can discuss points without rancor; but without rancor does not mean leading into a conversation by saying insulting someone - "While your priest is and said what he did, it is not your place to project his opinions upon those who faithfully approach their task."
Who died and made you the arbiter of what should be said here? Or decided that only "confessional Lutherans" should have freedom to speak.
"But since you took offense, I apologize."
Fine. Now that our positions are clear, I accept.
Matamoros -
Your ignorance is an astounding piece of work.
I am left speechless. jb
Thanks Vox. This is a critical step which can't be skipped, ironically for all of the reasons so many desperately want to skip it.
Matamoros is sincere but misled. As a former Protestant I should know. The Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church still exists and it was Rome that broke away from it and the Protestants in turn broke away from Rome, not the other way around. The early reformers if you do an online search for Augsberg and Constantinople even recognized the apostolic succession of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Bishop of Rome is but one of a conciliar body of bishops all of whom claim the apostolic succession. With the direction the Roman Church has taken under Pope Francis it may be only a matter of time before the great apostasy that many sincere Catholics have warned of since Fatima completes its work of destroying Rome from within. At that point the faithful Catholics must return to the unbroken Church of the first millenium, reject the doctrinal innovations since the 13th century including the ban on married priests, and join the Orthodox. Our task as Orthodox Christians is to stay faithful until that great day before the LORD returns.
here is a good guide for your Lutheran friend:
http://orthodoxyforlutherans.blogspot.com/2010/10/augsburg-and-constantinople.html
In fact my journey to Orthodoxy began seven years ago when a Lutheran minister praised the Orthodox priests he'd met to me as very knowledgable and serious about the Gospel.
Matamoros however is absolutely correct about one thing -- the LORD would never leave us so forsaken that we would have no idea what is the visible body of Christ on Earth. The fact that the greatest sin of the Orthodox has been to hide their light under the bushel of excessive ethnocentricity (and since the Revolution the missionary activities have been badly curtailed) has not destroyed the Orthodox Church's witness on this Earth. It remains the pearl of great price or the mustard seed which in time will become a mighty oak and the true end times church. Already millions in the U.S. are dissatisfied with evangelical Protestantism and millions of Catholics understand something is terribly wrong with Rome, from top to bottom. That's not to say the Orthodox have not had their own financial scandals particularly the OCA but thank God the worse sins that involve children among the Roman priests or outright apostasy among the Evangelicals have been avoided. Russia/Eastern Europe have in some sense already become the 'spiritual fatherland' of the Manosphere's leading voices, they simply don't understand yet the source of beauty in the Slavic lands is not that of the women, who sadly divorce at almost the same rate as their Western counterparts. It is the Faith and it is the faith that is restoring Russian womanhood, slowly pushing back against the scourge of abortion, and reviving Russia as a great power again.
The inter debate is one of the main obstacles to ever seeing critical mass pressure applied to ANY church of any flavor.
Goodness, embrace the idea that with a confession from the panderers the entire fleet of ships is headed where there be monsters
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.