[Caligula]

Here's an interesting example of backlash against feminism. They seem to recruit among the demographic that we so often post in the Online Hamster Thread. The 'sex positive' liberal arts feminist adherents. Not surprising that the church can them to swap one 'religion' for another. They clearly understand female psychology; women are attracted by the provider aspect after a stint on the cock carousel.

I don't think I'd like these people, the snarky tone is annoying and bible thumpers are never fun to be around; the guys who run it come across as a bunch of cult leaders.

But it's telling that this movement is gaining such a following. They emphasise female submissiveness and traditional gender roles.

Excerpts below, but the whole thing is worth a read: http://www.alternet.org/belief/oral-sex-...men-submit

Quote:

That men lead the movement is key according to Driscoll, who ties myriad modern spiritual and societal problems back to the failure of female leadership. Driscoll traces his theory all the way to Genesis—in a 2004 sermon, he said Eve’s eating of the fruit of knowledge was “the first exercising of a woman’s role in leadership in the home and in the church in the history of the world. It does not go well. It has not gone well since.”

Quote:

“Church today, it’s just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickified church boys. Sixty percent of Christians are chicks, and the forty percent that are dudes are still sort of chicks.”

Quote:

But unlike his counterparts in secular media, Driscoll believes that current gender discrepancies are not the result of the growing strength of women, but of the weakness of men.

[Mujeriego]

Interesting read. I went out on a few dates with a girl who was heavily involved in an evangelical church. The blind devotion she had to it was off-putting.

[Private Man]

You need to read Dalrock's take on Driscoll and Churchianity in general. He's got some outstanding insights.

Start here: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/...to-change/

Then hit the links contained in that post.

Dalrock is really, really good and represents the far more cerebral part of the Manosphere.

[void]

cult leader is one of the most insane and probably rewarding "careers" you can ever achieve. imagine people doing stupid things for you, thinking your shit, sending you money, just because u said it. a little bit like what roosh is to his forum or a hot chick controlling her beta-orbiters
the difference is, that these cults often are based on esoteric bullshit and dogmas, not logic.

[ColSpanker]

Somehow I don't think their "homosex is a sin" line will play out very well in the metrosexual towns.

[Basil Ransom]

Interesting, but information from other sources make this guy sound a lot less appealing. Honestly, he looks and sounds like a white trash meathead retard; he makes Dane Cook look like the height of good taste.

Quote:

Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, took a dramatic stand against girly men at a Pastor’s Conference in Houston last week.

The conference, called “re:tool and re:load,” previously billed as “jesus 2.0,” featured speakers from around the country with the stated focus of “Making the Gospel and Missiology Relevant to Post Modern Culture.” Speaking at the last session of the conference, Driscoll focused his three-and-a-half-hour talk on the need for pastors to be more alpha.

“The problem with our churches today is that the lead pastor is some sissy boy who wears cardigan sweaters, has The Carpenters dialed in on his iPod, gets his hair cut at a salon instead of a barber shop, hasn’t been to an Ultimate Fighting match, works out on an elliptical machine instead of going to isolated regions of Russia like in Rocky IV in order to harvest lumber with his teeth, and generally swishes around like Jack from Three’s Company whenever Mr. Roper was around.”


Pacing the stage in a vaguely threatening manner, Driscoll focused on Biblical examples. “Jesus and Paul were serious dudes. They had teeth missing. Jesus was a carpenter, Paul was in prison. These guys didn’t eat tofu dogs and bean sprouts. They didn’t play tennis. If there were trucks back in their times, they would have been doing driveway lube jobs on a Saturday afternoon. Same thing with King David. Yeah, he might have played a lyre, but he slaughtered thousands of guys.”

The 300 pastors from around the country roared with approval, even though many of them had heard the same labored formulations at previous conferences called “reGeneration” and “resurge and reform.”

“At the Re:Ignite conference he talked about how Jesus and Peter didn’t wear matching sweatshirts that said ‘Best Buds’,” said John Kinston, a conference attendee who was live-blogging the event.

Kinston is emblematic of the many young pastors who support Driscoll. He planted Kiona Community Church three years ago in downtown Louisville, Kentucky. He attends 37 Mark Driscoll conferences each year, because he said he needs the support of fellow church planters and the inspiration of steroidal statistics.

“Numbers aren’t important, but we’ve grown 81.7% a year since our launch date and I still can’t get the guys to step up and be warriors," said Kinston. "We want to love our city and we can’t do that with a bunch of pansies who would rather play video games than go to a monster truck rally or tattoo their faces like Mike Tyson.


“At last year’s Converging Conference, Driscoll talked about standing up when you piss and I got really excited. We started a men’s-only Bible Accountability Group. It was a combination of scripture study and Muy Thai Stick Fighting. It was great for a few weeks, until my worship pastor lost an eye. I had to make a tough call then and there: no more Muy Thai Stick Fighting at Kiona Community without protective face gear. I still think it might have been a spiritual compromise.”

In Houston, Driscoll was intent on making absolutely clear that he is in favor of masculinity. At the 2 hour, 15 minute mark, he invited five pastors from the audience to take the stage, put his hands behind his back, stuck out his chin, and said, “Hit me with your best shot. Go on. I won’t hit you back. I want to show everyone what this is all about.” When none of the five took a swing, Driscoll had them escorted from the building and proceeded to hit himself five times.


“This is what being a pastor is about, guys. If you can’t handle it, go back to teaching yoga or playing My Little Pony with the other girls.”

The rest of the session followed the same general tone, with Driscoll ridiculing insulated coffee cups, haiku and dental floss as feminine while extolling athletic cups, tobacco spit and broken load-bearing bones as being “essential for a pastor.”

The blogosphere heated up quickly in the wake of Driscoll’s talk. At Jesuswasaman.blogspot.com, one post read, “This is the only thing that will turn back the tide of the Church’s decline in America. Until more guys step up and start punching themselves in the face, people will continue to leave the Church.”

Driscoll’s detractors had their say as well. At thereisaplacefordriscollinhellbesidehitler.wordpress.com, Angel23 said, “It doesn’t matter that Driscoll’s church has 6,000 people coming to worship God, if he continues to use words like sissy he will be smited.”

Driscoll turned down our request for an interview, saying, “Interviews are for wimpy guys who wear Sans-a-Belt slacks and chew sugar-free gum.”

As mentioned, the blogger Dalrock had some pertinent criticism of Driscroll: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/...d-be-wise/ and http://dalrock.wordpress.com/category/mark-driscoll/

You always have to be wary. Whenever you see someone who seems to get it right, AND he's getting a popular following... make sure he's actually getting it right. While plenty of men are pathetic today, women aren't exactly achieving the feminine ideal either.

Driscroll doesn't hold women responsible for, well, anything, it seems. That might make sense if we lived in a patriarchal society where women had no freedom or independence. We don't, so it doesn't make sense.

For whatever reason, everything I've seen of Evangelical Christianity is tacky, plebeian and sappy. I don't understand how anybody takes it seriously. If I were Christian, I'd much sooner choose traditional Catholicism or Orthodoxy than this smarmy redneck trash. And Catholics have long written off Evangelicals as intellectually laughable.

[Hades]

I would rather go to church and watch this guy play Duke Nukem in the pulpit or whatever it is that he does instead of listening to the regular, fairly bland shit that I've had to put up with as a kid. Anything that makes church less appealing to women is great by me. I don't demand to be entertained all the time but I do demand that the sermons are relatable to the common man (myself). If this guy is reinterpreting the apostles to be hardasses from prison that's cool by me.

Now if there was a Catholic church group who somehow bucked the vatican and allowed priests to marry or have relations with women without problem, that would be revolution I'd completely back. Every dude I know who went into the seminary when I was younger and in Catholic type schools were just shady characters. You just can't trust somebody who willingly goes asexual in order to gain a platform and leadership of a congregation. Not to say that I don't trust my particular church leadership, but that kind of suspicion is what I think keeps a lot of men from engaging religiously.

[ElJefe]

(10-30-2012 11:07 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Driscroll doesn't hold women responsible for, well, anything, it seems. That might make sense if we lived in a patriarchal society where women had no freedom or independence. We don't, so it doesn't make sense.

well, haven't we long since concluded that women basically are children and can't take responsibility for themselves in a truly independent manner?

To be fair then, he's right. Man up, smack the bitch, and disenfranchise women. Women only have any power insofar as the state sanctions it - through taxation & redistribution and the legal system. I can't imagine changing one without the other, but in a purely libertarian society, women would be in the home because that would be the most economically efficient allocation of labor, given the nature of child-rearing (paging Gary Becker). Those women who didn't stay at home would not raise any children, and thus die without offspring, reinforcing the preponderance of housewives.

The nuclear family would still remain or recover, I believe, because like allocation of labor between a wife and husband, it's the most efficient vehicle to raise and maximize the human and social capital of children and society (Popenoe).

Nice! Natural equilibrium is right there, waiting to be grabbed!

[Basil Ransom]

(10-31-2012 09:41 AM)Hades Wrote:  

I would rather go to church and watch this guy play Duke Nukem in the pulpit or whatever it is that he does instead of listening to the regular, fairly bland shit that I've had to put up with as a kid. Anything that makes church less appealing to women is great by me. I don't demand to be entertained all the time but I do demand that the sermons are relatable to the common man (myself). If this guy is reinterpreting the apostles to be hardasses from prison that's cool by me.

Liberal religious denominations are failing and fading. In trying to be 'relevant' they diluted their message, and sapped their faith of any conviction or vigor. Religion that just tells you everything you want to do is okay is nice at first, but eventually loses sway over people. The religion 'reforms' so much there's nothing left. You may indulge belief out of habit, but your kids won't - they won't understand why you bothered with it in the first place, and they'll discard it entirely.

The problem isn't that the message isn't relatable, it's that there is no message any more. You don't need to be a clown like this guy to make a strong point. The point of the Bible and other historical works is that they offer wisdom for any age. Efforts to make great works 'relatable' ultimately destroys them, robbing them of what makes them great in the first place. The point is not to change the great works, but to expend personal effort to understand them. And that makes people appreciate it more.

Jefe, he isn't advocating disenfranchisement of women. Even if he was, he'd still have to wait for that to happen before holding men entirely responsible. Men can't lead when women refuse to be led. He himself says that. It's just that according to him, the men are too weak to convince women to let them lead.