Supplicating to rebellion

30 Jan

Time to jettison any notions of complementarianism, in favour of Biblical patriarchy.


Solomon challenged my definition of the word complementarian in the last post:

Dalrock, you said “This is the very definition of complementarianism.”

I think maybe you meant this is the definition of today’s upside-down, backwards, unholy complementarianism currently touted.

Normal complementarianism is God’s actual order. Man is authoity, woman complements/helps

This isn’t true.  Complementarianism is a term coined a little over twenty five years ago by Christians who wanted to preserve what they saw as feminist progress while avoiding what they saw as feminist excess. John Piper and Wayne Grudem explained this back in 1991 in the preface to their seminal book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism.  Piper and Grudem explain that their purpose is to push back against the evangelical feminists arguing that there should be no difference between the roles of men and women.  However, they are largely sympathetic to the feminist…

View original post 996 more words


Posted by on January 30, 2016 in Uncategorized


23 responses to “Supplicating to rebellion

  1. pukeko60

    January 31, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    But the rage of the commentators is Yuuuge. Because if we talk about doing this to obey Christ and not our spouse, we are worshipping, what to them, is a strange God. They want us to worship as if they themselves were Ba’al or Asheroth.

  2. Will S.

    January 31, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    Indeed, Chris.

  3. Sean

    January 31, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    Am I off base thinking that there is a link with this Strange God worship that Chris alludes to and the general abandonment of fathers once children arrive?

  4. infowarrior1

    February 1, 2016 at 4:33 am

    Never seemed to like the word complementarianism. Seems weasly and weak to me as if apologetic about their views.

    Now it seems my suspicions are confirmed.

    If Patriarchy brings the ire of Modernists then the church should say “Bring it on”

  5. Will S.

    February 1, 2016 at 9:53 am

    @ Sean: No doubt; that is, worshiping a strange god, rather than the Living God, will often lead women to behave thus, because ultimately, they’re worshipping themselves.

    @ infowarrior1: Exactly!

  6. feeriker

    February 1, 2016 at 10:22 am

    If Patriarchy brings the ire of Modernists then the church should say “Bring it on”

    The problem being that the church today is owned by modernists, lock, stock, and barrel. The contemporary church begging for the return of Patriarchy would be akin to a snail begging for a saltwater cocktail, or Superman begging for a bag full of kryptonite.

  7. Will S.

    February 1, 2016 at 10:24 am

    Alas, indeed.

  8. weak stream

    February 1, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    I’ve stopped using ‘ism’s’ for the most part as it just descends into an argument about definitions. And who’s definitions are more accepted by ‘cooler, hipper’ circles. So ‘Complimentarianism is simply a definition of contemporary feminism using a euphemistically positive term as the term abortion is a euphemistically positive term for killing babies Anyway, men’s and women’s natures are literally complimentary. I often say that if a feminist and a misogynist are stranded on a desert island, they will adopt conventional sex roles on the first day and start liking each other on the second.

  9. Will S.

    February 2, 2016 at 11:18 am

    Your approach makes much sense.

    Saw an Italian movie once where a rich bitch and a Marxist asshole were stranded on an island; at first, she hated him, but eventually, he had her eating out of his hand. I thought it was realistic. 🙂

  10. Eric

    February 3, 2016 at 7:16 am

    To Churchians like Dalrock, anything that contradicts Game is anti-Christian and pro-Feminist. Complimentarianism originated in the Garden of Eden: it’s what the term ‘helpmeet’ implies. These Churchian Gamers are basically taking New-Age ideas and projecting them on Traditional Christianity; just like they gender-reverse Feminism and claim that the philosophy they concoct is Biblically-based.

    There is nothing in Christianity that teaches either gender supremacy or gender warfare. Game and Feminism teach both.

    The metaphysics behind this is complex, but a simple way to explain is by the term ‘polarity’. That’s what complimentarianism amounts to in reality.

  11. Will S.

    February 3, 2016 at 10:08 am

    I would perhaps draw a distinction between the principle of complementarity, which indeed springs from Genesis, and complementarianism as an ideology, which purports to believe the same thing, yet in practice, enables female supremacism and leadership, against patriarchy. Dalrock has shown, in his articles on the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, how they have enabled feminism within Christian marriages, and opposed true patriarchy.

  12. Mark Citadel

    February 3, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    Patriarchy is not some negotiable position, it is the Divinely ordained order of things. Woman was made as mans companion, not the other way around. We find this implicit in her nature, and at times explicit in Scripture. Any time Christians on the other side of this shouldn’t-even-be-a-debate all they produce is sophistry and appeals to the dominant state religion, the Cult of Progress.

    On a completely unrelated note, Will, what is your opinion of American philosemite ‘Christians’ who essentially put the welfare of Israel above anything else, including Christian interests, because Jews are the perfect chosen ones? heresy, no?

  13. Eric

    February 3, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    Most people would mean ‘complimentarity’ or ‘polarity’ by the term; but that’s not how Dalrock is spinning it. He’s implying that people who use the term are using it in the ideological sense; to paint all Christians who use it with the same broad brush. It’s the same with these various councils—not all Churches accept feminism or the proclamations of these councils. What he’s employing is the cultish tactic of setting up Churchian Game as the ‘pure’ Faith against all other denominations which are supposedly in varying degrees of feminist corruption.

    I don’t see Churchian Game as traditionally patriarchal at all; but more like a throwback to some of the sexually depraved Gnostic cults of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

  14. weak stream

    February 3, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    What contemporary feminist dogma has wrong is that the ‘patriarchy’ is the man’s responsibility. The Christian man is no slave driver. The woman has her charges to administer. Up until the past 100 years, I’d guess everyone understood this as obvious. Men and women are very good at what they do. Women freely state that men are not quite attentive as mothers…fair enough. Another thing is that it’s my opinion that progressive agenda has, for the most part, CREATED the gay community. Disaffected people may wonder..’Maybe I’m gay’.. as Progressives have pushed homosexuality as mainstream. I think that’s another lie. Now they’re doing it with transexual..and now they’re coming out of the woodwork. Humans are highly suggestible.

  15. weak stream

    February 3, 2016 at 9:13 pm

    To rephrase that first sentence: the ‘patriarchy’ is the man’s responsibility, not a privilege per se. Feminists claim it is privilege.

  16. Will S.

    February 4, 2016 at 2:06 am

    @ Mark: Agreed re: patriarchy. As you can tell from our blog title here, we have always been believers in patriarchy; it’s non-negotiable.

    Re: knee-jerk pro-Israel stances, I have discussed such much in the past – see many of my posts within the The Tribe category:

    You will see I have been consistently opposed to such, esp. based on faulty eschatology / doctrine like dispensationalism (which, if not an outright heresy, is certainly a gross misunderstanding of Scripture), and I am always irritated by those who think their country’s government should accordingly automatically support Israel. A little while ago, we lost a long-time participant here who disagreed profoundly with me on such matters. Oh well; c’est la vie. The internet is full of drama queens who can’t abide any opinions that differ from their own, and not just amongst the SJWs, either. I ain’t going to miss anyone who leaves here in a huff.

    @ Eric: Well, we have some differences of opinion.

    @ weak stream: Agreed.

  17. Eric

    February 4, 2016 at 5:45 am

    Well, I’m not going to go off in a huff over this; besides I like bacon, unlike the commenter you referred to.

    As for Millenial Joe, I don’t think he’s exactly an archetype of the Godly Alpha Leader, (or female hypergamy) although Churchian Gamers seem to copy him in both spirit and deed much more so than Christ. Part of their problem is that they take the warped behavior of modern Western women and claim that to be natural, God-given behavior for women. They built extravagant theories around feminist behavior and claim their theories are supported by Scripture.

    For example, there’s no possible way to read the account of the Incarnation and Virgin Birth and resolve Mary’s faith and God’s actions with the Game doctrines of Hypergamy or the Female Imperative. The Gamecocks talk about ‘the sin of Eve’ although St. Paul expressly tells us this was nullified by Christ’s Advent through the agency of the Holy Spirit working through Mary. Some Churchian Gamers argue that love doesn’t exist, though St. John tells us that to deny love is to deny God. Others, Dalrock included, have argued that Game is taught in the Bible. This whole movement is a CULT, neither patriarchal, traditional, or Biblical.

  18. Will S.

    February 5, 2016 at 3:11 am

    @ Eric: I’m glad you’re not leaving; glad to have you around. 🙂

    Not sure I follow – who do you mean by Millennial Joe?

    I think that the possible trouble with the word ‘Game’ can be what it means to different people; some people take it to mean an entire system related to enticing women, whereas others, like I would argue ourselves here, to simply mean an understanding of female nature, and applying that knowledge in the pursuit of relationships – getting and keeping a woman – and that like any other knowledge, it can be used for good or ill. (One can use knowledge of combustion, how to start a fire, to warm a house, or to burn a house down; the knowledge is neutral, the end use determines the morality / immorality.)

  19. Will S.

    February 5, 2016 at 3:15 am

    In that sense, therefore, though one can believe in such things as a tendency towards hypergamy on the part of many females, and a biological female imperative, it doesn’t mean such things are the driving, motivating force in all women, and so nobody need argue that Mary, or Mother Teresa, or any other admirable women in the faith were primarily motivated by such tendencies, if at all – any more than arguing that all men are only motivated by their penises, when many men through history, from our Lord Himself to St. Paul to Sir Isaac Newton, and others, remained bachelors and accomplished much for the Lord and our civilization. The mere possession of penises didn’t require that such men be enslaved by them, as some others have been; same with good women, of much virtue.

  20. Eric

    February 5, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    Thanks—I even bought some bacon (for tomorrow because today’s Friday lol)

    ‘Millennial Joe’ is the homeless bum in the link you gave.

    There’s nothing wrong with studying feminine psychology as a way of enhancing relationships; the problem with these Churchian Gamers that they’ve incorporated Game Doctrines into Christian theology. And some of their psychology is very dubious to begin with. In the OP article, Dalrock takes great issue with the idea that “They are teaching that women are designed sexually to Godly husbands.” On the contrary, that is exactly what women are designed to do; if they aren’t doing that, it’s the fault of the culture—not biology or female psychology.

    To extrapolate that even further: how could a Christian husband ever treat his wife as ‘a co-equal in Christ’ or as a ‘helpmeet’ if he believed the Churchian Game position? Worse still, how is teaching a woman that her God-given sexuality is repelled by masculine morality supposed to make her a good wife? That’s one of the Gnostic elements of Game; because the logical theology of this position is that feminine spirituality can’t exist independently of men. It puts man in the place of God; and places women on the level of livestock. (And I’ve read many Gamers who say that having a wife is like obedience-training a dog; and a few others who draw parallels with cows—including having herds of them).

  21. Will S.

    February 5, 2016 at 9:17 pm


    Oh yeah, I forgot, because that tag is applied to many posts, not just the top one.

    One of course must always be careful not to let any false understandings from the world creep into one’s Christian worldview; it is a danger, for all of us, which we all must guard against and be vigilant. If anyone thinks the place of either sex is to practically worship his / her spouse rather than the Lord, there is a huge problem…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s