New Boundless blogger to men: “Yep, still your fault.”

13 Jun

I noticed today that Boundless has a new male blogger this summer named James.  According to his bio on the site, he will be entering his senior year at Liberty University this coming fall and plans to get a Master’s degree for marriage and family counseling.  Now, obviously James is just one person, but being that he seems to be following a very stereotypical Christian path to a profession that will specifically engage Christians, his views are very likely to be widely held by people like him.  So it’s worth paying attention to his viewpoints, because those are the viewpoints that Christians with marital troubles are going to hear.

Based on his most recent (and introductory) post, those viewpoints are pretty standard churchian stuff.  In “One of the Boys,” he relates an email conversation he had with a reader named Jeff.  Jeff was venting about standard church-manosphere complaints:  churches blame the men for everything and don’t support them with camaraderie or encouragement.

James responds:

I wish I could sit down and have a conversation with Jeff. “Jeff”, I’d say, “I completely understand where you are coming from.” I grew up in a church culture where the mindset seemed to be that men were the animals with the problems and all women had to do was not feed the beast inside the man. The women were the innocent victims of man’s inability to “live right.”

I, however, don’t want to deny the truth that God created men to lead and take responsibility of their families. Therefore, changing men’s hearts and lives is the most effective way to shot block our culture’s high divorce rate. Here at Boundless, our passion and dream is to see men rise up to their full potential as leaders, filled with the Spirit, putting aside their own desires, and passionately sacrificing for their families. If men will lead well, women will follow. In trying to communicate this to our readers, however, some guys seem to receive a nagging and condemning rant, rather than an inspiring and encouraging call to arms.

This is where Boundless, and the whole churchosphere of gender relations, just completely misses the boat.

One, if “changing men’s hearts and lives” is the most effective way to reduce divorce, then that effectively means that women are not responsible for their own actions and will justify divorcing their husbands because they don’t have the correct “heart” and “life.”  So James has some sort of cognitive dissonance that he can recognize his own church’s special snowflake stance, yet buys into it at the same time.  This stance ignores or at best downplays the possibility that women have depraved hearts as well, and may choose rebellion against their husbands regardless of the husband’s actions.  Furthermore, look at how many women remain married to awful men, or who won’t leave adulterous or abusive husbands.  It’s pretty obvious that “changing men’s hearts and lives” is not necessarily an effective method of reducing divorce.  Sure, in some cases it will work, but it won’t work as often or as well as Boundless thinks it will.

Second, James’s assertion seems to be that leading well is equivalent to more self-denial, more self-sacrifice, and more appeasement, with no room to say enough.  I feel like the churchosphere’s idea of manly leadership is running yourself ragged for your wife and kids to get them the things they need to feel loved, and if you’re not doing that, you’re an inadequate man whose wife will probably divorce you on account of bad leadership.  In reality, real leadership often boils down to judiciously and firmly saying no, and holding others accountable for their actions.

Third, and this is really mind-boggling – if the readership is continually saying it feels nagged and condemned by all the exhortations to man up, THEN MAYBE YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.  Maybe you are scolding them like a woman, and as a man you should recognize that MEN HATE THAT.  If your “inspiring and encouraging call to arms” comes across like finger-wagging scolding, then maybe you need to change your approach and stop blaming everyone else for being too sensitive or not being submitted to God enough to hear His special message for you or whatever.

Any effective campaign to reduce divorce needs to address BOTH women and men.  You can’t just tell the men to lead and expect the women to follow when there is no concurrent expectation for women to change their behavior and mindsets.  Every time you tell men to man up and lead, you have to tell women to simmer down and submit.  Otherwise, the implicit message is just “you only need to submit if he’s doing an adequate job of leading.”  Which is precisely the attitude that landed us in this too-much-divorce culture in the first place!

I mean, you just can’t have a church culture where the men are constantly called on to be more humble, more sacrificial, more manly, yet the women’s heads are filled with messages that they are Daughters of the King! and special and anointed and powerful and beautiful and shouldn’t settle for less than God’s best.  Can anyone honestly say that this is a recipe for reducing divorces?

Advertisements

47 Responses to “New Boundless blogger to men: “Yep, still your fault.””

  1. Franz June 14, 2012 at 1:07 am #

    I’m not sure exactly what you’re doing to come up with these pieces, but whatever it is, by all means keep doing it. If I’m not careful, I do believe I could end up developing an e-crush on you. Just in case it isn’t already obvious, I really liked that last one too.

  2. Rico June 14, 2012 at 4:46 am #

    Thankfully, there already appear to be several commenters taking the newbie to task in the comments.

  3. Wudang June 14, 2012 at 5:53 am #

    Do any manosphere people go to boundless and debate them there?

  4. Smithborough June 14, 2012 at 6:17 am #

    Good post.

    I read the warnings in the book of Proverbs against the adulteress. I didn’t notice any suggestion there that her husband was “failing to lead” her. “Failing to lead” is substituting psychobabble for the Bible (like “self esteem”).

  5. GhostShip June 14, 2012 at 6:47 am #

    The church keeps telling men to “man up” while stabbing those same men in the back by excusing and refusing to confront women’s immoral and unchristian behavior.

    The church must have its own version of the rationalization hamster.

  6. Purple Tortoise June 14, 2012 at 7:42 am #

    The Boundless advice is really this.

    1. Be alpha

    2. Lead rightously

    Sure, if men were alpha then women would naturally follow them. But they always forget to mention the first instruction.

    They wouldn’t make this mistake if they ever recruited a beta writer. Instead we get this goofiness where a college senior writes, “I have walked the lonely road of singleness for much of my time here on earth.” Yeah, buddy, I feel for you.

  7. Hana June 14, 2012 at 9:39 am #

    “I have walked the lonely road of singleness for much of my time here on earth.” I read that line in the article in amusement. It was a tad overdramatic…

    I agree, men and women need to be equally taken to task for the high divorce rate. This piece on Boundless seemed to echo Fireproof, which I didn’t watch, but from everything I’ve read about it, it also mainly blames the husband for the wife’s decision to divorce.

  8. y81 June 14, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    My personal advice for influencing men is to never, never use the expression “absolutely fav.” Also, ditch the “I love [itals] this!” No one with a Y chromosome writes that way. I mean, would you expect to see writing like that in a real men’s magazine, like Sports Illustrated or Maxim?

  9. an observer June 14, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    The logical fallacies are sickening. I rarely visit boundless as the torture of truth is too painful.

    I will resist the temptation to bag the blue pill dispenser’s lack of life experience. And merely point out that:

    1. Men can lead, but women are not following.
    2. Men can improve but the wimmin still divorce them.
    3. Men can appease, supplicate and pedestalise, whilst they lose their children and most of their assets.
    4. Men can initiate, be intentional and proactive, but women under thirty will still be fooled by the apex fallacy.
    5. Men can be kicked out and divorced for no reason at all, women have all the support and legal recourse. Plus church support, becausr it was his failure to lead. Even if she broke covenant, it was his fault.

    Quite frankly, if women are not culpable for their actions, why can they vote? Or enter into contracts?

    Marriage 2.0 is a high risk venture, mostly embarked upon with little understanding of the risks.

    I could not in good conscience recommend it. And that is incredibly sad

  10. Hermes June 14, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    I mean, would you expect to see writing like that in a real men’s magazine, like Sports Illustrated or Maxim?

    Well, the May 28th issue of Sports Illustrated had an article on “The Transgender Athlete.”

    Anyway, this is more of the same “headship theology” Boundless has been espousing for years. It’s best summed up by that Doug Wilson passage they once approvingly quoted, about how a first mate is at fault for an error he makes that runs the ship aground, but the captain is still responsible. It’s as though they think women are essentially children, in the sense that anything they do wrong must ultimately be blamed on the parents, or dogs, in the sense that anything they do wrong must ultimately be blamed on the owner.

    Haley, while we’re taking apart Boundless (it’s not like they’re not ripe with low-hanging fruit,) did you see the recent article called “What’s a Guy To Do?” It’s rife with advice that only applies to alphas but is mistakenly directed to all men, and would be ripe for fisking. Every last allegedly attractive thing it cautions “men” about doing lest they lead women on, would be perceived as “creepy” if it were done by the “wrong” (i.e., omega or lesser beta) guys. Check out this gem:

    3) Beware of power trips. Let’s be honest. Sometimes, just by living, you’ll turn the ladies’ heads. (Joseph in the Bible didn’t ask to be pursued by Potiphar’s wife.)

    Sheesh. Talk about your apex fallacy. (Also, news flash, Elisabeth Adams: Genesis specifically tells us that Joseph was good-looking.)

  11. Aunt Haley June 14, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

    Hana–
    You should check out Dalrock’s posts on Fireproof and Courageous.

    Hermes–
    I think y81 was referring to the feminine manner of speaking, not the subject matter.

    Re: “What’s a Guy to Do?” – the Joseph apex fallacy is LOL-worthy. Let’s see…Joseph had a handsome face and a hot bod, PLUS he was in charge of Potiphar’s entire household and was really good at it. I’m sure Potiphar’s wife was just randomly attracted to him ’cause he was just living his life.

    The problem with headship theology is that it’s the equivalent of telling teachers that if they’re good teachers, children will behave and learn and that’s the easiest way to get kids to do well in school. Just be a good teacher, and all of your students will go to a respected four-year college! It completely ignores the fact that some kids do not come to school prepared to learn and that some have no aptitude for it. But sure, if only we had better teachers, more kids would do well in school!

    Wudang–
    It’s difficult to get debates going at Boundless because every comment has to be approved. So if you try any funnee-beezness, they might not allow the comment.

  12. y81 June 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    I disagree. There’s a lid for every pot or, as a sociologist would describe it, humans generally practice assortative mating. In Joseph’s case, note that Potiphar’s wife was herself a high status woman, as the wife of a high official. (Perhaps a trophy wife?) So she would have high standards. Correlatively, even the dweebiest guy will probably turn some woman’s head, but not Michelle Pfeiffer’s.

  13. Aunt Haley June 16, 2012 at 12:11 am #

    I went back and looked at the responses in the Boundless post. Many of the male commenters are red-pilling the place, and the women are not taking it kindly. The women’s responses have been pretty textbook woman rhetoric:

    – NAWALT/I don’t think women are perfect, therefore women as a whole don’t think this way
    – It’s the guy’s fault, too!
    – You can’t just blame one side!
    – You’re not showing Christian love, you’re just accusing, why can’t you be encouraging instead of destructive?
    – Why does everything devolve into a battle of the sexes? You’re too focused on winning than on finding a solution

    Meanwhile, the male commenters are trying to use facts and statistics.

    (It should be noted that some of the female commenters do agree with the male commenters. But the most vocal female commenters all used the above rhetoric, even though some semi-attempted to backtrack later.)

  14. Wudang June 16, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    Its great some guys are red pilling over there. I think it is important to move out of the sphere and debate others from time to time and then to leave links to the sphere at those sites. I tend to do it like I describe a bit down in this thread:

    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/the-enemy-is-us/

  15. Wudang June 16, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

    I just read through the boundless thread. Those guys did a great job.

  16. Lucie June 16, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    Hermes said: “Anyway, this is more of the same “headship theology” Boundless has been espousing for years. It’s best summed up by that Doug Wilson passage they once approvingly quoted, about how a first mate is at fault for an error he makes that runs the ship aground, but the captain is still responsible. It’s as though they think women are essentially children, in the sense that anything they do wrong must ultimately be blamed on the parents, or dogs, in the sense that anything they do wrong must ultimately be blamed on the owner.”

    Yes, yes and yes. One of the biggest reasons I’ve always been so turned off by complementarianism.

    Another commenter (I’m sorry I don’t recall your name but I’m having trouble with my computer display) remarked on the poster’s writing style – THANK you. Glad it wasn’t just me being petty (grin). Okay, it’s a personal thing, but I just don’t care for men who sound like a teenage cheerleader.

    Haley – Preach it, sister.

  17. Lucie June 16, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

    ‘Instead we get this goofiness where a college senior writes, ‘I have walked the lonely road of singleness for much of my time here on earth.’ Yeah, buddy, I feel for you.’

    There are many who have walked it for far longer and might have a little more life experience/wisdom to share on the matters he’s been hired to discuss. It’s not that I think a college student can’t possess much maturity – I see young people all the time about whom I think, “”I wish I’d had it that together when I was their age.” But my impression was that he had only recently entered the world of coupledom, and probably has a good deal still to learn about relationships, leadership, etc. Did Boundless hire him at least partly due to his youth since their audience is (supposedly) younger?

  18. Badger June 17, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

    So sick of this bullsh** from evangelical editorialists.

    Eldridge has a point, in the most roundabout and poorly-intended ways: that point is the red-pill truth that most men’s troubles with women begin and end with the fact they’re not attractive enough. Lots of women will do almost anything to stay in the good graces of a man they are attracted to. The good news is that male attractiveness can be taught, learned and honed. Bold leadership is one of those attraction markers.

    As to “everything will improve if men lead more,” that’s just a bunch of horsecrap. Methinks the preachers are hitting men hard because they know preaching to women about their faults would empty the pews and dry out the coffers.

    The problem with telling men to lead, full stop, is that it leads to a generation of puffed-up whiteknights, eager to jump in with moralism when they think it’s their cue. In the privilege of leading is reserved for strong men; goodness has nothing to do with it.

  19. Badger June 17, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    “But my impression was that he had only recently entered the world of coupledom, and probably has a good deal still to learn about relationships, leadership, etc. Did Boundless hire him at least partly due to his youth since their audience is (supposedly) younger?”

    I penned a lot of stuff at that age that I look back on now and think “I hope nobody reads this, this is total clueless crap.” Red-pill 101 is don’t take dating advice from women; an addendum would be don’t take dating advice from people under 25 (unless that individual has certain real-life credentials like runs a business or has bagged supermodels).

  20. Dalrock June 17, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

    If men will lead well, women will follow.

    Someone should ask him to back that up with scripture. He is in essense denying the rebellion of wives. In stating this he is contradicting not only the Bible, but what is in plain view.

  21. Hermes June 17, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    Unfortunately, even if we could change Boundless writers’ minds, their hands are tied. In the days of anyone being able to publish anything they want on the internet, we forget that some of these publications (i.e., Boundless) are still run by larger, hierarchical organizations, whose higher-ups hand down decrees from on high but are insulated from any criticism that comes from beneath. I’m willing to bet that Boundless writers, from Martha Krienke, the editor, to the latest college intern like James Eldridge, aren’t allowed to disagree with those higher up at FotF. I mean, Glenn Stanton is the “director for Family Formation Studies” (whatever that entails.) What do you think would happen if one of the Boundless staffers wrote, “I think Stanton is totally off-base; women do not develop into good women just naturally when left to themselves.” I think they’d soon go the way of Ted Slater and Motte Brown.

  22. Aunt Haley June 17, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    Dalrock–
    Someone should ask him to back that up with scripture. He is in essense denying the rebellion of wives. In stating this he is contradicting not only the Bible, but what is in plain view.

    Good point. Maybe he/they are misinterpreting the Genesis curse.

    Hermes–
    Unfortunately, even if we could change Boundless writers’ minds, their hands are tied. In the days of anyone being able to publish anything they want on the internet, we forget that some of these publications (i.e., Boundless) are still run by larger, hierarchical organizations, whose higher-ups hand down decrees from on high but are insulated from any criticism that comes from beneath.

    True. Boundless is pretty vigilant about everyone toeing the party line. They have no qualms about white-washing their site (see: the disappearance of the Bethany Torode-penned articles after her divorce). Actually, come to think of it, after that incident, they probably got more selective about choosing people who agree with them 100%. Most of their younger bloggers have at one time or another posted about how influential Boundless has been to their own views.

    BTW, were Ted Slater and Motte Brown dismissed for having contradictory viewpoints? If anything, those guys were total cheerleaders for the Boundless POV. I will never forget Ted Slater trying to shame people who didn’t cheerlead for Fireproof, or his post about how upset he was that he was forced by census workers to declare himself a white male since in his mind there is no such thing as race.

  23. Johnycomelately June 17, 2012 at 11:06 pm #

    I din’t know a single man that has sought out a marriage councillor, considering women are the only ones seeking the service it is bad for business to tell the truth.

  24. Hermes June 18, 2012 at 4:06 am #

    No, I was just using Slater and Brown as examples of people who’d been sacked, reasons notwithstanding. Amir Larijani of singlemind.net did say, however, that Slater was “on our side” much more than he was able to let on, but I don’t know how he knew that.

    I should clarify that when I said the higher-ups where insulated from any criticism from below, what I meant was criticism not from their own staffers but from the readers. No one is going to pass on to Glenn Stanton that there are huge numbers of people who not only disagree with him, but are making rational arguments about why, and would like him to hear them out. I know how it is with these church bigshots who’ve latched onto the latest theological fad. By the mere act of disagreeing with them, no matter how respectfully, you only show yourself, in their mind, to be an untrustworthy and rebellious person who needs to either fall in line or get out.

  25. Rollo Tomassi June 18, 2012 at 7:22 am #

    if the readership is continually saying it feels nagged and condemned by all the exhortations to man up, THEN MAYBE YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG. Maybe you are scolding them like a woman, and as a man you should recognize that MEN HATE THAT.

    “Christian Counseling®” is simply a christian kosher way of applying contemporary ‘secular humanist’ psychotherapy to christianized model. As with everything else churchianity, the isolated christian demographic sees the intrinsic value and market reach of secular social trends and wants to play the same games as the rest of the world, so they tacitly condemn it, wait 5 years, slap a Jesus Fish logo on the product and then say “it’s all good now because we attached Jesus to it.”

    You cannot really expect James to come to terms with the christo-manosphere when his education is really founded in a bastardization of fem-centrism and cherry-picked scripture designed to affirm it. HIs education (even at a ‘christian college’) is steeped in a feminine primary reality before he can color it with christian-ese. Ergo, he’s doing in the field of psychotherapy what every other churchianity pastor does to maintain market reach – pander to the largest consumer block, i.e. the feminine imperative.

  26. Dalrock June 18, 2012 at 8:46 am #

    @Haley

    Good point. Maybe he/they are misinterpreting the Genesis curse.

    Yes, this has to be a piece of it. Part of her curse is to want to usurp the role of her husband. How do they overlook this? Also, the whole “women are responders” crowd needs to explain to God how it is His fault that Eve wouldn’t listen to Him…

    The other part is the frequent commands in the new testament to women to submit to their husbands (I Peter 3:1, 3:5 Eph 5:22&24 Col 3:18 1 Tim 2:11). These were in letters to congregations in the ancient world, where the views of sex roles were far more traditional than they are today. If Paul and Peter (and God) were trying to tell men that it was their fault their wives wouldn’t obey, why couldn’t they say it? Why instead all of the commands to wives to submit? This hunt for cryptic clues in Scripture which contradict what is plainly stated is painfully obvious for what it is; these folks believe in the Bible unless it contradicts their religion, which is feminism.

    @Rollo

    “Christian Counseling®” is simply a christian kosher way of applying contemporary ‘secular humanist’ psychotherapy to christianized model. As with everything else churchianity, the isolated christian demographic sees the intrinsic value and market reach of secular social trends and wants to play the same games as the rest of the world, so they tacitly condemn it, wait 5 years, slap a Jesus Fish logo on the product and then say “it’s all good now because we attached Jesus to it.”

    Nailed it. The other label they slap on this oprafied nonsense when repackaging it as biblical is “covenant”. Either way, make no mistake that they are selling the same swill in bottles with Christian labels as the secular hucksters are selling. Only the packaging is different.

  27. Smithborough June 18, 2012 at 9:59 am #

    “Also, the whole “women are responders” crowd needs to explain to God how it is His fault that Eve wouldn’t listen to Him… ”

    I’m sure we’ll get to hear some convoluted explanation.

    I heard a sermon a few months ago saying that Eve’s deception was Adam’s fault because God told Adam to tend the garden and if Adam had done this properly there wouldn’t be any snakes in the garden. (Unsurprisingly 1st Timothy 2:14 was not mentioned.)

  28. Kaehu June 18, 2012 at 11:56 am #

    A little OT, but we got a classic “Father’s Day” sermon at church yesterday. Full of comments about how men have to “man up,” “keep their hearts pure,” “sacrifice for their wives and children,” etc. Of course, all with the undertone that men aren’t doing that already, that they’re spending all their time watching porn or ignoring their kids. Frankly, the guys at church are not the ones that are a problem and they don’t need to be lectured to, and of course, I can’t imagine women in the church getting the same kind of sermon.

  29. Hermes June 18, 2012 at 3:30 pm #

    I heard a sermon a few months ago saying that Eve’s deception was Adam’s fault because God told Adam to tend the garden and if Adam had done this properly there wouldn’t be any snakes in the garden. (Unsurprisingly 1st Timothy 2:14 was not mentioned.)

    I could have sworn Al Mohler wrote something similar online at some point, saying the Fall was really all Adam’s fault because if he had been providing proper husbandly leadership Eve wouldn’t have gone off and been enticed by the serpent, but I can’t find it through Google right now.

  30. y81 June 19, 2012 at 6:24 am #

    If we lived in Martin Luther’s time, and Boundless was the sole established church, and you could be burned at the stake for disagreeing with it, then I would understand the complaints about not permitting dissent. But Boundless is a single website. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it. (Sort of like the New York Times.) There’s a diversity of Christian views on marriage and gender relationships, from Haley to Tim Keller to Mark Driscoll to Boundless to whatever. Find what makes sense to you, in the light of Scripture as the Spirit illuminates it for you, and go with that.

  31. Smithborough June 19, 2012 at 8:55 am #

    “I could have sworn Al Mohler wrote something similar online at some point, saying the Fall was really all Adam’s fault because if he had been providing proper husbandly leadership Eve wouldn’t have gone off and been enticed by the serpent, but I can’t find it through Google right now.”

    The Fall of Man caused by Adam’s failure to “man up”. What will be next?

  32. Cane Caldo June 19, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    Part of her curse is to want to usurp the role of her husband. How do they overlook this? Also, the whole “women are responders” crowd needs to explain to God how it is His fault that Eve wouldn’t listen to Him…

    -and-

    I could have sworn Al Mohler wrote something similar online at some point, saying the Fall was really all Adam’s fault because if he had been providing proper husbandly leadership Eve wouldn’t have gone off and been enticed by the serpent, but I can’t find it through Google right now.

    That crowd has taken a true point, and grossly perverted it.

    1. Curse is not quite the right word; prophecy is closer. “You guys broke it, and here’s how it’s going to function now that pieces are ruined.”

    2. When God declares the curses/prophecies, He specifically says that it’s Adam’s sin that brings ruin to the Earth. There’s no escaping that. Adam is on top of the whole world, and shit rolls downhill.

    3. They (the women are responders crowd) suffer under the delusion that Adam and Eve were equal before the Fall. The thinking goes that Christ frees us from the bondage of sin, so while that curse/prophecy applied to women in the Old Testament, it doesn’t apply to them except as a history lesson. The truth is that Eve was always in Adam’s charge. The change wrought by the Fall was that now she won’t be happy about it. It follows, then, that in the pre-Fall state, it’s possible Adam could have told her to put the fruit down she would have happily done it. That bird has obviously flown.

    4. As has been mentioned, St. Paul says in 1 Tim. 2 that the man is head of the woman because Adam was formed first; not because of the Fall. The Fall is referenced explicitly in pointing out that even at their best pre-Fall state, women have poor judgment.

    Women are making terrible choices, but the problem is that men are enforcing them. Not the husbands directly, but the state: police, bureaucrats, politicians, etc. When a woman decides to divorce her husband, she doesn’t bring over a Carrie Nation-style mob of girls. It’s men with guns and badges.

  33. david June 22, 2012 at 7:57 am #

    I and my church have a fun little tradition on Father’s Day. They start the sermon by insulting Father’s, blaming men on all the evil in the world ect. At about the ten minute mark, I rip up my tithe check, write a quick note disapproving the church insulting fathers on Father’s Day, drop both the ripped up check and my note in the collect plate and walk out.

  34. Strong Man June 22, 2012 at 11:04 am #

    Thanks for this pointer and your analysis. I loved several comentators to this Boundless post, particularly Ashley, who took the post to task.

    We say men should love and lead like Jesus. True.

    Too often, people promoting Jesus as the all-forgiving, all-sacrificing example of a leader forget that he also bluntly criticized his own disciples, called others “hypocrites” and “ravening wolves” and he made a scourge, overturned the tables and cast moneychangers out of the temple.

    An important part of leadership is also being clear about expectations, holding firm to your principles, and even implementing negative consequences when expectations are not met.

    More on this in my posts: As Christ Loved the Church, and Jesus was not a “Nice Guy”.

  35. Aunt Haley June 22, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    david–
    Where in the Bible does it say that you are only obligated to tithe if the sermon meets your standards?

    Strong Man–
    Ashley is one of the most prolific Boundless commenters and is forever knocking back against the ~establishment, but I don’t find her premises to be all that convincing or solid. She’s as swathed in church feminism as the next woman. She’s smart enough to be bold about her idiosyncrasy but not intellectually rigorous enough that it will withstand real scrutiny. If she starts getting pressure from red pillers, she usually starts arguing from emotion.

  36. LovableChimp June 23, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

    What I don’t understand about this blog is this:

    Haley is a single woman that knows all this information about women’s hypergamy and all the other red pill business.

    If she’s a young woman and knows this? How is she still single?

    It’s is an accepted point, that the only way a woman can be more attractive is:
    1) Look Better and 2) Lower standards.

    Having knowledge that 98 percent of other women don’t know or believe, wouldn’t it be easy for her to guage her MMV and pick a pretty good guy that is in her committment range?

    I mean a woman that acts sweet and feminine has a huge edge on most american women. With a base line of looks, she can destroy every other woman out there using that simple bit of ‘girl game’.

  37. Mark Slater June 24, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    Aunt Haley: David did the right thing. Like the rest of us, sticks and stones may break a pastors bones, but mere words might never hurt them. However, when you start messing with the bread-and-butter of the tithe, that is something else altogether.

    Of course, this begs the question: If his church makes an annual routine of denigrating fathers (presumably painting the good, worthy fathers along with the bad with the same brush) what other doctrinal/social faults may that church be guilty of. Perhaps at some point a search for a God-honoring church might be in order.

    Chimp: “Haley is a single woman that knows all this information about women’s hypergamy and all the other red pill business. If she’s a young woman and knows this? How is she still single? Having knowledge that 98 percent of other women don’t know or believe, wouldn’t it be easy for her to guage her MMV and pick a pretty good guy that is in her committment range?”

    To the contrary, I most find troubling about Haley’s Halo is the sometimes rigid logic (“Market Value” and so forth) used to explain the Comedy of Errors that most often is love and romance.

    Why is she still single? Maybe she is 50 years old and a disagreeable shrew. I highly doubt this. I would rather guess she simply has not yet found someone she really likes. This can be quite a search for all of us — regardless of “MMV”.

    I bristle every time I see any suggestion to “lower standards”, as in “Well, I don’t really like this person, but I guess he/she will have to do”. Sure I’m aware of unrealistic expectations, but I would assert there is a difference between that, and “settling”.

  38. y81 June 24, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

    What Mark Slater said. I don’t understand why someone would go to a church where he didn’t like the message. It seems very foolish, and spiritually unedifying, to waste your Sunday mornings in that fashion. Find a place where the word of God is preached, and spend your time there.

    Mind you, when you do find God, He will wrestle with you, not tell you how great and right you are. Perhaps even leave you with a lifelong limp.

  39. Kaehu June 25, 2012 at 12:12 pm #

    I don’t know Haley, but my general opinion is that finding a Christian of the opposite sex who is spouse material and available these days is like finding hen’s teeth.

  40. LovableChimp June 25, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    ‘I don’t know Haley, but my general opinion is that finding a Christian of the opposite sex who is spouse material and available these days is like finding hen’s teeth.’

    I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

    This symbolizes all that is wrong with Christian women. I know tons of guys that are:

    A) Christian
    B) Have very good jobs
    C) Have very up-beat personalities
    D) Are pretty decent good guys
    E) They are either average or above average ( average face with in shape body)

    Women are not going after these guys at all. At least not the ones that should be going after them. In that I mean average looking women. Not the ‘hot’ ones, but the average run of the mill girl.

    Most 6 or above is waiting for christian megastud. It doesn’t matter if it’s totally unrealistic. We all know christmatic christian mega stud. In fact most of the guys really like this guy.

    In my opinion, christian megastud deserves the hot girl. He really does. He has been blessed with being really attractive. He would be stupid/unfair for him not to get a hottie, for both him and the unworthy women that adore him. They would be in an unequal relationship which would be strained due to the disparity of their SMV.

    What a good comprise would be is that you should have a short time period where you furiously go after Christian mega studs. Try your hardest with all your might and when/if you don’t get him, begin lowering standards and try again. The worst thing to do is try and fail and then wait for God to deliver a Christian mega stud to your doorstep. If you were to have a Christian mega stud, God would have made you look better.

    Another thing that perplexes me is that I know Guys that want to be attractive, so they do things like lift weights, dress better and learn skills to make them more attractive. Women are content to do nothing and still expect to get a stud. They maybe go on a fad diet for 3 weeks and give up and then just wait. What????

  41. Smithborough June 27, 2012 at 9:36 am #

    “If you were to have a Christian mega stud, God would have made you look better.”

    Lol!

  42. Hermes June 29, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    Haley is a single woman that knows all this information about women’s hypergamy and all the other red pill business.

    If she’s a young woman and knows this? How is she still single?

    She’s torn. She knows that I’m her soulmate, but she also knows that marrying me would require leaving the Shangri-La of SoCal and moving to the bland Midwest.

  43. Rico July 1, 2012 at 6:16 am #

    I’ll deflect this from Haley a bit… In my experience, many of the truly “good” Christian ladies who are doing the right things (caring about their appearance, being pleasant, not holding out for the one Christian Alpha Stud in town), yet still not finding marriageable men – the reason for their singleness is often a matter of location.

    I know of more than a couple of *very* eligible young Christian women who are either off in the middle of some third-world country doing missionary work, or in strongly liberal metropolitan areas that aren’t exactly crawling with Christian men. In the former case, if that’s what you’re called to do, then wonderful – just don’t expect to get a husband out of the deal. In the latter case, you’re simply not going to find a lot of eligible, genuine Christian men if you’re doing the career-gal thing in downtown Chicago, for example.

  44. LovableChimp July 1, 2012 at 8:35 am #

    What do you qualify as marriage material?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. A Worthy Read | Breathing Grace - June 14, 2012

    […] Haley hits the nail on the head with this one, and I thought it was worth sharing. For those of us with young adult children who are or will soon be entering the age of marriageability, a reality check is order, and sadly it is increasingly missing in American churches. […]

  2. Two years, two million hits, and a Ph.D in Red Pill Pharmacy | Dalrock - June 17, 2012

    […] New Boundless blogger to men: “Yep, still your fault.” Men, you should stop abusing your wives. Women, let me think of something you […]

  3. Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Keys Leaked For Free Download | Free Christan Dating - August 11, 2012

    […] Your Dating" the Complete Dating Book For Guys50 Ways to Take Your Blog to the Next LevelNew Boundless blogger to men: “Yep, still your fault.” .recentcomments a{display:inline !important;padding:0 !important;margin:0 […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s