posted 12-19-2000 02:33 PM            

I would agree that our therapy driven culture has turned God into a counselor dispensing kind hearted advice to the soft hearted and soft minded rather than a king shouting orders to his troops over whom He rules with sovereign authority of life and death. The Bible is clear that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and that fools reject discipline and wisdom (Proverbs 1:7).

God is indeed loving, longsuffering, kind and patient. But, he is also a consuming fire who is coming again to judge the living and the dead, already flooded the earth, killed every firstborn in Egypt, and promises in Revelation to have a wine press in which He throws His enemies to crush them and have their blood as high as a horse flow for miles.

Throw in the fact that He had the strength to kill and raise Himself from death. Look at how the God the Father killed God the Son (Isaiah 53:10) and ask yourself, should I not have some fear of this God? Have I not become pussified and thereby made God in my own image and likeness as the Pussified which would explain why I no longer fear him?

Here's a good old word we'll resurrect today.

Idolatry.

posted 12-19-2000 04:23 PM         

Do you believe that you are now making progress in this thread because everyone is along for your merry ride? Or, are you willing to concede that honest, faithful queries that run contrary to your judicial understanding of the gospel can also promote progress?

The past several posts of this thread have driven the gospel to a place of judicial standing. A place I - nor John's Gospel - thinks it belongs. A non-judicial view of the gospel turns the vector arrow of faith completely around from what is being presented here.

In other words, the judicial gospel presents God as an angry, vengeful and wrathful God that somehow needs to be appeased. Christ, sacrificed on our behalf, is that necessary appeasement. Well, folks, that is nothing more than paganism. This is right along the lines of pagans offering the pure, virgin sacrifice to the angry volcano-god by throwing her into the mouth of the volcano, so that his anger will be appeased and there will be peace in the valley. Are you kidding?

The non-judicial gospel is no less powerful and yet restores the proper order to God's concern: to reconcile his creation. Yes, Jesus is the sacrifice, and yes he paid the price - but, for us and our wretchedness, not God! Jesus was not trying to appease God by his death, he was trying to show God's undying love for us. Jesus assumed a position of solidarity with us, not over and against us - judging from a safe distance. The arrow or reason for Christ's death points to us, not God. God did not kill his own son, we did! It was our rejection and our (false) judgement of God which led to his death. Jesus himself said,

"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life-- only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." (NIV)

We are the fellow murderers of Christ. Where is our sense of responsibility in that realization, wallace?

The question is this:
Is God a BLOODTHIRSTY, or a BLOODSHEDDING, God?

By your account he is bloodthirsty. By John's account he is bloodshedding. I choose to follow the Gospel according to John, rather than according to you.

Prayerfully submitted.

[This message has been edited by cell'me (edited 12-19-2000).]

posted 12-19-2000 04:40 PM            

You love your wife despite and because of who she is. You perform acts of kindness not for the sexual acts you think you will recieve in turn. My lover gives me flowers once a month every month; even though we are dirt poor he scrapes together the cash to get me flowers because he knows I love them.
He wrote me a song after our wedding expressing the joy he felt when he saw me his bride walk down the aisle the first time.
He won't allow me to nit-pick my appearance and insult his wife. He listens to my tirades and whining but he won't allow me to push life out of perspective.

I am my beloveds and he is mine.

posted 12-19-2000 08:32 PM            

You sound bitter. Maybe it would help if you looked at the direction this thread has taken not as WWII making the progress, but simply as progress being made? Because progress IS being made- boys are being convicted of not owning up to their duties and responsibilities, dialogue is taking place, people's views of God are being challenged, both boys and men are rethinking their understanding of their role as Sons of God, etc. The list could go on.

My challenge to you and everyone else reading this: Stop with the useless chatter and begin making a difference! Yes, perhaps you've disagreed with some of what has been said and/or with the tone in which it was delivered. So what! Our society has a problem. The church has a problem. We need to simply acknowledge this and move forward. All of this bb banter sounds like avoidance of the issue at hand: Christian men (most, not all) have been for many years dropping the ball; they've embraced pagan world-views (feminism, inalienable-rightsism, self-esteemism, etc.) and made the church, Christ's bride, subject to these crooked rules! WWII has simply said: Here's the problem. Let us say, Here I am, send me.

And cell'me, what is this 'the gospel is non-judicial' crap? The Gospel is judicial inasmuch as God is judicial. Do not put God in a box. He is the JUDGE, He is vengeful, He is holy, He is righteous, He is absolutely free. He is not the pansy-ass you imply. Yes, He's bloodshedding; but it's not always His own. He's killed thousands of babies for His own glory! This doesn't mean He is "bloodthirsty", it means He is free to do what He'll do with His creation. His "concern" is not as you say; to reconcile His creation. His "concern" is with being glorified. (Not narcissistically, but because there is no other way. He will be glorified; He is God!) Fortunately for us, He chose to glorify Himself through the sending of His Son to redeem us by death in our stead! You are correct that Jesus was not trying to appease God by going to the cross, but you are incorrect that He went to the cross "for us and our wretchedness, not God!" He went to the cross to glorify His Father, not to save us. We are simply the beneficiaries of this glorification! You and others might say this is just semantics- it's not. It's a fundamental understanding of God. He is justified in doing whatever He wants to do- we have NO rights. Yes, He loves us tremendously, but not because we've earned it or deserve it. We place too much importance on ourselves if we believe God became a man and died on the cross just for us! God created this world, pursues us, sends us a savior, sanctifies us, etc. -that He might be glorified, not (solely) because He loves us. He loves us as a MEANS of being glorified.
Praise be to GOD!

If anyone disagrees with me, please start a new Midrash post. Let's stop with the idle chit-chat in this thread and start fulfilling our God-given duties!

This is my last post here as I believe enough has been said. Let's move.

VIVA LA REFORMA NEUVO!

SOLA DE-PUSSIFICATIONA!

Humbly,
-Bryan

posted 12-19-2000 09:15 PM         

Thanks for your thots. Before I respond in another thread (per your request) to your "judicial gospel" let me note this.

I am intrigued by the inconsistency applied to some posts as opposed to those, for instance, of Wallace. How is it that some, including my own impassioned writings, are dismissed as "bitter" or "one-upmanship" or "missing the point" and yet they contain none of the inflammatory rhetoric or hurling of insults or misuse of Scripture that Will's contain?

I do not dispute that progress has been made on this thread. But, at what expense? Dissent is met with hostility and any disagreement is viewed as proof positive for the necessity of this topic. It seems a little provincial to me. I cannot state this any more clearly - I agree in principle with Wallace's message. So why is it not "proper" to engage the messenger in some sort of dialogue? Again, why the close-minded, arrogant stance on this issue?

So, allow me to get off of everyone's back - apparently the very hard-nosed accountability that Will seeks to impose on the new order is not readily accepted here. I apologize for attempting to respond in kind to Mr. Wallace's authority. It seems as though he truly is king here and that makes no sense to me.

Prayerfully.

posted 12-19-2000 10:13 PM            

blah, blah, blah, shut up! your argument is clear, but it's also irrelevant at this point.

the best way to continue to present your views is by conducting yourself in the way you've described, not by trying for the last word.

posted 12-19-2000 11:57 PM            

To the subject of a manly man courting a women - I recently have been listening to a tape series by Douglas Wilson of Canon Press on this subject. He made the point of the pattern that Scripture gives is this - Men marry, women are given in marriage. So what do we do in a pussified nation like ours where fathers don't believe they have the God given authority and responsibility to GIVE their daughters away, when the Bible says they do. In modern marriage cermonies when the fathers stand up and answer the question about "who gives this women" its just like some cute little concession that nobody takes serious. If a father objected to the marriage he wouldn't even get invited to the wedding to have his little 15 minutes of fame in the cermony. This is nothing less than godlessness. I believe with out a shadow of a doubt that the way God calls a man to approach a woman to court her is THROUGH HER FATHER. Doug Wilson gives many wise and biblical reasons for this.
This will be the way I court the woman I marry and you can be damn sure this is the way my daughter will be courted.

Lets keep moving with the progress even if we do have wade through the rivers of tears that are shed by the boys who cry when they don't get spoken to in the standards of mannerism establish by the revolution in pop psychology.

SoliDeoGloria-
Calvin

The tape series is called, "Biblical Courtship" and you can find it along with a ton of other great teaching at Canonpress.org

posted 12-20-2000 09:30 AM         

On a completely non school related note:

I was driving home with my wife last night and I asked her if she thought I was a Pussified husband. She told me that I was not Pussified and that actually I was just the opposite. Mind you I was kinda shocked because I thought I was messing up all over the place. She told me that in the beginning of our relationship I was a lot weaker. She told me that God has been working on my life and that she Respects me because I am strong. She also went into the point that it didn't mean that I was perfect. I still had stuff to work on but the point was that I had a desire to grow not only in Christ but also as a Husband and as a MAN. I was pretty stoked with that. It's always good to hear that your wife doesn't think you are a weak, sniveling little Pussified shell of a man.

We continued to discuss this and it really started to dawn on me that this is a very important topic. Mainly for the fact that being Pussified really effects a whole lot of areas. Especially the view your wife will have on you. The last thing I want is for my weakness to make my wife not respect me. Not in a prideful sense but as her husband.

So with that being said I seriously feel that all the Pussified men across the nation/world need a real kick in the teeth. Just the along the same lines when a person is steeped in gross sin. They need to get that sin out of their life and repent and a outward expression of repentance is change. We have been molded to believe that men need to embrace their inner child and have a good cry. I am not saying crying is bad. Crying out of remorse of a lost loved one is ok. Don't get me wrong. Men need to stand up. And fill the shoes that God has given them to fill.

"Real men don't have an inner child. They have an inner Steak."

posted 12-20-2000 11:14 AM            

cell'me: In Rom 1:18, God's wrath is likened to an orgy (lit. orge in the greek), whereby God is foaming at the mouth in anticipation to fully dispence His justice and anger upon rebelious mankind. This is the way some commentators describe God's wrath. Although He "endures with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:22), He nonethless is waiting to dispense His just judgement upon the wicked.
For the elect, Christ was the One on whom God dispensed His judgement. St. John himself uses the term propitiaion/satisfaction (lit. hilasmos in the greek; 1 Jn 2:2, 4:10, cf. Rom 3:25). This one word has been used by many a great theologians to exegetically justify the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Even while we were "dead in our trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1), "were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph 2:3), and "even when we were dead in our transgressions" (Eph 2:5a), "[God] made us alive together with Christ" (Eph 2:5b).
The point here is that God was extremley pissed off at us cuz of our sin, and He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf (2 Cor 5:21), (lit. huper/anti in the greek). Christ took the guilt we incurred cuz of our sin upon Himself (expiation) and thereby satisfied (propitiation) God's wrath. His righteousness was then imputed to our account (justification).
The pagans have stories of dying and rising gods, wrathful deities needing appeasment, and other similiar redemptive stories only cuz this was promised long ago to Eve and later to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The good news of the coming redeemer of mankind is woven into the very tapestry of the history of mankind, and has been preserved from generation to generation even amongst the pagans.
All non-substitutionary views of the atonement have been tried and found wanting over the last two-thousand years of church history (it's too much work tryin' to keep 'em clean and they just bleed too much Bad Theology-->Pussification!!!

BTW, William Wallace wasn't disembowled or even neutered at the end of his life. No, the man's name was changed to Sweet Willy while he was in prison. The scene at the end of the movie was just Sweet Willy receivin' his final penile enema. The man was really fightin' for the freedom and rights of the Scottish Rainbow Brigade (Hollywood is the king of historical revision). Willliam Wallace was no manly man.

Tyler Durden turned out to be a neurophysiological misfiring in the Sylvian Fissure of Jack's brain. Tyler tried to be the successor to Nietzsche, but kind of forgot that Hitler already tried the "Ubermensch Program" and failed. He also had a tough time reminding "himsleves" that nihilism means Fight Club is as pointless and meaningless as everything else.
Besides, a manly man would be repulsed at the thought of another guy occupying the same body as him. All in all, Tyler was just another puss.

Now a real man was the good and honorable "Jewels" (aka, Sammuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction). Even the man's name is a token of gratitude to manhood everywhere.
In the film he refers to the female genitalia
as the "holy of holies" (much love for my sistas). The man abides by a biblical dietary plan as he "does not dig on swine". Most of all, when he gets his wallet stolen, and like a good man he has to apply some pressure to try and get it back, and the would-be criminals are forced to ask him which wallet is his, he replies with coolness, "It's the one that says Bad Motha Fucka on it!". Now if Jesus- who is at the right hand of the Father "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come" (Eph 1:21)- if He ever loses His wallet, we all know it's the one that says BADDEST MOTHA FUCKA on it!!!

Now that's a Manly Man fo ya,

posted 12-20-2000 05:11 PM         

I recall back when I was in high school (or there abouts) they came to Seattle and had some big crying prayer meeting or something at the King dome I think. I recall there being a bunch of feminist/anti-promise keeper types railing the people going in. Plus there were a bunch of the Promise keeper's wives who took the "this is what a Godly man is supposed to be" stance and they stood outside the king dome and were passing out bibles or Juice or something, they were also being attacked (not physically) by the feminist/anti-promise keeper types.

So gimme some back ground. What theological side of the coin do the fall? What church most stands behind them? Or rather what churches if that applies? Are they coming to town soon? Or did they die off?

From what I can tell the "movement" would be in strict opposition (from what I know) to the Promise keepers. Is that the case? Or am I mistaken?

posted 12-20-2000 06:25 PM         

Many of the posts have emphasized the need for submission to and greater understanding of God as the means of becoming more of a man. And that's good. God is good. Slight problem here though.

Who's God?

It's the human tendency to view the Almighty, God the Father in much the same way we've seen and experienced our earthly fathers. Scripture says that God is love, but if one has grown up in a home where the father is abusive, absent, or remote, this will color one's view of the Father in such a way as to make it very difficult to see Him as He is.

Through Christ Jesus we can come to the Father, be known by Him and get to know Him; but that is a journey of many, many steps. To strive to emulate our Father as we once sought to copy our fathers as little boys is what we're looking for in becoming men, but when one is left without an earthly example either in childhood or the church community, its like to trying to describe the shape of the color yellow.

posted 12-20-2000 06:59 PM         

It was founded around 92/93 in response to manifestations of the pussified male phenom. Basically the coach of the Colorado Buffalos college football team wanted to call men to take seriously their roles as men, husbands, and fathers. They started doing stadium gatherings over a weekend that would then be supported by the formation of men’s accountability groups in the local churches.

The idea seemed necessary and revolutionary because of the sad state of affairs re. the pussifed male. Gatherings generated lots of flack from feminist and gay rights groups. There was a lot of weeping and repenting. I saw (and participated in) a lot of emotional scenes.

Here’s the heart of where I think things went awry.

Calling men to obedience and repentance is only biblical when the purpose, means, and ends of these acts are giving God glory. If obedience and repentance are seen as the key to getting good families, happy lives (and eventually SUV’s), then we’ve just bought into the idea that God exists to make us happy.

God has, ever so subtly, become Prozac.

What starts out as something with good elements (like focus on the family) becomes an idol. Complicating the situation further is a complete ignorance of the rights/happiness mentality that governs this present age.

The end result is that this supposed journey deeper into Biblical manhood instead becomes an exercise in pop psychology self-discovery with a masculine sheen on it.

Unfortunately I never realized these things until it was too late. I was married to a woman who believed that God existed to make her “happy”. When she found herself in a place where she was not “happy”, she eventually came to the conclusion that God had told her to divorce me and go start a new life.

This was hard enough to deal with. I tried to truthfully and lovingly appeal to her many times. If I made any errors in trying to discipline my household in the scriptural difference between “happiness” and joy, it was in not coming down more firmly and just saying – “Look, this is wrong. The Bible says it’s wrong. God say’s it’s wrong. And I say it’s wrong.”

I was afraid that if I was too vocal and determined about it, I would just come off as being a hard ass.

What unexpectedly kicked me in the nuts was the reaction of the leadership of my “Promise Keepers” church. When I asked my pastor to meet with my wife and I so that I could make one last lovingly truthful Matthew 18 appeal to her, he asked me why I felt the need to do that.

He wanted to know what “issues” I had in my life that made me feel like I needed to take such an authoritarian action. Being completely devastated at the moment, I didn’t have the presence of mind to say – “Because that’s what the Bible says and so I thought I should do that.”

With him and many like minded “elders” in my church, I became framed as a controlling man who had authority issues solely for trying to listen to the Bible and do what it says. Not only did I lose my wife, I lost many friends and my church in the process.

All that to say that though this is just one experience, I think it points out the clear differences between Promise Keepers and the deep de-pussification we are talking about on this list. In many ways, it is a clear reminder of what we are up against, and how costly this quest can be.

posted 12-21-2000 10:00 AM         

Wow man that's crazy. Sorry about the stuff that happened to you. I heard about the focus on the family people essentially turning the family into an idol. I have always been a little tweaked about the PK guys. I don't know something just dosn't sit quite right.

I'm curious if at the end of the "movement" or at least once it's been around for a while if being a "man" would become an idol...

Strong leadership, the holy spirit and sound doctirne would be the only way to make sure that didn't happen.

posted 12-21-2000 10:53 AM         

One of the overarching themes of "Fight Club" is that human movements with noble goals overwhelmingly end up becoming idols. So, yeah, I think there is a danger, but it seems to be one that we are being called to wade through.

posted 12-21-2000 11:02 AM         

I think that we as humans already run the risk of pretty much turning everything into an idol.

So Lots of prayer once this thing gets off the ground that it will stay God centered.

L8R
Porkfry

posted 12-21-2000 11:28 PM         

Damm i miss all my whitehorse brothers!

Press on brothers.

posted 12-22-2000 12:39 PM         

As you can tell I'm a slow learner and I don't pick up on things very quickly.

L8R
Porkfry

posted 12-26-2000 06:08 PM         

I was also curious if the movement gets big and is to "Promise Keepers" proportions will you still require possible members to apply? Or once it's to that size people will just be admitted?

Will you be having a website in the future for the movement?

posted 12-28-2000 10:37 AM            

Reading WWII's posts made me very angry and I can honestly say that I had more then a few bad words pop into my head while reading.
But in these last couple of weeks God has really "spanked" me over this issue. Since reading the posts here I have been looking at men in a different way and the truthfullness of WWII's writings have really hit home. It is a very sad state that our country is in and I am glad that there are some Godly men who are willing to do something about it!
The thing that has really made me realise the need for reformation is my job. My head boss is a very strong feminist woman, the person that cowers under her is a "pussified" man claiming to be a "christian". (nice guy, no backbone.)
There are 3 other bosses under him that are all gay and it makes me so sad to watch these people and how they interact daily.

But the kicker is a guy at work who is very good looking and hits on me constantly. The problem with him doing this is that he is married and his wife is pregnent. He made a pass at me yesterday and all I could think about what you guys have been writing about and I was so angry I told this guy that he should not be hitting on me and that comments like that should be saved for his wife, he just laughed at me! He thought I was joking!
When I went on break I told a coworker about the incident he said welcome to the reality of every maried man in america.
God has really shown me the truth through these incidents.

WWII I apologise for being angry and stubborn twards your words and God's conviction. I pray that there will be a reformation in this community and through the world because we are in desperate need of it.
I also pray that God will mold me into the woman that He wants me to be so that I can, someday, be the wife and perform the roll that He intended for me.
Thank you for speaking the truth! I hope that more men will see the truth in your words.

posted 12-28-2000 09:03 PM         

Man

posted 12-29-2000 12:36 AM            

I love it when some guys say there are no gender roles and pretend like that makes him like Jesus (ever notice how everyone from Charles Manson on down thinks they are just like Jesus?).

I love it when guys say missiology (which means clearly communicating the gospel to a people) and instead means syncretism whereby we stop sounding like fools for Christ and setting Him up as a stumbling block so that the gospel can be buried under cultural assumptions to ensure we never get crucified like Christ or exiled like the prophets but instead make it on Oprah to talk about our vague loving god/goddess and convert people to hell.

I love it when some guys say that strong banter and headship is abusive, mean, and violent like a gang (yeah our Christian drive-by's and rapes have gotten a bit out of hand due to all the crack we smoke together while we clean our stolen guns).

And I love it that none of these "guys" will be with us because they already have a club called the world where they can get together and watch Will and Grace without losing their last meal.

Lastly, Marshall McLuhan was a genius Canadian researcher and pioneer on communication theory. His famous line was that "the medium is the message". Indeed, I know my message, and have chosen my mediums.

On we move.
Out you go.

[This message has been edited by William Wallace II (edited 12-29-2000).]

posted 12-29-2000 10:27 PM         

Hmmm....Haven't read much of Timothy and Titus lately have you?

...WW2's choice of scripture was pretty one-eyed, as was his interpretation of the bits he chose. "There's a long-running argument about those bits, which should be respected."

[Talking about the part in quotes] Does that ean that you either don't talk about them or state that both sides have an equally correct view, and that both sides just need to keep their sides to the people who care to listen?

...WW2 comes over as adolescent: legalistic and simplistic.

You want legalistic? I'll give you legalistic! I am getting so sick and tired of the word legalistic being thrown around when people feel that the words that are being spoken to them are too harsh. Ya know I bet that all the Jews thought that the OT prophets were really legalistic. I am not in any way putting WWII in line with any of the prophets but I am saying that when you get (forgive my laguage)your ass handed to you about sin in your life the first inclination is to cry foul on the person who is talking. "OH he who is without sin cast the first stone" Or "HEY PAL! Pull the plank out of your EYE FIRST!". If you persist (any of you for that matter) in nit picking WWII's posts for little bits where a verse here or there dosn't reflect Christ in what he says you are missing the point. HE IS A SINNER! Do you really expect anyone to be able to convey a concept with the clarity and correctness of Christ? NO? Then quit acting like he is supposed to!

...A trash talker more than a straight talker.

Do people have to snap infront of your face to get you to pay attention when they are talking to you?

...And his groupies need to be challeged about their own love of power & domination.

I find interesting how trying to put a focus on where God want's you to be is being construed as love of power and domination. We are called to fill the shoes God has set up for us.

posted 12-30-2000 06:48 PM         

"I love it when a guy says that other guys should do their job if they claim Christ and
someone says that's legalism..."
Don't mis-read me. Actually I agree that men should do their job. Their whole job.
I just agree with Paul, that "Law" is not enough. What more do YOU offer?

posted 12-30-2000 06:49 PM         

"(ever notice how everyone from Charles Manson on down thinks they are just
like Jesus?)."
That cuts both ways, Billy.

posted 12-30-2000 06:51 PM         

"I love it when some guys say that strong banter and headship is abusive, mean, and
violent like a gang (yeah our Christian drive-by's and rapes have gotten a bit out of hand
due to all the crack we smoke together while we clean our stolen guns)."
Good point. Your method aint shooting. I'll concede that.

"And I love it that none of these "guys" will be with us because they already have a club
called the world where they can get together and watch Will and Grace without losing
their last meal."
The world doesnt like a FULL man. The pussified boys hate us, because we champion strength, discipline, self-control, and spiritual warfare. And the rednecks hate us because we champion gentleness, compassion, and love. There's no place for us in the world... which I guess includes your club.

posted 12-30-2000 06:54 PM         

"On we move.
Out you go."
The meglamania rides on, huh? Stop and read. Carefully this time.