Skip to content

Differentiation is the Beginning of Division

February 8, 2014

In “Men are Logical And Women Are Emotional”, Deep Strength made the attempt to explain the differences between men and women. There is really much to say that is problematic in this. In the comments, Bobbye focused on the unitive aspect of marriage in the Scriptures involved. Marriage is a physical representation of the spiritual reality of community in Christ with His Church. This is reflected in the reality that “a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh”.

Literally, traditional feminism has done a lot of damage in the Church, and one of those things is the concept of community. Community was the primary unit of consideration in most cultures, and is the primary common language of Scripture. Understanding this is literally one of the “Red Pills” behind Scripture since there is so much that is misunderstood when the individual is paramount over the community. Judas killed himself literally because he made himself a man without a community. This “oneness” behind both Christ and His Church and the husband and wife is literally considered to be self-evident when it comes to Scripture and those cultures, but it’s been literally eliminated in modern understanding. People in the West don’t understand why the societies of the Middle East hold centuries-long grudges for this reason: The community was slighted and not the individual. The individual is subsumed into the community, and the identity is the community. This idea comes out in Scriptures such as this:

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

While there is much more to say on the topic in general of the unitive function of community, a summary is suitable for now. Suffice it to say, the destruction of community and the creation of division is Satan’s master work. Unity in Christ, and lack of division is stressed time and again and the opposite of these things is warned of time and again:

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)

These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. (Proverbs 6:16-19)

This all said, the problem behind the post (and traditional feminism as a whole) is that the culture of differentiation is there. Bobbye brought out a good culturally feminist example of it: Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. I consider the two together because the post functions as a good foundation *for* traditional feminism. As Deep Strength writes:

“Churchianity is feminized precisely because they believe that men and women are the same (they believe the lies of feminism).”.

(2013-10-23) feminist-theory

One of the reasons why I have tried to be very fastidious about definitions of terms on my blog is that these kind of misunderstandings lead to very false conclusions. As I wrote here, using Podles as a source, feminism is really female-supremacism.

To be able to distinguish one group as superior to another and create biases, you have to start assigning qualities to each of them, and then judging the values behind those qualities as superior or inferior.

As Deep Strength does:

While men can experience emotions, men have a blind spot in that they don’t have that straight off emotional filter or “sensibility.” . . . Therefore, to make up for this blind spot God created women to have that capacity to be a helpmeet to her husband in that regard. This agrees heavily with traditional sex roles.

This could be construed as a pro-feminist statement: Men lack the ability of “emotional filtering” or “sensitivity” that women have, therefore women are superior and men are inferior. This is not inconsistent with other typical feminist literature:

Many feel that women are poised to take over leadership roles in the workplace because of their superior social skills and emotional intelligence [the popular buzzterm used behind what Deep Strength describes].

All of the groups listed in Galatians 3:28 and more have similar biases behind them. As described, traditional feminism got its start via false doctrine, which women more naturally fit to. As Podles states (1), “innate or quasi- innate differences between the sexes cannot by themselves account for the increase in women’s interest in Christianity or the decrease in men’s interest.” More accurately, the creation of false doctrine breaking the community up into individuals, and the preference of certain qualities over others:

In the New Testament, the bride is the Church. Even worse, this allegory was taken up into the increasing humanization
of the relationship of the Christian and Christ, and the individual Christian person, body and soul, came to be seen as the bride of Christ. Thus, sensuality and spirituality joined hands. (2)

As described before, the individualization of the Christian, coupled with eroticism (replacement of the Spiritual with the flesh) led the woman to be considered more favored, and considered more morally upright and closer to God. This, coupled with the incorrect view of what is man or woman, has led to the model of feminism that stays with us through to today.

So what becomes the answer? Let us ponder the nature of the individual and community. What does it take to subsume one’s self into community? Dying to self. The theme is all throughout Scripture:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:24-25)

This is especially insightful when it comes to marriage. I am not anything special because I am a man. Any woman out there isn’t anything special because she is a woman. To think different is pride and arrogance. It’s not about your spouse or you, it’s about Christ and submitting to Him. This is the model both for the Church and for a marriage. No one is better than anyone else because they are different. The Father is not better than the Son and the Son is not better than the Holy Spirit. All the same value, yet different in roles. The flesh will always see differences and create division and the resulting conflict, hence the drive of feminists to be seen as equal in role. Those that live in the Spirit will crucify the flesh. To truly give God glory in a marriage (or in the Church), it is literally required to be one flesh. To do that requires putting away of self.

May God get the glory in all things!

(1) The Church Impotent, by Leon J Podles p 102.
(2) ibid p 104-105.

14 Comments
  1. Ballista,

    I can see where you and Bobbye are going with this. The problem, however, remains is this:

    How do you explain the physical differences between the sexes (which does include thinking differences because of how the brains are wired) without being divisive?

    I can see where differences can lead someone to think of “superior and inferior” though I did explain that through stating “roles and responsibilities” because God does not think of superior and inferior in the Scriptures. Of course, anyone can twist anything to what they believe, and I can’t do anything about that.

    My post was an attempt to do that and obviously it looks like it needs some work. But where does the direction have to go to make it such? How would you do that?

    If many men think that women are the same as them, and they attempt to fix the problem like a man by doing something to fix the problem, then they are going to fail because they don’t have the correct mindset.

  2. Also, I’ll be editing the examples that you pointed out in this post and explaining not superior and inferior more clearly.

  3. “While men can experience emotions, men have a blind spot in that they don’t have that straight off emotional filter or “sensibility.” . . . Therefore, to make up for this blind spot God created women to have that capacity to be a helpmeet to her husband in that regard. This agrees heavily with traditional sex roles.”

    Becomes:

    “While men can experience emotions, men usually don’t immediately gauge a situation through an emotional filter or “sensibility.” [...] Therefore, God created women to have that capacity to be a helpmeet to her husband in that regard. This agrees heavily with traditional sex roles.”

    If you have any other examples of poor wording I can change let me know.

  4. This issue was brought up in the book “Why men hate going to church” – http://www.amazon.co.uk/WHY-MEN-HATE-GOING-CHURCH/dp/0785260382/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391876198&sr=1-1&keywords=why+men+church – Bridal Mysticists and Christofeminists have effectively cast Jesus as the Alpha Male in their harem, and all other guys as Betas. meaning that in order to regain positional authority in the marriage, a guy has to out-alpha Jesus.

    Bit of a double-bind, that – as Lucifer tried that same process – and as a guy, am I going to attempt to AMOG my Lord?

  5. jack permalink

    The Church as bride of Christ thing is repellant to me as a man. I am a servant of Christ, not his bride, and I do not imagine that Gos created Man in His own image only to emasculate man by making him Jesus girlfriend.

    I have geared some preachers teach that the heavenly city Jerusalem is the bride of Christ, and haves offered compelling scriptural support to their argument.

    Of course, feminist women in the church will fight this tooth and nail, because they love the idea of being the bride of Christ.

  6. jack permalink

    If heaven, by the way, is as churchians describe it, the it sounds like the permanent AMOGing of all men. No wonder Jesus told the Pharisees that men and women are not given in marriage in heaven. I can see why. With the light of Christ being the glory of heaven, women will have even less use for a man than they do now. Hey, we’re all girls now.

    I’m speaking hypothetically, of course.

    Of use will masculine energy be in a world of eternal peace?

    Are we destined to an eternity of beta orbiting? Will we care?

    Perhaps Eve’s immediate start down the bad boy path is indicative of the innate and incurable beta nature of man?

    “And God was wroth that He had made Man”. Maybe that was a sex specific statement?

    Again, if the Churchian view is followed to its logical conclusion, these are legitimate questions.

    I will not pretend that I am totally at ease in my. Mind about them.

  7. jack permalink

    Enoch and John the Baptist both are regarded very highly by The Lord, yet David was called a man after God’s own heart. Why?

    IIRC, Christ said that John the Baptist was the greatest of those born of woman, meaning that other than in the kingdom, JTB would be regarded higher than David.

    Perhaps David was a bad man, in many ways but The Lord simply admired his spirit?

    I feel like despite all the red pill thinking I have been exposed to, that there remains a vast chasm between what I was taught in my evangelical upbringing and what is true.

    I see almost all Christian denominations as hopelessly effeminate at this point, and therefore a place I do not want to be.

  8. @Deep Strength

    I can see where you and Bobbye are going with this. The problem, however, remains is this:

    How do you explain the physical differences between the sexes (which does include thinking differences because of how the brains are wired) without being divisive?

    Where am I going with this? This is just another case where a post was an occasion for some other text that didn’t necessarily relate to the post itself to be fit for a comment. One where I start writing a comment and realize it’s just a related idea and the text is getting too long. I was going to go over there and address it more directly, but unfortunately it got deleted.

    Do you get what Bobbye was trying to do in the comments I saw directly after writing this post? Does Scripture try to explain differences between the sexes? Or does it do something else entirely? Does flesh matter or does Spirit matter?
    Does identity matter or does role matter? I don’t remember if it was this post or something you wrote on the other post, but I was going to point to 1 Corinthians 12 starting with verse 13, which holds the answer to your question.

    The one thing I do see on this matter that is enimently frustrating is how much people are focused on the flesh, especially when it comes to men and women.

    @alcockell

    Indeed, an interesting book which I’ve used as a source a couple of times and have thought about blogging through, if I ever had a whole lot more time with this blog to do it justice (about like the four or five other ideas I have sitting here that would be very time consuming to get work done on).

    @jack
    What the Churchians do is indeed frustrating.

    The Church as bride of Christ thing is repellant to me as a man. I am a servant of Christ, not his bride.

    The confusion of identity is a common error, both in terms of individualism and meaning. As explained there, the individual believers are wholly masculine, while the collective is feminine. It is a mistake to think in terms of flesh.

    feminist women in the church will fight this tooth and nail, because they love the idea of being the bride of Christ.

    As individuals. They hate the idea of the masculine journey of separation as represented by holiness and righteousness.

    No wonder Jesus told the Pharisees that men and women are not given in marriage in heaven. I can see why.

    We are also told that flesh and blood will not enter heaven and we will be made incorruptible. There is literally no need for the flesh or marriage in heaven.

    Remember the Churchians have been far off the mark for a very long time, don’t let that discourage you from where the truth lies.

    Enoch and John the Baptist both are regarded very highly by The Lord, yet David was called a man after God’s own heart. Why?

    Because while David failed at times, he set out to please God and did that better than any of the other figures, which is why this is said of him. The good human nature is to supplicate to something, and the good something is God. The sin problem is that men supplicate themselves to other things out of their pride (and there’s a whole host of those).

    In essence, we *are* supposed to be the supplicating beta before God – the way the simpering blue pillers are before women is how we SHOULD be before God. How Churchians have messed up is that by feminism they have taught men to displace that onto women, teaching men to repeat the sin of Adam.

    there remains a vast chasm between what I was taught in my evangelical upbringing and what is true.

    Then don’t let the concepts the Churchians have warped keep you from bridging that chasm. With God, all things are possible.

    I see almost all Christian denominations as hopelessly effeminate at this point, and therefore a place I do not want to be.

    Agreed, but remember that salvation is not to be found in the hands of a priest, minister, or denomination, but from Jesus alone.

  9. Looking Glass permalink

    One thing to probably point out is that what we know as “Beta supplication” is properly understood as, also, a perversion of what God asks of us. I think Phineas himself would have something to say on that particular aspect.

  10. The confusion of identity is a common error, both in terms of individualism and meaning. As explained there, the individual believers are wholly masculine, while the collective is feminine. It is a mistake to think in terms of flesh.

    That really doesn’t answer the question IMO. I live in a feminine collective now called the United States of America. The Christian church is a feminine collective (or several feminine collectives). Our schools are feminine collectives. Sure I and all other men retain our individual masculinity, but we’re still living in feminine collectives.

    If Heaven is another feminine collective, then Hell seems like a better place than Heaven.

  11. @ballista74
    “We are also told that flesh and blood will not enter heaven and we will be made incorruptible. There is literally no need for the flesh or marriage in heaven.”

    You are certainly correct but we should not fall into the trap that the Jehovah’s witnesses fell into:

    http://www.letusreason.org/JW12.htm

  12. “Does Scripture try to explain differences between the sexes? Or does it do something else entirely? Does flesh matter or does Spirit matter?
    Does identity matter or does role matter? I don’t remember if it was this post or something you wrote on the other post, but I was going to point to 1 Corinthians 12 starting with verse 13, which holds the answer to your question.

    The one thing I do see on this matter that is enimently frustrating is how much people are focused on the flesh, especially when it comes to men and women.”

    Perhaps the point to be made is that identity will be realized when finding purpose?

    There’s a lot out there trying to break down and explain the great mysteries between male and female differences and the misunderstandings involved and it’s pretty problematic. I mostly just felt like, as believers in our Bibles, the important clue was to be garnered by the different commands given to each. The Body of Christ is definitely an image of distinct parts working together and Paul arguably suggests that there’s a realization of what sort of body part one is (the example part recognizes which part he is not in 1 Corinthians 12:15).

    Perhaps the issue is that when people seek understanding of themselves and others, it’s crucial to do so with the understanding of how different parts are made to “hook up” as it were, more than “he or she is ‘special’ in ‘x’ fashion,” the latter being divisive individualism.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Men are logical and women are emotional | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
  2. The Nature of Genuine Manhood: Every Christian’s Battle | The Society of Phineas

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers

%d bloggers like this: