Well, that is, after all, what faith is.

I think the problem evangelicals have with the manosphere identifying the FI is that it steals the biblical thunder they used to be able to claim about it and want back now that people outside the church have seen the effects of the FI and feminization in the church that they themselves have been blind to for several generations.

This statement takes an unnecessarily adversarial view of the church. THe Church isn’t blind to feminism or the FI, it is trying to resolve them into a biblical context. For the last half century or so, this has been difficult because women dominate the congregations and the fundie rolls. This statement also presumes that the Church claims ownership of secular revelation. This is simply not true of the Church. There’s no shortage of fools and tyrants who presume to do this but for the most part, the broader Church tries to resolve all new perspectives into a biblical context and then teach them in that context. That’s precisely what the church was designed to do. Maniacal evangelists may have other ideas, admittedly.

It’s like the message is “don’t tell us churchians about the FI, we’ve been on top of that shit since the garden of eden”, but the thorn in their side is that it’s the manosphere who’s graphically been showing them the error of their ways.

I can appreciate how this might apply to the CHurchians, but the Church itself is not like this. Churchians be damned – they’ve been the thorn in the side of true believers since the first Church was established. Putting it into a better perspective, I alluded to earlier that the Church has a mandate to place everything in a biblical context for the purpose of teaching the faithful how to live in the world without falling victim to it. Its purpose is to reflect God’s deep and abiding love for all people, especially the downtrodden and dispossesed, even those women in whom the FI has gained dominion. The truth of the FI is indeed embedded in Scripture (I’ve been an avid reader and contributor in the Manosphere for three years and could see the biblical parallels very early on). It is true that everyone wants to own new revelations but no one has a right to them, not even you, Roissy, Angry Harry, Paul Elam or anyone else in the avant garde of what we’re calling the the Manosphere. The Manosphere is just an internet term for “men”, men who have been acting on God’s revelations since Adam, whether they correctly attribute the source or not. Neither the Manoshpere nor the Church owns these ideas, but God surely does.

Evangelicals don’t like being called pussies by secualrs because they ought to know better about the FI given their divine wisdom which they’ve ignored, apparently. So feminism and liberal ideologies, their favorite foils, become their go-to excuses of convenience. That is until they read an excellent article explaining that feminism cannot exist apart from the FI.

If by “pussies” you mean evangelicals seek to be self-abasing and averse to direct and open conflict, then I agree – it is after all how they’re taught to in Scripture to behave. I’d avoid the derogatory term, hoever, especially in the feminist era, as “pussies” are far from meek or mild. It needs to be stated that EVERY church-goer ignores Divine wisdom as God is the keeper of wisdom, not Man. Every single person in the Church is a fool to some degree – better not to condemn the Church for the foolishness of its people.

I think I’d agree with Novaseeker that feminism and the FI are separate (I only skimmed through his article in order to respond to your comment but it deserves a more careful reading), although at this stage I’m more comfortable calling them different manifestations of the female demi-urge – i.e. handmaidens of the Mother Goddess on one hand and her praetorian guard on the other. The Christian message is essentially a methodology by which both women and men can escape the biological tyranny of the Mother Goddess but since the Church needs to cater to all people, this depth of examination is not something church-goers would ever experience from the pulpit. These ideas take a long time to pass through the doctrinal filters and get to the people in the pews.

I get a lot of grief for being some backslidden heretic

I don’t see you in this way at all. I’ve read your writing almost since you started and I hear God’s voice in your work. Not always on surface issues but always in the undercurrent of feeling. I also sense a lot of hurt and resentment aimed at the church for needing to get it right but failing. I feel this too. Can I encourage you to look at the church as a place that is in need of men like you (and other in the Manosphere) to get it back on track, rather than as an open target for all and sundry negative emotion?

I’d love to hear you speak in church – as long as the resentment is gone, I think you’d get a great deal more support than you believe you would. It’d be tough initially, though.

It’s like the message is “don’t tell us churchians about the FI, we’ve been on top of that shit since the garden of eden”, but the thorn in their side is that it’s the manosphere who’s graphically been showing them the error of their ways.

Evangelicals don’t like being called pussies by secualrs because they ought to know better about the FI given their divine wisdom which they’ve ignored, apparently. So feminism and liberal ideologies, their favorite foils, become their go-to excuses of convenience. That is until they read an excellent article explaining that feminism cannot exist apart from the FI:

http://veritaslounge.com/2013/02/09/the-super-norm-and-feminism-is-there-a-difference/

This is long, but well worth the read. By the end of it you’ll change your mind about conflating the FI with feminism. Don’t make the mistake of thinking it’s an apologetic article, it’s an excellent deconstruction of exactly your reasonings above.

And for the record, while I don’t consider myself an evangelical or churchian by any measure, I do consider myself a Christ follower. I don’t go into issues of religion unless they are part of the broader scope of gender issues. I get a lot of grief for being some backslidden heretic, but I do so in my best attempt to preserve the neutrality of my analysis:

https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/moral-to-the-manosphere/

“Worrying about women’s promiscuity is a time-honored mechanism for keeping women down and making them responsible for all evil. When someone raises that, it’s a big red flag.”

The feminine imperative rearing its head?

“For all their kvetching they [Christians] refuse to accept the feminine imperative as a concept. I realize the importance they put on having to reconcile a red pill reality with their faith, but they refuse to look beyond the narrow scope of the effect of the FI on their solitary religious institution.”

@Rollo

This is close but not fully true. Presuming you’re not a believer in the saving Grace of Jesus Christ, this position you’ve taken is common amongst those whose grasp of biblical principles is weak. The truth is that the FI is a very well known biblical concept – i.e. a woman’s greater susceptibility to trust in her own knowledge instead of God’s instructions, and then to solicit male compliance in this grab for absolute power. It is also a poorly understood one in Christianity.

Until the suffragettes started their campaigns in Europe in the late 1800’s, the FI concept was both understood and accepted in principle as Eve’s original sin. However, since there was Adam’s sin to contend with also – which was his failure to maintain spiritual frame in the face of Eve’s sin – the church also understood and accepted that both Adam and Eve were equally culpable. They also taught that after Christ’s anointing as the Messiah, marriage and non-marriage were equally acceptable to God but that married women were to submit to their husbands and husbands were to lead their wives towards God (there is no mention of the husband being the CEO or the administrative head of the household). When the suffragettes found that their radical ideas were gaining traction, Eve’s original sin went into overdrive and they decided to attack the church for biblical teachings that they thought were oppressive to women. This is when the feminist construction called The Patriarchy was born.

Western churches have changed a lot in the last hundred years. Because of the class wars resulting from WW1 and WW2 and the surge in Darwinian thinking and scientism, churches are no longer seen by broader society as the crucible for a righteous life. As a result, there has been a steady loss of financial and material support, which has forced them into corporate survival mode. Obviously, when the focus shifts from God the almighty to the God the CEO, a steady erosion of values must surely follow (the Bible also warns of this). From corporate survival mode, it’s just a hop, skip and jump to corporate expansion mode, in which churches become competitive places that adopt the mores and influences of the communities in which they’re planted to attract the most people or poach them from other churches, rather than the faithful representations of God’s kingdom they ought to be.

Combine this with the growth of feminism and you have a Christian church culture that has drawn away from Father God (how things ought to be) and towards Mother Goddess (how things are). A sort of moral Nurture-to-Nature transition, if you like. Men tend to think to the future health of society as a whole, at their own expense if necessary, while women tend to think in terms of free expression and living life to the full for themselves and the people they love, and in Church this has been given a scriptural polish and been elevated to a spiritual norm. The result is that churches are less about moral rectitude or the Biblical truth and more about freedom of choice and the emancipation of all who believe themselves to be oppressed. They’re like greenhouses for budding young solipsists, so it’s no wonder they’re dominated by feminine sentiments.

The truth is that true believers know this has happened to the church and are desperately trying to change it. Unfortunately, since the church must remain a sanctuary for the downtrodden and dispossessed, most of which are men, the male congregation tends to be more vulnerable than the female congregation and feminine sentiments have an easy path to the pulpit. What is happening in Christian circles is not so much a refusal to “look beyond the scope of the FI on their own institutions” but a conflict between what men are drawn towards, which is servant leadership, and what women are drawn towards, which is submission to the Alpha. It’s a case of two entirely opposite imperatives vying for control of the church. Virtually all churches are microcosms of the broader Church, so when Christians talk about their own religious institution (and they do mimic each other) you can be sure most of their laments apply to the broader Church.

http://welcometothelifestyle.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/ideological-linguistic-prescription/