A Church Schism Worth Having

Intellectual honesty on the issue of equality is rare and welcomed. When it comes to the mainline churches promoting both full equality of women and unity for the church, the idea of schism is politely swept aside. Yet, it was inevitable that progressive churches would have to draw a line for their ideas and separate from others in defense of those ideas.

On the Progressive Christian Channel at Patheos, the blog Theoblogy declares that the church should split on the issue of equality for women.

The time has come for a schism regarding the issue of women in the church. Those of us who know that women should be accorded full participation in every aspect of church life need to visibly and forcefully separate ourselves from those who do not. Their subjugation of women is anti-Christian, and it should be tolerated no longer.

Like those who admit that marriage equality for gays is merely a pre-text for the abolition of marriage, this honesty flies in the face of the general, feel-good tone from mainline churches that calls for unity, inclusion, and diversity.

This was inevitable and will further expose the inherent weakness of evangelical churches attempting the middle ground compromise of accepting feminist equality without allowing women to lead, though female headship is the natural result of feminist equality.

The full equality of women and men, however, is an issue that has long since been settled. Those who continue misogynistic practices in the church are not being faithful to the Bible or the Spirit of Christ, they are perpetuating retrograde and archaic beliefs and are doing great violence to women and men and the cause of Christ … Having grown up in a church that ordained women, allowed women to lead, and had women preachers, it is honestly shocking to me to continue to run into so-called “complementarians.”

For progressive Christians, equality for men and women is settled and fully implemented. For evangelical Christians, equality is also settled, but implementation is simply delayed in the halls of seminaries and on the shelves of bookstores.

If progressive thought is finally going to be intellectually honest and practice its own form of fundamentalist separation, then the evangelical church will have to either join them in some diplomatic, compromising way (separate in name, but not practice), or fully accept the counter thought that men and women are not equal. A rejection of bad terms for more honest terms would be helpful. This schism may actually be the only schism since the reformation that is actually good for the church.


What Atheists Worship

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. – Psalm 14:1

In one sense, the atheist denies the reality of the Lord God on high, that particular God of the Bible, manifest in the man Christ Jesus. In another sense, atheism denies that there are no gods at all, no persons that man is bound to worship. They deny that man naturally worships something.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is working to post billboards throughout Sacramento, California promoting an atheist message throughout Christmas to counter the spiritual tone of the season.


Atheism does not seem understand its own contradiction. They fancy themselves as a group that is devoid of worship. Yet, they do still worship. The billboard says, “believe in humanity, not god.” Belief here means more than simply an intellectual assent, as if they encouraging the reader to accept the reality of humanity’s existence. Rather they are talking of faith, that state of committed belief that Christians often talk about.

Yet, humanity and god as terms are used in a sense as if they were mindless, impersonal forces, like George Lucas’ fabled Force. However, humanity is made up of millions of individual men, each with his own will. So, in practical terms, to believe in humanity is to have a committed belief, what a man calls faith, in millions of men. This makes each man an individual god, worshiped by his fellow gods, and each god worshiping himself.

Even though the atheist desires to escape worship, he inevitably worships the man closest to him, his self, and every other man on the planet, in the name of humanity. But, that is not atheism, that is paganism.

Boys Don’t Want Feminism

First, watch the video, then read the rest of the article:


The details of this boys home life are not included in this video, but point-blank questioning reveals he lives at home with a single mother. Judging by the fat rolls on her chin, she’s not exactly engaging in something useful and given that she’s on a day time talk show geared toward women like her, watching those shows while eating junk food and chatting on Facebook is probably her life.

The boy is not a troubled kid. There’s nothing wrong with him. He is a young boy rushing into the burgeoning years of manhood and desperately needs a male authority figure to guide him into being a man.

Of course, the female audience is just reveling in the drama because as a generation raised on feminism useless drama is all they find interesting. What they want the drill sergeant to do is scare the boy back into being submissive to his mother’s emotional needs so that he’s a perpetual nice little boy. They want the sergeant to be a white knight for the boy’s lazy, useless mother (his father may also be lazy and useless, but that does not excuse the same from women).

However, the drill sergeant does something the boy needs (even though being on the show make this drill sergeant a feminized white knight). He does not send the boy back to his mother with the admonition that his mother will take care of him until she can find him a daddy (she already chose his daddy and the consequences have already played out). He takes the boy into his masculine embrace and then leads him offstage, away from his mother and throngs of corrupting femininity. Unfortunately, at the end of the show, the boy probably went back home to his life and the white knight sergeant went back to his life, so it is doubtful anything was solved long-term.

Men in military service represent a distilled and focused version of the strength, courage honor that only men can provide. Boys know this and in a world of women running wild on feelings of empowerment they are desperate for something genuinely masculine. The acting out and violent behavior is the rage of desperation.

Young boys need men, need fathers. Feminist empowered women can never replace the power of genuine masculinity in a young boy’s life.

Are Progressives Becoming The New Right Wing?

Progressives are not quite the voice of peace and freedom they claim to be.
Progressives are not quite the voice of peace and freedom they claim to be.

In a recent article, Vox Day chronicles how a popular author is finding himself at odds with the progressive establishment over his political views. The author is Orson Scott Card, author of Ender’s Game and he is finding that not being loyal to the progressive culture is a thorny business. Card writes,

And as my politics diverged from the political correctness that has captured the left — I mean, [in] 1976 I was a Daniel Patrick Moynihan liberal Democrat — and without changing any of my principles, I’ve now become quite a right-winger in the eyes of the left. And I’m a little baffled by it because I’m a liberal and they’re not. They’re repressive, punishing, intolerant of the slightest variation, absolutely the opposite of what it means to be a liberal. But that’s the way it goes. They still get the label.

In the cultural conflict of the past fifty years, progressives have presented themselves as “liberal,” a culture of liberated individuals living their lives in tolerance of others. It was set in stark contrast to the conservative culture, which was decried for its rules, limits, and expectations, including religious orthodoxy and its demands for a moral separation of right and wrong. Being free from any such restrictions, which were called “Puritanical,” was highly attractive and young men and women walked away from their churches and conservative circles in droves to join newfound “liberal” freedom.

However, that is now changing. The progressive culture has discovered that loyalty and fundamental unity of thought is important to preserve its ideas and established place in American culture. The result is that it is now applying its own moral rules, limits, and expectations to those who claim loyalty to the movement and rejecting as morally wrong those who dissent.

For example, in the progressive circle, one must accept scientific inquiry as the premiere source of knowledge and ethics. To declare science flawed in its efforts and not wholly trustworthy, especially in terms of ethics, requiring the seeking a transcendent source of knowledge, is a violation of progressive thought. To reject the virulent disdain the progressive movement has for ethnic Anglo men and their history, which is commonly called “equality” and “diversity,” or to value the works of dead white men, is a violation of progressive thought. To reject the push for complete sexual anarchy for a more ordered and organized focused practice of sex, is to reject progressive thought. (It is worthy to note that while progressives have long promoted freedom of sexual practice, they still tend to marry and practice fidelity, which is the opposite of what they have promoted for others).

If progressives were to be honest with themselves, they are not for liberal culture or for liberty. Rather they have a worldview with expectations and the need to suppress dissent and challenge opposition. There is no accepted liberty from progressive culture. The religious conservative culture has always functioned in the same way and understands what is needed to promote and preserve a particular culture. Progressives claim to be against conservatives, but they have become like conservatives.

Genuine liberalism, the concept of true freedom for all, is being consumed in the cultural conflict between the cultural conservatives and cultural progressives. They both have their own set of rules and expectations and neither will tolerate their dissenters being equal with them.

The ultimate proof is the cultural chasm caused by the election of Barack Obama. The progressives became emboldened in their expectations and their desire to overthrow and silence dissent to achieve dominance. It is not a very liberal voice that has echoed through progressive halls in the past few years. Progressives have long claimed to be the “left-wing” of liberty against the “right-wing” of rules and restrictions, but they are now looking like a “right-wing” themselves.