A Comment from History, Reviewed

In “A Comment from History,” I shared an old comment thread that shed light on more recent discussions. I didn’t discuss the bulk of the content, because an inductive argument cannot meaningfully be used in place of—or to overturn—a deductive argument.

Lately, it has been pointed out that I often abandon an argument if the form of the argument is invalid or weak. Jack, the owner of the Sigma Frame blog, became frustrated by my rational insistence that I should not engage with bad arguments, even if the topics themselves are interesting.

While I am perfectly justified in ignoring poor arguments, it can be instructive to analyze why such arguments should be ignored, why I am correct to refuse further engagement on a useful topic. To do that, I will find the flaws in the argument that was presented, showing exactly why I ignored the argument in the original thread.

After this review, I’m going to go back to pointing out the terrible arguments that people make and subsequently ignoring the supposed valuable “substance” of whatever topics they are discussing, because doing so with people who can’t make rational arguments is downright silly. It’s best for the discussion to die out if the people doing the discussion are incapable of properly discussing it.

Sharkly
Yes, the word “adam” is tricky since it has more than one usage.

Here is the entry in the concordance for the masculine singular word. Of the total uses 162 explicitly refer—in the singular—to a group or a plurality.[1] Three uses are exceptional.[2] Three uses refer to a single individual.[3] The remaining 384 uses are all translated in some form of “man”—whether in the singular or plural sense—which is the meaning under debate.[4]

Beyond being able to be used as a singular or plural, there really isn’t much difference in the usage of this word. The vast majority are more-or-less translated in the same way: man, men, human(s), person(s).

The Brown-Driver-Brigg Lexicon only gives four definitions:

  • a man = human being
  • collective man, mankind
  • proper name, masculine Adam, first man
  • proper name, of a location city in Jordan valley

We can ignore the last one, which is a solitary reference to Joshua 3:16. As for the third one, whether that is a separate usage from the first definition is the very matter under debate.

According to BDB, there is only one place outside of the unique—and easily explained—usage in Genesis 2-5 where adam means a man or group of men as explicitly opposed to a woman or group of women. That place is Ecclesiastes 7:28. That’s it entirely. A single use in a single verse out of over 500 uses in the Old Testament.

Outside of these isolated instances—Genesis 2-5 and Ecclesiastes 7:28—every other one of the references to adam in the Old Testament is plainly not exclusionary of women, that is, even when the subject is a male or group of males—that is, the context—the word itself does not imply maleness, as David Cline noted here.

In short, there isn’t anything particularly tricky about the word adam. If anything, it is relatively unusual in Hebrew in that it has relatively little variation in usage compared to most Hebrew words.

Sharkly
Just like the English words “man” and “mankind” have multiple meanings. Some folks forget that “mankind” is also the opposite of womankind.

This is a critical point and we must emphasize this. Here is the English definition from Merriam-Webster:

By “multiple” meanings, there are two. Just two in English. But, critically, there is no corresponding Hebrew word for the second English definition. When the Hebrew adam is translated into English mankind it always refers to the first definition. Just that definition. There are no multiple meanings. Sharkly’s claim obfuscates the unusual clarity here.

As for the definition of man, there is nothing in the additional English senses (1c,1d,1f,2b,3,4,5,6,7) that applies to the Hebrew usage. Indeed, the remaining definitions (1a,1b,2a) more-or-less match the solitary Hebrew usage. In any case, we can’t interpret the Hebrew in light of whatever the English means anyway!

Sharkly
Which is why the other side of the argument should at least acknowledge that Genesis never makes it clear that women are in the image of God.

As we noted in the deductive argument given in “A Comment from History,” Genesis states conclusively that women were made in the image of God. The only good reason to conclude otherwise is if you lack the ability to reason towards this conclusion. Having presented a deductive proof, I was not, in fact, required to acknowledge what Sharkly demanded. For five years, my argument has remained untouched and not refuted. I have no rational justification for changing my mind.

This is a good example of why I typically ignore these types of arguments. I had just presented a deductive proof and rather than address that proof, this response completely ignores and discards it in order to make an unsubstantiated inductive counterclaim. It is completely non-constructive and unhelpful.

Sharkly is preaching, he is not debating.

The aphorism “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is also helpful here. Even if Genesis had been ambiguous on the issue, it would still nevertheless not support the claim that women were not made in the image of God. The Argument from Silence is a very weak—and most likely fallacious—but Sharkly employs it here.

Sharkly
It is only there, if you really want to find it that way.

Obviously this is false. None of the arguments I’ve raised involve inductive reasoning or fallacious appeals. Simply turn this claim around onto its claimant, and you’ll see both.

Sharkly
You also have to believe that God is intentionally a bit carelessly vague in His writing to believe He is trying to explain that both men and women are in His image.

I rarely give formal proofs of my claims because doing so is usually too complicated or cumbersome. However, the construction of the deductive proof showing that women are made in the image of God is quite simple, one of the simplest deductive proofs I’ve made. Far from being “carelessly vague,” the argument is simple and straightforward.

So non-vague is Genesis that almost no one alive believes what Sharkly believes. I’m not aware of a single Christian sect—major or minor—that believes that Genesis is vague on this point. There are few points of Christian doctrine that are so universal accepted as that, across both time and space. Not even the essence of the gospel itself has such universal acceptance. The only doctrinal debate on the issue that I’m aware of is whether or not men and women lost the image of God in the Fall and had it restored in the image of Jesus, or whether humanity retained it after the Fall.

Does Sharkly think that it is vague…

Sharkly
It is only there, if you really want to find it that way.

…because that is what he wants to believe?

Sharkly
And you also have to believe that The Apostle Paul was wrong in 1 Corinthians 11:7, or at least incredibly misleading.

Here is the verse in question:

1 Corinthians 11:7
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

The most obvious retort is that by being a woman in the image of man, who is in the image of God, that she too must also be in the image of God. Women might be a reflection of a reflection, but are nonetheless still a reflection of the original source. The John Gill commentary summarizes one such view:

“. . . man was first originally and immediately the image and glory of God, the woman only secondarily and mediately through man. The man is more perfectly and conspicuously the image and glory of God, on account of his more extensive dominion and authority.”

Any conclusion that the image of God is not found in women is mere speculation. Even John Gill’s claim that the image of God is mediated in the woman by the man is itself speculation, as Paul doesn’t even say that. All Paul actually says is that man is in the image of God and that the wife is the glory of the husband. One cannot conclude, deductively, any more than this.

Sharkly
Male and female were not created on the same day, by the way. There was at the minimum at least a Sabbath day in between their creation, if not longer. The phrase “the eighth day” often used signifying the creation of Eve, and womankind, is as much a guess as saying Jesus was born on December 25th.

Speaking of speculation, there is no mention of an eighth day of creation in Genesis. In fact, the term “eighth day” refers to the resurrection of Jesus. It was first described in the Epistle of Barnabas, written around the turn of the 1st century.

Genesis is actually quite explicit that men and women—adam—were created on the same “day.”

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”
— Genesis 5:2

Once again, Sharkly prefers a speculative inductive argument over the deductive conclusion implied by this verse.

Sharkly
I’ll tell you of my…

Beware the anecdotal fallacy, when logical induction masquerades as deductive—conclusive—proof. For this reason, I snipped out this lengthy anecdote, but you can read the original here.

Sharkly
Then one day while reading Genesis 1:27 I suddenly saw that it was a legally correct product description.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Sharkly is reasoning by analogy, a form of inductive inference. The problem with this type of inference is that it relies on the strength of the analogy, not on the argument itself. In essence, Sharkly had to beg-the-question (i.e. circular reasoning) in order to conclude that God intended to say implicitly what he didn’t say explicitly. There is nothing in this verse to suggest that God was defining anything like what Sharkly believes, let alone that this was a “product description.” It’s an absurd analogy.

I also object to the idea that God must be constrained to Sharkly’s legalism, especially in light of God’s revelation in the New Testament of how much he rejects legalism.

Sharkly
Firstly we are told doubly that “adam” was created in God’s image…

This is meaningless. The debate centers on whether or not adam is a collective noun that necessarily excludes women. If adam includes women, then being told doubly that adam was created in God’s image means that women are made in the image of God.

Note that we don’t have to prove that it includes women, only show that it doesn’t exclude them. As we’ve shown above, it is easy to establish that it does not necessarily exclude women, and so his conclusion—which relies on the stronger of the two claims—cannot logically follow from the evidence presented.

Sharkly assumes the very thing he is setting out to prove by citing this verse—plainly a circular conclusion. The circularity is a problem, as it turns Sharkly’s argument into mere assertions that are no better than saying:

This is my opinion and you should believe whatever I say.

A lot of words could have been saved by just saying that and skipping the “argument.”

Sharkly
…and then we are told that God created both sexes, specifically omitting mention of that being done in His image. A poetic contrast.

The term “specifically” (i.e. “explicitly”) is not logically justified, especially because it is poetic. This is a fallacious Argument from Silence, and so must be rejected outright.

Sharkly
Anyhow, once I got to thinking about it and trying to see if there were other texts that talked about the image of God. There were, and all of them, whether originally in Aramaic or Greek, only ever talked about men as being in the image of God.

This is not true, and is again circular: assuming the conclusion of the issue under debate, namely by assuming that adam necessarily excludes women.

I discussed all the examples of the Bible talking about the image of God in “Sharkly on Women, Part 2.” The New Testament clearly associates the image of God with all Christians, both men and women. No New Testament writer ever excludes women from the image of God. Moreover, if we infer that only men are being addressed, then we would be forced to conclude that women cannot become fully Christian, for they could not bear the image of Christ.

Sharkly
And 1 Corinthians 11:7 makes it clear to all but the most resistant minds that women are not.

On the contrary, it is virtuous to resist making speculative leaps that go beyond the actually stated words.

Sharkly
Also I found that this is the original interpretation of the early church fathers, and that the idea that women might also be in God’s image is a later “discovery” introduced perhaps to bolster the deifying of Mary, and Etc., when that was gaining traction in some churches.

More than half of the patristic writers that I examined—seven out of nine, a clear majority—do not agree with Sharkly. Not only did I find more evidence than he did, but I wasn’t even looking for most of it: I just stumbled on it as part of other research I was doing. I have little doubt that this number would grow more lopsided if I expanded my search. Since he wrote his comment in 2019, Sharkly has remained critically under-informed on this topic (see here and here).

Sharkly
My contention is that the image of God is foundational to whether male and female are either equal or not.

It’s a contention. Merely that and no more.

Sharkly
And if They are equal, and women are being held down by God…

The term ‘equal’ here is loaded and ill-defined. Sharkly must explain what is meant by equality before he can make claims about women being held down by anyone.

Sharkly
…and His patriarchal religion…

This very badly begs-the-question.

Sharkly
…then there is a lot of explaining needed for God’s unnatural treatment of women as a lower creature.

This also begs-the-question.

Sharkly
However if you understand that men alone are gifted with the image of God and that women were created later as a second class of human without the divine attributes, a lesser vessel more prone to sins of negligence and usurping from their own place and duty, then it is only right and sensible that they not be artificially treated equally or given any authority over men, and should remain always in humble silence when the churches gather with heads veiled in the presence of God and His holy angels, and etc.

This also begs-the-question. This is getting tedious for me. Sharkly spends most of his comment making assertions about what he believes to be true, without showing anything. So I’ll respond in kind by merely asserting that God does not do any of these things of which he is alleged. Sharkly is simply wrong.

This isn’t very helpful is it? That’s why I don’t normally respond to these kinds of things, but just ignore them. Unsubstantiated assertions are irrational and never helpful. In the absence of a proper logical argument, there is no reason for engagement.

Remember what I wrote in Part 1 of Sharkly on Women?

For years I’ve avoided diving into Sharkly’s metaphorical decent into madness: the claim that women are not made in the image of God.

From 2019 until 2023, I had explicitly refused to discuss this topic. It was only after reading his post from September, 2023, that I thought I should wade the water, just a bit. I’m sure everyone probably wishes that I had not, but rather continued to refuse to engage in the madness.

Sharkly
If you understand the foundation, the rest builds on it.

And if you reject the fallacious reasoning, the whole edifice collapses. As it should.

Sharkly
If you have the wrong foundation, the whole of it becomes tricky and needs a clever minded man, like Bnonn, to even begin to explain all the seeming inconsistencies that arise from the fouling foundation of separate but equal in the image of God, yet inexplicably getting the lesser half of “equal” every time things get assigned.

Do you get the sense that Bnonn’s explanation here is tricky and needs a clever mind to explicate it? In fact, his explanation is trivial:

Bnonn Tennant — Are women made in the image of God?
This is some wicked incompetent exegesis. The very passages Sharkly cites directly refute his view.

No clever mind is required to understand this.

Sharkly
Ephesians 5 images marriage as the similitude of Christ and the church.

Of course marriage—which is made up of both man and women—involves bearing the image of Christ. This is unsurprising because Paul stated elsewhere that we all—including husbands and wives—bear Christ’s image. Does Sharkly think that the church as the bride of Christ only includes men?

Sharkly
With the husband in the image of the divine Christ the last Adam, and the wife in the image of the church. I ask again, which one is in the image of God?

Paul says that the church—which includes both men and women—is in the image of Christ, not only the married men. Paul never once says that women are the image of the church. Sharkly is rather blatantly putting words into the mouth of Paul.

Sharkly
Women have ceremonial uncleanness designed into them.

Sharkly betrays his ignorance of ritual cleanliness and its significance. I’m not going to bother educating him if he can’t be bothered to inform himself, except for one key point:

Only Jewish men and women could be unclean. Both the semen and menstrual blood of Gentiles was not unclean, but if it came from the Jews it was.

If you can’t see why that refutes Sharkly’s view, I don’t know what to tell you. You can read more about the Jewish practice by reading “Paul Was Not A Christian” by Pamela Eisenbaum.

Sharkly
The woman was created for “the man”(adam). To be a helper, not an equal. A different vessel, a second lesser vessel, made last of all.

Sharkly’s explanation is factually incorrect, and so leads to the wrong conclusion. I explained the error in “It’s a Military Term.”

Sharkly
If you are ashamed of that, you’re ashamed of God’s doings, because you have been deceived to believe the woman is equal and thus deserves more equal treatment from an unloving God.

Sharkly begs-the-question. He assumes the thing under debate and then attempts to shame you for it not agreeing with him in the first place. This is an logically invalid argument, so we toss it aside and move on.

Sharkly
When she is in fact not the image or glory of God…

Begging the question.

Sharkly
…and should always reverence that about her husband…

That came out of nowhere. Sharkly’s ‘argument’ lacks focus, as he throws in irrelevant assertions and conclusions.

Sharkly
…no matter what else about him may be above or below the average man.

Sharkly implies that all men are inherently superior to all women. This is obviously false from a simple analysis of our scientific and sociological reality. The fact is that certain women are, in fact, superior to certain men in a wide variety of individual skills and abilities. For example, 90th percentile women are stronger than 10th percentile men, despite being “the weaker vessel.” When we look at nature, we see overlapping bimodal distributions, not binary ineferiority/superiority. This is, incidentally, why the legalistic manosphere can’t define femininity and masculinity.

Sharkly is engaging in special pleading to get you to deny the evidence of your eyes and believe him instead. We do not fall for this.

Sharkly
Men all being gods above all women, is the correct answer to hypergamy. If women were trained from birth that men are the only permissible images graven in the image of God and bestowed with a portion of His glory to be idolized and subject to in every thing as unto the lord, they could then show all men respect, and not just the most desirable top 10%. … You can be certain, until death do you part, that your husband is a god, and that you married an exalted creature higher than yourself, and all of womankind.

Sharkly offers you idolatry. His viewpoint is here, quite explicitly, idolatrous violation of the first commandment. He condemns himself by his own words. No further arguments are required.

Sharkly’s comment truly offers nothing of value in his comment. He makes no meaningful arguments and his assertions hold no value. Though the general topic may be interesting and valuable, his presentation is not.

Now can you see why it is better for me to refuse to engage with people once they present an invalid argument—and refuse to correct their errors—rather than for me to continue to engage with them on “worthwhile topics?”

Footnotes

[1] any man (2), anyone (4), anyone’s (1), being* (1), common sort* (1), human (19),
people (1), person (5), person* (1), persons (3), population (1), someone (1), mankind (9), men (104), men of low degree* (1), men’s (3), men* (4), mortal (1)

[2] infantry (1), low degree* (1), low* (1)

[3] one (3)

[4] man (363), man’s (20), man* (1)

 

6 Comments

  1. professorGBFMtm

    i’ll tell everyone what the real meaning of Sharkly’s gibberish nonsense is really about at the bottom of this comment:

    ”After this review, I’m going to go back to pointing out the terrible arguments that people make and subsequently ignoring the supposed valuable “substance” of whatever topics they are discussing, because doing so with people who can’t make rational arguments is downright silly. It’s best for the discussion to die out if the people doing the discussion are incapable of properly discussing it.

    Sharkly
    Yes, the word “adam” is tricky since it has more than one usage.
    Here is the entry in the concordance for the masculine singular word. Of the total uses 162 explicitly refer—in the singular—to a group or a plurality.[1] Three uses are exceptional.[2] Three uses refer to a single individual.[3] The remaining 384 uses are all translated in some form of “man”—whether in the singular or plural sense—which is the meaning under debate.[4]

    Beyond being able to be used as a singular or plural, there really isn’t much difference in the usage of this word. The vast majority are more-or-less translated in the same way: man, men, human(s), person(s).

    The Brown-Driver-Brigg Lexicon only gives four definitions:

    a man = human being
    collective man, mankind
    proper name, masculine Adam, first man
    proper name, of a location city in Jordan valley
    We can ignore the last one, which is a solitary reference to Joshua 3:16. As for the third one, whether that is a separate usage from the first definition is the very matter under debate.

    According to BDB, there is only one place outside of the unique—and easily explained—usage in Genesis 2-5 where adam means a man or group of men as explicitly opposed to a woman or group of women. That place is Ecclesiastes 7:28. That’s it entirely. A single use in a single verse out of over 500 uses in the Old Testament.

    Outside of these isolated instances—Genesis 2-5 and Ecclesiastes 7:28—every other one of the references to adam in the Old Testament is plainly not exclusionary of women, that is, even when the subject is a male or group of males—that is, the context—the word itself does not imply maleness, as David Cline noted here.

    In short, there isn’t anything particularly tricky about the word adam. If anything, it is relatively unusual in Hebrew in that it has relatively little variation in usage compared to most Hebrew words.

    Sharkly
    Just like the English words “man” and “mankind” have multiple meanings. Some folks forget that “mankind” is also the opposite of womankind.
    This is a critical point and we must emphasize this. Here is the English definition from Merriam-Webster:

    By “multiple” meanings, there are two. Just two in English. But, critically, there is no corresponding Hebrew word for the second English definition. When the Hebrew adam is translated into English mankind it always refers to the first definition. Just that definition. There are no multiple meanings. Sharkly’s claim obfuscates the unusual clarity here.

    As for the definition of man, there is nothing in the additional English senses (1c,1d,1f,2b,3,4,5,6,7) that applies to the Hebrew usage. Indeed, the remaining definitions (1a,1b,2a) more-or-less match the solitary Hebrew usage. In any case, we can’t interpret the Hebrew in light of whatever the English means anyway!

    Sharkly
    Which is why the other side of the argument should at least acknowledge that Genesis never makes it clear that women are in the image of God.
    As we noted in the deductive argument given in “A Comment from History,” Genesis states conclusively that women were made in the image of God. The only good reason to conclude otherwise is if you lack the ability to reason towards this conclusion. Having presented a deductive proof, I was not, in fact, required to acknowledge what Sharkly demanded. For five years, my argument has remained untouched and not refuted. I have no rational justification for changing my mind.”

    Sharkly has said numerous times his ”family”(meaning his sisters and mother mainly ) didn’t treat him right” so after his wife made him not look like a ”respectable” traditional Republican family MAN ” like his idol ElRushbo by divorcing him he wanted revenge on ALL women, so WE all in the sphere get to ”enjoy” his much needed padded cell and straight jacket ramblings, gibberish nonsense that he types that he calls God’s holy order of Patriarchy and ”red pill” because no one that he knows has the gutz or is ”Bold & Biblical ”enough to call Bellvue on him to get him the help he needs.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Professor,

      …his much needed padded cell and straight jacket ramblings, gibberish nonsense that he types that he calls God’s holy order of Patriarchy and ”red pill” because no one that he knows has the gutz or is ”Bold & Biblical ”enough to call Bellvue on him to get him the help he needs.

      I too have associated his views with madness (which I meant figuratively). But if we are to speak plainly without metaphor, Sharkly fails the qualifications to be a teacher:

      “Therefore, an overseer must be above reproach; the husband of one wife … one who is leading his own household well, having his children in subjection with all dignity. Indeed, if someone does not know how to lead his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?”

      He does not possess the minimum qualifications to be teaching anyone doctrine with authority, let alone with the righteous indignation that he professes. It’s fine if he wants to do research on these topics and write articles and comments sharing his opinions, but he is forbidden to present it as if it comes from God.

      The divorced man is to be treated the same way a new convert is treated:

      …not a new believer, so that he does not become conceited and fall into the condemnation of the Devil.

      This, right here, is why divorced men should not be teachers.

      This is one of the main reasons for the illegitimacy of the large chunks of the Christian manosphere. Despite the Manosphere’s reverence of proper authority, it violates the plain dictates of proper scriptural authority by raising divorced men into roles of teaching authority and oversight.

      As I said of Sharkly’s weak patriarchy, why should I take seriously the Christian manosphere’s teachings on patriarchal authority when it does not take seriously its own teachings on proper authority?

      For all its obsession with submission (as being under authority), the divorced Christian men of the ‘sphere continue to refuse to submit to non-divorced Christian men. Why is that?

      For all its obsession with 1 Timothy 2, why do the divorced Christian men fail to learn in quietness and full submission, not being permitted to teach or to assume authority over another Christian man; but to remain quiet?

      Very eager to tell others what to do…

      Peace,
      DR

  2. Lastmod

    They will just use the example of Paul, or countless others from the old and new testament “well, God uses the sinner to prove Gods grace / love / mercy and that can be a testament / witness / proof of how God can indeed redeem and use that person to further the kingdom”

    And I would agree in theory. Maybe I still do?

    My cavet is, most of these men claim they have no sin. Did not commit any sin in their situation. They “asked” God for forgiveness, and its all better now.

    It also depends on “who” it is. According to them. A woman? If you kissed a boy at age 13….obviously she is damaged for life and will only want to monkey-branch / use a man to climb in social status and she has no place, she can come to church and hear the word, but should be reminded for the rest-of-her-life that she is indeed damaged / a carousel rider / curse of Eve type who only wants to upsur! Now, they will throw in “we cannot judge what God will do” but we, The Real Men speak for Jesus and God on these matters and wil throw in some verse, hairsplit what it really meant in 1st Century Greek or whatever

    Also, an addict. Addicts cannot be trusted on anything in the church. They are reminded daily of how terrible they are need to be in a church approved program like “Celebrate Recoverey” and not allowed to grow. If the reovering addict just happens to be a “very attractive / handsome man” well, he will be forgiven for his past. Seen it a billion times

    Any man like their heroes like Roosh, out comes the “we cannot judge and let God decide” statements.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Lastmod,

      It’s very interesting to consider the interplay between…

      “I’m redeemed, my past is behind me and troubles me no more”

      …versus the…

      “I’ve sinned and though I’m forgiven, the consequences of my actions remain.”

      In general the Bible does not hold past sins against a person who is redeemed. And I believe that remains the case even for those in leadership in the church.

      The standards for leadership in the church stand separate from the repentance and redemption from sin. There are very clear standards that elders, deacons, ministers, preachers, teachers bishops, etc. must have a blameless home-life. Although a man is not sinning if he has an unruly wife, it nonetheless disqualifies him from leadership. It’s not a matter of sin and forgiveness, but one of merit.

      To be a leader in the church, you have to be qualified. Like any job or job interview, you need to prove your merit. Being divorced, having a bad marriage, having out-of-control children, or being a new believer is a disqualification from leadership in the church. It means you do not possess the merit to take on the position.

      So why can’t a divorced man take a leadership position? The obvious conclusion is that he is still married in God’s eyes. No Christian is even able to divorce, let alone allowed to. And so as long as he remains estranged from his wife, he is actively failing to manage his household well. The only way to “repent”, as it were, is to remarry his ex-wife.

      This is why men like Scott should never have tried to teach. They may have valuable experiences to share, but they should only teach Christian teachings under the leadership of another man who meets the qualification, otherwise they should remain silent and learn in subjection, just as with the woman addressed in 1 Timothy 2 who also tried to teach and exercise authority over a man.

      For a divorced man to take a position of leadership, he must remarry his ex-wife. Failing that, he may not lead. Remarriage to another woman will permanently disqualify him.

      For a man in a bad marriage to take a leadership position, his marriage must improve. Failing that, he may not lead.

      For a man with out-of-control children, he must resolve their behavior. Failing that, he may not lead.

      For a new believer, he must first be trained in the faith. Failing that, he may not lead.

      These have nothing to do with grace or forgiveness.

      These are, of course, not the only standards for church leadership. Other attributes include being clearheaded, sensible, respectable, hospitable, skilled at teaching, not an excessive drinker, not violent, reasonable, not quarrelsome, not greedy, dignified, not dishonorable, not slanderers, and faithful.

      The personal attacks—slander—that we see in the Christian manosphere would disqualify almost everyone who wasn’t already disqualified for having bad marriages.

      Peace,
      DR

  3. Lastmod

    For a man with out-of-control children, he must resolve their behavior. Failing that, he may not lead.

    Funny, in my church that I once belonged to….the children of the pastors were some of the most “bad” kids in the congregation. Also many in “leadership” (mens group, being a deacon or church elder) their kids were hardly saints and models of “good kids” for the rest of us to follow

    These men sometimes blamed their wives for not raising them right and I could easily see many men in the ‘sphere taking this stance as well. Were they removed from leadership? Nope! “Gods working on my sons / my daughter and we cannot judge”

    As for being redeemed? Sure. Okay. Redeemed.

    Their are consequences to sin, and per usual….men decide which sins have consequences and which do not hence why I refuse to belong to a church and probably will never set foot in one again. The men who decide this are the same men who have wrecked marriage, wrecked sex, wrecked dating, wrecked the courts, with their stiffling intellect, machismo and fortunate looks and status

  4. professorGBFMtm

    ”My cavet is, most of these men claim they have no sin. Did not commit any sin in their situation. They “asked” God for forgiveness, and its all better now.”

    I say most of them are committing a very grave sin of the 70s to right about 1998(guess where I’m calling from nonsense) era of ”REAL MANHOODtm” i.e. being a supposed ”MAN” who uses a phone-back then these same ”guys” would say using a phone is ”girly” now they use their ”girly”-phone to even go on the net as I was told too many that visit Spawnys are girly supposed ”MEN”-BUT i like any REAL MANtm use a laptop/desktop as MEN were created to use on day 1 of creation!!😉

    ” The men who decide this are the same men who have wrecked marriage, wrecked sex, wrecked dating, wrecked the courts, with their stiffling intellect, machismo and fortunate looks and status”

    You forgot to add girly fools and ”loudmouth ”leader”chumps” to that list MOD😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *