Progressive Christianity is neither Progressive nor Christian. It’s more like Conservative Hereticism.

Readership: Red Pilled Christians;


In early September, I was honored to find that Dark Brightness dedicated a post, The state of things (Thanks Jack) (2020 September 5), to review what I had written about what has been happening in the Manosphere, as reported in the post, Moon Day Review – The Manosphere Reshuffles its Deck (2020 September 2).

In this post, DB reiterated a few statements I’ve made in previous posts about the Red Pill schism that has occurred this year, resulting in a philosophical divergence between secular RP and Christian RP.

In many of my past posts, I (as well as Deep Strength) have alluded to these differences between the secular Red Pill, and the Christianized Red Pill…

The separation and distinction of the Christian Covenant structure from the Red Pill praxeology is an important and pivotal development.  The Red Pill is largely an amoral description of human psychology and behavior, whereas the Christian Covenant recognizes human psychology and behavior, but adds to this awareness an aspiration to a God-ordained ideal.

I propose that the Christian exegesis of Red Pill precepts should be called something else, just to be more specific and to avoid confusion in future discussions.”

This post will address one such precept – what is meant by “progressive”?

The Confusion surrounding the word “Progressive”

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives.  The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.  The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”

G. K. Chesterton
Descent of the Modernists, by E. J. Pace (1922)

In the same post linked above, DB highlighted a page on Σ Frame, Red Pill Clique Bate, in which I described Dark Brightness and other blogs like Adam Piggott (Pushing Rubber Downhill), Cane Caldo (Things That We Have Heard and Known), Dalrock, Larry Kummer (Fabius Maximus), and Vox Popoli as being “Progressive Protestant”. Here, I defined “progressive” as “favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are – not to be confused with the “Left” or “Liberal”.” On this, DB wrote,

“Jack [assessed my blog] correctly, when he noted that I am aiming for reform of the church and ourselves.  We should always promote such.  Despair leads to sloth, an abandonment of effort.”

Dark Brightness added a personal message to me in a footnote.

“Jack, progressive == socialist == satanic.  You need to change your vocabulary.”

I agree with DB that the word progressive has been adulterated by Leftism.  Progressive Christianity has a connotation of including theological convergence, Critical Race Theory, Feminism, and Intersectional fluff, among other things.

To make this distinction clear to the reader, I’ll offer a few cases of contusion.

  • The website Patheos describes itself as Progressive Christian.  Enuff sed.
  • The website Progressive Christianity lists 8 Points of Progressive Christianity.  Point 3 says, “Seek and create community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to: …agnostics, Those of all sexual orientations and all gender identities… Those historically marginalized...”
  • The page on Progressive Christianity at Wikipedia states,

“Progressive Christianity represents a post-modern theological approach, and is not necessarily synonymous with progressive politics.  It developed out of the Liberal Christianity of the modern era, which was rooted in enlightenment thinking.  As such, Progressive Christianity is a “post-liberal movement” within Christianity “that seeks to reform the faith via the insights of post-modernism and a reclaiming of the truth beyond the verifiable historicity and factuality of the passages in the Bible by affirming the truths within the stories that may not have actually happened”.”

Not much has changed since 1922. Is this truly Progressivism? It seems more like Conservative Modernism.

“Progressive Christianity is characterized by a willingness to question tradition, acceptance of human diversity, a strong emphasis on social justice and care for the poor and the oppressed, and environmental stewardship of the earth.  Progressive Christians have a deep belief in the centrality of the instruction to “love one another” (John 15:17) within the teachings of Jesus Christ.  This leads to a focus on promoting values such as compassion, justice, mercy, and tolerance, often through political activism.  Though prominent, the movement is by no means the only significant movement of progressive thought among Christians.

Progressive Christianity draws on the insights of multiple theological streams including evangelicalism, liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, pragmatism, postmodernism, Progressive Reconstructionism, and liberation theology.  The concerns of feminism are also a major influence on the movement, as expressed in feminist and womanist theologies.”

According to this description, Progressive Christianity is little more than cherry picking certain Christian teachings and coopting them to support the purposes of the wider post-modern Intersectional Feminist movement.  If we leave out the word Christian and the references to Christianity, and add in some socio-political-economic rhetoric from Kant and J. S. Mill, then this wouldn’t read much differently from a description of Progressivism!  (Click on the link if you don’t believe me.)

Obviously, the word progressive cannot be used to refer to a return to Covenant theology, Biblical Law, and the Natural Order described by the Christian Red Pill.  This word needs to be revised or replaced in order to avoid unnecessary confusion (and offence).

Exit Questions:

  1. What are your thoughts about Christian progressivism?
  2. What is a better word that we can use to describe “favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are”?


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Churchianity, Culture Wars, Discerning Lies and Deception, Feminism. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Progressive

  1. Ed Hurst says:

    Jesus did indeed say, “Love one another.” He also said, “Go and sin no more.” If people don’t understand how the God of the Old Testament is the same one that sent His Son to the Cross, then they simply don’t understand God at all. It’s not following Christ; it’s some other pagan religion with Christian labels.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I have been alternating between the words Reformation and sanctification. I think sanctification is the work that our Lord must accomplish in the church and that requires a return to ancient truths and breaking free from traditions (ancient lies).

    When I began this comment. I was going to suggest we identify as reformers or sanctifiers, but now I think there are problems with both of those.


  3. Novaseeker says:

    I don’t think you can use the word “progressive” at all — it is utterly tainted with another meaning that has nothing to do at all with anything Christian in substance. The whole idea of anything “progressive” is to move away from anything Christianity stands for, because Christianity is the “establishment culture of the past” of the West, par excellence.

    “Progressive Christianity” is a term people are using to kind of repackage some things that came out of the “Emerging Church” movement — something which was openly about “embracing a generous orthodoxy”, which always comes down to meaning “disregarding orthodoxy” because “orthodoxy”, whatever else it may be, is never “generous” by definition, because it always excludes things that are not considered “orthodox”. The “Progressive Christians” are really people who are seeking to be kind of like liberal Christians are in practice, but with a post-modern mindset about it — they are using post-modernism as a means to bring back some things from the past (most often liturgical or devotional practices), while maintaining a kind of agnosticism about the truth claims made in the past as compared with the “generous orthodoxy” of truth that they promote, which happens to reflect more or less entirely the cultural progressivism of the surrounding post-modern culture. That’s a walk in the dark, because following traditional liturgical or devotional practices is useless unless they are grounded in the truth — the example of the high church Episcopalians exemplifies that quite well, I think. As a result this group tends to be “halfway” in nature — they get some aspects of contemporary “broad Protestantism” that are too weak or shallow in practice, but they do not want to embrace orthodoxy in substance or doctrine because they are post-modern in mindset, so instead they want a kind of “post-modern collage” of a church, which doesn’t work in practice any better than the late liberal protestantism of the mainline churches did.


    As for this (“favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are”) …. I would also not use the word “progress” there at all. I would also stay away from the word “change” because, again, in this culture, “change” is a byword of one-way liberating change — it is never “changing back”. I think in reality what you are describing is a kind of “neo-restoration” or a “neo-orthodoxy” — something that isn’t exactly a going back to the past, which is always impossible, but which does entail abandoning elements of the present which are inconsistent with the unchanging truth of the Church and restoring the Church to its purity and fullness of truth and practice. The word “reform” may be okay, but again this is also tainted now because it’s all associated with one direction of reforms — the liberating kind. Projects of restoration are, by definition, not seen as “reform” movements, and so the term is also a bit misleading in our cultural context.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Elspeth says:

    I stole this from Joshua Gibbs, and I have no idea where he got it, but I like it. I’m paraphrasing but I think I can express the gist.

    He basically said that the major difference between progressives and conservatives is the way we approach the world and walk into the future. Both sides agree that there were some bad things about the past.

    Progressives however, tend to respond to that by throwing draining the tub, throwing out the baby, and burning down the house on their way out the door. They keep their eyes turned forward, secure in the belief that they can forge a better future and humanity than the one their ignorant, bigoted forefathers bequeathed to them. They look back only to scold and ridicule.

    Conservatives, such as they are, walk carefully and cautiously backwards into the future, with their eyes toward the past so that they can build on the foundations which proved solid and the ideals worthy of carrying forward. They also look back to learn the needed lessons from mistakes that proved fatal and the ideas which were found wanting.

    It’s simple, but I think that it’s a decent summation and it certainly describes the differences between progressive Christianity which basically sees the entire Bible as offensive (no matter how much they claim otherwise) and conservative Christianity which, while not perfect, aligns more closely with the words Paul penned in 1 Corinthians 10:11

    Liked by 4 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      progressive Christianity which basically sees the entire Bible as offensive (no matter how much they claim otherwise)

      Some of it, yes.

      The bigger problem they have is that they use biblical textual criticism in a way that treats the Bible as any other text — that is, it treats the Bible as a set of human texts which can be (should be) deconstructed, analyzed and, in places, dismissed, like any other human texts. Once this bridge was crossed in the early 20th Century, the game was up when it came to “left” Christianity, whether of the original “liberal” kind, which typifies the mainline, or of the newfangled “progressive” kind like Brian McLaren and so on.

      The impact of this change is that is shifts how the Bible is viewed from being the Word of God expressed through human writing to being a collection of human writings about God which were inspired by the faith of the human writers. These are two very different things, obviously. The former is infallible and doesn’t contradict itself, and is binding eternally. The latter is fallible, contradictory, and not binding, as being the faith-inspired religious writings of religious humans who were living a long time ago — to be revered in some ways, but not to be considered binding, and to be considered fallible in places, contradictory in others, and certainly nothing God spoke or specifically instructed. The Bible becomes “ancient human written words about God” rather than the “revealed eternal Word of God”.

      Once you engage in that shift, the entire game changes. If the Bible is simply “ancient human written words about God”, then it is not inherently more truthful or accurate than contemporary written words about God, and many humans will have many reasons to consider that, as between two human writings, one of which is 3000 years old and one of which is 10 years old, the one that is 3000 years old is much more likely to have an inaccurate understanding of any number of things as compared to the more recent writing, due to lower levels of human knowledge about any number of things at the time. So if we’re really just dealing with ancient human writings which were sincerely inspired by the genuine faith of people who lived 2000 years ago and longer, most people will approach them with a more skeptical eye so as to discern what in them is still “relevant” today, 2000 years later, and what is, by comparison, “out of date”.

      This is, in fact, precisely what we have seen done, especially when it comes to what Paul has written about various matters of church discipline and Christian moral behavior, most recently concerning the ordination of women to ministry, and then the status of homosexual sex and the permissibility of homosexual “marriages”. What is being done in these cases is that Paul is being read as being a human writing from an era long past, and therefore “out of date” in some ways, and disregarding this is fine, because Paul’s “ancient words about God” are still intact in their “spiritual” content, but the more “human” aspects of them are updated by ignoring them in light of more recent human understanding, which Paul could not have had.

      The whole thing is fallacious, of course, but it’s based on a demotion of the status of the Bible from the infallible Word of God to a collection of fallible “ancient writings about God”.

      The question then asks itself “why do these people then remain Christian?”. That is, why believe any of the Bible if you are going to deconstruct it this way?

      The answer, I think, if you look at the people at the “top”, in terms of say the leadership of the ECUSA or what have you, the most liberal theologians and so on, is that they do not, in fact, believe that what Bible teaches is true, in any meaningful sense of the word “true” other than “mystical” or “symbolic”, but they think that religious practice is useful to people, and to society as a whole, and that for most people in the West this means some kind of Christian practice, and so remaking Christianity into something that meshes better with the culture (by getting rid of aspects that conflict with the culture) id good for people and society, even if it creates a religion that is, in substance, a different thing from what historical Christianity was. It may be an entirely new faith in substance, in terms of its content, but it will appear Christian and look Christian in terms of its trappings and its catchphrases and symbols, because these are familiar to the West, and are a kind of “spiritual comfort food” for Western Christians through which a new religion can take shape and play the “important social and cultural roles” of building community, communicating and reinforcing shared moral commitments, and providing a context for personal and shared meaning making.

      And what is the new content? Generally speaking, it is something people call “moralistic therapeutic Deism”, coupled with a generous helping of progressive social politics and morals, cooked together into a new stew of progressive pseudo-Christianity. Something that looks Christian and speaks Christian in terms of its words and symbols, but embodies a different worldview, a different moral system, and a different substance altogether in terms of what it teaches, if anything at all beyond merest Deism, therapeutic spiritual assistance, and new progressive social mores (tolerance, affirmation, affirmative consent, equity, etc.).

      This is the project. It is not as weak as you think. Old mainline liberal Christianity was blue haired and weak, and the Episcopalians are limited in scope and impact to their small church. This movement, however, is not. This is going to be the rising face of newfangled Christianity in the US, and we have to recognize it for what it is now.

      Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “why do these people then remain Christian?”.

        Well in the case of the leadership, they get a pretty decent paycheck and petty power all in exchange for the exercise of their mediocre mind.

        Liked by 3 people

  5. cameron232 says:

    After the other side wins, a conservative becomes a counterrevolutionary or a reactionary.


    • Jack says:

      I learned in history class that the only difference between an ignominious traitor and a glorified founding father was that the traitor lost the revolution.

      It makes you think…

      Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        History is always filtered through the prism of the one who wins the wars. There’s nothing novel about that. All historical understanding is replete with biases. My thoughts on the founding of America have swung the pendulum from one side to the other over the years. As it happens, our 14-year-old is taking a very pro-American, Christian foundational Principles of American Government class this year.

        Reading the founding documents (and I mean the original documents, not commentaries or history books) opens up a new understanding of the principles that under-girded the founding. They’ve read and analyzed The Magna Carta, the Pilgrim’s Law Code, the Virginia 1606 Charter, the Great Charter of 1618 (also Virginia), The 1628 Petition of Rights, and on and on -and on!- it goes. These were agreements that in several cases, the English monarchy had signed on to.

        Reading the documents themselves, you can see how the colonists were able to position themselves in such as a way as to decide that it became “necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” (from the Declaration of Independence).

        As much as I love the teacher and appreciate her zeal for Scripture, history and limited local government (colonialism has never been a long term workable institution, not really), I often think that Christians have overplayed the religiosity of the founding fathers. Including George Washington. Even the church goers strike me as Deists who appreciated the utilitarian role of Christianity in the establishment of the new nation.

        However, God is sovereign, and there are no kingdoms that rise without his consent and permission. He has his reasons for it, and He had his reasons for allowing America to rise. When she falls, He’ll have his reasons for that as well.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        It is basically true.

        One interesting little piece of literature you will never read in any American secondary school is something called “Strictures upon the declaration of the Congress at Philadelphia” by one Thomas Hutchison. It makes for interesting reading, certainly: 1776: Hutchinson, Strictures upon the Declaration of Independence

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        I appreciated that, Novaseeker. Thanks. I’d never seen it.

        To be fair, you’ll never read ANYTHING of true historical relevance in any American secondary school. Most of what I’m reading along with our 14-year-old are documents I’d never read. Even the most well-known of them were only referenced, not explored in any detail. And this was back when public school still made at least some effort at educating.

        I’d be pretty interested in your thoughts about a sample from our current history teacher. I could link to her but I won’t. If you’re interested, comment on my blog I’ll send you a link and you can offer your thoughts back here.


  6. cameron232 says:

    OT, but see this post by William Lind on equality as the original Original Sin.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. feeriker says:

    What is a better word that we can use to describe “favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are”?

    A very good question. Obviously we can’t use “reformation” or “reform,” as both of these were taken 500 years ago, with ultimately disappointing results. I’m tempted to suggest “Apostolic” Christianity, as in the faith as practiced by the early church founders in accordance with the message of the Scriptures. Inadequately framed for time and context, I realize, but it seems more accurately descriptive than any alternatives I can think of.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Adam says:

    For the record, I am hard core sedevacantist Catholic. Most certainly not protestant.
    [Link inserted by Jack for the readers reference.]


  9. Scott says:

    That cartoon by Pace brings to mind my short (two year) detour into the world of the PCUSA. Mychael and I had just gotten married and I was stationed in Georgia for my internship. So we moved to Augusta and started looking for ways to compromise between her very high church (RC) background and my freestyling Church of Christ upbringing. We church shopped for a while and found that the PCUSA had an adequate liturgical format to their worship to appease Mychaels sense of aesthetic but was protestant “enough” for me too.

    The church demographic was way above the American average on income and education. I would estimate that upwards of 85% of the adults had beyond 4 years of college, and most were doctors, lawyers, etc.

    After some time, it occurred to me that this group of people loved the feel of the high church without actually having to live any particular way in compliance with its precepts. As I made friends with many of them, I learned that a large chunk of them had dabbled, and toggled between this and Unitarian Universalism. (Basically a Church without a God).

    The minister was very articulate and laid back. He was well versed in scripture as well as eastern philosophies and everything in between. And he wove all these schools of thought into his eloquent sermons, always coming back to a parable or teaching of Christ. (The text being considered from the readings). This, I think, was quite appealing to the group there. To feel “Christian” but to also stroke your ego by convincing yourself that are educated in other worldly academic pursuits was important to them. “I am not a toothless redneck Bible thumper. I know other stuff too.”

    Occasionally the minister would say something, either from the pulpit or in casual conversation that would make my head turn sideways a bit, but my family was happy there. We loved our church family and we were praying and attending regularly. I felt this was the important thing.

    Then, at a retreat, I was sitting on the porch one morning with him drinking coffee and I asked, “I’ve always wanted to ask you, how would you describe your hermeneutic?”

    “I have not been asked that question in a long time and have not thought about it really. I would have to say I am text critical.”

    After that, all the rest made sense.

    Now, regardless of what you think about innerancy, if the text can be criticized (in the theological sense that he meant) all the rest of the faith can become quite subjective, very fast. That was the year that the PCUSA general assembly nearly split over the issue of gay marriage and gay priests. (2009)

    Within our congregation, it was not spoken of, because the politics of the group were varied wildly. So we mostly kept our opinions to ourselves. But right after we left, things got really weird in the PCUSA. It was a learning experience for me, to be sure.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      PCUSA, PCA, ELCA, Lutherans, anglicans and Episcopalians are the denominations of working licensed professionals.

      Its rare to find one who attends a church that isn’t “high church” like baptist, church of Christ, etc.


      • Novaseeker says:

        Generally true for Protestants yes. There are some that seem to attend “middle church”, though, like some of the Methodist congregations. There are also quite a few who attend higher end megachurches, which aren’t generally “high”, although certainly the professional types there are outnumbered.

        Here in the DC area the megachurches are different because the population here is different. Heck, here in DC we have the phenomenon of “low church Anglican” evangelicals like the ones at the Falls Church who got into the big dispute with the Episcopalians (which they lost) and went on to found a new evangelical/low Anglican parish that is a part of the ACNA: .

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        The larger churches out there are standard non denom but dress nicely. CHBC, which I used to attend, was very high church.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. lastmod says:

    I at one time thought that the “church” in gneral was above this……Jesus never once “demanded” social justice….demanded an audience with Caesar to “let his people go” nor started an armed rebellion to overthrow the puppet religious order that the Romans “allowed” through the “teachers of the law” or “king herod”

    I never noticed a Jesus who demanded “laws” changed by earthly rulers………he even effectively dodged a question astutely about taxes.

    He didn’t really care what his “hometown” thought of him……..nor what others thought of him as well. He didn’t have a “platform” and all too perfect plan to solve everyone’s petty whim, want or need.

    He had no army………didn’t have “LAMPS” nor did he have any “comeliness that we may be attracted to him”

    His training was in carpentry……..nothing important, nor a position with Union wages, haelthcare and guarantees….

    His only guarantee was that there was a place for you in His fathers house. He taught, listened, and led by example……..all of what He did was for pleasing the Father. A dutiful son. A dutiful life, and a way to emulate by faith, prayer, dilligence, work, action, and love.

    Once I became a Christian of course I learned the truth.

    Nothing of the sort was done inside or outside the church. Bunch of men squabbling about who “would sit on his right hand side” and “who was more Holy and set apart than another”

    How much time did Dalrock waste by pointing out the “cuck” of the week inside the faith? How much time did Catholics and Protestants waste on words, texts, real meanings and what Jesus “really meant”. How much time is wasted on debates about the eucharist, baptism, and other cultural or man-made trappings of this faith?

    Progressive and COnservative in a ‘christian’ sense are two sides of the same coin “which man / men is going to convince other men on how right they are, and who has the authority to tell us what Jesus really meant”

    The literacy rate of Jews in Jesus’s day was actually high for the ancient world…….even many women (gasp!!!) knew how to read and write back then………

    Jesus quoted scripture of the Torah……”it is written”

    There was no debate over which dialect, what context, and what “God really meant”
    Hence why I cannot follow it or dare I say “even believe” anymore

    The main

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      The descent to unbelief starts when doctrines and man made works take precedent over reading plain scripture.

      Mankind wants to make things complex and heavily organized (Rome). So they develop doctrines that stem from interpretations. Rather than teach the following generations how they derived those doctrines, they add onto those doctrines.

      Eg: most calvinists cannot read scripture and tell you how TULIP came about. Most cannot describe tulip itself. They can grasp tertiary doctrines though.

      Most churches don’t teach scripture. They will say they do, while ignoring significant passages of the Bible. (Another eg- Calvinist churches avoid John, John’s epistles, revelation, and Mark/Luke like the plague, and for a reason.)

      Liked by 3 people

  11. Pingback: 12 November 2020 – Dark Brightness

  12. Scott says:

    Also, I’m not sure if I would characterize it as “confusion” around the term progressive.

    Conflating “progress” with generally leftward movement (or movement in the direction of fewer and fewer objective standards) appears to be quite deliberate. Those who do that are not confused at all. They truly believe that moral progress is inevitable and that its long arc only goes one direction.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Lexet Blog says:

    I have no problem with using “progressive”. The problem is associating “progress” with something that is good, or something becoming better. It’s a neutral noun.

    One can “progress” down a bad path.

    That said, it’s easier to adopt a new term.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Pingback: Thursday Theology – Dark Brightness

  15. Sharkly says:

    What is a better word that we can use …
    Well, at the root of it, the satanic Feminists and the churchians want to “smash” God’s holy patriarchy. And as a servant of God, I’m directly opposed to that. So my goal is to repress toxic female rebellion and reimpose God’s holy patriarchy to rule on earth as it does in heaven. I’m fighting for God’s holy patriarchy against toxic female lawlessness. So I think that a good word would be:
    Patriarchist – definition:
    1. A supporter of a patriarch or of patriarchy.
    2. A supporter of a patriarchal government in a society or a church.
    3. (Historical usage) A supporter of the Patriarch of Constantinople against the Exarch of Bulgaria during the schism of 1872–1945.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Sharkly says:

    “I had written about what has been happening in the Manosphere…”

    I’ve wondered about that, as somebody who only discovered the Manosphere three years ago. I just found it as it seemingly began to fade away. I’m beginning to wonder if the Christian Manosphere did not reach a small ditch which most were not ready to leap across. That chasm being that women are categorically inferior to men. The Evolutionary-Psychology based secular Manosphere has no problem saying that women generally evolved to be “weaker vessels”. But the Christian Manosphere seems hung up doubting God that women really are all categorically inferior vessels, created not to rule, but to be ruled, to reverence the image of God, men. We reached a deciding point, where men had to fundamentally alter their thinking to progress onward back to full patriarchy, and most are too fearful to proceed.

    For all men to have a divine right to rule over all women in marriage, all men have to be categorically superior, otherwise patriarchy is just a vast arrogant male supremacy ploy. However if God made only men in His image, then only men should rule, and men ruling is a divine imperative, and in the absolute best interest of every man woman and child. If men alone are indeed categorically in the image of the Most High God, then equality/Feminism is a satanic lie and a blasphemous offense against God. If men are the image and glory of God, as 1 Corinthians 11:7 tells us, and women are just the glory of men, then the foundation for all Feminism and all equality is suddenly just gone. Feminism is just an arrogant baseless lie where arrogant women presume a divinely impossible equality with their superiors. At best women can become one flesh with the image of God, through sex and submitting their way into complete unity.

    Anyhow it seems that many men in the Christian Manosphere aren’t ready to cross the Rubicon, and march on Feminism’s capital, “equality of the sexes”, by stating that women are not Images of the Godhead, which is a Father and Son patriarchy, where the Father turns over His power to His Son.

    And the secular Manosphere isn’t ready to crush Feminism yet, for pragmatic reasons, because …


  17. Pingback: Deriving Doctrine | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: Anti-Progressive | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: The Amalgamation of Western Culture | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: Gynapotheosis | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: The Roman Life Script | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Against The Naturalistic Fallacy | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: The Decadent Christian (Ressentimentalism) | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: Ressentiment, Shame, and Accusation within Progressive Identity Politics | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: Ressentiment within Feminism has become a Generational Curse | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s