WARTBURG WOMEN? DOES THIS FIT?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3789957/Why-modern-women-aggressive-s-called-dark-equality-surge-respectable-women-flying-violent-rages-trivial-reasons.html

WARTBURG WOMEN; I don't feel good about this. MEN, what does Scripture actually teach

One of the feminist themes running thru Wartburg is concerns that Patriarchy or Complementarism will lead to abuse.  Typical of the female of the species, "How does this affect me" is the lens thru which they view Scripture.  So Wartburg women reject male leadership not based upon Scripture but based upon feelings and fears.

For Evangelical men, it's not "How will this affect me" it is,  what does Scripture actually say?

Bottom line;  what does Scripture actually teach?

There will always be a cognitive/feeling differences between men and women; God made it that way.

Scripture so clearly teaches God intended men to lead in the church and lead in the home.

Wartburg women view Christianity thru a different lens.

WARTBURG WATCH AND DIVORCE

Nowadays, 70% of all divorces are initiated by the wives.  There are certainly many reasons for that but it is an interesting statistic in our time.

You can't be a student of the Scripture and think God doesn't hate divorce.  He clearly does.

I don't have any Evangelical friends who thinks a spouse has to continue to live with a physically abusive partner.  But moving to safety is different than divorce.  I personally think there are New Testament Scriptures that allow for divorce but not necessarily for re-marriage.  But the Scriptures that would appear to allow for divorce are few in number - very few.

In my experience the big problem is POST DIVORCE; having gotten divorced are you not now free to remarry?  And therein lies the rub.

A few things to keep in mind:

The divorce rate for second marriages is higher than first marriages.  The divorce rate for third marriages is higher than for second marriages.

Whoever you marry next, you'll be dragging your baggage and weaknesses into the new relationship.  If you have a weakness for abusive men, the odds are good you hook up with another abusive male - though it may appear different on the surface.

If you have a weakness for addictive men, you'll likely trade your first addict in for a second addict, just addiction of a different kind.

If you have young children, the odds of your next spouse sexually abusing them is signifcantly higher than the children's biological father abusing them.

The pool of semi-healthy, marriageable men or women who are divorced themselves is very, very tiny.  If you're a woman post 40 years of age, you'd better be extremely attractive/bright or earning a good income, otherwise the odds are actually against you re-marrying.  If you're making good money [ or even just decent money], there's plenty of divorced,  winsome males who'll be glad to marry you.  They're looking for a sugar Momma.  You'll earn, they'll spend. They'll break your heart; again.

And then there's the "newly divorced promiscuous phase" where one is trying to re-capture a sense of self esteem by falling into bed with any guy/gal who'll treat you decently for a moment. Did you know you can be 43, newly divorced and get pregnant on the first date regardless of how sexually pure your life has been up til then?  It's a little awkward to explain that to your ladies Sunday School class. 

BOTTOM LINE: the post divorce options [ staying single and alone or entering into a second or third troubled marriage after the ugly dating phase] are not pleasant to contemplate.

Readers, you may need to physically leave a dangerous situation, but you do NOT have to get a divorce.  If your spouse is the sociopath you think they are, they'll quickly latch onto another partner, live with them and in the process give you Biblical grounds for divorce.  But even then, maintaining a legal marriage though seperated, can provide a degree of psychological and emotional protection from jumping into another deeply troubled relationship [ and that's the betting odds.].

NOTE: I've known a lot of divorcing women who swore they'd never re-marry - but they did, most of them painfully in the long run.  Men, on the other hand, generally intend to remarry but they'll also find it challenging at the very least, if not impossible. 

 It's not good to marry a man or a women who hates their "ex."  You'll pay for that mistake.

FINALLY: Beware the advice you find in the posts and comments of Wartburg Watch.  Much of it will not be well thought out.  From the feminist perspective, men are the root of the problem, women's sinfulness is negligible in comparison.  If that's your perspective, all future relationships with the opposite sex will be painful and bitter.

IN THE INTERNET AGE; DON'T YOUR COMMENTS REFLECT YOUR HEART?

Anonymous poster - "The comments section at Wartburg, it seems to me, are going in a downward spiral to the point where they are positively sick. Ignorant and viscious. And endlessly repetitive! on WARTBURG CHANNELS SAUL ALINKSI IN THEIR ATTACK ON MARY KASSIAN"

I probably wouldn't go with "sick, ignorant and viscious" but "endlessly repetitive," yeah, that is so true.   I do think the comments reflect the heart of the people who write them and there appears to be tremendous amounts of bitterness and anger from the hosts and many [ but not all ] of the  commenters at Wartburg Watch.

Actually, I remain somewhat puzzled that Wade Burleson continues to lend his name and reputation to Wartburg.  He is, by his own account, a Calvinist unlike Page Patterson who is absolutely not a "neocal" but is despised never-the-less by the Wartburg crew.  Also, Wade's messages are fairly positive and up-lifting, not angry and bitter like so many of the comments seen on Wartburg as many continue to spew their venom at people like John Piper and Al Mohler - men who's primary failing appears to be their support of Scripture as it is written, not as feminists wish it was written.  So, why does Wade remain?

Finally; Scripture paraphrase in this age; "By their comments ye shall know them."

WARTBURGWATCH ATTACKS MARY KASSIAN

ALINSKI'S RULES FOR RADICALS

* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

__________________________________________________

In theory, Dee and Deb are sisters-in-the-Lord of Mary K.

IN reality, they appear to be practicing the politics of personal destruction.

I don't think Dee and Deb fear God.

DESTRUCTIVE TO WOMEN

Received a rare comment; "I suppose you should go over there and put those uppity wimmen in their place."

We have seen and heard from  people like Corrie Tenboom who was imprisoned, saw friends and family murdered, quite possible was seriously abused while a prisoner, who after her release never claimed to be a victim.

Then we have the ladies of Wartburg encouraging middle class women to go public as a victim of men - particularly evangelical men.

My belief; encouraging others to become a victim is actually DESTRUCTIVE to their life and their future.  Bitterness is like a cancer - you can grow it if you will;  it will be poisonous to your soul.

So, you have Corrie Tenboom on one side of the room and Dee and Deb on the other.

Being a middle-class victim is a lousy way to live.  That's my take.

THE REAL GOAL

Most recent attack on C.J. Mahaney might lead you to believe that Wartburg's goal is that he would step down from speaking at the TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL conference of 2016.

You'd be only partially right if that's what you think.

The REAL GOAL of Wartburgwatch is that the conference would be totally shut-down.

"WHY" you say?

Because these men do not teach the Feminist gospel.  And that is unacceptable to the queens of Wartburgwatch.