Game and the Decline of the Church

Dalrock has an excellent post on the way a complicit male leadership has facilitated the transformation of Christianity into feminist Churchianity:

I’ll start with an admittedly contentious question, whether Christian women should cover their heads in church. Paul’s instructions to the church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 seem to leave at least some room for interpretation. However, what is most telling isn’t just where one lands on this question but the reasoning used to arrive there. Consider for example the exegesis on the topic by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace at Bible.org: What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today? Dr. Wallace lays out the case for several different readings. He tells us that he originally held the view that the passage means real head covering and is applicable today (emphasis mine):

The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically. Since it is never safe to abandon one’s conscience regarding the truth of Scripture, I held to this view up until recently. Quite frankly, I did not like it (it is very unpopular today). But I could not, in good conscience, disregard it.

Later in the article he explains his new view that only a meaningful symbol of submissiveness is required today, although he isn’t able to suggest what might function as that symbol (emphasis mine):

Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women–even biblically submissive wives–resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfill the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.

His argument is that head covering was intended as a gesture of submissiveness, and isn’t needed so long as the woman is in fact submissive. Yet at the same time he declares that actually being submissive would be humiliating to modern Christian women in our feminist world. There needs to be a meaningful symbol of submission, so long as it doesn’t actually symbolize submission. This is rationalization at its finest, and it also shows that when feminism and the Bible collide Christians very strongly tend to choose feminism while conjuring up a suitable excuse for disregarding the parts of the Bible they are ashamed of.

Now, I have to admit that I've never given any thought to the whole head-covering thing, but I have come to the point where I simply refuse to attend any church in which women are permitted to teach. Not so much due to the Apostle Paul or because Christian women never have anything appropriate or interesting to say - although the percentage of female "pastors" who do nothing but talk about themselves does tend to run a little high - but because I have observed that a woman in the pulpit is a reliable indicator that the church's true allegiance is to the societal norms of Churchianity rather than Jesus Christ.

It must always be remembered that the female rebellion against nature, order, and God is natural and intrinsic to the sex. The only thing new about feminism and equality is that for the first time in history, a number of men bought into it and permitted it. This will be corrected, of course, by the same mechanism that all imbalances in a fallen world are eventually corrected, by disease and war. The tragedy is that it was absolutely unnecessary, the irony is that a celibate monk like Thomas Aquinas understood the core concepts of Game better than the average man today.

I'm neither the first nor the only one to notice the intrinsic relationship between Biblical Christianity and the foundational concepts of Game: Women are fallen and women are inherently different than men. Being truth, Game is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men.