From an LCG source:
Did you know it's a virtue to be a cold hearted, aggressive ass?
This TW cover article by Wally Smith should clarify it for you...
..."At the same time, the ability to emotionally detach oneself from the circumstance at hand in order to “get the job done” is a praiseworthy trait, allowing for clarity and achievement at times when emotions would be crippling." Is Masculinity Really Toxic?
"Sadly, society seems to be attempting to define men out of existence at the very moment in history when we may need them most. The God of the Bible speaks of terrible times ahead—an overdue rendezvous with the consequences of our rejection of Him, His laws, His design, and His guidance. The period to come in human history will be like no other has ever been, and no period afterward will ever match its ferocity and horrors (Matthew 24:21; Jeremiah 30:7).
Yet the Eternal reveals plainly what He is looking for to forestall such days—and what He fails to find: “So I sought for a man among them who would make a wall, and stand in the gap before Me on behalf of the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found no one” (Ezekiel 22:30).
Assertively—even aggressively—fighting against the crowd to do what is right, standing up on one’s own two feet when the rest of the world is crawling on its knees, and being strong enough to bear the intense weight of society’s pressure to conform to corrupt standards without deviating from what is true… All of those sound like the sorts of tasks for which men are made. Let us hope there are some left.
Are there real men left in LCG? Is anyone really left in LCG to stand in the gap?
19 comments:
Who's in charge?
This is the most important question the pyramid shaped hierarchy likes to ask those beneath.
It's all about top down government. In knowing where you are. God-Christ-Apostle-Prophet (blessings on His name jkjk)- Minister- Deacon- Father- Mother- Child. Knowing you're at the bottom is where you start growing up as a second/third generation COG'er. You start on the floor learning not making too much noise during services while jackbooted Germans invading, British Isrealism, or gay sex is discussed. Maybe you'll get lucky and hear a joke in there between the doom and the gloom.
You can't speak out. Children and women are to be kept submissive and silent. God warns women and children ruling is a sign of the end and speaking, having opinions, etc is frowned upon.
The ministry of the COG in most cases is the definition of toxic masculinity. It is the lording over of power by those who presume it is theirs and doing with what they will with it. Let us not forget that God's will coincides with theirs coincidentally. Look at the men who have risen to power and in charge of these groups. Is this a reflection of a selfless leader? Do they have their own interest or others in mind?
Private jets, grandiose campuses, and six figure salaries do not a one true church make. I'm not sure who the speaker of this quote is and I might be butchering it, but a famous Christian missionary/evangelist once said if I die with more than 50 cents in my pocket I'm a fraud and a charlatan.
Humility, compassion, and understanding are the counterbalances to toxic masculinity.
This is so ironic considering that it's always been the church culture that men are forbidden to stand up to abusive, tyrannical ministers.
Such articles appear praiseworthy to outsiders, but members know that it's only the outer face of a abusive cult.
The reality is quite different inside the church.
Smith seems not to understand what the liberals are complaining about. Their complaints may be bogus, but he really ought to present them correctly if he wants us to take him seriously.
His magazine's cover asks the question, "Is Masculinity Really Toxic?" Reading it, you would think that people are seriously suggesting that femininity is non-toxic while masculinity is toxic. Of course, that's just another ACOG straw-man. Only a very few extremist loons are against masculinity per se. The conflict isn't between masculinity and femininity. It's between masculinity and toxic masculinity. Just as a woman with toxic femininity could never be a proper Proverbs 31 woman, a man with toxic masculinity will fail to have proper relationships because of his hyper-aggression. That is actually a Biblical perspective.
Then again, Rod Meredith always had a strange relationship with masculinity, as the effeminate wrestler who wrote the famous "The Plain Truth About Queer Men" and who had a son who at the very least went through a gay "phase." He liked to surround himself with effeminate subordinates and to show his masculinity by abusing his power. Meredith never knew how to deal with healthy masculinity such as that displayed by Carl McNair. It's no wonder that his magazine gets it wrong.
So I went and read the tiresome article and as usual they miss some key points. Points that the ironically cited in their own article. Mainly that the APA talks about a "constellation" of attributes. That means they are grouped together. Individual characteristics are not the main problem.
They beg the question as to whether masculinity itself is toxic in their title, when the APA is making the point that it is when masculinity is manifested in certain ways it becomes toxic. Not all masculinity. Apples and oranges.
American society is engaged in a struggle to redefine itself. At the heart of that struggle is simply power. Who has it and whether or not it can be shared. Both the "me too" and "black lives matter" are voices of those who have been denied power. Traditional masculinity, as defined by the APA (remember a "constellation"), has long been one of the means by which power had been denied.
It also has placed an unfair level of expectation on men. In toxic form, men are denied the fullness of their humanity. There is an image to be lived up to, even if that image denies them connection with others and happiness in their lives.
Ah yes, Wally Smith. The very picture of masculinity 😂😂😂😂
1.46 AM
While I believe that there is truth in your conclusion that 'humility, compassion and understanding are the counterbalances to toxic masculinity,' I believe that the main counterbalance is respect for others rights. This is why Americas founding fathers stated that 'to secure these rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) governments are instituted among men.'
As long as my rights are respected, others people character, even if poor, is no concern to me. Note how when God punishes individuals or nations, He doesn't point to their evil character, but to their evil deeds.
It's funny, these guys talking about masculinity and the ability to assertively stand up against the pressure of society. Look at how they do everything in their power to avoid directly engaging with anyone who disagrees with them.
They preach only in their services with secret meeting times and places, or from the safety of their studio, or in their invite-only "public" presentations. I'd love to see one of these guys go onto a college campus and start preaching to whoever happens to be walking by, like many others do.
For all their talk about "restoring original Christianity", could you imagine these guys back in, say 35 AD, walking right into a synagogue and preaching boldly about Jesus, facing direct opposition the way the original apostles did? Nope. These guys are strictly for friendly audiences only.
This is a misleading article at best, a deceptive one at worst. Whichever, Wally Smith is cherry-picking and straw-manning the APA publication pretty hard.
The APA article cites research which shows that certain traits that have traditionally been seen as masculine are not always positive. Wally says, "Surely such characteristics are always negative. Aren’t they?" But that's NOT what the APA publication claims in the first place. Either he didn't read it, or he didn't care. He's got an agenda, facts be damned.
To be fair, Wally doesn't find objections to the entire "constellation" of these traits that the APA lays out, but where he does push back, he does so on the above basis, using the bible to argue that traditionally masculine traits somehow must always be positive, even though the bible doesn't say that either.
So he's using a publication that doesn't say that traditional masculine traits are always positive, to prove that a publication that doesn't say that they're always negative, must be wrong. Got it?
Even if the bible were a trustworthy source, it still wouldn't follow. He thinks he's making an argument, but he just isn't. It's just a bunch of browbeating strung together and divided up into paragraphs. But then, coming from an abusive set of ministers at an abusive church, why should we have expected anything else?
Wally is clearly using his bully pulpit to do some social engineering of his own. Although, it's not really his own. He's advocating the social counter-engineering of the "alt-right" in their efforts to try to resurrect a bygone era.
Anyone who doesn't conform to American culture circa the late 19th century when Herbert was born and cowboys had cows, yep, they must have a screw loose. Because it just so happens that what society was like back then, boy howdy, that's exactly what god desires and donchaknow that's gonna be the criteria he's gonna use to ensure that the culture within his kingdom will be the spittin' image of this bygone era of American culture. Of course, how they know such things is beyond me. They don't know it for a fact, they just know that it's true, I guess. And if you're not an American, well, so much the worse for you when Armstrongism's quaintly American god comes to restore true American culture in a hail of fire and brimstone.
Wally isn't trying to prepare well-adjusted men to stand in any gaps. He's trying to prepare loyal foot-soldiers for "the coming race war."
Church services once a month should have mud wrestling, pillow fights and paintball, instead of the usual 2 hour sit in the chair and vegetate stuff.
It would solve many problems, and provide outlet for pent up church frustrations.
Apparently LCG has at least a few strong men, even if they aren't the kind of strong men that most Americans appreciate.
Notice this letter to the editor, written by Canadian LCG evangelist Stuart Wachowicz. As recently as February of this year, Wachowicz was not just an apologist for the Chinese communist government, a leading figure and former top leader of their Confucius Institute in Canada, but he was so deeply enmeshed in his pro-China biases that he even wrote a letter to a prominent newspaper, putting himself in the midst of a political dispute very unbecoming for a minister of Jesus Christ.
What's worse is that LCG still considers this man to be a credible and unbiased authority on China, even allowed to spread his views on LCG videos where he does not disclose that he was previously (and may still be, who can be sure?) someone who received pay from China to advocate for positions held by their propaganda arm, the Confucius Institute.
That takes balls, and apparently Gerald Weston, not reining Wachowicz in, lacks the same.
Google the word aggressive and the definition that comes up is "ready or likely to attack or confront; characterized by or resulting from aggression", with synonyms such as hostile,antagonistic,combative, violent, etc. and antonyms such as meek, friendly, and peaceful. A secondary definition reads "pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully, sometimes unduly so." with synonyms such as assertive, competitive, bold, driving, insistent, enterprising, pushy, etc. and antonyms listed as submissive, or diffident.
Looking at the term "emotional detachment" we see that it is "the avoidance of emotional connections. It may be a temporary reaction to highly emotional circumstances or a chronic condition... This detachment does not necessarily mean avoiding empathy; rather, it allows the person to achieve the space needed to rationally choose whether or not to be overwhelmed or manipulated by such feelings..." Further down in the article however it also states that "Emotional detachment may allow acts of extreme cruelty, such as torture and abuse, supported by the decision to not connect empathically with the person concerned..." (Wikipedia)
It seems to me that to characterize assertiveness, aggression, or emotional detachment as traits unique to masculinity misses the mark. Is this what men really want to be known and admired for? And while I understand that God seeks men who are "strong", "brave", and willing to "lead" and "stand in the gap" when the situation calls for it, does He view these traits as less admirable in a female? Did not Deborah lead and judge, summon and command the army of Israel when called upon to do so? And did not Jael "emotionally detach" herself enough to "get the job done" when she hammered the tent peg into Sisera's head? Would anyone not consider the actions of Esther on behalf of her people at risk to her own life "brave"? Did these women step out of their female roles by displaying these traits? Were they unladylike?
Much has been made of a female being required to be "submissive" to a male, as well as the admirable traits of a "meek and quiet spirit." And yet, we are all told to submit to one another in Eph.5:21, and that God highly extols the virtues of being meek, merciful, and a peace maker in Matt.5. We are also told that Moses was "meek" above all men on the face of the earth in Numbers 12:3. Does meekness, submissiveness, and a quiet spirit apply only to females, and do these characteristics mean that one cannot also be brave, strong, and willing to step up and lead when the situation calls for it?
One set of "virtues" is no more masculine or feminine than the other. These are simply traits that we should all aspire to as we try to emulate Jesus Christ in our daily lives. For we were all, male and female created in His image,and are all to become like Him.
While I can sympathize with Mr.Smith's aversion to the stereotyping of males in the razor commercial, understand that women have been the brunt of such behavior for centuries. We have been painted repeatedly as more gullible, overly emotional, weak minded, and less intelligent than our male counterparts, though we too were made in the image of God, and I have heard all of these things either directly or indirectly implied from the pulpit.
Concerned sister
The LCG HQ staff should have put a picture of the HQ ministers instead of a baby if they truly wanted to illustrate "toxic masculinity." For some reason, all of the branches of the COG that Rod Meredith touched have had serious issues with toxic leaders. How much longer do we need to suffer under Rod McNair and Mario Hernandez? These two are the worst in Charlotte. The ministry is full of men trying to prove they are overly masculine men worthy of leadership. If they are not being oppressive jerks, they are weak little men who don't seem to have the balls to be true leaders. The gay guys at HQ are more masculine than some of the top leaders! LCG is right in that there is an issue of toxic masculinity today, and it is right here in LCG!
Anon 5:10PM wrote:
The gay guys at HQ are more masculine than some of the top leaders!
Spot-on! The known pedophile that RCM protected has actually matured a lot in the last 25 years, and has put his own security on the line several times to advocate on behalf of someone being treated badly. By contrast, Rod McNair is still the same spoiled brat who screwed things up in the Philippines but found reasons to blame the problems on anyone and anything other than himself, and who will lie, cheat, or hurt whoever it takes to retain and advance his position in the church.
Even Rod Meredith would sometimes say that the Godly ideal for men was not the "stiff upper lip" emotionally closed American or British male, but was closer to the European male's ability to cry and show emotion when appropriate without compromising his masculine strength. Wally seems to be calling for a standard that is more appropriate for men trying to avoid charges of effeminacy than for men trying to be Godly masculine men.
Just another example of imbalance created by Armstrongism.
Better advice would involve not so much changing your emotions, but recognizing them, allowing them to do their jobs, and then harnessing and controlling them as opposed to letting them drive you amuck.
I once had a friend who cried to me over a betrayal and the breakup of his marriage. Numerous times. He was inconsolable, and at times it became embarrassing. At some point he shared that crying over something that you cannot do anything about is a release which prevents bad emotions such as anger which would trigger violence. I mean I haven’t taken up crying since that discussion, but what he shared made a great deal of sense.
Armstrongism taught the repression of emotions, rather than getting it all out, feeling release, and getting on with your life.
Repression is unhealthy.
BB
For an article about masculinity, Smith seems to be crying all the way through it.
Wow what a "nice" picture. Perfect for that pedophile church, and I thought public display of this type picture would be utterly frowned upon in this day and age, but what more can you expect from a "church" that thinks it's ok to worship God in a Masonic temple. My "wife" attends there after leaving me. I guess I was a little too masculine. It's funny how they want to rule you, but still expect you to protect them at the same time. So much for being a "loving church"...
@ 12:33 AM, have you noticed how many of the problems at LCG Headquarters can be traced back to the same three women, each of whom by now has either had an affair or has left her husband (two have left, the other is almost certainly going to leave before her kids are out of college)? They formed a tight little group as "frenemies" back when they were with Global in San Diego, and ever since then their drama has controlled so much of what the fearful and effeminate LCG HQ ministry has said and done.
Who are these women? If you aren’t willing to actually say something, why bother insinuating and making all the inquiring minds in Banned Land scratch their heads?
Post a Comment