• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

21 Convention - Patriarch Edition

It's interesting. I am cautiously optimistic. Of course there are things to watch for; I saw some MGTOW terminology and of course a $2,000 price tag is not negligible. I try not to let my Promise Keepers disappointment color any future group. These guys seem to be talking about a lot of the things I care about.
 
I've heard of 21 convention. They've a number of video's on youtube. I think I first ran across them via the founder's informative "marrying medusa" talks. But haven't listened to them lately, hadn't heard about this most recent convention.

Looks like a pivot. They used to be more about "relationship counseling" to fatherhood/patriarchy. It's the natural progression when looking for solutions to this societal mess we have today. Looks like a lot of the same speakers they've had in the past. Some of those speakers are at least nominal Christians, but many are not. But the advice will probably be better than what you'll get at the usual 'Christian' marriage retreat. They are a pro-man crowd and quite likely to be in favor of real patriarchy; or at least more likely than the average churchian who claims to be against feminism and for patriarchy.

A lot of the guys on that speakers list have a fair amount of free content available online if you go looking.
 
I sometimes watch Richard Cooper on YouTube. He was slated to appear, but backed out. Some of the speakers are MGTOW adjacent, but more generally it’s alpha male and female dynamics. Some useful info... some not... But it isn’t biblically based... more evolutionary in mindset.
 
William Robertson said:
I sometimes watch Richard Cooper on YouTube. He was slated to appear, but backed out. Some of the speakers are MGTOW adjacent, but more generally it’s alpha male and female dynamics. Some useful info... some not... But it isn’t biblically based... more evolutionary in mindset.
Click to expand...
Good info. Thanks.
 
cnystrom said:
Just curious. What specifically were you disappointed with about Promise Keepers?
Click to expand...

Those guys were a bunch of feminized whiners that propagated the idea that men had to meet some church ordained standard to lead in their homes. It was a massive power grab by the chuchians that briefly propped up a dying system so that any alternatives could be killed off first. The steady drumbeat of Promise Keepers was that men are dirty sinners that can't be trusted to be husbands and fathers.
 
ZecAustin said:
The steady drumbeat of Promise Keepers was that men are dirty sinners that can't be trusted to be husbands and fathers.
Click to expand...
Sinners? Ya, but dirty sinners, they may have stretched it a bit. About husbands and fathers that can’t be trusted? They’re looking in all wrong places. Most of the fathers and husbands I hang around with are pretty darn trustworthy. Maybe those leaders of PK got in with the wrong crowd. They should have checked out the BF group. It would have given them a different take on fatherhood and husbands.
 
ZecAustin said:
Those guys were a bunch of feminized whiners that propagated the idea that men had to meet some church ordained standard to lead in their homes. It was a massive power grab by the chuchians that briefly propped up a dying system so that any alternatives could be killed off first. The steady drumbeat of Promise Keepers was that men are dirty sinners that can't be trusted to be husbands and fathers.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I've heard from others who were intimately involved in the movement. In the history of the gelding of the churchian male, PK is probably a watershed moment.
 
I don't remember PK that well. I went to a few conferences... In general, the biggest issue that I have with much of the marriage content I've seen taught in mainstream Christianity is that they take the idea that the husband needs to love his wife sacrificially (like Christ does the church) to a place I'm not sure it was intended to go. There's little or no emphasis on headship or submission on the female's side, and much of what I've seen on that side has a strong feminist weight to it. The end result is that the husband feels that in a conflict between him and his wife, he must always be the one to bend or he's being selfish. So leadership in difficulty can feel like sin when it's not. I do think that sacrificial love is important, but Christ died for the church to make her holy... not to let her have her way. The purpose of spiritual headship is to guide the family to holiness. That's not always pleasant or easy. Some phrases, like "out love your wife" are good, but love takes many forms and appearances and many current marriage guidance resources for modern christians have a one sided emphasis.
 
William Robertson said:
I don't remember PK that well. I went to a few conferences... In general, the biggest issue that I have with much of the marriage content I've seen taught in mainstream Christianity is that they take the idea that the husband needs to love his wife sacrificially (like Christ does the church) to a place I'm not sure it was intended to go. There's little or no emphasis on headship or submission on the female's side, and much of what I've seen on that side has a strong feminist weight to it. The end result is that the husband feels that in a conflict between him and his wife, he must always be the one to bend or he's being selfish. So leadership in difficulty can feel like sin when it's not. I do think that sacrificial love is important, but Christ died for the church to make her holy... not to let her have her way. The purpose of spiritual headship is to guide the family to holiness. That's not always pleasant or easy. Some phrases, like "out love your wife" are good, but love takes many forms and appearances and many current marriage guidance resources for modern christians have a one sided emphasis.
Click to expand...

Ya modern teaching is fairly close to Biblical teaching flipped on it's head (with a few exceptions).
 
William Robertson said:
I don't remember PK that well. I went to a few conferences... In general, the biggest issue that I have with much of the marriage content I've seen taught in mainstream Christianity is that they take the idea that the husband needs to love his wife sacrificially (like Christ does the church) to a place I'm not sure it was intended to go. There's little or no emphasis on headship or submission on the female's side, and much of what I've seen on that side has a strong feminist weight to it. The end result is that the husband feels that in a conflict between him and his wife, he must always be the one to bend or he's being selfish. So leadership in difficulty can feel like sin when it's not. I do think that sacrificial love is important, but Christ died for the church to make her holy... not to let her have her way. The purpose of spiritual headship is to guide the family to holiness. That's not always pleasant or easy. Some phrases, like "out love your wife" are good, but love takes many forms and appearances and many current marriage guidance resources for modern christians have a one sided emphasis.
Click to expand...
Nice assessment. I wasn't involved in that movement, but that pretty much what I remember coming from it. I think that is what is largely taught in most churches today.
 
Mojo said:
Nice assessment. I wasn't involved in that movement, but that pretty much what I remember coming from it. I think that is what is largely taught in most churches today.
Click to expand...

It was before my time. Can it be fairly said that PK was the literal source for much of the bad teaching on marriage and male/female theology today?
 
rockfox said:
It was before my time. Can it be fairly said that PK was the literal source for much of the bad teaching on marriage and male/female theology today?
Click to expand...
I had an uncle involved in it. From what I remember, it had great intentions about trying to make men stand up and be responsible for their households, etc. I just remember it devolving into the male guilt trip. Is that what the rest of you remember?
 
I remember always hoping I'd get to see a certain speaker, who was on the promo list, only to find out when I got there that the list was for the whole country, not the specific one I was at. :)
 
But I did enjoy PK at them at the time... It was only later as I studied more on my own that I started to question some of what they put forward.
 
rockfox said:
It was before my time. Can it be fairly said that PK was the literal source for much of the bad teaching on marriage and male/female theology today?
Click to expand...
I'd say more a symptom than 'the' cause.

In fairness, I went to two, and the first one struck me as more focused on the 'good intentions' mentioned above, trying to get men to man up, to be strong, to serve God. It was good enough for me to want to go again. The second one, though, rubbed me the wrong way, way before any of the plural/poly stuff was on the horizon. Much more focus on . . . wait a minute . . . incoming . . .

Just had a weird thought as I was composing this post. I was going to say that the second conference was more about submitting to your pastor, but then I remembered the focus on sacrificing for your wife, and then I remembered the racial reconciliation thrust. Seems to me that's a politically correct hat trick. A soft but firm tightening down on white male Christians. Wouldn't have said that, or said it that way, at the time, but a lot has happened in 20 years....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top