One defining feature of many Christian men today is the effeminate practice of covert and evasive speech.

Even worse is the fact that this manner of speaking is widely seen as the moral, "charitable," and polite manner of speech, to be praised, encouraged, & emulated.
(Thread)

The essence of this effeminate style in the evangelical man is the strategic avoidance of taking personal responsibility for (or "owning") what he has to say.

This goal (the evasion of responsibility) is achieved through various tactics calculated against clarity & precision...
Rather than saying exactly what he means in a clear, and unequivocal, manner, the polite evangelical man will hint at his meaning through innuendo and implication––so as to alway maintain the plausible deniability that he didn't mean the controversial thing he meant...
Or, if he does speak clearly with unambiguous moral authority, he will be sure to leave the object of his criticism unclear. The object of his criticism––whether a person, or an idea––will always remain abstract, theoretical, and disconnected from any specifics or concretes...
By implementing the right degree of unclarity on either the nature of his criticism, or on the object of it, he ensures that the right people in his audience will be emboldened and endeared toward him, but that he will never have to defend or substantiate what he has said...
As noted above, this evasive manner of speech is not some guilty indulgence.

It is the widely accepted and prescribed method of communication for a "good Christian man."

Directness of speech, on the other hand, is considered a sign of bad manners, or even of sinfulness...
A man who says what he means, clearly and unambiguously, naming names where relevant, and welcoming open debate to those who disagree––

This man is seen as "arrogant," "divisive," "rude," "uncharitable," and unworthy of public engagement...
Our evangelical culture has adopted an ethic of communication which is perfectly designed to embolden error while neutering truth.

Only error can prosper in a climate of dogmatic ambiguity, and only truth can suffer as a result.
In this culture of dogmatic ambiguity of speech, honest men will necessarily be discouraged and punished for their honesty, while dishonest men are inevitably encouraged and praised for their dishonesty.

If we want true and lasting reform in the Church, this must change...
Many have become aware, and begun to battle against, some of the particular errors currently being pushed (e.g., wokeism, socialism, feminism, etc...), but such errors only became prominent to begin with as a result of this evangelical culture of ambiguity...
In addition to combatting the particular errors, we must also combat the effeminate culture of "polite" ambiguity which acts as the seedbed for all manner of error.

We must insist upon shining the sanitizing light of clear speech into every facet of evangelical culture...
We must make holy war against every false assumption about what is "polite," "charitable," and "respectable" in public discourse.

We must put the evasive, lying, cowards to shame for their refusal to take responsibility for their speech.
Imagine how healthy the Church could be if Her men spoke clearly and unequivocally, if they named names and listed specifics where relevant, if they stated their positions and declared openly their willingness to defend those positions in the light of public scrutiny.

#2021Goal

More from Religion

🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"
First thread of the year because I have time during MCO. As requested, a thread on the gods and spirits of Malay folk religion. Some are indigenous, some are of Indian origin, some have Islamic


Before I begin, it might be worth explaining the Malay conception of the spirit world. At its deepest level, Malay religious belief is animist. All living beings and even certain objects are said to have a soul. Natural phenomena are either controlled by or personified as spirits

Although these beings had to be respected, not all of them were powerful enough to be considered gods. Offerings would be made to the spirits that had greater influence on human life. Spells and incantations would invoke their


Two known examples of such elemental spirits that had god-like status are Raja Angin (king of the wind) and Mambang Tali Arus (spirit of river currents). There were undoubtedly many more which have been lost to time

Contact with ancient India brought the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism to SEA. What we now call Hinduism similarly developed in India out of native animism and the more formal Vedic tradition. This can be seen in the multitude of sacred animals and location-specific Hindu gods

You May Also Like