Very interesting, and not exactly what I would have assumed based on my experience and impressions of some districts. But the data and conclusions certainly conform to other data points.
The rankings are a bronze standard rather than a gold standard, but largely match expectations.
What would be most revealing would be to dump in the sermons, media, newsletters, and bulletins of each congregation, year by year, to firm up the coding and assess trends. Slice and dice those by seminary and year of graduation. It would also be fun to take the faculty output for each sem and Concordia U over a long time frame to see the results.
Truly, what do the people who dedicated the time and energy to building this “research framework” to vibe check districts’ website copy actually do for a living? I sure hope it’s something more useful than whatever the hell this is.
Geographically sandwiched between Florida-Georgia (8.6) and Texas (7.7), sits the mighty little Southern District (2.6). No wonder every proposed merger between the meat of this sandwich with either piece of bread has always failed. 🤣
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing" (1 Thess. 5:11).
"Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other" (Col. 3:12–13).
"As a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear Him" (Psalm 103:13).
"Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you" (Eph. 4:32).
"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope" (Rom. 15:13).
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt. 5:9).
Framing this as "masculine" vs. "feminine" — and creating a profoundly unscriptural rubric like this at all — is divisive and satanic, in addition to being just plain silly. What a profound waste of time and blight on the face of our Synod. For full transparency, I'd love to see you run Holy Scripture through your rubric and the words of our Lord Jesus through your "male (good) vs. female (bad)" machine.
Actually, I saved you the trouble, I uploaded your rubric to ChatGPT and asked it to evaluate the text of the Bible on a spectrum of "masculine" to "feminine" according to the rubric.
The results:
⭐ Overall Rating: 5/10 (Perfect Midpoint)
The Bible sits almost exactly in the middle when assessed using this modern linguistic rubric.
Here’s why:
Why not lower (1–4, ‘very masculine-coded’)?
The Bible does heavily feature:
authority
rebuke
commandment
covenantal structure
doctrinal clarity
mission and initiative
risk, challenge, confrontation
propositional theological argument
If we had only Torah, the prophets, or the Pauline epistles, the score might fall near 3–4.
Why not higher (7–10, ‘very feminine-coded’)?
The Bible also deeply uses:
narrative, story, parable
empathy, comfort, healing
emotional expression (especially Psalms)
relational warmth
hospitality and community life
caregiving imagery for God
dependence, mutuality, shared identity
peacemaking and reconciliation
If we had only the Gospels, Ruth, Esther, Psalms, and the prophetic comfort oracles, the score might rise to 7–8.
--
I then asked the model to evaluate the words of Jesus in Scripture according to this same rubric.
⭐ Overall Rating for the Words of Jesus: 6.5 / 10
Jesus’ speech, taken as a whole, leans noticeably toward the “feminine-coded” side of the communication spectrum — while still integrating strong masculine-coded elements at key moments.
Why Jesus leans toward 6.5 / 10 (more “feminine-coded”)
1. Narrative & Storytelling (very feminine-coded)
Jesus overwhelmingly teaches through:
parables
analogies
images
personal encounters
This moves His communication away from propositional argument and toward relational, experiential teaching.
2. Empathy, Healing, Emotional Warmth
Jesus’ words frequently include:
comfort
encouragement
compassion
invitations to come, rest, be welcomed
tears (John 11)
blessing children
affirming the downtrodden
These are highly feminine-coded forms.
3. Collaboration, Mutuality, Humility
Jesus emphasizes:
“Follow me” (shared journey)
“I call you friends”
shared ministry among disciples
gentleness and lowliness of heart
These push His speech style further right on the scale.
4. Peacemaking, Harmony, and Reconciliation
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Turn the other cheek.
Forgive seventy times seven.
These are strongly feminine-coded communication modes.
But why not higher (8–10)? Because Jesus also uses masculine-coded modes strongly.
1. Authoritative Teaching
“You have heard… but I say to you”
— extremely assertive.
2. Confrontation & Rebuke
woes to the Pharisees
temple cleansing
sharp correction of hypocrisy
apocalyptic warnings
These are quintessential masculine-coded elements.
3. Mission and Urgency
The great commission, sending sayings, kingdom proclamation — all carry assertive, mission-driven language.
4. Doctrinal clarity when needed
Though less frequent than narrative, He speaks with conceptual clarity about:
the Father
the kingdom
judgment
Himself
Summary
Jesus’ communication style is a purposeful blend of both modes — authoritative and confrontational, yet deeply relational and empathetic.
But compared to the whole Bible, His words tilt further toward the relational, emotional, concrete, narrative-focused, and harmony-oriented side.
Thus the overall rating:
⭐ 6.5 / 10 — Moderately Feminine-Coded Communication Style
So this is all based on subjective ideas of what ought to be considered masculine or feminine taken from a single article of dubious merit and your own personal judgments, running those through the notoriously unreliable tool of AI, and using that to cast wide judgement against every LCMS district based on those results? Raather than, you know, ANYTHING based on Scripture? Because it's especially wild to call narrative "feminine" when most of the Bible, including the Gospels, are narrative. The Epistles have an awful lot of language of shepherding, relationship, tenderness, encouragement, etc. as well.
If your definitions of "masculine" end up making Jesus and Paul sound feminine, then you're operating with flawed definitions. This whole post is an epistemological train wreck.
I did read the article. I don't see any reliable basis by which you are characterizing the different ways of speaking as "masculine" or "feminine" in the first place - because a lot of the supposedly "feminine" ways of speaking are actually found quite often throughout Scripture and especially throughout the New Testament. That's what I mean when I say that if your definitions of "masculine" end up making Jesus and Paul sound feminine, then the definition of "masculine" you're using is not a good one.
Now, pointing out that different people, different places, and so forth speak in different ways may be in itself nothing more than an observation. But am I incorrect in thinking that you're not just neutrally commenting on different ways of speaking, but you are actively making a judgment on which ways are good and which ways are bad? Another commenter here, using the same kind of AI analysis, pointed out that Scripture itself is quite balanced between the two. If your point is (and this was my impression) that one way should be used and the other way should be squashed, that seems to be a rejection of the way Scripture itself speaks to us. And that's highly problematic.
The article is very explicit, which is why I questioned whether you read it - nothing in the article ranks districts as good or bad, orthodox or unorthodox. The point isn’t “masculine good, feminine bad.”
Nobody said apply it to Scripture, which is a deliberataely ridiculous misuse of the idea. Jesus and Paul did not write the district overtures and resolutions, sinful people did.
This little exercise rests entirely on the validity of the “Evaluation Rubric” which operates with a binary male/female stereotyping matrix. What evidence is there that there even is such a thing? When the Smithsonian introduced a similar binary trait comparison for “black” vs “white” it was deemed racist. The notion of “language gender bias” is the gender studies cousin to race critical theory. Further, this little exercise lacks any controls to sample the background noise. One notices that, with a handful of exceptions, the districts are all clustered together geographically. Is there a geographical bias in play here? Do MIdwesterners communicate differently than west coasters? Having grown up in the Midwest and living and working on the west coast for more than half my life, I can attest that public discourse is dramatically different.
I think we should be very wary of sociological tools that were invented to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion and weed out the language of “patriarchy” and “hierarchy.” Ironically, in the study cited in support of this Evaluation Rubric, it was the “masculine” bias that was considered “bad” for the goal of recruiting women into the workplace. Implicit in the posted article is the notion that “masculine” traits are “good” for a church body and “feminine” traits are bad, at least at the district level.
Leaving off the “masculine/feminine” stereotype labels and looking strictly at the descriptors themselves, it would appear that the perfect score would be a 5.0, which is where the national body totals out. Both columns of traits are desirable. It’s no surprise that the Scriptures come out that way, since they exhibit both sets of traits even though they were written by men. Which again, makes me suspicious of the “masculine/feminine” dichotomy. It would seem to me that a healthy individual, whether male or female, would exhibit traits from both columns. I would dare say that this kind of gender stereotyping is a major contributor to the gender confusion and dysphoria one is seeing anmong our young people.
The church fathers used to say, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” Today we might ask, what do gender studies have to do with the Body of Christ?
Correction: The LCMS nationally scores 3.9, which is not surprising since the Proceedings are written in the style of bureaucratese that leans heavily to the left side of the chart.
You raise fair questions, but read way more into the article than is actually there.
The “masculine” and “feminine” labels are not claims about men, women, biology, or virtue. They’re shorthand for what everyone understands - Hallmark Christmas movies or the airgun hunting channel. These are obvious, everyday, understandable differences that predate any beloved gender studies or DEI frameworks. We very clearly state that the rubric is descriptive, not an iron-clad moral judgment that is on its way to a Nobel Prize.
The comparison to racial coding frameworks doesn’t fly. Nothing here ranks districts as good or bad, orthodox or unorthodox. The point isn’t “masculine good, feminine bad.” The fact is that a church body that depends on shared doctrinal clarity struggles when its districts no longer speak in a mutually compatible way at an institutional level (is anything more institutional than a convention?). That’s an ecclesiological and sociological concern, not a gender theory one. AKA, the same concerns missionaries take into consideration before setting out.
On geography: yes, regional speech patterns differ. That’s actually part of the finding, not a flaw. The problem isn’t that Midwesterners and West Coasters talk differently; it’s that the LCMS is trying to function as a single doctrinal institution while spanning districts whose default ways of speaking about doctrine, authority, and conflict are very far apart.
While a “balanced” mix of traits may be healthy for individuals, institutions aren’t individuals. A synod exists to confess, teach, and guard doctrine in common. That requires a shared way of speaking about doctrine itself. When that shared language erodes, fellowship becomes formal rather than substantive, no matter how much love and goodwill exist.
Folks dislike the labels, and that’s understandable, but setting them aside doesn’t really change the underlying and very anodyne observation: how we speak shapes how we govern, correct, and confess together.
This is brilliant…everyone ignores types, even though they are universal and literally the most obvious thing in the world.
It sheds light on the problem, but also the solution. And what body is better equipped to properly unite these two inevitable priorities in a proper marriage than the church? Faith defines and devotes itself to love. Love receives everything from faith and supports it always.
Surely no institution is better equipped to understand the hierarchy and mutual respect necessary to a union between the masculine and feminine.
(…though some of these comments suggest otherwise.)
This is SO GOOD! I have been looking for a “quantitative” way of saying this….but being in Arizona, I would rather use qualitative terms to discuss mission and ministry. This is a great model….OK, and I am fine being described as “feminine”…some of my best friends are women, and I am a right brain dominant guy so there!
Using terms like "longhouse" definitely reveals a lot about the kinds of influences you're under... Use the language of Scripture, not the language of far right liars.
Bill, I am delighted to enter the conservation, as you may remember about me, I want to put the best construction on things and be present for the work of healing the soul. Blessings!
I think it's great to call leftists feminine and rightists masculine, but this kind of AI linguistic analysis is itself fake and gay. It's not scientific.
I dunno man, you posted a whole article with an LLM experiment, with commenters really thrilled with the results.
Just saying you could have written another hit piece on leftists and it would have accomplished the same thing with better support. I support work like that. I don't support AI vibe commentary.
Thought provoking. First, I am more concerned about how the “flesh” vs. “spirit” (Rom 8 & Gal 5) are manifesting among us in the LCMS rather than alleged masculine versus feminine attributes. Our Lord Jesus shares that concern. Second, this thought provoking article provoked this AI chat. Whether my suspicions about a hidden agenda or unstated assumptions are right or wrong, this may be of interest nevertheless: https://chatgpt.com/share/6940864e-edc0-8000-8470-3c9098a521cc
Men that assent to or even promote feminine ways among men are infinitely worse than the unmanaged women who do this by fallen nature. These guys will be eradicated one way or another. Islamists will have their way with them if we don't do it in a more humane way. Like simply expelling them from the fellowship. That's a really kind way of doing it.
This is an amazing piece. Keep it up. I assumed you were shaky because I heard of you on Issues Etc - no longer a reliable place, as far as I am concerned.
Very interesting, and not exactly what I would have assumed based on my experience and impressions of some districts. But the data and conclusions certainly conform to other data points.
The rankings are a bronze standard rather than a gold standard, but largely match expectations.
What would be most revealing would be to dump in the sermons, media, newsletters, and bulletins of each congregation, year by year, to firm up the coding and assess trends. Slice and dice those by seminary and year of graduation. It would also be fun to take the faculty output for each sem and Concordia U over a long time frame to see the results.
Seminary dissertations would be a good add as well. Then extend to church bodies in fellowship with...you could be busy for quite a while.
Truly, what do the people who dedicated the time and energy to building this “research framework” to vibe check districts’ website copy actually do for a living? I sure hope it’s something more useful than whatever the hell this is.
With very little to do on any given day, this is how we fill the hours. One correction, it has nothing to do with district websites.
Then perhaps the brainpower it took to produce such drivel would be put to better use in another, more useful or God-honoring capacity.
Thank you. We will take your kind, winsome, Christian response into account as we reset.
Glad to be of help.
Very, very happy to be worshipping in SE Wisconsin!
Geographically sandwiched between Florida-Georgia (8.6) and Texas (7.7), sits the mighty little Southern District (2.6). No wonder every proposed merger between the meat of this sandwich with either piece of bread has always failed. 🤣
Resist you much!
Unfortunately there is one , Good Shepherd in Gulf Breeze that needs to change to ELCA....
😬
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing" (1 Thess. 5:11).
"Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other" (Col. 3:12–13).
"As a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear Him" (Psalm 103:13).
"Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you" (Eph. 4:32).
"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope" (Rom. 15:13).
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt. 5:9).
Framing this as "masculine" vs. "feminine" — and creating a profoundly unscriptural rubric like this at all — is divisive and satanic, in addition to being just plain silly. What a profound waste of time and blight on the face of our Synod. For full transparency, I'd love to see you run Holy Scripture through your rubric and the words of our Lord Jesus through your "male (good) vs. female (bad)" machine.
Actually, I saved you the trouble, I uploaded your rubric to ChatGPT and asked it to evaluate the text of the Bible on a spectrum of "masculine" to "feminine" according to the rubric.
The results:
⭐ Overall Rating: 5/10 (Perfect Midpoint)
The Bible sits almost exactly in the middle when assessed using this modern linguistic rubric.
Here’s why:
Why not lower (1–4, ‘very masculine-coded’)?
The Bible does heavily feature:
authority
rebuke
commandment
covenantal structure
doctrinal clarity
mission and initiative
risk, challenge, confrontation
propositional theological argument
If we had only Torah, the prophets, or the Pauline epistles, the score might fall near 3–4.
Why not higher (7–10, ‘very feminine-coded’)?
The Bible also deeply uses:
narrative, story, parable
empathy, comfort, healing
emotional expression (especially Psalms)
relational warmth
hospitality and community life
caregiving imagery for God
dependence, mutuality, shared identity
peacemaking and reconciliation
If we had only the Gospels, Ruth, Esther, Psalms, and the prophetic comfort oracles, the score might rise to 7–8.
--
I then asked the model to evaluate the words of Jesus in Scripture according to this same rubric.
⭐ Overall Rating for the Words of Jesus: 6.5 / 10
Jesus’ speech, taken as a whole, leans noticeably toward the “feminine-coded” side of the communication spectrum — while still integrating strong masculine-coded elements at key moments.
Why Jesus leans toward 6.5 / 10 (more “feminine-coded”)
1. Narrative & Storytelling (very feminine-coded)
Jesus overwhelmingly teaches through:
parables
analogies
images
personal encounters
This moves His communication away from propositional argument and toward relational, experiential teaching.
2. Empathy, Healing, Emotional Warmth
Jesus’ words frequently include:
comfort
encouragement
compassion
invitations to come, rest, be welcomed
tears (John 11)
blessing children
affirming the downtrodden
These are highly feminine-coded forms.
3. Collaboration, Mutuality, Humility
Jesus emphasizes:
“Follow me” (shared journey)
“I call you friends”
shared ministry among disciples
gentleness and lowliness of heart
These push His speech style further right on the scale.
4. Peacemaking, Harmony, and Reconciliation
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Turn the other cheek.
Forgive seventy times seven.
These are strongly feminine-coded communication modes.
But why not higher (8–10)? Because Jesus also uses masculine-coded modes strongly.
1. Authoritative Teaching
“You have heard… but I say to you”
— extremely assertive.
2. Confrontation & Rebuke
woes to the Pharisees
temple cleansing
sharp correction of hypocrisy
apocalyptic warnings
These are quintessential masculine-coded elements.
3. Mission and Urgency
The great commission, sending sayings, kingdom proclamation — all carry assertive, mission-driven language.
4. Doctrinal clarity when needed
Though less frequent than narrative, He speaks with conceptual clarity about:
the Father
the kingdom
judgment
Himself
Summary
Jesus’ communication style is a purposeful blend of both modes — authoritative and confrontational, yet deeply relational and empathetic.
But compared to the whole Bible, His words tilt further toward the relational, emotional, concrete, narrative-focused, and harmony-oriented side.
Thus the overall rating:
⭐ 6.5 / 10 — Moderately Feminine-Coded Communication Style
--
Great rubric, guys!
There you go. Not sure what the anger was all about in your first comment.
...
Jesus is 6.5/10 leaning "feminine"? In other words, the more "feminine" districts are, in fact, the districts that sound more like Jesus. Hmm.
I think that should call into question the incredibly shaky premise of this whole post.
What is the premise?
Zero surprise that Texas and Southeast districts use the most feminine language.
The FL/GA is my district……and I didn’t need a report to know the FL/GA is the most effeminate district 😂😂😭
Sorry for that, Pastor!
😩 you
confirmed what I knew to be true 😭
It’s not surprising at all, is it.
So this is all based on subjective ideas of what ought to be considered masculine or feminine taken from a single article of dubious merit and your own personal judgments, running those through the notoriously unreliable tool of AI, and using that to cast wide judgement against every LCMS district based on those results? Raather than, you know, ANYTHING based on Scripture? Because it's especially wild to call narrative "feminine" when most of the Bible, including the Gospels, are narrative. The Epistles have an awful lot of language of shepherding, relationship, tenderness, encouragement, etc. as well.
If your definitions of "masculine" end up making Jesus and Paul sound feminine, then you're operating with flawed definitions. This whole post is an epistemological train wreck.
It's always best to read the article.
I did read the article. I don't see any reliable basis by which you are characterizing the different ways of speaking as "masculine" or "feminine" in the first place - because a lot of the supposedly "feminine" ways of speaking are actually found quite often throughout Scripture and especially throughout the New Testament. That's what I mean when I say that if your definitions of "masculine" end up making Jesus and Paul sound feminine, then the definition of "masculine" you're using is not a good one.
Now, pointing out that different people, different places, and so forth speak in different ways may be in itself nothing more than an observation. But am I incorrect in thinking that you're not just neutrally commenting on different ways of speaking, but you are actively making a judgment on which ways are good and which ways are bad? Another commenter here, using the same kind of AI analysis, pointed out that Scripture itself is quite balanced between the two. If your point is (and this was my impression) that one way should be used and the other way should be squashed, that seems to be a rejection of the way Scripture itself speaks to us. And that's highly problematic.
The article is very explicit, which is why I questioned whether you read it - nothing in the article ranks districts as good or bad, orthodox or unorthodox. The point isn’t “masculine good, feminine bad.”
Nobody said apply it to Scripture, which is a deliberataely ridiculous misuse of the idea. Jesus and Paul did not write the district overtures and resolutions, sinful people did.
This little exercise rests entirely on the validity of the “Evaluation Rubric” which operates with a binary male/female stereotyping matrix. What evidence is there that there even is such a thing? When the Smithsonian introduced a similar binary trait comparison for “black” vs “white” it was deemed racist. The notion of “language gender bias” is the gender studies cousin to race critical theory. Further, this little exercise lacks any controls to sample the background noise. One notices that, with a handful of exceptions, the districts are all clustered together geographically. Is there a geographical bias in play here? Do MIdwesterners communicate differently than west coasters? Having grown up in the Midwest and living and working on the west coast for more than half my life, I can attest that public discourse is dramatically different.
I think we should be very wary of sociological tools that were invented to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion and weed out the language of “patriarchy” and “hierarchy.” Ironically, in the study cited in support of this Evaluation Rubric, it was the “masculine” bias that was considered “bad” for the goal of recruiting women into the workplace. Implicit in the posted article is the notion that “masculine” traits are “good” for a church body and “feminine” traits are bad, at least at the district level.
Leaving off the “masculine/feminine” stereotype labels and looking strictly at the descriptors themselves, it would appear that the perfect score would be a 5.0, which is where the national body totals out. Both columns of traits are desirable. It’s no surprise that the Scriptures come out that way, since they exhibit both sets of traits even though they were written by men. Which again, makes me suspicious of the “masculine/feminine” dichotomy. It would seem to me that a healthy individual, whether male or female, would exhibit traits from both columns. I would dare say that this kind of gender stereotyping is a major contributor to the gender confusion and dysphoria one is seeing anmong our young people.
The church fathers used to say, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” Today we might ask, what do gender studies have to do with the Body of Christ?
Correction: The LCMS nationally scores 3.9, which is not surprising since the Proceedings are written in the style of bureaucratese that leans heavily to the left side of the chart.
We explicitly excluded procedural items.
which of itself is disgusting
You raise fair questions, but read way more into the article than is actually there.
The “masculine” and “feminine” labels are not claims about men, women, biology, or virtue. They’re shorthand for what everyone understands - Hallmark Christmas movies or the airgun hunting channel. These are obvious, everyday, understandable differences that predate any beloved gender studies or DEI frameworks. We very clearly state that the rubric is descriptive, not an iron-clad moral judgment that is on its way to a Nobel Prize.
The comparison to racial coding frameworks doesn’t fly. Nothing here ranks districts as good or bad, orthodox or unorthodox. The point isn’t “masculine good, feminine bad.” The fact is that a church body that depends on shared doctrinal clarity struggles when its districts no longer speak in a mutually compatible way at an institutional level (is anything more institutional than a convention?). That’s an ecclesiological and sociological concern, not a gender theory one. AKA, the same concerns missionaries take into consideration before setting out.
On geography: yes, regional speech patterns differ. That’s actually part of the finding, not a flaw. The problem isn’t that Midwesterners and West Coasters talk differently; it’s that the LCMS is trying to function as a single doctrinal institution while spanning districts whose default ways of speaking about doctrine, authority, and conflict are very far apart.
While a “balanced” mix of traits may be healthy for individuals, institutions aren’t individuals. A synod exists to confess, teach, and guard doctrine in common. That requires a shared way of speaking about doctrine itself. When that shared language erodes, fellowship becomes formal rather than substantive, no matter how much love and goodwill exist.
Folks dislike the labels, and that’s understandable, but setting them aside doesn’t really change the underlying and very anodyne observation: how we speak shapes how we govern, correct, and confess together.
too many words
This is brilliant…everyone ignores types, even though they are universal and literally the most obvious thing in the world.
It sheds light on the problem, but also the solution. And what body is better equipped to properly unite these two inevitable priorities in a proper marriage than the church? Faith defines and devotes itself to love. Love receives everything from faith and supports it always.
Surely no institution is better equipped to understand the hierarchy and mutual respect necessary to a union between the masculine and feminine.
(…though some of these comments suggest otherwise.)
This is SO GOOD! I have been looking for a “quantitative” way of saying this….but being in Arizona, I would rather use qualitative terms to discuss mission and ministry. This is a great model….OK, and I am fine being described as “feminine”…some of my best friends are women, and I am a right brain dominant guy so there!
Reading the comments…..where’s the love, folks? It’s Advent, Christmas is coming…..lighten up, Synod!
Amazing, right! The Longhouse comes alive.
Using terms like "longhouse" definitely reveals a lot about the kinds of influences you're under... Use the language of Scripture, not the language of far right liars.
Are racism accusations next?
It was Ad Crucem News who chose to publish this in the middle of Advent. If you don’t want to start the conversation, don’t post this sort of thing.
Bill, I am delighted to enter the conservation, as you may remember about me, I want to put the best construction on things and be present for the work of healing the soul. Blessings!
I'll converse, Dr.
No love without truth.
The dumpster fire Texas district score is spot on.
I think it's great to call leftists feminine and rightists masculine, but this kind of AI linguistic analysis is itself fake and gay. It's not scientific.
Did anyone say it was?
I dunno man, you posted a whole article with an LLM experiment, with commenters really thrilled with the results.
Just saying you could have written another hit piece on leftists and it would have accomplished the same thing with better support. I support work like that. I don't support AI vibe commentary.
LOL, alright.
I think it's brilliant.
Thought provoking. First, I am more concerned about how the “flesh” vs. “spirit” (Rom 8 & Gal 5) are manifesting among us in the LCMS rather than alleged masculine versus feminine attributes. Our Lord Jesus shares that concern. Second, this thought provoking article provoked this AI chat. Whether my suspicions about a hidden agenda or unstated assumptions are right or wrong, this may be of interest nevertheless: https://chatgpt.com/share/6940864e-edc0-8000-8470-3c9098a521cc
No hidden agenda, no unstated assumptions. But it does look like folks may really come unglued when the next binary analysis comes out.
Men that assent to or even promote feminine ways among men are infinitely worse than the unmanaged women who do this by fallen nature. These guys will be eradicated one way or another. Islamists will have their way with them if we don't do it in a more humane way. Like simply expelling them from the fellowship. That's a really kind way of doing it.
This is an amazing piece. Keep it up. I assumed you were shaky because I heard of you on Issues Etc - no longer a reliable place, as far as I am concerned.