Upsetting The ‘Church Ladies’—A Sure-Fire Way To Get Fired Or Forced Out (Blog Series—Part 1)
(Introduction) A blog series to follow-up to my 'church-lady' X-post which caused no small stir.
Introduction
Well, I’ve done it again—I’ve upset the ‘church ladies.’
Back in October (2025), I shared on X [Twitter] that I’d been fired, again, as a pastor. For reference, I was fired the year before, as well, and as I noted in my X post:
“In the past [seven] years, as a pastor, I’ve been fired from three churches, and resigned from a fourth amidst calls for my termination. In every case, I was fired [or resigned after] upsetting the “church ladies” (often, of both sexes).”
My story of ‘church-lady’ woes clearly touched a nerve as it received hundreds of shares and headlined the X-news cycle for a couple of days, garnering nearly half a million views.
The tremendous response helps to validate my concern in two directions. On the one hand, the sheer volume of ‘wet hens’ and ‘white-knights’ who showed up in my comments, to put me in my place, proved a shining example of exactly what I’m talking about—namely, a toxic ‘church-lady’ culture that ‘disciplines’ anyone who dares to challenge it.
At the same time, the comments were also full of men sharing similar accounts to mine, and I received over forty private messages, not to mention phone calls, from pastors and male parishioners, all saying how much they resonated with my story—while relaying their own painful experiences of having their reputations, livelihoods, marriages, and families destroyed by vicious ‘church-ladies’ and hen-pecked pastors.
It’s worth noting that even some of the ‘respectable’ pastors—who showed up in my comments to criticize, denounce, and malign me—were still compelled to agree, in principle, that ‘church ladies’ are a problem.
In this follow-up (blog series), I want to defend my assertion that evangelicalism is ‘eat up’ with toxic ‘church-lady’ culture—and then add some framing to the discussion as well as address some of the questions and accusations that have surfaced since sharing my story. I’ll conclude with a clear call to action.
As I stated in my X post, “Naturally, there’s a lot more to this saga. I intend to give a full account of everything that transpired, but first, I’ve got to go find a place to live and start earning an income.”
Personal Update
As a quick personal update—by God’s grace, my wife and I managed to find a place to rent just days before Christmas. This was no easy feat, given that our housing and income were both taken from us at the same time. Try finding a landlord willing to rent to you when you have no income. Let’s just call it a ‘Christmas Miracle.’
Amanda is much recovered from her stress-induced shingles outbreak, which occurred the week I was fired. It was a severe case, attacking the back of her head, ear, neck, jaw, and face. She’s still taking two prescription meds for nerve pain, but the scars are healing and the virus appears to be dormant again. Amanda’s still quite sick from cancer, and goes monthly for treatment. She’s also battling a lot of pain from rheumatoid arthritis, and has to wear braces to support her wrists. She’s lost a lot of function and strength in her hands and fingers, making ordinary tasks quite difficult. She’s one of the bravest and most persevering people I’ve ever known, and she continue to look to our Lord for strength. She’s all sweetness to me.
As for work, after 25 years in pastoral ministry, I’m now in the life insurance business as a licensed, independent broker. If you live in Georgia, Alabama, Texas, Florida, or Minnesota, and want some help shopping for life insurance, give me a shout. I can get you some quotes, that fit your budget, from four of the top companies—and you have my word, I won’t twist your arm. (jb.durham80@gmail.com)
Two Reasons I’m Speaking Out
One: To Expose Rampant ‘Church-Lady’ Rot
The primary reason I’ve talked openly about my string of ‘firings’ is because I believe that ‘church ladies’ (of both sexes)—the rotten fruit of rampant feminism—constitute the most immediate problem facing today’s church. Over the past 60 years, or so, a pervasive culture of controlling, manipulative, domineering women has been steering the evangelical church towards the cliff of moral compromise—all in the name of ‘niceness,’ ‘equality,’ and ‘inclusivity’—while pushing out good and godly pastors and parishioners (primarily men) in the process.
There are many other problems, to be sure—doctrinal errors and moral compromises of various shapes and sizes—but, so long as unruly women rule over us—it remains impossible to address these other issues without being railroaded by the ‘church-ladies’ (of both sexes)—for being ‘mean’ and ‘divisive.’
This trend shouldn’t surprise us, given the sinful impulse of women to rule over their own husbands (see Genesis 3:16). Many women—after years of ruling the roost in their own households—naturally try to extend their rule over pastors and other men within the household of faith. Decades of second and third wave feminism have poured gasoline on the problem. Couple this reality with the runaway train of ‘toxic empathy’(see here) and you have a recipe for disaster.
The only way to stop this train, as it barrels towards the cliff, is for strong men of character and conviction to put their foot down (on the brake). Unfortunately, our hyper-feminized age has produced a culture of servile pastors, elders, deacons, fathers and husbands who have proven unwilling, or incapable, of offering any resistance to the malignant ‘church-lady’ culture devouring evangelical churches. In other words, the brakes have essentially been ‘cut.’
In fact, these effeminate men often adopt the same underhanded tactics and behaviors as the ‘church-ladies’—hence the phrase, “church-ladies of both sexes.” These men aren’t Biblically-qualified to lead the household of faith (church), most noticeably, because they fail to lead their own households—as evidenced by their unruly wives and unbelieving children. Such men steadfastly refuse to address actual sins committed by women, and, instead, default to placating these sinful women by punishing men for virtually any contrived “offense.”
As I described in my X post:
Time and again, these [church ladies] have pressed their husbands, deacons, and elders to put me under discipline; to force me into a struggle session where I must apologize for offending them, grovel for a second chance, and agree to all kinds of restrictions on what I can say and do. Once I refuse these sinful, controlling demands, they inevitably demand my head on a platter…and the ‘church ladies’ ALWAYS get what they want.
Two: To Defend My Character Against Slander
I’m also writing to refute a local and online smear campaign. Over the past 10-12 months, I’ve been maligned and slandered, both publicly and behind the scenes, by two woefully unqualified (ungodly) elders and their wives, who have gone on the war path—making it their mission to discredit my ministry, by maligning my reputation.
Just as the Apostle Paul devoted considerable effort defending himself (see II Cor. 10-13) when his opponents (including other preachers) tried to discredit his ministry, so I’m going to devote some space in this blog series to defending my name against false accusations and slander. Where my opponents have tried to obfuscate the truth by twisting facts and muddying the water, my aim is to bring correction and clarity—and receipts to back it up.
Not The First To Notice
I may be one of the first (or few) to speak candidly about my own ‘church-lady’ woes (because it comes at a steep price), but I’m certainly not the first to notice that this is a serious problem in the church.
Bnonn Tennant (co-author of “It’s Good To Be A Man,” buy here) has touched on toxic ‘church-lady’ culture (with different framing) in an article titled, ‘How Influential Women & White Knights Destroy The Church.’
Bnonn writes:
“When women hold power in a church—whether officially or unofficially—two things tend to happen: They strive to include anyone agreeable, regardless of error; They strive to exclude anyone disagreeable, regardless of orthodoxy. This is how women are designed, and it is good—in its proper context. Which is why the proper context for feminine influence is under masculine rulership.”
Bnonn goes on to explain that,
“False teachers are experts at being agreeable. This goes back to Eden, with the smooth-talking serpent. Men who faithfully imitate Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles, are much more proficient at ruffling feathers. In an ecclesial context, therefore, women’s social instincts are roughly inversely proportional to ensuring orthodoxy. Women are likely to approve and endorse flatterers, hirelings, soft men; likely to disapprove and ostracize truth-tellers, shepherds, tough men…This isn’t fanciful speculation. The data is in. Even just in recent history, we have multiple independent tests to refer to: mainline denominations, the PCUSA, etc; and now the OPC, PCA, and SBC are mid-experiment. The results are highly predictable because of these basic sexual psychological distinctions.”
Finally, Bnonn writes,
“White knights enable and exacerbate the tendency of influential women to lead churches into error. Like women, men have natural instincts that, in their proper place, are good—but removed from it, quickly turn destructive… Unfortunately, white knights have twisted these natural impulses into a mindset that automatically seeks and defers to female approval. This is their default frame… All these women have to do is take offense at another man and turn on the waterworks, and the white knights will unreflectively try to destroy him using any means necessary. And because they are “nice guys,” and using feminine tactics, this means they start with character assassination and whisper-nets.”
Others have diagnosed this problem (toxic feminism) in the broader culture—referring to it as the ‘Longhouse.’ Per an article in First Things:
“The most important feature of the Longhouse, and why it makes such a resonant (and controversial) symbol of our current circumstances, is the ubiquitous rule of the Den Mother. More than anything, the Longhouse refers to the remarkable overcorrection of the last two generations toward social norms centering feminine needs and feminine methods for controlling, directing, and modeling behavior… There is a greater tendency to respond to an offense by mobilizing social resources to ostracize the alleged offender.”
In short, the widespread rot of toxic ‘church lady’ culture has opened the ecclesial floodgates to mealy-mouthed man-pleasers, while effectively gatekeeping the church against the very gatekeepers so desperately needed.
As I contended in my X-post—at present, (with few exceptions) there’s virtually NO PLACE in evangelical churches for any man, whether he’s a pastor or parishioner, who won’t submit to the hen-pecking order of the most prominent women. Once someone offends the sovereign feelings of a ‘church-lady’—the gossip circulates, a coalition forms, consensus is galvanized—and the ‘trouble-maker’ is pushed out. As the old saying goes, “If Momma ain’t happy…someone’s about to have their head on a platter.”
Helpmeet Singles is a Christian matchmaking network built on traditional, Biblical values. We require a verified pastor’s (or father’s) endorsement for all network users. Fathers are invited/encouraged to oversee their daughters’ accounts. Right now we’re free! Apply today at helpmeetsingles.com
Coming Up
In the next post, I’ll share a summary rehash of my recent firings and fomentations, wherein, I’ll seek to make plain the common denominator—namely, my knack for getting canned after upsetting the ‘church-ladies.’