A blog for Christian men "going their own way."

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Amusing Commercial

Remember, guys, to "count the cost"; you don't want the chivalry police to catch you looking at this one. ;-)

HT: MarkyMark

Thursday, March 12, 2009

A Sensible Article on Manhood

Here is a sensible article that explores the "five myths of masculinity." The author says pretty much what I have been saying all along about the concept of manhood.

Monday, March 9, 2009

Nice, Balanced Piece on the Marriage Mandate

Kevin has written a good post that takes issue with two extreme positions: the "gift of singleness" school of thought and the "marriage mandate" school of thought. Now, personally, I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures any kind of insistence that most people should get married. Maybe most will, but that's a matter I believe God has left up to us. I believe the Bible declares singleness and marriage to be states that are both intrinsically good (1 Cor. 7:25-40). Yes, I know that you know that I believe that (grin), but I thought I offer my standard disclaimer just in case.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Sloppy Exegesis Strikes Again.

PC recently penned a must-read on the sloppy exegesis culture warriors use to hogtie religious men with old-fashioned gender roles. Take a gander at it, fellows.


Tuesday, March 3, 2009


There is an article by Russell Moore in Touchstone magazine (HT: Boundless.org) about how consumerism and materialism is ruining the church. Especially noteworthy is this statement:
"Why do Christian parents, contra St. Paul’s clear admonition in 1 Corinthians 7, encourage their young adult children to delay marriage, sometimes for years past the time it would take to discern whether this union would be of the Lord? Why do we smilingly tell them to wait until they can 'afford' it? It is because, to our shame, we deem fornication a less awful reality than financial hardship."
Of course, Mr. Moore gets it wrong about 1 Corinthians 7. There is no clear admonition in 1 Cor. 7 for young to people to marry. It's just plain old marriage mandate poppycock to suggest otherwise.

But why all this talk about getting back to the warm fuzzies of relationships and spiritual matters? Where were people like Mr. Moore 15 or 20 years ago? I agree for the most part with what he has to say but his words ring a little hollow and disingenuous. As a young man, I languished in putatively conservative churches where the subtle implication was that if you were not Mr. Biff Success with a Bible, no Christian woman would want you. Indeed, the zeitgeist of "many luxury vacations" is older than Debbie Maken.

The men of my generation were told to take cold showers, realize that women don't need us, and to grin and bear it. They were given the "gift of singleness" talk by the pundits. Where are those pundits now? It seems that there is some theological revisionism going on these days. What is the matter? Did preachers decide their gospel of corporate consumerism is no longer suitable, and are they worried their grown daughters won't find a decent chap to marry? Are they are afraid of not having grandchildren? Are their pews getting empty? Are they getting nervous because the American Dream has been priced out of the market for so many people and people are thus not having babies?

Where were these preachers in the nineties and the earlier part of this decade when things looked good--when people had crummy jobs but economic bubbles seem to disguise the malaise? What did they have to say to young men who were struggling then? What did women have to say to young men who were struggling then--before middle age hit and the eggs started drying up? Where are Ani DiFranco, Alanis Morissette, and Meredith Brooks now?

I think some people are a day late and dollar short to be doing an about face. The plaintive cries of Russell Moore are akin to a deathbed repentance for institutionalized religion in North America, something that has become irrelevant to many men in my generation. It is odd that Russell Moore would lecture us about the possibility of living in trailer parks when he himself works in a very nice office. It really doesn't sound convincing when the people who would tell the rest us to stop being so materialistic look, well ... so predictably yuppie. And I wonder if Mr. Moore feels like he has "done something" about materialism by stating what the rest of us have already known for years.

I think about how men such as myself and others in the MGTOW community might feel about all of this. There is a well-known movie short that has made the rounds in cyberspace and which sums up nicely my feelings about the belated calls for men to get married, for men to come back to the sandbox, for Christians to become less materialistic, etc. I have my straw, so watch and understand ...

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Feminist Stupidity from Boundless Readers

Over at Boundless, Adam (I don't know if he is Puritan Calvinist or not) started a lively discussion when he stated the following:
"I would say that, if husband or the wife has to demand sex or rape their spouse, their spouse has sinned, even before they themselves have sinned. Paul is very clear that sexual relations are a marital debt that is owed between both the man and the woman. This not just true if a man wants sexual relations with his wife. The same thing is also true in reverse. If the woman has to demand sex or rape her husband, there is already sin as well. The scriptures say in 1 Corinthians 7:2, 5 that this must be the case because of sexual immorality. If it is not, then we run the risk of driving our spouse into sexual temptation, because we are denying them something that is rightfully theirs."
Adam then clarified what his views were on marital rape:
"Paul's command does not excuse things like rape of a spouse. That is sin also [and a far greater sin]. However, I would say that there is already problems if it has to get to that point."
And furthermore, he said:

"Read what I said in my clarification post. I am not saying that forcing it out of someone is right. What I am saying is that sin is already present if it comes to that point. Granted, the person who forces it out of the other person is committing the much more grevious sin, but, in such a situation, there were clearly other problems that lead up to the rape.

The point is that, if marriage is lived according to the scriptures, it should never come to this point. God set up the man and the woman owing each other the marital debt for a reason, and that is so that this would never happen. There will be times when you will want sexual relations, and your wife will not feel like it. However, the beauty of the Biblical teaching is that, sooner or later, your wife is going to want sexual relations when you don't feel like it. Hence, it all evens out, and it prevents sexual debauchery in such situations."
Simple enough to understand. Rape is wrong, period. It is a heinous sin. But are women entirely innocent when it happens? Not necessarily. One has to take responsibility for provoking another person to sin just as much the one who sinned. After all, if depriving a spouse of sex never caused anyone to sin, then why did Paul command people to not deprive their spouse?!

Christina understood what Adam was saying. However, many of the replies to Adam were certifiably numb-skulled. Most of them accused Adam of "justifying" rape. One of the most inane comments comes from a man:
"Yes. I saw where you indicated where a man is still responsible for his sin. I will agree with that, but you still justify the act of RAPE with the rest of your comment. You are writing that if she does not submit it is ok to rape her."
Erm, if Adam says rape is a sin, then how is he saying it is okay to rape anyone? The male gynocentrist then goes on to say this:
"In my opinion a sexual assault is the worst thing that another person can do to another. Check out Men Can Stop Rape (www.mencanstoprape.org), The White Ribbon Campaign (www.whiteribbon.ca), and One in Four (http://www.oneinfourusa.org/) for some information on ending sexual assault from a male's perspective. Since most sexual assaults are perpetrated by men we as men have the power to challenge stereotypes and other people into thinking and behaving differently."
Sorry, but much of the activism targeted against rape is underwritten by feminists with a misandrist agenda. The "one in four" slogan has been disputed. The saying, "Men can stop rape" is stupid. It makes no more sense than the statement, "Women can stop child abuse" (even though most acts of child abuse are indeed committed by women). Just because you are a mother doesn't mean your are culpable for what every other parent does. The same principle applies to men. Implicit in the statement "men can stop rape" is the misandrist suggestion that men are collectively responsible for the actions of a few bad men. I say a better slogan is this: "Feminists can stop whining."

Anyway, the posters who piled on Adam needed to look up the word "justify." But that is not the only stupid nonsense to be uttered by Adam's critics. Here are some other comments:
"Please do not contribute to the domestic violence lie that it is 'the woman's fault.'"
So should we contribute to the feminist lie that it is the "man's fault"?! Some folks need to look up what DV researchers Murray Strauss and Donald Dutton have to say about the matter.
"I am so dismayed I can't even think straight... A woman DOES NOT instigate abuse or rape. PERIOD. I'm just glad I'm not your wife."
I'm glad you are not my wife, either, lady. A woman never instigates anything? Ever? Period? They are entirely innocent 100% of the time and contribute nothing to the husband's actions? But, hey, this female reader admits, "I am so dismayed I can't even think straight." That's the problem, isn't it?

Boundless staff writer, Heather Koerner, then weighs in with a post about the matter. Here is what she has to say:
"What about if the wife is withholding sexual relations from her husband? Is that sin? Yes, it is. As Paul tells us, I should fulfill my marital duty to my husband. I should be concerned for his well-being. I should not be self-seeking. But can my sin 'cause' his sin?"

We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But when we start to apply causation to sin, we aren't just on a slippery slope, we're plunging over a cliff. The circle of sin is unending. Just as I could point to my children's behavior as the spark to my sin, they could then point to my grumpiness at breakfast, to which I could point to them keeping me up at night, to which ... ad nauseum. As 1 Corinthians notes, love does not keep a record of wrongs."
Well, Heather only gets it partly right. If I sin, then yes, I don't need to be pointing to how others made me do it. I still had a choice to resist sin. I need to take my lumps and not play the victim card. However, it doesn't take away from the guilt of those who contributed to my sin (Mark 9:42). What ticks me off about Heather's comment and about Boundless.org is that if the roles were reversed--if the woman was caught up in sexual sin--the man would probably be blamed. I infer this from what Boundless has published before. It's not Biblical Christianity. It's neo-traditionalist woman-firsterism.

But wait there's more. One reader, Bek, said the following about 1 Cor. 7:1-7:
"The verse says that the wife's body belongs to the husband, but the husband's body also belongs to the wife. Immediately, this shows marital rape to be against whatever Paul was trying to say. If her body belongs to him you could argue that he could have sex with her anytime he wanted, but since his belongs to her also, she could chose that he doesn't have sex with her anytime she doesn't want him to. I think it's probably intended to be more like the parts of a body stuff...that both partners need to properly consider the other's needs (in this case, physical desire) and work together for the good of the 'body', in this case, the marital unit of man and wife together." (emphasis mine, Anakin)
Ok, so you having power over your husband's body means you can refuse sex? But, uh, the Apostle Paul goes on to say, "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time." So, sorry, but you and your friends have failed, my dear.

Anyway, I have proffered my two cents worth at Boundless. You can read it at this link. One of the things I said was this:
"Rape is a terrible sin. Many times women are not at fault and have indeed done nothing to bring about their misfortune. But when a woman knows that she was being a selfish jerk for refusing sex to her husband, then she has to live with the fallout of her stupid choices. Sin often has earthly consequences and no amount of Politically Correct, Oprahfied spin will change that. We are not called to ape the feministic sentiments of our secular culture. We are called to stand on the truth of the Bible."
In sum, this whole affair underscores how the gynocentrism of the broader culture has crept into our faith communities. Men take note.