Realmannspracht (The Spiritual Problem with "Real Man" Talk)

Realmannspracht. It's a word I have coined for "real man" talk. Indeed, there is a lot of it afloat. Do you know what a "real man" is? Can you know? The psychologist Roy F. Baumeister wrote:

The phrase “Be a man” is not as common as it once was, but there is still some sense that manhood must be earned. Every adult female is a woman and is entitled to respect as such, but many cultures withhold respect from the males until and unless the lads prove themselves. This is of course tremendously useful for the culture, because it can set the terms by which males earn respect as men, and in that way it can motivate the men to do things that the culture finds productive. ("Is There Anything Good About Men?" Address to the American Psychological Assocation, 2007)

I'm quite happy to uphold this traditional understanding of what makes a "man" if we uphold the traditional understanding of what makes a "woman" ... thus rolling back many of the economic, political, and social gains that women have been given. But seriously, I think that if we have made progress in how we treat women, people of color, etc., then surely we should make a little progress in how we treat the "disposable sex." What makes a man? Who gets to answer that question? How about the One who actually has made man?

What does the Word of God say in Genesis 1:27? It says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (KJV). Here's something to note from this passage: To be a man or a woman is not to merely state one's sex, but to affirm one's humanity. Value judgments about what a man or a woman should be are ultimately subordinate to how the Creator has made us. He is made us "male and female." Webster's dictionary defines a man as an "adult male human." A man is distinct from a woman, a child, or an animal. Even a man who is a eunuch is still a man.** To be a man, in essence, is a matter of God's creation, not social conditioning.

Throughout the ages, "real man" talk has been used by people to shame men into compliance with social norms. Even feminists with all their bravado about "equality" and freeing men from "restrictive sex roles" are not above using this type of language as a bludgeon themselves. That woman do not receive similar treatment is indicative of the sickening disrespect modern society has for men. It's "lifeboat feminism" at its worst. And yet, the talk of "real men" persists, even among those who profess to be Christians.

When someone denies that I am a man, he denies that I am a male human being created in the image of God. This denial of my humanity suggests that my soul is not valuable and that my life is not higher than an animal's. Such a willful denial is an act rooted in hatred. No one who claims to follow God can hate his fellow man: "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:15, KJV). Look, you may not like what a particular man is doing. I may not like it either. But neither you or I have any right under God's throne to deny that man's humanity by declaring he is not a "real man." Religious pundits and commentators do not get to exercise some special prerogative in this matter, either.

I suppose I have may have used the phrase "real man" or "real men" in the fashion I described. We all slip up, but I think we need to change our language if we going to endeavor to be a civilized people. Self-respecting men should balk at the phrase "real man" the way women balk at the phrase "dame" or "broad."

What should we say of those who still use the phrase "real men" or "real man"? I may, at first, call into question their understanding, but if I've already warned them, then I am forced to call into question their integrity. Indeed, there a lot of "real women" and "real men" who don't have it.

-----

Note:

**In the Greek text of Acts 8:27, the Ethiopian eunuch is a called "a man" (aner). That logically presupposes he had all the essential characteristics of a man. And yet, he was a literal eunuch [see Darrell Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 341].

Realmannspracht Is Still Stupid

Once again, it's time for me to drive a spear Phinehas-style through the fat, greasy body of realmannspracht. I notice the men who talk the loudest about who is a "real man" and who is not a "real man" tend to define manhood in ways that square nicely with their interests and agendas. How strange that the self-appointed "experts" on manhood contradict each other on some very fundamental points. I guess it's all a sophisticated version of what the Seduction Community would call DHVing. However, I prefer to dig deeper and ask some questions about the motivations of these "experts," who just happen to live in a status-obsessed age. For indeed, too many are attempting to connect manhood to some form of external attribute or token of importance. I guess in their hunt for "markers" of "manhood" they are not content with (or even appreciative of) the primacy of character or spirituality. Contrast their attitude with what the Bible says in 1 Samuel 16:7 ...

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

Of course, I believe non-biological "markers of manhood" in and of themselves are problematic. A man is a man by virtue of the fact that he is created in the image of God. We don't have the right to destroy that image either through deed or word. I want people to think about what Genesis 9:9 says:

"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."

Some only look at this passage as their go-to text for capital punishment and don't really think about the premise behind it--there is something sacred about humanity. If you don't believe that someone who is male is really a man, why don't you kill him? That's where such thinking leads. It starts with a thought and ends in the act (1 John 3:15).

The men who founded this country believed in the following proposition:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But if a male is not really a man, then I guess the above statement doesn't really apply. In short, realmannspracht is inconsistent with Christianity and with the concepts of liberty and freedom that have made Western Civilization great. In the past, there were all sorts of classes of men who were deemed as being of less worth than others. Christianity transformed the world by challenging such nonsense. Over time, the vestiges of the nonsense has lingered in various forms such as murderous statism and racial prejudice, for example. But the sacredness of man's humanity has refused to be denied. Today, the lingering challenges to the sacredness of man's humanity take such forms as legal misandry, woman-firsterism, and status-based conceptions of manhood (physical strength, money, success with women, etc.). I defy the nonsense. I am not a utopian. I am a follower of Christ--not of Nietzsche, Darwin, or Oriental warlords. There are a lot of people who claim they care about men's issues. But the reality of the situation is clear: You can't claim to care for men if you deny them the right to be exactly that---men.

And for those who still don't get it, spare me 30 minutes of your time and watch the following video ...

"The Obsolete Man"

Separating the Men from the Boys

In response to my post about "Realmannspracht," a reader brought up a concern about how we, as a society, can mark the transition from boyhood to manhood. In the past, society had various rites by which males moved from being a child to being an adult. However, we need to realize that the transition is not really dictated by society, but by biology. Manhood is still something God, not culture, gives to men. I think we've fooled our ourselves into believing otherwise, but inasmuch as we have done so, it has been to the detriment of boys, men, and our culture as a whole.

Let's look what the Apostle Paul said:

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. (1 Corinthians 13:11, NASB)

Note the progression: (1) A child acting like a child, (2) becoming a man, and then (3) putting away childish things. Step 3 does not come before Step 2.

We like to say, "Act your age." Why do we do this? Because we have subconsciously regarded biological age as the determining factor of someone's development. You don't expect someone who indeed a boy to act like a man. Likewise, you don't expect someone who is indeed a man to act like a boy. Life is indeed a series of initiations for men. They are not initiations from boyhood to manhood, but initiations from one social set of expectations to another. Some rites are indeed optional, like marriage or having children.

The cultures of the past understood this. They may have said, "You don't become a man until you do (xyz)" but their actions pointed towards a different, far deeper reality. Think about the Bar Mitzvah. People don't have the ceremony for 26-year-old men with jobs, houses, spouses, and children. They don't say to these men, "Ok, now you're a man." No, the Bar Mitzvah happens at a very young age. While the Bar Mitzvah may not be a initiation in manhood, per se, the Talmud is clear that boys become men around the time of puberty.

So, we need to remind teenagers of a sobering reality. They are no longer boys and girls. They are men and women. They are at an age of life when their focus should be on taking on the responsibilities of adulthood. What I am saying is shocking to a culture that clings tightly to extended adolescence, the banalities of youth culture, and the choice of older people to refuse to act their age ("60 is the new 40" or whatever). And yet, what I am saying has support from other conservatives.

Teenagers need to realize that just because they are adults, they do not get the privileges of adulthood until they earn them by acting responsibly. I didn't get to use a car for myself until I learned to drive. I didn't get to come and go as I pleased from my home until I moved out, got a real job and payed my own rent at age 24. The expectation was there that I needed to move towards these things. If I stalled anywhere along the way, I got dressed down.

Teenagers are not ready for sex until they are ready for marriage. If they are ready at age 18 like their great-grandparents, more power to them. If they have to wait till their forties to get ready for marriage, so be it. Marriage and sex are the a privileges of adulthood, not the things that make you an adult.

Someone will retort that a 16-year-old "boy" [sic] is not as mature as a 26-year-old man. True, but a 26-year-old man is usually not as mature as a 46-year-old man. Just because a male teenager doesn't have all his ducks in a row doesn't mean he is not a man. In fact, having all one's ducks in a row usually takes a lifetime. The 16-year-old man just happens to be near the beginning of the journey unlike some of us. Remember, the State may say one is a man at 18, then bump the age up to 21, then to 25, etc. But what the State does is irrelevant to nature. It may prohibit me from doing things until I reach a certain age, but it can't deny that I am a man when indeed I am a man.

What have we learned? There is no real initiation into adulthood, per se. You are an adult when your body says so, but you don't get the perks and privileges that adults enjoy until you earn them. The last point goes for any age.

Now, a reader said something about people regarding me as a "boy" when they denied I was a "man." Well, if I was indeed a boy, then why the contempt? If I was indeed a boy, then I was acting according to the stage of my physiological development. However, if I was actually a man, then the people calling me a "boy" were most likely trying to insult me and trying to play upon any insecurities society attempts to inculcate into men about their masculinity.

Inasmuch as people uphold the age-old lie that manhood, unlike womanhood, is something that can be granted or denied by culture, then I must regard any charge they make against my manhood as being in earnest. After all, such people clearly think they can invalidate my manhood through opprobrium and censure. They would, however, be guilty of slandering me, an action which is regarded as sinful by the Word of God (1 Corinthians 6:10). If God and nature says I am a man, then who are you to bear false witness? If we want men, but especially young men, to be mature, then let's do it by speaking according to the truth, not by resorting to playground insults and acting like children ourselves.

Finding Manhood (Part 2: False Metrics)

[This is the second planned installment of a series on understanding biblical manhood. Those who agree with what is written are permitted and encouraged to reproduce it. No credit or attribution is necessary. To see the first installment go here.]

In approaching the subject of biblical manhood, it is instructive to look at several popular but false metrics of what Christian men are supposed to be. Many times, religious pundits will talk about "marks of manhood," etc. and will assert that "real men [do such-and-such]" or that "real men are [whatever quality]." What does such language actually imply? In truth, many of the qualities touted as being the essence of manhood are simply not scriptural. Let us consider the following examples ...

Physical Strength/Athleticism

Some may think that physical strength is a mark of manhood. There is no scripture in the Bible that supports this assertion. On the contrary, the Apostle Paul himself placed a greater weight on spiritual exercise than bodily exercise (1 Tim. 4:8). While it is true that men are generally stronger than women, this is not always the case. I find it strange that a society, which has no problem with athletic women and the WNBA, cannot turn around and bring itself to celebrate the manhood of men who are not athletically inclined. Why are women allowed flexibility in this manner but not men? As it is, in claiming that physical strength or athleticism is the essence of manhood, we are our declaring our hostility towards elderly men and disabled men. If not, why not? Such notions of manhood clearly feed in our society's worldly obsession with youth, physicality, etc.

Let me say this: High-school football stars are usually not the ones who come up with a cure for debilitating diseases. The physically-awkward, uncoordinated kid who gets picked last for whatever team in phys-ed class back in middle school may very well be the one who designs a better car for you tomorrow. It's time we celebrate the achievements of men who, though they do not grace the covers of ESPN, make important contributions to our society. It's time that we jettison the stupid notion that every man has to aspire to throw a football like Eli Manning.

Charisma/Popularity

Many are attracted to the man who carries himself well in the public. Such a man can speak and easily relate to others, and his presence commands the attention of the people around him. Is it any wonder, then, when so many churches require their preachers to be excellent communicators and have impeccable interpersonal skills?

The Bible has a different understanding of charisma. Of Jesus, the Scriptures say, "He has no form or comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him ..." (Isaiah 53:2). Paul declared to the Corinthians that his message was not with "wise and persuasive words" lest their faith "rest on men's wisdom" and not on "God's power" (1 Cor. 2:1-5). Contrast this to the way false teachers are presented in the Bible (Rom. 16:8; 2 Peter 2:18). Ronald Reagan and Barak Obama may be hailed as "great communicators." John Piper or Joel Osteen may be everybody's favorite preacher. All the same, God "does not see as man sees" and there is "no partiality with him." (1 Sam. 16:7; Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 6:19). It's time our modern pulpits in our stately sanctuaries show a little more appreciation for this truth.

Stoicism

We are told that men are not as emotional as women are. We are led to believe that a man showing his emotions is a pathetic thing. The Bible, however, does not care one whit about the macho sensibilities of our Western culture. Rather, it presents us with a picture of a sorrowful Savior who openly wept on one occasion and elsewhere expressed a tender desire to redeem the Jews (John 11:35; Matt. 23:37). We also have the poignant lament of David over the death of a good friend (2 Sam. 1:26), a narrative that some unfortunately read through the lens of homoeroticism. This perverse misunderstanding of David's character is the logical end of a modern-day, macho ethic where the range of emotions men are allowed to express is restricted. We can do better than this.

Education/Intelligence

Our world places a premium on education and intelligence. But God has a different mind about this matter. The Bible says, "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise." Jesus rejoiced that spiritual truths were hidden from the wise men of his time, but revealed to "babes" (Luke 10:21). This is not an affirmation of anti-intellectualism. It is a realization that all men, regardless of their mental capacities must equally abase themselves before the Cross.

Financial Status

Jesus declared that "a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions" (Luke 12:15) and yet we still hear preachers declare that a man is called to be "the provider." There is, nevertheless, really only one true Provider and what we receive from him cannot be with pride, but with thanksgiving (Luke 12:13-34; 1 Tim. 4:4). Despite what some popular religious pundits might insist, there is no requirement in the Bible that a man bring home a larger paycheck than his wife. Some may refer to Genesis 3:17-19 and 1 Timothy 5:8, but these passages are not just addressed to men but to everyone, and any discourse on gender roles must take this fact into consideration.

Marital Status

Evangelicals have a reached point in their embrace of marriage and family that some of them have slid into theological error. I refer, in particular, to the Marriage Mandate Movement, a school of thought that presupposes that marriage is required by God for most men. The Bible, on the other hand, clearly teaches that while marriage is blessing in principle (Gen. 1:27-28; Prov. 18:22), it is not always expedient (1 Cor. 7:28). Marriage is optional for a believer--it is neither required nor forbidden (1 Cor. 7:36-38). Concomitant with this observation is the truth that men are not required to be fathers. Like marriage, children are a blessing in principle (Gen. 1:28; Psalm 127:3), but they are not always expedient (Luke 21:23). Their presence in a life of a man is neither required nor forbidden (Isa. 56:3-5).

Ambition

We are told that men must have a "godly ambition." What does that mean? The Bible says, "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit" (Phil. 2:3) and that we should make our "ambition" to "lead a quiet life," to "mind our own business," and to work (1 Thess. 4:11). Moreover, how do we reliably measure "godly ambition" in a man when the Lord instructs us to not do our good works "to be seen of men" (Matt. 6:1)?

We live in strange times. The religious landscape is filled with those who seem to have a marquee mentality. Many spread their names far and wide with their "ministries," books, glitzy websites, podcasts, radio shows, TV interviews, workshops, seminars, lectureships, conferences, etc. On top of that, they often ask money for what they are doing. If a man says something in public, but doesn't feel the need to throw out his name every chance he gets, he may be viewed with suspicion. People may think he has something to hide when he keeps a low-profile or stays anonymous. Meanwhile, self-promoters seem to go uncriticized.

When it comes to ambition, I also have to wonder what religious women mean when they say they want an "ambitious" husband. Do they want a man ambitious enough to secure worldly riches for them, or do they want a man ambitious enough to grow more conformed to the image of God's Son? Perhaps men of faith should be a bit more discerning about their religious sisters demands in this area. As it is, the Christian man who truly has a godly ambition may not be appreciated for it after all.

Vocation/Position/Skills

Do you think your vocation and/or your skills are a indicator of your manhood? If modern churches have done a half-hearted job in fighting materialism, they have done even a worse job in countering the idolatry of careerism. What makes you think you are any more entitled to a satisfying job that engages the full extent of your talents than you are to a beautiful body or wealth? What if it pleases the Lord to put you in a low-paying, boring job beneath your level of expertise? What if you have no choice to but perform some task others consider to be unimportant? Sometimes what God asks us to do is not the most exciting thing on earth. As it written, "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much" (Luke 16:10). Let us focus on giving glory to the Lord, and not on uncertain promises of self-actualization in this world.

Assertiveness

When we think of an assertive man, we think of one who is willing to take risks, who initiates, who boldly makes his thoughts and desires known to others, and who takes command of a situation. Is this kind of assertiveness the epitome of biblical manhood? If so, then what do we do with a scripture that calls for a risk-averse stance (Proverbs 14:16)? What do we do with passages that call for restraint of the tongue and for us to be "peacable and gentle" (Prov. 21:23; James 3:17). These are not qualities God expects from women alone; these are qualities he expects from everyone.

We've also been told that "real men initiate," especially in areas such as dating and courtship. Those who foster this view are often fond of comparing the relationship between man and woman to the relationship between Christ and the church. Let these pundits consider their own logic: If Christ is the head of man, does that mean that men should just sit back and wait on the Lord to do everything? Do not the Scriptures admonish us to show a little initiative by stepping out on faith and seeking the Lord (Heb. 11:16; James 4:8)?

If the initiative man must take in seeking the Lord does not violate the headship of the Lord, then why are we to believe that any initiative a woman shows in a relationship with man violates his headship? Certainly the initiative Ruth showed towards Boaz was not such a violation (Ruth 3:1-11). It is all too easy for women to sit back and expect men to do everything. A lazy entitlement mentality like this can be passed off as being "submissive to male leadership" and being "ladylike," but it is neither of these things and it needs to be exposed for what it is.

Assertiveness is not inherently wrong and may be required in some cases (see Jude 3 for example). However, as we have seen, it is not always appropriate, nor is it restricted to men. Therefore, the insistence that assertiveness be a metric of manhood is at best problematic.

Self-Confidence

We are told that Christian men need to be "self-confident." In actuality, Christian men need to confident in the Lord (Phil 4:13). God has no use for men who think they succeed through their own abilities. Why? Because a man who has self-confidence before the throne of God is declaring his independence from the One who nourishes and sustains him (Deut. 8:1-18). As it is, there is no "self-confidence" to be had because rather than being confident in the "self" we are instructed to deny "self" (Mark 8:34).

In contrast to our culture's idolatry of the "can-do" attitude, we need to consider what attitude God expects of men. Christ commanded his disciples to humble themselves "like little children" (Matt. 18:1-6). Do we know what that means? David, a great warrior, surely did (Psalm 131). Men need to realize that as human beings their frames are as dust. Human beings are helpless and vulnerable as the day they were born (Job 1:21). Affirming this is not the same as timidity or passivity, but it is a sober realization of how our emotional, mental, and physical abilities all depend on the Lord. All glory is for Him. When men understand and appreciate these truths, they will pause and hesitate before speaking about "self-confidence."

Chivalry

Many conservatives, who claim to be the opponents of feminism, are not particularly concerned about how they can be just demeaning as feminists in their treatment of men. One egregious example of this is their insistence on some modern code of "chivalry" where women all the choices and men only the responsibilities. Men are told that they are called to be "protectors" and a "covering" for women. But in what way are men supposed to protect women?

Should we protect women from the consequences of being an adult? Should we protect them from needed criticism? Should we protect from having their ego bruised? Women have advanced and pushed into areas of society traditionally reserved for men. Women are much less vulnerable than they used to be. They have accepted positions of influence and leadership and now can wield power over men. How can we say these women are "weak" and "need protection"?

It's time women learn that with privilege comes responsibility. If they are in positions of influence, then they need to look to the concerns of the weak and vulnerable of both sexes, and stop focusing so much on themselves. When Jesus spoke of the needy as being the "least of these" his "brethren" (Matt. 25:31-46), he surely was not referring to women and children only. Therefore, that idea that men are required to shower preferential treatment on a woman, not on the basis of a legitimate need or a woman's demonstrated submission, but merely on the basis of her sex is showing partiality and is therefore sinful (James 2:9). Men are not lesser human beings than women that they should play the part of doormats. Women "can't have it both ways" in demanding power and protection at the same time, and no one should dare to expect a man to oblige himself to such an ungodly double-standard.

Bible Knowledge

The religious landscape is littered with experts who flaunt their church credentials. They have advanced degrees from seminaries, implying they have an in-depth knowledge of God's word that the typical individual does not have. Even if this were true, what of it? Satan is the chief Bible expert among his legion of false teachers and nominal Christians. I am not so impressed with a man who can quote scriptures, exegete passages, etc. as I am with a man who not only knows the truths of God's word, but obeys it (James 1:23-25).

Church/Civic Participation

One may think the a man's involvement in church or civic activies is a sign of his spiritual maturity. It may only be a sign of his busyness and nothing more (1 Cor. 13:3). One's manhood is not proven by the number of good works in which he participates. Why? Because his efforts are the efforts of an unworthy servant who has only done his duty (Luke 17:7-10). The elderly shut-in who can do very little and yet loves God is more honorable than the man who does his deeds to be seen of men (Matt. 6:1). A man should serve out of a deep knowledge and respect for God's love for him (1 John 4:11), because God did not ordain a man to use service as a means for self-promotion (including one proving how much of a "Christian man" he is).

Church Leadership

Are you someone important in your faith community? You do well. Even the Pharisees held a place of importance. Jesus said they sat in the seat of Moses (Matt. 23:1-3) and yet we know what he thought of them. You may stand before a pulpit and declare some truth (if that), but you no have reason to boast. Consider the attitude the Apostle Paul had toward his ministry (1 Cor. 15:9-10) and ask if your "ministry" earns you brownie points before the Almighty in a biblical manhood beauty pageant.

Stereotypically Masculine Pursuits

What do real men do? Do they play contact sports? Are they good at math? Do they major in the hard sciences? Do they hate Mozart and love to shoot guns? Do they leave Jane Austen to the chicks? Does the Bible say anything about this? No? Then stop fobbing off these matters as "biblical manhood" lest the Word of God rebuke you and prove you to be a liar (Prov. 30:5-6).

Conclusion

I know what I have written may provoke strong disagreement on the part of many. Nonetheless, men of faith have a choice to make. On one hand, they can accept the false metrics of manhood that were listed above and propagate them--thus furthering the decay of a culture mired in misandry. On the other hand, they can make a more thoughtful effort to understand what God really expects from men. Virtually all of the metrics I have listed may be an identifying aspect of some faithful, Christian men (and women for that matter), but to make them an essential benchmark of biblical manhood is indefensible.

[Click here for the third installment of this series.]

Al Mohler Says Husbands Must Earn Sex

Boundless is proceeding with their series of reprints of older articles at their website. The current one posted is entitled "The Seduction of Pornography" by Albert Mohler. I have just got done reviewing the previous article in Boundless' series of reprints ("Physical Intimacy and the Single Man" by Matt Schmucker). You might want to read it, if you have not already done so. Like Schmucker's article, Mohler's piece turned me off when I first came across it. So, now that Boundless has chosen to reprint it, I am taking the opportunity to say my piece about it.

Mohler does a fine job of restating the obvious about the spiritual ills of pornography, but he gets derailed when he presents a feminized, Estrogelical, pseudo-Christian view of male sexuality:

Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed. As the Apostle Paul states, the husband and wife no longer own their own bodies, but each now belongs to the other. At the same time, Paul instructed men to love their wives even as Christ has loved the church. Even as wives are commanded to submit to the authority of their husbands, the husband is called to a far higher standard of Christ-like love and devotion toward the wife ...

Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.

Sorry, Mr. Mohler, but you are dead wrong. Yes, a man is called by God to love his wife and be emotionally attentive to her needs (not necessarily her wants, though). But that is because God expects such of men regardless of the situation (Col. 3:19). It is not because a man has to earn sex from his wife. There is no earning anything that God commands to be given freely. Consider two Scriptures that are relevant to this discussion:

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (1 Cor. 7:4) (NASB)

For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. (1 Cor. 11:8-9) (NASB)

Given that a husband has authority over the woman, who was made for his sake, all this talk about earning sexual access from the woman is nonsense. Just as the man is suppose to love his wife for better or for worse, so the women is to do the same for her husband. She is to be a good wife and be attentive to his sexuality, regardless of how he acts as a husband.

At any rate, I take special interest in Mohler's description of a stereotypical man involved in pornography:

"This man lives alone, or at least in a context other than holy marriage ..."

"This man need not be concerned with his physical appearance, his personal hygiene or his moral character in the eyes of a wife. Without this structure and accountability, he is free to take his sexual pleasure without regard for his unshaved face, his slothfulness, his halitosis, his body odor and his physical appearance. He faces no requirement of personal respect, and no eyes gaze upon him in order to evaluate the seriousness and worthiness of his sexual desire."

Dear readers, I want you to think about the subtext of what Mr. Mohler is saying. You see, it sounds a lot like what Debbie Maken said a while ago:

"I have no sympathy for those pushing churches to cater to the unregenerate man as a way of drawing him in. The fact that a beer guzzling, Nascar watching, porn-viewing, minimum-wage earning loser thinks that church is not for him; well, he is right."

Don't you love the stereotypes that these pundits like to push about men caught up in the sin of pornography? Porn users are supposedly just a bunch of single loser guys that watch NASCAR, have facial hair (gasp!), halitosis, and aren't physically attractive to women. Boy, you can just feel the compassion for sinners oozing from the pens of Maken and Mohler. Heaven forbid that a porn user just might be the clean-cut guy who makes a lot of money, who is a married pastor of a big church, or is appealing to women. Obviously, an oh-so-successful guy doesn't use porn. He justs commits fornication and adultery with his female admirers. That's all.

But seriously, given that facial hair, halitosis, being single, being physically unappealing to women, etc. could just as easily describe a man faithful to God as it could a lonely porn user, I think we need to look at the implicit male-bashing in the narratives of Mohler and his ilk. I think someone people need to get one thing straight: Sexual purity for men is not about pleasing women or "saving one's self for marriage" ... it's about pleasing God (Matthew 5:8).

One final matter. I find Mr. Mohler's rhetoric to be downright corny and counterproductive. For instance this paragraph is over the top:

Pornography is a slander against the goodness of God's creation and a corruption of this good gift God has given his creatures out of his own self-giving love. To abuse this gift is to weaken, not only the institution of marriage, but the fabric of civilization itself. To choose lust over love is to debase humanity and to worship the false god Priapus in the most brazen form of modern idolatry.

Hoo-boy! How many of you opened up another tab to look up Priapus in Wikipedia? I thought disbelief, bigotry, greed, materialism, violence, pride, hatred, lust for power, adultery, envy, lying, stealing, drunkenness, slander, and murder were real bad but "porn use" is the biggie of the all!! The fabric of civilization is unraveling because of Pamela Anderson! Give me a break. The grandstanding by so many religious conservatives about sexual sins only serves to make other sins look less destructive than they really are.

Moreoever, while Mohler and company wax eloquent about the scourge of pornography, the real 300-pound gorilla in the room goes undiscussed. I've touched on it before: Sexual sin in men is connected with the idolatry of the feminine in this society. If men want to be free from sexual sin, then they have to place intimacy with women in proper context. It's not the most important thing or even a necessary thing. But I doubt Mohler will ever say that. After all, he has sided with Maken in adopting Marriage Mandate theology. He believes most men cannot do without women and that they have a duty to marry (a position that contradicts plain teachings of the Bible such as 1 Cor. 7:17-38). So I have to wonder: Do religious pundits get mad because sexual sin represents an affront to God ... or because it just represents an affront to the sex cartel that society places over men?

The New Gender Deal

It's time for men to give women the ultimatum. I know that such language doesn't sound conciliatory, but given how men have been treated in our culture, desperate times call for desperate measures. I submit for your approval the New Gender Deal. It is addressed to women. They have to right to accept or reject it. They have the right to seek out men who don't agree with it. However, women should not be surprised if many men champion the sentiments of the New Gender Deal. It ultimately does not matter how the New Gender Deal is received by women, or even by men. The New Gender Deal need only stand on its own merit, not popular acceptance.

-----------

To the woman in question:

You have a choice, but your choice must be consistent, not hypocritical. Hypocrisy is unethical. The choice is between two options. They are as follows:

1. The traditional choice: If you look to a man to abide by traditional understandings of masculinity, then you must abide by traditional understandings of femininity. Special obligations imposed on men necessitate special obligations imposed on women. Gracious displays of chivalry from traditionalist men must be rewarded with gracious displays of subordination from traditionalist women. If a man pays for the dinner date on Friday night, then a woman should fix his lunch on Sunday afternoon.

Women in previous generations understood that their role was to serve their husbands. The husband's ambitions and dreams took precedence over that of their wives. Remember the saying, "Behind every great man is a great woman"? Women of yesteryear achieved their self-fulfillment vicariously through their husbands' successes. The price of asking a man to be the "breadwinner", etc. is that you must be subordinate to him in the direction of the relationship. You have the duty of deferring to his opinions before he has any duty of hearing yours. If you have eschewed the responsibility that comes with headship, you must eschew all benefits that come with it as well.

2. The egalitarian choice: If you want more say in your relationships with men, then you must accept more responsibility. If you want fathers to be more involved with domestic duties, then mothers need to be more involved with paying the bills. If you want to earn more money than the men around you, then be prepared to earn more money than your husband. If you want power and influence, then you must use it to help those who don't have it (including men).

-----------

What are these options about? Real trade-offs. Real parity. Real justice. That's what men deserve from women. None of the immoral showing of partiality where a select caste of human beings have the best of all choices because they were born female. In addition to making one of these choices, you must also abide by the following code of ethics:

1. You must eschew the cultural trend of demeaning and insulting men. You must acknowledge that conduct commonly regarded as inappropriate, demeaning, and dehumanizing does not suddenly become justifiable for women in how they treat men. Case in point, if it is tasteless to joke about harming women, then it is tasteless to joke about harming men. If it is wrong for men to play the field and jerk women around in the dating game, then it is wrong for women to do the same to men. If it is wrong for men to judge women primarily or solely on external attributes (looks or money), then it is wrong for women to judge men in the same way. If it's wrong for women to be blamed for the stupid choices men make, then it's wrong for men to be blamed for the stupid choices women make (no headship psychobabble please). This is not about affirming that the sexes are identical. It is about affirming the equal worth of both men and women.

2. A man's worth is not defined by how lucky he is with the opposite sex. Hollywood can't define it by how many women he beds. Churches can't define it by how successfully he convinces a woman to take his last name. Men do not need to you to be "real men." They can have happiness and self-worth apart from having an intimate relationship with you or any other woman. Any insistence to the contrary cannot be dignified.

If you reject these terms of engagement, then a man has a right to reject any personal relationship with you. He has a right to question your desirability as a mate. He has a right to disregard your opinions about gender relations. Your protestations in this case will be for naught. Men do not have to listen to women who do not respect them. Men can go their own their way in this matter. The choice is yours. Choose wisely.

Spaghetti Riots, Mandatory Fun, and Proles

When it comes to men and relationships, I thought it good to explore something I've observed about human nature. I am certain there is a technical term for it that has escaped my notice, but at any rate, the best way I can illustrate it is by giving a few examples.

Do you love spaghetti? I do. If I didn't, I wouldn't have ordered a plate full of it at the Olive Garden last Sunday after church. I like it the old fashioned way--with a thick sauce and meatballs, preferably with a Greek salad on the side. How could anyone have a revulsion at the sight of spaghetti? Well, a group of men had such a strong revulsion to it, they started a riot in Alcatraz back in the 1950s. What brought them to that point?

What about quail? I never ate it, but the Israelites complained about wanting meat so God gave a lot of quail to them. In Psalms 105:40, this provision is remembered: "They asked, and He brought quail, And satisfied them with the bread of heaven" (NASB). What a blessing from God, right? However, this is what God promised the Israelites before he served up the quail:

"You shall eat, not one day, nor two days, nor five days, nor ten days, nor twenty days, but a whole month, until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you; because you have rejected the LORD who is among you and have wept before Him, saying, 'Why did we ever leave Egypt?’” (Num. 11:19-20, NASB)

How could something inherently good from God become "loathsome"? Are you puzzled by this? Should you be?

I've heard that the military has something called "mandatory fun." What is it? I believe it consists of planned recreational activities or social outings. I'm certain there is, at the very least, an informal expectation that service members will participate--if they know what is good for their careers. Of course, "mandatory fun" may not always be fun.

Then there is the matter of booze and porn. My religious convictions dictate that I don't indulge in either. But a lot of men do. What if I told you there was an agency that was giving away free booze and porn. Do you think a lot of men would go for it? What if I told you that I described the government as it is portrayed in George Orwell's novel 1984? Yep, keep the proles pacified.

In every instance I described, something that might be ostensibly desirable to a lot of people becomes very undesirable or an insult to one's dignity in a different circumstance. What is the application that I wish to make? What about men and women? What about the complaint that "men won't commit"? The spin doctors keep clucking. Reasons are given, but perhaps there is something that is being overlooked.

Let me submit to you that religious men have their own version of "mandatory fun." It's called the Christian Marriage. As a man of faith, it may seem counterintuitive for me to say that--if not heretical. Marriage is ordained by God. It stands as a blessing, not a curse. Our religious leaders talk about "the joys of the one-flesh relationship." They wax eloquent about the beauty of sexual relations within the context of marriage. They insist that men have much to gain by seeking out a wife. They remind us of Prov. 18:22 and the maxim that "two are better than one." They quote the praises of matrimony penned by Tertullian, Luther, and others. No argument with the goodness of human love, but people are missing the point.

For some men, all the talk about the kind of love a godly woman can give them does not connect with their day-to-day reality. It does not inspire them. It only annoys and angers them. If women cannot understand this, then they need to reflect on their own experiences. What if a husband only showed affection and concern to his wife when he wanted sex? How would most women see his sexual advances after a while? Wasn't there a religious book that exclaimed that "sex begins in the kitchen"?

I think the problem is that society has forgotten that men are human beings. Like women, we have a complex psychological makeup. You can tell some men how great marriage is. Yes, you can even point to some personal examples of happy marriages. So what? In the end, you'd probably drive away the very people you are attempting to reach with such talk. Why? Because some men know deep down inside that they are really not free.

Men are dehumanized slaves in a societal structure that doesn't care about them. They have become the "disposable sex" in the Age of Postfeminism. In our churches, a man is treated like a boorish creature with base desires, or forced to sit castrated without any real dreams and hopes. In his workplace, he is treated like a machine with no human needs--always regarded as being replaceable by some upgrade. In his family, he is treated pretty much the same way. He is regarded by his spouse as a retirement plan, a necessary evil, a nuisance, "that guy" who is the father of her children, a household pet to be replaced if his company becomes too unbearable.

Women will talk about how they want a "real man." The problem is that they often don't allow men to be just that--real. I say "real" as opposed to some plastic ideal from a romance novel. Even with Christian women, a man may find that his religious sisters espouse some grandiose view of "biblical manhood" or "male leadership" that really has nothing do with what God expects of his children. The vision of manhood entertained by many women is nothing but a burdensome pile of expectations that denies a man the right to grow, to have personality quirks, to be uncertain, to make mistakes, to show weakness, to show vulnerability, to show brokenness--in short, to be human. Men already have to put on the mask Monday through Friday at their workplaces, Saturday when they go out to public gatherings, and on Sunday at the big, posh, lukewarm institutional churches. Why do we kid ourselves in thinking they want to wear the mask for anyone waiting at home?

Let me get to the point. If you are woman and if you are beautiful, intelligent, personable, affectionate, caring, spiritual, and "just the kind of person for so-and-so", it still may not matter. For an increasing number of men, you may not be taken as a promise of a better life for them, but as a reminder of their oppression. Yes, it's irrational, but then so is rejecting the sexual advances of your husband, per se. It's all a matter of the surrounding context when considering how an experience will be viewed by someone.

I haven't sworn off women, but I understand why some men are doing so. I don't write them off as crazy. I've never read the book Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, but I think I now know why I might agree with most of what the book says and yet a feel a subdued urge to hurl the book across the room. Like I said, it's all a matter of the surrounding context. If we want men to engage the traditional marks of a fulfilled life--marriage and family, then we need to deal with the surrounding issues that are causing them to turn their backs on these promises of blessing. Sermons about the joys of home and hearth may be factually correct, but they don't cut it anymore.

[Edit: The human trait I described in this piece may be a reflection of God's own nature (Isaiah 1:10-15; Amos 5:21-24). Perhaps some religious leaders need to take away the "noise" of their praises to marriage.]

Neo-Chivalry

Over at the Boundless blog, there is a post by Heather Koerner in which she discusses the notion that men are supposed to protect women. I have no problem with men protecting women if women are indeed in need of men's protection. But I think that's not exactly what Heather had in mind, nor do I think it's what other contemporary Evangelical writers have in mind either. In other words, I think the idea that's being pushed by these individuals is not the idea of loving ones' neighbor or being a "good Samaritan", per se. No, I think they are pushing what I call "neo-chivalry." The idea behind this concept is that women should be equal to men in many spheres of society, whereas men should be bound to more traditional obligations of protecting women and being preferential to them in other ways. I daresay it's women "having their cake and eating it, too."

In Heather's post, she links to an article of hers ("Nurturing Protection") on Boundless' main website. I think it reveals an attitude about "chivalry" that I have discussed before (viz., in my post about the false metrics of biblical manhood). As I have said:

It's time women learn that with privilege comes responsibility. If they are in positions of influence, then they need to look to the concerns of the weak and vulnerable of both sexes, and stop focusing so much on themselves. When Jesus spoke of the needy as being the "least of these" his "brethren" (Matt. 25:31-46), he surely was not referring to women and children only. Therefore, that idea that men are required to shower preferential treatment on a woman, not on the basis of a legitimate need or a woman's demonstrated submission, but merely on the basis of her sex is showing partiality and is therefore sinful (James 2:9). Men are not lesser human beings than women that they should play the part of doormats. Women "can't have it both ways" in demanding power and protection at the same time, and no one should dare to expect a man to oblige himself to such an ungodly double-standard.

Sadly, however, Ms. Koerner seems to adamantly reject what I consider to axiomatic. So, I like to examine some of the claims put forth by Heather in her article. For starters, she writes:

Those men should have helped that woman, I thought then, because we are all humans and we protect each other.

Partially, that is right. We do have a responsibility to love our neighbors as ourselves. But now I understand that they, as men, had a unique responsibility to her, as a woman.

Unique responsibility? What obligation is that? Heather goes on to talk about how women are different from men in so many ways. True, but that misses the point. Men are indeed stronger than women many times, but that is not proof of some special obligation to women, per se. Let me illustrate my point by flipping things around for you, dear readers. What if a young woman sees an elderly man trying to hobble across the street? Should she assist him and give him some protection? The logical end of neo-chivalry is that the elderly man should fend for himself, and indeed, society seems to inculcate this very idea in men and women alike. The woman in question can either refuse to help the man, or more likely, the man will feel obliged to shun help from the very one that can give it to him. In the latter regard, men are often prone to turn down assistance from women. And we wonder why men are not open about their hurts, feelings, etc. to wives? We wonder why men reject the expressions of good will from women in their lives? We want to chalk it all up to the "male ego" but I ask where did the attitude come from? Let's be honest here. Neo-chivalry leads to pathological self-abasement in men.

Elsewhere, Heather writes, "The world's masculinity either demands to be served or refuses to be bothered." Not so fast, Ms. Koerner. Right before the Apostle Paul says that husbands are to love their wives as "Christ also loved the church," he says that wives are to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord." It sounds like the Holy Spirit demands that you serve your husband, Ms. Koerner. Unfortunately, this kind of obligation doesn't seem to be talked about very much when a discussion of biblical womanhood comes up; indeed, Heather does not make any mention of it in her article.

Anyway, Heather furnishes a quote from John Piper:

Mature masculinity senses a natural, God- given responsibility to step forward and put himself between the assailant and the woman. In doing this he becomes her servant. He is willing to suffer for her safety. He bestows honor on her. His inner sense is one of responsibility to protect her because he is a man and she is a woman.

A servant, eh? Is that how we view men? The servants of women? If that's what Mr. Piper is implying, then someone should remind this celebrated theologian of what the Apostle Paul said: "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11:9). Chew on that.

Ms. Koerner writes that God "has given men the great responsibility to lay down their lives just as Christ laid down His life for the church. They are to be the protectors." Is Ms. Koerner talking about Eph. 5:22-33? Actually, God has given husbands the great responsibility of loving their wives as they love their own bodies (v. 33). Let's keep it in context, folks. Why do we broaden the application of Eph. 5:22-33 with regard to men's responsibilities, but don't do so for women's responsibilities? Why all this talk about men in general indiscriminately sacrificing themselves for women, but no talk of women generally submitting to men across the board? If I am automatically deemed the protector of some female stranger just because I am a man, does she become obligated to obey me and have sex with me? Let's stop misapplying the Scriptures that are obviously talking about marriage relationships, not about gender relations in general.

Finally, Ms. Koerner gets around to discussing her end of the bargain as a woman:

But if it's a Christian man's role to protect, what is my role?

Here's where I have to make a decision and I have to be honest. My decision: Will I follow the world's model of womanhood or the Word's? My honesty: If I follow the Word, I'm going to be mocked.

So glad that Heather wants to reject the worldly ideas of womanhood and own up to her responsibilities as a woman ... or does she? What does she say that her "role" is? She says it is to "affirm, receive, and nurture." What?! Okay, let's skip past the first two for a moment and focus on the "nurture" aspect. Maybe there is something palpable about that last word. What does Ms. Koerner's article say? Well, she quotes Piper again:

"Nurture" means that a mature woman senses a responsibility not merely to receive, but to nurture and strengthen the resources of masculinity. She is to be his partner and assistant. She joins in the act of strength and shares in the process of leadership. She is, as Genesis 2:18 says, "a helper suitable for him."

Wait. What did I just read? Did Mr. Piper say, "... shares in the process of leadership"? Friends, if someone shares in the process of leadership, they have to share in the accountability of that leadership as well. As it is, godly men are not called to "share" their leadership with their wives any more than Christ shares his leadership with mortals. Let's hope that I am misunderstanding Piper because if he is saying what I think he might be saying, then he is not the complementarian that he makes himself out to be. Well, actually, inasmuch as anyone pushes neo-chivalry, they cannot be complementarians. Quasi-complementarians, perhaps, but not the real McCoy.

Anyway, what was left off the list of things a woman should give a man in return for protection? Yes, that dreaded "s" word--SUBMISSION. Let me say that a very astute poster commented on Heather's blog entry. I suggest that you read his remarks because he points out that the sacrifices men made in the past for women were conditioned on the societal expectation that a woman's station in life would be beneath that of man's. Protection = submission. It's not a hard equation to grasp, boys and girls.

Ms. Koerner's list of pseudo-obligations for women amounts to little more than saying "Good job! I'm rootin' for ya. Be ye warmed and well-fed" to the man doing the grunt work. Nah. I'm not buying it. Stop insulting my intelligence. Heather and other ladies are asking something for nothing. That's not how life works. Like I said, you can't have it both ways, gals (whether it be men protecting you, initiating relationships with you, paying for the dates, or similiar stuff). It is, generally speaking, "boats or votes." There will be real men in shining armor when there are real ladies in distress.

Baptizing "Game"?

From the feedback I received on my last two posts, I've learned some about how people understand the dynamics of mate selection between men and women. My last two posts (see here and here) stated my moral and theological objections to the PUA community. I have had basically two reactions from my readers:

1) People agreeing with me and saying what PUAs espouse is evil. The idea of seducing women with manipulative techniques in order to bed them is understandably off-putting to people of faith.

2) People who think I misunderstand "Game."

What I am seeing is a lot of cross-talk, argument over semantics, perhaps some special pleading and a few other things that impair clarification and resolution of the issue. I am certain I can take some blame for this, but I don't think I can take all of it.

There is apparently a group of men in the blogosphere that want to bowdlerize PUA tactics. That is, they want to crop off the seedier aspects of "Game" and talk about ways that men can improve their interpersonal relationships with women. "Game", for this group, is understood in a general and innocuous way. Indeed, some posters even talk about "Game" saving marriages. But that doesn't answer what I have already written:

Some readers want to redefine "Game" to mean things men have always done to catch the eyes of ladies. Historically, the word "Game" has had more negative connotations than that. I say it has too much to be used by Christian men.

When a godly women makes herself attractive, we don't call this "teasing." When she is sexually assertive with her husband in the bedroom, we don't call her a "porno slut." Likewise, we should not the use the language of PUAs to describe what godly men do to attract women ...

In short, I ask why some male bloggers feel the need to use the language of "playas," pimps, lotharios, lounge lizards, and the such like to describe the general concept of making oneself more attractive to women? And to say a Christian man can do this? Why would a Christian man want associate himself with the sexually immoral by using their language to describe his dealings with the opposite sex? It doesn't help his testimony, even if he has no intention of sleeping around. I can see it now: "Hi. I'm Chad. I go to Grace Community Church and I'm into Game!" What do you think Jane Q. Public is going to think about that? It's like saying, "Hi, I'm Hannah, I go to Grace Bible College, and I'm into teasing guys!" No, uh, "epic fail." You are not going to win the hearts and minds of men who are serious about sexual purity by asking them to borrow terms from the Seduction Community. At the very least, a new set of terms and/or concepts needs to be put forth that are acceptable to men of faith.

What is it that the Seduction Community can offer men of faith that they can't pick up elsewhere? I can go to a family bookstore and there are plenty of books telling men how to romance their wives, how to stop being a wimp and be a "real man," etc. Ever read No More Christian Nice Guy by Paul Coughlin? Many of the authors of these books are licensed counselors and therapists. Consider that there are also marriage enrichment seminars, workshops, etc. to boot that a religious man can attend.

You can teach men how to approach women and how to maintain the interest of women. All fine and well. More power to you if you can approach this subject in a format acceptable to Christian men. But the bottom line is that teaching men how to approach women is a meaningless exercise unless men and women genuinely love and respect each other. I am all for being physically attractive and romantically attractive to one's spouse, but I am not going to be able to do much seducing if I'm wasting away from inoperable cancer. The same goes for women. I've said a lot on this blog and elsewhere about Christian women needing to be more responsive about what turns men on instead of be such priggish prudes. One thing I will not do, however, is to suggest that sexual attractiveness is the foundation rock of a godly relationship. Agape is the foundation. Agape expresses itself by being considerate of the erotic needs and desires of one's spouse. However, the fruit of a tree should not be confused with the tree itself.

As it is, the three-hundred pound gorilla in the room is this: A lot of women and men don't love and respect each other. Seduction techniques, per se, cannot create this love and respect. Without the prerequiste love and respect, seduction techniques only lend themselves to sports sex, grudge sex, sugar daddy prostitution, trophy spouses, or what have you. Such is a turn-off to a godly man. Until men and women respect each other, their relationships will essentially be nothing more than détente at the genital level. Obviously, there are men in the PUA/Seduction community who are not bothered by this, but the rest of us should be bothered. And when it comes to love and respect, women have their work cut out for them, given the fact that they gotten off with something less than a slap on the wrist for the last 40+ years. That's what lies at the heart of the issue - people's integrity, not a technique.

Is Marriage a Marker of Adulthood?

Recently, one of my readers claimed that marriage was a marker of adulthood. This claim sounds familiar; I am sure I heard it from someone else. It sounds like something Albert Mohler would say. At any rate, the statement that my reader made may sound profound and axiomatic to many. But the more I think about the claim that marriage is a marker of adulthood, the more I realize it leaves something to be desired in terms of what it conveys. Just what do we mean when we say marriage is a marker of adulthood?

1. Is it a marker of biological adulthood?

I certainly hope so, or some people are going to have certain difficulties on their honeymoon. Indeed, some jurisdictions would not look too kindly on marriages where one or more partners had not reached the stage of biological adulthood.

2. Is it marker of maturity (emotional, financial, spiritual, etc.)?

If it is, then I want to know how whackos who beat their spouses, spendthrifts who plunge families into debt, and people who have no regard for God manage to get married. As it has been pointed out under the "Code Green" entry of the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics, "It should be remembered that one’s sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc."

3. Is it a marker of single people's immaturity?

This assertion makes absolutely no sense at all. Logic 101, dear readers:

Invalid proposition: If (A then B) then (if ~A then ~B)

Where A=marriage and B=maturity

We are better off talking about singleness being a marker of immaturity, but then do we want to accuse the Apostle Paul of being immature? Singleness, per se, like marriage, says nothing about the character of a person.

4. Is it a marker of some notable achievement that benefits society?

Maybe we are getting close to the core of what people mean when they say, "Marriage is a marker of adulthood." However, there are two problems with this assertion. It is on this point that I will spend the bulk of my discussion.

First, just because you ate some wedding cake, gestated, and then pushed a baby out of your uterus does not make you a matron saint. Likewise, if you contributed sperm to the making of said baby, you are not the great Cincinnatus (and indeed, society constantly reminds men of this fact). Let's tie in a Bible verse on this matter:

Whoso keepeth the law is a wise son; But he that is a companion of gluttons shameth his father. (Prov. 28:7, ASV)

If the legacy you leave behind are spoiled, amoral, hedonists, then what credit is that to you? Day after day, men and women create children and yet are unprepared to raise them. We don't need anymore thugs, hoodlums, and the such like raised by single mothers and lousy parents. Some people just need to forget about the marriage and family thing and keep their pants on. Just because these people were pretty enough and tough enough to get into the bed with someone doesn't mean society is somehow in debt to the unfortunate fallout of their unions.

Why do you deserve a trophy because you got married and had children? You're taking care of you own? Good. Even the unbelievers do that (Matt. 5:47; 1 Tim. 5:8). Nobody forced you to get married. Society doesn't owe you a debt of gratitude because you raised emotionally stable children who are productive. You've only done your duty (Luke 17:10), and it is your children who owe the debt of gratitude to you (Eph. 6:2). Society will owe your children something when they actually do something valuable. Otherwise, your children are, at best, a charity case. And we don't need people producing more charity cases (Prov. 30:15a; 2 Thess. 3:10).

Anyway, the second problem with seeing marriage as a marker of some notable achievement benefiting society is that it ignores a basic question: If you are a Christian and you are called to be a pleaser of God and not necessarily a pleaser of men (Gal. 1:10), then why should you necessarily care what society wants from you? Society says that I am not a man because I am not impregnating a woman? Very well, then. Society can go talk a long walk on a Mobius strip, for all I care in that regard.

Ladies and gentlemen, is society an end to itself? Are we collectivists, now? Replace the word "society" with "state," and you'll see my concern about this matter. I fear some of us are aspiring totalitarians and authoritarians. This is one of the reasons why I get bristled when socons say, "Family is the basic unity of society." It implies that married people and children are just cogs in a machine. But society is for the benefit of the family and individual, not the other way around. I may have an obligation to God and my fellow man (Luke 10:27), but I don't necessarily have an obligation to a social structure.

There is an a fortiori principle here. If society doesn't value me, then how can it say it values my marriage and my children? Society may say that I am expendable as a man. Women mock the usefulness of men, the workplace threatens to outsource men's jobs or eliminate them through technology, and on it goes. If you declare men to be expendable, however, then you are declaring that you don't need them. If you declare that you don't need men, you release men from their obligation. That's where our logic leads us. In short, if society questions my worth as a man, then my full participation in it becomes optional.

If society wants men to feel like they have a stake in its welfare, then it needs to treat them fairly and with respect. If society wants men to go above and beyond the call of duty, then carrots will do better than a stick, otherwise it's just duty society will get. But no one is really doing any of these things I say need to be done for men, so I can only guess that marriage and family really isn't that important to society, after all. I mean, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. There is no free lunch and if you want men to do something, then you better pony up with the goods (see here and here). Someone may try the religious angle to force men and women to get married, but I've been hitting that one out of the park, too (see here and here).

Now, let me summarize everything I've said on marriage being a marker of contributing to society. Society needs to drop it's male-bashing act like um, yesterday, if it wants men to be good citizens by copulating, procreating, and siring the next generation of taxypayers and cubicle workers. Society need to support men in other ways, too. Married men, in turn, can't demand some special recognition for raising great children, much less just getting wedded. Raising your children to be godly is your default obligation, not some form of sacrificial service that gives you glory. This especially the case if society is supporting you as a father and husband; in that case, you are discharging your debt to society.

Look, people, here's an analogy: Let's suppose some employer says to me, "Man, we could really use you for a position on the executive team, so why don't you go back to school and get a degree for us?" The problem is that I can't afford the tuition for an advanced degree. So what would you advise my employer to do? Sweeten the pot for me?

But on whom does the obligation fall once I take the bait? Suppose some individuals in my faith tradition pay for my tuition so I can get a degree in theology. Do I get to march into some dean's office and demand a gold-plated plaque for the late nights I spent doing homework? As it is, the individuals that paid for my tuition would probably expect me to take a position for several years in some capacity that benefits the church community. That plaque would have to wait.

Or think about this scenario: I'm an independent contractor and a guy named Al calls me over to his nice home. Al says to me, "I'll pay you $50 to remove a pile of gravel from my back yard." I say, "Sorry, but my regular price is at least $150." About that time, a guy named Steve drives up in his pick-up truck. He strolls up gingerly to the both of us and hears a bit of the conversation. Steve says, "Hey, Al. Don't worry, man. I'll do it for free." Al says, "Wow! You don't see generosity like this anymore. Steve, you are a real man!" Steve looks at me, cracks a smile, and quips, "Well, Anakin, you heard what Al said!" I reply, "Yeah, I heard what Al said. But Steve, what you really are is a tool if you have that kind of attitude. Al could have just as easily moved this pile himself or paid me to do it. In fact, he's paid me in the past for these kind of jobs. And here's the thing, Steve. I know you are not doing this purely out of the goodness of your heart. Why? Because last week, you were telling me how you needed some gravel for your driveway. So you're shoveling this pile of gravel for free. What do you want? A biscuit, dude?"

Do you see where I am going with my analogies? Marriage is not a marker of anything except that you got lucky with a member of the opposite sex. And for some married men, they would probably question the part about "getting lucky." Marriage and family have perks and privileges, and they come with obligations. If you're married, you're not entitled to a train load of biscuits. Married people have picked their pile of gravel. Nobody forced them to take the pile. If you want me to shovel the pile, then be prepared to pay me. If a chivalrous dude wants to volunteer to shovel it for free so he can use it for his driveway, then he can't gripe afterwards if no one offers him a dollar or a round of applause. And he can't call me a lesser man than him because I didn't shovel a pile that I had no duty to shovel. After all, maybe I don't want a gravel driveway. The married man gets his driveway, and the single man gets to walk away from a sweaty job. Sounds fair to me.

The Delay of Marriage (Men Are Not the Problem)

Anyone following my writings and the writings of some fellow bloggers for the last few years will know what we are up against: Nobody's getting married like they used to and everybody wants to blame the guys for it. Let me itemize, reiterate and encapsulate a few things about the so-called "delay of marriage." But first let me say the following by way of introduction to my subject matter:

Anybody who believes immature, single men are primarily to blame for people putting off marriage or not getting married at all needs to stop what he or she is doing right now, get up, go to the bedroom, and stay there until I say otherwise.

Chronically unexamined in the larger discourse are the contributions of the distaff gender to the current phenomenon of "protracted singleness." Thus, at least for the sake of balance, here are some talking points that constitute the proverbial "third rail" of the discussion on people not getting married ...

1. The Cosmo Complex

Popular culture keeps reminding men that the old rules are gone and now they got to prove themselves to women more than ever before. We keep hearing from women, "I don't need no mayyyannn, and if one is lucky to have me, he's got to ... [insert 6,045 stipulations here]." Let's be honest here. I mean it: let's-be-honest. We do not see men behaving like this. If they did, they would be written off as egoistical, chauvinistic cads, who think "the world revolves around them" or that they are "God's gift to women."

Women, due to a confluence of increased independence, increased social status, increased economic power, and a gynocentric culture, now have inflated assumptions about how men should be. A plethora of romance novels, mainstream television shows, movies geared towards women, etc. simply adds fuel to the fire. However, there is no serious widespread conversation about whether or not the criteria women set up for suitors are fair or warranted.

There are much more cultural controls for men who have unrealistic assumptions about women than vice versa. You see articles shaming men for viewing women through the lens of physical beauty. You see our media putting down men for going "out of their league" (envision the stereotypical blonde who pours the drink down the shirt of Joe Six-Pack). But where is the analogue in our cultural discourse for women who have unrealistic ambitions for men out of their league? Dove commercials can focus on realistically beautiful women (see also the Campaign for Real Beauty), but I don't see culture wringing its hands in a similar fashion to counteract some of the mental distortions women have about the ideal man.

When it comes to romance, media tells ordinary women they are all princesses and deserving of the best. It hearkens back to the Disney movies. I suppose much of this is the result of women being the pursued sex, the ones who reject the advances, the gatekeepers with regard to formation of relationships. But with woman-firstersim, the egos of the pursued sex get magnified. Women need to realize playing hard to get has it pitfalls. You won't have self-respecting men feeling sorry for you when you blow off opportunities. They are not going to listen to you whine about their being "no good men left" when you treated many men, who are indeed good, so shabbily--or like they didn't exist.

Why is there a delay in marriage? Because many women have drunk the Kool-Aid and believed they were goddesses of the new millennium and there would be an endless supply of suitors to choose from. This is especially the case for Gen X women who now are waking up with a bad hangover. Buyer's remorse is indeed setting in for women in this age group. No ladies, "you can't have it all" when it comes to mate selection.

2. The Cinderella Paradox

I've blogged about this one, and it's related to the "Cosmo Complex." Women tend to be hypergamous. The "Paradox" is that as women increase their social status, the ability of men to be desirable mates for these women decreases. The pyramid narrows at the top, but don't tell this to the modern woman. She has conned herself into believing that their are enough men of high status to go around who are, at the same time, serious about marriage.

Meanwhile, men are getting economically disenfranchised. Even Albert Mohler, who likes to target men a lot, said something revealing in a recent broadcast (see 9:40 ff. here). He indicated the recent downturn in the economy has essentially impacted male-dominated professions, except for one field--the repair industry. Of course, Al hardly connects the dots when comes to men's issues. The 300 pound gorilla that Al and others ignore is this question: Do you know any professional women who want to marry repair men?

We can't put the toothpaste back into the tube, tell women to stop seeking prestigious jobs, or tell them to get back into the kitchen and bake some pie. But the doesn't stop many so-called liberated women from confining men to the old, stereotyped role of being "the main earner" does it? The reason there is a delay in marriages is because a critical mass of women show they are clueless about this matter.

3. Your Female Essence Is Not So Great

Danielle Crittenden compares older bachelors to a subway train of "misfits" and "crazy men." Laura Nolan says men are like eggs; they must "hatch" (get attached to women) or "go bad." Candice Watters repeats what she says. Some of Lisa Anderson's friends think older men are single for reasons that are not so flattering. Let me say the following with all due respect and without malice: All the women saying these things and the such like need to collectively put a sock in it. It's no longer surprising to me, but nonetheless noteworthy, that some of the most bigoted, knuckle-dragging, anti-male sexist drivel comes from putatively conservative women.

I've already said something about women being told by society they are princesses and how such leads to inflated expectations regarding men. I also believe women being told they are princesses by a gynocentric, chivalrous society causes them to be blind to their own shortcomings. According to the Standard Party Line, it's men who have all the faults, all the bad habits, all the hang-ups, all the displays of immaturity, all neuroses, all the issues with the parent of the opposite sex, all the wrong reasons for being unattached, all the creepy behavior, etc. Popular culture leads us to believe that the typical women is Marilyn Munster, an archetype of prettiness and normality, surrounded by male freaks.

Women complain that media portrays them in an unrealistic manner. Indeed, this is the case. Popular culture is too flattering to women. Popular culture wants us to believe that the woman on the street is beautiful, intelligent, savvy, more adept than the men around her, emotionally stable, quick-witted, resourceful, etc. She is not the woman on the street that I know in real life.

The women I know in real life are not goddesses. They are Just. Human. Beings. They snore. Their breath stinks. They pass gas and it smells as bad as what comes from a man. They lose it. They have weird quirks. They take medications for their emotional problems. They have to turn to the men in their lives to fix things. They they say and do stupid things. In essence, they don't fare much better than their male counterparts in dealing with the vicissitudes of life. They're just as screwed up as everybody else. Like Alfred Adler said, "The only normal people are the one's you don't know very well."

In the meantime, I keep waiting for the female equivalent of the statement "Brother, You're Like A Six." But I suppose a society that can't realize a female murderer for what she is probably can't admit to even the slightest imperfections in women. The reason there are delays in marriage is because a lot of women don't see themselves as the flawed creatures they are--in need of God's grace like everyone else. Ergo, they are not willing to extend grace to the men around them. There is another reason for a delay in marriage. It's because some women, like men, are--gasp--not marriage material.

4. The Tool in the Company Store

Do you know what a lot of single men see when they look at their married counterparts? They see married men being treated like the tool. Nobody wants to be a tool. I daresay if your typical man wants to marry, it's because he's marrying for love. What do women marry for? From the looks of things, it's property, children, and social status. You demur when I say that, do you? Explain, then, the recurrent theme in our media of some older divorcée or widow who, having had her children and her inheritance at the expense of some man, says something along the lines of: "I'm not looking anymore. I just don't feel the need to clean up after some slob, yada, yada." Of course, she isn't looking. She got what she wanted.

There yet remains to be any serious discussion in this culture about how women objectify and demean men in marriage. Indeed, that married men might want to be treated as human beings with their own valid opinions seems earth-shattering to some women. Dr. Laura writes a book called The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands and women get upset. The insulting corniness of the title aside, why did such a book have to be written in the first place? Isn't caring about what should be the most important man in a woman's life a no-brainer? Apparently for a lot of women it isn't. Too many married men are treated like appliances, or that loud relative that visits every so often and that you wish would go away at the end of the evening.

Pundits like Mark Regnerus, Albert Mohler, and writers for Boundless.org hold out marriage to young men as the solution for sexual immorality. Really? Did they read the book Every Man's Battle? Did they read Paul Coughlin's No More Christian Nice Guy? Because these books tell a disturbing truth: A lot of Christian men hope that in marriage they can have their proverbial cistern to drink from or the proverbial breasts of a wife to get intoxicated by (Prov. 5:15-19). But men find the cistern dry. Women simply do not have enough love and respect for their husbands to care about the relationship needs and desires of these men in terms of emotional and physical intimacy. The pundits talk about men defrauding women before marriage. How about the women who defraud men after marriage (1 Corinthians 7:5)? No we can't talk about that, because men have to earn affection from their wives, dont'cha know.

Men have observed how their fathers have been treated in the new era of gender relationships. Young men are afraid of commitment. No surprise there! It's not "just a piece of paper" after all. They know "everything changes" after marriage. Indeed, what does change? Huh? Answer me. They know. It's about the obligations ... which tend to be slanted one way and offset by not very much being given back. You see, we talk about a man's fear of divorce. But there's another bogey-man here: the loveless marriage.

Like I said, many married men are treated like the tool. And the social structure is rigged like the Company Store. What's on the shelves? Marriage 2.0. It all about her expectations, their parents expectations, their friends expectations, the expectations of everyone else. It's about "keeping up appearances" and "keeping up with the Joneses." So, many men exhaust themselves physically, financially, mentally, and emotionally because what's on the shelf puts them in debt with the Store Managers. In this day and age, will a man's life really be enhanced by saying "I do" or will it be diminished? Will he have to sacrifice his dreams in a culture where a woman's opinion trumps all other viewpoints in a relationship? To say that the modern marriage (Marriage 2.0) is female-centered to a fault is an understatement.

Recently, John Thomas at Boundless offered a young man a piece of advice: "Remember: You're pursuing a person, not an institution." Boundless staff writer, Suzanne Hadley weighed in:

"I've been on the receiving end of this approach. A woman can tell when she's just on a job interview for the role of wife. Of course, single women want men to pursue them. But a woman also wants to know that a man is pursuing her because of her unique qualities -- not just because he's in need of a wife."

But what I find more enlightening is the comment of one male reader who exposes Boundless' sheer hypocrisy in this regard:

I have read countless articles on this site that say the Christian dating should be intentional and with an objective toward marriage. In fact, the reason I started reading this site was a publication entitled, “A Guys Guide to Marrying Well”. This booklet is caulked full of section headings such as “Don’t Wait for a Burning Bush”, “Brother You’re Like a Six”, and “Don’t Wait For Your Soul Mate”. Apparently, Christian women aren’t getting the same message…. Because lots of you still seem to want “Brad Pitt and Jesus Christ all rolled into one”.

Indeed women are not getting the same message. They're special, after all. They must never be objectified. They must never be reduced to a role or a position. They must be seen as unique human beings. Men on the other hand? Well ... uh .. um. Crickets chirp.

Who are we fooling here? It's the old tool thing again. Men are not wanted "for richer or poorer," "in sickness and health," or "for better or worse." They are wanted for what they provide. They are just a means to an end. The modern married man is just a cardboard cut-out, a body double, a convenient warm body to full the role of making the princess' dreams comes true. In the end, he is viewed as a commodity or resource that is disposable or expendable. His worth is ultimately determined by his usefulness to women. Too many men are finding out that their wives didn't really marry them; instead, these women married a fantasy of "being married." That is the essence of Marriage 2.0 for you. Moreover, let me say that a lot husbands are being torn down psychologically and blamed for everything that goes wrong in a marriage or family. But society and even the church just looks the other way. Are modern women and their male apologists so incorrigibly stupid as to believe that single men aren't picking up on these things that I've mentioned?

If what I saying here is overstated, then why is marriage framed in terms of a cost for men? Why do they say, "Why but the cow when you can get the milk for free?" If marriage was so great for men, then shouldn't they see it as an opportunity and not as a cost? Well it seems being the princess in modern society means not only that you get to treat men shabbily before a relationship, but during the relationship as well. In short, there is a delay in marriage because men are not getting anything out of what is offered and women don't care enough to have it otherwise.

5. Divorce

Yeah, can't leave this one out. It's been discussed by many others, however, so I won't belabor it. Men stand to lose a lot if women decide to cash in on the marriage. You have people like Stephen Baskerville sounding the alarm on this matter. Mind you, this man has been interviewed by none other than Albert Mohler. And yet this is what Mr. Baskerville says in his book Taken into Custody:

There is mounting evidence that as men discover the terms of marriage and divorce today, they are engaging in a marriage boycott or marriage “strike”: refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife walks out and how attractive the divorce industry has made it easy for her to do so. …. Sonja Hastings of Fathers-4-Equality says that “no matter how decent, hardworking, and caring you may be as a father, that in the event of separation, you will more than likely not get custody of your child, you will lose up to 80% of all of your assets, you will have to pay up to five times the cost of raising a child, and most importantly you could never see your child again.” In Britain a fathers’ rights group tours university campuses warning young men not to start families. Even one attorney writes a book concluding that the only effective protection for men to avoid losing their children is not to start a family in the first place. (HT: Dr. Helen)

When it comes to the divorce and why there is a delay in marriage, well, "I rest my case, your honor."

Before I close, let me throw another molotov cocktail into the garden party of Blame-The-Guys-First crowd: Seven years ago the CDC conducted a study on people and their desire to get married. Do you know which gender agreed more with the statement, "It is better to get married than to go through life being single"? The men. Even among conservative protestants, the breakdown was roughly 68% men vs. 59% women. I am certain this study is not unknown to the Marriage Mandators. Even Steve and Candice Watters were made aware of it a few years back before the Boundless Line blog came on. Recently, Candice Watters was on a radio show with Al Mohler concerning their pet topic, the delay of marriage. Al, as usual, conjured up images of helpless little maidens desperate to get married and slacker dudes sitting on their duffs doing nothing. What did Mrs. Watters say in response to this talk? Search your feelings, padawan.

You see, then, how the snow globe really shakes up. Yes, there are women out there who are nothing like what I described above. That's not the issue. The issue is this: We have a cultural climate (both in and out of the church) that allows women to be exactly like what I described and a statistically significant amount of them are "like that." I've touched the third rail. It deals with how women treat men. And yet, I'm not shocked in what I've said. Are you?