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?

PC vs the Evangelical Media Establishment

About a month ago, I was listening to a radio broadcast by Albert Mohler which addressed the issue of young people not getting married. I found Mohler's comments, especially his mind-numbingly tendentious anti-male screeds (see 14:04 into the program), to be par for the course for him. But then a caller named "Adam" was put on the air at about 17:50 into the show. I thought the caller sounded familiar, and sure enough, the caller turned out to be none other than our own Puritan Calvinist!

I have to admire PC for his diligence in challenging Albert Mohler's mishandling of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, Mohler's show format evinces the familiar hallmarks of AM talk radio, especially the hazardous slide toward demogogic monologue. In such a format, the nuance and counterarguments of dissenting voices are not likely to be broached in an intellectually substantive manner. And so it was with PC's exchange with Mr. Mohler. PC's exegesis was summarily dismissed by Mohler as being something out of the mainstream (Mohler called it "a very eccentric reading").

PC would like to see some sort of exchange between marriage mandators, on one hand, and those who oppose the marriage mandate (such as himself and myself). Like PC, I also desire to see some sort of a fair, open debate be held with the likes of Steve and Candice Watters, Debbie Maken, Albert Mohler, and others. I don't think it's going to happen, though.

My fear is that the Evangelical Media Establishment (EME), as represented by publishing firms like Crossway and Moody, "family" bookstores, multi-million dollar "ministries" like Focus on the Family, and religious media celebrities like Albert Mohler, does not allow much Lebensraum for criticism. I think this is especially the case for any criticism leveled at the EME that might be both trenchant and biblically sound. We have already seen how the liberal media establishment views people of faith. When people have both an agenda and a microphone, don't expect much airtime for a balanced treatment of the issues at stake.

Mohler Can't Let It Go

Adam (aka "Puritan Calvinist") has just posted an excellent review of a recent radio program by Albert Mohler on evangelicals and their disinclination to accumulate wealth. Mohler suggests that evangelicals are making some sort of religious statement when they marry and have children early, but there's more than meets the eye. I especially applaud Adam's following comment about Mohler's broadcast:

What I find most fascinating is that 95% of conservatives would disagree with him that delay of marriage is a sin, and that children are mandatory to a marriage [a fact he conveniently never mentions]. Yet, they still marry early, and have children. Why is that? Could it be that it is not necessary that it be mandatory in order for people to do it? Could it be that the sheer goodness of the responsibility of marriage and children will naturally cause people to want to do it, even though it is not mandated by the Bible? Indeed, far from upholding Dr. Mohler's beliefs, it is actually the strongest refutation of his beliefs. People do not need to hold his views to be conservative, and they don't need to hold his views to have early marriage and children.

Indeed. As it is, why should I believe that evangelicals are necessarily marrying young and having large families due to their beliefs when the study cited in the radio program mentions other factors: lower levels of income and education? Is Mr. Mohler confusing correlation with causality or something like that?

Another matter worthy of consideration is that I did not hear any scriptures for the "marry and get pregnant early" gospel Mr. Mohler was hinting at. Radio broadcast after broadcast--blog entry after blog entry--this man tells us the right thing to do is to marry and bear children, but he isn't very forthcoming with book, chapter, and verse for his sermonizing. If he's ever bothered to cite what the Bible teaches on marriage and children, then I have easily missed it.

Final note: Adam mentions Andreas Köstenberger as one of several evangelical scholars who take issue with Mohler's marriage mandate theology. I might add that Mohler's view on married people needing to have children is not universal among evangelical scholars either. Case in point, read "Be Fruitful and Multiply" in the November 2001 issue of Christianity Today by Raymond C. Van Leeuwen.

Defining Manhood (The Illogic of Socons)

Over a year ago, I wrote a post critical of something Albert Mohler said on the definition of manhood and masculinity. Like some of my readers, he tried to slip "father" and "husband" into the definition. I called him out on his illogical thinking, however. He wanted to make an exception for the Apostle Paul that he wouldn't make for ordinary men. Yet something is either essential to the definition of a certain class of entities or it isn't (e.g., the class of those we call men). It's has to do with the "law of the excluded middle" (and there is definitely no false dichotomy on this point). If you read the Wikipedia entry on the "law of the excluded middle" it has a quote from Aristotle the I find to be apropos to this discussion:

It is impossible, then, that 'being a man' should mean precisely 'not being a man', if 'man' not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance. … And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call 'man', and others were to call 'not-man'; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact. (Metaphysics 4.4, W.D. Ross (trans.), GBWW 8, 525–526).

You see, language is a powerful tool, and there those who want to abuse it to create falsehoods in the minds of others. I have to hand it to the feminists in particular for their acumen in twisting language to create imposed realities for social discourse. We most assuredly need to exercise due diligence to cut through the demagoguery, rhetorical legerdemain, and sloppy and imprecise thinking of others.

Anyway, I am revisiting Mohler's writings because of recent comments made by my readers on the subject of manhood and its relationship to marriage. Socons need to make up their minds about a few things when discussing this subject. In Mohler's post about manhood, he wrote:

In a biblical perspective, manhood is defined in these roles and responsibilities ["the role of father/protector/provider"]. A man is defined in terms of who he is and what he does in obedience to God. A society that rejects or sidelines these roles and responsibilities -- that does not honor fatherhood and hold it out as expectation -- will sow seeds of disastrous confusion. The damage to our language is among the least of our problems.

While the Bible clearly honors men who forfeit the blessings of wife and children for the sake of the Gospel (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 7:7-9, 32-28), the history of the Christian church indicates that these represent a minority. The normative expectation is that a young man will mature to take on the role of "father/protector/provider" that Peters correctly sees as "not considered as necessary or desirable as it once was" within the secular culture. Those men who are faithfully living out these responsibilities are not likely to be too concerned about finding true masculinity. They are living it.

So, Mohler wants to define men in sociological terms.** It's akin to something one of my readers said: "'Manhood' is a qualitative judgement." Ironically, this same reader of mine compared the ideas of another reader to something a "liberal feminist" would come up with. Why do I say "ironically"? Read on.

Consider what Albert Mohler wrote in two other posts about transexuality. First this quote ...

Goodman's writing is crisp and concise, but she runs right over some basic issues that are hard to miss. The first is the assumption that "sexual realignment surgery" can actually change a person's sex. The other (and obvious fact) is that Thomas Beatie is still functioning as a woman, even to the extent of retaining her reproductive capacity.

In other words, she had her physical characteristics changed -- at least some visible markers of gender -- so that she would appear as a man rather than as a woman. But -- and this is crucial -- the baby did not emerge from a man's womb. There is no such thing. The baby, we might summarize, was not fooled.

So, a man is a man and woman is a woman, eh? But wait, there is this quote ...

Well, it is one inescapable question. After all, Boylan resists "binary" categories, yet when it comes to gender she offers only two options -- male and female. She changed her own legal gender from one to the other, but there remain only two designations. She is as "binary" as the rest of us. We cannot make sense of any conversation without using terms like he/she, man/woman, male/female, father/mother, son/daughter, and his/her's. We live in a stubbornly binary world.

Armed with this realization, we face a clear choice: We will see this binary understanding of gender as a gift from God revealed throughout creation, or we will see it as a socially-constructed reality that we can (and should) deconstruct. Are we bound to these categories by a Creator? Or did we do this to ourselves?

The Christian worldview is clear at this point. The Bible presents gender as part of the goodness of creation. God reveals his glory in every aspect of creation, and this is abundantly true with respect to the two sexes. God glorifies himself in creating humanity in his own image, both male and female. To deny or confuse this distinction is to deny God the glory that is his due. And, that which brings God's greatest glory will also bring us greatest joy.

How strange that the last two paragraphs sound a lot like something I wrote recently about realmannspracht! It's just too bad that Mohler and others socons are so incredibly inconsistent on this matter.

What happens when a feminist or other liberal suggests that concept of "man" and "woman" is sociologically determined? The socons throw a fit and shout, "No! The concept of 'man' and 'woman' is rooted in creation, dummies!" Indeed. There have even been all sorts of arguments to show how biology drives behavioral differences between the sexes. You'll get no disagreement from me on that, folks!

But what happens when the socons want to shame a man into taking on certain social roles? Well, suddenly we get into talk about how being a "man," "manhood," and "masculinity" are driven by the expectations of others. In other words, people start resorting to the intellectually compromised language of realmannspracht. It's simply a case of socons talking out both sides of their mouths, a trait they have in common with the feminists.

Look, either the biological markers of manhood are sufficient to identify a man or they are not. If they're not, then it's open game on the concepts of manhood and womanhood! The feminists would just love that! Someone might say, "You're not really man because you have failed to do [xyz]." Well, the other person could retort, "Yeah. I decided to be a woman instead or embrace a fluid understanding of my gender." What are you going to say then, Einstein?

So where does that leaves us? Well, earlier this year, I wrote:

Manhood is the birthright of every adult, male human being, whether we respect that man or not. Biblical manhood is rooted in a relationship with God. This relationship is effected through the atoning work of Christ, not through performing duties and rituals (Eph. 2:8). Biblical manhood is a male state of being, which manifests itself in good works as God gives ability and opportunity to a man.

By the way, this quote answers the baseless charge that I have never defined "biblical manhood" on this blog.

Feminists want to destroy the differences between men and women. Socons want to impose the differences. I say let nature decide what the differences are. Adulthood and masculinity are biological; ergo, manhood is biological. Biblical manhood, consequently, is adult people with XY chromosomes living like Christ wants them to live. What about men who fail to live up to our expectations? Well, it's like I said in recent posts. You may not like what a man is doing, but he is still a man. If he's not doing something he should do or is doing something he shouldn't do, then tell him. But don't resort to realmannspracht. Leave that kind of talk to the misandrists, because now I've shown that such talk is not only unchristian, it's patently absurd, as well.

** Note: I take it that Albert Mohler is not discussing "biblical manhood" as one expression of masculinity, per se, but the definition of manhood in general from what he thinks is the proper perspective.

Selfish Singles? (An Exegetical Challenge)

Back in November of last year, Albert Mohler discussed the delay of marriage on his radio program. His remarks were in line with his previous statements about immature men, the cultural problems associated with people putting off marriage and family, and his insistence that God mandates that most people get married. The radio broadcast in question was the subject of an earlier post of mine regarding Puritan Calvinist's on-air exchange with Mohler. However, I want to revisit Mohler's comments for another reason.

Over the Christmas break, I mulled over the broadcast. I thought about the seeming insistence by Mohler and others that the only acceptable form of indefinite singleness is one which not only entails celibacy, but one that is singularly devoted to active ministry. Short of insisting on poverty, marriage mandators seem to demand that a confirmed bachelor live like a monk. It makes me wonder if their concept of celibacy and singleness is more rooted in the heritage of Roman Catholicism and it long shadow over Protestantism than it is in the Bible.

But let's suppose the marriage mandators' views of the single lifestyle are more a matter of exegesis than a matter of religious tradition. A particular argument that I often come across can be stated like this: "With regard to the decision to marry, the Bible only holds out two choices to people. You get married, or you stay single to serve the Lord in some demanding way that takes up all your time. The Bible doesn't say anything about the single man who wants more time for his hobbies."

The individuals making this argument may point to passages such as 1 Cor. 7:35. They may think the phrase "without distraction" precludes a lot of spare time for recreational pursuits (I am thinking about Candice Watters' take on 1 Cor. 7:35 in her book Get Married.). Of course, the immediate context of the phrase "without distraction" points back to 1 Cor. 7:32-34 (i.e., married life), not to all the pet scapegoats of the marriage mandate crowd. And I might ask, why aren't married people asked to give up their spare leisure time? If the only choices are minister or make babies, shouldn't everyone have to sacrifice their pleasures?

But anyway, let us grant the argument that with respect to the Bible, there is no mention or no anticipation of the man whose primary motivation for being single is to avoid the cares of married life. Granted, it means we must contradict Paul who wanted people to be "without care" (1 Cor. 7:32) and who left the choice marry up to individuals. (1 Cor. 7:35-40). In the case, the marriage mandator might say, "Forget what Paul said! Most people are to be with the cares of married life. It is required and there is no choice in this matter." But, nonetheless, I am still willing to consider the argument raised by marriage mandators.

For the sake of this discussion, consider Eph. 4:28, where it is written: "The thief must no longer steal but must work hard and do what is good with his own hands, so that he might earn something to give to the needy." This passage tells us that one purpose for earning income is to give to the poor. Now, in 1 Tim. 6:17, it says that God gives us everything for our enjoyment, but it also tells rich people to not trust in their riches. Furthermore, there is no mention in 1 Timothy of the luxuries and entertainments the our modern, affluent lifestyles can afford.

What if I were to tell you that Christians need to give up their nice houses, their nice cars, their home entertainment systems, their social outings at restaurants and theaters, etc.? What if I were to tell you that there is no scriptural authority for these things because the New Testament doesn't mention them? What if I were to say that what God "gives us to enjoy" may not be very much materially? What if I were to point to the horrible sins of materialism as a rationale for demanding an equalization of assets between rich and poor Christians? What if I were to say there are only two choices: (1) be poor, or (2) work for the sake of giving all your surplus income to the poor? What if I were to say my views are mandatory and are what Christians are supposed to believe?

It's a pretty strict application of Eph. 4:28 and 1 Tim. 6:17, isn't it? Hey, I didn't even bring in Acts. 2:45! Do you think my hypothetical reading of the passages in question ignores the context, historical setting, and primary intent of these passages? Is my exegesis marred by a wooden literalism? Does my argument depend too much on the argument from silence? Do you think I would be going too far to expand my reading into some sort of narrow rule for how Christians should live today? Would you write me off as some bleeding heart liberal or Marxist? Would the ghost of David Chilton rise to pan my writings the way he did Ron Sider?

Here's my point: I took the same exegetical approach to the Scriptures regarding rich people and their money as is often done regarding single people and their time. Let's be consistent (Matt. 7:2; James 2:1). If we are going to develop some strict, Pharisaical midrash about what singles do in their spare moments, let's clamp down on the discretionary income of middle-class and wealthy Christians.

To the Focus on the Family crowd, I ask the following: If single people having too much spare time for hobbies is a problem, then is James Dobson willing to sell off a good chunk of his material assets to help the poor? According to one source, Dr. Dobson's holdings in personal real estate exceed a million dollars.

What about Albert Mohler? Yes, let's get back to him. I suspect that he is able to live where he does, courtesy of Southern Seminary and the SBC. But come on, does a Christian really need to live in a house like the one he lives in? From the pictures I've seen, it looks pretty nice, to put it mildly.

Needless to say, the gauntlet has been thrown down on this issue. I think some people to put their "money where their mouth is" if you catch my drift.

PC Throws the Gauntlet Down on Al Mohler

If you haven't noticed already, Puritan Calvinist has penned an open letter to Albert Mohler. Yeah, yeah, it was published last month but I still love it. It's simply devastating to Mr. Mohler's cultural gospel of marriage and babies. The Marriage Mandate Movement is once again exposed for what it is. What I find especially telling is PC's observation that many conservative Bible scholars do not agree one whit with the exegesis of the Marriage Mandate crowd.

I'm probably going to add a link to PC's article in my Biblical Manhood Library page when I get a chance.

(It will be interesting to see whether or not Mohler responds to PC. I'm not holding my breath, though.)

Boundless Shenanigans

Albert Mohler, Steve and Candice Watters, and the Boundless staff in general no longer surprise me with their behaviors. In the last couple of weeks or so, they have been ramping up their predictable marriage mandate nonsense, gynocentrism, and misandry. Some developments ...

1. Candice skewers a young man who is going to be a pastor because he is not committing to a female friend. Read this excellent analysis from Puritan Calvinist on the matter.

2. Boundless staff showcase a series of posts by Tim Challies that excoriate men about pornography but downplay the problem of "female porn" (romantic novels, chick lit, and the such like). Ted Slater makes a point of telling everyone that he even deleted an article on "female porn" from the Boundless site. Well, fortunately we need not depend on Mr. Slater to find out the truth about how "female porn" is ruining relationships between men and women. Thank you, Ted, for being oh-so marriage-friendly that you've turned the other way while women indulge in destructive fantasies about men and relationships. This Boundless reader gets it. Ted doesn't.

3. Candice comes unglued when a Boundless fan writes in about a boyfriend not wanting to have children (see 33:55 of this broadcast). According to Candice, the lack of desire for children is right up there with being unequally yoked with non-believers as a "deal breaker." Of course, when I tried to make the Boundless folks and their readers aware about this post of mine, my comments didn't get published. Needless to say, Candice's rabid pro-natalist dogma is clearly an unscriptural addition to God's word.

4. Ok, this one takes the prize: Albert Mohler along with Steve Waters and Lisa Anderson of Boundless beat the drum about marriage on a radio broadcast. They claim marriage brings people back to Christ in a way that age "cannot." Also, receiving marriage, among other gifts from God, supposedly brings other issues of life into "alignment," giving people a "wholeness" they will never "find anywhere else." Listen to 31:30 onward in the broadcast. If I was standing next to Mohler and the others on a golf course while they said this, I would run for the sand pit and duck so I wouldn't get hit by the lightning. It borders on sacrilege. Marriage is necessary for a wholeness I can't find anywhere else? Marriage brings people back to Christ? Hey, folks! What about the plain preaching of the gospel (Rom. 1:16)? Or the work of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11)? Or Christ giving us "wholeness" through our relationship with Him (Col. 2:10)? I fear some people are really going off the deep end.

That Broadcast

Well, true to form, Albert Mohler is celebrating Mark Regnerus' article in CT and has decided to beat the drum about the matter. My thoughts about Al's broadcast (see the minute markers below) ...

13:30 ff. (But especially at 14:50 ff.) ... Let's see. "It's unreasonable to expect" young people who delay marriage to not sleep around ...but wait! Sexual sin is problem! It's theological schizophrenia at its worst. Listen up folks: I'm all for early marriage, but it's becoming apparent to me that Albert Mohler and Mark Regnerus are much more fatalistic than I am about people being able to obey God's commands. Apparently, only married people can be pleasing to God. Everyone else is doomed to sexual sin, unless of course, you are one of the mystical 144,000 with the gift of celibacy.

16:10 ff. Marriage makes adults of us? Those of us who have witnessed the legacy of parents this side of the Baby Boom can have a laugh at that one.

16:20 ff. Gross eisegesis of 1 Cor. 7:7. I see no mention of the "gift of celibacy" here. No mention of Paul having a low sex drive or some divine gift of not caring about women. It doesn't stop the Marriage Mandate movement from imagining that it's there in the text, though. Just like Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:18, they've quoted the passage so long, they stopped actually reading it.

17:55 ff. Our poor teens don't have the gift of celibacy because they are having sex! Umm, they probably don't have a clue, either. Could it be the real reason evangelical youngsters are not so far apart from the world in having premarital sex is because they are surrounded by a pornographic culture? Or how about these reasons ...

(1) The religious community of which they are a part is more culturally conservative than spiritual. I mean Christianity is more than just refraining from sex. But with so many religious conservatives, their faith seems to be about mere do's and dont's. So, their kids see through the charade and conclude that even the do's and don'ts are a waste of time. Why should the kids be serious about tackling sexual sin when the grown-ups at church aren't serious about tackling materialism, selfish ambition, gossip, bitterness, wrath, backbiting and all the other works of the flesh that you don't hear the cultural warriors talk about? Christianity has been dead in North America for a long time (being reduced to a civic club for Republicans) and the putative 80% of church kids sleeping around only puts the icing on the cake, IMHO.

(2) Albert Mohler and others have already told young people in so many words they are going to fail. So the mantra goes like this: "God designed us for sex!" No, folks, God designed us to fear him and keep his commandments, whether we get "get lucky" or not (Eccles. 12:13).

21:00 ff. Some talk about "the World" and "the Biblical vision" (read "us" vs. "them"). Is the Marriage Mandate Movement really all that separate from how the world views relationships between men and women? You mean male-bashing and an overemphasis on romantic relationships being the solution to life's problems are Christian concepts and not something I can see on the Lifetime Channel?

23:50 ff. Proposal that we grill young men about their marital status. "How are you handling this?" Hey, Albert, how are the married men handling it? Or is Proverbs 21:9 just written in jest and not really meant as cautionary advice? All the questions you fire at the young man struggling with his chastity could be fired right back at the older man struggling in his marriage. Everything has its price (1 Cor. 7:28).

29:00 ff. Guess who is on the show tonight, folks! Candice Watters is in da house! Al hearts ya, SISTAH! Cue from stage left and sit in the easy chair next to the big man. Smile to the camera and tell us about your latest movie.

32:30 ff. Male bashing. What would Albert and Candice's shtick be without that? Men delay marriage "because they can?" Yeah, and more power to them, I say. Men delay marriage because the owners of the club have set the entry fee too high. Or men delay marriage because it's not available to them. Maybe Marriage 2.0 is the only product on the shelves in a given situation.

33:10 ff. The fundamental responsibility is mostly on men to "grow up and get married"? And that part about how oh-so-many Christian women are "ready for marriage?" Are these women ready for marriage, or they just ready for the wedding? Big difference, there, Al. Because in marriage, it takes two to tango. It takes mutual sacrifice. I have a difficult time believing that a generation of women raised on a diet of cultural misandry, helicopter parenting, materialism, and the therapeutic zeitgeist of putting female felt needs before all else is really ready for marriage. Are they really ready to selflessly love a man and be his helpmeet? Are they even ready to keep the toast from burning?

Finally, Al, you ask, "Where are the men?" They're all around you, pal (Although, they are probably not dancing to your tune.). They're all around those poor little evangelical bachelorettes, too. But the women don't see those men. When ladies ask, "Where are the men?" they probably mean only those that could perchance fall within what Roger Devlin calls their "erotic field of view." The young Christian maiden is probably wondering why Matt the pretty boy "won't get serious" and be "spiritual" like her and "realize his call" to embrace "Biblical manhood" by embracing marriage. Unheeded goes Raymond, who is shy and socially awkward, but loves the Lord much more than Matt ever will. Put another way? I fear too many women are confusing strong feelings with the quality of being spiritual.

Anyway, with respect to Al, it's essentially just more of the same. I'll leave it at that.

HT: Puritan Calvinist.

The Problem with Sarah Palin

I take great interest in Albert Mohler's latest piece about Sarah Palin, the woman who was the former "Miss Wasilla" and now is our newest VP hopeful. There is no doubt that she has captured the hearts and minds of many religious conservatives. To be frank, I suppose this what many religious Republican men see when they look at Sarah Palin. The newest bombshell of the Religious Right does nothing for me, however.

Ostensibly religious, conservative women are not necessarily a boon for men, the church, our government, or society . Do we forget Debbie Maken and her marriage mandate sisters? Do we forget Palin's remarks about glass ceilings or the fact that she calls herself a "feminist"? My problems with Sarah Palin are essentially as follows:

1. Now that she has an infant to take care of, why is Sarah taking up a office that will most assuredly demand a lot of her time? Quite frankly, I think a lot of religious pundits are giving her a special pass that they wouldn't give to the rest us down lower on the social food chain. Consider Albert Mohler's statement:

Well, I would be even more concerned now. Do I believe that a woman can serve well in the office of Vice President of the United States? Yes. As a matter of fact, I believe that a woman could serve well as President -- and one day will. Portraits of significant men of history hang on the walls of my library --but so do portraits of Queen Elizabeth I of England and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility. I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture. Then again, that presupposes that women -- and men -- have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family.

Isn't that just dandy? Al Mohler has no problem with women infiltrating spheres of responsibility traditionally reserved for men. I suppose he wouldn't be too upset if Sarah Palin made more money than her husband, either. But what about the rest of us? Quite frankly, I think this blog post says enough about the hypocritical Special Dispensation of grace bestowed by the pontiffs of the American Neocon Church when it comes to "family values."

2. My biggest beef: I believe Sarah Palin is a neocon. She is not the friend of libertarians, minarchists, or paleoconservatives. She can talk all she wants to about "small government" but if she really believed in it, she would not be supporting John McCain. I think Stephen Carson is correct in referring to her as a "stalking horse."

Bottom line: Palin serves to make sure the gullible are mollified and that nothing will change.

Update: Check out EW's post for more of why men should be concerned about Palin.

Albert Mohler's (Mis)measure of Manhood

Recently, Albert Mohler stated:

In a biblical perspective, manhood is defined in these roles and responsibilities ["the role of father/protector/provider"]. A man is defined in terms of who he is and what he does in obedience to God. A society that rejects or sidelines these roles and responsibilities -- that does not honor fatherhood and hold it out as expectation -- will sow seeds of disastrous confusion. The damage to our language is among the least of our problems.

While the Bible clearly honors men who forfeit the blessings of wife and children for the sake of the Gospel (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 7:7-9, 32-28), the history of the Christian church indicates that these represent a minority. The normative expectation is that a young man will mature to take on the role of "father/protector/provider" that Peters correctly sees as "not considered as necessary or desirable as it once was" within the secular culture. Those men who are faithfully living out these responsibilities are not likely to be too concerned about finding true masculinity. They are living it.

So Albert believes manhood is defined by the responsibilities of "father/protector/provider"? But wait, he makes a half-hearted concession that the "Bible clearly honors men who forfeit the blessings of wife and children for the sake of the Gospel" (albeit these men are, according to Albert, in the "minority"). Time for Logic 101. If a particular characteristic is essential to the definition of a class of entities, then no member of the class can be devoid of the essential characteristic. All strawberries may not be red, but all real ones are made of vegetable matter. If you give me a plastic strawberry with a refrigerator magnet on the back of it and tell me it's a "real strawberry" then I am going to chuckle. You were trying to be funny, right?

So if manhood is defined by the role of "father/protector/provider" then one must assume this quality is essential to manhood (otherwise manhood could not be "defined" by it). Is this true? Let's pose a classical three-part syllogism:

1. Major premise: Manhood has the quality of being a "father/protector/provider" in the familial sense.
2. Minor premise: The Apostle Paul did not possess the quality of being a "father-protector-provider" in the familial sense.
3. Conclusion: The Apostle Paul did not possess manhood.

Did you see the foolishness of trying to make marriage and family essential to the definition of manhood? Look, I don't care about any counterargument that "biblical singleness is a rare gift." There is no middle ground here. Either marriage and family is a intrinsic part of manhood or it isn't.

At best, Albert Mohler and his compatriots must subordinate the role of "father/protector/provider" to some other essential component of manhood that would necessitate a lot of men being a "father/protector/provider." Albert says, "A man is defined in terms of who he is and what he does in obedience to God." Good point, but should most men get married as an act of obedience to God? If so, what part of God's revealed Word does Albert reference to support such an idea? Answer: None. He just mentions "the history of the Christian church" and "the normative expectation." If Albert's views have been so "normative" in "the history of the Christian church" I wonder what teaching Martin Luther had to oppose with respect to marriage and celibacy? The historical revisionism of so many Evangelical leaders is astounding. Do they not realize that appealing to church history and ecclesiastical tradition is a rusty, two-edge sword laced with tetanus?

And what about the role of "protector" and "provider"? Are we saying that women have no role in protecting and providing for their children? Or for their aging parents? That women have no role in providing for their husbands? When women of yore wrung the necks of chickens and shelled peas to put food on the table for their men, was there no "provision" in that? Was that all a mirage? What does "helpmeet" mean anyway? A resident motivational speaker that occasionally gives me sex and buys stuff from QVC with my paycheck? I've said it before. I'll say it again. 1 Tim. 5:8 is not gender-specific.

There's just too much stuff here ripe for the picking. Somebody get me some mason jars.

Albert Mohler's Reading List For Men

Albert Mohler has compiled a list of books he recommends for reading during the summer. He says it is "intended especially for men, and it is written in the hope that men and older boys will find this list particularly helpful and interesting." So what is on the list? Except for one book, it's nothing but books about war. In other words, books that deal with killing and breaking things. Pretty dim view of masculinity, don't you think? Is that all men are about? Is that what they should primarily be about? Man as the aggressor? It's a caricature of manhood that feminists vilify and that conservatives idolize. Both groups really have no clue about what masculinity is about.

One more thing about war: You know, chemotherapy kills good cells as well as bad cells. It makes the body sick but it also saves lifes in the end. Nobody, however, recommends chemotherapy as a part of a daily health regimen. There is even less rationale for the wars we fight, and yet we embrace militarism as a culture. We celebrate state-sanctioned killing. We give the soldier high-fives instead of feeling sorry for putting him in a morally questionable position in the first place. We essentially equate war with manhood. War is not only the health of the state, it's the health of misandry. It's also the health of certain apostate expressions of religiosity that masquerade as "biblical Christianity."

How to Drive Men to Porn

Well, Puritan Calvinist has moved to his new blog, and I have followed him to peruse his posts. At the beginning of this week, he posted a wonderful piece on some worrisome comments by Albert Mohler. At issue is the mistaken notion that getting married will help someone get out of porn. Puritan Calvinist rightfully takes issue with this idea.

I'll go one further, though. I think Mohler and others in the Marriage Mandate Movement may actually drive men to porn. I can hear someone retort, "Anakin, how can you say that!? Nowhere do these people tell men to use porn! Just the opposite! Stop putting words in their mouth!" Of course, the marriage mandators are against pornography. That's not the point. The point is that the logical end of their dogma makes men spiritually vulnerable to sexual temptation. I've touched upon this matter before. If you keep telling men that most of them can't live apart from women and be chaste outside of marriage, then what do you suppose men who have no immediate prospects of marriage are going to do??? No good woman in sight? Here come the mouse clicks. Q.E.D.

Demographic Arms Race?

Every so often, I come across an article by a cultural conservative about demographics, about who's having the most babies, about who's going taking over the world, etc. Albert Mohler is wont to peddle articles of this sort, as his most recent offering demonstrates. It makes me wonder. Evangelicals are having children, but they are still in a decline. If only the "kingdom work of changing diapers" (to quote Debbie Maken) could solve all our missiological ills.

I also wonder: What if we take away all the Nanny State incentives for getting pregnant? You know--like welfare, EIC, the ability to claim children as dependents for tax exemption purposes, government programs for children (like public education), etc? After all, Mohler doesn't tell you about the Orthodox Jews who are on the dole, or about the so-called "family values" of many of our immigrants.

Anyway, when it comes to the prospect of Christianity being bred out of existence, I am not all that concerned (Daniel 2:44; Mat. 16:18; Heb. 12:28). If some worry-worts were as concerned about evangelism as they were about who is and who is not having babies, I think we could be a lot less anxious about the Mormons or the Muslims moving into the old church building on the street corner.

P.S. Read this article (from a source hardly known for its liberalism) on whether or not we need to "grow".

It's On Amazon

Back in June, Triton said the following about Debbie Maken, her followers, and the Marriage Mandate Movement:

I think the luster is finally wearing off of this silly movement. The Captain hasn't posted since mid-April, and Maken seems to have given up on serious debate, preferring instead to simply insult contrary commenters and pimp her book. I can almost hear the clock ticking on this dying fad, counting down the seconds 'til it joins the ranks of Madballs and Garbage Pail Kids as Things Better Left Uninvented.

Oh, if it were only so, my friend. But alas, as I told you even then ...

I don't think we are out of the woods on this one yet, Triton. I fear that a certain school of thought put forth their feelers with Debbie Maken's book. They got slapped back, but the retreat is temporary. The shadow of the Necromancer has just gone back to the Dark Tower to plot something else. There are plenty of voices out there among religious conservatives that believe a man's duty is to be a Stoic, neo-chivalrous, beast of burden for a feminized, consumeristic culture. Albert Mohler, and others still roam at large, peddling their "Real men do xyz" garbage to a largely female audience of desperate singletons. Mohler sits on CBMW and I notice an old article extolling singleness suddenly goes missing while the Shame-the-Man articles get published on the blog there.

Religious men can't afford to sit out this one. They are being ostracized in our churches. I feel like the lone prophet on my blog, wondering where my fellow 7,000 compadres are at. We need to speak out--in cyberspace on blogs, forums, etc. and in real life. If men don't, then some really stupid anti-male nonsense will get mainstreamed in our "conservative" faith communities. Maken was a wake up call for religious men. Will they sleep on?

Do I exaggerate in saying what I do? Nah. Remember the movie Fireproof? I finally saw it a few weeks ago in the theatre. I admit that it was good for the most part. Amir rightfully complained about the latent headship theology in the plot. But, dear readers, headship theology is not only thing that is disturbing about the ever-so-popular Fireproof Franchise. Yoda says, "If to this link you go, only pain will you find."

The Marriage Mandate nonsense has been mainstreamed. It's only fitting that an answer to it has finally hit Amazon. It is my hope that the disciples of Maken who go there to find their precious tome will see the ensign of doom.

Finding Manhood (Part 3: Resolution)

[This is the final 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. Click here for the first installment and here for the second.]

It goes without saying that there are plenty of unsatisfactory paradigms and false metrics of manhood afloat in our social discourse. Many of these have been previously addressed and summarily debunked. What approach, then, should we take to the issue of biblical manhood? In answering this question, the following is not meant as an authoritative creed, but it is meant as a roadmap to help men in their quest for self-understanding.

Rejection of Functionalism

In critiquing the pro-choice position on abortion, the Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft has rightfully drawn attention to the problem of "functionalism" as a pervasive belief system in our culture. Consider what he has to say about its deleterious effect:

"Functionalism is not only theoretically weak, it is also practically destructive. Modern man is increasingly reducing his being to functions. We no longer ask, 'Who is he?' but, 'What does he do?' We think of a man as a fireman, not as a man fighting fires; of a woman as a teacher, not as a woman teaching.

"Functionalism arises with the modern erosion of the family. Our civilization is dying primarily because the family is dying. Half of our families commit suicide, for divorce is the family committing suicide qua family. But the family is the place where you learn that you are loved not because of what you do, your function, but because of who you are. What is replacing the family, where we are valued for our being? The workplace, where we are valued for our functioning."

We can see the destructive influence of functionalism with regard to the personhood of a fetus, a comatose patient, the elderly, or the permanence of the marital bond, yet we blindly ignore the destructive influence of functionalism in conceptualizing manhood. Religious conservatives, who ought to know better, fall into this trap. Consider what Albert Mohler has declared: "In a biblical perspective, manhood is defined in these roles and responsibilities [father/protector/provider]. A man is defined in terms of who he is and what he does in obedience to God" (emphasis original). Mr. Mohler's speech betrays him. He has simply taken the worldly philosophy of functionalism and dressed it up in religious garb.

In reality, the essence of manhood does not lie in embracing a role, that is, performing a function. Manhood is the birthright of every adult, male human being, whether we respect that man or not. Biblical manhood is rooted in a relationship with God. This relationship is effected through the atoning work of Christ, not through performing duties and rituals (Eph. 2:8). Biblical manhood is a male state of being, which manifests itself in good works as God gives ability and opportunity to a man. In the absence of ability and opportunity, however, a man can still be as God wants him to be. The elderly, unmarried, childless paralytic can thus glorify God just as much as the young married preacher of a megachurch, if not more so.

What can men do for society? What can men do for women? These are the wrong questions to ask. Men do not need to make an apology for their existence. They have worth as those who bear the image of God (Gen. 1:26). That others may have no use for men is immaterial. Men can find fulfillment through Christ (John 4:13-14; 10:10) without needing the affirmation of others (Luke 6:22-23).

Regulative Principle of Manhood

Some may be familiar with the concept of the Regulative Principle of Worship. It is an approach to biblical interpretation, embraced by some faith traditions and applied to the practices of corporate worship in a church setting. According to this principle, whatever is not specifically enjoined by the Scriptures through command, example, or necessary inference is rejected as an unauthorized addition to worship.

A similar approach can be taken to the issue of masculinity. The Regulative Principle of Manhood is rooted in the concept of sola scriptura. That is, the Word of God is the sole authority for determining the spiritual requirements of manhood (1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Tim. 3:16). Yet, even in this, the Word must be rightly divided (2 Tim. 2:15). Man is no more bound by incidental passages in the Bible relating to a culture of a pre-Christian age than he is to the particular elements of temple worship in the Old Testament. Acknowledging this truth provides a sound mooring for defining biblical manhood, even as many religious pundits go astray in this regard (whether it be pushing arbitrary courtship rules or other antiquated ideas about how men should behave, etc.).

Men must look to the New Covenant, as laid forth by Christ and his apostles, as the rule of faith (Hebrews 8:1-13). This rule of faith is the standard by which biblical manhood is defined, not religious leaders, not the latest volumes stocked in "family bookstores," not one's church, not custom, not tradition, not speculations about what is "natural," and not popular notions of what is right. Biblical manhood is simply manifested according to the following parameters:

1. The general commandments by God given to humanity (Eccl. 12:13).

2. Specific commands given to men in specific capacities regarding the church and the family (e.g., Col. 3:19; 1 Pet. 3:17; Eph. 6:4).

3. The rejection of all false metrics and false paradigms of masculinity as unacceptable distortions of biblical manhood (Mark 7:7; Prov. 30:5-6).

4. Charity and the willingness to extend liberty and tolerance to men in areas not addressed by the previous parameters (Romans 14).

Ultimately, the Regulative Principle of Manhood grants men considerable freedom in defining their masculinity. It also serves as a check against legalism and the social tyranny perpetuated against men by academics, popular culture, traditionalists, and the such like. One finds that in Christ, the dividing wall of hostility is broken down between the truck driver and the poet. In fact, the truck driver and the poet can be the same man.

The Principle of Societal Covenant (The "Nebuchadnezzar Principle")

The Bible tells of the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. The books of Jeremiah and Lamentations, in particular, portray this event as a divine judgment against the Jewish people. Because the Jews were not faithful to God, God removed his protection from them and allowed their kingdom to be conquered. In discussing biblical manhood, there is a principle to be carried away from this historical event.

Men have an unconditional obligation to love God and they have an unconditional obligation to love fellow human beings (Mark 8:29-31). They do not have an unconditional obligation to a visible institution, a set of customs, or a given culture. Visible institutions, customs, and cultures govern transactions between people. They ebb and flow with the tide of history, and their legitimacy is dependent upon their agreement with the Holy Writ. Whatever obligation they would impose upon men must be offset by some meaningful benefit to men.

The reason for this is as follows: God is one who interacts with humanity by means of covenant. Humanity's obedience to God is rewarded with blessings from God. Disobedience is rewarded with punishment (2 Cor. 5:10) (as was the case with the kingdom of Judah). Humanity is created in the image of God and interactions between people are governed by God's moral law (Matt. 7:12). Thus, the idea of covenant is central to the function of a healthy society. "Covenant breakers" are judged harshly by God's word (Rom. 1:31, ASV).

When society breaks its covenant with men, it condemns itself. Men do not have an obligation to promote a system of human interactions or an institution that is morally corrupt (Revelation 18:2-5). Men have the right to turn their backs on such. From the Reformation to the Montgomery Bus Boycott to the fall of Communism, this maxim has held true. The moment society declared that the "personal" was "the political" was the moment men could no longer trust in the stability of the most basic social institution of all--marriage. Since men have no scriptural obligation to personally embrace this institution, their personal rejection of marriage is their inalienable right (1 Cor. 7:32; 35-38). More generally, men do not have obligation to protect and support a culture that belittles and devalues them. They are, in this respect, justified in "going their own way." A culture that does not cherish men is accursed. Barrenness is the death sentence. Such a culture must repent of its stance towards men before it is too late.

Militancy (The Conclusion of the Matter)

Men who would enjoy the fruits of the aforementioned principles have the obligation to defend them. For too long, men have been too apathetic and too accommodating towards others. The laudable tendency of men to protect others, to be self-reliant, to refuse to complain, etc. has been turned against them by powerful interest groups. Some might declare that men should move beyond their anger in order to be more "spiritual." But godly anger in the face of injustice and sin is no vice (Mark 3:5; 2 Cor. 11:29; Eph. 4:26).

Men should not stand idly by. If they choose the route of being agreeable, then the most outrageous and despicable ideas about men will be mainstreamed--even in our faith communities. Men will truly suffer, then. Men need to speak out, if need be, in classrooms, in workplaces, in church buildings, against politicians, on the internet, on talk radio, to family and friends, whenever, wherever. Silence may be necessary in some venues in order to avoid undue attention and persecution, but silence borne out of apathy and indifference is never excusable. In short, men can embrace biblical manhood by first embracing the truth. The choice is theirs to make; one can only hope that they choose wisely.

Cited Sources:

Albert Mohler, "Masculinity without Manhood?," March 5, 2008. Available at www.albertmohler.com.

Peter Kreeft, "Human Personhood Begins at Conception," n.d. Available at www.peterkreeft.com.

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?