Time to Stop

This is it. My last post for Biblical Manhood. I think for over a year (or two), I knew that I was going to be quitting this thing. I felt that God was leading me to "the next gig" in my life, but I wanted to get my parting shots in before closing down the blog. Now, it's going to be a bit sooner than I originally planned.

I have spent a lot of time involved in MRA and MGTOW activities for six or more years now. From my viewpoint, my break from the scene is not so much a change of conviction about the things I have discussed as it is a change of direction and focus. There is still a lot of gravel that needs to be shoveled by someone. I still think misandry (religious or otherwise), gynocentrism, neo-chivalry (especially lifeboat feminism), biogynism, realmannspracht, and other forms of garbage thrown at men are a serious problem. I still consider these things to be intolerable and sinful. I still stand by my manifesto on Biblical Manhood (parts 1, 2, and 3). The manifesto is my personal stance against what I perceive to be some false doctrines about manhood in religious circles, and against some really bad ideas that are found even in parts of the "Manosphere."

Maybe the Lord will change my mind on some things. Maybe not. But I feel convicted that he wants me to put an end to this. No one has threatened to fire me, turn me in, or report me to the Gender Correctness Police. I haven't been seduced by a female to soften my views. Brother So-and-So didn't call on me to repent of my views. I didn't get "straightened out" by a therapist. This is simply what I feel to be a work of the Holy Spirit on my heart.

I still believe there are too many broken cisterns that men are trying to drink from (Jeremiah 2:13). Women, sex, status, money, health, power, careerism, approval of the crowd--these are the ones that come to mind. Granted, some of these things are permissible. Yet the Word of God is clear. Men are made acceptable by the blood of Jesus, not the broken cisterns (Romans 4:25). Joy and the peace "that surpasses understanding" comes from God (Galatians 5:22; Philippians 4:7), not the broken cisterns. Completeness comes through Christ, not the broken cisterns (Colossians 2:10). Value comes through being added spiritually to the Lord's body (1 Corinthians 12:12-27), not through the broken cisterns. None of the broken cisterns are vital for a man to be the kind of man God wants him to be. Anyone who says otherwise is in spiritual bondage to a lie.

I end this post with a prayer ...

Let those who mock men be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who refuse to stand up for justice for men be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who bind heavy burdens on men that God does not bind be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who turn the blind eye to the suffering of men be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who diminish the God-given worth of men be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who equate manhood with sexual prowess, romantic success, being married, or having children be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who equate manhood with status, strength, worldly success, or power be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who are in power and who commit injustices against men be defeated in their schemes.

Let all falsehood be utterly defeated.

Let the Word of God stand forever.

Let everything that I have prayed which is according to will of God be granted.

In the name of Jesus Christ I pray. Amen.

God bless you all.

[Edit: If you are interested in another blog primarily devoted to the subject of "biblical manhood" that is male-friendly and sensitive to what men really experience in church, then I recommend SingleChristianMan's place. He is not MRA/MGTOW like I am, but I find his writings insightful, edifying, and satisfying. Let me also say that appreciate you other compadres in the blogosphere that have read me and linked to me. You know you who are. Take care.]

Some Thoughts on Christianity and MGTOW

In this post, I wanted to share a few thoughts about Christianity and MGTOW. There has been some talk on men's blogs about what the "solution" might be for men who are trying to stay afloat in a post-feminist world. I know what the solution is for the believing man, whatever his fate with the opposite sex may be (Romans 15:13). A man can spend all his time learning tips to attract women. He can read up on "inner game" all he wants, but as somewhat profitable as these things may be, they are insignificant compared to the power of the Spirit (2 Timothy 1:7). Indeed, "joy" and "peace" are fruits of the Spirit, not one's marital status or one's sexual history (Galatians 5:22). The one who has overcome the fear of man (Proverbs 29:25) has overcome the fear of woman, the fear of rejection, the fear of shame, and yes, the fear of indefinite loneliness.

Abide in Christ (John 15:4), draw near to God (James 4:8), ask for the Spirit and be led by him (Luke 11:13; Romans 8:14). What I am saying is not new. But I know that sometimes accepting a proposition intellectually is not the same as understanding it experientially. So seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (Matthew 6:33) and wait for the Lord (Psalm 27:1-14). Spiritual maturity does not come instantly and it does not come easily. You may be like Jeremiah. He was unable to take a wife and live a life in the context of a supportive community because, well, the community around him was under judgment. But even when others around you forsake you, you are never alone if you stand with God (1 Kings 9:1-18).

A Biblical understanding of MGTOW does not relish isolation from others, not even women. But what it does seek is peace and meaning in the person of Christ. So, when the churches fail, when the women of our culture go after the idols of our day, when those in power grow more tyrannical and corrupt, when men are marginalized and stripped of importance, when misandry flourishes, when society moves further away from God, a man can stand firm and unshaken in Christ (Matthew 7:24-25; Psalm 46). The saying that "Jesus is all you need" has fallen on hard times, probably because it has been used in too many instances to dismiss those who suffer from loneliness. But even so, some of us have at least a partial appreciation of its truth, even though the appreciation has come through many failings. It's a truth that helps us to not only survive the depersonalized structure of our modern society, but also to thrive. It keeps us from being tools for those with an ungodly agenda.

To men who feel alone, I say this: Don't thirst for the affection of those who are perishing. Look around you and discern. The people that mistreat you and that you are tempted to envy are like chaff. They will be blown away. Read Psalm 49 and Psalm 73. There will be those who will falsely accuse you of being bitter, envious, and insecure. Don't marvel at this; false accusations against the people of God are nothing new (Matthew 5:11). The women that demean you are enslaved by the spirits of bitterness and pride. If they refuse the healing of the Great Physician, what fellowship do you have with them (2 Corinthians 6:15)? They will sink. Don't be sucked into the wake of their demise. Your religious leaders may scoff at you, too, but remember that they scoffed at righteous men before the Babylonian Captivity and before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The wicked will not prosper--even if they stand before podiums in large auditoriums with stained glass windows.

I suspect there are those who will accuse me of a "sour grapes" attitude that masquerades behind piety. They don't understand. They don't have the slightest clue. And I suspect the reason they don't have a clue is because they haven't taken the idea of walking close to God in their personal lives very seriously. A lot of them are nominal believers, at best. If they were walking close with God, then they would understand what I am saying.

This is not about my wounded pride, although all of us struggle with it. The love of God that allows me to stand alone in the crowd if necessary is also the biggest challenge to my pride. How can I be prideful in anything if the very blessings of life I have are gifts (Matthew 5:45)? What accomplishments can I boast in if it is God's power that sustains me (Philippians 4:13)? Why should I be afraid of looking like a fool if I am a fool for Christ (1 Corinthians 4:10)? Why should I be afraid of facing up to my failures if, in Christ, all things are made new (2 Corinthians 5:17)? Why should I be afraid of being weak if, in Christ, his grace is perfected in such (2 Corinthians 12:9)? Why should I care if others say I have "no life" if indeed, I have given up mine for Christ's sake (Mark 8:35)? Why should I be worried if everyone is better than me if the One who is perfect loves me still (Psalm 18:30)? Indeed, it is his love that helps me to love others as myself (1 John 4:19).

If my accusers had what I had more abundantly than me, I would be happy for them. But of course, if they did have it, their behavior towards me would be quite different, even if they still disagreed with me. Furthermore, if the Spirit of Christ leads me to repudiate either the tone or the content of what I have written over the last few years, then is it the end of the world for me? No. As the Apostle Paul said, "I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ" (Philippians 3:8). Even through my failures, I am confident that God will continue his sanctifying work in me until the day of his Son's appearing (Philippians 1:6).

Here is the essence of a Biblical understanding of MGTOW: Go ahead and call me a loser. Go ahead, because Christianity is for losers (Matthew 10:39; 1 Corinthians 1:26-29). There is no need for me to be defensive about that statement because the victory is already mine in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:57). I stand upon this confession:

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." (Colossians 2:8-12, NASB).

I am not writing this for my own benefit; I'm writing for the benefit of the others. You see, many of you have tried to make it all about me. But it isn't really about me. It's about Christ, regardless of what you or I think about things. If I have said some things over these last several years that shouldn't have been said, then I apologize. Let what is good stand; let what isn't fall. If my counsel is not of God's will, then I will be defeated (Proverbs 19:21). The same goes for you. Take care.

The Cosmo Complex Confirmed

Let me refresh your memory, dear readers. Do you recall the post that I wrote on men and the delay of marriage? Do you recall what I said about the "Cosmo Complex" and how women have overly inflated expectations about their romantic potential and what they could ask from men? Well, some readers accused me of being bitter. Also, one or more readers said that the issues I addressed were only a problem with highly attractive women. Guess what? Even the mainstream media is confirming what I am saying. Here's some relevant quotes:

"Us women are more egocentric and narcissistic than we ever used to be, according to extensive research by two leading psychologists."

"According to the American research, there has been a 67 per cent increase in it [narcissism] over the past two decades, mainly among women."

Now, ladies and gentlemen, what do you think has caused this? Could it possibly be a society stuck in a "girls are nice, sugar and spice/boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" mindset? Academics have written books about this mess. I mean, you tell me, folks. What do you think happens when young, impressionable women and girls marinate for years in a toxic cultural cesspool of gynocentrism and misandry? Nothing? They're just impervious to it all? So, the media mavens who spend fortunes on swaying public opinion on everything from presidents to pretzels have absolutely no effect on the female psyche? Uh-huh, um ... yeah. I think we know the answer to that. And you know what? I don't think I'm as worried about the so-called "bad" girls as I am the "decent" ones who unwittingly allow popular culture to shape their views on relationships between men and women. Again, countless sermons rain down down on men, castigating them for their "unrealistic" ideas about beauty. But what of the distaff gender? That's right. Keep hemming and hawing, and talking about the weather while the 300-pound gorilla takes a dump on the carpet in front of you.

(HT: MarkyMark)

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."

Cultural Conservatives and the Religious Establishment Do Not Care About Men

Though I have done a lot of writing on the intersection between religion and men's issues, I thought I take this opportunity to offer the following summation of my concerns: Cultural conservatives and the religious establishment do not care about men. Granted, I am willing to acknowledge that there are notable exceptions to my thesis, but in large, I think it stands as an axiomatic observation. I say this from the perspective of one who is a men's rights activist and a Christian man. I submit for your consideration some propositions which are subordinate to my thesis. I do not intend to get into a detailed discussion about them, but I offer them as talking points for an ongoing discourse that I have been having for some time on this blog and elsewhere.

Cultural conservatives and the religious establishment do not care about men as evidenced by the following ...

1. They expect men to silently bear pain, suffering, shame, and humiliation at the hands of others in the name of "manhood" and "virtue."

2. They are largely silent on issues that men's rights activists address, such as lopsided divorce laws, paternity fraud, male-bashing in media, etc.

3. They assert that men are primarily, if not solely, at fault for the problems that arise between the sexes (either in interpersonal relationships or in general).

4. They generally don't hold women accountable for their actions against men.

5. They address issues which affect men only to extent that such issues might be of concern to women and others.

6. They treats a man's masculinity and humanity as a privilege that can be granted or withdrawn by others (viz., all the talk about what "real men" do).

7. They define manhood in terms of a man's usefulness to women and others.

8. They push antiquated stereotypes about what men should be like (e.g., having an extroverted personality type, being stoic, etc.).

9. They push the notion of men being "protectors" and "providers" without any meaningful discussion about whether or not these roles are always necessary or appropriate for men.

10. They typically demand a type of arrangement between the sexes where options accrue to women and responsibilities to men. This is especially the case where men are expected to embrace traditional roles while women are given more leeway in how they define themselves.

11. They present marriage and fatherhood as hallmarks of masculinity, adulthood, and spiritual growth to such an extent that men who don't embrace marriage or fatherhood are put in a bad light.

12. They have high expectations of men but give no meaningful guidance or or assistance so that men can meet those expectations (viz., the expectation that young men should have the ability to support a family, even in unfavorable economic and social conditions).

13. They imply that male sexuality is, at best, of secondary importance to female sexuality. At worst, they regard male sexuality as being generally suspect or disordered.

14. Whatever outreach they offer to men, they imply that men are in need of remediation (e.g., the proliferation of "accountability groups" but no real support groups).

15. They have no compassion for socially marginalized men such as single men, divorced men, economically disadvantaged men, men who are socially awkward, men with emotional problems, men caught up in sexual sin, etc.

If you want an apt illustration of the disconnect between cultural conservatives and the welfare of men, consider the following on-air exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Mark Rudov ...



Bill O'Reilly's dismissive attitude is par for the course among cultural conservatives. Mark Rudov raises a valid issue about why women should be treated as "equals" if they need to be mollycoddled. O'Reilly never addresses that issue, and neither do a lot of other right-wing pundits who claim to be "against feminism."

Religious pundits are just as cavalier towards men's concerns. Why would they be otherwise? They cater to women and powerful men. Their paycheck does not depend on the men they excoriate, belittle, and demean. Or if it does, then these pundits escape accountability because the men they vilify are mentally arrested by fear, insecurity, a restrictive social upbringing, or just plain ignorance. All in all, from Phariseeism to Jim Crow to man-bashing, the religious establishment has dropped the ball on being merciful and just to those who are lower down on the social totem pole.

When you see a religious figure engaging in any of the behaviors I described, then you know what kind of specimen your dealing with. Jesus said you can know a tree by its fruit (Matthew 12:23). Some religious pundits just need to be marked and avoided (Romans 16:17). True, Christian men have an obligation to be a part of a visible faith community whenever possible (Hebrews 10:25), but they have no obligation to hold up the hands of those who fail to be compassionate to men. The Bible speaks of "shepherds" who are no shepherds but are, in fact, oppressors (Ezekiel 34). When these "shepherds" fail the flock, it's time to look to the One, True Shepherd for the healing our souls--Jesus Christ (Hebrews 13:20). If need be, leave your faith community if it does not respect men.

When cultural conservatives and the religious establishment start talking about men, and when they claim to be "concerned" about men, take their claims with a grain of salt. It may be a ruse and a sham. Cultural conservatives and the religious establishment are "concerned" about men as a commodity. Men's right activists, on the other hand, are concerned about men as people. Think on these things.

Lauren Winner on Men

Well, dear readers, I've been very busy the last couple of weeks. I find myself somewhat annoyed, feeling the duty to address the anti-male nonsense that passes for religious journalism, and yet feeling too tired and preoccupied to hose the sheer volume of it off the sidewalk. A week or so ago, I read an article by Lauren Winner at Boundless.org which addresses the contemporary problem of men not being achievers like women are. You can read her article here and the reactions Boundless readers had to it here.

Now for some fiskin' ...

Lauren says ...

But when we talk about gender and leadership, we may have been leaving out one crucial fact of contemporary life: Regardless of what we say we think about women and leadership, when it comes to college-aged and 20-somethings, women are leading in all sorts of areas.

Let me offer two examples — one anecdotal and one backed up by hard research.

With all due respect, we've had more than enough of the anecdotal from women who write about the sexes, but anyway ...

The anecdotal example comes from just about every church I've visited in the last year. Ask church staff, especially staff in charge of young adult ministries, who steps up to the plate when something needs doing, and you are likely to get the answer, "women." ...

"What's going on here," one of my friends tells me, "is not just volunteering or service, but real lay leadership. I'm thrilled to have so many active, vibrant women working with me, but I do wonder why the guys are so slack — why men who regularly attend Sunday worship and come to all our single's group social events can never be counted on to help out with anything. And I probably perpetuate things, because now, when I really need something done, I often don't even think to ask any guys. I go to the women who I know can get things done."

No, I'll tell you "what's going here." A lot of churches in the Anglosphere are nothing more than social clubs for blue-haired ladies and their richer donors. There is no spiritual depth. The men who have a stake in institutionalized Christianity usually grew up in it. The men who haven't are probably not going to go for it, or if they do, they might find down the road that they have been taken for a ride. Here's what institutionalized Christianity thinks about socially marginalized men ...

"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." -- Debbie Maken

Just substitute a few words with the phrases "tax collectors" and "sinners," and you'll understand my ire. But, hey, at least Debbie Maken is honest. Why would Joe Six-Pack darken the door of any place that treats him like a recovering child-molester, a useful idiot that pays and obeys, or scandalized object of pity (such as someone dying of AIDS). This is why books are being written by fellows like David Murrow and Paul Coughlin. 21st century Christendom in the West, liberal or conservative, is about as relevant as 1st century Judaism, Sudducean or Pharisaic.

Continuing on with Ms. Winner ...

"It's not just in the ranks of church volunteers that women are outshining men. According to a recent cover story in The Chronicle of Higher Education, women are outpacing men on college campuses, too. More women than men are attending college, and once they get there, women get better grades and devote more time to civic activities and serving in leadership positions in campus organizations. At graduation time, women also bring home more awards and honors than men.

"What are the guys doing while women are studying, running the sorority charity drive, leading a Bible study and heading up the school debate team? Playing Lost Planet and The Legend of Zelda. Seriously. According to the Chronicle article, that's one area in which male students do significantly best women: Men devote far more time than women to playing computer games. Men also exercise more and watch more TV, and are more likely to oversleep and miss class."

What's the problem, madam? Isn't this what you girls wanted? Higher education has been the hotbed of misandry and gynocentrism for the longest time. Women have had all sorts of entitlements and handouts from various social, educational, and legal institutions to engage them. Men haven't. Why would a man want to go into debt in the first place, just so he can sit in some English class and listen to some middle-age woman drone on about Margaret Atwood's book The Handmaid's Tale? When I was in college, I sat at the feet of "those oppressive white men" who were Ivy League-trained and read works written by "those oppressive white men." A lot has changed now and a college degree has, in many respects, become a joke. Young men know this.

Experts have been scratching their heads about this trend, but no one seems to have any solutions. Should colleges accept male students with lower GPAs, with the aim of having a student body that is roughly half men and half women? Should classroom standards be radically retooled and made more "boy friendly"? For example, should teachers accommodate students' differing learning styles by no longer asking them to sit still?

(Again, I'm not making this up. As strange as it may sound, a colleague recently suggested to me, in all seriousness, that the real problems begin in the fourth and fifth grade when boys were forced to "act like girls" by sitting still to learn.)

Sorry, Lauren, but I caught you. Nice rhetorical move on your part, but you've been outed. You are attempting to marginalize the concerns that others have about anti-male discrimination by characterizing these concerns as being "strange" etc.

Let me quote from the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics:

Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) - The Brown Shirts Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint. Examples:

* "You're one of those right-wing wackos."
* "You're an extremist"
* "You sound like the KKK."
* "... more anti-feminist zaniness"

Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").

Anyway, moving right along, Lauren says ...

I was discussing the college gender gap with a group of honors college students at a Christian college a few weeks ago (and, notably, this honors class had far more female students than males). The students agreed that student leaders on campus tended to be women, and that women applied themselves more enthusiastically to their studies.

"You know what's really lousy about this?" said one gal. "There's no one to date. I mean, I want to date someone who is my equal, who challenges me, and who likes to spend his time doing some of the same things I do. I want to date someone who values the same things I value."

Well, sweetheart, maybe the guys think you and your hobbies are boring, or maybe they think you are a bit of a control freak. I dunno. Why is "the problem" always with the men? Get over yourself, ladies. If you want to marry up and have a knight in shining armor, then "get back in the kitchen." Men want to marry women who are attractive and have a great personality. They don't necessarily need a rocket scientist, or even a liberal arts professor. They want a helpmeet, not a competitor that reminds them of their boss and every other unpleasant authority figure they've known in their lives ...

So maybe that's the way to get men to take their studies more seriously — by pointing out that if they don't, they'll have a hard time catching the eye of an accomplished and interesting woman.

I'm so scared. Pass me the game controller, dude.

Are the two trends — the slack computer-gaming of male college students, and the seeming dearth of male volunteer leaders at churches — related?

I'm guessing they are. After all, college is a formative period, and (as your parents are endlessly telling you) "the habits you establish now will be with you for a lifetime."

Yes, because we are all now weekend statisticians that confusion correlation with causality. You know, folks, articles like this are all too predictable. If men are disengaged, well, it must be their own fault. They must be, like um, playing too many video games or looking at porn, or something like that, don't cha know. They need to grow up, man up, and be "Real Men(tm)!"

What should the church's response to this be? Well, I hope it's two-fold: First, women should get some applause for the wise way they're stewarding time and all the contributions they make to church and civic life. At the same time, we all need to encourage even young boys to devote more time to civic engagement and less to computer gaming.

I've asked before. I'll ask it again: Why should men care about a society that doesn't care about them? Pass the game controller, dude.

What we should not do is buy into a discourse that pits men against women, takes competition for granted, and tacitly assumes that only one group — men or women, but never both — can excel in college or take responsibility in church life.

All too often, discussions of any kind of "gender gap" polarize conversation. That is, people respond to the news that women outnumber men in college classrooms with panic and decide they need to devote all their attention to helping men out.

Whistling past the graveyard, aren't we, Lauren? Now boys and girls, Ms. Winner has instructed us to not say anything about the 300-pound gorilla in room that's urinating on the carpet. Mind your manners, now. But seriously, she might as well tell us to not think about pink elephants. Lauren needs to stop trying dictate the terms of the debate. Her suggestion comes off naive at best and condescending at worst.

The discussion was polarized from the start!! The polarization started when some ideologues decided the "personal" was the "political." It has been the feminists and their lackeys in government, academia, media, etc. who have elevated women by keeping men down. Young men have no positive mentors in their lives because their fathers are removed by homewrecking mothers or Nanny State functionaries. Education has become a "hostile and intimidating environment" for male student and male teacher alike at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary level. Women must take their share of the blame for this mess.

I believe Lauren Winner doesn't know any better. She has grown up in the wake of feminism and has spent her life in elite institutions where one can expect her gender to be coddled and pampered. She now teaches at one of those elite institutions. That doesn't make her a bad person (and I don't want to diminish her accomplishments), but I do believe her background poses some potential barriers to having a better understanding of the issues men face today. A lot of educated women have make their bed with the entitlements. Now they have to lie in it.

Views on Marriage (Church vs. Culture)

I do not have to remind my readers that there is a difference between the spiritual realm and the secular realm, between what our faith communities uphold and what popular culture upholds. Scan the pages of church history and see what believing men of old have said about marriage, and compare their words to what the unbelieving voices of modernity have said. On one hand, we have these words ...

"Marriage is something more serious than the pleasure of two people in each other's company; it is an institution, which through the fact that it gives rise to children, forms part of the intimate texture of society, and has importance extending far beyond the personal feelings of the husband and wife."

"But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex, but as soon as children enter in, the husband and wife, if they have any sense of responsibility or any affection for their offspring, are compelled to realize that their feelings towards each other are no longer what is of most importance."

"I take this view because I regard marriage not primarily as a sexual partnership, but above all as an undertaking to cooperate in the procreation and rearing of children."

"Children are the purpose of marriage ..."

On the other hand, we have these negative statements ...

"The world is already full, and the population is too large for the soil."

"Grant this obtained; let us sketch a marriage in every way most happy; illustrious birth, competent means, suitable ages, the very flower of the prime of life, deep affection, the very best that each can think of the other, that sweet rivalry of each wishing to surpass the other in loving; in addition, popularity, power, wide reputation, and everything else. But observe that even beneath this array of blessings the fire of an inevitable pain is smouldering."

"If only, before experience comes, the results of experience could be learnt, or if, when one has entered on this course, it were possible by some other means of conjecture to survey the reality, then what a crowd of deserters would run from marriage into the virgin life; what care and eagerness never to be entangled in that retentive snare, where no one knows for certain how the net galls till they have actually entered it!"

"So many-sided, then, so strangely different are the ills with which marriage supplies the world. There is pain always, whether children are born, or can never be expected, whether they live, or die. One abounds in them but has not enough means for their support; another feels the want of an heir to the great fortune he has toiled for, and regards as a blessing the other’s misfortune; each of them, in fact, wishes for that very thing which he sees the other regretting. Again, one man loses by death a much-loved son; another has a reprobate son alive; both equally to be pitied, though the one mourns over the death, the other over the life, of his boy. Neither will I do more than mention how sadly and disastrously family jealousies and quarrels, arising from real or fancied causes, end. Who could go completely into all those details? If you would know what a network of these evils human life is, you need not go back again to those old stories which have furnished subjects to dramatic poets. They are regarded as myths on account of their shocking extravagance; there are in them murders and eating of children, husband-murders, murders of mothers and brothers, incestuous unions, and every sort of disturbance of nature; and yet the old chronicler begins the story which ends in such horrors with marriage. But turning from all that, gaze only upon the tragedies that are being enacted on this life’s stage; it is marriage that supplies mankind with actors there. Go to the law-courts and read through the laws there; then you will know the shameful secrets of marriage. Just as when you hear a physician explaining various diseases, you understand the misery of the human frame by learning the number and the kind of sufferings it is liable to, so when you peruse the laws and read there the strange variety of crimes in marriage to which their penalties are attached, you will have a pretty accurate idea of its properties; for the law does not provide remedies for evils which do not exist, any more than a physician has a treatment for diseases which are never known."

"If you do not throw into the fire wood, or straw, or grass, or something that it can consume, it has not the force to last by itself; so the power of death cannot go on working, if marriage does not supply it with material and prepare victims for this executioner. If you have any doubts left, consider the actual names of those afflictions which death brings upon mankind, and which were detailed in the first part of this discourse. Whence do they get their meaning? 'Widowhood,' 'orphanhood,' 'loss of children,' could they be a subject for grief, if marriage did not precede? Nay, all the dearly-prized blisses, and transports, and comforts of marriage end in these agonies of grief. The hilt of a sword is smooth and handy, and polished and glittering outside; it seems to grow to the outline of the hand; but the other part is steel and the instrument of death, formidable to look at, more formidable still to come across. Such a thing is marriage. It offers for the grasp of the senses a smooth surface of delights, like a hilt of rare polish and beautiful workmanship; but when a man has taken it up and has got it into his hands, he finds the pain that has been wedded to it is in his hands as well; and it becomes to him the worker of mourning and of loss. It is marriage that has the heartrending spectacles to show of children left desolate in the tenderness of their years, a mere prey to the powerful, yet smiling often at their misfortune from ignorance of coming woes. What is the cause of widowhood but marriage? And retirement from this would bring with it an immunity from the whole burden of these sad taxes on our hearts. Can we expect it otherwise?"

In the negative set of quotes, the first one is from Jerome. He is commenting on what a "present distress" means in terms of staying single (1 Cor. 7:25); in the same context, he quotes Jesus' statement on the "woe" of those who are "with child" and who "give suck" (Matt. 24:19). The remaining negative quotes are from Gregory of Nyssa's work "On Virginity." Both of these men are canonized saints in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. And for the first set quotes, which are more favorable towards marriage? They come from the book Marriage and Morals by Bertand Russell (an atheist).

You may ask, "What is the point? You've proven nothing. Anybody can quote somebody that agrees or disagrees with your beliefs." Indeed, quoting celebrated dead theologians in support of my position and comparing them to what an unbeliever might think doesn't say anything about whether I'm right or not. Who woulda' thunk it? Let him who reads this understand what I'm getting at.

Drai-nage!!!

There is an article by Russell Moore in Touchstone magazine (HT: Boundless.org) about how consumerism and materialism is ruining the church. Especially noteworthy is this statement:

"Why do Christian parents, contra St. Paul’s clear admonition in 1 Corinthians 7, encourage their young adult children to delay marriage, sometimes for years past the time it would take to discern whether this union would be of the Lord? Why do we smilingly tell them to wait until they can 'afford' it? It is because, to our shame, we deem fornication a less awful reality than financial hardship."

Of course, Mr. Moore gets it wrong about 1 Corinthians 7. There is no clear admonition in 1 Cor. 7 for young to people to marry. It's just plain old marriage mandate poppycock to suggest otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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

The Childbirth Movement and Logic

In light of a recent discussion at Boundless, I got to thinking about the Childbirth Movement (which overlaps with the Marriage Mandate Movement) and the arguments some use to insist that married people must have children. As a Christian that tries to respect the scruples of other believers, I will not stand in the way of a couple who thinks that God is leading them to have children. I may disagree with their convictions, but I accord to them the charity that Christian unity demands (Romans 14).

Sadly, however, I don't think this charity is often reciprocated by the anti-contraceptive/childbirth advocates. Many of them equate their position with obedience to Christ. If they really believe their convictions are a reflection of a clear mandate in the Bible that is universally binding, then I suggest that they make their case in a reasonable manner. In particular, I ask those in the Childbirth Movement to stop using emotionalism, sloppy reasoning, bad argumentation, and fallacious logic. Here are some of the logical fallacies they need to steer clear of ...

1. Argumentum ad Homimem

Don't tell me what a bad Christian I am if I don't want to have children. Don't me I'm "worldly," "am selfish," etc. Don't point to some unfavorable trait about me as a person. You are not proving anything except maybe your dislike of people who happen to disagree with you.

2. Negative Inference Fallacy (a phrase coined by D. A. Carson)

You tell me that the Bible says children are blessing. So? It does not logically follow that not having children is not a blessing. Having children may be a blessing, but being childless may also be a blessing (How do we explain the commendation of singleness in the Bible if this were not the case, or do single people need to have children, too?).

3. Argumentum ad Consequentiam and Slippery Slope Fallacy

Don't tell me how acceptance of contraception and the refusal to have children will lead to abortions, some terrible economic crises, or the extinction of the human race.

4. Argumentum ad Naturam

Don't tell me that because having children is natural, we must therefore embrace childbearing.

5. Argumentum ad Populum, Argumentum ad Verecundiam, Argumentum ad Antiquitatem

I don't care how many "respected" "scholars" from your faith tradition believe something now or have believed something in the past. Present the arguments and let them stand or fall on their own merit. Also, don't tell me about how many times in the Bible we find people having children or exulting them. Polygamy and circumcision were pretty popular, too. Then there is foot-washing and greeting one another with a "holy kiss." Customs do not necessarily rise to the level of a Biblical mandate.

6. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

Don't tell me, "There is no example of saints in the Bible refusing to have children." An argument from silence is inconclusive in and of itself.

7. Loaded Language

Don't talk to me about the "Christian worldview" until you prove that your views indeed reflect it. Don't talk about "selfish lusts" when discussing those who don't want to have children. What do you mean by the word "selfish" and "lust", anyway? That couples having sex for the sheer enjoyment of it or for expressing love are sinning? Please make your case from the Bible. Cut the emotion-laden buzzwords and give me just the facts, ma'am.

8. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)

Don't ask me if I like children. Left-wing politicians "think of the children" when they proffer their interventionist, big-government programs. That, of course, does not make you a bleeding-heart liberal, but you do share the illogic of one if you employ the same sort of emotionalism in your line of reasoning.

9. Ignoratio Elenchi

Don't tell me that Lord "opens and closes wombs." It's true, but it's irrelevant to your case. The Bible says that the Lord "kills and makes alive" (1 Sam. 2:6), but I don't see a lot of Christians giving up their firearms as a gesture of trusting in the Lord.

10. Guilt By Association

Don't tell me how the big, bad, secular humanists take my position. Who cares? What if they have a bigger clue than you (Luke 16:8b)?

11. Suppressed Evidence

Don't keep repeating Gen. 1:28 like a Fisher-Price See-N-Say toy unless you are willing to deal with the counterarguments against your exegesis (e.g., the use of heterosis in the Hebrew language which changes the meaning of an imperative verb).

This list is not meant to be exhaustive. I am certain there are some other forms of bad argumentation that the Childbirth Movement adherents need to avoid. The point of my post is not, however, to say that these people are wrong. My point is that these people have their feelings invested in the debate; now is the time for them to invest their brains.

The Problem with Boundless.org

Recently, Ted Slater posted a flippant piece on Boundless' blog about the Obama family and some lodging accommodations they were seeking prior to the presidential inauguration:

To my knowledge, no politician since Truman has stayed 15 consecutive days at the Blair House. Doing so would be highly unusual. And so we shouldn't be surprised when such an unprecedented request is denied. Certainly we shouldn't be outraged.

The fervor over this situation makes me wonder how long will it be before someone makes the correlation between it and that experienced by the Messiah, whose family was also told that there was no room in the inn for them.

One reader wrote the following in response to Ted's comments ...

Ted, what does this have to do with anything this blog is supposed to be about? This is a political post that does not have a clear connection to church, family, young people, or marriage. I read Boundless for biblical-based viewpoints, not Republican-party-based rants against the liberal media.

I'm surprised you chose this controversy to comment on rather than the controversy over Rick Warren's invitation to pray at the inauguration. I'm not asking you to add to the uproar over who's praying where, but it would be more in line with your mission statement, as I understand it, if you had chosen a topic like the Warren issue.

This reader's observation got me thinking about what Boundless is supposed to be. For the last couple of years, the Boundless website has been a target-rich environment for my criticism. Somebody might assume that I have a personal ax to grind against its staff members. I really don't, however. The folks at Boundless are not the only the ones who have been the subject of my criticisms. Moreover, Boundless has indeed presented some material that I can heartily agree with as a Christian. So, what is the problem?

The problem is that even though a stopped clock is right twice a day, it's still a stopped clock. The problem is that in North America, there is some confusion about what the word "Christian" conveys. For people such as myself, "Christian" conveys an adherence to God's will as revealed in his inspired word (we might call this "Biblical Christianity"). To others, the connotation is arguably more political or social in nature (we might call "cultural Christianity"). The concept of "a Christian nation" comes to mind as something indicative of "cultural Christianity" (though the idea is unbiblical, at best). In bringing up this matter, I am reminded of what Os Guinness (along with John Yates) wrote about the Episcopal church:

The "sola scriptura" ("by the scriptures alone") doctrine of the Reformation church has been abandoned for the "sola cultura" (by the culture alone) way of the modern church. No longer under authority, the Episcopal Church today is either its own authority or finds its authority in the shifting winds of intellectual and social fashion -- which is to say it has no authority.

Truer words have never been spoken about the religious left. Now, let me ask some questions. Do we really believe that social conservatives are any less immune to the all-too-human temptation to refashion spiritual truths according to their taste? Is there a conservative analog to the "sola cultura" of the left that is just as spiritually suspect? If not, how do we, for instance, explain the shameful legacy of overt racism among socially conservative faith traditions? If there is a "sola cultura" that can be found among conservatives, does it become legitimate simply on the basis of passing lip service given to Biblical authority (Mark 7:6-7)?

This gets me back to Boundless. Boundless' stated goals are as follows ...

The mission of Boundless is to build strong foundations for marriage, parenting and Christian service by providing young adults with a Biblical vision for the single years rooted in sexual purity, Christian community, and stewardship of gifts and talents.

Yet what have readers actually encountered? Extra-biblical, legalistic, reactionary ideas about dating, sexuality, marriage, childbirth, gender roles, etc. That in addition to the following ...

• reflexive anti-environmentalism (such as panning green bibles, while giving a free pass to other topical bibles - women's bibles, bibles for military personal, etc.)
  
• pro-Israel sentimentality
• support of neocon interventionism (the war in Iraq)
• unapologetic support for the concept of one-issue voting (contrary to James 2:10; Rom. 3:8)
• .... and the "such like," being hallmark traits of right-wing religiosity.

Granted, I personally of know Christians that embrace some or all of these attitudes. Let me say, however, that it's one thing to parade these attitudes on a personal blog or a blog that is focused on social and political issues. It's quite another to do it under the auspices of a "ministry" to young adults. In the latter case, I believe the spiritually responsible thing to do would be to avoid polarizing, divisive themes that have nothing to do with one's stated pastoral objectives.

I submit that "ministries" such as Boundless have no real value except for a segment of Christendom that has grown up in a certain sociocultural context. Others who come to Christ from a different background and who have little or no use for the Southern-fried, Americanized, suburbanized Churchianity that passes for Christianity in the Anglosphere are not going to have much use for Boundless or similar outfits. To be blunt, the heavily politicized modus operandi of Boundless and its parent organization, Focus on the Family, could easily be underwritten by a conservative think tank in Washington (such as the American Enterprise Institute). Discerning believers who eschew the intellectual sinkhole of modern conservatism would do well to look to other alternatives for spiritual advice for their daily living. Really, if I wanted to hear the rantings of misguided Republicans, I could read the Weekly Standard or National Review Online, not a website supposedly targeted towards single Christians.

Now that the economy is in the doldrums, the bread-and-circus crowd must worry about their next paycheck and not so much about blowing up "dem Ayrabs." All the palace prophets that enjoyed their strut across the public stage for the last eight years or so have been sidelined to a considerable degree. People may have voted for marriage (Proposition 8), but they didn't vote for Dr. Dobson's handpicked neocon (and no, dear readers, I didn't vote for any race horse in the corrupt two-party system).

What can we say to all of this? I can say that I find many of my fellow believers to be hopelessly insular and out of touch with what the Gospel is really about (I say this is as a soul that has come from a non-churched background and who has in many ways been on the outside looking in). What should we expect when the Gospel is politicized, perverted, and prostituted by people with a desire for political and cultural hegemony? I could tolerate the intellectual hypocrisy of the Religious Right a little bit better if they didn't try to pass off so much of their views as the "Biblical" or "Christian" way. I could tolerate them a little bit better if they didn't demonize their opponents as being "liberal," "secular" "unspiritual," etc.

There are souls out there such as myself who cannot be categorized as politically, culturally, or even theologically liberal who nonetheless have no use for the Mighty Wurlitzer of Red State values. People such as myself cannot be ignored any longer. We refuse the facile pigeonholing of the culture wars. The culture warriors tell us the fundamental issue is about "worldviews." They're right about that; I'm just not so certain theirs is all that Biblical.

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".

A Regrettable Ad

Some time ago, Motte Brown offered a sneak preview of the new print magazine from Boundless. One ad in the forthcoming issue of the magazine caught my eye:

So, according to Boundless and Focus on the Family, bozos look a certain way. They look like the man in the picture above. In its effort to reach "twentysomethings," Focus and Family has clearly decided to use the kind of marketing and advertising techniques that one finds in secular publications.

What kind of image is Boundless really conveying when it does this? After all, men have been lectured by this organization not to get caught up in worldly ideas of beauty. Yet it has no compunction about using images to reinforce cultural stereotypes about men, stereotypes which arguably cannot be reconciled with a biblical attitude. Would it be excusable to market a book under the heading of avoiding "bimbos" or "loser chicks"? What kind of pictures of socially undesirable woman would one use in an ad for such a book?

Let me also say that I've gotten tired of beautiful, white models with clear complexions and a high degree of facial symmetry being used to represent everyday believers. Do we really need stock photos to reinforce the looks-obsessed norms of our culture? I suspect if I raised these kind of criticisms in another venue, I would be dismissed as "whiner" and a "sissy". So sorry to be a stickler about this, but an outfit that has made a practice of adjuring others to do a little soul-searching could stand to do some itself.

[A draft of this post was written many months ago but never published. I wanted the Boundless staff to have the opportunity to correct their publication, especially since some readers cautioned them about the ads. I, too, brought it to the attention of the staff, though my comments were not posted. However, as of this month, there is an animated GIF banner at the bottom of the main Boundless page which recycles the "bozo" ad.]

Boundless Politicking

I try to shy away from writing about politics on this blog because I choose to focus primarily on men's issues. However, I couldn't hold my peace this evening. Boundless has been recently spewing out a slew of articles exhorting people to be "single-issue" voters. I believe that's code for "You must vote for John McCain." However, the idea that we can selectively pick which issues are important to God, or "vote for the lesser of two evils" is something not supported by the Scriptures (James 2:10; Rom. 3:8). I had an exchange with Alex Chediak about this matter, but he doesn't seem to appreciate where I am coming from. Let me tell you what my beef is with the Religious Right:

1. If a teenager got pregnant and had to face some difficult choices, they would tell her to trust God.

2. If a single man had difficulty with sexual temptation and yet could not find a godly woman that would want to date him, they would tell him to trust God.

3. If someone comes up to members of the Religious Right and tells them to stop picking the "lesser of two evils" and vote on principle, suddenly they get all pragmatic and run around like a bunch of Chicken Littles, clucking about how "that other guy will win if we don't do something!" Umm, what was that part about trusting, again?

As it is, some Evangelicals are really not "pro-life" because they supported this man who is a flaming liberal on social issues. Why did they support him? Because he supports the War.

I have one question to ask: Why is God beholden to the Religious Right to give them another Republican president? Because the president says he is "pro-life"? You know, I read my Bible, and I think the Israelites thought they were safe because they had the temple, etc. A few prophets told them they were not safe. God got to a point where he did not accept the worship of Israelites. God did not save the Israelites from the Chaldeans because the Chaldeans were "heathens" and the Israelites were "God's people." Chew on that.

I don't believe those of the Religious Right trust in God. They may trust their religious leaders with the multi-million dollar ministries. They may trust the halls of power and wealth. They may trust in the State and big Daddy government. They may trust in the Flag. They may trust in the military and American Empire. They may trust Neocons to tell the truth about Iraq, though the stories and excuses seem to change from one month to another. They may trust the Department of Homeland Security to only spy on the right people. They may trust the CIA to only torture Muslims they don't like. They may trust in Bailouts and reverse socialism for their pension plans. They may trust in worthless fiat money of the Republicrat economists and think Prov. 20:10 is not applicable to the situation. They may trust in a mercantile economy where the government and wealthy collude for self-serving purposes. They may trust in Red State Fascism. They may hate the Democrats more than they love liberty and justice. They may trust the Republican Party to make good on its promises to achieve victory for the "pro-life" cause .... one day. But trust in God? I'm not seeing it.

The idea that Republicans are the party of life is a ridiculous lie. If you don't believe me, click here and smell the coffee. The Republican Party has been become the party of greed, kleptocracy, lies, tyranny, and death. They are no different from the Democrats in that regard. I will only vote for a Republican when he doesn't act like the rest of them (e.g. Ron Paul). I am probably going to vote for a third-party candidate come Election Day. If there was no one decent on the roster, I would not vote at all.

I am tempted to believe that the Religious Right has it coming to them ... just like the Israelites. I hope God has mercy on them.

[Edit: I forgot to add something. Christians voting for either major party remind me of two groups of people. The people from one group sit immobilized in a polished car without several important pieces of machinery; they frantically move the steering wheel left and right in the hopes that will cause them to inch forward. The people in the other group strap car engines to their backs and stagger around shrieking, "We have the most important part of the car! We have the most important part of the car!" None of the people in these two groups realize the futility of their choices.]

Taking A Tiki Torch to the Culture War Facade

Hawaiian Libertarian takes a tiki torch to the whole political squabble about marriage, in which the Republicrats attempt to make more of a distinction amongst themselves than there really is. It's a must read, because it exposes the whole "marriage debate" as a distraction from focusing on the real problem--the government.

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.

Estrogelical Glossary (Humor)

Dear Bible-Believing Man,

Whenever you visit the websites of religious "relationship experts" and other such pundits, do you feel a disconnect between what you affirm and what they affirm? Are you confused by what they say, given that they claim to speak for believers such as yourself? Never fear! Your days of frustration are over! I hereby present the Estrogelical Glossary, a handy guide to the lingo others use when talking about "biblical manhood."

------

accountability (n): (1) A church ministry designed to assist men in overcoming their sexuality. (2) A similar ministry designed to help people that might otherwise think for themselves.

beauty (n): (1) A quality that man are commanded by the church to see only internally in women. (2) A quality women see only externally with each other.

biblical (adj): Traditional.

call (v): To demand another believer do something (Note: Always used in the passive voice as an auxiliary verb - e.g., "Men are called to be providers" as opposed to "I call men to be providers.").

children (n): (1) A plurality of small human beings that are an unqualified blessing between a minimum quantity of two and a maximum quantity of whatever number a religious pundit feels like siring himself. (2) A fashion accessory for Christian women.

Christian: (1) (adj) Culturally reactionary. (2) (n) One who agrees with the theology of the lecturers for T4G.

church (n): (1) A building with a beautiful, commodious auditorium. (2) A civic club that uses hymn books (not to be confused with a local fellowship of believers who have all things in common and bear one another's burdens).

conservative (adj): Fashionably authoritarian.

counter-cultural (adj): A quality ascribed to customs and traditions in order to present them as being biblical and trendy, when in fact, they are neither.

courtship (n): (euphemism) (see dating)

dating (n): Something between lust and fornication. (see also courtship)

defraud (v): The act of just wanting to be friends with a woman.

discernment (n): The degree of scrupulosity bound on others that one is willing to personally adopt himself.

DTR (n): Short for "defining the relationship" (also "dudes tolerating rejection").

family: (1) (n) A mother, father, and two or more children (contrast with a widow and two children, a couple with one child, etc.). (2) (n) The "basic unit of society," contrasted with single people who are not a part of society. (3) (adj) Religiously conservative ("family values," "family bookstore," or "family activities").

feel (v): The female alternative to knowing.

husbands (n): A male indentured servant.

initiate (v): Exercising the prerogative of doing something constructive or meaningful about a relationship (e.g., "Real men initiate and women don’t!").

intentional (n): Purposefully compliant.

leadership (n): (1) The act of making decisions that are a part of adulthood but are not particularly pleasant ("Men are called to leadership, not women!"). (2) A collectivity of religious individuals who "lead" primarily in ways other than by example ("Trust your leadership in your church!").

lust (n): Showing even the slightest bit of heterosexual interest in the opposite sex, chiefly when men are interested in women.

man (n): A recovering pervert.

manly (adj.) : Acting like a jock, but religious.

marriage (n): Church-approved relationship wherein women exchange sex for financial support, not to be confused with prostitution, a practice that is sinful and demeaning to women.

mature (adj): Thoroughly indoctrinated.

ministry (n): An enterprise which involves dispensing platitudes, dictums, and non-expertise for profit.

morality (n): Responsible and ethical behavior regarded solely in terms of sexuality.

pastor (n): (euphemism) (see preacher)

pornography (n): A type of media that presents an unrealistic and demeaning view of the opposite sex (not to be confused with romance novels and anything relationship experts write about men).

preacher (n): A person in the habit of complaining about other believers who nonetheless gets paid for it.

protector (n): A man who engages in stereotypically masculine acts of aggressiveness and stoicism, even though the woman in his company is most likely not in immediate danger of anything substantive.

provider (n): The one who makes the larger paycheck ("Women are not called to be providers for their families because they are not supposed to provide anything!").

purity (n): Restraint from all indications of being heterosexual prior to marriage.

real men (n): Men who comply with one's demands.

self: (n): One's welfare (always to be denied for the sake of others who have a low opinion of it).

sex (n): A reward dispensed to a male pet who obeys his owner.

sin (n) (1) Archaic: A transgression of God's law. (2) Doing whatever a religious writer doesn't like.

singleness (n): The status of being alone and lonely--a tragedy for women, but a sin for men.

submit (v): The graciousness of a woman shown in her acceptance of whatever preferential treatment a man gives her.

wife (n): A career woman with a retirement plan.

woman (n): A asexual, angelic being who likes children and money.

worldview (n): A coherent system of wrong-headed ideas ("We need to develop a worldview to counter that of our secular culture.").

worldly (adj) (synonym for secular): Akin to whatever non-religious people embrace, whether it makes perfect sense or not.

An Interesting Look at Female Voters

It's articles like this that give men a reason to vote libertarian (with a little "l"). As for many women voters, perhaps they need to rethink their ideas about compassion, justice, and liberty. Why? Because giving government the power to make people chaste, charitable, and courteous results in none of these things, but it does result in government's greater control of our lives. Let's not give government the responsibility that has already been given to church and family.

Which Conservatism?

There are "conservatives" and then are ... conservatives. The problem with the way the word "conservatives" is often used is that it inheres in it a degree of ambiguity. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "conservative" as "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions." But what do conservatives want to maintain? To answer this question, I believe we must distinguish between two camps of "conservatives."

1. The first camp of conservatives are cultural reactionaries. For them, "conservatism" simply means preserving or restoring a state of affairs that serves to benefit them, if no one else. It's often a yearning for a social order that is static and inflexible. What is to be maintained is not so much a set of principles, per se, as it is a certain status quo. I will, for the sake of this discussion, call them Reactionary Conservatives.

2. The second camp of conservatives are those who seek to maintain or restore certain principles. Deviation from a standard is repugnant to these conservatives. I will call these individuals Principled Conservatives.

How does this differentiation play out in politics? Reactionary Conservatives will talk about limited government up until the point the concept threatens their sense of identity or desired state of affairs. They'll go after the "welfare queens", but won't touch the entitlements that go to married suburbanites. They'll oppose "nation building" unless their favored politician changes his mind. They believe government shouldn't be involved in raising our kids unless they want to censor what our kids might see on the Internet.

Principled Conservatives, on the other hand, will say no to government handouts and kickbacks, whether it is for the "welfare queens", the feminist social workers, the agrobusiness lobby, the defense industry lobby, the bailed out real estate speculation lobby, or yes, the married suburbanites. The Department of Defense will be just for that, period (Not the world's police). When it comes to social mores apart from the defense of life, limb, and property, the government will neither be the Mommy who spoils nor the Daddy who spanks. Why? Because Principled Conservatives hold steadfastly to the virtue of limited government and resist any encroachments of the State upon an accepted standard of governance (such as the Constitution).

But what I am saying also applies to religious matters--at least in the case of Evangelicals. When we talk about "religious conservatives," we need to distinguish between the Reactionary ones and the Principled ones. Reactionary Conservatives embrace the conservatism of dressing up in their Sunday best, quoting dead religious luminaries, and preserving institutionalized religion. Religion in this case is about conveying a wholesome image - the "form of Godliness" whether or not there is any real power to it. These conservatives pen screeds against the materialism of married couples who have no children, but not a lot, if any, screeds against the materialism of families with large houses, large automobiles, and large church buildings. These conservatives tell young men not to worship sex and women, but often discount any notion that men can have God-given fulfillment apart from taking a wife. The Reactionary Conservative talks about "sola scriptura" but mostly in the context of flashing his Evangelical credentials. Beyond that, his theology is a jambalaya of cut and pasted proof-texts, shaming language, threats, authoritarian gestures, demagoguery, and the "such like."

The Principled Conservative, on the other hand, wants to know just one thing: "What does the Bible say?" In matters of faith, he has no loyalty to Spurgeon, Calvin, Edwards, or any other uninspired person pushing up daises because he knows they are not the final authority on matters pertaining to "life and godliness" (2 Pet. 1:3; 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Tim. 3:16). He doesn't want proof-texts; he wants context. He notes that the same Bible which requires one to "provide for his own" does not demand that anyone today start a family. He notes the same Bible that says husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church says nothing about a man asking women out or paying for dates. The Principled Conservative takes seriously little observations like these and doesn't take seriously those who would demur on this matter. His faith is isn't about saving our church buildings, our neighborhoods, our nation, or the cultural hegemony of the Protestant lifestyle ... it's about saving souls.

I think you can see where I am going with this and its relevance to what I write. The next time someone invokes God, the Bible, the notion of "conservatism", etc. and talks about what "real men" need to do, ask yourself if the person in question is a Reactionary Conservative or a Principled Conservative. Just speaking for myself, I intend to keeping reading my Bible ... and rooting for Ron Paul [*grin*].