Do not believe the current power structure will last.

Posted on by
1

This is going to be very short. One of the ongoing themes in the songs of prophets and prophetesses is that the justice of God will overturn the arrogant and the proud.

1 Samuel 2:1-10

1Hannah prayed and said, “My heart exults in the LORD; my strength is exalted in my God. My mouth derides my enemies, because I rejoice in my victory.

2“There is no Holy One like the LORD, no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. 3Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. 4The bows of the mighty are broken, but the feeble gird on strength. 5Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread, but those who were hungry are fat with spoil. The barren has borne seven, but she who has many children is forlorn. 6The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. 7The LORD makes poor and makes rich; he brings low, he also exalts. 8He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.

9“He will guard the feet of his faithful ones, but the wicked shall be cut off in darkness; for not by might does one prevail. 10The LORD! His adversaries shall be shattered; the Most High will thunder in heaven. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king, and exalt the power of his anointed.”

Any wise politician knows that they have power and influence but for a season, and it really does not matter if they have term limits or not. Unless the system is rorted, (as it is, for example,  by gerrymandering in the US) your popularity will wane and you will lose power. There have been many Prime Ministers of NZ who have won three elections and been in power for nine years, but only two have won four.

We therefore should not glorify in our giftedness, our athleticism, our beauty, our intelligence or our charisma. For all these will go. Instead we should seek wisdom and righteousness.  It is not what we say that is the test of our lives, but what we do.

And on this we all stand guilty. It is but in Christ that we can do good.

Ephesians 2:1-10

1You were dead through the trespasses and sins 2in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient. 3All of us once lived among them in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of flesh and senses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. 4But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us 5even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ – by grace you have been saved – 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God – 9not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.

Do not, as the psalmist says, rely on princes. Princes rise and fall, and policies change. Instead seek Christ, who can save us from the very habits of the flesh which lead to death, and which we also love.

The house would collapse in a year. Not.

Posted on by
Reply

We do indeed live in interesting times. Dalrock has another description of the state of Evangelical Marriage up, One of the commentators has a list of tells as to who is really got the power… in homes.

What would things be like if I was making the lists…? That’s… that’s… *unthinkable*! The house would surely collapse in ruin within a year….

Ah well.

Here are some other tells.

* Who sets the social calendar?
* Does the wife give the husband an allowance from the family budget?
* Does the husband have to earn a “kitchen pass” before he is allowed to leave the house on evenings and weekends?
* Is the husband actually allowed to leave the house…? Ever…?
* Do men at the church meet at fast food restaurants and coffee shops because they wouldn’t dare to ever impose on the hospitality of the wives?
* Do the wives even know what hospitality is?
* If you ask a guy to do something socially and he agrees to come… does he end up calling you the next day to tell you that his wife has something else planned for him…?

Now, speaking as a solo Dad, I set the agenda, do all these things… and I still meet at coffee shops because I have to work around and with the situations my friends are in — and we often meet during business hours, during lunch breaks.  Besides, Coffee is part of NZ culture — I would never, ever go to certain coffee shops  at 1030 because the true power broking in Dunedin is occurring as the women meet over coffee or brunch.

I think the Dalrock has got Shelia Greigore’s position wrong. And I think it is because she is talking to girls. She is trying to teach them how to love their children and husbands… (which is a correct thing for women to do in the church) and she continually uses lists

And she knows about the need for men to be around.

But… I can (and at times have) had to care tor the children. by. myself. Unlike most women, I know doing that and working full time is a recipe for exhaustion: I get help. The domestic chores are done.

The house has not collapsed five years after the divorce.  However, we are all now cautious, careful, battleworn. We are not wanting to return to a soft tyranny, where we feel that we have targets on our backs every time we interact with any woman or child.  The only good thing that may come out of this economic crisis is the collapse of the Liberal or Social democratic system, because it has truly destroyed the health of marriage, and is now trying to destroy the forms of it. while hubristically claiming that their promotion of vice is virtue.

Despite doubt. Go. (or not a little pink church)

Posted on by
4

Will S has posted an essay from Chronicles over at Patri. It is definately worth a read, but the comment I am inte5rested in relates back in part to yesterday’s lectionary reading. God may be bigger than our theology, but as the other will noted, we still need our theology.

And we need to have traditions, practices of righteousness, that we hold and keep against the roiling tide of compromise.

Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians—clergy and laity—have capitulated to the great homogenizing force that is America.  Every aspect of their lives they have let erode into the American sea.  Once this erosion occurs, “mere Christianity”—that deposit of faith that is guarded at the core—is free to float away, as well.

With the loss of identity comes a loss of nerve, precisely because nerve is a function of identity.  Bold defiance of an enemy can only come from someone who clearly understands who his enemy is.  In order to know who your enemy is, you must know yourself.  That means discovering and engaging your own tradition, which is precisely the opposite of the impulse of every major Christian denomination in America.

There will be no passion for the truth—no nerve—in the hearts of Christians in American churches, unless Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc., rediscover their own identities.  Until that happens, joint campaigns of resistance against common enemies such as militant Islam will also lack nerve, and probably will not even be mounted.

We cannot simply write or speak about the loss of nerve and thereby transform the homogeneous “American church” back into something that has depth and guts.  Reinvigorating the nerve of American churches by rediscovering identity requires real work, in the home and in the parish, before it can affect a denomination.  It requires fathers to catechize their children, parishioners to resist whenever they see the inevitable announcement in the bulletin that the church is planning to add a little pink rock ’n’ roll worship service, and pastors to express outrage whenever their superiors sign off on ecumenist documents.

We are not on this world just to be a nice social club. I’d rather hang around with the orchestra or the tramping club. We have a task… and it is in today’s reading

Matthew 28:16-20

16Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Now, at the risk of offending my deep dyed Presbyterianism, I note today that they all worshipped but some doubted. Doubt did not preclude the commission. They were all told that authority was given to them, and to Go.

It is very clear that the apostles were not given a Charism of all knowledge. They definately, at the time of the ascension, did not have that much courage. The Spirit of God gave them both.

For we will need both. From external threats and internal compromise. God accepts our doubts. What he wants is obedience. We are not the Little pink Church that Will refers to… because, as in Ani’s song, little pink churches are full of people who forget who they are and what they are here for.

It is worthwhile noting, that  Ani diFranco recorded this in a concert hall she owns in Buffalo — Babeland. She restored an abandoned church — where she played that paen for amnesia and leather girlfriends.

If we do not keep to what we know, and remember from where we came, this is the least horrible result. It could have been a mosque — leading all the people to fhe fate contained in Daniel

Daniel 7:9-14

9As I watched, thrones were set in place, and an Ancient One took his throne, his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire. 10A stream of fire issued and flowed out from his presence. A thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood attending him. The court sat in judgment, and the books were opened. 11I watched then because of the noise of the arrogant words that the horn was speaking. And as I watched, the beast was put to death, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. 12As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. 13As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. 14To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.

The restoration and recollection of the disciplines and practices of the Normal Christian Life is not easy. It is hard.

For there is very little differences between modern worship and Ani — her comment about turning to page 352 of the (secular) hymnbook is both anachronisitc (it is all done with powerpoint now) and accurate — down to having the cute trained singer lead the congregation.

For we need to reflect that the God we worship is greater than anything we can do or make. Our most beautiful clothes are but rags. Our most glorious worship is but croaking. Let is turn again, to the LORD.

This is Taize and in Latin, but within the foundations…

Have a good day. And do good, despite your confusion, imperfection and doubts.

Our theology is smaller than God.

Posted on by
7

If you are helping someone change: lose weight, break a habit, deal with grief and despair… there will be a thought along the line that he always fails. Always. I have learnt to then ask about the time it did not happen. What happened when you resisted: how did you handle that?

Jesus here is going to the Psalms — and quoting one of those bits that did not fit into the established theological narrative of a conquering Messiah.

Matthew 22:41-46

41Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them this question: 42“What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” 43He said to them, “How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying, 44‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”‘? 45If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?” 46No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

There are parts ot the theology of salvation, the theology of the church, where the Roman Catholics (who have a most developed theology) and the Reformed (who have the most developed Protestant theology) agree. They are contained in the creeds.

But there are points where we disagree. Now, I do prescribe to the Protestant test — if you can convince me by the plain meaning of scripture and a reasoned argument from that, I will change — but… we cannot grasp the full nature of our salvation. Paul praises God for this in each letter, and the words change — because it is too big.  We will find that our neat theological formulations, like the Pharasees, are too small and are likely to be wrong.

But there is something else. Jesus worked within the system of debate that the synagogue had. He said that the Pharasees sat on the seat of Moses. The Pharasees had much of their theology correct. But they had reduced the power of god to legalistic forumulae. God had become the rules. And that temptation, unfortunately, continues to beset us. We need to teach morals, but God is greater than that. God is far bigger than any theology can describe.

Let us not live in historic times.

Posted on by
1

Greek Ministry of FInance. From Zero Hedge

Overnight the Greek situation has become more serious. It looks like the Germans want to control the budget (despite the Greeks voting out the parties that promised austerity). The pressure is on… and even the Europhiles are talking about Greece leaving the euro.

The times are historic. Which means they are difficult. Which is not what we want, or pray for…

1 Timothy 2:1-6

1First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, 2for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.3This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, 6who gave himself a ransom for all – this was attested at the right time.

There is a good scriptural reason to pray for our leaders. For they can make the times we live in “historic”. We pray so that they will govern well (which generally means leaving the markets alone) and wisely (which includes leaving us and our families alone.

In Europe, this is a time of crisis. It is the unwinding of the social democratic project, just as the 1990s became historic because of the implosion of the Soviet project of socialism. I would rather the time was not historic, so I could live, as Paul says, a quiet life with dignity.

Lives, Families and LIberation…

Posted on by
Reply

The term covenant is a loaded. It is a type of contract, and oath. It frequently refers back to an act or a time. In both Leviticus and Colossians the LORD is referred as bring people out of slavery, out of bondage.

And as a result, there are changes in the behaviour one is supposed to show, and how one behaves. For we are not  longer slaves. Or are we?

Leviticus 25:35-38

35If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall support them; they shall live with you as though resident aliens. 36Do not take interest in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let them live with you. 37You shall not lend them your money at interest taken in advance, or provide them food at a profit. 38I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God.

Colossians 1:9-14

9For this reason, since the day we heard it, we have not ceased praying for you and asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10so that you may lead lives worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, as you bear fruit in every good work and as you grow in the knowledge of God. 11May you be made strong with all the strength that comes from his glorious power, and may you be prepared to endure everything with patience, while joyfully 12giving thanks to the Father, who has enabled you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

So why talk about families providing for the poor and those in debt? We have the state, who will provide. We do not need to think about ancient and agricultural ideas of provison, care, love, obedience. Or God.

We can choose instead to live in the secular state. But we miss one fact. Julia, the Julia of Barak Obama’s campaign, is a slave. With rights, perhaps, but dependent, with the intrusive arms of the state reaching into her life.

This is more oppressive than the Roman State. Now the Romans were violent, oppressive, cruel… but they ruled a polyglot empire and did not expect anything but lip worship and taxes from their subjects.  And that lip service was too much for the church. The current state wants to enslave our minds, as much as a heresy or  addiction would.

Families have a duty to provide for each other. And we have a duty to do good today and avoid statist slavery along with our other besetting sins.

For we were brought with a price. We were made free by the power of God. We are not to turn away from this simply because it is inconvenient or hard.

Should the state have anything to do with families?

Posted on by
1

Paula Bennett, the minister for social welfare, has just announced that the government will fund long term reversible contraception for mothers on welfare and their daughters. This led to a cry that this was sexist… what about the men? What about the male beneficiaries (men on the sickness benefit or the dole) who sire multiple children with multiple women? Should they not also be sterilized?

Well, the technically the trouble is the technology and consent.  But the bigger problem is that the state is involved in what should be a private matter. As I pointed out at the Hand Mirror

The serious answer to why women is that… to quote the six million dollar (man or women: both were equally cheesy TV series) “We have the technology”.

We have implants. We have effective IUDs and they are not as noxious as the ones we had 20 years ago.

There is no male pill on the horizon for the west. There is vasectomy, but it (like tubal ligation) has a failure rate.

Funding these things would pay for itself… even if universal. (Well, we fund tubal ligations and Depo and vasectomies and the combined OCs and some but not all IUDs already).

So, when this comes out for beneficiaries … meh. However, when it comes to socail workers interfering in a choice a woman and her lover/husband makes about what to do… the government should piss off.

(And that is this Tories analysis. Family matters — which contraception is one of — should be managed inside the family, and not by the state).

Fund the things by cutting DSW head office and let a familes and their GPs decide.

However, the issues that many families face is that keeping the bills  paid with kids is incredibly difficult. There is a lot of pressure on men to provide — and (at least in NZ) there are a lot ot subsidies available around housing and training for solo parents.

The problem is that when the state is paying you they want some control. In particular, they do not want to support you through raising more babies. (A husband might, but he generally loves the children and generally wants to provide. Way men are wired. The state does not love you: the state wants to save costs).

Now, being a solo parent generally lowers your income., and children of unmarried mothers in the USA generally have worse achievements in school and later life. What Paula Bennett has done makes pragmatic sense from a technocratic and statist point of view.

But I still consider it to be wrong. Because I do not see a place for the state in marriage.

This comes form my views on the theology of marriage — this is a comment I wrote in reply to C. from Baltimore at TC:

the numbers are not the point. The point is that the state is trying to regulate marriage. Now, the response here depends on your theology (somewhat).

If you consider marriage to be a sacrament (ie Roman Catholic) then the state should not be interfering with what is in effect a covenant with God.

If you do not consider marriage to be a sacrament (ie. God is not needed) but instead a worthy contract or covenant that is not only licit but to be encouraged (The reformed position) then neither the state nor the church control marriage It is contract law.

And you can choose the contract. The Reformed position is (“if you abandon them or are unfaithful you can divorce, but you cannot remarry them, nor will the guilty party get a cent or a child”). You can choose that, and be subject to the presbyters (elders)

Or you can choose a civil marriage, under the current no fault laws, with one spouse (the current laws on marrying more than one apply).

Or you can choose no contracl.

The power position is that the state wants to regulate everything by social welfare and the state laws on marriage. Now, if they become too far from what the church can, with a clear conscience, accept, then we have an issue where our duty is civil disobedience…

But our duty now is to merrily and happily keep the marriages here going, and support those single people in their lives.

If the state is not involved in families, and I consider this is the correct place for the state and  the more sustainable position to take, then the state will not pay when things go wrong. Instead, people will have to rely on their extended family and charity.

This need to rely on those you love puts a brake on things. It means that there would be some very hard conversations about adoption — as some families would not be able to keep and feed the next child — and clear consequences to playing the field.  For as a male, you cannot assume it is ever safe to have sex: If you do have intercourse with a woman you are leaving yourself open to having to provide for any child of that act.

And biology will win out. No contraception is foolproof. And rewarding irresponsibility… which is what the state at times does to gain control over more of our lives, increases the rate of such behaviour.

Which, in the end, is a road that leads to the state defaulting, the people struggling to survive, and those dependent on the state having to find another source of support. In the end, a man, though imperfect, is more secure.

 

 


Feedweb plugin for WordPress. v1.3.9 © Feedweb Research, 2012

Mum day?

Posted on by
Reply

Well it is the second Sunday in May, which generally means it is a commercial day of celebration of our mothers.  There was a promotion on TV before the rugby last night with all the league stars saying “thanks mum”.

And yes, thanks… but to whom? The woman who bore me? Well yes.  I was born, despite being an inconvenient time to be pregnant. The woman who raised me? Absolutely, but she did it with her husband… and I should thank both of them.

Well, as a solo Dad, it is a good morning to sleep in. We all have viruses, and they should not be shared — but the meme that women are the only ones who struggle with kids needs to be challenged.

James 1:2-8, 16-18

2My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, 3because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; 4and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing.

5If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you. 6But ask in faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind; 7, 8 for the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from the Lord.

16Do not be deceived, my beloved.

17Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. 18In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

What we should be doing today is asking for wisdom in the rearing of our children and the interactions we have with our families.

Let the secular have a sugar rush and say nice things. I would rather we said truthful things and acted truly. For to do that is acutely counter cultural, and will lead to opposition, perhaps within the family, certainly outside of it.

The test of our lives is the results we achieve.

Posted on by
Reply

Psalm 92

1   It is good to give thanks to the LORD,
to sing praises to your name, O Most High;
2   to declare your steadfast love in the morning,
and your faithfulness by night,
3   to the music of the lute and the harp,
to the melody of the lyre.
4   For you, O LORD, have made me glad by your work;
at the works of your hands I sing for joy.

It is indeed good to start the day with the word. It is quite pleasant, when it is cold and windy outside, to be warm, sheltered, and staring at a laptop. There are worse things.

And we forget that when we are praising God we are not letting our idleness let us into sin, which is part of the text from Thessalonians today.  For the way of Christ is difficult.

Matthew 7:13-21

13“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. 14For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

15“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus you will know them by their fruits.

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

In part, this is a balance to the implied heresy of the Arminians — it is not just the choice to say a prayer or take part in a sacrament that saves you, and it is also a balance to the implied heresy of the Calvinists — that you are elect, and what you do does not matter.

For the real test of our lives is what we do with them. We do not get perfect results, all the time, every time. But, looking at the analogy — it is agricultural, and no farmer gets perfect results. But we expect a crop to come in. If we live lives of sloth and indulgence, what good will we do? Who will we save? How then will our children live?

But if we live lives where we do the will of God…

Here again there is a danger. We can end up being far too introspective, obsessing about the sins we committed yesterday and the temptations we will have today. (Particularly if you tend to live inside your head, as I do). It is the fruit of our lives that matter, and those require actions, and work. These require periods of struggle.

The one pattern I have seen from heresies during my life is that they make it easy. Their assurance of salvation is cheap. Jesus is non judgmental, like some sort of stoned hippie.

It is not. The walk with Christ is hard. We are not promised ease, but pain, struggle, opposition… and paradoxically joy. For when the fruit come in, there joy should reside.

Uxuriousness is not forbidden but is not compulsory.

Posted on by
2

ux·o·ri·ous  adj.

Excessively submissive or devoted to one’s wife.

One of the processes that is going on in our society at the moment was nicely described by St. Velvet

This – it’s the criminalization of being a normal family basically. It’s the first chink in the armor of subsidiarity if you think about it – everyone forever turning in their spouses and children for “the good of society” instead of just handling things. Serious criminal behavior needs official attention, but turning in your teenager for smoking pot should be considered an embarrassment. A kid should be more scared of what his parents (his crazy mom and thug dad, lol) or Church community will do than the 10 hours of community service juvenile court is going to assign, if that. (of course, now if they do carry out discipline, the kid turns them in)

Now, this is seen by the secular state as wrong. The state must micromanage. The staat mus be in control. To do this, the authority of all parents is subverted.  Alte describes the dynamic of what a Catholic family (she’s a Papist, and she lives in this way) functions like

Yes, that’s the central conundrum of our times, isn’t it? The men who appear more “desperate” get turned away, while the men who appear more “aloof” are sought after. So women are inclined to choose men who don’t really value them over those who would cherish them.

But complementarianism is the best answer to our fallen nature. Christian men who have a natural disinterest (the pagan virtue, which implies impartiality) borne of adhering strictly to principles and taking their leadership role very seriously, rather than allowing themselves to be swayed and manipulated by every female whim — even when it comes from the woman they desire most. So their integrity is… well… sort of hot.

I struggle with that a lot. I complain whenever my husband doesn’t do what I want, but then I obsess over him and fantasize about him, which he finds rather funny. So he’s learned to listen to me, then do what he thinks is right (even if it’s not my recommendation), allow the chips to fall where they may, wait for the inevitable pouting to pass, and then let me crawl back. Once a man’s had that happen a few times, he just resigns himself to the tedious process and does as he pleases, while rolling his eyes that women insist on making everything so complicated. Women love to complain about such men and paint them as tyrants, but we keep having sex with them, so actions speak louder than words. We’re just giving voice to our perpetual inner conflict. We know, deep down, that they’d bleed for us, but they don’t walk around with it written on their sleeves and embarrass themselves. Shrewd women can discern that deep love, but appreciate the overlying integrity and the strength of character that dichotomy implies, so they tend to make better mate choices.

A man who understands that is perhaps not as “scary hot” as someone who is outright dangerous and coarse, but he’s much more valuable to any woman who isn’t completely touched in the head. We want to be taken seriously, but we don’t want to lead

Now there used to be a sin, a weakness. It was called uxorious — being a wimp around your wife. We have trained two generations of men, in the church and out of it, to defer to women. I confess I was taught this — in part — because the feminist movement really took off when I was in school.  At university, we were told we were all oppressors and rapists. Since I like women, I tried to placate and please them. Mistake. You become boring and she becomes unhappy.

And the divoree rate soars. As this happens, the secular world is doubling down and criminalising any sign of aggression. Violence is not verbal. You cannot raise your voice, lose your temper.

You cannot be human. You can definitely not be male. And you will not be authentic.   For by making deferring to the wife mandatory, the system is treating men as women with a penis.

The profound irony and tragedy is that if we act that way, our bodies betray us. We no longer desire each other, and live in the other mandatory state: married celibacy

It is time thus to ignore the civil law, live according to the teachings of Paul, Christ, the Law and the Prophets, and resurrect the masculine virtues. This civil state will die. The church, however, will not.

 


Feedweb plugin for WordPress. v1.3.9 © Feedweb Research, 2012