Like the author of Christian Men’s defense, I have been called a few things.

Bitter and Full of Baggage. Yes, I’m divorced. Yes, I’m a solo Dad. And yes, at times I am bitter.

Arrogant and sinful: well yes.

And the usual terms used to shut men up: Sexist (or misogynistic) and Homophobic.  But that is not why there are a bunch of Christian men blogging about how the current situation. CMDN puts it best.

No, I am motivated primarily by brotherly love towards Christian men who have been horribly victimized by the Devil’s work of feminism within Christianity.  I believe 2 Tim. 3:6-7 is a clear and present danger to the church, and we have a duty to fulfill God’s command through Paul to oppose this phenomenon.  Feminism within the church results in untold pain to far too many Christian men.

And I am motivated by love for women.  I know women who have not been ruined by feminism.  These women are beautiful, true treasures that one can rarely find these days.  Feminism has ruined most modern woman, and it is no less powerful within the church.  In fact, in some cases, Churchian women are corrupted even more, because feminism is synthesized with a false “Snake Oil Jesus” ideology that results in an even greater sense of entitlement and personal perfection.

Do we hate women?  Absolutely not.  Rather, it is hatred to teach a false Jesus whose greatest priority is to make women haaaaaaapy in their sin.  It is hatred, in the end, to despise truth for the sake of protecting someone’s feelings.  And it is hatred to tacitly support the destruction of relationships by telling one side that she has no responsibility or moral accountability to her man.

We blog because the truth needs to get out. There is much error taught in the churches, and frequently the same error is taught in most if not all churches.  Dalrock linked to a comment that Elspeth said at LHV

Yes online, on Christian blogs, there is a lot of advice geared towards women. This is true. But in the larger culture, in the church at large, the general consensus is that whenever there is a problem in a marriage the man is deemed to be either at fault because of something he is ding wrong or NOT doing right. I see it all. the. time.

In a culture where feminism colors everything, does anyone truly doubt that this is true?

And women wonder why people in the church who are concerned about marriage are trying to restore a bit of sanity and balance by reminding women that we have responsibilities too.

But people. hate. this. They do not like the narrative that divorce happens to people who hate in and try to avoid it. They definitely do not like the idea that I am a solo dad (and the children are not with their mother). If that is not offensive enough, when we start talking about how mucked up the current dating/courting scene is… you are told to keep silent.

Yet I know too much of what goes on behind closed doors. Consequence of our job. We censor ourselves and avoid the truth if we pretend that we are holy. As CL notes

I’m not doing this for ego-gratification or fame or what have you. I write what I see as the truth; I look for what is true and that requires getting down in the mud sometimes to see what is beneficial there. I have always been a seeker of what is true and good and it is a lifetime’s work that continues; inevitably, mistakes are made along the way. Being judgemental toward those on the same path of truth-seeking is self-defeating. It seems that if someone admits to being a Christian, they must write PC stuff that will not offend anyone with delicate sensibilities, which means that Christians do not like being challenged and wish to remain self-satisfied with their often-feigned holiness, while they pretend that they do not think about the things others do.

You see, pretending we are plaster saints and that we do not regularly and horrifically fail is to speak a lie. We fall.

The difference is that those who have a true faith get up, set it right, and try again. Over and over. Somewhere in the process of your life, as C.S. Lewis pointed out many times, you become less selfish and more like both yourself and Christ.

But teaching otherwise, as LadySadie pointed out, hollows out the church.

All the brainwashing rubbish is taking a toll on christians (little “c”). Somewhere in the sands of time, amidst all the false teachings and the ever increasing influence of the mainstream media, we have all collectively forgotten that Christians used to be strong people who fought for What.Is.Good.And.Right… Punishments, judgements, praise, promises, wars, warnings, great joy, great sorrow, and even great anger are all marks of a passionate and capable people. Christians should be kind, truthful, strong willed and compassionate, but many who profess their faith, are only some Mr. and Ms. Nanny-pants weak and watered down version of “nice” instead. (Something about being ‘lukewarm’ sound familiar???)

The repression of a person’s true feelings is never effective for long, all that pent-up passion comes out in the form of nit-picking and bitchy/whiny comments, accusatory tone, and mock outrage. “Too little too late” may well be the case for many folks who have decided to become keyboard warriors, attacking others over philosophical differences in an attempt to bolster their self image when we should all “put away our childish things” (1 Cor. 13:11) and prepare for the inevitable difficulties ahead.

It is when we stand together for what is right, true, noble, of good report… that we stop nitpicking and find unity. Sure, we may be interviewing or keyboards at time. But I have seen Protestants pray for Orthodox among the network of aware Christians, and I am aware that Catholics are praying for my ill relatives. Our unity is in Christ, and our job is to seek and proclaim truth.

And blogging is, like the printing press, a means to get that truth out.

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.

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. v1.3.11 © Feedweb Research, 2012

ux·o·ri·ous  adj.

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. v1.3.11 © Feedweb Research, 2012

Norma Waterson’s cover of Richard Thompson “God loves a Drunk”. Only 72 views at youtube.

This needs to be corrected.

This evening Cam Slater continued his campaign for gay marriage of the grounds of equality and the ongoing difficulties within the church (on the right) and the current inmate of the White House has come out in favour of it…

This article was bout to my attention by the good people at NZ conservative. It is worth reading the entire thing… because it argues that my moving sexuality into marriage it desexualised the culture and allowed development. However the best bit is this.

Jews or Christians who take the Bible’s views on homosexuality seriously are not obligated to prove that they are not fundamentalists or literalists, let alone bigots (though, of course, people have used the Bible to defend bigotry). Rather, those who claim homosexuality is compatible with Judaism or Christianity bear the burden of proof to reconcile this view with their Bible. Given the unambiguous nature of the biblical attitude toward homosexuality, however, such a reconciliation is not possible. All that is possible is to declare: “I am aware that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and I consider the Bible wrong.” That would be an intellectually honest approach. But this approach leads to another problem. If one chooses which of the Bible’s moral injunctions to take seriously (and the Bible states its prohibition of homosexuality not only as a law, but as a value — “it is an abomination”), of what moral use is the Bible?

Advocates of the religious acceptance of homosexuality respond that while the Bible is morally advanced in some areas, it is morally regressive in others. Its condemnation of homosexuality is one example, and the Torah’s permitting slavery is another. Far from being immoral, however, the Torah’s prohibition of homosexuality was a major part of its liberation (1) of the human being from the bonds of unrestrained sexuality and (2) of women from being peripheral to men’s lives. As for slavery, while the Bible declares homosexuality wrong, it never declares slavery good.

It is very simple. The teaching is that homosexuality is wrong. So is oath-breaking, stealing, oppressing your neighbours, lusting after your neighbours wife, or adultery.

This does not mean that that people who enjoy this are no more worthless or worthy than our local politicians. Having met many politicians and having many colleagues who live with their same-sex partners, I prefer many of my Gay colleagues to the suits and liars who inhabit are parliament.

Nor that we should not accept people who are gay into our midst. We all sin.

But we should not pretend it is morally good. Sex should be within marriage: this is very hard for all singles… and our acceptance of this broadening (among heterosexuals) is a scandal. The problem is that we end up not shaming that, while concentrating on those men who (being generally intellectually honest) say that the Bible is not correct, and want to be left alone.

For the one place where I agree with Cam is that the institution of civil marriage for Gays will not damage the institution. Us heterosexuals, including those in the church, have done that ourselves, by tolerating something else God hates. Divorce.

UPDATE  Son one looked up the blog at school. His classmates are now asking him what it is like to live with a homophobe, as this site is homophobic.

Love it how people use words of abuse rather than deal with the issues we face around obedience. Which are, for many, painful.

Words? Meh.

This is from Dalrock, and it is Van Roonieck, who usually speaks sense. It is a classification of men, written by men, in the church — Van R used to belong to a mainstram US denomination, as far as I know, and is fairly reformed.

Not always. There ARE righteous Alphas. They are usually religious. And they use their Alpha traits (looks, charisma, status, whatever), to attract and marry the hottest girl in church….and they are off the market forever. The Alphas that are still on the market, past their mid 20s, are generally the evil ones. (Rarely, an Alpha can get to that age while still single, due to extended education; but he marries as soon as he gets his Ph.D. or M.D.)

Comparison chart:

Righteous Alpha: attracts women effortlessly, marries well, marries young, off the market.
Wicked Alpha: attracts women effortlessly, sleeps with lots of women when young; may marry and serially cheat later in life. May pretend to be a Righteous Alpha in order to get laid; targets Christian women with this game. When women — and pastors — bitterly and endlessly complain about the behavior of “men”, they are mostly talking about this subset of men only, though they don’t realize it. (Call this the “Mark Driscoll Fallacy”)
Righteous Beta: works his @$$ off trying to earn money and attract women, but is largely ignored until later in life. Does all the spiritual and character building inner work that Church and family tell him he needs to do, to get a woman, and is bitterly disappointed to find that it doesn’t work. Tends to marry in his 30s, and is often a virgin or relatively inexperienced til then. In church, he is likely to get blamed for the crimes of the Wicked Alphas. Also, he may be shamed for failing to “man up” and marry these good Christian girls, when in fact he’s been trying his damnedest and has been getting endlessly rejected. (Again, think “Mark Driscoll”)
Wicked Beta: gives up, turns to porn and/or prostitution when he realizes that he’ll need to work 60 hour weeks for the next decade before a woman will talk to him. May totally drop out of the career realm and live in mom’s basement, or may earn well and spend the money on himself.

Van Followed with what I think is an accurate comment…

Many pastors appear to be Righteous Alphas, who have no understanding whatsoever as to why it’s so difficult for the majority of young men in their churches to get married off. It was so easy for Pastor Alpha, that he almost can’t help but conclude that the single men under his pastoral care, just aren’t even trying.

My only comment to all of this is that those things that do attract a women (and seem hard wired) are not necessarily virtues. We should honour those who are faithful, not judge them because they have not “married up” or “cannot control their wives”. Because Van R is right. There is the dark side to both groups — for one exploitation, for the other despair.

Kirk this morning

This morning we were asked to consider if the gospel was merely the sinners prayer, the resurrection of Christ, or the preaching of liberty to the oppressed, or freeing the oppressed … or being blessed enough to have a holiday home and a boat.

(For those who are not Kiwi, that is the kiwi dream. A holiday home and a boat and you are made).

Now, Jonno was preaching, and he argues that it is not what we say but what we do. We should be proclaiming the gospel, but still be feeding the poor. We should help the unjust, but not cease from confronting injustice. And Christ Jesus crucified should still be proclaimed.

Which is why Grant Gillette needs our support. This was in an article written in support of a local left MP, Maryan Street, who wants a pro euthanasia bill:

A medical law and ethics specialist said New Zealand could benefit from clarifying a grey area around assisting suicide, euthanasia and the rights of patients, doctors and family members. End-of-life issues authority, Otago University bioethics centre Professor Grant Gillett, said the issue was not clear.

The terminally-ill were often unsure about the situation, and wanted to know their options but not go through with any.

“It’s a feeling of being socially isolated, a fear they are going to lose control and that the illness is going to take over, that is behind a request.”

He said instead of giving in to the desire for euthanasia, it might be better to create a more caring approach to treatment. There was a greater appreciation that doctors shouldn’t always pull out all the stops, and that because they could treat certain illnesses they sometimes had to show restraint.

“On the one hand that awareness is developing, and people are aware that issues at the end of life are not simple.

“But on the other, people find it difficult to articulate exactly why they don’t feel comfortable about doctors having the power to end people’s lives.”

I firmly believe Doctors have no place in killing people. Even when it is legal. I am against euthanasia. I am against Doctors being involved in the system of judicial execution. People need to know that we will do everything in our power to cure, to control and to comfort. Not suggest they swallow kool-aid flavoured poisons.

But those of faith are being told to shut up. We are not allowed to truly be the kingdom of God — because that means we will confront evil and danger. As Joel Kinsman said in an opinion piece in today’s paper.

As the spokesperson of a Catholic bioethics centre, there are some who discount my message because of my religious affiliation, rather than on the basis of its merits. It’s a classic case of “playing the man instead of the ball”. As two commentators noted in response to comments I recently made about the dangers of legalising euthanasia: “I am sick of the religious trying to force their narrow views on society.

“Dictate what you like to your own flock, stay the hell out of the affairs of people who want nothing to do with your beliefs.”

The point being made by these commentators is that religion should have nothing to do with the debate about euthanasia.

While I think Christians have as much right to express their views as any other New Zealander, I am, in all honesty, not interested in imposing my religious views on anyone. Actually, with respect to euthanasia, my own personal view is irrelevant.

But so, I would argue, is every other personal view. Whether or not people are personally in favour of, or opposed to euthanasia, is ultimately beside the point. To ask this question, as a recent Sunday Star-Times’ poll did, is to ask the wrong question. The crucial question is whether euthanasia can be safely implemented in the current context. Maryan Street, MP, glibly asserts that it can, while ignoring overseas evidence that says otherwise. I and many other New Zealanders of no religious persuasion believe differently. Our argument centres on safety and protection of those who are vulnerable. As another commentator puts it: “No-one’s trying to force their religion down your throat so take a deep breath, try and consider the argument in a rational manner.”

That the dangers of euthanasia are real is readily acknowledged by those wanting to legalise it. It explains why a lot of emphasis is placed on building in so-called safeguards. It has also been admitted by Maryan Street, in a public debate, that no amount of safeguards can stop the law being abused. So the argument about dangers cannot be dismissed as the rantings of “meddling god-botherers”.

In the same issue was this magazine cover

Now, you can pay the article (I won’t. I read the paper in a cafe. Over brunch). which is primarily the local skeptics and rationalists stating the usual memes… that the Church is dangerous, that its teachings are superstition, and that people believe because they are deluded, uneducated, superstitious…

… and that we should shut up. Which requires censorship, or a post modern cone of silence. And, the ability to ignore the unfortunate fact that many of the most clear eyed and tough minded commentators out there are people of faith.

We are here, and we will not be silent.