Last night I read an essay by Dalrock over at the Orthosphere. This is a very good article, and the conversation that followed (which is quite long) was serious, and well worth perusal. Dalrock summarizes the current situation thusly.

I believe Alan and I are not that far apart in acknowledging that there are limits as to how much a man can mitigate our society’s decision to destroy traditional marriage (for that is precisely what our society has decided to do). I also believe we are in agreement that:

• As a result of overwhelming feminist success in redefining marriage, there are serious obstacles and risks involved with trying to reshape modern marriage into something which even somewhat resembles traditional marriage.
• Traditional marriage is so important, and something of such profound benefit both for the family it creates and for society at large that it is worth taking great risks and making great sacrifices in order to achieve something which approaches traditional marriage.
• For a moral minded man, opting not to marry means opting never to have sex or children; electing not to marry comes at an extremely high price.
• A marriage strike, or a boycott of marriage is not a wise path.

On the topic of a strike or boycott, I should clarify that I’m referring to the idea of collectively forgoing something of value in an effort to force a change to the social order. A strike or boycott is at best a noble collective temper tantrum; it is an attempt to collectively spite something desired as a form of protest. A man who engaged in a marriage strike or boycott would be deciding that while he would prefer marriage to remaining unmarried, he will go against his own best interests in an attempt to reform society as a whole. This is something entirely different than a man who wishes to have a traditional marriage* but decides not to accept a shored up form of modern marriage as a good enough substitute. This kind of decision by men is where I believe Alan and I disagree.

Now, I have said, many times that holy celibacy is a calling, and some people are fitted for it. And I have said, again multiple times, that the reformed creed enjoins those divorced to be as widows, for the covenant is been made dead, and the ex spouse should be treated as if dead. (The reformers believe divorce should be legal, shameful, and rare).

This affects one who, like me, is divorced. For you do not fulfill at least one of the requirements for the diaconate (open to men and women) or the presbyrate (the word is variously translated as bishop, elder, or presbyter) — you have to be married but once and you must show that your wife and children (children for the girls) are well managed and submissive. For if you cannot manage your self well (and not be a drunk, over bearing , and proud) or your family and household well, you should not be asked to take on the bigger burdern but instead the elders should be helping you change.

1 Timothy 3:1-16

¹The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. ²Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, ³not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. ⁴He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way – ⁵for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? ⁶He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.

⁸Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money; ⁹they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. ¹⁰And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. ¹¹Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things. ¹²Let deacons be married only once, and let them manage their children and their households well; ¹³for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

¹⁴I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, ¹⁵if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. ¹⁶Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

The family, and management of the family, is indeed the business of the church. For the eldership and the deacons should come from those who have shown that they can raise children in a Godly way. As a father of teenage boys (Yes, that is a very old photo) it is my prayer that the lads will continue in the faith they are raised after they leave my household.

But I’m divorced, and that disqualifies me for leadership. That’s just a fact. I have sinned (get your mind out of the gutter. I was faithful, but when a marriage implodes, there is enough blame to go around,and you are responsible for the actions and inactions you did that led to the death of that which should not do so), but it was in another town… and I have to live with the consequences of this.

That’s OK. Because if we don;t have the rules, we let the silly, the fashionable, and the stupid into leadership.

Unfortunately for my Anglican friends, the US Anglican church seems to choose idiots for their presbyrate, as shown here.

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has denounced the Apostle Paul as mean-spirited and bigoted for having released a slave girl from demonic bondage as reported in Acts 16:16-34 .

In her sermon delivered at All Saints Church in Curaçao in the diocese of Venezuela, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori condemned those who did not share her views as enemies of the Holy Spirit.

The presiding bishop opened her remarks with an observation on the Dutch slave past. “The history of this place tells some tragic stories about the inability of some to see the beauty in other skin colors or the treasure of cultures they didn’t value or understand,” she said.

She continued stating: “Human beings have a long history of discounting and devaluing difference, finding it offensive or even evil. That kind of blindness is what leads to oppression, slavery, and often, war. Yet there remains a holier impulse in human life toward freedom, dignity, and the full flourishing of those who have been kept apart or on the margins of human communities.”

Just as the forces of historical inevitability led to the ending of industrial slavery, so too would the march of progress lead to a change in attitude towards homosexuality, she argued.

“We live with the continuing tension between holier impulses that encourage us to see the image of God in all human beings and the reality that some of us choose not to see that glimpse of the divine, and instead use other people as means to an end. We’re seeing something similar right now in the changing attitudes and laws about same-sex relationships, as many people come to recognize that different is not the same thing as wrong. For many people, it can be difficult to see God at work in the world around us, particularly if God is doing something unexpected.”

To illustrate her point presiding bishop turned to the book of Acts, noting “There are some remarkable examples of that kind of blindness in the readings we heard this morning, and slavery is wrapped up in a lot of it. Paul is annoyed at the slave girl who keeps pursuing him, telling the world that he and his companions are slaves of God. She is quite right. She’s telling the same truth Paul and others claim for themselves,” Bishop Jefferts Schori said, referencing the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.

“But Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness. Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it. It gets him thrown in prison. That’s pretty much where he’s put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she, too, shares in God’s nature, just as much as he does – maybe more so!,” the presiding bishop said.

Ms Schori is at least a fool. I doubt if she is submissive to her husband.

And she misses the point. A righteous man freed a woman from demonic possession. This is a good thing. To say that being possessed by a minion of the evil one is a good thing is like saying that sitting shut in your house by psychosis is good. It shows, if nothing else, a failure of imagination: you cannot see yourself in that position.

In the church, we need to appoint those tested into these roles. We demonstrate our fitness for them in how re raise our children. Not in being fashionable. And by teaching truth, not in parroting talking points.