I’m thinking of something I quoted yesterday from Mundabor when it comes to this passage. He argues, correctly, that those who stand in the place of God — which is what a priest does in the Roman theology of the Eucharist — then they will have to say things that are unpopular.
And then we will be challenged. There is a double standard in place: those who are of God are held by the world, as are leaders, to a much higher standard than the rest of the world. Those in authority can be corrupt, but woe betide the pastor or Christian who is less than squeaky clean.
Which no one is, but Christ. And that did not help him: the locals ignored him because they only saw the child, not the man, not the Saviour.
53When Jesus had finished these parables, he left that place.
54He came to his home town and began to teach the people in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? 55Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?” 57And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house.” 58And he did not do many deeds of power there, because of their unbelief.
Now, what are the words that we need to hear? What are the parts of truth that this narrative does not tell us?
Firstly, we lie in the descriptions of ourselves and how we act… will not matter. We assume that the rules that used to work will continue to remain in place when we have fought a revolution against those rules. SSM is quite terse on this in the sexual marketplace: that in these times when women are faithless, being a cad is the rational place for men to be. And this has consequences. As she notes today.
Young women: assume that you get nothing in exchange for sex in the modern day. Nothing. Maybe it will turn into a relationship, maybe not, but don’t expect that it will…don’t even expect a phone call, let alone the possibility of a wedding ring down the road.
Before you lay down with him, you might want to ask yourself, “What is it that I really want?” And then be honest with yourself. Don’t listen to some silly feminist script that has been forced upon you. Using sex to snag a man worked for girls in my generation, but it’s not necessarily going to work in yours; men in my generation were still playing a little bit by the old rules in which they were expected to offer commitment in exchange for sex even if they got the sex before offering the commitment. This is no longer necessarily the case (nor should it be the case, in my opinion). Plan accordingly.
The ever useful Deti elaborated.
The idea that “sex-for-commitment” was replaced by “sex for sex” and “commitment for commitment” hasn’t been lost on most men. Works both ways, too. Men long ago figured out that offering, even providing, commitment is no guarantee of anything. Even commitment in the form of a years-long marriage doesn’t count for much with a lot of women, since that commitment can be easily discarded. And commitment certainly doesn’t mean a man will get a gratifying or even barely adequate sex life.
This worries me: I have a grand-daughter who is going to enter middle school in a few years in that Northern Feminist Utopia where traditionalists lose their kids. She will be taught the memes of this society: however they have taken, and the result is that many women and men are just not bothering with relationships of any kind, but with their cat and computer.
If you want to know why Christian women can’t find any Christian men to date, it’s because most of those Christian men aren’t attractive to you. And they aren’t attractive to you because they listen to people like Mark Driscoll, Dr. James Dobson, Dennis Rainey, and Glenn Stanton. These unfortunate men are hearing everyone around them say that their sexual desires are violent, predatory, criminal and evil. They are getting hammered every day with the message that they need to “Man Up and Marry the first slut who shows them any interest at all” and “single moms are heroes; single men are selfish jerks”. Their interests are decidedly secondary to those of Christian women, according to the Church. These men are essentially being told that their sole reason for existence is to provide themselves as boyfriends for church girls, husbands for Christian women; fathers for their children, and stepfathers for the thugspawn of “reformed sluts”.
No, all risk cannot be eliminated. But for men, the risks are enormous. If he selects the wrong woman, he’s consigning himself to frivorce or a miserable, sexless marriage. There isn’t a man over the age of 12 who hasn’t seen another man chewed up in the divorce meat grinder. And being Christian is no immunity from that, not with a 38% divorce rate among professing Christians and a 25% divorce rate among US Roman Catholics.
The college educated set wants to make real connections. But at least for men, many of them have undertaken the cost-benefit analysis and decided the costs and risks of failure far, far outstrip any possible benefit.
Single men need to test the women they are considering. They need to ensure that they will follow them in other fields, such as prayer, the church, finances. If they are single mothers (I am an old fart. Most women in my age group who are single are widowed or divorced: they have kids) you need to ensure that the children are sane. And you need to do this before you end up in bed with her. Because her brain will think, at some level, sex equals commitment.
The old ways were better, and we should be using them. Discernment, courting inside the church, make a decision, a short engagement (weeks not months) simple wedding, and lifelong marriage.
