After a series of depressing discussions of the text in 2 Peter and Jude, I find this, which summarizes the current state of play.
WHAT?? Men are not always to blame??
Uh, oh, Stanton’s newly updating view is not going to sit will with the Fireproof-Feminized-Neocon-Churchianity crowd. No, that’s not going to tickle their ears at all–and these are people with an ADDICTION to having their ears tickled–so much so, they must have their fix every Sunday from their local licensed hireling shepherd ear tickler.
Yeah. As if this world is going to acknowledge what we do, with a few clear-eyed exceptions.
And our churches are starting to fail. Apart from the faithful ones: when the Anabaptists are an example, you know that the general church is in ruins .
Indeed, amongst the community of conservative home educated women, I know plenty who are virtuous, submissive, hard working, attractive, and are Asian or white, and yet that’s still not enough. A few that come to mind are hitting 29, 30, 34. (They could marry a man they aren’t attracted to, but that’s literally the only option they’ve got on the marriage market.) Despite being extremely traditional, the conservative home educated community has no marriage marketplace worth noting; it just has a lot of frustrated single people.
I would estimate these women are a low divorce risk.
It’s not the women who are the problem, and it’s not the young men either. The men are making a valid decision that even a “low” divorce risk is still too high, and that the rewards are not significant enough. We have a market-clearing problem here: in essence, the transaction cost of marriage (with the cost being the cost of divorce times the probability of a divorce) is too high when compared to the benefit of marriage.
I think it’s worth looking at my community (plain Mennonite) which has a well functioning marriage marketplace. There are a few large cities (Toronto, New York City, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Tampa, FL) which are close enough to a viable Anabaptist community to accommodate a lifestyle besides the agrarian lifestyle stereotype; I certainly don’t live one, although I could if I wanted to.
Whilst I strongly believe in what we believe, it still baffles me that our theological distinctives have left us the only traditional culture with functional marriage left standing. Why can’t anyone else copy what we do?
The Anabaptists have their own community and shun those who break the laws. The secular law is kept at hand’s breadth. They have used a functional ghetto (and a lack of Churchian pandering to what we desire, instead preaching what we need) to stay outside the culture of this age. The main church has stopped trying to influence the world and instead lets the world influence it.
But that strategy has never worked.
Speaking mostly or only Plattdeutsch and avoiding English has also helped isolate the Anabaptizers.
Those of us who aren’t a linguistic minority don’t have the ability to replicate those conditions readily.
Good point, Will: there is a certain tribal nature to the old order Mennonites (Amish) that means that leaving them involves leaving your volk.
And most churches had a bit of that within them: because the church is the instrument of Christ and the way to salvation (and to quote the Church fathers — if you are not in a Church you are not of Christ) excommunication and shunning had effect. But when you turn the gospel into a watered down buddhist narrative and have no church discipline then the memes of the world trump the teaching of the church.
And this world calls marriage a sexual union, for pleasure, that is fungible. The church calls it holy, righteous, and for the raising of Godly children: a holy work, a worthwhile vocation. The church is more realistic: for within marriage and raising a family there are many tears and multiple frustrations.
But in steadfastness and fidelity to your word you will reap joy. The joy you see in the Godly long married, and the joy I lost when my marriage imploded.