I’ve decided to adopt the acronym which is this post’s title and use it in the future, both in posts and comments. I’m not sure if it is original or not; it wouldn’t surprise me if someone else thought it up before me.
Oh, as for what MCJDGI means? Simple enough:
Most Christians Just Don’t Get It
I chose that particular acronym because it was more civil and polite than some of the others I thought up. It doesn’t really roll off the tongue though, and I may choose another one if I can think up something that sounds better. But enough of that.
The reason for this post is founded in the simple enough notion that Most Christians Just Don’t Get It. They (most Christians) have no clue what is going on in the world around them, and make a mess of things when they try and solve various problems, either in the church or general society. I suppose I could say Churchians, instead of Christians, but I think even most actual Christians don’t get a lot. An excellent example of how MCJDGI can be found in the issue of pornography. While they understand it is a problem, their proposed solutions, and their understanding of why it is a problem, are sorely lacking.
Case in point: this article which Lori Alexander posted on her blog. Read it before continuing.
Now, set aside the obvious theological errors contained therein. [Of course there is a link between bad theology and the other errors, but ignore that for the moment.]
Set aside the unnecessary male bashing and the misunderstanding of the present marriage market (which are pretty much case in point with most Christians these days).
Focusing only on pornography, we can see from that small article that this Michael fellow Just Doesn’t Get It. He fails to grasp a simple enough truth:
Rampant pornography usage is a SYMPTOM.
That is right, a SYMPTOM. A sign of another, greater problem. Or several of them, as case may be.
Here is the thing: boys and young men have been looking at naughty pictures of various stripes for thousands of years. This is nothing new. The ease of access, and the life-like nature of it might be new, but the drive to access it is not new at all.
And offsetting all of that was the easy access in the past to prostitution. I don’t think we in the West understand just how ubiquitous prostitution used to be. Boys and young men didn’t have to settle for pornography in the past- they could get the real thing at a local brothel for fairly cheap. Let’s face it- most men have always needed an outlet for their sex drive. That is just the way we are wired. Teaching young men discipline and restrain can help a lot, but its not a permanent solution for most. Young marriage was the solution that the early Church taught, so as to help young men avoid the sin of fornication; too bad most Christians these days don’t encourage it (or even actively oppose it).
Of course, that only explains part of it. There is another cause at play here, another source of this particular symptom. And it happens to be the real problem. That problem that Michael Pearl doesn’t identify? A lack of strong fathers in the lives of young men.
When you get down to it, most of the deviancy or immoral behavior that he describes can be attributed to the absence of strong fathers in most Christian families. Sometimes this is because mom has kicked dad out (and brought in dad #2 or #3 or whatever). Other times the actual father might be present. But he is anything but strong. In most instances he is weak willed and incapable of exerting the kind of presence and influence over his son that is necessary to help the son build up true discipline. Most young Christian men have no masculine role models in their lives, and it shows. Without strong fathers to guide them, we should expect that many, if not most, young Christian men are going to go astray somehow.
Unfortunately, MCJDGI. They cannot see how this particular issue- the crisis of Christian fatherhood, is at the root of most ills in the church. And as long as they are blind to it (whether willfully or by ignorance), things are only going to get worse.
Donal Graeme 
Pingback: MCJDGI | Manosphere.com
MCJDGI. They cannot see how this particular issue – the crisis of Christian fatherhood, is at the root of most ills in the church.
I think this crisis fo Christian fatherhood is also merely a symptom. MCJDGI will just be used by everyone to support their own theology, and it won’t mean anything.
How would I use the term? For people who haven’t read and imbibed the book The Garbage Generation.
Man I’m torn.
On the one hand I very much agree that MCJDGI, for almost any value of “It.” In my church I’m responsible for teaching, and I devote a fair amount of energy to stripping away platitudes and getting down to meat and root causes. Yes, I do think I have a better grasp of most things than most people.
But the realization of widespread ignorance should spur us to teach, rather than to self-isolate. I know you don’t intend that, but that’s the connotation of MCJDGI I think.
On the other hand, I think this is a nuanced issue and I would shamelessly recommend my post The Hot Tub And The Board Game.
And on the (what are we up to now? fifth?) hand, to address the issue at a more pertinent level, yeah, you’re right (though let none excuse sin because of it!).
Add to that difficulty that many priests within the Catholic Church are of questionable masculinity (of course, NAPALT.) When it’s time for communion at every Mass, Father is surrounded by little old ladies who dutifully sanitize their hands (I’ve met people who think that’s part of the Mass itself) before helping him distribute the host. I’m not as familiar with Protestant culture, but the impression I get from our separated brethren in the manosphere is that many pastors are white knights who portray themselves as the most alpha in the room every Sunday. The lack of strong male headship in the home and in the church reinforce each other. I do what I can in my parish but MCJDGI. They weren’t raised with the conceptual framework to get it.
BL, The lack of strong male headship in the home and in the church reinforce each other.
Many high-breeding Catholic cultures have matriarchial backgrounds (Irish, Hispanic, Italian). By this I don’t mean the women are feminist (often the opposite), but the family centers around the mother, not the father, and fathers are often weak. Many of these cultures even use the mother’s name in addition to the fathers. The male Catholic priest fills a “father figure” role within the matriarchal structure, providing stability, authority, and containing bad female behavior. The cultures that infuse some patriarchy (Irish with English influence, Italian with German) do all right here as well.
A priest over for dinner once was looking for project money and made his sales pitch to the (puzzled) wife rather than husband sitting nearby. The Italian priest had no reference to a male-run household so was confused why the normally strong wife just sat, puzzled, often glancing at her husband. The priest never caught on, and the convo stalled.
Patriarchy done right always outbreeds matriarchal versions due to resources and war. But in the West many patriarchial cultures went protestant/agnostic (same thing over time) and started to reject kids/family. The remaining (matriarchial) Catholics filled this population gap with big families. It is from this population linage many Western priests source from. And thus the lack of patriachal support from many (not all) priests.
Related: our priest didn’t touch on Mother’s Day at all today. I about cheered. Change is in the wind, methinks.
@ mdavid
Related: our priest didn’t touch on Mother’s Day at all today. I about cheered. Change is in the wind, methinks.
I visited a Byzantine church today, and the Priest there didn’t talk about Mother’s Day either. Or at least, didn’t teach on it. After people started getting up to leave (or actually, to go to the building next door for cake and whatever other sweets they had brought), he joked that he would wish the mothers a happy Mother’s Day, but it seems half of them are already out the door, then he laughed (he has a sense of humor, as I found out when talking with him a bit after).
Most christians are marxists in comfortable shoes.
FBNF, I visited a Byzantine church today
Chrysostom? Iconostasis and infant eucharist rocks.
AO, Most christians are marxists in comfortable shoes
The order is backwards; most Marxists are agnostics from Christian linage.
This probably goes here:
http://westernphilosophyeasternfaith.blogspot.com/2015/05/when-culture-you-reside-in-is-bankrupt.html
Scott, interesting and entertaining link. Thanks for posting it.
It is the same reason I believe the trend of increasing size for the traditionalist Catholic groups (like SSPX, etc) will conitinue
Nah. They may wax for a time but will eventually wane, mired in the disunity from which they were born. Flavor of the month. 2,000 years of data here prove this out.
The RCC continues to lose members while trad groups are growing.
See above. The RCC is so diverse culturally it will continue to grow over time. History shows this. Case in point: EO made up over 1/2 of Christiandom before they split. Today, EO is less than 1/5 and falling. A penchant for division (within a family or a Church) kills over time.
Slava celebrtation we had in our home yesteday is 1300 years old. My children will grow up with it, and willl never know anything different.
Very confident for somebody who’s own extended family has clearly failed in the past. In addition, cultures that originate Slava do poor demographically, both within their culture of orign and evangilization. The likely end is either a) agnosticism or b) lack of enough children to prevent extinction. It should be assumed, based upon the data, that the entire West (and EO with it if the 1,000 year trends continue) will vanish in the next 1,000 years . Pride and division, as always, goes before the fall.
Very confident for somebody who’s own extended family has clearly failed in the past.
I’m not sure about that. Without even trying, my father ultimately produced 6 Orthodox offspring (if you include my wife who converted). Imagine if he actually pushed the issue beyond chrismation.
Our little parish has doubled in size in 6 months. On any given Sunday around half of them are < 9 years old. That is a Serbian Orthodox parish in central Texas–the heartland of protestant Bible belt churches.
I, of course have faith this is the hand of God himself in action. I hope you are wrong.
With respect to the OP, there are occational times when the mainstream “conservatives” come in brief contact with the problem as identified (MCJDGI). I know it is tempting sometimes to say these encounters are by people who are not sufficiently “red-pill” but I think they should be encouraged nevertheless.
http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2015/05/11/boys-without-dads-a-cruel-and-volatile-calculus-n1997090
@ mdavid
Agree and disagree. I think you are right that the crisis of fatherhood is a symptom, but it is one of the first order- only a single step removed from the real issue. As for supporting their own theology, people don’t need an excuse like MCJDGI for that.
@ dropit
I agree that we need to teach. This post was meant as a reminder of the importance of proper teaching.
@ Beefy
Agree 100%. Hard to find masculine priests these days. I’ve enjoyed the Eastern Churches I attend in part because the men are more masculine, or at least, less feminized.
@ FBNF
I heard a little bit about mother’s day, but not as part of the homily.
@ Scott
That article you linked to is further support of my central argument. He comes close, but he Just Doesn’t Get It. Realizing that fatherhood is a problem is close, but close only works with horseshoes and hand grenades.
As a few of your recent posts point out, we have to go deeper to actually fix anything.
Also, Re: Orthodoxy and Catholicism- both have strengths and weaknesses in the present environment. Orthodoxy seems more resistant to change, but that can be a negative as much as a positive, in so far as damage that has already occurred will be harder to fix.
If you are using MCJDGI to push a Scriptural point, you are using it improperly. Read the post, and it is clear that it should be used when Christians are not asking, “Why?” “Why have men retreated to pornography and hobbys?” “Why are men leaving the Church?” “Why are men refusing to marry?”
“Because men suck,” is not the answer, and MCJDGI.
As far as the Orthodox and Catholic schism, who left who? By their fruits you shall know them, so which Church has a history of spinning off schismatics?
The Shadowed Knight
The order is backwards; most Marxists are agnostics from Christian linage.
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
AO, no problem.
TSK, who left who?…which Church has a history spinning off schismatics?
Who left who? Cannot be defined. Re: fruits, after 1,000 yrs (according to Pew) RC (50%) has more heretics (38%) than all remaining EO (12%).
DG, only a single step removed from the real issue
Don’t hold me in suspense!
Realizing that fatherhood is a problem is close, but close only works with horseshoes and hand grenades
Trust me, I get the depth of the problem. The evidence of how you can’t “unlearn” the red pill showed while I was reading it and came accross Blackwells statement that the “best social program” is marriage.
I immediately thought “what do you mean by ‘marriage?'”
Interesting article on the new PEW research data here regarding some fairly sharp declines in Christian affiliation in the United States in recent years: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/12/christianity-faces-sharp-decline-as-americans-are-becoming-even-less-affiliated-with-religion/?tid=pm_pop_b
Catholicism seems to be getting particularly hard hit, losing 13% of cradle Catholics while only replenishing with 2% of new converts during the same period, together with the mainline denominations, the decline of which has been well documented.
Nova, the entire West, no matter what religion, is toast. Culture, not religion, rules. In fact, EO is fading because they are European and don’t evagelize much. But the EO and RC and prot African missions? Doing great. Thought experiment: imagine if RC was not universal and mostly in Italy? Dodo time.
This applies to the OP. Western Christians Don’t Get It in regards to male and female, family and children. Is the root Materialism? Sex? Wealth? Women voting? Wearing pants? Media? And that’s the whole problem with MCJDGI. What the hell is “it”? So far, the only Western groups I’ve seen who can make things work at the community level are Amish and Mormons. And for how long? Modernism is relentless.
Novaseeker-
And yet every one of those groups continues to double down on what amount to parlor tricks intended to increase “relevance.”
Maybe they should try something else.
Yes, the church grows in Africa, but that place, too, will experience modernity, just on a time delay. If modernity is the issue, modernity is surely coming there as well, eventually, and with the same results. I think placing the hope for the future church on Africa, which currently is not “modern” for various reasons (most of them having to do with how dreadfully poor it is) is rather misplaced — because modernity will eventually come there, too, as economic prosperity does, and with it the same ideas that have accompanied modernity and prosperity everywhere else. Even “modestly prosperous” areas like some parts of the Middle East (e.g., Iran) are experiencing a fertility crunch — something which certainly accompanies a more “moderate” embrace of religion, despite how Iran “looks” on the surface. Prosperity leads to most people wanting fewer rules for themselves and fewer children as well — which generally means less religion overall.
The future in general will not be religious in the sense of the contemporary “axial age” based religions. Just something we all need to accept, I think, as reality in the context of a world which becomes more prosperous over time in a more even way.
And yet every one of those groups continues to double down on what amount to parlor tricks intended to increase “relevance.”
Maybe they should try something else.
True — it’s not clear what does work, however.
I mean it’s true that the more “hardcore”, less “relevant” churches do attract a certain type of person who is turned off by the klieg lights spectacle of much of evangelical Christianity. But the number they do attract is, in the grand scheme of things, still quite small. It attracts a certain kind of seeker, but that’s it.
The “bog standard average person” is the problem — they don’t want rules, they want to make up their own rules. They don’t want a church telling them what to think about moral choices of themselves and others, or what they should be doing with their lives — they don’t want any of that. They want to determine all of that themselves, and if they want a “spiritual experience”, they will sit cross-legged and burn an incense stick following some “how to” they read on a wiki somewhere online, rather than sit in a pew next to someone they think is against gay marriage. Just how they are. I don’t think these people can be reasonably reached — they are too far gone, and accepting real faith would require so much of them that they do not want to give up under the rubric of personal freedom that they simply will not do it.
Even someone like Rachel Held Evans, who still wants to participate, can’t stomach the idea of being in a church which is not “inclusive” (i.e., endorsing homosexuality), because this conflicts with her convictions, regardless of what the teaching of the church has been over time. It’s the same bug, just to a different degree. Once you embrace the values of personal self determination as a kind of prime directive, religion holds very little appeal, and someone like Held Evans is really there because she has spent so much time with religion already that she doesn’t want to completely divest of it — which would be the more intellectually honest thing for her to do, given her convictions.
I had to look up “bog standard.”
I like it.
Yes, the church grows in Africa, but that place, too, will experience modernity, just on a time delay.
Possibly not. South Africans ran away. Do not place your faith in modernity; it has proven itself to be defunct demographically and feeds its population on patriarchal immigration. Even the Irish dominance of the English is living proof of this. Something else will rule. Not modern liberals unless they figure out how to breed. Evolution and genetics are living proof that something will turn up to fill the population gap. But it won’t be liberals who don’t breed.
This is why looking at cultures who have dealt with modernity somewhat successfully are worth a look; Mormons and Amish. And I wouldn’t dismiss RC here either. They are the only main religion with all male headship, BC as doctrine, and who have tried to face modernity head on (VII and HV). For results, we will need to check back in 100-200 years. Remember, it only takes one or two cultures worldwideto pull off an Irish-style demographic juggernaut.
It seems likely to be more widespread, not only the Christian people who just don’t get it.
I like the clarification that it’s a symptom. Nice to see people asking: “Why?” and “What?”
I think the trick here may be to treat prostitution and pornography as competition. Hence their popularity can be a gauge to the quality of marriages in existence.
Pingback: Fun Stuff « Calculated Bravery
Pingback: Some Get It | Donal Graeme