The Blind Spot

My recent post Something Else led to some excellent comments by my readers. Two subjects were raised there that I think should be readdressed in a separate post- this one.

The first is the role of the Church in all of this. Deti left a comment on the subject, and here is part of it:

Zippy Catholic addressed this a while back, saying that “The Church is not your daddy”. The Church’s only job is to administer the Sacraments to the faithful and provide for education and training up in the faith. That’s it. It’s not to help socialize men, provide vocations for them, or help them find wives. So I think you’ll have to convince the Zippys of the world that the church should take up the banner of providing outlets to channel what is essentially untapped and unreleased sexual energy. You have to convince folks like Zippy that helping guys do things other than get laid is something the church should and must do.

He then linked to Zippy’s post on the subject. I would like to make a couple of points here.

First, when I speak of the Church I don’t mean only ordained clergy and the official hierarchy of the Church. I mean the whole body of Christ. Yes, I think the clergy has a role to play in all of this, but they shouldn’t have to shoulder the burden alone.

Second, the Church has historically done more than just administer sacraments and teach/train. From the beginning the Church was helping to take care of its members. The first deacons, Stephen the First Martyr among them, were ordained in order for them to help minister to the needs of the faithful. St. Paul was very active in helping ensure charitable relief. At the same time there is quite a difference between providing food to someone on one hand, and ensuring a vocation on the other.

This brings me to the second comment I want to cover, by feeriker:

This is a blind spot that the Body of Christ on Earth is never going to even acknowledge, let alone address. To do so would lead it to some very unpleasant places and demand some serious introspection, which in turn would lead to an obvious call to re-evaluate doctrine and practice in a variety of areas. Not gonna happen, or if it finally ever does when all [e]lse fails, it will be too little too late.

I disagree with feeriker here on a couple of points.

First, while the Church might not be acknowledging it now, it did in the past. Many of the Fathers of the Church argued against the criminalization of prostitution. While they called it out for the sin that it was, they recognized at the same time the problem of untapped male sexual energy. They knew the problems that would result if men didn’t have an outlet. Hence why prostitution was legal in so many Christian nations (until Progressivism had its way).

Second, the problem right now is not doctrine (at least for Catholic and Orthodox Christians). Rather, the problem is practice. What should be taught is not taught, and what should be encouraged is not encouraged, and what should be exhorted is not exhorted.

Now, I agree with feeriker that some serious introspection is required. And sadly, I agree with him that when it does happen, it will be mostly in the too little, too late scenario. Which I would argue is today.

Now, to try and put this all together…

It is not the responsibility of Church leadership to ensure that everyone is able to fulfill their vocation. Priests aren’t matchmakers (and neither are Deacons or Bishops). That is not only impossible to guarantee, but also outside its sphere of responsibility. Instead of being charged with ensuring “fair outcomes”, the Church hierarchy and clergy is charged with teaching and exhorting those things which are necessary to give everyone a fighting chance. Some examples:

• Teach and exhort the importance of young marriage
• Teach and exhort the importance of parents and family helping their children/relatives marry
• Teach and exhort an anti-materialist/consumerist mindset
• Teach and exhort parishioners that helping their brothers and sister in Christ to marry is charitable

The laity isn’t responsible for fair outcomes either. However, they are responsible for teaching their children these things as well. In addition, while not a duty to specifically help their fellow Christians marry, it is charitable to help them find their vocation, and thus the right thing to do. This can and should go beyond helping individual Christians to include group and community actions as well.

I should note that plenty of Churches have various ministries which help those in need. There is no reason why lay members of the Church cannot help minister in this area as well. Perhaps not directly as a matchmaker, but in other, more indirect ways. And of course, even if there are matchmakers, they will be limited by the pool of those seeking marriage. So other avenues need to be available. Reader MK mentioned lay orders, and I think that is one path that has a lot of merit.

In summary, there is a lot that can and should be done in this regard. Clergy and laity all have a role to play. Everyone can contribute. But such contributions aren’t taking place and that is a tragedy which will continue to harm many faithful men for a long time to come.

 

Something Else

Today’s post is a Masculine Monday post. Male commenters only, please. Also, somewhat stream of consciousness as well.

Rollo has a new post up titled “The Something Else.”

If you want to sum up Rollo’s post, it would be in this simple phrase:

If it wasn’t X-Box it would be something else.

The reality of male/female relations these days is driving more and more men to seek out “something else” to occupy their life.

For some it is escapism- merely an attempt to drone out the overwhelming meaninglessness they feel marks their lives.Whether it is porn or video games or something else, they want to blur out reality. There is no drive for something more, something greater. Merely something to distract.

For others it is a genuine desire to find something of meaning and value. To obtain a purpose for life. Some Red Pill sites call this “your mission.” As a Catholic, I recognize that the word they are searching for is vocation. These men are looking for a calling that they can hold fast to and make their own.

Unfortunately, for many the vocation that most will be called to, marriage, seems mostly out of grasp. And for most probably will be (if they are smart, anyways). The problem, from the Church’s perspective, is that there is nothing in place to really help men who find themselves so frustrated. They will instinctively search of that “something” to replace their vocation, but how much is really there for them? Just among Catholics many will not be called to be priests, or monks (in the traditional sense).

It seems to me that the Church needs to adapt to the change in the Marriage Marketplace. There needs to be something for all the young men who will not be able to marry in the years ahead. And probably something as well for the men who find themselves divorced. I’m talking more than some support group. Rather, something more akin to a community, a brotherhood. Something that provides support and doesn’t leave all these men discrete individuals adrift in the modern world.

I suppose some sort of urban monastery might be in order. Not a place for contemplatives, but a communal home where everyone is a “roomie” and can uplift and support his fellow men. I invite my readers to offer their thoughts on the matter. All the same, I am sure that something is needed to help devout men find that something. Many men are drifting away from the faith, and given the cold shoulder the Church is basically giving them these days, it is hard to blame them. Furthermore, creating a place for men without a home might help secular men who are also adrift in the same ocean.

Men are looking for something else, and the Church needs to help them find it.

 

An Unsettling Evaluation- Part 2

I want to thank my readers for their response in my post An Unsettling Evaluation. In my first post, I mentioned that I would create a post for my female readers, or those who knew women who might benefit. That is what this post is for. Here are the questions again, slightly tweaked:

• As a woman, should you care if a man is settling for you, assuming that he has been chaste?
• Does it even make a difference that he has been chaste?
• How do you find out or realize this is happening?
• What should you consider if you find yourself in this scenario?

I invite my readers to try and answer them to the best of their abilities. At the same time, I would like to keep the conversation focused on this particular topic.

One thing to note- I didn’t really clarify “Chaste” in my first post. Might be worth exploring a bit in this post and revisiting in that post. After all, virgin doesn’t necessarily mean chaste, which is as much of the heart as anything. This is especially topical when you have things like pornography, which can have a significant impact on a married couple’s sex life.

Selected Sunday Scriptures-#119

I want to begin today’s post with these words by St. Paul:

²³ “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. ²⁴ Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. ²⁵ Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. ²⁶ For “the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” ²⁷ If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. ²⁸ (But if some one says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience’ sake— ²⁹ I mean his conscience, not yours—do not eat it.) For why should my liberty be determined by another man’s scruples? ³⁰ If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

³¹ So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. ³² Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, ³³ just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

(1 Cor 10:23-31)

These words seem especially topical as of late. Just because I can do something, or say something, doesn’t mean I necessarily should. Beforehand I need to examine whether or not my actions serve to glorify God.

A similar statement from St. Paul can also be found in his Letter to the Romans:

¹³ Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. ¹⁴ I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean. ¹⁵ If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. ¹⁶ So do not let what is good to you be spoken of as evil. ¹⁷ For the kingdom of God does not mean food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit; ¹⁸ he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. ¹⁹ Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. ²⁰ Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats; ²¹ it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble. ²² The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God; happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves. ²³ But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

(Romans 14:13-23)

Here we can see that what glorifies God is that which builds up our fellow brothers and sisters in the faith. We all stumble, we all fall. That is our nature. But all the same we shouldn’t encourage it in others, on the contrary we should do what we can to help them avoid those falls. Sadly, all of this is often easier said than done.

What I think is required is a conscious effort to always be aware of what we are doing, and to always ask what the consequences of our actions will/might be. We can’t simply auto-pilot through life. Nor can we take short-cuts or “the easy way out” by doing things in a hurry- so we can claim we didn’t have time to reflect. I suspect we always are given enough time by God to make the right decision. The real issues is whether we have the desire to do the right thing. Of course, that sort of is the crux of our faith journey, isn’t it?

Saturday Saints- #118

The letter K returns, and gives us today’s saint. That saint? Saint Kessog:

Saint Kessog was an Irish missionary of the mid-sixth century active in the Lennox area and southern Perthshire. Son of the king of Cashel in Ireland, Kessog is said to have worked miracles, even as a child. He left Ireland and became a missionary bishop in Scotland. Using Monks’ Island in Loch Lomond as his headquarters, he evangelized the surrounding area until he was martyred, supposedly at Bandry, where a heap of stones was known as St Kessog’s Cairn. Kessog was killed in 520 AD.

The St McKessog’s church in Luss on the banks of Loch Lomond is named after Kessog and the church contains an effigy of the saint. Kessog is claimed to have brought Christianity to the area around Luss in 510 AD and 1500 years of continuous Christian presence in the area was celebrated in 2010.

A bit more can be found out about him at his wiki, located here.

An Unsettling Evaluation

In the past couple of days I have been carrying on a discussion with a reader of mine about my “The Way We Met” series. The principal topic has been the question of “settling.” It was prompted by his observation that a number of the more traditional minded Catholic unmarried Catholic women are in their late 20s and early 30s. [The how and why of that is not the topic of this post.] From his perspective they at least seemed outwardly chaste.

What he was curious about was the effect of their settling versus a woman with a long and/or troubled “history.” Here are some questions he asked:

• As a man, should you care if a woman is settling for you, assuming that she has been chaste?
• Does it even make a difference that she has been chaste?
• How do you find out or realize this is happening?
• What should you consider if you find yourself in this scenario?

Those are his questions, slightly rephrased. And good questions they are, too. I invite my readers to try and answer them to the best of their abilities. At the same time, I would like to keep the conversation focused on this particular topic.

[Note: In a couple of days I intend to create a post in reverse of this- advice for women about men settling. Mayhaps it might be useful for some of my female readers, or women they know.]

Believing Is Not Seeing

Human beings make assumptions all the time. We do it every day, often without realizing it. Sometimes those assumptions are minor, and sometimes they are significant.

Many times assumptions can be very helpful in our daily life. On occasion they can even save our life.

The problem comes when we let this behavior get out of hand. This can happen a number of way. One possibility is if we always assume the best of people, or we always assume the worst of people. Another is where we make an initial assumption, and it isn’t necessary. Not everything is life or death, and not everything demands we fill in gaps with probabilities or statistical likelihoods.  This can be compounded further when we fail to follow up and clear up assumptions by doing some actual investigating. Acting in haste can also make it even worse.

That is what I let happen in my post The Way We Met. I started with something simple- the notion that George became more attractive, and that is why the woman had changed her perception of him. But I didn’t stop there. I started to make more and more assumptions. And then let those play out, such that I started to feel sympathy for George.

And then I acted in haste. Rather than lay out what the different possibilities were- ranging from George being taken advantage of by an unscrupulous woman, to him being blinded by an old crush and missing the red flags, to him making a reasoned decision that she would be a good choice for him, to him taking advantage of her– I simply went with what was most likely. [That last bit didn’t even occur to me until this post. I would call it unlikely, but I never considered it before now- a significant error.] I expressed sympathy without any real thought of whether it was deserved (or was even directed towards the right person).

Fortunately some of my readers pointed out where I had gone wrong, both in the comments and via other channels. That gave me a chance to realize where I had gone astray. And a chance to try and correct myself. I want to thank them for that.

Now, I still think I was close to the mark in my estimation of the situation (and I must say that I disagree with some of my readers about their estimations). But my analysis was incomplete, and therefore, fundamentally flawed. Flawed on a moral level (I included photos, after all), but also on an analytical level- there was a lot of valuable insight to be made by fully examining the situation. Hopefully my next post (coming soon) will benefit from that.

I am only human. That means I will make mistakes. And I will err. I would like to think that my ego is not so large that I cannot accept it when someone points out that I am wrong. So if you, my readers, feel that I am way off, let me know. Post a comment, or contact me via e-mail and let me know. We may end up still disagreeing, but I won’t brush off a respectful pointer to where I might have gone astray.

In Defense Of George

In my recent posts The Way We Met and None The Wiser I was accused of being uncharitable towards George and the young woman he had been infatuated with for a long time. Looking back, I can see that this was true. Pretty much nearly every inference was drawn against both George and the young woman on my part. I implied that he was being foolish, and pointed out numerous indicators that she was probably poor relationship material. Mind you, I didn’t accuse her of being malicious or manipulative. [One thing to keep in mind is that she always appreciated his good qualities; they just didn’t matter until she saw him as sexually attractive]. Rather, I just pointed out that she was questionable as a partner, and said George could have probably done better.

People came to a lot more conclusions about the two of them than I was intending with that post. This is my fault- I tried to do too much in a single post. My original focus was on how the young woman’s change in feelings towards George was based on his SMV growth over anything else. However, at the same time I also  devoted space in the post towards expressing sympathy towards George, in that I believed he was making a poor choice by entering into a relationship with her. Given that I had included photos of them, that put me on morally shaky ground- especially without any defense of them in that post or admonition against coming to unwarranted conclusions.

Today I will, in the spirit of fairness, offer the defense I should have included from the beginning. I will draw all the inferences in their favor this time. Of course, to do that I need to cover where I drew it against them. So what where my inferences again? Here they are:

• George was a Beta Orbiter
• She has had numerous bad relationships where George had to help her pick up the pieces- a.k.a., she had numerous failed sexual relationships in the past
• She believes in soul mates
• Her mother was probably a divorcee

Those are the big ones, anyways. So lets flip them around, and then extrapolate on what they mean.

The first one is about him and his behavior. If we assume the best about him than he wasn’t infatuated with her for 10 years. Instead, he was using that time to build himself up, and perhaps consider other options as far as female company are concerned. In those ten year he was a friend, but not someone stuck in the friendzone. This conclusion would make George more confident and aware of his own value. His decision is not the product of years of frustrated pining for a woman who ignores him, but a more deliberate, and hopefully informed choice.

For the second inference, and first red flag, we assume that those were not sexual relationships. Perhaps the reason they ended badly was because the young woman wasn’t sleeping with her boyfriends. It would certainly be understandable to see how she could have numerous failed relationships if she was saving herself for marriage. Given how rare chastity is these days, most men she would run across, including the “Christian” ones, would likely dump her if she wasn’t putting out. Now, if this were true- that the reason for her failed relationships was because she was saving herself- then it would be a huge green flag. It would be a huge sign in her favor, one that George would be a fool to ignore. [There is of course the whole frigidity thing, but I believe that is reasonably rare as to be a minor concern- especially since she is still in her 20s.]

The third inference was the most solid of all- that she believes in soul mates. For those curious, that is not a good thing- those who do believe in soul mates are more likely to divorce. To draw it in her favor would mean to assume she was just making a figure of speech. She didn’t really mean soul mate in the typical -pagan- way of looking at it. Rather, she just wanted to say that her relationship with George felt like it was destined.

Finally, we have the fourth inference. To infer in her favor would be to assume that her mother was a widow. In this case, she did have a father, but lost him at some point. Hopefully it would mean that she had a strong and positive male influence in her life. Also, it would mean that she would have a living example in her life of how marriage is “until death do us part.” This is not so much a “green flag”, but would obviate the harm that comes from being a child of divorce.

If all four of these points were true- George wasn’t a Beta Orbiter, the woman wasn’t sleeping around, she didn’t believe in soul mates, and her mother was a widow, then it would change how we would view the relationship. George wouldn’t be a fool. After all, she appears to have long recognized his good qualities- he just needed to become more attractive for them to really shine. He would be in a relationship with someone who valued those qualities, who valued her body, and who saw that marriage was until “death do us part.” Compared to your average American female, she would be well ahead of the pack. One could even argue he would be a fool not to pursue her.

And that brings my defense of George and his woman to a conclusion. If you can see other ways to buttress that, feel free to add them in the comments below.

None The Wiser

One of the important points which I raised in The Way We Met that I think bears repeating is that the woman gained no wisdom in the process. She didn’t come to any great realization that she needed to accept George. As I explained:

You see, reading the piece and looking at those photos tells me that the woman here wasn’t having issues accepting that she was supposed to be with George. Rather, the problem from the beginning was that George just wasn’t sexually attractive. He was too “Beta”, if you will. Since he wasn’t sexually attractive to her, his other great traits meant jack. However, as the years passed by George grew in confidence, and it shows in that second photo. Eventually his attractiveness grew to the point where she no longer dismissed him as a sexual partner. At that point his other great traits were able to come to the forefront[…]

It is a not infrequent refrain these days that women “wise up” when they get older. This is why they ignored “nice guys” and “good men” for so long, only to start paying them attention once they get older. Beforehand they were young and foolish. After some worldly wisdom sets in, they realize the error of their ways and shift their attention and affection (and impliedly their attraction) towards such men.

Nothing could be further from the truth in nearly all cases.

What is really happening is that women are adapting to changes in the sexual markeplace as they get older. At least, changes as it relates to their change in position vis-a-vis age. For ease of reference, Rollo’s chart again:

As women age their value in the SMP declines.  Depending on the woman, this can be a gradual shift, or a disturbingly rapid one. Meanwhile, as a general rule men increase in value over time. Due to a variety of factors their LAMPS/PSALM attributes will increase as they age, making them overall more and more attractive to women. So when young, very few men have a high SMV, at least in relation to women.

Now, at the same time remember that women are far, far picker than men when it comes to sexual partners. They find far less men attractive out of the general population than men find women attractive in the general population. In addition, the woman’s own SMV will affect how she views the attractiveness of a man. The higher her SMV relative to that of the men she meets, the fewer and fewer she will find acceptable/sexually attractive.

Taken together, this means that when women are young and are at their peak, they tend to pick find only a handful of men to be attractive. [Again, there are always exceptions, but we are talking about the general population here.] Those men are almost never “nice guys” or “good men.” In other words, guys like how the woman described George. It is these men who women tend to favor with their affections.

However, as they age, and men increase in their SMV value, and women decrease in SMV value, this all shifts. All of a sudden a bunch of men who otherwise weren’t attractive in the eyes of a woman suddenly start to be more and more attractive. Many will actually reach the threshold where she actually rates them as attractive. At this point the man becomes a viable option, and all his other traits “click in to place.” Think George.

All of which brings us back to the point of this post- women are none the wiser at the end. They change, sure. But that change comes about from their decrease in relative SMV, and their understanding of their change in SMV. Otherwise, the real change takes place in the men she considers her peers. They are the ones changing… by becoming more attractive to her.

Wisdom requires a certain amount of reflection and self-examination. And that is simply not happening here. Instead, women are just adapting reflexively to changes in the SMP around them. They are not developing a newfound understanding about “Beta” traits. They are not suddenly finding them sexually appealing. Don’t let anyone fool you with notions that women naturally get wiser when they age- especially when romance is concerned. Keep a level head, and hopefully you will avoid a potential pitfall which others will try and lead you towards.

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #118

A conversation with some friends got me thinking about the topic of salvation. More specifically, the false doctrine of Once Saved, Always Saved. Before chiming in it is always good to hit the books. Let us begin with the Letter to the Hebrews:

²⁶ For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, ²⁷ but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. ²⁸ A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. ²⁹ How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? ³⁰ For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” ³¹ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

(Hebrews 10:26-31)

Next we move to Philippians:

¹² Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. ¹³ Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, ¹⁴ I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. ¹⁵ Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. ¹⁶ Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

(Philippians 3:12-16)

Finally we end with St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians:

²⁴ Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. ²⁵ Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. ²⁶ Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; ²⁷ but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

(1 Corinthians 9:24-27)

What we can see here is that there is no scriptural support for OSAS. We are not “saved” at some point while we are alive. Salvation is not a living state. Rather, salvation is the goal, the prize at the end of the race. Even Saint Paul was worried that he might lose out, after having accomplished so much! Clearly he didn’t believe that he was “saved.” Rather, he imagined himself a runner in a race where the stakes were as high as they could be. We too should be just as concerned as he was.

Buy hey, don’t take my word for it. Rely on Jesus instead:

³¹ “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, ³³ and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. ³⁴ Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; ³⁵ for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶ I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ ³⁷ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? ³⁸ And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? ³⁹ And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ ⁴⁰ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ ⁴¹ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; ⁴² for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ ⁴⁴ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ ⁴⁵ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ ⁴⁶ And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

(Matthew 25:31-46)

Notice how there is no mention of being “saved” here? Nor is there any mention of “professing me (Jesus) in your heart” or anything else like that.

So what is involved then? Well, lets look to the Gospel of John:

Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. ² He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.” ³ Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” ⁴ Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” ⁵ Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. ⁶ What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.

…

¹⁶ “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

¹⁷ “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. ¹⁸ Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

(John 3:1-6, 16-18)

From this and other passages we can figure out how we can win the race. There are a number of steps necessary to win this race. Here is a crude outline I created which tries to lay them out:

1. Believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and our Lord and Savior (the most essential step)
2. Be baptized (born of water)
3. Be chrismated -the laying of hands (born of Spirit)

Of course, these just get us on the path. We can swerve from it if we are not careful. That is where repentance and confession come in. And of course Communion/Eucharist helps fortify our spirit so we can keep on the path as well. Taken together, we can see how it is sort of a two stage process. The first stage is to get on the path, and the second stage is to keep on the path.