We Have Seen The Enemy…

and he is us.

Dalrock’s most recent post, “the sound of a rebellious woman,” features several good conversations in the comments. One of them concerned authority, while another focused on who was responsible for the lack of admonishments directed towards women in the western church. Cane Caldo entered both, leaving several excellent comments, a few of which bear  repeating here. The first:

This is the link you are supposed to create, based upon his suggestion. If you ask those husbands who quip and wink, they’ll tell you that they are just being gentle, humble, and sage. If you’ve never done it, I suggest you tell a group of AmXian husbands that their wives are not quiet or gentle. They will rage. (More on that in a second.)

…

The fear here–and Mark would know this–is that the husbands will feel that their wives have been impugned. Again: Look at what brought down Mark Driscoll. He trounced hundreds of husbands, and his church grew and grew while churches around Mars Hill dried up; because AmXians wives AND husbands love it. But when a critical mass of women were offended (which in comparison was a very small number) Mark had to go. The husbands’ anger galvanized around Mark’s mistreatment of women. Women didn’t rise up and kick Mark out. Men did.

the second:

Churchians are Blue Pill, and pedestalize women. If you take away their pedestal, the worshippers get angrier than the goddesses. Pastors, generally, aren’t up on pedestals. Most men think pastors are either lame, or mountain-top yogis who can’t relate to mortals; often both.

and the third:

Authority and power are not the same thing. For example, the term “rebellion” betrays the fact that one doesn’t have authority. (“For no one ever hated himself…”) So the term “female rebellion” unavoidably implies that they do not have authority. Since we are still in the age of female rebellion, then men still have the authority; even if they wield incredible power. That power of female rebellion exists only in the hands of those men who are willing to uphold it, and, yes, the state does uphold power for women.

Don’t misunderstand me! I do NOT mean to say that all men hold authority. I meant that when it is held, whoever holds it are men, and they are never women.

In fact, it is very similar to Mark Driscoll. My description of his transfer of authority from the husbands of the congregation to his wife (and therefore himself) is really analogous to how authority in America has transferred from men to women through women’s suffrage. Ultimately, women still aren’t in power, but the men in power have more authority than ever.

Both comments lead me to this-

It is men, and not women, who are the main obstacle to be overcome. Cane makes a lot of points, but ultimately one of the major ones is that you cannot “fix” American Christianity until you deal with men who pedestalize women. Female rebellion is only possible because men make it possible. I say “make” on purpose. It isn’t simply that it is allowed, but that it is enabled. If you were to actually speak up against female rebellion in church, then the White Knights there would take up arms against you.

It is important to note that while many men are afraid of their wives, that doesn’t necessarily make them a full White Knight. A White Knight goes beyond acting in perceived self interest, and actually tries to promote “his own” (actually another) agenda. Most men are relatively passive here. The problem is that the WKs tend to be quite aggressive, and know how to rope other men into helping them.

All of which means that any effort to bring about reform and eliminate “Churchianity” will require the neutralization of White Knights in leadership position. The good news is that going after them should actually be easier than trying to assail female rebellion right now. White Knights are less apt at defending themselves than women, and are less likely to get support from other men in their defense. At least, that is my read on the matter. If anyone disagrees feel free to explain why in the comments.

On the same vein, this topic got me thinking about the various types or groups of men who help perpetuate the system. I am going to use this post to try and categorize them, if only to sate my own abnormal INTJ curiosity. Here is what I have so far:

• The Pedestalizer- the classic White Knight. These guys think women are living goddesses who can do no wrong, and will defend them to the last man and child.
• The Powermonger- a variant White Knight. These guys defend women, but do so because they see it as a tool for giving themselves greater power. They don’t pedestalize women, and often look down on them, but are careful not to show it.
• The Player- a cad or PUA. Someone who has found a way to benefit (to varying degrees) from female rebellion, primarily by easier sexual access to women. Usually has a good understanding of female nature. Some merely seek to benefit from the system, while others actually find ways to preserve it.
• The AFC- Average Frustrated Chump. These guys are enablers to enablers- while often not full on White Knights, they will support White Knights when the call is sounded- with reasons ranging from fear to guilt.

Any other categories that I missed?

Some Get It

I have written before that Most Christians Just Don’t Get It. This can take two forms which are not mutually exclusive: either they don’t understand how things work, or they cannot be taught (or learn) how things work, often due to their own intransigence. Fortunately, most does not mean all. On occasion I come across some Christians who do seem to understand at least part of what is going on. I had the opportunity to talk with a woman in the last few days who fit that profile.

Some very brief background on her first. Catholic mom with a number of kids, several of them adults. Has both sons and daughters. Traditional Catholic, and has been that way for a long time. Very much in tune with the problems in the Church right now. Husband is easy-going and seems like a cool guy, and doesn’t appear to be a wimp.

We got to discussing problems with the Church at the moment, including how it is shrinking rapidly. Eventually we started to discuss marriage and the problems the church faces there. I explained to her some of my own difficulties in that regard, as well as problems that other men face. Without being direct, I covered a number of different issues that the ‘sphere talks about. I found her to be both a good listener, and very receptive. Based on what she said, I think she was aware of some of the problems beforehand, but had never had the whole situation clearly explained to her before. So it wasn’t something entirely new.

What might have helped her in understanding this was the situation of her oldest son. He was approaching his mid-twenties and hadn’t found anyone to marry yet. It was clear from her face and tone that she was rightfully worried about the situation her son was in. She recognized that it wasn’t simply a matter of her son not having “found the right person yet.” Even before we had talked she understood that there was something dreadfully wrong with the marriage market. Reader mdavid will not be surprised to hear that she had sent her son, and was sending some of her other children, to a very traditional Catholic college in the hopes of helping them to find a spouse. She related to me that she knew of a number of other Catholic parents who did the same with their children. [I know a few of them myself.] In fact, she knew of a few families who had moved out of state to a traditional Catholic community in order to make it easier for their children to marry.

So its clear that some Christian, or at least Catholic, parents understand that the MMP has serious issues. What I have found at the same time is that while they may understand that something is wrong, and even to some degree what is wrong, most don’t fully understand why it is wrong. I have some thoughts there I want to explore, but that can wait for another post.

 

A Pinch Of Incense

It has been interesting to read the various reactions to the recent declaration (decision seems too mild of a descriptor). Many have realized that this was never about legitimacy, or equality.

It was about absolution.

Those who act against the natural law cannot help but recognize, somewhere deep down inside, that their actions are disordered. As St. Paul explained in his letter to the Romans, the law is written on our hearts. They know, whether or not they will admit it to themselves (they certainly wouldn’t admit it to others), that they do wrong. Naturally enough this leads to guilt. As a general rule, we human beings don’t like guilt. Not in the slightest. And so we seek a way to remove it, however we can.

One particularly easy (although not ultimately successful) method  to deal with guilt is to have others approve the actions which lead to it. After all, if others say that we are in the right, how can we possibly be in the wrong? Of course, this won’t last. And the reason why this is only just the beginning.

They won’t stop here. Legitimacy can still be threatened by those who express disagreement. That is still possible- for the moment. Disagreement and dissent will be intolerable to them. After all, their goal is to have everyone affirm what they are doing. Conflicting viewpoints break up this harmony and threaten the comfort they are trying to build for themselves. What they want is to be told that they are right; what they fear is to be told that they are wrong.

What we see now is only the first step in a larger plan. It has three “phases,” if you will.

Phase 1 is to legitimize their actions in general society. This has been effectively accomplished.

Phase 2 will be to silence any who dissent, any who break from the “party line.” This is being worked towards even as you read this.

Phase 3 will involve forcing everyone to affirmatively voice their support for “the new normal.” We, all of us, will be required to say that nothing is wrong about what they do. That their actions and lifestyle are just as valid as any other. In short, we will be required to offer a pinch of incense before the idols of this present age.

Understand that silence is not enough for them. The Romans once said “Qui tacet consentit.” It can be translated as silence gives consent. That isn’t enough. You see, they will know that if you don’t speak up and voice your support, it means you disagree. That you dissent. [That massive display of support recently was based on this awareness- those who participated wanted to make it clear that they don’t dissent.]  Knowing that someone dissents will be enough to discomfort them, and that just won’t do. After all, much of the reason for what is going on is so they can be comfortable. Anything that can negatively affect that comfort will be seen as a threat. And threats must be crushed.

So they will require everyone to speak up and affirm them. No one will be exempt from this. The choice presented to us will be simple: say that we support them, their views and their choices, or else.

What is that else?

The priest at church this Sunday was particularly blunt. He warned us that persecution was coming. Few words were spared about it; little needed to be said because it was obvious to most, if not all, of us there.

It will start subtle at first, and build over time. I don’t think it will be prison, at least not in the beginning. My suspicion is that they will go for our soft spots, the places where we are truly vulnerable: our livelihoods to start off, I think. They will threaten us with losing our employment, our means of support. Going after our finances will be easy and relatively bloodless. Only those who are self-employed will be safe… at first. In the long run I fully expect them to find ways to go after even those who are their own boss. Discrimination laws, boycotts, and all manner of coercive acts in between will all find a use.

After that I expect that they will go after parents with children. It will only get worse from there.

Do not expect things to suddenly get better. Do not expect “the silent majority” to grow a spine and suddenly strike back against those who are “going overboard.” They lack the will and attention span to do anything more than delay what is coming. Nor should you expect the law or the Constitution to provide any defense. In the end those words on paper will mean whatever they want them to mean.

Let’s not lie to ourselves. They are going to do their damnedest to push us out of civil society.  We need to prepare ourselves. We need to organize. We need to form new communities, built to withstand the coming storm. It is unclear how much time we have. I figure that we have, at most, a generation or so before Phase 3 arrives in full force. So it behooves us to start immediately. Failure on our part will mean that we are pushed back to the catacombs. It may come to that anyways. But if we act now we have a chance of preserving that which matters.

Absence Makes The Heart Grow Emptier

Background: One of the deepest writers in the entire ‘sphere also happens to be one of those who writes the least: Ace of Spades. His posts can sometimes be just a few short sentences in length, spaced apart by the occasional break. When added together they rarely amount to more than a paragraph or two. However, each word is fraught with meaning (almost always on multiple levels), and he can accomplish with a few lines what others need an essay to convey. Yet the insight he hopes to convey isn’t always obvious, and all of his posts need to be “unpacked” (or unzipped, to use computer terminology) to some degree. I’ve unpacked posts of his before, and he expressed appreciation for my effort. At the same time he asked me to make similar efforts in the future, and this post follows in that path.

The post I want to examine today is “… [there’s] oh so many ways for me to show you how your dogma has abandoned you…” Like nearly all of his posts, it begins with a song which helps set tone and context. I suggest listening to it before reading further. I intend to analyze his post line by line, so it may help to read the full post at his site, as I don’t intend to post it all together here. Also, while each line will have analysis, much of it will be at the end of the post as well. Now to get to it:

All pig-tails and patent-leather shoes.

These two features together hint at femininity in a juvenile context- a young school-age girl. She is young and innocent, and looks the part- wearing her hair in pig-tails and dressing up in nice looking clothes for when she goes to school. This sets up the point of view of the post- that of a young girl (at least in the beginning).

Daddy never seems to care.

The key language in this line is the word “seems.” Ace included that word on purpose. Whatever “Daddy’s” actual intentions might be, they are ultimately irrelevant in this context. What matters is how the young girl from the above line perceives his concern, his lack of care about her.

This is important because “Daddy” might care, but not be in a position to do anything about it. If the father of a young girl has been kicked out of the home and separated from his children by force of law because “Mommy” decide to frivorce him, then what he wants or intends doesn’t matter. The amount of time he can spend with his daughter will be limited, in some cases quite severely. And no matter how much Daddy tells his daughter that he loves her, that he cares for her, that he wants to spend time with her… she won’t believe him if he doesn’t spend much time with her. She cannot help but rationalize his limited contact as a lack of care on his part, no matter how much the matter is explained to her. For a child, a father’s presence, or the lack thereof, is not something which is guided and directed by a rational thought process (no matter how smart the child).

As a side note, even if the biological father is present, but he doesn’t act like an actual father (that is, as a masculine man exercising the office of fatherhood), it is like he isn’t even there at all.

And fathers are the first glimpse of God all children see.

The fact that this line alone is in bold makes it clear that this is the most important line in the whole post. So why bold it?

Numerous studies have shown that it is the father, not the mother, who has the greatest influence on a child’s faith. A devout father can lead his children to follow his faith, no matter the beliefs of the mother. Yet not amount of holiness by the mother can compensate for a father’s disbelief. The reason why is as Ace describes- in their father children see their first real glimpse of God. How so? A father- a true father who can act as such, acts much as God: he admonishes and disciplines when necessary, he provides strength and comfort in times of distress, he pushes for improvement as required, and he loves throughout.

A child’s relationship with his or (in this case) her father helps that child understand boundaries, to understand authority, to get a sense of what is right, and what is wrong. Nothing can replace this understanding.

Left little choice, you choose to sin.

An interesting line. choice in what? By itself this line is incomplete.

Just to get some attention.

Now the previous line makes sense. The young girl from before is feeling the effects of her father’s absence. Without realizing it, without understanding it, part of her- deep in her subconscious- needs a strong male presence in her life. Specifically, she needs the presence of a father. Only she cannot comprehend that. She can only understand that she wants male attention. And so she seeks it. She seeks it from other men, to get that attention and validation that she knows she wants, without understanding why. Without that firm foundation which can only be build over years by a strong and loving father, she will invariably seek that attention in a sinful fashion. Fornication cannot help but seem like love to her.

But boys are not the Almighty.

This line hints at two things, neither of which is mutually exclusive. And when you get down to it, they derive from the same point. Why “Almighty,” when the previous lines suggest that it is a father that the young woman (for she is no longer a girl at this point) seeks? Because she is also seeking God. For just as her need for a father’s presence was not met, so too her need for a sense of God’s presence in her life is not met. For as was indicated earlier, our ability to know God is in large part shaped by our father. To not know the former is to inhibit our connection to the latter.

The men she is sleeping around with cannot (and even if they could, likely would not) give her the love that she seeks. Eros is what her hormones tell her to seek, but it is Agape that her soul longs for- the true, lasting and selfless love of a father, both one of this world, and Eternal. Sadly, this is beyond her ken.

Thus, the emptiness still grows—

Eros without Agape is poison to the soul. We cannot fill ourselves solely with Eros, no matter how hard we try. Instead we simply feed into our hunger, demanding more and more. [Edit: Think of it like salt and water. Salt is good and necessary for our health, and adds much flavor to life. But too much salt, and not enough water, and we throw our electrolyte balance off. This can kill our body if not swiftly correct. Just as Eros can add flavor to our life, without Agape to keep us balanced we risk death, only of the eternal sort for it is our soul which is threatened.]

All the while the emptier and emptier we feel. For the young woman caught in this trap, there is seemingly no escape. She moves from man to man, and yet her need for that male presence only grows greater. She thirsts, and goes to the well, but cannot be satisfied. All because she is going to the wrong well, which she knows not.

regardless of how much they put in you.

The obvious inference here is what this double entendre suggests: the sexual act, which literally involves putting something in the young woman. However, it is more than just that. Some of the men might mean well or even be serious in their attentions/intentions. They might actually love the young woman. But that doesn’t matter- they cannot provide what she needs.

The years fall away and that little girl continues to struggle.

This is a trap from which the young woman cannot seem to escape [but I repeat myself]. Ironically, while she is no longer a little girl in body, in many ways her mind and emotional state never advanced beyond the tender years. How could they?

(Still wearing pigtails and patent-leather shoes.)

Once again, two meanings are present. As the previous line hinted at, the young woman is still mentally and emotionally a little girl. Her maturation process was incomplete, as a core ingredient was missing.

The other meaning hints at the sexualized lifestyle of the young woman, as well as her increasing age. In an effort to try and recapture her youth, and that sense of innocence from before, she tries to adopt a more youthful appearance. She wears clothing and hairstyles that make her seem younger, or otherwise bear some connection to her youth. On the one hand this ties into her sexuality, and a desire to keep it at its peak (even though that is only a brief window). On the other hand, this attempt to recapture her youth is a desperate attempt by the woman to try and repeat her childhood. To have a youth again where that strong man she desperately needs will be present this time.

To wrestle love from the unloving.

Yet another reminder that those men she associates with, those men she sleeps with and gives herself to, cannot give her what she wants needs. Nor can they be truly blamed in this [absence on her part], as it is not their place.

But it is not only men who she attempts to wrestle with. It is causes and movements. Anything and everything that gives even the faintest flicker of potential meaning and purpose. She longs for a place where she can belong. But causes and movements are cold. Unloving. They too cannot give her what she wants needs: a family as it was meant to be.

To punish herself until absolution arrives.

Self-loathing invariably becomes a part of this. The young woman is miserable, and no matter how much she may deny it to others, she knows it deep down inside. Her misery is something she knows is a result of having done something wrong, although she may not know what. Her sense of guilt, as ill-formed as it is, drives her to yet further misery. All in the hope that it will end someday. That she will finally have paid a heavy enough price for whatever it was that she did wrong. A wrong for which she was punished by not having a real father in her life.

Yet it never does.

Of course, she was not responsible for her father not being in her life. Her upbringing is not something she shares blame in. But this is something she never hears, or rather, never hears as she should. She might be told that it isn’t her fault. But that is meaningless or ultimately futile without being told whose fault it is, without understanding why things were wrong in the first place.

The humanist sacristy is empty.

A sacristy is a place where clergy prepare for services. So what does Ace mean by this line? He is trying to indicate that humanism has nothing, has no one, to actually carry out services in the first place. Its very nature is to leave people to fend for themselves, to suffer through life’s trials without solace or guide… or absolution.

The progressive wine is soured.

I take this to mean that much of the appeal of progressivism is gone now. It has sat at the same place for so long it has gone stale. No one wants to drink it, although they may feel compelled to do so. After all, it is a liturgical center-piece of the present-age “social gospel,” and so cannot simply be dispensed with.

And no one listens in the digital confessional…

We, all of us, seek absolution. We may not realize the need to repent and confess our sins, but we have it all the same. Sometimes (perhaps even most of the time), we rationalize away this impulse. We call it something else. But its essence remains the same- after all, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Alas, the internet is no proper confessional. Ace says that no on listens, because to hear, and to listen, are two different things. To listen to something is to pay attention to it, to recognize its meaning and to try and understand what is being said, even as we hear it. But over the internet true listening is not possible. Only hearing. Too much is lost in the process of putting words onto digital ink, of spilling it across monitors the world over. There is something inhumanly mechanical about the internet which disconnects us, even as it helps bring us together like never before. Because of this, the internet can never replace the confession booth.

save the echo.

Interestingly enough, part of us still knows what we are saying, even if we cannot accept that truth. So ultimately a digital confession merely rebounds at us and amplifies the need we feel.

You were forgiven – and loved – long before you strayed.

This line applies both to the young woman’s earthly father, as well as her father in heaven. The theology involved should be pretty basic to most any Christian, and so I won’t go into too much depth. But it is worth pointing out that God knows we are going to stray, that we are going to sin, long before we ever do. His sacrifice at Calvary was not merely for what we have done, but for what we have yet to do. It is a sacrificial love that persists throughout the ages.

Underlying this is the call by both Daddy and our Father to return. To come home. To seek him/Him out and to try and create a proper relationship this time.

Oh, child, who told you that you were naked?

The end is always a good place to return to the beginning, to Genesis. Here Ace alludes to the Fall, to the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. Yes, I know, obvious. So why include it? To remind us that no one told Adam and Eve they were naked. They knew it themselves as a result of eating the Forbidden Fruit. Likewise, the young woman (or should I say women?) featured here was never told that she was on the wrong path. No one needed to tell her. The understanding that she is naked, that she is in a shameful place, is intrinsic to her nature. When we revolt against the natural law, we cannot help but recognize that a crime (of sorts) has taken place.

So what is the full context of what Ace is trying to say? Again, there are many layers here.

On one level Ace states that the absence of a strong father in a young woman’s life will almost invariably lead her towards a life of dissolution and sin. The absence of a strong masculine presence will ache within her akin to hunger pains, and she will gorge herself upon men (seeking masculinity) in order to try and sate that hunger. Sadly, such binge eating will never alleviate her need.

Ace is also explaining that the crisis of faith we are seeing now in Christianity is the product of the destruction of the institution or office of fatherhood. Without strong fathers in their lives many children cannot help but abandon the faith. Of course to them there is no abandonment; without a father they never really knew God in the first place.

He is also pointing out that the humanist and progressive institutions of our day cannot replace what they destroyed. They are, at best, base mockeries of something greater. Though they may mimic the form of Faith, they can never replicate the function. Just as realizing their nakedness was innate to Adam and Eve after taking the fruit, the desire to confess and be absolved of our sins is also innate within us. The present progressive paradigm, however, cannot meet that need, as it rejects its existence in the first place. You cannot heal a spiritual injury when you refuse to recognize there is an injury in the first place, or even anything spiritual.

I am sure there is more to it, but my time is limited and so I must cap my analysis here. Mayhaps Ace will fill in what I could not.

[Update: I fixed a number of typos and grammatical errors, plus added a few words and an example to the post. Hopefully it will be easier to read now. Sorry for any confusion or post ugliness- I hadn’t intended for this post to go public when it did.]

Falling Dominoes: Enforcing Silence

This is the first in an irregular series that will continue the ideas I expressed long ago in my post It’s Not The Fall That Kills You. It will cover various ways that society, the church or various institutions are starting to fall apart. In that post I compared the collapse of society with lines of dominoes toppling, one after another. Here is a snippet of that explanation:

Many people seem to expect that there will be some kind of “collapse”, or catastrophic event which marks “the Decline,” or perhaps its culmination. This is proceeded usually by a period of free-fall which may be what most think of in terms of “the Decline.”

Instead Ace provides us with an analogy which highlights that the Decline is a series of discrete events, each of which when triggered will fall and potentially trigger another event. The sheer complexity of the situation is too much for a single line of dominoes, instead we are talking about lines and lines of dominoes, linking around and intermixing with one another, all connected by a myriad of pathways. So even a few dominoes being toppled will quickly lead to line after line being set into motion; before long matters will quickly spiral out of control. Everything will topple.

Today’s post addresses a subject that a few others have addressed before, although I aim to explore it in a somewhat different light: the enforcement of “anti-discrimination” laws so as to require Christians to engage in conduct they otherwise would not want to engage in. Most recently this has focused on bakeries owned or operated by Christians who have been asked to cater for same-sex unions.

Now, others have examined whether Christians ought to refuse or not before, with Deep Strength’s post on the subject being a good example. But that is not my focus. Whether or not Christians should refuse or not isn’t what concerns me. Rather, what I am concerned with is “anti-discrimination” laws in the first place, and the enforcement regime they create.

As I see it, such laws (at least when the subject of homosexuality is concerned) have two greater and generally under the radar purposes-

The first is social affirmation. Protecting something means that is has value; this can apply to behavior or identity or some combination thereof. Anti-discrimination laws (in this context) give those they “protect” a sense of validation that essentially allows them to feel good about themselves.

The second, and ultimately more important purpose, is to squelch any public expression of Christian orthodoxy when it comes to homosexuality. However, refusing to recognize homosexual behavior is only among the first aspects of the Faith belief to be targeted. It won’t end there.

I won’t mince any words here. The goal, the long term goal, is to criminalize any outward signs of orthodox Christian beliefs. Anything that is an orthodox Christian belief will be targeted if it conflicts with modernist sensibilities. Nothing is sacred, and nothing is safe. In fact, it won’t stop there. Christians may well be affirmatively required in some circumstances to express views that conflict with core tenets of the Faith.

I called this particular post “Enforcing Silence” because silencing Christians is the main goal. But even silence may not be enough for some. Those who refuse to parrot acceptable slogans might will find themselves under suspicion. Christians who hold to orthodox beliefs will find it increasingly difficult, as time passes, to work within the general confines of society. Their silence will not be overlooked.

Ultimately, I suspect that those who hold to orthodoxy will have to isolate themselves from greater society. Think the Amish. While it may not be enforced at the point of a gun, it will be the only way to be safe from the intrusions of the State. Of course, this might well only work for a time. The Amish have been tolerated for some time, and those who join them in isolated Christian communities might be tolerated as well. But modernists (and especially SJWs) are relentless and totalitarian. There is a very good chance that they would turn their eyes upon those communities given enough time, and without other, more pressing distractions. The real question is whether the system will last that long.

As for how this ties in to falling dominoes? Well, every time such a law is enacted a domino falls. Every time one is enforced a domino falls. Every time a Christian is forced to close his or her business, or cannot voice their beliefs, another domino topples.

The acceptance, by many Christians Churchians, of these kinds of laws, is a demonstration of just how many dominoes have toppled already. Things are already so far gone most Christians fail to see the situation for what it is. And even if they could, many would still choose to love the world, and not God.

Where is this heading? Well, the past (especially the earliest days of the Church) holds some clues. But things are somewhat different, and I might, in another post, explore why the future will not be a repeat of the past.

[Apologies for the roughness of this post. Some of the ideas are still not crystal clear in my head, but I felt that it was important to get this post out sooner, rather than later. Hopefully the comments will provide needed clarity and expansion of thought.]

Resisting Timidity In The Modern Church

Monseigneur Pope has an excellent article discussing St. Paul’s freeing of the sooth-saying slave girl and how that relates to widespread cowardice in the Church today. A snippet:

And what of us today? We have gone through a long period during which the faith could be lived quietly and generally fit quite well into the world in which we lived. Harmony and “getting along” were highly prized. Particularly here in America, Catholics wanted to reassure the general populace that our faith in no way hindered us from being full participants in the American scene and that we could fit right in and be just like everyone else. With the election of the first Catholic president back in 1960, we could say that we had finally made it and had been fully accepted. Finally we fit in.

Of course the culture was not in such disrepair in those days and there was a fairly wide moral consensus rooted in the Judeo-Christian vision. Now that we have finally “made it,” the fire of our distinctively Catholic culture seems to have faded away. At the same time, Western culture has also largely died. (Is it a coincidence?)

In recent years, so-called Catholic universities and other institutions have been caving in to pressure. They are affording marriage benefits to same-sex bedfellows and succumbing to the HHS mandates to provide contraceptives and abortifacients. This is sad, pathetic, wrong, and cowardly—hardly the revolutionary faith that got Paul arrested.

And now we are coming full circle. We must rediscover how revolutionary our Catholic faith truly is to this world gone mad. And as we proclaim healing and profess an allegiance to something other than this world, we will become increasingly repugnant to the world around us.

I would encourage my readers to read the entire article.

MCJDGI

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.

Mirrored Appeal

In responding to the errors of the secular world, Christians, if they are not careful, can make errors of their own. The dominant message of the secular world right now, as far as men and women are concerned, is that they/we are the same- albeit with slightly different plumbing. Christians who have not fallen for this lie, or who have escaped it, rightly understand that rather than being interchangeable, men and women are complementary. We are made to “fit together.” A common approach to understanding this complementarity is use a mirror analogy- rather than being the same, men and women mirror each other and have opposing tendencies. For example, if men value X, and C is the opposite of X, then women value C.

Simple enough, yes? And in many instances it happens to be true. But not all. Sometimes, when men and women are different, we are really different. We need to be careful and not try and fit men and women into neat cookie cutter pieces, a tendency not solely restricted to most segments of the secular world.

Over at The Thinking Housewife, the authoress features a comment concerning “Why Women Seek “Bad Boys” – and Men Seek “Bad Girls.” Setting aside the notions expressed about “bad boys”, I want to examine this particular paragraph:

For the same reason sensitiveness and thoughtfulness in a woman reduce her sex appeal. These qualities make her appear weak, and… human. The godless individual resents nothing more than humanity. He cannot desire someone who reminds him constantly of his own mortality. A nonchalant demeanor (originating in vacuousness) is much more desirable to him.

The first sentence in that paragraph is, to use a scientific phrase, total bunk. A woman’s sex appeal is not reduced by “sensitiveness and thoughtfulness.” Even under the worst possible scenario, those character traits have zero affect on a woman’s perceived sex appeal. They just don’t. In this respect men are largely visual creatures. A woman’s sexual appeal is based on her physical characteristics, not her personality. Her personality may affect how a approaches and interacts with her, as well as her long term goals, but not her sex appeal.

Reading through the whole comment, I get the impression that the author has let his philosophical or theological pondering trample over empirical reality. He is trying to make reality fit how he thinks things are- at least, that is how he perceives it. But in truth he is trying to make reality fit how he thinks things should be. This is a tendency we all possess, to some degree or another. And it can be a dangerous one. Much of “Churchianity” is nothing more than a vast, wide-scale expression of the tendency to make reality fit how we think things should be.

All of which leads to the purpose of this post: as a reminder, if only to myself, not to let my own preferences blind me to reality. I know I’ve done it before, and will probably do so again. This was a chief failing, perhaps even the chief failing, of the Pharisees. They could not let go of their own preconceived notions of who the Messiah would be, and so could not see Him when He walked amongst them. Let us, like the Psalmist, pray for the Lord to open our eyes.

Random Musings and Links- #7

Its been quite a while since I last wrote one of these posts, and thus it is long overdue. I’m going to cover some important links, relate a few of my thoughts and preview a few possible post ideas in the future.

To begin with, I wanted to give my readers a heads up that I am going to refrain from commenting at other blogs for the near future. I have not been pleased with my comments for a while. None have been good, much less great, and many were sub-par. Given the trouble that a few have caused me, I’m going to hold off with them for the moment, although I will still comment here. Part of my problem is that when I comment I usually write in haste, which does not lend itself well to careful thought or careful writing. So expect to see very little of me around for the time being.

Deep Strength has written a post exploring how AWALT and how NAWALT. There are three things he has as “questionable” that I wanted to briefly address:

• Do women have the ability to agape love their husbands? There are no commands for women to agape love their husbands but to philea love them (Titus 2).

• Do women have full moral agency?

• Are women able to act as their own agent outside of men: what about the fact that women were under their fathers in the OT, and confirmed through 1 Cor 7 to also be under the authority of their fathers prior to marriage?

While others have provided good commentary, there are a few things I wanted to note. First, just because scripture doesn’t command it doesn’t meant that women don’t have the ability to agape love their husbands. Scripture contains what is essential, surely, but it doesn’t contain everything- it cannot, in fact. That is why Jesus gave us the Church, after all- for continued wisdom and guidance. Second, concerning moral agency, I think Deep Strength is conflating moral agency- the ability to choose between right and wrong- with [edit: potential or alleged] female susceptibility to deception. They are not incompatible. Women can choose to do the right thing, just as they can choose to do the wrong thing. Deception merely makes it more difficult to discriminate between the two. Third, women are indeed able to operate as agents outside of the authority of men. Scripture mentions ta number of instances of it, in both the OT and NT. However, that doesn’t mean it is necessarily for the best, at least, all the time. This ties again to the susceptibility of deception- protecting women from deception probably had a large part to do with that. There might be more, of course, and this could be a subject worth exploring in a further post.

Elspeth has closed up shop, although she might comment from time to time. So has Mrs. ktc. Both are going to be moved to my inactive section shortly.

Empath talks about the subtle power of examples.

Stingray has a new blog focused on religious discussions.

Ballista provides yet another example of how conservatives either don’t get it, or pretend not to get it when it comes to marriage.

Bonald has an interesting post, among a great many, which discusses inter-species romance. I mention this one specifically because James T. Kirk is involved.

Free Northerner explores the potential Selection Effects of War.

I agree with Beefy Levinson that enemies are easy to deal with, it is your treacherous friends that are the problem.

Related: Rebellion at a Catholic High School. I hope the admin stands firm.

Mrs. C. had an interesting post on St. Patrick’s day which discussed welcoming sinners. I encourage my readers to read it, because I want to comment on it briefly. There is an interesting tension that the Church has endured since its creation between welcoming sinners, on one hand, and turning a blind eye to sin, on the other. Sometimes the Church has gone too far one way, and sometimes too far the other. I think that a major determinant of how the Church should act with regards to any given individual is determined by that person’s background. The way I see it, there are four sorts of backgrounds someone might have: 1) someone who was born to the faith and never left the church (although they might have strayed), 2) someone who wasn’t born to the faith but converted and is present still in the Church, 3) someone who was born to the faith but then left (prodigal son/daughter?) and 4) someone who wasn’t born to the faith and hasn’t converted before. Each needs to be treated somewhat differently. In brief, I would accord more leniency to persons from the latter backgrounds. The danger of too much leniency (or mercy) towards the former is that it might establish in the minds of the faithful the notion that eschewing sin is not an important or vital part of the faith. In other words, it acts as a stumbling block. This is less of an issue for someone who is coming to the Church for the first time, either ever or for a long time.

Vox brings a story of how Little girls need fathers.

As I was writing this post Rollo put up a new post of his own, where he delves into the subject of “Betas in Waiting.” His efforts in examining the different “stages” of the life of most modern women have provided me with a lot of insights. Some of them will come into play in a future post of mine examining male and female “Sexual Strategies”, and how they interact with one another.

Tall, Dark And Handsome

One of the arguments that I’ve raised on this blog which has consistently generated the most opposition is that Christian women have the same sexual attraction or arousal filters that secular women have. In fact, I created my LAMPS/PSALM model in large part as a response to Christian women who objected that they “Were Not Like That.” My goal in creating LAMPS/PSALM was to provide a universal blueprint of the different factors or attributes that influence a woman’s sexual attraction or arousal to a man. Naturally enough, that model has received its fair share of opposition (not all of it from women, it should be noted).

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it) reality has a way of providing plentiful evidence to back up my theories. In particular, there are numerous accounts from Christian women which completely back up my theory. One such account, a sad tale indeed, can be found here. A thoughtful reader has helpfully alerted me to yet another account that supports my model. [It should be noted that this reader lives outside of America and Europe, and has confirmed that the harms of feminism and sexual liberation are not limited to those respective regions.] The title of the article is that of this post- Tall, Dark and Handsome. I recommend reading the whole article. It shouldn’t take much time, as it isn’t a lengthy one. As you will hopefully have read, the account contained therein follows the usual pattern:

• Good Christian Girl meets tall, dark and handsome Stranger
• Good Christian Girl learns that the Stranger is not a Christian (or his faith is lukewarm)
• Good Christian Girl is invited to spend time with Stranger
• Good Christian Girl decides that spending time with him is ok, its not like anything will happen
• Good Christian Girl discovers that she enjoys spending time with Stranger
• Good Christian Girl starts to experience “feelings” towards Stranger
• Good Christian Girl lies to herself about her “feelings”
• Good Christian Girl gets invited to some event or place where she would be alone with Stranger

This is where the usual pattern is broken. Fortunately for Camerin (the authoress of the article), she had some good friends with more sense than she did. They pointed out what was going on, and managed to get her to engage in some self-reflection. In having these friends Camerin demonstrated great luck. In acting reflecting on the situation, Camerin demonstrated far more wisdom than is typical in this day and age. It would have been very easy for things to have gone quite differently for her if she had lacked either.

As this story, and the countless other ones out there, should demonstrate, Christian women are affected by the same sexual attraction/arousal attributes that secular women are. This used to be common knowledge. Sadly, that wisdom was lost all with so much else in the last few generations. Christian mothers need to impart this knowledge to their daughters as they grow up, so that their daughters stand a chance resisting the temptations of this world. And Christian women need to stop deceiving themselves that they aren’t as drawn to the Tall, Dark and Handsome man as other women are.

Before I go, I wanted to quote and highlight this little tidbit:

The next time I saw Jake was at a dinner with some friends. Jake and some of the guys told stories about stupid things they’d done while drunk. I knew they were exaggerating a bit to impress and/or shock us girls, but I still should have been turned off. But for some inexplicable reason, I was still attracted to him.

This thinking is what you get when Christian Churchian culture misleads women about their own nature. If Camerin had known about what she was really attracted to it might not have made a difference. She might not have realized what was going on until her friend forced her to confront the truth. But perhaps she might have been clued in sooner. That could only have been a good thing for her.

P.S. It should also be noted that Camerin’s account appears to contain some other manospherian memes or tropes. There is Max, “my best guy friend,” who is most likely a Beta Orbiter. And there is the delusion about what she was actually attracted to: “I also realized that most of my attraction had been to his attention and flattery.” There are probably others, if I took the time to dig into the article further.