Object of Contention

I.

Mrs. ktc over at To our bodies turn we then had a post some days back (found here) in which she linked over to a discussion at The Thinking Housewife in a post called Looking for a Wife.

The discussion starts thanks to a commenter named George- a frustrated mid-30’s Christian man who cannot find a wife. While there is a lot to dissect in his comment, and the ones that follow, I want to focus on one particular segment of his comment. Specifically, the parts in bold of his second to last paragraph:

This lack of goal fulfillment is most dispiriting when it comes to family formation, as I feel that if I cannot find and marry a mate within a few years that it will be too late from a practical perspective to achieve my goal of having a family. After 35 the single male is for better or worse seen as defective and a romantic discard, especially those who are shy and have had little experience in relationships. They are seen as losers and I have come to the conclusion that this is absolutely the correct way to view them. They are not up to their duties as men to procreate, provide, and protect and they have failed the game of life. This of course also means that I consider myself to be a loser. Is this the correct way to view such men? I understand that not all men want to marry or have families, that some men abstain for religious or other convictions, and that events in life sometimes lead to undesirable but uncontrollable outcomes. But I have had plenty of time to do the heavy lifting and have failed to do so, frankly out of cowardice and fear, and also because it is very difficult to find traditionally minded women out there.

[Emphasis mine]

Comments were closed there, so I couldn’t respond, which is a pity because I had a lot to say about this. This post is about objectification of men, and how it relates to George and to other men in Church. It will be in two parts- the first addresses George specifically, and the second men who find themselves in a position similar to George (somewhat older man who is moderately successful yet unmarried).

II.

My first, initial reaction was disgust. Here was a man who had completely, unreservedly accepted the feminist construction of man as an object designed to serve women. Under this view men exist only so far as they can provide for and protect women, and for a rare few, procreate with them. It is the ultimate objectification of men (unless someone can clue me in to one that is worse), turning them into mere tools for women. Ballista over at Society of Phineas has countless posts about this mindset. Plenty of other bloggers have addressed it as well, including Dalrock and Free Northerner, to name a few. And this guy had bought into it hook, line and sinker. His question “Is this the correct way to view such men?” is a meaningless formality, and not a serious inquiry, as one can tell by both the proceeding and following sentences.

George’s real problem is not his lack of a wife. That is a problem, true, but one that can wait. First he needs to recognize the poison that has infiltrated his mind and eject it, forcibly (much like removing snake venom from a wound). In its place he needs to accept that men (and women) exist to glorify God, first and foremost. Everything else comes second. To place anything about serving and glorifying God is Idolatry. And that is what George has (apparently unconsciously) done. Note how serving God never shows up in his comment in reference to himself. He is an idolater and doesn’t even realize it. Until George transforms his mind, until he reassess his worth and value, everything else he does is moot.

What would I tell George?

I would tell him that serving God needs to be the primary focus of his life. Perhaps that means doing so as a husband and father. Perhaps it doesn’t. Prayer and discernment are key- figure out your vocation, your calling so that you can do what God wants you to do. At the same time, recognize your value as a man doesn’t depend on how well you can “procreate, provide and protect.” Your value is based on how well you serve God. It is not based on how well you serve women. If society teaches something other than that, society should be ignored. Conform to God, not the world. Oh, and once that is done, remember you aren’t looking for a woman whom you will serve as your wife. You are looking for a helpmeet, a woman who will help you serve and glorify the Lord.

III.

This brings me to another point. Even after a man stops objectifying himself, he needs to watch out for other people, especially other Christians Churchians, who will objectify him. Now, I gather from George’s comment that he has relatively little, if any, sexual history. So what follows will be based in part on that assumption, as applied to him and to other single Christian with little to no sexual history.

I’ve written in the past that “sometimes I get the impression that a lot of Christians see good, virtuous men as janitors or sanitation workers who are expected to pick up the “trash” in church.” I believe that this phenomenon is largely a result of Christians Churchians having come to objectify men (aided along by the feminine imperative, of course). They view men as tools or resources that can be used to solve problems. This is especially prevalent among those in leadership positions, who have to confront those problems in church and find solutions for them. One such problem is the former carousel rider and/or single mother. Both are problems in their own way, especially the single mother, who is almost certainly a net resource drain on the church. What I think happens is that is that when someone in leadership looks at that situation, he sees a problem that needs solving. And what do you do when you have a problem that needs solving? You look for the right tool to fix it, of course. Enter the single Christian man looking for a wife- here is the solution to the Church’s problem! When he marries that washed up harlot single woman the man has the wife he was looking for, and the Church no longer has a drain on its resources. And if there were children, why they have a father now!

Of course, someone with that mindset is motivated by what is best for them, and best for the church as an organization. They do not have the best interest of single Christian men in mind. Certainly they never stop to consider what would make for a good wife for the somewhat older single Christian man with little to no sexual history. If they did they would realize that such women would certainly not be good wives for men in George’s position (Truth be told, they might not be good wives for men in any position-but that is another matter). Of course, those who have that mindset would never stop to consider what would make for a good wife for men like George. If they did, they would have to recognize that it would be women whom the church would be in short supply of, and the kind of women that most people in the church don’t want marrying anyways (devout, younger, not unattractive women with little to no sexual history).

I would say to George and to a man in a similar position the following: marry a woman because you want to marry her and because she is a good match for you and you are a good match for her, not because others want you to marry her. Unless God orders you to marry a harlot, you are under no obligation to wife one up. Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise. You have no duty to rescue a woman from her past mistakes errors by marrying her. You do not owe it to a child that is not yours to marry his or her mother just so that child has a “father.” You should take to wife a woman who is a good match for you (and vice versa), not someone that people in church are trying to offload on you. Marriage is meant to glorify God, through properly channeling human sexuality and rearing God-fearing children. It is not about reducing the monetary burden of a Church. Or for providing a happy, fairy-tale ending to all the women in Church. If anyone tries to press the issue, make it clear to them that you are a man, not a tool. You have inherent value and dignity. This means you aren’t obliged to marry an unsuitable woman*. And don’t hesitate to make that abundantly clear. If they don’t respect that position, then leave that church, shake the dust from your feet, and find a new community of actual Christians.

IV.

In summary:

Men, don’t objectify yourselves. You exist to serve and glorify God, not to serve and glorify women. Also, don’t let others objectify you, especially when it comes to a wife. Marry a woman who is a good match for you. If you don’t have much of a sexual history, ignore those who want you to marry a single mother or former carousel rider. If they don’t accept your decision, leave that church and find a better one.

* I should at this time emphasize that suitability is the most important thing here. A woman might have truly, earnestly repented of her past but that doesn’t automatically mean she would make for a good wife. I am working on a post (hopefully out by Friday) which will examine what men should look for in a wife, and it will delve into further detail on this. But some qualities, like sensibility and good judgment, are crucial for a woman to have to make a good wife, and a man needs to look for them in a potential bride. Women who have grievously sinned (especially sexually) knowing what they were doing have demonstrated a serious lack of such traits. Furthermore, they might never gain good sense or judgment, despite their repentance.

Of course, that covers only character. As readers of my blog are well aware there are other reasons why a woman’s past might not make her suitable as a bride, especially for a man with little to no sexual history. A woman whose innocence was stolen from her is not at fault for her past, but unfortunately that past can and usually does impact her marriage. A man must carefully discern whether such a woman is a suitable match for him, and also whether he is equipped to deal with the consequences of her tragic past. My suspicion is that few men with no sexual history are ready or capable of this. A similar reasoning applies to women who were not raised to see fornication as a sin- they are usually not a good match for such men.

The important thing is prayer and discernment. Don’t let anyone else manipulate you into what is likely to be a bad marriage. 

Random Musings and Links- #4

For this post I’m going to begin with the links and then carry one to various musings and random thoughts.

I would direct my male readers, especially the unmarried ones, towards this post by Feminine But Not Feminist. Therein she has asked Men what they really think of young women who have had premarital sex. She hopes to use that post, and the comments by men that follow, to clue young women in to the consequences of engaging in premarital sex. Here are the four questions she is asking men:

1) What would you tell a young woman that wants to get married “someday”, but thinks it’s okay if she sleeps around for a while first?

2) Would you rather marry a girl that is a virgin, or one who has a lot of sexual experience, and why?

3) Does a woman’s prior sexual experience make her bad wife material, and why?

4) If a woman is willing to have sex with you pretty early on, what do you think of her (even if you do decide to have sex with her), as opposed to a woman that isn’t willing to give it up right away?

So stop by her blog and give your thoughts (please direct any towards her blog, not the comments here, thank you).

Free Northerner talks about his experiences courting a young woman in Courtship and Young Men. While we can never truly know the reasons why it didn’t work out for him, FN’s tale is far from unique. I’ve had many men comment on this blog and e-mail me about similar experiences. His post reminded me that parental madness during the courtship process is another explanation for why men aren’t courting Traditional women in, which I examined in my post Whither Thy Sons? [Update: Free Northerner has followed up with another post- More on Courtship.]

A Northern Observer has a post up about a woman who decided not to stop at accusing her husband of abuse. Some poetic justice appears to be on the way, and is well deserved.

Ballista has an excellent post up about how Marriage Doesn’t Wait for True Love. It is a superb take-down of the madness that the “Purity Movement” has become. Personally, I think that the problem started when the focus started to be on virginity as compared to chastity. One can be a virgin and not chaste (think a young woman addicted to 50 Shades of Grey and the ilk), and one can be a non-virgin and chaste (such as a young woman who was a virgin until her wedding night). Fortunately Catholic teaching on this is better, and this phenomenon is mostly restricted to Protestant sects. [Update: Or perhaps it is more common in Catholic circles than I thought, as Ballista alludes to with his comment here. Personally I haven’t ever seen that kind of stuff in anywhere in any of the Catholic circles I’ve traveled in, so I wonder if this is new, or just something I missed.] Unfortunately (and the reason why Catholics shouldn’t crow), this teaching is hardly ever actually, you know, taught.

Elspeth asks What If It Doesn’t Work Out? Like many of her posts, its a must-read, whether you are married or not.

Chad has been writing a story of power. You can find Part 1 here, Part 2 here, and Part 3 here.

Zippy talks about how people are Blaming the Prophets.

Margery responds to a feminist.

April over at Peaceful Single Girl examines Disney Weddings. The idolization (which is what this is) of weddings and the honeymoon period is not a new phenomenon, believe it or not. St. John Crysostomom  addressed similar problems a millennium and  half ago in one of his homilies. It is going to be the subject of a future post, one that will probably come in about 2 weeks or so.

Lovelyleblanc warns men that foreign women are no panacea to the problems in Western women.

That ends the link part of this post. Now to a few things bouncing about in my head.

Female Empowerment

First off, Elspeth has been taking exception to the traditional notions of “Team Woman” in the manosphere in my post Power To The People. She made a number of convincing arguments that the level of solidarity among women is heavily dependent on the environment, and went a long way towards convincing me of her point of view. I recommend that readers head over to the post and read them, starting with the first one here. With that in mind, here is a graphic which sets about illustrating how “Team Woman” would work under that particular model. As you can see, the level of female solidarity is directly connected to the overall prosperity and security of the social structure. Furthermore, the relationship is geometric.

Nothing to be Done

Something that has come up quite often, both in the comments of this blog and others, and in my e-mail correspondence, is the relative lack of opportunities available for young people looking to marry to connect with like-minded individuals. One young woman in particular has explained to me that she would love the opportunity to meet more people to see if anyone would be interested in her, but hasn’t figured out how. In her present situation she just doesn’t have a whole lot of options for meeting eligible young men. “Going out” means going to places where there won’t be any devout Christians, or to places lacking in eligible, single men. She is not alone in voicing this concern, I’ve heard it from men and women alike.

The best place to look for such candidates is other churches, assuming that yours doesn’t have any men or women who will work for you. The problem is that visiting churches to looking for marriage partners is a time limited window activity. Depending on when various churches hold services, you might not be able to visit more than one a week. And to really scope out a church and determine if it has anyone who will work for you takes several weeks, as people might not be there on any given week. For men this is even more difficult, as single men are basically outsiders at Church and are distrusted. All of which means that a lot of time and effort is required to search various churches for potential spouses. Of course, doesn’t even take into consideration theological concerns. Or the fact that some parts of the country might not have many active churches. And the list goes on….

Unfortunately there is no easy solution to this problem. Online dating solves some issues, and brings up a whole different set. Matchmaking through personal connections is great, if you have the connections, and if your connections are of a mind to help, and if your connections know potential candidates. The whole thing is very depressing, and I recommend that anyone caught in this trap to read their Bibles often. I find some of the Psalms to be especially comforting.

 

Adult Man Defines “A Real Woman”

Donal Graeme authored this list at the age of [redacted]. His closing comment: This list is not exhaustive and women like this do exist!

A real woman . . .
… doesn’t strive to be an equal to men. She understands that she was created to be a helpmeet, a suitable helper, to man and lives accordingly. (Genesis 2:18, 1 Corinthians 11:9)

…is quiet in church and asks men for spiritual guidance. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11)

…is chaste and ignorant of the sinful ways of the world. (Titus 2:4, Sirach 26:15)

…will embrace her femininity and not dress or present herself as a man. She will keep her hair long. (Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 11:6)

A real woman . . .
…isn’t embarrassed to cover her head when praying or spreading the Word of God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)

…knows that being wise and sensible is essential to being a Godly woman. (Proverbs 2:1-10, 1 Samuel 25:3, Tobit 6:12)

…won’t spend her prime years chasing a career and instead seeks to get married while she is still young, pretty, and fertile. (Proverbs 5:18, Sirach 15:2, Sirach 26:20)

A real woman . . .
…won’t try and usurp leadership when it isn’t her place. She doesn’t try to take over the role of men in church in order to prove something. (Titus 2:4, Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Peter 3:1, 5-6, 1 Timothy 2:12)

…is kind so that “the word of God may not be discredited.” (Titus 2:4, Proverbs 31:26)

…knows better than to believe everyone, especially when they tell her things she wants to hear. (2 Timothy 3:6-7)

…would never think to gossip or spread lies. (Proverbs 16:28, 1 Timothy 5:13, 2 Timothy 3:2-3)

A real woman . . .

…will never date or become romantically entangled with a non-believer. (2 Corinthians 6:14-15)

…values her purity for the valuable thing that it is. She is not ashamed to live and act differently from the world in order to guard herself. (Sirach 26:15, 1 Corinthians 6:13-20)

… won’t be controlled or swayed by her base impulses. (2 Timothy 3:6)

… would never desecrate her body with a tattoo. (Leviticus 19:28)

A real woman . . .
… will never dress like a slut. She isn’t ashamed to dress differently from non-believing women. (1 Peter 3:3-4)

…doesn’t act like a bitch. She is polite and gracious to everyone she meets. (Proverbs 11:16, 1 Peter 3:4, Sirach 26:25)

…will keep her body fit and healthy. She doesn’t eat too much and won’t let herself become fat. (Proverbs 23:21, 31:17, Philippians 3:19)

…never gets drunk. (Titus 2:3, Sirach 26:8)

A real woman . . .
…loves her children and family. She won’t sacrifice them or eat them because it is convenient. (Titus 2:4, 2 Kings 6:26-30, Lamentations 4:10)

…is pleasant and expresses joy all the time. She never sulks about and laughs when things don’t go her way. (Proverbs 31:25, 1 Thessalonians 5:16)

…doesn’t blame others for her own problems, especially men, and instead embraces responsibility. (Proverbs 12:27)

…listens to the wisdom and teaching of her elders.  (Titus 2:4)

A real woman . . .
…controls her temper and her emotions. She refuses to let anger control her and bother those around her. She can deal with mood swings and rejects her innate emotional nature. Instead she approaches life from a clear-headed and logical perspective.  (Proverbs 14:29, Proverbs 17:27, Proverbs 25:24, Sirach 25:20)

…works hard, is capable of providing for a family and is financially responsible. (Proverbs 31:13-22)

…will not speak unless it is absolutely necessary. She refuses to chatter or nag. (Sirach 26:14, 27, 1 Peter 3:4, James 1:26)

… is a wonderful cook, and cooks every meal from scratch using fresh ingredients, unless her husband dictates otherwise. (Proverbs 31:14-15, Sirach 26:13)

[This post was inspired by this post by Allamagoosa.]

[Update: Added some suggestions from folks and tweaked the wording of the post somewhat.]

Missing A Certain Little Something

Over at Morning Sprinkles and Evening Gunfire, Allamagoosa has crafted a Response to “Teen Girls Define a Real Man.” Her post addresses one of those dreaded “lists” that show up not infrequently in Christian Churchian circles. Alla does a superb job taking down this list, exposing its myriad of flaws. Here is how the list begins:

“Lori Hainline & Rebecca Chandler co-authored this list at the respective ages of 19 and 17. Their closing comment: This list is not exhaustive and men like this do exist!”

And here is Alla’s response to that intro:

Well, that’s a great start. Having (presumably) unmarried teen girls describe what a real man is. As opposed to married women or actual men. That said, I do agree with them that men like this do exist. I’ve gone to church and school with men like this, problem is the girls aren’t dating them!

Now, some lists are better than others, and despite problems with subjectivity and doctrinal weakness, this one is better than most. But all of these lists share a common problem, which ties in directly to Alla’s point that girls don’t date “men like this.” [Set aside the fact that Christians shouldn’t be dating in the first place.] That common problem is not found in what they say, it is found in what they don’t say. You see, something is always missing from these lists. A critical- no, essential trait which a man must have to qualify himself with regards to everything that actually makes it on that list. What is that trait, that quality?

That he be attractive, of course.

Nothing else matters if the man isn’t [sexually] attractive. He can be absolutely devout. He can pray up a storm. He can be unafraid to profess his faith in public. He can do all of that and more besides, and yet it will avail him of nothing if he is not also attractive.

Women don’t consciously understand this, as has been documented here and elsewhere many times before. Most will never realize what is going on if someone doesn’t point it out to them. But what seems to be the case is that unattractive men are mostly invisible to women. While women may acknowledge they exist, they don’t exist as men. Instead, they are classified as something else entirely, and are quickly forgotten about unless otherwise required. I believe it was Sunshine Mary who explained that unattractive men are “grey”, while attractive men are “in color.” They show up on women’s radar and are the objects of attention, whereas the “grey men” merge with the scenery and are forgotten.

However it is explained, a list like this that doesn’t include the caveat that a man also be attractive can never work. At best this list will be of some use when dealing with what one commenter referred to as “Righteous Alphas”- those Christian men who are both devout and at the same time attractive to women. But they are few and far between these days.  So they might as well not exist for the purposes of lists like these. On the other hand, there are far more Christian men out there who meet the criteria set forth in lists like this but aren’t attractive to most women. At least, not attractive given the current state of female hypergamy (among other things). So ultimately these lists do nothing to screen for those men, and achieve no positive effect.

Once again, an example of something that seems good in theory but utterly fails in practice. I’m highly tempted to “flip the script” again and create my own counter-part to this list of desirable qualities in Christian women. We’ll see if time permits next week for an attempt at satire.

As a side note, I think that Alla was on to something when she stated a belief that many of these lists exist to make Christian women feel better about themselves, and to make them look better (classier in her words) than they really are. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of this was driven by a desire of women to elevate themselves among the herd.

A Feature, Not A Bug

Over at the Femininity building blog Girls Being Girls, Jenny laments how There’s No Character In The Dating Scene Anymore:

Character isn’t very important in our dating scene anymore. It used to be you would know the girls a guy dated before he approached you. You would hear the stories of how he treated them. You would know if he’s worked since he was ten or if he plays basketball for hours every day after school. Our dating market has somehow managed to isolate dating from character.

Jenny may not have realized it, but she has hit on something of considerable significance. To use software engineer’s parlance, what she has discovered is a feature, not a bug. Only instead of being an excuse, this really is a feature. The “dating market” replaced the “marriage market” in large part so this very phenomenon could take place.

You see, under a courtship system or market there was a certain amount of knowledge that was known and expected about everyone involved. A man wouldn’t have found it easy to court a woman as an unknown factor- her family wouldn’t have tolerated it. Instead, he had to introduce himself, to build history and rapport with her family or be backed up by trusted individuals who vouched for him. Or even better, he was a known factor because he grew up in the same community and his history was known to all involved. On the flip side, a man who courted a woman would also have access to a lot of information about her. Perhaps he grew up with her in the same community. If not, he could observe her family and talk with them. In addition, he could talk with members of the community who knew her well.

The point being that under a courtship model no one could really be an unknown. Everyone had history. Which leads to this statement by Jenny:

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior

She is absolutely correct in this. Past behavior does give us a strong idea on what someone will do in the future. And that was a problem for a lot of people. For some their past behavior haunted them and acted as a huge handicap in the courtship/marriage market. For others it served as an obstacle, limiting what they could get away with. Yet others disliked marriage in general. All of them worked together to undermine the courtship model and to bring about something altogether new: The “dating scene”, which is in reality a sexual marketplace (“SMP”), because sex, not marriage, is the main goal now of most of its members. This new SMP has as its cornerstones mobility (provided through changes to the economy as well as new technology) and a lack of connectivity and history, which might perhaps be labeled “system memory.”

The first cornerstone, mobility, is all about the ability to move about to new locations, to new “markets.” If one particular area dries up, or you build a bad reputation there, you can always move to a new, fresh location.  In other words, you can escape your past behavior.

The second cornerstone, a lack of history and connectivity, means that most people in the dating scene don’t really know each other. Perhaps they have some similar friends or connections (otherwise how would they meet?), but those connections are far more tenuous than they would have been in the past. Outside of these potential sparse connections, those in the dating scene have little in the way of methods to learn about someone, apart from what that person reveals themselves.

Taken together, these two core components of the “dating scene” mean that you can always “start over.” This is especially easy if you are wise enough to avoid social media, and not let yourself build up an online presence (ironically the internet and social media in particular undermine this new system, hence the push to allow people to erase their internet history). Just move to a new location and you can begin anew. It is the perfect system for cads and harlots to ply their trade and largely escape the consequences of it.

This didn’t all happen overnight though. It took time for the SMP to replace the Marriage Marketplace. But as Jenny has  realized, that transformation is now complete. What little bit was left of the old courtship or marriage market is now gone. All that remains is “dating”, with all of its ugliness still intact. Again, this was not accident. It didn’t “just happen.” Isolating “dating from character” is the whole point of dating in the first place. If character still really mattered we wouldn’t even be talking about dating, we would be talking about courting. Boyfriend and Girlfriend wouldn’t exist as words, instead we would still use suitor. If you are lamenting how the “dating scene” looks now, understand this: what you are seeing now is not failure. It is success.

[Cross-posted at The Courtship Pledge]

Recommended Reading:

The Boyfriend Invention

 

A Warning And A Lesson

Today’s post is inspired by the comments of this post over at Dalrock’s. It will be divided into two parts, the first of which responds to a comment by “Bee”, while the second features some of my thoughts and commentary concerning a comment left by “stringtheory.”

I.

Here is part of what commenter Bee said in response to Deti talking about the incorrect, inaccurate and often outright deceptive teaching in church on the nature of men and women:

What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?

Would you encourage the young men to marry young?

(Link to comment here)

I’m going to address them in order, starting with the question of “What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?”

Well, the first thing I would do is advise that they read the Wisdom Books in the Bible. Proverbs, Sirach and Song of Songs especially. I know that most Protestant Bibles don’t have the Book of Sirach, which I think is a tragic loss for those who have never read it. Fortunately there are plenty of online resources where Sirach can be read in several different translations. So if you don’t want to buy a new Bible that would be a viable alternative. Both Sirach and Proverbs mesh well together in terms of explaining positive and negative traits in women. They warn men about the consequences of choosing a wife poorly and can help keep women off a pedestal. Song of Songs is useful for disabusing men of the notion that women are asexual creatures, which can again help keep away the pedestalization. All of that makes for a good, solid foundation.

Other passages in the Bible provide good lessons as well. Genesis has valuable insights of course. Potiphar’s wife’s advances on Joseph provide stark warning about female nature. Samson provides all kinds of object lessons. Both the story of David and Solomon have great value as well. All of these will tie in to what will be taught later about female nature.

Before going any further, I would tell these young Christian men that male sexuality is not inherently evil or twisted or anything of that sort. God created us as sexual creatures (save perhaps those with St. Paul’s gift), and that is a good thing. Teach them that sex is both proper and good inside of marriage- for it unites man and woman together as one flesh and is the avenue by which offspring come about- which is what God desires.

With that taken care of, I would explain to those teenage men what women find attractive in men. Help them understand the differences between Attraction traits and Desirability traits. Then I would explain to them why women find those traits attractive. Make it clear to them that most people out there, Christian or non-Christian, don’t understand this. Consequently, they will need to be suspicious of anything else they’ve been taught before which clashes with this. Inform them that there is a lot of bad teaching out there, and they need to be able to distinguish the truth from lies.

Then I would move on to explain other aspects of female nature. Some important examples include:

• Hypergamy
• The Good Genes/Good Provider dichotomy and how that plays out
• Fitness Tests
• The impact of a woman’s sexual history on marital stability
• The inability to negotiate desire
• The differences in how women communicate as compared to men

The Feminine Imperative (an ephemeral concept if there ever was one) would also be something that would need to be explained to them. While difficult to describe, it has a huge impact on nearly all aspects of our culture, and learning it is critical for men to understand why the present culture (within and without the Church) is what it is.

By the end of all these lessons, these young men should be able to see women for what they are: fallen, sinful creatures… just like men. This brings us to the second question- “Would you encourage the young men to marry young?”

The short answer to this is yes, I would. I’ve explained before why young marriage is a good thing. Young marriage would (or to be more accurate, could) help these young men avoid sexual immorality. However, that would be an incomplete answer. Because at the same time I would also encourage the young men to prepare for marrying young. That means getting serious about their life right away. If they pursue an education, don’t waste time on needless classes. Take what they need, and only what they need. Finish as swiftly as possible, so as to minimize debt and get into the workforce as soon as possible. Consider trade school if not looking at college or university. Also consider community college combined with a full or part-time job.

At the same time, it would also be necessary to encourage the parents of the young men to support their sons marrying young. Most Christians these days, parents especially are opposed to young marriage, on a variety of grounds- none of them really good. Expect a lot of resistance here. And that leads into the real problem with all of this. You see, encouraging young men to marry young is rather pointless unless you can encourage young women to marry young. Right now that isn’t happening, in fact it is the exact opposite. This provides the perfect lead-up to part two-

II.

Commenter Stringtheory left the following comments:

On a recent camping trip, one of the guys was telling us about how his 28 year old son had started taking antidepressants. His son has never suffered from depression but told his dad he was able to say the right things and get a prescription. He’s taking them to try and kill his sex drive because he’s simply tired of pursing women with no success. The dad is upset and angry. His son is reasonably attractive, a working professional with a decent income, but all the girls he asks out turn him down, or if he does go out they want to have sex right away and his son wants to wait until marriage. So instead of being tempted with porn or fornication he’s cutting out the source of his temptation. We were all talking about the morality of this. Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?

(Link here)

I should correct my above statement. The question wasn’t “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?” but rather to avoid immorality. I want to make clear that my friend’s son wants to get married, but he simply can’t find any non-virgins and doesn’t think his prospects are going to get better any time soon. About six months ago he did strike up a friendship with an 19 year old who was (presumably) a virgin and things seemed to be moving along but it got quashed by the girl’s parents and church elders who thought that his interest was inappropriate given the age difference. After that he had had enough and started down the chemically eunuch route.

(Link here)

Most of my regular readers will likely understand why I sympathize with that young man. He sounds like a slightly younger version of myself, trying to clear much the same hurdles. Before answering stringtheory’s question, I want to continue where I left off- how young women are not encouraged to marry young.

I don’t recall if it was Novaseeker or Cail Corishev who once said something along the lines that there are few things that Christians fear these days so much as a young women with potential marrying young. Whether or not that accusation is true (I think it is for many),  stringtheory’s account, and that of other Christians in this part of the web, does demonstrate that many if not most Christians do not want young, attractive virgin women to marry good, virtuous men. They just don’t. If there was no age gap, as there was here, then another reason would have been given for why the relationship should not have been. As for why so many Christians act in this manner, there are two different forces working together here- one relating to women and one relating to men.

When it comes to women, most Christians oppose on principle the idea of a young, (attractive) virgin marrying. Of course, if one or more of those traits is not present, then the opposition tends to melt away. She’s no longer young? Why then, of course she should marry. She’s not attractive? Well, it won’t be such a loss if that man, older or not, marries her (although this is still not favored- its just tolerated more). She’s no longer a virgin? Well, it would be good for that men to marry her and “save her” from her past mistakes.  So for those young men that Bee was asking about… well, it really doesn’t matter if you encourage them to marry young or not. Because everyone else in church is encouraging the women the men want to marry (and should marry) to not marry. At least, not right away. Not until they get more “life experience” and other such nonsense. This really is one of the great tragedies of our age- the Christian women who should marry, and would make (all other things being equal) the best wives- those who are young and virgins, are for the large part essentially commanded that they shouldn’t marry until they are no longer young.

This brings us to the men. Based on what I have seen, and what others have relayed to me, it appears as though many Christians don’t want good, virtuous Christian men to marry well. Oh, they would never admit to it and would instead deny the accusation vociferously. They would protest and say that of course they want those nice men to marry well. But the women they want to marry, those young (hopefully attractive) virgins from the paragraph before, are basically off-limits to them. As for what women they are “allowed” to marry, that is, to court without scandal or reprisal? Yeah….  Honestly, sometimes I get the impression that a lot of Christians see good, virtuous men as janitors or sanitation workers who are expected to pick up the “trash” in church. If you continue to follow stringtheory’s comments in that thread he basically describes that exact phenomenon in action. Undoubtedly it is one of the major reasons why so many men are leaving the church right now. These men are essentially being punished for their virtue, which sure doesn’t help encourage it any, as incentives matter.

Before I close I also want to address the question of “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid [sexual] immorality?” I know that I have read some of the works of the early Church Fathers who discussed physical castration, and they made it clear that it was a sin. One’s body is holy, a gift from God, and is not to be disfigured. I think that the same reasoning would apply to chemical castration as well. Your brain is part of your body, and using chemicals to alter your brain chemistry to suppress, hinder or eliminate certain brain functions is harmful. Yes, the intent might be good, but the action itself is not just or ordered. Jesus was not being literal when he said we should cut off our hand if it caused us to be sin- he was applying a metaphor, as per his usual style. However, reasonable minds might differ and I am curious what my readers think about the subject. Is is acceptable to use chemicals to suppress one’s sex drive so as to avoid sexual immorality? Let me know in the comments.

The Differences Between “Classical” and “Traditional” Christian Marriage

Prompted by my post What We Mean By Marriage, several of my readers have asked what the differences were/are between “Classical” and “Traditional” marriage. This post aims to help my readers understand the differences between the two. I should mention, before I go any further, that the terms “Classical” and “Traditional” Christian marriage are my own. They are not drawn from any other source, merely the names I have assigned to the respective notions of marriage as I understand them. So it is doubtful that they will match up with anything you have seen elsewhere in the ‘sphere or on the ‘net.

To begin with I am going to recap the main features of both “versions” of marriage. Keep in mind that these are the religious definitions/understandings of marriage, not the way that the State understood marriage. Lets start with “Classical” Christian marriage:

• A holy union between a man and a woman which is joined together by God, bound by him and their oaths
• The purpose of marriage is to serve God, avoid sexual immorality and to raise Godly Children
• A clear hierarchy in the marriage structure: husband->wife->children
• Binding for Life- the marriage lasted until one party died, with only rare exceptions
• Spouses may not deny each other their conjugal rights
• Contraception was a defilement of the marriage bed
• Clearly defined roles for husband and wife- both worked, although often in different capacities

Now we move on to “Traditional” Christian marriage:

• A holy union between a man and a woman which is joined together by God, bound by their oaths to each other
• The purpose of marriage is to raise Godly children, as well as to civilize men and allow women to achieve their dreams of motherhood
• Recognition of the marital hierarchy, but often accompanied by exemptions and caveats
• Binding for Life- marriage is still supposed to be for life, but there are more “outs” available now
• Spouses are not supposed to deny each other their conjugal rights, but there are exceptions/exemptions
• Contraception is generally a bad thing, but sometimes may be necessary
• Clearly defined roles for husband and wife- the husband works and provides, and the wife raises the children and keeps the home.

Before I talk about the differences, lets cover what they have in common. The first bullet point, while worded differently, is essentially the same between them. Both have the understanding that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman that is joined together by God, and bound by their vows. Both also generally hold to the same idea that marriage is binding for life. Traditional marriage has more “outs” available- as divorce generally wasn’t available at all under Classical marriage. But otherwise they both had the same concept of marriage being for life.

Both have fairly similar views when it comes to denial of conjugal rights and contraception. Traditional marriage tends to be more “forgiving” of contraception, or at least attempts to try and limit the number of children (through whatever means were available). As for conjugal rights, again, they were not supposed to be denied. Perhaps the biggest change is that such matters were considered inappropriate topics of debate/conversation. As such, they were mostly swept under the rug.

This brings us to the differences. There are three areas where they diverge: the purpose of marriage, the nature of the marital hierarchy, and the roles of husband and wife. I will cover them in order.

A.

Here is a restatement of both of their views on the purpose of marriage:

• Classical Marriage: to serve God, avoid sexual immorality and to raise Godly Children
• Traditional Marriage: to raise Godly children, as well as to civilize men and allow women to achieve their dreams of motherhood

They both mention raising Godly children, as that component of marriage didn’t really change between the two iterations. So it will be skipped over for now.

As you can see, Traditional marriage doesn’t mention serving God and avoiding sexual immorality. I didn’t include them principally because those two components of classical marriage had dwindled in importance by the time traditional marriage showed up. It isn’t so much that they aren’t present, but rather that they were considered less important than the new components found in traditional marriage. Serving God, which I think under classical marriage was much more overt, is under traditional marriage more of an implied thing. Everyone sort of assumes it, but it doesn’t have the prominence it did before. Also, controlling sexuality and avoiding sexual immorality has receded as well. Sometimes it is mentioned and discussed, but more often than not it is skipped over. This is in part because discussions of sexuality tend to be considered “inappropriate” in many circumstances, and just aren’t talked about. And when sex is talked about, it is almost always in the context of lust and sinfulness, and not so much about how sexuality is a good thing in marriage. Actually, as I think on it, I might want to re-word classical marriage’s wording from “avoid sexual immorality” to something more positive, such as “provide a healthy, ordered and moral outlet for human sexuality.”

This brings us to the new components of traditional marriage, “civilizing men” and “allowing women to achieve their dreams of motherhood.” Both of these components are ones that I believe are “baked in” to the common understanding of what “traditional” marriage is. By that I mean that people just instinctively believe them to be true. They may not be “official” teaching, but they might as well be.

When it comes to men, marriage is perceived to “civilize” them, mostly by forcing them “to be responsible” by starting a family and supporting it. While it is true that marriage imposes a considerable amount of responsibility on men, the notion that it civilizes them is absurd and has no basis in Scripture (or Catholic/Orthodox Tradition). In my view this component acts in many ways to infantilize men (or at least portrays them that way), because it impliedly argues that a man needs a woman in his life in order to keep him in line, i.e., civilized. It is inherently misandristic [by the way, what does it say about the world when WordPress recognizes Melisandra as a word, but not misandry?]. I would in fact argue that this component of traditional marriage is one of the first manifestations of feminism within Christianity [feminism being far older in origin than many suspect, but that is a topic for a later post].

Now to women. It seems to me that in “traditional” marriage there is a belief that women are entitled to marry so that they can have children- basically that marriage allows them to fulfill their “higher calling” as mothers. What concerns me about this perspective is the implication that women are “owed” marriage and “owed” children, when in fact marriage is a calling from God (what we Catholics call a Vocation), and children are a blessing from God (not something we are owed). Again, it seems to have this vibe of “female primacy” within it that looks an awful like the Feminine Imperative at work.

Summed up, and put crudely, traditional marriage contains the implicit understanding that marriage makes men less bad and women more good.

B.

The marital hierarchy in classical and traditional marriage is very similar, at least on paper. Both recognize wifely submission and headship by the husband. One minor difference is that traditional marriage is less likely to recognize that God is the true head of the marriage, such that you get God -> Husband -> Wife -> Children in order of authority (something I should have included in my description of classical marriage).

What I think is the real difference here is the belief that the husband should not be involved in some spheres of influence or authority. This is heavily influenced by the understanding of the roles of husband and wife in traditional marriage, which I will talk about in greater depth in the next section. Under traditional marriage the basic idea is that since women (wives in this specific instance) are better at certain things than men are, they should be given free reign to carry out those activities. In other words, while men are still technically the “head” of the marriage, they have limited to no authority over certainly “wifely duties.” Child-rearing is the most obvious example of this- wives need to be the ones to primarily raise children, especially young ones, because they are so much better at it and husband just need to accept that this isn’t something they can question. There are other fields within the marriage that are treated the same way. Essentially, the authority of the husband is curtailed “for the good of everyone” in certain areas, because the wife is better suited to handle them.

This is a usurpation of the authority of the husband, all dressed up in language that makes it seem like it is beneficial for the marriage. Given this early chink in the armor of submission, it really shouldn’t be a surprise that “mutual submission” worked its way into the mainstream of Christian thought.

C.

Lastly, we come to the roles of husband and wife within marriage. Here is what I wrote before:

• Classical Marriage: Clearly defined roles for husband and wife- both worked, although often in different capacities
• Traditional Marriage: Clearly defined roles for husband and wife- the husband works and provides, and the wife raises the children and keeps the home.

The real change between the classical and traditional marriage understanding of the role of the spouses in the household is found in the role of the wife. Under both the role of the husband is essentially the same, as the husband protected the family and worked to provide for it.  On the other hand the perceived role of the wife made a dramatic, although difficult to notice, shift during the transition between the two.

The home was/is the primary locus of the wife’s activity under both classical and traditional marriage. Yet what they did, what they were supposed to do, and what they were expected to do is not the same. The best way that I can explain it is that under classical marriage there were/are “Work at Home Moms”, while under traditional marriage there were/are “Stay at Home Moms.” Under classical Christian marriages wives were expected to be economically productive, just as men were. Proverbs 31 is an excellent example of this, for it lauds a wife who brings profit to her household. Anna, the wife of Tobit in the Book of Tobit, did “women’s work” to provide for her family .They might not be expected to, or capable of, providing for a household like the husband (and in fact couldn’t/can’t for some pretty obvious reasons), but wives/mothers still provided for the family. Of course, they still reared children and maintained the home, but that was all part of their general duties towards the household. However, under traditional Christian marriage the wife is often not seen as being required to economically support the family any longer. She fulfills her duties merely by raising the children and “keeping” the home. I suspect that upper-middle class and upper class attitudes were in large part responsible for this. Because of their relative affluence, wives no longer had to work to support the family, and keeping them at home became a status symbol.

 

Over time this altered the perception of what women were required to do in marriage. My suspicion is that early forms of feminism encouraged this change in perception, as it effectively reduced the burden on women and put more of it on men. It represented another shift in how a Christian marriage was supposed to be.

Again, these distinctions between “classical” and “traditional” Christian marriage are mostly in how people understand marriage, not in how those “versions” look when applied. It is based on perceptions and assumptions of everything that Christian marriage entails. There are many reasons why a wife might not be able to economically support the family in some way, but that is different from her believing that she doesn’t have to support (or bring benefit to) the family if it was viable for her to do so.

That brings this post to its conclusion. I hope that I answered most of the questions about the differences between  “classical” and “traditional” Christian marriage that my readers had. If not, ask away in the comments, and I will try and answer as best as I may.

What We Mean By Marriage

Ballista has just written a post over at Society of Phineas where he attacks the modern counterfeit of marriage. His post, Defending the Lie That is Marriage, is worth reading in its entirety, and I suggest my readers head over there first before finishing up with my post.

His post, and the comments which spawned it over at Deep Strength’s blog, got me thinking about what we mean by “marriage.” Ballista likes to use the terms “Marriage 1.0” and “Marriage 2.0” to distinguish between marriage as it was, and marriage as it is now. Certainly for the purposes of discussion such terms are a vast improvement, as they help us keep in mind what is actually being talked about. However, I think that we can go yet further with them. More divisions of what marriage is, and marriage was, are possible. This extends even beyond a categorization based on time, because when we talk about the institution of marriage we are really talking about two different things- the religious institution of marriage, and the legal/civil institution of marriage. They are not the same thing, not by a long-shot. [Edit: As Christians, we should recognize that the State can call whatever it likes marriage, and that doesn’t actually mean that it is marriage. But while the object may not be marriage, the name is, and so it is important to distinguish between them. This post aims to explore that distinction.] So I’m going to use this post to try and break up the two of them, and then categorize them as well, so that when we talk about marriage, we can be as specific as possible.

I. The Religious Institution

Over the course of nearly two thousand years the Christian understanding and meaning of marriage has changed enormously. But most of that change has taken place in the last century or two. Prior to the last two centuries there was a general understanding of what Christian marriage was, and what it wasn’t. Below are my attempts to categorize what Christians (including both Churchians and actual, devout Christians) mean when they refer to marriage in a religious sense:

A. Classical Christian Marriage

This is Christian marriage as it originally existed. Some of its features included:

• A holy union between a man and a woman which is joined together by God, bound by him and their oaths
• The purpose of marriage is to serve God, avoid sexual immorality and to raise Godly Children
• A clear hierarchy in the marriage structure: husband->wife->children
• Binding for Life- the marriage lasted until one party died, with only rare exceptions
• Spouses may not deny each other their conjugal rights
• Contraception was a defilement of the marriage bed
• Clearly defined roles for husband and wife- both worked, although often in different capacities

I used past tense here because, as a general rule, Classical Christian Marriage doesn’t exist anymore- either as a practice or as what people have in mind when they think of marriage. Save perhaps for the most orthodox/conservative Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, where you might see it.  They are an exception, even among exceptions, however. Otherwise, this is not what Christians think of when they talk about marriage.

B. “Traditional” Christian Marriage

This is Christian marriage as it existed following the rise of modernism, but before the full manifestation of contemporary feminism. Its features include:

• A holy union between a man and a woman which is joined together by God, bound by their oaths to each other
• The purpose of marriage is to raise Godly children, as well as to civilize men and allow women to achieve their dreams of motherhood
• Recognition of the marital hierarchy, but often accompanied by exemptions and caveats
• Binding for Life- marriage is still supposed to be for life, but there are more “outs” available now
• Spouses are not supposed to deny each other their conjugal rights, but there are exceptions/exemptions
• Contraception is generally a bad thing, but sometimes may be necessary
• Clearly defined roles for husband and wife- the husband works and provides, and the wife raises the children and keeps the home.

When nearly all Christians talk about traditional marriage, or going back to what marriage “used to be”, this is what they mean. Not classical marriage, but rather the religious understanding of marriage that was affected by culture and politics in the modern era. I say politics because legal definitions of marriage started to become prevalent at this point, and influenced people’s understanding of what marriage was.

C. Contemporary “Conservative” Christian Marriage

This is Christian marriage as most “conservative” Christians think of it nowadays. It is thoroughly infected with modern feminist thought, even though its supporters may argue otherwise. It has been around for several generations now. Among its features you find:

• A holy union between a man and a woman who are in love, [DG: here is the newest addition] gay people should be able to get something similar so as to not discriminate
• The purpose of marriage is for the spouses to be happy
• Unclear notions of the marital hierarchy- there might be some nominal notions of submission and headship, but more likely than not marriage is treated as a partnership of equals, i.e. “Mutual Submission”
• Binding for Love- marriage is “supposed” to be for life, but if one of a dozen different things happens, all of which tied to one spouse’s happiness or falling out of love, the marriage can be ended by either party
• Spouses shouldn’t sexually deny each other, but both get a say on what is appropriate or not, and besides, marriage is about more than sex and caring about it too much is a sin
• Contraception is a personal thing between a married couple and God
• Clearly defined role for the husband- he works and provides for and protects the family; the wife however has the right to decide whether she wants to work or wants to stay at home and choose if she wants to raise the kids herself

For most “conservative” Christians this is what they understand by marriage. As one can see by comparing it to what came before, it bears little semblance to what marriage used to be, what marriage is supposed to be. Yet for most Christians they can’t understand how marriage could be anything different- in large part because they haven’t seen anything different themselves. As for another idea of marriage, something more traditional, well, that is something they just are ashamed to think of, much less be associated with.

D. Contemporary “Progressive” Christian Marriage

This is what “progressive” Christians think of when it comes to marriage. Incidentally, this is probably the future of marriage as most Christians understand it. After all, “conservative” marriage now used to be progressive Christian marriage back in the day.

• A union between two [DG: soon to be any number] people in love
• The purpose of marriage is for the spouses to be happy
• No marital hierarchy- marriage is supposed to be a partnership among equals
• Binding for Love- marriage lasts as long as both spouses are happy and in love, once that ceases either may end the marriage for any reason
• Spouses decide for themselves what kind of sex life they should have
• Contraception is a purely personal thing between the couple, and there is nothing wrong with it anyways
• No defined roles for spouses- the spouses do whatever they want with regards to work and children

Everything above is a short summary of what “progressive” Christians think marriage to be. Of course, this is increasingly what the mainstream, “conservative” Christians will come to believe constitutes marriage.

That covers the religious institution of marriage. Now on to the legal/civil side of it.

II. The Legal Institution

The legal “understanding” or “definition” of marriage has changed a great deal in a much shorter period of time than has the religious understanding. In large part this is because the State has played a minor (or even non-existent) role in marriage for most of Christian history. Only in the last few centuries has this changed- not coincidentally this happens to overlap with changes to the religious understanding of marriage as well. [Edit: Remember that we are talking about the State definition of “marriage”, not the institution/sacrament that God created.] Here are my attempts to categorize the legal institution over marriage over time:

A. Marriage v. 0.5

This represents the legal state of marriage before significant government involvement. For much, but not all, of the history of Christianity, this was the norm. The exceptions would be the present, modern age, as well as in the very beginning of the Church under Roman rule.  Some of its features:

• Minimal Government regulation- recognizing and regulating marriage was largely left up to the church, and not handled by the state
• Legal Separation- divorce, like marriage, was a private affair; there was generally no civil recognition of divorce, although legal separation of spouses, which handled property rights, was recognized
• Paternal Custody- the father gained custody of all legitimate children in the event of some sort of separation
• No wealth transfer- the state didn’t enforce monetary sanctions on a spouse, as it wasn’t involved in marriage; this means no alimony, property transfers or child support

As you can see, a pretty hands off approach. My basic understanding of history leads me to believe that this was the paradigm from the fall of Rome up to about the Reformation. After that, we saw the next legal stage of marriage develop.

B. Marriage v. 1.0

For a long time this was the classical legal understanding of marriage. It marked an era where government became involved in the field of marriage. The reasons for this are numerous- property disputes, dispute over custody, and moral concerns. Here are a few of its features:

• Government Regulation- government recognized and regulated marriage, marriage licenses were commonplace and were often necessary in conjunction with a Church wedding
• Fault-based Divorce- divorce was permitted in only a few circumstances, such as repeated adultery, abandonment or abuse
• Nature- marriage was a special contractual relationship between a man and a woman
• Paternal Custody- the father gained custody of all legitimate children in the event of some sort of separation; however, certain doctrines did give the mother limited custody, such as during the “tender years”
• Limited Wealth Transfers- In some instance, primarily/only when the husband was at fault, the wife was entitled to alimony payments; otherwise no child support or property transfers
• Coverture- husband and wife considered “one person” for many aspects of the law, with the husband in principal control of the marriage, although certain exceptions did develop towards the end of this regime
• Standing Consent- husband recognized as having the legal right to sex with his wife at any time, no such notion as “marital rape” is recognized, as they are both “one person” (you cannot rape yourself)

Up until the last century or so this was the standard legal understanding of marriage. However, starting with a number of exceptions and caveats developing in the late 1800s, this regime started to undergo a radical transformation. Partly this was due to cultural changes, but also legal changes that expanded upon existing exceptions and doctrines.

C. Marriage v. 2.0

Now we come to the vaunted “Marriage 2.0”, which was, until the last few years, the standard for a number of decades. Only the very oldest now living experienced a time before this legal regime was present. Its appearance was a result of the logical expansion of a number of doctrines, like the “tender years” doctrine, as well as the natural extension of concepts like “married woman’s property laws.” Below are a few of its features:

• Government Regulation- government recognized and regulated marriage, marriage licenses were standard and were often necessary in conjunction with a Church wedding
• Nature- marriage was a special contractual relationship between a man and a woman
• No-Fault based Divorce- divorce was permitted in all circumstances, without any party being “at fault”, essentially unilateral divorce
• Maternal Custody- the mother gained custody of all children in most instances of separation, usually only failing to do so when she was gravely at fault in some way, such as a drug addict
• Significant Wealth Transfers- Child Support is standard from the higher earning spouse, in addition alimony might also be required (usually of the husband), in addition property is split during divorce, with the nature of the split determined by the jurisdiction
• Egalitarianism- husband and wife are separate persons and “equals” before the law, and have equal rights in the marriage
• No Standing Consent- marital rape is recognized everywhere, spouses have no right to sex in marriage

Over the course of the last century Marriage 2.0 developed and flourished. For the longest of time it was the standard legal regime when marriage was concerned. While “No-Fault” divorce was a large part of it, it wasn’t the only component which made Marriage 2.0 what it is. In addition, even when fault was still required some courts still treated it as no-fault anyways. All of these components added up to what constituted Marriage 2.0. I am using past tense here because this regime is in the process of being replaced by a new “edition” or “version”, one which is still forming.

D. Marriage v. 3.0

At last we come to the newest legal version of marriage. Of course, it is still in “Beta”, and can be considered v. 2.5 if we want to get technical. So, what are the changes? Well, to begin with have the removal of any requirement that both parties to a marriage be a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is recognized under the new regime. Another possible change, one that I predict happening within 15 years, is acceptance of legal polygamy. So it will be a contractual relationship between “two or more” people. For the moment, at least, I think that the requirement of people will stick and animals or other objects won’t be included, but perhaps I’m being optimistic.

Of course, with same sex marriage certain doctrines no longer work. For example, “maternal custody” is likely to be set aside, because it won’t apply to gay couples. My suspicion is that new system for determining custody, based solely on availability and time spent with children, will be developed. Ironically, this might be to the advantage of some men. Otherwise, I don’t expect any significant shake-ups. It is, if anything, a logical development of what has gone before.

III. Interplay

What can be readily noticed is that Marriage 0.5 and Marriage 1.0 match up fairly well with both Classical and “traditional” Christian marriage. This is because the former was heavily influenced by the latter. Unfortunately, the development of “traditional” Christian marriage also influenced the legal aspects of marriage, leading to the slow expansion of Marriage 1.0. In fact, for a time there was probably a Marriage 1.5, mostly in the early part of the 20th century. But it was quickly swallowed up by Marriage 2.0. That in turn was also influenced by the “conservative” Christian take on marriage, and reciprocated by influencing “conservative” marriage in turn. Both fed off each others worst natures.

[Edit: Because there was such a strong similarity to what God intended to be marriage, and what the State called marriage, it was easy for most people to assume they were the same thing. In fact, most people still think that the State can determine what is, and isn’t marriage, and that includes most Christians. Zippy covered this subject before in a post here, I think most will find it worth a read, even if they aren’t Catholic.]

This brings us to the counterfeit that Ballista warned about. When most “Christian” leaders today talk about marriage, when they promote marriage, what they are really talking about/promoting is “conservative” Christian marriage under a Marriage 2.0/2.5 regime. Perhaps a few, a rare few, might even support “traditional” marriage. But that is still under the present legal regime. That is a far cry from what “marriage” was like a century ago, when it was either classical or “traditional” Christian marriage under a Marriage 1.0 regime. These conditions might share the same name of “marriage,” but in reality they are very different entities notions.

Setting aside even any legal considerations, the form of marriage that Christian leaders push today is still not classical Christian marriage. While it might superficially resemble marriage as it originally was for Christians, beneath the surface are found significant mutations that warp the purpose and nature of marriage. Alas, these mutations have been around for long enough that they are now associated with how marriage “traditionally” existed a long time ago. The deceit inherent in traditional marriage is dangerous to someone who think that they are entering a truly Christian marriage for two reasons. The first is that they are not in fact living a Christian marriage as God intended. The second is that the “flaws” in traditional marriage make it vulnerable to the pressures of contemporary culture and the present legal regime- there is plenty to encourage a spouse to change their mind about marriage and blow theirs up on a whim.

As I end this post, I would encourage my readers to offer their thoughts on the interplay between the religious and legal institutions of marriage, as well as my analysis of how marriage has changed over time. Let me know if I’m on the right track, or point out where I missed the mark.

Unashamed Of The Faith

Today’s post is concerns a story from The Daily Blaze about two young girls, named “Precious” and “Hope”, who escaped from Boku Haram in Africa:

At first, the fighters pretended to be part of the local army, driving in similar vehicles and wearing clothing resembling military garb. Precious and the other girls believed they were there to protect them from the militants that were hiding in the tall brush.

But then, the men started pulling some of the girls out of bed, giving them no time to get dressed. Others grabbed what they could, mainly Bibles and clothing.

The men rounded up the hundreds of girls outside.

…

When the men had gathered the girls at the front of the school compound, one of them said, “We will release you but you have to get married. No more schooling,” Hope said.

Some of the men fought and shouted amongst themselves. One said, ”We have to call our master before we let them go. Keep them.”

The Boko Haram militants had parked three large trucks and several smaller cars at the compound gate. Before loading the girls in, the men confiscated all of the Bibles and any clothing the girls had managed to grab.

“The moon was so high and the fire was so bright there was no place we could hide or run,” Hope said.

The girls were told to get into the trucks, but it was too high for some and they couldn’t reach. Some of the men pulled the small cars alongside and then brought the rice bags they had stolen from the school to be used as a step to climb up.

When there was no room left in the trucks. Precious was standing alongside a small vehicle.

There were three girls, however, the militants didn’t have room for. One of the men shouted, “Are you Christian or Muslim?”

One of the girls was a Muslim, so she was allowed to run home, Precious said.

One of the Christian girls was pushed to the ground and a militant placed the muzzle of his weapon against her head.

“Renounce your faith or we kill you,” he said.

“It’s better to die than to renounce Christ,” the girl replied, Precious said.

He yelled it again, Precious said, pushing the girl farther into the hard earth. Then he let her up.

“He said, ‘Run home or we will kill you.’ They let the three girls go and they went running home,” Precious told Greve.

Precious didn’t know why they let those girls go. It didn’t matter why.

She was then shoved into the trunk of the vehicle.

I said earlier that this post concerned the girls who escaped from Boku Haram, but that exactly isn’t true. The post is really about that young girl who would rather die than renounce Christ. That young girl showed more courage, more conviction, than all of the mainstream Churchian pastors out there (you know who they are) combined. She was pushed hard into the earth and had a gun up against her head. She had every reason to believe that death awaited her if she refused to renounce her faith. But she didn’t.

Compare that to Protestant and Catholic leaders who will bite their tongues and not speak up about core Christian doctrine. Do they face death when they speak the Word? Hardly. They risk not death, but making women (and plenty of men) uncomfortable. And what will come about as a result of that discomfort? The worst that can happen is they lose their job, not their life. Yet, despite the far lesser penalty they would experience for defending their faith, these “Shepherds” will hem and haw and twist Scripture like a pretzel so as to not offend members of their congregations. Of course, that assumes that said “Shepherds” actually believe the Word in the first place.

As I think on it, this account reminds me of the tale of the Seven Brothers, from Second Maccabees. We in the West have become weak and soft. We’ve forgotten the true depth of sacrifice sometimes required of us for our faith. This is a difficult road to walk, even in the best of times. Yet so many of us aren’t even willing to take minor steps to stand up for the truth of God’s Word. I am no exception, I too have failed to walk the road when it was asked of me.  Looking back on my life, I am now ashamed of the times when I was silent, when instead I should have spoken up. To the best of my abilities I won’t make that same error again. I think all of us need to keep in mind that young girl, and be unashamed of our faith.

Ashamed Of The Faith

Escoffier, who sometimes posts at Veritas Lounge, left a superb comment recently over at Dalrock’s blog, in the post Worse than fear. Worse than malice. His comment can be found here. The comment, like the original post,  addressed why so many Christians, especially Christian men, are willing and eager to set aside scripture when it comes to matters such as marriage. I am going to repeat his whole comment as a block, both because it is that good, and for ease of reading; my comments will come afterwards:

I want to add a supplementary / alternative reason to explain this embarrassment over the text of the Bible. It’s been touched on but not really fleshed out.

That is, that these nominal Christians under discussion are all moderns first and Christians second (if second). Worse, they don’t even know they are moderns, or what it means to be a modern, or what modernity is.

Modernity, to say the least, conflicts with the Bible. It was designed to, on purpose. Yet it has been so successful in taking over nearly all conscious and sub-conscious thought that hardly anyone any more recognizes it for what it is. That includes most contemporary Christians, to whom “modernity” is simply synonymous with “reality” or even “morality.”

There’s a particular strand of modernity that’s particularly relevant here, namely historicism, and specifically rational historicism (as opposed to radical or irrational historicism). This is the idea of “progress.” “Progress” is cooked into the original conception of modernity, but it came to take on a different meaning much later. Originally, it more or less just meant “We can improve the material condition of man on earth; human beings have a lot more power than either the Bible or classical philosophy will admit.”

Rational historicism takes this idea much further and posits a unidirectional progress, which is worked out through impersonal forces (the so-called historical dialectic) over which man may be an unwitting instrument, but which he didn’t design, doesn’t direct, and can’t control. “History” is nonetheless rational, moving “forward” (with occasional, necessary steps back) to ever-“better” states and eventually to an end state in which all dialectical conflicts are resolved, all moral and political problems solved, and final wisdom achieved (if not necessarily accessible to all). In pop-culture terms, the Star Trek universe is basically the cartoon version of this end state.

Nearly everyone today believes in this “arc” at least in a simplified way. The present is believed to be inherently more enlightened that the past. We Don’t Do That Anymore Because We Know Better. And the future will be inevitably more enlightened than the present.

The source of this impression is ultimately perverted or corrupted or mistaken philosophy, but one does not need to have studied philosophy at all to have been affected, even “convinced.” The astounding success of modern natural science and its offspring, technology, serves to “prove” to such people that “progress” is real and that the present is superior to the past. Technological progress is assumed to be coeval with moral and political progress.

But it is never explained why this should be so. Actually, certain modern philosophers did try to make such a case, but they hardly proved it and their case is open to serious theoretical difficulties which have been pointed out by other philosophers. However, that whole dialogue may as well never have happened as far as the average modern person is concerned. He is simply unaware of it and takes on faith that the present is morally superior to the past.

This, then, is a significant source of the embarrassment. The modern Christian (modern first, Christian second) is embarrassed by the evident conflicts between his nominal faith and his actual, if unconscious, modernity. Modernity trumps. So the offending Scriptures have to be dealt with one way or another. There are many possible ways: insist that it doesn’t say what it seems to say, come up with Rube Goldberg interpretations to square it with modernity, call it “metaphoric,” say that it was right for that time but not our time, and so on. The latter is a kind of “Living Constitution” framework for the Bible. It assumes that God has left to us the task of “updating” Scripture as the “times change.” The changing of the times is held to be the true constant, and really the true God, but only implicitly.

To begin with, Escoffier’s use of the word “moderns” can probably be translated quite accurately into “liberals”, in the sense of the word as I used it in my post The Sound of Inevitability. As for which word is better or more precise/accurate (they aren’t the same thing), I think that is a matter of semantics. Both can work, although for the remainder of this post I will use moderns and modernity instead [the same applies to liberalism and modernism as describing the same over-arching philosophy].

Escoffier is also on the mark when he states that most people “don’t even know they are moderns, or what it means to be a modern, or what modernity is.” Most people adhere to all sorts of philosophical beliefs without realizing it; they lack both the knowledge to categorize their beliefs as well as the introspection to observer them. This double barrier makes it especially difficult to explain to people their own beliefs, as even if you correct their ignorance they might still not get it. All of which means that for most people understanding what they actually believe is probably not feasible.

Escoffier is also correct that most people in the West are moderns first, and Christians second (assuming that they are Christians). There are a number of reasons for this:

• Training (or indoctrinating) of someone to be a modern begins at a very young age, often before matters of faith
• Everyone is immersed all the times in modern thinking and modes of thought, whereas overtly Christian approaches are much more rare
• Modern thinking has already infiltrated a significant amount of Christianity, and corrupted a number of critical fields of doctrine
• Modernist thinking is baked into everyday assumptions of “how things work”, as well as our understanding of history and our present place in it

And the list goes on. Now, I’m not sure if modernity was in fact explicitly designed to subvert Christianity. Escoffier might be on the right track here, but whether he is or not determining whether this is the case would take up a post by itself. So I will leave it be for now.

“Historicism” is an interesting strain of thought. From my experience most people are just like Escoffier describes: subscribers without realizing what they are subscribing to or even that they are subscribing to something at all. It is the dominant paradigm of the present age, and as Escoffier notes, pretty much everyone buys into it. I think these two sentences are a perfect summation of what most people believe:

The present is believed to be inherently more enlightened that the past. We Don’t Do That Anymore Because We Know Better.

Most people really do buy into the idea that we know better now, and it shapes their thoughts and beliefs when it comes to anything historical. And yes, that includes Scripture. And nowhere does this manifest more than when Scripture concerns women in some way:

• Wives required to submit to their husbands? Barbaric.
• Women not allowed to teach or hold authority over men? Outdated.
• Women required to cover their head while praying? Oppressive.
• Women advised to maintain a quiet, gentle spirit? Misogynistic.

As far as I can tell, pretty much every part of Scripture (or Tradition) that addresses women in some way is now interpreted through the modernist filter. And that means if it doesn’t agree with modern thinking and beliefs about women, it must be discarded.

This brings us to the final paragraph of Escoffier’s comment, which I will repeat again for ease of reading:

This, then, is a significant source of the embarrassment. The modern Christian (modern first, Christian second) is embarrassed by the evident conflicts between his nominal faith and his actual, if unconscious, modernity. Modernity trumps. So the offending Scriptures have to be dealt with one way or another. There are many possible ways: insist that it doesn’t say what it seems to say, come up with Rube Goldberg interpretations to square it with modernity, call it “metaphoric,” say that it was right for that time but not our time, and so on. The latter is a kind of “Living Constitution” framework for the Bible. It assumes that God has left to us the task of “updating” Scripture as the “times change.” The changing of the times is held to be the true constant, and really the true God, but only implicitly.

There are a couple of key points here. The first is that people are embarrassed by what Scripture says. And by people, I mean “Christians.” They really are ashamed of what the Bible has to say about things like marriage, divorce and “the role of women.” Those teachings are incompatible with modernist thought, and in fact scandalous nowadays. To be associated with them is to be a social pariah. As Escoffier points out, modernity trumps Christianity in terms of their values hierarchy. They have either forgotten, ignored or never learned the admonition of Saint Paul: “Do not be conformed to this world.^“ No, they have conformed, and in many cases do so with gusto.

Yet, for reasons which only they know, they don’t want to give up all of Christianity. They still want to keep some of it- usually the happy, nice, fun parts like the resurrection and grace and forgiveness. But the hard parts, and the parts that conflict with modernity? Those must be “dealt with.”

Ultimately, I think Escoffier is correct when he says that “the changing of the times,” that is, the belief in “Progress”, is the real God of most “Christians”, not the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob. They do not keep the Great Commandment and “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.” (Deut 6:4-5). It is the world, and its empty philosophy, that they truly love.

Update: Novaseeker has created a post highlighting Escoffier’s comment, and Dalrock has created his own post as well.