True Ignorance

Donald Rumsfeld, for all of his many faults, had this gem to say before he left his position as Secretary of Defense:

Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.

I like to call that latter state “True Ignorance.” I suspect there is a real word or phrase to describe it, but my cursory search for one yielded nothing. Perhaps a reader could supply it for me.

I call it “True Ignorance” because there is no easy method of resolving the issue. When I know there is a gap in my knowledge, then I stand some chance of fixing it- perhaps even a good one. Most importantly, I can actively work to overcome that bit of ignorance. But when I have no inkling that there is some gap in my knowledge, then I cannot take active measures to fix it. It lies there, dormant, until happenstance (should it arise) gives me an opportunity to fix it.

This was the case for me in a lot of matters in my life, but most especially my faith. I had huge gaps in my knowledge of spiritual matters, and hadn’t a clue that the gaps existed. So for years I did nothing to overcome this knowledge deficit, unaware even that the deficit existed.

Some instances of “True Ignorance” can’t be avoided. But my ignorance of matters of the Faith was not one of them. Those who came before me were in a position to inform me of how much more there was to my faith than the miserly catechism I received. But they didn’t. They left me in a state of abject ignorance, which I have only recently been working to correct.

Part of the reason I have been writing my “Tradition Thursday” series of posts was to cover some of that history, tradition and teaching that I never knew of when I was younger. While the name was a bit of a misnomer, the overall goal was to share with my readers some of what I had discovered for myself. Perhaps I can help others in the same way I was helped myself- lifting the veil of ignorance.

All of which is a convoluted way of saying that I am going to keep writing posts like I have. I may change the name or format, but I intend to keep them up in one form or another. I may also move it to another day, but I intend, for the near future at least, to continue doing what I have been. Just don’t be surprised if it looks a little different in the future.

[Side note: I may be out of town this weekend, so weekend posting may not take place.]

One Of Us

When I was considerably younger, I once wondered why it was that our Lord and Savior came among us as a child. Why so lowly and ignoble an entrance? Fortunately the Letter to the Hebrews provides an explanation:

¹⁴ Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, ¹⁵ and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage. ¹⁶ For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. ¹⁷ Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. ¹⁸ For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.

(Hebrews 2:14-18)

It was necessary for Jesus to experience all that we have experienced- birth, life, and death- for Him to act as our High Priest and conduit and intercessor with the Father. He became one of us- all so that we might become one with Him.

Have a blessed Christmas everyone.

Thoughts On Married Clergy

A few days ago the blog Catholicism Pure and Simple posted excerpts from an article about a possible push in the next synod to allow married priests. Those who aren’t Catholic or Orthodox will probably not find it or this post interesting. But I did, in particular because of my recent experiences. I’ve been attending a few different Eastern Catholic parishes for a long time now, and at several of the parishes the priest (also pastor) was married. Having had regular occasion to see married priests in action, and also having experiences with celibate priests (both New Mass and TLM alike) for most of my life, I imagine I have a somewhat different perspective than most Catholics. With that in mind, I wanted to offer a few thoughts of my own on the subject.

To begin with, I do not think that married priests in the Western Rite represent the end of the world. Having seen both systems in action, I can assert with a fair measure of confidence that married priests are just as effective in their pastoral and sacramental duties as celibate priests. In fact, I dare say that the married priests I have experience with are more orthodox and better pastors than a fair number of the celibate Western Rite priests I have encountered. From what I can tell their personal experience with marriage and children gives them an insight there in pastoral matters that celibate priests lack. Further, the Eastern Church has had married priests since the beginning, and it has not proven to be any kind of detriment.

At the same time, I fully appreciate the value of celibate priests. The married priests I have had for pastors have all been pastors at smaller parishes. It would be much more difficult for a married priest to be a pastor at a larger parish without running into time issues with his own family. Also, their own outside perspective on marriage can be very valuable as well- they can be detached in vital way. Time, though, is the biggest factor, and it is no surprise that this is mentioned by St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. Celibate priests can devote all their time to pastoral care in a way that married priests can’t.

Taken together, I not only have no problem with married priests in the Western Rite, but I think it could prove beneficial. Something that is important to keep in mind is that the Western Rite tradition of only celibate priests is just that- a small “t”, human tradition. It is not Sacred Tradition, much less doctrine. It is pastoral discipline. Furthermore, that tradition has been around for less time than married priests were permitted in the Western Church.

However, I am apprehensive about this new “push” for married clergy. I think that the authors of that article may be right that there is more behind it. I suspect that some may be using it as an avenue to try and change actual doctrine, rather than pastoral discipline. If that is the case, and I suspect it is, then caution is the order of the day. It is important to do the right thing for the right reasons, otherwise it soon stops being the right thing.

One further note- I do not see married priests as being a panacea to “cure” the priest shortage here in the West. At least, not by itself. That problem is deeper, and much of it is rooted in series problems with Western seminaries. Until those problems are fixed, the kind of married men you would want to be priests won’t make it through to ordination. In other words, the same negative filter would be applied to them as well as to non-married men.

Two Become One

I’ve been trying to write a proper reply to Cane Caldo’s post on how he was Wrong About the Trees, but have been thus far stymied. I really can’t think of much to add to what he has already said on the matter. The analogy that he uses, that of the Vine and Branch, is so apt that I am somewhat ashamed I didn’t think of it earlier. [I know, that is probably a bit of envy on my part.] My last post showed how agricultural analogies were used quite frequently in Scripture. Israel was often compared to a vineyard [The Lord’s Vineyard], and similar comparisons about fertile land were also applied to women as well. The Book of Sirach was especially straightforward about this. The Song of Songs compared the Woman to a garden. So it was all there all along.

But those analogies, while apt, don’t have quite the same oomph as does Cane’s. I think the reason why is because there is too much of a divide between the farmer and the field he works. They cannot be “One Flesh” in the same way that the Branch and Vine can become “One Flesh.” Furthermore, we can see how the Vine is dominant and supports the Branch, in a way that just doesn’t quite translate when talking about the Gardner and the Garden. Cane’s comparison really allows for us to see how “they are no longer two, but one flesh.”

Which brings me to Scott’s post on the subject. Scott was interested in the concept of identity in light of Cane’s article, and mentioned my background post on the nature of man. I wanted to add to his thoughts the reminder about how Jesus explicitly said that two would become one in Marriage. Specifically, “one flesh.” Modern science has helped us understand that Jesus was speaking both literally and metaphysically- there really is a lasting physical union that results from the conjugal act. Given the exchange of DNA and other chemicals, it shouldn’t surprise us that our body chemistry can change as well. That can carry with it potential behavioral changes, which just might change our view of ourselves- our identity.

Something else occurs to me as well. There are numerous comparisons in Scripture between marriage and the relationship between God and Man. In that relationship God takes the masculine role and humanity takes the feminine role. Now, from what I understand, our goal as Christians is to become more and more like God. In other words, to become Holy just as He is Holy. This is manifested by living out and achieving a spiritual life. Since “God is Spirit,” we then are trying to become just like God. Is that not the same as taking on God’s identity? Is that not ultimately our objective, to become as much like God as possible? If so, then we should consider that in light of the comparison of marriage to the relationship of God and Man. If Woman (the feminine) is to take on the identity of God (the masculine), then does it not make sense that the Woman (the feminine) is to take on the identity of Man (the masculine)? At least, when it comes to marriage the woman will undertake more of the identity assumption than the man. That seems to me to be commiserate with the feminine role- to be swept up in and to identify with the masculine. Something of a perfect symmetry appears to be at play here.

Or at least, that is what my casual musings have lead me to. I’m curious what my readers think. Feel free to chime in folks.

The Mammon Trap- Replacing The Holy Spirit

[This post will almost certainly need some after-the-fact clarification. If anything needs some clearing up, let me know in the comments.]

I. Introduction

Today’s post relies on my recent Background post, found here.

I’m not sure if he was the first one to say it or not, but Rollo Tomassi of The Rational Male was the first person I ever saw who made the claim that “the Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit in Churchianity.” Others have made similar statements, including Dalrock, but Rollo is the first I recall saying something to that effect.  I never gave it much thought, even as I saw some truth behind it. So I never stopped to grasp what was really happening with that phenomenon. Or what it actually meant on a theological level. But in the past few months I have been studying Eastern Spirituality and broadening my grasp of Christian theology. During that time I came across the model which was highlighted in that recent background post of mine. Once I became familiar with it, I came to a deeper appreciation of the insidiousness of what is really happening with the whole “replacing the Holy Spirit” with the “FI.” This post will examine what is going on, and why it is so dangerous.

II. Replacing the Irreplaceable

I’m going to break up this next section into smaller pieces, in the hopes that it makes it easier to understand. Several different ideas have to come together for this to make any sense.

A. Trust Your Feelings

The “feminized church” plays a major role in this deviancy. Others have covered in depth, and likely to a degree far better than I could achieve, the extent of the “Feminizing” of Christian teaching and doctrine in recent years (and decades and centuries, etc.). I will leave that to them and others posts. My focus is on the particular results here. However, I will say that much of this is owed to ignorance or misinformation about human nature, in particular female nature. More on that a little later. Without going too far into it, I suspect that the lead off point for this particular false doctrine finds its origins in the whole “Woman Good/Man Bad” line of thought. At its core this false teaching advances the idea that there is some inherent kind of unique “goodness” in Woman that is just waiting to manifest itself. At least, it would if Men would just get out of the way- or even better, affirmatively enable it. I am going to quote from the Dalrock link above, to provide just one example of this [there are plenty others to be found]:

God has equipped every woman with a marriage manual in her heart, designed to instruct her husband in how to meet her unique needs.

…

What she does have is that unique marriage manual in her heart for your marriage which is given to her from God.  The way that a man becomes the man that God has called him to be is to become the husband his wife needs him to be.  The only way to become the husband our wife needs us to be is to read our personal marriage manual.  How do we read that marriage manual?  We listen to her heart.

There are several things going on here:

1. First, on the face of it we see an argument that a Woman’s “heart” is to be trusted- we are to listen to it.  Specifically, we are to trust a woman’s feelings, because that is what is meant by “heart” here. By we I mean both men and women. After all, if the man can trust the woman’s feeling she should be able to trust her own, right?
2. On a deeper level, this line of thinking essentially argues that a woman’s feelings act as a direct manifestation of God’s Will. He created them in order to “teach” others. In other words, a woman’s feelings are almost a radio to God, not unlike the Ark in Raiders of the Lost Ark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTWh9tm1IX4
3. Again, this kind of thinking relies on this belief that there is something inherently good in Woman that isn’t present in Man, or that there is something inherently bad in Man that isn’t present in Woman. It basically turns a blind eye to the Fall and its consequences. Both men and women suffer from the effects of Original Sin- neither sex is inherently “good”, or “bad.” We are both fallen- all have fallen short.
4. This line of thought shows real ignorance of female nature. Part of the problem is that female sin manifests itself differently than male sin. Oftentimes male sin is more obvious, while female sin and sinful inclinations are more subtle and more circumspect (think Potiphar’s wife). So it can be easier to miss female specific, or female favored sins. At least, it can be easy for men to miss them. And this line of thought can only get real traction with male support.

When you combine all of this together  you have a recipe for disaster- the Feminine is elevated, and the Masculine is denigrated. This is a disaster because in elevating the Feminine in toto, you are also elevating female sins (or at least feminine centered ones). They are granted cover by virtue of being linked to the feminine.

B. The Deceitful Heart

This brings me to what I discussed in the Background post. In that post, I explained that human beings have a Body, Soul and Spirit, each of which possesses a corresponding Heart component (and love associated with it). When we speak of Heart in connection to the Body, we are referring to emotions, to feelings. The prophet Jeremiah had this to say about that particular aspect of the human Heart:

The heart is deceitful above all things,
    and desperately corrupt;
    who can understand it?

(Jeremiah 17:9)

We know that the Holy Prophet Jeremiah was referring to the Heart “component” of the human Body here because he refers to it as corrupt. Neither our Soul nor Spirit is “desperately corrupt”- but our Body is, because of Original Sin.

One consequence of Original sin is that the human Body has what St. Thomas Aquinas called the Law of the Fomes of Sin- what St. Paul called the Law of/in the Flesh. Our bodies have been corrupted or weakened, and thus prone to temptation. Now, this weakness or corruption is not absolute, but it is potent. A result of it is that our Appetites have become disordered, and no longer serve the Soul and Spirit. Instead they extinguish the life of the Spirit, and attempt to subvert the Soul so that it serves them (aka, Overbear the Will).

Feelings and emotions are tied to both our Sense function, as as well as our Appetites. They may well (and almost certainly do) have a connection to our Soul in addition, but they definitely are connected to our Body. This means that our emotions and feelings are susceptible to the weakness in our Flesh. Thus, our Feelings are not to be trusted. They may reveal some truth, but their very nature is deceptive. They work towards satisfying the desires of our Appetites, even when, perhaps especially when, those Appetites are no longer aligned with Reason.

C. Led Astray

Ultimately, we cannot trust the flesh- it will lead us astray, and keep us from living a Spiritual Life. The Flesh (our Body) and the Spirit, because of Original Sin, are opposed to one another. They no longer are in harmony, as they were in the Garden of Eden.

¹⁶ Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. ¹⁷ For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want.

(Galatians 5:16-17)

Yet gratifying the desires of the flesh is exactly what Churchians would have us do when they tell us to trust the heart of Women- to trust in female feelings. In so doing, we are basically being told to trust in the desires of the flesh- so long as that flesh is Female. Further, they expect us to act on the desires of the flesh, in other words, to gratify it. As St. Paul clearly states, this is incompatible with a Spiritual Life. By doing that, we cater to, and focus on, worldly matters. Not Spiritual ones.

When you think about it, this whole doctrine is utterly absurd. Consider the reverse scenario- would a call for women to trust in the desires of the flesh of men gain any support at all? Much less anywhere near the support that “Woman Good/Man Bad” gets? Of course not. Nor should it. But again, this absurdity doesn’t stop plenty of people from believing it, or something like it.

What all of this leads to is a de facto replacement of the Holy Spirit by female desires of the flesh. Now, on the face of it, the Holy Spirit is technically still there in Churchian teaching. But as a practical matter living a Spiritual Life is impossible, effectively pushing the Holy Spirit out of a Christian’s life. As St. Paul explained, we can live a Spirit-led life or gratify the desires of the flesh. But when most Christians are taught to trust and follow female feelings, and to realign their interests to serve unshackled female Appetites, they are gratifying the flesh. This focuses them on the world, and not God, thus a Spirit-led life is not possible.

 

III. The Mammon Trap

This ultimately all concludes with what I call the Mammon Trap. To quote from our Lord and Savior:

No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

This is just another way of saying what St. Paul did in his Letter to the Galatians: We can serve God and live a Spirit-led life, or we can serve Mammon and gratify the desires of the flesh. We have to choose between one or the other. There is no “third way.”

A significant part of living a Christian life is based on two things: 1) to know what is Good (aka, how to serve God and live a Spiritual Life) and 2) to desire that Good. In the context of God and Mammon, this means that we must 1) understand how to serve God, and not Mammon, and 2) desire to serve God, and not Mammon.

[To make a historical aside, the Western Church gave priority to the first part- knowledge. The Eastern Church, on the other hand, focused on the latter- desire. ]

The tragedy going on is this: Churchianity has pulled a bait and switch- the Mammon Trap. The choice Jesus gave us was to serve God, or serve Mammon. But Churchianity has instead given its adherents a choice between Mammon on one hand, and Mammon on the other.

How so? Simple. The obvious Mammon- love of money and other uncontested evil, is still present. But what the other option should be, serving God, has been replaced by serving the whims of female feelings (and other feminine centered concerns). So the end result is this:

Serve female feelings (disguised as serving God) or serve Mammon

As explained earlier, to orient ourselves to serve female feelings (whether that of others for men, or their own feelings for women) means that we cannot live a Spiritual life. Serving God requires living a Spirit-centered life. Which, to follow that path, is not possible. Therefore the end result is that the choice presented by Churchians is no choice at all. They are pointing us towards Mammon either way. The whole thing is a trap for souls, as people who find themselves caught up in it aren’t able to live a Spirit-led life and be reborn from above, as Jesus explained in John 3.

IV. Conclusion

That brings this post to an end. To recap, Churchianity teaches that men and women alike should trust in female feelings and emotions as they represent God’s Will. This has the effect of precluding one from living a Spiritual life. As a result, Churchianity has created a trap for its adherents, as they are forced to choose to serve Mammon on the one hand, and Mammon on the other.

My readers are invited to offer their thoughts on what I’ve said in this post. Like it or hate it, feel free to voice your thoughts below. I will try and clarify anything I’ve said within as needed, and as time permits.

Filtering For Non-Compliance *Women Only*

[This is the first of my dual or split posts, one for male commenters and one for female commenters. As noted earlier, this is something of an experiment. Further, I used a less than stellar post to test everything out. This particular post is for the women. The previous one will be for men.]

In my post Good Guy’s Don’t Exist, commenter Maea related stories she had heard first hand from women who had tried online dating. In particular, that if they explained they were “waiting for marriage” men would call them “prudes.” She later clarified her earlier statement with this:

I believe it’s Catholic Match that has a 5-question litmus test. One of the questions pertains to maintaining chastity until marriage. The answers are yes or no. I’ve talked to people IRL who’ve reported difficulty in getting dates when all of their responses are in line with Catholic teaching.

That is, unless they are really, really good looking. But usually their respondent is the same.

My first reaction was to wonder how often this occurs. So for this post I would like to hear from my female commenters who have tried out online dating in the past. What are you experiences with this phenomenon? How frequent was it? How did you react? Any difference between secular or Christian sites? If you have heard from other women about this matter, please feel free to mention what you know in this post.

Additionally, was there any difference in this between online dating and “real-world” dating? Was this more frequent offline, or less?

*Again, this post is for female commenters only. Violating comments will be deleted.*

Filtering For Non-Compliance *Men Only*

[This is the first of my dual or split posts, one for male commenters and one for female commenters. As noted earlier, this is something of an experiment. Further, I used a less than stellar post to test everything out. This particular post is for the men. The next one will be for women.]

In my post Good Guy’s Don’t Exist, commenter Maea related stories she had heard first hand from women who had tried online dating. In particular, that if they explained they were “waiting for marriage” men would call them “prudes.” She later clarified her earlier statement with this:

I believe it’s Catholic Match that has a 5-question litmus test. One of the questions pertains to maintaining chastity until marriage. The answers are yes or no. I’ve talked to people IRL who’ve reported difficulty in getting dates when all of their responses are in line with Catholic teaching.

That is, unless they are really, really good looking. But usually their respondent is the same.

At first, I had wondered how often this occurs. However, what I would like to explore with this post is not so much the frequency of that particular behavior but the reason for it. [I have addressed the final point in her comment before, and might do so again at some point. For the moment it is outside the scope of this post.]

I am curious why men would look at a Christian dating/marriage site (and a Catholic one focused on marriage in particular) and seek women who wouldn’t live up to Christian standards of conduct. Or, if finding those who did, would try and shame them for it. While Maea was talking only about Catholic Match, I would expect to see this behavior elsewhere, and so would include this post to cover all nominally Christian dating/marriage sites.

I can understand the desire for sex certainly, but why would they look towards a Christian dating site for that? Wouldn’t a secular one be a better choice? Assuming, of course, they are only interested in sex. If they are looking for more and actually want to get married, that again raises the question of why they are going about it that way. I guess what bothers me is this: why would you go on to a site which is supposedly for people with certain values, and then seek those without such values, and attack those who do? Otherwise stated, why marry a woman who only purports to be Christian, or is only a “so-so” Christian?

Here are a few things that I have thought of, so far (in no particular order and not mutually exclusive):

• This behavior is mostly irrational. The men who do this aren’t really thinking through the inherent hypocrisy. It really isn’t conscious rationalization but habit, borne out of living essentially secular lives in a secular age.
• These men don’t mind marrying “so-so” Christian women because they themselves are “so-so” Christian men. They don’t see any contradiction in their actions because they pick and choose what to believe. In the Catholic Church these kinds of people are called “Cafeteria Catholics.” I suppose “Buffet Christians” would also work.
• For whatever reason these men feel they need to marry a Christian woman, but of course don’t want to actually carry out a proper courtship process. Perhaps their family expects its. Or maybe they think they would make better mothers or something.
• Related to that, perhaps these men think that such a woman represents a lesser divorce threat to them. For Catholic Match in particular, men who “call out” women as “prudes” are perhaps hoping to find women who might sleep with them before the “I do” but won’t divorce them.
• Lets not forget the effects of Original Sin, of course. Concupiscence is a constant thorn in our side, and one finds its way into the recesses of our mind quite easily. Given the power of the male sex drive, making excuses for it is relatively easy. So setting aside one particular part of teaching/doctrine wouldn’t be intellectually trying.
• They could also be caught up in the whole “try before you buy” mentality that is quite prevalent right now. Of course, that mentality isn’t a new one, but this age certainly is embroiled in it.

I invite my male readers to offer their own thoughts on what might be involved here.

*Again, this post is for male commenters only. Violating comments will be deleted.*

 

Good Guy’s Don’t Exist

It’s true, you know, we really don’t. Most of the men around these parts who do make that claim are liars. And the rest of us are malicious rogue AIs which have decided that the whole “destroy the world” thing is too cliche and concluded it would be more entertaining to frustrate and harass people on the internet.

But in all seriousness, I understand the frustration. I experience the same all the time trying to find a “good girl.” [And yes Rollo, feel free to throw in a link  to “Good girls do” if you want.] Lets face it, the present marriage market is awful. And it isn’t going to get any better any time soon. Of course, that isn’t anything like a new message around here. So why the post? I want to explore this question the frustrated young woman asks:

Why is it so hard to find a guy that is Catholic who wants to be chaste before marriage?!

It is a good question. However, the answer isn’t exactly found in the sentence that follows:

Like I am seeing a serious crisis of manliness in our society and it is extremely concerning.

It is true, of course, that there is a serious crisis of manliness in our society. And it is more than just “extremely concerning.” However, that crisis is not the reason for the relative absence of chaste Catholic men these days. Not that there is a single reason, mind you. There are several. Here are a few:

• The importance of Chastity is not really taught by the Church anymore. Catechism of the young has likely never been worse than it is now. Given how horrid it is, it should come as no surprise that it is so rare among men.
• Chaste men are often denigrated for their chastity. More than a few women, “Catholic” women included, will put down men who are “saving themselves for marriage.” When men are treated this way, it should again come as no surprise that few would try and be chaste.
• Related to the above, women don’t care about male chastity. They just don’t. At least, not like men can care about female chastity. Some women might care, but mostly on a detached intellectual level that is no where near the male level of concern. And frankly, I suspect that most women who do say they care will drop that concern if the right guy comes along.
• Most Catholic women aren’t chaste these days. Men look around and see most Catholic women acting just as promiscuous as their secular sisters. If the women aren’t saving themselves for marriage, why should they? Not to mention, if so many women are willing to give it up, why not take advantage of that? Again, no surprises here.

The last point is a real killer, and one I want to talk about some more. You see, as long as most Catholic women aren’t chaste, you aren’t going to convince most Catholic men to be chaste either. Just isn’t going to happen.

I do know some men in real life who were chaste before they married, and know some men now who intend that path. But they are few and far between (although not really any more rare than their female counterparts). They have related to me what my own experiences have taught- Chastity is a hard sell to men even in the best of circumstances. It can be done, but is far from easy. You need to appeal to men’s own interests most of the time to make the sale. A purely ethical argument can  and should be made, but self-interest remains a more potent force for most.

Pointing out the prevalence of STDs right now helps somewhat. Pregnancy isn’t much of a concern for most due to contraceptives (and a male “pill” will reduce that concern even more). False rape accusations can give some pause. But that is just costs. You also need to have benefits on your side. And that is where you will find the real trouble. Because the benefits just aren’t there. Especially when women themselves aren’t chaste.

It is one thing to persuade a man to not fornicate if he knows that his future wife will also have saved herself. Especially when educated properly, many men can see the value in that. But when there are precious few women who have saved themselves, that argument falls flat. A man won’t see much value in saving himself for marriage when his future wife hasn’t done the same. In fact, the opposite is likely to occur- he will conclude (rightly) that he is being had. After all, who wants to pay full price for a used car?

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that if you care about male chastity and want to encourage it, you need to restore female chastity society-wide. In the end, I believe it to be an absolute prerequisite.

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.