Let’s meet two men. . .
The First Man
The first one is interested in football. He makes it a point to tune into the games featuring his favorite team. Sometimes he even tunes into other games, all of which he subscribes to from his satellite service. He is never seen without some kind of team jersey when he’s watching these games. You can look around when you see him settle down and see numerous other things around the room and in fact the house with the logo of his favorite team. Pictures of his favorite players. Blankets. Wall hangings. Ball cards.
Some of his things are more treasured than others, of course. He can tell stories behind some of them, when he got to meet his favorite players, and even got them to sign certain things. Of course, those things are deeply held to him, always tucked away in a safe place, until he has the chance to pull them out and tell stories reflecting his fond memories from when his budget allows him to do more. Then there’s always his desire to remember everything he can. Statistics of the players – how much yardage the running back got, how many interceptions the quarter back threw. This even spills into his desire to participate in a number of fantasy football leagues, even running one of them.
The TV and satellite subscription would go by the wayside if he had the money as he would attend so many more things. All the home games – maybe even be able to tailgate a whole lot more. Maybe even travel to some of the away games. Even maybe spend all the time he can at the training camp watching the players practice, fostering a dream which comes out every time he gets the chance to say that “we” won.
But there’s always the thing that we don’t see readily looking at this man. This is his new “favorite” team. What happened? We don’t know just by looking. Maybe his favorite team had a time where they lost more games than they won? Maybe the team administrators traded his favorite player or didn’t take the one he wanted in the draft? We just don’t know. But for some reason, he’s now rooting for this new team – doing all these things for it.
The Second Man
The second one is interested in football as well. He did some of the same things as the first man, but his interest took a different turn. He started running and lifting weights. When he had the opportunity, he joined a team that would take him. Naturally, he might have been excited when he got his first team jersey to wear, but it soon became routine.
Awaiting him was much preparation. He had practices with the team. When he wasn’t doing that, he was working to further himself. He was studying the playbook, trying to familiarize himself with every little thing he and others were to do. He was running more and lifting weights more to get himself into better and better shape. He was working with a position coach to learn the basic fundamentals of his position, and then running drills over and over, even when the practices weren’t occurring.
Then there were the games. The thrill of finally walking onto the field, and showing all the preparation on the field. It didn’t necessarily matter whether people knew who he is, whether he was a “star” or not. It just mattered that he got to play, be part of the team, and contribute to its success. He was excited when they won and downtrodden when they lost, but he was there, playing on the team, no matter the score or the record. Sure, there was always the next team, but he met each team ready to go with the same amount of effort.
But what of when he wasn’t playing games? There was always more running, more lifting weights. There was even the coaches there to help him run faster, jump higher, throw or catch the ball better – basically whatever he needed to do to better himself in his participation with the team.
In terms of the Kingdom of God, which one is more pleasing to Jesus?
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:10)
I happened to be reading one of my garage sale finds, Culture Warrior by Bill O’Reilly. This book describes the cultural war that O’Reilly perceives that is going on. While his realm is primarily a political one, one passage particularly interested us here at The Phineas (doesn’t have the same kind of ring as O’Reilly’s outfit does it?):
Right now, it’s the conservative Christian groups that are most engaged on the traditional side, and their interest stems primarily from theology. The secular-progressives despise groups like Focus On The Family and The Christian Coalition because their members tend to judge the S-Ps along moral lines, and generally, condemn their behavior and aspirations. There is nothing that angers the S-P forces more than to be told they do not hold the moral high ground. (1)
This blog exists primarily because of the recognition of the culture war, and sadly because the Christian groups aren’t fighting this culture war at all, but aiding the enemy. The actions of Focus On The Family and other related voices in supporting the secular-progressive goals have been cataloged on my blog and others such as Dalrock’s.
The sad fact that many of the “traditionalists” are truly secular-progressive (and feminism falls in this light) gets frightening, especially when you observe the blindness that the traditionalists have to their own beliefs. For example, I point out in Homosexuals and the “Sanctity of Marriage 2.0″ that those who are using this rhetoric are making themselves hypocrites because they are destroying the “sanctity of marriage” by other actions such as denying the historical headship of husbands in marriage, supporting the divorce culture, and the other modifications to marriage made by the secular-progressives.
O’Reilly sniffs that there is something wrong in the camp, but doesn’t make this connection:
Okay, I’ll say it once again: The secular-progressive dream is not an impossible one for them to achieve–largely because so many traditional Americans are ignoring the escalating culture war [Why do you think this is, Mr. O'Reilly?]. An unfortunate example of this is the Roman Catholic Church in America, which has largely been missing in action as far as the culture war is concerned. As a Catholic, I’m perplexed and disappointed by this. Right now, American Protestants are really doing most of the heavy lifting on the traditional side. Jewish Americans are divided; in fact, some of the most fanatical secular-progressives are Jewish (are you listening, Barbra?). But the nation’s more than 67 million Catholics have certainly not been encouraged to by their leadership to enter the fray. (2)
O’Reilly continues, getting near the answer:
Anyway, the Catholic hierarchy does stand up on the abortion issue; however when faced with other culture war issues, they recede back into the sacristies. But why? Surely the Church understands what has happened in Europe, where secular culture has replaced the traditional religious landscape. Countries like Spain, France, and Italy, once devoutly Catholic, have now moved away from organized religion and are increasingly embracing secular culture. (3)
Don’t you think it could be that this is happening because these organizations are secular-progressive, Mr. O’Reilly, because most of the people are? I observed this in how so many religious people are supporting the secular-progressive vision of marriage. O’Reilly sees that people have replaced the concept of absolute objective truth with a moral relativism based on the judgments of the individual (3), but then walks into the same thing by giving his approval to the placing of children in homosexual unions and then says that what others are doing are none of his business (4). Could it be that the reason that your traditional army isn’t mobilizing in the culture war, Mr. O’Reilly, is because like you they are giving their approval to these things? One thing missing in most realms is that giving approval to something is just as good as partaking in it. Most people, including Mr. O’Reilly himself, miss this when it comes to cultural issues. Even the legal system still recognizes this: If I don’t rob a bank, but I give aid and comfort to others with the knowledge that they are going to rob the bank, am I not just as complicit in the act?
The problem we run into is that neither side is in the business of dealing with absolute objective truth. O’Reilly states that the traditional warrior fights with facts (4), but often those “facts” are colored by feelings and perceptions of what others might think of you. O’Reilly spends the rest of the chapter lamenting about how the secular-progressives see conservative Christians. This is especially shown in how Mr. O’Reilly blasts the view or measure of sin:
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church, like many other religious organizations, provides none of the above analysis. Its approach to this issue is all based around “sin.” That approach plays directly into the hands of the secular-progressives, who loudly wail that religious intrusion into society is un-Constitutional and demonize religious leaders who dare to speak out. Maybe that is why most American Catholic leaders remain silent in the face of the culture war. Like the politicians, they don’t want to become targets. (5)
This is what the idea of sin represents: absolute objective truth. O’Reilly would prefer to make a stand based on human argument and perception than what is right and wrong. This is what fuels the secular-progressives and the traditionalists. Once upon a time, people could see objective right and wrong for its own sake. You didn’t need to lay out a bunch of “facts” to convince anyone then. Killing someone is wrong – end of story, you shouldn’t have to lay out a host of human reasoning to justify that it is wrong. Once upon a time, people could say this of divorce, headship issues, lying, robbery, and a host of other things.
But now, feelings and rationalizations presented in terms of “facts” are paramount. What does it say, Mr. O’Reilly, that you have to deal with “facts” in the face of someone who thinks that killing babies is okay? Could it be that people who divorce themselves from “sin” (absolute truth) are sparking this whole culture war that O’Reilly writes about in his book? And should it be a surprise that people are running from persecution? Did not Jesus promise that it would exist? If it is true of the Master, how much more so the servants?
For example in the traditional camp, abortion is used to rationalize the welfare system and single motherhood among other things. It was an absolute once upon a time that single motherhood was a wrong thing – period. Now single mothers are courageous heroes because they didn’t abort their babies (the “facts”). One sin is being rationalized and made the norm at the expense of another. Another example is frivolous divorce. “All men are abusive” (the “fact”), so we need to support the poor little woman because she was forced into the divorce. Meanwhile men are vicious monsters for divorcing under the same circumstances.
It seems the traditionalist measure, which is the absolute that Mr. O’Reilly is upholding, is not absolute truth, but respect. As Novaseeker observes:
Basically what this means is that they are about respectability more than truth. This is kind of like the cult of nice, really. It also will be the way tradcons are about gay marriage within 10-20 years for the same reason — it won’t be respectable to be against it (already fast becoming that way).
Again, this just raises flags about how fundamentally useless conservatism is, really.
They only stand up for abortion because it’s a “respectable” issue, not because it’s wrong. Again it shows the value of knowing what you believe in and standing for it in the face of all comers.
(1) Culture Warrior by Bill O’Reilly p 173. (2) ibid p 174-175. (3) ibid p 175. (4) ibid p 179. (5) ibid p 180.
Note: O’Reilly argues that the proper divisions aren’t “liberal” and “conservative”, but “secular-progressive” and “traditional” in the early part of the book. Read the parallel parts as equivalent and you’ll get what he’s saying. The purpose of this post isn’t to argue his redefinitions, but they are disingenuous in themselves. Conservatives “conserve” tradition – in effect what we have been seeing is that secular-progressive ideals have been enshrined into tradition, so the traditionalists are “conserving” secular-progressive values.
(I happened to have this post mostly completed in draft when Dalrock posted his, basically parallel observations. Be sure to check that great post out.)
Dalrock commenter RachelS writes something interesting:
You’re wrongly assuming that society will see the errors of its ways once they realize that it isn’t raking in taxes or birthing more taxpayers like it would if society was traditional. Why? Because Satan is the ruler of this world (Ephesians 2:2).
Destroy the family, destroy society.
Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44) (you can find happiness in frivorce or pump and dump) and is here to steal, kill and destroy. (John 10:10)
God created women because God saw that it was not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18) and also commanded us to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 9:7).
For every guy who has become disillusioned and decided he doesn’t need a woman because it is too much of a risk or low ROI, you have bought into Satan’s lies that your plight is hopeless and that trusting in God to bring a suitable mate into your path is wishful thinking. So will I believe Satan’s lies or trust that if God commands something, that He’ll make a proper way for me to be able to be faithful and obedient?
God loves us and knows that families are the strongest foundation for society. Satan has done an effective job at chipping away at the foundation and it won’t get better (until Jesus comes back) but I’m not going to throw in the towel. I’m not going to let Satan keep me segregated and alone, without a partner and from birthing and bringing up Christian children. No matter how bad society gets, I won’t let Satan steal my potential for joy within a marriage.
Feminism and society won’t get better, but I won’t let that hold me back. (Ephesians 6:12 )
Sounds pretty good, right? It does, except for one thing. Let me explain. Let’s say you do something for me and I pay you with this:
So what’s the problem? My money’s good. The economy’s going to go into free fall and it’s going to be cataclysmic if you don’t take my money. So take my money. You won’t? Why? It’s not really money, is it?
There’s much effort expended to make sure money isn’t counterfeited. A counterfeit is a lie, right? And as RachelS aptly states, isn’t Satan the father of lies? Satan is a master liar, including counterfeiting.
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
This blog talks much about Marriage 2.0 and the changes involved. So why are people so ready to accept this counterfeit of Satan, like Rachel S and many others I’ve run into, even assigning “marriage” to be a blessing from God, and even teaching that it is a sin to not be married? It is a great deception that Satan has created:
People buy into the counterfeit as the real thing
So what is the real story? Let’s see:
Does God bind husband and wife or does the State?
Does God approve of the divorce culture where women may blow up marriages for any and every reason?
Does God approve of remarriage or does He call it something quite different?
(I can keep going, as the chart illustrates)
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:5-12)
Marriage 2.0 is not marriage! It’s a counterfeit!
These hypocrites harping on “the sanctity of marriage” need to pull the plank out of their own eyes! A great many of them are truly deceived, but many can read the Scriptures and continue on defending “traditional sex roles”, which are feminist sex roles. They go on defending “marriage”. They call themselves pro-marriage and pro-family, yet are doing Satan’s work to destroy both:
Sure, you’ll see references to Marriage 2.0 elsewhere, but there’s no recognition that Marriage 2.0 is *not* real marriage. Face it, Marriage 1.0 died about 100 years ago when the State assumed it. If you are married, if you will marry, you are entering into Marriage 2.0 – it doesn’t matter what you believe. So you get a number of people who see problems simultaneously speaking against and defending marriage – double-minded hypocrites who defend Satan’s creation, while Satan himself cackles with glee.
Perhaps this is the problem with the version moniker, it allows people to rationalize that “marriage” has anything to do with God or has any of His blessing on it. It allows people to be blind to the true profane evil that “marriage” is today.
The only answer is to repent by stepping away from the lie, and burn the false garbage. There are people that are truly deceived into thinking that “marriage” is righteous and holy. Then you have the double-minded people that see there is a problem but defend it anyway and say “things aren’t that bad”, just as I illustrated in the case of Malachi and sacrifices. Malachi did not seek to abolish the sacrifice, but to abolish the false sacrifice.
Stop offering the blind. Stop offering the sick. Stop offering the diseased. Stop supporting this vile counterfeit called “marriage”. Stop doing Satan’s work, by supporting feminism!
Guess what? I got an idea for a new game show! It’ll be great!
I’ll take my camera crew and staff around to churches. I’ll identify a
carousel rider looking for beta bucks wonderful chaste single woman of God. Then we’ll have her choose from all the selfish unrepentant pack mules put on this earth to serve women single men in the congregation. Nevermind that the Biblical burden of choice to marry is on the man and we should really be plucking men who still want to marry out of the congregation instead. Women are the ones that run the churches because they are righteous and good, and they all deserve their own personal pack mules husbands.
We’ll even couch it in the traditional feminist Churchian language for it. Her soulmate is out there! The perfect man that God put on earth just for her is out there! The one who will meet all her
ridiculous expectations hopes and dreams she had from a child in dreaming about marriage. It’s all hers!
How do we identify them you ask? We have the congregation shame them into courting this
slut good Christian woman, and offer cash and prizes to do it. Of course, we won’t allow them to get good honest answers to their own concerns, or show the congregational shaming. That wouldn’t be too flattering for our little show, and might actually show what is really going on that’s keeping these petulant, arrogant, prideful, and childish women with their 462 point lists for husbands fine chaste Christian women from getting married.
the congregation shames the man into courting the woman they like each other and court, the church itself will get cash and prizes! Even more so if they marry and we get to come back and film the formal declaration of slavery wedding.
To top it off, we’ll get a famous evangelical churchian figure to play game show host. Preferably a woman, one who all the churchians know and go ga-ga over. One they want to be. It’s going to be great! Wait a minute, someone’s already doing this?
Too bad. I might watch it to find out for certain if I’m right or not. Hopefully, it won’t reinforce everything that is wrong in the churches today with singles meeting up and marrying, but sadly it looks like it will.
Now if someone would travel the churches and teach the women that it’s them that needs to change and be adults. That you can’t make both career and family a priority without one of them suffering. That it’s the women that need to repent of their pasts and be on their knees thanking both God and a man that might be gracious enough to take them as a wife after all the things they’ve done in the past. That there is no such thing as a soul mate or the perfect man that God put on this earth for just them. That the idea of the born-again virgin is not only not scriptural, but totally ridiculous. That the Lord’s grace in the forgiveness of sin doesn’t extend to the worldly consequences of those sins – that a good Christian man has the right to select a wife according to his own good conscience and not be shamed and forced into manning up and marrying those sluts or those women who somehow found themselves pregnant because they just couldn’t resist that unbelieving alpha thug who just deserve a man to come in and take care of both them and their thugspawn. Or forced to sin against the Lord by marrying frivorced women. Now that’s a show I’d tune in to watch every week!
One of my concerns over the years has been the effects of technology on people. I’ve been on the Internet and various electronic forums since 1994, and have seen several sea changes. Things have gone from e-mail and IRC to texts on smartphones and Siri. In all this technology, I’ve noticed the total willingness of people to be able to dissociate themselves from contact with real people. They don’t even realize what they are dealing with people anymore.
It even goes to radio and television. Before television, people had nothing to do but talk with one another, and do things together. When the television got popular, it started atomizing the community. People stayed in and watched television as families, and even disconnected with one another there. I notice in my parent’s generation that they spent more time getting to know J.R. Ewing, Angus MacGyver, and Heathcliff Huxtable than getting to know any friends. Even in her later years, she spent more time with Gil Grissom, Leroy Gibbs, and Aaron Hotchner than with anyone else. I recall a few times wanting to say to her something like “you know they’re just actors right?”, when she would refer to them as real people.
I really haven’t had much interest in television, but the computer has really drawn me. In being raised around television, perhaps it is easy to be drawn to things with interactivity, since the whole experience of being raised by TV drones is probably why I’m introverted. It’s so easy to be drawn to games, chats, e-mail, and other things that you lose contact with dealing with real people, real emotions, real voices. Real people are hard, especially when you lose all that contact with community. It’s hard to know what is real and what is fake, when the only thing before you is a disembodied voice, or pixels on a screen. Thankfully, I realized I was keeping myself from doing things I needed to do outside of my college work. Also, it drew me into some pretty sinful things in my life before I walked with Christ.
I’ve observed in these marches of technology that more and more people are lost in them. The only way you can reach them is through texts, not even e-mails, not phone calls. Things have changed so much since I got sucked into my computer. People walk around with devices on their skulls, talking, and oblivious to the people and the world around them. Friends have become a thing on Facebook, not the folks you really talk with, get to know, encourage, and help. It’s near impossible, to break through these things and have…real contact. People refuse to deal with you without the Facebook, Twitter, or SMS filter. People won’t deal with you romantically without the Match, OKCupid, or ChristianMingle filter. More and more people are walking around talking and typing and disconnected with the world around them. Good luck reaching those people.
This has extended to the Church for a much longer time, due to the destruction of the functional Church in favor of profane Greek temple worship. If the Church consists of people and not of buildings, it should follow that the sole functioning of the Church involves person-to-person interaction and not events, rituals, and places. That follows in the existence of anywhere from 50-60 “one another” commands (depending on your translation) in the New Testament. The Church is a huge topic to talk about in detail, but a couple of passages catch the thumbnail view – the testimony of the Church is ultimately marked by functioning love each member has for the others:
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:41-47)
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:34-35)
It’s an interesting development in technology that these companies are trying to make their technology more “real”. In this dissociated state, people still long for community, and cry out for it. It’s ironic that men are trying to recreate what has been right in front of them all along. The most famous is Siri, but there’s Skype and a host of other things.
This leads me to the movie Her. I don’t get interested in movies much, but very rarely, I do get interested in certain things. One of those is well-thought out statements on life and ourselves that are presented within the media. This movie definitely qualifies. (I have to make the disclaimer that it’s unfortunate that a movie so culturally relevant to today would have to be “Rated R for language, sexual content and brief graphic nudity”, since those weren’t necessary to get the message across. I recommend it, if you can catch it edited on TV somewhere.)
In this movie, we’re presented with a “very near future”. The main character is a non-socially adept man in the final stages of his divorce. He works as a writer of “personal letters” in a company that people hire to write letters in interacting with others because they won’t/can’t do it for themselves. While he interacts with friends sparingly, his main occupation is with highly interactive video games. He installs a new OS on his computer which has a Siri-like interface that is much more sophisticated. He falls in love with this computer. See this Big Bang Theory clip for a more comedic take, and get the basic idea:
Her makes the point well of how isolating and dehumanizing these technological toys get. Several scenes in the movie include the main character walking amidst a sea of people talking to their computers. The actors do a wonderful job of portraying the feelings of loneliness, angst, and general pain that their characters feel in not having real connections with others and awkwardly stumbling over the real interactions that are placed in their way. Furthermore, the real awkwardness of trying to connect with machines on a human level was presented (most jarring being the “body surrogate”) very well by the actors, along with the machines trying to interact with the people. How do you feel love for a set of pixels? How do you encourage a cell phone? How do you comfort a computer? How can pixels, cell phones, and computers love, encourage, and comfort you? For most part now, there are real people with real hopes, dreams, needs, and desires on the other end. It seems increasingly harder for people to be able to see that beyond the characters, beyond the videos. It’s still harder for people to not be deceived by the inadequacies that are presented.
That line is getting ever more blurred, especially as real community of the kind people long for is being answered by poor substitutes. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases they are the only way people interact. People can’t find the real thing. The temptation becomes high to partake in these things. It’s much easier to find a chat room than to go out and get people interested enough in you to strike up a friendship. It’s much easier to text message while you’re doing something else than to dedicate your time to really talking and getting to know people.
It even extends to romantic encounters. It’s much more possible to seek out recordings of women than to find a real woman who hasn’t made herself detestable in some way. Consequently, it’s much more possible, even within marriage, to track down some pornography than to find a reliable real life intimate connection with a woman you can marry for life. No wonder MGTOW.
People are crying out for community amidst the isolation. Ironically, the answer is to cast aside the devices. What so many, even Christians, are crying out for is perfectly answered by the true Church. Unfortunately, the devices of buildings, rituals, and events have been substituted. Ironically, this answer is also to cast the device aside that keeps people from really connecting.
Sadly, people won’t give up these millstones. And they will sink us.
I recently come to a decision where I can feel comfortable with the idea of blogging. Part of that is posting here when I do have something to say, which may be very infrequent. But that’s why I restored the blog and put it back up. Anyway, I’ve got something to say now. . .
With all these people like Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler and others proposing that men man up and marry those sluts, part of that has naturally been focused on the women that have frivolously divorced their husbands. Unfortunately in all the churches today, there are too many of these. To look at my online dating account that I never use, the ones that expressed recent interest: Divorced slut, 9 children; Divorced slut, 2 children; Divorced slut, 5 children; Divorced slut, 2 children; Divorced slut, 2 children; Divorced slut, 2 children. Naturally, much of what these feminist preachers propose involves shaming, deceiving, and doing everything possible to get men to accept this state. Let’s look at what they are proposing.
As I described here in talking about the commitment of marriage, marriage is once and for life. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6) Jesus even goes on to say:
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matthew 19:9)
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:11-12)
So in Albert Mohler, Mark Driscoll, and others proposing that I man up and marry these divorced single mothers, they are proposing that I live in sin by committing adultery with these women, whose husbands are still alive. The only recourse they should be telling these women is to reconcile with their husbands.
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (Romans 7:2-3)
But what is it really? One of the things you can do in meditating Scripture is put yourself in the place of whatever it is talking about to drive home the proper message it should have (what is it saying to me and for me?). This Scripture stuck out in thinking on this:
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; (Matthew 1:6)
It’s significant that roughly 900 years later, the mother of Solomon is referred to not by proper name but as Uriah’s wife (and yes I know it refers to her as “David’s wife” in 2 Samuel 11-12). But let’s get back to intent as Jesus described it and personalize this a bit. I’ll put myself in the place of David, the one who took this “wife” by sin and not as a widow:
I married someone else’s wife.
I had sex with someone else’s wife.
I had children with someone else’s wife.
I am taking care of someone else’s children.
Totally disgusting. It disgusts me. It disgusts most men who have any sense of dignity and self-worth.
Unfortunately though, Albert Mohler, Mark Driscoll, et. al. would rather please the ways of the world and please these women. Instead of holding up God’s standard and preaching that these women are sinners that need consequences of this world to come to them just as they did to David, they follow the world’s path of feminism and do everything that they can to deem these women as perfect and without sin. Of course, all of them are virgins by the washing of the blood. All of them are good Christian women of strong faith and intact virtue with no flaws whatsoever, and it’s just the fault of these sinful Christian men that they don’t see all the good Christian women just languishing away waiting to be asked out.