Given that I haven’t located too many man-up rants lately, I’ve had to wonder if they’ve finally gotten the message that man-up rants don’t reach men. But in locating the commentary on the latest data about marriage from the conservative Media Research Center, it seems like the typical agenda continues on.
Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
“Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
Of course, they start right out with the typical Peter-Pan charge, that part of growing up involves mindlessly walking into a decision simply because others tell them to do so. Marital status or parental status is not a reflection of maturity and accountability, as numerous evidences of divorce, extramarital affairs and the like prove. Being an adult requires making decisions for your own life, taking responsibility for them, and being wise to see whether they are to benefit. Men are seeing what marriage represents, seeing that it holds no benefits for them (for numerous reasons), and are walking away from the plantation.
The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com. “They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”
It’s all about what the women want. Women want the wedding day (literally), and the house slave there to provide and protect for them, and don’t want to bear any responsibility towards their husbands. It’s all about them and the Princess fantasy.
The evidence is clear all around by now, and especially evident in the comments of that article that men see what marriage is all about, and are understanding it perfectly. Yet these parties such as Janice Shaw Crouse fail to understand how important it is for those things to have strong families where everybody finds benefit for marriage. After all, in the minds of Janice Crouse and other traditional feminists, men don’t deserve anything other than to just fall in line and know their roles as house slaves – all those comments and linked posts there are just those uppity men back talking their mistresses and shouldn’t be considered. A man should just know his role and shut his mouth, right Mizz Crouse?
After decades of feminism, Crouse noted that young men are now the ones who set the parameters for intimate relationships, and those increasingly do not include a wedding ring.
“And I know the feminists just yell and scream if you say anything like this, but time was, girls set the cultural morays, the standards, the parameters for intimate activity. The girls were the ones that set those boundaries. And now it’s the guys who do,” Crouse told CNSNews.com.
Perish the thought that women aren’t calling the shots with men anymore. That men actually are finding that they have a say on the conditions of life that they will accept. But mind you, they aren’t “setting the parameters”, they are just seeing what a raw deal marriage is for them and just walking away. If that’s “setting the parameters”, then so be it, but this is still denial of what is really going on. To wit:
“And it’s doubly terrible because the colleges now are predominantly female. So you have some – up to 60 percent of the student bodies are female. And almost all of them are more than 50 percent female. And so the ratio [of] male/female is out of sync.
“And that means the girls have to live by the guys’ demands. And that means less romance. They don’t date. The girls, I have talked to numerous young women, lament the fact that they don’t have the opportunity to dress up and go out for an event.”
Doesn’t it seem that the women are getting what they want? “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” isn’t it? You set the laws to favor women in college admissions, and favor women in the college environment and you’ll get less men.
Then add to that the unrealistic standards that women have for men, where 80% of the men are considered “unattractive” by women, and this thins out the men that women will consider. Then consider the big problem that’s netting the statistic Mizz Crouse is lamenting: Women are the ones delaying marriage to get their feminist merit badges – to get that college degree, to go travel, to ride the Carousel, to EPL. Yet somehow, it’s the men that’s at fault. Of course the men are always at fault.
Young women who adhere to a moral code and refuse to participate in the “hook up” culture are now considered social misfits, Crouse pointed out. And they face even more daunting odds of finding a husband than their promiscuous sisters.
And we have something else that men are blamed with – after all it’s men desiring that hook-up culture and not women, right? Really anyone with a moral code will have a problem with the hook-up culture, but blame where blame properly lies. Women are the ones demanding the hook-up culture, responding to the conditions of traditional marriage, and women are the ones delaying marriage. Yet it could never be any different than women are always good and men are always bad, right?
“It’s really interesting, because Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker wrote their book, “Premarital Sex in America,” what, three, four years ago. And even then, they were very concerned about the fact that young women today are not as likely to get married. And their prospects, if they are not sexually promiscuous, are really low because the guys, if they can sleep around, they’re not interested in going with the girls who don’t put out.
Again, when you put access to sex out there as a commodity for men to buy with their lifetime slavery, as has been done in traditional marriage, don’t be surprised when women will start competing for the attention of men by lowering their prices. But then again, it’s all about the bad that men are doing, and not that the men are responding to what the women are doing, isn’t it?
“The ones who are very serious get married early. And that leaves the majority of the girls, then, by the time they’re 25 and into their first jobs, the pickings are very, very slim for them. And Mark Regnerus was very, very clear that the quote ‘good girls’ are the ones who are at risk now in terms of not being able to get married.”
The importance of women making a priority of marriage over getting the feminist merit badges is indicated well, along with the artificial constriction that women apply to their choices in men is illustrated. Even the “good girls” still want those merit badges and delay marriage.
Crouse says the decline in marriage and a corresponding rise in cohabitation is happening despite at least a decade of research demonstrating the societal benefits of two-parent families.
But men are not entirely to blame for the steep decline in marriage, Crouse pointed out. “A lot of women fear marriage. While feminism is a spent force, the ultimate consequences of that philosophy is a whole generation of women who don’t want any man to tell them what to do, and don’t really understand the give and take that is necessary for a marriage relationship.”
The article continues on to talk about the cohabitation angle. Could it be given the conditions of modern feminism (women), coupled with the conditions of traditional feminism (men), that both sides are seeing the correct value of “getting a piece of paper”, especially given the consequences that have been witnessed in their lives and seeing what marriage represents? That both sides prefer a relationship with a different dynamic than what each commonly think of as “marriage”, and feel that actually getting that piece of paper won’t fulfill that?
As Crouse says, “there’s still a lot of anti-male stuff out there”. That includes this article, along with her remarks. When the welfare of men and the interests of men can never be considered in the calculus of marriage – where the woman must always get everything she wants at the expense of the man, and the man must always sacrifice everything he is and does to the woman and must always lose – don’t be surprised when men refuse to take any interest in it. Compared to a business deal, marriage is a rotten deal that no one with a right mind would ever consider.
If these traditionalists have any interest in continuing marriage, they would do well to shed their own feminist hatred of men and move to restore marriage to how God intended it (where both men and women can win and benefit), instead of continuing to perpetuate its destruction.
And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. (Ezekiel 9:4, see Ezekiel 8 for context)
Commenter lozozlo writes:
A bit of a general rant/question directed at you and the readers of your fine blog. I would love to know what you and your readers think of my thoughts/sentiments below. I imagine I am hardly alone in having them.
Although I remain a Christian, it can be very hard to maintain one’s faith in Christ in this day and age. The main driver behind these difficulties, for me at least, has been that it seems to me that a *huge* percent of the really advanced red-pillers [most notably on gender issues and related economic issues like being a tradcon pack mule sole provider beta male] out there are atheist and agnostic. (E.g. Esther Vilar and Fred Reed, among others). On the other hand, many of the most aggressive pushers of the blue-pill (at least for me growing up) came from the church and mainstream (usually religious) conservatism – the Mark Driscolls and Albert Mohlers of the world. For much of my life, a huge portion of those whom I trusted on matters of faith were lying to me almost wholesale about a large portion of reality. Even quite red-pill bloggers like Vox Day have bought into large portions of the blue-pill tradcon lies. Consider, for example, the following links here –
especially note how dishonest and deeply non-Christian many of the Christian commenters there are. I witnessed some seriously abusive and dishonest behavior from some of the posters most trumpeting their own holiness and always making sure we know how religious they are. When so many of the Christians so thoroughly buy into, and aggressively peddle, so many lies, while the secularists are preaching quite a lot of red pill truth, I will be honest, as a Christian it is really painful.
More generally speaking – a tree is known by its’ fruits, and the fruits of modern Churchianity are well and truly dreadful. Christianity has been nearly totally intellectually and culturally sterile for the past two hundred years. Christians used to make the best art and used to have a major role in the sciences and other endeavors of life. Now they stay ensconced in their own little ghettos, producing trashy ‘culture’ like ‘Fireproof’ and ‘Left Behind’ that makes soviet propaganda films look subtle and Sesame Street look like high art. They make Mr. Rogers look badass and Liberace like the epitome of masculinity.
At least Marxist liberals openly hate the Cross and openly hate men – the churchians/conservatives are worse since are far more subtle – they appear to be the height of religion and male-friendliness, whilst they wrap the Cross up in their drooling idiocy and downright evil. I suspect that many honest truth-seekers, who are genuinely open to red-pill reality and are seeking to escape our society’s ruthless Marxist indoctrination, have encountered what I am discussing here and react with powerful and visceral horror to the lies and poison peddled by the modern church. Sadly, this reaction inoculated them from ever considering Christianity’s truth claims. They don’t want to go within 1000 meters of a Cross or the church, and (I really wish I didn’t have to say this) in some respects it is hard to blame them. It’s like the Churchians have stolen the cross from Christianity and repurposed it for the counterfeit american-goddess-worshipping, man-shaming cult that so much of Churchianity has become.
Let’s face it, image yourself for a second as an outsider to the faith –a nonchristian who does not have much contact with non-churchian Christians. If you saw a belief system and attendant organization with the following traits, you would run screaming in the other direction and be totally justified for doing so:
1.) Lead by either limp-wristed nigh-homo effeminates or hilariously cartoonish macho exaggerations of manhood like Driscoll peddling ridiculous ‘man-up and be a good slave to your master…errr…wife’ snake-oil.
2.) Awfully effeminate hen-pecked stepford-husbands reduced to broken shells of men by a society, churchian religion, and culture that hates them and views them as nothing by cannon fodder and pack mules to serve the american womyn goddesses and the elites at the top. Some of them magnify their lack of manhood by comically adapting ‘alpha game’ and ‘PUA’ and trying to act like a bizarre mixture of clint eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and roosh.
3.) Ball-busting, consumeristic, Feminine-Imperative-riddled whores who are nonetheless praised to the skies as the pinnacle of all goodness, beauty, and even holiness in all creation.
4.) Culturally sterile and awful to the point of self-caricature. Remember that the modern church points to the Kendrick brothers and ‘praise music’ as it’s contributions to culture. Shakespeare they are not, to put it very mildly.
Oftentimes I find myself hoping and praying that God will take extra-special mercy on the non-believers of this generation. Never before has the church been such a ridiculous caricature, never before has the Cross been sullied by so many snake-oil salesman and liars, never before has the Church become so thoroughly feminine-imperitive-ized – many a truth seeker would generally be justified and running as fast from anything that even smells like modern Churchianity as fast as he could, and it is unfortunately very hard to not throw the Christian baby out with the Churchian bathwater. I pray that all those whose faith was destroyed (or never allowed to form) due to how singularly awful modern Churchianity is, will somehow still be able to find their way to the real Aslan, the real Savior who is revealed in Scripture and is seemingly nowhere to be found in the modern Church.
God bless and hope you found my little rant interesting!
Great comment, bravo! I’ll add my more specific comments in the comment thread here.
Well. The countdown to the Fifty Shades of Grey movie is here. Only 8 days away from the inevitable throngs that women will form in the movie theaters getting to see their favorite story come to life. Fifty Shades of Grey will enable women see their favorite pornography come to pictures. Consistent with the porn watch, it will be notable to see the attitudes of people when it comes to this movie and how it will be received.
Since it is so close to release in the theaters, we can have people tell us what will await the moviegoer. This article’s title says it all (NSFW for pics from the movie):
Fifty Shades Of Grey will be raunchiest film in more than a DECADE with 20 minutes of sex in its 100-minute running time
Exactly 1/5 of the movie constitutes sex scenes, in a widely public release film. I wonder how that stacks up to the average demonized piece of porn? Anyway, the article helps us in telling us how it stacks up to the other “general-release” movies:
* Has more sex than the 100 ‘most naked’ films of 2014 put together
* The dozen sex scenes makes it the ‘raunchiest’ film in ten years
While I have yet to locate the reaction to this by the churches and “Christian women” in general (I *still* haven’t happened across a fundamental unconditional rebuke of either Magic Mike or 50SOG as “pornography” by any famous preacher/author, major church, or major religious organization, much less repentance for their misandric views of pornography), we have reaction from the makers of the film on this point:
I didn’t want it to be graphically explicit, and I know that’s going to be disappointing to some people,’ Mrs Taylor-Johnson, who is married to British actor Aaron Taylor-Johnson, 24, added in an interview with The Guardian newspaper:
‘It’s the build up and titillation of touch and sensuality. So I don’t think it goes into the realm of porn.‘
And from the actor playing Christian Grey:
The father-of-one also said that although the film is sexual, he does not believe it is pornographic or even erotic.
‘I just wouldn’t use the word ‘erotic’ – it brings up different ideas for me. I just think we tried to make a good picture, you know?’
Even more interesting is the marketing drive coming up for the movie:
That time is now: With the Valentine’s Day premiere of the Fifty Shades of Grey movie looming, effectively mainstreaming sex toys on the big screen, the New York Times reports that retailers are stocking up on the whips, blindfolds, handcuffs, masks and other sexual sundries.
It almost reminds me of the marketing blitz surrounding Star Wars with all the figurines. Remember though, that 50 Shades of Grey isn’t pornography, so all of that can be put right out in the open just like Star Wars. Certain sex toys can even go right next to children’s toothbrushes. Again it’s not so much the presence and marketing of the product, it’s the “placement of the item”.
Never mind that scientists finding herpes virus on copies of 50 Shades of Grey indicates something obvious. As I wrote before, I still wonder how Albert Mohler et. al would try to explain away how it came to be on there, and somehow make it the fault of men. Even worse is the thought of what condition the seating in the theaters will be after this movie passes through, and what will be done to assure sanitary conditions in the showings.
Anyway, I think the message that is brought about regarding pornography and how it is seen is becoming quite obvious and will be more so as this movie is commentated on, any reports of “watch parties” come out thrown by “Christian” women, and the reactions (or lack thereof) from prominent Christian figures comes out. The Book of Oprah is indeed practiced. The kind of porn that men like must remain in the shadows and must be vilified – because it is for men. After all, as Albert Mohler says, it’s “mainly, though not exclusively, a male phenomenon. That is to say, the users and consumers of pornography are overwhelmingly male–boys and men”.
Meanwhile, 50SOG was different because it’s not porn according to folks like Sheila Gregoire because “Porn, on the other hand, was created primarily to arouse, and that is what it does”, and “Porn is looking at naked people. Period. What reason does a man have to look at a naked woman except to arouse himself?” Now since that herpes was found on those books (indicating a primary purpose of arousal), and the fact that it will be “looking at naked people”, will it be finally considered pornography, just as bad as that stuff for men?
The general mainstream showing of this movie along with the marketing seems to indicate that the answer will be no.
“Mummy porn” is seen as fun, harmless, even liberating, and therefore exempt from critique or social judgement, whereas “daddy porn” is inherently “horrid” and “depraved”. – Stephen Harrington
One of the things pointed out in the definition of principles of traditional feminism is the idea that the results of feminism on women involve female infantilization. While the concept itself has not been explored much here beyond its existence, understanding that a woman has been morally conditioned to avoid any kind of responsibility with the blessing of society is incumbent to understanding the red pill of relationships. As described:
When you allow a young woman to remain undisciplined and shield her from the consequences of her own wrong actions, rationalizing them to be right, you get a feral woman. When you raise a young woman to feel entitled to have men shoulder all her responsibilities for her, you get a woman that hasn’t grown up. When girls aren’t trained up in the way they should go before God by doting fathers worshiping their daughters, you get the perpetuation of feminism.
To a certain extent, almost all grown women remain children in some respect. In this respect, a man does not seek an equal adult partner in traditional marriage, but Child Alpha – with the expectation that he must provide for her, care for her and see that she is not harmed by her own actions (this is those “traditional sex roles” coming out). As stated, this is the facet of tradcon feminism that modern feminism has sought most to eliminate, so it becomes hard for us to see this fully (this was more fully visible about 100 years ago).
Chiefly, this has to do with physical and moral responsibilities, which are still standing. A man must unconditionally provide for a woman, even if she can provide for herself. If not a specific man, the government must do it, thereby making all men pay. A woman must never be made to take responsibility for her own actions. A man must change his own flat while a woman gets out and waits for a man to do it. Of course, a woman never sins or is at fault for anything by her absolute moral authority. If a husband cheats, he’s a dirty bastard. If a wife cheats, poor dear that awful man pushed her into it!
So a man ends up with an enigma on his hands he must deal with: A woman who has absolute moral authority over him. One who knows what is best in all situations, whose will must be followed unconditionally as a Bride of Christ. Yet she is one who can not exercise responsibility for her own decisions and must be protected from herself and from the world. Heaven forbid that the consequences of her actions fall upon her head! Society and the woman herself will take numerous opportunities to remind a man of such things, even if they are not true (for instance the “rape culture”). It is to his own peril if he does not heed those things. This comes out in the idea that men believe women do not have “moral agency” or have “limited moral agency”.
While these things can and will be explored in future posts, talk of marriage often reveals such childish attitudes in women. The article 6 Biggest Regrets Most Women Have From Their Relationship After Marriage is illustrative of such things, perhaps more so since it is reflective of a more traditional culture. Note the opening sentence, which in itself will burn out the Hamsterlator:
As marriage unites a woman with the man of her dreams, it brings a lot of happiness in her life. The beautiful experiences, like being pampered by her husband, having someone to rely on for everything, being praised for anything done by her, and so many more things like these, simply make her feel exhilarated.
One could pick apart each phrase – it’s so loaded with feminist entitlement. But it’s very accurate as to what marriage is in the heart of the average woman, and can explain how women throw marriages away so easily for being “bored and unhaaaaapy”. But the message comes out:
It’s all about her and what she wants.
#1. I am not getting enough space
#2. I am not the same person anymore
#3. Wanted some more time to enjoy life
#4. Didn’t want kids so early
#5. Lost touch with friends
#6. Could have given my ex a second chance
Common thread: You mean something is expected of the woman? That it’s not her choice alone anymore in how to live life? That she might have to change or make certain sacrifices in the name of real compromise (and not feminine compromise that comes out in counseling – translated by all to mean “the woman’s way”)? That she might not get to EPL anymore? That she might have to buckle down and raise kids? That her friends might fade away? That she couldn’t take that second ride on the Carousel with that hot alpha?
If anything is underscored when it comes to the idea of responsibilities, sacrifice, or even honoring her vows, it’s how *horrible* it is for a woman to live up to those things. Hence the responsibility shifting to men, and the rights shifting to women. After all, she’s a powerful and independent woman, who should have it all when she wants it! And it’s her husband’s job to provide it for her!
One of the interesting things I’ve been following in recent days is the reaction to a post that NYCPastor put up entitled 10 Women Christian Men Shouldn’t Marry. In some respects, I found this post a complete surprise given what I expected from a graduate of the SBTS by Albert Mohler’s writings.
While I could strain some gnats on the post, Dr. Kim does a fantastic job in the course of counseling men on the choice of a woman to marry.
The more interesting and instructive thing is the reaction the post got. I noted this originally in that it is hard to escape that there is a prominent disconnect within Christianity as it is practiced in the United States. Dr. Kim points this out himself:
The case, however, is different for the self-proclaiming Christian man/woman. The Christian is called to believe in the inerrancy, sufficiency, authority, and infallibility of the Bible. For if we don’t believe in the Bible, we have no Christianity to speak of. This much is elementary.
. . .
If I’m an extreme radical for simply quoting the Bible verbatim, then I am afraid to see what “normative” Christianity looks like. Yet, sadly, this woman’s comment represents so many of the vitriolic responses that came from the “evangelical Christian community.” Which brings us to the conclusion that instead of changing the world, the Church–by and large–is becoming very much like the world. The Word of God is too narrow a road to follow in this age of gay-marriage and unwed motherhood (seems like the homosexuals are the only ones interested in getting married nowadays).
The interesting part out of all of this is that Dr. Kim is probably just discovering how the typical church really is in how it has departed from the real Jesus of Nazareth. Some lessons to be taken from those comments:
1. Women and a great number of men as well are not Christians even though they believe themselves to be. Rather the women follow The High Holy Hamster in the person of the Personal Jesus. To that end, the Hamster’s machinations guide her every thought and action, to the point that the will of “Jesus” is hers. It can best be thought of as the perfect romance where “Jesus” affirms her in every thought and every action. Those sins are gone, including all the consequences, and everyone else better recognize it.
This should not be mistaken to be anything but a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-10). Such is what you get with the typical false gospel that’s been going around. One that doesn’t focus on the insufficiency of men before God, but one that emphasizes connectedness (hearkening both to Gnosticism and the Goddess Cult) instead. Such is the Personal Jesus, the one that you have a personal relationship with.
2. Men are to listen to the women as if they speak the very word of God Himself – this is their function of following the Personal Jesus. This was NYC Pastor’s sin that drew all the responses. He didn’t know his place as a “good man” recognizing his need for absolution for being born a man. His proper function was to affirm women in all their thoughts and actions, and he failed in doing that by bringing the real Jesus into play. This constant affirmation of women despite their sins leads to the very thought in the modern church that women are without sin, which plays out constantly in the realm of marriage counseling and from the pulpit where mothers, even fornicating single mothers, are constantly affirmed, and fathers and husbands are constantly torn down for things they didn’t even do.
3. This is reflected in hearing them talk about “love” and “grace”, instead of matters of discipleship, or loving Jesus. Love, instead of being something one does in view of the truth of God becomes “feeling loved”. In other words, when they say “Jesus loves me”, they really mean “Jesus makes me feel loved”. Love is about feelings instead of deed and truth. Grace is along the same lines. Grace means “I can do whatever I want and no consequences shall come to me.” This refrain is all too common from women.
Therein, Jesus proclaims his friends as those who “do whatsoever I command you” (John 15:14) and those that love him “keep my commandments” (John 14:15) and puts the premium on hearing his sayings and doing them (Matthew 7:24-27). John furthermore lays doctrine as the measure (2 John 9) of whether you have Jesus, and Paul lays out that if you have grace to cease sinning (Romans 6). This is warped by the Personal Jesus (as they never accepted the real one in the first place) into self-esteem and personal affirmation. Therefore women are without sin and are not broken or failed. Most of the commenters affirmed that they hate Jesus.
4. Therefore, since women are without sin (and therefore have absolute authority as the Vicars of Christ) and men are base depraved creatures who are incapable of nothing but sin, they have the authority to both approve the standards that they have on men as husbands, and the standards by which men may judge women as wives. This was the major affront (i.e. unbiblical) in the minds of most of the commenters that posted as self-professed Christians. Since they are without sin, they get the right to pick and choose what is “biblical”. They do not follow Christ, but rather their own selves.
5. This is rank naked truthful feminism we are witnessing in action in the comment section – in other words female-supremacist hatred. Most are blind to it for numerous reasons (namely it’s coming from a moral stance), and deceptions (namely that it has to do with “equality”). But in other words, it’s pure naked rebellion against the Father on full display. The sad state of the Church as illustrated in so many places puts Matthew 7:21-23 in full view. There will be those that will cry “Lord Lord” and he will say “away from me evildoer, I never knew you”.
6. Given the haughty nature of most Christian women, as illustrated through feminism, women do not have to consider what they have to offer when dealing with men. Other women, men, and society at large enable them in doing this. They don’t have anything to offer, and furthermore don’t even conceive that they have to offer anything to a man in order for him to wife him up. In fact, her mere Glorious Presence is enough. Again the church and society supports them in this thinking. Women have rights, men have responsibilities. This explains the disproportionate response Dr. Kim received to his article addressing the men about their wives, compared to the one addressing women about their husbands. As Dr. Mohler teaches us himself, you’re supposed to leave the women alone in their sin, but you’re supposed to sock it to the men, no matter whether the men are at fault or not.
As Dr. Kim states, it’s a sad testimony that the atheists are the ones that get what is going on the most right in the responses he received:
Now, granted, I know what these sly atheists are trying to do. However, I couldn’t help but notice the sad irony in all this. Whereas I was receiving false charges by “Christians” that I was misinterpreting the Bible to falsely make my case, it was the atheist who saw through all that nonsense and correctly saw that I was simply and accurately just repeating what the Bible plainly said.
The sad testimony of the church today, is simply that: It’s supposed to stand for something, namely transmitting and enforcing the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth, but in seeking to please the feminist doctrine, it has fallen to the point that it stands for nothing but rank hypocrisy. Sick sad world isn’t it, when the atheists are against Christianity for what the Bible says, and the “Christians” are against Christianity because they don’t know and won’t accept what the Bible says.
Being in a church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than being in a garage makes you a car. There are those that will appropriate the name but will have nothing to do with the real Jesus of Nazareth. Do not expect that He will have anything to do with you, if this is the case.
And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:7-8)
Another repost from the now defunct Christian Men’s Defense Network blog. As I continue to get clicks on my links to these (and have them saved), I figure it might be useful to repost the material, which will not include hyperlinks or comments (unless linked from here). I don’t know what happened to the original author (BSkillet81) after the last two years, so I would have liked to get permission to do this beforehand. If there’s an objection from the author, feel free to contact me and I can take this down.
Christian Men’s Defense Network
Real Worship: Jesus is King, Not Boyfriend by BSkillet81
Posted on May 11, 2012
As I write this I am listening to Fernando Ortega’s performance of “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence,” an ancient liturgical hymn written in the 4th century AD. We evangelicals are poorer for having jettisoned songs like this from our worship services.
The introductory verse sets the table for this song, and is itself a study in what isn’t present in today’s eros-infused personal Jesus love songs:
Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
And with fear and trembling stand;
Ponder nothing earthly minded,
For with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
Our full homage to demand.
This is a song of reverence and awe at Christ Jesus, the majestic God-Man. In this ancient hymn, Jesus does not come to us to give us warm fuzzies. He does not come to pitch woo. Rather, “Christ our God to earth descendeth, our full homage to demand.”
I compare this to the words of Paul at the Areopagus: “Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). The message is identical.
This song draws us to repentance, demanding we come to God with “fear and trembling.” It is, today, popular to speak of how we can “approach God’s throne of grace with confidence” (Hebrews 4:16), even if this specific text isn’t used. God, we now think, is all about niceness and permissiveness. Jesus is our personal savior now, meaning He has only the personality we choose to ascribe to Him.
But here we lose the power of tension and dichotomy in God’s word. (Since tension and dichotomy are masculine ideas, it is no wonder they are gone from our services.) We approach the throne of grace with confidence, because we at the same time approach with “fear and trembling.”
Our faith is not in a permissive and weak “personal Jesus,” but in a powerful Divine King who is jealous for His power, might, and authority. He is a King who–like all true and good Kings–is fiercely pursuant of His own glory, and therefore, He is one who “resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (1 Pet. 5:5).
It is this majestic picture of Jesus as King and Lord that inspired the worship of the early church. But where in evangelical-dom today have you seen worship even remotely similar to the true worship described in Revelation 4:8-11?
Each of the four living creatures had six wings; they were covered with eyes around and inside. Day and night they never stop,saying:
Holy, holy, holy,
Lord God, the Almighty,
who was, who is, and who is coming.
Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor, and thanks to the One seated on the throne, the One who lives forever and ever, the 24 elders fall down before the One seated on the throne, worship the One who lives forever and ever, cast their crowns before the throne, and say:
Our Lord and God,
You are worthy to receive
glory and honor and power,
because You have created all things,
and because of Your will
they exist and were created.
So we contrast the above with our modern worship services that describe the personal Jesus as a 19 year-old girl’s boyfriend, and we still wonder that men have abandoned our churches? We could make miles of headway with men just by returning to singing Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress” even once in a while.
But, this morning, I’m at least thankful that I can still get “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence” on iTunes.
ballista74: So you are saying that it isn’t Biblical to refer to the Church as the Bride of Christ? I don’t see how you can argue that bridal imagery (which is more or less the ultimate in romantic love) isn’t laced throughout the Gospels and the Epistles.
No, I’m saying eros love is Biblically inappropriate to anything to do with God, including its use in songs. It’s impossible to prove a lack of presence of anything, but one can take the exercise to look at the New Testament definitions of “love”. The one almost exclusively used is agape in describing the love for the Father or the Son. Not eros, which is where we get the word “erotic”, which relates to carnal, physical, sexual intents. Given the nature of such things, it doesn’t even make sense on the face of it to even go there.
The justification people use to do this is as you write. The misinterpretation of Scriptural references to “the Bride Groom” and “the Bride of Christ” to justify bridal mysticism has happened for a very long time (since about 1200AD or so), but only has gotten common for the last 20-30 years due to the rise of the “Jesus is my boyfriend” gospel and the desire to express it. This is due to the assigning of bodily sexual characteristics to the historical use of gender identifiers, as well as an endemic misunderstanding of the symbolic meaning of marriage. I’ll defer to Leon Podles (read Chapters 5-6) for a more in-depth view of this.
To summarize, though, if you study Roman languages (Spanish for example), you’ll note pretty quickly that different words that relate to both people and inanimate objects are classified as masculine or feminine and the language changes to denote these classifications. For example, “the pencil” is “el lapiz”, while “the table” is “la mesa”. This is due to the application of the historical use of gender, understanding of which has been destroyed in the last 50 years due to feminism.
Since God, His Church, and anything else to do with Him are not corporeal, it’s impossible to relate them at all to physical sexual characteristics. God is referred to as Father, Jesus in His ascendant state is still referred to as Son, believers (men and women) are referred to as “sons of God”, and the collection of these are referred to as the “bride of Christ”.