Paul on Feminism in the Corinthian Church

Apostle Paul at Corinth

Dalrock, in his blog article, 40 years of ultimatums, writes that men have three choices in today’s feminist climate: voluntary celibacy, forced celibacy or unlimited sex with available young women. Interestingly, the apostle Paul faced the same issue over nineteen-hundred years ago:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband (1 Corinthians 7:1-2 ESV).

Like today, sexual license and equality had completely confused and obscured traditional marriage. The male Christians who wrote Paul had reached the same tipping point that today has sparked the Men’s Rights Movement blogosphere. Paul’s response is a piece of wisdom giving the men the clarity they desperately needed.

Marriage under feminism is unjust for men. It calls men to settle down and take responsibility for a wife and family, limiting the choices they might otherwise have, while at the same time preserving womens’ right to unlimited choices, within and without the marriage. Men are bound to marriage by sacred vows and the threat of divine judgment through unanswered prayers (cf. Malachi 2:13-14; 1 Peter 3:7) while women are in the marriage solely by choice, any spoken vows standing only on the shifting sands of romantic sentiments.

Christian men dutifully take their marriage vows and meekly submit to their wife’s endless need for choice and liberation, fully aware that if things get too unhappy for her, divorce is an option for her and the law is on her side. Many men in the blogosphere have rejected Christianity because of its obsession with shaming men into such a marital arrangement.

Now not all marriages are like this, but the fundamental expectation of unbending male fidelity to female liberation is firmly in place in the church.

The feminist movement of the latter half of the twentieth century is nothing new.  The destructive results are nothing new. What Christian men face today, Christian men faced almost two millennia ago.

Paul’s words of wisdom are needed more than ever.

Where Traditional Conservative Churches Lose It

"Marwage, marwage."

Traditional Conservatives and supporting churches have lost pretty much all integrity on social issues such as abortion and gay rights because they consistently refuse to counter the one philosophy and social policy that infects their congregations.

Feminism.

For a movement that holds claim to scripture as bearing at the least profound wisdom and at the most divine wisdom, simply following a biblical understanding on the relationship between men and women would seem natural. However, men are leaving the church in record droves because they are not finding a culture steeped in tradition past empty religious ceremonies and conservative politics. Despite this, churches continue to emphasize a faulty two-point view of men and how they should relate to women.

First, men are responsible for women’s well-being and betterment. This idea calls husbands to “man-up” and accept the obligation to be the strong pillars of provision, protection and support for women while women are free to enjoy and explore all that life has to offer without any obligation to men.

Second, men are guilty for women’s lack of well-being and betterment. From abuse to poverty to general unhappiness, any lack or failure in a woman’s life is somehow attributed by her interaction with a man, be it father, boyfriend or stranger.

Traditional Conservatives who advocate for men being responsible for their wives in a culture of equality are supporting feminism even while they claim to oppose feminism from the pulpit. Women are now protected by law and advancing through social liberation. They are gaining high levels of education and employment and stand with a great amount of self-sufficiency. Men are essentially called to support and supply women who can support and supply themselves. This has the effect of rendering a man’s labor pointless as ultimately his presence in her life is expendable. If a man dies or they divorce, she will at worse be fine as she can take care of herself and at best profit from compensation in the case of death and alimony in the case of divorce.

Feminism readily supports this system because it is focused solely on the well-being and betterment of women in a state of being completely independent of men. While conservative women marry conservative men in traditionally conservative churches, their relationship is ultimately framed by modern feminist liberation, not the traditional culture that feminist fought to leave behind. This inconsistency disolves the church’s integrity.

Until conservative churches take practical and realisitc stands on the marital relationship between men and women theirs will be a weak voice in society. There is a need to speak out against women having the choice of divorce and the legal system that actively works to exploit men for the sake of women. Those two stances alone could cost a minister his job in conservative churches filled mostly with liberated women, regardless of how concerned they are for America.

The Consent of Child Sexuality

Tommy Lobel, now Tammy Lobel, age 11.

In London, the UK, a young boy has begun hormone treatments to become a girl. Thomas Lobel, at the age of eleven, is now Tammy Lobel, the child (son/daughter?!) of a lesbian couple. According to the UK paper, Mailonline, the treatments began at the age of seven, when Tommy threatened to mutilate his own genitals because he was not a girl.

The implication of this is profound. Here is a young boy who is supposedly aware of his own sexuality to the point that he consensually undergoes changes to his sexual identity. This sexual self-awareness at such a young age has the potential for rending null and void statutory rape laws.

The fundamental premise behind such laws is that a child is incapable of consenting to sex with an adult due to a lack of sexual self-awareness. An adult who has sex with a child cannot claim consent without the assumption of some kind of manipulation and coercion. However, if a child is able to consent to sex with an adult because he or she fully aware of what is happening, then the law cannot assume that the adult was taking advantage of the child. It is no longer statutory rape. This has the potential to open the doors for equal rights for pedophilia.

There is an important observation that needs to be made with this story.  First, the story states the following:

At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning.

This action shows that Tommy did not simply believe he was a girl, but had such a fundamental anger and hatred toward his own male genitalia that he wanted to do himself, or at least his genitalia, great harm. Tommy’s lesbian parents obviously have a problem with men, given that they married each other instead of each marrying a man. The raw hatred Tommy reveals towards his own maleness may be a reflection of his female parents harboring a negative view of men.

If a young girl had a profound hatred of her female body to the point that she threatened to mutilate herself, the first question would be if she had suffered some sort of sexual abuse, or at the least psychological abuse, at the hands of a mysognist father. Allowing, or encouraging, her to change into a boy would not be a first and immediate option.

Occupy Ignorance

Robespierre incarnate

Occupy Wall Street has moved to other areas.  There are occupy movements in places like Oakland, California, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Portland, Oregon. Rapper Jay-Z has taken the Occupy Wall Street logo and modified it into a new emblem reading Occupy All Streets.

The question is whether these groups have any fundamental idea of what their movement stems from, what it represents or what its ultimate fulfillment would entail. It is highly doubtful. The general message is that the Occupy movement is a protest against American wealth being hoarded by the wealthiest Americans.

However, several observations reveal that the underlying ideas and philosophies are either misunderstood or deliberately ignored. First, the occupy movement seems focused on Wall Street and its symbolizing privileged white male America. Black entertainers and athletes as well as female entertainers who are multi-millionaires are not included in the “one-percent” that is the supposed reason for the protests. Even though the United States President is quite wealthy and privileged, his not being a privileged white male American makes him an alley of the Occupy movement, not a target.

Second, the word occupy is inherently militant. Oxford dictionary defines occupy as “… take control of (a place, especially a country) by military conquest or settlement.” Now it might be argued that occupy merely means to take up space, but that is a passive stance without purpose. To occupy with an intent is a militant action.

These two observations reveal that the Occupy movement is nothing but an extension of the ongoing call for a complete takeover of the United States’ private sector by government for the sake of the poor and unsuccessful working class (to the exclusion of successful working class). The mentality of Marxist revolutionary thought (take from the rich by force and give to the poor) remains in full swing. Whereas politicians and educators may carry out the revolution peacefully through legislation and ideas, activists are still operating on the foundation that there must be some sort of revolution.

The difference between the progress of socialist ideas and a revolution of socialist ideas is that the rich are considered inherently guilty of crimes against humanity and a revolution would require some sort of immediate and unbending justice. Those who join in the Occupy movements have not asked themselves if they are prepared to carry out a violent campaign including the persecution of the guilty rich. In revolutionary movements, the guilty must be held accountable for crimes committed. That is the nature of revolution.

In Oakland, the protests have turned violent and at one point, the occupiers were able to shut down a port, threatening the livelihood of the area. This is the natural and honest expression of what an “occupy” movement means. If the Occupy Wall Street crowds are wanting a non-violent measure then they are either delusional or cowards. A peaceful protest would have been a temporary gathering before government officials.

“Occupy Wall Street” is inherently a call to action against citizens for the sake of the government, not a call against the government for the sake of the citizens.

In the French Revolution, a peaceful transition to equality was the beginning of the movement, in the end, it became a violent bloodbath. The crowds who are happily supporting and participating in the Occupy movements seem woefully ignorant of what they truly stand for. If they should discover it, they will have to choose to either walk away or take a violent stance for the cause.

The Occupy crowd does not seem to understand the inevitability of it all.

A New World And An Old Religion

Ye ole Christian booke

One of the main motivations behind modern English translations is the need to create a text that speaks to the hearts and minds of youth in a modern world. Religious leaders and apologists struggle to reach a generation raised with a very different understanding of the world than previous generations.

Christian scriptures speak of God in ways that writers of the time understood. They present God as a king, as a father and as a husband. These images contain hierarchal structures, structures of authority. God is a king with authority over his subjects, a father with authority over his children and a husband with authority over his wife.

In the twenty-first century, this understanding of life has been completely replaced with a new understanding that leaves behind authority for interdependent relationships on a field of equality. A husband is equal with his wife, the father with his children and there simply are no more kings.

This becomes problematic with the idea that the Bible is the revealed truth. If it is the final authority on what is truth, then it reveals God as a sovereign with authority. Yet, its very authority is dismantled, leaving Christians to seek a relationship with scripture, requiring a constant redefinition and renewing through new translations. It is the same with personal relationships.

In a world of equality, which fundamentally requires the tearing down of authority, the Bible cannot be held as an authority over the culture and its images of authority find no modern application. To compensate, new thinking has been devised. One idea that is very much in line with modern thought is that God changes as our understanding of God changes, as our relationship to God changes. In other words, our relationship to God is evolving and God evolves with it.

Jesus no longer becomes viewed as a master or king to be obeyed, but a friend with whom we are equal. His identity is no longer based on fixed authority, but on interdependent relationship. Youth see the relationships of equality among Christians and understand it is at odds with what is presented in scripture.

There is no feasible way to make Christianity relevant in a modern world because it comes from a world long since passed. Either the world of equality must collapse, or be collapsed, or Christians need to separate and create an independent culture, even an independent nation, into which others are invited. Simply updating old texts into modern language is not going to work.