What Christian Men Can Learn From Forinicating Men

adultOne website that has provoked me to seek manhood and genuine masculinity is Return of Kings. I never fail to walk away from what I read with a renewed sense of the calling to be a man. The struggle is that Return of Kings is a site dedicated to masculinity through personal conquest in terms of achievement and sex. Winning a one night stand with a young college female is simply part and parcel of the site’s focus. As a Christian, I believe male sexuality comes from God and is intended to be contained and expressed within marriage of one man to one woman. On this point, I part company with the thoughts on the site.

The main strength of such sites is the focus on men and solely on men. The writing is about men, who they are, what they naturally possess, and what they are capable of, both good and bad. Missing are compromising considerations to political correctness, feminism, or feminine sensibilities. Being offensive to women is not a goal, but neither is it a hindrance. The feelings of women are simply not a factor.

This sensitivity to women is why churches are succumbing to feminism and why ministry to men are secondary in church efforts. The desire for churches to keep the biblical idea of avoiding fornication has morphed from teaching a strong doctrine of discipline and purpose into a self-help program meant to teach men to be sensitive to women’s feelings on sex and marriage. The benefits of Christian limits on male sexuality for women should be secondary. The benefits apply primarily to men. It takes male potential and focuses into a creative purpose.

Free Northerner covers this idea quite effectively when he writes:

The average male, is  generally neutral in his inclination to his choice between hedonism, destruction, and creation … Creation requires the most effort and is the least enjoyable (at least in the short-term), but it creates value for society and meaning for the male human … So, how does society encourage a male human to create? There are really only three ways: force, access to resources, and sex/family … A male human will willingly create and undergo hardships he wouldn’t otherwise for the benefit of his mate and his children, and their futures. He will try to create (or destroy) to attain more resources than he would normally need or want simply to give to his family. The third option is the only stable and reliable option where the majority of males will willingly create rather than engage in leisure or destruction. It is also the only option for society where the male doesn’t have a decent chance of responding with destruction.

The current thinking is that masculinity in men is either destructive or selfish, but it is femininity in women that civilizes men and makes them creative. This idea is encapsulated in the concept of Christian men as apes and Christian women as princesses:

The image of human evolution as a symbol of civilized apes applies primarily to men. The image of God as King with heirs apparent is applied primarily to women. Primitive apes walk down the aisle to marry heavenly princesses who have the right to be doted on and called “beautiful” for their entire lives regardless of how they actually conduct themselves. The primitive apes are told “man-up” and shoulder their duty and enjoy the gracious privilege of actually marrying an evangelical woman. The preachers herald the union in utter ignorance while openly criticizing both evolution and feminism. It is the ultimate culture of male inferiority and female superiority backed by God and scripture, so saith the ape and princess co-pastors of mega-non-denomiational female-oriented churches.

Heralding women as sources of civilization in opposition to male destruction essentially places women on a pedestal and establishes them as morally superior to men. The moral superiority of women is a fundamental, if unspoken, tenant behind the push to advance women into male spheres of life and is the driving force of ministry to men in Evangelical Christianity. In the film Vanilla Sky, this idea is the point of revelation for the main character:

This was a kind woman. An individual. More than your equal. You barely knew in your real life, but in your lucid dream, she was your savior.

A woman as a man’s savior is not totally without fact. However, Christianity and its morals for men are not based on the needs and wants of women. Those morals are derived first from a heavenly Father and scripture. Woman in and of herself cannot save a man, but Christian morals leading a man to be with a woman can.

Fornicating men who live a self-centered life are right in that their being a man is the beginning of who a man is. This goes against the church culture that holds that a woman in relationship with Jesus (another man) is the beginning of who a Christian man is. Given that the Christian God is male, both Father and Son, and that its sacred text is both male-oriented and divinely designed to be so, to make woman as the center of the Christian man’s life is counter to Christianity itself.

Christian men should learn from the male-centered culture where men live for masculinity that being a man is the foundation of their lives. However, their sexuality is governed by marriage, making marriage an institution given by God to men for men.

[Edit: The quote from Vanilla Sky actually said, “More than your equal” and not “More than a woman. Correction made. MM]


Hatred of God and Country

Military chaplainThe United States military is facing the possibility of appointing atheist chaplains. The initial contradiction of having someone who does not believe in the existence of God functioning as a clergyman, someone who represents belief in God, does not seem to be a problem. Greta Van Sustren reports:

An atheist group is demanding an atheist chaplain in the military. The group claims that as more atheists join the military they need somewhere to go for support.

When soldiers who believe in God need support for their faith, the realities of war and the harsh life of a soldier is the primary challenge. Difficulties wear on a man’s belief in a transcendent God who is fundamentally good. But why would atheists need support? Does war make them question their atheism and tempt them to seek out God? If that is the case, then going to a chaplain would be the last thing an atheist should do. A chaplain, after all, functions primarily as a member of Christianity, and Christianity’s defining point of truth begins with the existence of God. When an atheist needs to talk about his problems, a counselor would be a better answer than the contradictory position of atheist chaplain. Modern psychology is fundamentally separated from sectarian ideas and operates on purely naturalist methods. It is about Freud and not faith.

The more common sense answer is that atheists need support in their atheism against the influence of their fellow soldiers. Soldiers in the military tend to be men who pray and read from holy texts, especially the Bible.

Proposing the position of an atheist chaplain is an effort to deliberately undermine the influence of Christianity among soldiers by forcing a religious position to adopt irreligious approaches in order to accommodate soldiers who do not believe in God. Such a change would not be just for the handful of atheist soldiers, but would apply to all soldiers, especially Christian. Those who would seek support for their faith would find a secular vacuum in the very position established to protect and venerate their faith. Atheists pushing for a chaplain position is ultimately an act of deliberate subversion of the Christian faith in the military.

It is the same reason feminist Sandra Fluke enrolled at the Catholic-influenced college Georgetown University and then deliberately challenged the college’s stance against insurance funding for birth control, a core conviction within the Catholic faith. It was an effort of subversion.

Atheists entering the military may or may not be an act of patriotism, but the push to establish a chaplaincy represented by irreligious thought is not. It is a political move meant to challenge Christianity in the American military until it is expunged of faith. The Christian soldier serves God and Country, but the atheist would demand service to Country and defiance of God.

Co-opting God

Our Mother, who art in heaven.
Our Mother, who art in heaven.

After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17 NASB).

Regardless of the efforts to make the Bible gender-neutral and to promote an androgynous God, the man Christ Jesus reveals that God is masculine and that the Father-Son dynamic is the complete representation of who He is. The prayer given to the disciples, and to us, by Jesus begins with “… Our Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 6:9 NASB). Paul writes that Christ “…is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15 NASB).

In Genesis 1, God makes Adam in His image and Adam already has God as his Father and the word of his Father before his Father decides that Adam needs a woman. In Genesis 5, it says, “When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth” (Genesis 5:3 NASB). Jesus tells Philip, He who has seen Me has seen the Father … “ (John 14:9 NASB). Again, there is a son in the image of his father.

Jesus was the Son of the Father, as Adam was a son of the Father. And men who come to Christ are Sons of God.

Yet, church, culture, and state both continue to give preeminence to motherhood. If boys become men it is because of their heroic mothers. If men are to live as good Christians, the well-being and happiness of women is the standard they must strive to meet.

I continue to see the same basic co-opting of God. Women want to be God and call men their sons so that they can receive the glory that the heavenly Father should receive.

It has been a long time since I last attended a church service and I think it will be awhile before I attend another. Until churches have the courage to acknowledge the Father and the Son for the sake of calling men to be sons of the Father, the church is nothing more than a womb giving birth to boys conditioned to worship motherhood as the preeminent manifestation of a gender-neutral deity.

Women should be treated with a measure of kindness and valued because they are the Father’s provision for men (1 Corinthians 11:8-9). However, the womb is not a church and motherhood is not the Word of God.