Fighting Fires

The church wastes a great deal of financial and spiritual resources in patching up the fallout from the shoddy Socio-Sexual/Marriage Marketplace.  These energies could be much better spent on education.

Readership: All; Church leaders; Parents; Those who hope to be parents;

Introduction

In a previous post, Parenting is for the elite. (2020-3-16), I discussed how being a married parent tends to be an exclusive status among the elite.

However, there are two groups of women who do not enter into the blessed Inner Circle of the Parenting Elite.

  1. Women who commit abortion.  (No children.)
  2. Single mothers.  (No marriage.)

Obviously, these women have the potential to join this elite group, but for some reason, they choose not to join the parenting federation.

Their reasons are varied.

Although many of these women claim that they prefer to remain unmarried and/or childless, I have my doubts about how honest they are being with themselves.  If it’s true, then I would presume they prefer to remain single because they can earn a decent income on their own, and they cannot find a man worthy of their standards, who earns more, and who is also willing to commit to marriage.

They might think they’re elite, but there is something important missing.

 

Women who Commit Abortion

Concerning the first group, the church teaches us that we should love and accept those women who have had an abortion (should they ever be found out).  But laced within this stance, there is an implicit assumption that God’s design for women to be mothers isn’t optimal enough for them.  No, every princess needs to have a “season for singleness”* while waiting for a wealthy (or otherwise high quality) man to be her husband, or none at all.  We would never deprive a Christian woman of her opportunity to live wild and free in the process of “discovering herself”* if she so wishes, simply because she isn’t beautiful nor wise enough to attract an elite man’s commitment in marriage.  As a consequence, a woman having an abortion, for whatever her personal reasons, has come to be accepted as the norm, even within the church.  However, this is a topic that tends to stay within the women’s circles, and the men never become aware of this implicit treachery of procreative potential.

And… the church continues to teach us that we should love and accept those women who have had an abortion!

* It is fairly well known that all too often, a “season for singleness” is merely a polite euphemism for riding the carousel and becoming jaded (AKA “discovering herself”), but it is also implied that this “season of singleness” must not be interrupted by the inconvenient duties of childbearing and childrearing.

Single Mothers

Concerning the second group, I’ve met some women who actually preferred to have an independent lifestyle and have a child with a man of their choosing.  Often times this is a sugar daddy who is already taken.  It seems that there are some women who don’t care too much about commitment as long as their lives are comfortably numb and ostentatiously secure.

Likewise, the church teaches us that we should love and accept those women who are single mothers.  But laced within this stance, there is an implicit assumption that God’s design for mothers to be married isn’t optimal enough for them.  No, every princess needs to have a wealthy (or otherwise high quality) man as her husband, or none at all.  We would never deprive a Christian woman of her opportunity to have a child, even out of wedlock if she so wishes, simply because she is neither beautiful nor wise enough to attract an elite man’s commitment in marriage.  As a consequence, a woman having a child out of wedlock, for whatever her personal reasons, has come to be accepted as the norm, even within the church.

And… the church continues to teach us that we should love and accept those women who are single mothers!

Something smells fleshy…

Confusion over Cause and Effect

For those women who wish to join the ranks of the married, parenting elite, there is no other way to do so, except to remain sexually chaste until marriage.  This usually requires women to marry while they are still young (< 25-ish).

There are many ways that the church has skirted around the unpopular teaching of chastity, but ultimately, the only real solution is for us to make the following crystal clear to young people…

  1. That chastity (i.e. true sexual purity) has value for many reasons.
  2. That young women can have a clear choice about how their lives will turn out.
  3. Most importantly, the steps young women can take to precipitate that choice into reality.

In sum, the church needs to focus on the cause-and-effect relationship between the two broad choices of (1) chastity and contentment in marriage and family, and (2) sexual promiscuity, dissipation, and a less favorable life outcome.  But these cascades are not properly and adequately addressed in church catechism, and I don’t believe it ever has been.

Instead of emphasizing these fundamental concepts of procuring spiritual excellence in living, the church teaches us to love and accept those women who have fallen short of the target (i.e. by choosing to have premarital sex, committing abortion, or having a child out of wedlock).

But while this goal of extending unconditional love and forgiveness is indeed scriptural and necessary, it has replaced the goal of reaching towards the upward calling of Christ.  As such, it has become a self-reinforcing feedback loop which propagates these same bad behaviors.  That is to say, since these behaviors have become the acceptable norm, there remains no motivation for young women to exercise self-control and remain chaste.  No matter what mistakes they make, they will always find kind, loving church folks who will totally ignore how badly they have screwed up their lives while serving up casseroles and cookies.

Gynocentric government policies and court systems that are generous to disobedient wimmin only serve to exacerbate the longitudinal failure to discipline.

Is the need for introspection and repentance even a thing anymore?

Or is it only for when she fails to stick the landing and is certain to lose the rewards for being obedient?

No, it’s too late by then.

Conclusions

Parenting is for the elite, but it shouldn’t be.  Not all (would-be) mothers are elite, but many more of them could be.  The church might increase the yield ratio by going back to the basics of why sexual chastity is of value, and why a timely marriage may be the best option for many young women.

At some point, it needs to be made undeniably clear that illicit sex is morally unacceptable and that it has long term consequences.  But few church leaders have the balls to spell out all the negative consequences of extramarital sex.

As a consequence, church staff and parishioners consume vast amounts of their time and energies, as well as fiscal and material resources in fighting the fires of sexual promiscuity, dealing with the consequences of abortion (e.g. counseling guilt and difficulties in subsequent relationships), and meeting the needs of single mothers.

The bottom line is that a great deal more spiritual efficiency could be achieved if the church focused its energies on preventing fires, rather than fighting them.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Fighting Fires

  1. Sharkly says:

    God’s love is conditional. Love with no conditions is not loving at all.

    Like

    • OAM says:

      God’s love is unconditional. Man’s love usually isn’t.

      There is also wide confusion between love – wanting what’s best for another – and consequences – which are driven by one’s own actions independent of whether they are loved or not.

      Equivocation on the definition of love is one of the biggest confusions in modern day society.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. larryzb says:

    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. JPF says:

    Absolutely.
    Similarly, I do not recall ever hearing a sermon that clearly pointed out that if a Christian man is considering marriage with a divorced woman, that doing so is disobedience against Christ and therefore a sin. Matt 5:31-32.
    I even asked a pastor one time about this in private – obviously before I had done sufficient work to remove churchian teaching from Biblical teaching. He failed, when asked, to answer that Christ forbids his followers to marry to a divorced woman. The teaching is pretty simple to understand, even if “unpleasant”.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ed Hurst says:

      I suppose that’s a pretty good rule, Joshua, if you are equally willing to cut off your own hand for some weakness in facing certain temptations. I’m not soft on the horrific mess our society has made of families, but I’m also not a fan of simplistic rules made from symbolic teachings spoken within a covenant society. You can’t apply covenant teaching to a non-covenant society. What we really need is a whale of a lot of penitence before we attempt to reconstruct our society, and a willingness to withdraw completely with others of like faith to build an alternative society. I tend to think that’s what Jack was pointing at here.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        Withdrawing with others of like faith to build an alternative society, although extremely difficult, would certainly be one very effective way to achieve more spiritual efficiency, as it would clear out much of the chaff mentioned in this post.
        I wonder how many of those women who come to church looking for help and support ever gave a thought about God while they were spending their inheritance frivolously.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Paul says:

    “But while this goal of extending unconditional love and forgiveness is indeed scriptural and necessary”

    No, it is not! Especially if you want to read “unconditional forgiveness” in that sentence.
    A clear distinction MUST be made between believers and unbelievers; the church should call unbelievers to repentance, and preach forgiveness of sins upon repentance. However, the church should discipline believers persisting in sin, even excommunicating them if necessary. (Gross) sin MUST not be tolerated in the church.

    One thing the Reformation has had problems with (Luther even wanted to discard the book of James from the NT), is with the necessity of living a holy life after you’re born again. In many churches that has degraded into saying a “sinner’s prayer” to “invite Jesus in your life”, and then it doesn’t make any difference at all for your soul if you keep sinning or not. That’s blatantly false. The number of warnings to believers(!) to avoid keeping sinning, is VERY numerous.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      Paul, you’re getting the point.
      I do believe that we are called to extend unconditional love to certain others at certain times. The love offered should bear good fruit in the recipient, and it is also a personal exercise of holiness and spiritual growth. Unconditional forgiveness is necessary for one to avoid becoming bitter. The error is when the application is taken to be a rule of thumb, “free love for all” extending even to those who would abuse it. Essentially, Christian love is interpreted to be “unconditional license”. In this mindset, the unconditionality of God’s love and grace is taken to be the whole duty of believers. The excuse is that everyone has goofed up in some form or another and so no one wants to point a finger for fear of being a hypocrite. But this is interpreted by too many as a license to ill. People only come around to God for handouts, and have no intention to do God’s will nor to serve others (properly understood to be those who are sincerely struggling with their faith).

      Like

  5. Paul says:

    And indeed, the church has started the progress on the slippery slope and the degradation of marriage, once it accepted (no-fault) divorce, especially among believers.

    I’ve NEVER heard churches repenting from such teaching. On the contrary, they are doing there utmost best to contradict clear NT teachings.

    “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” (1 Cor 7)

    Where do you see ANY allowance to marry a divorced woman in there? It’s a command of the Lord, which is widely ignored by many churches and Christians.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Paul, the church doesn’t really have any authority over how unbelievers (those outside the covenant) choose to live. But the way the church commonly overlooks the issue you just described (a Christian woman getting a divorce, or a Christian man marrying a divorced woman) is an outstanding example of how the church misinterprets the command to “love one another” to be a broad acceptance and endorsement of “do what thou wilt”. There is no teaching, no discipline, and no accountability. As such, the church is not much different from the wider permissive culture.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. lastmod says:

    So a woman…makes a mistake…has an abortion. repents. The church should not accept her? Or if it does, it should be made known that she had an abortion, and deserves contempt from the righteous, holy flock?

    What of a murderer who finds God in prison, and turns his life around? A hooker or pole swinger who was ministered to properly on the streets and changes her life?

    What of a drug addict? Sure, God forgives you…but the congregation in the church should not? Who determines which sin is worse than another?

    Sure, I agree what is present in the modern church is broken (including and probably yours) but your simple ideas and “prevention” shuts out 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of everyone.

    Heaven is going to reserved for a few men in the man-o-sphere, a few women that they just happen to be married to….and a few others. Self righteous lot.

    Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      “Or if it does, it should be made known that she had an abortion, and deserves contempt from the righteous, holy flock?”

      This is a good question. It reminds me of when Dalrock suggested that repentant women of ill-repute be honestly, humbly, lovingly, and sincerely branded with a scarlet letter for the whole church to see (read it here). Right.

      It is very simple. Contempt should always be for the unrepentant sin, never the sinner. Contempt for the sinner is reserved exclusively for God Almighty. The modern church—correctly—loves the sinner, but refuses to have contempt for the sin. The problem isn’t the church loving the sinner, but the church loving the sin: abortion, divorce, remarriage, pre-marital and extra-marital sex, etc.

      If a woman (or man) is unrepentent of a sin, she should be quietly approached by the person who knows about it. If refuses to repent, then she should be approached by two or three others. If that is still unsuccessful, then those people who failed in the first two attempts absolutely should make it known to the church for the purpose of persuading her to repent. If that still fails, only then she should be treated like an unbeliever and expelled from the church. That is the full extent of the ‘punishment’. Shaming might be incidental, but it isn’t the purpose of the process.

      Liked by 1 person

    • larryzb says:

      Yes, if a sinner truly repents and makes amends of their life, they must be forgiven by others. As to abortion, the question is whether the woman is truly repentant.

      Too many churches have told their congregations over the decades that a woman can in good conscience choose to end the life of her baby. That is the wrong message to send.

      Like

  7. Pingback: The War on Ideals | Σ Frame

  8. Pingback: The need for Marriage Education | Σ Frame

  9. Pingback: The Elimination of the Church | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s