Constructing a Framework of Options

What choices do Christians have in today’s world when it comes to pursuing intersexual relationships, marriage and family?

Readership: Christians
Length: 1,600 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes

Introduction

Recent discussions on this blog concerning the approach of Christians to pursuing life goals involving intersexual relationships, marriage, and family have tended to echo prior discussions on other blogs about the same issues. It seems to me that this reflects the twin realities that (A) there are, in fact, very few options available to Christians and (B) the attractiveness of any particular option is going to tend to be very dependent on one’s own “personal/ideological matrix” — that is, the combination of personal qualities (“strengths” in today’s “market”) and faith/ideology commitments which, taken together, form the experiential and mental/spiritual “lens” through which one sees and appraises the short list of available options.

This brief (by my standards!) post will explore the well-known options in slightly more detail, following an editorial conclusion reflecting my own views.

What Options do we have?*

The advent of modern science and technology, together with the nearly simultaneous economic shifts which I have described in greater detail in recent posts, have worked together to change the general socio-economic context in which we currently live, fundamentally, utterly, and likely irreversibly (at least from the perspective of any timeframe that is relevant to individual decision-making concerning these issues). For reasons and in the ways detailed in my earlier posts, these changes have had a dramatic impact on the process and outcome of the dating/mating experience for everyone, whether Christian or not. The resulting changes have produced the familiar landscape in which we live, and this has had the effect of reducing the options that are available to Christians seeking marriage. Thus, the available options for Christians in the dating/mating context essentially boil down to the following short list of options, each of which I will describe in slightly more detail immediately following the list. (Note that this list should be taken as a general framework for organizing thinking about the general options, and not as a straitjacket of categories.):

  1. Adaptation to the new reality.
  2. Ignoring the new reality because one has a strong enough “market” position to do so.
  3. An outlier “custom” solution, if you can manage it.

Option (1) involves various forms of personal accommodation or compromise to the standards imposed by the changed landscape. As Christians, we reflexively scoff at this, but the reality is that it is what most people do, because most people don’t have sufficiently “strong hands” (in the deck of cards sense) to achieve personally-desired outcomes while completely disregarding the standards of the new cultural landscape.  The various segments of the secular Manosphere (e.g. incels, MGTOW, and PUA) are taking this option, each in obviously different ways. The Christian Manosphere has yet to find a viable form of adaptation to the current cultural standards and expectations that does not run afoul of scriptural mandates while not at the same time requiring the placement of oneself in the “top 20% of men”. We can think of this option as the “capitulation” option.

Option (2) is for the people who have the “strong hands” (again, in the deck of cards sense), because the strong hands generally do well regardless of what the rules and conventions of any context are — they are, after all, the strong hands, meaning that they have characteristics that are going to lead to superior outcomes in a variety of different contexts, sets of standards, rules, and expectations. Examples of this are the “Blueprint” offered by DeepStrength, which, while likely effective, requires the placement of oneself in the top 20% of men within the given context — in other words, becoming one of the “strong hands”. We can think of this option as the “brute force” option.

Option (3) is for those people who are charting a different course, intentionally going against the grain, neither accommodating/adapting to the new system, nor rising above it based on being able to transcend it by having a strong hand, but rather choosing a deliberately outlier path. People who pursue this option may succeed at reaching their goals, or they may fail to reach any of their goals, depending on any number of factors, but the key distinguishing characteristic of this option is that it is a self-designed, self-curated, individually-tailored pathway that attempts to provide a narrowly-tailored, personally-specific solution based on the specific parameters of the individual involved, and their specific and particular strengths and weaknesses, played out in a carefully contrived context — all of which, taken together, changes the possibilities. It does not hew to the current conventions in a close way (either in the general secular or general/mainstream “Christian” conventional approach), nor is it based on having an extraordinarily strong hand, but it is typically a non-replicable solution because it is specifically tailored to one individual and his particular traits, situation, and possibilities. Men like Jack who leave the system by traveling/living abroad and marrying a foreign wife are taking this option. We can think of this option as the “single tailored” option.

Finally it may be possible to combine certain elements of these options together, as is the case for the recurring idea of setting up a group of like-minded people who work together to secure mates for each other or for their children. In a different vein, others have proposed the formation of a sub-society of like-minded Christians. These two ideas are a blend of options 2 and 3 in this list. The former requires a carefully contrived context, consisting of faith, trust, and social networking, while the latter of which generally requires that one has a strong hand, including the investment capital to buy property in a remote geographical area. Moreover, both these ideas require the various kinds of inspirational, administrative, organizational, logistical, and other abilities that put one well out of the realm of the average person. In general, these hybrid options will tend towards one or another of the three general approaches depending on what the hybrid requires in order to work.

The reality is that the principal factor that determines a man’s choice about whether to pursue option (1), (2), or (3), is the strength of his own hand (i.e., whether he is in group (2) or not). This isn’t a matter of personal choice, but is determined by his given personal qualities (physical, mental, motivational, disciplinary, all of which are traits with bell-curve distributions), and therefore only rather modestly subject to personal determination and improvement. For those who don’t have a naturally strong hand in these key areas, the choice boils down to what each man thinks is a better, more viable and morally acceptable course for him personally, as between (1) and (3).

Holding a Royal Flush?

Conclusions

My perspective is that in any group of Christians, there will be some who “fit” into each of the options above. (We can call those who choose option 1 to be “Group 1”, and so on.) For example, among those who read and comment here at Σ Frame, we have some people who are in Group 1 (who “compromised” with the current culture’s approach to these issues in order to get desired results), some people who are in Group 2 (who have strong hands, or were close enough to get into the strong hands category, and “brute force” the system for desired results), and people who are in Group 3 (who are pursuing “single tailored” individual approaches that are generally not replicable by others, in order to get desired results).

These differences in approach will tend to be based on individual differences in each person themselves (since the key distinctions between the choices are largely based on this), which therefore will lead to significant differences in perspective, which is another way of saying “disagreements”.

To take an obvious example of this, not everyone here is married — some people are never marrieds, some people are divorced, and some people are in second marriages. How each arrived in those situations — including their current marriage — differs, and how they choose to sustain their current situation, or change it, also differs. More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, these differences often depend on the traits/type of person they are, the “strength” of their “hand” overall, and therefore the panoply of realizable options that they perceive as being available to them.

These differences between people’s strengths and life situations lead them to disagree about the best approach to the current dilemma, because their experience of the current dilemma is simply different, due to their different personal traits and situation — all of which have a significant impact on how the current dilemma “cuts” for them personally, how deeply, and how damagingly.

In my view, these experiential differences — particularly because they viscerally relate to so central and critical an area of life — tend to be extremely difficult to bridge in any way that leads to shared conceptualization of viable solutions across the board. In my view, this is the critical reason why these discussions of solutions to the dilemma we all face, always tend to go in circles, and tend to be very familiar, well-worn ones, with easily identifiable grooves. Their basis is deep, experiential, and in the case of most of us, close to many of most unshakeable convictions due to the very central and visceral nature of this experiential data which serves to inform and confirm these convictions. The resulting gap can be observed but, in my view, it simply cannot be bridged.

Related

This entry was posted in Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Collective Strength, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Decision Making, Desire, Determination, Discernment, Wisdom, Faith Community, Fundamental Frame, Game Theory, Identity, Introspection, Male Power, Manosphere, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, MGTOW, Incels, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Organization and Structure, Power, Purpose, Relationships, Running the Gauntlet, Self-Concept, Sexual Authority, Strategy, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

141 Responses to Constructing a Framework of Options

  1. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    First comment will perfectly sum up the current war!!!Heres the 2 main options(This is everyones choices{christian or otherwise!)
    A.”I’m not like you are!When I come home from (gods) work at night!?I’m blacker&bluer!So lets escape”!
    Or
    B.”Damnation,religion,salvation,fire&steel(3x)!I have seen a thousand suns pass by,while blasphemers spread their false gospel bearing false witness,now we rise!All ye children of the wind,fists like hammers fill the air!Vast legions(Of MGTOW!), all immortal,smash the stillness everywhere!HOLY,HOLY WAR,HOLY,we are fighting a HOLY WAR(HOLY WAR!)See us, fly on winds of doom!(HOLY WAR!)Baptised in fire&steel!(HOLY WAR!)For the end we bring is soon(HOLY WAR!)!”
    P.S.Remember this is from the professor&theGREATBOOKS FORMENtm,the joker’s carried over from dal’&roissy culture war blogs!(the super-straight to the point to all the world MANOwarrior with MANOWARtm on ”the march for revenge:by the soldiers of death”!) in the card deck of life as jimmy sanged(After pretty mary sunshine!) in the first smokey with a former flying nun&former bus driver from new york city!Is any of this familiar(Like from other blogs?)?NOVAP.SThis is all based on HIStory &MTV DATA!
    CURE&THECROW(BEST REALISTIC superhero film period!)P.S.Best dressed in black, goth song?”BURN”with ”Just put your WARpaint on”,as the shadow government smiles,while saying it”&”Don’t talk about ”Blood brothers” agape”!

    Like

  2. I still don’t see how any marriage really “works” if a woman can change her mind about anything/everything whenever she feels like it and basically the entirety of Western Civ will now back her up on whatever she decides.

    Without the culture to backstop the marriage, the marriage is nothing but a gamble on the man’s part, except it’s the woman who rolls the dice everyday, maybe multiple times a day to see if the marriage is a winner or not. Heads she wins, tails you (as the man) lose.

    Liked by 7 people

    • thedeti says:

      Yeah. The only thing a man can do is hope to hell that his wife doesn’t wake up one day and decide that she can make do with half of his assets plus alimony, because she just doesn’t want him anymore. Oh, she’ll take his money, and society will endorse that and make him give it to her on pain of imprisonment.

      The only way a marriage works is if you have one like Scott and Mychael, or SAM and Elspeth. Those are the only marriages that work for men. Otherwise, you have to do what I do, which is mutually assured destruction. If the Sword of Damocles falls toward my head, we go to DEFCON 1, I push the button, and we will play Global Thermonuclear War. I have no choice but to make it clear to her that the only way for her to “win” is not to play.

      Liked by 8 people

      • feeriker says:

        Otherwise, you have to do what I do, which is mutually assured destruction. If the Sword of Damocles falls toward my head, we go to DEFCON 1, I push the button, and we will play Global Thermonuclear War. I have no choice but to make it clear to her that the only way for her to “win” is not to play.

        This.

        The tricky part is in being able to ensure that, if you absolutely HAVE to wage “nuclear war” when no other options are possible that you can do the fatal damage that needs to be done as swiftly as possible, before her REAL husband, the State, comes to her rescue. Given Supreme Husband’s (we have “Big Brother” and “Dear Leader” as metaphor’s for the Omnipotent State, so why not “Supreme Husband?”) almost unlimited resources and lethal power, this might be impossible in practical terms.

        That we, even as Christian men, are compelled to even have to think in terms such as these is both sickening and profoundly depressing.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Liz says:

        It’s depressing to read as a mother as well.
        Our boys want what we have.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        One of our sons is doing particularly poorly (depression), and I don’t know what to say.
        It isn’t just relationships, it’s basically everything right now.

        Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        Liz

        Your boys probably will not get to have what you have. Sorry, but they probably won’t. Unless they are extremely good looking, or have a lot of money. Even then, make sure they don’t get married, ever, and if they do, they get ironclad prenups and don’t ever let their wives quit working.

        Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        DETI
        You read before where my mother died over a year ago remember?I still feel like I’m in the hospitol that saturday in late’19,first hearing it.But people, should get back to not caring about male-pain&watch kim.k trying to figure life out,that will help every one as it has in the past!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        One of our sons is doing particularly poorly (depression), and I don’t know what to say.
        It isn’t just relationships, it’s basically everything right now.

        It’s a hard time for a lot of young people right now. I think it makes sense to avail of the medical/mental health support options, if possible, because right now it’s just a very challenging time for a lot of young people in a lot of areas at the same time.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        Deti, as probabilities go you’re probably right.
        But I have to hope you aren’t.
        As life circles go, our marriage is far better than our parents’ marriages.
        Which is fortunate.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Liz

        I hope I’m wrong. No one hopes I’m wrong more than I do. I also have a son growing up in this cesspool. I’m scared to death for him. All I can do is prepare him. I am doing the best I can.

        I hope I’m wrong. But I don’t think I will be.

        Liked by 5 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        A man can not involve the state in his domestic affairs but most Christians love and freer the state etc more then they fear the Almighty

        Liked by 3 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Otherwise, you have to do what I do, which is mutually assured destruction.
        …….

        100% baller move

        Liked by 3 people

  3. feeriker says:

    Even then, make sure they don’t get married, ever, and if they do, they get ironclad prenups and don’t ever let their wives quit working.

    You, being a lawyer, know better than I do, but I would have to say that even prenups are of limited value for damage mitigation in the event of divorce (granting that the law varies from one jurisdiction to another). Ditto for having wifey work. The system seems to ALWAYS come up with some way to extract something costly and painful from men in divorces, no matter how unwarranted it is.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      I’ve run across lots of accomplished men in my career, many of whom are at the top of their fields. One such expert I met is a famous economist. I guess he went through a hellish divorce. He talked often of his significant other, who I believe was pretty high up in a different discipline, I don’t know what. He explained to me that though he was very close to her, and they had a good relationship, he made it clear that he would not ever intertwine his life with anyone else, ever, under any circumstances.

      So as a result, except for their frequent in person meetings/trysts/rendezvous, they lived completely separate lives. Separate residences, separate finances. Separate everything. They were just really really REALLY good friends who visited each other a lot and did what boyfriends and girlfriends often do. Except they were both around 55 years old at the time.

      All because there was no way any woman was ever going to take anything of his from him ever again.

      Liked by 5 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        DETI
        Whats up with all these men who think you should tell women where &how much money you have?You also know how foolish johnny carson&ed mcmahon was right?They were still thinking it was good to get married after 3 divorces each!How can they ,not see what we see so easily?When I watch johnny carson reruns on antennatv ,this is what I’m usualy thinking about!What were they thinking&no attorneys to tell them what was realy up?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yes. This is the “living apart together” approach. There are actually now married couples who don’t live in the same residence so that they don’t get in each other’s way (also older couples). But the incidence of older people not getting remarried is higher than it has ever been, because there is basically no pressure to remarry socially in terms of social legitimacy for that age group (regardless of social class), and there is also no children/”start a family” pressure (that life phase is done), so there is now a trend for divorced people to stay unmarried (but not alone), and this is driving down the rate of marriage, and driving up the rate of singleness.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Nova:

        It was all that, yes, and it was also asset protection. It was also the attitude of “I’m not getting myself into any kind of relationship that I can’t walk away from in 30 seconds if I think that’s what I have to do.”.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yep, I’m sure. I am surprised that so many divorced men actually do remarry, to be honest.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Prenups work well when it comes to matters of a party receiving an inheritance, or when both spouses work and make a similar income.

      They fall apart when one spouse makes a lot more than the other, and where the standard of living is expensive.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yep. The key is that you can’t protect yourself from CS/chilimony in a pre-nup, or by having similar incomes, because in most states chilimony is calculated the same as a tax is — you will pay the same amount of your income, percentage-wise, regardless of what the combined total income for the couple is, so you don’t benefit in the sense of chilimony. It IS helpful, though, in avoiding alimony or other forms of child support, or punitively lop-sided distributions of marital assets and debt obligations.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Should say “It IS helpful, though, in avoiding alimony or other forms of spousal support” — that is, things that are based on the relative incomes of the spouses, unlike child support/chilimony is.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        What’s your opinion on throwing everything in a trust pre marriage and putting a blood relatives name on it?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        throwing everything in a trust pre marriage and putting a blood relatives name on it?

        It’s worth a try — whether it works depends on the state and the practice of the courts there. Many family courts would look unkindly on such a scheme as a means to avoid distribution, and would seek to punish the spouse that benefits from the structure in other financial ways (like ordering payments), but it’s worth a try.

        It’s like the name of a subsidiary of a family-owned company I came across once when I was doing some DD on an small M&A deal as a young lawyer — “LHIW, Inc.”. I grinned and asked the seller’s lawyer what that meant (given that it had nothing obvious to do with any of the other company names in the org chart), and he chuckled and said, “It means, ‘Let’s hope it works'”.

        Liked by 4 people

  4. feeriker says:

    You also know how foolish johnny carson&ed mcmahon was right?They were still thinking it was good to get married after 3 divorces each!How can they ,not see what we see so easily?When I watch johnny carson reruns on antennatv ,this is what I’m usualy thinking about!What were they thinking&no attorneys to tell them what was realy up?

    All I can think of is that if you’re as wealthy as Johnny Carson or Ed McMahon, you can weather two or three divorces and still not be reduced to living on the street. The rest of us mere mortal Deplorable men? Not so much.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Yes. In fact it’s a marker of very high status economically. That is, if you’re rich enough to withstand multiple divorces which are eye-wateringly punitive financially, and still be very rich, then you’re really high status.

      Liked by 4 people

  5. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    DETI
    Remember this hit? ”DA PROFESSIONAL WOMEN ODE”SPECIAL DAY WEDDING SONG!!
    FROM DALS ”REDPILL GOING MAINSTREAM” POST!
    Alpha fux&beta bux!
    Dat is how we roll!
    Da butthexing coass we fux&sux!
    And our anuses it does desoul!
    Alpha fux&beta bux!
    It is da way of da fed!
    To transfer assets to butthex!
    cuckold those who pay for bread!
    Beta bux&alpha fux!
    Its what they teach us were entiled too!
    Da assets from betas we pluck!
    After da alphas desoul us through our hole or poo!
    Lzolzozolzzlzlzlz
    Dal’ told me,him &his metal band, played that last night at a pre-grammys show
    for daladies!!

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Elspeth says:

    It’s depressing to read as a mother as well.
    Our boys want what we have.

    Two of our daughters in particular want we have and are fairly vocal about it. I don’t know what to tell them, either.

    This is a mess of a world we have made for our children.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      I know what to tell them.

      See the other thread.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Whatever Deti.

        This? This AIN’T the Midwest. Might as well be another world by comparison.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        And we stayed here to raise our kids for reasons foreign to most Americans. We did not fancy leaving our elderly fathers for the sake of personal opportunity. Especially FIL, who never remarried. By the time they died our oldest kids were already young adults.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Moving doesn’t solve this problem, unless you are going from a major metro area to a more rural area.

        Northern Florida won’t be too different from the rest of the dirty south states when it comes to church culture.

        Also, these days, moving rural means 0. Go to middle of nowhere Wyoming, Montana, Iowa, Mississippi or Alabama and you will find the same thing

        Crazy dyed hair, piercings, and tons of tattoos.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Whatever Deti.

        This? This AIN’T the Midwest. Might as well be another world by comparison

        Then move somewhere else. Tell your girls to get out of Florida and go to a more SMV/RMV/hospitable climate for women. Stop wallowing in the problem and find a solution. Calling most men “unsuitable” isnt’ helpful.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        And we stayed here to raise our kids for reasons foreign to most Americans. We did not fancy leaving our elderly fathers for the sake of personal opportunity. Especially FIL, who never remarried.

        What, you think I haven’t sacrificed for my kids? I’ve sacrificed more than you or anyone else here will EVER know. I didn’t leave my elderly parents either – I just buried my mother after giving her a lot of help, and it now falls to my siblings and me to help my now-widowed and grieving father. So I’m not sure what you’re on about here.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-home-or-kids-together-but-couple-still-spouses-appeal-court-rules

    TORONTO — A wealthy businessman will have to pay more than $50,000 a month in spousal support for 10 years to a woman with whom he had a long-term romantic relationship even though they kept separate homes and had no children together, Ontario’s top court has ruled.

    Under Ontario law, an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited — lived together in a conjugal relationship — continuously for at least three years. But that doesn’t necessarily mean living in the same home, the court found.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. SFC Ton says:

    The being in the top 20% isnt a viable option for most men.

    It takes a long, long time for most men to hit their peak, Which is a long, long time to go without getting laid. Truth be told I think getting to your peak takes a longer then

    Most men will have to over compensate in some areas to off set some weak spot (like being shorter the 6’2″)

    I’m fairly certian we’re at the point where only the top 10% or so have a strong enough hand

    Truth be told, most Christian men don’t have what it takes to exercise option 3. Taking abuse, disrespect etc is pounded into them early and often

    Option 1 is the most realistic.

    What I don’t see mentioned is marrying etc fatties.

    Which is revolting but probably the most realistic option for guys who

    Liked by 4 people

  9. https://notthebee.com/article/check-out-this-weenie-whos-upset-his-wife-wants-to-be-a-stay-at-home-mom

    Man gets shamed (by NotTheBee and Slate) for being worried that his previously career-driven wife is now wanting to stay home with the baby.

    “She has a good job that she enjoyed before going on leave, and had always been adamant that she wanted to continue working even after becoming a mom. We met when we worked at the same company many years ago, and one of the things I was most attracted to was her ambition and tenacity. It’s really surprising to hear that her career isn’t that important to her anymore.

    Honestly, I don’t want her to quit her job. She earns about the same as I do, and while we could make ends meet on my income alone, it would impact our ability to save, and we’d need to give up one of our cars and cut way back on “extras” that make life more enjoyable. I also just … don’t want a stay-at-home wife. I really admired my wife for her work ethic, and I want her to set a good example for our daughter, too. Seeing her give up like this is really disappointing.”

    Welp, here’s what I’d tell him, “You are screwed. Get used to it. BTW, there’s every reason to think she planned this all along.”

    Liked by 4 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Yeah that came up here the other day in the comments. Essentially the general take in the media on that was that whatever the woman wants to do needs to be 100% supported, and that’s that. Your role as the husband is to listen to what she says, and do what she tells you.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. lastholdout says:

    The first two of your three options are losers, and, except for a case-by-case, the third one. The rhetorical and practical question/thread in all these discussions is, “Where is the “church” (small caps church) in all of this?” Church “leaders” have allowed the entire landscape to be re-framed. It is time to come down hard within our own Christian community — to get our own house in order. We can’t correct anything if we cannot correct ourselves.

    Until we slap the Christian “leaders” (pastors, authors, and counselors) out of the post-modern feminist blue-pill world, we’re pissing up a rope. We’re wandering in the wilderness alone (option 3). There needs to be a rhetoric that focuses on those pastors, authors, and counselors who have sold Christian marriage (i.e., the marriage foundations) down the river. There are very basic foundations that have been papered over in the last 50 years:
    1) The man holds headship in the marriage;
    2) The wife is to submit to her husband in “everything;”
    3) The couple are to become one (which, according to Paul, happens only through the act of sex between the two –see 1 Cor 6:16; and…
    4) the practice of bilateral repentance/forgiveness must be a dynamic that is practiced by husband and wife.

    These four are the TRUE Christ-Church, Husband-Wife parallel:
    ****The Christ-Church –> Husband-Wife Parallel****
    The Headship of Christ. –> The headship of the husband.
    The Church submits to Christ. –> The wife submits to the husband.
    “For you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). –> “The two shall become one flesh” (Matt. 19:5).
    The repentance-forgiveness dynamic between believers (the Church) and Christ. –> The bi-lateral repentance-forgiveness dynamic between two spouses.

    Like many of you, I’ve not heard these preached as foundations for marriage in the last 50 years.

    Pastors, authors, and counselors have placed a disproportionate focus on Ephesians 5:25-39 and thus re-framed the marriage. If we cannot correct our own, how are we to be the salt?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sharkly says:

      Excellent perspective!
      Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
      I’m one of the few people following this by exposing a wicked church for their participation in my divorce and the estrangement of my sons from their father. I’ve got a website devoted to making a churches complicity in my divorce into the public face of that church, and to warn others lest they fall prey to their evil homewrecking influence.
      https://whitewatercommunitychurch.wordpress.com/2020/04/27/my-marriage/

      Liked by 3 people

      • lastholdout says:

        @Sharkly My personal situation caused me years ago to dig deep into Scripture because I knew what I was hearing from pastors, authors, and counselors was not the complete picture of the marriage dynamic. They preached a marriage that not only flipped the h/w dynamic around, but removed accountability from wives while laying responsibility for the state of the relationship completely on the husband –“you’re just not loving enough,” “as Christ sacrificed for the Church,” “servant leadership.” It all spun around what they claimed to be the Christ-Church parallel: Eph 5:25-29. As I dug deeper, I found that there IS a Christ-Church parallel, the four foundations I list above. But they had been covered over by our own church leaders who succumbed to the secular pressures. Instead of a blog, I published my learnings in a book, “Desire at the Door; Uncovering the Biblical Marriage Foundations in the Postmodern Era.” It lays out the four foundations I listed above and places a good portion of the responsibility for the sorry state of Christian marriages today at the feet of church leaders. They abandoned their guard.

        Your situation is heartbreaking. You are somewhere between Job and Hosea in terms of earthly trials. Whatever you do, remain faithful to God. Job and Hosea are good company in His eyes.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I came across some old study material the other day, and came across the quote “when you are closer with god you will be closer to your wife”

        I couldn’t help but laugh because it can be easily falsified.

        But it’s scary to think how far people have taken their nonsense about relationships, and how a book selling industry sells holiness with the side benefit of relationship improvement

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        lastholdout,
        You might check out my blog and see how I tie that “Christ-Church parallel: Eph 5:25-29” in with 1 Corinthians 11:7.
        https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/genesis-51-5/
        and
        https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/10/15/sharkly-heresiarch-or-church-reformer/
        And some of my other posts make the connection too.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Ame says:

    the bible says narrow the way to God and few who choose that path.

    the bible says there will be lots of false teachers and preachers, there will be lots of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    the bible is right, of course.

    the way of God has always been the narrow path for the few. granted, there have been cultures and seasons in the ebb and flow of time more open to God than others, since the beginning of time.

    i find it interesting that while there are some hard instructions in the bible, there are also soft ones, too … allowing for flexibility of various customs and cultures? … allowing for different personalities? the man is to rule over his wife, but what, exactly, does that look like? there isn’t a set of rules for that, allowing flexibility within the personalities in that marriage.

    are those who truly strive to follow Jesus not outliers?

    when i met my late Mentor around 2001, one of the first things she said to me was: God has picked you up and placed you right where you are to win your world for Jesus Christ.”

    that has stuck with me over the years and often didn’t seem true, but i think it’s always been true.

    we are to be the salt of the earth … the light of Jesus in a world where Satan is the prince and the darkness vast. if we’re to be light and salt to those who don’t know Jesus, how does God get His lights and salts into the dark places where they need salt and light? i ponder this often.

    i wonder if our crazy lives, the courses we take, the choices we make, putting us in various plethora of places, are not God’s way of moving us into worlds where the people are who need our salt and light.

    when we were going thru all that stuff with my first Husband, we had neighbors who were muslim. they, too, had a special needs daughter and our oldest two were the same age – it drew the Mom and i together occasionally. they were watching. they commented. they saw what he was doing, and they saw how i responded. b/c of that, one summer before they left for their a visit to their country of origin, i gave her my first bible as a gift. i gave it to her in private, but they had many guests over that night. she was so touched she shared it with all her friends. i’ll never know how that bible has impacted them this side of eternity though i still pray for them and their salvation. would i have had the same opportunity if my life had been ‘perfect?’ idk.

    may God take our imperfections, our desires to strive to follow and honor Him, our good, bad, and ugly, and use it all to place us where those who need His light and salt live

    Liked by 5 people

  12. Oscar says:

    Off Topc: This is what happens in a town with no police presence (from Peru).

    Ultimately, cops don’t actually protect the populace. They protect criminals from the much rougher justice they’d receive from a pissed-off populace that’s tired of being victimized.

    Liked by 5 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      LOL taught that lesson to some blm/ antifa types last summer and reckon we’ll do it again this summer

      Liked by 5 people

      • Oscar says:

        I suspect we’ll see a lot more of that in the near future. The word “vigilante” was coined in old California, after all.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        It’s going to depend on your AO.

        We were arrested in Richmond, Raleigh, and a few other places, so that blm/antifa/college kids, etc. could run loose and destroy our monuments. (Technically detained since we weren’t charged.)

        Been invited by 3 sheriff’s to make sure things go their way… One of those men is on a liberal list of evil White men and gets a lot of legal and physical threats thrown his way.

        Seen 2 sheriffs play it pretty straight.

        Liked by 3 people

    • locustsplease says:

      I have tried to explain this to people. These criminals have it easy. Get beat with 2x4s when you are caught in a crime and see how many times somebody wants to physically recover from that.

      Liked by 1 person

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        LOCUST
        Your right!When I was at ”the churchians-SJW united for social judstice” rally blasting ”KILL WITH POWER”&”BLOOD OF MY ENEMIES” thru my STUDEBAKER ’80s retro bluetooth boombox with cassette&cd functions, in the backseat of my ’76/’77 PONTIAC transam,beth moore was ”scared” ”concerned” enough to have words with me about these lyrics ”SJW’s die,die!” on the first song & ”blood of my churchian enemies” on the second song!I&my gal-pal gang who were driving motorcycles, just laughed her off as a looney boomer!!

        Like

  13. Elspeth says:

    It occurs that I should elaborate about life in our particular neck of the woods. Here in the sunshine state. Cameron might be able to offer some insight as well.

    Our kids are 4th generation Floridians. Even among their friends, early and mid- 20’s young adults, they are anomalous in that regard. Even most of them came from somewhere else. This is a very transient place, and on the rare occasion that you meet a fellow FL native over the age of 25, it’s a big event. You might talk to that stranger for 30 minutes in the store, regardless of age, ethnicity, etc. It is THAT rare.

    So now….you have the extreme dearth of seriously Christian, marriage minded people in general, in a rootless place (so vetting is a crap shoot, and yes, women must vet too!). We have had it suggested to us that perhaps our girls should pack up and move to where the men are. This was suggested back before their grandfathers passed on, so they were 19 and 20 at that point.

    That’s not impossible. They could certainly do that now, but doesn’t that sound weird for traditionalist minded Christians to be suggesting that SAM send his daughters off to live in a different state for the possibility of meeting a man with whom he has no way of having a serious conversation? Yeah, technology, but don’t we know enough now to know better than that? Besides, he hates, hates, hates the idea of serious communication via technology.

    “You really should have sent them off to college!” was something we’ve heard also, ROFL. From people whose Christian daughters show every sign of being completely secularized by the time they came back home, this sounds even more ridiculous, and despite having “lived” a little too much, their girls aren’t married either.

    From what I gather, Midwestern life is a lot more rooted, and that being the case, what works there may not work every where. I imagine D.C. area, with which Nova is familiar, is probably 100 times worse in its own way.

    I am far from hopeless about this, despite my detailed description of the challenges. I do believe that most of our kids will be married, and among those of us here who have demonstrated a real, true, loving marriage, they have a good shot of cultivating the same. The struggle is that many of us (me, Liz, Cameron, maybe Oscar?) found it very young, and as our kids pass the age we were when we were newlyweds, it can invoke a sense of alarm. Here’s the thing though.

    It’s 2021, it’s not the mid-90s anymore. Times have changed and what that means is that our kids can’t duplicate what we did anymore than we duplicated what our parents did.

    To my surprise, I find myself agreeing with a good portion of what Sharkly said up there. There isn’t really any will on the part of men or women to do the hard work of returning to sanity. And in many ways, secular men are probably better poised to push back against the fruit of the feminist onslaught than Christian men are, for a whole host of reasons.

    But the Lord reigns. In that we can take comfort.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Oscar says:

      The struggle is that many of us (me, Liz, Cameron, maybe Oscar?) found it very young, and as our kids pass the age we were when we were newlyweds, it can invoke a sense of alarm.

      I was 28, and my wife was 22 when we married. My oldest girls (twins) just turned 20.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        My mistake Oscar. I didn’t realize you were 28 when you married. I was 22 as well when I married, but my husband was 20. We were both quite young, even then, and people commented on it. Despite being so young, SAM had complicated his young life enough that he knew that part of pivoting to where he wanted to be meant putting down some roots.

        I have come to the conclusion (as a middle class Christian family amidst many other middle class Christian families), that a large part of the difficulty with regard to our kids and family formation is simply that our kids have had far fewer genuine accomplishments and far fewer real challenges to overcome. I mean the kind of things that force you to grow up or give you the confidence to forge your own way.

        Which brings me back to my core belief. The government schools, which Christians use faithfully, are destroying each successive generation of Christian young people, with church youth groups a close second in terms of damage inflicted. The first way to construct a better future for successive generations s to abandon most (not necessarily all) secular education and construct viable, quality, Christian alternatives.

        Most young men and women have been infantilized and handicapped. I say this as someone whose children -almost solely due to their father- are much more mature than most other people their age. But the confidence that I had, or that their dad has? That comes from overcoming challenges and we have raised an entire generation of young people with no understanding of what that means. Even in school, As are easier to come by than they were when we were school. Making straight As means nothing now except “I learned how to play the game and jump through the hoops”. No real knowledge required.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Oscar says:

        I really wasn’t ready to support a family until I was 28. That’s the year I graduated college, received a commission, etc. Of course, I started looking earlier. I was 25 when I met my wife, 27 when we started dating.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        My husband, though young and in many ways wholly unsuited to husband and family life, actually had a really decent income for a 20 year old. Of course in 1994, you could break into his field sans degree, and he started at 18. Now, even though it’s work that can be done without a degree, many companies ask for one.

        So when he declared a year later that I needed to come home full time, we managed despite his being only 21, and never looked back.

        That really doesn’t happen anymore, sadly. The academia complex has made it difficult. Unless a young man starts on the electrician/plumber/mechanic route at 18. And most Americans all think their children too good for blue collar work.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        When we got married, Mike wasn’t ready to support a family.
        We waited (about six years) to start one, after we’d saved up.
        But then again people don’t need as much as they think they do to raise children.
        Told our friends there is not really any “good time” because (like being rich) the best time is when you are young, but it’s also the best time to be footloose and fancy free.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        No one is ever ready to be parents. Ever. Doesn’t matter how much money you have or how many books you read or how prepared you think you are. You are NEVER ready. You WILL screw some things up. You WILL hurt them. They WILL hurt you.

        But it will be OK. It all works itself out in the fullness of time and grace.

        Unless, of course, you’re Steady Eddie or Paul Plumber or Tom Teacher or Louie Lawyer or Career Girl Carrie or Samantha Slut or Becky B!tch.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        (per being rich) Think the quote is, youth is the best time to be poor but it is also the best time to be rich.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Elspeth

        “Of course in 1994, you could break into his field sans degree, and he started at 18. Now, even though it’s work that can be done without a degree, many companies ask for one.”

        I’m an engineer, and I wouldn’t require a degree for engineering, if I had my way. If a kid passed the Fundamentals in Engineering exam without going to college, I’d hire him on the spot, and apprentice him to a senior engineer.

        I couldn’t have done that, but anyone who’s that smart and motivated would make one hell of an engineer. Sadly, you’re not even allowed to take the FE exam unless you have an engineering degree.

        Credentialism is out of control.

        “…most Americans all think their children too good for blue collar work.”

        Give it time. It takes a lot of economic activity to support all those white collar jobs, and most economic activity these days is artificial. When that bubble bursts, people will understand the value of people who can grow things, build things and fix things.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        That comes from overcoming challenges and we have raised an entire generation of young people with no understanding of what that means.

        This is true.

        With my son, what we did (and he wanted to do it as well) was wilderness canoe camp in Canada each summer. There was a base camp with some amenities, but most of the time they were split into groups of 5-12, led by a couple of college students who were “alumni” of the camp, who would go off on wilderness trips with the canoes for 5, 10, sometimes 15 days. Lots of hairy situations. The pinnacle summer, when he was about 15, involved a 5-week trip through upper Ontario up to Polar Bear Prov Park on Hudson’s Bay. Filled with challenges, dicey situations at times, reliance on self and others around you. Very useful stuff that he would not have gotten anywhere in the local schools or ambient culture at all. It made him seek challenges, and be very confident of his ability to surmount them (even to the other extreme at times).

        Admittedly this was not that cheap to do, so it isn’t an option for everyone, but the point is that in this current scenario you have to find some way to do it, because it it’s been drilled out of the everyday culture of kids completely. The culture around kids is currently extremely “safety” oriented, to the exclusion of other priorities.

        Liked by 6 people

      • cameron232 says:

        We were late teens but we didn’t marry for 5 years. And we acted like kids for those 5 years, playing video games, then shacking up while I went to college, getting a puppy (which was a psychological substitute for kids.

        “The government schools, which Christians use faithfully, are destroying each successive generation of Christian young people”

        Yes, daughters in particular. I would rather my daughters were illiterate and innumerate than send them there. Doesn’t have to be that way of course – homeschooling can work.

        Not great for sons but the government schools don’t mess up boys as much IMO. It’s so easy for them to see how much the schools, Karen teachers, etc. are against them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        That age gap today would be a scandal. I know firsthand

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Lexet

        You mean 28-year-old man, and 22-year-old woman? Really?

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        To piggyback on Nova….

        I think those challenges have to be physical and dangerous to do any good.

        Certian sports will cover that, other sports will not but man vs nature is a classic trope for a reason

        Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Yes Elspeth that sums up Florida. Rootless, transient state. And a disproportionate percent of the “old” Floridians (that came here in the 50’s and 60’s) are white trash and ghetto blacks. In fact, there’s a thing now where those two cultures are merging into a particuarly noxious combination.

      We’ve been wanting to bail for many years now. Job and my mother are the last things keeping us here. We might just say hell with it real soon – I’d rather be poor somewhere else. At least as an old man I’ll know that I tried to do better for my kids.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        Think it depends on where you live in Florida.
        Big cities are kind of that way most places, I think. Las Vegas was the worst by far that I have experienced with kids.
        I’ve lived all around Florida (went to UF).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        You know Cameron, 2020 has reinvigorated my love for Florida. Partly because there is -for now- excellent governance here.

        But also, when our church (soon to be former church) shut down, we hit the road every Sunday and went to state parks, trails and rivers in nearly every corner of the peninsula. From northeast all the way down to southwest (oh, I love the southwest corner of FL!) It’s a beautiful state and still mostly rural.

        Also we have become part of a group of families educating classically and in community. MC/UMC families with a solid biblical traditional worldview like ours.

        I dreamed of leaving here for years. But now it really feels like home. It’s basically like what Nova says all the time that I don’t always fully agree with (I think the future matters a lot and we should try to affect it it he makes a good point): you find what works for your family and you work it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I should add. Your kids are much younger so I fully appreciate you packing up.

        If our familial duties had ended when our kids were very young we certainly would have moved.

        But God in His providence…

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Liz, I started kindergarden living in the ghetto of northeast Gainesville – what an absolute dump – I got urinated on by a kid my first day there, the apartments were german cockroach (not palmetto bugs) roach infested, etc. you got beaten even if you minded your own business.

        My hometown is a middle sized town ~40,000 in the southern half of Florida. Absolute dump, horrible violent crime (2nd only to Opa Locka/Liberty City), crack cocaine awful in my youth, last time we visited there were signs in the park about HIV infected children (how it’s ok for other children to play with them), aunt’s friend was raped while condo-sitting, dad randomly witnessed a murder just driving to work (had to be a witness at trial). One boy I went to school with for years beat his grandma to death our senior year (redneck whitetrash kid). I got stabbed in the chest with a broken beer bottle and got in lots of fights even though I was a quiet kid who didn’t run his mouth,

        The highlight of the year was watching our local teams lose to Miami Northwestern – great HS football team.

        Florida is nice if you’re UMC. A lot of places are awful if you’re LMC/blue collar.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Elspeth, not to be contradictory but I think this is not a pretty state – but I admit it’s an to each his own thing. I hate hot, humid weather – 46 years and I’ve never gotten used to it.

        My oldest son moved out west to the mountains – he loves it. He does not do well in the heat – doesn’t sweat well and turns bright red when he goes outside in summer.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        “In fact, there’s a thing now where those two cultures are merging into a particuarly noxious combination”

        From the Midwest to the south, those cultures have effectively merged.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        Heh, Cameron sorry I didn’t see your response until now.
        Yeah, my spouse grew up in Miami. His dad was a police officer for a time, and he quit after an incident in Liberty City. He saw a lot out there.
        When our oldest son was having problems getting motived in his early teens, Mike took him to the neighborhood he grew up in to scare him straight. (seemed to work)

        Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Yep

      Sending them away wouldn’t end well, unless they went and lived with a trusted relative elsewhere for awhile.

      I know too many girls who moved to the big city to live out meh dreamZ and find Prince Charming. All but a few are still single.

      Women can’t live alone so they will get roommates and sink to their level. They will either be hos, or get bitter when one finds a man, so they will sabotage eachother so they enter their 30s fat, angry, and with multiple pets.

      Online dating works in your daughters favor.

      As per church men, most guys (like 80%+) who came out of American churches in the last 10 years are pretty much homo

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: give credit where it’s due.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/03/15/breaking-roman-catholic-church-affirms-teaching-on-marriage-media-hardest-hit-n1432533

    On Monday, the Vatican reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church’s 2,000-year-old doctrine that marriage is between one man and one woman and that homosexual acts are illicit. Therefore, the Vatican stated that the church cannot bless same-sex weddings because that would lead to confusion about the doctrine of marriage.

    This should not surprise anyone with a basic familiarity with historic Christianity or with the Roman Catholic Church. The New Testament clearly condemns homosexual activity and Jesus explicitly affirmed the teaching of Genesis that marriage is between one man and one woman. The Catholic Church has a 2,000-year tradition of upholding this basic definition of marriage that, in historical terms, only came under fire yesterday.

    I’m no fan of the Commie Pope, but the Catholic Church is standing firm where many Protestant denominations folded years ago.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      It’s more the case that they are rather more intent on following the Protestant denominations than behaving differently. To endorse gay unions now would not follow the same “order”. The “established sequence” is to ordain women first. The reason for this is twofold. One is is that it “softens up” opposition to such changes downrange, among at least some, because they get accustomed to these kinds of substantial changes. The second is that once you concede that women can be ordained, you’ve already conceded that sex differences are not material for certain roles — that a woman can be a deacon (which is where it will start, just like it did with the Episcopalians), and eventually a priest, as well as a man can — the door is wide open for dissociating one’s sex from other roles, such as the spouse role. If a men and women are interchangeable as priests, they can be interchangeable as lovers, and as spouses.

      Trying to “skip” the women’s ordination “step” here could create a schism in the church, because the groundwork would not be laid for the liberalization of gays, as it was done in the Protestant churches — as far as I am aware, every Protestant denomination that actually has actual ordinations and has ordained women has also blessed same sex couples in some way — they aren’t separable, because they follow the same logic. This is why sex roles and homosexuality are inextricably intertwined and the many twits on the manosphere, and the “right wing internet” who are dead-set on sex differences and sex roles but who don’t want to touch gay issues with a 100-foot pole don’t understand the game and how it is played … pretty much at all, so they are getting well and truly played.

      So in the grand scheme of things, this pronouncement by the CDF wasn’t very surprising at all. The thing to look for in the years ahead is the pressure to ordain women to the diaconate. That’s the proverbial brick in the dam for the catholics.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        That sounds ominously plausible.

        Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        NOVA
        Does anybody realy not beleave,that 99+% of western civ churchanity will fall within the next 15 years?People can say conservative,trad,whatever,but they essentialy fell decades ago!What does people think my first comment yesterday was referring to mostly?The SJW push will not, search out all remaining large claiming traditional strongholds in western soceity now?Why does people think I’m mostly a loner, anywhere I go?THIS!”Do not be mislead:bad company corrupts good manners”!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Does anybody realy not beleave,that 99+% of western civ churchanity will fall within the next 15 years?

        It won’t fall, it will just be transformed. It already is. It’s just going to go further down the same path. The USA will still have plenty of churches in 15 years, busy on Sundays. But they will be heretical across the board on any traditional teaching regarding sex or gender, while the Christians who still adhere to those will be considered to be KKK/Fred Phelps. That’s what’s going to happen, I think.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        Good. Let the wheat and the tares identify themselves openly. We’re in a spiritual war, and in combat, I want to know the man to my left and right.

        Woke “Christians” aren’t just unreliable. They’ll stab you in the back the first chance they get. See that Paint the Wall Black documentary I shared earlier (or search for it on YouTube).

        Liked by 5 people

  15. Lysimachus says:

    Hello everyone, a long-time Christian manosphere lurker here. I got red-pilled few years ago, primarily through Dalrock’s blog, but also through the secular manosphere. While I think your efforts in promoting Christian marriage and finding workable solutions to achieve it in the current anti-Christ culture are laudable, I think more attention could be paid to emphasizing the upsides of – as difficult as it is – giving up, finding peace, and pursuing a focus on other areas of life instead. Both positive and negative cases in favor of that solution for this could be put forward.

    As much as Rollo or Roosh maintain that a significant degree of internal locus of control exists for men in current SMP/MMP, with recent developments (especially the introduction of dating apps) that is longer the case. — The locus of control is increasingly external. As much as incels and MGTOWs (many of the latter being in reality the former) are criticized, even in some corners of the manosphere, they are largely correct in their Black Pill assessment of the situation. A man in his late 20s/early 30s with no qualities which Donal Graeme listed under the LAMPS acronym (Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, Status) is extremely unlikely to find an attractive Christian unicorn and attract her by the means of self-improvement and game (the latter, let’s be honest, often involving pretending to be someone one is not – putting on a mask, so to speak). Having at least some of LAMPS qualities is absolutely necessary to have a successful marriage in 2021. Too large a portion of the manosphere peddles the idea that confidence, game, and self-improvement can get almost anyone there. If you have one or two LAMPS qualities you might have a shot, as you have some potential, something to work with and improve. Unfortunately, an increasing number of men, including Christian men, do not have any of those for reasons which have been widely discussed in the Christian manosphere. Therefore, in most cases their attempts to successfully navigate the current, sick SMP/MMP will be fruitless and bring even more frustration and misery. (There is a reason why incel/MGTOW communities tend to have toxic aspects to them. Its not like all those people were like that from the beginning. Most of them became embittered through their repeated failures in the SMP and their realization of the ugly aspects of female nature.) Accepting that and trying to find peace might be a better option for a certain segment of the Christian male population. — It frees one from the frustration and continued failures and allows one to focus on other aspects of life, preferably one in which one can genuinely thrive and succeed. (Unfortunately, the secular Red Pill carries an implicit assumption that a man’s worth is to be judged by his success with women – which is definitely not a Christian viewpoint). The correct Christian take on the Black Pill does not entail hopelessness or nihilism. — It is, rather, an “accept it and move on” approach which allows one to accept the reality and build life around other areas, where success is much more likely. I know that this realization has been somewhat liberating for me. — As a single in my 30s, with none of the LAMPS qualities, I recognized that marrying an attractive Christian virgin is simply unrealistic, and that continued efforts to do so are likely to be counterproductive to the development of my physical and spiritual life, while embracing the single life opens up many opportunities which have to be sacrificed when one marries. That certainly contributed to positive developments in other areas of my life, which I’m not sure I would trade for marriage 1.0 now.

    St. Paul explicitly teaches in 1 Corinthians 7 that it is good not to marry, and that a single chaste life is superior to married life. I realize that most of the commenters here are not Catholic (I am), but the Catholic Church reiterated that teaching of St. Paul at the Council of Trent. While I recognize that most people are called to marriage and only a minority to singleness, I think that these proportions are overestimated. In the heyday of Christianity, which was arguably the medieval period in Europe, religious life was much more common that it is today, with religious orders thriving and being a relatively common and viable path of life. That means that the ability to live in singleness is not something that is given to only extremely few men (minority, yes, but not necessarily a tiny minority). Therefore, I think that the Christian manosphere should put more emphasis on encouraging men who struggle in the dating scene to discern whether such a path might be a viable one for them. Again, it won’t be for most, but I think it will be for many more than we tend to think. — Therefore, it is something that Christian betas without LAMPS qualities who fail in the SMP should at least consider. There is, of course, the problem of managing sex drive and the high risk of sexual sin while remaining single. — But later in life, with decreasing libido, it will be less of an issue and marriage does not necessarily allow the satiation of the libido anyway (especially if a beta marries a woman who will dead-bedroom him after few years — a risk which is quite high these days).

    Anyway, great blog – you are truly worthy successors to Dalrock!

    Liked by 3 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      LYSIMACHUS
      I was a dal’ lurker from around 03/172012 to his last post in jan ,2020,that was rumored to been so he could start up a courtly love-metal band to rival the1100ad troubador conspiracy to destroy marriage!P.S.But seriously,I never beleaved ”married game” or puagame was going to solve this mess!CHRISTIAN- ESSENESP.S.Thats not what most of us manosphere marrieds&mgtows are?You know their was supposedly 2 groups of essenes(As told by josphesus?) ones that were married &not married&its not obvious that ”JOHN the baptistizer” was at least a ally of theirs as was JESUS?Their enemies were the same!Pharisees&sadduces just like ours are churchians&secular pagans right?You’ll learn much from DETI especialy!Who I have been partial to since ’12!He more than most knows it dos’nt matter that much about looks or money,just like I do,you’ll still be seen as a expendable fool/tool by 99+ of people period!We are the obvious last holdouts on the net as you can tell that right?

      Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      “Too large portion of the manosphere peddles the idea that confidence, game and self-improvement can get almost anyone there.”

      I think what they are referring to by upping ‘confidence, game, and self improvement’, at least implicitly, is being able to get laid in the current SMP, aka, being able to ‘pump and dump’ with the seemingly endless supply of sluts out there. In fact, I’ve noticed that some of the better known secular Red Pill content creators let it slip out occasionally on one of their clips that this is their motivation, to get some CC action for themselves. The men to whom they preach and teach about developing ‘confidence, game, and self improvement,’ if they aren’t Chad or Tyrone, might be able to get Stacy on one of her ‘off nights,’ i.e. she’s bored and open to a ONS or whatever; however, on a regular basis or for an LTR — forget it. Now, should they even want a Stacy for any activities of the sort? That’s a whole other discussion (Hint: the answer begins with and N and ends in a O).

      The thing I’ve noticed in my informal observations of the young people working out at the gym that I go to, the 90-10 rule seems to apply. By that I mean, with all the hotties there, and there are quite a few of them, they’re only interested in about one out of ten guys working out at the gym. Not that the other nine are ‘losers’ or anything like that, but it is only that select few that have the requisite height, looks, build, etc. that would get Stacy’s attention. Even me, being an older man, can figure out who would and would not have a chance with the gym Stacys. In fact, the few times I see a Stacy with a guy at the gym (most females are working out solo or with a female buddy), it is ALWAYS a Chad, Brad, or Tyrone, never a Steady Eddie. I occasionally see an Steady Eddie with a lower value female looks-wise, say 4-6 range, but NEVER with an 8-10, heck not even one in the 7s. I don’t think it would be enough, in and of itself, just to tell the guys, “Up your ‘confidence, game, and self-improvement’.” I feel sorry for the young men because back in my day, in the late 1980s, it didn’t seem to be quite so bad as it is now. Man, how times have changed! They weren’t great in the eighties, but at least the Steady Eddie’s had a fighting chance if they ‘upped their game’ through self improvement; doesn’t seem to be the case now.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ redpillboomer

        The thing I’ve noticed in my informal observations of the young people working out at the gym that I go to, the 90-10 rule seems to apply. By that I mean, with all the hotties there, and there are quite a few of them, they’re only interested in about one out of ten guys working out at the gym. Not that the other nine are ‘losers’ or anything like that, but it is only that select few that have the requisite height, looks, build, etc. that would get Stacy’s attention. Even me, being an older man, can figure out who would and would not have a chance with the gym Stacys. In fact, the few times I see a Stacy with a guy at the gym (most females are working out solo or with a female buddy), it is ALWAYS a Chad, Brad, or Tyrone, never a Steady Eddie. I occasionally see an Steady Eddie with a lower value female looks-wise, say 4-6 range, but NEVER with an 8-10, heck not even one in the 7s. I don’t think it would be enough, in and of itself, just to tell the guys, “Up your ‘confidence, game, and self-improvement’.” I feel sorry for the young men because back in my day, in the late 1980s, it didn’t seem to be quite so bad as it is now. Man, how times have changed! They weren’t great in the eighties, but at least the Steady Eddie’s had a fighting chance if they ‘upped their game’ through self improvement; doesn’t seem to be the case now.

        This is too short sighted. One needs to consider the relative circle that someone is in.

        A Brad Pitt Fight Club physique might only be average in the gym circle, but throw that dude into a Church circle and he’s definitely top 20% in physique and will get at least some interest when the majority of men are Pillsbury dough boys.

        Those of us who think most men can get top 20% in things like physique by hitting the gym regularly and training for hypertrophy for a few years mean that you can get some relative interest in some circles. Sure, you may not have the genetics to stand out in a bodybuilding gym or a Miami or LA beach, but you will definitely stand out in various Church circles where that’s where you’ll typically find the most potential spouses.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Guys these days think like girls in comparing themselves to internet celebrities. They need to stop it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ DS

        A man with an athletic physique is an absolute freak at the average Sunday morning church service in the USA.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        @DeepStrength,

        “One needs to consider the relative circle that someone is in.”

        Your idea is basically a comparison of two contexts. At face value, shifting location seems like a good approach because it filters out the high SMV male competition, and screens for Christian women.
        — In the gym environment, a man who starts off as a 4 can work out at the gym until he is a 6.
        — In a church environment, the same man is initially a 6, but after getting into shape at the gym, he is seen to be an 8.

        The thing is, he still needs to be at least a 6 or better (in the church environment) to be able to break into the 8 range after shaping up and looksmaxing.

        Also, he has to be attending a church with a certain composition of people in a certain geographical area of the country. If the church has a lot of young single women who are marriage minded and who do not have much access to chads outside of church, then he might be OK. But if the church is converged/feminized, chads are only a swipe away, and being a male 8 is still not good enough for the women at that church, then this approach won’t make a dent.

        So your message is targeted specifically towards marriage-minded men in the 25-35 age range, who are in the 6-8 SMV range, and who attend a socially conservative church which is somehow insulated from the wider culture, and which has many schlubby (low competition) men and relatively innocent women who have little opportunity elsewhere. He should also be well employed and not possess any eccentricities.

        Yes, in this circumstance, an average man can take center stage by making an effort. For those men who are blessed to be in (or have access to) this circumstance, I wholeheartedly endorse your message, but with the caveat that he’ll still be attracting women who wouldn’t be attracted to him otherwise. But maybe this doesn’t matter as much as getting some experience.

        Liked by 4 people

      • @ Jack

        Also, he has to be attending a church with a certain composition of people in a certain geographical area of the country. If the church has a lot of young single women who are marriage minded and who do not have much access to chads outside of church, then he might be OK. But if the church is converged/feminized, chads are only a swipe away, and being a male 8 is still not good enough for the women at that church, then this approach won’t make a dent.

        So your message is targeted specifically towards marriage-minded men in the 25-35 age range, who are in the 6-8 SMV range, and who attend a socially conservative church which is somehow insulated from the wider culture, and which has many schlubby (low competition) men and relatively innocent women who have little opportunity elsewhere. He should also be well employed and not possess any eccentricities.

        EAPs are EAPs (evangelical american princess) but this does not mean all the girls at particular Churches are all EAPs. There’s generally a spectrum from what I’ve seen, though this spectrum can vary more or less depending on location.

        Most Churches seem have more women than men, and more schlubby men than not, so that shouldn’t be hard to find either. Well employed and eccentricities seem to be the bigger issues IMO, at least from most of those men complaining about a lack of women being attracted to them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Up your confidence.

        Women don’t like weak men, and they shouldn’t.

        If you are looking for a SO in the gym, you have other problems to address first

        Liked by 1 person

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      Staying single for the long haul wouldn’t be so bad if a guy was allowed to get laid once in a while.
      I’m certainly not cut out for the monk life. I don’t think many people are.

      Marriage isn’t happening anytime soon, or maybe never.

      Many people are caught in this grey area between marriage and monasticism where neither is really an option. Unfortunately Paul doesn’t adress that grey area or what to do when you find yourself in it.

      What i’ve been getting at all along is the necessity of marking out a third path in the absence of biblical rulings for those of us in that grey area. What does the third path look like?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        It’s hard to come up with something that is kind of a “permanent” third way.

        I can see the argument for bending certain rules in order to attain the endstage of marriage, because said rule-bending isn’t a permanent way of life, it is a temporary concession to the culture in order to reach a desired state. That is still very controversial (obviously many here don’t agree with it, and I am not convinced of it myself morally, but it is at least in theory an option that could be explicated with a straight face). I think this is hard to imagine being endorsed by any church, but it does, in fact, appear to be the dominant choice made by most Christians today — it’s the first of the options in this article. Most people accept that it is against the rules, though — they just proceed anyway.

        It’s a much harder argument to make that people should be morally endorsed to be free to have intentionally non-permanent relationships morally to satisfy sexual, emotional or other needs. I doubt that this could ever be morally endorsed, due to the lack of intentionality toward sincerely seeking permanence.

        Having said this, prior to the rise of Protestantism, Christianity tended to be somewhat forgiving when it came to sexual incontinence for men (this is reflected, for example, in attitudes towards prostitution — e.g., Thomas Acquinas, who seems to have viewed prostitution as a necessary evil to prevent greater evils, and earlier similar sentiments expressed by St Augustine). This did not go so far as to endorse the morality of the sex involved, which was still seen as sinful and therefore needful of confession and repentance, but rather argued for the toleration of the practice in order to avoid greater evils. That kind of thinking became much less common in Christianity — whether Protestant or Catholic — after the Reformation, when such tolerations effectively came to an end until such time as Christianity itself began to wane in influence, and it therefore seems unlikely that it would be resurrected today.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        The Old Testament similarly tolerated prostitution for that reason.
        In Hebrew a woman who was neither married nor in her father’s household was called a Zanah. Having sex for money was sufficient but not necessary to be one, although it was assumed to come with the territory. It was a state of being more than it was an action.
        Being a Zanah was considered shameful but she received no legal punishment for it. The shame of being a Zanah was in a sense it’s own punishment. Nothing is mentioned about the men who slept with her (for money or otherwise). Only in the New Testament do we find an indication that using a Zanah’s services is a sin. Most people would rather get married but it isn’t as easy to get married as it was when Paul first closed off that option.

        By the standards of the Old Testament most young women today are Zanah.

        Late Antiquity and the Medieval period had a very similar concept with the Meretrix. Again, it’s usually as prostitute but having sex for money was incidental but often included. A Meretrix was a woman who “took all comers” whether for money or not. If she faced any kind of legal penalty it was for BEING a Meretrix not for the action of having sex for money.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Christians have come up with a temporary “third way”.

        In a word, it’s sin. Christians are making the choice to take their chances and go ahead and have premarital and extramarital sex. Christian women are supported and encouraged in this. Christian men are shamed and guilted for this.

        Like it or not, the reality on the ground is that this is the current third way/triangulated solution today’s Christians have come up with.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        That is what will happen when the Christian Life Script is no longer possible. Ylu can only fight biology for so long.
        No one should be surprised by this.

        If I wanted to sin I would have done so a long time ago.
        But here we are with that grey area that the Bible doesn’t address.

        In legal terms its what is called a Gap in the law. Existing law doesn’t cover or account for it.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        If I wanted to sin I would have done so a long time ago.
        But here we are with that grey area that the Bible doesn’t address.

        In legal terms its what is called a Gap in the law. Existing law doesn’t cover or account for it.

        It isn’t really a gap in the law. The law addresses it plainly enough — no sex outside marriage. Celibacy is an option.

        I know you’re saying that “but that law didn’t take into account the current situation where men and women and the entire culture are living in a way that is different from how they did when those things were written, and also from any other time since Christianity arrived, and was therefore written in the context of a different social environment, and therefore can’t be directly applied to this one”.

        That’s not very convincing to me, from a purely moral theological perspective. Paul seems to have believed that the end times were coming a lot sooner than they have done, and his moral rules appear to point towards a scenario where they are of a short duration. Christians later reinterpreted these to mean that the indications of a short duration should be taken as references to the short duration of life, but still the fact remains that they were written in a certain context that did not obtain. We did not throw out the moral rules contained in Paul, however, when it became abundantly clear that the parousia was not just around the corner, at least not from a human perspective, relative to the time of Paul. The moral rules were taken to apply in very different contexts from the one that the human author had in mind when the text was physically written — including the encouragement to celibacy (at least until the Protestant reformation) — because the text is not seen as speaking to only one historical context. I don’t think, therefore, that the moral rules around sex outside marriage can be so easily dispensed with under a “times have changed and the circumstances are different than the ones Paul was addressing” argument.

        In fact, that argument is basically the same one that homosexuals have been using to write the statements made about homosexuality in both the OT and the NT out of the moral teaching of the church — the idea that “Paul wasn’t addressing the current situation, because the current situation isn’t what Paul knew about homosexuality, so those rules don’t apply to this situation”. I just don’t think that works from a moral theology perspective.

        That doesn’t mean, however, that the church should not be, de facto, tolerant of certain sins that are, in fact, very difficult to abstain from in the current culture. This tolerance isn’t “de-sinning” them — they are still sins. But it means not tossing people out on their heads as utter reprobates if they happen to commit them, understanding that the current situation is very challenging with respect to some sins (just as the church did in earlier eras). I think this is very hard because as I point out above after the Reformation the Western church got away from that mindset and embraced a more rigorist perspective, which tends to lead to an all or nothing type of approach which sees anything less as hypocritical. Pretty tough obstacle from the perspective of ecclesial culture, it seems to me. However, de facto, we know that this is what Christians are doing — that’s clear enough. I just don’t think you should expect any statements similar to the ones Acquinas and Augustine made about prostitution being applied to any of these things.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        The major difference between myself and homosexuals when they argue that the context is different and thus inapplicable is that they are wrong. The context isn’t fundamentally different. The Greco-Roman world did have a concept of someone being inclined toward homosexuality from birth and they also were aware of long term homosexual relationships between social equals in the same age group. There are even records of homosexuals having wedding ceremonies, although they held no legal force. The big difference is that Greco-Roman society generally frowned on that kind of relationship and had the view that homosexual behaviour was fine if you were the active participant but shameful if you were passive.

        Another difference is that just about any Christian will agree that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered but heterosexual sex and the desire it is natural and good. What makes heterosexual sex a sin or not is the context in which it takes place. And we are now dealing with a whole new set of contexts. Could some of our new contexts be ones in which it could be permissible. Is it right, now that marriage is so difficult to obtain, to shut so many people out of a good gift from God?

        Maybe I really do need to write something, as much as I hate writing. If I don’t end up doing it, my suggestion is to read Carl Schmitt’s book Political Theology. It’s somewhat dry but mercifully short. That’s where I’m getting most of my view on law from. It might be a little unusual to apply legal/political theory to matters of sexual Morality but all political theories are just secularized theological concepts. The relationship works in the opposite direction too. I’ve generally avoided mentioning Schmitt in any of the discussions I’ve had with other people on other platforms, even as I use his terms (Exception, Crisis, No Norm Is Applicable To Chaos, Etc). His work is rather controversial hence why I’ve avoided directly mentioning it except for on this site.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        You are looking for an excuse.

        There is none.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Is it right, now that marriage is so difficult to obtain, to shut so many people out of a good gift from God?

        Sex is “a goo gift from God” inside the context of marriage. Sterile, transitory heterosexual sex outside the context of marriage is no less degenerate than sterile, transitory homosexual sex.

        If that’s what you want, no one will stop you. But God will judge you for breaking His law.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Should I feel honoured to have an arch-nemesis?
        Are Oscar and I destined to fight forever?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric

        Should I feel honoured to have an arch-nemesis?

        You have an arch-nemesis?

        Are Oscar and I destined to fight forever?

        I’ve never fought you.

        Like

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        @Oscar

        Almost every time I comment you are not far behind with an antagonistic response.
        You clearly have some investment in doing so.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        So if we don’t affirm your opinion we are attacking you?

        Are you a woman?

        You know what, here. Go forth and fornicate. Go do it.

        Just remember that god smited 2 cities off the face of the earth, and killed 23,000 of his own in one day for sexual sin.

        Take that, and go and be the whore.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric

        Almost every time I comment you are not far behind with an antagonistic response.

        A warning always feels like antagonism to the one who needs it most.

        You clearly have some investment in doing so.

        Obviously. I don’t want your blood on my hands.

        Ezekiel 3:20 “Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you did not give him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man that the righteous should not sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; also you will have delivered your soul.”

        Obviously, you will “do what thou wilt”. But your blood will not be on my hands.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        There is no third way. There is no justification for the random hookup.

        And Paul actually answers your question. It’s marry.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        “And Paul actually answers your question. It’s marry.”

        Must I repeat myself? Paul presents voluntary celibacy and voluntary marriage as options.
        He didn’t think about or mention the people who find themselves unable to marry.
        He didn’t need to think about it because getting married was relatively easy at the time. It isn’t an issue he had to address. But it’s a very big issue now. Those people are the orphans. Those who live in the gap. Unfortunately, finding a good spouse isn’t as simple as going to the store and buying one. It never has been so simple, but in previous ages it wasn’t so prohibitively difficult.

        That’s why you can’t use Paul’s ruling on a specific issue to then say that voluntary celibacy and marriage are the only two options for Christians everywhere and at every time.

        A finite book like the Bible can’t possibly cover all possible conditions.
        Someone has to be able to make rulings on these new issues.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “Someone has to be able to make rulings on these new issues.”

        Then, why haven’t you? If you insist on screwing with God’s moral law, no one will stop you. God will judge you for screwing with His moral law, but no one will stop you.

        Like

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Figuring this out is a communal process. Anyone can rationalize something to themself. But if you can get other people to see eye to eye then you are onto something. Developing the idea requires feedback. In the absense of a direct ruling in the Bible then it’s the job of the Church (institutional and otherwise) to adress the issue.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric

        “Figuring this out is a communal process.”

        Says who?

        “Anyone can rationalize something to themselves.”

        As you have.

        “But if you can get other people to see eye to eye then you are onto something.”

        How’s that working for you?

        “Developing the idea requires feedback.”

        Unless you dislike the feedback, in which case you dismiss it.

        “In the absence of a direct ruling in the Bible…”

        Must I repeat myself? You already have “a direct ruling from in the Bible”. You dislike that ruling, so – as with feedback you don’t like – you dismiss the ruling.

        “…then it’s the job of the Church (institutional and otherwise) to address the issue.”

        Translation: You’ll keep asking until you find someone to agree with your desire to screw with God’s moral law.

        Must I repeat myself? No one will stop you, but God will judge you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        You aren’t interested in solutions or anything constructive.
        That’s my problem with you Oscar. All you’re contributing is antagonism. Disagree all you want (God knows there has been plenty of that here) but at least have something to offer besides hostility. How can I argue this better? What can I do to make myself more convincing?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        You aren’t interested in solutions or anything constructive.

        I’ve offered solutions. You weren’t interested. Remember?

        That’s my problem with you Oscar. All you’re contributing is antagonism.

        Must I repeat myself? The one who most needs to be warned of God’s judgement is most likely to feel antagonized by that warning.

        Disagree all you want (God knows there has been plenty of that here) but at least have something to offer besides hostility.

        Ditto with “hostility”. Besides – must I repeat myself? – you’re not interested in any solutions other than screwing with God’s moral law. Remember?

        How can I argue this better? What can I do to make mine of reso ING more convincing?

        It’s not me you need to argue with, or convince. It’s not my moral law you desire to screw with. It’s God you need to convince, because it’s His moral law you desire to screw with.

        I’m just here to warn you of the consequences of screwing with God’s moral law. Judgement. I know you will “do what thou wilt”, Eric. But your blood will not be on my hands.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        There isn’t any existing law that addresses current conditions. There are no existing rulings on what to do if marriage isn’t an option. There is no existing law that speaks to conditions post-Sexual Revolution.

        There is no law to screw with. If no applicable law exists then where do we go from there?

        That seems to be the major sticking point. You think that there is adequate law already but I just don’t see it. If there was adequate law then we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with.

        How is the norm applicable to chaos?
        The Sexual Revolution is here to stay. None of us are overturning it in this lifetime. There will be no Sexual Restoration. The best we can hope for is Sexual Bonapartism, resting things to some form of functionality without going back to the old status quo.

        So what will that look like?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        There isn’t any existing law that addresses current conditions. There are no existing rulings on what to do if marriage isn’t an option. There is no existing law that speaks to conditions post-Sexual Revolution.
        There is no law to screw with.

        Sure there is.

        Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told His disciples, “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.

        If, in fact, marriage is impossible for you (and I’m not convinced that it is), then that is your cross to bear. You aren’t the first to bear that cross, and you won’t be the last.

        That seems to be the major sticking point. You think that there is adequate law already but I just don’t see it.

        Correction: you don’t want to see it, because you don’t like it. And, by the way, I don’t blame you for not liking it. But I’m not your Lord. God is. Or, so you claim.

        If there was adequate law then we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with.

        Right. Because humanity’s problem is the inadequacy of God’s moral law, not our unwillingness to follow it. You sure you want to face your Lord (so you claim) and tell Him to His face that His moral law is inadequate? Because you will face Him.

        That wasn’t a rhetorical question, by the way.

        Once again. You want to screw with God’s moral law. No one will stop you, but God will judge you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        I never said marriage was impossible. But I know that it isn’t something that is happening for me anytime soon. It’s much, much more difficult to get married than it was in previous ages.

        In response to the verse you cited I can cite Matthew 23:4. Neither of them specifically adress the issue under discussion anyway.

        There is no such thing as a finite body of law that can cover every possible set of conditions. The Bible is a finite book. It has a beginning, middle, and end. Books can’t make decisions. Even government constitutions have an amendment process to deal with new cases for which there is no law. Sovereign power can suspend the law if there is a crisis that existing law can’t handle.

        Existing biblical law cannot handle this. There is no precedent for it. The Church has to make decision on how to handle it.

        The Sexual Revolution changes everything. The old rules simply don’t apply.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Existing biblical law cannot handle this. There is no precedent for it. The Church has to make decision on how to handle it.

        The Sexual Revolution changes everything. The old rules simply don’t apply.

        How can you be so sure of that? God is omniscient and surely knew all of history before time began — all causes and conditions are foreknown. Including the sexual revolution. How can you be sure that this is not, in fact, a time when Christians are being called to choose between suffering here and now, in a sexual or marital sense, and suffering later, in an eternal sense, for temporal short-sightedness? How can you be sure that the rules don’t apply? They apply on their face — no sex outside of marriage. The rule was never “given that it is easier to get married now than it will be in the future, it is not permitted to have sex outside of marriage, but only in marriage”. It was absolute and unconditional. Again, how can you exclude that the law, which on its face is not conditional, still applies as always, and God is calling on Christians, and especially Christian men, to share Christ’s suffering in this area of their lives?

        Leaving aside that issue (I know you disagree about the rules still applying, but you haven’t made a convincing case in my view that they do not), what is it that you would expect “the Church” to do?

        Christianity is divided. There are some churches that de facto endorse sex outside of marriage, such as the Episcopal Church (and most other mainline Protestant churches), by simply not discussing what is plainly going on (regular active parishioners who are sexually active without being married and without commentary or exclusion). If that is what you are looking for, why not go there?

        There are also many others that do not openly tolerate/celebrate it as much as that, but that nevertheless turn a blind eye to it.

        That’s likely the best you are going to get. I doubt that the “official teaching” changes in any church. What you will see in some churches is open toleration (like the mainline) and in others a more tacit/look the other way toleration (as in many evangelical places, in a lot of Catholic novus ordo parishes and so on), and then you will have some smaller communities that are very much in everyone’s business and won’t fellowship with you if you do that. That likely won’t change much going forward.

        There isn’t even a mechanism for “the Church” to decide such things as a unit, of course. And as for the larger units, worldwide, the Catholics and the Orthodox, such a change in teaching about the moral liceity of extramarital sex is extraordinarily unlikely.

        So I guess, even leaving aside the issue of whether you are right that the current law doesn’t cover the current situation (which I disagree with, but again, assuming, arguendo, for the moment that your contention is correct in that regard), it is not clear to me just what church you are looking to do or say exactly what?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        The idea that the old rules no longer apply is one that I admit I’m not going to rationally argue most people into, especially if they aren’t personally effected by it. The best I can do is keep hammering home how bad things are and how unprecedented they are. Hopefully once people grasp the enormity of it they’ll intuitively understand that the old rules don’t apply to it. I’m also not going to get too far with people who don’t already agree that there are no personal solutions to systemic problems. Again, best I can do is keep hammering home that following the old rules makes it more difficult to get married, contrary to how the rules were supposed to function in the beginning. Best I can usually do is get people to agree that things are bad, that the Crisis exists. But they won’t agree with the next step, which is the idea that if the rules no longer serve their function then you are absolved of them.
        “Things may be bad, but you still have to carry your cross” is where the conversation usually stops.

        Yes, I realize there is no monolithic Church. As for what I want to happen? Well, that is up for discussion. First I have to get people to agree that something needs go be done at all.

        But to start? I’d like institutional churches to openly acknowledge that the old rules don’t serve the purpose they used to, recognize the difficulty that people have, acknowledge that something needs to be done, acknowledge that the the conditions are not going away in our lifetimes, and then think about how to make it easier for young people to live in these conditions. That will probably have to include giving sanction to unmarried people engaging in sexual activity, drawing up some new options that don’t require total abstinence for single people.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        To give more specifics:

        Is it really that bad for a person over 25 to have sex with their bf/gf?
        Is it really that bad for men to sow a few of the proverbial wild oats as long as they are mature about it?

        People weren’t designed to wait until they are 30 or older, so what are people supposed to do?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric

        Need I repeat myself? My question was not rhetorical. Please answer it. Do you want to stand before your Lord (so you say) and tell Him to His face that His moral law is inadequate?

        I never said marriage was impossible. But I know that it isn’t something that is happening for me anytime soon. It’s much, much more difficult to get married than it was in previous ages.

        In response to the verse you cited I can cite Matthew 23:4. Neither of them specifically adress the issue under discussion anyway.

        Who tied up a heavy load and placed it on your shoulders, but is unwilling to help you with it, Eric? That was not a rhetorical question. Please answer it.

        Did Jesus (your Lord, or so you claim) commanded you to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Him under all circumstances. That includes persecution, torture, or even death. He never said He’d let you off the hook if it’s “much more difficult… that it was in previous ages”. So, you’re dead wrong. His commandment covers all issues, including the one we’re discussing. You can try to weasel your way out of it all you want, but His commandment remains.

        The idea that the old rules no longer apply is one that I admit I’m not going to rationally argue most people into

        No, Eric. You got that backwards, as usual. We’re in this mess precisely because most people believe – as you do – that “the old rules no longer apply”.

        No one will stop you from screwing with God’s moral law, Eric. But God will judge you for it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Practicing chastity under current conditions will get you no closer to marriage; in fact it’s a hindrance to that goal.

        -Following the rule in this case yields the opposite result from what was originally intended.

        -The rules no longer working as intended is a good definition of chaos.

        -There is no norm applicable to chaos.

        -The norms no longer apply to current conditions.

        Which statement do you disagree with?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric

        Need I repeat myself, Eric? I don’t play the game where you ask all the questions and answer none. I’ll answer your question as soon as you answer the questions I already asked that you still haven’t answered.

        Do you want to stand before your Lord (so you say) and tell Him to His face that His moral law is inadequate?

        Who tied up a heavy load and placed it on your shoulders, but is unwilling to help you with it, Eric?

        Those are not rhetorical questions, Eric. Please answer them.

        Like

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        So we’re playing this game again.

        Sure. All written law has limits. Reason, tradition, experience, and other tools are necessary as well. The Bible isn’t everything. Such is reality.
        The Church, in general. And you, in this particular instance.

        Like

      • Comandante Baksuz says:

        @ Eric

        what you endorse is already happening on a whole-society scale ; and what are the results?
        how do you define chaos? because when you can observe patterns, which you can in the current state of things, that’s not ‘chaos’ in my book
        what do you mean by “being mature about it” ? – again – in my book – being mature about having sex is to acknowledge that the other “participant” is potentially the other parent of my child, which is implied in the very nature of the act, and therefore being mature about it = treat them as one, ie marry.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric

        Sure. All written law has limits. Reason, tradition, experience, and other tools are necessary as well. The Bible isn’t everything. Such is reality.
        The Church, in general.

        Is that a “yes”, or a “no”? Do you want to stand before your Lord (so you claim) and tell Him to His face that His moral law is inadequate?

        And you, in this particular instance.

        It’s not about me, Eric. When you stand before your Lord (so you claim), you will stand alone.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Comandante Baksuz

        what you endorse is already happening on a whole-society scale ; and what are the results?

        Exactly. Most Christians already believe – like Eric – that “the old rules no longer apply”. That’s why we’re in this mess in the first place.

        Most Christians – like Eric – have zero fear of God or His judgement.

        Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      The singleness of Paul is used as an excuse by many who aren’t in regular ministry.

      Not that hard to start acquiring “lamps” or “psalm” rearranged. Confidence and knowledge will get you a long way.

      Get a hobby that involves working with your hands.
      Pick up a sport, even if a solo sport. Boxing. Biking. Hiking. Photography. Fishing.
      Go to the gym.
      Eat clean.
      Get out of debt.
      Work on your career.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. Elspeth says:

    What, you think I haven’t sacrificed for my kids? I’ve sacrificed more than you or anyone else here will EVER know. I didn’t leave my elderly parents either – I just buried my mother after giving her a lot of help, and it now falls to my siblings and me to help my now-widowed and grieving father. So I’m not sure what you’re on about here.

    Okay, this is going far afield of what I intended. I wasn’t accusing anyone of anything. I was simply stating a fact; that fact being that in America, we are routinely encouraged to move someplace where the opportunities are brighter, but we made the hard choice (on more than one occasion) to turn down lucrative opportunities for the sake of family.

    I never said we were the ONLY people that have ever made the choices we made. I never implied that no one else loves their parents. I simply said that the ambient culture strongly encourages us to do whatever we need to do to solidify our own advantage, and we chose not to do that, at some cost.

    We are doing some things differently right here where we are, and we prayerfully expect that it will all work out for both us, and our daughters, who are actually quite free to pack up and leave the state if they so choose.

    But the point of my comment was to make clear that the U.S. is a very diverse place and blanket assertions that assume that what we see in one place is true in all places are often off base.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Elspeth says:

    @ Cameron:

    I totally understand. We only went on our tours during the months of March-May (2020), and October 2020- March 7, 2021. We found a church to visit last Sunday. We didn’t get out much during the summer months. We vacation in the mountains almost every summer, because we love it there, too. The hikes are much more satisfying. We briefly considered a move to Chattanooga a few years ago but decided it wouldn’t be best for our two youngest- educationally. We are in a really extraordinary education community!

    And so we have learned an appreciation for Florida’s riverbanks, for places where there’s is still wildlife to be seen. We lived here all our lives for instance, and didn’t know that you could still see herds of wild buffalo in Alachua county. My husband loved that place!

    We just made a decision to see God’s fingerprints here (because they are here), and to bloom where we have been planted. Making the best of the life we have.

    And then of course, for obvious reasons, we tolerate the heat much better, so I fully understand people of more northern ethnicities finding summers here unbearable. I have often wondered how the Florida Crackers did it, thriving without air conditioning!

    I should also note that I am a FL history buff. People have paid me to teach it, if you can believe that! So when we road trip around the state, I am looking through a particular lens not like your average tourist.

    Liked by 4 people

  18. Pingback: More on the Framework of Options | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: Viewpoints on Man’s Confusion about How God Works in the Life of a Believer | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: Strategies for the Iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: Ethical Issues Surrounding the Christian Conundrum | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Rules and Trust | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: The Cross of Our Age | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: Taking Headship by Force | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: The Rupture of the MMP | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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