There’s been a number of events which have conspired from keeping me posting. There’s been the normal ones such as busyness or sickness, but there’s been the one that’s admittedly new to me, a huge case of writer’s block. It’s not so much having something to write about, but having something to write about that I want to jump right to posting and can follow through in a satisfactory way. In some respects, it’s just something that’s not that exciting to me to write about, which the readers will no doubt pick up on. Or it’s something that I could point out and then simply point to another post I’ve written and say “there’s my response to it” – in other words, it’s been done before.
Overall, some days doing a blog post has been very easy, and other times it’s just very difficult to impossible. Whatever reason one has, there always has to be a pressing reason for things to move through, and there really hasn’t been one on a lot of things for some reason or another. Case in point is the following:
The next post when all the events were starting was to be one about how Marriage 1.0 is a covenant between God, the husband, and wife. But Marriage 2.0 made it so it was a covenant between the State, the husband, and the wife, leaving God entirely out of it. I was going to point out some quotes of some previous conversations about how so many in Churchian circles don’t pick up on the importance of this distinction, and even defend to the ends of the earth the fact that they have rendered over to Caesar what is rightfully God’s. I was going to point out that they look at Romans 13:1-6 exclusively and hold to it, forgetting the examples of Peter and the apostles as well as the examples of Daniel and his three friends, which clearly state to stand for God and what He has done in the space of the wicked things that men have decreed through governments. But I never really could get this followed through to my satisfaction.
Then the next post was going to be about gender, and how the historical meaning has been blown away over the last 50 years by poor education and feminism. I was going to illustrate this by pointing to the characteristics of other languages besides English which distinguishes objects by gender. For example in Spanish, “the pencil” is “el lapiz”, while “the table” is “la mesa”. The word that is used in Spanish for “the” differentiates gender. I was going to point out what the historical meanings of “masculine” and “feminine” are through analysis of some of these words using some guidelines suggested by Podles. Then I was going to extend that to the spiritual realm, identifying why individual believers are identified as masculine, while the collective is identified as feminine. Then I was going to point out how feminists have sought to throw away the true equality that women are given in Scripture before Christ in favor of creating heresy for trying to identify themselves in an unscriptural wicked way. This means a woman identifying herself as a “princess of God” or “daughter of the King” is being heretical. This is because there is only a begotten Son of God and not a begotten daughter of God, and all who accept Christ are remade in His image by the Holy Spirit to become Sons of God. But again, I couldn’t follow this through to my satisfaction.
Then in this time, I got to go through a handful of old texts I’ve written on comment boards and other places on some matters, and was reminded by this of a video I found once upon a time of feminist pastor Mark Driscoll equating all single mothers with widows (revealing his ultimate stupidity or bias, whichever is the case), and ultimately making Stanton’s Heroes into Driscoll’s Heroes who need supported in every way for their unfortunate circumstance. Moving on this was ultimately limited by the lack of a video link, since I saved my reaction to it without a link of what I was reacting to, not having in mind that I would be later writing a blog.
Edit: Here’s a video link. While it’s the end of one of his sermons and not a stand alone video like I originally witnessed, it catches the material I was commenting on.
My comments (off-hand parts edited out, as well as other edits):
Churches are full of women and run by women, and guys like this serve at the behest of them. So they will always rail against men (even subtly like he did here), and give the behavior of women a free pass. What these people say is almost always worldly too. They have their own agendas and their own will and then Scripture shop to find something that seems to meet their own goals. This results in false teaching. Here’s what Driscoll was trying to refer to:
Note it has a much different message. And the definition of “widow” hasn’t changed as Driscoll wants it either. This message is one of piousness and dealing rightly within marriage. Driscoll assumes all the women he refers to be these things, yet we all know they are not. They are what this Scripture describes in v12-13 and more. Driscoll does not bother, as well, to identify or distinguish the true pious widows from the [promiscuous women] who would never consider seeking marriage and oh by the way their kids happened to be “Oopsie” bastard pregnancies instead of the fruit of a legitimate marriage. As men like Driscoll love to point out against men, the rule is same for women, fornication is a sin and all sins have their worldly consequences even if one believes they have taken Christ and had the eternal ones wiped away. Driscoll never pushes the women to be reconciled to their husbands (let us remember that women initiate most divorces because they want to eat pray love instead of any legitimate reasons). Driscoll would never scream “How dare you!” at the women, even though they would deserve it MUCH MORE. No one, Christian or not, genuinely wants a woman that’s been around the block if they are considering marriage. Driscoll and his ilk need to be preaching to these women the consequences of their actions.
Again this is just compromising to please the women, and when you compromise something you lose everything.
Then there’s always the Sheila Gregoire (and others) watch. Admittedly that gets kind of boring as well as becomes an occasion for me to get enraged at the things she advocates. This is because I’ve already written posts which covers most of the damage her “teaching ministry” does to husbands, single men like me, and to marriages in general. Case in point is her series she wrote (1, 2, 3), where she does the same things that have been chronicled before (twists Scripture in knots to get it to fit her feminist views instead of reading Scripture for what it is and accepting it, painting an extremist position as a normal for men who dare speak against the wife is head/husband submits to the wife model she supports, logical inconsistencies with her other positions expressed in other posts, an outlook which encourages effeminate lesbianism in husbands and normalizes femDOM in the bedroom thereby emasculating men and souring them on sex at all (her goal maybe?), and accuses anyone against her position on this matter as advocating for porn) to disenfranchise husbands of their right to be sexual with their wives and create hatred and hostility towards those husbands who are in sexless marriages that speak out and complain to their wives and others. I notice this pattern in a lot of hers and other feminists posts. What’s so wrong in their minds with men being men and women being women instead of the exact opposite?
It’s really all been done before and all I would need to do is link to previous posts to provide a full response to her writing. The higher level of hatred and vitriol in her Echo Chamber of Comments towards men on such an issue is new to me (specifically “Don’t Marry Christian Men” – there’s a widening group of us men that are beginning to feel the same way about “Christian Women”, there really isn’t anything in modern marriage for men), but really not much to drive things beyond the “it’s all been done” vibe. Maybe it’s not so bad to repeat yourself at times, but when the posts you’ve written come immediately to mind to answer posts, it gets kind of boring, fast.
Anyway, I don’t really know if I’m in a right place in my perception about blogs by the reasons I haven’t driven these things through to full posts. This has definitely been a “learn as I go” experience, and I’ve always prayed that God be pleased by what is posted and that if it is faulty it is not representative of my laziness, but representative of my best effort fallen short of God’s holiness.
Maybe the deadlock will break soon, maybe it won’t. But God be blessed and honored in all things no matter what!