Book Review: The Volunteer Revolution

The Volunteer Revolution: Unleashing the Power of Everybody. Bill Hybels. Zondervan, 2004.
book-review-the-volunteer-revolution
In the scope of the churches, encouraging service to them in various capacities is always a concern. Seeking volunteers, matching them with opportunities for things to do, and guiding their experience also becomes a concern. Bill Hybels aims to address this with his book “The Volunteer Revolution”.

Hybels begins by pointing out that believers all have a function within the church. He then continues in stating that deriving joy and making a difference are factors in those who serve. The author then describes servant-hood as a gamble, requiring faith to step away from self-gratification (Philippians 2:3-8) in the course of denying one’s self. Hybels then describes how some people have found healing for themselves through focusing on serving others. The text then moves onto the concept of the priesthood of all believers. Hybels then focuses on methods to find proper things for people when they serve, describing “jumping in” versus spiritual gifts in terms of assessments, and a pendulum of doing “whatever it takes” to “finding the right fit”. He then moves into assessing skills and looking at concerns for groups of people to find a volunteer passion. The author then describes the importance of community in assessing a volunteer church experience. Finally, he describes dealing with serving over a long period of time, and gives a pep talk about the power of doing good.

Hybels provides an interesting overview through a number of good stories of volunteer service within churches, providing a good overview of handling the whole process, either has a believer or as a leader within a church. He hits all the predictable notes, encouraging people to find their own path instead of forcing people into certain avenues.

However, Hybels does as most all Churchians do and focuses service in terms of serving the interests of the human man-made church instead of Jesus and the Kingdom of God in the ways the Spirit has dictated through Scripture. Unfortunately as all seeker-sensitive proponents do, Hybels continues on to place a focus of service on carnal worldly interests in service, placing the role of the Church as “fixing a broken world” (p61) by serving “felt needs” instead of focusing on “the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12). Finally, Hybels stresses that people look for their strengths where they may be glorified, instead of their weaknesses where Christ may be glorified (1 Corinthians 2:1-5; 2 Corinthians 12:9).

Overall, The Volunteer Revolution represents a very fluffy feel-good book with numerous entertaining stories about service. While the contents of this book may get a believer to stop spectating and start serving, it misplaces the focus and intent of the service away from the Christ and the Kingdom of God to the man-made church and the world. The true Christian is not to love the world or the things of the world (1 John 2:15) or hold to the world, but to “be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Romans 12:2) While Hybels work serves well in the mechanics of service, the heart advocated for that service is far from a proper place. Those who read this would be mindful to know that.

Rating: 3 out of 10.

Book Cover Image Source: Amazon

Book Review: Simple Church

Simple Church. Thomas Rainier and Eric Geiger. B&H Books, 2006.
simple-church
For those interested in churches and how they work in this day and age, Simple Church comes up in the list of books to consider, and therefore has drawn my consideration. Thomas Rainier and Eric Geiger relay their observations in terms of churches in the United States and their focus and goals. As is the metrics of most in this day and age, the author’s concerns are ones of attendance and giving.

The author’s conclusions are relayed in the title itself. They contrast what they refer to as the “simple church” with the “not so simple church”, in terms of the number of events, programs, and the like. Their argument is that churches that offer fewer programs centered around a clear and specific goal or mission are better. They argue that a church should have a clear ministry blueprint and process by which the members are moved in and through. By doing this, Rainier and Geiger believe that the energy of everyone involved in the church should then be focused on that specific goal, while other activities not related to that goal should be abandoned.

As a tool of the church-growth movement, this book furthers the goal of turning God’s organic gathering into a simple production line, bringing the rudiments of the world into the things of God (Colossians 2:8). Furthermore, it declares the will of man supreme over the will of God. As with any aspect of the church-growth movement, when people are molded into a man-made product of exacting parameters, this produces a legalistic cult, pushing people away from Christ and out the door. In other words, be a cog of the machine or be ground up by the machine. God’s love and grace are not found in Rainer and Geiger’s “simple church”.

From a content perspective, this book offers exceedingly little. Indeed, the entire content of the book is offered within this review. Unfortunately, the content this book does offer, when put into practice, is exceedingly destructive both to those who participate as well as the church overall before God. Its only value is to further document the increasing profanity of the modern church in this wicked age.

Rating: 1 out of 10.

Book Cover Image Source: Amazon

Book Review: Marriage Under Fire

Marriage Under Fire. James Dobson. Multnomah Publishers Inc, 2004.

marriage-under-fireMuch text has been written over the last decade by the social conservatives over the destruction of “the sanctity of marriage”. As the degeneration of marriage in the culture has been a major focus of study, along with documenting the actions of Focus on the Family, this was a natural read.

As most will know, Dr. James Dobson is the former head of Focus On the Family, which has placed itself as a political factor within the social conservative movement. Functionally, Marriage Under Fire serves as a political position document against homosexual marriage in trying to support a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Dobson begins by describing marriage as being between a man and a woman. He then decries the actions of politicians, who he blames for not “fighting for marriage”, repeating the well-worn list of “social ills”, such as no-fault divorce, cohabitation, right to sodomy, while retaining focus on homosexual marriage. Dobson then gives a list of reasons why homosexual marriage should be opposed, such as the destruction of “traditional marriage”, the effect upon children and the health care system, and the elimination of religious liberty. He then addresses challenges that he has discerned in addressing the homosexual movement. Finally, Dobson presses a call to action to lobby politicians on the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Much of this book is exceedingly predictable, functioning as a decent position paper of the social conservative movement regarding marriage. As documented elsewhere in my reviews of Dobson’s other works, it illustrates the hypocrisy of Dobson, Focus On the Family and other involved organizations in light of their own debasement of God-defined marriage in other ways. Notably, as in the other works of Focus On the Family, the discredited work of George Gilder is referenced. Other factors within culture that have been championed by Dobson and Focus on the Family which have brought marriage to the point of the homosexual issue are either ignored entirely or lightly touched upon.

The advent of homosexual marriage was indeed a major concern in 2004 and is one long after. Unfortunately, the sentiment expressed on p39 that homosexual marriage “couldn’t be worse than what we’ve got” is a perfect statement on the true condition of marriage, and one that Dobson failed to address in this work. He has expressed alarm at the appearance of a problem, but has neglected to address the essence of the problem. Consequently, the resulting failure of the social conservative movement Dobson spoke for in this work was inevitable.

Rating: 3 out of 10.

Book Cover Image Source:Amazon

A Tragedy

Gentlemen, I witnessed a tragedy play out over the last couple of months, whose story wrapped up recently.  I witnessed the red pill of marriage in action.  Let me try to relate in such a way that I don’t out myself by the things I know.  Having read all the stories for years about the evil things done in the name of marriage, I become used to the stories and came to understand the default godless state of marriage, having taken the red pill of marriage to see what it is and not a silly idealistic state.

What happened seems to be no different than any of the other stories, from what I’ve found out personally and through mutual friends.  I picked up on certain things, and we can fill in others readily.  But gentlemen, seeing what I just witnessed isn’t just taking the red pill.  It’s opening up a vein and mainlining it.  And you can bet for sure that I’m pissed that this stuff goes on.

I have had conversations with both members of this married couple.  I saw them together when I visited different churches.  I had to force down the bile in my gut as I saw certain things with my own eyes.   Even so, with hearing the stories, there’s a certain dream-state there until you see it for yourself and force back the tears of sorrow and the anger at the injustice that’s played out.

Traditional Marriage
From childhood, women are fit into the role of the exalted goddess, whose role becomes finding a husband in order to receive from, and to rule over.  From childhood, she is not held to Godly standards, and learns quickly that men are there to grant her desires, and excuse her faults.  She might have to be manipulative to get her way, but she learns exactly how to manipulate both men and society to do so.  She only has the standard of “beauty”, whatever that means at the time, to measure up to, but learns that she is more valuable than men simply because she is a woman.

However, men are fit into the role of pack mule (hence the title of Dr. Laura’s book, “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands” – the view of men as sub-humanoid fills the book), in order to protect a woman and to provide for her.  From childhood, he is held to every standard of both God and women, starting from his mother.  She ingrains male mother need into him, directing his devotion away from God to first her and then a wife who takes over.  He learns quickly that his wishes, dreams, and desires are meaningless in general – that the sum total of the value of his worth as a man is in the approval of the women around him and he gains it by serving them and molding his life to fit their wishes (women define what masculinity is).

The Very Unhappily Ever After Part
Our couple then lives a life befitting traditional marriage and traditional gender roles, having both been indoctrinated into it by their mothers. He happily works himself to the bone to hand oblations to his goddess, including children for her to indoctrinate.

Then for whatever reason, as I did not ever hear why the divorce was initiated exactly, the wife finds dissatisfaction in her work horse and casts him aside. Given what we’ve read in much of the manosphere, we can probably reasonably fill in the blanks as to why she appeared at a new church.  I would guess that the divorce would have had to been frivolous, since this woman showed up in another church regularly about mid way through this story after being at the original church together since before the marriage began.

He, having taken to his traditional role as husband, finds out very quickly that the pretty little lies he was fed was false.   He finds out that the house is not “ours”, it is “hers”.  The children are not “ours”, but “hers”.  In following her will, she has isolated him from his friends, his own interests, and any kind of support system – he finds “our friends” are really “her friends”.  The church, as ever, stands beside the wife.  He is told that if he would just do whatever it takes to submit to his wife in everything, things would be fixed.   Sadly, as I found out in hearing the grief of this man as he expressed it, there was never an opportunity to genuinely share the red-pill – his focus was all about “fixing the marriage” and he would hear nothing else.

Our story ends in the worst way possible.   In running in the sand so far away from Christ to be the good traditional husband, he found he had nothing in his life.  Even worse for his heart, his goddess rejected him.  The sand swallowed him up, and he took his own life.   It’s never easy when I get such news about those I’ve talked to and addressed by name, but harder in this case for some reason, perhaps that I’m already so acutely aware having done these blogs for four-plus years.

This leads to the end of our story.  Naturally, the wife is finding all kinds of solace and comfort in this new church with this news that her husband did this, placing herself into the role of “the poor poor wife” – never-mind she cast this title aside.   Meanwhile, she does the touchdown dance in private as she has accomplished the divorce fantasy she has set out to fulfill in the fullest way possible.

Naturally, as with any of these events, this was cast upon him as his own sickness as both a Christian man and a husband, never as a consequence from traditional marriage.   The Traditional Marriage Narrative must stand at all costs, and never be revealed for the pretty little lie it is.

The Tyranny of Self-Esteem

(This is a finished post that was in the edit queue of the Society of Phineas. There are a very large number of spots that demand self-linking for further explanation, including a review of the mentioned book but at this point it’s not possible. Hopefully the main point of this post still comes out, even if some of the concepts aren’t readily evident.)

One thing I’ve noted in trying to fix some of my life problems is that a lot of literature points to low self-esteem, leading me to seek a better definition of the issue. Then, add what both DonalGraeme and Deep Strength has written, this post in the old Society of Phineas edit queue seemed good to start with in pushing them out.

When it comes to self-esteem, traditional marriage seems to be a good place to start to illustrate the problems with the idea, because as Deep Strength posts:

There has been many a pastor nowadays who say that “insecurity is a sin” or in other words “a lack of self esteem is a woman’s greatest sin.” After all, insecurity supposedly leads to low self worth. Men, of course, are parroted with the typical sins of pride, lust, greed, and so on. However, the source of women’s’ greatest sin issue is a lack of self esteem generated from insecurity.

Of course, all this is bunk.

All of this has been documented and explained extensively in a very large number of posts in the past, including the entire genesis of these things via traditional marriage and traditional gender roles. These things are illustrated even in literature put out by typical traditional marriage defenders (“The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands” by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, for one instance out of many), for those who have fully taken the red-pill. This diagram illustrates it pictorially.

2013-10-23-feminist-theory

Insecurity Comes From The Failure of Our Own Expectations
The state of being outside of God is what is common to both cases, and most of us in general. Insecurity is not a temptation, but that indication of being outside of God’s love. In other words, when we step outside of Him and put faith in ourselves and other people, as is done with traditional marriage and gender roles, insecurity is inevitable.

Insecurity comes in a woman when people do not see her as beautiful (“Do these jeans make me look fat?”), when they do not bow down to her wishes and serve her, do not affirm her thoughts and desires, and generally do not treat her as she is used to being treated. She cries that she is not being “honored” or “respected”, and men flock to her with discussion of how to “build confidence in her” – read praise her as the exalted goddess she is. Buoying up a woman in her apostate state of being made equal to God becomes another function of “protecting” her.

Insecurity comes in a man when he does not find usefulness in his life to others, or the approval of others in his life for his efforts. When he can not do things, gain the approval of women, or gain the continued approval of his wife, his life becomes insecure and worthless. He dare not voice his concerns for having more derision heaped upon him for not being a “real man”, who should just shut up and do what he is told. He dare not even express his own wishes or dreams for having them being dashed by his wife, for a “good man” does nothing but his wife’s will. After all, insecurity in men is a good thing in the system of traditional marriage as it keeps him striving on the hamster wheel to serve his goddess and place himself into the role of chattel for the fire.

Inevitably, instead of being content with God’s love, value, and protection, people always seek their own desires. “If only this would happen…” “If only he would…” “If only she would…” “…then I would get what I want and be happy!” Our own expectations always get in the way of God. As the Scriptures say:

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Romans 3:9-12)

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. (Colossians 3:1-3)

There is nothing good within ourselves outside of God, and to that end, the proper response to Christ in faith is to die to self so Christ may live (as baptism illustrates). To that effect:

For the true Christian, there is no such thing as self-esteem or self-worth.

Our Value Is In God, Not in Self Or Others
So what of worth? Worth comes in affirmation of Christ in one’s life through living in His truth and seeking His approval alone. If anything it should be Christ-esteem and not self-esteem. It is well noted that God is truth (John 14:6), God’s word is truth that sanctifies us (John 17:17), and that if one lives outside of it, they are not in God’s love for He can never deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13-14). This is well illustrated by Matthew 7:24-27 – if you are insecure, you are standing in the sand outside of God’s love.

The proper thing to do within the churches is to affirm the true and equal value of each other as creations of Christ instead of reinforcing traditional gender roles. When all become equally loved and equally valuable within the sight of God, and when all are put under the same requirements (for man and woman are nothing different before God), simple insecurity and many other issues fix themselves. Others in the churches can have an important function in this regard, for the Church is supposed to exist to encourage and exhort ALL believers, not reinforce the ways of men and turn all the creations of God into chattel that is only fit for the fire.

A closing meditation on the topic:

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

Lessons From The Single Missionary Man

I will leave conclusions and discussions to the reader.

Since I really haven’t seen any and have the time at the moment, I thought I’d go ahead and offer some I had on thinking about it after writing this post, as it relates to this post and the original.

It seems that the major question that would have needed to be asked by Piper, and the question that points out his logical inconsistency of the original article is:

“How many single men directly go into missionary work and stay that way?”

This little testimony I posted goes to the average experience of a missionary who is a single man. If the native women are throwing themselves at them for a better life, this presents a huge impediment to the work in the ways the individual I talked to described. In this case, most single men will realize that the dynamics of how marriage has seen in the world (no feminism) would necessitate that it would be better for them to be married.

Then couple that with the general desire that most men will have to be married, and they won’t remain single for long, and hence will be counted within that “married” group in Piper’s statistics much more than being single.

To go to Deep Strength’s post, the problem indicated there is one of imputing nefarious motives where none are found. As I pointed out before, if “Women in need are worthy of support, but men are not.”, then I would have expected both his opportunities to solicit donations and his donations amount to go up upon being married, but they did not (the most shocking part of the conversation to me given Piper and the things I read in other blogs over the time I’ve been blogging).

If anything, Piper is denoting a bias with answering the question that Deep Strength is falling into as well. How many single men out there will both feel a call to God’s mission in their life, and to be married? The answer to this is “very few”.

However, as the church most definitely actively pushes men away from Christ, and actively does not teach women to be good wives and mothers, as a result, “Churches tend to push women into ministry and the mission field in droves”. Consequently, it could be said that the church pushes men away from marriage and the mission field. And as I (in my past blog), Deep Strength, and others have proven, Piper and others actively push men away from marriage and the mission field.

Though, from my talk with the (former) single missionary, the most beneficial part of being a single missionary is that a man’s heart is set on God’s mission enough that when he does seek a wife, he unconsciously self-selects himself into a proper God-structured marriage. He will not throw aside his mission for a wife, which is what most all Christian women will expect, and almost every man does when he marries. The likelihood that he will throw aside the proper God, and cast himself into eternal hellfire by taking his wife as his God, Lord, and Savior will be diminished as well, both by his heart for mission and the fact he is (likely) far away from a church culture like the American one, which all but assures that.

In conclusion, I will say that seeking out answers to this was quite instructive and often illustrates how off (and simple minded) a lot of these post in blog world end up being.

Single Missionary Man

Churches/families/others tend to support women more than men with monetary donations for missions. Women in need are worthy of support, but men are not.

FWIW, I had an opportunity as prompted by this post to ask someone I know who was a single man in the mission field (he ultimately married, so he’s been both single and married while doing this) about some of the issues involved here. The main question I asked was whether he found his mission work impeded in any way by being a single man. This means if he found he was “more effective” in reaching people as a married man, as well as whether it affected his ability to solicit donations from churches or the amounts. This is what he relayed:

1. He stated that the above quote is false in his experience. No doors were opened after he was married in terms of ability to solicit and he did not experience more financial giving after he was married. It seems people judge more on the work being done than the status of the person doing the work. Of course, this is only one data point – a comparison between what he received as a single man versus what a single woman in a comparable mission field has received would be more useful.

2. However, what he did notice in solicitations was more of a personal conversational interest which reflects more of a well-being concern, stemming from what has been noted time and time again on numerous blogs.

What did change for him from a being a single man to being married is this:

1. Being an American (and otherwise very unremarkable in every other measure), he was an alpha in the manospherian parlance, so the native women were continually throwing themselves at him in hopes he would marry them and bring them to America with him. He counted this as a major handicap in his ability to do the work he was sent to do.

2. He noted the usual concern (well noted everywhere) of a single man being alone with a (possibly) married woman in a situation and the resulting appearance of evil, and the real need to be sure he would not be placed into that position, especially considering #1 and the possibility that some of those native women would be married.

3. Then there was the usual case of being alone and having to gain enough friendship and trust from some of the natives in case he walked into a situation where he needed to have someone watch his back (think possible unsafe/violent situations).

I will leave conclusions and discussions to the reader.