He seems mad because I don’t trash women on my blog. The lack of men in church isn’t a man problem or a women problem or a pastor problem. It’s a system problem.
I’m “mad” because you are trashing men on your blog and making the lack of marriage in the church into a man problem. Beyond that it is a system problem and you are contributing to the problem. The problem is the “system problem” is quite routinely the “man problem”. In other words:
It would all just work right if men would just know their role and play along.
David, be the solution, don’t be the problem. I link to you on the side because in a lot of respects you do address problems within the church. The sole reason I bothered to respond at all, is because you are the problem in that post and not the solution.
Why do men hate going to church? Because men don’t want to be unjustly vilified as the problem of everything wrong in the church and the world. You don’t need a whole book to answer that. Place the blame where it properly lies.
While he uses much less harsh language than the typical man-up rant, it still illustrates a false perspective colored by feminism inherent to the church: It could never be what everybody else is doing. Murrow begins by showing us the female-centric nature of this post:
Ask any young woman what the Christian dating scene is like these days.
So why are all the single Christian ladies having trouble finding single Christian guys for companionship and romance?
So what caused this imbalance? Why is there such a shortage of godly young men?
Simple. We screened them out of church as boys.
Replying to such a post seems incumbent, as such a post is emblematic of what David Murrow claims to be out against in his book and much of the rest of his blog. It offers a female-centric view of the issue and assumes the problem is wholly men. Such things as this post is a major contributor to driving men out of the church, especially when voiced in the chorus of misandrist pastors that exist in the churches such as Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, and Albert Mohler. Such rants from those figures and others are so ubiquitous that they have earned a meme title in a lot of circles: “Man up and marry those sluts”. Men definitely do not have a desire to show up to a church service and be blamed incessantly for not measuring up to a masculinity that demands he be shamed and blamed at every opportunity.
In fact, if one wants to observe the real causes of this, they need to get away from secular and feminist sources (like was quoted in this post), and start talking to men. The problems are readily known and dealt with in legion on this blog and in other places.
3. Lack of commitment by women. It could be argued more forthrightly that women are the ones delaying marriage. This is encouraged by the “True Love Waits” movement, and other like movements such as the courtship movement. Add to that the influence of modern feminism, and a woman must never seek marriage until she’s attained the Feminist Merit Badges. With her parent’s support, she must attain college, a career, travel, missionary or volunteer work, and ride the Carousel before she ever considers marriage. When the time comes that she is ready (in her 30’s, funny huh?), all the “good men” are either married or have given up. The “true love waits” message is for us men, not the women. Wait until she gets done with her adventures and then be ready and waiting for her. When this doesn’t work out they complain that the “good men” just aren’t there waiting at their beck and call. Perish the thought!
4. Unsupportive church environment. The general environment of the churches is anti-marriage formation. Misandrist man-up rants have been dealt with, already. Murrow himself points out in his book the issues of segregation and other factors that keep men apart from women. Then, the general way that mating is treated by others in the churches (gossip), just push men away from it.
In conclusion, while it’s expected for man-up rants to come from most of the church and secular crowd, I find it disappointing to read a “blame the men” style post from David Murrow, who I would think would know better and would take steps to research things a lot better than what is demonstrated in that post. Unfortunately, his post is a good example of what drives men out of the church. Given his platform, he could call for things that would deal with these problems, but unfortunately he missed that opportunity with this post.
The Personal Jesus is there to fight for wives in their marriages.
While it shouldn’t be a surprise that the gospel presented in this movie is consistent with the Personal Jesus, the movie covers more intimately the role the Personal Jesus has in the proper “God-fearing marriage”.
(For those that really care, thar be spoilers afoot from here)
We are presented with a couple, Tony Jordan and his wife Elizabeth (most notably played by “Christian” feminist teacher Priscilla Shirer, also notable that her colleague Beth Moore makes an appearance in this movie). We are first confronted with the thoughts of war and battle early in the film and the comparison of it made towards marriages. This made the title of this post seem apt to me. So, as the movie says, it could be said that:
Marriage is the battle of a woman to claim domination over her husband and gain his submission to her.
Tony: So I just got a notification that you moved $5,000 from our savings into your checking account. That better not be so you can prop up your sister again.
Elizabeth: You just gave that much money to your family last month. And my sister needs it more than your parents do.
Tony: My parents are elderly. Okay? Your sister married a bum, and I’m not supporting someone who’s too lazy to work.
Elizabeth: Darren is not a bum. He’s just having a hard time finding a job.
Tony: Liz, he is a bum. Look, I can’t even remember the last time he had a job.
Elizabeth: Can we talk about this later?
Tony: No, we’ll talk about it now. Because if you want to give them what you make, that’s fine. But you’re not giving them my money.
Elizabeth: Your money? The last time I checked, we both put money into that account.
Tony: And the last time I checked, I make four times what you do. So you don’t move a cent out of that account without asking me first.
In other words, she wants to help her sister, who happened to be married to Harley Rockbanddrummer, despite the counsel of just about everyone, especially her husband. The tension behind the argument is immediately given in the very next scene, the idea of wifely control couched in “communication”. Doesn’t he know who he belongs to, who OWNS him? This leads into the usual “lack of submission” category by a man who just doesn’t know his place (house slave), which will lead in the natural feminist mind to the notion that the husband is abusing her! This, and the whole dynamic of what marriage is, is shown by a scene about 15 minutes into the movie (brackets are my comments, noting this is Beth Moore’s whole appearance in the movie, as “Mandy”):
Elizabeth: And he thinks it’s my sister’s fault. Can you even believe that?
Mandy: Well, if my man said that to me, I’d be angry, too. We don’t fight that much anymore. After 31 years of stalemates, girl, it just is not worth it.
Third woman: Oh, I wouldn’t put up with it. His money became your money the minute he said, “I do.” So I’d give it to my sister anyway. I don’t even like my sister.
Mandy: Just be careful Elizabeth. You do not want World War III to break out in your home.
Elizabeth: No. No, I don’t. But there are days, Mandy. There are days. It’s hard to submit to a man like that.[who won’t submit to her own Personal Jesus!]
Mandy: You know what my mama used to say to me? She used to say that submission is learning to duck so God can hit your husband.
All marriage has always been Marriage 2.0. There is no difference.
Now to continue our story, Elizabeth gets the “Love Dare” moment in the form of an older woman selling a house who brings prayer up in introducing Elizabeth to her “war room”, the closet she has laid out as her “quiet area” (ironically taking this Scripture quite literally, while ignoring the others endemic to female rebellion). Naturally, while this message may be good in isolation, it’s done in light of goals that are clearly anti-God, as proven out by Scripture (the avatar clearly held up within the movie). Meanwhile in all of this, the Courageous portion is presented in the daughter, of whom the husband “ignores” in favor of working. There really isn’t much to say about this part that couldn’t be dealt with in Courageous, as it’s a tack-on part of the plot.
Satan is out there and exists to keep her from attaining her full glory before God!
Satan is the one that keeps her from following the deceptions of Eve! The one who keeps her from her rightful place by assaulting her heart and keeping her from what she’s destined to be! The one that keeps her from becoming the true feminine God that she was made to be by her Personal Jesus! All it takes is just forgiving and accepting the Personal Jesus, who will enthrone her in the proper place. Because She is the Princess. She is the Queen. Even God is her mere servant, there to romance her, and make her feel good. This is the true feminine god, worthy of a prideful woman, the one who puts her as head over all. After all, she is Woman. She is the Crown of Creation. God is there to serve her and please her. Along with man, who is commanded to commit the sin of Adam against the one true Lord. Along with man, who is the one who always does wrong, and as in the previous movies it’s only the man that is at fault, and women are to never bear responsibility for their own actions.
Elizabeth illustrates this in the screaming fit she makes towards “Satan” in this movie – if there was any better statement of the rebellion that “Christian” women are exhibiting, this is it. Calling the one true God, “Satan”, and then following after her sister Eve in rebellion. But in this movie, “God” is the one she casts out, and “Satan” is the one she lets in. The old woman commanding a robber to put down his knife in Jesus’ name and him doing it is another illustration. In bringing the action of God into this, one clear message is sent:
You better know who your true lord is on this earth (your wife), or have God against you!
Naturally, “God” answers Elizabeth’s prayers, so we come to the moment that causes Tony’s change of heart. It’s not impending divorce, as he pulls away from the woman he is with right before the opportunity to cheat, but the company he was working for discovering he was stealing from the company, along with a nightmare he had of being the robber. In the aftermath, Tony discovers his wife’s “war room”, with all her prayers written out about wanting him “to be the man God called him to be”. This veils the original intent of Fireproof, casting his “evil” elsewhere other than not worshiping his wife as his lord. Elizabeth even says “I’m His [her Personal Jesus] before I’m yours”, but this is never to be the case with men.
She becomes his spiritual head, as he finally listens to her heart and prostates himself before her (literally!) asking for forgiveness. Later on, we have him doing the same with the kid, and joining in with her activities. Most of the rest of the plot involves Tony dealing with the aftermath of what he had done at the job (he stole), and involves a good Christian example of dealing with wrongdoing, though all at his wife’s direction. But it serves to cloud the real wrong doing: He didn’t submit to his wife and serve her as he should have. The change is that he is now doing everything his wife says.
Also, notice something absent? He’s not looking for work, and the wife didn’t care (he ended up finding work for half what he made before, and asked the wife for permission beforehand). Naturally, this lends to credibility issues, as what woman wouldn’t care, and wouldn’t want him making as much or more as before! That’s the whole purpose behind marriage! Women just don’t think like that, but like the dialogue above!
Of course, what story for women wouldn’t be complete without the “happily ever after”? In the last scene, the husband arranges for the child to stay at a friend’s house, we find out the sister got the money, and she gets her dream (a sundae and a foot washing and rub).
As mentioned last time, I have the intent to go through some of the anti-courtship literature that’s been produced. The fact that it has been produced is interesting in itself in light of a lot of the attitudes that exist within the modern churches. Given the path of one of those pieces of literature, an observation of what exactly has happened with the mating process will be interesting.
In a chapter titled ” Unleash Your Libido or Real It In” he talks about at least one situation where he has counseled people that were involved in a church where dating is frowned upon . He found that with this person “this ’spiritual’ teaching was covering the fact that he was hiding from sexual problems, insecurities, and lots of weirdness”
He then states his opinion on the affects of a non dating policy:
In the name of purity, chastity, and good morals, singles have been desexualized. The are often repressed beyond normal decency, and as a result they are in a “presexual” stage of development.– what psychologists refer to as “latency/” In other words, out of a fear of sex, they have regressed to preadolescents, and they are feeling and acting like twelve-year-olds instead of adults who have gone through adolescence and figured all of that out.
He additionally states later in the chapter:
Keeping one’s sexuality in an immature and unintegrated state makes it neither holy nor ready for real relationship. … It keeps them out of what God designed as natural attraction, and it keeps them sexually disintegrated from the rest of their personhood.
He also goes on to state that he is not advocating “sexually acting out.” He was advocating sexual ownership as part of who you are. He also quotes Col 2:23.
The courtship movement eliminated dating and replaced it with nothing.
Or, put another way, they replaced dating with engagement. The only tangible difference between an engagement and a courtship is the ring and the date.
If anything, the way a dating system should be evaluated is if it functions well in bringing members of the opposite sex together, and it produces candidate pairings for marriage. Without a doubt, courtship has failed to hit this mark. As Umstattd points out:
Young people are expected to jump from interacting with each other in groups straight into “pseudo-engagement”. This is a jump very few are prepared to make. The result is that a commitment to courtship is often a commitment to lifelong singleness.
If you wanted to eliminate and inhibit marriage, courtship is a great way to go. If you want something that works, go elsewhere. Unfortunately, given the state of what marriage is, what that dating has been turned into, and the misandric conditions of all of it, nothing is really functional anymore.
The History of Mating Since the 1950’s
The weakness Umstadtt exhibits in his work is primarily a lack of focus in defining the way things have gone. I decided to start from the 1950’s because Umstattd did. As well, most of the tradcon feminists I’ve encountered like to harken back to the 1950’s as some dream state utopia. Umstattd describes this sufficiently, in terms of dating, going steady, engagement, marriage. This also describes it in good detail.
The term “hookup culture” — often alcohol-fueled sexual encounters with no strings attached from either side — has also emerged from the buzz. For some millennials — anyone born between 1982 and 1994, though some stretch that to 2000 — having several intimate relationships, open relationships and casual sex are all viable options, albeit personal choices for the individual to make.
“Dating” has taken on a different meaning for today’s generation of students. And for many, it means too much commitment for comfort.
“Dating is way too serious. Dating is like being married,” Stepp said. “Your generation doesn’t have a good word for between hooking up and being married.”
Now, young women cannot only show their faces on Friday night sans dates, but they are also less likely to be considering men as marriage prospects. With improved gender equality, many women in college are preparing for self-sustaining careers and are more likely to be scoping out Mr. Man-for-the-moment rather than Mr. Marriage material.
The hookup culture has its pros and cons. Among the pros: “It’s allowing women to go out and have a good time,” Stepp said. “The girl doesn’t have to sit at home at night waiting for a boy to call.”
Today’s romantic relationships are often perplexing at best. As my therapy clients often struggle with understanding what to make of different relationships, I too find myself struggling beside them trying to make sense of their stories and concerns. The television storyline today looks much different. Boy meets girl (or boy). They text, message, or “talk” (which is apparently some sort of code for not quite in a relationship, but not out of the realm of possibilities either). They may or may not “hook-up” and the definition of this may vary depending on region and other sociocultural factors (for more info on hook-up culture and friends with benefits, see previous article here). Dating may occur, but will more likely be referred to as “hanging out,” although it can be challenging to tell, as it may literally mean just hanging out, but can also mean more. Also important to note is that being “asked out” on a “dinner date” is exceedingly rare among contemporary millennials.
How two individuals may find themselves in an exclusive dating relationship with one another is often the great mystery. Actually, I jest here, but not entirely. The more I ask couples how they came to find themselves in a relationship, the answers vary greatly from “it just kind of happened,” to matters of convenience. As Generation Y is often touted to be that with the highly fragile self-esteem, “fail” is one of their greatest four-letter words. It makes sense then that putting themselves out there to ask someone out can seem terrifying. The harmless equivalent of “hanging out” however, not so much. Often young women will decide to take matters in their own hands and turn the tables of the waiting game altogether. And yet, young men and women alike still seem to find themselves lost in inaction.
A state of confusion gets generated of how things get there, and the boundaries fall between meeting, relating, and relating. It seems only natural that those who created “courting” have confused “hanging out and hooking up” with “dating” and further compounded the confusion by removing this step entirely, which has been documented above, and in the other parts, along with actively desexualizing their children. Unfortunately, this has only served to confuse matters much more, and increase the control that parents exert over their children.
In conclusion, I present a diagram, which will be useful to the visual learners here:
Overall, dating is a cultural construct more than anything Biblically-inspired, though anything of this nature should honor God in *all* things. The premium in “fixing” dating comes out in the question of whether it works or not. Unfortunately, fear and other devices have conspired in making people adopt their own ways to the death without looking at whether things are working (How many church marriages do you know? I’m aware of exactly 2 in the entire time this blog has been live), and working out for the best interest of everyone involved.
Enter the FRIEND ZONE!
To begin in the system laid out by Harris, contact with the opposite sex should generate friendship. As Harris notes as a problem with dating, it skips the “friendship” stage (1). Remember, the goal is to maintain emotional purity and not create situations where intimacy can happen. Harris states that intimacy and friendship are confused, so the difference must be known (2). The answer presented to this is that interaction may only occur in groups. (3) Harris gives an example where a young woman called and cancelled a gathering with a man because the others cancelled and they would be by themselves. Further examples of this practice:
(regarding two church members, a single man and a single woman)
Back to the story: The man was driving down a local roadway when he saw the woman on the side of the road, her car broken down and she was in very obvious need of outside help. She saw the man, recognized him, he recognized her, and to her shock he drove right by. When the man was confronted later about leaving his sister in Christ on the side of the road to fend for herself, he responded by saying that he was “fleeing the appearance of evil,” was torn up inside about leaving her, but said he feared verbal reprisal from church leadership over it.
The deliberate plan is to create and legislate a friend zone which all men must enter and observe, at pain of the fear of God. Now given the nature of traditional feminism, you get a legion of male beta orbiters as a result, out to try and get noticed by the women. All they can do is hover around, be friendly when spoken to, but try not to be seen as seeking intimacy by being forward in seeking a woman’s attention and time (and possessing self-respect), and hoping a woman will notice them enough to take interest. Any more brings the wrath of the parents and the church down.
This falls into the standard feminist dogma that the man should supplicate to the woman and if he works hard enough and serves her just right, she’ll accept him. Note the difficulty is increased by women with these same teachings in their minds running from any chance of this within their church groups. Of course, outside is always another story. Interestingly enough, the group-only system (no one-on-one communication) exacerbates the problem Harris notes with dating, as how well can you get to know a person in this way to be able to know if you have interest in anything further?
This passivity is also taught directly (4) in terms of the story of Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 24), which is where a lot of the “God will bring the perfect man or woman into your life at the right time” teaching goes (Ruth is also used). This is also a common thread of “True Love Waits” movement. It is notable that with God, faith is always rewarded in action, but since action creates temptation for sin in this system, action is always a sin.
Let Me Be Your Supplicating Beta Tool
Now if the man in this situation happens to get a woman to notice him, our beta orbiter gets to graduate to a supplicating beta. Let us remember that commitment in the minds of these people is marriage, so if the man is to pursue this woman, he must be ready to marry her right away with limited to no communication, and limited to no knowledge of this woman, incumbent on her approval of course. Any failure of the venture to proceed directly to marriage (courtship periods must be short) becomes “defrauding” the woman.
A courtship venture begins by the man asking the woman’s father/parents for his approval to “court” his daughter. (5) It may be many months of the man measuring up to the woman’s family’s expectations (“Dance Little Piggy, show you’d do anything for her!) before they get to formally court. When it comes time to formally court, it’s done under the watchful eye of her parents and others, who can break it off at any time. Notably if this sounds a bit like arranged marriage, it does, and interesting enough, many in the courtship movement speak approvingly of such things.
I’m also reminded of shows like the Bachelor and Bachelorette, in remembering one of Harris’ reasons dating is defective: That it creates an artificial environment for evaluating another person’s character (6). Courtship does it in a worse way, as it much more of an environment where “the best foot is always put forward” and people can be fake in the name of appearances, hiding themselves from their prospective spouses.
Friend or Wife, Nothing In Between
I’ll conclude this post with a quote, summarizing it all:
The courtship system places far too much heaviness on male-female interactions because it creates an artificial, either/or mentality. Either a guy must treat a girl “like a sister,” or else he is sinning, or else he enters into a courtship with her. And a courtship isn’t merely “dating,” as Josh Harris has made clear in both of his books. Courtship is “interaction with a purpose, which is the intent of exploring the potential for marriage in a relationship.” Courtship as I saw it play out at my former church also involved a great deal of parental supervision and direction.
If that ain’t heavy, then she’s your sister! 🙂
It just seems like if there were some middle ground – a place where guys could acknowledge that they find women attractive or alluring, and even spend time with them that wasn’t automatically geared toward marriage OR viewed as “casual and therefore sinfully lustful” – then maybe this wouldn’t be such a huge “thing.”
When faced with a hands-off or marry her NOW environment with the force of both parental discipline and church discipline, no wonder most men are just sitting on the sidelines in the church environment. Until next time, when the topic will be the motivations behind all of this from the parents (specifically centering on the homeschool movement).
(1) I Kissed Dating Goodbye by Joshua Harris p 34 (2) ibid p 128. (3) ibid p 94. (4) ibid p167. (5) ibid p215. (6) ibid p41.
As discussed last time, the doctrine represented within I Kissed Dating Goodbye and the popularity of that book. While much of the results of the doctrine have already been addressed in numerous posts here, it is useful to address it in a more formal way. It’s always good to note that practice always begins with moral doctrine, and this post will address that.
Lowering the Bar
Much of the whole issue brought up in the entire book is typified in what Harris presents in the first chapter. He begins the first chapter with the story of a marriage ceremony. But it takes an interesting turn:
But as the minister began to lead Anna and David through their vows, the unthinkable happened. A girl stood up in the middle of the congregation, walked quietly to the altar, and took David’s other hand. Another girl approached and stood next to the first, followed by another. Soon, a chain of six girls stood by him as he repeated his vows to Anna. (1)
Harris then goes on to describe the source of this scenario.
Anna told me about her dream in a letter. “When I awoke, I felt so betrayed,” she wrote. “But then I was struck with this sickening thought: How many men could line up next to me on my wedding day? How many times have I given my heart away in short-term relationships? Will I have anything left to give my husband? (2)
Note the bar is lowered from sexual purity (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 6:18) in dealing with the opposite sex to an emotional one. In other words, it is taught in Christian circles (over the last 2-3 generations now) that if any emotional attachment is generated, then it becomes a breach of the sanctity of marriage.
Harris couches this in terms of the selfish pursuit of short-term romance and calls it “sinning against one another”. (3) While it makes sense from a certain point, practicality negates it. Much of what Harris writes is in terms of maintaining purity and blamelessness before God in terms of opposite-sex interaction. He goes on to define this purity by the idea of seeking commitment before intimacy (4), going on to say that intimacy is the reward of commitment (5) and that intimacy “costs” commitment (6). In this sense, he goes on to describe this purpose to be marriage. (4) In other words, commitment is marriage, and commitment is required before any emotional attachment or interest can take hold.
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)
Since emotional purity is considered paramount in Harris’ paradigm, the idea of “guarding one’s heart” is brought up. This comes in the form of not only maintaining emotional purity, but watching out for others in the same way (8). As one might be able to figure out, it is a bit different than the Scriptural meaning (Proverbs 4:23; Matthew 15:17-20). This is done by appropriating examples of physical intimacy and writing emotional intimacy over them (9). While much of what is indicated is appropriate, such as avoiding situations where sin is possible (9), and that big sins take little steps (10) by using the example of David and his sin with Bathsheba, the conflation of thought with sin becomes a problem when it is coupled with the paradigm of emotional intimacy.
This is especially true in looking at Harris’ material. While he points out that physical intimacy can easily be “mistaken” for love (11) and that David’s problem was that he “lusted” Bathsheba, the conflation of emotional and physical confuses matters:
Next, the relationship often steamrolls towards intimacy. Because dating doesn’t require commitment, the two people involved allow the needs and passions of the moment to take center stage. The couple doesn’t look at each other as possible life partners or weigh the responsibilities of marriage. Instead, they focus on the demands of the present. And with that mindset, the couple’s physical relationship can easily become the focus. (12)
The mere fact of being attracted to a member of the opposite sex becomes “mistaking lust for love”, which makes being attracted to a member of the opposite sex a sin in the name of guarding one’s heart. Given this expectation outlined by Harris, since attraction can lead to infatuation, which is displacing God as the focus of one’s affection (idolatry), avoiding attraction becomes incumbent. (13)
Harris further states that “guarding one’s heart” involves preventing lust. As he writes of lust: “For example, when I as a single man look on a woman who is not my wife (which right now means every woman) and immorally fantasize about her, I am lusting; I am setting my heart on something God has placed off limits.” (14) While the linkage between lusting and coveting is obvious in Scripture (Exodus 20:17; Romans 7:7), the concept of sexual possession gets lost in Harris’ text when bounced against emotional intimacy. Guarding one’s heart against lust becomes eliminating even the possibility of lust.
So in other words, being attracted to the member of the opposite sex that’s not your spouse becomes sinful to act upon. Therefore, in children (2-3 generations now), parents, youth pastors, leaders, and the like drum these kinds of things into their heads continually, enforcing them vigorously as well. Here’s why Christian dating is messed up . . .
Legalism Supporting Traditional Feminism
Much of the problem with looking at Harris’ material is, that like most false teaching, it seems reasonable, and in a certain way is good in isolation, taken in the proper way, evaluated against Scripture. But bounce them against this emotional intimacy error (extra-Biblical), and it then becomes an issue where mating and attraction becomes stifled in the fear of God, even to the point that single men and women fear each other to the point of obvious sin. Take people running with the things written to extremes and you get legalistic requirements to “maintain purity” before God which are far beyond His expectation. It seems obvious given our physical natures and requirements that attraction is not sinful, but a necessity in making marriages happen. Again, for those Christians reading this: Being attracted to a member of the opposite sex is okay. Attraction is not sinful.
Continuing . . .
The desire of the parents to make the fairy tale come true at all costs, among their other desires, has unfortunately burned the whole thing down for those who have been indoctrinated in it. Given the 2-3 generations, we now have 20, 30, and even 40 year olds paying the price for this. Unfortunately, rather than fixing this and the other problems introduced by the “leadership” regarding dating, their only answer is to issue hateful man-up rants to the men. The next post will investigate Harris’ paradigm in practice, along with the effects of it upon those who are “Christians”.
(1) I Kissed Dating Goodbye by Joshua Harris p 17-18. (2) ibid p 18. (3) ibid p 26. (4) ibid p 23. (5) ibid p32. (6) ibid p77. (7) ibid p135. (8) ibid p97. (9) ibid p19. (10) ibid p88. (11) ibid p35. (12) ibid p36. (13) ibid p141. (14) ibid p143. (15) ibid 214-215.
One of the things that’s happened in the United States during my blog absence is the further refinement of Marriage 2.0 to include homosexual unions. As I really had nothing directly to say that wasn’t already said before (Homosexuals and Marriage 2.0, not to mention updating the Marriage Comparison Chart), I really didn’t want to immediately comment.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:18-20)
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:21-25)
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:26-27)
The acceptance of homosexual marriage is and has always been a fait accompli, decided by the wickedness of men and women’s hearts towards God long before the whole idea was ever brought up. Homosexual marriage is only the recompense of shaping marriage previously. It is not so much the errors of actions, but the hearts that those actions came from.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:28-32)
Hence, we should find no surprise that even among the professing Christians that we find almost universally that they do not like to retain the true God in their knowledge, shaping Him into something that approves of them and their actions. There should be no surprise that there is much darkness and spoiling of salt in churches and in “Christians” beyond the practice of marriage, as listed in the Scriptures. There are even many churches who are coming out to support homosexuality.
We are most assuredly facing the end-times, if not of this world, of this nation. Much of the fruit of the spoiling of the sanctity of marriage stems from rendering what is God’s over to Caesar. The Church and marriage have both been rendered over to Caesar, in order to facilitate the service of women over God. The mass acceptance of homosexuality in the Church will itself be a fait accompli for this very reason, along with the justifications of this sin through Scripture that can already be easily found. Enough slam-dunk lawsuits for not marrying and supporting homosexuals in church that go against “The Church, a Corporation of the State”, and they will universally support it, celebrate it, and champion it as holy and proper in the sight of God as the love of God.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)