So I decided to wade in to the manosphere yesterday. For
those that don’t know what that is, here is a link or two:
I’m not advocating for or against any of those sites. But
I do have to take issue with one particular site:
http://www.avoiceformen.com
I commented on this article recently:
It was a youtube video of an excellent discussion of why
millenials aren’t choosing marriage at the same rate as previous generations. I
would argue that economics plays more of a role than social changes, but that’s
an argument for another post.
I commented on the article in the same way that I do most
articles: forthrightly and unapologetically. You can click through to see my
comments. I thought I had found a small band of brothers. I thought I had found
men that were Christians that saw things as I did. We seemed to agree on some
of the issues surrounding marriage and family.
Imagine my surprise when my comment was immediately
contradicted by an “agnostic.” What galls me about these people is that they
look down their noses at Christians, while not understanding that their
pseudo-intellectual arguments against God, the Bible, and Christianity in
general have been absolutely demolished and discredited by serious books and
research into the historicity, evidence, science, and philosophy surrounding
it. Christianity is in fact a more
rational and logical approach than Atheism or Agnosticism. But don't try and argue that--the Atheists don't have the understanding of Rhetoric and Logic that they think they do.
I’m not going online to proselytize, I’m really not. I know the
futility of that effort. What I was trying to do is show that the Christian
tradition does have a credible, well-documented, and historically verifiable
answer to the question of marriage roles. It was in line with the theme of the article. What do I get in return for the olive
branch in my hand? A bloody stump where my hand used to be.
I don’t understand the Christian church’s fascination with allowing
itself to be ridiculed and spat upon in the market place of ideas. That isn’t
love—it’s surrender! It’s rolling over like a whipped dog and admitting defeat.
This doesn’t encourage people to come to Christ.
My attempt to share my own marriage observation was met with
vitriol and banishment. Why? Because they follow a false god of
moral relativism. The un-believers not only don’t believe in God, they don’t even
believe that there can be one truth. And they’re oh so certain of their
tolerant moral superiority.
What they don’t realize is that the ultimate fruit of their
post-modern worldview will be abject disgrace, ugliness, hopelessness, and despair.
Francis Schaeffer displayed the results beautifully in
How Should We Then Live.
The end result isn’t beauty, it’s apathy and despair. But they literally CANNOT see it because they are blind.
"But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose
minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the
light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God,
should shine on them."
2 Corinthians 4:3-4
What is skipped in the entire discussion is the Reformation.
And when did that start? It started with Martin Luther in 1517 and with Guttenberg’s
printing press 67 years before in 1450. The principles of property rights
and liberty for the individual were also influenced by the
Christian understanding. Too much credit is given to Locke and Hobbes on those
ideas. Schaeffer argued that Locke appropriated his ideas from Samuel
Rutherford’s,
Lex Rex (Law is King) and discarded the Christian foundation for
those views. Noah Webster also argued a similar
rationale. The godless
Renaissance and Enlightenment elevated Man to the same level as God. Man became
his own measure.
But they don’t know what they don’t know. Their
college educations were limited to only Hume, Nietzsche, and others who disputed
Christianity. This is what happens when you try to have an
educational system devoid of the Bible. You create graduates ignorant of the
very foundations of Christendom and Western Civilization that led to prosperity
for the common man unheard of in the history of the world. The sad part is they
feel triumphant in their ignorance to the point that you can’t even reason with
them. The books and arguments are out there. Start with Augustine, move on to
Aquinas, then look to the modern day philosophers such as Schaeffer, Plantinga,
William Lane Craig, G.K. Chesterton, Paul Copan (His book, Is God a Moral Monster? is an excellent answer to many common Old Testament objections), Norman Geisler, Greg Koukl, C.S. Lewis, David Marshall, JP Moreland, Jonathan Morrow, Ravi Zacharias, and N.T. Wright. Evidences and legal justification can be found in the
works of Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel.
All you need to do is read William Bennett’s
The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators and Robert Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah to see where those ideas have led us. Also check out Barzun’s From Dawn to Decadence. Those books give
example after example of the end game of post modernism. [Sigh] but yes, these
secular humanists know better than us backwards Christians.
Back to the article at hand, I merely said that a
Christian marriage has made me happy. For that I am labeled a “tradcon.” I had
to look that up. It means one that follows a traditional conservative mindset.
Guilty as charged! (One caveat-I read Dean Esmay's article on
Tradcons vs. Feminists; I agree that the more traditional family is extended, not the artificial construct of one man at work and one woman at home that was created in the 40's.) Pardon me for believing that committed Christians in loving
homes produce great families, happy children, good citizens and a prosperous
society. And yes there is ample research to support those claims. Look
here,
here,
here, and
here. It’s
practically a priori for the first century and a half of the U.S. as well as other
Christian countries in the West. Why don’t the muslim countries have that
prosperity and freedom? Oh that’s right, because ostensibly “rich” countries
like Saudi Arabia are too busy
cutting off people’s heads. Yep, that’s Islamic progress for you.
I’m just not buying into the PC arguments anymore. The
“enlightened” agnostics, humanists, and atheists at
A Voice For Men banned me
for “bigotry and general contempt for the work AVfM.” What they really banned
me for was daring to suggest that the traditional Christian view of marriage might be something to look into. After all, if it is true for me, then perhaps it can be true for you? I was banned for a truth claim that Jesus was right when He said,
"...I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
- John 14:6
Truth claims are not allowed on that site. I didn’t realize it because
yesterday is the first day I’ve ever visited the site. And no, I didn't read the comments rules at all. I didn't realize that the site was so touchy about who commented and how. I know better now.
And here is the crazy thing: I was banned by a FEMALE
moderator on a MEN’s site! Oh the IRONY! She stated, “We ban people for disdain
and bigotry, including religious bigotry.” So a truth-claim for Christianity is
now religious bigotry. Do you see how that happened? That is a direct assault
on freedom of speech and a prime example of how PC apologists try to capture and change the definition of terms. This steers the argument in their favor because they know they can't win on the merits of their arguments alone. I understand speech discrimination is allowed on a private site, but it is still
discrimination against a form of speech they don’t like. And here I thought PC
was all about tolerance. What it really says is
tolerance for me, but not for thee. They can't have it both ways. They can't claim to be fair minded and equal when they are censoring viewpoints.
See, the World wants all of the benefits of God’s
blessings with none of the trials. So
what has the Christian church done? Dumbed it down and removed every reference to God to
produce their success manuals. John Maxwell, Norman Vincent Peale, and others
try and state that you can have success without God. Well, not without a price.
That success is coming at the cost of having given your allegiance to the
prince and power of the air, Satan.
Here's Bob Dylan cryptically admitting as much.
I’m losing compassion for people who remain willfully
ignorant and prideful.
"...for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
- Hebrews 11:6
These people need God,
but they don't even want to consider the Christian perspective. It's "bigotry." The Christian church needs to be a little more militant and a little less cowed by claims
that we don’t know what we’re talking about. We’ve been shamed into
subservience to a world that desperately needs God but rejects all overtures. The
people commenting on the article wring their hands over what to do, but reject
time-honored advice like the following:
"22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that
He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or
wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without
blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."
- Ephesians 5:22-33
Instead, this is what we get: “
It is AVfM’s official position that men’s issues are neither a matter of partisan alignment nor aided by religious doctrine,"
I disagree, and a couple of thousand years of Christian history beg to differ.
Blessings follow not just in the U.S.
but everywhere Christianity is embraced.
Running water, help for
children, and
help for the poor. I could go on and on.
Check out the book,
What if Jesus Had Never Been Born by Kennedy. Yeah, there
would be no hospitals and we’d go the way of
Rome and
Sparta practicing infanticide were it not for
Christianity. As an aside, Christianity also greatly enhanced the status of women in the ancient world. See
here and
here. As I said, the world loves the benefits, but not the costs of
following Christ.
The non-believers love to try and quote scripture back to Christians and try and throw it in our faces. The fact though is that the non-believers simply can't grasp things because they are spiritually discerned. Finally, they have no place to judge us. They aren't of Christ. They don't love Christ and keep His laws. Here is the Bible's answer on that subject:
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
1 Corinthians 2:13-15
In conclusion, their assertion that religious doctrine does not aid in
the discussion of men's issues, and by extension, family issues, is
patently false. The purpose of the article was to discuss marriage,
about which the Bible has a lot to say as I quoted earlier. They
suppress opinions they don't like. Doesn't sound very fair-minded to me.
