Untitled Document

How I Will Vote, and Why
Monday, October 17, 2016, 7:29 PM

Those who have said the upcoming American presidential election will be the most consequential of the nation’s history are, I think, as correct as are those who say both major parties’ candidates are unfit for the office. I preface my further remarks here by saying that they are entirely my own, and in no way meant to represent an official position of the Fellowship of St. James, Touchstone, its editors or contributors. I am simply taking advantage of the bully pulpit provided by Mere Comments to have my own say for any who are interested.


Donald Trump is a nearly perfect icon of carnality, an unspiritual man who can be reasonably seen as having spent his entire life striving with remarkable devotion and energy after the riches he cannot take with him when he dies (i.e., he bears the image of a fool), and flouting the divine laws which limit and control the pleasures he seeks in wealth and its indulgences, cynically using the laws God has set in the world, as well as his fellow human beings, for his own enlargement, so that the charge of narcissism leveled against him seems as reasonable as the conclusion that while he claims to be a Christian he is in fact only a Presbyterian. The office of President would place him, like the Fisherman’s Wife, at the pinnacle of worldly wealth and power, which Presidents Clinton and Obama before him have demonstrated can be used to advance personal agendas and conceal personal wickedness—Clinton’s primarily libidinous and Obama’s primarily ideological. Many serious, thoughtful Christians see voting for this man as unthinkable because he is so bad, and believe that because of this essential badness he is lying about the measures he has said he will take to save the republic. They plan not to vote, to vote for an electorally hopeless third party candidate, or even for Hillary Clinton.  Anything to undermine Trump.


Mrs. Clinton cannot be compared to Donald Trump simply as a person who will counter his more conservative policies with an opposing liberalism. She represents something dangerous to a geometrically higher degree than carnal depravity. America is in deep crisis, one of the signs of this being that its electors no longer enjoy the privilege of choosing between candidates who profess Christianity but have different ideas on how monies should be allocated or wars should be waged, but between carnal ambition and behavior on one hand, and on the other destruction of the created good of which Trump’s carnality is a mere perversion. Hillary operates in a far more spiritual sphere. Her familiars hate the incarnation of spirit in flesh (for they are pure spirit) pre-eminently the incarnation of God, and are intent on the degradation and destruction of the race in whom this image is found.


This is effected in the party for which she stands, which she has already an active part in, and for which she professes complete support, the party of evolutionary progress in which the overthrowing of traditional ways of acting and thinking is a mark of virtue and distinction, where “everybody loves a rebel,” in which worth is measured on a scale of non-conformance to traditional values.  The new spiritual order, a form of religion itself, has better ways of defining human life, the family, and sexual being, better ways to define and administer justice, better ways to educate and better goals and materials for education, ever-improving ways to direct and control, for their own good, the lives of people who don’t share the opinions of those Thomas Sowell identifies as the self-congratulatory “anointed”–who consider themselves, despite their massive and continual failures in experimental manipulations of society, the best and brightest, the natural ruling class.


This class has well-planned ways, especially through its homosexual office, to rid the polis of the influence of uncooperative religion, and, along with this, to neutralize the danger represented by any society functioning independent of government control. During the Obama administration one has seen significant adumbrations of this party’s willingness to use its powers to oppress and suppress those it perceives as enemies of the religion of progressivism, looking as it does to the dawn of a new age of universal peace and prosperity, for which it does not hesitate, like every utopian tyranny, to break anything that gets in its way, truth being its greatest enemy and the necessary first victim of its ravages.  Mrs. Clinton’s repeated and impudent lying about her emails is not, as she and her allies would have us believe, much ado about nothing, but as symbolic of her person and the character of her associations as Donald Trump’s acquisitiveness is of his.


This is not only what may be expected from Hillary Clinton but is already operative in her and her colleagues in office, and to which her presidency will signal a further removal of restraint that will become most immediately evident in its control of a federal judiciary that operates according to party doctrine, and will for decades to come.  Her party and her office may be expected to continue reflecting a deep hatred of the human race, desire to make it at least as lawless and miserable as life in the cities it has for decades controlled, to break every rule of faith or honor that opposes them, to weaken the country’s moral and physical ability to resist destructive forces, to the end of exterminating the nation both spiritually and materially.


In this scheme of things the merely carnal man, the man of weak and desire-wracked flesh, is still a man and as such a threat to beings who despise incarnate spirits above all things. A man who simply runs things according to his appetites is better, even if he is very bad indeed, than someone who is controlled by not by flesh and blood, but spiritual rulers of this present darkness, who have already shown copious evidence of hating the human race through the Party of Abortion.  That is why I will vote for Donald Trump and hope for things that I could not reasonably hope for under Hillary Clinton.

Don’t Give Them the Gospel
Sunday, September 25, 2016, 2:18 PM

One should not assume that the irrational hatred seen so much these days against Christians comes from an ignorance of God, but rather knowledge of him. Europe and North America are not new mission fields but more resemble burned-over districts to which Christ has been presented in nearly every way imaginable to people who in increasing numbers are turning against him.  This does not mean there are not many to whom the good news in its purity still needs to be presented, for whom there is always a call to evangelistic work, but it would be a mistake to think that our culture has not been thoroughly evangelized, or that our main problem is ignorance of God rather than a rejected knowledge of him.  In the first chapter of Romans, St. Paul cites homosexuality as symptomatic of a culture that knows the truth and has suppressed it in unrighteousness.  The Christian reaction to this culture should include the understanding that what is needed in the approach to it is not ever-deepening clarification and penetration with Christian faith and teaching alone, but that wherever this is done, it must be done advisedly because we are commanded not to throw pearls before swine or give what is holy to dogs, that is, to those who have consciously and deliberately “exchanged the truth about God for a lie,” and whom God has in consequence “given over to dishonorable passions.”


I have met those who feel that much of the fault here lies in the church not doing well enough–that only if we were more faithful witnesses, our society would turn to God.  How can one deny that we are as individuals and churches called to ever-greater faithfulness?  But this includes listening to the whole counsel of the Lord and not just confecting new crusades to evangelize the evangelized.  It is time to emphasize two points of another side to all this–first, that the world is full of great and unmistakable signs of the faithful witness of the church and its members, to be seized upon, cherished, and entered into, if not in one form, then in another, in ways resonant to every personality and taste, among those who desire to believe. The Church has done extraordinarily well, but will only surrender its fruits to those who desire them.


Second, the success of the witness to God in Christ will not win–in fact, can only be expected to inflame–those who have set themselves against the truth, who seek to deny Christians life in any way they can, to those for whom the confession of Christ alone is enough to make their very existence intolerable to the rejected, for by admitting that association they bear witness to the judgment of God against his enemies. All the imprecatory howling, the baseless accusations of hatred and ignorance, the frothing contempt for the holy, the leering disdain of the pseudo-enlightened, the bald lies propagated by their media upon the weak-minded and uninformed, the identification of Christians with the sins they are themselves committing, are not things to be answered with the gospel. In the midst of all this, to be sure, are Christ’s lambs, to be rescued and nourished by the good news, but we must remember that wolves and sheep are not to get the same treatment, and we are culpably naïve if we fail to acknowledge the differences between them.




Keeping Tabs
Wednesday, September 7, 2016, 11:35 AM

In August of 2009 the delegates to the biennial convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States, approved a resolution that urged all denominational leaders not to discipline sexually active homosexual clergy in “faithful committed same-gender relationships,” thus making this mainline group, in the words of one observer, “just another Sodomite sect.”  In a Mere Comments posting that same month, I said “people who anticipate a large harvest for the Missouri Synod, [a much more conservative Lutheran group] don’t understand the dynamics of American Lutheranism.” Some of the respondents to the posting didn’t see why the LCMS would not show significant growth as a result of the ELCA’s cloacal thrust.

It is now seven years later and the statistics of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod show twelve-percent decline in membership between 2005 and 2015. I will not repeat my reasons for what turned out to be an accurate prediction, but will note that there was indeed no harvest in this for the LCMS.  Dr. William Tighe, a Touchstone contributing editor and close observer of the Lutheran and Anglican communions, said in his comment to the posting,

My experience of ELCA Lutherans (which is not inconsiderable) is that even the deeply conservative among them, whether “socially” conservative or “theologically” conservative, or both, have a deep and even aggressive devotion to women’s ordination. This can be seen particularly glaringly among the leaders and adherents of the “Evangelical Catholic” movement in the ELCA, such as Carl Braaten, Paul Hinlicky and Frank Senn, who for all of their purported “Catholicity” as regards liturgy, sacraments, church order and (sometimes) vaguely “Romish” aspirations, have always taken the line of “Rome is wrong and will have to recognize that it is wrong” as regards women’s ordination.

The conservatism of which Dr. Tighe writes here was expressed in August, 2010 in the formation of a new Lutheran denomination, the North American Lutheran Church (NALC), under the leadership of, among  others, the men he names, which rejects homosexuality, but endorses women’s ordination—and it is here the immediate membership surge occurred, primarily in direct subtraction from the congregations of the ELCA. At this writing the NALC has 140,400 members in more than 400 churches.

It is my intention to report in Mere Comments, if possible, follow-ups to denominational goings-on which I think will be of interest to our readers, actions that span the course of years, and in which some may see a personal summons to action at one point or another. If I am able, I will be reporting here on the continuing result of Presbyterian Church in America’s (PCA’s) appointment this year, over hot debate, of a committee to study women’s ordination—the rejection of which was one of the principal reasons for its churches’ departure from the PCUSA in the first place–and the ongoing work of the Theological Task Force on Holy Orders in the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) that has been given the job of “leading the college of bishops” (what kind of bishops are these that need to be “led” by a task force on theological matters?) on the question of their approach to women’s ordination. This task force is scheduled to report to the bishops in January, and I anxiously await its highly predictable conclusion–that to preserve unity in their denomination women’s ordination should be tolerated, despite the personal opposition of a majority of its bishops.  Well, we’ll see what the fearless and learned House of Bishops does with that!  If I’m still functioning, I’ll let you know.

The ordination of women to the presbyterate in churches that accept it but do not force it is probably a self-limiting phenomenon.  This is because in denominations where congregations have the freedom to call their own pastors, whether or not they have much concern for orthodoxy, they usually choose men over women if they can–the “stained glass ceiling” so frequently complained of by women formally qualified for the ministry.  The reasons for this are not peculiar to churches and can be found in the universal intuition described by Steven Goldberg in The Inevitability of Patriarchy.  Women who seek to share leadership offices with men should consider that the force opposing them is greater than mere conservatism, as old as the human race, and unlikely to change, ever.



Thursday, July 28, 2016, 4:10 PM

When St. Bonaventure spoke of the itinerarium mentis in Deum, St. Anselm of fides quaerens intellectum, John Bunyan of the pilgrim’s progress, and Orthodox writers of deification, I take these all to be phenomenologies of True Life, that is, life in Christ, analogized by Goethe who spoke of das ewig Weibliche which zieht uns hinan (which I think can defined for use by Christians, remembering that there is indeed a feminine aspect to God, just as there is a feminine aspect to the male—it is the matter of order and dominance of the aspects where orthodoxy disagrees with egalitarianism). All believers must acknowledge (because they live in it) this vital, active character of life in which one grows in grace and knowledge from lesser to greater, impelled by fear, desire, and love–perhaps summarized well in chaste eros–to seek the face of the Lord.


This requires openness to him, but openness considered in itself has nothing to do with this, or perhaps one should better say that there is no such thing as openness without context or object. It is a very common mistake, I believe, to manipulate concepts abstractly, apart from clean reference to the reality to which they refer (in Christianity this means reference to God in Christ).


When I was in graduate school I met a chap who was preparing a dissertation on the concept of Offenheit—openness. Once when in his cups and it could be winkled out of him he told me he intended to show that openness defines human being, in fact being the “phenomenology of true life,” preeminently Christian life, and that he was taking his cues from Heidegger. I doubted the latter, for Heidegger was much cleverer and less vulnerable than this lad appeared to be. If I read the philosopher correctly, human openness, such as it is, is an unavoidability hedged about with the beckoning dangers of inauthentic existence. It cannot be treated either as the definitive quality of Dasein (humanness), much less a virtue, but my drunken companion had fallen into the trap of thinking of it as the first and treating it, in accordance with what he believed to be Christianity, as the second. As I recall he departed to his home country without the doctorate. When this happens at the stage he was at it usually means the faculty had serious doubts about his ability to pull off whatever it was he was trying to do.


These memories and reflections were set off by someone who accused me of lack of openness to a point of view I believe to be false, as if lack of openness was itself a fault. This cannot, in the present intellectual fog, be denied too emphatically or too often.  As Chesterton observed, “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” And one might explicitly add what is implied, “something wholesome.”  Only a madman is open to the injurious, only a fool to the false, and only the promiscuous to every point of view.


Love of the Father: Tim Bayly’s Latest
Saturday, July 23, 2016, 3:54 PM

Tim Bayly, Daddy Tried: Overcoming the Failures of Fatherhood. Bloomington, IN: Warhorn Publishing, 2016, 222 pp., $15.99 pb.

One of the most touching stories in literature is found in Huckleberry Finn, where Jim, the slave Huck is helping to escape to freedom, mourns that he will never see his wife and children again, and tells this story about his daughter: She had just recovered from yellow fever, and was standing near him in the cabin when her father told her to “Shet de do’.” Lisbeth just stood there smiling at him, making no move to obey. He repeated the command and hit her several times for disobedience when she didn’t shut the door, but it finally dawned on him that the disease had made her deaf and dumb: she couldn’t hear him or speak to him. He dissolved in tears and embraced her.  Jim could not remember his family without remembering this.

There is a similar story, similarly touching, in Tim Bayly’s Daddy Tried, in which the author, a pastor and father of five, remembers spanking his daughter without adequately looking into the offense he supposed she committed. The book is about successes and failures in fatherhood under God, an anatomy of love based on that he and his brother received from their famous father (Joe Bayly was a well-known Evangelical writer and columnist) as it developed in and enriched his own life and he is concerned to pass to others.

It is a good book for a men’s study group, and for anyone who wishes to draw on Pastor Bayly’s paternal wisdom, gleaned from a life lived in validation of the 103d Psalm, with which he begins his writing: “Like a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them who fear him. For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.” That includes both the fathers and their children.



Karl Barth on Subordination in the Godhead
Saturday, July 23, 2016, 11:00 AM

Although I read Church Dogmatics preparing to write my dissertation, this passage (CD IV/1, pp. 200 passim) did not stand out because it was not at the center of my interest at the time. It is now, and here by way of documentation is Barth explaining in his manner what I have also been attempting for years to say in mine.  I have in several places added italics for emphasis.

Is it a fact that in relation to Jesus Christ we can speak of an obedience of the one true God Himself in His proper being? . . . . We . . . have actually to affirm and understand as essential to the being of God the offensive fact that there is in God Himself an above and a below, a prius and a posterius, a superiority and a subordination. And our present concern is with what is apparently the most offensive fact of all, that there should take place within it obedience. . . . His divine unity consists in the fact that in Himself he is both One who is obeyed and Another who obeys.

There is another thing outside of God, the world created by Him as the totality of the reality willed and posited by Him and distinct from Him. In this totality as His elect creature there is another person, his worldly counterpart κατ’ ἐξοχήν [preeminently], man, who, according to Gen. 1.27, is in his twofoldness as man and woman the image of God, the image primarily of His co-existence as Creator with the creature . . . .  [Mythology confuses] the world and man with God, and carrying its own inner differentiation into the Godhead, speaking of the co-existence and reciprocity of a superior God in heaven and a subordinate goddess of earth.  No, not in unequal but equal, not in divided but in the one deity, God is both One and also Another, His own counterpart, co-existent with Himself.  We can say quite calmly: He exists as a first and as a second, above and below, a priori and a posteriori. . . .

We have to abandon [the idea that] there is necessarily something unworthy of God and incompatible with His being as God in supposing that there is in God a first and a second, an above and a below, since this includes a gradation, a degradation and an inferiority in God, which if conceded excludes the homoousia of the different modes of divine being. That all sounds very illuminating.  But is it not an all too human—and therefore not a genuinely human way of thinking?  For what is the measure by which it measures and judges?  Has there really to be something mean in God for Him to be the second, the below?  Does subordination in God necessarily involve an inferiority, and therefore a deprivation, a lack? Why not rather a particular being in the glory of the one equal Godhead, in whose inner order there is also, in fact, this dimension, the direction downwards which has its own dignity? Why should not our way of finding a lesser dignity and significance in what takes the second and subordinate place (the wife to her husband) need to be corrected in the light of the homoousia of the modes of divine being?

As we look at Jesus Christ we cannot avoid the astounding conclusion of a divine obedience. Therefore we have to draw the no less astounding deduction that in equal Godhead the one God is, in fact, the One and also Another, that He is indeed a First and a Second, One who rules and commands in majesty and One who obeys in humility. The one God is both the one and the other . . . .

There is no third way between belief in “obedience of the one true God Himself in His proper being” and the denial of it that so many theologians and biblical scholars are laboring to establish these days, presenting that denial as Nicene orthodoxy–a denial that now appears to be beyond question in many places, the neoorthodoxy of the Evangelical intelligentsia.  The outcome of their theology, carried down from their towers into “the world created by Him as the totality of the reality willed and posited by Him and distinct from Him” where he has a worldly counterpart, the “twofoldness as man and woman the image of God,” and all that flows from their being together, cannot help but be profound beyond imagination. They had better be right.




The Sexes in Christianity, Feminism, and Egalitarianism
Friday, July 22, 2016, 9:06 AM

I hope these definitions, derived from my experience of the phenomena, will be clarifying and useful.


Christianity teaches that men and women exist together in the image of God, equal in substance as human, in an ordered relationship in which the male is the principle and principal. It finds its analogy in the relation of the members of the Holy Trinity in which the Three are One God and in which the Father is the First, the Arche, the comprehending and defining Member. As in belief in Jesus Christ as the God-Man, its view of the sexes requires acceptance of the paradox of the perfect coinherence of equality and inequality.  Its views of order in family, church, and society tend toward harmony with its fundamental beliefs about God and man.


Feminism denies the priority of the male and seeks the independence of the woman from the man. (“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” is a frank expression of its ground-motive.)  Feminism may grant that at the current state of medical technology a male gamete is required for the continuance of the race, thus avoiding the accusation that it is at base genocidal, but it treats the male as negligible wherever possible.


Egalitarianism, with feminism, denies the priority of the male, but asserts with Christianity that the sexes require each other and are fully complementary. (The term “complementarianism,” used to contrast orthodoxy with egalitarianism, is ambiguous, for egalitarians also believe the sexes to be complementary.) In the context of Christianity, egalitarianism rejects the order/equality paradox and struggles, often with great ingenuity, against the scriptures where it is asserted with respect to the life of God and man. Using the church fathers’ aversion to Arian doctrine that made the Son qualitatively inferior to the Father (subordinationism), and rejecting the order/equality paradox, it denies the orthodoxy of subordination whether in the Godhead or between the sexes, asserting that egalitarianism has always been the true doctrine of the Church.

Farewell, Bishop Browning
Friday, July 15, 2016, 8:57 AM

In 1854 Bishop Mynster of the Church of Denmark died, and the man who would be his successor, the distinguished theologian Martensen, eulogized him as a “genuine witness to the truth.” This enraged Søren Kierkegaard who began a scandalous series of articles protesting that Bp. Mynster was nothing of the kind:

I cannot keep silent longer, the protest must come, all the more serious for its tardiness, the protest against representing from the pulpit, that is, before God, Bishop Mynster as a witness to the truth; for that is false, and proclaimed in this way it is a falsehood which cries to heaven.

Edmond Browning, the retired Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is now, likewise, dead. Fr. Robert Delgado, my pastor at the end of my Episcopalian days, once collared Bp. Browning in the hall at General Convention and told him that if he didn’t repent from his wickedness in welcoming homosexuality into the church, he would surely go to hell.  Roger White, the Episcopal Bishop of Milwaukee, ordered Fr. Delgado to apologize.

I listened to Bp. Browning preach once.  He was phenomenally clever, a master of guile and dissimulation.  This is a characteristic one finds in just about all liberal church leaders.  As long as it is necessary for them to deceive the simple (contributors) into making them think they are Christians, they use Christian language, but one knows by their actions that they are nothing of the sort.  Their preachments are designed to be heard on two levels, the level at which the useful idiots who want to can still believe their leaders are not only Christian, but wonderful men as well, and that at which the cognoscenti know what they are really saying.  It is maddening to listen to, for you know that they know that you know what they are up to, but they mock the knowledgeable orthodox by addressing the sheep in their presence–the stupid, stupid, sheep, who go bleating happily to high tea with the wolf who looks and sounds like what they think a bishop ought to look and sound like–the central casting bishop who, unlike the sour, angry, uninclusive, orthodox, is obviously a nice, warm, loving man, with arms open to everyone and who is anxious to let a thousand blossoms bloom.

No Christian could wish Edmond Browning ill in this world or the next, and nothing would please them more than meeting him in glory clothed and in his right mind. But the Lord’s question re-forms in consideration the lives of Robert Delgado and Edmund Browning. Who upon leaving the temple went down to his house justified?



Something That Should Be Heard
Thursday, July 14, 2016, 8:33 PM

Megan, a respondent to my “Hormones for the Castrati” posting, wrote the following. I am giving her voice here because I think she needs to be heard:

“I am more complementarian, but I empathize with Karen.  My father was very abusive.  The church my family was in had a mostly unspoken policy of “woman submit, man can do whatever”.  My father’s abuse of my mother and his many infidelities were ignored.  She tried the submission thing.  It didn’t work.  So she stood up for herself and for me.  My father actually enjoyed conflict (in spite of his complaints).  It made my father feel good to start an argument so he could “win” it.  He was addicted to anger.  He would antagonize me all the time, trying to get me to “snap” and be disrespectful.  Then I’d be punished.  There was no help from the church for us.  Only condemnation.  Changing my father was up to my mother, like it was her fault.  He could commit adultery, be lazy and only work part time and watch TV while my Mom worked full time, and then demand she make him dinner, etc.  (Yes, it gets worse, including various perversions I won’t list here for your sensibilities).  Nobody cared to enforce holy living on this man.  Church was a total boys’ club.  My mother was diagnosed with a crippling disease when I was little, and she became so sick she couldn’t work anymore.  She was financially trapped with a sociopath.  He became even worse over time, more abusive and unstable.  Eventually he left us to go homeless.

“I don’t think most of you guys here understand how prevalent abuse is in “Christian” marriages.  The “don’t talk about fight club” policy needs to end.  This thing where wives are supposed to suffer in silence, even if the kids are being abused, needs to end.  (Even if there are no kids in the picture, this is WRONG!!!!!)

“The comments I read in this thread disturb me.  There are implications in here that wives are the equivalents of slaves who need to obey their masters, no matter how cruel their masters are.  Shouldn’t the church step in and discipline freaks like my father?  Why is it that wives are held accountable to their end of the bargain–UNCONDITIONALLY–but men are not?  This double standard must end!

“I, for one, am proud of my Mom that she stopped unconditionally submitting to my father.  The abuse he would have dished out toward me would have been so much worse if she hadn’t stood up for us.  I really think if she hadn’t drawn a line in the sand, the freak would have molested me.  He was beginning to treat me as a sex object when I hit my teens.

“Guys, I’m cool with the idea of male headship, if it means that that the husband initiates Christ-like behavior by loving his wife even unto death–which means serving HER rather than making her serve himself first.  Headship shouldn’t mean the husband gets off scot-free from vile behavior.  At that point, the marriage is no longer a depiction of Christ and the church, but of the devil persecuting the church.

“I bet you guys will (mostly) say you agree with me, and that you didn’t really mean to say my Mom needed to submit to abuse, and that you believe she was right to protect me.  The thing is, I don’t believe men anymore when they back-peddle.  This issue of abuse is ignored in church preaching on marriage, or, if not ignored, then chuckled at like it’s no big deal that a “woman endure abuse for a season”, as John Piper so hideously put it.  (And yes, he really did chuckle when someone posed the question of what to do if her husband was abusing her.  He’s no great theologian.  He’s a warped sicko.)  Meanwhile, the children in these marriages are also abused, while church leadership looks the other way.

“Does it occur to you all that maybe because church leadership has ignored the problem of abuse in marriages for so long (dare I say, for centuries), that the egalitarians are simply reacting to and polarizing against what they have been taught by example is “headship”?  Does it occur to you that you  (generalizing here) have helped to create this problem by not addressing abuse in your preaching, nor in your pastoral counseling to women trapped in these situations?

“Instead of saying how sorry you are that I and Karen were abused, why don’t you doing something about the situation?  Why don’t you vindicate male headship by coming out against abuse?  By holding abusers accountable?  By getting informed on their tactics of slander and blame-shifting so that you can be ready to identify the abuser and take action?  By giving victims real help rather than telling them to go back to their prisons and bear their “crosses” alone, unvisited in their prisons, condemned to a life of slavery and fear?

“Do this, and you will have won the egalitarians over.  They are reacting to abuses of headship.  The sooner you recognize that, the sooner you will be able to truly get to the root of the problem.  Prove your own primacy and headship by standing up for the weak.  I was always raised by my mother to appreciate chivalry.  And yet, I never saw it in practice by my church leadership.  They never stood up for the victims.  They would not defend the weak.

“Please, live up to your own standards.  Defend the weak.  I challenge you to write a blog post here doing so.  Give women real practical advice on how to deal with abuse in marriage other than to blindly submit to cruelty.  Admonish effeminate pastors to protect the weak.  Best of all, tell women it’s okay to get out for their protection and for the children’s–for physical, verbal (i.e., screaming to the point the victim is afraid physical abuse is next), emotional (i.e., “crazymaking” tactics, non-verbal threats), and financial abuse (i.e., threatening to leave the family with nothing, controlling spending to where the victim goes without).  No husband should be using fear tactics of any kind to control his family and assert his “headship”.  Headship isn’t about rights–it’s about laying down one’s life like Jesus and serving.  Admonish churches to give women somewhere to go, so that they can escape.

“Until you come out boldly against abuses of headship, I don’t believe that you’re sorry.  In fact, so long as Christian leadership in general continues to sweep the problem under the rug, I’d say they deserve to be emasculated by the egalitarians.  If you won’t practice chivalry, then you don’t deserve to be the “head” of anything.


Foregoing criticism of Megan’s impressions and indictments, I will say that if anyone reads this to whom the latter fairly apply, he needs to take note of her cri de coeur lest the Lord who defends the weak come and smite him.

I have no intention of mollifying my critique of egalitarianism’s errors and abuses or “balancing things out” because headship is misappropriated by wicked men like Megan’s father and heretical assemblies led by people who pervert apostolic teaching on how husbands and fathers should treat their wives and children.  We should not be fooled into believing that people or churches are Christian just because they’re “conservative”–which is the best of masks for unbelief and rebellion among the unbelieving and rebellious.

That men and women are equal before God is a truth that has been used to attack the priority of the man, but it is also true that male priority has been used to belittle and abuse women.  Whatever does either is utterly unchristian.  I don’t know that I can be plainer than that–and think the scriptures make it plain enough not to need my help.

Hormones for the Castrati
Saturday, July 2, 2016, 11:42 AM

Another article forwarded by a friend: about universities that, recognizing declining male academic performance, are instituting programs (sigh—programs) in “being a man,” which one of them describes as giving those who identify as males the robust encouragement to “be their best selves.”  One would collapse in derision if it weren’t so sad.

Perhaps this may be better than nothing by a very small margin, but these people who want some masculinity wish to develop it within a wholly modernist, egalitarian context.  You will never really have it, however, except where there is male priority, something that is so unthinkable today that it can only be described in terms the evils of a dark and primitive past (say, of fifty years ago).

This taboo idea includes male responsibility, chivalry, and codes of honor based upon belief in the categorically, hysterically denied notion that the woman is in some fundamental regard the “weaker vessel.”  This is to say that as a practical matter it is not to be had outside Christianity or related ethical systems—like Islam, which uses it as a tool of subjugation, different from traditional Christianity in this respect only by degree (in the kind of mind that regards giving a lady one’s seat as a form of abuse).  These days the old notion of male priority can barely be managed within Christianity itself because so few Christians are willing to follow their apostolic authorities in this regard.

You can’t make a real man apart from impressing upon him the responsibilities that follow upon his priority (not, of course, an essential superiority over she who shares his humanity).  Secular or quasi-religious programs of man-making can only attempt to make geldings imitate stallions.  In the end it will only make them look pitiful and stupid while they are bullied by mares and other geldings who wouldn’t dare try it with a real, uncut horse.  Please God, you won’t find any geldings here at Touchstone, and that is, I think, in a nutshell, the difference between us and a great many other putatively orthodox institutions and publications.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »