Pages

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Soft Spot for Choice Mommies

Recently, family Wapiti did some hunting for a new church home subsequent to moving to a different house in a different locale.  In the process, I noted something that all of the larger churches had: a divorce support group.

How the Church handles divorce is always a thorny issue, one that often earns her some jeers from the manosphere.  On the one hand, there is the pastoral responsibility to look after the flock, to close ranks around those in need. On the other there is the pastoral responsibility to discipline the flock, rebuking wayward brothers and sisters toward repentance.

While I tend to think that pastors err too much toward caring and not enough toward discipline, I recognize that the Church and her leaders are presented with a no-win scenario: What should be done about those members of the Body who divorce, or those divorcees who present themselves at the church door?  Care for them? Or discipline them? Adding to the problem is victimhood. Usually, divorcees will blame their former spouse for their quandary: women because he was such an abusive or bad guy that they had to get out, men because the solipsistic and hysterical woman took their children, sold them for a few ducats and prizes, and kept half or more of his hard-earned stuff. How are church leaders to know the difference, when most/all claim that "she kidnapped my kids and took me to the cleaners" or "he was so bad I had no choice"?

So I can appreciate the difficult position the Church and her leaders are in. That said, what I find reprehensible is when Church leaders exculpate one population from their sins, and by extension, placing responsibility for the state of this population on another group. In this case, I'm talking about choice mommies--the "population"--and men, the always-useful other.  Single mothers are near-canonized in churches, those saintly women, struggling so hard to make ends meet. Little thought is given to how they got into that position, and whether or not their present condition was due to her choice (most likely) or his (far less likely but still possible).

Thus I cringe when I see things like this from Pastor Driscoll of Mars Hill. I suppose one can add his moral support to the sum total of cultural and financial incentive for women to divorce, and to the near-complete liberalist campaign of removing the stigma from choice mommyhood:
It’s important for kids without a dad to have godly, male investment in their life. Young boys without a dad need the godly investment of a man. Young girls without a dad need a godly man’s loving encouragement. And the single moms really appreciate godly men investing in their kids
[The church nursery is] a good place to meet a nice gal. Single guys may not know this, but nice, single gals who love Jesus and want to marry and become a mom someday are working in the nursery. That’s like fishing in a trout pond if you’re a single guy. And the single moms dropping off their kids should be considered for marriage too. After all, Jesus’ mother was a single mom until Joseph married her and adopted Jesus. [bolded emphasis mine]
As mentioned before, there are many reasons for children to be without a dad, and not many of them are good. This white-knighting on behalf of single mothers may be helping a truly innocent woman make her way through a bad situation. Or more likely it is enabling the terrible choices of a choice mommy who has and is harming her children through her self-destructive and child-harming behavior.  Furthermore, how do/would my male readers feel, if your children are the ones a choice mommy is presenting to the nursery for some Godly man investment, as opposed to your paternal guidance?

Then there is the bit about trolling for a wife in the single mom pond. This is just not very wise, and I recommend my brothers avoid looking to this population for long-term mates. Sorry choice mommies, I'm not judging you, but I am judging your behavior, and coming to appropriate conclusions based upon the evidence.


Last, there is the whole bit about Mary being a single mom. I doubt Pastor Driscoll is intending to indulge in blasphemy here, more likely he is clumsily attempting to illustrate that we may not know exactly how a single mother found herself in her position. Even then it is an imperfect analogy, for Mary wasn't single, she was betrothed, which back then was a state akin to marriage. Joseph took betrothal-marriage so seriously that he meant to divorce her quietly--therefore turning Mary into a single mom for being an apparent adulteress--and would have were it not for divine intervention.

Rather than soft-pedal and condone the socially retrograde behavior of choice momies, perhaps church leaders would do better to sadly note their condition while strenuously condemning from the pulpit divorce as the evil that God hates, an evil that Moses only granted to the Israelites because their hearts were hard.  I still think Dalrock's sign at the church door would serve as a good reminder to all that while accidents happen, divorce is not accidental.

47 comments:

Suz said...

Driscoll knows who pays his bills; his "theology" has nothing to do with Christian morality.

newrebeluniv said...

It is a difficult position for the church since the church no longer defines or regulates marriage. That is the State's job now. But they cannpt just ignore the misery in their midst. basic Christian compassion would not permit that. So they create a program to show they care, even though they have no power or authority to actually DO anything.

But since I cannot imagine a biblical approach to divorce recoverey I cannot also imagine what a divorce support groups would act like other than a singles club.

To misquote Paul, "have you no night clubs"?

lgrobins said...

"After all, Jesus’ mother was a single mom until Joseph married her and adopted Jesus."

YIKES! Can't even compare the two. If all single moms today were pregnant via immaculate conception, that would be one thing. Unless I am mistaken, I believe most women get pregnant or choose to have not a father in their child's life by choice.
I wonder if making such an analogy is to suggest that women don't choose to be in the situation they are in, but they just magically find themselves there.

Patrick Kelly said...

" the church no longer defines or regulates marriage"

In the Eastern Orthodox Churches (in general, details vary between jurisdictions) there are no divorces officially "granted" but there is built in accountability for anyone who wishes to sanctify a second marriage in The Church.

There is a lengthy period of accountability and reflection on the failure of the previous marriage, long conversations with their priest, and approval by a bishop, possibly requiring a token monetary offering before someone will be granted another marriage in The Church.

And comparing the young, virgin, betrothed Mother of Christ Jesus our Lord with the typical divorced single mother of today seriously stimulates my gag reflex.

newrebeluniv said...

PK. or they can simpl choose to go to one of hte other hundred denominations in commuting distance that won't ask any questions.

Elspeth @ Breathing Grace said...

Our church is having a women's fellowship in the very near future. The subtext title is "Celebrating Single Moms". Needless to say, I will not be going. Until we move from here, we will not be changing churches.

We have lots of single mothers in our family, as is the case in most black families. The idea of shunning, sheltering from, or avoidance is not an option.

I recently took the time to have a conversation with my daughters in the wake of a post I happen to read at LGR's blog. I explained to my girls the problem with sanitizing the language of fornication when referring to single motherhood.

When ministers and ministries use terminology such as "she found herself pregnant", I told my girls to substitute "pregnant" with "robbing a bank" or "getting high" or "committing murder".

They instantly understood, because they are smart like that. I still love all of my sisters, nieces, cousins, and fellow church members who are single mothers. I just refuse to pretend that because their sin resulted in children, it was somehow not sin. That includes mine, even though I was married by the time my first was born.

If a man or woman wants to take on a marriage with a single parent that's their choice (we happen to very fond and grateful for the man who helped to raise my husband's first born).

However, a man is well within his rights to refuse it and there is nothing wrong with not wanting to do it. Using Joseph and the virgin Mary as some kind poster family for why this is a godly arrangement is a very disgusting and heretical thing to do.

Churchians have no shame, do they?

newrebeluniv said...

Elspeth.
Point taken. I also am sensitive to the thought that unwed motherhood is sinful, but the act that created that condition is a big secret that no one will talk about. It is the act of sex that creates the pregnancy. And it is the act that is the sin. Getting pregnant is no greater a sin than the woman having sex who doesn't get pregnant. Unluckier? Dumber? and unquestionably harming her children by condeming them to a harder life, but not more sinful. She just can't pretend any more that everyone doesn't notice her sin.

wanderling said...

I think the reason the minister was saying it.s godly to take over another man's children is because only a saint would do it. U call it sin and are of the view that single parents deserve exile and punishment forever after, sorry, make that single mothers, not single fathers, of which thete are more and morerunning off to rape hsppy india to impregnate a surrogate, hopefully not by force but i wouldnt put it past businesses existing that pimp out indian womens wombs. Regardless, who made u all god and worthy enough to judge and condemn others? None of u are perfect or superior to anyone else, that is blstantly clear. I dont think u grasp, im looking at u elspethand u ew, how distasteful it is to non_christians to witness christians professing their religion while acting nothing like a christian should. It is both sickening and ironic.

newrebeluniv said...

Sickening and Ironic? Like an atheist telling Christians what God would want?

wanderling said...

I think the reason the minister was saying it.s godly to take over another man's children is because only a saint would do it. U call it sin and are of the view that single parents deserve exile and punishment forever after, sorry, make that single mothers, not single fathers, of which thete are more and morerunning off to rape hsppy india to impregnate a surrogate, hopefully not by force but i wouldnt put it past businesses existing that pimp out indian womens wombs. Regardless, who made u all god and worthy enough to judge and condemn others? None of u are perfect or superior to anyone else, that is blstantly clear. I dont think u grasp, im looking at u elspethand u ew, how distasteful it is to non_christians to witness christians professing their religion while acting nothing like a christian should. It is both sickening and ironic.

Elspeth @ Breathing Grace said...

@ Wanderling:

You misunderstand what is being said here. No more accurately, you come here with an agenda and read what you want to read into what it being said.

Given that I just admitted to being pregnant when I married as well as revealed that my husband had a child before we married, I fail to see where you read hatefulness and judgement into what I wrote.

Bottom line: fornication is a sin. It's a sin no matter who does it, and it's a sin regardless if children result from it. It's just as sinful even if no visible evidence of the fornication comes to light in the form of pregnancy.

Why is it that you assert that saying that having sex outside of marriage is a sin? It's just as sinful for a man to have sex outside of marriage and yes, it does take a near saint to take on a single parent (mother or father) as a marriage partner. Ask me how I know.

You're full of crap and have no idea what you are talking about. Men like my husband (black single fathers) are maligned and ridiculed for "leaving" their children constantly in black churches.

Shut up.

Elspeth @ Breathing Grace said...

That should have read thus:

Why is it that you assign hatefulness to the assertion that having sex outside of marriage is a sin?

wanderling said...

I'm not an atheist but there is no way i can call myself a christian considering the punishment and judgement mode those who call themselves christians have going on in a major way. most self labelled christians appear to have selective awareness of judge not lest u be judged. Hellooooo hypocrisy.

wanderling said...

according to i elspeth it is only single mothers who have sinned. Men can also become single fathers through paid surogacy, care to expound on whether that is or is not a sin considerimg intercourse is not imvolved. Thanks so much.

Elspeth @ Breathing Grace said...

according to i elspeth it is only single mothers who have sinned.

Liar. Quote me. Never mind, I'll do it. From my preceding comment:

"Why is it that you assert that saying that having sex outside of marriage is a sin? It's just as sinful for a man to have sex outside of marriage..."

Like I said, you have an agenda and are not interested in constructive dialogue.

It was very easy to read my comments and see where I called fornication a blanket sin regardless of the gender of the sinner. I even noted my own sin, as well as my husband's.

I still take umbrage with the conferring of sainthood onto single mothers. You cannot shame me into back pedaling away from my original statement.


Elspeth @ Breathing Grace said...

I think surrogacy is questionable no matter who does it. Maybe even sinful, though I know my Catholic friends would condemn it outright.

What percentage of single parents acquire their children through surrogacy?

wanderling said...

Didn.t think u would be able to answer my valisd question about paid surrogacy by single fathers. Let me ask it again in case u missed it twice. If u define choice motherhood as a sin based on unwed intercourse, then what are choice fathers who obtain children by buying them rather than making them? If unwed sex is your frame, i am very interested to hear your views concerning such men and whether or not their created offspring are in any way even more saintly than typical offsprimg considering the evil of fornication wasnt even necessary.

wanderling said...

So now percentage is important lol. Thought so. Thanks for making it clear that u dont really care about the unwed sex or any sin that may or may not b involved, and what u are actually bothered by is the monetary aspect on u in the form of welfare/taxes. So very christian of u.

Elusive Wapiti said...

At the risk of rewarding flame-bait, following requires refutation because it is nearly a staple of the illiterate leftist:

"who made u all god and worthy enough to judge and condemn others?"

It is amusing that someone who is not a Christian has the sac to attempt to use their misinterpretation of Scripture as a club with which to beat on Christians. Doubly so when they get all angrified at Christians for their (the non-Christian's) scriptural ignorance.

Come back when you acquire more than Wiki-level familiarity with the Bible and what it says.

wanderling said...

Are you saying that judge not lest you be judged is not written in the bible?

Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer that, just as I don't expect you to answer my earlier questions about choice fathers and concern more about the financial aid given to single mothers rather than their personal welfare.
It's glaringly apparent that condemnation without solution is all Christians with a capital C are capable of.

newrebeluniv said...

I guess all those Christians who are actual JUDGES should just resign. Obviously only pagans are fit to judge Christians.

But I'm sticking with Atheist. There isn't much difference between Pagans and Atheists. Both hate God and hate-hate-hate Christians.

wanderling said...

I don't hate Christians, I hate hypocrites, if the former tend to be the latter then that's just how it is. They have bought it upon themselves.

As for Judges resigning...looks like someone here doesn't even have a "wiki-level" of understanding of the bible.

The advice not to judge doesn't apply to legal channels, it applies to moral condemnation. And it's advice, because it doesn't say you can't judge, it says you can but then you will also be judged by the exact same measure. So perhaps we ought to rename Christians as Choice Sinners.

Double Minded Man said...

Wanderling,

There is nothing specifically in the Bible regarding surrogate's via artificial insemination. That technology did not exist at the time and it does not involve direct sex, so its a different beast altogether

As Elspeth said, it is the sex outside of marriage that is the sin, not the pregnancy. This is for man and woman. Your question regarding artificial insemination is a red herring at best.

wanderling said...

Well if the bible is the word of God, don't you think there ought to be something in there covering situations that arise a future point in time due to progress? Stating the bible is infallible, but sorry, it can't cover that particular circumstance, so men get a free pass, is just laughable.

wanderling said...

Anyway, I'm sure it is a sin, not because of the masturbation element (I don't know what JHC said about that, i doubt he said anything though, or at least nothing that would have been written down, being so scandalous) but because it deprives a child of its mother. Naturally you completely fail to consider the absence of the mother part, being anti-women n'all.

wanderling said...

well it appears male masturbators (choice AI fathers) and male masturbators only, are sinners according to JC.
Naturally, Elspeth as a hypocritical Christian misogynist doesn't consider this to be true.
Matt 5:28-29 (NIV) [Jesus:] "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

Looks like women get a free pass on masturbation.

Double Minded Man said...

Wanderling, your willfulness is amazing

No, the Bible does not cover every single possible circumstance. Why would it? And how could it ever be read in its entirety if it did indeed cover every single future technology. It offers a framework from which we can build doctrine, not the entire doctrine itself.

You believe, somehow, that surrogacy is overlooked because its "men" that are doing it. This of course lines up so well with the large and ever growing numbers of choice single daddies we see today.

You also seem to believe that masturbation and lust are one and the same. This is not true. They do often go together, but they are not the same thing, and of course you do not know if they did in any particular case but are happy to condemn them anyways, perhaps because they are male?

As for "completely fail[ing] to consider the absence of the mother", you are the one who brought up, and continue to push, surrogacy. Its your issue. The rest of us feel it is irrelevant and so are largely ignoring it.

wanderling said...

"Wanderling, your willfulness is amazing"

Thank you.

"No, the Bible does not cover every single possible circumstance. Why would it?"
If it's supposed to be the instruction manual for how to not piss off God, why wouldn't it?

"And how could it ever be read in its entirety if it did indeed cover every single future technology."
What? I've read it through at least twice in my life. How slow a reader are you? One sentence per decade too much for you?

"It offers a framework from which we can build doctrine, not the entire doctrine itself."
Wrong. It actually says in the bible that you are not to add or take away any words from it. Another reason not to follow organised religion.
Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it”(also Deuteronomy 12:32). The reason God is so adamant on this is because “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalms 119: 160).

"You believe, somehow, that surrogacy is overlooked because its "men" that are doing it".
Somewhat. I also believe it's being completely ignored because obviously those men can afford to raise those children without help from the taxpayer considering they paid for them in the first place, and because I'm sure laws prohibit men who pay for children to have access to paternity leave etc etc etc.
And finances/taxes is all Americans really care about at the end of the day. If choice daddy isn't dependent on government then I'm sure you will all be rooting for him.
If choice mummy is self-employed and does not receive welfare, I'm equally sure you'll still call her a sinner and a whore regardless of how she came to be a single mother.

"You also seem to believe that masturbation and lust are one and the same. This is not true. They do often go together, but they are not the same thing, and of course you do not know if they did in any particular case but are happy to condemn them anyways, perhaps because they are male?"
What are the odds of a guy walking into a clinic and masturbating into a cup without looking at videos or magazines?
To suggest he doesn't engage in sexual fantasising and can instead just get off on feeling his own body is beyond ridiculous.



As for "completely fail[ing] to consider the absence of the mother", you are the one who brought up, and continue to push, surrogacy. Its your issue. The rest of us feel it is irrelevant and so are largely ignoring it.

Elusive Wapiti said...

" I hate hypocrites,"

Dictionary. Use it.

Also, aren't you liberalists supposed to be tolerant, free of hate? Hmmm.

"it applies to moral condemnation....we ought to rename Christians as Choice Sinners"

Nope. Classic error of non-Christians, who, as I mentioned, presume to correct Believers out of their own ignorance and conceit.

When you are ready to engage constructively, let me know. Otherwise, leave this blog and do not come back.

Consider this your last warning.

Christina said...

"it applies to moral condemnation....we ought to rename Christians as Choice Sinners"

Because I seriuosly doubt Wanderling will get any kind of decent in-depth understanding of this by anything she finds on google, may I provide my opinion on this?

It is about SPIRITUAL judgement. You do not tell someone they are going to hell because they are sinners. We do not know the heart, only God knows the heart. And we are ALL sinners who fall short of the glory of God. So do not JUDGE others faith in God by their sinfulness, lest you be judged by your sinfulness.

Aside from the judge not, lest you be judged, all of these "condemnations" of sins - adultery, sexuality, and murder - were already judged as sinful by GOD. Read the bible. This isn't OUR judgement, it is God's.

But know this, just because you are full of sin doesn't mean God doesn't love you and hasn't made a provision for you.

The problem with the celebration of single mothers is that it allows these women to believe they did nothing wrong. That they didn't sin. That they remain "good" people (as if such a thing really exists). It marginalizes Christ's sacrifice for them.

Like Elspeth, I was pregnant before I got married, as well. And my marriage doesn't excuse my sin anymore than my pregnancy did. I dealt with it, faced it, and repented for it.

I am not a hypocrit because I believe I am just as guilty as everyone else is. I'm just forthright and blunt about what is sin and what isn't. Never claimed I'm not a sinner. After all, if I wasn't a sinner, what use for a savior would I have?

Elusive Wapiti said...

"may I provide my opinion on this?"

Absolutely. I didn't feel like 'splaining to someone whom I didn't think would value the effort.

Taking the non-Christian's "red text" perspective to it's absurd fullest, "judge not" removes the ability of a person to discriminate between good and evil at all. Used in this manner, "judge not" is an attempt to shut Christians up, call to condone everything under the sun.

Usually "judge not" is trotted out in support of the liberalist agenda of sexual libertinism...which is unique in the leftist agenda in that it's nearly the only domain of human behavior they are actually liberal on.

Wanderling's feeble attempt to apply "judge not" here in this comment thread is fairly typical.

"I am not a hypocrite because I believe I am just as guilty as everyone else is."

More than that, you are not a hypocrite because you aspire to a standard and fail. This is different than one who holds others to standards that they themselves don't bother to adhere.

Not that this distinction matters to non-Christians. They self-righteously sling "hypocrite" around like a club, thinking they're poking all those Xtians in the eye with all that name-calling. When in fact all they're doing is just exposing their ignorance.

wanderling said...

Thank you for your explanation Christina.
EW, As for engaging constructively, it is not my fault if you are unable to recognise it when you see it.
You have commented on choice mothers, why not choice fathers? Why is there never a gender balanced post made by you on this site?

"I am not a hypocrit because I believe I am just as guilty as everyone else is. I'm just forthright and blunt about what is sin and what isn't."

And so am I. We all know the Church has got a serious problem attracting teh youth and with credibility.
Statements like "well it can't cover every scenario" would not appear to be helpful in my mind. I know this comment was made by an atheist, btw.

But I don't think it's atheists or humanists who attack the church the most, it's Christians themselves, especially online. Except I never hear anything about what they would suggest instead, they just critique and make noises that's it all humanists fault and wish they had a different church in their neighbourhood.

Well I've already made a couple of suggestions here for traditionalists to consider but there is a deafening noise.

1. Looking at others lustfully, implicates porn and AI. How come the Church has got nothing to say about the ethics of AI? Outsourced surrogacy in developing nations also implicates organised crime/pimping/kidnapping. If a male has to look at porn to masturbate into a cup to get his surrogate baby, then according to the bible that's a no-go. Why no word on this from any of you Christians?

2. Porn. As I discovered earlier, looking at women lustfully is a sin. Why no word on porn by you people or the Church, or the Pope himself ffs.

Is it because you realise it's required for masturbation and you can't call masturbation a sin because you know it's essential for paid surrogacy/choice fatherhood which you most definitely want available to men?





wanderling said...

One other thing, which really is what my blast of hypocrisy comes down too. If choice mothers are evil because they had sex before marriage (who knows if they even did) and unwed fornication is evil, why exactly does this blog link to so many other manosphere PUA blogs which are all about teaching men how to have lots of unwed sex with multiple women without having to marry them?

So is it really the unwed sex that is your beef or the fact that you don't like the fact that Churches are accommodating them, even though you seem to have no problem accommodating men who share a large part of the responsibility of putting women in such a situation.

empathological said...

Well back to the single mommy bit, great post. Single moms are used for every kind of emotion garnering and empathy generating. Calls to charity use single moms as innocent victims, "we have to help, its a single mom"

Its a tough dichotomy as we know, there are kids involved, and don't think the appeal makers don't know that.

Wanderling, the fallacy of "men do it too" is tedious. To hold the single mom to account verses a holy standard is something that infers exactly zero about whether the man is held to any account, moral relativism and all that. Besides you seem to ignore that in the big churches the majority of these poor snowflakes divorced a man who did not want to be divorced and he indeed holds no responsibility for being legally jettisoned from his home.

Unknown said...

You have commented on choice mothers, why not choice fathers? Why is there never a gender balanced post made by you on this site?

As far as the MRA is concerned, there is no such thing as "choice" fathers. The men who end up un-wed fathers did so because a woman became a "choice" mommy. Haven't you heard? Men don't have that choice. Except for sex.

Aside from that, you rarely see un-wed fathers with their children. Something about the lop-sided award system of custody to mothers? Another thing the MRA fights against.

Socially (and especially in the church), men are constantly reprimanded for "you shoulda kept your pants on." If a man comes with a sob story about how some woman aborted or absconded with his baby, the common retort will be, you shoulda not had sex and this is its consequence.

We all know the Church has got a serious problem attracting teh youth and with credibility.

Have you ever read/seen The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Scarlet Letter? That's what the youth have a problem with. The scourging of certain sins without censoring other dangerous and deadly sins - pride, lust, greed, anger, self-righteousness. It has been shown that churches who preach the word of God in its entirety actually have a higher youth percentage. But the problem many churches have with preaching the truth is that most people just don't like it...and will stop coming and stop contributing.

As to your 1 & 2 points, these things are covered extensively by theologians and pastors. Take a walk in the Christian Living section of a Christian bookstore. You might be surprised at the amount of "guidance" given on these subjects. This is not one of the church's problems.

why exactly does this blog link to so many other manosphere PUA blogs which are all about teaching men how to have lots of unwed sex with multiple women without having to marry them?

Lets take care to not throw the baby out with the bath-water. These blogs that EW links to on his blog-roll are people who fight against the same things he does - no-fault divorce, feminism, and a one-sided system that favors women over men. I have voiced my frustrations on this to EW, as well - some of these men decrying feminist sluts while behaving in the same manner... even some claiming they'll never marry because their wives will cheat on them while in the same breath bragging about banging another man's wife. Gee...how brotherly of you.

EW is not one of them. And either are quite a few. The Christian MRAs are NOT like that. And much the same way I have to put up with some good ideas from some people in my life who I think make the worse choices in life, I'm not going to discard the things I agree with from others simply because they aren't Christians.

Unknown said...

But I don't think it's atheists or humanists who attack the church the most, it's Christians themselves, especially online

The church leadership as a whole has many issues. They cherry pick their sermons, avoiding "hot button" issues like female submission, divorce rates in their ranks (largely instigated by women), and sexual sin. They gloss over the NEED for a savior, instead giving us the hope for paradise without showing us why we need it in the first place.

In spite of what you might here, most churches are mum on adultery, homosexuality, and wifely submission. Instead, at least 3 US denominations are ordaining women as leaders of a church (when the Bible explicitly says no on this), performing homosexual marriages, and allowing women to form doctrinal changes that call God "Mother" and champion sexual sin among women... putting them on pedestals with Mary.

This whole thing with Driscoll is pedantic women-praising so the women in his church keep going to his church. He is "betatized" to use his words to gain female approval - after all, women have been the primary benefactors of the church since Christ's Ministry (Luke 8 for all those wanting to question that). They justify this by saying if we compromise doctrine here, they'll stay to hear what really matters. What I find hilarious is that Jesus never felt any need to cater to anyone's feelings of security where sin was involved, and yet people followed him all over the country.

This is why we have problems with them. And if we voiced these issues to our pastors, we'd never be able to show our face at church again because we bruised the leader's ego. I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying there's a human response at work - among EVERYONE.

Elusive Wapiti said...

A better comment Wanderling.

"As for engaging constructively, it is not my fault if you are unable to recognise it when you see it.
"


It's difficult to separate constructive or serious comments from personal attacks, ad hominems, non-sequiturs, red herrings, straw men, thread derails, and the like. I'm a patient guy, but my patience has its limits.

"You have commented on choice mothers, why not choice fathers?"

Because choice fathers are a tiny fraction of the population. Honestly, how many straight men go to India and pay a surrogate to have a baby? Likewise, how many men elect a divorce with near-assurance they'll get the children? Now compare that how many women pursue man-not-included reproduction, or frivorce (if wed) or tell the dad to move out (if unwed)? What's the proportion? 45:1?

"Why is there never a gender balanced post made by you on this site?"

I profess a fundie-flavored Christianity, am right-illiberal in my politics, and I suppose I hold MRA/FRA-leaning views, tempered with traditioanlism and leavened with a bit of reactionary. Put all those together, and political / social views are a 3 or 4 sigma outlier. And I'm the blogmasater of this site...why should anyone expect balance here, esp when so many other diverse (there, I said it) alternatives exist? If you want balance, you should continue visiting Jezebel and Slate and all of those other liberalist feminist hate movement-inspired sites.

" Except I never hear anything about what they would suggest instead,"

Perhaps you missed the last paragraph of this very post.

"How come the Church has got nothing to say about the ethics of AI? Why no word on [porn] from any of you Christians?"

I dunno. I don't think you're googling very hard. The RCC very likely has a published position on this, something that would probably be congruent with Protestant positions too.

As for "you Christians" (nice outgrouping) and porn, perhaps you've missed where I written in opposition to porn, both visual (male) porn and emotional/relational (female) porn.

"why exactly does this blog link to so many other manosphere PUA blogs which are all about teaching men how to have lots of unwed sex with multiple women without having to marry them?"

I thought it went without saying, but perhaps it needs now to be said: the sites linked on the links sidebar does not necessarily reflect agreement with the content of those sites. I either find them interesting, or they link to me, or both. I also write occasionally at the SH, I don't agree with all or even most of the comments made there either. For that matter, I link to TC...and the blogmistress at TC lets me publish there as well to boot. She's Catholic, I'm not, our theology, while related, are in stark conflict in some areas. Yet she has the grace to publish my (and other Prots) missives, despite the fact that from a Roman Catholic perspective, it's burning heresy.

Strange how it is the political and social right that practices freedom of speech and diversity of opinion. They are the true liberals now.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Sorry all for all of the typos in the last comment. Need to do better with spell checking.

newrebeluniv said...

Everyone else has answered most of the issues here. Just this one is left out:

But I don't think it's atheists or humanists who attack the church the most, it's Christians themselves, especially online


It is right and proper for Christians to constantly be seeking reform and improvement in the church. After all it is OUR club. And we have two thousand years of such efforts to show for it. The epistles written by Paul (you may have heard of them) were themselves "attacks" on specific practices of the church in order to improve them.

Among ourselves, it isn't attacking, it is spirited debate.

But outsiders could not possibly have a credible motive of improving the church or benefiting its members. So their opinions about how we should behave are not welcome. Go start your own club and impose your silly beliefs on your own members.

wanderling said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
wanderling said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
wanderling said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
wanderling said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elusive Wapiti said...

You're done here, Wanderling.

Go away. Don't come back.

Thanks.

Elspeth @ Breathing Grace said...

Yet she has the grace to publish my (and other Prots) missives, despite the fact that from a Roman Catholic perspective, it's burning heresy.

Speaking of that (ahem)....

SavvyD said...

Ha! Don't you know that they aren't supposed to "date" these women, they are supposed to "hang around" and "evaluate their behavior" asking women out at church is a big no-no thanks to that ridiculous book "I kissed dating goodbye" ruining everyone's good time.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Elspeth, sorry I'm due to tender a post to TC, aren't I? I've been a slacker.

@ SavvyD, nice to see you again! Has been a long time. Re: dating in church, mayhaps you saw this post over at Sunshine Mary's?