Put your faith in divorce.

In the discussion of the last post Cail noted what seems to be a non sequitur in the priest’s reply:

I commented on this on the other thread before I realized you’d started a new one from it, so I’ll just summarize: this is typical CAF, technically correct (the part on divorce, not the last part), but ultimately misleading. What he says about the state’s power to dissolve the legal relationship but not the sacrament (wish he’d used that word) is true, but irrelevant to the question of a woman who feels the urge to leave her husband for no particular reason and is working very hard to convince herself that God is personally telling her to do so. She’s looking for spiritual guidance and he goes on a tangent about who gets the lawnmower. That part is just weird.

I thought that at first as well, but after re reading the exchange is isn’t a non sequitur at all. As part of her question she said she wants to frivorce but fears doing so will cause her to struggle financially. In response, he reminds her about the cash and prizes she will be rewarded with if she betrays her marriage vows. Here are the relevant excerpts from the full exchange.

Her:

A fear I face, is that if I go on my own, I will face many troubles financially which is a reality that I will have to endure. I’m driven and motivated, and I feel that God has given me talents, blessings, and an opportunity to do something magnificent with the life He has given me. And I feel an overwhelming sense that I need to just trust Him that it will all be ok if I just take this risk and do this.

The priest:

The Catholic Church does allow a Catholic to file for divorce as a legal means of equitably dividing goods that were held in common.

See also:  Don’t forget your 30 pieces of silver.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Catholic Answers Forum, selling divorce. Bookmark the permalink.

212 Responses to Put your faith in divorce.

  1. donalgraeme says:

    This is exactly what I was getting at in my reply. The priest basically told her that it was acceptable to divorce her husband. Oh, he may deny as much, but his was a passive-aggressive male version of “You Go GRLLL.”

    He never said anything about the Church’s teaching on divorce. Never mentioned that God hates divorce.

    No, all he does is mention the secular, worldly, legal consequences of divorce.

  2. Pingback: Put your faith in divorce. | Manosphere.com

  3. Dalrock says:

    One thing I didn’t mention in either post is how much her question looks like a setup. If someone wanted to test for corruption at CAF, her question is what they would write. The whole thing seems like:

    Dear Priest at CAF,

    I’m just a little ol’ woman and this serpent came along and suggested I eat a delicious piece of fruit that God told me not to eat. The serpent assures me that God wouldn’t let me be deceived, so he says I’m safe. Also, I’m afraid that if I eat the fruit it won’t be very tasty.

    Dear Tempted Young Woman,

    I don’t know if you should be worried about his counsel or not. I would need to know if this serpent is a good fellow or not. However, trust that the fruit in question is absolutely delicious.

  4. Opus says:

    Hahahhahhahahahhahahahhahahahaa

  5. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    Good stuff Dalrock. Funny as hell…and sadly true…. LOL

  6. ballbuster says:

    Wow, there must be a special section set aside in hades for priests like this that mislead, and seemingly so intentionally!

  7. hurting says:

    donalgraeme says:
    June 25, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    It bears repeating here that the official teaching of the RCC is that a divorce, indeed any cesssation of the conjugal life absent specified reasons, is indeed sinful in and of itself. The priest in this CAF post did not give a sufficient answer to the woman’s question. He should have said something to the effect of:

    “Canons 1151-1155 set the forth the circumstances under which a Catholic may cease to live the conjugal life with his/her spouse. You have intimated here that your husband is not guilty of abuse; is he guilty of adultery? Under what provision of canon law would you expect to see a separation approved by eccleasistical authority as required by the foregoing canons? Even if your were to find a valid reason for separation, is a civil divorce and all the tumult it entails really the only option to remedy the difficulty causing the need for separation? Are you aware that absent a valid reason for even separation from the conjugal life, much less divorce, you may be placing your soul in danger of eternal damnation?”

    Reference: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P45.HTM

  8. jf12 says:

    “When the serpent says stuff, I get powerful goosebumps. If God didn’t want me to follow what the serpent says, then He would have made it impossible for eevil to feel enticing. Hence, getting tingles is God’s way of making sure I know which feelings I should follow.”

  9. jf12 says:

    Tingles über alles.

  10. Yeah, I didn’t pick up on that the first time through. I guess I assumed she was asking on a religious advice site because her question was a religious one, but her main concern seems to be financial. In that context, his bringing up the legal/financial side of divorce does fit the context of her fear, and tells her not to worry so much about the main thing that’s keeping her in the marriage.

    I’m trying to be charitable, but I’m having trouble finding any other interpretation.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Cail

    I’m trying to be charitable, but I’m having trouble finding any other interpretation.

    Your point on charity is a good one. We can’t say what he meant for her to take away from the exchange. However, I think it is beyond question that his answer regarding civil divorce being a means to get funds isn’t a non sequitur, in that it does address a specific fear she expressed. So it isn’t out of left field, and I’m dumbfounded as to why he would write such a thing.

    A clarification from him would be greatly appreciated, and as I mentioned in my last post on CAF I think at the very least a sincere statement from the site moderators that they will take much more care not to be a place which (inadvertently or otherwise) sows marital discord is very much in order. The last time they merely hid what was shameful. I hope they will do better this time.

  12. sunshinemary says:

    If someone wanted to test for corruption at CAF

    Did you…?

    Nevermind. Forget I asked.

    [D: No, I did not.]

  13. Casey says:

    Like it or not………..churches, Christianity, Catholicism, yada, yada is all BIG BUSINESS!!

    Likewise, DIVORCE is big business.

    All businesses need CUSTOMERS!

    You will never go broke pandering to the lowest common denominator. In this particular instance, a hamster rationalizing wife looking to jetison her husband.

    So long as women hold this much societal power, businesses will continue to market to them.

    Women are suckers for a good marketing pitch. (ala PUA).

  14. Opus says:

    Wearing my legal hat (and without presuming to understand Church teaching on the subject) financial matters are ancillary to divorce. Father Serpa thus appears to approve of Divorce (the main item) in order to achieve the financial rearrangement (the secondary matter). We don’t know exactly what this young woman is proposing with her life (though I am guessing it involves foreign travel to improve the lives of the natives whilst sampling the delicacies form the local man tree) but you do not need to divorce to either sell a house or get a job; there is no suggestion in her screed as to whether her husband would or would not be supportive – maybe she should ask him.

    Females do seem to be prone to hearing voices emanating from God – who am I to doubt it – usually though not always concerning their romantic aspirations, but it does not always end well, as with that young French Maid who, aged nineteen, was (so she said) being called upon single-handed to end The Hundred Years War.

  15. Splashman says:

    Couple things:

    1. Tingle girl’s post was edited by the same serpent, er, “apologist”, who responded to her. I wonder what was changed?
    2. Hell is going to be really, really crowded.

  16. UK Fred says:

    ‘My’ bible study group have just started to study Paul’s epistle to the Christians in Rome. In the group we have some who seem over-reliant on clergy. My fellow leader pointed out that even clergy get it wrong, quoting Romans 3.23, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” This guy seems to have fallen squarely into this category with his answer. Perhaps the priest ought to have asked the woman to go away and read Romans 7 and then come back for a discussion.

  17. Dalrock, the most positive spin I can put on it is that he was trying to soothe her fears whatever they might be, as a bit of knee-jerk white-knighting for a damsel in distress, and didn’t stop to think about the implications. That wouldn’t be as bad as intentionally encouraging divorce, but it’s still pretty weak.

  18. Anonymous says:

    What the heck? Why isn’t the Pope excommunicating that priest like he just did the Sicilian Mafia?

  19. Ras Al ghul says:

    “What the heck? Why isn’t the Pope excommunicating that priest like he just did the Sicilian Mafia?”

    Did he really? Or did it just sound that way? Because I think it was the latter

  20. freebird says:

    Put some PUA moves on the neighbor’s wife I saw in town.

    Some dark triad BS,and a small mention that her husband was getting older and thus weaker,and she was suggesting getting naked in the hot tub.

    She’s desiring adultery right now.

    It was the devil in me,this seduction is Devil’s work.

    (all of it, Yeah,all of it)

    To play devil’s advocate,why shouldn’t I? (we)

    It’s what SHE wants,is it not?

    It’s not like her husband OWNS her!

    I will return her in good shape after a trial run..

    No harm,no foul in this FI playa society.

    (It’s God’s will,really it is,that I lead her in the way I desire…)

  21. Splashman says:

    Cail, it’s good to be charitable, but . . .

    1. Tingle girl admitted there was no abuse or “evil” from her husband.
    2. Tingle girl said straight-out there was only feelings to go by (not scripture, counsel, etc.).
    3. Priest didn’t mention how God *feels* about divorce.
    4. Priest didn’t warn regarding the fickleness of feelings, the voice of Satan, Eve’s sin, etc.
    5. Priest only assured her as to her financial well-being if she divorces.

    Not even a centrifuge can spin that.

  22. freebird says:

    I mean,I mean,I have NEEDS.
    (like Rollo says)

    Would a starving man
    bypass a full apple tree just because it’s on private property?
    I think not.

    It’s not like it’s simple coveting or base desire,that would imply a choice in the matter..

    (All hail the horn-ed G-D of the FI)

  23. cynthia says:

    And I feel an overwhelming sense that I need to just trust Him that it will all be ok if I just take this risk and do this.

    I used to live in Colorado. Scratch the surface, and it’s pretty easy to find the DIY-pagans, the New Agers who spin entire cosmologies for themselves out of thin air. Intricacy varies from person to person, but all of them seem to predicate their beliefs on feelings. They feel that the fairies are talking to them, or they feel that they’ll be safe hitch-hiking their way across South America this summer, because angels or Isis or whatever is watching over them, or whatever it is. It’s like a child’s make-believe game, but for adults, and it is astonishing what people can convince themselves of in these situations.

    Point is, doing something based on a gut feeling that comes from somewhere other than the Holy Spirit isn’t the done Catholic thing. Divorce isn’t something we believe in; why would she feel that God reward her for doing such a thing? She needs to pray for an answer to her current existential crisis, and then be quiet, wait for the answer, in whatever form it takes, and accept it. Ask for guidance, instead of pretending her faith backs up what she wishes to be true. I know what an incredibly hard thing that can be, but that’s what she needs to be doing here. Not asking the wailing void of the Internet to reinforce her “feelings.”

  24. LiveFearless says:

    What language did the word ‘church’ come from? What was its definition?

  25. Point is, doing something based on a gut feeling that comes from somewhere other than the Holy Spirit isn’t the done Catholic thing. Divorce isn’t something we believe in; why would she feel that God reward her for doing such a thing?

    Hey, a fellow New Age knower-abouter! Bet we could trade some stories…

    As you say, the New Age idea that your gut feelings are a form of divine guidance has infiltrated the Church quite a bit (and I’d guess most other Christian churches). Your second sentence also gave me another thought: maybe the idea that God wants to give her a special dispensation is a temptation in itself for the modern girl who’s been taught that she’s a special, unique princess. It goes along with the My Boyfriend Jesus idea: “Sure, Jesus has those rules for most people, but He loves ME so much that He wants to give me a special break that most people don’t get.” Once she gets it twisted around that, the fact that He would make an exception for her just proves how important it is that she accept the exception.

  26. Bubbles says:

    The same priest responds to a man asking whether he can divorce his wife if she refuses to convert to Catholicism.

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=880329

  27. BradA says:

    Would he answer the same way if that “voice” was telling her to commit adultery, use birth control, have an abortion or something else that the RCC still opposes?

  28. DavidG says:

    Gripping is easy. If you had the power what would you do to fix the problem.

    Also how to fix the hell of sexless marriages? I don’t recall in my case my wife telling me before we married that she was only interested in having sex until the kids came and then she was finished having sex after that. One obvious solution is polygamy as in Islam but in a Christian marriage that’s not an option. I can’t afford to leave financially but there is nothing left emotionally or physically left in my marriage and it’s the only real marriage my kids will see is a sexless dead relationship with no affection what so ever. Kind of hard to convince the kids to get married at all if they think that’s what marriage really is.

  29. I’m going to go a bit against the grain here and say that I actually admire this woman for asking the question. Here’s a woman who has been getting genuinely sinful urges. While she’s narcissistic enough to believe that she knows what God is saying to her she actually managed to have enough humility to go to a Priest and say “Hey Father, is there a chance I’m wrong?”

    Damning with faint praise perhaps, but then we all struggle with particularly ingrained faults and urges, and the fact that she went to a Priest before acting on it is a good thing. Which is why Fr. Serpa’s response is so insidious. A woman comes to you asking for advice from one of her elders, and THIS is what you tell her? You might as well give her your recommendations about divorce lawyers, “Just in case”.

    Sickening.

  30. Spike says:

    Dalrock:
    Deep Strength had a post regarding Jenny Erikson

    http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/?s=jenny+erikson

    In it, he rightly points out that Ms Erikson did not test the spirits (1 John 4:1) – those whispers telling her to divorce – against God’s Word. Had she done that she would have discovered that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16).
    Likewise, this lady, and her counsellor. They are listening to seducing spirits and not to the Word of God.

  31. To put what I said another way: Jenny Erikson didn’t ask her Pastor’s advice first.

  32. jf12 says:

    @DavidG, the unfortunate reality is that women project. All the time, women project. If a woman is unhorny, she literally feels like that mean you ought to be unhorny too. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it at all. Sorry. But she could do something: she could ignore her internal voices totally, and instead do what you tell her.

  33. Kind of hard to convince the kids to get married at all if they think that’s what marriage really is

    Why do you need to convince them to get married? The world isn’t cut neatly into the categories “Get married” and “live in sin”. The truth is there are many Godly ways to live unmarried (St. Paul even says it’s preferable), and many ways married people live in sin (like using contraception, or watching porn, or denying sex). I don’t even think people SHOULD be making an effort to talk their kids into marriage.

  34. Splashman says:

    Malcolm, from the world’s perspective, you’re absolutely right. From the perspective of God’s word, you’re absolutely wrong. God designed man for woman and vice-versa; ignore that design at your peril. While it’s true that he gives a special dispensation to a select few, that is his choice, not mine or yours. And Paul’s bias doesn’t trump God’s design.

  35. Okay, if you grant that the Pauline Epistles are not Scripture, you’re right. I do not grant that concession.

  36. TFH says:

    Splashman,

    Malcolm, from the world’s perspective, you’re absolutely right. From the perspective of God’s word, you’re absolutely wrong. God designed man for woman and vice-versa; ignore that design at your peril.

    You are making the classic mistake of giving Marriage 2.0 the same status as Biblical marriage.

    God did not intend for men to enter a horrid contract where he can be attached with alimony, his children taken from him, and imprisoned, simply for doing what the Bible instructed him to. Don’t get duped just because the M-word is used. That is exactly how the wrongdoers have gotten away with so much : by using the M-word while changing everything else, and still managing to fool people.

  37. Jack Amok says:

    Dalrock, the most positive spin I can put on it is that he was trying to soothe her fears whatever they might be

    Yes, I suppose that’s the positive spin. But… and please pardon the non-churched agnostic pagan for his comments, but wouldn’t the priestly, or maybe pious response be something along the lines of “Child, your material problems are the least of your concerns in this matter…”

  38. Ceer says:

    To someone taught the faith properly, Fr. Serpa’s response is technically not in error. It is however, poorly worded.

    By the term “leave”, he means physical separation (permitted in some circumstances), rather than outright divorce. Unfortunately, this is not how the term is used in our current culture, and for that, my instinct says to smack him for his foolishness. If the woman on the other end of the internet is emotionally disposed to divorce, only a black and white “Do not blow up your family.” response is adequate. Anything else will be hamsterized as permission from the priest to blow up the family.

    As a former listener of Catholic Answers Live, their ministry’s radio program, I would be very interested in hearing listening to a Dalrock call in OR even a Dalrock guest spot. I’m sure that they would jump at the chance to explain to their audience that they are in fact NOT the purveyors of divorce culture that some of their communicators have made them out to be.

  39. Splashman says:

    Malcom, you’re making the classic mistake of justifying your disregard for God’s Word. “Women are different. Marriage 2.1.7.x is different. Pizza toppings are different. Therefore, God’s Word doesn’t apply in this situation.”

    God knows there are plenty of obstacles to a successful marriage; obstacles of various kinds have existed since forever. You whining about it just makes you sound whiny. Call the waaaaambulance, then go to work on finding one of the 0.002% of the female population who has successfully resisted the infection. The good news? You’re competing with an equally small percentage of the male population. The bad news? You may not be up to her standards.

  40. theshadowedknight says:

    Splashman, what happens to the rest of the men that cannot find a woman to take as their wife? What happens when those women are all taken up? Some men are going to lose out, any way you play it. What are you going to do with them?

    The Shadowed Knight

  41. Splashman says:

    @Ceer, not only did the priest admit the possibility that God was telling her to leave her husband (no, not possible), he also pointed out that her fears of financial problems due to divorce were unfounded. A common-sense reading of his response would be: “Maybe He is, maybe He isn’t, but regardless, don’t worry about the money part — we’ll make sure you get half his stuff.”

    “Technically not in error”? Really????? You mean, the Catholic faith teaches that God *may* tell someone to divorce their spouse? (Which god are we talking about?) And the Catholic faith believes it moral to encourage divorce by making it lucrative?

    I’m not trolling; not being Catholic, I am truly unaware of Catholic teaching on this issue. I assumed they were more Biblical on divorce than the !@#$% protestants, but perhaps I was mistaken.

  42. Splashman says:

    TSK, you’re asking *me*? Hey, my wife might say I’m a god, but that’s with a lower-case ‘g’.

    I’m not about to claim there’s a happy ending for everyone, or for anyone in particular. I was just trying to point out that whining is a waste of time.

    Also, there are a lot of women asking the converse of the questions you just asked. It’s not as clear to me as it is to you, that there are a lot more good men out there than good women. Maybe there’s a regional factor.

    This is a subject I think about a lot. I’ve got seven children so far and I’m already working at cultivating relationships with families who are raising their children to resist the world’s infection regarding marriage (among other things). In other words, I’m not counting on good spouses for my children to materialize out of thin air (though I’ll take what I can get). This task will spawn a zillion headaches, but the alternative is to spend my time whining about “not enough good men” or “not enough good women” (whichever trope is currently in vogue) for my children to marry.

  43. He’s only “technically not in error” because he never actually states that God could be telling her to divorce. But he implies that it’s possible, and he certainly doesn’t deny the possibility, so since she’s claiming to hear divine guidance to that effect, it’s an error of omission at least.

    By the way, my “positive spin” wasn’t meant to defend him; I was simply saying that I can see the possibility that he wasn’t intentionally encouraging her to divorce, but was trying to coddle her in order to keep her talking and draw out more information. It’s possible that he hoped that getting her to put her “reasons” in black-and-white would help her see how lame they are, and then he could nudge her in the direction of faithfulness. Even if so, it was very badly done.

  44. On the hedge he offers here on legal divorce: let’s say a man abandons his wife and children, runs up massive gambling debt, flees overseas to somewhere he can’t be extradited, and says he’s never coming back. Eventually, his wife may have to civilly divorce him to protect herself and the children financially. But they’d still be married in the Church, and if he would ever come back, she would still be his wife with all the moral obligations that includes.

    It doesn’t mean anyone who’s unhaaaappy in a marriage can separate and civilly divorce and be fine in the eyes of the Church as long as she doesn’t try to remarry. As Hurting pointed out, canon law says spouses have a duty to “preserve conjugal living” — which means living together and providing the marital debt (sex) on command — except in certain grave circumstances and with the approval of her pastor (not a random priest online).

  45. Splashman says:

    Cail, I wasn’t criticizing your charitable spin, truly. If nothing else, it’s an interesting exercise. Just pointing out that even with the spin, it’s still a steaming pile of !@#$%.

    You and Ceer are entitled to your opinion regarding “technically not in error”; I’m not going to try to change your mind, because it isn’t relevant. What I have evaluated in the priest’s response is the “plain meaning”, not the “literal” or “technical” meaning. The “plain meaning” is what the average Joe (or Josephine) takes it to mean. Sure, the priest can fall back on a “technically, blah blah blah” defense, but I think you would agree with me that Tingle Girl would almost certainly (and justifiably) take his response to mean (a) “I could be right; God just might be telling me to divorce; if the priest heard the full story (my side, anyway), he might agree with me”, and (b) “If so, I’ve got no financial worries”.

    And *that* is a steaming pile indeed.

  46. Splashman, I agree completely.

  47. Splashman says:

    On the hedge he offers here on legal divorce: let’s say a man abandons his wife and children, runs up massive gambling debt, flees overseas . . .

    Cail, I understand your theoretical point, but the priest wasn’t addressing that theoretical wife. He was addressing this actual wife:

    I feel in my heart that I need to leave my marriage. There is no abuse or evil happening to me from my spouse . . .

    Yet he immediately threw her a bone which was only ever intended for your theoretical wife?

    Priest shrugs and says, “Technically, I was only quoting church doctrine. I never said it applied to her.”

    Uh huh. Tell it to the Judge, buddy.

  48. Splashman, right. I was just explaining for those who don’t know that the Church does allow for civil divorce in special circumstances, but those don’t apply here. So his bringing it up could only confuse the issue.

  49. Splashman says:

    Fair enough. Sometimes I do forget that there’s a wide range of beliefs represented here. “Nobody I know voted for him.” :)

  50. jack says:

    And then the Fr. Serpa, being more crafty, said…

  51. God designed man for woman and vice-versa; ignore that design at your peril. While it’s true that he gives a special dispensation to a select few, that is his choice, not mine or yours. And Paul’s bias doesn’t trump God’s design.

    God designed man, then he tried to find man a companion and couldn’t and thus designed woman for man. Ergo, he did not design man for woman. You’re wrong.

  52. jf12 says:

    @Splahman, “working to cultivate relationships with [other] families” to up the probability that you children might find suitable spouses is a fine thing to do, but in this day and time it’s equivalent to working to cultivate relationships with other property owners nearby in order for each other to mutually pan for gold on each other’s property.

    Would it be too mean of me to say it would be *easier* and more guaranteed (which is to say, not very) to run for public office to try to change public policy so that more families might see the light to provide better spouses?

    Yes, it’s that bad out there, most especially the women, and if you don’t think so then you happen to be living deep inside a gold mine. With unicorns.

  53. adam alan says:

    I’m sorry but there is no marriage 1.0 available now. Its not an option. And 2.0 isn’t biblical or wise.

    But to give it up and go my own way is to surrender civ to the Islamists.

  54. earl says:

    If you single guys out there are that fired up about how priests are acting these days…put your money where your mouth is. Join a seminary and take on this topic.

    Married men…let your voices be heard to these type of priests if you see them. Instead of coming here and whining about how they are acting these days.

    Being a father of a family or a church is not an easy thing to do.

  55. Scott says:

    “If you single guys out there are that fired up about how priests are acting these days…put your money where your mouth is. Join a seminary and take on this topic.

    Married men…let your voices be heard to these type of priests if you see them. Instead of coming here and whining about how they are acting these days.

    Being a father of a family or a church is not an easy thing to do.”

    This is actually pretty good advice. It is surprising how little effort it takes (just a tiny bit of courage, really). My wife and I do this every time we get a chance. Usually in settings like “Marriage Enrichment” and so on. Sometimes the rooms get really quiet. But ALWAYS there is a small group approaching us afterwards wanting to know more about submission/headship or whatever biblical marriage topic was brought up. They want to know how it is actaually working in our home. It’s never to pick a fight. It’s because they are miserable in their “egalitarian” marriages and are thirsty from something better.

  56. earl says:

    “They want to know how it is actually working in our home. It’s never to pick a fight. It’s because they are miserable in their “egalitarian” marriages and are thirsty from something better.”

    That is what makes it worth it.

  57. They want to know how it is actually working in our home.

    There’s a contentment and confidence that radiates from people who are really living the life — especially the women, in contrast with their secularized peers — that I think is attractive even to those who don’t know why. It’s not that their lives are perfect; sometimes when you get to know them you find out they have some serious struggles. But they don’t struggle with everything the way that wives in rebellion (and abdicating husbands) do. It’s almost like living in accordance with God’s will is beneficial.

    Also, their kids tend to be better behaved than usual, which is a pretty good advertisement too.

  58. Malcom, you’re making the classic mistake of justifying your disregard for God’s Word. “Women are different. Marriage 2.1.7.x is different. Pizza toppings are different. Therefore, God’s Word doesn’t apply in this situation.”

    Don’t attribute other people’s responses to me. I never said that. I am simply going by the very clear and unambiguous words of Paul in Corinthians.

  59. I have no idea what my comments have to do with complaining. My position is very, very simple: If you’re having trouble finding a wife or don’t like the model of marriage…don’t get married. There is not only nothing wrong with this, it’s actually GOOD to be celibate. Living in sin is not exclusive to the unmarried, as this blog more than attests.

  60. Scott says:

    “It’s not that their lives are perfect; sometimes when you get to know them you find out they have some serious struggles.”

    Yes. It is not the struggles/difficulties themselves. We have all the same ones everyone else has. We have a fundamentally different way to approach them.

  61. earl says:

    “My position is very, very simple: If you’re having trouble finding a wife or don’t like the model of marriage…don’t get married. There is not only nothing wrong with this, it’s actually GOOD to be celibate.”

    You got a society that wants their cake and eat it too. They don’t want the commitment of marriage and they don’t want to give up sex and be a single celibate. You see why everyone is confused, selfish, unhappy, and cynical because they don’t sacrfice anything anymore.

  62. Scott says:

    O/T. A slightly different (but not very) play on the “where have all the good men gone” meme.

    http://courtshippledge.com/2014/06/these-kinds-of-articles-are-sounding-more-and-more-desperate/

  63. Elspeth says:

    It’s not that their lives are perfect; sometimes when you get to know them you find out they have some serious struggles. But they don’t struggle with everything the way that wives in rebellion (and abdicating husbands) do. It’s almost like living in accordance with God’s will is beneficial.

    Like.

  64. jf12 says:

    @Scott re: nice guy dilemma article. Lauren martin, naturally, lies when she claims that “the assh*les women have fallen for were men pretending to be nice who just turned out to be assh*les.” But she’s merely expressing how women *feel* about the bad boys who used them. In other words, the woman *hoped* that the bad boy who was being mean to her would turn into a nice guy after being exposed to the almight power of her special v. And because she feels so strongly that’s how reality should be, she’s almost forced to lie about how reality is.

  65. Mike says:

    @DavidG: I was more or less where you are now. But I’m not too religious and knew I could make it work financially and my kids are mostly grown. So I left, and divorced. But that was pre-red pill. My advice to you (probably worth what you’re paying for it) is to game her. Show (not tell) her you have options, that other women find you attractive. Improve yourself. Develop some hobbies/interests that involve other women (I play co-ed over-35 soccer and am in a sailing club that often involves crewing with people I just met.) Make her believe (even if it isn’t true) that you can overcome religious and financial concerns and will leave her if she continues to shirk her marital duty. Stand up to her. Look for opportunities to veto, as head of your family, her decisions, but don’t go overboard all at once if you’ve been beta in the marriage (I certainly was). But try to inject some fun too. Tease her, neg her mildly. Be a little rougher and self-seeking in bed if you ever get there. These things may not help, and I’d seek a second opinion, but it sounds like nothing could make your marriage much worse. HTH. Good luck.

  66. el says:

    Research shows that Catholics do not stand out in divorce rates. In fact, they score lower than many other religious and non-religious groups, although the differences are not dramatic and some are within the margin of error:

    https://www.barna.org/family-kids-articles/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

  67. Gunner Q says:

    malcolmthecynic @ June 25, 2014 at 10:33 pm:
    “Here’s a woman who has been getting genuinely sinful urges. While she’s narcissistic enough to believe that she knows what God is saying to her she actually managed to have enough humility to go to a Priest and say “Hey Father, is there a chance I’m wrong?””

    That’s my read as well. Women’s emotions don’t seem to exist in a vacuum like men’s; they always seem to be in a context. Possibly a completely unrelated context. It demonstrates a lack of abstract thought, which I suppose is a feature of women not a flaw.

    I remember the frustration of my blue-pill days, when the Bible described marriage one way but everybody I talked to described marriage a completely different way. Easy answer, right? Trust the Bible and to heck with every pastor of every church as well as every husband with an opinion, right? Well, no. It’s very hard to hold a belief in the face of uniform opposition from people you trust. That’s human nature. If a lone-wolf math nut like me can be swayed enough by feminism’s lies to be uncertain about the Bible then it must be horrific for women with their social and emotional tendencies.

    Some divorces are carefully planned betrayals and some are women drenched in lies, handed a loaded gun and given a little shove at the moment of weakness.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12
    Lauren martin, naturally, lies when she claims that “the assh*les women have fallen for were men pretending to be nice who just turned out to be assh*les.” But she’s merely expressing how women *feel* about the bad boys who used them. In other words, the woman *hoped* that the bad boy who was being mean to her would turn into a nice guy after being exposed to the almight power of her special v.

    Well, given that the above is pretty much a standard fictional plotline in emotional porn (Oxygen/Lifetime/Oprah) not to mention overt porn such as 50 Shades of Grey it should not surprise that Lauren Martin is disappointed. Reality is supposed to mirror fiction, right?

    This is one aspect of one of my standard points: we are all swimming in feminism, all the time, unless we actively reject it. And as Dalrock has abundantly documented, the whispers are pretty much everywhere. It takes active will to turn away from them, obviously.

  69. @earl: “If you single guys out there are that fired up about how priests are acting these days…put your money where your mouth is. Join a seminary and take on this topic.”

    Been there, done that, didn’t even get a t-shirt. They used a lot of euphemisms, but I was essentially told by the seminary and vocations office that I was too rigid, old fashioned, and “not pastoral” enough. Make no mistake, priest shortages in the West exist for artificial and contrived reasons.

  70. BradA says:

    DavidG,

    What is the worse that could happen to you financially? You might lose everything and start over. I wouldn’t recommend running if you are a Christian, but I would rather be in sin in that situation and leave, living with the consequences, than stay and constantly be in sin in my attitudes.

    You would take a financial hit for leaving, but you may not have as many financial needs as you think you do.

    Mike’s advice has merit. I just wanted to encourage you to realize that finances are not everything. You probably need a mindset shift to see that she needs a content and happy you as much as you need a content and happy her, if not more.

  71. deti says:

    @ Beefy:

    **Raises eyebrow**

    Really? I’ve never heard of anyone being turned away from the priesthood or Prot ministry because they’re too “old fashioned” or “rigid” or “unpastoral”.

    Interesting.

  72. deti says:

    DavidG:

    Cosign BradA and Mike. Game her, run soft dread. If that doesn’t work, you have two choices: (1) stay with her and make the best of it until she pulls the plug (because she probably will pull the plug eventually); or (2) pull the plug first.

  73. Michael Neal says:

    happens all the time, they also often turned away for not being gay, sure that will stir up a hornet’s nest :)

  74. deti says:

    DavidG:

    Cosign Mike and BradA. Game her, show some soft dread. IF that doesn’t work, you have two choices: (1) stay with her and make the best of it until she pulls the plug (because she probably will pull the plug eventually; or (2) pull the plug first.

  75. Elspeth says:

    I just wanted to encourage you to realize that finances are not everything. You probably need a mindset shift to see that she needs a content and happy you as much as you need a content and happy her, if not more.

    This comment struck a chord with me Brad, as I had occasion yesterday to speak with an engaged young woman dealing with this from a different angle.

    My daughter met up with one of her high school girlfriends yesterday. The girl (20) is recently engaged and was supposed to be getting married June 2015. The fiance is a 25 year old youth pastor in training whose day job is a hospital paper pusher. The bride is ending her second year of university for what was intended to be a career as an orthodontist.

    She attends school in another part of the state, and for the sake of being able to go ahead and get married (and see children in the near run rather than the long run), she considered changing her major to something like elementary ed.- easier classes, of course- and moving back here to attend the local university and be with him, as his wife.

    HE said no. He wants her to be a doctor, of some kind. Period. He actually pushed the wedding back a year so that she can stay at her more respected school, finish there, and then they can get married. She is not happy with this, but she has agreed to it because she wants to marry him. It’ll just be 2016, and the babies will have to wait.

    This is a very devout young Christian couple, and I don’t think this young man is all that unusual. Wanting his wife to be a good earner and prioritizing it over the wedding date, I mean.

    We talk a lot about marriage being delayed because of women, and this is mostly true. What has happened now is that most everyone (men and women alike) thinks that they can hedge all kinds of bets by making sure everything is perfect before they get married.

    With women it is usually accomplishing frivolous merit badges. With men it is accumulating money or the potential to maximize the chances of making a lot of it, first.

  76. @deti:

    It used to happen all the time. Men would be dismissed from the seminary or sent to the psychiatrist if they hewed to closely to the traditional teachings of the Church. It doesn’t happen nearly as often anymore thankfully, but it can still happen if a man is a little too open about his opinions. Which I was. On the one hand it was my fault for not keeping my mouth shut; I don’t have a lot of patience for walking on egg shells or ignoring elephants in the room. On the other, I don’t think priests should be in those habits like the one in the OP.

  77. Michael Neal says:

    If you would have kept your mouth shut in seminary it still would have eventually caught up to you, our bishop has aggressively shut down many of our traditional priests that had the guts to speak up.

  78. Lyn87 says:

    Elspeth,

    Interesting dynamic with that couple. My first instinct is to think that the guy just isn’t all that keen on getting married to her, and he’s willing to wait to line things up better financially as a condition of his willingness. Since he’s 25 and she’s 20 (the same ages as my wife and I when we met and got married), I’ve been in a similar position and I cannot imagine willingly prolonging the wedding by a year unless they’re fornicating… your note about them being very devout notwithstanding. The reason I say that is that, for my wife and I, premarital sex was completely off the table for both of us, and there’s no way on Earth I as going to postpone the wedding night an entire year for something as trivial as money. That’s just not a rational response from a guy in his mid-20’s – who is probably surrounded by nubile young women as a “youth pastor” (whatever that is) – who is remaining celibate. It’s not impossible… but it sure is odd.

    On the other hand, he may have looked at the divorce stats and realized that he has a lot more to lose if his potential future ex-wife is a glorified baby-sitter (primary education teacher) rather than a high-earning doctor in her own right. Alimony laws are still pretty screwed up, but they generally aren’t what they used to be.

    Then again, if they’re planning on having kids in short order, it makes little sense for her to be college at all – it’s not like she’s going to be able to be a decent mother and a high earner at the same time.

    There’s more to this than meet the eye.

  79. feeriker says:

    This is a very devout young Christian couple, and I don’t think this young man is all that unusual. Wanting his wife to be a good earner and prioritizing it over the wedding date, I mean.

    “Wanting his wife to be a good earner.”

    OK, maybe it was just the way I was raised or the type of fsmily I grew up in (admittedly one of a bygone era that was probably a historical aberration, as many manosphere sociologists claim), but I reflexively chafe at this sort of attitude. I’ve been known to upset a few ostensibly Christian young single guys expressing this sentiment by responding “you are the head of your household and the primary breadwinner, meaning that it is upon YOU, not your wife, to be the ‘good earner.’ If you don’t have enough confidence in yourself to think that you can provide for a wife and family, then you probably need to rethink this whole marriage idea, put it off till you find that necessary confidence in yourself, or, better yet, pray fervently for God’s guidance and help. There’s certainly nothing wrong with your wife being able to earn money in a skilled job field. We all know that times are hard and won’t probably be getting any easier, so sharing the burden might be necessary. Still, the ‘good earner’ concept applies to YOU, NOT HER (and doesn’t the phrase and idea sound like something a Mafia capo uses to describe one of his enforcers? Are you sure that’s how you want to think of your wife?)”

    Okay, I’ll put the soapbox away now…

  80. deti says:

    Elspeth:

    First, the generals. I would bet that a very big part of this (assuming it’s a trend) is that men have seen the writing on the wall. Forty percent chance of divorce. Thirty-eight percent of professing Christians get divorced. A man wants to make sure she has a career in case she leaves him or EPLs him, so she can’t come after him for lifetime alimony. Moreover, he wants no later complaints from her that she’s unhappy because he made her get married and she “gave up her dream” of becoming a [insert dream job here]. Third, she expects to be taken care of in a certain way, and she expects children; and most men know they can’t support a family on what they make alone. She will have to work and make good money or they will go under and he knows it.

    Second, the specifics. He’s a youth pastor. He is going into a career in ministry. He’ll never, ever make enough money to support a family unless he becomes distinguished or gets a really high level senior pastor position in a church of at least 1000 families. He’s entering a life of poverty. His wife needs – NEEDS—to make good money; and being an el ed teacher ain’t gonna do it.

  81. Really? I’ve never heard of anyone being turned away from the priesthood or Prot ministry because they’re too “old fashioned” or “rigid” or “unpastoral”.

    Read Goodbye, Good Men, by Michael Rose. Once liberals, many of them nuns, took over the Catholic vocations offices, they turned away many men who were too “rigid” in their thinking. Men were rejected for agreeing with the Church’s position on women priests, for spending too much time in prayer (yes, really), or for saying anything positive about celibacy or negative about homosexuality, among other reasons. Before long, most seminaries were dominated by effeminate liberals and homosexuals. Straight, orthodox men who were determined to be priests had to keep their beliefs to themselves lest they be driven out. One seminary was even called the Pink Palace by locals, and a couple gay bars did a booming business nearby.

    None of this was an accident. Things have improved a lot in recent years, but it takes a while for correction to work through the system. The seminarians and young priests I know are all much more orthodox than the last generation and none seems effeminate. It’ll be another decade before they’re in charge of much, though.

  82. feeriker says:

    On the other hand, he may have looked at the divorce stats and realized that he has a lot more to lose if his potential future ex-wife is a glorified baby-sitter (primary education teacher) rather than a high-earning doctor in her own right. Alimony laws are still pretty screwed up, but they generally aren’t what they used to be.

    Wow. If a pastor is thinking pre-emptively in such terms (and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he was), then things are much, much worse with the state of the Faith than I imagined.

    Again, just … WOW

  83. adam alan says:

    Are there any Christian denominations that are hard against divorce theologically and practically in the US? Who has the lowest divorce rate stats?

  84. Lyn87 says:

    freeriker,

    I agree with your pessimism. but I would caution against referring to the young man as a pastor. The position he holds is a recent addition to the structure of churches… the youth pastor. The Bible says a lot about unity in the body, but the recent trend is to divide it by splitting it up into different demographic groups: each with its own “pastor.” The early church had very specific ministries to meet very specific needs (Acts 6: 1-7), but even then the congregation itself was not divided – they just appointed some guys to make sure the widows got fed… there was no “widow’s pastor.” As recently as a few decades ago the very idea of splitting off young adults into a de facto separate congregation with their own pastor would have been looked at with incredulity. Furthermore, the idea of a young unmarried man being the “specialty pastor” to a group that includes a lot of young unmarried women would have been unthinkable.

    Enough about that: there’s no guarantee that he will ever perform ministry as his primary vocation, either. We have no idea if he is truly called to full-time ministry – I think the vast majority of people who engage in it called themselves rather than responded to a genuine call by God. If he is truly called by God, God is perfectly capable of working things out – if he is not then it hardly matters either way. The fact that he wants her to get an expensive degree right before she starts having kids indicates that perhaps he’s not all that certain of a pastoral calling, himself…

    Obviously, if he sees them becoming medical missionaries, that changes everything, but there’s no indication given that that is the case.

  85. feeriker says:

    @Lyn87

    Yes, I think you’ve summed it quite well, thanks.

  86. theshadowedknight says:

    Forget trying to join churches and reform them. Joseph of Jackson tried that, and look what happened to him. He got thrown out, and had to go to another. With that one, he still had to infiltrate. Get with some friends and study the bible on your own, as the early church did. The large churches are bastions of the Adversary, and so they must be brought down. Do not support them. Leave them to their fates.

    The Shadowed Knight

  87. feeriker says:

    Are there any Christian denominations that are hard against divorce theologically and practically in the US?

    Among Protestant denominations I’m hard-pressed to name a single one that attacks the problem with any teeth. The evangelicals give lip service to divorce censure, but I’ve seen no direct, consistent evidence at the denominational level that any of them do anything institutionally to punish those amongst the body who commit the sin. There have, however, been individual congregations that have bucked the inertia (the pastor of the congregation that “defellowshipped” Jenny Erikson is a good example).

  88. feeriker says:

    theshadowedknight says:June 26, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    Wholeheartedly concur. Needless to say, we can expect any grassroots return to worship in the conditions and manner of the original New Testament (i.e., pre-Constantinian corruption) church to be met with fierce resistance, or even violence, from established interests (both secular and “religious”). It would be a fascinating demonstration of history repeating itself.

  89. Oh maaaaan,.. Zippy Catholic is gonna lose his shit over this one:

    http://www.ldsmag.com/article/12563

  90. feeriker says:

    The Bible says a lot about unity in the body, but the recent trend is to divide it by splitting it up into different demographic groups: each with its own “pastor.” 

    Another blinding flash of the obvious that I should have seen decades ago. It occurs to me how abusive and manipulative this could be (and probably all-too-often is), with each “demographic ‘pastor'” distorting and hamsterizing Scripture to cater to the collective “feeeeeeeeeeeelings” of the target audience (it’s not a stretch of the imagination at all to envision a churchian franchise with a “divorced singles ‘padtor'”).

  91. greyghost says:

    Elspeth
    The guy is covering his bets. He is smart enough to know she is going to divorce him. But his drive to be a family man rules. I tell young men all of the time don’t marry a woman unless she makes a lot more than you.

  92. deti says:

    “Who has the lowest divorce rate stats?”

    https://www.barna.org/family-kids-articles/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

    In 2008, Barna reported based on a survey the following divorce rates:

    All adults: 33%
    Evangelicals: 26%
    Catholic: 28%
    Protestant: 34%

    I think the Catholic results are a little high, and the overall result for Protestants is a little low. There were some suggestions recently of a 38% overall divorce rate for professing Christians across the board.

  93. Novaseeker says:

    Oh maaaaan,.. Zippy Catholic is gonna lose his shit over this one:

    http://www.ldsmag.com/article/12563

    That’s hilarious on its face. I love how she dances around Genesis and doesn’t even mention that God is issuing curses for the disobedience. The “interpretation” offered doesn’t even pass a very relaxed giggle test, honestly. If I were a Mormon I’d be very embarrassed by that article.

  94. Novaseeker says:

    Read Goodbye, Good Men, by Michael Rose. Once liberals, many of them nuns, took over the Catholic vocations offices, they turned away many men who were too “rigid” in their thinking. Men were rejected for agreeing with the Church’s position on women priests, for spending too much time in prayer (yes, really), or for saying anything positive about celibacy or negative about homosexuality, among other reasons. Before long, most seminaries were dominated by effeminate liberals and homosexuals. Straight, orthodox men who were determined to be priests had to keep their beliefs to themselves lest they be driven out. One seminary was even called the Pink Palace by locals, and a couple gay bars did a booming business nearby.

    None of this was an accident. Things have improved a lot in recent years, but it takes a while for correction to work through the system. The seminarians and young priests I know are all much more orthodox than the last generation and none seems effeminate. It’ll be another decade before they’re in charge of much, though.

    Yes. They need to clear out the gays. There is resistance to that (there is a pink mafia of sorts inside the Church, we have a similar yet smaller problem in Orthodoxy, too), but the good news is that, as you say, it’s generational to a significant degree. The problem is that between now and then still a lot of damage is being done, and the “war” inside the Church between the liberals and the rest will not go away any time soon, unfortunately.

  95. Lyn87 says:

    Rollo,

    I could only get through the first page of that article and a few comments. Basically she’s saying that, since she believes in the tenets of feminism, she became a Mormon because Mormon doctrine (as opposed to the history of Mormon practice!) is most consistent with her actual religion: Feminism.

    Call me crazy, but I thought the only good reason to believe in something was that one is convinced that the thing is true… not how the thing makes one feel. Either Mormonism is true or it is false (spoiler alert: it’s false), but choosing to adhere to a religion based on how well it conforms to one’s sexual politics may be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen. Almost as stupid as this quote by Professor Richard Lewontin – one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology:

    ‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our “a priori” adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

    In other words, “It may be absurd, but I’m going to choose to believe it anyway because I do not find the alternative the be to my liking.”

  96. Novaseeker says:

    We talk a lot about marriage being delayed because of women, and this is mostly true. What has happened now is that most everyone (men and women alike) thinks that they can hedge all kinds of bets by making sure everything is perfect before they get married.

    With women it is usually accomplishing frivolous merit badges. With men it is accumulating money or the potential to maximize the chances of making a lot of it, first.

    It’s also risk management for a guy — if it ends in divorce, she’s the one who will take the financial bath rather than him. However, in that situation you mentioned, it’s likely due to his own meager earning potential as a youth minister that he wants the wife to earn a good living for the family. I guess if you’re a protestant minister and you want to be the provider you really have to blow the doors off and become a megapastor, publish books and videos and really try to milk it — otherwise there isn’t much money there if you are interested in being the main provider for a family.

  97. feeriker,

    I’ve been known to upset a few ostensibly Christian young single guys expressing this sentiment by responding “you are the head of your household and the primary breadwinner, meaning that it is upon YOU, not your wife, to be the ‘good earner.’ If you don’t have enough confidence in yourself to think that you can provide for a wife and family, then you probably need to rethink this whole marriage idea, put it off till you find that necessary confidence in yourself, or, better yet, pray fervently for God’s guidance and help. There’s certainly nothing wrong with your wife being able to earn money in a skilled job field. We all know that times are hard and won’t probably be getting any easier, so sharing the burden might be necessary. Still, the ‘good earner’ concept applies to YOU, NOT HER…

    Your objection is noted counselor. But I think God might be over-ruling you here from His bench. The reason why I say that is refer to the vows that the husband and wife make to one another…

    “For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health…”

    …at no time does the husband (alone) vow “…to earn a sufficent paycheck to maintain an adequate lifestyle such that I can support the entire family on my own…”

    You know why that vow doesn’t exist? Because the man has no control over that. He could get hurt and never be able to work again. His career may be rendered entirely obsolete at some point (you ever see 50+ year old men re-training themselves, very depressing.) Moreover, with this being the information age and NOT the industrial age it is even more the case today that half of all men (those with an IQ less than 100) will never be able to find a career such that he could provide sufficent earning power. Yes he would have no confidence in doing so and with good reason.

    Your type of thinking unintentionally justifies women to be gold-diggers. Yes it does. You give women an exit clause from the marriage if he (for whatever reason) is functionally incapable of keeping the family in a lifestyle that she determines to be appropriate. You are uninintentionally championing marriage 2.0.

    The beauty of those vows is that every single one of the are promises you can keep. You are individually responsible for each one. That is one of the cardinal reasons of why marriage 1.0 is so sacred.

  98. Lyn87 says:

    Re: pastoral salaries:

    As I think I have mentioned before, I grew up as a Preacher’s Kid (we call ourselves PK’s). The church when my dad pastored for 34 years was pretty small – we started with six people and never had more than about 70. Only one of the families had any real money, and I’m fairly certain they did not come anywhere close to tithing (10% of pre-tax income, for those who don’t know what that term means).

    God saw to it that our needs were met. I didn’t have the latest… or the newest… or the bestest… but we never missed a meal or slept under a bridge. And dad told it straight, and we dealt with things according to Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 when we had to. It certainly cost us a lot of parishioners who found other places to get their itching ears scratched (2 timothy 4:3), and the money that goes with having pews filled with people who want to hear about love to the exclusion of all else. But God is God, and one does not have to compromise the gospel to fulfill a call to ministry.

  99. jf12 says:

    @Lyn87, re: “That’s just not a rational response from a guy in his mid-20′s – who is probably surrounded by nubile young women as a “youth pastor” (whatever that is) – who is remaining celibate. It’s not impossible… but it sure is odd.”

    I wholeheartedly agree. Also, the majority of churches that DO have youth pastors usually do insist upon them being married, for this very reason. I was one, btw, at that age.

  100. Elspeth says:

    I am in no way convinced that this young man is preparing for divorce. Nope. He’s not a red pill type.

    This is American Dream chasing, with all that it emtails. But my point was that this goes deeper. It highlights how even among the faithful, the desire for classical or even traditional marriage (let alone Biblical) is lost.

    And while it’s primarily the women, it’s not JUST the women by any stretch. There are very few younger men today(the men here excluded of course), who are willing to forgo the illusion of security, live frugally, and sacrifice for the sake of a larger family or a simpler life.

    And it has already been touched about the usefulness of youth ministry as it is commonly practice. And theirs is a mega church.

  101. jf12 says:

    @Lyn87, John Paul II was famously a “youth pastor” in his earlier years, the hour of Mass each day not occupying much of his time. He formed and reformed groups of young people, playing sports and other recreation with them, doing campouts and campfire singalongs, holding special youth devotion services, prayer meetings, fasts, all the usual youth pastor stuff.

  102. Lyn87 says:

    IBB,

    I agree with your sentiment, but will raise one objection myself – the marriage vows you quoted are not found anywhere in scripture. One could argue that they are based on scriptural concepts (and I would agree), but you cannot ascribe the exact wording of the Book of Common Prayer to the level of Divine Writ.

    If anything, traditional wedding vows may understate marital obligations, so your point still holds, though.

  103. jf12 says:

    @Lyn87, re: “Call me crazy, but I thought the only good reason to believe in something was that one is convinced that the thing is true… not how the thing makes one feel.”

    Mormonism is famous for the feeling of heart burn as a basis for belief.

  104. Lyn87 says:

    Elspeth,

    As I noted in my first response, that was my initial take, but I don’t know these people and you do. It seems that a guy with that attitude may not be ready for either marriage or ministry. And the fact that she’s on board with this may mean the same is true for her.

    But my question still stands: as a 25-year-old presumptively celibate man, how could he even begin to contemplate another entire year without sex with the woman he professes to love enough to wife her up? They’re still in the googly-eyes stage of the relationship – how does this make sense if he’s not gettin’ any?

  105. donalgraeme says:

    @ Elspeth

    This is American Dream chasing, with all that it emtails. But my point was that this goes deeper. It highlights how even among the faithful, the desire for classical or even traditional marriage (let alone Biblical) is lost.

    I appreciate you using my terms. Although I would note that under my “model” biblical marriage=classical marriage.

    And yes, I do agree that this is dream chasing. I know guys like this- guys who want to marry high-earning women. Not so much that they can slack off, or because they fear divorce, but because they want to live an affluent lifestyle.

    @ Lyn87

    If anything, traditional wedding vows may understate marital obligations

    Of course they do. But that all just ties into my model on how Christian marriage has drifted over the years.

  106. Elspeth says:

    Well she says he ain’t getting any, and that is part of the reason for her distress. She’s tired of waiting for that too.

    The drive for affluence is pretty strong in this culture, Lyn. And I’ m not even sure that they won’t go ahead, marry, and commute. Because she would get married tomorrow if she could.

    That’s a quote.

  107. donalgraeme says:

    @ Rollo

    I will hazard a guess that Zippy’s reply to that article will be something along the lines of “Heretics gonna Heresy.”

    All that article does is support the contention in his latest post.

  108. But my question still stands: as a 25-year-old presumptively celibate man, how could he even begin to contemplate another entire year without sex with the woman he professes to love enough to wife her up? They’re still in the googly-eyes stage of the relationship – how does this make sense if he’s not gettin’ any?

    Question for the Biblical scholars here….

    Is there actually any Bible verse (in any Bible, King James, Good News, you name it) that specifically prohibits… er… masturbation? Is that (technically) sin? You are not committing adultry. You are not even fornicating (not really.) I mean I was taught that it was sin but I don’t actually remember reading any verse stipulating that it is? Thou shalt not touch thyself? I am not saying it isn’t in there, I just don’t remember reading it.

    Moreover, God Almighty has already taken care of those who burn but choose to abstain. He gives men nocturnal emissions. That is like God’s little faucet, the valve that relieves the pressure on the pipes down there, keeps everything flowing along properly if you see feel it is sin to take matters into your own hands. And I KNOW that those emissions are not sinful. You have ZERO control over that.

  109. jf12 says:

    Re: youth pastors. Roughly speaking in congregations where there are enough youth to justify having a ministry for them, the church is large enough to justify the pastor having an assistant who specializes in youth ministry. Most often, this assistant is a young pastor-in-training, who gets to lead about his smaller flock of smaller sheep within the larger herd for a little while.

  110. Lyn87 says:

    Elspeth,

    I’m willing to accept your assertion that SHE isn’t gettin’ any, and that’s part of her hurry to tie the knoy, but that doesn’t mean that HE isn’t. He’s in a ministerial position that has no scriptural basis, in a position of – dare I say – dominance over impressionable young churchian women. Just because she’s living in a drought doesn’t mean it’s not raining where he lives.

    I’m not accusing him of sexual misconduct, by the way – I don’t know him from Adam, and he may be as pure as the driven snow… but his actions do not easily comport with those that one would expect of a guy who burns (1 Conrinthians 7:9), but remains unsatisfied.

  111. Lyn87 says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    June 26, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    IBB, the simple answer to your question is, “No.”

  112. I didn’t think so.

    So for those who “burn” then can relieve themselves…. un-sinfully.

  113. Lyn87 says:

    jf12,

    I understand your desire to defend the churchian practice of appointing youth “pastors,” but I still do not see how dividing the flock into demographic groups can be squared with God’s multiple commands to the body to be united.

    The same rationale is applied to create so-called “women’s ministries” – which usually seem to do everything except what is specified in Titus 2: 3-5.

    There is no “youth gospel” – there is only the gospel. If there is some good reason to create such groups and assign them “specialty pastors” – reasons that puts them outside the scope of the Biblical commandments toward unity, I’d love to hear it – I never have.

  114. donalgraeme says:

    @ Lyn

    as a 25-year-old presumptively celibate man, how could he even begin to contemplate another entire year without sex with the woman he professes to love enough to wife her up? They’re still in the googly-eyes stage of the relationship – how does this make sense if he’s not gettin’ any?

    I could do it if necessary. Not that I would want to, but were the circumstances to demand it I could endure the fire. Of course, what makes this different is that the circumstances might not demand it. But if this man is sufficiently attached to a comfortable, affluent lifestyle… well, that just might give him the chops to wait.

  115. Lyn87 says:

    IBB,
    I see your point, and that may be the answer, but I’m looking at it like this (and I may well be wrong):

    If a guy is 25 and a “youth pastor” then he’s probably been a serious Christian (or at least seriously churchian) for a long time – probably before puberty. Given that, he is presumably a virgin. Now that they’re engaged, the only thing keeping his p out of her v is the timing of the wedding, which has GOT to be weighing heavy on his mind. A year is an awfully long time to voluntarily go solo.

  116. Lyn87 says:

    donal writes,

    I could do it if necessary. Not that I would want to, but were the circumstances to demand it I could endure the fire. Of course, what makes this different is that the circumstances might not demand it.

    I agree. I was deployed to the big sandbox, and obviously the wives weren’t going to war with us. Going without in those circumstances is a lot different than choosing to do so like this guy is doing. He’s 25… she’s 20 and hot for him, and he’s NOT jumping at the chance.

    Reminds me of this:

    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5JCp2Hd5L8&feature=kp)

  117. A year is an awfully long time to voluntarily go solo.

    But is it?

    He’s been going solo for a decade or more. What’s one more year?

  118. Lyn87 says:

    Oops, formatting error in my last post. Only the first paragraph is a quote from donalgraeme.

  119. feeriker says:

    Your type of thinking unintentionally justifies women to be gold-diggers. Yes it does. You give women an exit clause from the marriage if he (for whatever reason) is functionally incapable of keeping the family in a lifestyle that she determines to be appropriate. You are uninintentionally championing marriage 2.0.

    OK, I follow your premise here and it’s fine as far as it goes. There’s just one teeny little (to be charitable) hole in it: it applies whether or not the husband chooses to burden himself with role of sole provider.

    – We generally agree that ALL women are hypergamous. The difference –and the key risk factor– is in determining how capable a particular woman is of restraining her urges of this sort. This means that ALL men contemplating marriage run the risk of falling short of the hypergamy floor, no matter how capable they are of sole provision (and Elspeth’s “youth pastor” acquaintance’s actions demonstrate, however inadvertently, that even Christian “shepherds” know this too). Ergo, there’s a spiderweb thin line between “gold digger” and normal female hypregamy that is too narrow to make a diffetence. Any man who marries –unless, and only unless he’s marrying a femdominatrix who insists on ruling the home, to include being primary provider (in which case it’s not a Christian marriage anyway)– risks being taken to the cleaners and kicked to the curb for “failing to man up(c) and provide.”

    – You mention wifely threatpoint of leaving/frivorcing the husband if he should fail to provide her with a lifestyle SHE deems appropriate. Again, this hangs like a Sword of Damocles over EVERY married man’s head, Christian or not, regardless of whether or not he shoulders sole provision. How is his committment to provide unleashing his wife’s injer Golddigging Whore any more than simply being just simply being married to her? I’ll wait…

    – I wonder how many men have, in brutal honesty, told their prospective wives “I’m going to do my best to keep you in what we like to think of as a ‘middle class’ lifestyle, but if you think I’m going to guarantee that as a state of permanent entitlement, realize now that have anothet think coming. Are prepared for the challenge of living frugally, or even in poverty? Because I cannot and will not guarantee you that such will never at some point be our lot in life.”

    I can almost guarantee you that a shallow,selfish, and entitled woman (i.e., 90-plus percent of Norte Amerikanas) will react angrily to your even broaching the possibilty that a comfy, middle class lifestyle is not her birthright. Oh, and what you’re essentially doing here is asking her to take the marriage vow “for richer or poorer” seriously.

    Actually, forget I ever brought this point up. We all know it’s just silly.

    Lyn87 says to IBB :June 26, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    Thanks, Lyn. You took some my thoughts in reply right off my fingertips.

  120. feeriker says:

    There is no “youth gospel” – there is only the gospel.

    The cynic in me (him again?) asks “why wouldn’t a society mired in a state of perpetual adolescence believe in a ‘youth gospel’?”

  121. earl says:

    “They used a lot of euphemisms, but I was essentially told by the seminary and vocations office that I was too rigid, old fashioned, and “not pastoral” enough.”

    And you gave up that easily.

  122. One of my friends is a youth minister at a Catholic parish. He asked me to be on his core team of volunteers and I agreed. After a year of assisting him, I found out that youth ministry exists largely because parents have abdicated their responsibility to teach the faith to their own children. The youth minister is humble enough to admit that in a perfect world, his job shouldn’t exist.

  123. Elspeth says:

    Given that, he is presumably a virgin.

    Nope. 18-year-old convert. Not a lifelong churchie.

  124. Scott says:

    “I could do it if necessary. Not that I would want to, but were the circumstances to demand it I could endure the fire. Of course, what makes this different is that the circumstances might not demand it. But if this man is sufficiently attached to a comfortable, affluent lifestyle… well, that just might give him the chops to wait.”

    I did a year in Afghanistan. We were both still in the googly eyed part of our marriage. It is doable.

    The libertines who the army is full of now (and all have F*** buddies on deployment) always ask “How do you do it? There are plenty of young enlisted girls around here who are totally available to an officer/doctor.”

    I never knew how to answer this. I just waited until I got home.

  125. Lyn87 says:

    Beefy writes,

    … I found out that youth ministry exists largely because parents have abdicated their responsibility to teach the faith to their own children…

    I see your point, but that begs these questions: why aren’t they learning the faith while sitting in the pews with the rest of the congregation? If your pastor needs to have a separate “pastor” to preach the gospel, why do you need him?

  126. feeriker,

    - You mention wifely threatpoint of leaving/frivorcing the husband if he should fail to provide her with a lifestyle SHE deems appropriate. Again, this hangs like a Sword of Damocles over EVERY married man’s head, Christian or not, regardless of whether or not he shoulders sole provision. How is his committment to provide unleashing his wife’s inner Golddigging Whore any more than simply being just simply being married to her? I’ll wait…

    It doesn’t. Technically there is no difference. But that is not the point.

    I am not defending marriage 2.0 by insisting that the Christian man “man up” and focus on being the sole provider. You did that. If Adam became paralyzed (somehow) and was no longer able to toil in the fields and eat of them from the sweat of thy brow, Eve would have had to toil in the fields… for both of them. And for Cane and Abel. And if Adam refused to “man up” and give Even the kind of lifestyle (outside of Eden) that she felt she was deserving, what divorce court would have held Adam accountable for not providing?

    God knows if the man is at least trying to provide even if his wife/frivorcing-ex-wife does not. God also knows if the man is capable of providing (or not) as many men cannot. I can’t tell you how many men I have met in my travels who (through no fault of their own) are functionally incapable of supporting themselves (in our country), let alone a family. You can’t just be Adam and go out there and start working the fields. Thanks to government, you have to buy the fields first or be hired by someone who owns it.

    Perhaps (as Lyn87 said) I am putting too much focus on the Book of Common Prayer and maybe I shouldn’t do that. All I’m saying is that I love the vows that are in it because (if both promise to follow them, and follow through) that is pure marriage 1.0 and there will be no Sword of Damocles. Government horribly and irresponsibly put that sword there and created marriage 2.0, not God. Assume marriage 2.0 and the worst happens. If the sword comes down and impales the man, technically the WORST that government can do is incarcerate a man who fails to live up to the entirely subjective financial burden that government has indicated that he must. I suppose that if the man were to TRULY go his own way (after marriage) then his best interest would be to never-ever work again, (not for pay) and just stay in prison.

  127. Elspeth says:

    I see your point, but that begs these questions: why aren’t they learning the faith while sitting in the pews with the rest of the congregation?

    That’s how we did it. And our church has a youth ministry also. I like the couple who runs it a lot, but it’s not something we wanted to put our kids in.

  128. why aren’t they learning the faith while sitting in the pews with the rest of the congregation?

    Hell if I know. I’ve known Catholics who made it through 18 years of Catholic schooling and sitting in the pews every Sunday and they’re still completely ignorant of the most basic doctrines and requirements of the faith. For example, they didn’t know that Catholics are bound under pain of sin to attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation until I, the loudmouthed and arrogant convert, told them so.

  129. Lyn87 says:

    Elspeth,

    This is getting weirder and weirder… He converted at 18 (and I take it from your response that he sowed some wild oats before that), and at 25 he’s already in a position with “pastor” in the title(?)…

    I realize this is a mega-church, and they’re notorious for bad doctrine, but did they cut 1 Timothy 3:6 out of their Bibles along with the commands for the body to be united?

    A young man – full of raging hormones – with enough sexual experience to know what he’s missing… in charge of a bunch of young churchian women… And since he’s engaged he even has pre-selection bias going for him. Are they deliberately setting this guy up to fail?

  130. Lyn87 says:

    Scott,

    Like you, I did the Afghan thing (I went home early because of a Red Cross message, but the principle applies). Unlike you, I was no newly-wed, so it wasn’t as bad for me. My unit was all-male, though, so nobody was getting any where I was, although I’m sure that there was plenty of bed-bouncing at Phoenix, Bagram, and the ISAF compound.

    The point Donal and I are making is that it’s one thing to go without sex because you have to (like we did), and another to go without when you don’t have to (like the guy Elspeth is talking about). He has a hot-enough-to-marry 20-year-old (virgin?) who’s dripping wet for marital intercourse, and he’s saying, “Not tonight, dear, I want to wait another year because money.”

    I can’t even…

  131. jf12 says:

    @Lyn87, our youth pastor is also the youth Sunday School teacher. That’s it as far as “separate”. Do your teen classes meet in crayon unity with the first graders?

    “I still do not see how dividing the flock into demographic groups can be squared with God’s multiple commands to the body to be united.”

    You’re presumptuous, extremely so on this matter. 1 Cor 12:14 “For the body is not one member, but many.” You should not use toenail clippers on your eyeballs, dude. Our four, count ‘em, FOUR church-wide worship services per week are attended by everybody. In unity. Are YOUR church-sponsored (hey, presuming is fun) Boy Scout meetings attended by EVERYBODY in unity? Why not?

  132. Elspeth says:

    He converted at 18 (and I take it from your response that he sowed some wild oats before that), and at 25 he’s already in a position with “pastor” in the title(?)…

    He’s training to be a youth pastor. Not a pastor yet, though. But it’s not as if the average church is teeming with energetic young men eager to serve. After 8 years there, they (i guess, it’s not our church I only know him because of the fiancee), determined that he was suitable to be trained for minister.

    Most churches today are not inclined to use the circumstances of one’s pre-conversion past against them if they’ve been faithful since conversion. That goes double so in larger churches where you have a greater percentage of adult converts.

    I am not a fan of youth pastoring for the most part, nor churches that take up half a city block, so I’m not privy the ins and outs of how they vetted him. I do know that he is reported to have been devout since converting.

  133. Dalrock says:

    @Elspeth

    I am in no way convinced that this young man is preparing for divorce. Nope. He’s not a red pill type.

    This is American Dream chasing, with all that it emtails. But my point was that this goes deeper. It highlights how even among the faithful, the desire for classical or even traditional marriage (let alone Biblical) is lost.

    Somewhat fitting along with this and with the opposing view (that he’s being pragmatic about divorce risk), is what I have been asserting as a cultural level reaction to divorce risk and the family courts. I don’t think the average man is as rational as we might expect him to be about marriage and divorce, and the data of course backs that up (nearly all women are still able to marry). But the data also shows that men’s retreat from marriage has been the largest where the most risk is. For example, Black women are a much higher divorce risk than White women, who are a slightly higher risk than Asian women. If you look at marriage rates Asian women have the least trouble marrying, then White women, then Black women. The same pattern is likely true if you look at communities based on class/education. Those socioeconomic groups most devastated by divorce in past generations seem to be the ones pulling back from marriage the most (although while “everyone knows” this, solid data is harder to find than you would expect). Likewise we see men not wanting to marry down in age as much as you would otherwise expect. Young women are all else equal the highest risk for divorce. The same is true for remarriage; men today just aren’t nearly as willing to sign up for round two as they were in the past, or to try their luck as husband number two (or three, four, etc). Some of this change is due to individual men rationally weighing risks, but I don’t think that is nearly as strong as the culture itself responding to risks. The two are related, but not exactly the same.

    So while I don’t doubt this guy is to some extent greedy and lazy (he is fallen like the rest of us), part of this if not most is likely due to cultural changes. Feminists set out to radically change the culture, and they have been wildly successful at this. One of the ways they have been most successful is in destroying our faith in traditional marriage, one “I’m… Not…. Haaaaaapy!” (now where are my cash and prizes?) empowered woman at a time. When the culture then changes as expected, was it due to women or men?

  134. Lyn87 says:

    jf12,

    You’re getting heated and not addressing my point, which was, “If there is some good reason to create such groups and assign them “specialty pastors” – reasons that puts them outside the scope of the Biblical commandments toward unity, I’d love to hear it – I never have.”

    It’s good that your church has body-wide meetings, but to the extent that any church has standing divisions based on demographics, I object. It seems to me that they are inherently divisive. My church has a few, and that’s an area where I disagree with my pastor. I do not attend them, and my wife does not attend the women’s group because I told her not to – for the same reason. Once I explained that reason she agreed, but because I am her husband she would have stayed home whether she agreed or not.

    No church is perfect (and if I ran one it would not be perfect either) – I can live with the things I disagree with where I am: those issues are few and – as far as they impact me and mine – manageable. Except for a few areas I am in total agreement with my pastor. Christian manospherians would feel welcome there.

    It’s hard enough to stay on the straight-and-narrow when we ARE united, why add to it by creating disunity?

  135. Elspeth says:

    I don’t think the average man is as rational as we might expect him to be about marriage and divorce, and the data of course backs that up (nearly all women are still able to marry). But the data also shows that men’s retreat from marriage has been the largest where the most risk is. For example, Black women are a much higher divorce risk than White women, who are a slightly higher risk than Asian women.

    I agree with this Dalrock, though I will interject that this couple isn’t black. They’re Latinos, whom you left out of your comment.

    Her family is fairly well off. Successful business, classy people. If they’re not UMC, they’re dang close to it. Not sure about his family of origin, as I’ve only ever met him.

    When the culture then changes as expected, was it due to women or men?

    Definitely driven primarily by women. No argument from me on that one. Just pointing out that the women who are “not like that” can pay for those changes in different ways than men, but there is fallout for both sexes.

  136. Dalrock,

    So while I don’t doubt this guy is to some extent greedy and lazy (he is fallen like the rest of us), part of this if not most is likely due to cultural changes.

    Could be.

    Or perhaps he is just hypergamous and wants her to have a great career to ensure the most resources for his children?

  137. Dalrock says:

    @Elspeth

    I agree with this Dalrock, though I will interject that this couple isn’t black. They’re Latinos, whom you left out of your comment.

    I would have to go back and look again, but from what I recall Latinos are interesting because while they look similar to Whites in aggregate there is a big split between foreign born and US born.

    Definitely driven primarily by women. No argument from me on that one. Just pointing out that the women who are “not like that” can pay for those changes in different ways than men, but there is fallout for both sexes.

    Agreed. The dysfunction wrought by feminism is hurting everyone, and there is no shortage of suffering.

  138. Lyn87 says:

    Elspeth,

    I may not have expressed myself clearly enough. My question of his qualifications based on Titus was NOT that his pre-conversion past was a disqualifier, but that his conversion was so recent. 25 – 18 = 7, which makes him a relative novice in any established church. We all acknowledge that pre-conversion sluttery may render a woman unsuitable for marriage (although forgiven) later, so we must surely also acknowledge that a young man who knows what he’s missing might find it harder to resist the temptations inherent in being in authority over young, unmarried churchian women (who don’t have the best reputation for chastity themselves).

    So I’m not saying that he can never be a minister (far from it) – I’m saying that “youth pastor” seems like a particularly risky way for him to get his ministerial feet wet.

  139. feeriker says:

    I’ve known Catholics who made it through 18 years of Catholic schooling and sitting in the pews every Sunday and they’re still completely ignorant of the most basic doctrines and requirements of the faith. 

    Needless to say, this condition is by no means unique to Catholicism. Most denominations seem fundamentally unable to get it through their thick collective heads that Bible study (as in study of the ACTUAL BIBLE, not group readings of the latest churchian Book of the Month Club best seller) is as essential to understanding the Word, if not more so, than listening to a sermon once per week.

  140. Elspeth says:

    so we must surely also acknowledge that a young man who knows what he’s missing might find it harder to resist the temptations inherent in being in authority over young, unmarried churchian women (who don’t have the best reputation for chastity themselves).

    True.

  141. Scott says:

    “Most denominations seem fundamentally unable to get it through their thick collective heads that Bible study (as in study of the ACTUAL BIBLE, not group readings of the latest churchian Book of the Month Club best seller) is as essential to understanding the Word…”

    What is now called “Bible study” includes (as you point out) either a pre-selected book + scripture or sometimes going through say, Romans verse by verse.

    So far, so good. Bible study or devotional books are not in and of themselves bad. However, it is the tangential “chasing the rabbit” that passes for “study” that is the problem.

    “Oh, I think this verse means this.”

    “Well, I think it means that.”

    The “teacher” is often someone who just volunteered to lead the study for the next six months because no one else raised their hand. They do not understand hermeneutics, epistemology, nosology. theology, basic Church fathers and Church doctors’ teachings. They do not speak with authority and reel in the weird, lets face it heretical things are said in these “studies.” Verses mean something–and it is possible to reach the objective truth the writer was trying to convey if you have the proper training.

    I am 43 and Bible study has been that way my whole life. Christians who are totally unaware of doctrine (whether it’s Catholic or not) were an easy to predict by-product of this.

  142. Gunner Q says:

    innocentbystanderboston @ 2:34 pm:
    “Question for the Biblical scholars here….
    Is there actually any Bible verse (in any Bible, King James, Good News, you name it) that specifically prohibits… er… masturbation? Is that (technically) sin?”

    1 Thessalonians 4:3-5:
    “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God…”

    Add in Ephesians 5:3’s prohibition on “even a hint of sexual immorality” and the tight correlation between masturbation and porn, and it’s really hard to give approval. Still, you’re right that the topic is never directly addressed. Given how numerous Biblical commands on sexual purity are, the topic of masturbation should have come up at least once in the Bible. Odd.

    Lyn87 is right, there’s no way that guy is living honorably whatever his intentions may be. Either he trusts her and should marry or he doesn’t trust her and should walk. None of this waiting for the stars to align. I don’t like the sound of his church, either. No sane church puts available young men in a leadership position anywhere near teenage girls. Can the church really not find any older men with actual experience raising kids?

    adam alan @ 12:48 pm:
    “Are there any Christian denominations that are hard against divorce theologically and practically in the US?”

    Don’t know about divorce specifically but you might look at the Orthodox Presbyterians. Some quotes off Wikipedia:

    In 2006-2007, a study committee formed by the General Assembly created a report that concluded that illegal aliens who have come to have a credible profession of faith in Christ should be willing to ‘repent’ and seek to remedy their unlawful immigration status.

    After considerable debate, the 68th General Assembly declared that women serving in combat positions in the military is contrary to the Word of God.

    The editor of the OPC’s ministerial journal has asserted that the American political system originally “assumed the internal constraints of true Christianity,” which, he argues, “are now rapidly disappearing in the Western world.”

    In 1993, the denomination petitioned then President Bill Clinton to continue to disallow homosexuals to serve in the military. According to the petition, “homosexuality is a reproach to any nation. It undermines the family, and poses a substantial threat to the general health, safety and welfare of our citizens.”

    The 39th General Assembly adopted a statement on abortion that included the affirmation that “voluntary abortion, except possibly to save the physical life of the mother, is in violation of the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13).

  143. Cane Caldo says:

    @Lyn87

    I may not have expressed myself clearly enough. My question of his qualifications based on Titus was NOT that his pre-conversion past was a disqualifier, but that his conversion was so recent. 25 – 18 = 7, which makes him a relative novice in any established church.

    As a fellow PK, you probably know that (among we Protestants) most young men who display a verve when talking about Christ are strongly encouraged to take that verve as God calling them to ministry. The thinking here is that if a young man is, well, too holy-roller, that he does not belong in the congregation because that would mean the other congregants are not quite up to snuff. No, those young men must be thrust into the pulpit. There those young men won’t look so strange, and the other congregants don’t have to wonder why they’re not more excited about being part of the family of the Lord God Almighty They simply weren’t called to be!

    This leaves them open to other more mundane callings: pew warmer, plate-passer…divorcee…

  144. donalgraeme says:

    Regarding that young man being in a leadership position…

    I don’t think that 7 years would still count as a recent convert, at least, not so far as 1 Tim 3 is concerned. At that time in Church history, when Saint Paul wrote it, there were probably precious few Christians who had been of the faith that long who would meet the other requirements. At least, so far as Ephesus was concerned.

    However, given his past, having him as a youth leader is indeed questionable.

  145. Scott says:

    Quick detour. As part of me and my wife’s attempt to inform the hurting at CAF, things are about to heat up a little on this post:

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=892525&page=2

    Carry on.

  146. Bee says:

    @adam alan,

    Are there any Christian denominations that are hard against divorce theologically and practically in the US? Who has the lowest divorce rate stats?”

    I don’t have stats but my guess would be the Amish have the lowest divorce rate.

    Not a denomination, but there is a Marriage Permanence movement:

    http://www.marriagedivorce.com/forgodsoloved.php

    http://oncemarried.net/

  147. gdgm+ says:

    Scott @ June 26 at 5:49 pm:
    Good luck there, you will need it. I took a quick look at the first page of the thread you noted, only to be ‘greeted’ by a poster called ‘naomily’ writing at 10 pm on June 25:

    I can’t imagine any morally defensible view of putting the husband/man as “head of the household.

    If those are Catholics, yikes!

  148. Scott says:

    GDGM–

    I saw that one too, but to my surprise there are at least 2 others (besides myself and my wife) who are on the right track.

    In about a day or two, I will get a warning in my inbox over there telling me I have accumulated naughty points for “inciting” or “pushing an agenda.”

    My wife will not, because she has grrrrrrl power, which gives her a little more leeway to be “offensive.”

  149. Boxer says:

    June 25:

    I can’t imagine any morally defensible view of putting the husband/man as “head of the household.

    If those are Catholics, yikes!

    Well, someone has to be the leader. Whether you’re a devout Catholic or an Atheist, it’s generally accepted that men (were created/evolved) to excel in long-term planning, and women (were created/evolved) to bear and nurse young kids. This isn’t hate speech, it’s just the (way God made us/group evolutionary strategy we were born into). Yes, I know there are anomalies and outliers who buck this trend, but overwhelmingly, this is the situation.

    I have been led by competent men, and have no problem at all submitting to one, as a man who is subordinate in the hierarchy. You brothers who know what I’m talking about will understand. If you have a good leader in the corporate world, you trust that he’s looking out for your best interests, and isn’t trying to throw you under the bus. You follow his orders without thinking, because he can see further down the road. In return, if his orders are crap, you have some protection from criticism as you did what you were told, to the best of your ability.

    This is the same situation in microcosm in marriage. The dude is the leader. He gets to call the plays, but he is also responsible for the family’s well being. If you are so obstinate that you can’t play by the rules, you find yourself alone, a soft target, a mark… sooner rather than later. So it goes for millions of divorcées who thought they could “have it all” and are now entering old age with not a pot to piss in.

    Thus, the traditional Catholic view (which is the traditional Protestant, Jewish, Atheist/Secular, Muslim and every other view) makes perfect sense. Men are the heads of households. No point in questioning why. It works, and that’s that.

    Boxer

  150. Boxer says:

    I saw that one too, but to my surprise there are at least 2 others (besides myself and my wife) who are on the right track.

    I really believe that the majority of good Roman Catholics who read the text and go to mass are on your side. They have probably been silent on the board thanks to hateful kooks like Blue Eyed Lady, Frenzy Jen and a few others, who toss around vacuous accusations of misogyny etc. (Of course, anyone who disagrees with those nutters must hate women, that makes perfect sense – lol).

    By being calm and not being pulled into the sort of flaming that is common, you’re giving voice to the silent majority and helping the more normal people “come out of the closet” — so it’s good and I hope you keep it up.

    Boxer

  151. Bluepillprofessor says:

    This is a woman in rebellion against God and his law and the total failure of a church. There were ways to deal with this rebellion in Marriage 1.0 but not Marriage 2.0. Let us look at them and watch that male hamster burn his wheel (squeak squeak!) as I reach the conclusion that cheating on your wife is Biblical- it’s OK, I prayed about it and a little voice gave me a tingle, telling me I was right.

    Marriage 2.0 is NOT the marriage envisioned by scripture so Biblical rules on marriage don’t even apply! Just because we humans call it the same institution doesn’t mean anything. In fact, it is not even close. If it is a different institution, HOW CAN THE BIBLICAL RULES BE THE SAME? The proposition is logically ridiculous.

    In marriage 1.0 women did not divorce except in extreme cases. In marriage 2.0 women routinely decide I’m not haaapppy in marriage 2.0 and divorce without any good reason, then leave and are awarded with cash, prizes, and custody of the kids all to a chorus of you go grrrrlllllls!

    In marriage 1.0 men had power and women were helpmates and supporters of their men. In marriage 2.0 women have all the power and are the bosses and overlords of men who they weaken over the years and ultimately grow to despise.

    In marriage 1.0 women did NOT deny sex to their husband. Such a thing was almost unheard of before 1960 or so. In marriage 2.0 women ALMOST ALWAYS stop having sex with the husband in order to control him at some point. Almost always.

    In marriage 1.0 the remedy for a woman who denied sex or became a raging hamsterbating byatch was to TAKE ANOTHER WIFE. God said you can’t divorce your CURRENT wife but he never said you can’t take another wife. Abram was the first plate spinner in the Bible followed by MOST of the prophets and heroes of the Bible- Solomon, David etc. Many of them even had concubines- dispensing with even taking a second wife and just spinning plates- yet they remained in God’s good graces. I liken it to drinking wine. The bible cautions about excess wine many times but never condemns it outright (not to mention Christ’s first miracle). In sex, the Bible cautions repeatedly about loose women, excessive sexual congress and such but NEVER condemns taking a concubine outright.

    The Incel Paul writes eloquently about sexual morality and clean/pure etc but he never, NEVER says outright that taking another wife or GF is “wrong.” Also, recall he was writing to the Romans and the Ephesians who were both known to participate in massive orgies and trade partners, including gay sex, torture sex (with slaves) and perversion we cannot even imagine today. Give me a break with this horrible misinterpretation of scripture. It is as ridiculous and as wrong as the Baptists and drinking beer or playing cards. That is NOT what the authors were even talking about!

    In the Song of Solomon an entire Book in the Bible celebrates sexual love- and there is no indication in the Book that the “Lover” and the “Beloved” are even married. OK, I think he says my lover, my spouse a couple times- just like he calls her his “sister.” So what? The book is about SEX, not marriage 2.0 (i.e. weddings, provisioning, and sexual denial).

    In marriage 2.0, there is NO POWER whatsoever the man retains without the credible threat of DREAD. Without threat of divorce, or the threat of taking on another woman to satisfy yourself men have no power whatsoever to influence their wives behavior. None. I say this is NOT God’s plan and the rules no longer apply. Squeak squeak.

  152. Scott says:

    “By being calm and not being pulled into the sort of flaming that is common, you’re giving voice to the silent majority and helping the more normal people “come out of the closet” — so it’s good and I hope you keep it up. ”

    At the moment, it’s actually my wife (Proverb31HelpMeet) who is heavily engaged over there.

    She will give up after a few more posts. She doesn’t have the fighting instinct in her, or the stomach for it, but feels pretty strongly about the topic.

    In fact, the more “Proverbs 31-like” she becomes, the more family focused (on me, the kids, our home) she becomes. That’s fine with me.

  153. deti says:

    Elspeth:

    Your continuing to add facts makes things clearer.

    The 25 year old man is barely getting himself together. He’s not a youth pastor; he’s STUDYING to be a youth pastor and presumably isn’t even ordained yet.

    His betrothed, the 20 year old girl in university, comes from a well-to-do, close to it upper middle class family.

    She will expect to continue her lifestyle, the same one she enjoyed while living with mom and dad. Fun weekends, country club memberships, dinners at the nice places, 4 BR house in the suburbs, private schools for the kids, 2 weeks in Florida every year. Can’t do that on a youth pastor’s salary. Anyone who thinks this girl is going to settle for McDonald’s once a week, a 2 BR apartment followed by a 3 BR fixer upper, and a four day staycation at a bed and breakfast every year is seriously mistaken.

    That’s why Youth Pastor is telling her she’s going to dental school/med school .

  154. Lyn87 says:

    A couple of things since I left after my last post.

    Lyn87 is right, there’s no way that guy is living honorably whatever his intentions may be.

    For the record: I never said anything of the sort. I just thought that it was odd that a guy in his position, with a young fiancee anxious to marry, would prefer to wait a year before he gets in her pants.
    ————————-

    I don’t think that 7 years would still count as a recent convert, at least, not so far as 1 Tim 3 is concerned.

    I agree with your point, Donal, which is why I purposely wrote, “25 – 18 = 7, which makes him a relative novice in any established church.”

    In any church of any size (and Elspeth said it’s a mega-church), you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a hundred men with more than seven years on the path. With the depth of experience in a group that large, a mid-20’s guy with seven years IS a relative novice. Whether seven years is enough is not for me to decide, but there are certainly dozens – or hundreds – of men with more time in the trenches, some of them decades more.

    And as I noted and others have echoed – and leaving aside the whole question of whether their should by specialty pastors at all – putting a guy like him in charge of teenage girls is just asking for trouble.

    Of course the counter-argument is that the kids need a young guy because he can relate, or some such nonsense. “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9), and today’s youth don’t have it much different than anyone on this board did at that age.

  155. Boxer says:

    In fact, the more “Proverbs 31-like” she becomes, the more family focused (on me, the kids, our home) she becomes. That’s fine with me.

    Just the fact that she’s talking about having a successful and prosperous marriage, with well defined roles where everyone gets their needs met, puts the usual skanks and troublemakers to shame. Their lives seem like total wrecks and their basketcase behavior bears this out. I’ve no doubt that most of the “weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth” (lol) is pure jealousy.

    As a sadist, I find the weeping and caterwauling of feminists to be as sweet music to my ears.

    Regards, Boxer

  156. Boxer says:

    Ah, and there’s the crypto-feminist kook Xantippe, right on cue, to cry tears at your meanness. I point at the bitch and snicker….

    (and I know you’re reading here, dearie)

    Regards, Boxer

  157. Lyn87 says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    June 26, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    …As a fellow PK, you probably know that (among we Protestants) most young men who display a verve when talking about Christ are strongly encouraged to take that verve as God calling them to ministry…

    Agreed. It’s sad that simply taking one’s faith seriously is so rare that it is often interpreted as being synonymous with a Divine call to ministry. I have had people tell me that I should go that route, and my answer is always the same – “God did not call me.” My father was probably disappointed at some level, hoping that I would carry on his work, but at no point did he ever try to convince me to accept a calling I did not sense.

    None of that is meant to imply that I am above reproach: I AM NOT… but I can recall a lot of scripture, make connections between ideas, I’m pretty strident (big surprise to everyone here, no?), and I’m very gifted by God as a teacher. As for being a pastor? I don’t have the temperament.

  158. jf12 says:

    re: disunity. What would be disunifying is forcing husbands to sit through the women’s group stuff, and forcing wives to sit through the men’s group fishing stories.

  159. jf12 says:

    @Lyn87 re: justifying Sunday School and youth groups. You have said repeatedly there is no justifcation for NOT feeding every member of the church the exact same thing regardless of age. You have said repeatedly that you believe diversity is tantamount to disunity. But the Bible recognizes times of life and developmental periods and *requires* diversity. Different people ought to get some and to do some different stuff at different times. And keep in mind that refusing to submit yourself to your church’s organizational structure is what is disunity.
    Heb 5:11-14
    1 Cor 3:1-3
    1 Cor 12:4-7 … 27-30

    I don’t think you have so far, but if you’re going to want to complain that “Sunday School” and “youth pastor” aren’t in the Bible and therefore necessarily shouldn’t be part of the organization, then please quote chapter and verse for the idea that doctrine should be based upon what is not in the Bible.

  160. Lyn87 says:

    You have said repeatedly there is no justification for NOT feeding every member of the church the exact same thing regardless of age.

    I don’t think you have so far, but if you’re going to want to complain that “Sunday School”…

    …please quote chapter and verse for the idea that doctrine should be based upon what is not in the Bible.

    jf12, kindly stop trying to attribute things to me that I have neither written nor implied. If you scroll up you will see that I referred to Titus Chapter 2 myself, which utterly negates what you accused me of in the first quote. The second quote is nothing more than blind supposition on your part, and incorrect supposition at that, especially since I was a Sunday School teacher for years. As for the third quote: I’m not the one advocating creating standing sub-groups within the body with separate pastors, despite the complete lack of scriptural foundation for doing so – you are. Between the two of us, I’m the one who consistently says that doctrine MUST be based on scripture.

    Look, if you don’t want to answer my point, just say so, or just stop replying at all. I’m fine either way.

  161. feeriker says:

    I have had people tell me that I should go that route, and my answer is always the same – “God did not call me.” 

    Those last five words are crucial.

  162. jf12 says:

    @Lyn87, I did answer your point. Different people have different needs. Youth don’t need to be treated as if they are already part of the married group, for example.

  163. jf12 says:

    OT, because I can’t post there, Donal makes a great point about the complete inability of any man no matter how good of a leader to make a woman be a better wife.
    “Not only would I not want to endure that kind of battle, but it would show she is beyond my ability to help/influence anyways.”

    Nice to see even unmarried people finally (!) giving up the tired “Just be a better husband and she will therefore be a better wife” old wives’ tale.

  164. BradA says:

    Scott, you will always have the danger of individuals having to understand how to apply the Scriptures to their own lives. Either that or you rely on (ultimately) a single man being the final arbiter. It can certainly have value to know the mechanics of things, but I am not convinced God requires those to follow him to all be seminary students, for example.

    Groups working through things may not truly seek to know the entirety, but some do strive for that. Keep in mind as well that even those trained in the techniques you noted will disagree on key things, so deep learning is not a guarantee of full accuracy, since at only one of them can be completely right, if that many.

    I would rather have a group that was honestly seeking out what the Scriptures say than one that merely takes the word of one who “knows better.” The latter has probably caused more of our modern problems than the former. Society does “what is right in its own eyes” as it notes at the end of the book of Judges, though they will find many leaders who support their foolishness.

  165. feeriker says:

    “Just be a better husband and she will … be a better wife”

    I propose naming this Smalley’s Law, or Smalley’s Principle (after the guy who makes this assumption the central theme of his churchian marriage advice books).

  166. Lyn87 says:

    jf12,

    Different people have different needs…

    Perhaps we’re veering toward a rough consensus: I never said they didn’t. What I DID say was that I find no reason to create standing groups that are de facto separate congregations, each with its own “pastor.”

    At June 26, 2014 at 1:01 pm I made note of Acts Chapter 7, which details the ministry to the widows, and I mentioned Titus Chapter 2 at June 26, 2014 at 2:48 pm and again at June 26, 2014 at 9:41 pm. That passage deals with the different messages for men and women, old and young. The difference is that these legitimate ministries took place within the body and contributed to unity, and did not involve subdividing the body and assigning separate pastors to those subdivisions.

    Biblical calls for unity are broad and general in time and purpose, while every example of a legitimate separate ministry is narrow in scope and specific in purpose. If a group of accomplished musicians wishes to perform gospel hymns at the local nursing home on Tuesdays… great! They’re using their God-given talents for His glory. However, if they want to split off from the rest of the congregation on a regular basis and have their own “Music Pastor,” that’s a different matter entirely. I’ve seen too many [Fill in the Blank] groups that look more like the latter than the former.

    I would think we would agree that that undermines unity.

  167. BradA says:

    Elspeth,

    I would say that guy is an idiot. It may make practical sense if he is hedging his future risk as noted above, but enough evidence points to the idea that many women end up leaving the workforce anyway when they have children, even highly educated ones.

    I proposed to my wife in the spring and my wife wanted to put the wedding off until the next year because she wanted a spring wedding. I said to forget that idea and we were married at the end of that August. I was not going to be alone (and non-sexual) for that long!

    He does not seem to smart in some ways. He may remain chaste or he may not, but it is rather stupid to delay when they are in the prime sexual years AND he is around a lot of nubile young women (I assume) in his youth pastor role. Temptation hits even the devout.

    His moves may also make sense with marriage 2.0, but they don’t if they both want to follow a Biblical life. Who will raise their children? Who will be the earner in their family? Does he realize she is almost certain to look down on him if she makes more than he does, a distinct possibility if he remains in the ministry and she becomes an orthodontist.

    Isn’t that a fairly time demanding occupation? How will she raise her children? Is she planning on farming that out to someone else? Blech.

    I pray they have wisdom in whatever choices they make. I may not know the whole situation, but enough seems quite risky.

  168. BradA says:

    > “Just be a better husband and she will … be a better wife”

    Stupid principle to build things on if performed alone. It is certainly good for the husband to be as good a husband as he can be, but it is clearly not enough as we have discussed here many times. Also keep in mind that many people mean far different from the Biblical standard when they say “be a better husband.” They end up saying, “be more like a good wife,” in effect, completely turning things on their head.

  169. BradA says:

    BTW, Elsepeth, I didn’t mean to dis your comment in my reply. I just see lots of foolish things likely being done by that young man. I would have pushed her to move back to the area ASAP and seek to marry ASAP myself, but then I usually take charge of things. (With the exception of when I became fairly beta grieving over the “loss” of our 4 adopted children back to their birth family. I am still working through that, but I am not as passive as I had become for a while. My wife doesn’t love every detail about who I am now, but I think our relationship is MUCH better after going through several recent rough bumps, with the same troubles driving a lot of them.)

    He needs to realize he needs to lead their family. Does he have enough trust in God to provide or is he relying on earthly provision? (I will try not to focus on that more though.)

    Both partners would be better off if they each sought out the best of the other, but that “best” is likely to vary from what is often taught today.

  170. BradA says:

    OT: Dalrock or others: I am trying to put together a list of questions for our current pastor to provoke him to think about his views on marriage, roles, etc. Any specific suggestions? I was thinking of things like:

    1) Who is the better half in a marriage
    a) The wife
    b) The husband
    c) Neither

    2) Where does the concept of mutual submission apply?
    a) Between all humans
    b) Between a husband and wife
    c) Between those in a church
    d) All of the above

    Anything posted on this in the past? I can probably come up with some reasonable questions, but I want them to not have obvious answers (without thinking at least) and allow someone to truly see their heart. I would then match it with what the Scriptures say. Any direction would be helpful. It may be presumptuous of me, but a thread on that here would be great!

    ====

    I have written questions for technical certifications, including “answer explanations” and this seems quite similar.

  171. KP says:

    Lyn87,

    I couldn’t disagree with you more on the subject of Youth Pastors and “division”.

    Look at jf12’s very sensible reply from 2:34pm: there’s absolutely nothing proscriptive in the entire New Testament as to how an individual large congregation should divide the leadership load if it’s more than one person can manage. None!

    And don’t go telling us, “But there’s no specific authorization for it!” There’s no specific scriptures about many things that might be considered “details”.

    I fear you have Christianity confused with Islam perhaps? It’s adherents of the latter that put up Ask An Imam websites that feature questions like, “If I fart on the way to the mosque, whaddo I do whaddo I do???”

  172. Boxer says:

    “If I fart on the way to the mosque, whaddo I do whaddo I do???”

    You do uudu (the ritual washing) at the masjid. Same as if you have to blow your nose or take a leak.

  173. jf12 says:

    @Lyn87 “If a group of accomplished musicians wishes to perform gospel hymns at the local nursing home on Tuesdays… great! They’re using their God-given talents for His glory. However, if they want to split off from the rest of the congregation on a regular basis and have their own “Music Pastor,” that’s a different matter entirely. I’ve seen too many [Fill in the Blank] groups that look more like the latter than the former.

    I would think we would agree that that undermines unity.”

    Amen. I figured that was the source of your angst, i.e. places that you’ve seen where the youth essentially form their own separate congregation, e.g. so their worship services can jam out to contemporary music while in the adult worship the olde folks snooze to quavering quasi-sopranos giving their renditions of what used to be hymnal favorites of their grandparents. But you didn’t *say* that before. You seemed to be issuing a blanket condemnation of assistant pastorates as a concept.

    Elspeth, and I think you, mentioned keeping your kids out of some or all of the distinct activities your congregations employ for different ages. I do know some churches in our own Pentecostal movement in which the youth are given enough rope to hang themselves. Rather than visibly keep my children out of such pastorally-blessed groups in a visible show of disapproval and disunity, if the pastor did not follow my advice and reasoning about why he was such a lousy leader (!) as to allow that mess in *my* church (I guess it is kind of hard to tell whn I’m facetious), then it might be time to get another pastor one way or the other. Seriously, I wouldn’t trust the direction of my soul to a guy whom I couldn’t trust to choose the direction of my child to.

  174. jf12 says:

    re: “If I fart on the way to the mosque, whaddo I do whaddo I do???”

    Taking up the tone of the confessional: How many times?

    The average healthy person emits flatus a couple dozen times per day, two or three times per hour while active, about half the time completely unnoticeable by yourself, and about half the other times (hopefully) unnoticeably by anyone who is around you. Nobody has any control over emitting mL quantities of gas while moving around: it escapes, and it doesn’t matter if you think you’re clenching. And the big ones, 100 mL or more, are unmistakeable.

    So if you took a shower and got dressed and brushed your teeth, oops there goes one, climbing into the car goes another, walking up the steps to the door a third. Its escaping is, well, inescapable.

  175. Lyn87 says:

    Oh great…

    Another newbie (KP) comes along to “school” me, stating that I may not know the difference between Christianity and Islam. What a joke.

    Listen up, KP, and I’ll teach you some manners. In the good old days of the early ‘net, before it turned entirely into a cesspool, there was a certain generally-agreed upon protocol for inserting oneself into discussions. The idea was that you lurked for a while, learned how people interacted, got a feel for how discussions progressed, and eased your way in. If you had done that instead of coming in like a crazed chihuahua, you would have realized that every single thing you wrote to me at 12:35 am is either absurdly inaccurate or already answered.

    Now if you want to address anything I actually wrote, feel free. Even jp12 and I have reached a semi-rough consensus, and I really don’t feel like explaining every little nuance (again) to you, when you obviously either 1) haven’t read what I already wrote or, 2) can’t comprehend plain English.

    Speaking of jp12…

    We’re much closer, but still not entirely on the same page, as I really do have a problem with the idea that there can be multiple pastors for multiple divisions within what should be a united body. Although you get that, KP wildly mischaracterized my position, since I have repeatedly cited both Acts 7 and Titus 2 as exemplifying the proper division of ministerial duties / teachings found in the Bible. We agree on the inherent disunity of creating de facto sub-congregations within the church… we’ll just have to agree to disagree beyond that, I guess. I’m prepared to just let it drop unless you want to explore the nuances further.

  176. AmicusC says:

    Hey Dalrock,

    don’t know how to message aside from a comment but this story seems to fit in quite well. women in their 20s throwing divorce parties. article even refers to them as starter marriages.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/breakup-blowouts-how-the-divorce-party-is-coming-on-strong-for-young-divorcees/article19349741/

  177. Elspeth says:

    Elspeth, and I think you, mentioned keeping your kids out of some or all of the distinct activities your congregations employ for different ages. I do know some churches in our own Pentecostal movement in which the youth are given enough rope to hang themselves. Rather than visibly keep my children out of such pastorally-blessed groups in a visible show of disapproval and disunity, if the pastor did not follow my advice and reasoning about why he was such a lousy leader (!) as to allow that mess in *my* church (I guess it is kind of hard to tell whn I’m facetious), then it might be time to get another pastor one way or the other. Seriously, I wouldn’t trust the direction of my soul to a guy whom I couldn’t trust to choose the direction of my child to.

    No. Initially, it wasn’t a conscious choice to forgo youth ministry in protest. Our younger children are going to the ministry to young children/Sunday school. But our older kids (who aren’t kids anymore anyway), made the choice themselves to leave the youth services that minister to middle school/high school students.

    They were attending those services, and we were fine with that. The problem was that we were doing Bible reading/discussion very informally at dinner that were more in depth than anything they were getting there.

    They would complain that there was often NO real Bible study exploration during the services and that everything was geared in a way not to prepare the kids to follow Jesus in “real life”, but rather to navigate the school environment. Now one could argue that this is “real life” for the kids of today, but my girls (again, on their own), made the distinction that such teaching did little to prepare the kids for real real life and that they preferred to stay in the main service with us where the teaching was more in-depth and Bible based.

    And they were 13,13, and 14 when they made this shift. After doing a little more homework, and talking to some of the Christian mothers in our suburbs a bit, I found that this is the standard MO for youth/teen ministry, and that it is possible for a kid to be churched their entire lives under this model and never be able to quote and explain a well known passage of Scripture.

    That is very different from the Sunday school of my youth. I didn’t understand every bit, but I could quote you every well known passage of Scripture in perfect KJV by the time I was 10. Later (in many cases much later, but still) that word that was hidden in my heart came to bear at least some fruit.

    Many kids today are not getting a whole of anything in depth in youth ministry. I’m not against it as a matter of conviction, but I am fairly well convinced that more often than not it stunts growth rather than encouraging it.

  178. Lyn87 says:

    Brad,

    In answer to your open query about things to ask your pastor:

    I would change your first question, since neither the husband nor the wife is “better.” A better way to put it would be, Who is in charge between the two of them? Obviously the only correct answer is, “The husband.” Equally obviously, there are times when we are to disobey those in authority over us (Exodus 1: 15-21 and Act 5: 27-29 give examples of that). But if he immediately starts focusing on the (very rare) times when wives are not to obey rather than the general principle that wives are to be subject to their husbands as a matter of routine, he’s being wishy-washy. And if he defaults to a discussion about “mutual submission” rather than wifely submission he’s also being wishy-washy.

    You could also ask him these four related questions:
    1) What specific obligations does a husband have to his wife?
    2) What specific obligations does a wife have to her husband?
    3) What specific rights does a husband have within marriage?
    4) What specific rights does a wife have within marriage?

    There is some overlap there, so he may prefer to answer them collectively rather than individually, but if he focuses overwhelmingly on male obligations and female rights, he’s missing the point. Also, if he dismisses the idea that the term “rights” even applies within marriage, ask him what word he would prefer to describe what spouses can rightfully expect. By the way: he should acknowledge that one of those things is regular sex (1 Corinthians 7:5).

    Then follow up with these:
    1) What specific actions may a husband take if his wife does not meet her marital obligations?
    2) What specific actions may a wife take if her husband does not meet his marital obligations?
    3) Under what circumstances would you agree to initiate church discipline on a husband who fails to meet his marital obligations?
    4) Under what circumstances would you agree to initiate church discipline on a wife who fails to meet her marital obligations?

    For these, toothless hand-waving won’t do. Husbands have authority that matches their responsibility, and churches have the duty to enforce church discipline, but not to casually undermine husbands at the behest of their wives… That includes shaming husbands into “couples counseling” to satisfy their wives unhaaaaaaaapiness.

    I’ll finish up with a couple of random ones:

    1) If a couple separates – in the absence of gross abuse or neglect directly involving the children – who should get primary custody of minor children? Answer: the father.
    2) If a wife commits adultery and repents, is the husband obligated to take her back? Answer: No, although he is obligated to forgive her.

  179. el says:

    “Men are the heads of households. No point in questioning why. It works, and that’s that.”

    And this kind of intellectual inquiry is one of the reasons why Dalrock’s blog has a reputation as the voice of the American Taliban.

    Sorry, D, don’t publish this, it is more for your information, which I know you don’t desire, but. There are so many problems here it would be difficult to list all of them in one comment, but the stunning, even for the religious, misogyny is certainly one that jumps immediately at a casual and friendly observer.

    The fear and loathing of women you promote is unconscionable. And ungodly – IMHO, which you are free to discount, of course. I say this with kindness.

    Peace. With prayers for clarity and wisdom.

  180. jf12 says:

    @Elpeth, re: “Many kids today are not getting a whole of anything in depth in youth ministry. I’m not against it as a matter of conviction, but I am fairly well convinced that more often than not it stunts growth rather than encouraging it.”

    Then I agree. I see “other” churches like that and give thanks ours isn’t like that. A sister church we sometimes attend in Houston has gone the smoke and discoball route for Friday youth services, up with which our pastor would not put for an instant. Another nearby church, very small, does their youth Bible study/discussion group in their play room, so foosball and ping pong often substitute for the Word and prayer. But unless the separateness were taken to an extreme, it would be the worldliness and waste of time that would cause me to call leadership into question.

    We were going to a megachurch in Dallas when my son “graduated” from the baby nursery at age 2. At the time the church had an unwritten but well-enforced policy that children under the age of reason (which was arbitrarily set at kindergarten!!) ought to *always* be out of the main sanctuary during main worship services. I and my wife, kudos to her, and a lot of mothers, found this objectionable enough to raise our concerns with the pastor, based among other things on 1 Tim 3:15. He immediately rescinded the policy, conditional on the children participating and not just *always* being forced by the parents to sleep under the pews with Cheerios.

    My feelings is that all these distinct ministries should always be addendums.

  181. Bodichi says:

    @EL

    “And this kind of intellectual inquiry is one of the reasons why Dalrock’s blog has a reputation as the voice of the American Taliban.”

    Your statement is farcical on all accounts.
    1. The Taliban has killed upwards of 10K human beings, men, women, and children.
    2. They have caused millions of confirmed dollars of damage to needed infrastructure, including but not limited to water, sewage, garbage, and transportation.
    3. The Taliban has claimed credit for Female genital mutilation.

    You are a virulent liar, and exaggerator and a preposterous debater. Show one instance where this so called “American Taliban” exists or has done any of the things that the real Taliban has done.

    If you cannot then rescind your comment or prove yourself forever guilty of libel.

  182. Lyn87 says:

    Bodichi,

    Well said. Like some other guys here, I have been to Afghanistan as a soldier. Afghanistan: where the Taliban is real and you can see it all around you. Anyone who thinks of the Taliban when they visit this site either has no Earthly idea what they’re talking about, or is an extreme drama queen.

    I will concede that there is a certain amount of criticism aimed at women that would be more accurately aimed at people, but what El and those like her find most objectionable is the Word of God. God put husbands in charge, and the Daughters of Eve chafe under it. It’s not much more complicated than that.

    Most of the guys here love women. All of us are sons – many of use are also husbands and fathers. What we DO hate is feminism, and the legal/churchian/social complex that creates moral hazard for women – incentivizing women (ALL WOMEN) to act on their most base short-term desires to the extreme detriment of all and sundry. It is only by the Grace of God that some women don’t use the awful power placed in their hands.

  183. jf12 says:

    @el, it isn’t fear of women that motivates my personal distrust of women’s choices.

  184. imnobody00 says:

    “Men are the heads of households. No point in questioning why. It works, and that’s that.”

    And this kind of intellectual inquiry is one of the reasons why Dalrock’s blog has a reputation as the voice of the American Taliban.

    This is not an argument. Arguments for male headship have been given at Dalrock’s once and again. The blog and the comments are full of it. What you write is, instead, an ad-hominem attack. Shaming language.

    I guess it is easy to dismiss valid points of view with contempt and insults and feel self-righteous and superior. I know that, in your circles, you can say this nonsense and everyone would agree without asking you to justify your words. But it won’t work here.

  185. BradA says:

    Lyn87, my first question intentionally tied in common phrasing. The idea is to make a “quiz” like the “where do you fall on the spectrum” quizzes we see rather than a doctrinal discourse that has to be parsed. I am not sure I would go to a point system score, but I suppose that could be an end.

    Thanks for the question suggestions though.

  186. It’s my fault El’s here I’m afraid. She didn’t like my direct comment on Elspeth’s blog that I said that women should do whatever their husband’s tell them to do. It bothered her so much, she went and asked every woman over there if they actually believe that. More or less (one or two exceptions), they pretty much all do agree with me. So in frustration, El came over here to troll for fight. I don’t think it anything more than that.

  187. craig says:

    El, your post is nothing but a content-free insult.

    The Taliban are known for beheadings and stonings, for throwing acid into young girls’ faces for the crime of attending school, for ordering the rape of girls to settle disputes between neighboring villages, and for casual acceptance of pederasty. You don’t really believe Dalrock advocates all that, of course. ‘Taliban’ is merely a slur you had close at hand, like ‘kike’ or ‘faggot’ would have been once upon a time.

    Dalrock’s commentary is situated squarely within the moral framework and reasoning that constitute centuries’ worth of Western civilization. Excise the references to contemporary technologies and things that did not exist then, and the moral advice given here would be identical to that which was utterly uncontroversial in books and periodicals prior to WWII. It is also identical to that which was commonly taught in Christian moral theology, both in terms of Scripture exegesis (for all Christians) and in terms of authoritative Tradition (for Catholics).

    What you perceive as misogyny is actually the absence of the modernist misandry in which we all swim. In truth, your complaint reduces to: (a) modernity has improved on the teachings of Jesus Christ and St. Paul; (b) Christian morality is oppressive; (c) Western civilization, being built upon Christanity, is bad. And then you have the cheek to post nothing here but slander and ad hominem, and follow it with the signoff “Peace” (a particular tic uncannily common to the religious left). Well, bless your heart.

  188. Very late to the party, but:

    Nice to see even unmarried people finally (!) giving up the tired “Just be a better husband and she will therefore be a better wife” old wives’ tale.

    …Isn’t the whole point of this blog to help people be better husbands so they can exhibit proper biblical headship and hopefully save their marriages?

    That seems to fit squarely under “If you’re a better husband [i.e. if you exhibit proper biblical headship] she’ll be a better wife.”

  189. jf12 says:

    @malcolmthecynic, seems to be that anyone, especially a cynic, can see the fallacy inherent in applying “No True Better Husband is going to have a less-than-better wife.”

  190. Dalrock says:

    @malcomthecynic

    …Isn’t the whole point of this blog to help people be better husbands so they can exhibit proper biblical headship and hopefully save their marriages?

    That seems to fit squarely under “If you’re a better husband [i.e. if you exhibit proper biblical headship] she’ll be a better wife.”

    No.

    Do I encourage men to be the best husbands they can be? Yes. Do I promise that this will make their wife better, or lay the responsibility for the wife’s choices on the husband? No.

    See: Hostage negotiator for life? and Headship Game

  191. I really believe that the majority of good Roman Catholics who read the text and go to mass are on your side. They have probably been silent on the board thanks to hateful kooks

    Not that they have much choice. CAF has been banning and otherwise driving away traditional, orthodox Catholics for years. It’s an echo chamber for neo-Catholicism, which is pretty much our flavor of Churchianity, or the religious version of political neo-conservatism.

  192. greyghost says:

    I am in no way convinced that this young man is preparing for divorce. Nope. He’s not a red pill type.

    This is the real danger of blissful ignorance. A blue pill type making a decision that looks like and can be a prep for divorce. The common sense correction and cultural change work like that. It is like the douchebag thing in England. No where in the culture or any law or what have you are men told to be douche bags and women will have sex with. Yet it is happening to the point that an article was written about it.
    Bluepill type corrections are the grass eaters. Woman haters like that Eliot Roger fella, and the shocked murder suicide types that never that have reality slapped into them. What bleeds out a civilized society is the apathetic men that just are not driven in general. (the US economy is shrinking at this time for a number of reasons and this is another.) Other types are the PUA, player types and the MGTOW types that have never even heard of the manosphere. Others will convert to Islam or atheism or any thing. All of these blue pill corrections together end in a collapse of that civilization. It will be the elite and the poor with the poor fighting over relative position. (status)
    Ignorance is not bliss Christian men need to know and understand game and why PUA seem to get the sex.

  193. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock and MtC

    Would it be accurate to answer these questions as:

    …Isn’t the whole point of this blog to help people be better husbands so they can exhibit proper biblical headship and hopefully save their marriages?

    Yes.

    That seems to fit squarely under “If you’re a better husband [i.e. if you exhibit proper biblical headship] she’ll be a better wife.”

    No.

  194. Boxer says:

    Not that they have much choice. CAF has been banning and otherwise driving away traditional, orthodox Catholics for years. It’s an echo chamber for neo-Catholicism, which is pretty much our flavor of Churchianity, or the religious version of political neo-conservatism.

    Prov31Helpmeet is leading a very effective insurrection:

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=892525&page=5

    This is a great illustration about the depth of the hatred of feminists for normal, healthy, family-type women, wives and mothers. I’ve seen it before, but never this close-up. SerbCath’s wife is a living example of everything they’re not, and they just can’t stand it.

    Boxer

  195. BradA says:

    IBB, Jesus clearly indicated that looking (thinking) on a woman with lust was as bad as committing the deed. Can someone masterbate with no thoughts of sexually stimulating thoughts? Very doubtful. No good outlet there. Thinking about sin is not a good way to reduce the urge to sin. It would be more likely to enflame it.

    Elspeth,

    > The drive for affluence is pretty strong in this culture

    True, but so is the sexual drive in most males of that age. I could see the affluence idea being more true at my age, when passions have subsided significantly (in comparison at least), but I can’t see that in my own experience as a young male, albeit many years past. This could be one of those things that is hard for you to fully understand as it is a very male thing. (That is not meant to be insulting, just noting that it is hard to realize how much sex drives a young male without having been a young male at some time.)

  196. BradA says:

    Why doesn’t it fit under the latter question Cane? It may not be sufficient, but that doesn’t keep it from being helpful.

  197. BradA says:

    Good points greyghost. People do many things without thinking about why.

  198. Lyn87 says:

    Craig writes, “What you perceive as misogyny is actually the absence of the modernist misandry in which we all swim.

    Pure gold. I remember when I was a small child and my teacher asked the class to define “cold.” We all thought about it for a minute and I said, “The absence of temperature.” To this day I recall the surprised look on her fact that someone of that age would be able to recognize that the essence of some things is in the absence of something else. She only offered the correction of replacing “temperature” with “heat” – which are not synonyms.

    Just as darkness is the absence of light, what people like el perceive as misogyny is just a reduction in the barometric pressure of the atmosphere of misandry we all breathe every day. I’ve had the thought before, but your comment was especially well-worded.

  199. greyghost says:

    “The absence of misandry is not misogyny you stupid bitch” LOL
    Lyn87 I wonder how that would go over at a press conference.

  200. MarcusD says:

    CAF:

    Would it be wrong of me to want marriage…?

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=892619

    Raising children is BOTH a Woman and a Man’s job!!!

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=892343

  201. MarcusD says:

    CAF:

    Physical Abuse by Wife (notice the self-congratulation over equitableness)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=892415

    Trial separation

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=892526

  202. Dalrock and Cane:

    Who said anything about a promise? You’re certainly hoping it will help, right?

    Would it work more if I modified the second statement as “she’ll hopefully be a better wife, or possibly “she’ll hopefully become more naturally submissive?”

  203. jf12,

    @malcolmthecynic, seems to be that anyone, especially a cynic, can see the fallacy inherent in applying “No True Better Husband is going to have a less-than-better wife.”

    Obviously this is not true, and a moment’s thought would suffice to see that. But isn’t our ultimate goal to exhibit proper Biblical headship in order to inspire proper submissive behavior?

    Nobody’s saying it will *always* work. Women have free will.

  204. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    June 27, 2014 at 11:22 am

    I wish I could share the view that most Catholics are well versed in their Church’s teachings, even the regular mass attenders.

  205. Malcolm, the thing is, believe it or not, some do present it that way — if a man is a proper, biblical husband, his wife will submit to him — because that allows them to put the responsibility for her behavior on him. If a man complains that his wife is rebellious, they can tell him he must be failing.

    A man who makes himself attractive can help his wife to be submissive, but he can’t make her. She has to make that choice herself. Enough dominance can trigger submission for a while, but no man can maintain it perfectly enough for a lifetime to hold a naturally rebellious women. Heck, I’ve watched new girlfriends sit at my feet, offer to fetch things for me, and otherwise be very submissive, because they were tingling like crazy. That doesn’t last. If she isn’t committed to being submissive even when it doesn’t excite her, it’s going to go away.

    I think it’s easier to see when you turn it around: if a wife keeps herself fit and is fun in the bedroom, she helps her husband to be faithful and not to stray. It will be much easier for him than if she gets fat and unpleasant and starts withholding sex. But no matter how sexy she is, she can’t force his faithfulness. If he’s determined to be a dog, he will be. He has to choose to be faithful. She has to choose to be subject to him.

  206. BradA says:

    MarcusD,

    What was wrong with the Raising Children and Physical Abuse threads? Both seemed quite reasonable. A man who has sex should know one of the consequences is possibly having a child. The current system is very corrupt in that the woman decides whether to keep or kill the child, but that is a separate issue. (Killing the child should not be an option either, but that is another topic to discuss.)

    The physical use did have a comment about what this woman might have been thinking, but I didn’t see any replies justifying the situation, just telling him to get out and rightly telling him that he could be hauled off to jail even though he had the bruises. That system is very broke as well.

    CAF may have severe problems, but all the threads don’t seem to be bad.

  207. Pingback: Which is more important? — courtshippledge.com

  208. Novaseeker says:

    It’s an echo chamber for neo-Catholicism, which is pretty much our flavor of Churchianity, or the religious version of political neo-conservatism.

    Yes.

    The taxonomy of American Catholics is I think fairly similar to what it was when I became Orthodox around 15 years ago:

    1. Leftists — These are the equivalent of the mainline Protestants. They want a Vatican III which will provide for the ordination of women, divorce, contraception, abortion, and relaxing moral rules about gays.

    2. Trads — These are divided between “in communion” and “out of communion”, but share a perspective that much of Vatican II itself (not only what happened in its wake) was misguided, and that there is a need for a restoration of some sort.

    3. Neo-Cats — These are the equivalent of the conservative evangelical protestants. They fully endorse modernity, they are not critical of Vatican II or many things that have happened in its wake, but advocate a kind of rigidity in moral theology coupled with a modernist approach to things like liturgics. They dislike both the leftists and the trads, seeing them as extremes. The Neos are ascendant among younger “faithful” Catholics — go to a groovy guitar mass, but strictly follow the moral rules, similar to how conservative evangelicals will attend a son-et-lumiere megachurch production yet also adhere to strict moral rules.

    Note that this taxonomy applies in the US. The way that Catholicism exists in other places differs quite a bit. The American version is very heavily influenced by Protestant trends, because it lives in a country where Christianity is dominated by Protestantism.

  209. RichardP says:

    @Brad: I’m curious about your comments on 4 adopted kids. Do you feel comfortable elaborating briefly. Was something deficient in the original adoptions so that they were voided by the court? I can’t imagine the pain of having four and then losing them (if losing is the right word).

  210. Pingback: Marriage of feminists and conservatives. | Dalrock

  211. Newdist says:

    Please forgive me if this sounds naive. I am a young man who is incredibly confused, heart sick and stricken with worries beyond anything I can articulate.

    I feel in my heart that I need to leave my marriage. There is no adultery or evil from my wife and I would clog up this question box if I went into all of the details. When I pray about it, I hear the answer telling me to “GO”…

    This would get the same answer, right?

  212. Pingback: The Culture Warriors Fight For The Same Goals | The Society of Phineas

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s