What if we acknowledged repentance and respected Christian men who married single mothers?

Commenter Bee proposed that Christians should encourage single mothers to adopt their children out at birth, instead of shaming Christian men for having a “vain expectation of marrying a childless virgin”:

Mark Driscoll is another Christian Leader that has encouraged Christian men to marry single moms.

I think a better policy for Churches and Leaders would be to go go back to encouraging single moms to put their kids up for immediate adoption.

This is an interesting proposal.  I can’t imagine modern Christians having that kind of will*.  I’m also not sure it is needed.

Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony, and in the run-up to the wedding, that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it, and was deeply grateful that her husband-to-be was willing to be so gracious as to marry her despite the extra burden she has placed on their marriage?

We wouldn’t have to be cruel about it, just honest, humble, loving, and sincere. This would be incredibly powerful, and would set the couple (and therefore the children) up for a much greater chance of success. It would also go a long way to reducing any shortage (if there really is one) of Christian men willing to marry Christian single mothers.

This would send the right message all the way around.  Young women would have an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others, steering them away from both sin and pain.  Women who today are being discouraged from repenting (cruelty) would be encouraged to repent (kindness).  This repentance would prompt the congregation to respond with Christian love.  And instead of disrespecting Christian men who marry single mothers, we would be treating them with respect.

*I can’t imagine us having the will to do what I’m proposing, either, but in theory it should be easier for us to work our way up to it.

Posted in Beautiful truth, Disrespecting Respectability, Finding a Spouse | 249 Comments

No respect for men who marry single mothers.

Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has a 2016 article by Sam Parkison excoriating Christian men for not marrying single mothers.  Parkison calls Christian men’s preferences in this regard vanity, and repeats the charge three times:

But functionally, marriage is still idealized to be something vainer than what Scripture calls it.

1. Single Christian moms are as pure as the sinless Son of God, which is more than you deserve in a wife.

“He who finds a wife finds a good thing.” (Proverbs 18:22) Period. A wife is a gift of God’s grace, and grace is undeserved. If this is the case, then having the vain expectation of marrying a childless virgin is unwarranted.

We are not told in Ephesians 5:22-31 that marriage is intended to satisfy vain expectations, or that it’s the entitled reward of a virgin for a virgin…

Parkison opens with a lengthy criticism of the Evangelical purity movement.  What he gets wrong however is the problem with the movement is not that it stresses purity while delaying marriage, but that it focuses on waiting instead of marrying.  His frame is that the sin of single mothers is that they failed to keep themselves pure during what modern Christians euphemistically call “the wait”.  The biblical perspective however is that they chose fornication instead of marriage.  As the Apostle Paul explains in 1 Cor 7:8-9 (ESV):

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Parkison assures us that all of the single mothers in the church know they sinned (facts not in evidence), but he is oddly silent regarding repentance:

Many of the single moms in our churches became single moms by virtue of having sex out of wedlock. As a Christian, I make no bones about the fact that such an act was sinful. In fact, the Christian single mom also acknowledges that her act of sex outside of marriage was a sin.

In fairness to the unrepentant single mothers, men like Parkison stressing what a gift their out of wedlock child is to their future husband, and what a boon it will be to their marriage has to make repentance seem unnecessary.  The fruits of her past sin will make their marriage (and therefore her husband) more holy! (emphasis mine)

…a biblical understanding of children leads us to conclude that the baby produced by this sinful act is an unimaginably grand and beautiful gift!

…such a marriage also has the potential of reflecting the gospel to an even greater degree, since it reflects not only Christ’s love for his Bride, but also the Father’s love for his adopted children! Far from being a burden, marriage to a single mom is brimming with gospel-displaying potential.

None of this is to say that single mothers don’t repent, or that Christian men should never marry a repentant single mother (I respect another man’s personal decision on this).  But what Parkison and Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary are doing here is cruel to all involved.  It is cruel to single mothers for encouraging them to count their past sin as a gift to their future husband, instead of helping them see that while our sins are forgiven in Christ, the temporal consequences of our sins remains.  Instead of encouraging humility regarding their past sins, he encourages them to see themselves as a more attractive prospect as a Christian wife.  It is cruel to the Christian men reading as well, because it teaches them to deny the sins of women and therefore sets them and their families up for even more misery.

Lastly, the whole perspective betrays a contempt for Christian married fathers, especially the Christian men who marry repentant single mothers with full understanding of what they are taking on.  Instead of treating these men with respect, Parkison dismisses their graciousness by pretending it wasn’t gracious at all!  Parkison is stealing other men’s graciousness for himself.

H/T Okrahead

See Also:

Posted in Disrespecting Respectability, Finding a Spouse, Marriage, Midwestern Seminary, The only real man in the room, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye | 242 Comments

A beer fit for an ugly feminist*

Ad Age explains that Budweiser has reworked old ads to make them more empowering for women:

The campaign, released today in conjunction with International Women’s Day, features full-page color ads in The New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times that juxtapose sexist Bud print ads from the 1950s and 60s with updated versions portraying women in empowered roles.

But the new ads have a pathos to them.  Where the women in the old ads were serving and loving, with one exception the women in the new ads are ugly feminists* with no men in the picture.  Out is a picture of a woman proudly preparing a delicious dinner for her and her husband with the caption:

Big appetite… dinner is almost ready and it sure smells good. Loosen your tie and enjoy your Budweiser.

In is a woman drinking alone on a Friday night eating takeout with only her dog as company.  Table for one?

Time to unwind… It’s Friday, your favorite takeout just got here. Crack open a cold Bud and enjoy some time to yourself.


See the other “updated” ads in the campaign in the article linked above or at the New York Post.  According to Ad Age women now dominate the Budweiser marketing team, so it is only natural that the focus of Budweiser advertising has moved from selling beer to selling feminist empowerment:

…women now comprise more than 80 percent of the brand’s marketing team.

…Budweiser announced it is joining the Association of National Advertisers’ “#SeeHer” effort, which aims for a more accurate portrayal of women in media and advertising. Rustgi confirmed that the brand will begin running its ads through the ANA-backed Gender Equality Measure testing. The so-called GEM tests score ads on how prominently they depict women.

*Note: Long time readers are probably familiar with how I am using the term ugly feminists, but others may not be.  I defined the term here, and followed up a year later with a post on the power of the term.  I don’t mean the term in the superficial sense of ugly, but am referring to the ugliness of the feminist mindset.

Posted in #SeeHer, Ad Age, Beer, Commercials, Feminist Territory Marking, New York Post, Ugly Feminists | 100 Comments

The perfect response to Patriarchy Chicken.

Commenter Junkyard Dawg described his own response to Patriarchy Chicken (emphasis mine):

That actually happened to me a number of years ago. I was in a park where there is a wide walking path. People walking toward one another from opposite directions usually each moved to the right (like on the roads) to let one another pass. I saw a woman coming my way and moved all the way to the right, to the edge of the path. I soon saw that she had no intention of moving and she also was all the way over on the right (in her case, the left), and for sure, I was not going to step off onto the grass to let her pass, nor move to the center of the path – why should I?

I didn’t know how I was going to handle it, as she was almost face to face and I didn’t have much time to consider. But just seconds before, I stopped, put on a big spontaneous smile and said, “Good morning, how are you?” (We were now both standing still, face-to-face, about a foot apart.) This apparently was unexpected and she seemed to come to her senses, said, “OK,” and then moved over and kept going, and I resumed walking.

This is perfect, because it defeats the passive aggressive intent of the “empowerment” and forces the ugly feminist to choose one of three responses:

  1. State outright that she is playing childish power games.
  2. Go around.
  3. Engage in a friendly conversation.

If she chooses option 1, you can then respond with appropriate amusement.  But chances are she will do as the ugly feminist did in Junkyard Dawg’s experience and move out of the way.  Option three isn’t ideal, but keep in mind that being friendly is pure torture to an ugly feminist, so no matter how much you would prefer not to talk to one, she is far more bothered by being polite than you are.

It is also possible that she wasn’t actually an ugly feminist at all, but instead just not paying attention.  Note that this response is perfect for that scenario as well.

Posted in Ugly Feminists | 29 Comments

“Patriarchy Chicken”, a microcosm of feminism.

From Instapundit

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Professor says she plays “chicken” with men while walking to empower women. “The idea of patriarchy chicken is as follows: by refusing to move out of the way to avoid collision with men going in the opposite direction, women are somehow empowering themselves.”

It might be more aptly renamed “presuming on chivalry.” But then, “feminists” do that a lot.

The irony is that the feminist is displaying her unshakable faith in the goodness of men here, even strangers on the street.  This is very similar to Dalrock’s Law of Feminism, although instead of pleading with men to come to her rescue she is banking on men’s goodwill even as she accuses them of oppressing her.

See Also:

Posted in Chivalry, Dalrock’s Law of Feminism, Instapundit, Ugly Feminists | 30 Comments