Cultural Mythology and the Battle of the Sexes (Updated)

Posted on February 8, 2012 by ehurst

I am responding to this item posted at OfB where I am an Associate Editor.
(In case you are wondering, that fancy title is little more than a cover by which I can wheedle vendors into giving me stuff for free, leverage sources of information who might not give a rat’s patootie otherwise, and so forth. Granted, the Senior Editor would likely publish almost anything which fired me up enough to write, no one at that e-zine makes a dime from the work. With advertising, it just about pays for itself.)

* * * * * *

Humanity is fallen. For this reason, we tend to offer some honor to folks who do what they are supposed to do. We want to encourage more of it, which is the other side of the blade we use to slicing and dicing those who fail, or actively transgress what is proper and fitting.

The danger is when we pretend to apply one standard, and substitute another in its place.
The Bible is a Hebrew document. I’ve offered large amounts of material to justify a distinction between Western Civilization and Hebrew Civilization, as well as proof modern Judaism is no longer Hebrew, but a Westernized (Hellenized) perversion of it. The Christian Scriptures are inherently Ancient Hebrew in nature, and without understanding that unique mystical epistemology, you will miss some of the best stuff when you read them.

Here in our Postmodern Western world, there are multiple layers of cultural mythology between us and understanding what the New Testament writers meant, never mind the Old Testament. The Apostle Paul writes:

Likewise the women are to dress in suitable apparel, with modesty and self-control. Their adornment must not be with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. For Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:9-14, NET Free)

This is not merely spouting his Pharisaical demands. Paul had already spent more than a decade breaking himself away from the Talmudic garbage, which Jesus called “traditions of the elders,” but was speaking from a very clear and solid grasp of the Ancient Hebrew outlook. Furthermore, that outlook is being proved correct when we read between the lines what manipulative pick up artists say works with women. Those manipulations work because real pick up artists ignore the cultural mythology and what women believe about themselves, and take full advantage of how women actually operate. Part of the scientifically verifiable human behavior pattern is how women cogitate. There is something inherent in female nature which is flexible and adjustable about facts and logic. Women are able to ignore facts and logic as some things in this world are much more important. Otherwise women would be unwilling and unable to follow their husbands when God changes their calling.

It’s not misogyny. That is, Paul is speaking from God’s revelation, while every cultural background which argues on any grounds is speaking from the lies of Satan. It has nothing to do with whether women can become good solid scholars and theologians. It’s a complete failure to notice the cultural mythology to which most of Western Christendom clings.

A further error of Western Christianity is ignoring the sharp divide between the Two Realms, that of the Spirit and that of the Flesh. “That which is from the Spirit Realm is spiritual in nature, and what is from Fleshly Realm is earthly.” Sound familiar? Jesus said it, and Paul echoed it copiously. Christianity assumes some folks are Heaven Born, that we share an eternal identity which is not available to those without Christ. What we have below is concrete and specific; what’s above is altogether different and requires the use of parabolic language because it is out of reach of the fleshly intellect. Here’s the main point of contention: Most Western Christians deny the intellect is fallen. That’s heresy, and approaches blasphemy. The intellect is part of the flesh. The mind is incapable of understanding, nor even wishing spiritual things, says Paul. It is not supposed to rule in decision making, but to implement the decisions made in the spirit, which was brought to life by union with His Spirit.

Both Creation and the Fall have pre-conditioned each sex to exhibit qualities and character traits unique to that sex. At the same time, we realize there is a large overlap of common humanity. God granted to humanity Law Covenants, such as Noah and Moses, as the means to finding what’s the best possible world here in the Fallen Realm. If you have a spiritual birth, an eternal identity, the Law Covenants become what they were always meant to be, parables of higher ineffable truths. We love to quote that passage about “rightly dividing the word” and try to forget it was referring to the Old Testament, where those Law Covenants are recorded. We are supposed to understand those old covenants, as they indicate something about how the mind needs to organize itself to obey the spiritual imperatives it cannot grasp.

Intellectual achievement is fleshly, under the realm covered by the Law Covenants. Your theology is nothing more than your own mental organization for fulfilling your indescribable faith. The theology itself is not sacred, is not a direct revelation of God, just your grasp of what revelation means to you. It may be quite agreeable to a lot of other folks, so that you are called a theologian, but that does not make your brain and thoughts sacred. Nothing of the Flesh Realm can be inherently sacred, because everything on this plane of existence participates in the Fall.

Female theologians are not a big problem, so long as what they teach reflects the Law Covenants. If they pretend to parse things on a more spiritual plane, they can teach everyone except adult men. Paul says on such matters they will take their cues from those appointed to be spiritual shepherds: pastors, apostles, etc. — all male. It’s not because women aren’t smart enough, it’s because something fundamental in feminine nature. It’s because of something utterly necessary for a woman to be a woman. It’s not a put-down or diminution, but women are a treasure in their own right. Paul spoke for God. You can strive all you like to qualify that downward to a lesser standard, but the reason Paul gave for his church customs was something eternal and revealed from Heaven, and not too hard to grasp from the account of the Fall.

So men griping about feminized church atmosphere, they are hardly thinking of the biblical standard of manhood, but something more a mixture of German and Victorian mythology. That’s actually pining for a pagan and sinful standard of manhood. I would object, too, but on biblical grounds. When our Postmodern Christian women complain it’s not a good idea, I doubt their underlying assumptions are any closer to the biblical standard. Indeed, our current feminist orthodoxy is a doctrine of demons, too. Scripture points out repeatedly we justly criticize men for acting like women, and vice versa, because it represents a rejection of what God requires of us.
Women are accorded honor for doing what women are supposed to do, according to that revealed ancient standard of Scripture. That means first showing a superior understanding of what the Law Covenants point toward, which includes knowing her role as He declared it. If she goes on to exercise good, reliable leadership in such things, we make her an elder. Woman can participate in government of the church, because organizational matters are within their roles. Everybody needs a mother. Spiritual perception is another issue entirely; everybody needs a father. Men will surely fail in this, but it’s their role. In matters of ritual and teaching, men are the appointed actors.

Most debates in Western Christianity today are utterly missing the point.

Update: As you may note in the comments below, my good friend Tim suggests I may have missed Amy’s point. Maybe I do. What I read was a woman’s complaint churchmen were insulting womanhood. She seemed to be disappointed there was a some element of the “battle of the sexes” in church politics, at least in what those men were discussing. She’s half right; they were insulting women. But the entire debate is building on a false foundation. If she wants to appeal to Scripture, she needs to understand the larger implications, not just the Bible as read through Modern Reformed glasses.

I was trying to point out those men were begging for a more manly church from within a whole frame of reference which is wrong to begin with. Thus, Amy’s complaint was also missing the point, too. From where I stand, the difference is not so great between a liberal feminist activist position, which is painfully in-your-face, versus the subtle assumption men aren’t supposed to make it an insult to say some guy is feminine. Women are supposed to be women, and men are supposed to be men. The Bible leaves no doubts about that, going so far as to command the sexes not wear each others’ clothing. But when modern churchmen say such things, they are wrong, but from the biblical point of view, so is Amy. That’s because both of them presume a civilization which is utterly broken in the first place, and any attempt to balance between the feminine and masculine influences is doomed.

Even with relatively conservative American social assumptions, such as perhaps are held by Amy and the men she described, the whole thing is silly, asking the wrong questions, and obviously coming up with the wrong answers. When someone suggests whining is a feminine trait, they are wrong. It’s a sinful trait, and biblical women aren’t supposed to do it, either. Personally, even if I agreed with her presuppositions, I would still find most seminary guys of the Reformed tradition are more feminized than the most of the American male population as whole. Their version of “manhood” is already pretty soft by Western standards.

Posted in religion | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

No Advertising Here

Posted on February 8, 2012 by ehurst

Lately I’ve gotten a few requests from marketers to advertise on this blog.
First, I have a hard time imagining my blog has enough traffic to justify advertising. These people offered money up front for links within a story, for example. They want me to make it seem I’m the one recommending whatever is that other end of the link. One group wants me to accept or assign articles from other writers for posting here. This hardly qualifies as an e-zine. Yes, I am getting a couple hundred hits minimum most days, but the bulk of that is folks checking my computer articles. I write those HOWTOs simply because I discover something others don’t seem to have written about, and I want to help people. Very few readers come here looking for information or thoughts about stuff that really matters.
Second, the bulk of my writing is to provoke thinking and offer some information on stuff that really matters to me. It would be wonderful if I could get paid for writing, but I am completely hostile to the notion of advertising in general. If I used something, or simply knew about it and thought it would make life better for some people, I’d write about it. That’s called a review, and the idea is not about advertising to make money. I’d write such things because I believed in them for one purpose or another.
Advertisers as a whole are about as slimy and useless as any creature claiming to be human. They don’t give a damn what happens to you, and adopt only the most superficial virtues simply because they figure their target audience holds those virtues. Marketers want your money, but aren’t honest enough to simply ask for it. They would think they were in heaven if they could control your desires. Don’t think for a moment they wouldn’t manipulate you every which way they could, but most of what they would like to do is illegal. That’s the only thing stopping them, along with the possibility someone ripped off might actually hurt them. They recognize no moral limits within themselves.
Advertisers are as evil as any politician, but lacking the ambition of actual power. Instead, they prefer to sculpt human attitudes across a whole society, somehow imagining they are artists. I want you take a look at a piece of advertising on YouTube and notice two things: (1) Dove is showing you how the whole cultural image of beauty has been perverted by advertisers creating an unrealistic image standard. (2) It’s still advertising something — Dove products — which have been proved harmful to your body and the environment. There are chemicals in that stuff which should not be manufactured in the first place. They are still selling an image, and the product is simply the way to get your money.
When they rise to my moral standards, we’ll talk. Fat chance I’m going to accept advertising on this blog.
(Yes, I realize WordPress inserts ads at the bottom, but I have no control over that since I don’t pay for them hosting my blog.)

Posted in meta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on No Advertising Here

The Samson Moment

Posted on February 7, 2012 by ehurst

There’s a little of Samson in all of us.

Samson took hold of the two middle pillars that supported the temple and he leaned against them, with his right hand on one and his left hand on the other. Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” He pushed hard and the temple collapsed on the rulers and all the people in it. He killed many more people in his death than he had killed during his life. (Judges 16:29-30, NET Free)

I’m a Christian Mystic, inherently pacifist by nature. I hate seeing people hurt and suffering, and I’m loathe to add to it. But there are most certainly some things more important than my life. Indeed, more important than all human life. All humanity is born in sin, and all deserve to die, and sooner or later we all will. You can’t get out of this world alive. Frankly, I’m eager to leave.
I also know and understand God’s Laws, and He is the One who gets to decide when that end should come. Not by force alone does He rule on such things, but by authority and accountability. His revelation says He holds people accountable for taking life unjustly. His definition of what’s just is not too hard to figure. Those same Laws cover suicide, and you aren’t permitted to take your own life unless you actually deserve to die.
I’m not one of those silly Western absolutists who say, “No one deserves to die.” That’s a lie from Satan; it guarantees more needless killing in actual practice. The mystical side of me says God alone can judge such things, but the lawful side of me insists someone has to execute His justice because He demanded it, literally. It’s the root element of the Covenant of Noah. It’s all perfectly consistent if you understand ANE Mysticism.
God’s Laws make me reluctant to punish anyone for anything. My experience only reinforces that. It’s pretty easy to absorb a great deal of injustice if you really cling to justice itself. God handles most things pretty well without my help. But I do have a mission, an appointment to serve Him. I’m not permitted to tell Him what I will and won’t do. My sense of mission forces me to consider the possibility there are some things more sacred than human life.
You can push me to the limit. That limit may or may not enjoy broad consensus, but that’s not my problem. I’m accountable to the One who drew that limit. Cross that limit, and all bets are off. If you push things beyond God’s justice, don’t expect me to keep playing by your silly rules. It’s not at all about my anger, but about God’s justice. I’ll grab the very pillars of earth and life itself, if necessary, and shake down any system you can name. I’ll use whatever authority and power God places in my hands. If that means I’m taking your life, too, you should have expected that before things got crazy. I’ll be glad to offer all the warnings and explanations you like, but surely you understand some of it will inevitably be contextual.
I don’t anticipate actually taking human life, simply because the odds are small it would come to that. As I say, I’m a pacifist. But I don’t believe in absolutes in the sense we can understand them.
There comes a moment when there’s nothing left to save, and you have to destroy it all.

Posted in sanity | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Samson Moment

It's Not Just a Difference of Opinion

Posted on February 7, 2012 by ehurst

I could be wrong, I’ll admit.
I am utterly certain of one thing, though: Sane people will admit to mistakes. Not just the theatrical lip service of admitting being less than perfect, but real repentance, stuff that matters. Most people who don’t admit to mistakes are neurotic. A few are psychotic. But some are just plain old evil, no matter why they do it.
You can’t tell me these people are operating in good faith. If I understand what’s going on, they surely do, since they are far better informed, and all with better educations. Nobody has to tell them they are causing problems and hurting people, or that what they do is not just or lawful. The only possible motive is enjoying the suffering of others.
Here are some examples: Ben Bernanke. He knows better than any of us just how completely his service is wholly devoted to the bankers and their retainers. Go ahead and write him a letter, telling him you got him pegged. Won’t matter. The only reason he does that sort of work from his office is because he’s not man enough to walk up and simply stab you to death in person. No, he directs a bunch of other people who will destroy you by a thousand cuts of the other sort, taking everything you have to live for so that his buddies can be fatter and more comfortable. I refuse to discuss his actions in terms of some fabled honest belief he’s doing what’s best for the nation; he knows better than that.
Or his buddy over in HHS, Kathleen Sebelius. It wouldn’t have taken her ten minutes to find out the newest regulations published on 20 January 2012 would force all Catholics in the US to either violate their religious commitments or fight the government. She knew that already. With willful malevolence, she proceeded on the path she knew would hurt people. And it was in the upper reaches of the military that hatefully directed chaplains not to read the letter from their archbishop to the troops, describing this conflict in terms of Catholic conscience. After my years of military service, I can tell you those folks at the top are some vicious and spiteful folks. They are not nice people; otherwise they would never have gotten to the top.
Look, if I thought Catholics were right, I’d be one. But there is nothing to gain by running around poking your fingers in their eyes. They aren’t guided and influenced by such pressure. They may have funny ways of doing things, and I take issue with lots of their positions, but they didn’t arrive at them lightly. Much of it came through the fire of persecution and savage opposition. They firmly believe it’s worth shedding their own blood for these things. Sadly, I have to wonder if the Catholic senior leadership will really show some backbone, because if they push hard enough, those craven thugs in government will back down. The latter aren’t fighting for anything bigger than themselves and their personal comforts. They simply have agreed to come together and fight as one for their common comforts. This is war.
Indeed, the lies and casual disregard of morality is a standard feature of military management (I refuse to call it “leadership”). So rare are those candid statements about things, I have to wonder anyone in uniform survives publishing such honest appraisals. Does no one realize the only way to change another country to your liking is to colonize it? Anything less is a contrived excuse for slaughter and fraudulent waste.
I’ve been reamed myself for being honest, and watched others get it even worse. There are people today — God help me — I’d be willing to see executed for the lies and sheer meanness they poured out on honest and decent soldiers. If I could just find an honest court of inquiry, I could easily succeed at prosecuting their case based on my personal knowledge alone, and the testimony of their victims.
But judges these days often, after some years of good service to grand raping thugs like Monsanto, then turn around and resign for a better paying job with their real constituency. No, not every time and every place, but don’t expect any real justice until God Himself comes thundering down upon the earth. That so many of us tolerate these things makes us all equally guilty.
I might be wrong on some things, but I’m willing to stake everything I have and am on the outcome.

Posted in sanity | Tagged , , | Comments Off on It's Not Just a Difference of Opinion

Near Miss Still Touches Me

Posted on February 6, 2012 by ehurst

(Warning: This is one of those crazy mystical posts.)
There are plenty of times when God changed His mind, and let someone know.
In the Bible, time was not viewed at all the same as we do here in the Postmodern West. There in the ANE, time was all about ripeness. Time was not something to be sliced and diced and weighed out in microscopic increments. Scheduling was pretty flexible unless you were at someone else’s beck and call. People actually had an attention span in that ancient world. They didn’t mind running through their lives with thousands of loose ends hanging, if the time for decision wasn’t right. But they would still manage to pull it all together when ripen it did. They knew how to wait for things. I’m trying cultivate this, and it’s quite a struggle.
Our concept of perfection is probably all out of whack, too. We have this crazy notion it requires something static, something which cannot be supposed to change because it was already perfect, no? That’s okay if you are a kid, but real adults might understand things are never so simple. Those concepts might apply if we were dealing with something perfect on this level of existence, but in the Spirit Realm, things are decidedly different. Indeed, I can only describe things in symbols and parables.
Too often in the past few years I’ve sensed the Presence of Decision. Something came very close to happening, but at the last moment, turned away. That is, so far as I was concerned, something didn’t happen that could have happened. Who knows whether it would have affected anyone else? I’m quite sure something happened somewhere else, because things are always happening somewhere in the world. But I’m sure there are a great many more things which could, and even came up close, but turned away.
I doubt anyone knows what caused the turning, what made it different for God’s decision. Maybe it was nothing at all on this level, but something we could never understand, much less discuss.
It happened again today, though. Some potency stood very near me, then moved off somewhere else. How else can I explain it? It was like turning suddenly to catch a glimpse of someone’s back as they strode off in the distance. Was that someone I knew? I could feel how close they were, even though I didn’t see them at the time. But this was not like missing an opportunity, given I sense the Divine Presence pretty much all the time (when I’m paying attention). It was more like someone I might have recognized, but they were too busy to stop, or simply decided at the last moment it wasn’t the right moment. Or maybe they waved as they passed by, smiled and winked, and kept going. “Maybe next time, Bud.”
Now, aside from the real possibility of serious delusion, I have to wonder if this ability to sense such things is fairly unique, or something commonly available to folks in the right frame of mind. I lean to the latter. I just don’t believe I’m all that special. At any rate, perhaps you can use this notion. It’s a lot like smelling invisible rain. It’s on the wind somewhere, but it never comes within sight on the horizon. You know it could have, maybe in a certain sense should have, but either way, it almost did, but just didn’t happen.
Go ahead and laugh at me, because I’m sure God has a sense of humor, too.

Posted in personal | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Open Line Monday

Posted on February 6, 2012 by ehurst

Ask your questions in the comments space.
There are no limits to the questions I’ll entertain. Spam comments are always deleted. Sometimes I don’t know the answer and won’t guess, but I’ll tell you that and why. Some questions will simply merit a “none of your business.” Otherwise, I’ll do what I can to make an intelligent reply.

Posted in meta | Tagged | 9 Comments

Unmistakable Wife

Posted on February 5, 2012 by ehurst

My longest military assignment saw me sit for six years or so in the Netherlands. I was based at a support facility for the Americans assigned to AFCENT (Allied Forces Central Europe) HQ, a branch of SHAPE (Supreme HQ, Allied Powers in Europe), which in turn was a major portion of NATO. All that stuff was just a short drive from each other in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Somehow, my wife and I gained some influence at the NATO Chapel on the AFCENT base. I was just being myself, and so was she, and it never occurred to either of us to have any particular ambition. My wife volunteered to help out in the chapel, and thus, was a coordinator for one of the organizations (PWOC, Protestant Women of the Chapel).
During one of their annual celebrations, the director of PWOC went around to all the husbands of the women in this sizable group and asked them to say something nice about their wives. The objective was to gather enough quotes to make a game of guessing whose husband said what. I offered the only thing which made sense to me: “My wife is the one person who has always stood behind me, supporting all the crazy stuff I do.”
The director looked at me with a slightly disappointed face. “Anyone could guess who that is!”
That was 20 years ago, and it’s still the truth.

Posted in personal | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Unmistakable Wife

Biblical Hierarchy of Values

Posted on February 4, 2012 by ehurst

(WordPress Autosave mucked up and posted a previous flawed version, now all fixed.)
This is what I recommend, in order from highest to lower. This is about Laws and human commitments on this plane, applying to all humans, regardless of spiritual status. It’s oversimplified, of course, but provides a starting place.
1. Mission: As noted in previous posts, this is not the same as your career, job, business, etc. This is a part of what identifies you as a unique human being. It’s your calling from God, the reason why He put you here and allows you to keep on living. It’s what is completed or too horribly compromised when He takes you out of this world. Yes, having a spiritual identity changes it, but not the fact you have one. All living humans have a mission, and it includes those non-tangible values which includes the adherence to justice itself, along with whatever other virtues you care to name.
2. Marriage: If you have it, this one comes next. If not, being in the right position to obtain one counts as the same. The only way it can be absent is if you are utterly certain celibacy is part of your mission, in which case it means abstinence, too.
3. Family: Let there be no mistaking, the spouse takes precedence over the kids. You may negotiate a plan of action which calls for the spouse to sacrifice for the sake of the kids, but that simply points out the necessity of deciding it and planning accordingly. We aren’t talking about your instincts or other considerations; the Bible puts your spouse above your kids. By extension, any other family sharing the same household, to the degree you hold custodial responsibilities (such as an elder in a tribal setting), they come next.
4. Life: Yes, your hide is worth something. You should be willing to sacrifice your life for other people, but not for stuff.
5. Mission Essentials: From whatever resources at hand, those necessary for the mission take priority over other types of resources. This is not limited to tangible “real” objects, but tends to be little else in most lives. This assumes something you are quite sure you can’t replace easily. It’s a fluctuating value category, based on situation and context.
6. Family Essentials: Resources other than people always take a back seat to people. Part of the understanding is God supplies human needs through Creation according to the prosperity, safety and security promised in the Laws. You can lose some here and there, under the understanding this is simply the way it is on this fallen planet. Justice will give you as much as can be had.
7. Other People: It’s a sliding scale, starting with non-household relatives, kin folks, neighbors, fellow tribe members, etc., through various levels of blood and covenant relations. There are times also when non-family can become central to the mission itself, and you’ll probably know that when the time comes. Otherwise, it’s not simply the life and limbs of your family, but even your support resources are more valuable than random human life. Yes, the Laws of God say you can kill robbers and burglars if the Lord allows them to fall into your hands. The moment may provide a reason for mercy, but as a general principle, those who threaten family essentials are toast; they have violated the Laws of God and are not protected.
8. Other Resources: You may place a high subjective value on all sorts of things, but if you can live without it, human life is more important. This is where we take the wealthy to task, because by definition most of what they hold is not necessary for life. That doesn’t mean they can’t use fatal violence to protect whatever they own, but the standards for such enforcement are much higher for non-essential property. For example, they have to put up signs, fences, and all sorts of extra expense.
9. Resources of Others: Their property matters to them, and the mere fact you are in proximity to it places some burden of responsibility on you to help them out. You’ll have to decide in the context how much effort, and at what sacrifice, it requires from you. Still, it matters.
So this business of “trespassers will be shot” is invalid, for the most part. The Bible assumes reasonable access for passage, for example. That’s where socialist European laws are morally correct and American tradition is wrong. Further, the Law of Moses is very specific, that someone walking through a field of ripe grain on the way to somewhere else is permitted to pick as much as they can eat while they are on the move. They can’t eat your animals, because that’s too much to ask. But if they stop by the house and ask for bread and water, you are pretty much required to give it. You can give more, or something equivalent, but that’s sort of the minimum in principle. There are other details, but they do highly encourage interaction, rendering proper honor to the owner, and making a polite request, etc. Yes, there are ways to play games and enforcement can be tough, but the basic assumptions are clear.
Notice that there are different standards based on the role of that person in your life, but even complete strangers have a claim on life support if you are wealthy, so long as they are just passing through. You don’t have to let them in your home, but you do have to offer what you can afford, in clear conscience. The point made elsewhere is the moral fabric knows what should be on your conscience.

Posted in sanity | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Marriage: Why Bother?

Posted on February 4, 2012 by ehurst

Continuing on the subject of a biblical approach to building a marriage…
Why? What is it about marriage that makes it more desirable than something looser and more fun? That depends on your definition of “fun.”
The Bible assumes, but does not directly address, a lot of things which leave us puzzled in our modern Western society. It’s the primary reason I have a beef with so many churches and almost the whole of organized Western Christianity. It’s not enough to be adept at deductive reasoning, by which we reconstruct something assumed in the world view of Hebrew writers, but we must have some information about the worldview itself.
I’m convinced the Laws of God work for people who have no spiritual awareness, but do seek a moral awareness. I’m convinced the Bible assumes that. I’m convinced mankind is endowed with the gift of wondering about things beyond the mere mechanics, more than the five senses and satisfying physical appetites. We can never exactly understand why one man heeds that call to wonder and dozens do not, but we know even those who don’t can speak of such things with intelligence. It’s something about influences, choices, and a whole raft of other things. Yet I know beyond all doubt men can do what’s right if it matters, because they most certainly can know what’s right on some level.
Further, I am utterly certain God knows what’s in a man’s soul regarding such things. His revelation, both to all mankind in the Book, and in discrete impressions on the hearts of thousands, offers a measure of elasticity in demands which seem tailored to the individual. Thus, Scripture proclaims, in so many words: It’s not out of reach, and it always works. Granted, it would require a bit of study and reflection to realize it’s not always what you might expect, but it works as offered.
I am convinced such offering includes the whole range of things humans need as humans. If you want to rise above this level of existence, that’s the doorway. If all you want is the best this world has to offer, it’s in there. We have plenty of carping about how it seems to squash all the fun out of things, but that’s a mistaken notion about what “fun” should be.
When it comes to human sexual appetites, there is a path to full satisfaction which does no harm. If you evaluate from the level of your desires and your tastes, you may well never notice the harm. The Laws of God presume a different view, on a different level. They assume a moral fabric, so intricately woven into the universe, the Apostle Paul characterized Creation has a living thing wishing for redemption from human sin. It’s a parable, not meant to be taken literally, but such is the nature of revelation. Paul warned in another place human sexual intercourse is the one and only human activity which leaves an indelible mark on your own moral fabric.
In this, Paul verifies there is some biblical support for something which sounds like karma. It’s rather narrowly defined in terms of biblical justice, in terms of God’s Laws. Yes, things can be healed if you poke holes in the moral fabric of the universe as a whole; it’s called “repentance.” The Law Covenants make much of a broad opportunity to recover, if some part of you clings to the intent work out a path to justice. So long as you embrace the basic understanding of things, you can always clean up your mess. However, sex is the one and only thing which can poke holes in your personal moral fabric, and those can’t be so easily healed. In the strongest language, Paul warns every sexual encounter is treated by God as a valid marriage commitment on this plane of existence.
Yes, you can remove the eternal penalties for all sins, if you care, but that’s not the same thing. Paul’s warning applies on this plane of existence. Profligate sex does not of itself send you to eternal damnation, but it will most certainly register in your “karma” for as long as you live on this plane. All Creation will know, and will not forget, whether your hands were clean when you touched that other person. You can be quite just in every other way, but if you mess this up, it’s going to cost you from now until you die.
This understanding manifests in really beautiful marriages. There are some people in this world who manage to open themselves to a certain level of perception about human sexual relations, and they are able to find in someone else a matching perception. They are attuned to this thing and somehow recognize it when they find it. They are thereby far less attuned to what most everyone else seeks when they encounter members of the opposite sex. Sex rank recedes to a rather minor consideration, or perhaps we could say the scale measures something completely different from what’s typical.
I’m one of those people, and nothing in my 30+ years of marriage indicates to me my spouse sees it differently. She entered my perception simply as the unremarkable daughter of a friend. As time and exposure increased my awareness of her, at some point she let me know she was interested. I invited her into my world to show me what she had to offer. In the prime of her sexual marketability at age 18, she would have placed low on most men’s scales. I wasn’t using that scale. I was looking for something else, and I found it. Within some six months we were married.
Yes, there were rough spots, but I can’t recall any time when either of us considered parting ways on any level. Indeed, my military adventures were felt as a grand interruption of our life together. To this day, we have no trouble being in each other’s company 24/7. We are delighted when circumstances permit it. Need I state the obvious, that my sexual appetites are fully filled in her?
No, this did not shut off the hard-wired whining of my hormones for a taste of exotic female flesh. Hormones don’t get a vote; they have another role. My fallen nature is routinely denied on lots of things. Honestly, it’s been relatively easy to behave myself sexually. Not because I’m such a saint, but because Creation itself, of which my flesh is a part, is pleased to support just living. It places justice well within my reach.
The Fall separated us from God. God created us to be in communion with Him, to be utterly broken without it. Yet, even while we remain apart from Him, something inside us cries out for relief from that eternal sense of isolation. The closest we’ll ever come within this realm to breaking that isolation is what’s possible in human sexual intercourse. It’s as much relief as we can possibly get, but if we treat it as mere recreation, it won’t be much relief. Nor will it linger. It’s that sense of permanence which changes everything.
Nothing on this plane of existence can come so close to make life worth living as a good marriage.

Posted in religion | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Marriage: Why Bother?

Game and the Closed Christian Market

Posted on February 3, 2012 by ehurst

Christians true to their faith won’t worry much about relative sex rank.
We learn about the Game Theory of Socio-Sexual Response because it explains reality. It represents human behavioral science at its best, observing real human behavior and building a frame of reference which accounts for it. It really is that way, and people who were total losers are finding relief from their misery and social isolation by using the principles derived from Game.
Your basic assumptions about what matters in life will shape how you use Game. Virtually every theorist will admit to his or her moral biases and we can generally see how their plan of action fits that bias. I’m just one more. My bias is biblical Christianity. It is natural my applications of Game would come out different from that of some much more popular writers. You can even critique my answers, but if you don’t understand where I’m coming from, you’ll miss the point.
I am not ignorant of sex rank. That’s a reference to relative marketability, desirability in the eyes of the average member of the opposite sex. I have described some of the popular grading and ranking schemes. What most other writers don’t grasp is that Christians, by definition, are a closed market. While beset by all the same weaknesses and desires as any other human, part of being a Christian is striving to rise above certain tendencies common to all humanity. We don’t accept what may be the norm for others. It’s not about claiming superiority, but a desire to find something more suitable to our faith than what comes with the human moral autopilot.
It’s not about success but striving, about a desire for what God calls “holy.” Holiness means recognizing the broken tendencies and building a resistance to their power. Thus, a large element in my teaching about human sexuality assumes the ancient prohibitions about doing sex the way everyone else does it. Christians are bound under a moral apprehension that sex is all good and right, but with certain restrictions. We have to get ours the way God intended.
So we don’t participate in the open market, at least not knowingly. We use common reactions to our presentation as a means to communicate with everyone, Christian or not. But we will not take seriously sexual overtures from those not morally and spiritually qualified as fellow believers and followers of Christ. Further, while we accept them from each other, we don’t follow the regular open market rules within our own market. Our rules are different, and sex rank is — in theory at least — not a valid consideration. It is at most icing on the cake, not fundamental.
A major implication of this is my assertion it rests with women to make the first move.
The Christian man is at his most adorable when he is fully engaged in his mission. His Christian sex rank is his commitment to Christ, a sense of calling which shapes his whole focus, the reason and guide for all he does. There are sure to be problems with this, as most Christian women are struggling to shed bad habits, just as the men are. It doesn’t help there is a cultural mythology in Western Christianity which is every bit as stupid as the slightly different version for non-Christians. But we teach Christian women their best hope is learning to value men sexually who may not have a lot of time and energy left to pursue them. We don’t change the fundamental rules, but redefine what’s hot.
Because her divine mission inevitably includes supporting her man, whomever he may be, she enters the market not by enticing the prospects, but first by putting herself where her best prospective mates are already at work. She finds her best market in the types and kinds of activities which reflect her own sense of mission, her talents and interests. That’s not the whole story, of course. It’s where things start. We believe our God will surely fill in the blanks, by moving us together with good prospects in His own timing. Yes, we believe and teach in the miracle of God steering events, though I do not teach there is only one right person for us to marry at any given time. The choice may seem totally and mutually obvious for some folks in some contexts, but this is not a given. God blesses unions which are founded on His revelation. So her efforts to engage the imperatives of that revelation, at whatever level she best understands things at any time, are linked to a promise to make things work out in her best interests.
Nothing here suggests just how a gal should make that first move, or what it means in concrete terms. My assertion assumes she will work that out on her own. If she’s doing the right thing from the best motives, her behavior will draw the attention of good men who would need her. She’s also going to have to trust that same God to help those men want what they also need. But at least conceptually, it’s up to her to find a way to signal her interest. That ranges from something as subtle as simply being there consistently to support him merely as a fellow Christian, up to bluntly stating her desire for courtship. She has to be her best self, whatever that means, and move with the Spirit.
We also teach he is supposed to understand she is not debasing herself, not reducing her value to him, as it would be the case outside the Christian market. He is taught to read this differently than men who operate on secular values, or any other religion. We use the parable of God bringing Eve to Adam; God’s best choice comes to the man.
We make a grave error when we think God is not interested in such things. She also has to have her faith strong in hand if the guy pays no attention, or seems uninterested, or even rebuffs her overture. She has to decide whether it’s just a matter of waiting, of pushing a bit harder to make sure, or looking elsewhere. It can be wrenching and painful, and she will surely seek the advice of wiser Christians. All these things are possible and all consistent with faith itself.
Doing things the way most Game writers suggest, with their reference to sex rank in the secular sense, and the male pursuit model, is wholly inconsistent with that faith.
Addenda: I forgot to mention, the primary reason for doing things backwards is because most Christian fellowships have failed to institute the proper biblical system of arranged marriage, or more accurately, elder-guided match making. Most churches don’t have proper elders, either. In the New Testament, elders were the organizational leaders, versus the spiritual leaders typically called pastors. An elder is the head of household, but a church is about shared spiritual identity, not DNA. Churches are supposed to organize along the lines of extended family households, with elders guiding or advising in decisions such as whom to mate. Remove that, and we are left with girls having to make their own way, as it were.

Posted in religion | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Game and the Closed Christian Market