Nothing Jew Under the Son

Back to St. Paul. In this post I quoted his second letter to the Corinthians. He wrote:

16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Once, according to the flesh and to fulfill His Father’s will, Jesus was a Jew. He has fulfilled that prophecy, died, and rose from the dead returning to His true and eternal self, the only begotten Son of God. Anyone who is in Christ has also died, and now is alive for true and a new thing. Not the old thing.

It’s commonly taught that we Christians are the “New Jews” but that is only true in the sense that Jew is a metaphor for God’s People. In fact it was never the case that genetics was the basis of who was a member of God’s People. Abraham, a Chaldean, was chosen by God, adopted, and was sealed by circumcision. The promise that was given to him was given under the law by which I mean the order of, and according to, the material world of which the law God gave Moses corresponds. In his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul says it this way:

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

That law included all sorts of rules about how the people of Israel were to interact with–and prohibit–foreigners. This post is already going to be very long and it would bloat to tens of thousands of words if I included them all, but here is an example which takes place just before the Israelites flee Egypt, and before the law is given:

43 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 44 but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. 45 No foreigner or hired worker may eat of it. 46 It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. 49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”

It looks like a set of rules with principled exceptions, but in reality there are no exceptions to the rule that the Passover is to be kept by Israelites and none of it given to foreigners or hired workers. Period. What looks like exceptions are actually instructions of how those slaves and foreigners, by faith, become Israelites; because one who is circumcised in faithful obedience to God is as Abraham himself. There shall be one law for the native and the stranger who sojourns among you. That law is faith in God which produces obedience. One law for one people.

In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul explains this (of which this is only a short bit)

10 How then was [righteousness] counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Whoever shares one father is from the same nation; the same ethnicity. Under Abraham that ethnicity is one of faith, but under Christ, who is the fulfillment of that faith, we truly share in blood. St. Paul explains it magnificently in his letter to the Ephesians:

11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Made us both Jew and Gentiles one. Fellow citizens. Members of the household of God. One temple. One people. He writes the same to the Galatians because of their struggles with the anti-Christian Jews who try to ritually ensnare those who formerly were Gentiles in the flesh. The end of his thought which I quoted above is powerful and direct:

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

It wasn’t that Gentiles became Jews, but that both are done away with in Christ and we, and our blood, are now something new and better.[1] There are still Jews and Gentiles in the world, and for we who are in Christ mixing with them, marrying and having sex with them, it is miscegenation and a sin.

There are sinful compulsions which are particularly rampant among Jews, and the various Gentile nations are each bedeviled by sins to which they are respectively given. St. Paul, while counseling Titus, speaks of both Jews and Cretans in a race-realist way that would cause wailing and gnashing of teeth in most churches:

10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. 11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. 12 One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

Jews are deceitful, gossiping swindlers; Cretans are lying, lazy, evil, gluttonous beasts; both are good for nothing.[2] They are not in Christ. Those who were formerly Jews and formerly Cretans are in Christ, and they are something new in one new nation which is of Christ’s blood; as are we.

[1] See: Wineskins 

[2] So if someone says “Those cretans jewed me out of my money.”, we should assume that person is somewhat biblically literate.

Thanks, Mike Judge

Though I am not a Trump supporter, and though I don’t vote, I have swung nearly all my male coworkers into Trump’s camp. It (my intervention) happened because they are all in their early 20’s, all in college, and therefore subjected to a deluge of Bernie Sander’s propaganda. (This was back before the Dem National Convention.) Every day they would come in and talk about “that idiot Trump”, and then say that Sanders was the only logical person, the only sensible person, etc.

My problem was that they hated Trump for all the wrong reasons. So I had to talk them through the logic.

  • Trump is decidedly not an idiot. He made 4.5 billion  dollars from 1 million dollars, and there’s no evidence of Ponzi schemes, fraud, or other skullduggery.
  • Walls aren’t stupid and they do work. Ugly though it was, the Berlin Wall kept many, many people within. The walls of houses do keep others out. Fences do keep people out.
  • Sanders was the voice of a hippy-dippy generation that utterly failed and which even the hippy-dips had abandoned.

By the time we got to the national conventions the men (the women never involved themselves in the conversations after the first time I scoffed about Sanders) were reluctant Trump supporters. They say things like, “I hate to say it, but Trump is the only one that makes any sense. I feel dirty now.”

I’ve also seen some limited success on the entertainment front. We talk about movies and TV shows a lot and they always ask my opinion because they want to hear something fresh. They expect my criticism to be wholly new to them–and therefore exciting–even though they assume I won’t like it and especially that they won’t agree.

In my mind, I had thought I had utterly failed to get through. But one of them, after seeing Suicide Squad, said, “The whole time I was watching the movie I was thinking ‘Cane’s right: They’re just trying to get me to look at Harley Quinn while a bunch of stupid shit happens.’ I still enjoyed the movie though.”

I was glad, but a lot of what I had said about the ubiquity of anti-heroes (which I now realize I haven’t written about here) still sailed right over their heads…

…until today. Today I bought a Powerade and my boss (another 20s man) said, “Need some electrolytes? Plants crave electrolytes.”

“I’m not drinking anything from a toilet, that’s for sure!”

The Suicide Squad fan was there too and we all laughed. In that moment, it dawned on me that I could use Idiocracy to demonstrate why I resist (what I call) the Culture of Disrespect which permeates our popular media. “You know how in Idiocracy the guys in the future are lulled into a life of masturbation and Ow My Balls? They just sit around all day being entertained by elaborate pratfalls explosions and jerking off?”

“Yeah.”

“That’s Suicide Squad, and you are the men of the future. These movies have no heroes and the plots are janky, but you keep watching for the elaborate stunts and hot chicks because…because nothing.””

“You’re an asshole, Cane. Damn it, you’re right. You’re a total asshole.”

“You’re welcome.”

“Damn it.”

“You know what else?” I continued in sudden inspiration, “You know what else is like Idiocracy? Trump.” It had suddenly appeared to me that Donald Trump would be a President Camacho. “He’s a billionaire reality TV star whose popularity is predicated on his bank account and upon spectacle.”

“Dude… Oh man, that sucks. You’re right!”

“He’s still better than Hillary. Even Camacho had the brains to put a smart guy in charge of the crops. Hillary is the Brondo corporation. She’s the Brondosaurus..”

“No joke.”

Tonight, when I got home, and after I listened to the end of a Google Hangout, I wondered if anyone else had made that connection and I googled Idiocracy Trump. Someone had: Mike Judge.

“I didn’t want Idiocracy to get popular by the world getting stupider faster,” Judge, who now runs the show Silicon Valley, said in an interview with The Daily Beast. “I guess I was 450 years off! But yeah, it’s a tad bit scary!”

Judge had specific examples about how exact plot points from Idiocracy are now real. This past March, the CEO of Carl’s Jr. said he wants to test out completely automated restaurants. And in Idiocracy, there’s a Carl’s Jr. kiosk that malfunctions.

At the end of this year, a coffee shop called Fellatio Café will open in Geneva, Switzerland that offers oral sex alongside your caffeine boost. In Idiocracy, that place is simply Starbucks.

And of course, there’s Donald Trump, our current Republican nominee for president, who has appeared in pro-wrestling matches  and puts an emphasis on entertainment rather than policy. Sounds a lot like President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. (Judge tried to make Camacho-themed videos pegged to this year’s election, but Fox turned him down.) [emphasis added]

Trump was in a wrestling match. Dang.

To tie all this together I finished our conversation with this: “Camacho isn’t the hero we need, but he’s the hero we deserve.”

Christian Nationalism vs. Zombie Nationalism

I’m jumping ahead a bit here, but I want to write about the thing which, if one accepts it, then it brings into question all the assumptions of a nationalism based on the material instead of the spiritual. That thing is marriage. Here’s Jesus Christ on marriage:

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Obviously the husband’s flesh is not fused to the wife’s so that it is materially inseparable, yet we must accept the truth of married oneness as real–more real than material flesh. In marriage it is in the flesh of the spirit that the two are truly made one. Whatever the spiritual flesh of the husband, so also the wife. The different genetics of a man and wife do not hinder this real union. In sane societies, and for the majority of history, that truth is an was recognized by even the laws of men who preceded Christ’s birth and those who never heard of Him after it.

Even legal prohibitions and taboos against inter-ethnic marriage are subject to this real law of the spirit. The prohibitions and taboos are attempts to stop the bringing together of what such prohibitors believe ought not be brought together, but the existence of the prohibition confesses it can be done. Which brings us to St. Paul

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”

The modern thing for St. Paul to have said about Christians banging prostitutes was some form of annulment: “That didn’t count.” He doesn’t. Instead he doubles-down:

17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

Here’s that more-real-than-material flesh of the spirit showing up again. A man is not penetrated by the woman; yet sexual immorality is inside his body. Gluttony, or the eating of things which are unclean (for that person) is certainly a sin which involves taking things into the body, yet Paul says it is a sin that is outside the body. Paul explains how this is so.

19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Later he will write to this same church:

16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

The passing away of the old and and the coming of the new is true of all those who are in Christ, and it is wholly true of those in Christ. Genetics can’t stop it because genetics are old, dead flesh.

In case my father ever reads this I should address the stumbling block put before us by Progressives who are sexually immoral and revilers and swindlers. It seems that every-other piece of media produced (not to mention the lives of our celebrities in sports and entertainment) sells the idea of interracial sex (especially of the black man and white woman variety) as if it were the pinnacle of human achievement.

We ought to recognize that it is a taunt aimed at take our minds off the real and focus on the worldly. It is false doctrine, a corrupt idol meant to stand in the place of the reality of unity in Christ, but which actually has nothing to do with the spirit and is full of spite. Progressives live according to the flesh, and they are portraying what should not be for others who live according to the flesh. It hits a lot of notes for them:

  • It flouts the spirit of the law of God to keep separate those things that ought not be brought together (though their standard is wrong because it is old)
  • It offends people who they hate and
  • It elicits revelry from other sexually immoral revilers and swindlers

Perhaps what I’m describing is difficult to comprehend… An analogy to the Progressive and materialist idol of interracial sex and marriage would be cannibalism. Jesus said at the Last Supper that this bread is His body and this wine is His blood, and we are to eat and drink it as if it were so[1]. The material idolatry of that reality is cannibalism. Have you noticed how rampant vampires, werewolves, zombies and other cannibals are these days? How many of those pieces of media feature interracial sex? All of them?

So if anyone is not in Christ and still of the flesh and the world and still blind to the truth: Do not partake in the eucharist, do not eat people, and do not have have sex with someone of another race.

I still have more to repeat from St. Paul, and will write more about the absence of Jews.

[1] The fact is we eat things as if they were those things even when they are those things. You eat cake as if it were cake. That you are actually eating cake doesn’t change that fact that you eat it as if it were cake.

The Family that Feuds

Ryder asks:

I’m definitely picking up what you’re putting down, but this part strikes me as a weak point in your argument:

“Muslims and Progressives find ways to make peace with each other because they both recognize their shared and inherited trait of being against Christ.”

Can you give an example? Progressives use Muslims as a tool against Christ, e.g., equating them with Christians in their pantheon of diversity, reducing all member religions to hollow aesthetic specimens in Mammon’s Hall of Tolerance, but Muslims are not allies in that endeavor. Muslims leverage the weaknesses of Progressives to advance their own agenda, e.g., hiding behind freedom of speech to attack the liberal foundations of free speech.

If you’re making a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” argument, I can roll with that, but it sounds like you’re making a more substantive claim by putting anti-Christ, rather than “anti-non-Progressives” and “anti-non-Muslims,” at the center of their peace. Christ is in the end, of course, the center of everything, but if there were a stubbornly orthodox Hindu presence in the fray, I think they would draw the similar ire from these forces.

Progressives are against God as a creator, but especially as ruler. Islam is explicitly and implicitly against Christ. Since Christ is God, that puts both of them in the same spiritual (and therefore truly) family tree. Judaism is also a relative.

What about Hindus? Well, it is not anti-Christian and it’s not of the same family as Progressivism and Islam. For one thing, the latter two are both post-Christian heresies. Hindu is pre-Christian. A Hindu would have the same worldview a Christian has of the reality of spirits, of man’s place between the spiritual and the beasts, etc. They know different facts, but they observe them in similar manners. So there can be communication between a Hindu and a Christian that cannot happen between Progressives and Christians, or Muslims and Christians. This is because Hindus don’t believe in sola material. (I made that up.) In Hinduism, via reincarnation and other magics, there is a working out of divine plans; plans not of men.

Perhaps most importantly, Progressivism and Islam came out of Christian peoples like Satan came out of Heaven. They are related and their shared ethnicity of a specific anti-Christianity shows. In 2 Cor. 11 Paul wrote:

12 And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

Progressivism and Islam at their best (by which I mean when they seem pleasing; such as in a well-run socialist country or a peaceful and prosperous Islamic country) are two of those movements of Satanic servants who are disguised as angels of light. They claim to be peaceful, concerned about the poor, just, and so-on-and-so-forth just as Christians do. Islam claims Jesus to be a prophet and Progressives claim he was a moral teacher. But these are crucial lies of a mere-ity of Jesus. It’s an echo of the serpent in the Garden. The serpent asks “Did God really say…?” It doesn’t question God’s existence, or even really His authority. Instead it provokes doubt in God’s Word; which St. John tells us is Jesus, and encourages humans to find their own way to God’s likeness. In another instance, Satan shows up in St. Peter

21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Talk about your angel of light!

This enlightenment shows in Islam and Progressivism by their united focus on the material. It is the duty of Muslims to physically bring about the Caliphate of Allah. It is the duty of Progressives to progress towards an utopian society. Same thing: God’s plans are guidelines and theoretical, but man’s plans get things done, man! And, I think it is telling that Progressives and Muslims have warred mightily against Hindus.

In the Beginning There Were No Jews

Some comments of the previous post spurred me to investigate some of the ideas that are floating around the Alt-Right. It is the Alt-Right which, at least around me (in the sense that Internet conversations can be around) to which people either flock, or react against, and so they are the center of thought for those people.

One of the biggest topics of the Alt-Right conversations is nationalism and they are right that it needs to be discussed. Sometimes it is called ethno-nationalism, but that is a redundant phrase as a nation is ethnically homogeneous. I believe nationalism is good and God-ordained as I believe patriarchy is good, but what I do not believe is that the false idea that the fundamental nature of a person is his material, and that one’s material rules his destiny. But my intent isn’t to write what the Alt-Right gets wrong, but rather point out what is true and what we know if our center is Christ.

Nationalism is another way of saying extended family, so Christian Nationalism is concerned with Christians. I believe that spirit is the ethnicity, and that God has revealed this throughout the history of the world. Most specifically in the Bible because: In the beginning there were no Jews.

27 Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot. 28 Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his kindred, in Ur of the Chaldeans. 29 And Abram and Nahor took wives. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah. 30 Now Sarai was barren; she had no child.

31 Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there. 32 The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran.

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Terah, a Chaldean, was the father. He was taking Abram to Canaan, but fell short in Haran. God calls Abram to leave not only Ur, but to leave his father’s house, i.e., Terah’s family. God adopts Abram, and now it is God taking His adopted son to Canaan and promising to make from Abram a great nation. Nation is singular, but from all the families of the earth in Abraham, i.e., in the family of Abram. So not only does God adopt Abram, but He also foretells that Abram’s descendants will be from both Abram’s material, and also by adoption from other family material shall come his descendants and heirs by spirit. It’s an echo man’s creation; the Lord gathering dust, breathing spirit into it and so making a man and heir.[1] The only begotten (non-adopted) Son of God is Jesus, but all those who are adopted in the Spirit really are family. Whoever is not Christian is not part of the Christian nation–is not family.

We have another word for this sort of adoption, and that is redeemed. Because we are God’s lawful property as fruit of an errant vine which He created and planted (Adam), yet are now growing wild in sin, or in the clutches of another. Redemption comes to us through our Redeemer, Christ and by His Spirit.

There are mere material nations, of course. They really do exist (though dead) and they really are against whites and Westerners and especially against Christians. The friendliness of Muslims and Progressives boggles many Westerners because most Westerners do not accept the truth that ethnicities are spiritual. Muslims and Progressives find ways to make peace with each other because they both recognize their shared and inherited trait of being against Christ. They are not part of our family, and should not be treated as if they are. To complicate the matter: They are out there in the rest of the world trying to plunder, or destroy, or humiliate the United States for a variety or reasons of which only one is the fact that America appears to them to be a Christian nation.

Now, to put that (real) problem in perspective: Most of the people in the US are barbarians of other ethnicities. There are non-Christians, the fake Christians (who call themselves Christian but under investigation are found not to be), and there are all sorts of deformed Christians. They are in our families–but not!–and in our churches–but not! Many of our pastors and bishops and other leaders are not well-formed and fully-grown Christians, or at all. They too, as we painfully learn find common cause with the Progressives and the Muslims.

What I’m saying is we can’t stop the barbarians at the gates until the gates are out of the hands of the barbarians among whom we live. Later I’m going to say that there are no Jews in the Christian nation.

[1] Canaan too is more of that “adopted dust”. After adoption it is called Israel. Jerusalem becomes Zion.

What I’ve Been Thinking

I have an unexpected break from work so I thought I’d shoot out a post on the things about which I’ve been thinking.

  1. The hope in nationalism is misplaced. European peoples didn’t evolve into civilized societies because of time or technology. The good which came about in Europeans was the result of the Gospel of Christ having been spread among and accepted by Europeans. Christianity came out of the Middle East, and elevated Europe. As the Middle East left Christianity, the Middle East became crap. Now the West has left Christianity for post-Christianity and the West is going to crap. The longing for the old days of nationalism is on its face evidence of its bankruptcy as an idea because our hope is to be–because it really is–in Christ alone. To turn your face to the past, or towards an -ism instead of towards Christ is foolishness and idolatry.
  2. The problems I have with my neighbors (the people I live next to, work with, shop with, go to church with, extended family, etc.) stems from the fact that they aren’t Christian and they have no interest in Christ. What I mean here is that I can see neither evidence, nor even interest, in living like Christ or even talking about Christ. There’s no transformation. They have no interest in a relationship with Christ. There’s not even a struggle. This is true of almost every one I know. My neighbors all call themselves Christian, but in fact are post-Christians. They believe in do-gooderism (especially towards themselves), psychology bullshit, emotionalism, and materialism. They do not believe they are servants of the Most High God and they should be seeking His will daily. They do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a real and active person who should be sought out, obeyed, and inquired. They do not believe that the contents of the Bible are relevant to their lives except as decoration.
  3. The West is dying because Western husbands and fathers have not taught their families to be the Lord’s, and to be faithful to the Lord, as the highest priority. Social Justice (and all its sub-idols: Feminism, Identity Politics, etc.) is just the latest in a very long line of anti-Christ -isms which stands in the vacuum where Jesus Christ should be. Even Patriarchy itself is not a cure for the West. Patriarchy is not a system which can be properly wielded by a people divorced from the will of God. Don’t misunderstand me: It remains that Patriarchy is the tool which God wants us to wield in His service.
  4. The most important blocks of a society are family and church and neighbors. As men we should see to the protection and provision of these institutions and their members above all other horizontal (on the Earth) concerns. Until we begin to put these in order, good state policies will elude and confound us. This is a spiritual truth, and the spirit is greater and more real than the flesh.

Blue-Collar Blues

I have started a new job, finally. It pays poorly to start, but it is in the field in which I wish to remain for the rest of my life; God willing. 

Long story short: I’m working two full-time jobs. Blogging, along with everything else, has to give. My weekends are blessedly free, but that time is often spoken-for as well. This weekend, for example, I have to give my truck a tune-up. One of my coils is toast and as long as I’ve got the engine cover off I might as well do all the sparkplugs. It’s been 130,000 miles. And as long as I have the sparkplugs out I might as well replace the coil insulators. An oil change is easy to throw in while I’m waiting for the PB Blaster to work its magic on the sparkplugs, and I’ve never replaced the fuel filter either.
Da da-da-da duh!

So maybe weekend after next I’ll get a chance to write.

Da da-da-da-duh!

An Aside On FCB’s: The Plague, Caveats, and The Caveat Plague

There is a plague. It has wiped out four-fifth’s of our people for the past three generations; perhaps more. This plague is spread by eating food fertilized by human feces. On a few occasions, our people have contracted it by men putting their boots–which have been walked in the feces-fertilized gardens–onto the table. Our people don’t know that our food is poisoned when it is fertilized by human excrement, but they have noticed those few occasions when men’s boots were on the table there was sometimes plague. That is because it is an abnormal occurrence. Conversely, they don’t notice the E.coli already in their food because it is reliably present.

If I were counseling these people, all my efforts would be to remove human feces from the fertilization process because I know how old wives’ tales get propagated, and I know how deeply people invest in their pet (and petty) superstitions. Therefore I would never mention shoes-on-the-table as a source of plague except in a known, specific, instance because–while five out of one hundred men put E.coli on the table with their boots–one hundred out of one hundred people are eating food poisoned in the field.

On Christian Female Bloggers II Addendum

I opened with “Prepare to be offended.”, and then I read a bunch of commentary here and abroad that no one was offended at my suggestion that kneeling was the gold standard of submission. I suspect that a lot of people lie to themselves. Obviously I would be wrong if it is the case that these people can look back into their own pasts at instances of a wife kneeling in submission to her husband; without embarrassment (which is a kind of being offended) or sex-play (though of a type of submission it is also a cover).

It is a mistake for one struggling with submission (either giving or accepting) to retreat into denial.

On Christian Female Bloggers II: The Gold Standard of Reverent

Prepare to be offended.

But as for you [Titus], teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

I think my readers know what is meant by “not slanderers” and “or slaves to much wine”, but “reverent in behavior” means what for people in our society? Towards the end of his post (and him with no knowledge my post was in the works) Dalrock translated the specific Greek words used in Ephesians for fear and reverence.

Fearing women, however, is not something that the Bible teaches.  Christians are to fear God, and wives are to fear their husbands.  As every Christian feminist’s favorite verse in Ephesians 5 explains, Christians in general are to submit to one another in fear (also translated as reverence) of God:

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

A bit later, in Ephesians 5:33, Paul explains that a wife is to fear (also translated as reverence) her husband (ISV):

33 But each individual man among you must love his wife as he loves himself; and may the wife fear her husband.

Interestingly in some translations fear is used in verse 21 while reverence is used in verse 33***, as is the case with the King James version:

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

…33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Other times we see it the other way around as is the case with the International Standard Version:

21 and you will submit to one another out of reverence for the Messiah.

…33 But each individual man among you must love his wife as he loves himself; and may the wife fear her husband.

Translation is a necessary and noble endeavor, but it is one I am happy to trust to professionals and my friends[1].

My process is much simpler. I performed a Google search of every blog recommended to me for the word knee because kneeling is the gold standard of submission and reverence. That (should have) found even comments with knee and its derivatives. Then I bookmarked each result. Of them all, only one post contained a reference of one spouse kneeling to another. It was at “A Peaceful Wife”, by April Cassidy[2]

It came from an email from a reader which April posted for mutual inspiration. She wrote:

I finally found out what he meant by “arguing” by reading your blog. I seriously had NO IDEA!! I didn’t understand why he would get mad when I “shared my feelings” with him until reading your blog. I felt absolutely baffled by it! He also notoriously calls me “negative” and tells me I “complain” a lot, which would make me furious! And so I would defend myself thinking that he would then see that he was hurting me and fall on his knees to apologize.. I had no idea that I was actually perpetuating the disrespect by defending myself. This is still the hardest thing for me because I hate being wrong and being the person who needs to apologize, etc.[3]

She knew that the right thing to do when asking forgiveness was assume a humble posture, but when she realized it was herself who should apologize: She didn’t kneel as she had wanted her husband to do. Instead she took April’s advice and walked out of the room. Later she told her husband he’s a very good boy:

One other huge break through, I have tried many times in the past to tell him things I do respect about him but he has never believed me and he knew I was just doing an exercise I read in a book or something. However, after reading your blog and comments on there, etc, I realized that he has never withdrawn from me or our boys and he has never stopped leading, even in the face of my disrespect and attempts to control.
  • So I told him that I was very impressed that he still continues to lead, to tell me my sin, and to try to engage in the family even when I’m wrong and even when most men do the opposite.[3]

April posted this to her own blog as an example of a submissive wife. That–walking out of a room, and saying what a good boy a husband is– is not a picture of submissive wife. That is a picture of a doting mother. I must assume she knows the difference. Remember: This woman wanted her husband to give her the gold standard in submission. She knows that standard is kneeling.

In fact none of the female Christian blogs I searched ever mentioned a wife assuming the posture of submission; of her kneeling. There are admonitions for tone of voice, and silence, and just about any other vagaries of action which are only nonchalance disguised as submission. This lack shows in a couple ways. First, you can see it in wordiness and meandering of posts on submission by otherwise well-meaning women. (One has to shovel a lot of vagaries to fill the hole left by kneeling.) Second, even women who are trying to be submissive leave comment after comment about “running out of ideas” on how to make their submission apparent to their husbands; as if men hadn’t the eyes to see submission. I’m sorry to say that is often the charge leveled at husbands. If a wife kneeled, could her submission be in question? No.

This topic makes me uncomfortable. I don’t think I’m alone in that. Dalrock’s post continues:

This is not to say that Christian wives are to worship their husbands as Christian men today so often worship women, but clearly there is a healthy reverence wives are instructed to have for their husbands in line with headship and submission.

I know I’ve said the same. While it is murmured elsewhere that I am an oppressive dolt, the fact is you can’t keep me from tripping over myself to make clear my haste to demonstrate my lack of need for submission…which is a lie that I’ve been telling myself since I began thinking about submission. I do need my wife’s submission if I want a wife at all!

The truth is that I I had been overlooking it forever. And–in my defense–I’ve been warned away from female submission my entire life. In the post this series corrects, I erroneously wrote:

Submission is the absence of rebellion. Wives don’t have to learn “how to be submissive”; they just have to decide not to rebel.

It’s true that one way to define submission is the absence of rebellion, but I was wrong in that women do have to learn to submit. And I do have to learn how to accept it. My mind has put forth to me every kind of excuse against kneeling, but–discomforting or not–the fact is irrefutable that the gold standard of submission is kneeling. Therefore, can we say of anyone who disdains (or even merely eschews) kneeling, that they are in submission?

I’m a bit timid of this line of thinking. There is some sickness in me that wants my wife to find me…what? Equal? Unworthy? Something. At the same time: The sickness makes me bitter when it gets its wish! It is a stupid sickness of the Old Adam and it must be crucified within me. Healthy marriage is too important.

Here’s why: I see the ships of those who pilot for Biblical Marriage repeatedly crash on the shoals of questions like this:

  • What if my husband asks me to sin?
  • What if my husband won’t follow-through on (church, praying, controlling finances, etc.)?
  • What if my husband ignores me?
  • What if my husband won’t forgive me for my mistakes?
  • What if I really need (food, clothes, etc.) but my husband won’t provide it?
  • What if I’ve tried everything and nothing works?

Here’s my response from now on: After you tried smiling sweetly, and doting on him, and the silent treatment, and standing up for yourself, and going behind his back, and taking matters into your own hands, and bringing in the pastor: Did you try kneeling before your husband in submission?

Are Christian female bloggers aware that kneeling is the gold standard of submission? Yes. In fact, the more “spiritual” the blogger wants to sound, the more she mentions kneeling submissively in prayer. “Hit my knees!” “Fell to my knees!” “Knelt right there on the linoleum!” They know submission during prayer is important.

As I said: Not one of the Christian female bloggers suggest kneeling to her husband. To be reverent to their husbands, and to teach young women to be submissive, they must start.


[1] I’m looking at you, Deep Strength, Jonadab, and others!

[2] Who is not 60, nor a grandmother, nor post-menopausal. In no way do I find her to be an elder woman.

[3] Emphasis in original