Game vs. Christ I: The Exclusivity of the Missionary Position

Proverbs 15:23 That I Might Be Useful

23 To make an apt answer is a joy to a man,
and a word in season, how good it is!

Free Northerner has a thought-provoking post up today, about working your mission until you die. I owe him many thanks for fitting a crucial piece in the puzzle I’ve been working out in my mind. This is the first of another new series.

Proverbs 15:24 There Are Only Two Roads, and Narrow is the Way

24 The path of life leads upward for the prudent,
that he may turn away from Sheol beneath.

There is a reason I keep coming back to the notion that Game* is inherently feminist. Hedonism is Feminism: The two are synonymous. It is not a matter of, “You go your way, and I’ll go mine”, or “I’ll pick the Game tools useful for my purposes, and you pick the ones useful to yours.” There is only, “You go His Way to the gates of Heaven, or you go your own way to the dark pit of Hell.”

At some point we must decide whether we shall be Christ’s woman–foregoing our desires to be our own heroes with our own separate missions–for His, as His helpmeet; or whether we shall demand we go our own ways; seeking our own empowerment, fulfillment, and satisfaction. We recognize it when we hear it from overt Feminists, carousel-riders, and women who delay marriage for self-actualization. Not only do we hear it: We in the Manosphere often cry out for the punishment and destruction of sluts! We deem their destruction and abandonment not only as predictable consequences, but consider them as the Lord’s will.**

For comparison, here is FN’s heartfelt complaint:

These last years, I’ve been looking for a mission. So far unsuccessfully. Because of this, I’ve cared little about whether I remained on this mortal coil or not. The lack of success has lead me to slowly become more nihilistic over time, and hedonism is looking increasingly attractive.

But it doesn’t seem enough.

I want to fight for something, to have a mission. I want to go to breath my last breath knowing that I fought for something greater than me.

This sounds very much like a 30-year old woman who has realized impact with The Wall is imminent, and that she is moored to nothing. The freedom of self-orientation has become a prison of isolation. It is a taste of things to come in the utter darkness and solitude of Hell. We were not made to be thoroughly independent, but rather distinctly functioning members of a larger corporate body.

A man is either a member of the Body of Christ–that is: the Bride of Christ seeking His way, doing His bidding–or he an Eternal Feminist seeking his own way, doing whatever of Hell he wants…until he hits The Wall. The Wall means death. It is death just as surely as The Wall of age is the last painful stop before the death of a pretty woman’s mating options. The Wall is the pain of realization that this road ends, and on the other side is the void. Sheol.

Proverbs 15:25 Widows of Man

25 The Lord tears down the house of the proud
but maintains the widow’s boundaries.

The Christian is the widow of mankind. The way of man–the way of the world–is dead to the man or woman reborn in Christ, now to be His bride. The consummation of which is in the future, at the end of all things of this world. The single Christian feels this delay more acutely than the married Christian because the married Christian is distracted by his spouse.

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit,not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

He will maintain our boundaries if we are widows of man; faithful brides of Christ. If we become the proud, our houses must be torn down. He is a jealous God, and will abide no sloppy seconds.

Years ago, I encountered a quote by G. K. Chesterton with which I struggle mightily:

Men are men, but man is a woman.

I’ve quoted this often before because it often comes to mind. It pains me by its truth, and its repercussions. This is a hard thing for a man to recognize (much less reconcile!), but it is an inescapable truth about life. While binary sexes are ubiquitous in the animal kingdom, the missionary position is unique to humans. It is only with us that the Male penetrates the female face to face. Only we can see our love at the same time as we know Him.

That such thoughts unnerve me is confirmation of my sinful nature.

*I’m speaking of the more whole philosophy; the end of Inner Game by the means of the tools of Game.

**Why is it almost never interpreted to be the Lord’s will when a man is frivolously divorced? Why is is not considered the Lord’s will that there is an absence of marriageable women? Is he not sinful? Is he not full of iniquity? Is he not deserving of punishment; even divorce and alienation? Focusing on the just deserts is Satan’s domain; it is his role as the Adversary. It is the Advocate to whom we should be looking. The law condemns, but Christ forgives the repentant sinner; he transcends justice.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Game vs. Christ I: The Exclusivity of the Missionary Position

  1. I am seeing more now why we disagree on so many of the details; our perspectives are divergent.

    I take issue with the idea that we individually are ‘brides’ of Christ. There is one bride, the Church, which is a corporate entity not individual. Second, Paul, in referring to the Church as the bride of Christ is not speaking literally, but explaining something that is mysterious. The idea being that Christ sacrificed, sanctified, and prepared the Church for himself, as a husband is called to do for his wife.

    The idea that we should individually be Christ’s woman ignores large swaths of scripture. When Christ tells his disciples that they should take up their cross, be fellow sufferers and conspirators, when he says that the violent will take the Kingdom by force; these individual instruction come across much more like a commander to a footman than a husband to his wife.

    The help-meet idea sounds very much like the lovey-dovey “relationship Jesus” that is touted out in Churchianity.

  2. “Why is it almost never interpreted to be the Lord’s will when a man is frivolously divorced? Why is is not considered the Lord’s will that there is an absence of marriageable women?”

    Because SIN isn’t God’s will.

  3. I agree that SIN isn’t ever God’s will. Because of that I cannot accept that frivolous divorce is ever God’s will.

    However, I am in lockstep agreement with Cane on the rest of that paragraph:

    Why is is not considered the Lord’s will that there is an absence of marriageable women? Is he not sinful? Is he not full of iniquity? Is he not deserving of punishment; even divorce and alienation? Focusing on the just deserts is Satan’s domain; it is his role as the Adversary. It is the Advocate to whom we should be looking. The law condemns, but Christ forgives the repentant sinner; he transcends justice.

    Those were excellent questions to be posed to the Christian men of the manosphere. Keep writing friend. You voice is needed.

    Oh yeah, I happen to agree with the Gentleman Poet on one this particular point: I as an individual, am not the bride of Christ. The church universal is the bride of Christ. Ia am a part of that body, but am not the bride in the sense that I have a relationship with Christ set apart from that of other believers and members of His body. I’ve seen a lot of faulty theology emerge from the idea that individuals are Christ’s bride.

  4. “Why is is not considered the Lord’s will that there is an absence of marriageable women? Is he not sinful? Is he not full of iniquity? Is he not deserving of punishment; even divorce and alienation? Focusing on the just deserts is Satan’s domain; it is his role as the Adversary. It is the Advocate to whom we should be looking.”

    I understand his point with this, Elspeth, however I cannot agree with it.
    A woman who cannot fulfill her role in a marriage shouldn’t be married. A woman who has squandered a gift that was supposed to be her husband’s shouldn’t still receive a husband who hasn’t. Yes, she is forgiven by God, but that doesn’t save her from the Earthly consequences of her sin. To conclude otherwise is the Hamster talking.
    Now, I’ll caveat this by saying that if the man has sinned equally (ie, he has been a player and bedded many women), it is just as unreasonable for this man to take a wife who is a virgin. His past sexual sins disqualify him from that gift, because he has squandered his gift of a strong emotional bond as well.

    I think the command about not being unequally yoked in marriage is EXTREMELY relevant and valid on this topic.

  5. Now, I’ll caveat this by saying that if the man has sinned equally (ie, he has been a player and bedded many women), it is just as unreasonable for this man to take a wife who is a virgin. His past sexual sins disqualify him from that gift, because he has squandered his gift of a strong emotional bond as well.

    I think the command about not being unequally yoked in marriage is EXTREMELY relevant and valid on this topic.

    It seems we are not as far apart as it appears on this, AR. For example, this part of your comment is virtually unheard of in the manosphere and I applaud you for your willingness to add the counterweight to the commonly expressed meme.

    As for whether or not this woman or that should receive a husband, I marvel that the notion of a man’s right to choose should be disregarded at this point. So long as a woman is up front about her past, it’s not up to us to judge whether or not she gets a husband. It ‘s up to a man to decide what is a deal breaker for him and what isn’t.

    Believe it or not, there really are men that don’t care if they’re not the first. If they want to marry such a woman, it’s their choice. If they can, by God’s grace manage to stay married despite their sinful pasts, more power to them I say.

    And no, I am not excusing promiscuity. It must be extremely hard to have a solid Christian marriage with so much baggage in tow.

    However, Cane is right. Just desserts is Satan’s game. If God dealt with each one of us according to what our sins deserve, where would we be? Life has a way of making things right. If not in this life, then in the life to come. Until then, our job is to do right and teach our children the right way, not spend inordinate amounts of time judging others.

    Yes, we need to discern rightly. Yes, we need to call sin sin. But we need to exercise care and always be aware of our own need for grace.

    (CC: Fixed)

  6. @Elspeth,
    I make my distinction based on the beginning of Matthew 7.

    7 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and [a]by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how [b]can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

    I read it as that establishing standards for others that you do not or have not kept yourself makes you a hypocrite and unfit as an authority on the topic.

    There are many actions I cannot judge others for; speeding, looking at porn, using profanity, etc. I can tell you that those things are sin, but I have little-to-no moral authority to condemn you for them.

    “As for whether or not this woman or that should receive a husband, I marvel that the notion of a man’s right to choose should be disregarded at this point. So long as a woman is up front about her past, it’s not up to us to judge whether or not she gets a husband. It ‘s up to a man to decide what is a deal breaker for him and what isn’t.”

    I think those men want to re-establish a culture of chastity amongst women, by exerting control over what they have control over (commitment). And realize what it will take is a borderline marriage strike for women who have been promiscuous in order deny them the Feminist dream. I’m fairly confident that a majority of men would have preferred to be married when they were younger but were rejected in favor of hookups with exciting assholes. Now, it is their turn to do the rejecting en masse of the same women that rejected them.

    “Believe it or not, there really are men that don’t care if they’re not the first. If they want to marry such a woman, it’s their choice. If they can, by God’s grace manage to stay married despite their sinful pasts, more power to them I say”

    Sure. That is entirely their prerogative. Even though it flies in the face of all prevailing wisdom.

  7. Christianity flies in the face of all prevailing wisdom. I am all for chastity and virgin weddings, but I am not so foolish as to believe an unregenerate virgin (whose untamed heart can get her into all kids of trouble) is necessarily a better candidate for a wife than a woman with a past whose heart is fully committed to Christ.

    However, I fully agree with you that a virgin man should avoid marrying the latter woman. That would be an nonequivalent yoke too hard to overcome. I do disagree with you that the men of the manosphere want to return a culture of chastity by exerting the one thing they have control over. If they really wanted that, they wouldn’t encourage promiscuity and open admiration of PUA’s as doing “god’s work”. It pained me to even type that I’ll have you know.

    No, they want what Cane implies they want: Their pound of flesh. Revenge. The years back that they gave to women they have judged as undeserving. Oh, and hot sex with young, hot women. I see lots of railing against the sluts who reject them, but very little evidence that there is a true desire for a return to a culture of chastity. I see it in a few men such as yourself, but not the vast majority.

    Oh, and then there is the little problem of the fact that I know very few men in real life for whom any of this registers. At. all.

  8. “I do disagree with you that the men of the manosphere want to return a culture of chastity by exerting the one thing they have control over.”

    I wasn’t including the entire Manosphere but rather the Christian corner of it. Yes, some of them want their pound of flesh as well, but I think fewer do.

  9. Been on the road.

    The Perversity of Christian PUA Cheerleaders

    Sin is never in God’s will? I suppose that depends what you mean by will. What do you think it means when the Bible says the Lord sent an evil to torment Saul? What do you think it means when Paul tells the Romans that God turned them over to their sins?

    I wasn’t including the entire Manosphere but rather the Christian corner of it. Yes, some of them want their pound of flesh as well, but I think fewer do.

    As always, it is the Xian corner that concerns me, because I can’t tell what number fewer. Sometimes, I believe it’s no fewer at all.

    Let’s not even concern ourselves with the sluts. If we know fornication to be a sin, and we know sin has a corrosive effect on our lives and the lives of those around us (for men, this means the entire world), and we know that–in particular–fornication is a sin against oneself, then anyone who encourages another man is acting as a direct agent of Satan with an eye towards damnation for that man.

    It is more despicable that some of the Xian men want to see other men get pounds of flesh (take that as you will). It’s a sick form of vicariousness to laud another man for engaging in grudge-fucking women–even sluts–for purely hedonistic reasons. It’s sexual revenge porn.

    This is why I respect Roissy more than many of the Xian male commenters in the Manosphere. He at least took the gumption to learn how to soil himself and others on his own. It is a damned shame that he is on the other team.

    Who is the Bride

    The idea that we should individually be Christ’s woman ignores large swaths of scripture.

    You can’t possibly have read the entire post and come away with that as my thesis, unless you’re bringing in your own pre-conceptions. We all do it, but I don’t see how you get that from my post. I am speaking in the sense of the mystery–not that we will be reconstituted with vaginas.

    Speaking of mystery: this is where you and I diverge. You seem to attribute no mystery to marriage, yet it is. It is in fact such a mystery that it is the first institution created by God when no institutions existed–indeed, was it even needed before He invented it?–and it is this mystery that is used to get us to understand how we relate to Christ, Himself.

    No, I do not think the problem is that I have over-mystified Christ and His bride, but that you have under-mystified marriage.

    Update: This one part I can see being construed as individual brides:

    He will maintain our boundaries if we are widows of man; faithful brides of Christ. If we become the proud, our houses must be torn down. He is a jealous God, and will abide no sloppy seconds.

    It’s difficult to discuss one from many without sometimes speaking in individual terms. Try explaining the Trinity. Neither do we believe our eye is causing us to sin, yet we are called to remove it if that is the case.

    Regardless, in the rest of the post, I speak of the individual responsibility within the corporate experience.

  10. @Cane:

    This was the bit that got me:

    At some point we must decide whether we shall be Christ’s woman–foregoing our desire to be our own hero with our own separate mission–for His, as His helpmeet; or whether we shall demand we go our own way; seeking our own empowerment, fulfillment, and satisfaction.

    But I did not mean to imply that it was the broad theme of the piece in toto, but rather that the perspective of individual bridehood colored your perspective on that one sticky point, Game, where are views are most divergent. But, if as you say–and why should I think otherwise–this was a rhetorical tactic and not a metaphysical stance then I must need go back to the drawing board and reassess our contingent positions. It is just as likely that you hit trigger words that fired certain synapses in my mind associated with the bad theology I have experience with my church folk; particularly the bride language strikes a chord as my current church having changed pastorate recently has moved to a “contemporary” feel that in worship and sermon verges on homo-eroticism (it just now occurred to me that this word can be taken both with its Greek root as “same”-eroticism, or its Latinate root as “human”-eroticism, both being appropriate in this case) in their focus of “relationship” with Christ.

  11. @TGP

    Gotcha. I did purposefully choose the plural “we” with the singular “woman” and “helpmeet”. What I failed to do what pluralize the words “heroes”, “missions”, and “ways”. I hope that clears it up, and will change it in the post.

    I can fully sympathize with the changes at your church. When the concept of Bride of Christ was taught to me at my church, it struck me badly too because of the insipidness of the church. When I came across the Chesterton quote, I was/am challenged to investigate further what that means; particularly for men.

    There are multiple facets to the nature of our relationship with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit; even just to one person of the Trinity.

    “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.”
    “Jerusalem, how I’ve longed to gather you as a hen gathers her chicks.”
    “(the disciples) are my mother, my sister, and my brother.”
    “It is not my time, woman” (Mary and Jesus’ exchange at the Wedding Feast is a superb example of the depth of the relationship between God and His woman.)

    But the one constant is order, authority, and submission. So, in the commander soldier analogy, the soldier is the wife in the relationship. Now that I think about it: It’s interesting that you chose that analogy. Athol Kay is famous for equating marriage with soldiers, and he gets praised for it. I just flipped it around.

    Ultimately, though I don’t fully understand it all, I realized that the main source of my problems is the current state of wussiness. Women in the Bible–even the bad ones–are stronger and longer-suffering than the men teaching Bride of Christ theology today.

  12. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: Marriage Week | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  13. “Ultimately, though I don’t fully understand it all, I realized that the main source of my problems is the current state of wussiness. Women in the Bible–even the bad ones–are stronger and longer-suffering than the men teaching Bride of Christ theology today.”

    Wussiness. Oh how I hate thee. Let me count the ways.
    I hate it women. I loath it in men. I don’t even tolerate it well in my children.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s