And Bureaucracy for All

Over at Dalrock’s, in response to a post about the Roman Church’s broad and slick annulment practices, commenter CerrilanAufen wrote:

One thing that hasn’t been discussed here on this blog (that I’ve seen) is that Catholic priests are supposed to personally council couples considering marriage.

(For the sake of discussion I am assuming this is considered to be true. My Roman Catholic readers can correct us in the comments if it’s not.) Regardless, I know this same shirking of responsibility and misapplication of blame is at work in non-RCC churches and really everywhere in America.

For example, my Anglican churches assume every problem can be solved by convening a new committee which will then institute a new program to tackle it. Coincidentally, every problem is considered to be a New Problem even when it is actually an old problem. That way no one has to repent, hold anyone accountable, or have an uncomfortable conversation. No one has to hurt anyone’s feelings, or risk the perception of being Not Nice.

Here’s another example from outside of the ecclesial world. It is assumed by everyone but teachers that the problem with public schools is a failure of teachers to “reach” their pupils. If a student hits another student, it’s a teacher’s failure. Students who refuse to do their schoolwork are assumed to be under the sway of a poor teacher. And so on and so forth.

These are actually problems with parents and their children. We blame priests, pastors, teachers, etc. because we don’t want to accept responsibility. So we construct bureaucracies to allow us to perpetually shuffle the blame around instead of believing that God knew what He was doing when He gave those kids to those parents.

It’s a world ruled like a daycare.

Advertisements

Sometimes the Customer is Wrong

As far as I can tell there is really only one acceptable way to punish women, and that is exclusion.  All mankind are social creatures and will suffer from exclusion, but because women are more sociable and more dependent they will more keenly suffer when left out. This makes exclusion more deterring, and thus more instructive, for women. In addition, most people (including myself) just aren’t going to stomach any more than the minimum violence necessary to stop a woman either from a dangerous or criminal activity, or move her away from the same.

This is our biggest problem as a democratic, atomized, consumerist, and faddish society. Nobody can exclude anybody when everybody is already alone, here in Babylon. And we really are. This is compounded by the fact that entry into–and affiliation with–another superficial social group is a trite and silly affair which can be accomplished by the purchase of a tee shirt. If a man kicks out his belligerent wife, she’ll just get a new shirt, a new church, and a new husband. No one cares. Everyone acts as if these acts were not superficial.

Immigration, minority criminality, and white male apathy really are serious troubles right now. They are problems which are too big to be ignored in the meantime, and we each need to do our best to combat them as we can. But none of them will be resolved–or even meaningfully combated–unless and until men band together into significant, genuine, geographical, and exclusive communities.

Either Way My Job is the Same

Vox Day writes in The Black Art of the Deal:

Remember, the usual Trump method is one step back, two steps forward. If this pattern prevails, the next two steps forward should be magnificent. Don’t count the man out until he is actually out. That’s not mindless optimism talking, but rather, the voice of an experience recalling how this game has played out before.

Trump can probably survive caving on DACA if he actually gets the Big Beautiful Wall built. But if he thinks he can play the conventional Republican game of “hey, we got a bipartisan deal” in lieu of delivering on his primary campaign promises, he is going to be surprised at how fast his support melts away.

For the sake of argument I’ll assume Vox is right, and “The Black Art of the Deal” is played one step back and then two steps forward. The assumption here is that leaving DACA in place is the step back, and building the wall is two steps forward. “The Deal” is “Immigration Enforcement”.

But what if “The Deal” was “Trump’s Aggrandizement via Election”? Then the one step back was lying to Americans, and Trump’s two steps forward are embrace and praise from the establishment.

A Caned Response to the Nashville Statements

Such is the case with the Nashville Statement, and the Nashville Statement Fortified. Read them and then come back.

The first says, basically, that:

  • men are men
  • women are women
  • marriage is only between one man and one woman
  • sex is only to be in marriage
  • homosexuality and transgenderism are not valid expressions of sexuality

I agree.

The second say basically the same things, but with addition declarations against effeminacy. I agree with that also. It is good to be against effeminacy, but a fortified version of a statement on marital and sexual relations is incomplete if it does not speak on how half of only two sexes are to behave! I have searched the NSF and it does say this under Article 3:

Explanation of changes: The original statement affirms the ontological equality of man and woman without also confessing man’s headship. The order in which God created man and woman has ongoing application for the relationship between the sexes, as taught in 1 Corinthians 11:1–9. In an egalitarian age it is not faithful to confess the equality of Adam and Eve without also confessing Adam’s headship.

But where is the directive that wives must choose to obey their heads? Where is the article in which they deny that wives should be irreverent, rebellious, or usurpers? Where do they affirm that wives are to be sexually available to their husbands except for agreement of a limited time? What is more important to marriage than that the wife be submissive to her husband? These are serious and timely issues of marriage worthy of writing in these statements; more so than sodomy and transgenderism.  All the more so because they make us uncomfortable.

Until I see some evidence to the contrary, I am convinced that this current generation of church leaders will always refuse to allow women to be held to account in any way real. And as far as I can tell, this leadership believes that women can only really be guilty of bad feelings and regret.

Her Buck Stops Here

Modified slightly from a comment I made at Scott’s American Dad Web.


I am convinced that if a man wants his sons to enjoy exclusively male spaces and times, then he must set them now in a way which will seem arbitrary and even unfair to his modern and permissive self who just wants to be loved by his little girl.

And he needs to learn to be fine with his decisions as just and good; despite his feelings, or the feelings of others. He needs to accept that sometimes he must just say, “Nope, sorry honey, but that is a man’s business. It’s not because you might get hurt, or because you’re incapable, or because you’ll be frightened. It’s simply that you aren’t a man.” This will need to be done at relatively mundane times and events if he is to teach his children to respect and honor each sex, without rancor, according to their different natures.

We have tried the other way, and now females are on submarines, on the front lines, in football locker rooms, in the hunting party, and everywhere. These pressures are still out there in the world, and will sometimes effect our children, and we’ll have to respond to them. If your son grows up and complains that his hunting buddy wants to bring his girlfriend, what can you say? If your son asks to bring his own wife on your hunting trip, what will you say?

Will he reply, “Well, you took my sister hunting. What’s the big deal? It’s no different.”

More Like Vogue One

Rogue One spoilers ahead.

Up until this past weekend I strenuously resisted the new Star Wars movies, but one of my friends insisted–multiple times–that I see “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” so that I could witness the Darth Vader scene at the end. Before the age of 10, I’d changed my favorite character allegiance from Luke–the obvious hero–to Vader. As far as I know, my mother’s phone still plays the Imperial March when I call her. It was obvious to even my young mind that Vader was in control of himself in a way that no one else in the movies is; except Yoda and Kenobi. And they don’t fight much so where is the fun in them?

Yes, Vader is cruel, but he is disciplined and religious. That’s one of the plot holes in the original series: While we are told Vader is ruled by hate and that hate leads to emotional impetuousness and thus to the Dark Side, we never see Vader lose his cool and lash out. They tried to correct that plot hole in the prequels. Young Anakin is shown as rash and emotional. But it didn’t work. That kid wasn’t Vader.

Rogue One attempts to explain another (supposed) plot hole of the original three films: How did it come to be that the Death Star could be blown up by one torpedo from one small spacecraft? Isn’t that a terrible design for a space station? The old answer was the simple recognition that the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

The new answer is that a crucial engineer of the Death Star sabotaged his own design so that fifteen years later the rebels could defeat an enormous planet-destroying battle station–which was littered with anti-spacecraft weapons, supported by multiple Star Destroyers, and guarded by hundreds (thousands?) of fighters–and that it worked. Talk about your best laid plans!

My problem with Rogue One is deeper. They fundamentally changed the Star Wars world. Unlike the 1-3 prequels, Rogue One looks and sounds like Star Wars, but the context is wildly different. In films 4-6 the Rebels are openly rebellious, and so they are constantly on the run from the Empire. The Empire knows who they are, and more importantly, the Rebels know who they are themselves. It’s a rebellion with at least a sense of honor. They are overtly–superversively even–against the Empire. Though outmatched they skirmish, flee, and hide only to skirmish again one day. They take small victories where they can, and wait for the time when circumstances are on their side. Whole planets, as separate sovereign entities, chose to ally and rebel against the Empire. They have their own defense contractors, their own academies, and so forth. In short: It’s the medieval pattern of how nobles rebelled against kings and emperors. Such rebellions happen throughout the history of medieval England. The medieval pattern of episodes 4-6 makes sense in a world with religious knights such as the Star Wars universe.

Rogue One’s Rebels look like Star Wars Rebels, but they act like Muslim insurgents. The leadership of the various planets is minimized; almost wholly cut-out. Their equipment is scavenged or improvised rather than products of their own civilizations. They are assassins and saboteurs rather than warriors; men and women “fight” side-by-side with effeminate tactics of subversion instead of straightforward attacks. The Rebels in Rogue One are ISIS and Al Qaeda rather than warring Christians.

The whole Star Wars series is now a piece of filmic history that documents the anti-Christian spiritual tides that swamped the West, and which are very fashionable even among many so-called rightists.

WAN Manual Discussion 3

Don Quixote wrote:

I was in a Sunday morning service a couple of years ago and the pastor made a joke about setting up an online database similar to trivago.com or tripadvisor.com but for churches. Members and visitors could log on and post their criticisms or accolades about the churches they had attended.
He was joking but I left that service and thought what a good idea, and I wanted to get started on such a thing. But its always the criteria that makes it very difficult, almost impossible. In fact the reason there are so many different protestant denominations is because of the splits over doctrines.

Perhaps. One thing that will help is that I have no interest in promoting non-denominational churches, or even cataloging them according to a doctrine. Those churches make up the largest chunk of problem cases when it comes to categorization. However; I will gladly put them on the bad list if they are found to support divorce, separation of children from a father for no reason, etc.

As for those churches in the denominations: It shouldn’t be too difficult to hold them to their own standards as documented in their own official literature; confessions, etc. There is one exception (of which I know) to this and that is the Roman Catholic Church; for reasons fit for another post. I am open to cataloging activities and discrete teaching of various RC churches, but…that will be a slog. More later.

Regardless of all those things: There are enough signs for us to concern ourselves with that the database needn’t get into theology. The focus will be on the facts. Does, or does not, First Baptist Nowhere encourage head coverings for women as they pray? Does, or does not, Second Street Lutheran Church allow its members to remarry and continue in fellowship? Does, or does not, Everywhere Presbyterian Church have a pastor or deacons with unruly children?[1]


[1] You can see already the quandry posed by the RCC. 1 Timothy 3 is clear that the main sign to know if a man is fit to lead a church is how he has led his family.

He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?

It’s true that there are unmarried bishops, pastors, and deacons in the Early Church, and in the Bible. It is not true that the best solution to the problem of sinful men in positions of authority is to avoid the test altogether by making exceptions the rule.

A Nice Quiet Apology

I spend a significant amount of time with college kids; many of them professed Christians. They cannot accept that there is such a thing as good and evil in the world for more than one debate at a time, and for no longer than five minutes. They believe God and Heaven are good, and Satan and Hell are evil, but they think every thing and every action actually in the world are only relatively good or evil and even then only predicated on one’s opinion. It is enough to make me want to weep.

The churches, from whom one might want to recruit, are either half-filled with timid Christians, scared and scarred by the undead assault, or (worse) full of the husks of Christians. So I’ve been listening and reading pastors and bloggers in search of encouragement and resistance, but I have not much found it. The advice from the pulpits and keyboards is “More Apologetics!” or “More Revival!” I must assume that these men are not really seeing the sad state of the potentially revived apologists in the pews. Sufficiently inquisitive and bright and passionate men are not in great supply. So the apologetics produced are for niceness, and the revival is for passivity.

WAN Manual Draft Discussion 2

This is a continuation of ideas; not a replacement or second draft. This is brainstorming. I haven’t finished an outline of a first draft! As well, let me point out that the order is not indicative of the importance.  From the first part of the draft:

  1. Men going out in groups of two or more, armed both Biblically and physically, to aid other Christian men.
  2. Church research database

Short-term, the goal is to provide immediate physical world support for Christian men in crisis. Long-term, I expect those men to return the favor…as they can. Most men don’t have the abilities needed for this work. In fact very few men do; including me. What I do have is a willingness to fight and nothing to lose; not even my family. Don’t misunderstand me: They are all believers in Christ and submit to His lordship. But my family, just like everyone else’s, is under sustained assault from undead God-haters from all the public institutions. Every moment of every day they are desensitizing my beloveds, trivializing the Gospel-based resistance to modern decadence, and attempting to convert them into irrelevant oblivioids.

I also have jobs from which it would be useless to get me fired. If some sodomite vampire gets me fired from pizza delivery–that just frees up my time. That’s not the case for men who are supporting a family on one income. I would not expose them to either the temptation for fear nor the real risk of reprisal.

 

However, some remnants have found each other online. That is something. What we need now is to vet each other, and be able to physically be near for help, and to be anti-fragile in our personal economies. The white collar middle manager probably isn’t useful as a direct agent. He and his family are vulnerable. His contribution would be support; to help pay for a plane ticket, or offer a couch to sleep upon if someone is driving cross-country. So that’s idea number 3.

Idea 4 is that we need specific men for specific and limited goals. For example: We need men who know how to deal with and persuade a Reformed pastor who is ambivalent towards the divorce of a parishioner who has asked for help. A pastor should never be ambivalent about that.

We need a list of specific problems and goals. Suggestions appreciated.

Help Needed: Warning to the Homophobes

I’m looking for the full text of an article titled “Warning to the Homophobes”, by Steve Warren. It was published in 1987 in “The Advocate”, a magazine devoted to sodomite lifestyles. Here is a snippet of the text:

“[W]e are going to force you [Christians] to recant everything you have believed or said about sexuality.

[…] Finally, we will in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and rewrite others,” he said, “eliminating preferential treatment of marriage and using words that will allow for homosexual interpretations of passages.”

It is interesting that I cannot find it online, nor anything definitive of its author. For example: Someone named Steve Warren won a GLAAD award in 2013. Here’s a list of the winners. He’s the only winner without a Wikipedia page. One would think someone notable enough to win an award from GLAAD would warrant at least a short entry; especially since every other winner has one.