In for a Penny, In for a Pound

 

MKT pointed out a video celebration of J.D. Greear’s election as president of the SBC.

In his comment, MKT noted Russell Moore’s cameo, but Beth Moore is in there as well. If you watch both videos you’ll see that it’s a who’s-who of the SBC’s ascendant politburo.

But today I want to talk about the animating spirit behind J.D. Greear’s ascendence, and I want to do that by examining the message put out by one of his biggest fans, the producer of this video. Her name is Ashley Unzicker. [1] She is a member of The Summit Churches in NC where her husband Todd Unzicker [1] is a sort of pastor of the 10,000 plus church, according to this McClatchy article about how evil Trump is.

It turns out that the celebration video is a follow-up to this video from March 14, 2016 in which she pimps big for Greear to be president. [2]

The lyrics point out that Greear is accomplished, smart, well-travelled, has a full head of greying hair, runs a successful and growing corporation, pushes diversity, and handles loads of cash. She literally puts her whole being into service to joyfully sing and dance Greear’s praises.

Two and a half months after (May 30, 2016) “J.D. Greear for SBC President Rap”, Ashley released another video.

The video is titled “Husbands say ‘No’ to Cleaning”, but in the song it’s the wife saying no to her husband. It mocks her husband as a slobby and irresponsible man-child who isn’t allowed to go play until he finishes his chores, or else she will shame him on Facebook.

Her husband Todd helped her make the video by starring as one pathetic boob representative of all husbands. (It’s called “HusbandS say ‘No’ to Cleaning”.) Perhaps that’s not a fair reading of her intent. After all, this is a diversity-loving woman. Maybe she meant Todd to only represent boring, unsexy, white husbands.

With whom should we assume Ashley is infatuated?  J.D. Greear at whose feet Ashley devotes herself body and soul, or Todd whom she mothers, dominates, and shames online?


[1] Check out Ashley and Todd’s profile tags. 

Hers: Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

His: Follower of One, husband of one @AshleyUnzicker , dad of three, sender of many @Summitrdu

[2] Here’s a video of J.D. Greear withdrawing his 2016 candidacy for SBC president.  If that looks familiar, it might be because you read Greear’s January 30, 2018 post “Why I’m Accepting the Nomination for SBC’s president”. The post’s header image is taken from that 2016 withdrawal announcement. It was posted five months previous to the SBC women’s letter which led to the ignoble ouster of Paige Patterson; a political assassination which would frighten the sheep right into Greear’s woman-shaped arms. Spooky? Nah. That’s just good plans.

Advertisements

Bravely Ducking-Out

Last week I downloaded Brave and surfed around with it for a bit. It gave me trouble on some websites, so I returned to Google Chrome after a few hours of use. On my iPhone I used ChromeOS because it is faster than Safari, and better handles multiple tabs.

Yesterday I got a message from Google as I researched the facts around the Chasity Dawn Carey case. I wanted to see how popular a name is Chasity. It looked to me as if either her parents, the administrator was who filled out Chasity’s birth certificate, were morons. But perhaps chasity was a legitimate thing, and not a misspelled chastity. I typed “chasity” into Chrome for iOS on my iPhone, and this is what I received:

google_chasity

Note the picture which accompanies Wikipedia’s definition. I could not better define our society’s vision of chastity: A virtuous moral standard where technology is used and weaponized to lock up and humiliate men’s sexuality. After I took the screenshot, I typed in “chastity”, spelled correctly, and got this back:

google_chastity

The penis cage was gone, but so was the moral definition! In its place was a nothing-but-the-material definition of chastity; as if chastity correctly understood is merely one choice among many, and pretty lame to boot. Gone were the words about virtue and morals.

The thing making choices here isn’t me: It’s the search engine, Google, who also makes the Chrome browser. This is what Google thinks we should get: Either a message that, morally, chastity is best used to shame men, and that otherwise chastity is an outdated mechanic for…not much of anything.

I hadn’t yet downloaded Brave for iOS so I did; right after the above screenshot of Chrome for iOS. This is what I got when I typed “chasity” (intentionally misspelled) into Brave AFTER I changed the default search engine to duckduckgo:

brave_chasity

Well, who do you elbow and did you see that? DuckDuckGo picked a short, positive definition for chastity as its default. Then I went straight-up crazy and goosed them for a response to “chastity” itself:

brave_chastity

It’s the same text from Wikipedia as was returned when I searched for chasity in Google, but the picture is different. In fact (props to Wikipedia) that 15thC painting in the DDG results is from their article on chastity. Which means that the Google search engine isn’t simply regurgitating Wikipedia. Compare the format in the first screenshot and the last. Google is copying Wikipedia’s entry, but then substituting what it thinks is a better representation of chastity: a penis cage.

Now, let’s reflect on the power and authority Google wields in the world, and wonder how often our children will Google routine information.

I know nothing about the religion or politics the folks at DuckDuckGo, but they’re all right with me so far.

 

Moist and Twisted

As far as I can tell, all of the Western world is in denial about the temptation of women to lust. We are the proverbial fish, and female lust is the feel of wet. For women still under the pull of the red tide, they are tempted to view everything from a sexual perspective. Ev-er-y-thing. Those beyond it are sympathetic, even wistful.

Every piece of clothing is measured on its sex appeal. Every purchase is made either in congruence with, or in opposition to, its sexual connotation. Every interaction with a man is investigated and dissected for sexual content. If it’s there and desired that’s good to that woman. All other combinations disappoint in some way.

Everybody understands that sex sells, and everybody understands that women are the target audience for the great majority of advertising, but nobody puts the two together.

It is the same among Christians, but we add a twist: When women dress, behave, or speak lewdly, we blame men for noticing the lewdness. We accuse those men of lust. But it is at least the second act of lust, because the desire to attract illicit sexual attention in the first place just is lust.

The Worst Spin Class Ever

In Dalrock’s post “A god we must obey” he wrote:

Pastors Dave Wilson and Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. both teach that a wife’s sexual attraction (or lack thereof) to her husband is a signal from God regarding her husband’s righteousness.

Another form of [the message of  is the idea that a woman’s sexual/romantic desires are sanctifying.  Drs Mohler and Moore teach that the romantic feelings of the wife (instead of the commitment of marriage) are needed to purify sex.  Without the wife providing the purifying cover of her romantic desire, married sex becomes dirty, merely rubbing body parts together.  Former CBMW president Owen Strachan had something similar in mind when he described God honoring romance.  All of this of course goes back just over a thousand years to the idea of courtly love, which CS lewis describes as:

The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, Adultery, and the Religion of Love. The lover is always abject. Obedience to his lady’s lightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence in her rebukes, however unjust, are the only virtues he dares to claim.

Great stuff. Dalrock’s absolutely right. I added this comment:

I’ve twice now listened to a Modern Scholar’s audiobook “Masterpieces of Medieval Literature”, and the author (Timothy Shutt) speaks extensively on the rise of courtly love; referencing C.S. Lewis’ book several times.

But he also goes back one step further, which I found very compelling. He says the fuse was lit by St. Francis of Assisi, who promoted a new affective style of Christian worship. According to Shutt, St. Francis created the first creche (Nativity) and emphasized emoting over the motifs of Baby Jesus, and Mary as the mother of an infant. This emphasis opened the door to a feelings-based style of worship, and transmuted the idea from love-as-obedience to love-as-warm-feelings. He says this permeated the whole of European Christianity, including and especially Christian concepts of marriage and romance.

Every time I think about how emotionalism has overrun the church, I think about this video… You have to see it to believe it.[1] Don’t miss the appropriated lyrics. As an effort of pseudo-Christianity it gets high marks in several categories: lazy, disturbing, and bullshit. In a word: relevant.

Check out the face of the girl at the 3:37 mark. She doesn’t know how to behave.

[1] I think I saw this years ago at Michael Spencer’s Internet Monk, before he died.

The Full and Fair Measuring of Adultery-by-Porn

You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the Lord your God.

In response to my post on men’s refusal to divorce women over their porn habits, George Henty wrote:

“That’s a great point, Cane. It reminds me a bit of the old saying that women can forgive an affair that’s “just physical”, while men can forgive an emotional affair as long as “nothing happened”.”

Donal Graeme echoed that point (I believe) with his comment:

Yes, and that says a lot about men and how they think. Just as how women seeing it as adultery says a lot about women and how they think.

I think that it says something about almost everyone…or rather: About no one. Men’s tolerance of women’s porn use is strong evidence that no one actually believes porn use is adultery; as does the dearth of porn-use intervention programs directed specifically at women. Yet on these grounds men are punished with divorce by their wives, pastors, churches, and courts.

Committing adultery in one’s heart is a serious thing, but it’s not grounds for real divorce performed and recognized by human authority any more than thinking someone’s a fool is worthy of a real murder sentence from a court. The consequence of not making the distinction is to become an abomination.