That Pesky Titus 2

“...that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored.” - Titus 2:4+5

This exhortation to young women cannot be neglected; it is clear in the text, but it is not culturally acceptable today, and as such it is easy to let it go unmentioned. Sinful man is very concerned with self-definition, self-realization, and unbridled autonomy. But God is in the business of bridling His creation; He both creates and defines what He has created. Truly, He is the most qualified to do the defining, and it is in keeping His commandments that our joy is made full. The bridling of the horse unleashes its power. (John 15)

From my own limited experience and observation, it seems that about ten years ago this passage and its presentation of the homemaking woman was very much in vogue in conservative Christian circles; honestly, it was perhaps presented a little too unilaterally, without enough room for Christian liberty and variety in application. A home business was the only option for a single young woman who wanted to be financially productive. For a girl to consider a college education was heresy- maybe not punishable by the tribunal, but certainly deserving of concerned condescension. Christian womanhood was supposed to look the same way for everyone. But that never happens, and it isn’t supposed to. The tapestry of the Church is a varicolored tunic, not a straightjacket.

Now, however, we seem to have taken a ride on the pendulum; now, we not only embrace Christian liberty and variety, but we practically disembowel the Scriptural commands in the process. We have rejected straightjacket and varicolored tunic alike, and we are running through the streets baring our liberty for all to see. Now this passage really means nothing- yes, we accept it as Scripture, and we make a nod to some vague idea about the wife being the homemaker. But Titus 2 doesn’t really have much bearing on whether or not my wife should get a job, or whether or not our girls should learn old-fashioned homemaking tasks. Perhaps most damaging of all is the strong perception that keeping the home and raising the kids is a second-level calling, as if the passionate pursuit of this essential mission reduces a woman to being too easily satisfied. As if “stay at home mom” was equivalent to “the help.”

This passage does mean something, and we cannot shy away from it; we must let God speak. God has called women to a different role than men, and for a woman to set that calling aside is for her to take a step down, not a step up. God does call women to be home-centered (and He does call them to be subject to their husbands, since we’re already stepping on toes here). It is straightforward in the text. It isn’t for me or anyone else to define for everyone exactly what those two things mean in practice. But the point is that they mean something. The application of the principle will vary, but there must be an application.

We cannot be ashamed of the Word of God. His commands are good, and they bring life and joy.

If we do not embrace this facet of God’s design for His people, then we will give occasion for the Word of God to be dishonored.

Two Ways To Be A Bad Patriarch

Husbands and fathers, we have been given a great authority and responsibility by God as the heads of our homes. There are two easy ways to misuse this authority and place ourselves in the pathway of God's judgment. 

1. To fail to exercise our authority- like David, who "had never crossed [Absalom] at any time by asking, "Why have you done so?"" The passive father who does not actively lead his family has been given authority by God, but has left it sitting on a shelf collecting dust, and he will answer for the resulting disrepair all the more because he neglected to use the very tool God gave to prevent it. 

2. To over-exercise our authority, or to act as if it has no limitations- like King Uzziah, who presumed to offer incense on God's altar and thus overstepped his God-given authority. The father who exercises authority without love, or who acts as if his wife or children are to obey him without limitation, without recourse, and most of all without their own personal sense of duty and relationship to Christ, may expect a similar rebuke: "Get out of the sanctuary, for you have been unfaithful and will have no honor from the Lord God.”

Feminism and Spandex

My daughter. Born May 7, 2016.

Our baby's name, Jael Bethany Hudelson, means the following...

Jael is called to be a fruitful, home-focused warrioress, like her Biblical namesake, and like her mother. 

Jael means "mountain climber" or "mountain goat;" our little girl is called to conquer obstacles and do hard things for the glory of Jesus Christ. 

Bethany means "house of dates;" Jael is called to bear fruit for the kingdom of God, both in her endeavors and accomplishments and, if God wills, in her womb someday. Just like her mother. 

The Biblical Jael was not a trained warrior; she was a homemaker who was courageous and capable enough to deal a decisive blow to the enemies of God. In the midst of a culture that holds up spandex-clad female warriors as ideal women, Jael's namesake represents a womanhood that is neither China-doll nor masculine; in the midst of a culture that counts dollars and not descendants, degrees and not dominion, Jael represents a woman who is fulfilled in her God-given role, keeping her husband's home; in the midst of a gender-confused and sexually perverse culture, Jael represents a womanhood which is clearly and happily feminine, even in her combat methodology; Jael represents a womanhood which sees her battlefield as the home. 

Jael is called to be a woman ready to put spiritual tent pegs through the temples of the ideological enemies of God like feminism, relativism, and political correctness; a courageous woman devoted to the Kingdom of God and not to her own comfort; a woman who, like her mother and grandmothers before her, will stand strong in the face of a culture that despises all that she represents. 

Jael is also called to be a woman who, if worst came to worst, could pour some literal milk and wield some literal tent pegs with deadly effect.

And then the symbolism of her middle and last names. 

Jael is called to carry on the covenant with Jesus Christ which her mother, Bethany, so dearly holds, and which is the most treasured legacy of the Hudelson name. 

It's all about Jesus, baby girl. 

Fill the earth. (Hab. 2:14)

-------

As an aside, talking about feminism and spandex... I just watched my wife go to war, y'all. I held her hand and gazed into her eyes as she fought to bring a baby into this world. I saw in her face more ferocity, more determination, more perseverance through incredible difficulty than any super-woman movie character on any Hollywood screen could ever pretend to be overcoming. And I couldn't help but think- why do women go anywhere else to pursue greatness? Why try and compete with the guys when you could do something they can't? Why develop unnatural strengths when you are created with such amazing natural strengths?

I remember discussing fitness with my sister and a friend, and my sister asked "well, if guys are better at upper-body strength, what are girls better at?"

I said "having babies." The sad thing is that in our culture, that is seen as insulting. And so we see how feminism has degraded womanhood. Instead of honoring the incredible unique power of women to be mothers and homemakers, we force them to measure themselves as laborers against the men who were designed by God to be those laborers. 

My boss told me about a visit to Discount Tire during which he saw a 120-pound woman struggling to torque tire nuts to the required near-200 ft. lb. requirement... And another woman telling her manager that she couldn't get six tires onto the top shelf... 

Meanwhile, the military reduces their physical fitness requirements so women can go to war. 

Meanwhile, women are celebrated for being the first woman to do something that a hundred men have already done. 

Meanwhile, my wife goes through labor. And I am awe-struck. I see a depth of power and ferocity that I never knew in her. I see the thousand yard stare of a terrifying warrioress. And I think- for a woman, surely any other accomplishment, any other career path cannot compare; any other paper or trophy hanging on the wall can only ever be a step down from a picture of another human soul brought into the world by the kind of labor only a woman can do.

Wandering Hearts

Thinking about the dangers that the stereotypical workplace model present to marriage; a married man with a secretary who isn't his wife happily helping and serving him all day; a married woman helping a man who isn't her husband, and being appreciated, and seeing his big vision and hard work; this is a chemistry that God designed to create a powerful reaction, but unfortunately it is not often enjoyed in its proper context- marriage- today.

I'm very happy and blessed that my secretary is Mrs. Bethany Hudelson, and I can be unashamedly in love with her.

But also thinking... the proper Christian response to this and other areas of temptation is not "I love my wife so much that I would never fall prey to such a thing," but rather "I love my wife too much to trust myself with temptation, because I know I am a sinner."

(Not saying that such a situation is inherently sinful, by the way, but rather that it is something to be careful of.)

It is not a sign of loving Jesus more that we feel no need to flee temptation- it is a sign of thinking too highly of ourselves. The stronger we are as believers, the weaker we know ourselves to be.

It is only the grace of God that stands between us- between me- and every depravity of the flesh. I pray that God would be merciful to me, would hold me to Himself, would not leave me to discover just how weak I am without His grace and His Spirit.

"Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall." - 1 Cor. 10:12

Mr. and Mx.

Watched a little segment on Fox tonight about how Amazon has removed the "Boys" and "Girls" filters from their toy searches and the Oxford English Dictionary is introducing Mx. as a gender-neutral alternative to Mr. or Ms.

He Who sits in the heavens laughs.  It really is quite funny to watch the gods of the politically-correct marketplace scramble to sandblast every remnant of reality off of the reality that surrounds them.  Predictably, like sweeping a dirt floor, it's not working very well.

Then one of the ladies on the segment talks about how the most we can say about whether there are real biological differences between boys and girls is that we don't really know.

So... let's run a few quick polls.

What does a doctor say when a baby is born?  "It's a _____"

Is the doctor right or wrong?  And if the terms "male" and "female" no longer refer to objective biological differences, then... what's the doctor supposed to say?  Do we need new terms that somehow can acknowledge an anatomical reality without acknowledging a spiritual one?  Or are we also questioning the anatomical reality?

Next poll:

Put a group of girls in an empty room.  Put a group of boys in an empty room.  Give each group maybe some sticks and rocks.  What are they going to do?

Next poll:

Ask your average girl what her ideal body would look like, and note the adjectives she uses.  Ask your average guy the same question.

Next poll (this one is fun):

What would be your initial reaction to a scene from, say, an Avenger movie, in which Black Widow is cradling Thor in her arms, carrying him away from a place of danger?

Now, reverse the roles.  Does your reaction change at all?

If so, are you a sexist?  Or are you just a normal person who has been wired by God to think in terms of reality?

Something to think about.  Oh, and I loved the other lady's comment at the end... "This just makes it harder to shop."

And thus is the world of political correctness.

Homosexuals Have Rights Too

OK... I'll admit it... under Biblical law, homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else.

It's Biblical.

I have the right to marry a woman.  The homosexual guy does too.

I don't have the right to marry a man.  Neither does a homosexual guy.

See?  Same rights.

The homosexual community is clamoring for equal rights in name, but special rights in reality.

If homosexuality is a sin and legally-outlawable crime (which it is, Biblically speaking- Leviticus 18:22) then no one has the right to practice it.  This goes for every sin and crime- murderers, thieves, adulterers, they all have the same rights as anyone else.  To seek a special right to steal, kill, or commit adultery- if we're going to do that, let's at least call it what it is: special permission for the violation of God's Word- not equal rights.

This is not an issue of denying the right of marriage to some and granting it to others; it's a matter of defining marriage Biblically- one man, one woman- acknowledging that right, and acknowledging the wrongness of anything else.

#lgbt

She Said Yes

Tonight I asked a girl to marry me; a girl I don't deserve; a girl I can't begin to thank God enough for; a girl I cannot wait to share the rest of my life with.

What's more, she said yes.

He For She - thoughts on Emma Watson's UN speech

Wow. Very, very interesting.

I certainly appreciate her call for... less... anti-man-ness from the feministic culture. Her approach is winsome; her demeanor is calm and genuine. Her emphasis on the devaluing of fatherhood is HUGE, very appropriate, and about as relevant as possible.

But the whole speech convolutes and combines so many issues that it's hard to know exactly what we're talking about. I wish someone would give some specific examples of the gender oppression that we're talking about, because it would be easier to... talk about.

See, I *am* a HeForShe. I'm just the kind of He that likes to open doors for She and give up my seat on the lifeboat for She and take a bullet for She. And while Emma has done a very good job addressing some things (correctly or incorrectly) from an ideological standpoint, I am left wondering... what is this supposed to look like, practically?

Should SpecialOps start accepting female applicants? Should I or should I not believe in chivalry? How about all-male sports groups like the NFL? What exactly is supposed to happen here? Can I play in the WNBA? And is the fact that I would have a better (which doesn't mean good) chance of succeeding there than in the NBA something that needs to be... somehow... modified? Is offering to carry a heavy item for a woman gentlemanly or insulting? Am I participating in the oppression of womankind by giving a lady my parachute?!?!?!?

The simple fact is that men and women are equal in value.

The other simple fact is that men and women are not equal in a zillion other ways- not in the sense of better or worse, but in the sense of different. Men are stronger. Women are better at having babies. Kids go to Dad for math help and to Mom for a bandage and a kiss.

Interestingly enough, in the pursuit of gender equality, we are actually devaluing both sexes. The girls who don't want to "look muscley"- is that a bad thing? Are they wrong, or less of a woman- er, person? Is it a bad thing that men don't express themselves like women? Are the men who don't generally like to cry in public any less truly themselves? Or is it possible that their ability to control their emotions is *part* of who they are?

Of course, and most importantly, Scripture makes distinctions between the roles of men and women, e.g. Nehemiah 4:14.

Emma's speech assumes that there really are no significant differences between men and women- in capability, in calling, in anything!- and and I am not sure that that actually leads to valuing men and women more at all.

The big round of applause on the applause for "rights over my own body," which means "rights over someone else's body in my womb," must be noted.

As far as the whole pay-differences thing goes, and setting aside for a moment the discussion on gender roles when it comes to careers, that's an issue that is best left to the free market, and not to political campaigns.

So, I appreciate the invitation very much. But what exactly am I being invited to?

Godzilla on Patriarchy

Well HSLDA just threw a bunch of people, myself included, under the bus of public opinion.

Smooth move, Batman.

Before I start, I want to say something about the term "patriarchy," which is... a rather loaded word.  I insist on using the term because I'm tired of letting the world confiscate, misconstrue, chew up and spit out terms that represent well, sometimes explicitly, the teachings of Scripture- patriarchy and dominion among the rest.

Now, in response to HSLDA.  I genuinely appreciate their statement that they will continue to represent folks like me who disagree with them.  I do not so genuinely appreciate the unilateral slash-and-burn treatment given to the patriarchal heretics, especially since I would apparently be one of them.

Which isn't to say that I would adhere to HSLDA's representation of what patriarchy stands for.  In this article, the author topples arguments like skyscrapers in a Godzilla movie, and I'm happy to help Godzilla out by kicking down a few bricks, because I never liked the skyscrapers anyway.  But HSLDA not only destroys the skyscrapers- it blames all the wrong architects for their existence.

Just a few things that stood out from the article: "Treating children well and treating women well is intrinsically the right thing to do."

Remind me again what the battle cry of patriarchy, "Women and children first!", was talking about?  'Cuz I kinda forgot.

Here's another really good one: "Patriarchial teaching: Higher education is not important for women."

This is not only a gross (i.e. either ill-informed or intentionally dishonest) misinterpretation of the passage they cited, but it's also vigorously not true.  No advocate of patriarchy that I know would ever advocate, or has ever advocated, "keeping girls dumb." The validity of the college model for higher education is indeed questioned by many in my circles... and not just for girls.

This: "In sum, patriarchy teaches that women in general should be subject to men in general."

Is rather humorous, because that summary actually doesn't sum up the previous points listed (the ones that actually had citations, however misinterpreted they were); it makes a huge leap and a new claim which is indeed contrary to Scripture... and to patriarchy, which is about patriarchal headship- that would be fathers and husbands, men placed in a relational leadership role by Scripture, not unilateral male headship, AKA "hey random lady, make me a sandwich!"

There is also an element of gender roles that is a more general teaching of "patriarchy" (and of Scripture)- for instance, in the civil sphere, we would advocate gender distinctions in positions of leadership (Is. 3:12).  We also aren't a fan of putting women on the front lines.

This is all, I would assume, similar to the traditional complimentarianism that the author himself adheres to.

This: "Women are not to be the de facto slaves of men. Women are created with dignity equal to that of men. Women have direct and unmediated access to God."

...

...

...

Seriously?

That's a straw man par excellence, a powerful, vigorous, bold refutation of an argument no one ever made.

Like, ever.  Well, OK, I think Islam teaches something like that.

This: "Daughters should not be taught that their only and ultimate purpose in life is to be the “helpmeet” of a man."

I am glad that he said this.  In every critique, we would be wise to search out the seed of truth, however big or small, that we could learn from.  This is something I myself have had to wrestle through in the past, and we in "the patriarchy movement" need to be careful to distinguish between a very true Scriptural proposition- that woman was created for man, and that she was "created to be his help-meet" (Gen. 2:18)- with a false and dangerous application thereof- that the only purpose in a woman's life (or a man's life, for that matter) is marriage.  We treasure marriage, and so we should, but we mustn't idolize it.

This: "We have a really easy way to know God’s universal commands. They are written in the Bible."

I'm pretty sure we all agree.  Condemnations of extra-Scriptural legalism need to be had, but it might be good to stick to specific legalisms instead of taking a carpet-bomb approach to a large subculture of American Christianity.

This: "When it is claimed, for example, that God never wants any daughter to leave home until she is married, the patriarchy movement goes too far."

Again, good for us to hear; the Botkin sisters have done a great job addressing concerns like this in a few of their recent talks, one of which is entitled "It's Not About Staying at Home."

Yet critiques like these could perhaps be postulated better thusly:

"Hey, sometimes it seems like y'all are teaching this.  Are you sure about that?  Because I don't see that in the Bible."

As opposed to:

"Hey, y'all obviously all believe this as an inherent part of your system, so I brought my flamethrower."

This: "It is from their stories that I have learned that these men’s teachings are being applied in ways that are clearly unwise..."

Hold the phone.  Sounds like the problem is with the applier, not the teaching.  I seem to recall some of Martin Luther's teachings being applied rather, um, erroneously, yet struggle to justify a Burn Luther's Bones Facebook campaign.

This: "The personal failure of Doug Phillips in the area of marriage and his mistreatment of a young woman bears directly on the legitimacy of his teaching."

BURN THE PSALMS.  Because David gots issues, y'all.

(And before you build the straw-man that I am comparing the teachings of Doug Phillips with the Divinely-inspired writings of David- I'm not.)

Yes, "you will know them by their fruits."  Mr. Phillips' downfall is a worthy catalyst for a season of close examination, and indeed is reason for his stepping down from a leadership position (which he did).  But I don't follow Doug Phillips.  I follow Jesus Christ.  My family follows Jesus Christ.  My church follows Jesus Christ.  We were greatly blessed by the ministry of Doug Phillips and Vision Forum.  But insofar as we followed what they taught, we did so because what they taught was Biblical.  Even if they were the blind hog that stumbled across the acre of corn, the blindness of the hog doesn't change the sweetness of the corn.

This: "Teachers who claim that they speak for God on matters of personal opinion should be suspect."

Is always true, of course.

This: "Treating one’s wife with love and respect is the best antidote to patriarchy that I know of."

Is, by implication, an enormously slanderous and blatantly false representation of the teachings of patriarchy.

This: "But if officials believe that the homeschooling movement promotes teachers and ideas that inherently treat women as second-class citizens or result in physical or sexual abuse of children, then we can expect that homeschooling freedom will be negatively impacted."

If officials come to the conclusion that the homeschooling movement promotes these things, I fear that it will be largely because of articles like this.

Courtship: a response to a response to a response to a critique

Seriously. 

So, first, for context (you don't have to read all of these for my post to make sense, but do know that my post did not appear ex nihilo):

Why Courtship is Fundamentally Flawed - Thomas Umstattd, Jr.

Why Courtship is Fundamentally Awed - Doug Wilson's response to Thomas Umstattd Jr.

A Feature, Not a Bug - Jeff Woodward's response to Doug Wilson's response to Thomas Umstattd, Jr.

And now, for my response to a response to a response to a critique; namely, some thoughts on Mr. Woodward's concerns with the courtship model as advocated by Mr. Wilson.

-------

I'm a young man who has been graciously "turned down" three times by fathers who I really respect.  I'm a big fan of young marriage; I would love to have a wife, and continue to pray for one, and I'm very much looking forward to finding the woman that God has for me.

So, on first impression, it might seem that everything Mr. Woodward wrote is "on my side," and I should be very happy to see it stated publicly.  But that is not the case.  If Umstattd's article was a bowl of frosted flakes sprinkled with mushrooms, this article simply splashed a straw man into the milky mixture.

Mr. Woodward comments that, in the case of Mr. Wilson rejecting 14 of 16 suitors for his daughters, "That’s a failure rate of nearly 88%!"

Mr. Umstattd, in his article, rightly pointed out that the goal of courtship is marriage- at least if that is understood, in response to the idea of "casual dating," to mean that courtship is a marriage-focused get-to-know-you process.  Courtship isn't just chaperoned hanging out so that we can update our Facebook status; we're actively seeking to know whether God wants Boy and Girl to become Man and Wife.

So courtship is marriage-focused... but I would contend that the goal of courtship isn't marriage, if I may perform a little pirouette on my use of the term "goal" (bear with me).

One of the things I love about the courtship process is that the success or failure of a courtship is not and cannot be judged by whether or not it results in marriage.  A successful courtship is one which results in all parties concerned being able to move forward in singleness or in matrimony confident that they are doing so in the Will of God, and without having succumbed to a bunch of preventable temptations.  That's the goal of courtship.

I would say that, in the case of Mr. Wilson and his two daughters, both now wed to The One that God had for each of them, the success rate of their courtship would be 100%- and not just for the girls, nor for the happy husbands, but also for the rejected young men, who were blessed by God with clear direction coming in the form of a gracious "no" from the young lady's father.

To say that it's a matter of fatherly pride or a snobbish and highfalutin' family- does this not assume a great deal about the father and family of the daughter, to the point of being slanderous of them and planting seeds of bitterness in the hearts of the rejected young men?  Does it not also make the young man out as a helpless victim?

Encouraging fathers and daughters to not be over-picky and to have Biblical standards is a good thing, but laying the blame entirely on their shoulders and never stopping to tell the young men in the equation to man up, learn from the rejection, strive to improve and grow, press on, seek first the Kingdom, and praise God for giving clear direction- no wonder so many rejections happen!  We're making a bunch of rejectable young men!

"It's not my fault... it's those mean fathers... they just don't realize what an AMAZING HUSBAND I WOULD BEEEEE!!!!!  WAAAAAA!!!!"

"Oh yeah, he's totally the one for my daughter."

I don't mean to mock my wife-seeking brothers in Christ (remember, I'm in this boat too, y'all), but to say that it is just as much our job to be Godly, responsible men as it is the job of the fathers we talk to to shepherd the hearts of their daughters.  If we begrudge them for doing their duty, however imperfectly they do it, that's shame to our account.

For that matter, the young man has just as much right to conclude that the marriage isn't right and to move on!  The young man is no more under the magnifying glass of the father than the father, daughter, and their family are under the magnifying glass of the young man!

Thus, the boast of the courtshipper is not that courtship leads to rejecting a bunch of suitors.  The boast of the courtshipper is that courtship leads to rejecting the suitors that need to be rejected.

But the larger question is- what system of spouse-hunting is the one advocated by Scripture?  Courtship, ambiguous and imperfect though it be, represents the best model I have seen so far for playing out Scriptural principles like those found in Numbers 30.

And until the courtship approach is shown as unscriptural, all anecdotal evidence against courtship is really just anecdotal evidence for the fact that sin is a real bummer.

Trust

"Many a man proclaims his own loyalty, but who can find a trustworthy man?" - Proverb 20:6

Friendship clearly entails trust; the closer the friendship, the deeper the trust.  Our trust, however, must be framed in the context of a Biblical worldview.  This is what makes accountability just as crucial in any Christian relationship, because a Biblical worldview informs us that, contrary to what we'd like to think, our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked.

As people grow closer to one another in friendship, the bond of trust also naturally strengthens.  Yet too often the amount of accountability in the relationship decreases with the same elegant equivalence as the heavy side of a see-saw.

It might seem that this is how it should be; doesn't trust enable relaxation?

Today I read another excellent blog post by Doug Wilson.  In one of the comments, a heartbreaking testimony is given by a woman who, years ago, was shamefully treated by her youth minister; this abuse didn't happen in the context of some unfathomable situation, but rather in the context of a situation which most of us probably never would have thought twice about.  He was just giving her a ride home.

Stories like this are all too common.

Is the answer to turn the old adage into a life motto- "Trust no one"?  Should we have an inner circle of friends that consists of Me, Myself, and I, and maybe my spouse on a good day?  Should the thought of a man at church shaking our daughter's hand send us scurrying for our shotgun?

Of course not.  It is good for Christians to grow in the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace; we should indeed be able to trust one another (to whatever extent that trust has been earned).

Truth of the matter is, if I were to leave behind a widowed wife or father-and-brotherless sisters, there's no one on this earth that I would trust to care for them more than the families that attend my church.  I would trust them with my life, my family, my possessions.  That's what Christian friendship should lead to.

But that trust cannot be defined in such a way as to ignore the truth and inherent warning of Jeremiah 17:9.  I love and trust these people as my family in Christ.  But I know that their heart is deceitful and desperately wicked... and I know mine is too.

If our friendships are truly Christ-centered, truly open, truly free and honest, then there should be no shame in holding one another to boundaries.  We must not hide from the truth of our own sin nature.

If I ask a young lady to sit in the back seat and let my sister ride next to me up front- if a man from church says to my mom "hey, could we carbon-copy your husband on these e-mails?"- if a parent asks to sit in on their child's piano lessons- if a couple won't leave their children overnight at a friend's house for a sleepover (where did the idea that that was normal come from anyway?!?)- these are things that should not be a cause for awkwardness; they should be a cause for more trust.  I trust you because I can see that we both don't trust either of us left to ourselves; we both know that it is only by the Grace of Christ that we can continue to walk in holiness; we both desire to flee temptation. 

If we are truly hungry for holiness, then we should be happy when we find comrades who won't let us check out the other side of the menu.

It's not a matter of "eew, you might be a creep, no, my daughter can't ride with you alone for 8 hours to visit her aunt."  It's a matter of "but by the grace of God, we all would be creeps, so let's do our level best to help each other walk in the light and flee temptation."

It's not a matter of "I think you're a wolf in sheep's clothing" (although if you see a fang or a long gray tail, that wouldn't be an inappropriate observation); it's a matter of "we all have the heart of a wolf clothed in the robes of the Lamb, and until that wolf is slain in Glory this sheep will wrestle with the hunger pangs of a carnivore."

There is no benefit to be found by leaving the eyesight of the Shepherd or His flock; there is nothing to be gained outside of the confines of His pastures.

If anyone is afraid of boundaries, or uncomfortable with accountability, or maybe just thinks they are unnecessary- indeed, if anyone does not desire the transparent honesty of some form of protective standards- then that should be reading danger symbols on the Trust-o-meter.

"Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall." - 1 Corinthians 10:12

Exclamation Points

I've been blessed with amazing parents.  Sometimes I take that for granted.  As I get older, I begin to see that my parents are (gasp!) not perfect; sadly, because of my own sin, I am often like a man who leaves a five-star, fifteen-course meal and is only able to remember that the waiter forgot to put lemon in his glass of water.  Because I fail to see with the eyes of honor and of love and of a child who never questions that "my daddy can whoop your daddy," I so often miss opportunities to praise God and admire my parents.

It's not just a matter of imperfection, either.  I've always lived in a Christian home.  I've always been homeschooled.  From Square One, the reality of God and His Word has surrounded me.  I don't know what it's like to be fatherless.  To have parents who yell at each other.  To wake up every morning wondering if Mom will still be there, or if she's finally made good on that threat of leaving.  My parents aren't perfect, but as far as imperfect parents go, they are among the best.  Yet because I have dined at this five-star, fifteen-course meal every day for twenty years, I am too often deadened to the delicious taste and the amazing, deep satisfaction that it offers.

This isn't to say that I don't appreciate it- praise God, I do!- but rather to say that I don't want to be among the number of sons who realizes, as they say goodbye to their father or mother for the last time, that they didn't appreciate it enough.

"Grandchildren are the crown of old men, and the glory of sons is their fathers." (Pr. 17:6)

"Her children rise up and bless her..." (Pr. 31:28a)

Psalm 71 makes a beautiful and poignant statement about the duty of Christians to praise God for Who He is and for what He has done.  This is a primary way for Christians to glorify our Heavenly Father (also see 2 Cor. 4:15).

Are we not to do the same for our earthly father and mother?  Are we not to thank them and to bless them?  

This is why Mother's Day and Father's Day are so important.  I have been convicted of my failure to put the emphasis on these days that I should.  I have often neglected to buy gifts, make cards, do the sweet nothings, because it just didn't seem like that big of a deal to me.

Yet these are opportunities.  Memorial stones.  Exclamation points on the end of the 5th Commandment.  I don't want to miss them; I don't want them to pass me by like shooting stars in the sky above a text-messaging teenager.  

Praise God for His rich mercy, both in covering over and in sanctifying my weaknesses!

But, O God, give me the grace to take advantage of the opportunities that I do see!  And to see them more and more!  

Every time I write that card or buy that gift, that's another reinforcement of a habit and culture of honor.  A 5th-Commandment culture.  A blessed culture.  May God give us the grace to make that the culture of our homes.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go fill out a Father's Day card.

Marshmallow Boy

How many young men out there have big dreams for the Kingdom of God?

How many of those young men are actually doing big things for the Kingdom of God?

I myself have wrestled with this; I've talked to brothers in Christ about it; the recent Southwest Family Vision Conference put an exclamation point on it.  

"In all labor, there is profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty."  That's how Solomon put it.  Mike Wazowski took a more in-your-face approach- "Less talk, more pain, marshmallow boy!"

Guys, we're getting old quick.  If you're like me, you probably have big goals and dreams.  I want to marry young, have a boatload (read: army) of kids, be an elder in my church, a successful entrepreneur and businessman, maybe write a few books...

Those dreams are great.  Taking those dreams out of the metaphysical realm and applying them to our daily decisions, however, is not an easy task. 

We’ve all heard of the “starving artists”; people who, ostensibly for the noble love of their craft, are still flipping burgers at 30 years of age, eking out a living so they can chase their dream.  And our culture tells us that this is a noble thing.

I don’t think Scripture agrees with our culture, though.

As young men, we all have a huge calling as members of the Body of Christ.  We can’t be spinning our wheels; we can’t be wasting God's time (Eph. 5:16).  We’re in the middle of a war, and we’re at a cataclysmic point in that war.  This is not a time for apathetic, lackadaisical manhood.

We can't be playing video games and watching movies.  Rome is burning, and we, the young men, who should be using our youthful vigor to build the Church of Christ and tear down the gates of hell, are fiddling around on our Xbox.

Now is the time to be seeking God, building foundations for our families-to-be, working, working, and working.  Now is the time to be getting married.  Now is the time to draw swords and leap into the colosseum of Reality.  Now is the time to be doing manly things.  Not tomorrow.  Not next week or next year.  We don't have time to waste.  We must assume the responsibilities of manhood.  We are the next wave, and we are sorely needed on the forefront.

We need to be focused leaders-in-training, loving our local churches, praying, studying, honoring our parents, investing in our families, making the most of our single years (and trying to bring them to a rapid conclusion!), paying our own bills, starting the next generation of Christian households, cutting out the good to invest in the best.

Or, as Kipling put it, filling every unforgiving minute with sixty seconds of distance run.

So guys- men- what are you doing?  Are your works and your words matching each other?  Are you a man, or an adolescent?  Has God called you to marriage?  Then what are you waiting for?  Does something prevent you?  Then what are you doing to eliminate that barrier?  Are you paying your own bills?  Driving your own car?  Are you contributing to your local church?  Are you making disciples and being discipled?

Are you working, or wishing?

Please pray for me on this.  I need it.  I want to be a faithful warrior- not one who spent so much time sharpening his sword that he never actually joined the fight.

All it takes is a little sleep, a little slumber, a little free time, a little dreaming, and enough busy work to make us feel like we're actually accomplishing something, and ten years of marriage and five kids have been lost in the great black hole of "could have been."

---------------

Many a man claims to manhood,

Many a runner to run,

Many a runner to finish the race,

Which yet he has hardly begun.

Many a man is convinced

That what he's done is good enough,

Many a man has calmly called quits

Just because the going got rough.

Many a man has spent many a year

Dreaming his life's thrilling plot,

And come to the end and realized

He'd already done it- or not.

Yet there are a few who have chosen,

By the Grace which God chose to outpour,

To turn the few talents they're given,

To run 'til they can run no more,

To forsake the good for the better,

And the better for that which is best;

Spend six full days upon labor,

And the seventh on diligent rest;

Rather to work for slight profit,

Than talk of great things and have none;

Spend their time waking than dreaming;

Embracing the sweat and the sun;

To live out their life to its fullest,

And breathless, arrive at the end,

Knowing they've done, and not talked about doing,

Chose to climb, even slow, ne'er descend.

Few men can say this, for most, in their prime,

Succumbed to the comforting whisper of time,

Which says that tomorrow will gladly fulfill

Whatever today is too difficult still.

But that far-seeing man who prays for the grace,

To redeem the time he may run,

That is the man at whom history quakes,

That is the man who has won.

The Little Engine That Couldn't

Why does the second generation so often fail to pass the Covenant on to the third?

Is it because we don't try?  Is it because we succumb to apathy, or were never really into the whole religion thing?  Is it because we are unprepared?  Incompetent?  Don't have the resources?  Do we fail to pass on the love of God to our children because we can't?

Or do we fail to pass on the Covenant because we think we can?

As a second-generation homeschooled family-integrated Bible-indoctrinated Christian, I am an über-blessed man, and I share that über-blessed status with many, many of my dearest siblings in Christ.

I wouldn't trade it for the world.

But sin has a nasty little habit of viewing evidences of God's goodness as evidences of ours.

Suddenly, the green pastures of God's mercy have been devoured by Jeshurun, and he's kicking all over the place.

There is no place in the Christian life for "I think I can, I think I can" theology.  We do indeed need to have faith, but none of that faith should be wasted on ourselves.

If second-generation branches are confident in their ability to raise their little grapes the right way, they may find themselves drying up and being cast into the fire.

We must remember to eagerly and faithfully and desperately and joyfully plead with God for His mercy upon us, our families, our descendants, our local churches.   We must never think for a moment that we have everything under control; if we think that we will be able to, in our own strength, do what David didn't-

Tremble.  Tremble before The LORD, for He will not be mocked, and His glory will not be given to another.

We need Him.  We need His grace.  All of our über-blessedness came from Him, and if He is removed from the equation the über-blessedness will soon follow.  If we stand atop our parapet and proclaim what a great and wise second-generation we are, we may soon find ourselves eating grass for seven years.

Because apart from Christ we can do nothing.  We are the little engines that can't.  No amount of positive thinking can change the fact that if I rely on all of the wonderful knowledge and wisdom and Godly examples that God has given to me, I am still, ultimately, relying on me.

And that can only result in a train wreck.

Yes Sir

Openness, humility, admiration, appreciation, love, respect, submission.

Honor.

With some young people, you can see it in their eyes when they look at their parents. 

(One of my favorite examples is at 2:02 in this video: https://vimeo.com/37457216 )

Those young people are so inspiring to me. I want to model that kind of honor for my siblings, for my friends.

The LORD has been convicting me of my own lack of honor for my elders in general and my parents in particular. Sure, I do what they tell me to. But honor is about so much more than that.

I listened to an excellent Generations Radio broadcast yesterday about honoring parents; Mr. Doug Phillips was the guest on the show. He, too, is a recent source of conviction and inspiration for me in this area; the honor that he gave to his father in his lifetime and is still giving him now after he has gone on to glory is so beautiful to behold.

On the show, they talked about the issue of jurisdiction. God has placed me under my parents' jurisdiction. It is not for me to critique them (openly or in my heart); I'm not their judge. Rather, I should be striving to bless, serve, honor and obey them, and to assist their vision.How beautiful, how loving, how liberating is the honoring life!

Pride is something else that I struggle with; I don't think it's a coincidence. Scripture tells us to put off and to put on; it's going to be hard to put off pride unless I put on humility- which is a huge part of honor towards authorities.  And oh the joy, the freedom from irritation that comes when I'm no longer wrapped up in my own schedule and my own plans and my own me.  What I want, what I deserve, blahblahblah.

And how amazing is it to think that the first commandment with a promise is the commandment to "honor thy father and thy mother"?  God will bless those who honor their parents.

So: want to be happy? Want to be humble? Want to be blessed? Want to be successful? Want to be wise? Want to defeat the kingdom of darkness?

Say "Yes sir."

REVIEW: The Avengers

The Avengers was a fun ride. Like its Marvelous predecessors, it managed to serve up considerable amounts of cheese, but a well-paced story, an ensemble of engaging and quirky characters, and a heavy dose of artistic excellence kept the film both engaging and enjoyable.

The Art 

The Good 

There's a lot to say about the quality of the films that Marvel has been pumping out recently. The crisp, clean videography, combined with directorial panache, make them a pleasure to view- even when they aren't a pleasure to watch. The music, while perhaps not always amazing, is usually tasteful and at least industry grade. Sometimes we are even treated to some great themes, like in Silvestri's Captain America.

In The Avengers, I thoroughly enjoyed the script, which was full of witty banter and genuine humor. Many of the actors also sold their parts very well- particularly Robert Downey, Jr.'s Tony Stark, whose sense of humor and sense of humanity rescued the film from rising amounts of cheese on multiple occasions.

"Doth mother know you weareth her drapes?"

The story, too, was more satisfying than that of some other Marvel endeavors, neither feeling rushed nor long-in-the-tooth. I suspect that these three things combined- the well-scripted, entertaining, and endearing interactions of the well-acted characters in an engaging story- are the strongest points of The Avengers' art, and are largely responsible for its remarkable success.

Then there's Loki.

Many a good film lacks a great villain.  Not The Avengers.  Loki is at once evil enough to hate, personable enough to like, and human enough to sympathize with- all without there ever really being a blurring of the lines of good and evil.  The strength of the hero(es), it has been said, can only be as great as the strength of the villain.  Loki was not only a convincingly formidable opponent- he also just felt believable.  Even with the goofy helmet.

I found Silvestri's Avengers theme very appropriate and well-used, and the impressive visual scope of the film is also definitely worth mentioning.

The Bad 

I mentioned cheese, and I shall mention it again. Though the good points of this film rendered the cheese to be eminently bearable, the fact still remains that Velveeta made many a cameo in this filmographic masterpiece. From moments of stone-faced "I'm awesome"-

to exploits too unbelievable even for supermen-

this film delivers an exquisite array of some of the finest cheeses this aficionado has ever tasted. Firing two pistols at once may look cool, but I don't recall ever seeing a real soldier running into battle wielding both his Glocks at once.  Talking of cheese, I think the film would be rendered more effective if the names of the characters weren't so far-fetched. Nick Fury? Seriously?

The egalitarianism in this film is something that I'll go into more depth on in the worldview section, but the truth is that androgeny isn't just bad philosophy- it's bad art, too. To portray a woman fighting with and overpowering men like this film does begins to smell like an ideology being forced into the story, at the expense of art, realism, and even the story itself. (I mean, seriously, it would be corny enough for a guy to snap out of a chair in which he is bound and level a room full of interrogators!)

The graphics were good, but at some (otherworldly) points I found them a bit ridiculous- at once not creative enough and overly bizarre. I found some of the costuming, too, a bit fantastical, especially on the SHIELD ship, which felt more to me like the Starship Enterprise than the USS Enterprise.

The Worldview

The Good

There is a lot to be admired in the eccentric group of people known as the "Avengers", and there are some quite good morals to be taken away from their story. Captain America remains my favorite of the heroes, being a strong leader, a moral man, and a man of principle devoted to ideals higher than himself.

"You know, the last time I was in Germany and saw a man standing above everybody else, we ended up disagreeing."

And his line, "There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure He doesn't dress like that," was my favorite line in the film.

One of the strongest moral messages in Avengers came from the ongoing interchange between Steve Rogers (Captain America) and Tony Stark. The climax of their rivalry came as Rogers accused Stark of being, in a word, selfish- being a man unprepared to lay down his life for a cause greater than himself. Stark's reaction shows that, deep down, he knows it is true. But in the final moments of the film we see Ironman make a decision that proves that he is more than just an immature playboy in a robot-suit- that he is prepared to do the right thing, even at risk of his own life- that he is a real man.

Real men are prepared to make sacrifices. Real men are prepared to lay down their lives for the innocent and for the Truth. The greatest example of this, of course, was given by Jesus Christ Himself- Who went beyond laying down His life for the innocent, and gave it for the guilty. So this message, and this character transformation on the part of Tony Stark, was a very strong and beautiful portrayal that added depth to the film, power to the story, and genuine character to the personality of Ironman.

The Bad

Of course, Ironman also deserves a mention in the not-so-great section of my worldview analysis. His self-described playboy character is incompatible with a Biblical definition of what makes a hero. Tony Stark is likable, he is funny, he even does heroic things, but until he submits to Christ, no act of heroism which he makes can make him truly a hero.

Miss Natasha Romanoff is also a character in need of redemption (for what, exactly, the film does not specify). Somewhat like Mr. Stark, Natasha seeks to erase the "red in her ledger" by committing acts of heroism.

This is a picture of redemption that is futile, unsatisfying, and contrary to Scripture. Miss Romanoff needs to find her redemption and identity in Christ. Only by the blood of The Savior can the red in her ledger ever be fully washed away. The Scriptural picture of sin and salvation is not the balancing act of yin and yang. No amount of good deeds can outweigh the evil of a single sin to make the sinner holy and justified in the eyes of a thrice holy God. The wages of sin is death, and without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin. Praise God for His marvelous mercy in providing a way for sinners like me- and like Natasha, were she a real person seeking redemption- to be saved. What a glorious gift.

Natasha also embodies one of the most dangerous messages of this film- feminism, all growed up. She isn't alone, joined in the ranks of he-women by Nick Fury's gun-totin', pants-wearin' secretary. 

(STRAW MAN ALERT: "Gabriel is saying that women should never carry guns or wear pants or they are wicked feminazis!" No. I'm not.)

Throughout the film, we watch Miss Romanoff fighting men and monsters indiscriminately. The androgeny is thorough, and apparently no one, the whole film long, gives a second thought to the fact that they're fighting against (or alongside) a woman. Would a man like Captain America, with the chivalry of the WWII era still strong in his mind, even consider treating a woman- regardless of her ability- like just another soldier? More importantly, would Jesus? (Neh. 4:14)

My siblings and I have been listening in to the Botkin sisters' excellent webinar on what the Bible has to say about beauty, specifically in the realm of feminine fashion. Last Tuesday, the webinar featured an analysis of the fashion of certain eras and how those fashions correlated with the culture's view of womanhood at the time. What does Natasha Romanoff's wardrobe say about America's view of women today?

I submit that it says two things, loud and clear:

1. We see women as indistinct from men in any significant way beyond the obvious physical differences. The costumes of the heroine are very utilitarian, with no frills, no skirts, no lace, no feminine touches whatsoever. Men don't usually spend much time beautifying themselves. Neither does Natasha, nor the new woman that she represents. She dresses to kill.

(STRAW MAN ALERT: "Gabriel thinks that women aren't anything more than eye candy and their primary job is to look pretty for their husbands." Nice try. Wrong.)

2. We really enjoy drawing attention to and sensualizing the obvious physical differences. Let's be honest, folks, the skin-tight wardrobes of the primary female characters in the film are immodest. They're sensual, shapely, and suggestive. Just because she's covered doesn't mean that she is covered. Miss Romanoff is dressed to kill in more ways than one. (Pr. 7)

(By the way, some of our male heroes could do with a wardrobe increase of a size or two. Steve Rogers has no more right to showcase his muscles than Natasha Romanoff has to draw attention to her curves.  I've heard enough girls drooling over Thor that I'm ready to suggest a looser pair of trousers.  Male modesty is different from female modesty, but it isn't less important- more on that here.)

So, really, in the name of making women equal, the feminism and egalitarianism that we see in films like The Avengers does just the opposite. It degrades womanhood, casting it aside in favor of a perverted mixture of sensuality and androgeny. It reduces both men and women to their anatomical differences, making them objects to be consumed, lusted after, and used, while any significant distinctions in role are cast aside. What kind of liberation is this? It discourages Biblical manhood in favor of a feminized and soft masculinity, and it erases Biblical femininity, sending the women to the front lines to fill the role of the men whom it just sent away from the battlefield!

Men, we need to take the lead. Be the man. When something goes bump in the night, don't send your wife out with the gun. I don't care if she's a Russian-born assassiness. It's our job and our calling to be both the physical and the spiritual protectors of our families. It should also be our joy. We've abdicated this position for far, far too long.

Ladies, come home! Not just in the basic stay-at-home-mom sense, but in the deeper sense of being a keeper of the home, who loves being a wife, a mom, a sister, a homemaker, a woman. Don't let the feminists set the narrative. Don't buy their lie. Natasha Romanoff will never have as much impact on the world as one faithful mother.

One more observation. There were a couple of scenes where Miss Romanoff was in serious danger, and the tough-guy bravado peeled away for a moment.

In those moments, she seemed small, soft, feminine. In those moments, I wanted to protect her, to rescue her, to be her knight in shining armor. Most of the time, she was hard and masculine, and I was kinda left hoping one of the guys would show her up.

"Sorry, miss, but you've only trained to be a man.  I was born one."

Even better, that one of the guys would treat her with gentlemanly courtesy and expect her to act like a lady, instead of accepting her as "one of the guys."

(Note- I don't mean to suggest that "showing her up" would be a proper course of action on my part or the part of the male heroes, and I hope that if I met Natasha Romanoff I would treat her with the same courtesy, chivalry, and love that I aspire to treat all women with.  For me to try to "show her up" would be a violation of the very principles that I'm talking about in the first place.)

(STRAW MAN ALERT: "Gabriel thinks that women should be fearful, weak china-dolls who can't do hard things, can't work hard, can't sweat, can't use a gun, can't throw a punch, can't protect themselves and their families." Wrong on every count.)

Manly Amazon-womanhood trades in chivalry for competition, and the immense value of the gift of femininity for a cheap wannabe-masculinity.

This competition isn't a problem with the male heroes. In their case, I would be equally glad to have a friendly tussle or to fight alongside them against the bad guys.

Indeed, I would certainly enjoy the competition ("Come on, Captain, let's see who can do more push-ups!"), and there would be a mutual friendship and respect and camaraderie that just would not be there between myself and miss Romanoff- so long as she insisted on me relating to her as a man.  I mean, really... what guy wants to lose in an arm-wrestling match with a girl?  And what guy really wants to win in an arm-wrestling match with a girl?  He's left with two bad options.  That's a real bummer of a competition.  (The right choice? The third option.)

So, ironically enough, the only way for me to truly relate to Natasha with the same feeling of togetherness and unity as I would with the guys would be if she lived out a different role from my own.  Only then could we enjoy true equality.

She can never be equally as manly as the men.  Even the good ol' egalitarian US military, now proudly sending the precious daughters of our country into front-line combat to be shot-up and mutilated (yay for progress!), still has different- easier- physical fitness requirements for women than it does for men.  How does this make any sense at all?

If she seeks equality by becoming a man, she will be disappointed, because she is not and cannot be equally manly.  She was never supposed to be.

But if she seeks equality by seeking womanhood she becomes priceless.  Now she can become everything that she was created to be- a helper suitable for the man.  (Gen. 2)  Now we have true equality- each of us fulfilling our God-given roles, finding equal value in different purpose.  Now we complement and need each other (because even as she was created for the man, remember that it was not good for the man to be alone either!).  Now the woman needs the man to be what God has called him to be.  Now he needs her, because she is something he isn't, and she does something he can't.

Of course, ultimately, our goal should not be to find equality, but to find Christ.  To seek first The Kingdom of God, and His righteousness.  Then comes the rest.  Praise God, included in that little "the rest" is not only equality as brothers and sisters in Christ- but also the amazing privilege of being joint heirs (though we could never be equal) with Christ Himself!

So I thought the two major worldview weaknesses with The Avengers were feminism and a false portrayal of redemption by our own good works.

Some other issues worth mentioning:

Thor and Loki are supposed to be gods.  The film makes light of this, but they do wield supernatural powers.  Captain America's line really rescues this issue for me, but it's still important to remember that anyone but The One True God claiming godhood isn't a joke, it isn't funny, it isn't artistic- it's blasphemous, sinful, and wrong.  We can find other ways to tell our stories, without toying with things that are not for us to touch.  May God give us the eyes to see these things as He sees them.

A related point to this is the almost Scriptural importance given to the Tesseract- an object which one character says is more than knowledge- it's truth.  This is an eerie contradiction to Christ's claim that He is The Truth. (Jn. 14:6)

On a similar note, the earth does not need Thor's protection- we need the protection of Almighty God.

Our heroes have a good bit of rivalry shared between them, which isn't necessarily bad worldview on the part of the film (it's not shown as a good thing), but which does provide a great opportunity to discuss pride, gentle answers which turn away wrath, and so on. (Pr. 15:1)

Mr. Banner- the Hulk- is always angry?  That's not an admirable or heroic trait.

The topic of aliens and other worlds is also one that may warrant discussion.

Overall,

I really enjoyed The Avengers.  Fun, funny, yet meaty, with a surprisingly good moral to the story, it's one I'll definitely watch more than once.  It is worth mentioning that I watched a cleaned-up version, so while I know that there was some bad language, I didn't hear any!  Also, along with the tight clothing throughout, one of the opening scenes involves a woman in attire that shows more skin than would be preferable- parents be wary.  Children might also be scared by some of the alien creatures.  There are a few mild innuendoes also woven into the script.  That said, for a "grown-up" movie, The Avengers was pretty clean.  Despite the occasional shot of cheese, I found it well worth the watch (unlike some other superhero films that I've seen recently...), and thoroughly enjoyed the ride.  I look forward to seeing it again.

4/5