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.

What if Gun Control Really Worked?

Folks, let's say for a moment that gun control really worked. Let's assume for a moment that the government would actually be able to purge the entire US of guns. Let's say that they could actually reduce gun crime to virtually zero.

The simple fact remains that all the firepower would rest in the hands of the government, the criminal communities, and other nations. The people of America would be disarmed and unable to resist an intrusive federal government, a foreign invader, criminal mobs or Islamic aggression.

Let's not forget that the statistics about gun crime are not really the issue. Even if the gun crime was higher, the point is still one of liberty vs. security. We must encourage our fellow Americans to educate and arm themselves; train for such situations; take your children out of public school; *take responsibility.* The government's job, Scripturally and Constitutionally (but not generally at a federal level), is to punish evil- *not* to keep everyone safe and cared for. We need to set aside the victim mentality and take responsibility for our own. That's what free men do. Liberty is dangerous (but not as dangerous as the alternative).

Mass shootings are absolutely terrible. But Nazi regimes, Sharia law, rampant organized crime- these are worse. Even if we assume (wrongly) that gun control would solve the shootings, we must realize that we would be giving up liberty for security.

If you think my examples are extreme, look at the middle east, where ISIS is murdering Christians by the hundreds and the Christians are not prepared to resist; look at Nazi Germany and all the other communist governments that disarmed their populace before bringing them into subjection.

If more Americans were armed and prepared to act, the perpetrators of these heinous crimes would be numbered among the slain- and it would be a much smaller number. That's all there is to it.

It is not compassionate to the victims of these crimes to perpetuate the problem.

I known not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death. I'll take the animated contest of freedom over the tranquil servitude of slavery any day.

I don't trust these mass murderers any more than anyone else does, but I trust governments with incontestable power even less.

In any case, as the protector of my wife and my baby girl, the ability to fire back in their defense is a God-given liberty and responsibility that I am not willing to forsake in the vain hope that an angelic and incorruptible government will save us from all of the evils of a fallen world.

#2A

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.