Feminism could be described as being 'kicked into high gear'
due to the rash of recent scandals.
On the one hand misogynist predatory behaviour is vile and
always wrong. These people don't need defending.
On the other hand, society's war on men and boys and the
feminisation of men is equally problematic. I say it again, it is equally
problematic. That will offend some people.
I'm not downplaying the physical assault on individual women.
I'm speaking in terms of the general culture, the harassment in the workplace
and the pressures put on women by men in power. That's the problem I'm equating
with the war on masculinity.
I was just recently reading an op-ed at The Guardian. One
particularly reprobate commentator has kicked up her sodomite gender twisting
agenda into high gear arguing (no doubt slightly tongue in cheek) that men are
beasts that can't be trusted to behave and thus need to stay home and keep
house and that women should work and essentially run the world.
It's really striking how the younger generation cannot grasp
the values of the past. Has this always been the case? It's one thing to say
there's a generation gap and we disagree, but it seems like it's gone beyond disagreement.
People aren't able to understand each other anymore.
I was reminded once again of Salon's embarrassing piece
attacking Vice-President Mike Pence.
Pence is indeed a hypocrite but for entirely different
reasons than cited in the Salon piece. His ethics are largely sub-Christian but
in terms of his behaviour toward his wife and women in general... at least as
far as I know, he's right. Or to put it another way, his public stance his
right.
It is striking how Salon author Erin Keane is apparently so
unfamiliar with Christian ethics that she can't understand the whole 'adultery
in the heart' concept or that ethics begins in the heart and mind. Action is
apparently the only thing that matters. That certainly exemplifies materialist
thinking and yet of course it only takes about thirty seconds to come up with a
massive list of examples wherein our society as well as people (like Keane) clearly
believe in thought-crime. In other words they believe ethics are rooted in
something more than mere action.
She's offended by Trump talking about assaulting women...in other words thinking that way about
them even though there's no actual evidence (at least so far) that he actually
did these things. Understand I don't doubt for a second that he did, but that's
hardly the point. They're offended because he's thinking about grabbing women
and expressing desires they deem improper. They would certainly say he's guilty
of something.
Pence is taking precautions and therefore rather than recognise
him as being prudent, rather than recognising his caution... given that men in
power tend to fall prey to various temptations, self-generated or otherwise...
she instead attacks him as harbouring secret rapist fantasies or something.
He's such a predator that he can't be trusted?
Wow, there's a real failure to grasp the issues here. Once
again I'm drawn to thinking about the generation gap. Even lost people of
previous generations would at least have understood the basis for the ethics,
even if they didn't agree with them. Pence isn't worried about 'raping' women,
he's worried about committing adultery... which begins with the heart and
sinful thoughts that then turn into action. He isn't worried that these women
are going to pounce on him. No, he's worried that spending time alone with
women other than his wife leads to inappropriate thoughts, it leads to a
possible exchange of emotions that can quickly turn improper. He's also worried
about appearances and gossip.
All that said and as a brief aside, while Pence is not the
Weinstein or Bill Cosby type, there's more to these stories than just the
crimes and predatory behaviour of these evil men. In many cases the women also
play some role, they have some degree of culpability. In some cases (not all)
they are just as guilty as the men they have accused. That will outrage many
but it is nevertheless true. This does not for a moment excuse these men. But
there's some additional guilt that needs to go around. To put it bluntly many
of these men are wicked pigs but equally so many of these women are ingratiating
whores. That's an unpleasant way to put it but if you look into what has
happened and understand the nature of these various scenarios it is a sad if
unfortunate truth, and one our culture cannot reckon with. It's painful to
watch.
Why do these women come forward after so many years? Why
didn't they report the incidents at the time? They could have, but they wanted
the job and the money and at the time were willing to sacrifice virtue and
integrity for the sake of advancement. That's dirty, but it's not rape, especially
when in some cases they came back for more. The fact that the revelations
appear later indicate guilty consciences and the life-revisionism that many
people engage in. Haunted by the past they re-write their history and become
victims in order to feel vindicated. Again, these men are filth, but these
women aren't a whole lot better. This is the climate we live in and it's a mess
that most people can't think through.
That's a larger topic and actually more complicated than I've
indicated here and while I don't think Pence is that type he's probably aware
of the dangers... both in his own heart and in those whom he interacts with.
He's a man in a position of power. I think in terms of Christianity he's
already compromised but it could be worse. Remember, even misguided and evil
men can still love their wives and children and want to preserve their
marriages.
I guess this is where Christians turn into real fools in the
world's eyes. Can married people be one-on-one 'friends' with members of the
opposite sex? Not really. It doesn't work. By the way it usually doesn't work
for single people either. It almost always turns into 'something' for at least
one party. I'm not going to turn legalist here and make a hard and fast rule
but I will say that in general it's almost impossible. This is also why (in
part) the traditional view is that women shouldn't work outside the home. There
are exceptions where such a scenario 'can' work but largely there's a real
problem with women working for men...and sometimes vice versa. What does the
Bible mean that women should be keepers at home... that the word of God be not
blasphemed?
Why would wives (younger taught by example of older) give
occasion for the world to blaspheme and malign God's Word by not being
domestic, keeping the home?
Someone might argue Paul's argument is restricted to gossip
and busybodiness which are no doubt applicable and these concerns are also
mentioned elsewhere. And yet it's interesting because the concept is also tied
to being obedient to their husbands... or under the authority of their
husbands.
It's something to think about. A lot more could be said.
While on the one hand I'm being critical of modern evaluators
who cannot understand Christian ethics, I think the breakdown in communication
and values also provides a moment for reflection as we consider how the world's
norms, values and even attitudes have invaded Christian thinking and at this
point are not even reckoned controversial.
The Salon writer can't grasp any of this because to her and
much of her generation, sexual infidelity is at best a peccadillo. It's not
that big of a deal. What's more important is that you be fulfilled. The
majority of adulteries and divorces I encounter are based and vindicated on
this credo. I wasn't 'happy' with my spouse, this new person made me happy,
being happy is the ultimate ethical good and so therefore it all but had to be done.
This is what's more than a little disconcerting about the
civilisational shift taking place. I find that unbelievers are so disconnected
from Christianity that next thing you know they're going to be calling us
cannibals again and accusing us of orgies and child abuse. Sadly there are
plenty of apostate Churches and individuals who already give cause to some of
these accusations.
At the same time there's a growing crop of Christianity that
seems to be equally unfamiliar with Scripture or any kind of historic Christian
thought. The twistings and distortions of Christianity in recent years have
left me all but sputtering... it's hard to know where to begin.
Pence's great fault in this matter... apart from the immoral
and anti-Christian policies he supports... is that he has put himself into the
spotlight. He has essentially whored himself out and abandoned his principles
to hitch his wagon to the centres of power. He tries to do so while holding to
Christian ethics. It doesn't work. It makes a mockery of said ethics and when
it comes to Christian behaviour vis-à-vis women, he's casting his pearls before
swine. They don't understand and clearly cannot. Our ethics will make no sense
to the lost. The Scriptures teach as much. That's why (in part) it's so foolish
to try and legislate our standards, imposing them by force upon the unbeliever.
We need to preach Christ. Only when someone has entered the Kingdom will its
laws and authority make sense to them.
In the meantime the Church (in a generalised sense) seems to
be capitulating to the culture. Feminism, sex scandals and paedophiles running
rampant have driven the Church into retreat. It desires the world's affirmation
and so increasingly plays by its rules.
Now, we even let the state's criminal justice system into our
congregations. They get to 'screen us' and fingerprint us and yet I find very
few people understand the problems with this. The problems surrounding this
question are vast. On a practical level they are in part related to how most
Christians understand 'what' the Church is and 'how' our meetings are to be
conducted. The fact that our Churches now run virtual day-care centres during
the meetings and the all-but-collapse in parenting is part of the problem but
we're so far beyond that... once again it's hard to know where to begin.
Shouldn't we fear our children being molested? Yes, but mine
were never been in a situation where it could happen. Secondly if the Church is
a small local fellowship (in keeping with Scripture) then these are people you
trust. Trust being the key concept here. If there's no trust, there's no
relationship. If there's no trust there's no fellowship and there's no Church.
You might as well join a country club where the relationships are mercenary,
class oriented and based on quid pro quo.
I cannot fathom turning to the state for an 'endorsement' of a fellow
Christian's ethics or the Church ever resorting to 'registering' with the
state. Sadly money plays no small part in this.
Part of the problem (and it is but a part) is the whole
consumer model of Church with masses of people.... strangers and distant
acquaintances. This coupled with a very flawed understanding of worship, point
to a larger problem of a complete failure to grasp what the Church is and what
it's here to do.
It therefore shouldn't be too surprising (but it still
surprises me) how quickly feminist norms have become the norm, even in
conservative and Confessional circles. Women are now teaching in various forums,
rebuking male teachers, we have stay-at-home husbands, career women and all the
rest. There are a hundred loopholes that people employ. In the end they've
missed the point... they no longer believe (if they ever did) in Scriptural
authority. They are unwilling to follow it because in order to do so it would
mean a sharp antithesis with the world. They are unwilling to be fools for
Christ's sake. So instead they justify what they do, make a mockery of
Scripture and give the world an occasion to blaspheme.
And they have dragged the Church into the cesspool that is
our Sodomite culture.
And then somehow we're supposed to witness to the world and
expect lost people like Erin Keane to understand what we're about? We (the
Church) need to start re-thinking these issues. I try to remain hopeful that
this will happen as the Church is forced into a counter-cultural position. Time
will tell. Practically speaking a big part of the equation comes down to
this... will the gluttonous Bourgeois Church be willing to give up its money,
its security and respectability? We shall see. I think most will not but among
those that are willing... we may find the foundation stones for a new
historical epoch in Western Christianity.