Obedience to God, and the Cares of this World

From the Parable of the Sower:
 
Matthew 13:22
The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful.
 
When I was younger, Ecclesiastes was a book of the Bible to which I really took. I’ve always thought of it as sort of a thinking-man’s entry point to Scripture, as it is written by a wise man who went through the myriad of experiences that the world had to offer; he’d been through it all, and tells you all about it just so he can tell you this one, simple conclusion at the end of the story of his journey:
 
Ecclesiastes 12:13
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”
 
Like many or most of us, my daily grind is busy and complicated–for certain reasons at the moment there is not much I can do about it (although in the long run I intend to do what I can to minimize stressors however possible). I’ll confess to you, there were times when I was so deep in business I could not avoid for such a long time, I paused and thought, “what does my walk with Christ even have to do with any of this?” Now, of course, there is a lot you can throw at that thought from Scripture, like working as unto the Lord, “whatever your hands find to do, do with all your might,” among others–this is all true, and very good things for sure. But the objectives, career-wise, pertain to the cares of this world and–speaking for myself–it can indeed be tempting to see my goals for doing what I need to do for sustenance in this world to be the only thing I’m here to do. (As it happens, I find that feeling a strength-sapper. Somehow big money just doesn’t motivate me on its own in any case)
 
I can feel the sheer weight of how much needs to be done, including my own personal goals and agendas–none those are bad things, especially provided: Commit your actions to the LORD, and your plans will succeed. (Proverbs 16:3) And yet sometimes the look of it all can cause the temptations of anxiety, and thankfully we have our Lord for this too: Give all your worries and cares to God, for he cares about you. 1 Peter 5:7
 
The title of this blog is the “Self-Defensive Christian Man.” How can we protect ourselves from the cares of this world? Let me tell you what lifts the burden from my shoulders: getting up in the morning and saying a prayer like this:
 
“Father God, let this day be one of total service to You. As my loving provider you are the source of every aspect of the strength of Your unprofitable servant. Empower me to love and serve you, love and serve others, and myself, not because you need what I give You Father God, but I thank You that it is Your pleasure to impart to me my fulfillment as one of Your true sons through Your Son Christ Jesus and the wonderful work You have for me to do for you today, whatever that may be. Speak to me all throughout the day through the power of Your Holy Spirit. Thank you Father God for the gift of salvation through Your Son Christ Jesus.”
 
I declare:
 
PhiIippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
 
Much love to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

White-Knight Syndrome

Every man needs to be aware of the dangers of white-knight syndrome. Quite simply, ironically enough, it’s the true source of feminism’s horsepower–ironic, because it’s a warped remnant of old-school chivalry that has resulted in men victimizing other men in the interest of feeling like the hero in a storybook rescuing a damsel in distress, when in reality what they do is deprive other men of justice. Feminism’s true power lies in their reliance on this traditional paradigm–traditionalism, which they appear to oppose, but are only exploiting.

A white knight is Jezebel’s wet dream, hence feminism, which manages to endure the “empowerment” by victimhood paradox, because of white knights who victimize men out a desire to be “one of the good guys” against villainous men who overpower the more helpless and (allegedly) harmless gender. As much as many women might like, men cannot be altogether disposed and many man-haters know this full-well that men are still required to take on tough duties in the society that women can enjoy, and the “white knight” is exactly the “useful idiot” she needs.

I mentioned in my last post that if white knights’ true desire is the well-being of women, then ultimately they are their own worst enemy to that end too, because in their zeal to take out “bad bad men” who victimize women, to the point where innocent men become collateral damage, we’ll run out of men who are able to help women. Of course, that’s a secondary issue, because their original crime is depriving other men of justice which they have no right to do.

But, as for that secondary issue, this needs to be a wake-up call for women: wondering why so many men don’t want to marry? In large part, because they know what happens to men in family courts upon divorce, and not too seldom at that. The wake up call for women ought to be that they need to be just as interested in the well-being and justice of men as for themselves and other women regardless, but there are consequences affecting what men can do for women in the event of such a spectacular apathy.

I will digress momentarily from the main drag of this article. This issue of women’s apathy bothers me more than white-knight syndrome, because the “do unto others” is not happening and I cannot fathom the excuse for women so accomplished at voicing their needs and grievances and making themselves their own top priority–an area which men need to get better at doing if, once again, they expect to keep their strength to help themselves, other men, and women, hence my efforts with this blog. Society’s demonstrable deficiency in protecting men from female adversaries (on every level) is causing disaster for absolutely everyone.

Here is an example of a young man who knows exactly what he is doing with an understanding of reality–a woman assaults him (NOT in self-defense) but he doesn’t dare attack back. At one point she gets a finger inside his mouth and pulls at his cheek (fishhook) and, in that position, only a few pounds of force of a pull could rip through anyone’s cheek. But again, it’s a risk–as he demonstrably fully understands that he must take, to allow himself to be assaulted, with his camera being his only line of defense when she would later accuse him of assaulting her; she, a modern woman, is fully aware of white-knight syndrome culture and attempted to exploit it.

This video is the only way he survived the double-victimhood of being assaulted and a false accusation, as her accusation against him was automatically believed and only this video changed others’ minds. There is no way of knowing how many men were not so savvy and fortunate so as to be spared such a fate.

Link to source:

Who can even say how many men, currently locked up and/or misrepresented within violence statistics,  didn’t suffer such a double-victimhood if a woman is automatically believed? White-Knights, you have a problem, and you need to fix it.

Men, let’s be a service to women.

Men, let’s be a service to other men and ourselves, for our own sakes, and so we can keep it up.

Women, you might consider carefully how you’ve likely been the recipient of chivalry and consider that men aren’t a bottomless pit of strength that they may seem, and think about putting something into the men’s side of the economy please. I’ve seen enough of these anecdotes of women attempting to falsely accuse a man (proved wrong only by blatant evidence like a recording) to tell me that it’s not just a few conniving women who are aware of their abilities to do this to a man–to cry victim and summon white-knight culture against a man. No, I believe story after story like this indicates that the average woman knows full-well that she possesses this unjust amount of power over a man, and the apathy of women toward the well-being of men is reprehensible. Thank you very much to those of you (women) who do get involved in men’s issues. I know it takes courage. Let’s be on the same team.

The Real Reason Why Men are Under Attack

My last post was written as a discussion on the true meaning of masculinity and femininity, which is authority and submission, and the rebellion of femininity manifesting in subordinating truth to feelings. This time, I’m going to pull out the sword of Scripture to expose what’s really going on:

1 Corinthians 11:7
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
 

 

So a man is the image of God, but a woman is not? To the latter statement, yes and no. (Genesis 1:27) When God incarnated–as Jesus–in the flesh, he incarnated as male, not female, and that was no coin toss.

 

John 14:8
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?

 

Referring again to 1 Corinthians 11:7, and the whole opening of the chapter, Paul speaks of the importance of thoroughly recognizing the matter that male–not female–is the image of God among the congregation. We are all commanded to recognize the fact.

 

The appeal of attacking men–that is to say, because they are men–is like the attitude of someone throwing darts at a picture of his adversary. A man, quite simply, looks like God, as he is the image of God (1 Corinthians 11:7), which, to a woman, means submission, and that she was made for his purposes, just as the church–the bride of Christ–was made for Christ’s purposes. To attack men, and take away all meaning away from masculinity, is to attack and give oneself an image for delusion’s sake of defeating the one whom he resembles: God.

 

Feminism is Satanism with but a paper-thin coating, fundamentally a rebellion against authority, and the Satanic ritual demonstrating spite for God in His true form as Lord and authority is an attack on men whom He created in His image and also to represent Him. A man’s head was to be uncovered in the congregations, because his “head,” quite literally, was underneath nothing, while a woman’s head is underneath (a sign of) authority (1 Corinthians 11:9).

 

As I discussed in the discussion of masculinity versus femininity, femininity absorbs that which masculinity imparts and then reflects and returns it–this is what the church does with and from God, receiving ALL of her purpose and provision from Him, and submitting to Him and giving God everything they have which was originally all from God. Femininity, therefore, is the glory of man, receiving purpose and provision, and returning it as man’s helper in submission.

 

Awfully PC, right?

 

Again, how much do we try to customize our concept of God more than looking at who He really is, which is our Lord to whom we utterly submit?

 

1 Peter 3:1-2
Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

 

Peter advises women married to unbelieving men that the best strategy for ministry is submission. Submission to an unbelieving husband? Yes, because her submission as a woman is a glorious demonstration of the submission for which men and women were both designed before God as His bride. A feminist rebellion against men is the exact opposite, a sentiment of rebellion against God for whom we are all created.

 

Of course, feminism is very overt in its attacks on masculinity, and therefore femininity as well since femininity exists in response to masculinity, but this can take much more covert forms. Misandry is utterly rampant with only a small (albeit rapidly growing) amount of opposition. Quite frankly, if you save men and masculinity, you will save women and femininity–even apart from the abstract discussion, it is very apparent that men are called upon to clean up the problems of women and for good reason. I fear the way Christianity sees little need truly to come to the defense of the attacks made upon men, everywhere from their masculinity to their well-being as human beings, not just because of the needs of men but because men will also be ill-able to help the needs of women who need men (just as men need men, and men need women as well) when there is so little active defense against an utterly malicious threat. It is fashionable to complain about men today, with minuscule interest in helping on the whole. And, our culture is woefully inhibited in protecting men from women who mean them harm.

 

And white knights, you are a major problem to the well-being of women, counter-intuitive as this may sound. In a culture where women are allowed to victimize men by way of false accusation, emotional, or even physical, violence, I got news for you: we’ll run out of white knights. It’s the same deficit of justice and attention going in men’s direction that will and already has caused women to suffer.

I pray urgently for God, our provider and protector, to protect men in this culture.

 

Here are a few studies to show what I mean that our culture has very little concept of the necessity of men being protected from women just as women need protection from men. Examples of this attitude are abundant.



Masculinity and Femininity, and the Danger of Putting the Cart before the Horse.

Masculinity leads, and Femininity follows.

When masculinity leads, emotions are secondary. When masculinity leads, the declaration is this: “I will be happy when I find out the truth, whether I think I like the truth or not.” Masculinity puts aside feelings not as if feelings are irrelevant, but in the sense that the person is fulfilled only after discovering the truth, not putting the cart before the horse.
 
Femininity reinforces and stabilizes society during the journey, as it were, empowered to do so by masculine, decisive truth. Where masculinity puts truth on the forefront, femininity puts feeling on the forefront, using the empowerment of truth to focus directly on the comfort of people.
 
To put the cart before the horse–when femininity leads masculinity–the statement is, “I will seek my happiness first, because if I’m happy, I must have found the truth.” The benefit of truth is happiness, for sure, but when femininity leads it attempts to put truth in subordination to feelings.
 
In the modern world, this can be seen in society and is rampant in church culture as well as the secular world; the priority is not “finding the truth,” but “tolerance.” In the extreme case of the secular world, modern ideology supposes that wildly opposing beliefs on morality must submit to the happiness of society. Christian culture has adopted this attitude, that keeping peace between people is more important than the correctness of beliefs; we must “agree to disagree” if that’s what it takes to keep the primary purpose, being the comfort of people, achieved–supposing that that’s what it means to be “loving.”
 
To be loving means to desire the well-being of others. When we acknowledge that the truth exists, we know that others are loved when they are directed to the life-giving truth and it is indeed quite loving to be insistent on truth (masculinity), not excluding the personal touch of ministering to others in ways that are palatable (that is, they are able to receive it) to them (femininity).
 
Masculinity leads to the truth, cultivates the impersonal elements, to draw strength from that which is outside society and outside of the person and outside of comfort, in the form of seeking power. Masculinity then ministers that power to femininity–which MUST follow behind as secondary–and femininity puts back into society by ministering comfort to it (nurturing), having received the power to do so by masculinity.
 
Femininity in the lead says that all truth must submit to my feelings. Femininity in submission draws power from the truth outside of the person and then ministers to the person. Masculinity in the lead trusts that pursuit of the truth will lead to happiness and puts the agenda of happiness aside to that end. Masculinity in submission is crippled from being able to lead into the wilderness to find truth and then provide its benefits to femininity.
 
Once again, the masculine/feminine interaction is nowhere near as simple as a biological male and female. Men and women both are feminine–i.e. submissive–to the entirely masculine God (as the bride of Christ) who provides power to mankind when mankind is submissive; of course men are to be completely submissive/feminine to God in order to receive that power for the sake of life and comfort. When men minister those benefits to women similarly, women echo the benefits back to men with abilities to maximize human comfort and therefore keep society healthy. Both on the individual level (marriage, most notably) or in general, hence a few notes in Scripture that women are to be submissive in manner to men in general. 1 Timothy 2:11-14 of course refers to women learning in “full submission” to male teachers, ultimately, and can minister a masculine/feminine interaction among themselves. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, at heart, notes the supportive nature of women relative to men in general. Put under a magnifying glass and blown out of proportion, it might appear that women do nothing for men at all after men (including those not their husbands) yet the abundant remainder of Scripture’s discussion with regards to how believers serve each other spiritually does not constantly place male/female parameters on interactions.
 
To approach the matter of how male and female interact, there is that which–I believe–is simply expected to occur naturally when “men are men” and “women are women” when the principles therein are understood. For one thing, Scripture clearly indicates that men and women both are submissive to other men as is apparent with the arrangements of male teachers and elders. In more common interactions I believe this occurs to lesser degrees, Fathers to daughters, brothers and sisters, in common biological family, and of course we are called to treat one another as such in the spiritual family as “brothers and sisters” (1 Timothy 5:1-2). How this works out in practice may open long and complicated discussions, but this is how interactions work.

What I find clear is that masculinity and femininity struggle to put each other to good use in this culture, socially. Men can be caught in a sort of machismo, not knowing their need for the nurturing of femininity; pastors–spiritual leaders, a masculine interaction to the feminine submission–are to be strong at all times, not needing the support of those to whom they lead. When the leader stumbles, people often think little of supporting the leader, and instead criticize without becoming a part of the solution.

Without the feminine support, the masculine gets burnt out, as unfortunately happens so often to those in leadership positions.

At the same time, as I often talk about, there are probably twenty words of criticism toward men from women for every one word involving women looking to be part of the solution to men’s problems; men, whom women simply expect to be strong. The deception then goes two ways in this interaction: masculine forgets its use for feminine support and gets exhausted in its machismo, and femininity forgets how to do anything for the masculine other than take the benefits without giving anything in return.

I pray for restored interactions in what God designed beautifully in total submission to Him.

The Wonders of Femininity

As a disclaimer up front, this is not much of a discussion on the marriage relationship, but on the individual.

Everybody is a sinner in need of grace. As sinners, we are corrupted forms of who we really are, and the wonderful, perfect design of God lies underneath it, ready to be restored and brought to life by the power of Christ.

 
I have no doubt that God made no mistakes when He designed men. And I have no doubt that He made no mistakes when He designed women. Among its innumerable flaws, Christian culture tends to describe masculinity and femininity–and especially, the interaction between the two–almost entirely in terms of marriage, although there’s so much more than that, for the simple reason that 99+% of Scripture is written equally toward male and female, describes the Body of Christ’s interactions without a pervasive addressing of gender; there are a couple, such as the issue of female authority, which actually helps imply that many other male/female interactions are to be expected. In fact:
 
1 Timothy 5:1-2
 

“Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 

older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.”
 
Jesus hung out with his family!
 
Matthew 12:46-50
While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his lbrothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.1 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
 
And promised that we could, too:
 
Matthew 10:29-30
 
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields–along with persecutions–and in the age to come eternal life.

 

(The same promise is found in Matthew 19:29 and Luke 18:29-30)
 
Whereas, unfortunately, part of our horrific culture imparted to men includes a perception of women as prizes: another notch on the belt of James Bond or some other aspiring alpha male as part of our fight against one another to see who is the greatest. On women’s end–and this is another thing to beware–a man is often portrayed as a “Superman” who puts an end to all of a woman’s problems, whereas in reality any leader figure may well lead his wife/followers/family on a journey that may include new dangers, not unlike our journey in following the leadership of Christ. The reality is that men’s interactions with women, in every way, can be powerful and a vital element of the family of God, an excellent team within the Body of Christ, playing to the strength of God’s wonderful design for masculinity and femininity.
 
I have a tough time nailing down definitions beyond the fundamental differences between masculinity and femininity. The fundamental differences are derived from the directives of 1 Corinthians 11:3-14). But here is my simplistic, two-pronged description of the benefits of femininity within community–trite as can be! 😉
 
The cheerleader: She sees the good in others, and desires to amplify those good qualities. Her desire for the success in others is absolutely sincere, and loves to study intensely the unique path of success per individual–the unique strength, and the unique path that that person must conquer in whatever form. The expert cheerleader can see the strengths of others even as those strengths are but seeds, not yet even developed. In all that she does, she stimulates the desire in others to be useful, and the recipient of her blessings cannot wait to apply himself/herself and put his/her strengths to use for maximum effect in the world. The good cheerleader is not a coward who simply seeks out those who look the strongest to tag along but takes the side of the team who is truly in the right.
 
The nurse: She sees the flaws in others. The elements of a person that are weak, hurt, even sinful, but responds every time with a heart of gentle mercy, out of a desire to achieve healing on every single level. While the cheerleader brings out the beauty and effectiveness of an individual after seeking out the good, the nurse seeks out the flaws and the damage. She is a healing messenger that assures that all who hurt are worth healing. The nurse may not be quite like the surgeon and take on the more massive issues that afflict a person, but she is determined to care for every scratch, every bruise, and every source of discomfort–a HUGE number of details she studies to seek bringing those she blesses to a state of absolute comfort, whereupon the cheerleader dovetails with this healing and restores them to full effectiveness.
 
On the masculine end, benefits abound. Apart from the obvious, oftentimes what we find is that we, as men, are required for our strength at the same time–it can be such a tremendous blessing to get our minds off of ourselves and be a service to women; chances are, the cheerleader and nurse is not without her own needs.
 
I actually believe that the biggest problem with modern Western marriages (with all the trouble it has had) comes from expecting too much out of one person, versus the support of a larger community. In a marriage, two become one for the full daily grind, but we don’t stop being men and women as we mingle within communities and with all the potential good that can take place between us. Scripture puts the occasional parameters on male/female interactions, such as the issue of female authority (1 Timothy 2:12-14) which Paul understood from a quite logical standpoint with regards to male/female design.
 
(What we tend to get more from women in culture is the dark side of the nurse and the cheerleader; our strengths are downplayed, and our weaknesses, real or imagined, are amplified and discussed with anything but constructive intent. Feminine women are diamonds in the rough. To be sure, there’s no doubt that men put them to the test with our flaws and undeveloped strengths.)
 
1 Corinthians 11:9
“Man is not made for woman, but woman for man.” 
 
Now, of course, getting the image of Adam and Eve, we might simply get the image of God giving Adam a wife. But I believe God’s design for femininity stems, in principle, as a responder to people. Moreso than men, I find it clear that women require and seek out human leadership–oftentimes frustrated and embittered when the leadership available fails, and once again, this is not limited to marriage, but also other figures such as pastors who meet the needs of communities. Moreover, women can impart their feminine blessing to other women and men. Among the stories of godly people in the Bible, men who sought God without the guidance of human leadership far outnumbers women in my observation. Men and women both respond to leadership, to be sure, but God’s design of woman wove this deeply into Eve’s design to find her fulfillment in response to people. I do not see this as an “inferiority,” although it is potentially a distinct vulnerability. A married woman responds to her husband’s leadership for the daily grind as his helper, as the marriage is a fleshly, earthly covenant, but not necessarily for the spiritual–it is possible that he’s an unbeliever, after all–and ideally they are both disciples of Christ capable of responding to human leadership. Fundamentally, masculine and feminine amounts to the relationship of lead and follow.

Read the full post »

Christian MGTOW? Some of My Reactions . . . 

My writing here, on this blog, represents getting a lot of my thoughts down on the matter of men’s personal fulfillment. Christian mainstream culture is darkly polluted with misandry: a constant railing against men for their duties and responsibilities without an element of compassion with regard to the actual situations of men. Men are human, and that means two things for the sake of the discussion: we have the same innate value as women, and we can’t function without being taken care of as such (whether we do so on our own or with help).

 
To answer the question of the article’s title, I would say “almost.” Defining MGTOW is something of a paradox, because it has no definition except that a man MAKES his own definition for the course of his life, after identifying a misandric culture which means to use and exploit him. That said, there are a number of tendencies that I feel can be addressed.
 
First, I’ll speak about my disagreements with the MGTOW approach, if they are in fact real disagreements. The end goal of a man should include a give-and-take relationship with the Body of Christ which currently makes a habit of ignoring men’s issues, and is thus simply not a viable option for a man currently; my advice is to keep that at a safe distance and keep your guard up. “Christian” culture must get the message, in my opinion, that wanting things from men is fine–in fact, complaining about men is fine–but not without some serious legwork on the part of those who want to reap from men, that “love your neighbor as yourself” stuff.
 
In terms of men, they sow with their effort sparingly, and fail to realize that they ought to expect to reap sparingly. (2 Corinthians 9:6) But all they know how to do, for the most part, is to keep on complaining about what men do or don’t do, slog on the “duty” and “responsibility.” Such entities deserve nothing from men and can expect not to receive anything, not because men ought to outright spite others–do not hear me wrong–but because we need to take care of ourselves so as to be capable of having something to offer. The Body of Christ was meant to interact with and take care of itself, or it cannot expect its members to function.
 
So I agree with the necessity of MGTOW. We are called to be free, to be loved, and to give generously. Another phrase going around out there is “men on strike,” which I also feel is misleading, because in all reality, it’s the mainstream society that went on strike on men first. The proposed scenarios–not the least of which being the unacceptable legal/societal/cultural conditions for marriage–for men are simply no longer even doable. But again, my end goal is to see a restored, healthy interaction between people. Perhaps other MGTOWs believe similarly, but I am not so clear on this point.
 
Another matter is the MGTOW approach to women. Where I agree is that men must–absolutely must–know how to preserve themselves from women in a world fixated on protecting women from men but has very little interest on protecting men from women; in today’s society it is simply too easy for a man to become an abandoned victim of a woman (investigate Men’s Rights resources for a LONG run-down of how that happens). Effectively, we have men white-knighting Jezebels and slaughtering one another, among other problems. This matter is the doing of the mainstream–that is to say, men and women both–but I believe the exceptionally rare case of a woman who demonstrates fully capable of recognizing a man’s equal personhood ought to be recognized and SUPPORTED by men. A woman who is demonstrably on the same side as men? Precious–and no, for the ignorant, being married to a man is not automatic proof. But I believe if the MGTOW movement wants to be thoroughly credible, part of its modus operandi ought to be supporting such women. Men must make room for them, rare as they may be, in the discussion with full appreciation.
 
Dear MGTOWs: friendly fire upon women who actually have compassion for men as equally human is absolutely the worst. They too are precious human beings with value unto themselves, and have much to offer the world, just as men, should they so choose. To me, the institution of marriage (that is, of the 21st century) is unsafe because of the legal and cultural context, but that is not the fault of the woman who desires to be part of a solution and not part of the problem and she does NOT deserve to be a casualty of MGTOW. Negative effects on her are every bit as unacceptable as negative effects on men. Men can demonstrate support of such women and that can be a huge factor in its success in changing our greater culture.
 
Oh, and then there are the PUAs. Misguided to say the least, PUAs are the opposite of self-respecting, degrading their bodies on sexual immorality. MGTOW PUAs are of course cynical in women’s abilities to offer a loving relationship, but they go after sexuality alone. The nature of lust, people, is idolatry, which means saying “come to life” to that which does not have life on its own: if a woman does not love you, but you think her body can, then it’s only your vain imagination at work saying “come to life” to her body in your heart. If a woman truly does not love you, such as a prostitute (see Proverbs 6:26) then you REALLY degrade yourself by being reduced to a “piece of bread.” You sin against your body (1 Corinthians 6:18), by joining it with that which does not love you. Women are not “prizes,” but can potentially offer loving relationships or people involved in sexual immorality are simply reducing themselves to objects.
 
MGTOW is what we had coming. And frankly, for the most part it’s an absolutely necessary movement provided that it takes productive steps forward. Men are achieving what the mainstream does not want them to achieve: self-awareness, a recognition for their value as individuals and the futility of our current culture that wants to take from men without paying attention to their needs. Men are becoming aware and, as I titled this blog: “self-defensive.”

To the Man Who Tries: You are not a “Fraud”

As I say under “purposes,” I hate most men’s (so-called) “ministries.” They place notions of duty and expectations upon men without compassion–that is, a thorough investigation of their real, actual situations so as to offer an actually pertinent ministry.
 
I have heard that it’s supposed to be a typical male angst to wonder whether he’s either “good enough” or a “fraud.” And I’ve been horrified to see that reinforced within Christian culture.

I’ve seen ministry to men enforce this. I’ve often wondered, with all of the alarm in the world about men’s sexual struggles, why I never hear anyone quote Proverbs 6:26:For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.

In both the first and second parts of this verse, men (and women in equivalent situations, no doubt) are essentially alerted to the illusion of one who loves you, when in reality the prostitute sees you as an object–a loaf of bread–and the wayward wife seeks to destroy you. It is an excellent motivator for men to avoid sexual immorality, along with the teaching that our bodies are sacred temples to be treated with reverence (hence Paul points out the atrocity of defiling that temple with a prostitute in 1 Corinthians 6:15).

I wonder no more: because the culture is actively TRYING to reduce men to pieces of bread; trying to convince them that men’s character is correlated to their material output.

Where was the wrath of God on Lazarus the beggar, and where was God’s approval of the rich man? (Luke 12:19-31) 
Where was God’s approval of the one who was blessed with reward for his labor and stored up what he had? (Luke 12:16-21)
Luke 12:15:”life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”
1 Timothy 6:17 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy.

Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, and the rich in his humiliation, because like a flower of the grass he will pass away. (James 1:9-10)

Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (1 Timothy 6:9-10)

What in Scripture tells you that you ought to feel like a fraud for a lack of success? These sorts of passages could go on for pages. In today’s world, about 50% of recent college graduates cannot find full-time work; the AVERAGE salary for a man today in the United States is $32,000. It’s a frustrating situation, a figure that absolutely ensures that a very small proportion of men could possibly be a sole-income earner for their families, whether they want the situation or not. But why not just go to the injured and lay insult upon insult? Men are just always there to be society’s punching bags.

Moreover, men must struggle against the works of feminism which strictly examine comparisons between the successes of male and female, and women (real or fabricated) performing at less than men means deliberate, manipulative, tax-payer funded efforts in schools, job quotas, and propaganda to force the results to be “equal”; as surely as feminism is funded by taxdollars, they represent the attitude of the majority: men’s success is, somehow, simultaneously demanded yet not wanted.

My conclusion, simply, is to ignore the hatred, serve the Lord who loves you. If you’re struggling to be successful, forget the complaints of those who do nothing but complain about men. And think about this: if you ARE successful, are you observing 1 Timothy 6:17, or listening to the approval of the loveless? If we serve the Lord with our whole hearts neither bank accounts or others’ opinions can make us “frauds.”

The Cause Makes the Man

“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” 1 Corinthians 11:3
 
As men, we might think of ourselves as sort of “sandwiched” between woman and Christ here.
 
Of course, men are submissive to other men in a variety of contexts, but those relations are liquid–one day a slave can become a master or a subordinate can rise in rank–whereas male and female are not, naturally because the condition of being male or female does not change.
 
Everyone craves direction, but women have it more in their wiring to get direction socially, looking to get it from leader figures, men and women alike, and of course their husbands in a special way if/when married–the ultimate dance of the daily grind here on Earth (“one flesh,” as “life partners”). For that reason men are not designed to respond to women’s leadership in the authority sense, such that the submissive is compelled to do as the authority tells (1 Timothy 2:12-14).
 
A “man’s man” heads out with audacity–off the beaten path as far as man is concerned, but 100% as he is led by God, who ministers man’s cause. A “man’s man” is one with the least need for social direction, but a maximum dedication to an external cause by which he demonstrates his ABSOLUTE submission to God; yes, he is simultaneously autonomous socially, while 100% submissive and dependent on the Lord who assigns the man his duties. Likewise women, submissive and responsive by design, nurture the details from behind that leadership, as God designed her to be most effective in such a place.

Genesis 18:27
Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes,”

As I write this, I feel very young and strong–much stronger than the average man. The Lord has blessed me with excellent physical health. The Lord has also blessed me to confront me with vulnerability so that I would understand my need for Him. He has also blessed me with poverty, because I then discovered abundant betrayals, and that only the Lord, through whom good things flow (oftentimes through people), can be trusted fully.

I feel great. 🙂

And now is the perfect time to recognize that I am nothing but dust and ashes. The day could easily come that I am more vulnerable than ever, and more betrayed than ever. I might be afflicted with disease, persecution, poverty–all according to the Lord’s will–and even then he will have a task for me for which he will equip me more than adequately in service to Him according to His will.

God Did not give Adam a “male-specific” curse

Genesis 3

17 And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

First and foremost, let’s look at how this passage ends: “for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Yes, Scripture specifies that God was speaking to Adam when He said this, but we can agree that this statement–by itself, at least–applies equally to Eve, right? Now, then, why assume that everything before this statement only applies to Adam? Similarly, verses 22-24 repeatedly refer to “Adam” when they were being applied to both Adam and Eve.

If you insist that “and God said to Adam” is evidence enough that God was speaking ONLY to him, then you have to assert that women never return to dust, since that was “only” said to Adam; women must all be immortal, since God never told Eve that she would die as he did Adam, in that case. That is truly evidence enough that Adam was not given a “male-specific” curse; women’s bodies die and return to dust in a manner that is absolutely no different than the way a man’s body does. There is no way to assert God’s prior statements to Adam only applied to men; quite the contrary, every curse spoken to Adam applies equally to Eve, despite Eve’s punishment being distinctly female-specific.

Secondly, let’s try to apply this very, very literally for a moment, with the assumption that this curse only applies to Adam (except, again, for the comment about “for you are dust, and to dust you shall return”): that would mean that every single male, regardless of age, only eats by literally by working the fields and a woman cannot possibly experience the same pain for her food.

But if a woman is left alone without a man to provide, does the ground yield food for Eve any more nicely than it does for Adam? No. Does EVERY man who eats literally plow the fields to get food? No. Is it completely unheard of for women to work out in the fields in any culture in the history of the world? No (see the book of Ruth if you somehow need a biblical depiction for proof).

If this curse has no effect on women, then what is it, exactly, that causes the Proverbs 31 woman of noble character to be so busy?

Let’s back up this discussion a little bit and try and interpret this passage less literally but insist that it still, somehow, only applies to men. Modern Christianity asserts that this is merely symbolic of a paycheck. But let’s really think about how we made that jump in logic for a moment–and we’ll find that it is but circular logic.

Once again, it is abundantly clear that a good portion of men “work” in various forms–working very hard and productively–to buy food without ever, ever working from the earth. And at the same time, many women DO work the Earth to get food. At any given time, someone in society needs to cultivate the Earth to grow food for all people to eat, while we have other people doing different jobs in (indirect) conjunction with those who literally produce food.

We use money.

Money is the way we avoid the need for absolutely every single person to till soil, grow and cultivate crops. Accountants, for example, may have SEEMED to avoid God’s curse to Adam in the literal sense, but they work hard (putting aside debate as to whether they work exactly AS hard) at an equivalently occupying task related to sustaining a society in which everyone is fed to justify partaking in the crops. Housewives are not the slightest bit different: likewise they work very hard (as scripture commands them, and the Proverbs 31 woman demonstrates), SEEMING to avoid Adam’s curse, but similar to the accountant she contributes heavily toward her husband, who either works the field directly or indirectly helps another man (or woman, as often happens) cultivate those crops for food. Hence, neither the hardworking accountant receiving a paycheck nor the hardworking housewife who helps her husband earn a paycheck have avoided the burden of Adam’s curse. If the curse of having to work the earth only applied to Adam, the Proverbs 31 woman would not be busy, but just as unburdened as Eve in the Garden of Eden.

What is it about Genesis 3:17-19 that effectively says: men and women will both be busy day-to-day, but only Adam works to receive a paycheck? Nothing!

The conclusion is this: the curse was uttered to Adam as something that would apply to both Adam and Eve. Yes, for the most part men would be the ones literally working fields, although the reality that Eve shared in the punishment is the reason that, one way or another,women needed to be just as busy dealing with the cursed ground either just as directly as Adam or indirectly for some other farmers’ work (again, see the Proverbs 31 depiction of a noble wife–astoundingly busy). Now obviously men would get labor jobs of various kinds more often because men are naturally physically stronger, but even still, that did not prevent women from working from the earth altogether. Women without any male providers need to get their own paychecks.

I’m going to change my tone for a moment to make myself excruciatingly clear.

Some argue that the curse allegedly directed solely at Adam has an influence on his nature as a man.
Adam’s physiology did not change because of the curse; he was built as a man, testosterone, muscles and all, BEFORE the fall.

Have cultures across history had a tendency to put men to certain types of work because they considered that the curse to Adam made doing so appropriate? Of course not. A man twice as big and strong as I am is more likely to make a better lumberjack. The “curse to Adam” did not make him that way. If a single woman looks for a husband and fails, she will more than likely discover from firsthand experience that she too experiences the metaphorical “thorns and thistles” of the “curse to Adam” with the same great pain as a man for sure.

What is at stake here? Spiritual bondage upon men, as the world is plenty full of ways to make men feel like their value, especially as men, depends on their paychecks and what they produce, and this is another such attempt.

(For that matter, the money=productivity fallacies of our culture is also probably the reason why parenthood–both motherhood and fatherhood–are undervalued)

There is nothing wrong with suggesting that a man is built and arguably fulfilled by different kinds of work than women because of how God DESIGNED him as a man from the beginning, not because he was cursed to it.

A Real Man is Expressive!

Oh come on, talking about feelings is a girl thing, right?

Well, not if you’re like one of countless men of God in Scripture who talked expressed their feelings a very great deal. Or countless male writers and poets (in all likelihood, their audiences were like-minded in that regard).

. . . okay, seriously, where did the idea really come from that men are innately disadvantaged at talking about their feelings? I think it has a lot to do with the “man up” machismo culture, a condition created by those who care nothing about men’s feelings: “results, not excuses!”

Ephesians 5:25 tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and despite a modern propensity to apply every undesired behavior of husbands as a violation of this command (a can of worms I intend to discuss later), I believe the crux of it, given the fact that virtually the whole rest of the Bible tells both genders to love all others with Christ-like love, is this: the reason for this passage existing comes from the fact that many, many authority figures will not care so much about the people underneath them, and hence, as leaders of their homes, it can be easy for husbands to imitate and pass on that example to their homes–therefore, rather than those examples, imitate Christ’s example who is a loving ruler (a term that can indeed be reconciled, which is the whole point of the context) of his church.

The point being, many leaders aren’t interested in their subordinates’ feelings to say the least–what matters is results. A cowardly wife is the same way, because the thought of a man wavering in his abilities to provide and be strong due to his very human vulnerabilities is too terrifying to face (another effect that may be occurring on a large-scale). If men get completely surrounded by people who see them in terms of results more than human in this regard, what do you expect? Do babies keep crying after repeatedly not receiving attention in response?

The “man up” culture is a cruel move inflicted by society, and of course, it can be inflicted on oneself–and it does not actually help a man’s output.

I know that at all times I can turn to the Lord. As a macho man? Hardly.

Mark 10:15
Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

I approach God as a little child. I intend to be just as expressive as tons of manly men of the Bible such as the Psalmists. I am commanded to pray:

Philipians 4:6
do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

Ever thought to wonder why? I mean, why does God call us to pray our needs if He already knows what we need without us asking? (Matthew 6:8, James 5:13)

My answer is simple: it’s because God wants us conscious of our need for Him in everything. (2 Corinthians 12:9, 2 Corinthians 1:8-10)

How can I go as far, though, to say it’s actually “manly” to be expressive? Well for one thing, we’re commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves, and loving ourselves is part of that command–when you love someone, don’t you care about his or her needs and feelings? And furthermore, when we’re commanded to serve the Lord by our external works and action (including love for others), isn’t minding our own needs the first part of getting a job done? If the worker suffers, then the work suffers, no? To be sure, this is where feminine nurturing abilities show their glory, too, in lubricating an atmosphere of “get the job done” and restore the human element involved and all the details therein–so let’s not put ladies (who, in love, are willing to use their abilities) out of work by clamming up!

If you are afflicted with a physical ailment, for example, is it strength not to express it to a doctor? Or is it rather weakness, because instead your untreated wounds will fester and weaken the worker for his own precious life and work for others?

Beyond that, if we have any gumption to consider Scripture’s portrayal of men as an act to follow, let’s be sure to talk to God about everything our hearts feel the need to talk about with Him. 😉

The squeaky wheel gets the oil! 😀