This little ditty has been running through my brain of late, due to my hearing it on the radio as I travel to and from my teaching gigs.
I feel no shame
I'm proud of where I came from
I was born and raised in the boondocks
One thing I know
No matter where I go
I keep my heart and soul in the boondocks
The whole song runs:
(Chorus:)
I feel no shame
I'm proud of where I came from
I was born and raised in the boondocks
One thing I know
No matter where I go
I keep my heart and soul in the boondocks
And I can feel
That muddy water running through my veins
And I can hear that lullaby of a midnight train
It sings to me and it sounds familiar
(Chorus)
And I can taste
That honeysuckle and it's still so sweet
When it grows wild
On the banks down at old camp creek
Yeah, and it calls to me like a warm wind blowing
(Chorus)
It's where I learned about living
It's where I learned about love
It's where I learned about working hard
And having a little was just enough
It's where I learned about Jesus
And knowing where I stand
You can take it or leave it, this is me
This is who I am
Give me a tin roof
A front porch and a gravel road
And that's home to me
It feels like home to me
(Chorus)
I keep my heart and soul in the boondocks
You get a line, I'll get a pole
We'll go fishing in the crawfish hole
Five-card poker on a Saturday night
Church on Sunday morning
(2x)
You get a line, I'll get a pole
We'll go fishing in the crawfish hole
(Down in the boondocks)
Five-card poker on a Saturday night
Church on Sunday morning
Say a little prayer for me
From an interview with James Stenson, The Role of Father as Family Protector, on men's duties.
It's important that we see the role of a father's protection in a broad sense, not just as physical protection from harm.When we look at the very important ways a man protects his family, we can better understand the dire effects in today's families caused by the man's absence -- either physical or moral -- in family life.
So, what are the different forms of this manly protection?
First of all, a family man devotes his manly powers to protect his wife from anyone who would threaten her. It seems to be a natural instinct among males, to protect the women in their lives -- wife, mother, sisters, daughters -- from outsiders' aggression.
For instance, if a man were standing next to his wife in a crowd and some male stranger turned to speak loudly and angrily toward her, the husband would instantly rise in rage to her defense. Adrenaline would rush through his blood, his muscles would tighten and his first impulse would be to rearrange the aggressor's face.
No self-respecting man would stand by and let anyone treat his wife with disrespect. He would take swift action to defend her.
Related to this physical protection is another aspect of a man's protectiveness, one that fathers today often fail to understand. A man permits no one to threaten or upset his wife -- and this includes their own children.
A hugely important part of a father's job is to defend his wife against their children's rudeness, insolent disobedience and impulsive aggression. This protection counts most to his wife when the children are small -- under 7 years of age -- and later when they enter adolescence. A man will permit no one to disrespect his wife, including -- and even especially -- at home.
A man also defends his family through what he earns in his work. That is, he doesn't just provide for his family; he protects them from poverty. He shelters them, takes care of their needs for a roof, food and clothing. While Dad has a job, the family feels secure. Even in a two-income home, it seems, children sense that Dad is the main provider, and therefore the family's main protector.
Moreover, he protects his children from forces that threaten them here and now: drugs, bullies, criminals, unjust aggressors of all types and potential disasters arising from their inexperience and impulsive mistakes -- such as dashing out into traffic or playing with matches. . . .
For instance, if a father glanced out his living room window and spotted a male stranger chatting with his small daughter, coyly beckoning to her, he would swiftly lunge into defensive action. He'd race out the door, stride aggressively toward the stranger, then confront the man and demand to know what he wanted. With muscles taut, he would stand between his daughter and this potential aggressor, physically shielding her from harm.
Another example: When his teen-age daughter is being picked up for a date, a father goes out of his way to size up the young man she's going out with. He wants to meet him -- insists on meeting him -- to look him in the eye and intuitively size up his intentions and his worth. A father senses a duty to assess any young male who approaches his daughter. An unspoken message seems to pass between them: "She's my daughter. Treat her nicely, kid, or else ..."
But most of all -- and this is crucially important -- a father protects his children by strengthening their judgment and will so they can later protect themselves. In the lives of his children, he asserts loving leadership toward responsible, competent adulthood.
It is a father's mission -- the challenge that brings out the best in him -- to form in his children the powers and attitudes they will need to succeed in life, to strengthen them so they in turn can later protect themselves and their own loved ones.
So, in his children's eyes a great father is a lifelong leader and teacher. His protective, empowering lessons about right and wrong live on in the inner lives of his children, long after they've left home for good, and indeed long after he has passed to his eternal reward. A great father never stops being a father, for he lives on as a great man in the hearts of his children. . . .
A father strengthens his children's competence. He forms lifelong healthy attitudes to work, along with serious habits of work. Without a father's leadership in this arena, his kids can have trouble grasping the connection between effort and results, between standards and achievement.
If he fails here, his children may never outgrow the dominant attitude of childhood -- that life is play -- and remain stuck in a permanent adolescence.
He teaches respect for rightful authority. He insists that his children respect and obey him and their mother. His wife sets most of the moral tone for the household -- what's right and wrong in family life -- and he enforces it.
Being smart and far-seeing, he knows that when children fail to respect their parents, they can later clash with all other forms of rightful authority: teachers, employers, the law, God's law and their own conscience.
A father teaches his children ethics and gives final form to their lifelong conscience. That is, he shows his sons and daughters how to comport themselves justly and honorably in the world outside the home.
In his children's eyes, he is an expert on fair dealings and personal integrity in the workplace and community. He shows his kids how their mother's moral teachings carry over later to life outside the home: telling the truth, keeping one's word, putting duty first, deferring to others' rights and feelings. . . .
A father builds healthy self-confidence in children. His presence around the home as a physically strong man leads his children -- daughters especially -- to feel safe, securely protected and therefore self-confident.
As a father, he corrects and encourages, and he helps his children to learn from their mistakes. In this way, he leads his children to form a realistic sense of their strengths and limitations.
Youngsters who receive this protective fatherly love, along with self-knowledge and experience with problem-solving at home, eventually form a lifelong self-confidence.
A father leads his children to adult-level sound judgment and shrewdness. He helps them to use their brains like responsible adults: to frame questions and answers logically, to think ahead and foresee consequences, to assess people's character and values, and to know malarkey when they see it.
A father provides an attractive example of responsible masculinity. He acts as a model for his sons' growth into manhood. And he conveys to his daughters -- most often unconsciously -- the traits they should look for in judging the character of men their age, especially suitors for marriage.
In countless subtle ways, Dad forms a pattern for manly character in each of his sons and, indirectly, for the kind of man each daughter will someday marry. . . .
Men who live as great husbands and fathers enjoy the lifelong love and deepest respect from their children. They have a unity of life -- the welfare of their families -- and therefore a peace of mind throughout their lives.
Their powers, their work accomplishments, their friendships with other men all come together to give their life meaning and a profound happiness.
One is tempted to cite the whole thing. Go and read the rest at the link above.
[H/T: Mere Comments]
R. V. Young's The Gay Invention, in the recent issue of Touchstone is an important piece to consider.
For thousands of years, until the late 1800s, our ancestors were completely oblivious to the existence of a fundamentally distinct class of human beings. Indeed, during the long period of Greco-Roman antiquity and more than a millennium and a half of Christian civilization, man did not even have a name for this class.Or so asserts an almost universal assumption fixed in the language almost everyone uses: that “heterosexuals” and “homosexuals” are two permanently and innately different kinds of human being, and that “sexual orientation” constitutes a difference comparable to the difference between male and female. Widespread acceptance of “homosexuality” and associated terms thus biases discussion of the subject before an argument is even formulated.
What might be called the philological evidence calls this notion into question. If it were true, someone would long ago have given this class a name. That no one did until very recently suggests that the notion is not true.
He goes on to (rightly) debunk the notion that the ancient Greeks accepted homosexuality as normal or customary. And demonstrates that the use of "gender" for "sex" is only a few decades old.
I won't spoil the article for you by quoting the conclusion. You need to read it for yourself.
[Note: I clearly created a misunderstanding. Anna is not pregnant again. I've re-written the post. Geez. Can I screw up or what?!]
My wife. God love her. What an amazing woman. Get ready to hate her.
She's a mom . . . of two; with stair steps less than two years apart. She keeps our house running: shops at the grocery store and Target; researches most purchases online before buying a product (especially bigger ticket items); runs Sofie to storytime at the library, Gymboree and French classes (and procures the scholarships for these activities without which we couldn't do them), as well as to play group and the Church's mom's meetings and outings; pays--er, I mean, juggles and pays--the bills; does laundry and the dishes; and bakes.
That's not the whole list, of course, but you get the picture. Don't hate her yet? How 'bout this?
Our Christmas shopping is nearly done, and nearly all the cards are addressed and stamped and waiting for messages and signatures.
Yep, she's a wonder woman.
I'm in awe.
And love.
First, Gregory Dicum's article to the SFGate, Is having a child -- even one -- environmentally destructive? starts off with a pretty blunt assertion:
"We can't be breeding right now," says Les Knight. "It's obvious that the intentional creation of another [human being] by anyone anywhere can't be justified today."Knight is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, an informal network of people dedicated to phasing out the human race in the interest of the health of the Earth. Knight, whose convictions led him to get a vasectomy in the 1970s, when he was 25, believes that the human race is inherently dangerous to the planet and inevitably creates an unsustainable situation.
Clearly, then, we must not breed. Right?
According to Knight, there are other ways people can have kids in their lives. "Adoption, foster-parenting, stepparenting -- there are a lot of opportunities for people who really do want to get involved with children." Knight himself is a substitute high school teacher in Portland, as befits his patient but forcefully clear demeanor.Knight takes care to point out that VHEMT isn't anti-child.
No, of course not!
Many of its members are parents.
Darn hypocrites!
Some of its members are children.
Fly, you fools!
In many ways, the idea of reducing the world's population is as much about human quality of life as it is about the health of the planet."May we live long and die out," says Naomi Thompson, quoting the VHEMT slogan. Thompson, who is in her late 20s and works as an analyst for Wells Fargo in San Francisco, has also concluded that childbearing is irresponsible. "It's not about wanting to kill people, but it's selfish to have a kid at this point when so many aren't getting the love and attention that they deserve."
Right. Let's swat flies with 2000 lb. bombs. How 'bout, and oh I'm just spit-ballin' here, we, oh, say, just simply give the "so many" the love and attention they do deserve? Newsflash: "Non-breeding" won't bring more love into the world.
"I really do love kids," she continues.
Sure ya do, sweetie! And I love black mold--which is why I don't have any around.
(Thompson and Knight say they were raised in large, happy families.) "I know it might seem odd for someone who really likes kids to have this stance on breeding --
Is that what they're calling it nowdays? Those crazy kids.
--women are mothering, nurturing people, and I definitely have that in me. But women in this society feel a lot of pressure to have babies, and I would like to see more people expressing that by adopting instead."
Gosh. Isn't it just terrible? Women feeling pressure to be mothers. Horrible. Standby. It gets even more disturbing.
"Nobody will come right out and say that this [population growth] is unsustainable, you can't do this," says Knight. "If you really are serious about the environment and your impact, zero is the optimal number of offspring that we should be producing."But the Brunes are sanguine. "We brought a new person into the world," says Mary Brune, "and we hope that she'll be one more soldier on the front lines who's going to fight for the Earth when she grows up."
Knight says even if little Olivia [Brune] becomes the "firecracker radical activist" her father hopes, it's going to be extremely difficult for her to overcome the environmental original sin she embodies. (emphasis added)
A fifteen month old girl is the embodiment of sin? This isn't the concept of ancestral sin of the Scriptures and the Christian Faith: this is the ascription of positive evil to the mere existence of a little toddler who didn't cause her own existence.
The above is just to illustrate the extremes in our narcissistic society, (like No Kidding!) where children are more and more being seen as robot-like-consumers (at best) or positive hindrances and evils to self-fulfillment (at worst).
Says Albert Mohler, in his Touchstone article, Rebel Without an Issue:
Modern Americans are determined not only to liberate sex from marriage, and not only to separate sex from the realities of male and female, but to liberate sex from procreation.This rebellion against parenthood is nothing less than an absolute revolt against God’s design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift. The Psalmist declares: “Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate” (Psalm 127:3–5).
“Make love, not babies” expresses a worldview the Scripture rejects. Marriage, sex, and children are part of one package. To deny any part of this wholeness is to reject God’s intention in creation—and his mandate revealed in the Bible. You can’t make love (though you can have sex) if you refuse to make babies.
The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children. The shocking reality is that some Christians have bought into this lifestyle and claim that childlessness is a legitimate “lifestyle option” for Christians. The rise of modern contraceptives and sterilization surgery has made this possible for the first time in human history. But though willed childlessness may have been made possible by the contraceptive revolution almost every American thinks a perfect blessing, it remains a form of rebellion against God’s design and order.
According to an article in the Harvard Gazette, Marriage lowers testosterone:
A man's testosterone levels drop significantly when he holds an infant. Even holding a baby doll can decrease levels of the male virility hormone.Married men, whether fathers or not, have markedly lower testosterone levels than single males, according to one of the first studies of how the hormone changes when men marry and become fathers. Results of the study, done by a team of Harvard University anthropologists, increase our knowledge of human biology and may have implications for so-called "male menopause."
Researchers have long suspected that levels of the hormone largely responsible for fighting, competing, and mating decrease when men settle down and start a family. Other studies have shown that testosterone begins to decline shortly after marriage, but surges upward when unions end in divorce.
"It makes sense," notes Peter Ellison, professor of anthropology. "Lower levels of testosterone may increase the likelihood that men will stay home and care for their wives and kids, while decreasing the likelihood they will go out drinking with the guys and chase other women." . . .
Go ahead, play that marriage "emasculates" men card. There. Feel better. If one thinks parenting is "women's work" then let's do a comparison between a "man's day at the office" and a "woman's day with the kids." I can tell you this: I'll take one of the twelve hours days of hard labor at my late grandfather's farm than an eight-hour day chasing rug rats and saying "No" three hundred and forty-three times for the exact same request.
Furthermore, we are designed to be parents. It is the norm. It is most good and pleasing to be normal.
"These results suggest that testosterone levels involve a trade-off between mating and parenting efforts," says Gray. "Single men invest only in mating, while fathers decrease their mating efforts in favor of parenting." . . .
Not sure about this "mating vs. parenting" thing, but I do know that I have absolutely no time--and no energy whatsoever, let alone any inclination--to go "skirt chasing."
So, does this decrease in testosterone become the equivalent of menopause?
If testosterone levels flatten out at age 60, does that mean males undergo a menopause? "No," answers Ellison. "Male testosterone lessens with age but there's no discrete end. No cliff that it falls off as when women use up their finite supply of eggs. For men in places like Boston, the testosterone drop is greater because the starting point is higher."One physician puts it this way: "Men don't have menses to pause."
While many conservative, evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians affirm the evil of abortion, fewer of those who condemn the practice of abortion also understand the problem of contraceptive practices. I present here a handful of quotes from the Church Fathers on the topic.
First, from St. John Chrysostom. Many passages in the Fathers link contraception to abortion, as does this one:
Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? where there are many efforts at abortion? where there is murder before the birth? for even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then dost thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? St. John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on the Epistle to the Romans (emphasis added)
St. John also talks about the consequences of greed and materialism, and the desire to be childless:
Yet is the covetous man much more fierce even than this, assailing all like hell, swallowing all up, going about a common enemy to the race of men. Why, he would have no man exist, that he may possess all things. And he stops not even at this, but when in his longing he shall have destroyed all men, he longs also to mar the substance of the earth, and to see it all become gold; nay, not the earth only, but hills also, and woods, and fountains, and in a word all things that appear.And to convince you that not even yet have we set forth his madness, let there be no man to accuse and frighten him, but take away the terror of the laws in supposition awhile, and thou wilt see him snatching up a sword, laying violent hands on all, and sparing none; neither friend, nor kinsman, nor brother, nor even his very parent. Nay rather, in this case there is not even need of supposing, but let us ask him, if he is not for ever framing to himself such imaginations, and if he does not in thought range among all men to destroy them; both friends and kinsmen, and even his very parents. Nay rather there is no need even to ask, because in truth all men know that they who are under the power of this disease are wearied even of their father's old age; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome: many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have maimed their nature, not only by slaying their children after birth, but by not suffering them even to be born at all. St. John Chrysostom, Homily 28 on Matthew 5(emphasis added)
St. Jerome speaks of "chemical contraception," but once again in a linkage with abortion:
Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder. St. Jerome, Letter XXII:13. To Eustochium (emphasis added)
I have also collected several citations of the Church Fathers on abortion at this link: The Church Fathers and Ancient Councils on Abortion
Note what Lactantius says about those who expose their children because "they cannot afford them":
Therefore let no one imagine that even this is allowed, to strangle newly-born children, which is the greatest impiety; for God breathes into their souls for life, and not for death. But men, that there may be no crime with which they may not pollute their hands, deprive souls as yet innocent and simple of the light which they themselves have not given. Can any one, indeed, expect that they would abstain from the blood of others who do not abstain even from their own? But these are without any controversy wicked and unjust. What are they whom a false piety compels to expose their children? Can they be considered innocent who expose their own offspring as a prey to dogs, and as far as it depends upon themselves, kill them in a more cruel manner than if they had strangled them? Who can doubt that he is impious who gives occasion for the pity of others? For, although that which he has wished should befall the child -- namely, that it should be brought up -- he has certainly consigned his own offspring either to servitude or to the brothel? But who does not understand, who is ignorant what things may happen, or are accustomed to happen, in the case of each sex, even through error? For this is shown by the example of OEdipus alone, confused with twofold guilt. It is therefore as wicked to expose as it is to kill. But truly parricides complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children; as though, in truth, their means were in the power of those who possess them, or God did not daily make the rich poor, and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from marriage than with wicked hands to mar the work of God. Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book VI.20 (emphasis added)
Note what St. Cyril of Jerusalem says regarding the emphasizing of the pleasurable aspects of sex at the expense of the procreative:
But let those also be of good cheer, who being married use marriage lawfully; who make a marriage according to God's ordinance, and not of wantonness for the sake of unbounded license; who recognise seasons of abstinence, that they may give themselves unto prayer; who in our assemblies bring clean bodies as welt as clean garments into the Church; who have entered upon matrimony for the procreation of children, but not for indulgence. Catechetical Lectures 4.25 (emphasis added)
Proponents of the Consistent Life Ethic oppose abortion, captial punishment, economic injustice, assisted suicide and euthanasia, and unjust (or some, even all) war. Normally, advocates of the "seamless garment" criterion are religiously conservative and so, one would I think rightly presume, would be proponents of (so-called) traditional marriage. As though there were any other sort.
Interestingly, however, the public rhetoric one hears from the criterion of the seamless garment says very little about marriage. Proponents of the CLE will even take to task their otherwise co-laborers against abortion who also happen to own up to advocating the death penalty. It seems to me, however, that if one wants a seamless garment argument between abortion and the death penalty (as well as, perhaps the other issues), one is merely going to perpetuate complete ineffectiveness in addressing these issues unless one also addresses some of the fundamental causes of abortion and the death penalty: sex outside the bonds of marriage, single mother/fatherless homes, and divorce. The statistics on the death penalty are in: persons sitting on death row come largely from homes that did not exhibit the traditional form of marriage and its necessary foundations of chastity, fidelity, and faith. And according to abortion advocates' own statistics, the vast preponderence (67%) of women obtaining abortion have never married.
Don't misunderstand: I'm not claiming that the seamless garment criterion does not include advocacy of marriage. It's just that one doesn't hear much about it. It's always the juxtaposition of abortion and the death penalty, and if one believes that all life is sacred one must necessarily be opposed to both. I think this argument has serious philosophical and biblical exegetical flaws. But that's beside the point. Rather, if one wants to advocate against the death penalty and against abortion, one will not be effective by enacting or striking down laws, or enacting a fair procedural mechanism. No, to fight against abortion, against the death penalty, against economic poverty, one must resolutely and unflaggingly fight for the marriage that God himself created.
For from the home flow the goods or the ills of society. If one wants to talk about seamless garments, start with the home. Repent of our--that is to say, Christians'--ungodly divorces, our use of chemical contraception and the whole mentality of being able to "afford" to start a family, our rampant and idolatrous consumerism, and our feeble and superficial faith that runs pell-mell after the world in the name of "relevance."
Until our faith is consonant with that once for all delivered to the saints, and until that faith permeates every area of our lives, but especially our homes, then talk of a seamless garment amounts to covering a rotting corpse with a hanky. Only a seamless robe of righteousness by faith in Christ, transfiguring our souls and bodies, will heal and transform our cities, counties, states and nation.
First, read this copy of an SI article by Rick Reilly on Dick and Rick Hoyt, father-son triathlete and marathon running team. Who are they?
Dick and Rick Hoyt are a father-and-son team from Massachusetts who together compete just about continuously in marathon races. And if they’re not in a marathon they are in a triathlon — that daunting, almost superhuman, combination of 26.2 miles of running, 112 miles of bicycling, and 2.4 miles of swimming. Together they have climbed mountains, and once trekked 3,735 miles across America.It’s a remarkable record of exertion — all the more so when you consider that Rick can't walk or talk.
For the past twenty five years or more Dick, who is 65, has pushed and pulled his son across the country and over hundreds of finish lines. When Dick runs, Rick is in a wheelchair that Dick is pushing. When Dick cycles, Rick is in the seat-pod from his wheelchair, attached to the front of the bike. When Dick swims, Rick is in a small but heavy, firmly stabilized boat being pulled by Dick.
At Rick’s birth in 1962 the umbilical cord coiled around his neck and cut off oxygen to his brain. Dick and his wife, Judy, were told that there would be no hope for their child’s development.
"It’s been a story of exclusion ever since he was born," Dick told me. "When he was eight months old the doctors told us we should just put him away — he’d be a vegetable all his life, that sort of thing. Well those doctors are not alive any more, but I would like them to be able to see Rick now."
From the Reilly article:
[A]fter a high school classmate was paralyzed in an accident and the school organized a charity run for him, Rick pecked out, "Dad, I want to do that."Yeah, right. How was Dick, a self-described "porker" who never ran more than a mile at a time, going to push his son five miles? Still, he tried. "Then it was me who was handicapped," Dick says. "I was sore for two weeks."
That day changed Rick's life. "Dad," he typed, "when we were running, it felt like I wasn't disabled anymore!"
Reilly continues:
This year [2005], at ages 65 and 43, Dick and Rick finished their 24th Boston Marathon, in 5,083rd place out of more than 20,000 starters. Their best time? Two hours, 40 minutes in 1992 -- only 35 minutes off the world record, which, in case you don't keep track of these things, happens to be held by a guy who was not pushing another man in a wheelchair at the time."No question about it," Rick types. "My dad is the Father of the Century." . . .
Rick, who has his own apartment (he gets home care) and works in Boston, and Dick, retired from the military and living in Holland, Mass., always find ways to be together. They give speeches around the country and compete in some backbreaking race every weekend, including this Father's Day.
That night, Rick will buy his dad dinner, but the thing he really wants to give him is a gift he can never buy.
"The thing I'd most like," Rick types, "is that my dad sit in the chair and I push him once."
You can pick up more information at Team Hoyt.
Talk about a reason to circumcize them boys!
Circumcision may offer Africa AIDS hope: Procedure linked to much lower rate of new HIV infections
In a nasty hit-job of a piece, Ex-Gay Camp Investigation Called Off, ABCNews writer Rose Palazzolo makes no effort to hide her bigotry and bias against ex-gays.
Notice how the article leads off:
Tennessee officials closed an investigation into a so-called ex-gay ministry because of a lack of evidence to support child abuse allegations.
Did you get that whiff of malice? "Lack of evidence to support child abuse allegations." In other words, the allegations are taken as fact, just not enough evidence to do anything legal about them. We have here a "guilty until proven innocent" bias from the get-go.
Think I'm overreacting? Buried later in the piece is the following:
"DCS dispatched its special investigations unit to the facility, and after conducting a full investigation, determined that the child abuse allegations were unfounded," Rob Johnson, an agency spokesman, told The Associated Press.
"Child abuse allegations were unfounded" is NOT the same thing as "lack of evidence to support child abuse allegations." The former calls into question the allegations themselves. The latter calls into question the nature and extent of the evidence.
Note also in the piece that "ex-gay" is surrounded by scare quotes, calling into question whether those who call themselves "ex-gay" really are such. This is juxtaposed with these statements:
Wayne Besen, who studies "ex-gay" camps, said that there are at least 100 ministries across the country that offer programs that attempt to make heterosexuals out of homosexuals.
and this statement by Zach, the centerpiece of the articles narrative.
"They tell me that there is something psychologically wrong with me, and they 'raised me wrong.' I'm a big screw up to them, who isn't on the path God wants me to be on. So I'm sitting here in tears, [joining] the rest of those kids who complain about their parents on blogs — and I can't help it," Zach wrote.
Zach's statement is supported by the article's citation of Besen:
"These ministries are a bastion of abuse where the unqualified pose as mental health professionals," he said. "It's ruining lives and no one regulates it."
So, what sort of abuse is going on? Seemingly enforcing hygiene, haircuts and natural haircolor.
In a May 30 entry on Zach's blog he posted the rules of the Refuge Program. Under a heading called Hygiene, it says, "1. All clients must maintain appropriate hygiene, including daily showering, use of deodorant, and brushing teeth twice daily.Men: Men must remove all facial hair seven days weekly, and sideburns must not fall below the top of the ear (the top of the ear is defined as where the ear meets the face below the temple). Clean business-like haircuts must be worn at all times. Hair must be long enough to be pinched between two fingers.
Women: Women must shave legs and underarms at least twice weekly.
All: Only natural hair color is allowed. Hair that is colored, highlighted or streaked, must be dyed back to its original color, or the color must be cut out before entrance into the Refuge program."
Of course there is the obvious: the camp thinks the homosexual lifestyle is contrary to the will of God:
Love In Action is supported by several Memphis-area churches, and accredited by Exodus International, an organization that describes itself as "a worldwide interdenominational, Christian organization called to encourage, strengthen, unify and equip Christians to minister the transforming power of the Lord Jesus Christ to those affected by homosexuality.""DCS dispatched its special investigations unit to the facility, and after conducting a full investigation, determined that the child abuse allegations were unfounded," Rob Johnson, an agency spokesman, told The Associated Press.
John Smid, executive director of Love In Action, said the allegations were never described to him but he assumed they involved a complaint of psychological abuse.
The program, Smid said, "is to help kids to grow in their relationship with Christ." . . .
Officials from Love In Action appealed for tolerance at a June 16 news conference. Phone calls to Love In Action were not returned by press time.
"It is our spiritual conviction that sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage is considered wrong in the sight of God," said John Smid, the program's director, who describes himself as "ex-gay," according to a transcript of the news conference available on the Love In Action Web site.
"This program is operated on the will of the guardian or parent. We will work with the minor children as long as they are not overtly distracting to their own program or the program of others," Smid added. "If it is shown that the client is overtly treatment resistant, we will work with the parent towards alternative options for their care and overall relational health."
No, those evil self-deluded "ex-gays" are abusing this poor child by warning him of the dangers of same-sex behavior. And this is precisely the bias Palazzolo wants to leave you with.
The Howard Center notes that
young people who took virginity pledges had lower rates of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases and engaged in fewer risky sexual behaviors....The authors of the new studies, Dr. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow in policy studies at the foundation, and Dr. Kirk A. Johnson, a senior policy analyst there, said their findings contradicted those published in March in The Journal of Adolescent Health by Dr. Peter Bearman, the chairman of the sociology department at Columbia University, and Hannah Brückner of Yale University. The earlier study found that a majority of teenagers who took the pledge did not live up to their promises and developed sexually transmitted diseases about the same rate as adolescents who had not made such pledges. It also found that the promise did tend to delay the start of intercourse by 18 months.
The new study, reported at a meeting in Arlington, Va., sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services, found that over all, adolescents who made virginity pledges were less likely to engage in any form of sexual activity. If those who made promises did become sexually active, their array of sexual behaviors was likely to be more restricted than those of adolescents who did not make a pledge, Dr. Rector's team said.
Those who made pledges were less likely to engage in vaginal intercourse, oral sex, anal sex and sex with a prostitute, and they were less likely to become prostitutes than were adolescents who did not take such a pledge, the Heritage team said."
Yep. Those "kids're-gonna-have-sex-anyway-might-as-well-show-'em-how-to-do-it" researchers just flat out wrote their report in such a way so as to give a false impression:
How do Bearman and Bruckner conclude the opposite? In a narrow sense, they do not. Although they strongly suggest that pledgers are more likely to engage in anal and oral sex, they never actually state that. In fact, they very carefully avoid making any clear statements about the sexual risk behaviors of pledgers and non-pledgers as a whole. Instead, they have culled through the Add Health sample looking for tiny sub-groups of pledgers with higher risk behaviors. They then describe the risk behaviors of these tiny groups and let the press infer that they are talking about pledgers in general.The centerpiece of their argument about pledgers and heightened sexual risk activity is a small group of pledgers who engaged in anal sex without vaginal sex. This "risk group" consists of 21 persons out of a sample of 14,116. Bearman and Bruckner focus on this microscopic group while failing to inform their audience of the obvious and critical fact that pledgers as a whole are substantially less likely to engage in anal sex when compared to non-pledgers.
This tactic is akin to finding a small rocky island in the middle of the ocean, describing the island in detail without describing the surrounding ocean, and then suggesting that the ocean is dry and rocky. It is junk science."
Junk science, indeed.
In the decades since the sexual revolution swept the country with its message of anything-goes permissiveness, social scientists have assiduously investigated the attitudes and behaviors of adolescents carried along on the cultural tides. But a team of scholars from Mississippi State University, the University of Missouri, and Arizona State University believes it is past time to re-focus the research agenda. "Little attention," these scholars complain in a recent issue of The Journal of Adolescent Research, "has been paid to understanding adolescents who are resilient enough to remain abstinent in the face of often extreme peer pressure and media messages that make early sexual activity appear attractive and normal."To remedy this lacuna in the research, these scholars examine data collected from 568 adolescents who identified themselves as virgins when surveyed at 20 different Missouri schools in 1997 and who responded to a follow-up survey in 1999. Their results clearly indicate that adolescent libido is not an uncontrollable force; indeed, their findings highlight the real restraining effects of parents, of personal conscience and commitments, and of religion.
When surveyed in 1999, the number of self-identified virgins in this group had dwindled to 422 (74 percent of the original group). Surprisingly, the erstwhile virgins who had become sexually active by 1999 were just as likely to have expressed concerns in the original survey about the risk of pregnancy as their still-continent peers (84 percent compared to 80 percent). Nor were the newly sexually active much less likely than their still-continent peers to have expressed fears in the original survey about the danger of AIDS (79 percent vs. 83 percent).
Worries about parental disapproval of sexual involvement did run somewhat lower in 1997 among those who jettisoned their status as virgins during the next two years than among those retained that status during this period (48 percent versus 60 percent; p < 0.01). But a personal belief that it is "wrong to have sex before marriage" was a much stronger statistical predictor of virginal status than were worries about parental attitudes. Such a personal belief was expressed only half as often in 1997 by the teens who were sexually experienced by 1999 as it was by the virginal teens who were still chaste in 1999 (31 percent versus 59 percent; p < 0.001). Likewise, an intention of "waiting until I get married" was endorsed only half as frequently in 1997 by the students who were sexually experienced by 1999 as it was by peers who retained their virginity during the next two years (32 percent versus 59 percent; p < 0.001). Religious doctrines prohibiting pre-marital sexual activity were also mentioned significantly less often in 1997 by the teens who were sexually initiated by 1999 than they were by the peers who were still abstinent (27 percent versus 39 percent; p < 0.01).
Overall, the researchers see little evidence for "fear-based postponement" among continent adolescents. In contrast, the researchers discern strong indications in their data that "having conservative values related to delaying sexual activity until marriage shows promise as a protective factor in delaying sexual activity."
According to the summary of this policy brief (opens in Adobe; via the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy site):
A recent study offers the first systematic review of same-sex unions and divorce rates based on accurate national register data in Sweden from the 1990’s.The study found that gay male couples were 1.5 times as likely (or 50 percent more likely) to divorce as married opposite-sex couples, while lesbian couples were 2.67 times as likely (167 percent more likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married couples over a similar period of time. Even after controlling for demographic characteristics associated with increased risk of divorce, male same-sex couples were 1.35 times as likely (35 percent more likely) to divorce, and lesbian couples were three times as likely (200 percent more likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married couples.
This is despite the fact that heterosexual and same sex couples generally face the same risks of divorce:
In general, characteristics associated with increased risk of divorce appear very similar for same-sex and opposite-sex partners: Younger couples, less educated couples, couples with greater age differences, couples where one partner was foreign-born, or where one or both partners had been previously married, were more likely to divorce. For example, Swedish partners with only a secondary education or less were more than twice as likely to separate as couples where both partners had a university degree.
Note even the presence or absence of children in the couple's home family could explain the prevalence of divorce among same-sex couples.
The lower rates of children among same-sex couples did not explain this difference. Even among childless households, same-sex male partnerships experienced almost a 50 percent higher likelihood (1.49 times as likely) of divorce during the study period, while childless lesbian couples were three times as likely (200 percent higher likelihood) to break up as a married couple without children.One reason children may not reduce the divorce risk on same-sex couples is that these children are less likely to be children of both partners and more often "stepchildren" for one partner. The authors speculate that there may be an indirect effect from the possibility of procreation in reducing divorce risk in opposite-sex marriages: "To some extent, the disruption risks of childless heterosexual spouses might be reduced in anticipation of childrearing, i.e., when spouses stay together in order to fulfill their plans of parenthood."
Note:
See also these policy briefs from iMAPP.org on
sustained public resistance in the U.S. to same-sex marriage, and a decrease in support for SSM among college students
and
I very much want to recommend to you the website of The Anscombe Society [link via Mere Comments]
Though I am initially impressed with the following links, I haven't thoroughly reviewed all the following, aside from the Orthodox NFP link, particularly for theological content. Caveat lector.
I'm reading a great little book (only about a hundred pages) by Father John Chryssavgis entitled, Love, Sexuality and the Sacrament of Marriage. On the el ride home last night I hit this sentence: "What, however, is important in the present context is to affirm that everything which God created is essentially good, including gender and sexuality: 'and God saw that it was good' (Genesis 1.13)" (pp. 7-8).
What Father Chryssavgis' book is about is not the contemporary question of the relationship of gender and sexuality, nature and nurture. It is a patristic and liturgical examination of marriage, which assumes heterosexuality.
However, Father Chryssavgis' comment got me to thinking. I'm not sure whether there is a biblical and patristic case that can be made for the distinguishing between sex and gender. I just have not done any reading on the matter. I am certain, however, that there can be no separation of gender from sex.
If sex and gender can be distinguished, they cannot be divorced from one another. My "maleness" is predicated upon my genetics, but my "masculinity" is similarly predicated. I think and behave in distinctly masculine ways because I am a male. It is true, and I doubt anyone would question this, that some masculine behaviors in which I engage in are sociocultural and not necessarily uniquely attached to my maleness: the colors and patterns of my clothing (think "lumberjack-plaid" flannel shirts and Levis), the shape of my haircut (of which I am in desparate need at the moment!), and so forth. But that they are sociocultural does not mean they are exclusively so, nor that they have no connection to my maleness.
That is to say, sex and gender cannot be simply reduced and separated. It is not the case that gender is only about social imprinting, and that it can be separated out from sex. But just because a man has a penis and a whole bunch of testosterone doesn't mean that social gender roles are all about biology. Our society is terminally prone to such illogical and heretical reductionisms.
In point of fact, I cannot help but be masculine because I am male. And the forms of masculinity that my community presents to me are important incarnations of maleness. There are other ways to be masculine, but they all derive from being male. This is not to say that all the ways of being masculine that a society presents to us are to be imitated or embraced. The social imprint of the father as economic provider and enforcer of household discipline but otherwise not primarily engaged with the nurture and care of his children is a misformed one, and one that we should reject. But we ought not reject all of it, for it is true that as husband and father, males have a responsibility for the provision of their family's needs and the authority for discipline. But this needs to be combined with and completed by the tender nurture and care that fathers also have an obligation to provide.
The difficulty in keeping the appropriate balance here is that our society has an heretical notion of what it means to be men and women. In a radical egalitarianism that sees men and women as interchangeable units, capable of insertion into exactly the same roles and responsibilities as the other, to assert that men ought also to care for and nurture their children comes off as sounding like men ought just be like women. The Church rightly rejects this and calls Christian men and women to their unique roles and responsibilites in the home and society.
Our society cannot be fully trusted to articulate what it means to be men and women in Christ. It wants to remake women in the image of the worst characteristics of men: sexually profligate, murderers of children, overly aggressive. It also wants to unmake men by recasting them only in the image of women: focusing exclusively on emotion (how many times do we have to hear about men crying?!) and the uniquely feminine way of nurturing. Furthermore, it denigrates the unique and positive character traits of men by denigrating men as stupid ("linear" thinking is inadequate), callous (men are emotional cripples) and so forth. In a society in which the highest good for women is to be like men (the consequence of which is to kill children in the womb), and men to be denigrated and unmade, we Christians are right to reject the social norms and detail their infernal origins.
Since our society cannot be trusted to tell us what we are to be as men and women, we rightly turn a deaf ear to them and look to our own resources as Christians: the lives of the saints of God. Here we have "manly virtue" in women and "godly nurture" in men, but without the heretical division of sex from gender or the dysfunctional rejection of the unique ways men and women incarnate being human and made in God's image.
According to this editorial, "Straight Talking," a Harvard student group got their knickers in a twist over Jada Pinkett Smith's comments. The lovely actress from the Matrix trilogy was stressing how one can overcome the obstacles life presents to ultimately achieve one's dreams. Very motivational stuff. Said Smith:
"Women, you can have it all--a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. . . . To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas, be open."
But this is Harvard, land of the hapless Larry Summers, so, yep, someone's going to be offended.
Among the campus groups affiliated with the foundation [which hosted Ms. Smith and the event at which she spoke] is the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance, or BGLTSA, and it didn't like some of what it heard. A co-chair of the group, Jordan B. Woods, told Ms. Friedman that part of Ms. Pinkett Smith's speech was "extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable." In other words, Mr. Woods and others in BGLTSA explained, by focusing on a heterosexual relationship, Ms. Pinkett Smith took such a narrow view that some in the audience felt left out. Nobody called her a homophobe. Through ignorance, she just came off as "insensitive."
There's a new one: heteronormative. Pardon me for asking, but isn't normal that which applies to most members of a class? And if 90-98% of the members of the class Homo sapiens are heterosexual, doesn't that by default make heterosexuality normal? Furthermore, if a species can only reproduce heterosexually, then, um, that would make heterosexuality, um, normal.
But that's just me. Er . . . and biology.
In the December issue of "The Family in America," and the article "Marriage and Procreation: On Children as the First Purpose of Marriage," family historian, Allan Carlson, is making the case that the dissolution and attacks on marriage did not begin with LGBT activism on gay marriage, but rather that the assault on marriage began much earlier in the 20th century with the easing of divorce laws, legalization of contraception, and the revisionist Constitutional interpretation of a "right to privacy," and that gay activists have only now decided that the deformed thing we currently call marriage (easy to get out of, only about sexual pleasure, and bounded only by one's own "right" to absolute privacy) is something that appeals to them.
But there was another historical era in which marriage suffered from extreme societal deformation: the first centuries B.C. and A. D., and from that context, Christians built a renewal of marriage that was to last some nineteen hundred years. Carlson notes:
Nearly two thousand years ago, what would become Western Christian Civilization began to take form in a time of great sexual disorder. The moral and family disciplines of the old Roman Republic were gone, replaced by the intoxications of empire. Slave concubinage flourished in these years. Divorce by mutual consent was easy, and common. Adultery was chic, and widespread. Homosexuality was a frequent practice, particularly in man-boy sexual relations. There was a callous disregard for infant life, with infanticide a regular practice. Caesar Augustus, worried about the plummeting Roman birthrate, even implemented the so-called "Augustan Laws" in 18 B.C., measures that punished adultery, penalized childlessness, and showered benefits on families with three or more children. These laws may have slowed, but did not reverse, the moral and social deterioration.Between 50 and 300 AD, and out of this same chaos, the Fathers of the Christian Church crafted a new sexual order. Procreative marriage served as its foundation. Importantly, they also built this new order in reaction to the Gnostic heresies which threatened the young church; indeed, which threatened all human life.
The Gnostic idea rose independent of Christianity, but I am concerned here with so-called Christian Gnosticism. The Gnostics drew together myths from Iran, Jewish magic and mysticism, Greek philosophy, and Chaldean mystical speculation. More troubling, they also appealed to the freedom from the law as proclaimed by Christ and Paul. In this sense, they were antinomians; that is, they believed that the Gospel freed Christians from obedience to any law, be it scriptural, civil, or moral. The Gnostics claimed to have a special "gnosis," a unique wisdom, a "secret knowledge" denied to ordinary Christians. They appealed to unseen spirits. They denied nature. They developed a mélange of moral and doctrinal ideas. But virtually all Gnostics did share two views: they rejected marriage as a child-related institution; and they scorned procreation. . . .
Carlson then walks through several Jewish, biblical and early patristic sources, and then concludes:
All of these sources led the early Church Fathers to one conclusion: the purpose of marriage is procreation. While also celebrating lifelong chastity, they refused to abandon the need for children. As Justin explained in the mid-2nd Century: “We Christians either marry only to produce children, or, if we refuse to marry, are completely continent.” Two centuries later, John Chrysotom taught that “there are two reasons why marriage was instituted, that we may live chastely and that we may become parents.” In the year 400, Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, wrote the book, The Good of Marriage. He argued that God desired man’s perpetuation through marriage. Offspring, he insisted, were the obvious and first “good” of marriage (the other two being fidelity and symbolic stability or sacrament). As Augustine explained:What food is to the health of man, intercourse is to the health of the human race, and each is not without its carnal delight which cannot be lust if, modified and restrained by temperance, it is brought to a natural use [i.e., procreation].
Augustine also insisted that the act of procreation included “the receiving of [children] lovingly, the nourishing of them humanely, the educating of them religiously.”
This is a far cry even from conservative, "traditional" accounts given of marriage in much of present-day U. S. Christianity and marriage counselling in general. No, even modern Christianity accepts, for the most part, the rationale of sexual pleasure as binding source of intimacy in a marriage, and therefore as the primary function of marriage, and thus also accepts contraception and, implicitly, all the anthropology that goes with it, and though most conservative and evangelical Christians would verbally reject easy divorce, statistically speaking, they do not live any differently than non-Christians.
Carlson opines that it is probably too late to do anything legislatively to dramatically turn back the clock on the destruction of marriage--though he does think there are important incremental things that can be done. But just as Christians changed the culture's understanding of marriage apart from legislation in the first few centuries of the Church, so may they do so today.
They just have to take on the Christian understanding of marriage--rejecting the secularized version they now accept--and live what God intends for man and woman.
Hmmm, seems there's scientific evidence that gives good reaons for why Women Work the Kitchen, Men the Garage.
I dare you to read it. Really. Tripp-le dog dare ya (Tripp)!
I made a comment over on Ryan's blog regarding the incommensurability of the traditional understanding of Christian marriage (one man, one woman, for life, and--as God grants--being fruitful and multiplying) and that of same sex unions. I stated, "In point of fact, it is a matter of irreconciable and diametrically opposed moral systems. As such, it cannot be solved by dialogue or compromise."
Ryan didn't appreciate my reply--and I admit my written "tone" probably came off as a bit more than brusque--taking my comment as simply a refusal to dialogue and work for compromise. In other words, my reply seems to stake out the conclusion before we can even get to the table.
I do, indeed, believe that there can ultimately be no compromise between Christians who insist on the traditional Christian dogma on marriage and that of Christian activists today who espouse the validity of same sex unions. I base my belief in part on my front-seat view of what's going on in the Anglican communion. (And you can see the impact of this activism in the Anglican communion at titusonenine, American Anglican Council Blog, VirtueOnline (David Virtue's news site), and CaNNet (Classical Anglican Net News) Update: Also The Anglican Communion and human sexuality.) Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans could offer their comments vis a vis their own respective communions. But really it is very simply put:
Christians who espouse the tradition (Scripture, liturgy, canon and the lives of the saints) understand homosexual behavior as sin.
Christians who espouse the validity and blessing of same sex unions must necessarily also espouse the validity and blessing of homosexual practices.
Christians who espouse tradition can, and in the parishes I've encountered do, welcome gay and lesbian persons as they are. They are invited into their homes, prayed for, greeted at the passing of the peace, are guests at meals in home and elsewhere, and so forth. They are, in a word, loved. However, they are loved as Christ loves: which is to say, as they are and called to sin no more.
If Christian gay/lesbian activists feel that traditional Christians aren't loving as Christ loves, then they are right to call their traditional brothers and sisters to account, and to the path of Christ who shared meals and hospitiality with us sinners.
But if Christian activists ask their brother and sister traditional Christians to betray their Lord by failing to obey all that he commanded and taught, then they will find there is no compromise possible.
And unless I am greatly mistaken, Christian activists are not merely asking for the most basic of Christian obligations to love and care for our neighbor, they are asking traditional Christians to disobey and dishonor their Lord. Christian activists, of course, do not think they are doing this. But they fail to deeply apprehend that traditional Christians do not see Holy Tradition as a set of immutable laws to be obeyed, or as some great security blanket with which to shelter themselves from the cruel changing world. Rather, traditional Christians understand Holy Tradition to be nothing less than the life of Christ lived in his Body, the Church. It is the life-giving Torah, the way of living that is our manna, our transforming constraint. To cast it off is to cast off the only thing within which the Holy Spirit can transfigure us. (I make similar comments over on a thread at AKMA's blog.)
So, if the compromise sought which Ryan speaks of is for Christians to love the sinner and hate the sin, then indeed, traditional Christians can do this and indeed must do this. But if the compromise sought is both to love the sinner and love the sin, then traditional Christians cannot do this because to love the sin is to hate the sinner. And we are called to love, for love is of God.
Sex doesn't sanctify anything. Marriage--that is to say, the Holy Spirit operating in Christian marriage--sanctifies sex.
Many advocates for pre-marital sex, extramarital sex, same-sex acts, and so forth view sex as a charism of grace. Witness Anglican Bishop V. Gene Robinson's comments to his fellow bishops at Gen Con 03:
"I just need to tell you that I experience that with my partner. In the time that we have, I can't go into all the theology around it, but what I can tell you is that in my relationship with my partner, I am able to express the deep love that's in my heart, and in his unfailing and unquestioning love of me, I experience just a little bit of the kind of never-ending, never-failing love that God has for me. So it's sacramental for me."
In other words, according to this view, it's sex that's the sacrament, not marriage. And since this is the case, then the Church must go ahead and bless what is already sanctified. . . since sex is the sacralizing agent.
But this is absolutely mistaken. This view is not Christian marriage, nor Christian sex. It is ritual cult prostitution. As St. Paul writes:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything. "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food"--and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh." But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:9-20 ESV)
Sex is, indeed, more than a physical act. It is a deeply unitive act. But the unitive nature of the act hardly equates to Christian sanctification. Rather, unless it is an act sanctified by the Holy Spirit in marriage, it creates deep disorder not only in body but in soul as well. One is unified with one's sex partner, but if it is non-marital sex, one has joined oneself not with Christ, but one has joined oneself with death.
That death may not, indeed, is likely to not, have immediate physical consequences. But the spiritual consequences are immediate, and will have ultimate sway if one does not repent. The social science research bears this out. Sexually transmitted diseases are far more common among people who are sexually active outside of marriage than those who reserve sex for marriage. Domestic violence is far more common among non-married sexual partners than among married persons. And so it goes.
Many who object to the Christian insistence on the importance and sanctity of marriage point out as a criticism that "traditionalists" seem "obsessed" with everyone else's sex life. But this is almost always a hypocritical--and unfair--characterization. In a society quite literally obsessed with sex, it just makes sense that most Christian criticism of our society would have to deal with this deep deformation of our culture.
It used to be that feminists objected to pornography for the very good and quite true reason that it made of women unhuman objects of lusts. Pornography depersonalized and devalued them. But so deep does our societal disorder and deformation run that now many feminists embrace porn as somehow "empowering" them. Funny, nothing has changed. Women still get objectified and depersonalized and dehumanized. Pornography has been indisputably linked to violence against women. But now "grrrl-power" feminists willingly cooperate with this objectification. They have given themselves up to the delusion that by allowing themselves to be objectified they somehow have gained power over men--presumably because they have the "power" to excite lust in the hearts of perverse men. This is the ultimate degradation: to get the victim to think she deserves and even enjoys the brutal treatment she's given. This is the deepest of rapes since it deforms a woman's soul.
One cannot turn on such sitcoms as "Will & Grace" and not be bombarded with one consistent and unquestioned premise: gay men think about sex all the time, and most gay men portrayed are promiscuous. Christians are right to object to this behavior. If there's any sort of obsession, it's with the audiences who demand this sort of deformed entertainment and indoctrination.
One cannot listen to pop music, especially rap music, and not be afflicted with violent recountings of rape and subjugation. One cannot watch music videos and not encounter hundreds of sexual and sexualized images.
Television actresses are applauded for their willingness to perform in "racy," or "risque," or "provocative" roles. Actresses that engage in graphic movie sex (Holly Hunter and Halle Berry) are given Academy Awards for those roles.
But pretty much the only religious experience our culture knows is sex. It is the closest thing that humans can manufacture that can mimic the Christological union of humans with their Father God. But since it is an imitation it is a perversity and a blasphemy. But it's all our culture knows. So we worship sex, and try to convert as many to the religion of cultic prostitution as possible. And we damage and damn as many souls as we convert.
It is not obsessive to continue to critique the perverse, indeed demonically fixated, prevalence of sex throughout our culture. It is a life-saving and loving act to judge. Christ came not to bring peace but a sword. It is Gospel to call death for what it is. It is the revelatory and saving grace of God, the medicine for the soul.
For Christians to pervert the Gospel by equating sex with sacrament is not just deeply deformed, it is not only deeply disordered, it is, ultimately, blasphemy. If Christians commited to the apostolic faith rise up to condemn this false gospel, then they are loving their neighbors as themselves, and thus fulfilling Christ's command to his brothers.
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage'
A large and growing body of social scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. This InFocus paper highlights ten research-based reasons why marriage should only be seen as the union of one man and one woman.
(Read the entire article at the link above.)
Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk
A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research by openly lesbian researchers who sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias.
(Read the entire article at the link above.)
W. Bradford Wilcox's The Facts of Life & Marriage is absolutely necessary reading. In effect, Wilcox shows how social science research done in the last thirty years has upheld the teaching of HH Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae:
In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI warned that the widespread use of contraception would lead to "conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality"; he also warned that man would lose respect for woman and "no longer [care] for her physical and psychological equilibrium"; rather, man would treat woman as a "mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion." Why? By breaking the natural and divinely ordained connection between sex and procreation, women and especially men would focus on the hedonistic possibilities of sex and cease to see sex as something that was intrinsically linked to new life and to the sacrament of marriage.
Wilcox addresses some of the evidence supporting Pope Paul VI's assertions.
What does this data tell us? Well, scholars from Robert Michael at Greeley’s own University of Chicago to George Akerlof at the University of California at Berkeley argue that contraception played a central role in launching the sexual and divorce revolutions of the late twentieth century.Michael has argued that about half of the increase in divorce from 1965 to 1976 can be attributed to the “unexpected nature of the contraceptive revolution”—especially in the way that it made marriages less child-centered. Akerlof argues that the availability first of contraception and then of abortion in the 1960s and 1970s was one of the crucial factors fueling the sexual revolution and the collapse of marriage among the working class and the poor.
Wilcox summarizes the studies Akerlof has done by giving the bottom line:
The research of Nobel-prize-winning economist George Akerlof suggests that the tragic outworkings of the contraceptive revolution were sexual license, family dissolution, crime, and poisoned relations between the sexes—and that the poor have paid the heaviest price for this revolution. This research suggests that the Catholic Church’s firm commitment to the moral law in the face of dramatic and widespread dissent from within and without is being vindicated in precincts that are not normally seen as sympathetic to Catholic teaching.This research also suggests that the dissenting agenda advanced by people like Andrew Greeley amounts to a false compassion. Greeley is right to claim that the Holy Spirit speaks through people’s experiences; but a sober look at our experience with contraception reveals that the Catholic Church’s magisterium, and the Christian tradition it conveys, best advances the earthly happiness of men, women, and children, not contraception.
There is more in the article, particularly on the evils of divorce and how children inescapably suffer from divorce, indeed have their lives ruined by it. And you will want to read the social research supporting all these claims.
I have for some time been coming to a different mind regarding contraception and am beginning to come to an understanding of how unChristian a practice it is. This research just underscores that move.
My good friend Tripp sends me evidence that I'm right again: Men and women are different, and that difference runs very, very deep. As a Christmas gift, the Rev sends me this link about how men and women handle stress differently.
From the announcement:
"We found that men often react to stress with a fight-or-flight response," Taylor said, "but women are more likely to manage their stress with a tend-and-befriend response by nurturing their children or seeking social contact, especially with other women." . . ."The tend-and-befriend method of coping with stress seems to be characteristic of females in many species," Taylor said. . .
The UCLA study also found that women are far more likely than men to "befriend" in response to stress - seeking social contact when they are feeling stressed, with befriending methods ranging from talking on the phone with relatives or friends, to such simple social contacts as asking for directions when lost.
"This difference in seeking social support during stressful periods is the principal way men and women differ in their response to stress, and one of the most basic differences in men's and women's behavior," Taylor said. . . .
"When the typical father in the study came home after a stressful day at work, he responded to stress by wanting to be left alone, enjoying peace and quiet away from the stress of the office; when office-related stress was particularly acute, a typical response would be to react harshly or create conflict with his wife or children," Taylor said. "When the typical mother in the study came home from work bearing stress, she was more likely to cope with her bad day by focusing her attention on nurturing her children.
I think I'll go home and kick the cat and yell and scream a bit, while my wife changes Sofie's diapers and calls her friends.
If any of our Christian forebears from more than forty or fifty years ago could project forward in time to our era, they would look at our views on sex and conception and think we are one weird, freaked out bunch of folks.
Why, we actually talk about "trying to conceive"!
Don't get me wrong. I recognize that part of the meaning behind that phrase is the recognition that conception, even under the most ideal of circumstances, can sometimes be a chancy thing. One act of marital coitus does not automatically result in procreation.
However, in modern understanding, that's not the main idea behind the phrase. Rather, behind the "we're trying to conceive" is the notion that we are actually intending to get pregnant. Gone the contraceptive pills and/or devices. Doggone it, we're going to let nature take it's course.
What a weird way to look at it.
There are many components to sex: marital intimacy, pleasure-giving and -receiving, joy and fun, as well as procreation. But only in our era have these components been compartmentalized and separated off into one another. Especially segregated is the notion--and reality--of procreation.
This is not the biblical, or, dare I say it, the Christian way. I say this not to cast stones, because for the first decade of our relationship, Anna and I did this very segregating off of procreation from sex.
Since the birth of our daughter, however, God has been working on my heart. I'm rethinking these matters. I want to think about it, to live this matter, just as Christ would have me think about and live it.
I cannot tell you the dimensions that this "holistic" understanding of sex and its place within marriage has opened up in my mind. I've expressed before the difference Anna's pregnancy made in my own love for her and our daughter. I found new depths and variations of the love I had for her, and a new expansion of my love in adding Sofie to the circle of our family. It was like I grew another heart, or that this imperfect man's heart expanded to not only pour out more love for my wife, but draw within it's confines my daughter as well. I can't even begin to imagine, let alone understand, what a new life in our home would do to me.
Though with all my failings, one may well wonder what, if anything, it has done for me.
In the end, it is unnatural to seperate procreation from sex, and therefore the biblical strictures limiting sex to the marital union of husband and wife not only make eminent sense, but can only be self-evident. They are also a most mystical inroad to an understanding of the Faith, most expecially the Holy Trinity.
So, Anna and I have been "trying to conceive." Pray God from now on that that phrase will mean in my own mind, heart and strength, not a separation of God-given procreation from equally God-given sex, but a full union of the whole of life and marriage in us.
From Terry Mattingly here are 20 Ways to Control Television in Your Family's Life, or at least the ones that struck me:
1 - Have only one television set in the home. . . . Having only one set at least makes the family confront this imaginary [TV] world together.
3 - Children should never watch TV alone. If you stick with this rule, it will have an amazing impact on your whole family.
4 - Learn to program your VCR. Jay Leno says that whenever he visits his parents’ house, dozens of electronic gadgets are blinking “12:00, 12:00, 12:00.” That won’t do. If you can program your VCR, you can control what you watch and when you choose to watch it. You can mark up the local TV listings and tape the good stuff. This leads to the rule that we try to follow in our household. We strive to average watching only one hour of visual media a day—on tape. (As a journalist, I allow myself in addition one news show.)
5 - Have a greatest-hits shelf, containing taped programs that are worth repeated use. You might consider getting a “classic” movie cable channel, so that you can teach your children not to be prejudiced against the past.
8 - Talk back to the TV. Voice your opinions—especially on the moral and religious content in programs and even in advertisements. Let your children, every now and then, see you reject the content or the quality of a TV show or rented movie so completely that you turn it off.
9 - Allow no TV on Saturday mornings before noon. Ever. This is the time slot in which children are first hooked on niche culture, youth fads, and the idea that it is good for them to purchase their own identities at the mall. Saturday morning TV is a parent-free zone.
11 - Dare to consider this: No TV at all during Great Lent.
12 - Men! Dare to consider this: One sporting event a week on television. Women! Ditch Oprah, the high priestess of American pantheism.
13 - Whenever you can, read the books before you watch movies based on books, even if this means skipping a movie for some time. Why? You can teach children a great truth—that stories have creators that shape them and the values contained in them. Plus, there is more story in the book. That’s the real version.
14 - Understand what it means to purchase a VHS tape or a DVD. When you do this, you are recommending this movie or program to your children for repeated viewing. You are saying that there is something in it that we want to see many, many times. Why? Why is it that good? Have that conversation.
15 - It is good for parents to have a favorite TV show or movie and to explain to their children why it matters so much to them. We must confess that our entertainment choices affect us and say something about who we are.
17 - It’s okay to enjoy fun movies, even if they make little or no sense. God created fun. Silliness can be relaxing. Don’t let your children think you are a grouch all the time on media issues. Embrace the Pink Panther and Laurel and Hardy.
18 - Tell other parents about your rules and ask them for help when their children interact with your children. Share your rules with school personnel and after-school workers and ask for their help.
19 - Vocalize exceptions to the rules. We will all bend our media rules for special events, like the Olympics or “Alec Guinness Week” on Turner Classic Movies. But if we speak these exceptions out loud, it will only reinforce the rules and make them easier to understand.
20 - Demand positive, as well as negative, media feedback from your church leaders. Form an Internet circle for parents, in order to share info and views with friends. Post the addresses of helpful web sites on the church’s web site. Praise the good and pass on videocassettes.
And, yes, dare to talk to your priest about this part of your lives, including in confession. The condition that I call “separation of church and life” is a heresy.
On a Saturday a lot like this one, eleven years ago, one Anna Geno said "I do" to this ol' goof. I've been counting my blessings ever since.
Praise the Lord for a good woman!
From the Zenit News Agency, an article citing research establishing the biological foundation of behavioral differences between the sexes:
Nevertheless, Rhoads argues that "Men and women still have different natures and, generally speaking, different preferences, talents and interests." In support of this affirmation he cites research from a number of sources demonstrating that the behavioral and psychological differences between men and women are in fact real, and not due to social conditioning.
Some sex-difference research has identified the hormonal environment of fetuses in mothers' wombs as a factor explaining differences between male and female behavior. And neuroscientists have found that men have fewer connections between the left and right hemispheres of the brain, with men's brains in general being more compartmentalized than women's.
Male-female divergences are evident from the earliest age, notes Rhoads. Even 1-day-old infants show behavioral differences, with females responding more strongly to the sound of crying. Three-day-old girls maintain eye contact with a silent adult for twice as long as boys. And 4-month-old girls can distinguish photographs of those they know from other people, something boys are generally not capable of doing. Boys, on the other hand, by the age of 5 months are more interested than girls in three-dimensional geometric forms and blinking lights.
Once infants are a year old they can rapidly distinguish between the sexes of their playmates, preferring to associate with those of their own sex. Tests have shown this to be the case even when the newly arrived infants are dressed in the clothes of the opposite sex. Thus, baby girls quickly identify as female another baby, even if it is dressed in masculine clothes.
He goes on to show how these difference continue to manifest themselves into adulthood.
Born at 18:40 on this day in 2003. An answer to the prayers of the Theotokos for us. The other love of my life.
She has a party with her friends tomorrow after church. After which she'll probably be doing this:
The following is a reply I posted on Tripp's blog, but I wanted a larger group to read and critique it. It is given in the context of a discussion on Ephesians 5.
The essence of manhood, is, personhood, which highlights the always already communal nature of what it means to be a man. Thus, men, being essentially persons, have an essential equality with women, whose essence is also personhood.
But manhood cannot simply be reduced to its mere essence, because manhood is also always already embodied. There is no such thing as manhood in the abstract, but only men. And here biology and personhood are united, two natures, as it were, in one person. Men, as persons, share an essence with women, but are also different and distinct, because as embodied, they have different traits and characteristics which arise from their biological embodiedness.
Thus, in conception, men play a biological role that is distinct from that of women, and therefore, they embody conception in a different way than do women. Similarly, the nuture that men give their children are distinct and different from women. But yet at the same time, their nurturing shares an essential similarity in that both men and women are always already in community, and so also the children they conceive and bear.
Now beyond the obvious biological traits are the more controversial ones. Clearly Scripture embodies distinctive roles in the family. There is an essentially similar submission, but because of the embodied personhood which men and women possess, their roles are distinctive.
Why I think my definition commends itself over yours is that it has obvious symmetry between the definitions for manhood and womanhood, it is clearly modelled on conciliar Trinitarianism, as well as on the Chalcedonian definition of Christ as the new Adam.
What think ye all?
Gretchen Wilson sez it best in Redneck Woman (Note: Website midi starts playing when you access the site):
Well I ain't never
Been the barbie doll type
No I can't swig that sweet champagne
I'd rather drink beer all night
In a tavern or in a honky tonk
Or on a 4 wheel drive tailgate
I've got posters on my wall of Skynard, Kid and Strait
Some people look down on me
But I don't give a rip
I'll stand barefooted in my own front yard with a baby on my hip
Cause I'm a redneck woman
I ain't no high class broad
I'm just a product of my raisin'
And I say "hey y'all" and "Yee Haw"
And I keep my Christmas lights on, on my front porch all year long
And I know all the words to every Charlie Daniels song
So here's to all my sisters out there keepin' it country
Let me get a big "Hell Yeah" from the redneck girls like me
Hell Yeah
Hell Yeah
Victoria's Secret
Well their stuff's real nice
Oh but I can buy the same damn thing on a Wal*Mart shelf half price
And still look sexy
Just as sexy
As those models on TV
No I don't need no designer tag to make my man want me
You might think I'm trashy
A little too hard core
But in my neck of the woods
I'm just the girl next door
Hey I'm redneck woman
I ain't no high class broad
I'm just a product of my raisin'
And I say "hey y'all" and "Yee Haw"
And I keep my Christmas lights on, on my front porch all year long
And I know all the words to every Tanya Tucker song
So here's to all my sisters out there keeping it country
Let me get a big "Hell Yeah" from the redneck girls like me
Hell Yeah
Hell Yeah
I'm a redneck woman
I ain't no high class broad
I'm just a product of my raisin'
I say "hey y'all" and "Yee Haw"
And I keep my Christmas lights on, on my front porch all year long
And I know all the words to every Ol' Bocephus song
So here's to all my sisters out there keeping it country
Let me get a big "Hell Yeah" from the redneck girls like me
Hell Yeah
Hell Yeah
Hell Yeah
Hell Yeah
Hell Yeah
Hell Yeah
I said Hell Yeah
(The video absolutely ROCKS, by the way!)
In a USAToday article from more than a year ago, the "common sense" notion in our throw away society is proven empirically false:
Divorce doesn't necessarily make adults happy. But toughing it out in an unhappy marriage until it turns around just might, a new study says.
The research identified happy and unhappy spouses, culled from a national database. Of the unhappy partners who divorced, about half were happy five years later. But unhappy spouses who stuck it out often did better. About two-thirds were happy five years later. . . .
''In popular discussion, in scholarly literature, the assumption has always been that if a marriage is unhappy, if you get a divorce, it is likely you will be happier than if you stayed married,'' Blankenhorn says. ''This is the first time this has been tested empirically, and there is no evidence to support this assumption.''
About 19% of the divorced had happily remarried within five years.
The most troubled marriages reported the biggest turn-arounds. Of the most discontented, about 80% were happy five years later, says Linda Waite, a University of Chicago sociologist who headed the research team.
The study can be found here.
Today is the tenth anniversary of the covenant Anna and I made to God and one another at about 11:00 a.m., one Saturday morning in Joplin, Missouri at the Blendville Christian Church. My mentors and friends, Kyle Gardner and J K Jones, were celebrants. Today is the more special because it is shared with the new gift of life God has given us in Sofie. Who, by the way, is already four weeks old today!
My bountiful God I beseech thee, listen to my humble prayer that I may ever feel that the married state is holy and I must keep it holy. Grant thy grace that I may never sin against the love and faithfulness of this marriage. Foster between us a spirit of peace and understanding that no strife, quarrel or misunderstanding may arise between us. Grant us health and our daily bread whereby we may serve thee more.
Today is also the feast day of our Holy Mother of God, Theodora of Alexandria, who, because there were no monasteries for women in her region, disguised herself as a man and lived, strove and prayed among male monks till her death. Only on her death was it discovered that she was a woman.
Troparion of St Theodora Tone 3
Thou didst offer thy life as a holy gift, O righteous Theodora:/ for radiant with the light of repentance thou didst illumine mankind./ Pray to Christ Who has glorified thee/ to grant us His great mercy.
Kontakion of St Theodora Tone 2
Thou didst spend thy life in fasting and prayer/ and entreat forgiveness of thy sin:/ and thou didst receive it and show us the way of repentance,/ O righteous Mother Theodora.
Holy Mother Theodora, pray for us that we may be made worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. And pray for Anna and I that our marriage would be an icon of Christ and his Church, and serve for the salvation of our own souls and of the soul of our daughter, Sofie. Amen.
In the most recent issue of Touchstone magazine (Vol. 16: No. 5 [June] 2003, pp. 24-27), not yet online, is an article by Robbie Low entitled, "The Truth About Men and the Church." The article utilizes sociological data from Switzerland appearing as "The demographic characteristics of the linguistic and religious groups in Switzerland", by Werner Haug and Phillipe Warner, in the second volume of Population Studies No. 31 entitled The Demographic Characteristics of National Minorities in Certain European States, ed. by Werner Haug, et. al., and published in January 2000. (Whew!)
These are the highlights:
*If a father regularly attends church, then sixty-six to seventy-five percent of his children will either regularly or irregularly attend church, regardless of whether the mother regularly attends or not.
*If a father irregularly attends church, then fifty to sixty-six percent of his children will either regularly or irregularly attend church, again, regardless of whether the mother regularly attends or not.
*And if the father doesn't attend church, then sixty to eighty percent of his children will not attend either, whether the mother herself regularly attends church or not.
In short, the mother's affect on her children's church attendence, without fatherly support, will keep children who might otherwise be non-attending churchgoers as irregular church goers. In the sociological data, this was the most positive outcome of the mother's influence, considered by itself.
Thus, Low concludes, "It is the religious practice of the father of the family that, above all, determines the future attendance at or absence from church of the children" (24).
This, to say the least, does not sit well with mainstream social thinking. But given that Americans and Europeans take sociological studies as more authoritative than the Christian Scriptures, it would seem that popular or no, these are facts that must be faced. Low admits that "The results are shocking, but they should not be surprising. They are about as politically incorrect as it is possible to be; but they simply confirm what psychologists, criminologists, educationalists, and traditional Christians know" (25).
Low points out that the primary role of the mother is one of intimacy, care and nuture. It is from the example of the father that the children (male and female) learn to engage the world outside the home, and which engagements are important. Where fathers are "indifferent, inadequate or absent," Low notes, this task is much harder.
So it is surprising that churches in the West are so keen to follow feminism's denigration of the male. From Murphy Brown to our own families, our society preaches fatherlessness as the norm. Men are expendable; at best, mere sperm donors. Nearly all the media examples of men and fathers show them to be ignorant, inattentive, and helpless.
And this teaching is having its impact. Low states that "we are ministering in churches that accepted fatherlessness as a norm, and even an ideal. Emasculated Liturgy, gender-free Bibles, and a fatherless flock are increasingly on offer. In response, these churches' decline has, unsurprisingly, accelerated" (25-26). It is among the conservative and evangelical churches, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims, which generally hold to traditional, partriarchal norms of family structure, where numerical growth is occurring. Given the data, this is to be expected. And Low continues, "The figures are in and will continue to come in. The churches are losing men, and, if the Swiss figures are correct, are therefore, losing children. You cannot feminize the church and keep the men, and you cannot keep the children if you do not keep the men" (27).
I say again, this will not sit well with the readers of my blog who resist the clear biblical teaching. But what do they have to offer? Anecdotal stories of chauvinism and purported violence. Where these incidences occur even once, they are to be deplored. But the fact of the matter is, the evidence contradicts these anecdotal stories. Partriarchal understandings of family are, in short, better for the religious faith of the children.
Low concludes, "A church that is conspiring against the blessings of patriarchy not only disfigures the icon of the First Person of the Trinity, effects disobedience to the example and teaching of the Second Person of the Trinity, and rejects the Pentecostal action of the Third Person of the Trinity, but more significantly for our society, flies in the face of the sociological evidence! No father--no family--no faith. Winning and keeping men is essential to the community of faith and vital to the work of all mothers and the future salvation of our children" (27).
Those Winter Sundays
by Robert Hayden
Sundays too my father got up early
and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.
I'd wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he'd call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house,
speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love's austere and lonely offices?
Some links I thought you might enjoy vis a vis Christian views of men and women.
From the egalitarian perspective:
Christians for Biblical Equality
From the complementarian perspective:
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Some online articles:
Christianity Today's Headship with a Heart (more traditional)
Christianity Today's Nuptial Agreements (examines both viewpoints)
The Touchstone Article in my earlier blog: Neanderthals Aren't Cool (more traditional)
And here's Touchstone's TNIV Page, which examines the legitimacy of "gender-neutral" translation. (both sides are represented, though the magazine's policy on the matter is clear)
Enjoy.