Sunday, March 17, 2019

The Lack Of Charity

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

We live in a liberal age and liberalism basically means freedom from consequences,  When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins.

This approach found its way into our families and even our churches bringing with itself the general lack of standards and "anything goes" attitude. It can be terribly frustrating for those men and women who have traditional attitudes about s*x and marriage, for parents trying to raise their children properly, for the relatives dealing with those in extended family who disagree with their principles.

When you look specifically at feminism, it claimed to abolish double standards, and yet it ushered back a sort of new Victorianism when women are generally viewed as innocent victims of evil men never fully responsible for their own actions. It's especially popular with some Christian denominations, I'm afraid, and I can fully understand why it would cause irritation.

Personally I disagree with this idea. The problem with many Christians is that they often don't look at the Bible as a whole, both OT and NT. My church doesn't teach that marriage is a sacrament. Marriage traditionally, in all cultures, including Anglo-Saxons or the ancient Hebrews of the Bible, was viewed as a contract in which the man's basic obligation was to provide the family living, while the wife had to be open to children, take care of the housekeeping and provide her husband with s*x.

The contract could be dissolved when one of the parties didn't fulfill their obligations, so-called "fault divorce". Fault included adultery, abandonment, abuse, extreme poverty (husband not able to provide). Roman Catholic Church started prohibiting divorce for any reason about one thousand years ago (Eastern Ortho churches, on the other hand, always allowed it for some cases) and it was one of the reasons behind the Protestant Reformation, which restored the contractual view of marriage and so until the 1970s we used to have fault based divorce for the breach of contract.

Now, if everything which goes wrong in the family is always the husband's fault and the wife is childlike and never really responsible, how can she even enter into a valid contract with a man? Women having a different role than men doesn't mean they are total dolts and neither are they children.

I also don't believe in the indiscriminate chivalry. I'm getting sick of these mentions about Titanic. The society then was very different than it is now. Chivalry was based on a set of reciprocal obligations between men and women. Since women as a group are now emancipated, men as a group owe them no special treatment, and should evaluate their interactions with strange women on case-by-case basis. Also, the man's first duty is to his family, and then to everyone else.

This said, I also disagree with the bitterness often exhibited by the other side of the debate. You don't persuade women to abandon feminism by routinely calling all of them sluts and damaged goods (remember, ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT!) or constantly attacking them. You won't have much success promoting Biblical womanhood by portraying it as a punishment for female sins or servitude or something similar. Honestly, when I read some of the discussions on the topic I wonder whether these guys or gals even live in a real world.

Like when they suggest that we all should shame divorced women/single mothers. Just imagine you are at family gathering and a single mother comes in. Should you stand up, point your finger at her and shout, shame on you! Come on, nobody can be that autistic.  I'm not saying that anything goes, but really, one should be subtle and know when to open one's mouth or when to hold one's peace.

We all live in a fallen world. We are none of us pure and sinless, apart from Christ. Our society is becoming progressively corrupt and it's getting more difficult to live like the Scriptures teach us. Anyone speaking publicly on these topics (it includes internet) should do well to consider it. You don't have to water down your message, jut remember about charity. In Christ, there is redemption and his yoke is easy and his burden is light. 


  1. I actually find it really hard sometimes, not to shame some people. Maybe not divorced women or single mothers, but for example that abortion -case I wrote about in my blog. I really, really wanted to CAPSLOCK that woman YOU MURDERER. If she only had shown any remorse...

    I actually think that is the problem with people nowadays: we all make stupid decision and big mistakes. But people don't take carry responsibility any more. They don't admit they made a mistake, it is always somebody else's fault and the person in question is pure as fresh snow.

    But I do try to keep my mouth shut in real life. After all one only damages the cause by being too outspoken.

  2. I would agree that some people need shaming. I just make a distinction between hardcore activists and common folks. Also, it depends on the situation, the closeness of the relationship you have with a person etc. Some people are better avoided, but generally gone can't go around telling his neighbours what exactly he thinks of them, can he now?:)

    Also, my beef was more with certain internet personalities who constantly *itch about how ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT!!!! SEX ROBOTS NOW!!!! I deserve the very best virginal wife of 18 though I'm 55 and twice divorced/low income/ex-convict/whatever.

    When you look closely at big-mouthed feminists, you'll start noticing it is a certain group of people concentrated in the media. Yet, by some reasons they think this group represents all real life women everywhere in the West. Yes, many women nowadays *uck, but so do men. It's not either or.