All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
Commentary

Men should prefer women who allow moral judging and spiritual leading

16 Comments

I wanted to write about a common mistake that I see men making today when they are selecting women for marriage.

Some women prefer men who don’t have strong views on moral, spiritual, economic and political issues, and who don’t try to lead them in moral and spiritual areas. This is because if men know a lot about things then they tend to have definite opinions which might constitute grounds for rejecting the woman if she does something wrong, and women fear rejection. For the spiritual leadership, again, if the man has studied this a lot, then the woman fears that he will make her do a bunch of reading and debating which may not be much fun for her. So, some women avoid men like that. The question I want to ask in this post is – should men marry a woman who doesn’t like that they know a lot about moral issues and spiritual issues? I don’t think that men should, and I’m going to explain why.

Good men will want to set moral boundaries and lead spiritually when they have children.

Children usually look to Dad for guidance about the real world, because he is viewed as more “practical”. And fathers tend to want to protect children by setting moral boundaries and debating moral issues. Additionally, fathers want to protect children from believing lies that may cause them to make bad decisions. So, fathers are going to talk about things like chastity and oxytocin, as well as things like the big bang and the cosmic background radiation. They do this to tell children right and wrong with evidence and to tell children the truth about the world with evidence. What they do is NOT just state opinions or preferences – these are not take-it-or-leave it. And this can be offensive to some women who reject that morality is one way or the other, or that the universe is one way or the other. Some women elevate happiness above morality and truth, and men need to be aware that those women will not let them state moral principles or tell the truth about spiritual things. They value “compassion” (the denial of moral absolutes and personal responsibility) and “pluralism” (the denial that anyone’s beliefs about the world can be false). If a good man has children, he needs to be sure that the woman is not undermining all of his boundary-setting and truth-arguing at home. He has to test for this during the courtship.

Sometimes men are stupid, and choose women without regard to what God wants from the marriage.

Let’s pretend that men are choosing medicine instead of a wife. Some men are choosing their medicine based on the pretty packaging, and yummy taste, and then complaining when it doesn’t fix the illness. They want to choose a medicine without knowing anything about their illness and anything about the candidate medicines. They want to be “free” to choose a medicine based on the feelings they have about the medicine – not whether it will do the job required. They say: “But it looked good and tasted good! Medicines that look good and taste good should work!” They think that they can judge everything about a woman in her physical appearance and her manner. (Women do this too, when they talk about wanting things like “a deep voice” and “confidence” – without looking for signs that the man can meet marriage/parenting requirements). The purpose of the woman and the marriage, for some men, seems to be to meet their needs. So their criteria are the only criteria that matter. God is nowhere in the picture. He supposedly doesn’t want a marriage and children that honor him – oh no. He supposedly wants the man to be happy. The customer of the marriage is the man, not God.

And men really need to be on the alert to detect women who will block them from doing what good men do with marriage and children, otherwise they will not be allowed to make moral judgments and to lead the family. Men – make sure when you are choosing a wife that you choose someone who loves moral judgments and the way that you like to build other people up to be effective and influential. If the candidate resents your setting of moral boundaries, or resents your knowledge of issues, or resents your efforts to “bully” them into correct views using reasons and evidence, then you need to pass on that woman. You are a man. Men are interested in morality, truth, fixing problems and making things better. You must make sure your wife is supporting you in that role. Make sure she is choosing you for the right reasons, using the right criteria. You are a quarterback. Do not play for a team where you will be reduced to cheerleader and mascot. You were not designed to do that.

And women – it makes no sense to complain that men are not raising the children properly if you deliberately chose a man who didn’t believe in moral judgments or truth. If the man makes you behave morally in the courtship, he will make your children behave morally. If the man makes you believe true things in the courtship, he will make your children believe true things. You will just have to learn to like being judged on moral grounds and being led about spiritual things.

Related posts

News

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives up to 43% in latest federal election poll

5 Comments
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

For my Canadian readers, especially Tory Ninja. (H/T Ben)

Excerpt:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have opened up a wide lead against their political rivals in public favour and would be close to winning a majority if an election occurred now, a new poll has found.

The national survey, conducted exclusively for Postmedia News and Global National, found that the Tories are now supported by 43% of decided voters — up by four points from early February.

That finding by pollster Ipsos Reid is significant, as the level of support is near the threshold that experts believe the Tories need to win their long-coveted majority.

The Conservatives haven’t been this popular since they enjoyed a brief spike in the polls in December 2008 when Canadians were opposed to the opposition parties’ efforts to create a coalition government.

The new survey shows the Tories have a 16-point lead over the Liberals, led by Michael Ignatieff. The Grits, who have been trying to stoke voter anger over the government’s performance, have the support of 27% of voters, up by two points.

Jack Layton’s NDP appears to be in political decline as it makes demands to the government over what should be in the budget. The New Democrats would receive 13% of the vote, down by five points.

Similarly, the Green party, led by Elizabeth May, is in trouble. It would receive five per cent of the vote, down by five points.

Gilles Duceppe’s Bloc Quebecois has 10%of the vote nationally and still has a commanding lead in Quebec.

“What you’re seeing in the numbers is a continuation of a trend that started over the past two months,” said Ipsos Reid president Darrell Bricker on Tuesday.

“And one could say that with these types of numbers, the Tories are well poised to potentially form a majority.”

Bricker said that two major factors are at work: Canadians are generally optimistic about the economy and are giving credit to the Harper government, and the negative Conservative TV ads which take aim at Ignatieff’s political ambitions and patriotism are working.

[…]Bricker said another trend is occurring which works in the Tories’ favour: They are increasingly attracting support beyond their traditional base.

The new poll finds the Tories receiving more support from middle-income Canadians, women, university-educated voters and foreign-born Canadians.

“They’re flattening out those demographic differences and becoming more mainstream,” said Bricker.

[…]The federal political parties are preparing for the possibility of an election that could be precipitated by a budget in late March.

[…]In every region but Quebec, the Tories are leading in public opinion.

This poll puts them in majority territory, because last time they only won by 37.65% to 26.26% but they won 143 seats. 155 seats are needed for a majority, so 43% would definitely do the job. Anything over 40% is good.

Stephen Harper has a BA and MA in Economics, and is cutting the corporate tax rate to HALF of the US corporate tax rate. In Canada, voters are concerned about JOBS, not about Harper’s skin color, happy-talk or handsomeness. Canadians understand that if you woo corporations and businesses with low taxes and fewe regulations, you get the jobs. Harper also supports free trade, so that Canadians can sell their goods to foreign markets, and buy good from abroad for a cheaper price, either for consumption of manufacturing. This results in even MORE jobs.

Related posts

Polemics

What does the Bible mean when it uses the word “faith”?

8 Comments

From Tektonics.

Here’s a popular view of faith that says that people believe weird things by acts of will:

Consider these three views:

  1. A “faith healer” named Benny Pophagin offers to heal Joe of his lumbago. Benny lays hands on Joe and prays, but the lumbago remains. Benny waves Joe away, saying, “This is your problem. You don’t have enough faith.”
  2. A Christian faces several objections to his beliefs that he cannot answer. He says, “I don’t care what people say, I still have faith.”
  3. The famous skeptic Mark Twain said, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”

Can anyone guess what is wrong with this picture?

The answer is that all of these examples offer an incorrect definition or understanding of what Biblical faith is all about. Twain’s own definition does correctly (with some negative emphasis) embody the way “faith” is understood by far too many today — but it does not match the Biblical definition of that word, and as the first two examples suggest, “faith” is a badly misunderstood concept in the church at large.

Atheists and many Christians seem to agree on that view of faith… but is that view Biblical?

Here’s an excerpt from the article showing the Biblical view of faith:

The Greek word behind “faith” in the NT is pistis. As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof.

Examples of this usage are found in the works of Aristotle and Quintiallian, and in the NT in Acts 17:31:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

If you are used to thinking of “faith” in terms of our first two examples, this will assuredly come as a surprise. The raising of Christ is spoken of here as a proof that God will judge the world. However, if we think about the missionary preaching of the book of Acts, this makes perfect sense and teaches us a certain lesson.

Here is more food for thought: Is there anyplace in the NT where we can find someone giving their “personal testimony”?

The answer is yes — but it is in Phil. 3, where Paul gives his personal testimony about his former life, when writing to fellow Christians. He does not use it in a missionary setting to unbelievers.

Indeed, one will find nowhere in the NT an example of missionaries, or anyone, giving their personal testimony.

This is for good reason. The ancients conceived of personality as static; the way you were born is the way you stayed. Personal change was not a focus, because it was thought impossible. This is why the church remained suspicious of Paul even after his conversion, and until Barnabas (who probably knew Paul previously) testified on his behalf.

But note well: The following is not the sort of thing one will find in the NT:

Acts 2:48-52 And Peter arose and said, Men and brethren, I testify to you that whereas I formerly smoked mustard leaves, drank wine, cursed daily, and smelled moreover of fish, when the Lord Jesus Christ entered my heart I became clean. Now I no longer smoke, I no longer drink, my language is no longer filthy, and I bathe daily. Praise the Lord!

On the contrary.Here is what we do find in the missionary preaching of the NT:

Acts 2:22-36 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved…Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear… Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Peter’s primary appeal here was threefold:

  1. He appealed to the evidence of the wonders and signs performed by Jesus;
  2. he appealed to the empty tomb,
  3. and he appealed to fulfillment of OT prophecy.

In short, his appeals were evidentiary. One of course might wish to dispute the validity of the evidence, but in context this is beside the point. The point is that Peter grounded belief in Christianity on evidence — or, as the definition of pistis in Acts 17:31 would put it, proofs.

If Paul and Peter would around today, Paul would have a Ph.D in Astrophysics (Romans 1) and Peter would have a Ph.D in Ancient History (Acts 2). And they would be using good theistic arguments to defend belief in God, and historical evidence to defend the resurrection. Because Christianity is all about the evidence. Always has been, always will be. We do not offer Christianity to people on the basis of feelings or life enhancement. It is true, and that’s all.

Here is my article on whether the Bible opposes logic and evidence. And one about why some (weird) Christians don’t defend their faith.

UPDATE: Michael sends me this video from Greg Koukl:

And notes that Greg Koukl has a new book coming out soon, called “Faith is Not Wishing”. Greg Koukl formed my views on what faith is, along with R.C. Sproul and J.P. Moreland. For now, you can read this article about faith by Greg Koukl, and it’s FREE.