Mark Driscoll explains what men are supposed to do

Mark Driscoll writes this article. (H/T Mary)

Excerpt:

When the man is trying to subdue and harness everything under his dominion to do what he desires for it to do, and it all fights against him, it teaches him about God: The ground is doing to the man what the man does to the Lord. The man asks, “Why is this so hard? Why is everything fighting me? Why is it in rebellion?” And God says, “Because you’ve sinned, and you’re doing the same thing to me.” So the man starts to understand the gospel as he’s working. The more a man works and takes responsibility, and becomes a husband and a father, and buys a home, and runs a business, the more likely he is to make sense out of the gospel. Because he’ll feel what it’s like to have something rebel against you when you’re trying to bring order out of chaos.

This will remind him that he is that way toward God, that he is thorns and thistles, and that God is trying to cultivate him. It brings a man to a place of humility. What this means for the men: Everything you try and do is going to be hard. Some men think, “Well, I’ll just find a woman, kids, job, house, or new car that won’t be a lot of work. But, they don’t make those! Nothing comes that way. Everything on this planet is a fixer-upper. And men are going to have to work hard to cultivate those things.

I think this is something women need to understand about Christian men. When men try to change you to be more Christ-like and more effective, it’s not because we don’t like you – it’s because we do like you. We don’t try to teach apologetics to fishes, and we don’t try to turn feminists into fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks. We work on you like we would work on F-14 Tomcats. Because you’re valuable and awesome. And what happens to your worldview matters, ultimately. It’s not judging, it’s serving.

It might be worth checking out chapter 3 of C.S. Lewis’ “The Problem of Pain” as well, where he explains divine benevolence as a process in which the lover perfects the beloved, because he cares that the beloved is perfect. That’s why the best women are the ones who let you lead them.

And a little more Driscoll:

Men are built to learn and receive knowledge, and cultivate the mind and the soul by reading, learning, thinking. Not just in abstract concepts, but in practical life. Most men are practical theologians. They want to know about how to make money and work and life and have friendship and defend and have honor and nobility and dignity, all the themes of the Father to the Son in Proverbs.

And that’s why guys like me are always pushing women to learn more about the mechanics of marriage, economics, counter-terrorism, legal firearm ownership, etc. We are trying to live out what the Bible says here in the real world. And that means thinking about how the real world works. What really helps the poor? Cutting taxes, or raising the minimum wage? What really deters terrorists? A carrier battle group parked next to a rogue nation, or canceling missile defense programs?

Now I’m going to be silly to draw comments from Mary.

Regarding Driscoll himself – I like Driscoll, but I think he is a big frightened feminist coward when it comes to holding women accountable for their own choices. I think he is soft on his Bible and theology. You know, he has a flock to maintain and it’s probably like three-quarters women, so he might have to twist the Scriptures here and there in order to fix the blame on men for the bad things that women freely choose to do. Still, you might get something out of his article, even though I think his theology is Unitarian or Episcopalian or something. Oh wait, I remember – he’s Catholic. Oh, I mean he’s Calvinist. I get those two mixed up all the time because they’re so similar. He probably voted for Obama, too. Can anything good come out of King County?

UPDATE: I am totally kidding in that last paragraph. Please everyone comment saying they are not offended so ECM will know that Christians don’t get offended that much.

MUST-READ: New study on public health care in South Africa

Story from the SA Times Live. (H/T Mary)

Excerpt:

A damning report, the “South African Child Gauge for 2009/2010”, released by the University of Cape Town’s Children’s Institute, blames the crumbling public health system for much of our children’s woes.

South Africa holds the dishonorable distinction of being one of only 12 countries – including war-torn Afghanistan – to have failed to reduce child mortality since 1990.

It ranks in the company of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi.

South African child deaths have risen from 56 deaths per 1000 births in 1990 to 67 deaths per 1000 births in 2008, according to Unicef.

This is despite South Africa’s high GDP and the billions of rands pumped into providing public health services.

Just imagine that it was your child. Or a the child of someone you care about.

When will things get bad enough for people to try something different? How about trying consumer choice and competition? How about consumer-driven health care?

Woman suffocates eight of her own newborn babies

This AFP story is very popular right now.

Excerpt:

A French nursing assistant admitted Thursday suffocating eight of her newborn babies “because she did not want any more children”, prosecutors said.

Dominique Cottrez, 45, was charged with murder after telling police that after having two daughters she did not want more nor “to see a doctor to get contraception”, prosecutor Eric Vaillant told reporters.

Cottrez’s husband Pierre-Marie Cottrez was freed after denying any knowledge of the killings, which came to light when police found skeletal remains buried in a garden and dumped in plastic sacks in a garage.

[…]Investigators said she had confessed to suffocating the babies shortly after their births between 1989 and 2006 or 2007, and to concealing the bodies from her husband under household clutter in the garage.

[…]In past cases some defendants have said they were in denial about their pregnancies and not fully responsible for their actions, but Vaillant said Cottrez had admitted to being “perfectly aware” of her condition.

[…]Prosecutors described it as the worst case of infanticide in recent French history, following a string of similar cases in which isolated and troubled mothers disposed of their newborns.

What could possess a woman to act in such a selfish way? How can she put her own selfish desires before the moral obligations she freely chose to impose on her self through her own decision to get pregnant? How can a woman believe that she is justified in killing her own children just so that her quality of life is not diminished?