Tag Archives: Feelings

Commentary

Arlemagne’s post on the dangers of sentimentality in relationships

8 Comments

Oh, this is really, really good. And you can’t say he’s pessimistic and cynical about marriage like me – because he is married.

Here’s the post at RuthBlog.

Excerpt:

In response to my earlier post about romantic love being more like addiction and quite a lot less like some deep spiritual connection, the comments section noted that my worldview is “sterile.”

Maybe.

But this view of romance is also most likely true.  Having a clear eyed view of the world has many advantages.

But that worldview is liberating.  Think about it.  In the realm of love and marriage, knowing the truth about the nature of romantic love can save a person from the disappointments consequent of unrealistic expectations.  This leads to happiness.  The fantasy realm of romanticism can lead to some very bad consequences.  Heck, don’t take it from me.  Just read Madam Bovary.

Then he cites this article from well-known social critic Theodore Dalrymple.

Excerpt:

WE should try hard to think clearly, said the great French scientist, mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, for such is the foundation of morality.

Sentimentality is one of the worst enemies of clear thought and therefore of morality.  It is the preference of what we would like to be true over what actually is true, it persuades us that we are more compassionate than we really are. It is a form of make-believe. British public policy in many fields has been riddled with sentimentality for many years with disastrous effects on our society and on our economy. We are now paying a heavy price.

By the way, you can read an entire book by Theodore Dalrymple – it’s all free online.

I try hard to get the people that I care about to rethink their liberal political views – to begin to apply reason and evidence to their entire worldview. When a person relies on emotions to guide their decisions, it can cause tremendous damage, and especially to others – the spouse, the children, etc. Learning about the evils of postmodernism, moral relativism, etc. is also important.

Madame Bovary

On Arlemagne’s advice I’m watching Madame Bovary (1949) right now. It’s about a woman who reads crazy romance novels until she is bored with normal life and has to engage in affairs to find “romance” and “excitement”. It’s even BETTER than Anna Karenina and Great Expectations! I never learned so much about the dangers of selfishness in my entire life! You can read the entire book for free online, if you like. I never really had involved parents or any kind of religious and moral teaching at all, really. But when I read classics of literature like this, I learn a lot. It reminds me why I loved to read the classics so much as a child.

Cyrano de Bergerac

Here’s the greatest scene ever filmed from Cyrano de Bergerac: (this scene is just after Cyrano’s poetry-reciting duel with the impudent Comte de Guiche, and his subsequent fight with 100 armed men at the Porte de Nesle – the object of Cyrano’s affection has agreed to meet with him and he has high hopes that she has finally realized how much he loves her)

That clip is the greatest thing ever written. “It’s instinct that tells the biggest lies”. Indeed. Indeed. Truer words were never spoken.

“Oh, I have done better than that since then”

Polemics

MUST-READ: Is Wes Widner right to oppose short-term mission trips?

13 Comments

Here’s a challenging post about short-term missions (1-3 weeks) from Wes Widner. Read and see what you think.

Excerpt:

One of the biggest elephants in the evangelical, missiological, soul-winning room is the lingering question of just how much good short-term mission trips are and whether or not they merely amount to sanctified vacations taken at the expense of others.

Now, to be fair, I’m not claiming that either the missionaries or those who fund them are intentionally nefarious. On the contrary; I believe that for the most part, those who go on short term mission trips and those who support them financially have honest evangelistic intentions. I am simply wondering whether we’ve fostered this “super spiritual” mindset around something we call “the mission field” and, as a result, neglect to ask the burdensome and unpopular questions of stewardship and effectiveness.

He explains how people misunderstand the great commission by thinking that it requires people to go to foreign lands, and then he writes this:

Because of this misunderstanding of the great commission and what it truly means to make disciples of those around us, we tend to overlook questions of stewardship and logistics. In fact, since we think the imperative is to go we tend to start to think that any cost is acceptable and questions of logistics are a mere nuisance.

How much does a round-trip plane ticket usually cost to travel overseas? $1,000, $2,000? More? Once you count the cost of food, lodging, transportation, etc. you can often approach figures well over $3,000 just to send a single person overseas. Is this really the best way to reach the lost?

I agree with him completely that it is not a good use of money to send laypeople as missionaries to foreign countries. However, I do think that it is worth it to send scholars with doctorates to foreign universities and other centers of influence to lecture and debate. So basically we agree on the stewardship question, except if the missionary is a scholar headed to a center of cultural influence. What laypeople can do instead of going themselves is to work hard in school, get good jobs, and to financially support Christian scholars in their studies and public events at home or abroad – e.g. – William Lane Craig debating Muslims in Turkish universities or debating atheists in Chinese universities, etc.

I also agree with Wes that the right way for laypeople to disciple non-Christians is to deal with the people who are around you in your workplace, etc. The thing is, it is much more difficult to build a relationship with non-Christians on the same social rung as you are who you have to work with day in and day out. That’s much harder because you have to live as a public Christian where you are, and let it affect your life more personally. This isn’t flying off somewhere to deal with poor strangers who you will never see again. It’s much easier to fly off somewhere and not to have to deal with people over the long-term. Flyig off to “do good” gives a person the feelings of “being good” and “doing something” but without any of the hard work and persecution of having peers equal to you in social standing seeing you every day bearing with suffering and striving for holiness. Instead of trying to squeeze feelings of goodness out of temporary experiences “helping the poor”, we should be dealing with the smartest and most challenging people in our own lives – family, friends and co-workers. It’s not as emotionally fulfilling and spectacular, but it’s where God has placed us. It’s harder, too.

Secretly sponsoring the PhD studies of an aspiring Christian philosopher, lawyer or scientist would be an excellent use of your money, although it is not as flashy or emotional as helping the poor in Africa. You can’t really tell people back home about your spiritual experiences signing a check to bring in William Lane Craig to debate. You can’t really show impressive pictures of yourself working overtime to keep your job so you have money to support influential Christians like Michele Bachmann or Jennifer Roback Morse. But we have to ask ourselves which is more effective – not which caters to our emotional needs to get attention to force spiritual experiences and to feel good about ourselves.

More Wes:

Why do we go? Why do we really go? If our real aim is to make disciples as we are commanded to, then we will gladly step back and examine the questions raised above (and many will come to the conclusion that short-term, long-distance mission trips are simply not a good idea) but I believe the main reason most Christians go is to satisfy a desire for an emotional experience which they equate with “being close to God”. And therein lies the heart of our dilemma.

In the end, what’s the difference?

When we take vacations, we are expecting experiential reward. We don’t expect to leave a lasting impact on the lands we travel to, and we expect to receive a euphoric high from our experiences. Sadly, most testimonies I hear from short-term missionaries are wholly self-centered (though they are couched in a plethora of “Jesus speak”) with the focus being on the person as opposed to the message and often with little thought as to the lasting impact and cost vs. benefit to the congregation that helped send them.

We have a responsibility to God to think about what we are doing and produce results for him. We need to stop having pictures taken of ourselves hugging children in foreign countries, and to instead think about working hard in school, studying hard things that matter, and saving our money, so we can actually move the ball forward. I know lots of Hollywood celebrities who make a big deal out of supporting animal rights and global warming, but they want nothing to do with chastity, fidelity, marriage, parenting, etc. Christians should not be thinking of Christianity as a fashionable cause that allows them to feel good and be recognized by others. We’re not Hollywood celebrities. We’re supposed to be concerned with truth, not feelings.

Commentary

Barbara Kay traces the source of anti-male statistics used by feminists

3 Comments
Barbara Kay
Barbara Kay

Her latest column in the National Post.

Excerpt:

In the latest example of myth-making on the connection between sports and domestic violence, England’s Association of Chief Police Officers stated in May that during the World Cup “cases of domestic abuse increase by nearly 30% on England match days.” The figure came from a study sponsored by the British Home Office, so it seemed credible. The shocking figure sparked a big publicity campaign, with a lurid poster featuring a cowering woman covered in bruises and the imprint of a man’s shoe.

[…]An actually trustworthy study done by the London Metropolitan Police Authority contradicted the thirty percent “finding,” but by then the media had a story that was too good to check for veracity.

[…]Anyone remember the big 1993 Super Bowl Sunday hoax? The media all jumped on a bad statistic and ran with it then too. It was “reported” that domestic violence increased by 40% during the Super Bowl. Journalists called it the “abuse bowl” and NBC ran a public service announcement telling men to stay calm during the game or they would end up in jail.

In the same year the National Coalition against Domestic Violence circulated a brochure in which they claimed that half of American women would face violence from their mate and that “more than a third are battered repeatedly every year.” This is simply an outrageous lie – fewer than one percent of the female population can be said to be “battered” – but such was the hysteria around the subject of domestic violence at the time, that people were ready to believe all men were basically monsters.

Only one reporter, Ken Ringle of the Washington Post, actually ran down the stat to its source, which was an offhand comment by a feminist activist at a press conference. It was made up out of whole cloth. There was no actual increase of domestic violence during the game. And for the past 17 years since that Super Bowl, no one has found a domestic violence link to it.

Thank you Barbara Kay for telling the truth and defending men from irrational fears and hatred.

Why do these feminist myths emerge? And why do so many women believe them? And why do so few women investigate these issues themselves? What do women have to gain from believing in myths?

Well, if all men are predators, then it seems reasonable to think that women shouldn’t marry them, or trust them to be faithful protectors and providers. So what will women do for protectors and providers if men can be relied on? The answer is bigger government and more social programs – like taxpayer-funded abortions, taxpayer-funded day-care, taxpayer-funded IVF, etc. Laws may also be needed to control men’s behavior to keep them from being bad, since men are so awful. Pretty soon, it will be illegal to even criticize women for anything they do. Oh wait – that is already punishable by jail in France.

How can a man afford to marry and start a family when he is paying 40% of his income in taxes to replace men with government and to control men’s supposedly predatorial behavior? He can’t!

Christina Hoff Sommers

Christina Hoff Sommers

Christina Hoff Sommers is my favorite feminist scholar. She’s an equity feminist – that’s the good kind of feminist that is so rare today.

I read both of those articles and I may blog about them later, but they are all worth reading now. If you want a really good long article on the alleged discrimination against women in math and science classes, then read this. It is long – but because it’s by Christina Hoff Sommers, it reads like poetry. You won’t even look up until you’re finished reading the whole thing. She is such a talented writer!