Taking a break from posting August 9, 2010
Posted by matthew5sixteen in Uncategorized.2 comments
I have decided to take a break from posting for awhile. Writing for this blog is mostly a hobby for me, so I wasn’t prepared for the difficulties that I would encounter from having a blog. I have recently had to blacklist a commenter because the person’s views were so divergent from mainstream Christian beliefs. I did not feel comfortable doing this. I would have liked to be able to talk to the person in a manner which would be beneficial to the both of us.
I would like to take time to think about the blog and what its purpose is. I am concerned that the original purpose I had for the blog is beyond my capability to write about. The Christian aspect of my blog is not adequately served because I do not have enough theological training to be able to debate someone concerning Christianity.
I do not have much original material on my blog. I mostly comment on other people’s posts or articles. If you would like to see a glimpse of what I would have posted if I did not take a break, simply visit Biblical Manhood for MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) and MGTOW (Men Go Their Own Way) material. Also, visit WordPress’s Christianity tag surfer. Those are my main sources of material.
I wish you all good reading.
Matthew5sixteen.
Using the word of God August 6, 2010
Posted by matthew5sixteen in Christianity.Tags: Bible, Christianity
9 comments
In an August 4, 2010 post, Laura Grace Robins of Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt wrote about an article by Jana Chapman Gates on Christianity Today concerning the possibility that the Bible is right when it states that some women can be foolish. Gates’ article provides scripture that suggests that some women can be foolish.
I would recommend that you read the post by Robins and the article by Gates. They are both very interesting pieces of writing. But what I would like to focus on is the use of verses in the Bible to prove a point.
I would like to ask, what is the purpose of the word of God? I believe that this is an important question. And I doubt that I am alone in this belief. Christian apologists, atheists and non-Christians have been arguing for centuries on the veracity of the word of God and its usefulness.
For Christians, the power and usefulness of God’s word is a belief that is held with conviction. For non-Christians, however, the word of God is at best a set of wise teachings. At worst, for non-Christians, the word of God is utter foolishness. I would like to state that, personally, I view God’s word as basically the meaning of life. It’s a status that I’ve given it in my personal life after I accepted Jesus into my life. I don’t think that it is the meaning of life for everyone. It can only be meaningful if someone believes in it, which some people don’t.
Let’s take a look at the Bible from a secular viewpoint for a moment. What do secularists view the Bible as? Is the Bible a book of science? Is the Bible a book of that teaches good governance? Is it a book that teaches us how to structure our society? Or is it a book that deals only with our spiritual aspect?
For some Christians, the Bible is a book that talks about everything. I believe that they hold this view because of the fact that the Bible talks about many of the more important aspects of human life. But I don’t believe that the Bible was meant to cover every subject under the sun. When Jesus was asked what was the most important commandment, he responded, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matthew 22:37-38.)
Jesus didn’t go through a carefully prepared list covering everything that humanity would ever experience after his death and resurrection. From Jesus’ response, I would like to state that the Bible was meant for us to love God and love others. When we use the Bible to try to prove a point about science or society, I believe we go beyond the focus of the Bible.
“All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:40.) There are a lot of laws in the Old Testament that cover numerous areas of daily life. And the prophets spoke many things concerning how we should live our lives. Yet Jesus suggested that they all pointed to the two things mentioned above. I view this as meaning that the Bible has a focus. And we should keep this focus in mind when we try to use its verses to prove a point, in case we go outside that focus.
I leave you with this verse: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16.)
Matthew5sixteen.
The righteous will live by faith August 5, 2010
Posted by matthew5sixteen in Christianity.Tags: Christianity, faith, homosexual
6 comments
In an August 5, 2010 post, Justin of The Truth Shall Set You Free wrote about Christianity being a faith and not a culture. He argues that we, as Christians, should live by faith and not by the law.
Justin states, “The heart of Christianity is FAITH in Jesus, not a political or social ideology.
Because it is a faith, it is extremely adaptable to any cultural/historical situation. Thus, the cultural umbrella of Christianity is full of true diversity. Various Christians can be culturally opposite things: conservative or liberal, slave-owner or abolitionist, anti-Semitic or philo-Semitic, anti-homosexual or pro-homosexual, etc.”
Justin states that on issues like homosexuality, there are verses that support both sides of the argument. One verse may condemn the act, but another verse will say that Christ came to save sinners.
Justin states, “We are repeatedly told that God is reaching out to sinners, to the lost sheep. And we are assured that repentence and sorrow for sin are far more important that righteous behavior. Everyone knows that we are called to “condemn the sin, but love the sinner.” Thus, Christian culture is infinitely variable.”
Justin states the Christianity shines brightest in a culture of decadence. He provides ancient Rome, pagan Europe, and modern America as examples.
Justin concludes, “The Good Book is the perfect guide to worldly happiness, there is no doubt. People should be encouraged to follow its moral precepts for their own good, out of loving concern. We spread the gospel of Christ out of love, to save people from hell, the hells of this world and the next.”
I look back on my life at the times when I was “fervent” for God and tried to live by the law. I did this because I believed that through the law, I could come closer to God. But I did not understand that it is by faith that we are saved.
I think Justin wrote his post as a commentary on the current battle over homosexual marriage in the United States. I guess I can also comment on this matter.
In my life, I have known several homosexual people. By the world’s standards, they were pretty decent people. Some were even raised as Christians. They made, in my opinion, some interesting arguments based on the Bible as to why homosexuality is not that bad. One person mentioned that Jesus never talked about homosexuality. I guess he was implying that if it was such a bad thing, Jesus would have mentioned it during his ministry. I saw his viewpoint.
Justin suggests that we should live by faith and not try to impose our beliefs on others through secular laws. I see Justin’s point. It is better to be a light to others and influence them by love than to force others to be like ourselves.
I guess we should ask ourselves, is it better to spend our resources trying to keep homosexual marriage illegal or is it better to spend our resources to help the homosexual community deal with their problems? By helping them, we would be showing them the love that Jesus showed us while we were in our own sins. I’m not saying we shouldn’t call homosexuality a sin. But I am saying that Jesus came to save sinners, not to condemn them. (John 3:17.)
We all sin. If we try to depend on living by the law to save us, we will fail. But if we live by faith, we will be saved.
I leave you with these verses:
“All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.‘ Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, ‘The man who does these things will live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” (Galatians 3:10-13.)
Matthew5sixteen.
The tree of Feminism August 4, 2010
Posted by matthew5sixteen in Christianity.Tags: Christianity, feminism
2 comments
In an April 26, 2008 post, Anakin Niceguy of Biblical Manhood wrote about his dislike for Feminism. He references a post by Joe Soltys that criticizes the claim that Feminism is, in practice, about equality between men and women.
In addressing the issue of whether Feminism is bad or good, I have to state that I don’t really know if it’s good or bad. I have not had enough exposure to feminism to be able to give a thorough assessment of its merits. I have seen many people in the Men’s Rights Movement criticize Feminism and its adherents. Most of my knowledge of Feminism is second hand knowledge.
To act as a voice of moderation in this matter, I will state that Feminism as an idea is probably not a bad thing. It is comparable to the idea of civil rights for minorities. It seeks to better the lives of certain people. In the case of Feminism, it seeks to better the lives of women. At least this is the case in theory. In practice, it may be observed that not all women benefit from Feminism. The more radical elements of Feminism may bring supposed freedoms to women but may ultimately be harmful to those women who follow these more radical elements.
Feminism can be compared to Christianity. Just as there are false prophets in Christianity, there are false prophets in Feminism. False prophets seek to twist the good that is found in a movement and use it to further the false prophet’s own goals. False prophets may introduce teachings into a movement that seek to divide the followers of the movement from the general population. In other words, these false prophets may seek to radicalize the followers of the movement.
Feminism is not a bad thing. The followers of Feminism are not bad people. It is the leaders of Feminism that one must be concerned about. People who devote their lives to a cause usually do so because they have life changing experiences. When it comes to the leaders of Feminism, these experiences might not be good experiences but rather bad experiences that these leaders have gone through. These bad experiences may color the way they look at life and at other people. And it may lead these leaders down a path of extreme beliefs. These beliefs may be hurtful to others because they were born of hurt.
As Christians, we should not hate the people who hold feminist beliefs. We should be innocent of hate. But we should be sharply critical of the more harmful ideas espoused by their leaders. We should point out these harmful ideas and talk about them. We should not give these harmful ideas a free pass simply because of the claim that these ideas are all about equality.
I leave you with these verses: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” (Matthew 7:15-18.)
Matthew5sixteen.
The varieties of singleness August 3, 2010
Posted by matthew5sixteen in Christianity.Tags: marriage, men, single, wisdom, women
3 comments
In an April 24, 2008 post, Anakin Niceguy of Biblical Manhood wrote about three kinds of people who are single. The person who is single because they choose to live the single life. The person who is single because they have been unable to get married. And the person who is single because they have not yet found the right person.
Anakin Niceguy states, “We usually talk about ‘singles by choice’ or ‘singles by circumstance.’ But what do these categories convey? The first implies a group of people who embrace singleness as a preferred status, perhaps with enthusiasm. The second group implies those who would marry if they could but circumstances beyond their control prevent them from doing so. But I think a lot of single people, if not most of them, fall into a third category. They can be identified as follows:
1. They would very much like to get married (unlike ‘singles by choice’).
2. They have had opportunities to get married (unlike ‘singles by circumstance’).
3. However, they have passed up opportunities because of circumstances they deem to be unfavorable.
In other words, their singleness is due to an exercise of judgment (discretion).”
Anakin Niceguy goes on to explain that some people are not married yet because, when given the opportunity, they deem the opportunity to not be worth the cost. These people worry “that bad marriages are worse than not getting married.”
Anakin Niceguy asks, “…how should we treat singles who are not married because of judgment calls they have made?” He states, “we shouldn’t belittle them for their singleness. We should not treat them as ‘incomplete’ or as second-class citizens in a church. We should not treat them as asexual eunuchs, either; they have honorable desires that need to be acknowledged. Finally, we shouldn’t force these singles to get married, but we should help them get happily married–if that’s what they want.”
My concern is for those people who are “single by circumstance” and for those who are single because they have not yet found the right person. I do not have advice for how to get married, because I am in the same situation that they are in. What I do have is a little bit of advice for how to live when you are single.
My advice is that, since a person is not able to find a spouse, they should instead find wisdom for the time being. I know this sounds a bit old fashioned. But the book of Proverbs has many descriptions of wisdom. Most of these describe wisdom as a protector, as someone who “will watch over you.” (Proverbs 4:6.)
Wisdom should not be considered as just another thing in life one should have like a college degree. The Bible describes wisdom as something very important. “How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather than silver!” (Proverbs 16:16.)
Essentially, what I am stating is that there are some significantly wonderful things in life that exists independently of marriage. It is not to say that these things exist outside of marriage, but that you can have these things whether you are in a marriage or not in a marriage. Wisdom is one of them.
Although video games are a fun distraction, not everyone will find in them a long term fulfillment of their needs. Although having friends that you can spend time with is wonderful indeed, it sometimes gets lonely when you go home at the end of the day.
Marriage can be wonderful. But marriage is not always possible. Find your significant other in wisdom and in your understanding of God. Then you will find long term fulfillment, whether you are single or married.
I leave you with this verse: “Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you;
love her, and she will watch over you.” (Proverbs 4:6.)
Matthew5sixteen.
He humbled himself August 2, 2010
Posted by matthew5sixteen in Christianity.Tags: Christianity, church, Jesus, masculinity, men
add a comment
In an April 18, 2008 article, Brandon O’Brien of Christianity Today wrote about masculinity and how it relates to men and to the portrayal of Jesus. O’Brien critiques the “new masculinity movement” that seeks to undo the “feminization” that has occurred in the church. O’Brien proposes an approach based on the humble Jesus rather than an approach based on masculinity or femininity.
O’Brien mentions a quote from David Murrow, “The stallions hang out in bars; the geldings hang out in church.” O’Brien states, “This observation … strikes a little close to home for someone like me. I always thrived in my congregation but was never certain I fit the mold of masculinity I saw modeled around me. So as much as I resent Murrow’s sentiment, it nevertheless rings true: In many churches, a certain type of man is conspicuously absent.”
O’Brien states, “The disparity in men’s and women’s attendance in American churches has made men the target of specialized ministry over the last two decades.” He mentions Promise Keepers as an example of this type of ministry. He states, “Today a growing body of literature is leveling its sights on the church, suggesting that men are uninvolved in church life because the church doesn’t encourage authentic masculine participation.”
O’Brien mentions John Eldredge, the author of Wild at Heart, as “first writer to popularize this concern.” O’Brien states that Eldredge “lamented that the masculine spirit was at risk because ‘most men believe God put them on the earth to be good boys.’ The church’s tendency to promote discipleship as merely becoming ‘nice guys’ keeps men from embodying their God-given maleness.”
O’Brien states, “Wild at Heart sowed seeds that have sprouted as a new ‘masculinity movement’ aimed to get men into church by changing the church’s atmosphere.” O’Brien mentions David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church. O’Brien says that Murrow “founded the group Church for Men because, while the local congregation is ‘perfectly designed to reach women and older folks’—with its emphasis on comfort, nurture, and relationships—it ‘offers little to stir the masculine heart, so men find it dull and irrelevant.’”
O’Brien mentions others in this “new masculinity movement” such as Brad Stine of GodMen and Mark Driscoll of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church. O’Brien states, “In Driscoll’s opinion, the church has produced ‘a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickified church boys. … Sixty percent of Christians are chicks,’ he explains, ‘and the forty percent that are dudes are still sort of chicks.’”
O’Brien states, “The aspect of church that men find least appealing is its conception of Jesus … According to Driscoll, ‘real men’ avoid the church because it projects a ‘Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ’ that ‘is no one to live for [and] is no one to die for.’ Driscoll explains, ‘Jesus was not a long-haired … effeminate-looking dude’; rather, he had ‘callused hands and big biceps.’ This is the sort of Christ men are drawn to—what Driscoll calls ‘Ultimate Fighting Jesus.’”
O’Brien mentions Paul Coughlin, author of No More Christian Nice Guy. O’Brien states that Coughlin agrees with Driscoll’s sentiments, “The problem with the wimpy Jesus of the popular imagination is that ‘a meek and mild Jesus eventually is a bore. He doesn’t inspire us.’”
O’Brien says, “I respect what these authors are trying to accomplish.” And he goes on to explain the ways that the “masculinity movement” gets it right in regards to how the present culture has effected the church.
O’Brien states, “The movement’s method of reclaiming the radical nature of the gospel, however, poses a genuine threat to Christian discipleship. These authors see the church’s fixation on morality as part and parcel of the church’s feminization, and they suggest that the solution is to inject the church with a heavy dose of testosterone. In other words, allowing women to create Jesus in their image has emasculated him; thus, regaining a biblical image of Christ is as simple as re-masculating him.
The masculinity movement’s solution assumes that Jesus came to model genuine masculinity. The authors don’t say so explicitly, but their rhetoric assumes manly instincts are inherently godly.”
O’Brien states, “…for women and men alike, the Bible never speaks of Christians as reformed men and women, but as altogether new creations (2 Cor. 5:17). The Fall has done more damage to the human heart than the masculinity movement seems willing to admit.
…Most importantly, Scripture gives no indication that Jesus came to earth to model masculinity. He is the ‘image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation’ (Col. 1:15). As such, he is not simply the perfect male; he is the perfect human being. Through his obedience to the Father, Christ exhibited the qualities that should characterize all believers, both male and female.”
O’Brien states, “The masculinity movement would have us emulate the glorified Jesus—the one who will return on horseback and brandish the sword of judgment. That is certainly the Jesus we worship. But it is not the Jesus we are commanded to imitate. The only times Jesus appears in Scripture as a warrior are in his pre-incarnate debuts in the Old Testament and post-resurrection glory. Our model of behavior, then, is the suffering Son, not the glorified one. Humanity in the image of Christ is not aggressive and combative; it is humble and poor (Phil. 2:5). We are most like Christ not when we win a fight, but when we suffer for righteousness’ sake (Eph. 5:1-2; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:14).”
O’Brien concludes, “The way to recover the biblical image of Jesus is to submit ourselves to the Scriptures and let them discipline our preconceptions. In the process, we must remember that the purpose of discipleship is not primarily to become fulfilled men or women, but rather to be transformed into the image of Christ.”
It is difficult for me to voice my opinion in this matter. There are some well known people who are in the “new masculinity movement.” But I would have to agree with O’Brien where he says that we should not seek to emulate the masculine Jesus or the effeminate Jesus. Rather, we should pursue the Jesus that is wholly presented in the scriptures. The Jesus who was both zealous (John 2:17) and gentle (Matthew 11:29).
I am hesitant to blame the crowd that remolded Jesus into an effeminate man, just as I am hesitant to criticize those who seek to remold Jesus into a masculine man. The reason is that these people use examples from scripture to support their viewpoints. If Jesus can be described as masculine or effeminate, it is possible that this is a result of hardened cultural stereotypes. What I mean is, it is the culture that has deemed Jesus masculine or feminine. We should not allow the culture to shape scripture. We should allow scripture to shape us and our understanding of Jesus.
Perhaps the reason that fewer men than women want to go to church is not because Jesus has been feminized as much as it has to do with the possibility that the culture has such a strong grip on men. Perhaps men are reluctant to go to a church that does not conform to the manly image that the culture has presented for men. I don’t deny the possibility that the church may have become more feminized. But I wonder, if the church somehow returned to its original state, would not the present culture still consider the church to be effeminate because of the way scripture presents Jesus? “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Matthew 11:29.)
I leave you with these verses:
“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11.)
Matthew5sixteen.
