Category

Cleric Laughs

Jan 14
0

John Calvin and the Mendoza Line

By | Cleric Laughs | No Comments

Mario Mendoza was a major league baseball player whose defensive skills overshadowed his meager offensive ability.  Although Mr. Mendoza was a lifetime .215 hitter, it is generally agreed that the Mendoza Line, set at .200, is the lower limit below which a player’s presence in the big leagues cannot be justified, no matter how good his defense.

 

One of my major problems with religion in general and theology in particular is that people tend to suspend logical thought in favor of “feelings” and “what I’ve always been told.”  It occurs to me that when it comes to judging the contributions of historical figures, we need to introduce some objective standard by which they can be judged.  Why not adopt a Mendoza Line for theology, where if a figure is not batting better than .200, we don’t condone their presence on the field of theological reflection?

 

Take John Calvin, for instance.  The contributions made by John to the overthrow of medieval Roman Catholicism cannot be overrated or underappreciated.  By arguing for God’s sovereignty at the expense of all attempts to co-opt it, Calvin helped repudiate the notion that participation in indulgences, masses, pilgrimages and the like could somehow sway God and purchase salvation.  For this we should be grateful.  His followers, as is often the case after the death of a principal, have taken his already alarming ideas to even more distressing levels.  The Synod of Dort, in 1618-9, gave rise to the five articles of Calvinism, captured by the acrostic TULIP.  T stands for the total depravity of man, U for unconditional election, L for limited atonement, I for the irresistibility of grace, and P for the perseverance of the saints.  Together the five have become the Shibboleth of the Protestant churches, and anyone who questions them is excoriated as “Arminian.”

 

So, briefly, how is Calvin, or at least “Calvinism,” doing?

 

Total depravity I get, sort of.  This is the idea that, as Paul says, “I know that nothing good lives in me…”  (Romans 7:18a)  Pelagius was rightly ostracized for saying that although the Holy Spirit helps, it is still possible for us to obey God and his law through our own will power.  Anybody who has tried to obey will quickly realize that what we need is not repair but replacement.  If it is good, it has to be from God, for as Jesus says, “There is only One who is good.”  ( Matthew 19:17)  To the extent that I do anything good, it is not I who do it, but Christ who lives in me.  (Galatians 2:20)  On the other hand, we can still know good, even though we can’t do it.  Paul said, “For in my inner being, I I delight in God’s law;” and “For what I do is not the good I want to do…”  So we can have knowledge, we can have proper intent, but in execution we fall short.  So a distinction needs to be made, as Richard Hooker did, between conscience, which is not fallen, and ability, which is.  Not total depravity, but partial depravity.  So far, half a point.

 

Now, about unconditional election.  This is the notion that individuals are chosen for salvation, without regard to the will or actions of that person.  Now in hindsight, you might have a point, where is can be said that a God who is outside of time can “know” what the future holds, but that is terminological inexactitude, to quote Churchill.  We are bound by the fourth dimension, and it is useless, if not outright dangerous, to venture into the mind of God in terms of what he “knows.”  The fact is, election is a poorly understood term in the Bible, and particularly for those who hail from the Western or Greek school of thought.  Where in the Bible does election refer to an individual?  Even when Paul uses Jacob and Esau as examples, they are but exemplars of those who submit to a wider divine plan of salvation and those who do not. (Romans 9:13)  When do Paul and Peter rev up the talk about election and predestination, if not when talking to Gentiles about the “mystery of God,” his plan to include Jew and Gentile in one people?  They are arguing that salvation is not something that is limited on the basis of genetics, but that is open to all who, like Jacob, submit to God’s plan for justifying and sanctifying a sinful and rebellious humanity.  So on this count, Calvin whiffs.  He’s now one for two.

 

Now, let’s look at perhaps the most pernicious tenet of all, that of limited atonement.  This is the idea that the cross of Christ is limited in its power to justify some individuals, but not all.  What treachery!  Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus only died for some?  I thought it said he died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2,) and that it is God’s will that ALL men come to know the truth and find salvation. (1 Timothy 2:3)  The basis for this appalling conclusion is the wrong notion of how God saves.  Paul, to his eternal credit, makes a distinction between justification and salvation. (Romans 5:9.10, I Timothy 4:10b)  All, says Paul, are justified by the cross.  That is, there is nothing limited about atonement.  What is limited, and this is where people get confused, is the latter event, that of salvation.  We are not lost until we’re saved, we’re justified until we’re lost.  God nowhere condemns on account of original sin, or sins he “foresees.”  What happens is that if those who are justified by the cross of Christ continue to live according to the flesh and do not take advantage of the necessary life of the Spirit, they are disqualified from the salvation from the “coming wrath” to which Paul refers in his letters. (Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians)  Although it looks like the atonement of the cross is limited, it is not.  There is no limit to the power of the blood of Christ!  What is limited is the willingness of people to be honest with God about their own limitations (See Total Depravity of Man) and ask for help in the person of the Holy Spirit.  We are not “saved” because of anything we do, we are “saved” when we stop doing something: protesting our innocence and challenging God’s moral rectitude.  Another swing and a miss for Calvin.

 

So, number four, irresistibility of grace.  This is the flip side of unconditional election, and as such, suffers from the same theological and logical defects.  Here we have the belief that a person, chosen by God and therefore elect, cannot resist the ministry of the Holy Spirit and sin.  Hogwash!  I do this every day, and know in detail how easy this is to do!  The Holy Spirit is a person, and a gentleman at that.  He doesn’t insist on getting his way.  Like any discreet guest, he offers his help, and if refused with any consistency, he simply decamps until such time as our attitude changes and we re-extend an invitation to him.  What Paul argues in the whole of his testimony is that it is possible, indeed common, for people, even Christians, to resist God’s grace.  Is this not what the Jews who killed Stephen were guilty of, and do not James and Peter both urge us to resist the enemy?  Does our will, as polluted as it is, not count for something?  Is God totally arbitrary, or does he not seek after men and women after his own heart, like David, who kept God’s commands and (often) did what was right?  Again, in the final analysis, I suppose it’s possible to say that after a person dies, God’s grace prevailed in a life and has had His way.  Fine.  But the testimony of Scripture and the example of human experience suggests that man has one problem and one problem only, that he tends to resist God’s grace to be in actuality what he is, since Good Friday, legally.  Another strikeout for John, and there’s still another matter to consider.

 

The final contention of the Synod of Dort was that the saints would persevere.  This is also a modification of an earlier tenet, that of the irresistibility of grace.  Put another way, we have the contention that “once saved, always saved.”  Although this is a specious argument whose popularity is widespread, it is patently untrue.  To repeat, our problem is not that something goes wrong with our justification by the blood of Christ.  This is a standing fact that is, in the words of Donald Bloesch, “independent of our belief or response.”  The problem arises when we, like the seed that falls on the path or in suspect soil, fail to allow the Holy Spirit to come in and do through us what we cannot do on our own.  Thus, we fail to abide where the blood of Christ has put us, and are cut off and burned as unfruitful vines.  We recommit Adam’s sin of deciding for ourselves what is right and wrong, and thereby disobey the injunction of the Bible that we be honest and ask for help.  Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the only unforgiveable sin, as it consists of resisting the testimony of God, the Bible, which was written by the Holy Spirit.  Do saints fail to persevere?  All the time.  In a very real way, all are saints at birth, and the masses who fail to abide in Christ do not lose their salvation as much as they lose the benefits of justification; a very different thing.

 

So Calvin has been coming to the plate for almost 500 years, and four and a half out of five times he has failed to get on base.  No walks, even.  Let’s go back to Mario Mendoza.  Here’s a man who was great on defense, but couldn’t hit a lick.  He became the personification of offensive ineptitude, and has given his name to the measure of that unfortunate reality.  If we ditch a player because of this offensive liability in baseball, shouldn’t we also have a standard in theology?  According to this brief and cursory analysis of Calvinism, he’s at the Mendoza Line, batting one half out of five!  Although we appreciate his defense against Rome, we can’t put up with his misleading and hurtful performance at the plate.  What he offers is worse than what he got rid of.  Time to trade for a better player, one who can give us consistent, reliable production, so that we can get this Christian team on its way to victory.

 

Dec 31
0

A Guide to the Curious: What’s My Social Class?

By | Cleric Laughs | No Comments

According to De Toqueville, one of the great advances made by the United States over the societies of Europe was the abolition of class distinctions based merely upon accidents of birth or wealth. Our man Alexis pointed out that Americans, unhindered by such detritus from the past, tend to greater flexibility, civility, and general ease than our stuffy forebears. This is no doubt true, and many a person has benefited from being able to rise in society unhindered by arbitrary prejudices. It can also be argued, however, that the eradication of all social class distinctions has left Americans in something of a cultural vacuum. Without class distinctions it’s difficult to avoid making mistakes in friendships, business associations, and especially marriage! Thus, an attempt is in order to try to resurrect at least a skeletal class paradigm that can help us navigate the treacherous waters of social intercourse without running hopelessly aground.

A word about political rectitude: isn’t it political blasphemy to talk of social distinctions? Isn’t this an attempt to breath life back into a corpse better left dead? By no means! The problem with Old World schemes was not that they made distinctions between people, but that they made distinctions in an arbitrary and subjective way. Let’s see if we can talk about behavior while remaining fair and objective.

The first step is to give yourself 1,000 points as a starting point. This reflects the assumption that as we are born, we are perfect in God’s eyes, a la Psalm 139. Step two is to take your clothes off and stand in front of a full-length mirror. Step three is to review the following guidelines, look at yourself, and then subtract points on the basis of what you see. What could be easier? Let’s get started!

Tattoos – Leviticus 19:28

Are there any tattoos anywhere on your body? If so, deduct 25 points for each rendering. If you have a tattoo, and it’s misspelled, or refers to somebody you’re no longer related to, subtract an additional 25 points for each occurrence.

 

Body Piercings – Job 40:24

Do you have any holes in your body you didn’t have when you were born? If you are a man, subtract 10 points for each extra hole. If you are a woman, and you’re old enough to drive, you get two holes for free, if they’re in your ear lobe. Any other holes, anywhere else, and you must deduct 10 points for each. If there’s a hole in your tongue or your private parts, then take off 100 points for each, because there’s obviously a hole in your head as well.

 

Facial Hair – Leviticus 19:27

If you are a woman and you have facial hair, subtract 50 points.

If you are a man, and have any facial hair, subtract points according to the following table:

[table id=1 /]

Hair – 1 Timothy 2:9

If you are a man, deduct points according to the following table:

[table id=2 /]

If you are a woman, deduct points according to the following table:

[table id=3 /]

Make-up -Jeremiah 4:30

If you are a man and use any make-up whatsoever, deduct 200 points

If you are a woman, subtract points according to the following table:

[table id=4 /]

Jewelry –1 Peter 3:3

If you are a man, you’re entitled to one ring on each hand, assuming one is related to marriage and the other education or profession. You may also have a cross on a chain around your neck, the smaller the better. All other accoutrements require a 20 point deduction. Handcuffs are not jewelry, and impose a 200 point penalty. If you are a woman, you’re entitled to a wedding band, a cross on a chain around the neck, and two earrings, one on each ear. All other items require a 15 point deduction. If you are pregnant and do not have the wedding band, then deduct 500 points.

 

Body Shape – Jeremiah 5:27

If you are a man and can’t see your penis when you look down, subtract 100 points. If you are a woman and you can’t read the scale when you look down, subtract 100 points. If either gender has had a face lift, subtract 100 points. If either gender has had a boob job, subtract 200 points. If you’ve had a sex change operation, subtract 1,000 points.

 

Dental – Psalm 3:7

>Open your mouth. Subtract 20 points for any missing tooth apart from wisdom teeth. Subtract 100 points if your teeth are not white due to tobacco use. Subtract 15 points if your teeth are not white because you are British. Subtract 50 points if you needed braces and never got them. Close your mouth, put your clothes on, and sit down.

Wasn’t that fun? The beauty of it is that it’s totally fair and totally objective. You’re never penalized for something you didn’t do to yourself, and there’s no fudging on account of cultural norms. It’s all based on the Bible, so it’s got to be correct! Now, add up your deductions, and compare your score with the following classes:

Score Class Remarks

[table id=5 /]
Dec 31
0

How to Pick a Church – The Game

By | Cleric Laughs | No Comments

“In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.” I Cor 11:17

We all know that you should choose a church based on important things like, is it close, is the building nice, and most importantly, is the minister good-looking? Assuming success on those scores, however, there are still important factors that set churches apart. Now, for the first time, you have before you a scientific, tried and tested system for separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to where you spend Sunday morning.

The first serious question the potential church goer must answer about a church is this: do they believe anything? More particularly, do they believe in a plain sense reading of the Bible? If not, they are liberal, and they figure God’s changed his mind. If they believe we still live in a moral universe, they are conservative and okay. How do you know the difference? Ask this one question: “What do you think about ordaining practicing homosexuals?” If they’re for it, subtract 25 points. If they’re against it, add 25 points. If the minister is a practicing homosexual theirself, subtract 50 points.

If they believe heterosexual relations within Holy Matrimony are the norm, then you turn to the second question: do they have a brain? Belief and brains have often been construed as incompatible, so be prepared for disappointment. First, stand outside and look at the building. If they have a sign with pathetic religious aphorisms on it, subtract 10 points. If it lists service times only, add 10 points. Next, go inside and take a look at the minister’s wife’s hair. If it’s piled up higher than physics should allow, subtract five points. Look at his; if it’s a comb-over, subtract 5 points. Then look at the plants around the altar/pulpit. If artificial, subtract 5 points. If cut but real, add five points. If real and alive, add 10 points. Then, listen to the minister talk. If he has a hillbilly accent, subtract 5 points. If he chews gum while talking, subtract five points. If he walks around with a microphone, subtract five points. If he uses a microphone while baptizing by immersion, subtract 10 points. If he wears a blue suit, subtract 5 points. If the sermon’s longer than 20 minutes, subtract one point per minute. If prayers are invoked with “God, we just…” or says God is “awesome,” then subtract a point for each violation. Ditto with grammatical errors such as using “me” in the nominative case, using “lay” instead of “lie,” and ever saying “myself.” If they use the King James Bible, subtract 10 points. If they use the NASB, add 10 points. If they use the Scofield Reference, Ryrie Study or Dake’s Annotated Bibles, leave immediately; the game’s over. If the sermon invites you to get saved, subtract 15 points. If the sermon attempts to apply Biblical principles of behavior to modern problems, add 100 points.

If the score’s somewhere around zero or above, continue to the last phase, which involves sitting through the service. Use this time to study what is said and done that would indicate the church’s attitude toward the Holy Spirit. If they believe He last spoke before the Reformation, subtract 50 points. If they think He last spoke through Martin Luther or Thomas Cranmer, add 25 points. If they think He was at the Synod of Dort more than 20% of the time, subtract 75 points. If they think He only speaks today and everything in the past is junk, subtract 25 points. If the minister’s read Rick Warren’s books, add 10 points. If the minister’s name is Rick Warren, add 50 points. If the minister prays, add 1 point. If the people pray, add 25 points. If the people pray that their enemies would be exposed to temporal defeat to achieve eternal gain, add 100 points. If the service is over 70 minutes long, subtract a point for each minute.

There you have it. If the score’s below 0 and you want to go, you had better believe in Eternal Security. If the score’s between 0 and 75, you can go and not be damned immediately. If it’s above 75, the minister may actually be a Christian who listens to God. Put money in the plate and pray for the place. You win.

Dec 31
0

A Christian Woman’s Guide to Picking a Man

By | Cleric Laughs | No Comments

The Problem

&nbsp

Being the emotionally sensitive man that I am, it has only taken me 18 years of work in the ministry to detect an undercurrent of dissatisfaction amongst women regarding the quality of the men they have become allied with. Surprisingly, many of the gents who arouse this ire are themselves, at least in their own estimate, Christians. When I hear the stories of sin, bad judgment and outright stupidity women have had to endure, I have to ask myself, how did these women end up with these losers? Didn’t they at some point have a chance to say “no?” Was there no warning?  Whether early in the game or late, our society does in fact give women the chance to say “no.” Whether in response to the question, “Hey baby, can I buy you a drink?” or “Will you marry me?” we grant women the all-important opportunity to decline. The problem, then, must be that women don’t have a proper understanding of what criteria must be met before that “no” becomes a “yes.” This, then, is a guide intended to fill the void, a comprehensive and Biblically-based guide for how a woman, especially a Christian one, should go about separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to men.

 

Men are simple creatures, and so a discussion of them can and should be kept simple as well. Men have two needs, food and sex, and with divine symmetry, they also have two functions in the family. Paul, in his famous passage in Ephesians chapter five, says that men should treat women the way they treat their own bodies, by 1) feeding them and 2) caring for them. At the risk of being branded a quisling to the XY faction, I will now describe what a latent wife-feeder might look like. Part II of the Guide will explore if he is also capable of caring for you. In a penultimate essay I will prescribe a list of do’s and don’ts for locating a man, and then Part IV will conclude with The Great Secret: how to land the catch.

 

Today: Can He Feed Me?

 

Let’s start with a man’s first obligation: feeding a wife. This complex task is accomplished through an activity many men find abhorrent: finding and keeping a job. Thus, the first question you should ask a male candidate while you are out trolling is this: “What do you do for a living?” If the answer is, “I am in between jobs”…”I’m a freelance (insert lame job here)” or “I design web pages,” smile and say, “What a wonderful career” and head for the door. Assuming they have a job, which actually pays something, your next question should be designed to ferret out just what kind of job it is.

 

The problem here is that all jobs are not created equal. Society rewards those who have skills it needs by paying them in proportion to that need. Thus, society doesn’t need unskilled labor much, and so it doesn’t pay those people a lot.  Witness most clergy. It does need those with real talent and dedication, however, and so it tends to pay doctors and basketball stars a lot more.  What’s important here is that the job at least have the potential to pay well, preferably with a salary. A salary means an amount paid, rain or shine, each year, to get the job done.  Hourly wages don’t pay when you’re sick or on vacation, and hourly wage jobs usually don’t have any fringe benefits like health or life insurance or pensions.  These things may seem trivial now, but unless you have them, your marriage is likely to be a financial rodeo. And what makes a man attractive, actually, if not this ability to bring home the bacon?  Look at Anna Nicole Smith. She obviously doesn’t care what a man looks like, or how well he dances. Her motto is, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.”  Sure she’s a mercenary, but she’s also proof women can overlook a lot if there’s a promise of financial security  We live in a world of scarcity, and society actively punishes those who have not taken steps early on in life to gain marketable skills.

 

And this brings us to the corollary matter of education. You see, the guy can only advance in his chosen field of endeavor to the extent that he knows what he’s doing. This means education beyond junior high, girls. There was a time when a high school diploma meant the key to success; but those days are deader than disco. Today, you’ve absolutely got to have something more in your holster than reading, writing and ‘rithmetic. There are exceptions to this rule of being educated, however. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to write DOS, but last I heard, this is not the norm. Date the good-looking guy who cleans your swimming pool and you may have fun for a season, but in the end, he’ll never earn a decent salary. If you want a man who can bring home the dollars, then by all means go after the class nerd who’s already written a program to combat spam and who’s three months away from being a millionaire.  Drop the idea that you care about what a guy looks like, or what kind of moves he has.  All that is crap.  What counts first and foremost is simply this: can he make enough money so that you don’t have to work and life’s not one on-going financial battle? Somebody’s got to be refreshed come evening time, when the real work of living starts.

 

 

Next Issue: Can He Care For Me?

Part II: Can He Care for Me?

 

 

In Part I of the Guide, I revealed the sine qua non of picking a man, that he possess a useful skill. That, in turn, usually means education. I don’t want to subscribe to a crude economic determinism, but without a real career, a man’s just a drag on his family. Besides, when a man’s educated, he learns more about the larger world, and can actually, believe it or not, develop some sensibilities which have a nice domestic touch. Imagine, if you will, a man who can actually read books with big words in them and no pictures (like the Bible,) listen to spoken addresses (like sermons,) and actually see tomorrow’s implications for today’s actions. A famous sociologist has said that the only real difference between the social classes is that upper class people can think about tomorrow, while lower class people cannot. Staying in school to get an education or at least some sort of valid trade skill is a prerequisite for being a good husband and father, which is a pretty good definition of what it means to have class.

 

That said, what about the second function men are to perform for women, the “caring” for a wife? I know that using the words “man” and “caring” in the same sentence is to invite scorn and disbelief, but indulge me for the moment. The fact is, women are physically weaker than men, and need to be protected from things that will do them harm, such as other stupid men, cars with flat tires, jars that won’t open, taxes and bill-paying. Women can do just about anything if they put their mind to it, but that doesn’t mean they should. It’s not about ability, but about manners. Emily Post says manners are the art of making people feel comfortable, and a man can actually make a woman feel good on occasion if he’ll take over some basic responsibilities.

 

Simply put, the man you are looking for will make sure you do not have to be afraid of the predations of other men or machines. He will say nice things about you to his friends, he will oppose those who give you trouble, and he will know how to do simple mechanical procedures so that you will not have to. He will change the oil in your car, check on the pressure in the tires, he will wash the thing and empty his beer cans out of the back seat if the kids need to go along. He will know how to drive a stick and help you to learn to do so as well. He will know how to set up the VCR to tape Access Hollywood, ER and American Idol for you, even when he doesn’t want to watch them himself.  He will do the taxes, balance the checkbook, have a family budget and work with you to keep shoe acquisitions in line with income. He will not have dippy habits like golf, gambling, drinking to excess or anything else which hurt his ability to earn or manage money. He will mow the lawn, clean the gutters, and fix appliances when necessary without calling the repairman.

 

Finally, a man should protect his wife from the most dangerous thing of all, your own children.  No man worthy of the name will shirk his responsibility of disciplining the children.  He will believe in corporal punishment, while being able to distinguish between honest mistakes, fatigue and outright rebellion on the part of the child. Such a father makes sure that the kids are secure within limits, so that his wife can be a mother and not a monster. God has ordained that in order to make kids, you need a mother and father.  It is His plan that the dude stick around and deal with the fruit of his fun.  Every family needs a parent to minister justice, and one to minister grace.  This is to reflect Jesus’ dual role as Savior and Lord.  How you divide up the work is up to you, but it can’t be done right without a man around.

 

Next Issue: The Yeti, The Unicorn, and the Desirable Man

Part III: The Yeti, The Unicorn, and the Desirable Man

 

 

By now you’re no doubt saying, “Such men exist only in The Princess Bride and other fairy tales.” Not so. There are actually good men out there, but unfortunately, they’re hiding.  Hunted to near extinction within the Church, many have sought refuge in other habitats where they can live in peace. Your job, ladies, is to go and find them. As I’ve already hinted, your first move might be to stop looking in church at all. I will go so far as to say that many of the character traits you want in a man; a love of truth, a penchant for honesty and fair play, a sense of humor and a brain may prove incompatible with church attendance. Face it, many churches are so often dull, religious, hypocritical and downright incorrect in what they believe and teach that they’re not worth the lightning God could use to destroy them.  So step number one is to stop looking for the guy who’s already converted. It’s easier to make a man a Christian than to make a Christian a man, if you know what I mean. This doesn’t mean you should engage in missionary dating to the extent that you deny your moral stance.  It simply means that the revelation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ can dawn upon a man in an instant, while the necessary preparations that make him a suitable life partner take years and years, with or without the accoutrements of religion. You can find unattached straight men in church, but be prepared for Islamic levels of repression, stultified love-making, and a generalized candy-assed approach to life.

 

So if they’re often not in church, then where are they?  God made men to be fighters, in part so they can protect their women-folk.  To a great extent, however, modern society has robbed men of their opportunities to prove themselves in conflict. Real men will, if given the chance, find other avenues for releasing the aggression and competitiveness God has instilled in them.  This is the explanation of all the “extreme” sports and diversions that are gaining popularity. Thus, instead of going to a singles Bible study where the “men” are hopelessly picked over, think of hobbies, cultural activities and recreation that you can relate to where real men might be found and hunted. Don’t worry that rock climbing, mountaineering, auto racing, skiing and scuba diving are dangerous; worry that you might marry some poltroon who doesn’t see the challenge in such things. Besides, that’s why God invented life insurance.

 

So not only are Christian girls looking in the wrong places, they’re erecting qualifications which may sound spiritual, but which are in fact unbiblical. For starters, don’t faint if the guy drinks a little. Now if he drinks wine coolers, Zema or bourbon of any brand, beware, as the devil has hold of his soul.  Beer and single malt scotch, however, represent what God intended barley to be used for.  At least, that’s what Friar Tuck would have us believe.  Ben Franklin said that beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy, and I agree.  Wine, too, unadulterated, makes man’s heart glad, and Jesus made 180 gallons of the stuff, for crying out loud. The Bible rightly inveighs against drunkenness, but it endorses reasonable drinking. If you want a man, don’t hurt the odds by being so religious.

 

What I’m driving at is that you want a man, not a mere male. He needs to be able to roust himself to face and meet any challenge in a creative manner and to bring about a positive outcome. If he can solve problems in his vocation and avocations, he can also bring those skills to bear upon problems on the home front. Don’t worry that he be part of your particular religious clique, worry that he’s honest in all his dealings and knows and follows the Golden Rule. That’s all God cares about, and so should you.

 

Next Issue: How to Land the Catch

Part IV: How to Land the Catch

 

 

Women can usually keep their heads and show pretty good judgment when dealing with men as an abstraction. Where trouble usually comes in is when they have somebody on the line who actually seems to be one “who will do.” Threats abound: other women, bad living situations, financial pressures, and worst of all, the dreaded biological clock. The temptation is to resort to chicanery or outright treachery to stand out from the crowd and get the man to propose.

 

Prudence requires that the first words of guidance on this topic be clear and unequivocal. If you want God’s help at all, you can’t use the devil’s techniques. This means you absolutely cannot engage in shortcuts in order to “help” God find you the proper spouse.  This means you must carefully avoid all of the following techniques which may work in the short run but not in the long.

 

1) Having sexual contact of any sort with the guy before you’re married. If he’s a man of quality, your chastity will increase your desirability, not decrease it.  The gentleman won’t even try to hustle you. If you think sex will help, read 2 Samuel chapter 13 on how sex changes a man’s feelings. Not only does premarital sex offend God and hurt your chances for enjoying sex in marriage for the rest of your living days, it tends to lock you into a choice which passing time may suggest is wrong. Never invest in a guy to the point that you can’t, up until you’re at the altar, say, “I’ve changed my mind.”

 

2) Splitting up an existing marriage by luring the husband away. If he’ll do it to her, he’ll do it to you too. See Malachi chapter 2 for God’s view of divorce. Retreads make bad tires, too. A man’s attitude toward his vows is paramount. Vows are to God, and does this man have the potential to fear God? Put another way, does he fear and respect those authority structures through which God already works?  What does he make of his parents, his teachers, the boss, the police, the IRS and the President? If he can’t submit to God’s agents, what makes you think he’s going to submit to you when God speaks to him through you?  You see, a woman finds peace and fulfillment not when she’s in charge, but when she’s taken care of in every way.  As for all people, male and female, the point is not to be in the top position, but in the proper position. Passion for a woman is tied to letting go, not taking over. Thus, if you want a man you can trust in important matters, he’s got to be somebody who is himself under authority. To the extent that he keeps his vows and is accountable to higher ups, you can lose yourself to his advances, be they practical, romantic, sexual or spiritual.

 

3) Lowering your standards because he’s the only game in town. Our God is a God of excellence and not compromise. Now all men are, to one degree or another, a “work in progress.” When God made you a helpmeet, he was pointing out that men do need help. But women have needs too, and only a real man can meet those needs. Don’t rush into marriage, and you won’t be subject to the curse of Genesis 3. Bill Gothard used to paraphrase the last part of verse 16 with the words, “You’ll try to control your husband, but he won’t let you.” For goodness’ sake, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You may get the creep to dress better, but you’ll never alter his basic DNA. What you see is, for better or worse, basically what you’ll get.

 

And this brings us to The Great Secret. In addition to avoiding doing dumb things, there is something positive you can do to get the guy to propose. What you do is pray to God, and give Him permission to choose for you.  Don’t go and say, I want this or that one, but rather, give God a list of specifics about what you want, and let Him find the guy who fills those requirements. I’m not advocating an attitude of “Give me anybody.” I’m saying that your prayers should be specific in terms of qualities, but vague in terms of names. When you ask for just old anybody, you dishonor God and imply He doesn’t care or can’t produce. When you get specific and picky, however, you suggest that He’s in fact all-knowing and almighty. All this takes time, as men may take awhile to obey God’s prompting. But if you remember that He’s the one who gave you these needs in the first place, you should be able to trust Him to meet them as well. Most women fail not because they ask too much and become spinsters; most women fail because they ask too little and marry before God tells them to.

 

So ladies, repeat after me, “No, thank you.” These are the most important words you can ever speak when confronted with the advances of the Homo Sapien male. Whatever you do, do it from faith, because otherwise it’s sin. If men were challenged to get their acts together before women would cooperate with them, they might actually become the useful, domesticated creatures God intended them to be when he made them for Himself, and by way of gift, for you.

 

 

The Rev. Robert McLeod is the author of Everything You Know is Wrong: The Case for a New Reformation.  It is published by Fenestra Publishers, Tucson, Arizona.