Divorce is Bad... mmmm kay?

Divorce is a terrible thing. I'm talking about what is called "putting away" in the King James Bible. Under the Law, there is no provision for a woman to "put away" her husband. Putting away, in the law, refers to a man deciding to no longer treat his wife as a wife. He denies her food, shelter or the marriage bed. Under those circumstances, the man must grant his wife a bill of divorce so that she is then free to live on her own, to return to her father's house or to marry another man without being charged with adultery.

Modernly, both men and women put away their spouses and we commonly refer to this as divorce, based upon the legal implications. I'll repeat my opening statement here: Divorce is a terrible thing. Divorce is putting asunder what God has joined and Jesus warned us not to do it. Unfortunately, it is pretty common today. This wouldn't be so distressing to me except that it occurs within the church nearly as often as it does outside the church. My dear brethen, this ought not to be.

I've seen the statistic that two-thirds of divorces in the U.S. are initiated by the wife. I don't have any reason to dispute that fact. What is even more disgusting than the fact so many women are willing to openly blow up their families and cause harm to the their children because they are not haaaaaaaapppy is there are even more women who are looking for the chance to do the same. There are women, even Christian women, who are privately hoping their husbands will have an affair so they can have an excuse to divorce them. And some do even more than merely hope, they scheme and behave in ways that will encourage a husband to have an affair. For example, withholding sex with the hopes that their husbands will either divorce them or have an affair.

I won't go into detail about it but I encourage you to read what Dalrock wrote about it here.

Interestingly, right after I read Dalrock's post I was directed to this article at the Huffington Post titled 5 Reasons You Should Have Sex With Your Husband Every Night. It was a perfectly reasonable admonition written for women who really want to have happy husbands and good marriages. The comments were somewhat predictable. There were the feminists who objected to the idea of a woman trying to make a husband happy. There were the naysayers pointing out that men were supportive in the comments because men are predictably all about sex.  What was a bit surprising to me were the number of women who admitted in the comments that they don't want to have sex with their husbands and don't intend to do it, no matter if it makes him miserable. And one of them said something like, "I've told my husband he isn't going to get it here, so he should just go have an affair and then come tell me about it."

Apparently women, themselves, admit they withhold sex and want their husbands to have affairs. What she didn't admit, but which is to be assumed, is if her husband actually followed her advice, she would be filing for divorce faster than a rabbit running from hoe-wielding gardener, on her way to collecting cash and prizes. And, of course, her husband gets to be the bad guy.

I know of a woman who claims to be a Christian that went so far as to press charges against her husband for raping her. After he went to prison, she was able to quickly get her divorce and sole custody. Who can be against a woman whose ex-husband is a convicted rapist, right? Never mind that the alleged "victim" lived with him, shared a bed with him and didn't bother to move out after the first so-called rape. She stayed until "it" happened 3 times. So, since they are one flesh, I guess he also raped himself? What is marriage if it isn't de facto consent to a sexual relationship? But she just couldn't bring herself to divorce him when she had decided not to have sex with him anymore? She had to wait until she had deprived him and provoked him to the point that he did something not approved by the state? She had to destroy his life to get what she wanted? Apparently, yes, because otherwise SHE would be held morally responsible for the divorce in the eyes of the church. This way, she is the victim. Too bad he didn't just go have an affair. It would have turned out better for him.

Lest anyone would believe that I always assume the woman is responsible in a divorce, that is not the case. It is the case more often than not, but it isn't always the case. In the same manner, I believe that divorced women tend to be pariahs in the church, but I know that isn't true with all of them. A divorced woman is usually a danger to be avoided by a man looking for a wife, but sometimes she is a gem.

I wish the church would do more to discipline those who frivorce. (frivolous divorce) their spouses. I wish that Christians would be more outspoken about the damage divorce causes to children. I wish that people would direct their outrage at those who spread the disease of divorce in the church rather than at those who express their disgust with divorcers. I was accused of being mean for referring to the child of an unwed mother as a "bastard", but was the mother accused of being mean for bringing a child into the world who doesn't get to have a father living in his house? Her choice is ok, but me pointing out her choice is mean? Which of us does more damage to the child? When she starts caring about the welfare of her spawn, I may care also. Until she does, don't direct your attacks at me. I'm just a by-stander who will probably be asked to contribute to the care of said child because compassion.

In conclusion, God hates divorce. God does not like the perpetuation of bastardy. God intends for sex and procreation to occur within the context of marriage and He intends for the marriages to be life-long. That is God's program. Please get with the program or stop saying you are a disciple of Christ.

Suicide is Sinful

I probably don't need to tell anyone that the Hollywood actor Robin Williams killed himself this week at the age of 63. We are told that he suffered from clinical depression. Many have rushed to announce that he is now "at peace" and "no longer in pain." I beg to differ.

In death he is not a celebrity. In death he stands in judgment, as we all will.

Depression does not cause suicide. Suicide is a choice. If he had killed another person (homicide) would we be blaming his "mental illness" and saying he couldn't help it? Of course not. The man who kills himself does not fear God. He does not fear the Law-giver who said, "Thou shalt not kill."

I do not pretend to know what Robin Williams is facing now, whether he is in paradise or whether he is burning in the fires of hell. But I do know this, his fate is not dependent upon his fame or wealth. His fate, like the rest of our fates, is entirely dependent upon whether his sins are covered by the blood of Christ.

My sympathies do not go to the murderer who took his own life. I'm sorry for the ones who suffer in the aftermath of his evil deed.

Foreskins For Sale

I am opposed to infant circumcision for a myriad of reasons. As a Christian, I don't believe there is a Biblical imperative to circumcise our sons. Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant as circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant. See Galatians 5 and Colossians 2:11-12.

Even if you believe that God commands you to circumcise your son, modern medical circumcision is nothing like what was meant by the Hebrew word which we translate as "circumcise." If modern medical circumcision refers to any procedure different than what God commanded, then NO ONE is obligated to do that to his son, even if a man believes he is commanded to circumcise. Medical circumcision is a barbaric mutilation which changes the structure and function of the penis. It is no more "Biblical" than if the entire penis was removed. And when the medical community starts applying the word "circumcision" to a procedure which amputates the entire penis, will Christians still be paying doctors to do it to their sons? Honestly, if you are unfamiliar with how a circumcision is performed, don't bother getting into the discussion at all. You are unqualified to discuss it. Educate yourself before you start handing over your sons to people who don't care a wit about your faith or religious practice but are more than happy to take your money.

Speaking of money, did you ever wonder what happens to all of those foreskins? I didn't until a couple of days ago. I just assumed they were thrown out as medical waste. I am such a dupe! A commenter on another blog led me to this Google search result: https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=neonatal+fibroblast&gws_rd=ssl  I did not know that foreskins are called "neonatal fibroblasts." Did you? I did not know that they are actually a commodity from which hospitals and medical technology corporations make money. While parents are forbidden by law from selling the foreskins of their sons, hospitals are not. These companies even have the audacity to refer to the baby boys as "donors." Seriously. This is disgusting.

What did I learn from going to some of the links listed in the above search results?  One company called ATCC will sell 1 ml of "fibroblasts" for $49. Life Technologies sells 1 vial of "Human Dermal Fibroblasts, neonatal" which is guaranteed to contain at least 500,000 cells for $371.00. Advanced BioMatrix sells a 1 ml vial for $295 and they guarantee 1.5 million viable cells per vial.  Life Map Discovery,  gave the following insight about the commercial use of human foreskins:

Human neonatal dermal fibroblasts are isolated from newborn foreskins (surgically discarded after circumcision). A single donor foreskin provides sufficient cells to produce 250,000 square feet of complete Dermagraft tissue.

Well, I'll be jiggered! A single "donor" foreskin contributes to 250,000 square feet of their product. The donors must be so proud... oh, wait, the "donors" had no idea they donated their body parts for someone else to sell.

Parents, please do not have your sons circumcised. If you believe they must be circumcised, do it yourself or have someone do it who is skilled with a knife. Don't let the medical establishment harvest body parts from your children. It is evil.

Normalize Open Breast Feeding

As with sex in marriage, Christians really ought to own the issue of breastfeeding. We should be the most informed, the most accepting, the most encouraging and we ought to have the least number of hang-ups about feeding a child at the breast than any other group of people on the planet. "Why," you ask? Because we know the Creator. We know the Designer. We know that everything He designed and created was very good. Breast feeding is not some embarrassing part of our family history that needs to be covered up and excused. We don't have to apologize for God having put the life-giving nutrients in the breasts of women which must needs be extracted by children by way of nipples. There, I said it. Nipples. I said it again. Does that make you uncomfortable? Would you prefer that I said "teets?" How about "tits?" Why, exactly, does this make us squirm?

Does it bother us just because it doesn't bother hippies and Hollywood types? I'll be the first to admit that if some Hollywood starlet is endorsing something, I pause to consider whether I'm on the right track if I happen to agree with her. Here is one example I saw this morning

As you can see, this comes from Glamour magazine. This woman (I never heard of her), Olivia Wilde, was photographed breast feeding her baby in a restaurant. It is a posed shot. She said that she wanted to include this in the magazine story about her because being a mother is such an important part of her identity. I say, "Good for her." Secretly, I hope that lots of women see this and will feel more confident about breast feeding their own children. Perhaps they will think, "See, she is sexy and famous, and she does it. I can, too." But beyond breast feeding, I have very little in common with this mother and I actively oppose the civilization-destroying beliefs that she espouses in the article. I don't want her to be the poster child for breast feeding, for mothering, or any other important aspect of Western Civilization.

How can a person be so right about one subject and be so wrong about everything else? I hate to say it, but even a blind hog finds a truffle once in awhile. Here is what she has to say about why she hasn't yet married her bastard child's father:

"We're engaged, but no specific plans yet — we just have to find the time to put it together," she said. "In many ways, a child is more of a commitment. We are fully committed and really happy as a family. And there's no definition of the 'normal family' anymore. Kids today are growing up with so many different definitions of family. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't feel any pressure to do it. But I think it will be really fun."

So, marriage is for when they "find the time to put it together" and she thinks "it will be really fun." I believe she has confused a wedding with a marriage. She exalts illegitimate parenthood to a position higher than marriage by saying that a "child is more of a commitment." Families are not built on the foundation of having children, any savage can pump out babies. Families are built upon the foundation of marriages, and families ARE the foundation of civilizations.  She is also extremely proud that she won't be sacrificing her career now that she is a mother. Of course not. What, with all those nannies and stuff, she is just like all of those other single moms out there working at McDonald's.  And besides, she had a great example in her own "badass working mother" who was "a writer and filmmaker who made documentaries for PBS's Frontline and was a Princeton journalism professor." This gem of a mom taught her daughter what was important. As Olivia puts it, "That inspired me when I was pregnant. I wasn't going to sacrifice myself because I was becoming a mother." Nope. Motherhood should certainly not involve sacrifice. You can have it all, sister!

You can read more about this person here, although I've probably told you all you need to know.

In spite of the immorality and anti-biblical family values of Hollywood starlets, there is nothing about breast feeding, even with a full breast exposed, that violates any recommendation in Scripture to be modest. This neo-Victorian prudishness about breast feeding that is currently reigning in the U.S. is not based upon the Bible. It is new in history. Even common sense will tell us that what we are asking of breast feeding mothers, that they don't feed their children in public, that they completely cover their upper bodies and the heads of their babies, would not only be impractical in most cultures and settings outside of the home, but completely impossible. Even the Victorians didn't treat public breast feeding with the horror feigned by modern Americans at the sight of a breast with a child attached. How do I know this? Well, I didn't appear on the scene of history until fairly recently, so I have to rely on resources such as art. That's right. Paintings, sculptures and drawings of everyday life throughout the past 1000 years have depicted breast feeding. Without covers. In public. The examples I'm going to share are beautiful, but if you find it distasteful, please look away.

This next one is especially interesting, as presumably the family portrait was being painted so that it could be displayed:

One person's interpretation of Jesus blessing the little children: 

 

 This is from a painting by Lucas Kranach, friend of Martin Luther. Apparently the women in this church all sit together, presumably the men are sitting on the other side of the room, not because of breast feeding, though.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. As photography started becoming more widespread in the late 1800's  breast feeding women were being included in snapshots as well as posed portraits.  Clearly our ancestors did not consider a breast exposed for the purpose of feeding a child to be inappropriate, immodest, or undesirable in any way.

What happened? I think what happened was formula feeding. Women, generations of them now, have grown up without any association between breasts and their function in feedings babies. These women only know breasts as objects of sexual pleasure. While there is nothing wrong with using breasts for pleasure, it is wrong to say that body parts which bring sexual pleasure must be hidden in public. Do we say that about our lips? It is a perversion of design to relegate nursing mothers and their babies to public toilets and secret closets. Let Christians lead the way in giving honor to the Creator for his magnificent design.

Keepers At Home

If those words sound familiar, you may be one who reads the Bible in the King James Version. Here is the passage from which it comes:

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.    Titus 2:3-5

We shouldn't be confused into thinking that the admonition for women to be "keepers at home" means that women should not work. Of course women should work. Everyone should work; men, women and children. Working is part of God's design for us to be fruitful and to take dominion over the earth. The aged women don't teach the young women NOT to work, they teach them to be workers or keepers at home. Or at the homestead, or within the household, or to work within the goals and requirements of the household. 

Sometimes non-believers can explain it better. Here is a game-blogger who is concerned about the destruction of western civilization who is explaining why women working outside of the home are contributing to that decline: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/the-working-womans-new-master/

Within the church we seem to be oblivious to what creates sexual attraction in women while secular observers are not afraid to state what they see and to take note of what to avoid when trying to prevent divorce and adultery. From the above linked blog post:

What we have today is that same working-woman hypergamy now directed to powerful men who are not her husband. The modern wife leaves the world of her husband every morning to submit to sexy male rulers presiding over the parallel world she inhabits during the day. She still has a boss, but it’s no longer her husband. The temptation for her to cheat, either bodily or in mind, must be great. The male equivalent would be as if dutiful husbands were catered to on the job by a steady stream of swimsuit models. Even the firmest virtue will bend to perpetual succulent vice. 

When I was first married, I was working at a law office. My boss was a male lawyer. I only continued working to finish up some projects in which my contributions were important to the clients, then I quit. But my husband had this to say about those days when I was still working, "This is not what I felt about you working for X (name of lawyer), but another form of it was the inherent betrayal of loyalty to me.  You were required to act in the best interest of your boss, over and above your duty to act in my best interest. Which is an unavoidable reality." I was only working two mornings per week, for a total of 8 hours, but even this small amount made our entire household subject to the needs of my boss and his schedule. As my husband noted, it is an unavoidable reality of employment. An employer really needs the commitment and loyalty of his staff to his goals and responsibilities. Even Jesus commented that no one can serve two masters. 

Without second-guessing what Paul had in mind when he wrote the letter to Titus, we can identify at least two very practical reasons why women should not be working outside of the home. The first is the temptation she will feel towards a man who is exhibiting alpha qualities and the second is that the woman is subjecting herself to a master who is not her husband, and therefore her husband has to become subordinate to her boss in terms of her time and efforts. Is any amount of income a fair trade-off for these threats to the marriage? 

When we look at the virtuous woman described in Proverbs 31, we don't see a woman who doesn't work. But we also don't see a woman who is the servant of another master, a master other than her husband. Her work originates in her husband's house and all of her work is for the enrichment and benefit of her husband's house. It isn't a separate, parallel world to the work of her husband. Her husband's heart safely trusts in her and her children will rise up and call her blessed.