Recon’s Black Ops

Larry Ferguson–Gospel singer Dottie Rambo’s former manager–is a friend of mine. His whole family was injured in the 2008 bus crash in which Rambo was killed.

Because of his injuries–which were severe–he was unable to keep the “inclusionists” from dominating Dottie’s funeral. Those “inclusionists” included heretic Carleton Pearson. In Larry’s words, it was a funeral that totally dishonored Dottie and flagrantly misrepresented the theological viewpoints that she held. I knew enough of Dottie to vouch for the veracity of what Larry says.

I’m glad to see Larry standing up to set the record straight.

(HT: Vox Day)

While I do not endorse Roissy’s hedonist worldview, it is pretty sad when a secular atheist libertarian hedonist is making more sense than these two-bit metrosexual “Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild” preachers who infest the evangelical world.

Chalk this up to the latest sign that marriage — versions 1.0, 2.0, and coming to a theater near you, 3.0 — is a raw deal for men and an institution on the precipice of falling cliffside into a shattered heap of anachronistic uselessness. Wives are now leaving perfectly good marriages and their sacrificial beta provider husbands because they are bored. Naturally, they will be leaving with their husbands’ hard-earned cash to fund their adventures in swarthy saguaro hunting. Welcome to the Eat, Pray, Self-Love era of the Fall of America. Next stop: hyperinflation.

I found myself amused at the fetishists of MSM and their obsession with Julia Roberts, evidenced by their fawning over her lastest movie, Eat, Pray, Love.

You know that something with spiritual overtones is a crock of bovine ejectus when the world sucks up to it. The movie is based on an autobiographical account of a woman (Elizabeth Gilbert) who has an affair, and then divorces her husband and abandons her family to find her own happiness.

Instead of “enjoying the book”, we should call her for the selfish, destructive, degenerate acts that she inflicted on her family.

And yes, that happens in the Church; it is just wrapped in a more Christianized veneer. I know of a gal–a physician, disenchanted with her marriage–who, had a fling with another physician, who subsequently left his wife, and eventually married the doc after she left her husband. They are now medical missionaries. Oh, and did I say she and her ex had been small group leaders in their church?

I’ve never met a divorcee in the Church who was not “Biblically divorced”. They almost universally have sob stories about what an abusive, manipulative asshole their ex was. They talk about how they were “unequally yoked to a nonbeliever” and how they “Biblically let him go when he decided he wanted out”. When you’re a victim, nothing is ever your fault. Not even partially.

This is not to say there aren’t men who do the same thing; there are. But the no-fault divorce culture has triggered a slew of divorces–initiated mostly by the women–that have done our society one hell of a disservice.

:::end rant:::

I have other things I should be doing, but there are some thoughts I’ve had mulling in my head for awhile. They aren’t going to come out perfectly, but here goes nothing . . .

For the most part, I’ve been reflecting on how homemaking is an art form. It’s not easy (or as sexy) as I thought it would be. Not that I thought it would be incredibly easy, but it’s more challenging than I perceived initially.

There’s more to it than just cooking and cleaning. Even in those things I still have a long way to go.

Mostly, I’ve been thinking a lot about Pampered Chef. I’ve been thinking a lot about Pampered Chef because the secretary at our church is quite successful in her Pampered Chef career. And she posts about it on Facebook just about everyday.

Pampered Chef is quite alluring. The equipment is expensive and pretty. I’ve had my fair share of times that I thought “Oooo! Life would be better if I owned THAT!” I catch myself, though.

I’ve been thinking about it even more since the 4th of July. The secretary/Pampered Chef consultant brought two “Pampered Chef cakes” to the party. I split a piece of the chocolate cake with my husband. It was good – heck, it was chocolate cake!- but it wasn’t the best cake I’ve ever had.

I didn’t realize it at the time, but those cakes are made in the microwave. When I was informed of this (via a friend the next day), the taste made sense. It was good, but not melt-in-your-mouth-I-must-have-this-again.

And that is what is marketed by Pampered Chef: a good, pretty life. I suppose that is attractive enough for many people.

I don’t want a good, pretty life for me, my husband or my children, though. I want one that is attractive, but there is evidence of some serious effort and battles.

I want a life kind of like what my kitchen resembles:
– There are stains on the floor from God-only-knows-what after I mopped two days ago.
– There’s some clutter on the edges of the counter, but it can be dealt with.
– The counter needs to be wiped down frequently due to all the cat hair.
– The equipment I use isn’t all brand new and sparkly. Some of it is, some of it is second-hand and still quite usable.
– The recipes are from the heart, albeit somewhat simple. I try to use what can be found in nature. Sometimes I do resort to canned and frozen stuff.

While I wouldn’t mind getting the food scrapers from Pampered Chef, that’s not the life I want.

I have blogged many times about the war against men, and how this has played out in the Church. This was one of the most important warnings to men on these pages. Bottom-line: men cannot afford to be pushovers. While leadership by the husband hardly guarantees wifely submission, the husband who checks his balls at the altar is doomed to a miserable marriage.

Vox Day also weighs in on the matter of “church men”.

A few thoughts…

(1) My wife–like all good things of this life–is better than I deserve. I am also better than she deserves. (She will tell you the same thing.) I do not “pedestal” either herself or myself. We are two fallen people, each with our strengths and failings, fighting the same battles that everyone else does.

(2) “Servant leadership” is a term not to be found in Scripture. The Biblical model of a leader is one who serves as he is leading, not someone who leads by serving. A good military leader knows what I am talking about: a good officer takes care of his people, even as he is focused on the mission.

(3) Yes, Jesus washed the feet of His disciples. More often than that, He was teaching them, admonishing them, praying for them, going to great lengths to tell them they had no idea what they were talking about, re-orienting their fundamental understanding of everything they thought they knew. He was known to call them derisive names (“Sons of Thunder”), even rebuking one of his favorite Disciples in the harshest of manners (“Get thee behind me, Satan!”)

The Jesus of Scripture had some serious brass. Yes, He was humble. Yes, He served His Disciples. He did those things AS HE WAS LEADING THEM.

What does this have to do with gender relations?

Marriage is a covenant that is designed to model Jesus and the Church. Tim Keller calls this a “Gospel Re-enactment”. Guess which character the husband gets to act out?

Well…in order to get that re-enactment right, the husband needs to know the One Whom he is supposed to be imitating in this drama. Hint: Jesus was not Richard Simmons on a cross.

Women understand this, too. Even as they are naturally prone to attempt to undermine men, they also tend to respond affirmatively to the man who asserts himself decisively. This is why women are drawn to the James Dean types who hold their own. This is why the hot babe in Sunday School would rather get banged by a punk rocker, than be caught dead with the nice guy who sits in the front pew.

The latter guy is a product of modern evangelicalism: a Church that is irrelevant. He’s been screwed. She has, too, even if she hasn’t figured it out yet.

This quote is priceless:

Note that this is an indictment of Churchianity, not Christianity. There is an important difference. In Christianity, the husband is the head of the household. In Churchianity, the husband is the servant leader, by which it is actually meant that he is a servant rather than a leader. And no man who doesn’t know what he’d do without his wife possesses the confident and muscular faith that sustained the martyrs, crushed paganism, ended global slavery, and changed the world for the better.

Where would I be without my wife? I would be right where I am now. I would be minus a wonderful help-meet, but life would still be life. Singleness had many drawbacks, but life was not horrible by any stretch. She also had a life before she met me. We both rationally decided that we would be better together than not, but it’s not like either one of us didn’t have a life.

And the man (woman) who plays to any mantra to the contrary, is setting himself (herself) up for disaster.

Robert Schuller is retiring. His daughter is taking over in his place.

Given that he was not averse to having a woman pastor the “church”, I have some other recommendations for that bastion of spiritual harlotry.

Courtesy of Robin Dembroff of the Evangelical Outpost. I’ll comment later this week. What are your assesements?

If you think I’m a tough old bird on the feministas–Vox Day makes me look like a metrosexual wuss.

If what he was saying was true only in the secular world, it would be bad enough. But it is a very real war in the Church as well. The sooner we burn the metrosexual Jesus at the stake, and preach to both sexes the way the Apostle Paul did, the better.

Recently, Ted Slater of Boundless set off a firestorm by providing insights into what men generally think when they see a picture of a morbidly obese woman who laments her singleness. Granted, a few of the words he used were over-the-top, but I’d be lying if I said they did not accurately reflect what men think.

The backlash was so severe that Boundless yanked the post, Candice Watters posted a powder-puffer on the subject, and Ted–upon further review–formally apologized.

This issue of girth–in both men and women–is of importance to me. Both myself and MrsLarijani have had our struggles with weight: I had a 3-year stretch where it got away from me, and MrsLarijani struggled with it for most of her life. So, I’m going to chime in on the subject.

But first, some disclosures and disclaimers…

1. While I am writing from the man’s perspective, I understand that it works both ways. If Catwoman or Savvy wishes to write a guest commentary and speak for the ladies, I’ll be happy to post it.

2. We are speaking in fucntional, not medical, terms. Functionally, obesity is like obscenity. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said of the latter: “I know it when I see it.” Yes, subjectivity is part of the problem. But that is also true of many other properties that we seek in the opposite sex.

3. We have no intention to pick fights with those who are obese in spite of their efforts. Yes, some folks have medical issues that contribute to their problems, and which even make overcoming that problem a daunting challenge.

Now, I’m going to go into more detail, even where Ted did not bother to trod.

Let’s consider the case of John Doe, who is single. He’s 23, a recent college grad, and getting established in a new town. Some of his new friends wish to set him up with a gal they know. He asks about her, and they tell him the words he fears the most: “She has a great personality.”

(What John Doe is hearing: “We wouldn’t touch her with a ten foot pole if the roles were reversed, but perhaps you might be interested.”)

Now, let’s say that John Doe goes to First Baptist Church in Anytown. He’d like to find someone to date and eventually marry. Most of the decent-looking gals are either already dating somoene or are married. But there is this one gal who is single, and VERY interested in John. Trouble is, she’s about 100 pounds overweight and–from the way she eats at those potlucks–shows no regard for what she is doing to herself. Others in the church are putting the pressure on him to “get together” with her.

What is John Doe thinking?

1. "If I marry her, I’m doomed. I’ll have to put out for a gal to whom I am not remotely attracted."
2. "If she doesn’t take care of herself now, then I cannot reasonably expect her to do so when she has even less time on her hands."

Making matters worse, when John says he is not interested, he gets put down for being “shallow”. The few remaining gals in the church ostracize him and engage in shaming tactics for not wanting to date a gal that none of them would give the time of day if the shoe were on the other foot.

After a few encounters like this, John gets irritated with the church. He gets slammed for being “shallow”, and yet he still wishes to marry. He isn’t perfectionist, but he’d like a gal who takes at least reasonable care of herself. But to the gals, he’s “Shallow Hal”.

Are such guys “shallow” or “narrow” and “only looking at one metric”? Some might be–each sex has their share of vain representatives–but I’d venture to say that most are not.

Recently, Ame, commenting on a thread here, said the following:

i’m not a medical professional, nor do i really care to know about body things, but i knew a man once whose late wife was severely excessively obese, and the medical things he shared w/me about that were … gross and disgusting.

Yes, folks, the men are thinking about that eventuality. They realize that–when they get married–they must be willing to be faithful no matter what. But we all want to weed out risks that we can see on the front-end. And while chronic weight issues are only one matter, they are more visible than others. It’s not always easy to see if she has an issue with money, or with romance novels, or if she has feminist tendencies. Some gals can mask those quite well. But weight issues are a completely different matter: those are easier to see. And when men are thinking in terms of physical attraction, that is often the first thing that jumps out.

That may sound unfair, but guess what? it is what it is. Calling me names won’t change that reality, because I didn’t create it.

Now what would I say to John? To that I would say that it depends.

If he also has weight issues–at least as bad as the women he turns down, and no better than the women who don’t want him–then he needs to face the hard truth: he might not be offering in himself what he is expecting of others. And it may involve more than simply his dating life.

If he has weight issues due to gluttony, then I would admonish him on that, as the Apostle Paul did this.

If he appears to be imposing unreasonable physical standards on the gals, I may call his attention to a hard truth: he may be entitled to have his standards, but there are tradeoffs. If he’s a 5 or a 6, and demands only to date a 9 or a 10, he may find marriage to be quite elusive.

If his general predisposition is more of judgment than grace, I would say that he needs to consider whether he is being overly-dismissive of certain ladies. (Especially if their weight issues aren’t that bad, and if they are of otherwise good character.)

If he has made good faith efforts to be accomodative, and it isn’t working out, then I would exhort him to keep up the good fight, and resist the temptation to let cynicism set in.

What would I say to the ladies? Again, it depends.

If she has weight issues due to gluttony, then I would admonish her on that, as the Apostle Paul did this.

If she appears to be imposing unreasonable standards on the guys, I may call her attention to a hard truth: she may be entitled to have her standards, but there are tradeoffs. If she’s a 5 or a 6, and demands only to date a 9 or a 10, she may find marriage to be quite elusive.

If her weight issues are of a medical causation and have eluded her best efforts, I would exhort her to keep on fighting the good fight, and resist the temptation to let cynicism set in.

Now, some folks–seeing that I am primarily addressing an issue related to physical attraction–might ask whether I am putting too much focus on that issue, given that there is a strong Biblical case for focusing on issues of character rather than the "outer person."

I would answer that while that is a legitimate Biblical admonition, it is also an outright shaming tactic to excoriate a man or woman who is simply not attracted to someone that the critic would not otherwise be attracted if the roles were reversed. Most of the time, the woman who castigates John Doe would not herself consider a guy who was shorter, or bald, or heavyset, or even an Asperger. To such ladies, I have three words: Pot. Kettle. Black.

We should encourage men and women alike, to pay greater attention to other character matters–reminding both sexes that beauty is indeed fleeting and that charm is quite deceptive, and that our very hearts are deceptive and we can easily overlook issues when solely focused on the physical–while conceding that, before we criticize folks for dismissing someone else on the issue of physical attractiveness, everyone (and I DO mean EVERYONE) has standards in that department.

Does all of this suggest that heavyset–even morbidly obese–folks can forget about ever having a husband or wife?

Of course not! While weight issues can make marriageability more difficult, heavierset people CAN and DO get married all the time. This is less about musts and more about percentages. Yes, a gal who is overweight may have a more difficult time finding a husband than one who is athletic, but one MUST NOT turn this into a game of “you’ll NEVER get married until you lose X pounds.” Fact is, it can and does happen for many such folks, although moving toward better fitness definitely helps one’s chances.

But let's not kid ourselves: when a guy is repulsed at the sight of a gal who is spherical, that does not necessarily make him "shallow". She may not be fat due to her own choices–any more than I am short due to my choices–but preferences are what they are, and life is not fair.

Some men are charismatic and others boring and timid. Some are tall and others are vertically-challenged. Some are slim and others are gravitationally-challenged. Some are good with food and others struggle with it. Some have great adjustment skills and others are autistic or Aspergers. Some have better family backgrounds and others have terrible backgrounds. Some have hair and others have baldness, or–worse–pattern baldness. Some are athletic and others are quadriplegic.

I can say the same for the women: it rains on the just and the unjust, and some have more battles in life to fight than others. Being unwanted is a terrible thing, and sometimes that is beyond your control. Leah was the firstborn, but Jacob wanted Rachel. Leah was more fertile, but Jacob wanted Rachel. There is no indication that Leah was lacking in character, but Jacob wanted Rachel. There was nothing Leah could do to change that. Fairly or unfairly, there were issues beyond Leah’s control. Nothing she could do was going to change the fact that Jacob wanted Rachel.

But when it comes to excess mass, there are things that most men and women can do to help their chances. While I empathize with those who are obese due to reasons beyond their control, those who do have control–and you know who you are–need to look long and hard at the choices you are making. That is a matter of pragmatic reality, and no amount of denial will change it.

Ted Slater is getting bolder. The title of his latest post says it all: Girlie Christianity.

But it’s also become clear that there’s an imbalance in many churches, an imbalance that has alienated many men. Emotive “worship” songs, offered in a key too high for men to sing. Sensitive sermons that generally appeal to women but to which men have a hard time relating. Images portraying Jesus as soft and feminine, rather than rough and masculine. Bulletins with clipart seemingly picked out by your grandmother.

It’s a wonder more men don’t disengage from service and leadership.

I should be clear that humanity needs to honor both masculine and feminine attributes. I affirm the feminine. But church culture must become more masculine to regain balance and relevance for men, and to more accurately reflect the community of God.

I say it’s long past freakin’ time we burned the metrosexual Jesus at the stake.

Lest anyone think that Boundless was on the verge of liberating men and finally bringing badly-needed balance, one would be majorly disappointed.

It did not have to be that way, though.

Yesterday, Ted Slater hit a grand slam homer. It was such a masterpiece that my wife’s cheering could probably be heard on the other end of our neighborhood. Ted became one of my wife’s heroes.

Here is the masterpiece, courtesy of Walking through Fire:

So, I was spending time on a singles forum this morning, and came across a comment from a young lady who complained that she had never been on a date in her life. Next to her comment was her profile photo.

My first thought: Maybe it’s because you’re fat.

She wasn’t large-boned. She wasn’t full-figured. She wasn’t a bit pudgy. She was morbidly obese, an unhealthy beach ball of a woman.

The truth (and I’m navigating dangerously offensive territory here — out of a desire to lay out the plain truth) is that most men do not want to date women whose bodies betray a lifestyle of laziness and over-consumption. Any chemistry that might spark from such a woman’s bubbly personality simply fizzles like bacon grease splattering in a griddle.

Some women have medical problems that facilitate being overweight. Maybe a doctor can help you treat that, or maybe it’s just something that you’ve got to live with, with a clean conscience. (Truth to balance out my overall thesis: There are some guys that find chubbiness to be endearing.)

But other women simply pack in the calories while lounging in front of the tube, and then grumble that guys are so shallow that they’ll never give them a second chance. No, maybe they’re not shallow; maybe you’re just fat.

My wife enjoys watching “The Biggest Loser” (while running on her treadmill). That show is evidence that overweight gluttons can change their lifestyles, become healthy, and lose weight. They can come to steward their bodies in a responsible, disciplined way.

If you’re obese, you can do something about it. Maybe start by exchanging that second helping of lasagna for a salad, or that bag of chips for some celery and unbuttered popcorn, or that milkshake for a peach, or that cherry Coke for a glass of ice water. Then get a membership at the local gym, and get in shape. You’re not necessarily looking to become a twig; just try to get physically fit. People do this all the time; you can do it, too.

Don’t let your weight become a reason to feel sorry for yourself or feel condemned; see it as a wake-up call to take action in becoming a healthier person.

And who knows? Maybe after a few months and a dozen dropped pounds you’ll meet a formerly fat guy there who’ll ask you out on your first date.

(OK, I’m feeling a bit convicted to return to the gym myself. I’ve got my swim trunks in the car; maybe I’ll head out of work around 4 this afternoon.)

Now, I will provide my own assessment of Ted’s post and Boundless’s reaction.

First, the standard disclaimer:

(1) I realize that there are people–of both sexes–who are obese through no fault of their own. I’m only 5-foot-3. I didn’t ask to be this short, but the breaks are what they are. I feel your pain, and this is not aimed at you.

(2) I also realize that men–as a group–have little room to gloat over the women in the girth department. The studies I’ve seen show the men only 2% better than the women, with each group having at least 30% obese.

(3) Those who don’t take care of themselves, have no room to talk here. If you’re a man (women), and you are a couch potato, then don’t bring it here and gripe about the women (men).

Now, begin rant….

For the last couple years, myself and others–notably Charles, Anakin, Adam, and even Farmer Tom at times–have been pointing out significant inconsistencies in the way that Boundless excoriates the men (even to the point of blaming them for the vices of women) while powder-puffing the women. In the process, we have had dialogues with various folks at Boundless, many of which have been constructive. To Ted’s credit, he has mostly been reasonable.

Yesterday, Ted Slater finally let the cat run free and showed the whole world what men typically think when they see a gal who is morbidly obese, and then laments her singleness.

The backlash was significant, even though he did in fact receive many favorable comments from women, one of whom is my wife, who was herself morbidly obese for most of her adult life.

She didn’t improve until folks who were close to her told her the very things that Ted said yesterday!!!

(Ted, did I say my wife loves that post?)

But alas, Boundless snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory: THEY PULLED TED’S POST, and then Candice Watters put up a very powdery post on the same issue.

This is my wife’s response:

First off, to state the obvious, Ted’s post from yesterday is removed.

Also, this post is not getting nearly as many comments. It kind of makes me think that a lot of readers are kind of put off.

There is nothing wrong with taking off the proverbial gloves.

This post seems watered down in a lot of ways.

“Your worth and value come not from a number on the scale, or even from your ability to cut calories and get yourself to a gym to shed unwanted pounds — and believe me when I say I understand how unwanted they are!”

Are the pounds really unwanted? That’s the crux of the issue. That was what was being debated. Some women in the “morbidly obese” category delude themselves into thinking that they are just fine the way that they are.

They tell themselves that it’s not their problem that they’re single. It’s those “shallow guys”.

Man, how I’m lamenting over Ted’s post being removed.

“Regardless of your girth, you are precious. You are valued. You are worthy, because you are the crown of creation.”

You’re gettin’ all Stasi and John Elderidge on us, Candace! Way to elevate the female gender higher than it ought to be!

“You are made in God’s image. And yet you are utterly unworthy. Apart from Christ we are all unworthy. And we all stumble in many ways. Your sin is painfully visible. But it is not insurmountable.”

Ok, I see where you’re going here, but it’s not working. You just got done telling us that the female is the crown of creation, but you forgot to mention the fall of mankind.

Eve was deceived. She thought herself more highly than she ought.

She thought she was . . . .

the crown of creation.

Before getting married to Amir, I didn’t really understand what he meant about how Boundless rails on men unfairly.

I’m seeing it now, though.

It’s seems like an unjustified move to remove Ted’s post only to replace it with something that mentions the female gender as the crown of creation.

Mr. Larijani has married well.

Boundless finally decided to let the truth hang out–Ted, it was awesome!–and then took it down. And yet they still have Debbie Maken’s one-sided screed still available.

When folks like Adam, Anakin, Triton, Charles, and myself gripe about a sorry excuse of an evangelical culture that excoriates the men but gives the women a pass, we now have a real-time example with Boundless.

I would thank Candice Watters for proving me right, only I wish I was wrong this time.