Monday, January 25, 2021
Saturday, January 23, 2021
Is It A Christian Marriage If The Wife Rules The Roost (Is The Head Of Household)?
A sweet, devout Christian lady that Angie and I both love dearly (who also has one of the most affable, sunny dispositions) shared with us many years ago how her oldest son had politely rebuked her for teaching men outright within an adult (couples) Sunday School class at church, and as a result, she then respectfully yielded the teaching to her husband. Whilst ruminating on that disclosure, after the fact, my wife and I both assumed this lady and her spouse had been a fairly young married couple during that time. And I thought that to be particularly interesting, seeing how at that point, they were both well into their retirement years.
If you knew "Miss Mary Jane" (as most everyone calls her) from First Baptist Church Jackson as Angie and I do, you'd see sharp intellect, biting humor, and effective communication skills all emanating from a beautiful soul. Had she been reared say in the 1980s versus the 1930 / 1940s, she'd likely have pursued a profession well in advance of maître d at her husband's Jackson restaurant.
Yet, her Christianity was resolute. Moreso than culture, and absolutely in line with taking into account the importance of her role as the submissive wife - both behind the scenes and within her entire family's sphere of influence.
-------------------------
At the outset of my career as an architect and as a young, newly married husband, I began keeping a list of women I "thanked my lucky stars" to not be betrothed to. Many of these ladies were married at the time, but my adjudication had nothing to do with their perceived roles as wives (which I certainly wasn't privy to). Instead, it all boiled down to what I deemed as a submissive feminine heart or lack thereof. And in all fairness, I've no doubt there are plenty of ladies (including some of these that I'd qualified) who kept a similar spousal black list (which I too was no doubt on).
Growing up within a household where my mother ruled the roost, I began to question our family's roots of this Biblically backwards setup, and from there, I didn't have to look too far into the past. Both of my grandparents' marriages had an identical hierarchy, therefore my assumption is my father and mother both found familial comfort in each other, even as teenagers, relative to what the notion of committing to each other long term might look like (based on their collective heritages).
-------------------------
The Bible is clear on the topic of husband / wife hierarchical roles. The apostle Peter wrote about it plainly enough. Therefore, as a result, I believe it can and may very well discourage women, whilst taken into account singularly, and as such may very well do the following.
1. Encourage a number of women to stay unmarried (which ironically is the MOST EFFECTIVE position to be in as a believer for either sex).
2. Promulgate the notion of women staying at arms length from Christianity (which is very troubling), but specifically to certain books / authors of scripture (New Testament / Peter).
Why is the topic of the submissive wife stigmatized here in 2021?
Firstly, let me say this. The gilded / celebrated / elevated notion of marriage is arguably ubiquitous within western culture (other than amongst blacks who conversely elevate singleness over betrothal), therefore as it (marriage) pertains to both the needed respect for husbands and the needed security for wives, direct teachings relative to submission of the female (& deep seated honor of the wife by the husband) is, in my mind, pragmatic and therefore helpful.
But Biblical teaching on marriage is often seen as too much of a polarizing topic for the church to teach / preach upon. As such, many women who find themselves leaning into reaction #1 may very well benefit from seeking to obtain a clear understanding of the Biblical overview regarding the Bible's position. And similarly, those who are in line with reaction #2 likely would benefit from gaining a clear picture of the apostle Peter's specific audience as well as the cultural circumstances of his day.
-------------------------
Within a Christian marriage, what response should his wife give if her husband demands that she deactivate her Facebook account (after the topic has been discussed between the two)?
A. Her (& his) Facebook accounts are deactivated
B. Her (& his) Facebook accounts are deactivated, yet she reactivates hers the following day
C. Her Facebook account isn't deactivated but his is
Within a Christian marriage, what response should her husband give if his wife demands that he install Covenant Eyes on both his home & work PC as well as his laptop and pocket computer (essentially every device he has browsing access to)?
A. He complies with her request to its fullest
B. He complies with her request partially
C. He tells her to butt out
Aren't those fun questions? Not really fair relative to the direction I've been headed within this post, but designed to make you think about you yourself and (possibly) your own marriage. I believe how you choose to answer these says a lot about your marriage as well as the handling of these specific topics as a couple. Consider them bonus content for you to explore.
-------------------------
Let's segue now to discussing pagan(ish) marriage. That being one where the governance is either 50 / 50 or where the wife is the head.
I go back to what I stated earlier. Respect and security should be our datums here, particularly as Christians but also as pragmatists. Men typically crave the former and women demand the latter. How do you cross pollinate both of these effectively unless you abide by what the Bible clearly decrees about marriage?
Me not really sure. Especially when you throw in the whole notion of being one flesh (again, as the Bible says). There's just so much practicality here, and for me personally, it just makes sense.
-------------------------
Earlier this week (likely Tuesday), I made the assumption that Covenant Eyes was somehow interfering with my browser (work PC) whilst attempting to move some data over (very un)seamlessly relative to an important work project I was focused on. Therefore, after working with the IT help desk regarding this online hiccup, I chose to pull the plug on Covenant Eyes by calling their IT help for an uninstall passcode. Over the past 7 years of having Covenant Eyes on my desktop PC, I've only done this perhaps one other time.
By yesterday (I chose to forego reinstalling CE as my work on this project was ongoing throughout the week), I was unable to resist the temptation to look at porn, therefore it didn't take me long to find a handful of gay porn videos that exemplify what turns Rob on. All thanks to the power of Internet search engines.
Yet whilst looking back regretfully on that today, relative to this discovery no doubt chronicling some intensely passionate (key word) gay sex, nonetheless I absolutely found it to be so very forced and abnormal. Therefore, in spite of the passion, the gay sex was in no way representative of those two aforementioned words played out by male / female.
As such, based on what I've observed through the years, gay porn works to simulate straight sex narratives to a tee, but none of it ever translates sans the inevitable distortion.
Here's a quick summary of my viewpoint relative to the seeds of straight sex, with this being my attempt to point this back to what the Bible again states so clearly relative to the roles of wives and husbands.
I see vaginal intercourse is encouraged by the wife as an act of securedness in her husband. Conversely, the husband actively seeks to penetrate his wife whilst feeling her respect / love throughout. And that's a damn near perfectly beautiful picture of Christ and his church.
Obviously, this is an ideal sexual scenario / situation that I've described here, and yes, I do believe those can and do occur within marriage when relational health is at its peak.
-------------------------
In the end, positioning the husband to lead is a risky approach to marriage hierarchy. And that is a true statement. Men are not perfect, and they're far from saints by default. Were I female, these Biblical appointments alone would likely amount to providing ample fodder relative to Roberta (me) steering clear of ever getting hitched. But, the Bible does clearly appoint the husband as the lead / head, and the church needs to be teaching this truth no holds barred. Taking that role then into account, what can be done to shore up his leadership role? To put it another way, how do we buttress him as such, within such an important role?
If he's a guy like me, he needs to be part of a Samson Society group either face-to-face or virtual. From there, he needs to eventually select a Silas. The commitment he's made to his Biblical marriage will no doubt benefit from it.
As an aside, I did reinstall Covenant Eyes on my desktop PC before leaving work on Friday afternoon, and in tandem with that, I pinged my Silas to become my soon-to-be third Covenant Eyes' Ally. As of this weekend, he's now setup to receive Covenant Eyes' robo-emails on my behalf. Including those which notify when an uninstall code has been utilized. His passion for my holiness will no doubt benefit me as he serves to keep an eye on what Covenant Eyes' consistently reports.
As the Biblical head of the Turner household, I simply cannot rely exclusively on myself regarding Internet browsing. There's too much responsibility baked into the Biblical role of husband / father to compromise.
In closing, if you ever read this, Miss Mary Jane, thanks for your candor.
Thursday, January 21, 2021
"I'm Unfamiliar With Jesus' Words. I've Got This Under Control."
Do you follow friends, family, celebrities, politicians? Keep up with what they say / post online? If so, you're not alone in this pursuit. It's amazing, thanks to technology, how individuals / corporate entities can now promote themselves and their viewpoints so captivatingly. To think that they're now given permission to "Notify" us relative to a newsfeed or tweet in real time via our ubiquitous pocket computers.
2,000 years ago, Jesus was followed by throngs. He gained people's attention via his words and miracles, and a few of those followers as such recorded the three years of his ministry on Earth via their God-inspired writings (which became the gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke & John).
And we've had access to these writings for thousands of years within the Bible, God's Holy Word.
Much of what is written within those texts was based on his interactions with both individuals and the aforementioned throngs. Lots of church-folk engaged with him, as you might imagine, and they were almost immediately threatened by his presence. Therefore, this tension resulted in some intense exchanges. Many of which are recorded within the gospels.
And this makes for some great, really insightful reading relative to comprehending what Jesus' modus operandi was during that time - pissing off the religious folk and ministering to the needy / marginalized / broken.
It's important to note too that lots of regular folks engaged with Jesus. Many of these were simply mesmerized at him, the way he spoke, carried himself, and of course, what he could achieve for them - instantly - if he so chose to.
Yet, he arguably abhorred much of the attention, and no doubt worked proactively to manage his fanbase (if you will) via his publicists (disciples) and intentionally chosen footpath.
Jesus' words / actions have divided men for centuries. Not regarding their exact meaning (Jesus spoke plainly enough) but where exactly they were originating from. Jesus claimed to be God all the way up to his death, therefore any and everything he said carried distinct weight. Unless, you chose to not believe his claim. One of the primary themes of Scripture (rebellion) plays out yet again within these gospel texts (as compared to the Old Testament chronicles of the Israelites). As such, it's the abject demonization of Jesus via these aforementioned churchfolk that may very well serve as a frame of reference relative to the seeds of our own doubt / lackadaisical approach to our walk with God.
-------------------------
When I was in high school back in the '80s, I traveled to Memphis to attend a weekend-long, winter Bible conference with my church youth group. It was hosted at the original Bellevue Baptist Church in downtown Memphis. The presenter was none other than Mr. Dawson McCallister who was quite popular at the time as a youth speaker (screamer). Dawson often "toured" with musician Mr. Al Denson, and Al, being a pianist, complemented Dawson's abrasiveness perfectly.
This conference focused on Jesus' last days on Earth, and Dawson did an amazing job of keeping us focused throughout the weekend despite our youthful bleary-eyedness / short attention spans.
If I took away anything at all from this weekend, it was me concluding that Dawson McCallister wasn't a crazy man, and as such his deep seated views of Jesus should be strongly considered. And this shaped my position as a Christian, specifically considering the weightiness of Christ's teachings. Dawson was successful in doing this through his articulate passion and his consistency - conference to camp to retreat. Not to mention the inner workings of the Holy Spirit in and through me. We certainly can't discount that hugely helpful gift.
I owe a lot to Mr. Dawson McCallister. Not only did I make a public profession of faith at one of his youth summer conferences (camps) whilst in middle school, but by also attending this weekend Bible conference there in Memphis, I became convinced / convicted of the gospel's brevity far beyond a simplistic "fire insurance policy". It was life changing.
-------------------------
The easiest means to establish a false assuredness relative to one's good (fine) standing with another human being is to keep one's distance. Don't pursue. Engage with them only during prescribed engagements. Be polite but nothing else.
This approach keeps you in control, or at least it gives you some reassurance of being in control.
The gospel is built on Jesus. His life, death & resurrection. The Bible clearly promotes the notion of being in relationship with God or Jesus and for this personal relationship to be "in good standing". One of the hallmarks of the Protestant Christian faith is Bible study, and subsequently expecting, through this discipline, for God to sanctify the Christian. It's an approach that's never to be intentioned within the same vein as, again, those aforementioned religious folk (that Jesus so despised). That being for personal gain / relevancy.
Yet sanctification is oftentimes of little interest to Christians, and I believe this neglectful approach has grown out of two distinct factors.
1. No one sincerely modeled / proved to them the relevance of sanctification.
2. Sanctification encroaches on free will. Free will to think / act as he / she sees fit to. Free will is elevated here in the West as one of our most sanctimonious / cherished pursuits.
-------------------------
Did you know that Jesus spoke about all manner of things, including lust?
He's quoted as saying some semblance of the following: Lust equates to actually sinfully performing the sex act - fornication / adultery with the target of said sexual fantasies. Yikes!
Did he really decree that?
He did.
Why is this important?
Because Jesus also mentioned specifically lukewarm Christians. Remember what I wrote above? Here it is again:
The easiest means to establish a false assuredness relative to one's standing with another human being is to keep one's distance. Don't pursue. Engage with them only during prescribed engagements. Be polite but nothing else.
This approach keeps you in control, or at least it gives you some reassurance of being in control.
Jesus (God) disdains being treated as such. Instead, he wants to maintain control of your life, your thoughts. Yes, even your very will.
So, what can we conclude from this "maintaining control" trend as Christians?
1. It's not where God wants us in relationship with him.
2. Taking #1 into account, God will not reciprocate positively.
3. Pray for / invite men into your life who'll provoke you to choose another approach (more or less seriously) to your walk with God. Samson Society men should provide a petri dish of candidates in that regard.
4. Get off the fence. Today.
Sunday, January 17, 2021
Friday, January 15, 2021
Find You A Vampire (Samson Guys Sleep In Cotton Pajamas)
Your willingness to be vulnerable and subsequently feel a plethora of emotions alongside another man is key to success relative to your relationship with your Silas. If you're incapable of "speaking that language" of vulnerability with another guy, this is likely going to keep you from benefiting, as other men might, from the Silas relationship.
-------------------------
As a child, vampires were significantly interesting in Rob's life. Starting with "Dark Shadows" (my grandmother let me watch), I became intrigued. Or maybe a better word is engrossed.
Vampires must be invited into a person's life. There's a formal introduction and willingness to trust that must occur. Otherwise, they'll have to move on. I can remember thinking that was such the humanizing move regarding vampire lore.
Now, you may be thinking this analogy between vampires and your pick for a Silas is fraught with ridiculousness, and I get that. That being said, I do believe holiness via relational accountability can be obtained, but it must involve a deep seated trust (rooted within an emotional connection) in someone who ultimately will gain entrance to an authoritative relational position which may very well result in your demise.
-------------------------
IN MY DEMISE?
Yep.
Why do you suppose so many men never obtain a Silas to begin with, or even more intentionally, never make a commitment to attending meetings on a regular basis?
They fear someone turning on them, and using the information they've shared against them down the road.
I mean you can recite "...in strictest confidence" all you want, but there's nothing stopping someone from actively working to devastate / tarnish the reputation of a Samson man. There is no law enforcement or vindication brigade waiting in the wings.
That being said, I've personally never witnessed any acts of sabotage or retribution within the Samson Society, even when men were personally butting heads, and said head butting happens fairly often. We are men after all.
-------------------------
Vampires feed on their victims 'till their victims are cursed to transform as well into undead creatures of the night. Again, another great analogous similarity between Count Dracula and your Silas.
Influence.
For quite some time, I've used a simplistic sketch to illustrate this with various Samson men.
And then I'd say something like this: "This illustrates the upper echelon (I'd quite often say that because I love to use big words) of a Silas / Silee relationships. A piece of my heart is grafted over to your own and vice versa. Hence, we no longer rely solely on our own individual hearts / selves as we walk through this season of our lives."
And this would usually be succeeded by an awkward silence by my "Silee" with him likely wondering to himself why exactly he chose to get caught up with the gay guy.
Nonetheless, there's a lot of truth to this illustration. Over time, this seemingly supernatural strengthening between the two men does occur, and you take note of it when you're by yourself, whilst remembering what being by yourself would often feel like (& as a result "act out" like) pre-Silas. That being, not what it feels like with your Silas in tow today.
I hope I'm making some sense here. Ultimately, this is an emotional gig.
Here's a wide-angle lens example, yet not so specific that I'm pointing anyone out.
Certain men come into Samson Society and start efficiently / effectively / demonstratively emoting in and through all of the men around them. Whether it's timing or not, for whatever specific reason, at the outset of their relationship with the Society, they're able to feel through (like a conduit) this manly setup / paradigm. And these emotions run the gamut, and as such, often these guys feel too much too fast because they seem to connect (as described above) to everyone around them simultaneously.
It's as if these men need the presence of other men to interpret / decode their own emotional state of mind, yet with too many all around at once, this can result in them feeling as if they've found their virgin self within a coven of blood suckers.
I find that these men are often deeply invested in hot sex (with their wives), and as such, oftentimes (pre-Samson Society) relying solely on those sex acts to intensely emote. And that's wonderful until they realize that they're the type of guy who would benefit - across the board - from emoting a whole lot more often than just when the sex is happening with his spouse (or perhaps using porn).
My point is men who are involved in relational accountability do so in and through their feelings, therefore due to the weightiness of said feelings, the duality baked into the friendship carries the load with much more ease than one would alone.
-------------------------
In closing, why are vampires allowed into someone life? What motivates someone to grant these bloodthirsty beings permission to step inside of their world?
Because that individual wants to become one themselves.
On some level, they're privy to their desire to become part of that family of night dwellers.
No longer satisfied with their humanity, they're willing to give up their mortality for the super sensory experience which can only come via succumbing to the macabre existence of the supernatural.
Plus, vampires are just cool.
But not to everyone. There are plenty of guys out there who simply see them as yet another threat.
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)