Week 34 in the year of our Lord 2021

Encouragement against fear, also is porn adultery?

10 minutes to read

75 years ago, Hermann Göring testified at the Nuremberg Trials, and he was asked, “How did you make the German people go along with all this?” And he said, “It is an easy thing. The only thing a government needs to make people into slaves is fear.”

The collapse of the Western Church and Western culture to class warfare, gender confusion, and totalitarianism, has been shocking, demoralizing and often, frankly, frightening.

Who foresaw this?

“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. You will be hated by all because of My name…” The last year has taught us how easily Matthew 10:20–21 can become a reality in our time.

It is easy to be fearful. But remember that the war on men is rekindled any time a tyrannical government fears opposition. They know that men, unlike women, are a threat, as they are designed for conquest and rule.

Thus, they must be dealt with.

In other words, they were afraid of us before they tried to make us afraid of them.

There are three common ways that such a government deals with a male threat:

  1. Pacify
  2. Indoctrinate
  3. Kill

We find the first and the third in Exodus 1. Pharaoh attempts to pacify through hard labor (vv. 8–14). When that fails he has the male babies killed (v. 22).

We find indoctrination there too, by way of Stephen in Acts 7: “Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians” (22). And of course, this learning was picked up from the Egyptians by the common people too. The strong cultural influence of the Egyptians produced intense idolatry in the Exodus generation.

All three of these methods reoccur throughout the biblical history. The Philistines sought pacify Samson through Delilah (Judges 16:5). The Babylonians tried to indoctrinate the Israelite noblemen to serve the king (Daniel 1). Herod went to great lengths to kill Christ by slaughtering the innocent (Matthew 2). Etc.

We also see all three of these methods at work in the current war on males. We pacify boys through medication, porn, video games, and by shaming them when they act masculine. We are indoctrinating them through an egalitarian curriculum at government schools and most churches. And we are killing them via abortion, but also through a hopeless culture that drives them towards suicide.

The war on men is as widespread and intense as it ever has been. It’s hard not to lose heart. It is easy to be fearful.

But remember…

Pharaoh tried to kill Moses as a baby. He failed. Pharaoh tried to indoctrinate Moses. It didn’t take. Pharaoh tried to pacify Moses (and all Israel). God killed him in the Red Sea.

God has a habit of using normal men to take down seemingly unstoppable governments. Take heart, brothers. The odds are never against those who fear God. The war on men will fail.

“Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of Yahweh our God.”

Consider the words of Hebrews:

Cast not away therefore your boldness, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, having done the will of God, ye may receive the promise. For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry. But my righteous one shall live by faith: and if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure in him. But we are not of them that shrink back unto perdition; but of them that have faith unto the saving of the soul…

Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that hath endured such gainsaying of sinners against himself, that ye wax not weary, fainting in your souls. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin: and ye have forgotten the exhortation which reasoneth with you as with sons: My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art reproved of him; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not? But if ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

One simple way to be less fearful is to decide before trouble comes that you will not sell out. Not for ease or comfort. Not for freedom or wealth. Not even if the price is a mere pinch of incense (let the reader understand). If you have set your path steadfastly before they try to draw you away from it, it is much easier to decide to hold your course.


From Tyrannus Hall: #

On the question of how to dress for church, here is a simple way to avoid legalism or antinomianism: Wear whatever you would wear if you were going to publicly meet someone more important than the president of the United States, who is also your father.


Q&A: #

Q: Most of the people I run into know the Gospel. Maybe it’s different up North, but, thanks to the Arminian Baptists, saying “the sinners prayer” is something everybody has done down here in The South. So what we run into is inoculation not lack of knowledge or hostility. Maybe what y’all could do is run a podcast or write an entry in the manhood notes on evangelization of the inoculated.

Michael ran into this all the time when he was in South Carolina.

A simple way to deal with this is to move the conversation along the lines of, “Do you think everyone who says they’re a Christian, is one?”

The person you’re talking to will inevitably say no, and that opens the door to asking how you can spot fake Christians.


Q: Would you consider unwillingness to have sex a grounds for divorce? Not talking short term, but a complete refusal over years and refusal to address the situation? I see this as complete abandonment of the marriage relationship.

In Matthew 19, Christ allows an individual to divorce their spouse if they are guilty of porneia, which is translated in the English as “sexual immorality.”

Porneia can refer to any sin of a sexual nature; it includes sins like homosexuality, incest, prostitution, and sex of a married person with an unmarried person. But Jesus’ use of porneia has to be interpreted within the context of the passage. And in verse 6, he says, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

For this reason, He must have in mind a kind of sexual immorality that breaks the one-flesh union. This would include an external activity in which the spouse has “sexual union” with someone outside the marriage. This is why the Confession interprets the porneia exception clause in the stricter sense of physical adultery.

It has become common to grant divorces based on a spouse’s use of pornography or masturbation under the porneia exception clause. These activities, though hurtful to the marriage, don’t truly involve another individual. Pixels aren’t people. Therefore, there is no clear breaking of the one-flesh union. We wouldn’t grant a husband a divorce if his wife was masturbating while reading 50 Shades of Grey.

Pornography, or any activity that leads to a sustained denial of conjugal rights, can become a grounds for divorce. However, in our view it would not actually fall under the porneia exception clause but rather under the willful desertion clause. Paul outlines this in 1 Corinthians 7, explaining that “if the unbelieving [spouse] leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases.”

We take this to mean that a married individual is released from the bonds of marriage if their spouse willfully abandons them. The question then comes down to what constitutes abandonment.

Much like the porneia clause, this also requires some careful consideration. Our understanding of abandonment requires two factors:

  1. There must be a willful refusal to engage in an activity intrinsic to the purpose of marriage. This means that a spouse must purposely refuse to provide basic needs, conjugal rights, or some other activity that is essential to the marital covenant.
  2. It must be sustained even after every attempt has been made to reclaim the wayward spouse. The Confession wisely says willful desertion can only be granted if the abandonment “can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate.” This means that a church must make every effort to resolve the conflict, and encourage the abandoned spouse to do the same, before granting a divorce.

The willful desertion clause is a source of great abuse. Many spouses will cite instances which are neither willful nor a desertion of anything intrinsic to a marriage union. For example, a soldier away on the battlefield hasn’t willfully deserted his family. It is true that this action will bring providential difficulties on the family, but it isn’t the soldier’s fault. He didn’t will it. Similarly, a husband who fails to be romantic in nonsexual ways hasn’t deserted his marriage. He may be a poor husband, and in need of pastoral admonition. However, romance isn’t essential to marriage in the sense of being a necessary condition for the union to remain valid.


New content this week: #


Notable: #


Talk again next week,

Bnonn & Michael

This email is archived, but you can receive new ones free every Saturday.

Subscribe to Notes on Manhood

You’ll get the newsletter every Saturday morning, Eastern time.


Success

You’re now subscribed to Notes on Manhood. You will get the next newsletter in your mailbox on Saturday.

You can safely close this dialog and keep browsing now.