Rainy in Booch Paradise

On one hand Rainy writes:

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the state of the family. The biblical values that built our great nation–once passed on from each generation to the next as a national treasure–are being questioned and dismissed. As a result, never before have we seen such deterioration in our homes:

Never before have so many children grown up in broken homes.

Never before has the definition of marriage been altered to allow for two people of the same sex.

Never before has the marriage covenant been viewed with such contempt by a generation of young people.

Never before have parents been ridiculed for seeking to raise children with biblical values.

Never before have so many Christians laughed, shrugged their shoulders or did nothing about adultery, divorce and sin.

Never before has materialism been so flagrantly embraced over relationships.

Never before has the family been in such need of a new legacy.

Then, in another email he writes:

That scene reminds me of the day Dr. Robert Lewis, my friend and former pastor, made the startling statement that the church staff was spending more time dealing with preventing divorce, comforting those going through a divorce and helping people recover from a divorce than with all other spiritual needs and issues combined

After my post on training up children, and my claim that there is a rampant hypocrisy in all the outward efforts to come against everything that is attacking familism, commenter Booch Paradise said:

Personally I’m not feeling it. I don’t think that you can validly find fault with an article because it does not address the chip on your shoulder. I know a lot of parents that would be shocked to find the kind of garbage that is being pushed under the guise of education at these schools, and so articles like this are necessary. If anything needs to be added to this article it’s the message that Christians should have long since pulled their kids out of the public school system. Then after that you might add something about if you can’t do that because you’re a single parent, and are a single parent because of a reason other than the death of your partner, you need to repent. But really, the issue of male headship and divorce is just off topic when discussing the push of homosexual acceptance.

What would he say to Rainy, who, while not pointing any fingers regarding divorce cause, does at least state how big that problem is? One must conclude that if homosexuality etc. was the big challenge in the flock, those ministers would not have been exhausting themselves on the issue of divorce.

Worse, however, is that Rainy mentions divorce only indirectly in his list above by mentioning children with broken homes. The rest of his list are the more safe topics the church spends more public time on.

How is all this reconciled? Why does the church so boldly go after these other categories but steer clear of anything too strong about divorce? Easy….divorce talk upsets women. The other topics, gay marriage etc. somehow indirectly empowers Christian women by affording them cover.



12 thoughts on “Rainy in Booch Paradise

  1. You’re combining two different things. My comment was directed at the analysis of the focus on the family article about schools receiving training kits that amount to pro homosexual propaganda and had nothing to do with Rainny.

    “Gay marriage? Homosexuality? Transgender? Rampant casual divorce and family ruination?

    Uh no, not quite. Just the first three.”

    Sexual perversion and no fault divorce are different topics. You could have just as easily said

    “Gay marriage? Homosexuality? Transgender? The destruction of personal liberty through the teachings of Karl Marx?

    Uh no, not quite. Just the first three.”

    The first three are what’s talked about in the article because they go together. By demanding that your topic be inserted into all articles remotely related to family or sex, you put yourself in the same position as a feminist who goes to a lecture on the civil war and demands that time be spent discussing women who cross dressed and enlisted while the professor is trying to cover Pickett’s charge.

  2. Easy….divorce talk upsets women. The other topics, gay marriage etc. somehow indirectly empowers Christian women by affording them cover.

    Yup. Fear. Whether it is fear of losing membership, money or something else (conjugal relations with their wives?), so many Churches seem to try to sweep divorce under the rug. Frankly, I find this fear of women fascinating given the recent discussions at my blog and Sunshine Mary’s about how much women fear men.

  3. No Booch, there would not be hypocrisy involved if Marx were lumped with those things. Idiocy yes, out hypocrisy no.
    You are still missing the point, somehow.
    The discussion was originally what the folks at FOTF were up in arms about… things that could adversely affect kids and forcing the teachers to be friendly to those things. Can you not see that far more children are impacted by this OTHER FAMILY ISSUE called divorce, and the battle for being soft on it was won decades ago?
    If your house is burning down you do not go treat the yard for fire ants. You go after the fire.

  4. Empath:
    Reading through Rainy’s jeremiad again reminded me of a sermon I heard many years ago (you can tell it was awhile because of its sheer political incorrectness). The minister was explaining how the family unit was the nucleus of a civilized society, and when breaks down the other necessarily follows. “And if he don’t believe that” he said “just look at you own government. The Democrats are like a fat, bossy, bitchy wife and the Republicans like her limp-wristed milquetoast husband and the kids are running wild with no respect for either one of them.”

    I wonder what Rainy and the FOTF crowd would say to THAT?

  5. Empath & Donalgrahme:
    I can’t figure that aspect of fearing men out either, unless it stems from the feminist indoctrination of all men as potentially violent. Still, even that never stops women from chasing the most violent and dangerous thugs they can find.

    The only type of men women really seem to fear are ones they would have to treat as equals; i.e. give up their grrrl power and actually submit to. Still, that’s not fearing the man as much as it is fearing the loss of feminist ego-identity.

  6. Well first I think that you underestimate the impact of gay acceptance. Yes gay marriage is a fight over an institution that is already lost, but gay acceptance is hardly trivial. But even if it was, it still would not be an example of hypocrisy. I could write an article that dealt with the problems inherent in Adam Smith’s work The Wealth of Nations and not once mention Karl Marx and there would be no hypocrisy, even though clearly Marxism is a bigger problem. The fact is there is more than one problem with society, no fault divorce is one of them, kids being taught homosexual acceptance propaganda in public school is another. Normal people have the ability to recognize and focus on both.

  7. Actually Empath, he does get pretty close to the truth in one line, mentioning more divorce than kids and broken homes. Here he says something quite important:

    Never before have so many Christians laughed, shrugged their shoulders or did nothing about adultery, divorce and sin.</blockquote

    Now, if he were willing at some point to dig a little deeper into that from an unbiased, intellectually honest standpoint who knows where it might lead?

    I just don’t know that he could ever really approach it without a bias against husbands clouding his view.

  8. @Empathalogism:
    “Easy….divorce talk upsets women.”
    Sounds about right…. unfortunately just about all serious talk upsets women. So you get this internal dialogue “Must… avoid…. conflict….” that moderates just about everything.
    Don’t mention the war Fawlty!

    “The other topics, gay marriage etc. somehow indirectly empowers Christian women by affording them cover.”

    Do you mind explaining this thought a little more for me? Thanks!

  9. “The other topics, gay marriage etc. somehow indirectly empowers Christian women by affording them cover.”

    Do you mind explaining this thought a little more for me? Thanks!

    I’m interested in what this means as well. I think I know what he meant, but I’d hate to assume anything.

  10. It offers cover because they can run amok and that pales in comparison to these REAL problems like gay marriage,

    Been absent because I’ve gone fishing….literally.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s