It is dusk and a heavy rain has just subsided. I am outside looking up at the sky as new clearings appear in the clouds above. The contrasts are sharp – and beautiful – between the cloud formations and the colors of sunset. How do I describe it? Colors: blues and purples and yellows and whites. The shapes of the clouds, and their distance away, makes it appear as though there are cloud-mountains in the sky, invoking the same awe as the real mountains do.
Still, it is the sharp contrasts that are the most moving. I think to myself that it is in some ways like the battle of good versus evil. Right now Muslims in Iraq are driving Christians, and other religious minorities, from their homes, giving them three choices: convert to Islam, pay the tax and become a second-class citizen, or die. Most of them take the implied fourth option: flee. Why is the Islamic State doing this? I’m sure there are many reasons, including ideological agendas, but the bottom line that must be dealt with by anyone in answering this question is that this is what the Koran says Muslims are to do.
But Christianity cannot operate that way. The Christian does not have the option of forcing those around him to believe; he can only offer to them something good and beautiful, something that redeems a broken world, in hope that they will understand and accept it. In the process, he himself becomes further and further invested in that good and beautiful. Above all, the Christian realizes that “our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens” (Eph 6:12). Our enemies are not those people who hate us, but the ideas and philosophies that teach corrupting principles and unnatural ways of living (and, of course, the spiritual forces behind them). As for the people who embrace these destructive things, for our part we view them as victims generally speaking, though they are still responsible for their choices.
The Western Dichotomy
In this light, there are two main camps of thought in the Western world today. The first camp of thought believes in carrying on the traditions of the past – we might call them “the traditions of our fathers” – while the second camp of thought does not…or at least thinks that to do so is of lesser importance than other ideas that have come into popularity in our times. In the United States, and generally in any of the historically European countries, these camps of thought further divide out in two main ways. (There are other ways also, but these are beyond the scope of this post).
The Traditional Conservative
Of those who believe in the traditions of the fathers, the largest group is what we might call “traditional Christian conservationists” – we might say Traditional Conservatives. This camp of thought has a heavy emphasis on preserving the wisdom of an authentically Christian worldview, developed over many centuries through the course of Christian history.
The Traditional Conservative takes his “conservative” name from the fact that his beliefs generally revolve around conserving what we might call the “wisdom of the past”. Generally speaking, he believes that traditional Christian formulations of religious practice, social organization, and the implications of Christian morality on society, had some very good qualities about them and should not be discarded. These are people whose beliefs would tend to be in favor things such as hierarchical society, the headship of the father in the family (that is, the notion of patriarchy), limited government (the Principle of Subsidiarity), an understanding of liberty that implies responsibility and is directed towards what is good and holy, the importance of rational reasoning, the inclusion of God – defined through the Christian religion – in every day society, and making the virtues as explained by Christianity the foundation of any human society.
The Liberal Egalitarianist
On the other hand, among those who do not believe in the traditions of the fathers, the largest group is what we might call “liberal egalitarianists”. This camp of thought is focused on erasing the Christian foundations of society, favoring instead ideas that are fundamentally different and are often contradictory to the values of traditional Christian society. For example, the Liberal Egalitarianist position believes that all peoples of a society should be equals, in contrast to a diverse, hierarchical social arrangement. Corresponding to that, this position is more in favor of the governing republic as opposed to monarchy. The extreme egalitarianism of today – found in feminism and socialism, as two examples – is an extremist form of that same line of thinking.
The Liberal Egalitarian position tends towards belief in extreme egalitarianism, which primarily is opposed to any kind of authority. Consequently, this position also tends against any notion of headship in family or of a spiritual “God” Who is the ultimate Authority to which all are subject. This position tends towards a view of liberty as being merely license to do whatever one wants, at whatever time one wants to do it – a view that is in opposition to authority, as well as responsibility and traditional morality.
Advanced as the Liberal Egalitarianist position is in modern Western society, we find traces of it everywhere, even among those who identify themselves as conservative. An example we might look at in the Catholic community would be allowing female altar servers at Mass. The Liberal Egalitarianist position might say that girls should be allowed to be altar servers because, after all, women are part of the community and they are certainly present at Mass, and since being an altar server is not the same as being a priest, why shouldn’t we allow girls to fulfill that function? The response from the Traditional Conservative, however, would be that, yes, women are part of the community and are present, but not everyone is designated to fulfill the same function: there are natural distinctions among a population that ought to be honored. To quote St. Paul, “If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?” (1 Corinthians 12:17). There are very rational reasons for designating the function of the altar server as being for males alone, most notably that this fosters the growth of the priesthood by allowing a greater number of boys a closer experience to what the priesthood actually is, thereby encouraging a greater number of them towards that vocation. Yet, even so, someone who identifies himself as conservative might very well take the Liberal Egalitarian position on the question of female altar servers. This contradiction may be a startling indication of what his worldview actually is and how this may differ from his political perspective.
To illustrate this further, we can compare the previous example to the question of the male-only priesthood. In these days, I dare to think that the question of women priests is finally starting to die off – the Church having proven that it will not (cannot) budge on that point. Consequently, we have Catholics today who are in favor of the male-only priesthood, in response to this firmness on the part of the Church, but are not in favor of male-only altar servers. Often what this indicates is some amount of an underlying Liberal Egalitarianist worldview, which admits of the male-only priesthood as a kind of “exception” to the rule. But the Traditional Conservative is in favor of both the all-male priesthood and all-male altar servers – with neither being an exception because both fit into the underlying pattern of a diversified-hierarchical social arrangement within human community.
But what is the underlying pattern of the Liberal Egalitarianist, fraught as it is with “exceptions” to make room for a Church that seems to frustrate it at every corner? It is this: that all are equal, all are the same; there is no diversity, no hierarchy.
And how do we deal with this contradiction of ideas, if we are faithful Christians and we acknowledge that the teachings of the Church are from God himself? God is not irrational; there are no contradictions in his reasoning…it is men who can be irrational, glossing over logical contradictions in favor of their traditions.
Worldview Determines How We Live
What I continue to find as I consider the issues of our day is that these underlying worldviews have far more to do with how a person lives, what he ultimately believes, and where he will ultimately go with his life, than many other factors that we would normally consider deciding factors. It seems that worldview is a significant deciding factor here, and it is important to realize that worldview is, to some extent, the result of our choices – and therefore is tremendously important. I would even say that the spiritual battle of our times revolves around this issue of worldview. Consequently, worldview will become a heavy emphasis as I continue my writings on this blog.
As I have written about before, it seems to me that the difficulties with understanding gender in modern society can be boiled down to three main categories.
- The first is not recognizing that man and woman are truly different;
- the second is not recognizing that man and woman are the two complementary parts that form the single whole that is the human race;
- and the third is not recognizing the call to procreation that is inherent to being creatures with gender.
It is the second point that I would like to review in this post.
When we say that modern society does not recognize that man and woman are the two complementary parts of the single human race, we are describing mainly a spirit of violence against the unity of the genders. If this problem were taken to its most extreme form, we would have a society in which men and women are so separated from one another that they would be thought of as distinct races.
As absurd as it is, the following would be a good description of such a place. There would be a nation of men; there would be political rulers, military fighters, ordinary working men, religious men, and men devoted to raising children. There would also be a nation of women; there would be political rulers, military fighters, ordinary working women, religious women, and women devoted to raising children. (The presence of children would have to be accounted for by some kind of black market birthing cross-over).
The point is, men and women would be viewed as utterly the same, and at the same time irreconcilably different.
A very unhealthy state of affairs. But that is an extreme example to illustrate a point.
Practically speaking, the most significant manifestation of this kind of thing in the real world is what I call gender polarization.
You find gender polarization anywhere that you have one gender collectively trying to protect itself against, or challenge, or oppose, the other gender. The modern ideological feminist, who fights tooth and nail for her ideas of gender equality, is frequently a source of gender polarization: her efforts are rarely merely focused on improving conditions for women, but instead usually revolve around creating independence from men, or presenting women in a light that is entirely distinct and separated from men, or at-odds against men.
But the most common example of gender polarization that we find today is in language that has become common. These days, anytime one abstractly mentions a person, or a group of people, it is followed by a litany of statements such as, “his or her”, “he or she”, “men and women”, “congressmen and congresswomen”, “mailman or mailwoman”, etc…
There is a time and place in communication when such specifications need to be made. Specifically, when the context is one that is immediately present, or if it is needed for clarity, or if there is another obvious circumstance. But there are a great many other circumstances where this is not the case, especially when we are speaking generally about things, or in an abstract way.
The problem that we have is this. When we go about universally talking about the individual as a “he or she”, and people as “men and women”, we are slowly contributing to an atmosphere of gender polarization. We are contributing to an atmosphere in which man and woman are understood socially as standing apart from one another, rather than being together to form a single, complementary unit.
There is another element to this as well. In Scripture, we find that God calls us “man”. Genesis 1:27 says, “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.” As a result, we – men and women – can be collectively called, “men”, for that is what our Creator calls us.
Let’s try to encourage solidarity between the genders, and avoid the polarization that so mars gender understanding today.
Is there something to be said for social redemption? …a kind of Christian evangelization that is not explicitly on the level of the Gospel message, but instead has more to do with the implications of that message, especially in social life?
We are not judges of peoples’ souls, as only God knows a person’s true guilt or innocence.
But we have to be judges of behavior. We have to be judges of cultural practices and lifestyles that are contrary to the moral law, or which lead (in however small a nudge it may be) towards violations of the moral law.
We have to judge these things because they have implications for our own lives, our own salvation, and the salvation of those who are closest to us. Disordered, immoral behavior contributes to the culture of a community. As a result, it is for the common good for such behaviors to be recognized as wrong and challenged.
For example, in 1 Timothy 2:15, we see that it says that women will be saved through motherhood. It is apparent that not all women marry and have children – but most do. We can speak of a spiritual kind of motherhood that is distinct from natural childbirth…but not at the cost of natural childbirth. In other words, we can’t say that, in the name of this spiritual kind of motherhood, it is acceptable for us to embrace a cultural standard in which the majority of women put aside natural motherhood in favor of spiritual motherhood.
Consequently, a cultural pattern of limiting the number of children a couple has purely for the sake of having fewer children, cannot be a healthy pattern. Because of this, any practice – such as a cultural environment encouraging women to enter career – which inhibits a couple from engaging in the contrary pattern of openness to life cannot be healthy. Likewise, the absence of a culture of women devoting themselves to motherhood cannot be healthy.
And so we must challenge it. We must judge these cultural practices for what they are. We must have the courage to trace out these practices to their logical conclusions…and to trace out what we know to be true and right to its logical conclusion.
May the Lord bless us in this effort.
Among motherhood circles, the topic of breastfeeding sometimes becomes contentious. Because of the various lifestyles lived by women in today’s world, it is often hard for a woman to breastfeed her child as much as she would like. This sometimes leads to arguments between women about what is “right” and what is “wrong” in this regard, and whether being unable to breastfeed as much as desired constitutes a woman having “failed” as a mother. Add on top of this the various ideas about whether or not breastfeeding can create extended infertility in the nursing mother, and we have a recipe for strife in the modern culture.
The main problem that we have is that our culture has moved away from norms that protected women, especially mothers and their children. We have moved into modes of isolation: isolation of mothers from babies, of fathers from their families, of families from their neighbors and other members of their communities.
In the past we had networks of families to support one another, especially among family members, since families usually consisted of many more than two or three children. Today we have a much greater degree of “independence”, but what that really means here is isolation. The support networks have greatly diminished.
For nursing mothers, this translates into extra difficulties. The fact is that a newborn requires a lot of attention. If a mother devotes herself to her children, taking care of a newborn will easily consume her entire day, making it difficult to get anything else done. But other things need to get done: not just keeping the house in order, but also watching an older child who is a toddler, for example.
Alone, these things can be incredibly difficult. A family with older children can compensate by having the older children help out. But what about the younger family whose oldest child is three years of age? Or the family whose older children all go off to school every day?
As I said, the problem is that our culture has moved away from norms to protect women and children. We must recover and redevelop a culture which not only protects, but embraces, the nature of family life.
Opposing the Isolation
There are three main points here, to challenge the isolation that has become the norm of our times. The first is that mothers cannot be isolated from their babies. We need a culture in which wives remain in the home, having the occupation of homemaker.
Fundamental to this culture is the art of breastfeeding, which allows mother-baby togetherness to be maximized in all ways. I say it is an art because while breastfeeding is natural to mothers, that doesn’t mean it is easy; it also doesn’t mean that it can be done just any way that a mother wants. The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding is the most effective plan that I know of for enabling women to discover this art of breastfeeding. It is the healthiest thing for the baby, by far, but it also has enormous health benefits to the mother. In addition, this art of breastfeeding can produce a natural, extended infertility in many mothers (though not all), tending towards a natural spacing of babies about two years apart.
Furthermore, this culture has to be a real cultural community: the idea of community needs to be greatly increased, so that families develop bonds of trust and friendship with other families.
Women of All Stages of Life
The second point is that this culture of wives remaining in the home, of homemaking, cannot be simply about mothers. It has to be about women in all stages of life. Most notably, young girls need to be started at a young age helping mothers out with children and homemaking duties. Members of this culture of homemaking must send their teen, or pre-teen, daughters on a regular basis to help out other mothers in the community with these things. This should be done not as an opportunity for these girls to make money – they should not be paid for their “services” – but it should be for the greater bonding of the community: assisting mothers who have great difficulties with their children, and also teaching young girls how to do all of the things that a mother and homemaker does.
This is especially important for the nursing mother, since one of the Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding is for the mother to take a daily nap with her baby. Without someone to assist her in watching older children while she is napping, this may not always be possible for a mother.
It is also an opportunity for older women who no longer have children at home to give of their time assisting younger mothers. Also, unmarried women within this culture who have not chosen some vocation other than marriage – who are, as it were, still waiting to marry – would make up an important part of this cultural environment as well. Though these latter individuals in may need to work in the world of business or career to provide for themselves, it would be important for them to keep in touch with this cultural environment for when they do marry (if they do).
Keeping Children in the Home
The final point is that this culture of wives remaining in the home needs to allow older children, especially girls, to remain present in the home. Homeschooling is the ideal scenario: this allows parents the freedom to send their children at appropriate times during the day to other families, to assist other mothers, without disrupting their educations. However, for children that are sent to school from 7AM to 3PM, this limits their ability to be able to perform functions such as this. Still, after-school visits to other families would be an improvement over none at all. Ideally, all childhood education programs should take into account the important role that these children play in their homes and should cater around that need.
These things are not complicated: they are just counter cultural. But they would satisfy many needs within one of the most important institutions of our society, the family. In order to effectively build a true culture of life, it must be a culture of family life. The ideas described here are central to this kind of cultural environment.
Christ said, “Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly” (John 7:24). Political correctness can become a form of pride or hypocrisy when it is done in order to give the outward appearance of assent to a ruling political party. Our assent should always first be to God, and His law.
Christ says, “take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father” (Matthew 6:1). This should lead us to realize that we should do these things not to look good in front of other people, but we should act according to righteousness for righteousness’ sake. Our highest allegiance should go to God and His law, not to human conventions.
The moral law require us to love all people. That means, we have an obligation to do right by every single person we encounter, and to do what is good for them appropriately according to one’s relationship with that person.
But it doesn’t mean we have to like everyone and be close friends with everyone.
It is natural for people to be drawn towards others with whom they feel a close bond, and to tend away from those whom they don’t. There is no sin in this provided it does not violate the obligation that we have to love all people whom we encounter.
On the one hand, we can sin by allowing our natural tendencies to override the duty to love all peoples (for example, shunning the outsider, or favoring the popular while ignoring the unpopular, or catering to the rich while ignoring the needs of the poor). On the other hand, we can sin by hypocrisy in pretending that we have no personal likes or dislikes, and that we equally “like” all people: this is hypocrisy, a kind of “judging by appearances”, where we are instead called to “judge justly”.
The political pressure of multiculturalism can become a form of judging by appearances when it leads us to pretend that we especially like people who are significantly different from us, when in reality we have no grounds for such feelings. Political pressure can create a tendency, for example, for white people to think they should “like” black people, just because they are black. Or, to withhold legitimate criticism, or to act outside of what is appropriate according to one’s relationship with another, just because that other person is of some ethnic minority.
This is hypocrisy. It is to judge by appearances, since our stimulus to act in this way towards a person is determined by nothing more than his skin color, rather than the content of his character.
From Isaiah, we hear this description of Christ:
“Not by appearance shall he judge, nor by hearsay shall he decide, But he shall judge the poor with justice, and decide fairly for the land’s afflicted…” (Isaiah 11:3-4).
Following the example of Christ, we too should not judge by appearances, but we should judge justly.
Pillar of Mutual Love #4 speaks of marriage and the reciprocal principle of spousal love that is described in Scripture. Mainly, that a wife is to be subordinate to her husband, and that a husband is to love his wife.
This pattern is really quite simple, and in ordinary circumstances there is very little difficulty with it. Of course, today’s circumstances are not what we would call ordinary, but we’ll get back to that.
The idea that a husband is to love his wife is completely natural. I think it is safe to say that it is nearly a universal constant that a wife really wants her husband to love her, certainly at the beginning of their relationship. Little girls grow up dreaming of falling in love and getting married.
There is something deep about the feminine nature that has to do with being the beloved – the one who is loved beyond what is easy or routine for the lover.
And all of this is ultimately connected to motherhood: that gentle flower, the instinct to give of self for the welfare of a little one, that is so deeply ingrained in the spirits of women. The dignity of woman, her importance to human society, always must be tied back to this motherhood. Otherwise a society risks losing the enormously important contribution of motherhood, and a husband risks failing to show his wife that she is beloved.
On the other hand, the idea that a wife is to be subordinate to her husband is also completely natural. There is a connection to be made in nature between masculinity and authority: in human society, it seems, masculinity creates authority. From the deepness of his voice, and the height of his eyes, to the breadth of his stature, and the strength of his arm, a man’s physical presence speaks of kingly authority.
And this brings us to the central point of the duty of a man to love his wife. It is certainly perverse for a wife to be in authority over her husband, yet the husband’s authority is found most perfectly when he makes it subordinate to the needs of his wife. That is, a man’s headship in his home is most perfect when he uses it for the welfare of his wife.
Here is the key point. The motherly instinct in women to care for the welfare of a little one so carefully and immanently is matched by the fatherly duty of a man to use his authority first for the welfare of his wife, and then for his children.
In this way, we can say that the husband is head of the home, and the wife is its heart.
Without the Lover and the Beloved…
Unfortunately, today is not an ordinary circumstance for the family. Families today are a lot like fish trying to live in contaminated water: many do not survive, but the ones that do often develop strange tumors and other oddities due to the impurities of their environments; few are healthy.
What is most noticeable to me is how much the modern culture has adopted norms that are opposite what is natural for man and woman in marriage: we are taught not to respect our fathers, and fathers are made out to be fools not worthy of respect, anyway; we are taught not to honor the motherhood of women and to ignore their need to be loved by their husbands, and anyhow (we are taught) they don’t want these things anyway.
But surely one of the greatest assaults on the dignity of family life today is directed against women and it consists in this: we are taught that women today are now focused on career and education and other things, and so are finally becoming contributing members of society.
This is the supreme insult, the greatest injustice, against honoring the dignity of family life, but especially the dignity of women. What punishment lies in wait for us, because our culture has done this? It may be that the natural consequence of the thing itself is punishment enough: with having such a view of women, we drive them away, and once they are gone there will be no more children to carry civilization on.
Lent, a Time of Repentance
In contrast to these things, we are called back to the simple formula: husbands love your wives; wives be subordinate to your husbands.
We are entering the time of Lent, a time of penance. Perhaps a good way to start Lent would be to give up all of the barriers that get in the way of allowing us to live this simple formula in our marriages. And, in the process, maybe we can turn things around in the culture at large.
With God, all things are possible.
What are the Pillars of Mutual Love?
They are something. And that is to say they are not nothing.
There is a lot going on in the modern world. A whole lot. And there are people going in all kinds of directions. But there aren’t that many who are moving in a rational, sane direction.
And by rational, I mean moving according to a logic that ties back to the fundamental truth: that is, the world in which we live. Or, to put it better, it is a logic that ties back to the deeper truth of which all the world – in its ebbing and flowing, its mountains and valleys, its oceans and deserts, it’s raging intensity and its peaceful serenity – innately bears an imprint.
For example, I can set up shop and announce to the world that a Toe is a Doe, and a Mow is a Doe, so a Toe is a Mow. And because a Toe is a Mow, then I can take the natural product of the Mow – a Yee – and make switch it out with the natural product of the Toe – the Tee – so that all the Yees and Tees are interchangeable under the Mows and Does and Toes…And soon enough I’ve built a house of logic that appears to make sense, according to some kind of logic.
But who am I to set up shop and define these terms? Or, what truth can they ultimately bear if their source is rooted merely in my imagination?
I say that an idea can ultimately bear no truth, and no good fruit, unless it is rooted in a truth deeper than itself – a truth that existed first.
And this is why. That house of logic that I built out of the Mows and Tees and Does – where does it actually tie into reality? If it does not plug into deeper truths that existed first, then it doesn’t tie into reality. It is an illogical tangent, a figment of some restless wanderer’s imagination. It is irrational.
But there are a lot of people today living according to irrational views of the world. There is a house of logic, so much a house of cards, on every street corner, these days. And there are massive houses of logic…more like mansions of logic, or castles of logic, that dominate a huge percent of the world’s populations.
But they don’t tie into reality…because they are not based on deeper truths.
So, what are the Pillars of Mutual Love? They may not be much, but they are something. In a world where so many voices are teaching things about gender that are irrational, based on invented houses of logic, there is not much saying anything positive – life-giving, encouraging – about gender understanding. This is my attempt to call people back to the deeper truths of the world in which we live, and away from the houses of logic that mislead so many today.
What does it take to get to the moon? Well, first of all, there has to be knowledge of the right course of action. We have to know how to build a spaceship to get to the moon; we have to know how to train the engineers to build it; we have to know how to train the astronauts to fly it.
The second part is that we have to have the strength to actually do it. This might mean having the financial backing to fund it. It might mean having the will power to see it through. Whatever it is, it is the umph that gets the job done.
For young men today seeking to enter family life, it is the same situation. A man in family life is a husband and a father, and this entails a certain responsibility. There is a certain order to the home that is necessary…it is necessary because it is what enables the family environment to operate smoothly for the purposes for which it exists.
The Order of the Home
A father has a responsibility to make sure this order is in place in his home. This order includes, for example, that he be the sole provider for his family. In other words, he has to be able to provide enough income for his family so that his wife does not have to work. If this is not in place, then his wife will be put under an unnatural and unjust pressure to abandon the practice of motherhood in favor of working.
Another example of this order of the home is that the husband and father is said to be the head of it. That means that the husband and father is the one who has the highest authority on what will, or will not, be done in the family. The practical reason for this comes back to the nature of leadership as service, which above all takes responsibility. If the father is not the one who makes the final decision in the family, then he has not taken responsibility for that decision – he has not loved his wife to the fullest extent to which he is called.
A final example of this order of the home is the importance of wives remaining at home. Whether it is career work or not, when a wife is so involved with external things that she has great demands on her time, requiring her to leave the home, this acts as a barrier to the prospect of pregnancy and subsequent motherhood. In addition to this, it can in turn create a temptation to use unjust means to prevent the conception of children. It is the job of the husband, then, to make sure that his wife’s duties to things outside the home are not so extensive that this becomes a barrier to the procreative nature of family life.
There is a Problem
For young men today, however, there is a serious problem. First of all, there is a high risk that they will not have knowledge of the right course of action: they may not know that a man is to be the sole provider for the family, or they may not realize the full implications of the harm this will cause the family if the man is not able to do this. They might not know that they, as men, are to be the head of the new families which they are forming with their wives. They might not know that it is important that their wives not have too many activities that pull them away from the home.
On the other hand, a young man may have some inkling about these things, but he may lack the manly strength to be able to insist upon them in his home. This happens to men when they have not fully developed their masculine natures, or have merely gone with the flow in this regard according to today’s culture. In other words, this is what happens to men when the Principle of Patriarchy is weak.
Caught in the Wheels
There are a lot of young people today who get caught in the wheels of the massive political and ideological struggles of the day.
These are the young men who were never taught the meaning of manhood, or the right order of the home, because these items were incompatible with a certain ideological belief or worldview; they are the young men who are weak in the masculine nature because they have been taught to fear that nature, as the feminists fear it, or because they never had the masculine encouragement to develop it.
These are the young women who buy into all of the feminist propaganda that they are surrounded with, especially in Universities and in the world of career; they are the wholesome young women who were raised well, but came into unfortunate contact with ideological activists who cared more about their ideology than truth, justice, or righteousness.
So, what will it take to get to the moon? A good start is for men to know what it means to be men, and then for them to be men.
There are a lot of Olympic events to watch, and many of these draw my attention. The more directly competitive sports are enjoyable the way that a football game is enjoyable. The high-flying tricks and techniques are amazing to see. But there is one event in particular that draws my attention more: figure skating. I am thinking in particular of pairs figure skating.
I would say it is the supreme sport – the greatest Olympic achievement. I may be biased: I’m not really thinking of figure skating here as a sport, like all the rest of the Olympic events. The topic of this blog perhaps skews my judgment…I am thinking of it as something else, as an image or a symbol of something deeper to the human race.
Calling Our Attention Back to the Beginning
With figure skating, the analogies go way back…back “to the beginning”, I would say. There is something unique about watching a lone man and woman, working together, acting in unison, producing a coordinated, graceful performance that can only really be described as a work of art, a masterpiece.
In a sense, we have the origin of the human race written here, re-enacted before our very eyes with every skating pair we watch. The woman is beautiful; she is graceful; she is like a radiant diamond that the world notices with the purest kind of pleasure. The man is glorious and strong; he is a solid foundation; he guide’s his Lady with ease and care; he carries her, he holds her high so that the entire world can see her beauty.
This image is symbolic, and likewise the Principle of Patriarchy is symbolically represented here. It is found in his height, in the way she looks up to him in order to look him in the eyes; it is in the way he wraps his arms around her after the performance, and she collapses against his chest; it is found in the way he leads in the dance steps, and the way that he must be the one to step forward first in the lifts and the carries, steady so that he can lift her high. He is the sure foundation that must be present in order for her to be lifted off the ice. Above all, the spirit of patriarchy is revealed in the fact that all of this is necessary for the total performance to be successful: it is a will of guidance, of order, of first-things-first, for the greater good of them both.
Likewise, we see the feminine genius at work, in the way that she makes the lifts and carries and spins look so simple and easy: relegating a monumental skill down to the appearance of simple grace so that it is readily accessible to the hearts and dreams of the little ones, looking up at them, hoping someday that they, too, might be able to dance such a magnificent dance. The little girl, that she might someday be so beautiful; the little boy, that he might someday be so strong.
Both the solidarity (the equality) and the diversity (the inequality) of gender shines out clearly in this event through the masculinity of the man and the femininity of the woman. They are joyful; they have given all of themselves in their effort. They are joined in a partnership, a companionship, that is unique, because of what they have accomplished. In the field of the ice, there is respect, there is loyalty, there is trust.
There is indeed beauty in what can be accomplished through the gender complementarity that we were made with: this event is a symbolic representation of it.
The Greatest Creativity
You see, despite often being marred by man’s fallen nature, this pattern is a universal one. From the very beginning, man and woman have been set apart for one another, to be bonded in marriage, to perform a work together that is far greater, far more beautiful, and vastly more creative than anything else they might do apart from one another.
That work is the work of procreation: a moment comes when a husband and wife look at their precious child and fully realize they have helped God in the creation of this child. This “generation” – this generative power – is one of the greatest gifts that God has bestowed upon the created world, and it surely is the supreme creative power in that world.
A man may produce a world-renowned work of art; he may produce a symphony that will be listened to and enjoyed for all the rest of human history; he may invent something of such importance that it will be relied upon for ages and ages to come. But none of this compares to the sheer creative power and ingenuity of the creation of a new life: because creation is God’s domain; because God has ordained that we – husband and wife – will have a special place in that creation of new life; because this new child has an immortal life which will live on for all of eternity, beyond natural death.
To me, then, pairs figure skating has no comparison to skiing, speed skating, bobsledding, snowboarding, etc… These things can be performed with enormous skill and achievement, but they cannot tell the story of something so fundamental as man and woman, as God intended them to be. Yet, pairs figure skating can do this, and it is to this that my thoughts continually return.