Skip to main content
She's right, you know. Women as such have nothing to do with this. Men are searching for the term that fits what they are feeling, what they are describing, and it's not enough. But they sense weakness, indecision, equivocation, compromise. And having been locked in the same cultural epistemic prison as the feminists they despise, they call the problem 'feminization.' But just as 'gender' is a stupid, imprecise word that means to undermine the very words we are trying to define, so are the terms used in this discussion. Does 'male and female' really mean something? Do these terms refer to something real? How many times have you heard, "Maleness or femaleness is a useless cultural construct"? A lot, right? Put it another way: The universal terms we might apply don't refer accurately to this thing or that; all that matters are the particulars. Ockham called; he wants his philosophy back. And when American men express frustration at the things they find in their worshipping communities, all they are doing is waging the same battle of redefining the terms, without asking and answering the first question: What does it mean to say 'I am a man'? And is that a real thing? If it is, if the terms that define us separately according to sex are real--there is a true correspondence between the universal concept "man" and me in particular--then we all have a duty to submit as individuals to the reality of that. Affirm it as true and then build upon it. We might have many interesting discussions about the particular ways we put the truth about ourselves into practice, but as it is written, "God made man in his own image; male and female he created them." That is to say, God is not an Ockhamist. When God defines and speaks, it simply is. The feminine is absolutely not a negation of me as a male. It is other in some sense, but if I were to declare it in opposition, I would be denying the image of God. It's right there in the verse. If God does not believe femaleness to be a negation of His image, why should I? Driscoll, while doubtless trying to affirm good things about males and maleness, has bought the lie that feminism uplifts women; it doesn't. It destroys, on purpose, the meaning of the words 'male' and 'female'. Then it gives us a vicious replacement of a word instead, purposely leaving it undefined, rooting for us to destroy each other: equality. I don't need to say anymore; the world-destroyers don't define it; why should I? In every discussion of sex and sexuality, they equivocate, like always. But 'equality' is a male bovine's fecal matter kind of word. My only caution to the author is not to accept undefined words and allow people to use them as clubs, as though we have agreed on what they mean. I affirm Amy in her femininity as such. We as a species have not always been so gracious to one another, which is to say, we have accepted the lie of negation. I will not; I am happy to be a man, to submit to its objective reality as a part of me.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un