Pantsuit Envy

This one is sure to get me in trouble with some, but here goes. It happens that whenever I read, wherever I get my news, there are gobs of articles about women seeking equality or protesting their tribe as oppressed and suppressed in society. For me it is actually sad that this taxonomic category has taken root. For all the historians, God has categorically made man and women different for many reasons. Equal pay for equal work is not exclusivily a feminist category. “Reproductive rights” is not solely a womens issue, ordinarily it would be called a moral issue. Women’s sufferage is over. As far as I know the right of women to vote in elections changed a hundred years ago. So, to me, at the heart of this radical, white pant suit, backlash is envy and more kin to the exploits of Cruella than Cinderella.

If we look at people, male and female, as individuals created for the glory of God we will see that each of us is given talents, abilities, and traits not only specific to gender but more likely specific to the purposes of God. As a man I do not expect to get paid more than a harder worker. I don’t expect jobs better suited to others to be granted me because I’m a man. I expect that I’ll get chosen because I’m better liked, better qualified, that I have a more famous reputation, or that I will be a better “fit” to the goals and culture of the organization. Sure, opportunities should not be given based on race or gender alone (sexuality is a whole different matter). For instance, let us take “social equality.” It’s a term often associated with feminism. Feminists believe in “social equality for women.” Sounds good right! But what is “social equality?” What does it mean for a woman to be socially equal to a man? You see the problem is definitional. If it means a woman should have the right to make the same amount of money for the same work generally, well that’s true. But if she thinks her talents are equal to a man’s just because she is a woman, well that’s subjective. It will always be subjective and she is envying a position she has no right to own solely based on her gender.

I remember playing college football at a major university in the 1970’s, about the time when feminism was taking root, and one day the coaches came in and said, “men, that’s what they called us, not the boy’s that we were, “today there will be women reporters in the locker room, you better mind your manners, get dressed quickly and for God’s sake if you’re coming from the treatment rooms wear a towel.” The whole thing did not seem fair! It was our locker room, a man’s sanctuary. Of couse it was unfair that male reporters had access to the players when the women did not. But the solution was not to give women access, it would have been better, in my opinion, to give both genders access after we showered and after we were dressed. But in this case feminism won the day. From that forward the agenda seems to have gotten more radical.

Today the whole solidarity issue would be wonderfuly accepted if women were celebrating their feminity and giving glory to their creator. I say give them their own locker rooms, their own identity. But when the solidarity becomes a political issue for dividing and conquering the man cave, that’s going a bit far.

As for all the articles, lighten up ladies. If you can run as fast, jump as high, and take the hits like a man you can be on my team. If you can sell as much, think as fast, and make decisions suitable to those in charge you’re hired. But if you think showing off white trousers in solidarity at the State of the Union is making the case for equal access to a man’s world it’s not. If at the State of the Union, the congresswomen, again, wear white pant suits it will certainly distinguish them from the congressmen, it will symbolize and expose their holy garments as hypocritical. They will display the personal, expensive, privilege of their own careers, while maliciously bemoaning the idea that others, unlike themselves, are incabable doing quite well under patriarchy; they will covet the qualites of men (and votes), while denying the liberty of being wonderfully made a woman.

Progressive “Christianity”

It’s complex, but progressive Christianity is in general a false religious system. It centers around not Christ, but around sinful practices. It is a culturally acceptable rebellion against traditional, and dare I say biblical, truths. It twists scripture and forthrightly denies all teachings it disagrees with. It uses Christianity as it’s platform, and sinful behavior as its center. “Believers” use Christ because His teachings on the poor, love, and general kindness “fits” the liberal narrative. It’s just a hustle, not a grace by faith thing!

You will also find a strong political bent to this perversion. It centrally consists of 99.9% activist Democrats who agree with such positions as abortion, homosexuality and all LGBT “rights.” It is anti hell, does not believe in absolutes, and of course it’s anti Trump, anti Pence, anti Franklin Graham, anti all great preachers and teachings of the past. It’s about the future; social justice, love, unity, spirituality, diversity, and the environment, sounds familiar right? There is even a website set up that directly states its purpose is for progressive Christians is to “Resist and Pray.” Resist against Trump and pray to the god who agrees with their lifestyle and views. CNN just today 1/25/19 published one of its posts, that should tell you something about the movement. Obviously, the emphasis is on resist and reconstruction, for by opposing traditional Christianity new liberal social constructs and sinful convention’s can blossom (see: http://www.resistandpray.org).

The complex part about progressive Christianity is that some of these people have made a sincere profession of faith in Jesus Christ and are seriously committed to know Him better. Their issue is not sincerity, but rather their lack of knowledge about biblical truth. Young believers have always had this issue, I did! They look around them and see a kind of Christianity that “fits” them and they are attracted by it. They associate with others who agree with them, they get together for coffee, love the music, and learn just enough biblical verses to support their beliefs. Often their parents religion was just too traditional, or their parents never really took their own faith seriously. Or likewise, they used their faith for gain or “fundamental” acceptance of their own views on issues like skirt lengths.

I realize I’ve blasted this movement (rightfully so), but I could also do the same for many other religious and quasi religious movements. Fundamentalism in many forms, the health and wealth gospels, many charismatic and traditional denominations like the United Methodist Church have serious errors in what they believe and teach. The issue always comes down to what we believe and why we believe it. Just remember if you believe anything about Christianity that departs from the teachings of the bible your beliefs are only a construct of your own mind or culture.

So I recommend you regularly read your bible and pray. God is fully capable of teaching you His truths. I have been doing this for more than 40 years. I’ve grown a lot. I’ve changed my views on many issues and I have become more loving, more kind, more knowledgeable. Above all this I have more joy, and Christ has my heart.

Public Opinion – Bad

It’s more than amusing, it’s odd that people construct notions of acceptability on grounds of public opinion. In fact, public opinions are managed by ideologues and most people are coerced into believing their dogma. At this point we, as a society, are constrained by this moral force formally called “public opinion.” The oddity, for me, comes from the departure from truth and the desire to create these new, progressive, thought bubbles. Ideas like gender identity protections are nothing more than cultural re-assignments away from eternal standard’s. This “new” purpose is based on perceptions, notions, inclinations, not truth. And sadly, that “purpose,” gender reassignment law, is more about power and politics, more about appetite than science. Still, these notions, no matter how popular, are destined for extinction because all true moral law is eternal; the trustworthiness of God’s laws, true morality, is written in our hearts; it cannot be changed, only perverted. There are no “new” truths created by the veracity of the opinion, there are just new ways of expressing outrage to common sins and God’s standards.

Remember, sin in a biblical context, is “missing the mark.” The target is the goal, the standard, the norm. Opinions can not make changes to the boundries of the eternal target. Fidelity to the original differs from a self-evident proposition of human reason. In other words, indiscernable truths are not justifications for new standards.

In this fast paced society, “change” is cloaked in the desire to depart from God’s standards, and it is happening at a record pace. I’ve lived long and I call this desire a societal constraint on freedom; the creation of new laws for the preceived protection of certain classes, races, and thoughts are not helping but rather harming society.

Yes, we need change. We need to return to the freedom’s inherent in biblical law and common to all people. Thou shall not steal, lie, or murder are easy examples. Honor your mother and father, another. Of course, then, there is that really hard one, seldon taught in public schools, “love thy neighbor as thyself.” I believe we would be better off returning to laws of God and the standards of our constitution which have served us well. The past is not so bad!