Esolen on the Death of Male Friendship

Yesterday I wrote on the need for male physical affection. We long for this as men. A friend directed me to this Anthony Esolen essay, which covers a lot of the same ground though with more eloquence. He even uses the same phrase “half-man” that I used. Esolen is more pessimistic than I am about the ability to overcome the tragic loss of friendship among men. I believe the gospel can, with much time and work, resurrect true manly, friendship. But I feel what Esolen’s last paragraph says,

No doubt about this: If you are a modern man, a half-man, many such ideas [about friendship and male love] and loves have already died in you. For as much as you can admire them wistfully, from a half-understanding distance, you can be neither Frodo nor Sam, nor the man who created them. You dare not follow Agassiz, alone, to the Arctic. You will not weep for Jonathan. You once were acquainted with Enkidu, but that was all. Do not even mention John the Apostle.

I look back at my fathers and realize I am a “half-man” because I do not know how to create or participate in true male friendship. One of my regular prayers is that I can do this with my sons and my brothers at church. I commend the essay to you. Here are a few other quotes that struck me.

Friendship and the signs upon which it must subsist are in a bad way. I will focus on the friendships of men, since that is what I know about; many comparable things might be said about the friendships of women. We still have the word “friendship,” and we still have something of the reality, but it is distant, dilute, bloodless. For modern American men, friendship is no longer forged in the heat of battle, or in the dust of the plains as they drive their herds across half a continent, or in the choking air of a coalmine, or even in the cigar smoke of a debating club…

It [loss of male friendship] is but more of the devastation wrought by the sexual revolution. That we fail to see it as such is no surprise: Naturally, when we think of that recrudescence of paganism, we think first of its damage to the family and to relations between men and women. We think of divorce, pornography, unwed motherhood, abortion, and suicidally falling birthrates. But the sexual revolution has also nearly killed male friendship as devoted to anything beyond drinking and watching sports; and the homosexual movement, a logically inevitable result of forty years of heterosexual promiscuity and feminist folly, bids fair to finish it off and nail the coffin shut.

What is more, those who will suffer most from this movement are precisely those whom our society, stupidly considering them little more than pests or dolts, has ignored. I mean boys…

On three great bonds of love do all cultures depend: the love between man and woman in marriage; the love between a mother and her child; and the camaraderie among men, a bond that used to be strong enough to move mountains. The first two have suffered greatly; the third has almost ceased to exist.

The Need for Masculine Physical Affection

Male Affection 1

Sometimes ideas are so closely linked that it is hard to know which came first. One of the problems that has arisen with the normalization of sodomy is the death of intimate male friendship. Which came first? Sodomy and the sexualization of male friendship? Or male friendships being viewed with suspicion? Did the sexualization of all things lead to the death of male friendship or did male friendship die and that led to sodomy? Did fathers stop showing physical love and this lead to sodomy and sexual abuse? Or did the rise of sodomy and sexual abuse lead to the decline of male physical affection?

These questions are not easy to answer. But physical, intimate, male friendship is often viewed today with suspicion especially by conservatives. Deep male friendship is at best weird and at worst a threat. Feminism seeks to destroy male friendship by making sure  women are always around. Often conservative women do the same thing by again making sure a woman, in this case MOM is always around to keep the boys in check. Whatever the reasons, men showing affection physically is weird. Two men with their arms around each other in public is odd to us. Men who kiss each other on the cheeks are odd, unless you are from the Middle East. In an older movie, Mrs. Brown, numerous British soldiers swim naked. How would that be viewed today? The truth is that many men fear physical affection with other men. They fear they will be viewed as latent homosexuals or it will just be awkward. There are two major exceptions to this, war and sports. In war men form deep  bonds and expressions of physical love are frequent. In sports, slapping each other, hugging one another, jumping into each other’s arms, and weeping with one another are expressed without concern for what the world may think.  As women continue to mingle with men in these fields no doubt even the physical affection shown there between men will diminish.  Continue reading

2016.Episode 19~Was Orlando Judgment?

Nightclub Shooting

Could the massacre at an Orlando gay club have been judgment by God? And if so, what does that mean for us? Can we now look down with pride at those who have been killed? Does that mean we now have the right to hate and judge homosexuals around us? If Orlando was judgment does that mean Sandy Hook was as well?

Unrelenting

Church Pews

In their excellent book, Unchanging Witness, Professors Fortson and Grams spend a chapter recounting the capitulation of the numerous mainline denominations to the homosexual agenda, including the Episcopal Church and Evangelical Lutheran Church. But the account that caught my attention was the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA).

I am not an expert on the history of the PCUSA, but I believe there were serious issues, such as rejection of the authority of Scripture, rejection of the supernatural, and ordination of women, which preceded their acceptance of homosexuality. If true, their capitulation to the homosexuals was not a surprise. A denomination that ordains women is going to have a hard time barring the doors against homosexuals. Here is the timeline how the PCUSA moved to accepting gays, gay ministers, and eventually same sex marriage (Fortson and Grams p. 157-158):

1978-United Presbyterian Church in the USA adopts a policy forbidding the ordination of homosexuals, but allowing gays and lesbians into church membership.

1979-The Presbyterian Church in the US adopts a similar policy.

1983-These two denominations join to create the PCUSA. The policy from 1978 remains in force.

1983-1993 There was constant debate in the denomination about ordaining homosexuals. So much debate that in 1993 a ban was instituted to prevent the issue from being voted on for three years.

1997-Conservatives passed an amendment to the PCUSA constitution requiring candidates for ordination “to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and woman, or chastity in singleness.”  Liberals presented a substitute amendment which said, “fidelity and integrity in marriage or singleness.” The substitute amendment by the liberals was defeated.

1998-Liberals again pushed for their substitute amendment. Again it was defeated though the votes grew closer. This happened again in 1999 and 2001. Each time the votes for the liberals grew.

2006-A PCUSA task force recommended allowing exceptions to the “fidelity and chastity” clause. This allowed homosexuals to be ordained.

2009-Again the liberals pushed for a vote to change the constitution. Again it was defeated though by the smallest margin yet.

2011-The language from 1997 was finally gotten rid of and openly gay persons could now be ordained to the ministry.

2014-The PCUSA approved a policy allowing pastors to perform same-sex marriages in states where the practice is legal. In that same year an additional vote was made that changed the definition of marriage from one and one woman to two persons. That passed by a 71% majority.

What I find fascinating is how “unrelenting” to use the authors’ word, the pro-gay lobby was. They never stopped bringing up the votes. They found ways around official policy, such as the 2006 task force. They kept pushing and kept fighting until they got what they wanted.  I am sure this began long before 1978, but even from 1978-2014 is a pretty long time. It reminds me of what Edwin Friedman said in his excellent book Failure of Nerve. Pathogens do not stop. They will not stop. They must be cut out. Long before sodomy ever became an issue someone within these denominations compromised on basic Christian teaching. It may have been the authority of Scripture. It may have been human sexuality. It may have been the denial of the resurrection of our Lord. But they compromised and here is the key no one disciplined them for it. Maybe they disciplined them the first time and second time and third time, but eventually they stopped, eventually the good guys gave up.

In the previous chapter Fortson and Grams discuss all the denominations that remain faithful to the Scripture’s teaching on homosexuality, such as the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS). I look at those denominations and my own, the Communion of Reformed Evangelicals (CREC), and I pray. I pray that we can hold fast. I pray that we have the stamina and backbone to fight. I pray that we have the courage of our brothers in Africa who stood up to the Anglican bishops who compromised. I pray that we are not afraid of being hated, cast out, and maligned. I pray that we can preach faithfully what the Word says. I pray we have the strength to excommunicate when necessary. I pray that our seminaries fire those who compromise. For we can be assured of this; the homosexuals will not stop. Their goal is not live and let live. Their goal is that churches everywhere accept them as true Christians no matter their sexual practices. For the sake of Christ, his sheep, and the lost we must be as unrelenting as they are. If not we will end up just like the PCUSA and the proverb will be fulfilled:

Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked. (Proverbs 25:26)

Surrender

White Flag

The Reformed University Fellowship has had rough few days. Several of their ministers came out and apologized to the LGBTQ community on behalf of their fellow Christians’ hate towards the LGBTQs. Additionally a minister from the RUF joined in an observance by his campus’ Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion service, which includes some songs and chanting that were straight out of the politically correct playbook.

One article by a minister named Sammy Rhodes in particular struck a nerve with those who hold to the Biblical teaching on sodomy. Carl Trueman responded to the article. Trueman’s answer is appropriately sarcastic, witty, and right. Read it to understand why Trueman thinks Rhodes is wrong: Rhodes makes no argument. He just emotes. Truemans’ article is helpful in showing how feelings whether of guilt, pride, or fear trump any argument or propositions in our culture. In our age we don’t need  or want truth. We need emotion. Or maybe the better way to say it is, our emotions are truth. This kind of thinking means the death of Biblical Christianity and of peace. The whole article is worth reading, but I wanted to quote one of Trueman’s paragraphs in full.  The bold is mine.

Rhodes does not really give the LGBTQs what they actually want. Today, sexuality is a major component of personal identity and as such is driven by the ethics of personal authenticity, thus requiring social recognition. This means that society at large has to recognize the complete legitimacy of that identity. Merely to come close to this but yet to fail to do so completely (as I read Rhodes doing) is thus still to engage in oppression and to facilitate the kind of culture which the LGBTQ lobby (and it would seem Rhodes himself) sees as leading to such as the Orlando killings. Rhodes does not explicitly repent for the conservative Christian denial of the legitimacy of the paradigm of identity underlying LGBTQism. He therefore remains as guilty as the rest of us of maintaining an ideology which the LGBTQers regard as oppressive. Strange to tell, he seems remarkably unaware of this. I would suggest that he needs to make a clear choice on that if his apology is to carry the weight he wants with the LGBTQ community.

Trueman’s point is why I find articles like Rhodes hopelessly naive besides being unbiblical. Many in the LGBTQ community do not want your apologies, your tears, your prayers. They want you to “recognize the complete legitimacy of that identity.” We must declare that who they are and what they want to do is not just okay, but virtuous, right, noble, just, and good. Until that happens we are the problem. Until we give them complete legitimacy we are the ones who hate. We are the ones who drive men like Mateen. Numerous homosexual writers have come out upset that Christians and others are treating the deaths of those in Orlando as a human tragedy. They were not just humans who were tragically killed. They were LGBTQs who were killed. They are martyrs for LGBTQ cause. If we are to truly mourn them we must mourn them for their true identity: gay, lesbian, transgender, etc. Truman’s final paragraph is not enough for the LGBTQ community:

In the meantime, we should feel horror at Orlando because human beings have been slaughtered – just as we should feel horror at the slaughter of human beings on the streets of American cities every day of the year.

There are numerous things Christians should do in the wake of the Orlando tragedy.

  • We should mourn the loss of human life. It was a tragedy and should be treated as such.
  • We should repent of our own sins knowing that we will have to face our Maker.
  • We should call on men to repent of their sins, both “words, works, and gestures” as well as sins of the “understanding, will, affections, and other powers of the soul.”
  • We should preach God’s word faithfully from the pulpits.
  • We should argue persuasively with word and deed that the Christian life, the way that conforms with God’s revealed will in Scripture and nature, is best for us, our neighbors, our communities, and to glorify God.
  • We should give thanks to Christ for his work on the cross so we might be pardoned from our sins and those sins might be subdued in us.
  • We should treat homosexuals and lesbians just like we do all humans with respect and kindness, but aware that they need Jesus and if they do not repent they will not enter the kingdom of Heaven (I Cor. 6:9-10).

But Rhodes’ article (along with numerous others) does none of that. His article is compromise and capitulation in the guise of false humility and manipulation. He believes he is reaching out to the LGBTQs when he is really only surrendering and in the process dividing the body of Christ and leading sheep astray.