This article has been updated and moved to my new site dedicated to politics from a Biblical perspective. You can find the updated version here.
This article has been updated and moved to my new site dedicated to politics from a Biblical perspective. You can find the updated version here.
27 thoughts on “The Case for Christian Nationalism”
One thing that is seldom understood about God’s design and order is that everyone CAN be blessed while operating in it. Though humans chose the effects of sin and selfishness, I know that blessing can be had for husbands, wives, and children who follow His order and ways. To the world, this concept is foreign because it is at odds with culture, though many are starting to see the results of following culture (broken families, divorce, adultery, whore mongering, destruction, misery, brokenness).
I certainly agree that husbands have biblical ownership and authority over their wife and children, but the relationship is much more complicated than that. A husband is also responsible for leading, teaching, nourishing, protecting, investing in, and growing his family. Like the servant who has been trusted with much, a husband has been trusted with much! This is not a small task, though many husbands do not have the guts for it. The bible says that a husband should love his wife in such a way as to present her to himself blemish free. This will involve encouragement at times, discipline at times, and costly love at times. It also says that he should be considerate and understanding. He should be careful to not embitter his children.
The goal a husband should have for his wife and daughter’s is that they should become ALL that God made them to be. He should invest and encourage them to become women of God, who have a Godly heart, who work hard for their families, and who, because of Christ, places herself under her husband’s authority.
I want to address a lazy approach to biblical gender roles that makes proper biblical gender roles look bad. My wife and I were talking about this this very morning. We typically see a group of wives that obviously belong to a certain Christian church based on the way they dress. I’m not going to say which one, it would be one known for being firm about gender roles. Ironically, this group of wives consistently behaves and treats others horribly. My immediate thought is that they probably behave one way with their husbands or in church, but completely another way outside of that sphere. My next thought is that their husbands are doing a terrible job of leading their wives to Godly behavior – they are representing themselves, their families, and Jesus poorly. My next thought is that perhaps the staunch approach may not be the ideal way to produce the fruit. …or perhaps it is not ideal for every wife.
I am as opposed to feminism as anyone could possibly be, and I am so tired of hearing about female empowerment (which seeks to throw God’s order out / ironically ruining women’s lives and leaving them un-empowered). Women should not be trying to be men or usurp men. They should be trying to be Godly women. With that said, a woman’s proper place is not down, nor is it above or equal to her husband. Her place is to be lifted by her husband. We need to remember the Proverbs 31 woman (whose husband has full confidence in her AND at the same time she is fully under the authority of) is wise and buys a field.
If we force women into a position where they can only depend on a man be it her husband, her father, or another male relative aren’t you interfering with the concept of free will? If women aren’t allowed to own property how does it benefit them to inherit it and couldn’t the men they give it to turn on them and use the woman’s inheritance selfishly? Also would the male family members be legally obligated to provide for the female relatives and if they decide to act in their own selfish interests will they be punished? The biggest concern is with that nagging topic of abuse if we look at history you can see that rules don’t guarantee protection from tyranny on any scale. By removing a woman’s right to speak on her own behalf history would eventually move back to a time when they deemed incapable of doing so, seen as lesser beings, and their word did not hold the same merit of that of a man’s. I believe we can agree that during that time there were probably copious women that suffered some sort of wrong doing but couldn’t get justice because they were fighting a huge boy’s club. Because they aren’t able to own property you would have women moving from pillar to post every time a husband or male relative passes. I would like to look at the word “freed”. Let’s stick to physical abuse black eyes, broken ribs, missing teeth, scratches etc. Once women have been reduced to this level . . . Should we expect all men to do right by them in these situations, well we expect them to but will they always? The word “freed” does not imply that the power to walk away is with the victim. To top it all off these women would be less likely to seek refuge because they would be leaving with literally nothing and without their children. Is it worth it to take women back to that world? Also why would a woman only be granted temporary custody or ownership of her own children?
Was 16 a mild reference to conquering land amd polygamy?
My law number 16:
You are half right. The law does mildly speak to polygamy but its not talking about conquering lands. Its talking about the right to purchase and own private property with one’s own money that they have earned either through work or ingenuity(inventing things, creating things…ect).
But I think a law on polygamy would have to be made clearer than that – “All men shall have the right to have more than one wife as long as they get the permission of the woman’s father or other adult male that is her authority and they can rightly provide her with food, clothing, shelter and sex”. In other words i think the law would have to be clear in some way that you must demonstrate the ability to provide for wives and not depend on charity to support them.
The concept of free will in the Bible is not what our concept of free will is. Our free will is a limited to the bounds of God’s law. God has place different responsibilities and restrictions on men than he has on women. God’s design is that women should indeed be dependent on men just as all of mankind should be dependent on God.
I absolutely agree with that going back to Biblical laws regarding the place of women and removing the new rights modern society has given them would definitely expose women to much more abuse than they are currently exposed to today. It would leave some women with tyrannical husbands who do not love them as Christ loves his church. It would leave other women with men who simply married them for their inheritance and again these men may have no intention of loving their wife as Christ loves the Church. It would force women to choose between leaving their husband and having their children (if she has just cause to leave, but he has not harmed the children in anyway).
But my first response to this is – this is in line with the Word of God. We cannot break God’s law regarding the position of women to men in order to protect women from potential abuse.
But even for those that do not accept the Bible as the Word of God (our secular humanist friends as well as liberal Christians) there is a logical reason for removing women’s new rights that have been given to them over the last 150 years.
Trying to protect women from every kind of abusive relationship situation by granting them full equality with men, equal rights to their children in divorce, and allowing them to own property and take property in divorce has lead to another kind of abuse – the abuse of the institution of marriage itself. The attempt to protect women from abuse, while perhaps having good motives, has lead to the decimation of the family unit and marriage itself. This in turn will lead to the destruction of Western civilization.
God’s way is not only right, but it is logical.
So, we must ask ourselves this – is it better for some women to suffer abuse at the hands of evil husbands or fathers but keep the institution of marriage strong and in tact with children being raised by their biological parents or it is better to protect individual women but in the process of doing that we sacrifice the institution of marriage itself?
What is best for society as a whole is more important than protecting individuals from the potential of abuse because the very protections we put in place to protect from abuse can be used as weapons of abuse themselves.
The Proverbs 31 woman buys land.
Yes she does. I would say that while she owns things, she (herself, and everything she owns) ALSO belongs to her husband. Just as I myself and everything I own ALSO belongs to the Lord…
If a servant goes and purchases something for his master does that make the item(land, or other item) his? The answer is no.
In Numbers 27 we read the story of the five daughters of Zelophehad of the tribe of Manasseh. Zelophehad died having no sons and his daughters were worried that their father’s name would die out because of this so here is the request they made to Moses:
A lot of Christian feminists try and use this story to falsely claim these women were fighting for women’s rights. But if you read the story in context they were simply trying to preserve their father’s name. They recognized if he had sons the inheritance would have gone to the sons and not them(Numbers 27:1-11). In Numbers 36 the tribal leaders of Manasseh made Moses assure them the daughters of Zelophehad would be required to marry men of the tribe of Manasseh. This makes perfect sense when you think of the kinsman redeemer. If a man dies and his wife bore him no sons another man would redeem his wife and their first child would take on the name of the dead husband to preserve his line(as with Ruth and Boaz).
In the same way when these women married men of the tribe of Manasseh they would do EXACTLY what they told Moses in Numbers 27 which was to make sure their father’s name did not die out. This means their husband would make sure their first son would take their father’s name. This was the price of him marrying them and getting their inheritance. But even then the husband only kept the inheritance in trust. When the sons were men they would take on the inheritance of their grandfather whose name they bore.
The point in all this is this – whenever women inherited anything it was only TEMPORARY and as soon as they married ownership would pass to their husband or to their sons. The reason for this is this – money and property represent power, independence and freedom. God did not grant these things to women and he made women for men. If you give women these things as they have today – look at the havoc they have brought upon society? Look at the destruction of the institution of marriage because women can own things and don’t need men anymore? They don’t have to marry for survival anymore and if they do marry they can easily leave and take half or more of their husband’s property. This was never meant to be in God’s design.
Growing up the way I did and in the community itself, I did not see anything wrong with what I was seeing. The guidelines you have here are very similar to what I was in the process of learning but I had been able to see it quite a bit up until my wife and I decided it was best for us to leave. A former friend of mine got married 2 years before I did, his wife was very quiet and she did not like to be left alone with men unless it was her father, or brothers.
If she spoke to them she preferred distance between them, no touching if any kind, no eye contact and other people had to be around. One day He told me why she acted that way and his answer blew me away. He said “she was walking through the courtyard and fell, and one my buddies went to help her but she claims he wasn’t helping but instead stuck his hand up under her dress so she slapped him. Well when she came to tell me my friend already did and it seemed like the truth to me because she waited a few hours to tell me. Her excuse was she was so upset and didn’t want to make a big deal about it.
That didn’t make sense to me because no woman would be able calm themselves after such an ordeal so it was at that point I new she was lying so I slapped her a few times for lying to me. So for the past 2 years she just avoids being alone with men unless it’s her father or there are other people around. You know that girls exaggetate and sometimes even lie”. I was floored. I see that in these rules so it’s hard for me to say it’s worth it to return to that way of life. Her side of the story did not matter not because she cries wolf, or has a history of lying but because she is a woman. I hate to say this but that isn’t fair and it is sad. I could not imagine living in an environment where I’m powerless to save myself from that kind of situation and
I think that the fear everyone woman has if the law changes well so will the mindset of the people especially the men in control and it does not look healthy. I saw my mother in-law get pushed over in her garden because she was not moving fast enough so she could start cooking. Mind you no one was helping her gather the food and they have 4 boys that could have but no her husband got up walked over and shoved her with his foot. These men thought like this, and would sing their wives praises all day but the way treated them did not convey the same message. It’s tough to say let’s go back in time when they are safer now.
There was this german guy once who also wanted a country with only one ethnicity. I can’t remember his name though.
I was waiting to see who would be the first multicultural, multiracial globalist who hates nationalism to come and equate ethno-nationalism with Nazism.
The German guy you refer to(Hitler) did not just want Germany to have one minor variation of Caucasians. He actually wanted his minor variation of Caucasians to rule the world and exterminate all of what he believed where lesser races. He was not deporting Jews – he was massacring them by the millions. If you actually knew history just about every nation in the world was dominated by one ethnicity. It is what makes for stable nation sir.
You think America has racial strife now? Wait 30 years when you have riots and cities burning and tell me how great multi racialism is in a country. But you don’t have to murder minorities or say that your minor human variation(which what an ethnicity is) is superior to all others and they must be eradicated. Contrary to what liberal teach today – deportation is not equivalent to murder.
I hope that helps everyone have a better understanding the difference between ethno-nationalism and Nazism.
You clearly feel passionate about your convictions and I doubt that I am going to change your mind.
However, I think that for your sake and for the sake of others like you I would like to use this opportunity to point out why atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists dislike hardcore religious believers so much. Or perhaps I should use a better term; religious fundamentalists.
The components of the proposal that you have outlined obviously mean a complete alteration and abandonment of the freedoms we currently enjoy especially in the area of women’s rights. You would reduce women down to the mere property of the men in their lives. I will give you credit for being upfront about this. That is certainly refreshing, as I’m used to most fundamentalists who beat around the bush and lie about what they really want.
Now let’s be clear about something, the only reason why you believe in the subjugation of women is because of your religious convictions.
The reason why that is so irksome to unbelievers like myself is that we don’t see any convincing proof that christianity is true. And then we run into people like yourself who want to force us into social conditions that we see as completely unacceptable and what’s worse is that your convictions don’t come from a carefully thought out philosophy or policy but from a religion which does not have the facts backing it up.
I am trying to be diplomatic. But just try to imagine how irritating this is to us. Imagine if a Muslim or a hindu came to you and tried to completly change your way of life and when you asked their reasons they said “because our god said so.”
That would royally annoy you.
Well now you know. I hope that this comment helped illuminate our perspective and I hope that I came across as polite and respectful.
Thank you for allowing me to comment (if I make it through)
What I have been trying to communicate here is that there will be abuses with either system. There are massive abuses today just in different ways. What do you say to two teenage boys and a teenage girl who are watching their mother’s third marriage break down and she is looking to divorce their second step dad. What do you say to them when they say “marriage does not work!”? Statistically speaking those teens are RIGHT. Marriage as we have redefined as of the mid 19th and early 20th century has utterly failed.
The failure of marriage affects every part of society including increasing poverty and dependency on government in developed nations. When you give women equality with men and you give women a choice in child bearing there are less marriages, and among the fewer marriages that occur a huge amount of divorce, fewer children born and of the fewer children born nearly half our born of wedlock without a mom and dad to raise them. These are the FACTS.
So if you ask me was the old system perfect? It would be perfect as God designed it if sin did not poison it. The reason that some men abuse their authority over their wives and do not show them the love, grace mercy that God wants them to is because of sin. But despite the corrupting of God’s perfect plan for marriage by sin, the old system promoted marriage and child bearing and the new system today does not.
So what is more important – protecting women from potential abuse in some marriages(not all and I would argue not even most) or protecting the continuance of the human race?
All the freedoms we have given women that run contrary to the Bible in name of protecting women from abuse have actually brought abuse upon the institution of marriage itself and marriage as an institution has been decimated and the world’s population will begin to decline soon. America and the western world would already be declining if they were not importing people from 3rd world nations who populations also will decline soon.
So which do you want? to temporarily protect women from potential abuse by men while watching nations and the human race slowly shrivel up in the process or do you want to do what is best for strengthening marriage and the family while knowing it will leave women exposed to abuse in some cases?
As you can imagine I have received a ton of emails from non-Christians lately based not only on this article but also on a previous one that was reviewed by a popular atheist YouTube channel run by Rachel Oates.
I appreciate your respectful inquiry and I decided to choose your comments out of the pile that I have and try to answer some of your concerns.
You are right that obviously the foundation for what I believe comes from my faith and my belief that the Bible is the Word of God. However, that does not mean as you say that “your convictions don’t come from a carefully thought out philosophy or policy but from a religion which does not have the facts backing it up.”
I highly encourage you to read more of my site and you will see that my convictions actually come from a very thought out philosophy and policy and they do have facts to back them up. I am not talking here about the existence of God. There are plenty of Christian sites dedicated solely to that discussion. What I am taking about is facts concerning the impact of granting women in mass social and economic equality with men as the Western world started to do since about the mid-19th century.
First it started with giving them more rights in divorce, including property rights and child custody rights and eventually culminated in woman’s suffrage (first wave feminism) which pave the way for second wave feminism in the 1960s.
Since second wave feminism challenged women’s control over their own bodies and the entire concept of marriage itself with husbands as the head the following things have occurred:
Men and women marry far less (since relationships between men and women are now based on feelings and not duty as they once were) :
When they do marry the divorce, rate is nearly 50 percent with women initiating 70 percent of divorces
About 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock
World fertility rates falling below replacement levels
As I said before – my primary argument for imposing Biblical gender roles on society and taking away the new rights granted to women since the mid-19th century is a religious and theological one. But that does not mean there is not evidence outside the Bible for the proposition that gender roles work better for the sustainability of nations and the human race.
On the last article from Bloomberg which not only concedes falling fertility rates around the world, but actually relishes in it – I have a disagreement with their analysis. Freeing women from traditional gender norms is not just “a big factor” as they write – but it the largest and most massive factor involved with women in developed nations having less children.
Granting women equal rights with men has lead to less marriage, women having fewer children and of the fewer children they have almost half of them are born of wedlock. Let’s put aside for a moment the cost to governments of single mothers with children and also the impact on crime. Let just look at the falling fertility rates because women now have a choice in if they marry, whom they marry, can easily divorce and can choose when and if they have children thanks to modern birth control.
The article from Bloomberg concedes something I could have given you 20 different sources for. In developed countries where women have full rights and education and full choice over their lives the fertility rate is lower than 2.1. And once they drop below that rate “they rarely go back up” which is also true. Why don’t they go up? Because the biggest factor that causes them to drop – women’s choice over having children is not going to change. Because women can choose – they marry less and have less children. They concentrate on their own life and happiness with little thought of their decisions on the humanity itself.
Now the Bloomberg article writer like a lot of environmentalists thinks worldwide population decline is a wonderful thing. In fact, they think it will save the planet – Again I am not going to go down that rabbit trail as there are many sites dedicated to debunking that. Let’s just say for arguments sake that they are right and that we need world population to go down for the sake of the planet.
So over centuries we have get the whole world to be developed and we have a utopia of women having complete equality with men – but the world fertility rate remains below 2.1 as a result of women having a choice. So, each generation will have fewer children than the next and so on. As the world population continues to dwindle businesses and nations must adjust to few customers, and fewer citizens. Ghost towns rise up all over the world.
Real estate plunges because you have fewer people who need houses each year. Social welfare systems are stressed because you have fewer young people to support the older people. And while women still have a choice the population gets smaller and smaller and smaller.
At some point you have to take away women’s choice and force them to have more children or else humanity will die. Some might say – “maybe we will just grow children in test tubes”. But then who will raise them? Will we raise them in big government run facilities?
I say all this to say – while my argument is primarily theological – you still have the fertility crisis to address which is mostly attributable to women’s rights destroying the traditional institution of marriage.
Jordan, I understand your points. Something I always find interesting is that even in non-Christian marriages, husbands and wives often choose to follow traditional gender roles simply because they simply work better. To put it in non-Christian terminology, they seem to be more aligned with nature where the male is dominant and female cares for the children. Though many deny this today, most sensible people see that men and women, while having similarities, are very different physically, emotionally, relationally. It just is what it is. Non-Christians would assign this to “nature” or what is obvious about our bodies and/or characteristics, but I would assign this to “God design” which affected our bodies and nature.
Something stuck out to me in your post – you said that you don’t see any convincing proof that Christianity is true. When I was looking, but not yet believing, this was the direction I took with God. I am interested, but I need you to prove it to me. It was all about me being satisfied about God. It was a thought that put me above God in the drivers seat expecting Him to answer to me. What I came to find out is that it really is not about me at all.
The proof I was demanding was literally everything my eyes see – all of creation. His world, His creatures, His people. Yes, the world finds other reasons for the existence of all of these things, but that doesn’t mean those reasons are correct, or even make sense logically. There is a theme here however, the more wrong ideas that people accept and align themselves to, the harder it is for them to accept God and all that He has done for us. Women’s right are one such issue. Women will never be equal to men for the simple reason that we are not equal. We are physically and emotionally different and each has their own nature.
I will give you one truth however, men and women are BOTH heirs in the Kingdom of God though we have different roles on Earth. If there was ever a women’s equality that mattered, it is this! God says we are co-heirs in heaven. If you measure God through human thinking about what you think is right, He will not reveal Himself. I would suggest that you approach Him differently. It makes sense that His ways are not our ways – remember that He fashioned us from dust and breathed life into us.
For all the advances in science, they have never been able to create even a single living cell from non-living matter. They can butcher His creation and show up and take credit, but we need to consider our true and honest place in this universe He made before we can ever begin to approach Him. Only when we approach Him from the right heart and attitude will He reveal Himself to us. Try something – pray for 30 days no matter how it feels day to day. Pray for God to reveal Himself to you in a meaningful way. Do it in the name of Jesus. Do not put any of your beliefs or expectations on Him, just ask Him to reveal Himself.
I know this would be pure fantasy, but I wish there was a community,subdivision/private town wherein all members would espouse these truths contained in this article.. Where traditional gender roles prevail, and the men of the community would lead in both the community matters, the church, and in the home. Where us women would have others of the mindset to fellowship with, pray with, and encourage each other to be Proverbs 31 women.
The toughest part of this lifestyle, for us, is to feel like you are “alone”/different in your community, in your church, and even in your extended family.
I get people writing me about that “feeling alone” feeling all the time – those who want to follow God’s Word in all areas including Biblical gender roles(understanding progressive revelation of course and the fact the Old Covenant has been replace by the New).
This is the passage I point them to that has always been an encouragement to me in those times in my life when I have felt like you:
Just as God reserved to himself a faithful remnant of Jewish believers in Christ, so too he has reserved to himself a faithful remnant of Christians today who follow his doctrines concerning Biblical gender roles.
But our faith is most demonstrated when in fact we do feel alone in our community or church and we stay strong and stay the course.
And as far as fantasy goes – right now in 2018 America getting society to go along with this I agree is pure fantasy short of God himself coming down and causing a worldwide revival. I am fully cognizant that most women are not going to give up their rights, even in the face of societal collapse. Society will have to collapse first under the weight of its own bad decisions and when we see allowing women to lead selfish and self-centered lives has lead to the fall of our nations they won’t have rights anymore. The world will return to the natural order it once had. Because God’s ways are not only right and righteous – they are logical. If the vast majority of women do not stay home, have at least 3 to 4 children and raise those children as mothers eventually society crumbles.
So unless Christ comes back before this time – there is coming a day within the next century or so where what I am saying here won’t look like fantasy anymore. Feminism may deny God’s design for gender roles, but they can’t deny a little thing called math. If women continue having less than the amount of children needed to replace the population and also allow for even modest growth the western nations will collapse.
The fact that some women as well as some men are infertile is the same reason human beings are born with a variety of physical and mental defects – because we live in a sin cursed world. But infertile women would still have a place and could even still marry. Under Biblical law polygamy is allowed. If a man married a woman and she turned out to be infertile he could just marry a second wife so as to have children to carry on his name. Even if the woman knew ahead of any potential marriage that she was infertile this would not stop her from getting married. While God wants us to be fruitful and multiply- he only calls us to do what we are capable of doing. An infertile woman can no more bear children than a cripple can walk unless God miraculously intervenes.
But also a woman who is unable to have children could dedicate her life in celibate service to God. I talked about this in this article. I talked about allowing women who made vows of celibacy to pursue certain higher education fields and to be allowed to be nurses, nurses aides, medical aides and other caregiver roles. I talked about them being allowed to be elementary school teachers working with small children. So there would be many ways infertile women could still have a great part to play in society under the model I have talked about here.
“Something stuck out to me in your post – you said that you don’t see any convincing proof that Christianity is true. When I was looking, but not yet believing, this was the direction I took with God. I am interested, but I need you to prove it to me. It was all about me being satisfied about God. It was a thought that put me above God in the drivers seat expecting Him to answer to me. What I came to find out is that it really is not about me at all. The proof I was demanding was literally everything my eyes see – all of creation. His world, His creatures, His people. Yes, the world finds other reasons for the existence of all of these things, but that doesn’t mean those reasons are correct, or even make sense logically. ”
Thank you for your gracious reply to me, but I would like to take this opportunity to illustrate our point of view on this. As you said ” The proof I was demanding was literally everything my eyes see – all of creation. His world, His creatures, his people.” The problem with your logic is that even if god did create the world how do you know that it is yours that did it? Every religion has a creation story.
Thank you as well for taking the time to reply to me.
You are right that the birthrate is falling. And you are right that much of it has to do with women’s choices.
However, the birth rate is falling all over the world. Not just in western feminist societies. As the world becomes more urban and people leave the farm, children become a heavy economic burden. That may not sound nice but it is the truth. I am sure that their are many men who wish to limit their family size as well.
I used to work with a man from Mexico. I believe he is Catholic, but I could be wrong, anyways he has three children and doesn’t want anymore.
With every social trend there are good things and bad things that go along with it.
As women are given control over their own fertility a country’s wealth and standard of living go up. Are their problems with a declining birth rate? Yes. But there are good things as well.
Jordan – I am merely a man whom Jesus loves and has shown His grace to. I will fully admit there are a lot of questions I do not have answers to. If God wanted to be down here in all His glory, before everyone, He would be. My theory is that He wants those who choose Him without that. This is the mystery of faith. Let me say that Jesus changes everything. Be well!
I will agree that urbanization has effected the fertility rate as well and that is because of another problem and that is materialism. Back not to long ago people raised 4 and 5 children families in 1000 sq foot homes. They had one car and most did not go on fancy vacations. Today we are so materialistic. Today people insist on having 2000 and 3000 sq foot homes. Every family must have two new cars in the drive way and even the teens must each have their own car. Everyone in the family has to have a cell phone, a tablet and a laptop. Families must be able to take expensive vacations each year and they are expected to pay many thousands of dollars for higher education(which is another scam but that is another discussion). We have made life more expensive because of our priorities and values which I would argue are wrong.
I would absolutely admit that part of this problem is men seeing women working as great because they get twice the income and then still claim having kids is an economic burden. Children up until this century were seen as a gift from God – even by the poor and less fortunate.
So I am glad to hear that you admit that problem of the falling birth rates – I have yet to have an atheist write to me admitting that is a problem. All them(except you) say it is a great thing because they believe the world’s population needs to shrink. But then none of them have the answer as to how far it needs to shrink(which I disagree that it does) and what do you do when the population gets too small because women have a choice and some men are too materialistic and like their women working? How do you handle the selfishness of westerners when it comes to having and raising children? Eventually you will run out of people.
No atheist, secular humanist or enviromentalist that has written me will even concede the future problem if fertility rates do not rise again or how to solve it.
I said that there are problems with a shrinking population. In your reply you make it sound like it will be the end of the world. I think you said “humanity will die”. Humanity will not die out. Humanity has been through world wars, the Black Plague, and many other terrible things. We are an adaptable species. While a population decline does have its drawbacks it will not be the end of humanity. With the rise of
Automation I don’t think we have to worry to much about a declining population.
I like your articles and appreciate the message you have about God’s design for men and women. I’ve read your entire blog and really feel that you speak the truth. However, I would disagree that abused women in a society like this are acceptable as collateral damage for the greater good. Instead, I think it would be the responsibility of the men in government to protect women as a whole by developing a legal process through which abused women could find relief. Just my thoughts.
Just to clarify, I meant a way for them to find relief from physical abuse on their own, if they do not have a male relative to help them.
I understand your concern but I think we need to have a society where men take responsibility for the care and protection of women once again from a family/relative perspective. This serves two purposes – it guards against women abusing protections set in place to protect them from abuse(yes that is ironic but we are seeing it play out for the last century). And remember a male relative does not have to be a close relative – it could be a third cousin twice removed.
We have set in place a society where government has basically neutered the authority and protection of family and I think we truly need to get away from that. Biblically speaking women always need to be under male authority even when seeking relief from abuse from their most immediate authority(like a husband or father).
I know this is tough to hear – but we have seen what giving women full rights in order to protect them every kind of abuse with no male supervision over them has done – it has all but destroyed marriage and the family.
Some might say – what if we allow her to approach a non-blood male relative for help? The problem is that a non-blood male relative could have his own designs on her and you could have a situation where a man and woman invent abuse by her husband so that they can be together.
Thanks for your response. I’m a lot like Jamie, who posted above about wishing there actually was a real society like this, and we as women could have friends who live the same way. I’d pretty much be considered crazy by most people in my world for speaking this way (especially as a woman). Then again, since it has become so taboo, there might be lots of women who feel the same way but are also afraid to speak of it.
I’m still a little hung up on the potential for abuse, but I also see it as something that could be worked through. I do understand what you’re saying about family, but I’m from a family with three girls and no boys. My father is no longer alive and I really have to go to some distance on my family tree to find male cousins. I barely know any of them. But maybe families would be closer in a society like this, and people would be more likely to know their cousins. Or maybe there’s still another option to consider, such as a committee of elders that could be approached in rare cases. It’s all fascinating, to me, to consider.