# The good and the bad of "Patriarchy"



## Pergamum (Jun 29, 2021)

A brother asked me what I thought about Patriarchy. I was hoping the PB could help.

I answered I both loved and hated it. There are good and bad examples. My own view is that I don't really like any of the current labels. Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Patriarchalism all seemed to come into use within the last 30 years. That is troubling. 

I have answered others that I like whatever was practiced on Little House on the Prairie by Ma and Pa Ingalls. I would call myself a Traditionalist. 

What are your thoughts?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## gjensen (Jun 29, 2021)

I tell them that for every patriarch there is a matriarch.

I would say that "traditionalist" is "patriarchal". Your wife has taken your name, and your sons will carry your name forward. You are the head of a family, and with our Lord's blessing, your family will grow from generation to generation.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Stillwaters (Jun 29, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> A brother asked me what I thought about Patriarchy. I was hoping the PB could help.
> 
> I answered I both loved and hated it. There are good and bad examples. My own view is that I don't really like any of the current labels. Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Patriarchalism all seemed to come into use within the last 30 years. That is troubling.
> 
> ...


Yes it is troubling.

I thank God I'm a woman. I do NOT envy the fearsome responsibility men have as "heads of household" Coram Deo! What a fearsome responsibility! And then those men called into leadership positions and office bearers! What fearsome responsibility there too.

Our "Men of God" need all the help and support we women can give them!

We all belong to God and it is He who determined which gender does what within the context of the family and the Church.

Every Christian has the same Holy Spirit indwelling them, and the same Christ who lives (for it is no longer we who live). We are all being conformed to the same Image of His Son. Spiritually we are the same. We are all called to be warriors and defenders of the faith.

But we have different jobs assigned to us, and God established the gender as indicator of His job assignments.

My time in the Military back in the 1970's taught me a lot about the need for authority, hierarchy of responsibility, and that some are meant to be "in Charge" while others are meant to follow and serve and help.

The Church has always seemed like a "Military Organization" to me. Christ is the head and the Great Shepherd, but He has called many to be His "Under-shepherds" (over-seerers) in the Church. And then the husbands are commanded to be heads of their households responsible for all of the welfare of his family including the spiritual welfare, and he is also commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the Church (and gave Himself for it)!

Wow! What a high order!

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## B.L. (Jun 29, 2021)

What is your brother's definition of patriarchy?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Jun 29, 2021)

B.L. said:


> What is your brother's definition of patriarchy?


Right. The definition of the term is highly user-dependent.

We here might all be patriarchalists, or they might be a small minority, depending on the context.

And young, single men who might be reading this: when girls tell you "Down with the patriarchy!" they really mean "Hug me, please!"

Really!


----------



## No one (Jun 29, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Right. The definition of the term is highly user-dependent.
> 
> We here might all be patriarchalists, or they might be a small minority, depending on the context.
> 
> ...


So I should hug them?


----------



## No one (Jun 29, 2021)

B.L. said:


> What is your brother's definition of patriarchy?


It was me and I honestly don't have one and that's why I asked him so I might learn.


----------



## No one (Jun 29, 2021)

gjensen said:


> I tell them that for every patriarch there is a matriarch.
> 
> I would say that "traditionalist" is "patriarchal". Your wife has taken your name, and your sons will carry your name forward. You are the head of a family, and with our Lord's blessing, your family will grow from generation to generation.


So you would not advocate that a woman keep her last name in marriage?


----------



## AnotherDaniel (Jun 29, 2021)

You should read "Masculine Christianity" by Zachary Garris. He convincingly asserts that patriarchy is biblical and critiques both complementarians and egalitarians. Here is how he would word a statement on biblical manhood and womanhood:

1.) All men and women share human nature made in God's image, and Christian men and women are joint heirs with Christ.
2.) Yet men and women have distinct sexual natures that determine their roles, purposes, and duties in life.
3.) God designed men to provide, protect and lead, and He designed women to bear children, care for the home, and serve as helpers for their husbands.
4.) There is hierarchy in rank between the sexes, whereby God has designed men to rule in the home, church and society.
5.) Though men and women have differing natures, roles and rank, they are both equally valuable before God and man.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2021)

It's one of those define your terms things. I utterly reject the whole "Christic manhood" schtick. I am openly hostile to them. Feminists would consider me a patriarch; theobros would think I am a compromiser.

It really depends on what the dudebro in question really means by it. If he means women are forbidden to work outside the home (contrary to the practice of Lydia, whose wealth enabled her to support the apostles), then I am not a patriarchalist.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## No one (Jun 29, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's one of those define your terms things. I utterly reject the whole "Christic manhood" schtick. I am openly hostile to them. Feminists would consider me a patriarch; theobros would think I am a compromiser.
> 
> It really depends on what the dudebro in question really means by it. If he means women are forbidden to work outside the home (contrary to the practice of Lydia, whose wealth enabled her to support the apostles), then I am not a patriarchalist.


I am the man the dude brother. How do you define the term and how would you say it goes off balanced and is wrong? Because there are those groups out there


----------



## No one (Jun 29, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's one of those define your terms things. I utterly reject the whole "Christic manhood" schtick. I am openly hostile to them. Feminists would consider me a patriarch; theobros would think I am a compromiser.
> 
> It really depends on what the dudebro in question really means by it. If he means women are forbidden to work outside the home (contrary to the practice of Lydia, whose wealth enabled her to support the apostles), then I am not a patriarchalist.


And why are you hostile to the Christic manhood stick? What are it's issues and why is it wrong?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 29, 2021)

No one said:


> And why are you hostile to the Christic manhood stick? What are it's issues and why is it wrong?


I won't answer for Jacob, but I have something to toss out there along those lines:

Who was more of a man, Arnold Schwarzenegger or C.S. Lewis?

Who was the better fighter?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## No one (Jun 29, 2021)

Oh I see your point. False manhood based on how strong and well you can fight?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 29, 2021)

No one said:


> Oh I see your point. False manhood based on how strong and well you can fight?


Sort of. More along the lines of doing things a man ought to do rather than trying to figure out how to look like a man.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## No one (Jun 29, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Sort of. More along the lines of doing things a man ought to do rather than trying to figure out how to look like a man.


_Would you have any book recommendations on manhood and the family? _


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2021)

No one said:


> And why are you hostile to the Christic manhood stick? What are it's issues and why is it wrong?



They define masculinity in a rigidly narrow way. Don't get me wrong. I am all for strength. I can do insane acrobatic feats with my shoulders and back. They would have a problem with the Patriarch (!) Jacob who stayed inside all day and cooked.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 29, 2021)

I'm with Jacob. Some, not all, Christian manhood advocates are close to being red pills and incels.

I think many patriarchalists (which I include many 'thick complementarians' in) have lost a sense of natural law. Texts that relate to marriage or the Church are extrapolated to every venture. It took me awhile to understand why many of those people thought the allegedly thin complementarians or even egalitarians were denying that there were any differences between men and women. They are basically Clarkian Scripturalists and Biblicists without knowing it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 29, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> I won't answer for Jacob, but I have something to toss out there along those lines:
> 
> Who was more of a man, Arnold Schwarzenegger or C.S. Lewis?
> 
> Who was the better fighter?



I think that this point is very important. While I am all for encouraging physical fitness we have to realise that not all men are cut out to be highly muscular. They may, however, make up for it in terms of moral and intellectual testosterone.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## ZackF (Jun 29, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think that this point is very important. While I am all for encouraging physical fitness we have to realise that not all men are cut out to highly muscular. They may, however, make up for it in terms of moral and intellectual testosterone.


Lol. What does intellectual estrogen look like?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 29, 2021)

No one said:


> Would you have any book recommendations on manhood and the family?


I'm not familiar with any contemporary books.

But read about David. Yes, he fell into great sin, but consider the many things that made him "a man after God's own heart."

He was a musician and song-writer to the glory of God. He was not afraid to wear his heart on his sleeve. He personally was offended when God's honor was insulted. He loved his friend in a way that we (the world) laugh at. 

And he was a warrior with great skill. He endured hardship, fought for his people, danced at appropriate times. 

Most of all, he was repentant when called out.

Not all of us can be so multidimensional, but at least we can understand that there is no particular behavioral formula.



BayouHuguenot said:


> They would have a problem with the Patriarch (!) Jacob who stayed inside all day and cooked.


I was also going to mention "mama's boy" Jacob. He ended up being a talented rancher who could move large stones, too.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Jun 29, 2021)

ZackF said:


> What does intellectual estrogen look like?


Russell Moore

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2021)

And then there is Barack. He wouldn't go to battle unless a woman led him, but Hebrews calls him a hero of the faith.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2021)




----------



## ZackF (Jun 29, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> View attachment 8166
> 
> View attachment 8167


I can hold a camera sideways too.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2021)

ZackF said:


> I can hold a camera sideways too.


Just like in the moon landing, the secret is in the shadow. It's actually not that hard.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Jun 29, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Just like in the moon landing, the secret is in the shadow. It's actually not that hard.



Well. Hmph. I can curve my entire cervical spine, making it look exactly like someone with scoliosis. Just you try to top that!

In all seriousness, this topic reminds me of my friend (I brought this up a couple months back) who is into Bronze Age Pervert and this extreme macho gym-obsessed version of masculinity, focused on certain dietary habits and methods of exercise, and a certain "look", that together represent the epitome of "true manliness". It's a tragically unbiblical notion of manhood.

I wouldn't quite consider this friend's views "patriarchal" though, and after pausing to re-read this I'm realizing that I don't want to derail the thread. So, moving on...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> Well. Hmph. I can curve my entire cervical spine, making it look exactly like someone with scoliosis. Just you try to top that!
> 
> In all seriousness, this topic reminds me of my friend (I brought this up a couple months back) who is into Bronze Age Pervert and this extreme macho gym-obsessed version of masculinity, focused on certain dietary habits and methods of exercise, and a certain "look", that together represent the epitome of "true manliness". It's a tragically unbiblical notion of manhood.
> 
> I wouldn't quite consider this friend's views "patriarchal" though, and after pausing to re-read this I'm realizing that I don't want to derail the thread. So, moving on...



I'm familiar with that twitter account. Those are more "red pilled" guys. I see the basic difference between the Bronze Age types and patriarchies is that the latter, for all my criticism of them, actually want a family. The former are more "love em and leave em."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## No one (Jun 29, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> I'm not familiar with any contemporary books.
> 
> But read about David. Yes, he fell into great sin, but consider the many things that made him "a man after God's own heart."
> 
> ...





Irenaeus said:


> Well. Hmph. I can curve my entire cervical spine, making it look exactly like someone with scoliosis. Just you try to top that!
> 
> In all seriousness, this topic reminds me of my friend (I brought this up a couple months back) who is into Bronze Age Pervert and this extreme macho gym-obsessed version of masculinity, focused on certain dietary habits and methods of exercise, and a certain "look", that together represent the epitome of "true manliness". It's a tragically unbiblical notion of manhood.
> 
> I wouldn't quite consider this friend's views "patriarchal" though, and after pausing to re-read this I'm realizing that I don't want to derail the thread. So, moving on...


I diet and exercise but I don't think it makes me more manly than the guy who has a donut for breakfast and rarely excersises.


----------



## ZackF (Jun 29, 2021)

No one said:


> I diet and exercise but I don't think it makes me more manly than the guy who has a donut for breakfast and rarely excersises.


I appreciate that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2021)

For older writers like Johnson and Gibbon, manly meant firm and resolved, not scotch and cigars. From Johnson's dictionary:

Ma'nly.
_adj._ [from _man._]

Manlike; becoming a man; firm; brave; stout; undaunted; undismayed.
As did Æneas old Anchises bear,
So I bear thee upon my _manly_ shoulders.
_Shakespeare._

Let’s briefly put on _manly_ readiness,
And meet i’ th’ hall together.
_Shakespeare’s_ _Macbeth._

I’ll speak between the change of man and boy
With a reed voice; and turn two mincing steps
Into a _manly_ stride.
_Shakesp._ i _Merchant of Venice._

Serene and _manly,_ harden’d to sustain
The load of life, and exercis’d in pain.
_Dryden’s_ i _Juv._

See great Marcellus! how inur’d in toils,
He moves with _manly_ grace.
_Dryden’s_ i _Æn._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 29, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> I won't answer for Jacob, but I have something to toss out there along those lines:
> 
> Who was more of a man, Arnold Schwarzenegger or C.S. Lewis?
> 
> Who was the better fighter?


Awwnald has done more good for me than Lewis in my life. But Lewis has a swift uppercut.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 29, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> They define masculinity in a rigidly narrow way. Don't get me wrong. I am all for strength. I can do insane acrobatic feats with my shoulders and back. They would have a problem with the Patriarch (!) Jacob who stayed inside all day and cooked.


Admit it. All your photos are photoshopped Mr Kettlebell!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 29, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think that this point is very important. While I am all for encouraging physical fitness we have to realise that not all men are cut out to be highly muscular. They may, however, make up for it in terms of moral and intellectual testosterone.


Is that another word for Nerd?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 29, 2021)

No one said:


> I diet and exercise but I don't think it makes me more manly than the guy who has a donut for breakfast and rarely excersises.


oh, but I think it does. It is hard to convince others you are manly if you are soft and pudgy and lack any grit for physical endurance. I think many church folks over-react against "machismo" because they are fat, soft, and weak but still want to lie to themselves and call themselves manly even if they have moobs. Fat, soft, and weak is not manly.

Reactions: Amen 1 | Funny 2


----------



## No one (Jun 29, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think that this point is very important. While I am all for encouraging physical fitness we have to realise that not all men are cut out to be highly muscular. They may, however, make up for it in terms of moral and intellectual testosterone.


And I appreciate that because I'm just not a person who can study all day but there are others who can. Every man is different.


----------



## ZackF (Jun 29, 2021)

F


BayouHuguenot said:


> For older writers like Johnson and Gibbon, manly meant firm and resolved, not scotch and cigars. From Johnson's dictionary:
> 
> Ma'nly.
> _adj._ [from _man._]
> ...


Horiatus at the Bridge comes to mind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 29, 2021)

ZackF said:


> F
> 
> Horiatus at the Bridge comes to mind.


Why was he at the bridge?


----------



## AnotherDaniel (Jun 30, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> oh, but I think it does. It is hard to convince others you are manly if you are soft and pudgy and lack any grit for physical endurance. I think many church folks over-react against "machismo" because they are fat, soft, and weak but still want to lie to themselves and call themselves manly even if they have moobs. Fat, soft, and weak is not manly.



Very true. Lack of mastery over ones self is not manly at all.

In the end, western church and society hasn't been destroyed by men seeking to be "manly" but rather by men abdicating their "manly" responsibilities to lead in the family, church and society. Im much more worried about the feminization of the church than I am about 20 dudes on the internet taking "being manly" too far.

To summarize, Biblical Patriarchy is good and necessary. Don't be scared from using terms because culture hates them and a few people take them to extremes.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## No one (Jun 30, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Why was he at the bridge?


To get to the other side maybe?


----------



## ZackF (Jun 30, 2021)

No one said:


> To get to the other side maybe?


Stopping others from getting to the other side actually.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 30, 2021)

FOLLOW-UP TO OP:

When it comes to masculinity and patriarchy, what authors are doing it right and what authors should we avoid?


----------



## Boreal (Jun 30, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> FOLLOW-UP TO OP:
> 
> When it comes to masculinity and patriarchy, what authors are doing it right and what authors should we avoid?


Durable Trades - Rory Groves
Man of the House - C.R. Wiley

Check them out.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 30, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> FOLLOW-UP TO OP:
> 
> When it comes to masculinity and patriarchy, what authors are doing it right and what authors should we avoid?


Good question. Truthfully I am not sure if there's a lot that don't have some baggage by importing generally middle to upper class ideals of a certain geographic region from a generation or two before the writers themselves.
I'd be interested to hear what others have to say though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Jun 30, 2021)

It would probably be helpful to distinguish _godliness_, _leadership, _and _lifestyle._ There is a need for thinking about all three. The Bible will teach everything necessary about godliness, many general lessons about leadership, and will have a distinct bearing on at least some elements of lifestyle. But any attempt to treat those three areas without differentiation brings about a number of risks. High on that list would be legalism, where things that are by no means necessary are made essential to a masculine Christian identity. There's the danger of displacement, where _masculine_ Christian identity becomes something more than, "I'm striving to be a godly man" and the masculine part is emphasized to the diminution of general virtue. There's the danger of preparing an identity crisis for yourself, if your masculine identity is tied up in a particular lifestyle--many circumstantial changes would then put that self-image at considerable risk.

In terms of lifestyle, there is something of a contemporary vacuum that can't be filled up just with Bow Tied Bull or The Art of Manliness. Historical sources can be valuable here, if someone has enough common sense to adapt them to contemporary circumstances. Biographies and autobiographies, diaries, letters, observant novels, and essays can all give some historical perspective and vivid example of masculinity in action, for both negative and positive examples. One can think of J.C. Ryle's _Thoughts for Young Men;_ of Henry Venn's _Letters_, especially those to his son; of Addison's _The Spectator; _of Trollope's _Palliser_ novels; of Dr. Johnson's _Rambler _and _Idler; _of Sir Francis Bacon's _Essays_; of biographies of those with considerable achievements; of the _Instructions_ of Hardjedef, Ptahhotep, or Merikare (and of manuals of virtue and books of instruction more generally from many ages and climes). _Moby Dick, War & Peace_, or _The Great God's War _will all do something towards this end. The material does exist for those willing to undertake the labor of discovering, digesting, and adapting it from its repositories.

And before I'm misunderstood, obviously reading alone isn't enough; there is a need for thought and practice, and wherever possible part of that practice ought to be significant physical activity.

Reactions: Like 5 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Jun 30, 2021)

Py3ak, if I may piggyback on your excellent list of resources that I plan to look up, Sprague's _Letters to Young Men _is worthy of esteemed mention; it has been an encouragement to me each time I've read it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MountainPilgrim (Jul 2, 2021)

Is feminization of the church cause for concern? Certainly. I think one would be hard-pressed to find any member of PB who would disagree. However, I contend that it is a symptom of doctrinal infidelity rather than the cause.

The issue is not that women or effeminate men have overtaken the church and redirected its focus, but rather that men of the church have been too often willing to allow the culture to dictate the church's agenda, and thus readily abandon or set-aside orthodoxy in order to address whatever cultural issue most concerns them. 

I am growing increasingly frustrated with how many Brothers I have seen who are willing to ignore or dismiss the highly questionable (at best) doctrines and practices of particular individuals or groups simply because, "They are fighting the good fight and are on our side." The compromise of important doctrine and practice for the sake of a particular agenda is exactly the cause for heterodoxy in the church. This is not unique to the "liberal" or the "conservative," as each have allowed the world to dictate the church's agenda, whether in support of the culture or in reaction against it. As each error is simply one side of the same coin, we should not be surprised when the "hyper-masculinity" fad leads to doctrinal compromise that is just as destructive as the "feminization" to which it is reacting. 

The church's biblical agenda has not changed since its institution by Christ. When we adjust our aim in reaction against, or support of, the culture's desires, we fail to remain faithful to that which the Lord called His church to do.

On a personal note, I check many of the boxes that would fit the common definition of "manliness." But given the choice between a truly masculine man of questionable doctrine and practice, and one who is perhaps not as masculine as I would prefer, yet who faithfully preaches the Gospel, properly administers the Sacraments, and practices biblical Church Discipline, I will take the latter.

So, to the OP, the topic of feminism and patriarchal_ism _in the church is indeed important, and worthy of discussion. Indeed, there are a great many issues of concern to the health of the church for which we can and should faithfully seek biblical answers. But we should take great care to avoid compromising important doctrines in order to address said issues. Feminism and hyper-masculinity/patriarchalism are _both _denials of God's sovereign design and creational order, and each is as guilty of doctrinal error as the other. The answer to the problem of feminism in the church is not the recovery of "masculinity," but rather the recovery of the faithful preaching and teaching of God's Word as the only authority for life and godliness. _Sola Scriptura._

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Christopher Robin (Jul 2, 2021)

I grew up in foster care. By the time I had gotten married I _still_ had no idea how to "do manhood." So I confided in one whose wife and kids adored him, loved and followed Christ, and whose house was in order. I literally became his disciple for a couple of years and learned about Christian manhood from a man who exemplified it. I think this is one area where the local churches may really be lacking. "Men's fellowship dinners" are no substitute for men discipling other men in the skills and strengths and graces of Christian manhood.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## B.L. (Jul 2, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> even if they have moobs.



I had been searching for an accurate name for my prized possessions. I was content with "pectoralis major and minor lying in ambush", but moobs is much simpler and has a nice ring to it.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## ChristianLibertarian (Jul 2, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> A brother asked me what I thought about Patriarchy. I was hoping the PB could help.
> 
> I answered I both loved and hated it. There are good and bad examples. My own view is that I don't really like any of the current labels. Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Patriarchalism all seemed to come into use within the last 30 years. That is troubling.
> 
> ...


Patriarchy today, patriarchy tomorrow, patriarchy forever. Scripture is abundantly clear on this matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 2, 2021)

God tells Job: "Gird up thy loins now like a man."
Manliness is taking responsibility, and behaving in such a way that you can take responsibility without undue shame (I say "undue" because at the end of the day, like David we will fail; like Isaiah, all our right works as no better than filthy rags. But at the end of the day, when asked "why did you do that or this, however imperfectly?" we should be able to point to Scripture and say "because it is here written.")
Manliness is doing the duties prescribed in Scripture for a man to do. There is much instruction, for men both married and unwed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 2, 2021)

Some penultimate thoughts:

1) Don't commit the word = concept fallacy. If patriarchy is a univocal term, then you might find yourself on the same side as Pelagians like the Pearls. Moreover, some internet patriarchalists (who are single, btw) say everyone who disagrees with them is a feminist.

2) As to reading material, it's really simple. Don't be a blue-haired Tumblrista on one hand, and don't be a weirdo cult-follower on the other.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 2, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 2) As to reading material, it's really simple. Don't be a blue-haired Tumblrista on one hand, and don't be a weirdo cult-follower on the other.


Don't start cults either, on the off-chance you're of that bent.

I have had the misfortune of meeting one of those once.

Thankfully, God had given him neither the talent nor the charisma to actually keep his followers. Over time, they would ineluctably grow disillusioned. 

He also preferred young, attractive girls, which was probably a weakness.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Boreal (Jul 2, 2021)

Video games are for children, not men. Full stop.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## No one (Jul 2, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Some penultimate thoughts:
> 
> 1) Don't commit the word = concept fallacy. If patriarchy is a univocal term, then you might find yourself on the same side as Pelagians like the Pearls. Moreover, some internet patriarchalists (who are single, btw) say everyone who disagrees with them is a feminist.
> 
> 2) As to reading material, it's really simple. Don't be a blue-haired Tumblrista on one hand, and don't be a weirdo cult-follower on the ot





Boreal said:


> Video games are for children, not men. Full stop.


I am too busy for those


----------



## KMK (Jul 2, 2021)

True masculinity is defined by how many hours a day a man can stare at internet discussion boards without blinking.

Reactions: Funny 5


----------



## Boreal (Jul 2, 2021)

KMK said:


> True masculinity is defined by how many hours a day a man can stare at internet discussion boards without blinking.


We stand in awe of your manliness.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 2, 2021)

AnotherDaniel said:


> Very true. Lack of mastery over ones self is not manly at all.
> 
> In the end, western church and society hasn't been destroyed by men seeking to be "manly" but rather by men abdicating their "manly" responsibilities to lead in the family, church and society. Im much more worried about the feminization of the church than I am about 20 dudes on the internet taking "being manly" too far.
> 
> To summarize, Biblical Patriarchy is good and necessary. Don't be scared from using terms because culture hates them and a few people take them to extremes.


Yes. Precisely. Manliness is mastery.

Before you master the world around you and lead your family you must be able to possess self-mastery. Self-mastery includes endurance and grit (both physical and mental), mastering your body, mind, and emotions, and mastering skills. There is a tendency to equate manliness with godliness in church circles, but I know many men in churches that are godly for the most part, but are still effeminate. There are many godly sissies in America. There are also many godless men who excel in manliness, such as the Spartans and Julius Caesar. King Leonidas must be admired, even if he worshipped pagan gods.

Then of course, I see the caricatures of manliness like the Reformed Dude-b.r.o guys who brag about whiskeys and cigars and beards make videos of themselves pouring gasoline on fields or stupid stuff like that. That is also not the answer. And of course, those well-groomed beards cannot really be called manly at all when they are all oiled up and carefully groomed like some girl would do.

Again, all the labels are new and current, whether it be egalitarian, complementarian, or patriarchal. In the past these labels did not exist because traditional gender roles were assumed. But modern people are confused and keep trying to re-invent the wheel. I think many in the Patriarchy Movement don't really know what manliness is and so operate by caricatures of manliness and it becomes very cringe-worthy.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 2, 2021)

Boreal said:


> Video games are for children, not men. Full stop.


Heh. My Dad wouldn’t let me read comics lest they made me soft. I can only imagine what he would have said about kids and video games.


----------



## MountainPilgrim (Jul 2, 2021)

I simply cannot understand why many feel so compelled to criticize how others spend their leisure time. Part of being a man is knowing not to criticize other men for having different preferences than you.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 2, 2021)

MountainPilgrim said:


> I simply cannot understand why many feel so compelled to criticize how others spend their leisure time. Part of being a man is knowing not to criticize other men for having different preferences than you.


Sorry. My post was meant to be an irony targeting myself.

I often fail the manly subtlety test.

Some of my leisure time gets spent on kitten videos, truth be told.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## MountainPilgrim (Jul 2, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Sorry. My post was meant to be an irony targeting myself.
> 
> I often fail the manly subtlety test.
> 
> Some of my leisure time gets spent on kitten videos, truth be told.



No apology necessary, sir! That wasn't directed at you, I should have been more careful. I should also say that clearly the relationship between father and son is a different dynamic altogether and the father should indeed challenge his son's sense of leisure. 

If anyone wants to criticize the watching of kitten videos, they can fight me, and we'll see who the *real* man is 


On an unrelated note, I see you're up in Lewiston. Though I cannot say I've been particularly taken by the town, I sure do love the country up there. Northern Idaho will always have a special place in my heart (go Vandals!), though I fear even the more rural areas will not be left unaffected by the current "invasion" our beloved state is suffering.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 2, 2021)

The definition of manhood here is more worldly than biblical. In scripture, manliness is primarily defined in _moral_ terms. Obviously, that will have physical implications. For instance, manly self-control means that one ought not to be a gluttonous, obese slob. There is, however, no natural nor biblical requirement for all men to look like the Incredible Hulk. Instead, the Westminster Standards get it right when they stipulate that moderate physical exertion is part of our sixth commandment duties. 

Obviously, precisely how moderate that should be will vary according to the man's place and station. Perhaps we could all spend twenty hours a week in the gym, and we might all gain a bit more muscle if we did, but at what price? Would it be good stewardship of our time or would it be vanity? Nature has also made a distinction between men, which is obvious to anyone with any common sense, that some are more suited to physical exertion and others are more suited to mental work. Hence, the one size fits all approach is contrary to experience. 

And let us not forget that a certain apostle Paul was one with an unimpressive physical appearance (2 Corinthians 10:10). According to John Gill, "he made a mean figure, being of a low stature, and having an infirm body". Was he any less of man because of his weak appearance or was it not the case that God's strength was displayed in what the world regarded as weakness?

Reactions: Like 5 | Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 2, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> In scripture, manliness is primarily defined in _moral_ terms.



That is the most profound and succinct sentence anyone has written on the topic.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 2, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Sorry. My post was meant to be an irony targeting myself.
> 
> I often fail the manly subtlety test.
> 
> Some of my leisure time gets spent on kitten videos, truth be told.


I only like stupid cats falling off tables...so that is more manly!

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 2, 2021)

"When David’s time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, “I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, _and be a man_, and keep the charge of the LORD your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his ordinances, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn." (1 Kgs 2:1–3)

There is a moral component to masculinity, sure, but let's not pretend all godly bookworms are manly. Being strong is part of manliness. This is spiritual, emotional, but also physical. Being strong and standing like men is impossible if you possess the frame and mannerisms of a 12-year old girl. 

The bible gives a full-orbed picture. The world reacts and distorts that picture to manliness=Clint Eastwood. Then the church over-reacts and distorts that picture the other way to manliness=godly bookworms. We must stay balanced. If a man must provide, lead, and protect his own, there are, indeed, some Clint Eastwood type traits that he must possess.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 2, 2021)

I think both Daniel and Perg in these last few posts are hitting on the heart of the matter, albeit from different angles. I think they are both right.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## gjensen (Jul 3, 2021)

Being a man is not some level of physical fitness over and above the rest. This is not to say that health and fitness do not matter. I am saying that it has been over-emphasized here. 

The life of the ideal man was lived out by our Lord, the express image of God. He is our ideal. We do not need another example.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 3, 2021)

gjensen said:


> Being a man is not some level of physical fitness over and above the rest. This is not to say that health and fitness do not matter. I am saying that it has been over-emphasized here.
> 
> The life of the ideal man was lived out by our Lord, the express image of God. He is our ideal. We do not need another example.


The same Jesus who walked days on end and endured much hardship and lack of sleep in service to His Father. He displayed a grit and stamina that most western man lack.

If you are a weak man, it is better to make yourself stronger than try to redefine strength. If you are winded walking up a slight hill, you are less manly no matter how many theology books you read, and you should start doing more physical work to master yourself.


"Act like men, be strong." - The Apostle Paul.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Jul 3, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> The same Jesus who walked days on end and endured much hardship and lack of sleep in service to His Father. He displayed a grit and stamina that most western man lack.
> 
> If you are a weak man, it is better to make yourself stronger than try to redefine strength. If you are winded walking up a slight hill, you are less manly no matter how many theology books you read, and you should start doing more physical work to master yourself.
> 
> ...



What I'm observing here is a defining of manliness according to one's own proclivities. Better to stick to what's been so well-said above: that Biblical manliness is primarily a moral concept. If that is encouraged and followed, other areas will start to fall in line.

On the other hand, going beyond Scripture unnecessarily puts down those with legitimate physical issues. As you have ample experience with serious health problems, surely you agree that it is unfair to challenge one's manliness on a physical basis. Perhaps, then, we should stop putting our favored spin on verses, because the same Paul also said "bodily exercise profiteth little".

This is why Biblical manliness is not about strength training. Because the failure of Western men in this department is primarily a _moral _failing with physical ramifications, the solution needs to be moral and start with the heart, not with a set of dumbbells. For those who have families, helping with housework and yardwork, taking steps to protect one's household, being involved in childrearing (ah, those midnight training sessions with a 12-lb weight that's colicky and unhappy): these are better ways of making a start at Biblical manliness than the judgmental dismissive "get to the gym, you weak sissy" approach. Without this Biblically prescribed start, there's no basis for doing any physical strengthening anyway. Often the American men most interested in physical fitness are far from adhering to any semblance of Biblical manhood anyway.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Christopher Robin (Jul 3, 2021)

Poor nutrition and other factors stumped my childhood physical growth, so that from age 11 to about 22, I didn't gain and inch of height nor a pound of weight. At 18 when I reached legal adulthood, I still looked like a middle school kid, tiny and frail. But on the inside, because I was a disciple of Christ, I was as manly, I like to think, as any other guy. I had a work ethic, I stood up for those who couldn't stand up for themselves, and became "a servant to all," which according to Christ, is great manliness (Matt. 23:11). To this day, at age 63, I still can't grow a full "manly" beard. I was a "pretty boy" for half my life, but no less a man than the big, hairy, stocky, bodybuilder types who can't handle responsibility, who don't know how to treat others respectfully, and who bully others to get their way.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 3, 2021)

Boreal said:


> Video games are for children, not men. Full stop.


Fair enough, but I still think they can pretty fun sometimes. If you waste all day playing them, that is obviously a problem. However, I don't see how they are any different than sitting around watching TV, Netflix, YouTube, etc. I think video games are a far better option for "screen time".

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jul 3, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Fair enough, but I still think they can pretty fun sometimes. If you waste all day playing them, that is obviously a problem. However, I don't see how they are any different than sitting around watching TV, Netflix, YouTube, etc. I think video games are a far better option for "screen time".


Since I have had children, we have really taken a liking to Nintendo games. It is awesome family bonding time, they are really good for development, really good for coordination and problem solving, and a pure and innocent recreational hobby. I am very intentional about exhibiting manly qualities and I always strive for this, while being a hard worker, balancing family life, and serving in various ministries, and yet I have found video games to be an enjoyable hobby to have. This is actually one of those hobbies that have kept me so close with my children, as this is something we both share a common liking in. As in most things in life, if there is balance, if we are pursuing the best things in life, if we are doing things that are innocent and pure, and if we hold to the principles of the bible, I have found that video games have been a blessing to our family.

I think you bring up a good point about other ways that screen time is used. I honestly don't really even have a desire to watch shows or movies anymore, because they just don't hold my attention anymore. But we just bought a video game called Mario Maker, and it allows you to design your own levels. To me, if our children are going to be doing screen time, having them designing levels and using mental creativity while having fun, to me is a much better use of their time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 3, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Since I have had children, we have really taken a liking to Nintendo games. It is awesome family bonding time, they are really good for development, really good for coordination and problem solving, and a pure and innocent recreational hobby. I am very intentional about exhibiting manly qualities and I always strive for this, while being a hard worker, balancing family life, and serving in various ministries, and yet I have found video games to be an enjoyable hobby to have. This is actually one of those hobbies that have kept me so close with my children, as this is something we both share a common liking in. As in most things in life, if there is balance, if we are pursuing the best things in life, if we are doing things that are innocent and pure, and if we hold to the principles of the bible, I have found that video games have been a blessing to our family.



I'm a teacher and most of my students destress with video games. I've also been a gamer myself, so I'll offer my thoughts here:

Games exist primarily for training, sharpening, and leisure. If you look at animals, for example, the young use games to learn valuable life skills.

I think if games legitimately fulfill any of these functions, as preparation for or relaxation from, life, they are a net good.

The real problem seems to arise when games begin to replace some elements of life. School work is left uncompleted, for example, or valuable training and reading is neglected in favor of games. Perhaps someone even settles for a substandard position in life because they find their satisfaction in games. The reward comes in the virtual world, because fear of failure fills their external world.

Speaking personally, I find as an adult i have turned to video games when I have a very difficult and stressful job, and lack the energy to pursue more meaningful and rewarding activity, such as reading or language study. 

I'm not sure what to make of that. I enjoyed the games, and i don't think it was wrong to do so. But I also wish it could have been different, and the job hadn't taken so much out of me, because there were better things i could have done.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 3, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> I'm a teacher and most of my students destress with video games. I've also been a gamer myself, so I'll offer my thoughts here:
> 
> Games exist primarily for training, sharpening, and leisure. If you look at animals, for example, the young use games to learn valuable life skills.
> 
> ...


Your assessment seems to miss the fact that today's video games are created to be _immersive_ and _addictive_. And on the whole, they are pretty effective at getting people hooked so that they play for hours and days on end. No, I think video games have wreaked havoc on the younger generations, with scores of young people wasting their lives playing video games and watching p0rn. Sorry, but I really can't get anywhere close to calling them a net good. I've had to deal first-hand with the problems they create in marriages and families and it isn't pretty.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jul 3, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Your assessment seems to miss the fact that today's video games are created to be _immersive_ and _addictive_. And on the whole, they are pretty effective at getting people hooked so that they play for hours and days on end. No, I think video games have wreaked havoc on the younger generations, with scores of young people wasting their lives playing video games and watching p0rn. Sorry, but I really can't get anywhere close to calling them a net good. I've had to deal first-hand with the problems they create in marriages and families and it isn't pretty.


This description sounds like many things. Are any of you alcohol drinkers? The same principles apply. Though I'm sure alcohol will be defended by most here. Anything can become an idol. We have to be fair all across the board and not dismiss things as good or bad based on preference. I do agree that certain things have more of an addictive tendency, and we should be mindful of them.

Thanks for your opinion!

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 3, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Your assessment seems to miss the fact that today's video games are created to be _immersive_ and _addictive_. And on the whole, they are pretty effective at getting people hooked so that they play for hours and days on end. No, I think video games have wreaked havoc on the younger generations, with scores of young people wasting their lives playing video games and watching p0rn. Sorry, but I really can't get anywhere close to calling them a net good. I've had to deal first-hand with the problems they create in marriages and families and it isn't pretty.


Well, I was referring to games in general to build my theory. But to add to Ryan's excellent comment -- addictive and immersive? Have you heard of Facebook?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Jul 3, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Well, I was referring to games in general to build my theory. But to add to Ryan's excellent comment -- addictive and immersive? Have you heard of Facebook?


Yes. Facebook is bad. .

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 3, 2021)

ZackF said:


> Yes. Facebook is bad. .


But apparently not all social media (or you wouldn't be here). But all or most video games are singled out as harmful.

Seems inconsistent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 3, 2021)

When Hugh Latimer said, "Play the man, Master Ridley" he was not telling him to lift a set of dumbells. The biblical definition of strength is not merely physical strength. If it were, then Paul himself would have failed the test. The notion that anyone less buff than me is less of a man is nonsense. And, by the way, the man who has read a lot of books has to engage in such manly characteristics as discipline, self-control, and denying oneself the pleasures that others enjoy so that he can gird up the loins of his mind. Studiously reading books for 12 hours a day is a lot more difficult than pumping weights in a gym. While obviously, it is good for a scholar to do some physical exercise, if he neglects his studies to lift dumbells, he is not being manly - he is being a waster.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 3, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Well, I was referring to games in general to build my theory. But to add to Ryan's excellent comment -- addictive and immersive? Have you heard of Facebook?


Yes I have, and I don't recommend being on it. But you are comparing apples and oranges. I would say that most social media platforms are addictive, but I would not say they are immersive. You don't lose all track of time using social media the way one does playing Call of Duty™. I doubt many would say they've ever got onto Facebook after dinner and stayed locked into it until 3 a.m. But that is precisely what happens with todays video games.


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 3, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Yes I have, and I don't recommend being on it. But you are comparing apples and oranges. I would say that most social media platforms are addictive, but I would not say they are immersive. You don't lose all track of time using social media the way one does playing Call of Duty™. I doubt many would say they've ever got onto Facebook after dinner and stayed locked into it until 3 a.m. But that is precisely what happens with todays video games.


That isn't apples and oranges; that's apples and bigger apples.

But this is, of course, missing the point. I was a gamer, and I stayed up late reading sci-fi novels far more often than playing video games.

People behave this way because they're dissatisfied with their real lives.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 3, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> That isn't apples and oranges; that's apples and bigger apples.


I'm sorry, but Facebook and video games are not the same thing. I'm not sure why anyone would dispute it.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jul 3, 2021)

A great read by J.R. Miller:



Christian Manliness


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 3, 2021)

The Bible says be strong, be a man. And to stand and be men. 

If we throw out any physical attributes to manliness such as the ability to 1. protect and 2. to provide as marks of manliness then you should just say that to be a man is to have one X and one Y chromosome and nothing more because you've neutered the definition to make way for modern weakness. 

By all means, if you need to grab some dumb-bells or get some training or take up hiking to cure your weakness from either disease or weakness because you've sat immobile most of your life or failed to ever push yourself, then by all means do so. Think of sickly Teddy Roosevelt who saw his deficiencies and struggled through them to become strong. 

To stand and to protect and to provide does require some physical grit.

Some people who cry out that the bible passage about women being the "weaker" sex MERELY refer to physical strength and not other aspects such as mental and emotional weakness now try to say that being a man is NOT about physical components at all.... this is terribly inconsistent. People are whole beings and the strength that men are to possess is not only moral, but emotional and physical as well. All components must be there, the mental, moral, and even the physical/endurance aspect. 

I see church people minimize any physical aspect of manliness while the world over-emphasizes it. We must not minimize any aspect.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Jul 3, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> But apparently not all social media (or you wouldn't be here). But all or most video games are singled out as harmful.
> 
> Seems inconsistent.


Sufficed to say, I don't mean to do that. My drive by remark was partly tongue-in-cheek. If someone can contain their gaming( or Facebook) habits to where they don't damage the rest of their lives then more power to them. I've seen employees let go because their all-night gaming were not reigned in enough for them to show up and do their work.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 3, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> video games are created to be _immersive_ and _addictive_.


I can't help myself. I was reminded of my wife's experience long ago:

In 1997, I bought my wife a new computer. The idea was to improve access to this thing called the internet so she could do legal research more effectively from her home office. After figuring out Windows 95 (she had been an MS-DOS ace) and getting the applications installed, she was on her way to figuring out this new system.

First thing she asked: "what this thing?"

I looked. "It's a demo video game. They probably want you to try playing it and then entice you into buying the full thing. I'd just ignore it."

I had to leave for a few hours. When I got back I saw that she was into some video game. "Oh well," I thought.

Then, 20 minutes later, I hear this come from her office:

"Worm beaters! Malevolent and twisted worm beaters! I reached level 6 and now they froze the game unless I pay them money! I want this so-called game abolished to outer darkness!"

We tried to uninstall it, but it wouldn't go through the normal uninstall method. Finally I hacked the registry to remove reference to it, deleted the shortcut, and said "it is now residing in outer darkness."

She still was outraged, "three hours of my life devoted to a wormbeating fraud. If there are any other 'games' on this computer, I don't want to know about it!"

I had never heard the term "worm beater" before, but it seems appropriate for a lot of these kinds of things.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 3, 2021)

Is the (current) minimum passing on the APFT (for one's age group) the standard for "man enough?" Does a "real man" have a min/max bench press quotient? Where on the bell curve of physical capacity do we mark the cutoff for sufficient manliness to say he's got it?

Because if its a matter of one's being a man that he has to hit a certain target, then we can eliminate most wheelchair bound, the bedridden, many past victims of various abuses--because they can't make the grade. When we set a standard for *being *something, those who don't meet it _aren't _that thing. At best they are less-than what they _should_ or _must_ be by some percentage. These don't measure up.

Just because a man with crushed testicles, a eunuch, couldn't enter the Temple in the OT, doesn't mean Christians today should treat the same man today as someone who can never be an elder, because he possibly won't ever marry and can't reproduce. I think the logical outworking of some of today's thought leads to just the opposite conclusion: that the only candidates for God's service are men of a "type" that without exception includes physical stereotype. The OT typological standard is turned into a timeless norm.

It is wrong to take the full variety of capacities found in a given population, fixate on one--even a common one, one that there's a broad middle around--and decline the man-card of anyone who doesn't have enough grams of testosterone, or whatever. The XY may not, _should not_ be all the criteria for church leadership; or even for manliness most fully realized and idealized. But in certain respects, it is a sufficient criteria for setting the baseline. It need not be a "failure" of masculinity to come up short in some other man's estimation.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## Boreal (Jul 3, 2021)

For a man who has duties galore, wasting one’s time on video games is immoral.

If my father played video games, I’d respect him less.

Then again, had he grown up playing video games, he probably wouldn’t have developed such an indomitable work ethic or the ability to unflinchingly stalk and hunt game alone in backwoods grizzly country, using a flashlight to walk out after nightfall. Undeniably masculine traits.

Not the sum of manliness, but still masculine.

Question: manliness being mostly a moral thing, what’s the moral pronouncement upon a man too weak to protect or provide for his family (more than a trip to the store), who only ever physically stands up for what is good by doing it in a game, and who is dependent upon someone else for almost everything in his life (fixing his car, building his home, killing his food, protecting his homeland, etc.) ?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 3, 2021)

Boreal said:


> For a man who has duties galore, wasting one’s time on video games is immoral.


Although I personally am of the same bent and opinion, I think this goes too far. 

What exactly is wasting time?

Enjoying a bit of down-time is commended.

Ecc 5:18-19 Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion. 
19 Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God. 

Pursuing pleasure for its own sake is not. Isaiah 56 (and elsewhere)

11 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter. 
12 Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 3, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I doubt many would say they've ever got onto Facebook after dinner and stayed locked into it until 3 a.m.


Don't know much about Zoomers do you?

Per the OP: what is manly? Certainly not all the virtue signaling among many, be it liberal or conservative.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 3, 2021)

Video games are an easy target folks always like to bash...and then sit on the PB for hours or watch the news every night for an equal amount of time. I would even say excessive reading is almost as bad if it allows your health to fail or gets in the way of works of mercy or charity. On the Day of Judgment we will not be asked what books we have read. People are free to relax as they wish to a certain point. I know an old guy who spends hours bird-watching....so boring and unproductive....but he loves it. At least you can break things playing Angry Birds. To each his own.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 3, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Although I personally am of the same bent and opinion, I think this goes too far.
> 
> What exactly is wasting time?
> 
> ...





Pergamum said:


> Video games are an easy target folks always like to bash...and then sit on the PB for hours or watch the news every night for an equal amount of time. I would even say excessive reading is almost as bad if it allows your health to fail or gets in the way of works of mercy or charity. On the Day of Judgment we will not be asked what books we have read. People are free to relax as they wish to a certain point. I know an old guy who spends hours bird-watching....so boring and unproductive....but he loves it. At least you can break things playing Angry Birds. To each his own.


Indeed. I have always thought of this too.
The way I see many men and even women ramble on about sports (I'm always lost among the guys on this because I've never seen the attraction despite some good athleticism on my part) has led me to believe they watch way more TV than I spend playing video games.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Jul 3, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I would say that most social media platforms are addictive, but I would not say they are immersive. ... I doubt many would say they've ever got onto Facebook after dinner and stayed locked into it until 3 a.m.


I've done it myself many times (back when I was an idiot and still had social media), and I know quite a few people who are still worse even now. To say that social media is not immersive or that one cannot lose track of time when addicted to it is just not true. Social media is the most addicting and immersive thing I have ever engaged in. It's real life to many, many people. That's it's very design. Just watch _The Social Dilemma_. Hence why I quit.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MountainPilgrim (Jul 3, 2021)

Any criticism of video gaming can be likewise applied to any other form of leisure. The principle is keeping leisure in its proper place and fulfilling one's duties. I know men who have neglected their responsibilities for the sake of backcountry hunting, and others who have a healthy and balanced gaming schedule. I believe it to be more profitable to focus on the principles at hand, rather than one's own particular proclivities or opinions on the matter. This applies not only to the topic of gaming/leisure, but to physical fitness, as well.

My profession requires a level of physical fitness without which I would be in a very real way endangering not only my own life, but others' lives, as well. It would be irresponsible for me to not pursue a high level of fitness. Yet that is no reason to neglect fitness of mind, another critical component in dangerous situations. One man may be naturally weaker, another more athletic, but the principle stands that each should be master of his own body. That mastery will look different for each man, but the principle is the same: do not neglect your physical well-being. I for one find it very difficult to respect a man's expertise, regardless of his field, when I can see with my own eyes that he is unhealthy and neglects the mastery of his own body.

Likewise, one man may be gifted with intellect, and another, less-so. The principle stands that neither is to neglect his mind, but master and cultivate it according to his own abilities. Again, what that looks like will vary, but each is responsible to feed his mind. I find it difficult to respect a man who - though supremely fit - is obviously too lazy to sharpen his mind. (I am not speaking of natural intelligence here, but the man who - though otherwise capable - chooses to be stupid).

We need not pit physical and intellectual fitness against each other, as both are necessary for a godly man. A man of great physical strength and fitness but no desire to stimulate and improve his mind proves intellectually lazy. A man of great mind and education who neglects his body proves physically lazy. Laziness is the issue for each. Men must seek fitness of both mind and body, to whichever degree their circumstance allows and requires.

Let's be honest, gentlemen, it does not require a significant amount of time to maintain oneself, physically or mentally. If one finds himself "too busy" to improve either his body or his mind, then perhaps we do indeed need to address his priorities and leisure.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ZackF (Jul 4, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> A brother asked me what I thought about Patriarchy. I was hoping the PB could help.
> 
> I answered I both loved and hated it. There are good and bad examples. My own view is that I don't really like any of the current labels. Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Patriarchalism all seemed to come into use within the last 30 years. That is troubling.
> 
> ...


It is interesting you liked LHotP. I enjoyed the books growing up. The series didn't do as much for me. I think LHotP specifically and life on the Great Plains in those days generally was a mixture cultural things worth looking at. Folks in those days covered a lot of bases. Gender may have been the starting point for each others roles but it didn't stop there. Men and women had to learn to pull off each others tasks in a pinch or while children were young. The earthiness of day to day life doesn't didn't allow for endless discourses on "roles". A middle/upper class, squeamish, park and parasol ladylikeness wasn't very practical. Rather, life was rough and I think looked more like ways of Biblical times. Maybe men did most of the hunting but who cleaned the game? Most all of the women on my dad's side of the family born before 1930 that I knew could clean domestic/wild game, fish and handle large cuts of meat. Watching my great-aunt wringing a chicken's neck is something I can never get out of my head. Many women could handle firearms. They also could drive grain trucks during harvest. Men handled most of the mechanical work but it was not considered unseemly for a woman turned a wrench to help if needed. I don't think any of them considered themselves feminists though I don't' remember the subject coming up. My grandparents parents and grandparents were settlers in Western Kansas. My great-great aunt was the first white women born in the county. Visiting her in the hospital with my granddad is one of my earliest memories. She died in 1977. I was three. I can't remember how old she was. I recount all of this as I doubt the lifestyle of women on the prairie and their successors would pass muster of some contemporary patriarchalists. In farming and ranching for women to not to be able to conduct any business would have been absurd even though most often men took care of things. Just for a thought experiment, if a woman of my grandmother's generation while pulling up to the grain elevator with a load wheat would get 21st century lecture about the 'created order' from the attendant, I think she would die of laughter. Many egalitarians would balk too as I doubt there much chatter about "fulfillment" of women in their relationships. Some relationships were unpleasant, even violent especially if booze was in the picture. The men in some families, like nowadays, were tyrants and philanderers. Women could also be homewreckers. Nothing new under the sun. My granddad was a raging alcoholic in the early 1950s but licked it and became known for trying to get others to quit for the rest of his life. Many men were tender toward their families resembling "Pa" from LHotP. Making a life out of nothing or not screwing up the one your parents built was seen as "success". Even as late as the 80s and 90s many boys at my high school thought it was odd that my brother and I were not interested in farming. Dad sold it in 1994.

What are the differences in virtue between a man and a women? I would think none except for maybe appearances. The cardinal virtues of old are prudence, fortitude, justice and temperance. Faith, hope and charity are the theological virtues. The Decalogue is the same for both. My wife stays home and schools our daughters. At the same time we don't judge or rebuke couples (or singles) who do otherwise. Either way, women work.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## MountainPilgrim (Jul 4, 2021)

ZackF said:


> Maybe men did most of the hunting but who cleaned the game? Most all of the women on my dad's side of the family born before 1930 that I knew could clean domestic/wild game, fish and handle large cuts of meat.



My wife and I both hunt, kill, field dress, pack-out, and butcher our meat. True egalitarians, we.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 4, 2021)

MountainPilgrim said:


> Any criticism of video gaming can be likewise applied to any other form of leisure.



I think this should be stated clearly: *All forms of leisure are not equal*. There are more or less good and bad ways to spend your free time. We should not assume that if it's _leisure time,_ any discussion about what it is spent in doing is irrelevant. It isn't. It should at a minimum answer the duty of love to God and neighbor and of being genuinely beneficial for ourselves. I realize that is not a hard and fast line to distinguish. But I stand by my opinion that video games do not pass that test. I've yet to see any good that comes from playing them. You are welcome to your opinion, but this is mine.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 4, 2021)

ZackF said:


> It is interesting you liked LHotP. I enjoyed the books growing up. The series didn't do as much for me. I think LHotP specifically and life on the Great Plains in those days generally was a mixture cultural things worth looking at. Folks in those days covered a lot of bases. Gender may have been the starting point for each others roles but it didn't stop there. Men and women had to learn to pull off each others tasks in a pinch or while children were young. The earthiness of day to day life doesn't didn't allow for endless discourses on "roles". A middle/upper class, squeamish, park and parasol ladylikeness wasn't very practical. Rather, life was rough and I think looked more like ways of Biblical times. Maybe men did most of the hunting but who cleaned the game? Most all of the women on my dad's side of the family born before 1930 that I knew could clean domestic/wild game, fish and handle large cuts of meat. Watching my great-aunt wringing a chicken's neck is something I can never get out of my head. Many women could handle firearms. They also could drive grain trucks during harvest. Men handled most of the mechanical work but it was not considered unseemly for a woman turned a wrench to help if needed. I don't think any of them considered themselves feminists though I don't' remember the subject coming up. My grandparents parents and grandparents were settlers in Western Kansas. My great-great aunt was the first white women born in the county. Visiting her in the hospital with my granddad is one of my earliest memories. She died in 1977. I was three. I can't remember how old she was. I recount all of this as I doubt the lifestyle of women on the prairie and their successors would pass muster of some contemporary patriarchalists. In farming and ranching for women to not to be able to conduct any business would have been absurd even though most often men took care of things. Just for a thought experiment, if a woman of my grandmother's generation while pulling up to the grain elevator with a load wheat would get 21st century lecture about the 'created order' from the attendant, I think she would die of laughter. Many egalitarians would balk too as I doubt there much chatter about "fulfillment" of women in their relationships. Some relationships were unpleasant, even violent especially if booze was in the picture. The men in some families, like nowadays, were tyrants and philanderers. Women could also be homewreckers. Nothing new under the sun. My granddad was a raging alcoholic in the early 1950s but licked it and became known for trying to get others to quit for the rest of his life. Many men were tender toward their families resembling "Pa" from LHotP. Making a life out of nothing or not screwing up the one your parents built was seen as "success". Even as late as the 80s and 90s many boys at my high school thought it was odd that my brother and I were not interested in farming. Dad sold it in 1994.
> 
> What are the differences in virtue between a man and a women? I would think none except for maybe appearances. The cardinal virtues of old are prudence, fortitude, justice and temperance. Faith, hope and charity are the theological virtues. The Decalogue is the same for both. My wife stays home and schools our daughters. At the same time we don't judge or rebuke couples (or singles) who do otherwise. Either way, women work.


Duties are different. The Bible differentiates. The virtue of one is to lead and protect and the other to submit and nurture.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 4, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I think this should be stated clearly: *All forms of leisure are not equal*. There are more or less good and bad ways to spend your free time. We should not assume that if it's _leisure time,_ any discussion about what it is spent in doing is irrelevant. It isn't. It should at a minimum answer the duty of love to God and neighbor and of being genuinely beneficial for ourselves. I realize that is not a hard and fast line to distinguish. But I stand by my opinion that video games do not pass that test. I've yet to see any good that comes from playing them. You are welcome to your opinion, but this is mine.


I guess the question would be, as a pastor, can you let your people pursue their own consciences on this, or do you try to determine this for them?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Jul 4, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> It should at a minimum answer the duty of love to God and neighbor and of being genuinely beneficial for ourselves. I realize that is not a hard and fast line to distinguish. But I stand by my opinion that video games do not pass that test. I've yet to see any good that comes from playing them.


I’m confused by this, as there are so many things I can think of that also fail this test: fishing, doing a crossword puzzle, knitting a cup holder, reading fiction, painting, playing a game of solitaire, sitting at the park and watching birds, and innumerably more activities. How is this not teaching as doctrine the commandments of men? Where in Scripture does it teach that every single leisure activity must meet the two requirements of love for God/neighbor and genuine benefit to ourselves? And who defines what it even means to fulfill these requirements? I am no apologist for video games, and I agree they have caused a good many issues. My own brother is wasting his life playing them right now. But I feel this is an instance where I need to ask, “Where stands it written?”

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jul 4, 2021)

Since this thread's inception we've gone from patriarchy to weightlifting to video games.

Just another day on PuritanBoard.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Boreal (Jul 4, 2021)

Video game lovers here have their controller cords all up in a knot.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 4, 2021)

I think it is clear to the disinterested reader that this thread has transgressed the bounds of Christian charity. I respectfully request that it be closed. Call me old fashioned, but Christian manhood should embody the virtues of avoiding gossipy judgmentalism, not judging (unfairly) according to the outward appearance, and not being a busybody in other men's matters. It is clear to me that some of us need to "man up" with respect to cultivating such virtues.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 4, 2021)

Done

Reactions: Like 2


----------

