Christianity and masculinity

I realized something when mulling over commitment.

Most men are not afraid of commitment. The reality is that most men are afraid of a lack of commitment from women and the consequences thereof. It is pure projection from women.

We know that the majority of divorces — 65-70%+ — are initiated by wives who are unhappy.

Men will often go a hell of a long way — wording intended — to try to satisfy a discontented and contentious wife because he loves her. Albeit, it isn’t the right thing to do, according to the Scriptures.

Men are not dumb. They can see that marriages are a bad deal for them when women are commitment-phobes. Likewise, they can see how many wives are completely apathetic about their marriage: uninterested in sex, uninterested in his likes and dislikes, uninterested in his hobbies. Men can see women that blow up marriages with no consequence win cash and prizes.

Next time I hear “men are afraid of commitment,” I’m countering with “men are afraid of women’s lack of commitment.” Some interesting conversations will probably come from this.

Dalrock critiqued this Piper article from the perspective of women, but I’m going to do it from the perspective of men. It starts off with this question submitted to Piper:

So it’s no surprise, we get a lot of questions from missionaries in the field, and a number of questions from missionaries in training, and a fair number of questions from college students who are interested in giving their lives to missions. Today’s question comes from a podcast listener named Amy, who writes, “Pastor John, I’ve recently noticed that the number of women going to the nations far outweighs men. I looked for more statistics on this, and struggled to even find information. If this is the case, what are your thoughts on this trend, and what do you think are the most probable causes?”

Piper first looks at statistics.

Two-thirds of active missionaries are married couples. Another third are single women. The rest are single men. Well, if that went by too fast, two thirds plus one third don’t leave any room for single men. And it is only a joke in part because it is almost that way.

To be more accurate, the actual situation among most evangelical faith missions is that between 80–85% of all single missionaries are women. It is a rare thing, like two out of every ten, for a single man to make missions his life’s vocation, which results in the overall statistics being that one-third of those in evangelical world missions are married men, one-third are married women, and 80 percent of the last third are single women. Which means that something just less than two-thirds of the total missionary force are women.

It’s interesting because we already know Christianity is feminized in the western world. Already in Churches there is the preponderance of 55-70% of Churches are made up of women. It should really be no surprise that women are over-represented in such endeavors.

Pile onto that the push for cultural achievement of women — the majority of college and graduate degrees are now obtained by women — then it should also be no surprise that Churches tend to push women into ministry and the mission field in droves. This is as opposed to teaching and training women to be good wives and mothers. God forbid we do that.

1) Opinion number one: Let’s start with the observation that many single women in missions would like to be married, not all. Some regard it as a divine calling to serve as a single woman, and they have no intention of even hoping or praying toward marriage. And I thank God for that and for them. But many would like to serve in missions side by side with a similarly called and devoted husband. But by and large, it is men who propose marriage. Women have less control over being married than men do — they can always say no, but I mean taking the initiative in a positive way. Therefore, the single missionary woman who would like to be married is not exactly in the same position as a single missionary man who would like to be married.

Here is a little anecdote. Elisabeth Elliot — I went down and got this from my wife, because I knew she said this once — Elisabeth Elliot told of an interview she had with Gladys Aylward, a single missionary to China who died in 1970: The Small Woman: Gladys Aylward is the name of one biography. Here is what Elisabeth Elliot said. I think she was talking at Urbana when she said this, “Miss Aylward talked to the Lord about her singleness. She was a no-nonsense woman in very direct and straightforward ways and she asked God to call a man from England, send him straight out to China, straight to where she was, and have him propose to me.” I can’t forget the next line. Elisabeth Elliot said, “With a look of even deeper intensity, she shook her little bony finger in my face and said, ‘Elisabeth, I believe God answers prayer. And he called him.’” And here there was a brief pause of intense whisper. She said, “‘He called him, and he never came.’”

Now, that experience, I would guess, is not unique to Gladys Aylward. So, that is my first opinion, that the disproportion of single missionary women to missionary men is that the initiative of proposing marriage among those two groups, singles, lies with the men and not the women.

I’ll summarize these three paragraphs in four words:

Men aren’t stepping up.

Really? That’s the best they could’ve came up with?

There’s no shortage of irony there.

2) Here is opinion number two: Many, it seems to me, of those single men probably avoid missions out of the same personal dynamics that keep them single. Among Christian men who do not get married, say, in their 20s and 30s, they are probably held back from that relationship of marriage by — here are my opinions — a sense of inadequacy that they could be a spiritual leader or a fear that they might be rejected as they pursue a relationship or a lack of purpose in life that would give support and meaning in a marriage relationship. Any of those hindrances to forming a long-term commitment of marriage would also explain why he may have a sense of inadequacy about missions or a fear about missions or a lack of purpose about missions.

In other words, the very things that keep a man single in his late 20s and 30s are probably the same kind of things that would keep him from pursuing a life in missions. On the other hand, single women may not feel any of those hindrances. They would happily marry a godly, mature, purposeful, mission-directed man if he came along. But they can’t make that happen without men doing their part.

Mike Delorenzo: Singles, mission work takes strength — more than you know, but not more than God will give you.

Now, I am sure the matter is way more complex than those two opinions have hinted at, but those are possible explanations for the disproportion number in the single missionary force — like 80% women and 20% men. So, the way I would like to end is by taking the words of Mike Delorenzo who works for Africa Inland Mission (AIM) and close by reading his challenge. Thinking of single men as opposed to single women in missions, he said,

Yes, it may be harder for [men]. Harder to cut through the lies and the apathy. Harder to raise money in a self-reliant society. Harder to enter into relationally-driven cross-cultural missions. Harder to find your ministry in your vocation. But the gospel needs men. The Christian life is a battle, so much so that the Bible calls us to put on armor. And the mission field is a battle field, where a man’s strengths and passions are called upon to be spent for the greatest cause creation has ever known: the cause of Christ and His redemptive work to save this world — and I mean really save this world. It takes courage — courage to step out of your slumber and into the fray. It takes humility — to be willing to fail or at least be deemed a failure by your peers. And it takes strength — more than you know, but not more than God will give you.

Honestly, I had to do a double take. Piper’s “other option” is that men feel inadequate and/or are not strong enough. Hence, they don’t pursue missions or marriage.

In other words: Men are not stepping up.

Piper literally gave two options and they’re basically two different ways to blame men for not stepping up on the mission field or marriage.

It gets better

What are some reasons why men would generally avoid the mission field?

I’ll walk you through a multiple examples of actual reasons Piper could have used but is too blind to see.

• Most men have a strong sex drive. Most men want to marry. What is one way that has been ingrained into men in our culture that is required to get married? “You need to have a good job to be able to provide for your family”

Funny that. Missionary work doesn’t typically come with or segue into having a job that is able to reliably  support a family.

• Most men don’t want to beg others for money to support missions work.

Surprise surprise.

• Churches/families/others tend to support women more than men with monetary donations for missions. Women in need are worthy of support, but men are not. See: Vast majority of the homeless population = men.

This goes back to the fact that men are supposed to be able to provide for themselves no matter the circumstances at minimum. If not, you’re a failure akin to living in your parents basement.

• As stated before, the Church is already feminized. No surprise that there are a majority of women in various “Christian” activities.
• As stated before, Churches/Christians push Christian women toward “achievement” both in college, graduate school, and not surprisingly ministry and missions.

All of these are clear cut reasons why men tend to avoid the mission field and why women are pushed toward it. Yet, all we get from mainline Christian leaders is that “men aren’t stepping up.” Maybe if the Church actually focused on mentoring men for leadership positions and teaching them to be masculine and cultivating masculine traits there would be more of such men. But I digress.

You gotta wonder how long the blame game that “men aren’t stepping up” can be perpetuated by these Christian leaders.

P.S. Real life is still super busy, which is why I’m not posting all that much at the moment.

There’s a lot of contextual background that goes into this verse. I’m going to try to explore all of it.

Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The ‘modern’ interpretation of this verse has done a lot of damage to men as it has been wielded as an arm of judgment against the sex drive of men. Today most Christian men avoid even looking at women out of shame that they’re potentially sinning which is some warped version of gnostic heresy where the desires of the body are sinful. I’ve covered this a bit in posts such as male and female sexual desire are not sinful.

So what is the actual background of this post?

• In Sunday school is superfluous, there is a command from Deuteronomy 6 to teach the commands of God to sons (implied by fathers) all the time. This is the background of which Jesus is teaching the Law.
• This verse is from the Sermon on the Mount (which is similar to the Sermon on the Plain in Luke). The sermons are actually fairly identical, so we understand that Jesus was very consistent with what He was teaching the crowds. This type of teaching was probably similar to what He taught other crowds such as the 5000 and 4000, who he actually ended up feeding as well. These crowds were composed of the number of men present, while the women and children were not counted.
• The word for woman in Green (G1135 — gune) is both the term used for “women” in general and also “wives.” Therefore, there is some context built into the passage.
• The word lust (G1937 — epithumia) is mainly translated as illicit desire. In this case, illicit desire corresponds to coveting that which is not yours (e.g the 10th commandment). Epithumia is used positively once in Luke 22 where he “desired” to eat the Passover with His disciples.

When you put all of these contextual pieces together, the verse can only be interpreted in two possible ways:

1. Jesus is teaching these to married men, who lusting on other women/wives is adultery because he already has a wife.
2. Jesus is teaching these to men in general, in which case the only context that makes sense applies to a specific situation. The options of two are as follows:

For example, if a man is single, then he should not look at a woman to lust where a woman is a “wife.” If he desires a woman who is not married, then he should take step to marry her (e.g. 1 Cor 7 — it is better to marry than to burn).

If a man is married, then #1 applies as coveting another woman and/or wife is akin to adultery. In Matthew 19, Jesus affirms the “one-man and one-woman” from Genesis as the ideal, both in prohibition of divorce and likely in exclusion of polygamy now that the Law has been fulfilled.

John Chrysostom’s Matthew 17 Homily implies that he believes the #1 interpretation is correct, specifically in the context of another man’s wife. Chrysostom goes on a long  discourse on this passage — the longest I’ve seen from him on two lines of Scripture — and implies through his wording that Jesus is speaking mainly to married men with wives.

 You have heard that it was said to them of old time, You shall not commit adultery; but I say unto you, that every one who looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Having now finished the former commandment, and having extended it unto the height of self-denial, He, advancing in course and order, proceeds accordingly unto the second, herein too obeying the law. And yet, it may be said, this is not the second, but the third; for neither is the first, You shall not kill, but The Lord your God is one Lord.

[…]

Why then did He not make a distinction here also? Nay, very great is the distinction which, if you attend, you will see here also included. For He said not simply, whosoever shall desire, since it is possible for one to desire even when sitting in the mountains; but, Whosoever shall look to lust; that is to say, he who gathers in lust unto himself; he who, when nothing compels him, brings in the wild beast upon his thoughts when they are calm. For this comes no longer of nature, but of self-indulgence. This even the ancient Scripture corrects from the first, saying, Contemplate not beauty which is another’s. Sirach 9:8 And then, lest any one should say, what then, if I contemplate, and be not taken captive, He punishes the look, lest confiding in this security you should some time fall into sin. What then, one may say, if I should look, and desire indeed, but do no evil? Even so you are set among the adulterers. For the Lawgiver has pronounced it, and you must not ask any more questions. For thus looking once, twice, or thrice, you will perhaps have power to refrain; but if you are continually doing this, and kindling the furnace, you will assuredly be taken; for your station is not beyond that nature which is common to men. As we then, if we see a child holding a knife, though we do not see him hurt, beat him, and forbid his ever holding it; so God likewise takes away the unchaste look even before the act, lest at any time you should fall in act also. For he who has once kindled the flame, even when the woman whom he has beheld is absent, is forming by himself continually images of shameful things, and from them often goes on even to the deed. For this cause Christ takes away even that embrace which is in the heart only.

[…]

Just then as one may feel wrath at random, so may one cast looks at random; that is, when you do it for lust. Rather, if you desire to look and find pleasure, look at your own wife, and love her continually; no law forbids that. But if you are to be curious about the beauties that belong to another, you are injuring both your wife by letting your eyes wander elsewhere, and her on whom you have looked, by touching her unlawfully. Since, although you have not touched her with the hand, yet have you caressed her with your eyes; for which cause this also is accounted adultery, and before that great penalty draws after it no slight one of its own. For then all within him is filled with disquiet and turmoil, and great is the tempest, and most grievous the pain, and no captive nor person in chains can be worse off than a man in this state of mind. And oftentimes she who has shot the dart is flown away, while the wound even so remains. Or rather, it is not she who has shot the dart, but you gave yourself the fatal wound, by your unchaste look. And this I say to free modest women from the charge: since assuredly, should one deck herself out, and invite towards herself the eyes of such as fall in her way; even though she smite not him that meets with her, she incurs the utmost penalty: for she mixed the poison, she prepared the hemlock, even though she did not offer the cup. Or rather, she did also offer the cup, though no one were found to drink it. […]

Therefore, if Chrysostom’s interpretation is correct and all of the background is accounted for, then the Sermon on the Mount passage is mainly speaking to husbands with wives not to “look at another man’s wife with desire” (e.g. covet another man’s wife) that is not theirs. If he does then he would commit heart adultery and injure their own wife in the process.

Gleaning from the rest of the Scriptures, it seems that #2 interpretation is not necessarily incorrect either if #1 is correct. They are not mutually exclusive. Unmarried men who “look at a woman with desire” if the other woman is unmarried should aim to marry them if they are equally yoked, and unmarried men who “look at a woman with desire” if the other woman is a wife still commits adultery in his heart with her.

Conclusions

Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus is speaking mainly to men in the Sermon on the Mount.

1. If you are a married man, don’t covet another man’s wife. Appreciating the beauty or other qualities of another man’s wife is not coveting, but don’t let desire invade the look. Starting to think of ways to possess that which is not yours is heart adultery.
2. If you are a single man, don’t covet a married woman as it is adultery if the deed is done. Based on the implications of #1, that too is committing adultery with her in your heart.
3. If you are a single man and you see a unmarried women and desire her, pursue her for marriage (1 Cor 7 — it is better to marry than to burn) if you are equally yoked (2 Cor 6 — do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers).

For #1 I believe some general ‘wisdom’ for that is: don’t do a double take and don’t let your eyes linger. Appreciate the beauty or quality and move on thanking God for ‘not leading us into temptation.’

I suppose I could have called this post something along the lines of analysis of capitalism and socialism/communism along with human nature and contentment. Whatever.

Socialism’s problems are much more readily obvious than capitalism. Usually summarized as something along the lines of:

• Governmental corruption
• Lack of desire/motivation of people to start businesses due to profits being reduced heavily from taxation
• Lack of productivity
• Envy/covetousness of what others have**

** Thanks to Chris in the comments for mentioning this.

Capitalism comes with some obvious and not-so-obvious problems:

• Greed — pretty obvious
• Exploitation of the market — fairly obvious. Reduction of costs and wages (outsourcing) is one of the biggest issues here in pursuit of profit above all else.
• Products are geared to exploit addiction — probably the least obvious.

The reason for this post was to specifically talk about the last one. In socialist markets, there are also products geared to exploit addiction, but it can most readily and obviously be exploited in a more capitalistic leaning market.

Smoking is a surefire product that aims to exploit addiction with nicotine. So are addictive drugs like opiates or any other possible drug where people chase a “high.”

However, most people don’t think of foods or other products in this way. I discussed this a bit in food porn (well, the post is short so here’s the whole thing again):

The most prevailing theory now in obesity research is the concept of food reward.

Basically, the concept of food reward is based around the hedonic pleasure derived from taste. This hedonic pleasure derived from certain foods short circuits the brain, much like an addiction, and encourages increased food intake. The main offenders are foods that have increased sugar/starch, salt, and fat in certain proportions which send signals to the brain to continue eating.

Potato chips are one of the best examples because of the prevalence of starch (the potato itself), salt (copious amounts), and roasted or baked in fat (usually vegetable oils). They are a notoriously addictive food, and there are even marketing tactics around this fact. Lays — “Bet you can’t eat just one.”

Just as marketing is fixated around the sexualization of men and women, so too the food industry is fixated around making food as addictive as possible. After all, they want you to buy more because that means more money. This is one of the inherently negative aspects that all capitalistic societies[1] manifest: greed.

Gluttony is simply one form of how greed manifests. This is why obesity is ugly.

[1] Socialist societies are negative for other reasons.

Indeed, all of the massively sugary or fatty or salty foods including combinations of all of those are designed to be exploit the addiction of taste. You want more and more and more.

Restaurants are similar to that. The restaurant that can best exploit the market via a combination of price and taste stand at the top. For example, Starbucks has been so successful in such a market that their quarterly earnings are at about 5.71 billion, and all of their shares summed up are worth 82.43 billion.

Indeed, what inevitably happens in a capitalistic society is a sort of “globalization” of such companies. As a product gains more popularity, it takes in an increasing market share. If there are enough forces to drive the market share up high enough (and in particular in restaurants there generally are), it tends to force similar but smaller stores out of business.

Walmart is a good example with their low(er) prices than most competitors and their ability to minimally wage their workers has led to the Walton family’s combined fortune of $130 billion, the largest in America (and probably the world).

Note: I’m not saying that minimal wage is a “bad” thing either because there are a lot of factors that go into it. Neither am I saying that a CEO making big bucks is bad either because it’s not. Surface value judgments are sometimes not very accurate.

The ugliness of human nature simply manifests differently in two drastically different economic settings. Socialization has the greedy government officials power grabbing and money hoarding with the businessmen buying them off. Capitalism has exploitation of human desire in various different ways (taste, sex, convenience, etc.) manifested into corporate greediness above all else.

All of this is to say that any ‘economic system’ can play a role in stimulating and bringing forth evil from human desire.

Anyway, the point is that I think it’s a good thing to be aware of how much goes into marketing and exploiting human desires, so that we can learn to be content.

Philippeans 4:10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity. 11 Not that I speak [g]from want, for I have learned to be [h]content in whatever circumstances I am. 12 I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. 13 I can do all things [i]through Him who strengthens me.

That’s the correct context of “I can do all things through [Christ] who strengthens me.” How to be content in all circumstances, whether with little or much.

1 Tim 6:6 But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment.

Still pretty busy, but still trying to get a post out or two.

Hearkening back to complementarians are worse than egalitarians, a majority of Dalrock’s recent posts all harp on this theme:

• https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/11/25/the-roots-of-modern-christian-wife-worship/
• https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/something-in-common/
• https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/dr-russell-moore-wives-dont-sin-part-1/
• https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/for-the-love-of-marital-strife/
• https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/dr-russell-moore-wives-dont-sin-part-2/
• https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/rubbing-body-parts-together/

The general pattern is displayed in several relevant points, namely:

• If a husband is in sin (e.g. porn), it’s his fault for failing as a leader. If a wife is in sin (e.g. porn, romance novels), what is he doing to make her act this way?
• “Effort and feelings” (e.g. romance, emotions, feeling it) justifies marital sex. Oh, and it’s only the romance, emotions, and feelings of the wife. Not the husband.
• Women are responders. A husband’s leadership is justified by how his wife responds. Positively, he’s doing good. Negatively, he’s doing bad.
• Husbands are ‘brutes’ that need to be ‘civilized’ by their wives.
• Wives are innately more moral than their husbands.
• If a husband wants a divorce, he’s evil. If a wife wants a divorce, what’s the husband doing wrong?

The sum of all of this nonsense is: a wife can do no wrong. This is the essence of complementarian teaching, despite the lip service they give to the Bible.

We know that the Scripture preaches that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That we are responsible for our own personal actions. That even if others are treating us terrible or poorly that we should be kind and pray for them and should not sin. That even if we are married to non-Christians that we should act according to Christian principles despite if they sin.

It would be better to clarify the position that complementarians are worse than egalitarians. Egalitarians “overtly” claim equality, while advocating rule of the wife in marriage. Complementarians “overtly” claim the Biblical roles and responsibilities, while undermining the husband and advocating the rule of the wife in marriage.

The deception is far worse than we realize because they try to play their position off as truth, and cut down husbands much more than both egalitarians AND feminists. As Dalrock has noted, even secular magazines have been shocked over how films like the War Room have cut down husbands.

Complementarian teaching [in practice] = a wife can do no wrong.

The list of “complementarian” pastors who believe this is quite astonishing: Moore, Russell, Stanton, Piper, Mohler, etc. Pretty much everyone from Focus on the Family, Acts 29, and other so-called conservative Christian groups that say they adhere to the Scripture. Just look at all of their teachings on marriage.

Been super busy this Thanksgiving season and will likely also be in the Christmas, so probably won’t be able to post much still.

2 Corinthians discusses about how Christ commits us to the ministry of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one [f]according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ [g]according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, [h]he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and [i]He has [j]committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

What 2 Cor 5 doesn’t tell us, but what we know from the gospels is that the cost of such reconciliation was Christ sacrificing Himself for us on the cross. Hence, suffering (and death) is the cost of reconciliation. The ministry of reconciliation that we have is to spread the gospel so that others may come to know the Father.

I think that we, as humans, are too apt to give up on relationships with friends, family, and other loved ones when the going gets rough or there is conflict. In our passive or passive-aggressive minds, we like to avoid all this so-called unnecessary down-and-dirty conflict with others and push it off to the side, allowing the feelings and relations to peter out. However, reconciliation requires two to come together through differences and the suffering that is present to ensure that there is unity in the end.

This is something to keep in mind as our country fractures, divorce is still prevalent, and often people decide that relationships aren’t worth it. People are worth it: who is our neighbor? Fighting and suffering for the relationship is what Christ has done for us.

Christians are nationalists, with a global agenda.

Nationalists:

John 15:31 Therefore when he had gone out, Jesus *said, “Now [d]is the Son of Man glorified, and God [e]is glorified in Him; 32 [f]if God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and will glorify Him immediately. 33 Little children, I am with you a little while longer. You will seek Me; and as I said to the Jews, now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’ 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Global agenda:

Matthew 28:16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 [e]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [f]always, even to the end of the age.”

It’s easy to forget that what drives the global agenda is our nationalistic fervor for Christ and one another. This is the importance of understanding the commands of Jesus.

It is the Truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ that provides Unity which ultimate results in a diverse background of believers. Without the Unity of Jesus, there can be no diversity without conflict.

One of the things that I have struggled with and many men I know struggle with is the difference between kindness and niceness. These two things are not the same thing, and getting them confused often leads men down an unrighteous and undesirable path. Kindness, of course, is a fruit of the Spirit, whereas niceness is concerned meeting a need while placating feelings.

The reason why niceness eventually leads to evil is that it utilizes both truth and lies. For example,  it is certainly nice to help out a homeless victim with food. On the other hand, it is also nice to say that “you’re not fat” when a woman asks you “do I look fat?” Helping the homeless person meets a need and also placates both of your feelings in a good way, but meeting the need with a lie also placates feelings but is inherently evil.

On the other hand, kindness is a fruit of the Spirit. In the Spirit there is only Truth. In reality, kindness is advocating the Truth with a touch of grace. Let’s look at a few examples.

Romans 2:4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

It is the kindness of God that leads us to repentance.

• What is the Truth? — That we all sin and fall short of the glory of God.
• What is the grace? — That God sent His son, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Therefore, we can say that kindness is advocating the Truth with a touch of grace.

1 Peter 3:7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with [c]someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

• What is the Truth? — women/wives are the weaker vessel.
• What is the grace? — living with her in an understanding way, and showing her honor as a fellow heir in Christ (with a penalty for disobedience: so that prayers may not be hindered).

If a woman/wife asks if something makes her look fat and she is then…

• the Nice answer is no, but that is a lie.
• the Truthful answer is yes, but it is generally not graceful.
• a Kind answer may be to decline to answer or a sarcastic answer, as a Truthful answer may not be palatable to the ears.
• edit: a Kind answer may be something like: “Honey, you know I love you, but you have gained some weight. How can we work together one that?”

edit: Donal has some valid critique here. In general, what I was trying to get is that women are fairly good at reading between the lines, and do not necessarily have to be told overtly about something to understand. However, that can be confusing, so I added in a better example with my edit to be ‘more Truthful’ so to speak.

Men who are fathered and/or mentored to be men act and speak with a strong intent. This is normal. What is for men is often not what is for women.

Women, however, tend to need more flavoring with their food. Food is Truth. Is the essence and meat of the subject. However, Truth (or meat) by itself tends to be very unpalatable to women. Thus, they need flavoring with food to make it more palatable. This is where grace comes in.

Kindness is Truth with the flavor of grace. It is in this way that God treats us to bring us to repentance, and it is also in this way husbands are to treat their wives.

Learning how to be kind — how to speak the Truth with grace — is difficult and requires much practice and knowledge of Truth and how to speak and act gracefully, especially in conflict.

Going back to the earlier post on miscegenation and sanctification and Nova’s excellent post here, it bears repeating that diversity is one of the moral tenets of liberalism and progressivism. This is why you see much backlash in the election, calling those who voted for Trump “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes,” “xenophobes,” and so on.

Indeed, most Christians seem to believe that “diversity” is an inherently good. However, after critical analysis this can be proved false.

The spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ results in a group of believers, called Christians, who are diverse. In other words, it is the gospel that is Truth. Diversity is simply an effect of the acceptance of a Truth.

When diversity is installed as a moral truth instead of the gospel, you create and prop up an idol on a pedestal. This is the deception of the progressives and liberals. They attempt to co-opt the result (e.g. diversity) of a moral Truth (e.g. the gospel of Jesus Christ) and install it as a their own truth, without the backing of any sort of absolute morality.

Hence, what you see today is the cult of diversity crying and whining because people rightly reject their idols.