There is nothing new under the sun Christian denominations

I was reflecting a bit on Ecclesiastes “there is nothing new under the sun” and the various faith traditions.

Ecclesiastes 1:8 All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor is the ear filled with hearing. 9 That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which one might say, “See this, it is new”? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us. 11 There is no remembrance of [k]earlier things; And also of the [l]later things which will occur, There will be for them no remembrance Among those who will come [m]later still.

Overall, I came to these conclusions:

The Great Schism when the Church was split into Orthodox and Roman Catholic is pretty much similar to what happened when Israel was split into the ten tribes and two tribes. They started following two different kings.

Now, I don’t think the two different faith traditions will end up necessarily the same as Israel and Judah did, but the fracturing and dispute over authority is similar. While the RCC has a ‘pope’ as ‘king,’ Orthodox have ecumenical councils which I suppose don’t really fit the mold. So it’s not a perfect analogy.

Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Protestants, unfortunately, are like the time of Judges, which is probably a step backward without authority. God didn’t want Israel to have a king like the nations surrounding it, but they tended to be more righteous if they were under a righteous authority figure than being non-governed .

The Protestants tend to have less resiliency and constantly turn away to cultural idols, and the faithful ones keep praying that God brings “revival” (e.g. a judge) to save them.

Anyway, I didn’t think about it super hard, so it’s not perfect. But it is close I think.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 8 Comments

Remarriage analysis in context with marriage rates and spinsterhood

I’ve been looking over the remarriage rates in context with the previous post on marriage rates and spinsterhood.

Interestingly, the Pew research has these stats for remarriage:

This is more interesting when you bring into the responses to the surveys.

This may reflect, in part, the fact that men who have been divorced or widowed are more likely to want to remarry than are similarly situated women. Some 29% of eligible men say they want to remarry, and 36% are not sure, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey; only 30% say they do not want to marry again. In contrast, just 15% of previously married women want to remarry, and 27% are not sure; about half of these women (54%) report that they do not want to remarry.

29% of men say they want to remarry, 36% are not sure, and 30% say they don’t want to remarry. No clue where the other 5% went. Alternatively, 54% of women do not want to remarry.

  • 29% + 36% = 65% who want to remarry or are not sure which almost exactly matches the rate of men who remarry at 64%.
  • 54% of women do not want to remarry and 52% of women remarry which almost exactly matches the stats. So of the women who want to remarry or are not sure, almost all of them do.

Now, look at this in the context of initiated divorce rates. About 70% of divorces are initiated by women.

  • 29% of men want to remarry and 30% of the men initiate divorces. This almost exactly coincides as well.
  • 15 + 54% = 69% of women want to remarry and don’t want to remarry which is 69% of women which almost matches the 70% of divorces initiated by women. Women generally divorce because they are so unhappy with the marriage and/or they want to remarry someone else. Generally, singleness is still a stigma for women.

It’s likely that the 54% of women who “never want to remarry” married an average to below average joe and couldn’t stomach it while the other 15% of women were looking for greener pastures.

Obviously, there is some overlap between the different categories and not every man who initiates a divorce also wants to remarry, but the statistics are remarkably consistent for the approximate amounts of initiated divorces and remarriage rates.

Now, before women go all crazy about divorcing and seeing that they can remarry, there is additional context of course.

Overall, this chart shows us something we absolutely already knew about remarriage for women. The cumulative remarriage rate for women is overall sitting at 52% which is dragged down by the 65% and older and the young remarriage rates.  Almost all of the remarriages are happening by the women in the 18-24 and 25-34 age ranges.

By 34, if a woman is not remarried, there’s only a very slim chance she will get married again. 45% to 57% by 35-44 and 62% by 45-54 and 63% by 55-65. In other words, approximately:

  • 3 in 10 women get remarried if they’re 18-24
  • 1 in 7 women get remarried if they’re 25-34
  • 1 in 10 women get remarried if they’re 35-44
  • 1 in 20 women get remarried if they’re 45-54
  • 1 in 100 women get remarried if they’re 55-65

The remarriage rates for women are grim for women if they’re older than 25, and very grim if they’re older than 34, and nigh impossible if they’re 55 and older.

Other interesting sex and marriage interactions

If you remember back to the Kinsey marriage sex statistics I posted on early last year, there are some interesting findings to go with this.

Other data show similar qualities:

More than 7 times a week: 3%
7 times a week: 1%
6 times a week: 3%
5 times a week: 9%
4 times a week: 11%
3 times a week: 13%
2 times a week: 21%
once a week: 25%
once a month: 8%
less than once a month: 9%

Approximately 17% (once a month to less than once a month) are sexless. I would assume that most “once a weekers” are probably unhappy with that. The sex drive of men is typically higher than that of women, but women can become dissatisfied with lack of frequency as well.

We know that at the lowest 40% of marriages end in divorce. So if we assume that most of the sexless ~20% of marriages end in divorce, a large portion of those in the 25% once a week range are going to divorce as well. This doesn’t take into account the potential dissolution of marriages with more frequency sex that have other problems.

Of the 40% of the first marriage divorces, 20% of women never want to marry again, 6% want to get married again, and 14% are not sure.

I would contend that the 6% who want to get married again and the 14% who are not sure are probably the women who were close to the 17% or 15-20% range of sexless marriages. Those women in the 20% range who were potentially had to output “duty sex” on a regular basis such as 1x per week probably had a negative impact on their perception of marriage that they don’t want to experience it again.

Contrast to previous article

The previous article came to these conclusions.

Here are the rates:

  • Currently, 85% of all women have gotten married by 45.
  • About 10% cohabitate.
  • Predicted by 2049 that 25-30% of women will have not been married by 45.

This leaves us with:

  • 6% never want to get married
  • 10% cohabitation
  • 70-75% married
  • 94% want to get married.

This leaves us with:

  • 9-14% “unwanted spinsterhood” — about 1 in 10 women
  • 19-24% “unwanted cohabitation and unwanted spinsterhood” — about 2 in 10 women

That’s a decent chunk of the female population that will have to settle for unwanted cohabitation and unwanted spinsterhood. We’ll see how this plays into affecting the narrative. The loudest cries are always at the margins.

According to the divorce rate of all divorces which is about 50% — ~40% first marriage, 60% second marriage, ~70% third marriage — the 70-75% of marriages approximately 28-30% of first marriages end up in divorce. Since about 50% of the women in those first marriages remarry, it gives us these stats:

  • 42-45% married for “death til us part”
  • 14-15% of women in 2nd and 3rd marriages
  • 14-15% of women divorced single hood
  • 9-14% “unwanted spinsterhood” — about 1 in 10 women
  • 19-24% “unwanted cohabitation and unwanted spinsterhood” — about 2 in 10 women

This leaves us with approximately:

  • 33-39% “unwanted cohabitation, unwanted spinsterhood, divorced singlehood/single mom” or about 1 in 3 to 2 in 5 women.

Very grim indeed.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 5 Comments

Marriage rates and end game spinster predictions

Previous reddit post on statistics. I know Dalrock has covered it too a while back when it came out.

For men:

Bentley article on predictions. Here are the interesting excerpts.

Today an unprecedented portion of millennials will remain unmarried through age 40, a recent Urban Institute report predicted. The marriage rate might drop to 70 percent — a figure well below rates for boomers (91 percent), late boomers (87 percent) and Gen Xers (82 percent). And declines might be even sharper if marriage rates recover slowly, or not at all, from pre-recession levels, according to the report.

Traditional marriage has been on a downward trajectory for generations, but with this group it appears to be in free fall. According to a report released last month by the Pew Research Center, 25 percent of millennials are likely to never be married.

So this is what we have:

  • In 1980, 95% of all women got married by 45 years old.
  • In 2016, 85% of all women have gotten married by 45 years old.

That number is expected to increase to the 25-30% range for millennials (e.g. born 1982-2004) according to these predictions. So theoretically, the last millennials would be 45 in 2049.

Young couples are opting to live together and put off marriage for later, if at all. About a quarter of unmarried young adults (ages 25 to 34) are living with a partner, according to Pew Research analysis of Current Population Survey data.

Average married age of women and men is 27 and 29. Therefore, we can estimate that this number is about ~40% unmarried for that particulate age range or so due to 27-29 being on the earlier side of 30 which is in the middle. That would mean that about 10% of unmarried young adults are cohabiting.

Marriage has lost much of its social allure, but remains a desired milestone for about 70 percent of millennials. They say they would like to marry, but many — especially those with lower levels of income and education — lack what they deem to be a necessary prerequisite: a solid economic foundation.

Ironically, it’s marriage that actually staves off poverty. One income with stay at home motherhood is generally a feature of upper middle class; two incomes tend to bring a family out of poverty income levels.

“Even as marriage rates have plummeted — particularly for the young and the less educated — Gallup survey data show that young singles very much hope to get hitched. Of Americans age 18 to 34, only about nine percent have both never been married and say they do not ever want to marry,” she wrote.

So about 10% say they don’t want to get married and never have been married. 18-34 is a pretty big population range for singles. If average age of marriage for women is 27 and 29 for men, then that probably encompasses about 60-70% of the population. Let’s say it’s about 2/3rds of the population, so about 6% of millennials never want to get married. 94% want to get married.

Here’s the margins

  • Currently, 85% of all women have gotten married by 45.
  • About 10% cohabitate.
  • Predicted by 2049 that 25-30% of women will have not been married by 45.

This leaves us with:

  • 6% never want to get married
  • 10% cohabitation
  • 70-75% married
  • 94% want to get married.

This leaves us with:

  • 9-14% “unwanted spinsterhood” — about 1 in 10 women
  • 19-24% “unwanted cohabitation and unwanted spinsterhood” — about 2 in 10 women

That’s a decent chunk of the female population that will have to settle for unwanted cohabitation and unwanted spinsterhood. We’ll see how this plays into affecting the narrative. The loudest cries are always at the margins.

Edit: Fuzziewuzziebear makes a good comment:

The problem with this is that it fails to take into account women who have divorced and don’t remarry. There have to be a terrible lot of them. At a guess. let’s say it doubles the numbers. With eighteen to twenty eight percent of women unlikely to marry, they should be screaming.

About 50% of women remarry after divorce. 1st marriage divorce rate is currently approximately between 30-40%. Therefore, there are another 15-20% of women who are single divorcees.

Bonus: Kate Bolick of the oft referenced All the Single Ladies article that has gone around a lot has a book on spinsterhood aptly named “Spinster” trying to ‘spin’ it in a positive light. The media agrees with her narrative obviously.

The rest of the article is blustering to try to rationalize the “changing views” of marriage. Not worth the time reading.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 26 Comments

Divorce rates have not really dropped

An NYT article claims that divorce rates have dropped.

Here’s the chart:

Overall, the “rates” don’t really look to be dropping much at all because they are pretty much all on similar trajectories.

There’s also no real “spike” for the so-called 7 year itch either.

The “spike” for the 1980s and 1990s seems to be in 2008, since the data for those married in 2000 only goes up to 8 years. That’s when the market crashed from the housing bubble, and tons of people lost their houses and/or jobs. When husbands don’t have jobs, wives tend to divorce in much greater numbers.

Overall, if the rates are dropping for those in the 2000s, it’s because:

  • There are less marriages overall and thus there are less divorces.
  • Cohabitation is on the rise.
  • Men tend to see marriage as a bad deal for them, and so they are just either opting out or only getting married if they are REALLY sure.
  • The more unattractive men that would’ve gotten married and divorced simply aren’t getting married anymore since they can’t find women. These would-be divorces simply never come to be.
  • Men are less masculine now, and women are less feminine.

If men and women married at the same rates as they did in the latter 1900s, then you’d definitely see drastically more divorces than the charts indicate. That’s why simply looking at divorce rates is deceptive.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 6 Comments

Digit ratio redux

Info from a recent Dalrock post actually found a pubmed article on Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and social dominance: a possible explanation for the feminist paradox.

As I noted in the previous digit ratio post, men and women exposed to higher prenatal testosterone develop tendencies for behavior based on how much they were exposed to.

Here is the study’s abstract:

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e., those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

Interestingly, what the abstract doesn’t mention is that the sample women had a more masculinized digit ratio than even the sample men group!

A picture is worth a thousand words in this case:

As you can see, the mean digit ratio of feminist activist women is higher than both the female and male comparison groups, although there is some solid overlap.

If you find a woman who have very short index fingers compared to their rings, it’s worth being very careful around them until you know their tendencies and political views.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 3 Comments

Review of vetting, virgins and new info on virginity pledges

I’m reviewing some of this for the book, plus some newer information.

First, revisiting vetting.

I’m going to eliminate as much commentary as I can, as this review is going to be very long.

Let’s look at one example we are all familiar with: virginity.

From the Teachman study on Social Pathologist. In particular, we see correlative trends on:

  • Virgins are significantly less likely to be infected by STDs (obviously)
  • Virgins are significantly less likely to divorce and are more likely to have stable marriages.
  • Virgins are more likely to be happy in their marriages.
  • Virgins are less likely to be depressed.

These are not all of the stats you can pull out on virgins.The findings for the population regarding virginity and stable marriages are replicated across various studies.

This alone shows the female virginity is important for marriages. God knew what He was talking about in Deuteronomy 22.

Other indicators based on statistical modeling

Aside from virginity, are other indicators of stable marriages based on statistical modeling. I’m not going to pull out charts for all of these, but you can check out some of the others for yourself through google. For example, stable marriages are more likely to be formed across:

  • Ethnicity: Asian > hispanic > white > black

  • Age: Reverse bell curve around 25-30 years old

  • Religion: Catholics > Active Protestants > Non practicing > Non-practicing Protestants > Other
  • Importance of religion: active > non-practicing

Those committed to their faith or no faith are stronger in marriages than those who are lukewarm.

  • College education: Graduate > College educated > Part college > HS diploma > Part High School

Education is a predictor of stable marriages. Cane and the commenters discussed potential reasons why.

  • Family background: Two parents > one parent > no parents

A father and a mother provide the most stable marriage, which is also a predictor of divorce. Single mothers being a big offender.

  • Children out of wedlock: Children in wedlock > children within first 9 months of marriage > children out of wedlock

Yes, shotgun marriages are worse than wedlock marriages but better than having children out of wedlock then getting married.

All of the relative risk ratios for the following are discussed in Free Northerner’s post on Sexonomics: odds of divorce. I took out the ones already discussed.

  • Age of first sexual experience: 18 > 17-18 > 15-16 > 13-14 > 12


Unsurprisingly, the earlier sexual experience means disproportionately lifetime partners and higher risk of divorce. Exercising self control works (likely along with stronger family structure too).

  • Cohabitation: No cohabitation > cohabitation
  • Income: husband earns more > equal income > wife earns more
  • Income total: Middle > higher > lowest (speculation: more cash and prizes for divorcing the highest income earners)

Some other indicators from divorce probability.

  • Prior marriage: no prior marriage is better than a prior marriage
  • Employment status: employed > part time > not employed
  • Interracial marriages: Some have more likelyhood of staying together (e.g. White man, black woman) and some have less likelihood (e.g. black man, white woman; asian man, white woman, etc.).
  • Country: US is pretty divorce happy compared to many other countries. For example, 50% of all Catholic annulments worldwide are in the US.
  • Ability to resolve conflict: Never argue > rarely argue > regularly argue > heated arguments
  • Alcohol use: None > some > regularly
  • Drug use: None > some > regularly
  • Mental illness: None > having one (depression, schizophrenia, BPD, etc.)
  • Age difference: reverse bell curve centered with least risk of men being 0-2 years older.
  • Forced premarital sex: None > forced sex (e.g. rape)
  • Length of marriage: the longer your marriage lasts the less risk of divorce

Social attitudes:

  • Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can’t seem to work out their marriage problems
  • A young couple should not live together unless they are married
  • It is okay for an unmarried female to have a child
  • It is important for a man to spend a lot of time with his famil than to be successful at his career

All of these are different indicators of increase probability for separation or divorce.

It also so happens that women who delay age of first sexual experience, likely have increased self control and thus significantly decrease amount of total sexual partners.

Calculating the odds

There are some calculators aside from Free Northerner’s post. FN mentions divorce probability. The defunct Just 4 Guys had one up that leads to this statistical probability.

J4G calculates the relative risk ratio of separation at 10 years. If the woman is:

  • Over 25
  • Has a 4 year degree
  • Catholic
  • Had an intact 2 parent family
  • Lost her virginity to you in marriage
  • Was not a single mother
  • Does not believe divorce is an option
  • Does not believe in cohabitation
  • Does not believe that it’s okay for an unmarried woman to have a child out of wedlock
  • Believes family time is more important than career advancement

Then the relative risk of separation at 10 years is 2%.

Obviously, J4G does not take into account many of the other myriad of risk factors above including ethnicity, importance of religion, income, income total, employment status, interracial marriages, country, conflict solving, alcohol use, drug use, mental illness, age difference, forced premarital sex, and some of the other factors.

It is likely that the relative risk can be reduced even further if other factors are applied.

Conclusions for virginity

I stand by my statements that vetting will reduce the risk of divorce from 50/50 to at least 90% if not 95-98%. Perhaps even 99%+ like TPC denies if you can factor in all of the ones that J4G and DP missed including attitudes about the importance of God and family in relation to life. In fact, virginity does most of the leg work reducing the risk of divorce already up to 80-85% depending on the study. This is why chastity is so important and why it made my list.

One of the quotes I’ve heard from Andy Stanley on why statistics matter is excellent (although, unfortunately, he believes heretical “submit to one another in Christ” for marriages). Paraphrased:

It is foolish to ignore statistics. […] You are unique. God created you to be unique. But your experiences are not unique.

Experiences are not unique. We are all humans and engage in relationships. This gives statistics power as exemplary warning signs that can be used to analyze what a stable marriage looks like compared to an unstable one based on current and past behavior. They are accurate predictors that those unmarried can use to look for a potential spouse including the direct vetting like I have talked about.

Obviously, people change during marriage. This doesn’t mean that there is a sudden massive increase in divorce probability as people change and get older. I admit that you can’t vet to 0% probability of divorce. Even in the list above in the last section there is a 2% chance that there will be separation at 10 years. Maybe you fell into the 2% risk of separation or divorce. You one of the 2 out of 100. That sucks. But that doesn’t discount that 98/100 of the other men still have stable marriages. Women may be fickle, but certain types of women are not that fickle that they would end up divorcing in droves after strong vetting.

Therefore, it should be abundantly clear that vetting, especially statistically, does have a very strong impact on finding a quality prospect for marriage. Reduction in relative risk of divorce from about 50/50 to < 5% maybe even to < 1- 2% is a very strong indicator that it works. It is such a strong reduction such that most informed men would never take a 50/50 willingly but would take the a < 2-5% chance. See: Jesus’ analogy of discipleship about counting the cost.


Now, going back to doom and gloom and the amount of attractive Christian virgins.

  • There are 10,466,258 women aged 25-29 and 10,571,823 women aged 20-24 and 10,736,677 women aged 15-19 in the US in 2010. Let’s say the range from 18-29 is good. 18-19 make up ~40% of the 15-19 range so ~4,294,671 women.

2010 Census Data. Not much changes in 5 years given the chart as each population group is still roughly 10 million.

(1) Total women in 18-29 age range = 25,332,752


  • Less than 20% of Americans regularly attend church — half of what the pollsters report. While Gallup polls and other statisticians have turned in the same percentage — about 40% of the population — of average weekend church attendees for the past 70 years, a different sort of research paints quite a disparate picture of how many Americans attend a local church on any given Sunday. […] His findings reveal that the actual rate of church attendance from head counts is less than half of the 40 percent the pollsters report. Numbers from actual counts of people in Orthodox Christian churches (Catholic, mainline and evangelical) show that in 2004, 17.7 percent of the population attended a Christian church on any given weekend.

  • We also know that 70% of young adults in the 18-22 range drop out of church.

These two factors as pointed out are heavily confounded with each other. As KPP pointed out in the previous comments, about half of the 2/3 that drop out eventually end up attending again albeit in lower frequency. For the sake of argument, I’m willing to be factor out the dropout rate of young adults altogether using the US population “regularly attenders” as the standard which is 17.7%. This will overestimate the amount of young women in the Church.

(1) Total women in 18-29 age range, (2) who regularly attend Church = 25,332,752 * .177 = 4,483,897


  • 58.5 of women 20-39 years old are overweight or obese in 2011-2012 in the US.

  • NIDDK (National institute for diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases) states that 33% of teens are overweight or obese.

One could say that Christians have more self control than their counterparts. However, as I have noted in posts such as A lesson in false humility: Christians are allergic to healthy lifestyles, Christian women tend to find a way to rationalize that paying attention to physical appearance is an idol. This statistic is probably pretty accurate.

An estimate of the total number of 20-29 year olds that are not overweight or obese would build off the data. If 67% of teens are not overweight or obese then the 41.5% should be averaged between the 20-29 and 30-39. Therefore, if we say that obesity increases linearly with age, then 67% of teens are not overweight or obese, 50% of 20-29 are not overweight or obese and 33% of 30-39 are not overweight or obese. Averaging 50% and 33% yields our 41.5%.

Therefore, a solid estimate is that 50% of 18-29 age range are not overweight or obese. That’s still pretty dismal.

(1) Total women in 18-29 age range, (2) who attend Church regularly, (3) who aren’t overweight or obese = 4,483,897 * .5 = 2,241,949


  • In highly religious groups, up to 20% wait until marriage successfully. Naturally, religious people seem more likely to wait until marriage to have sex. In a study of 9 Southern Baptist churches in Texas, 20% of the church members aged 25 or younger were married without ever having premarital sex (e.g. no oral & no vaginal).
  • In the general population, the ratio of women-to-men who wait until marriage to have sex seems to be about 60/40 girls-to-guys. This statistic disproves the common misconception that only women wait until marriage to have sex. Statistically-speaking, plenty of guys wait too!

I did some research since the previous post, and found the actual study with data: (my red highlighting)

A greater percentage of men had no sex (30.1%) compared to women (24.4%). Same with the data for oral only, vaginal only, and both. The distinction is fairly low, but it seems to support the conclusion that women slightly more often have premarital sex than men.

Overall, the more committed one was to Church (e.g. very often) the more likely that one was a full virgin. Unfortunately, the study did not quantify the difference between “very often” and “often” but I imagine that “very often” is likely 1 or more times per week, whereas “often” is only once to a few times month. That’s the way I’ve seen it quantified in online dating surveys.

Indeed, there was also a huge disparity between those who married 16-20 and 21-24 and 25-36 with the rates at 15.8% (includes married by pre-marital pregnancy), 38.8% and 13.5% respectively for no sex before marriage. Overall, if you’re a Christian man aim for the 21-24 age group of Christian women attending Church often for your best shot.

Overall childhood church attendance and 2 parent families also played a role over no church attendance and divorced families. Another 2 factors to keep in mind.

19 total women were total virgins at marriage, and 22 total men were total virgins at marriage. This also lends credence to my aforementioned conclusion that men should aim for the 21-24 demographic of Christian women if they want a virgin at marriage as pretty much all of the virgins were clustered into the 20-24 range. Kudos to the 32 woman and 36 man who waited.

It’s worth noting that Church 1a and 2 had a highly disproportionate number of virgins at marriage compared to the rest of the Churches surveyed. 1a and 1b are designated as being in the “same region” so there’s obviously a drastic difference between Church 1a and Church 1b even though they’re in the same area. FIND THE RIGHT CHURCH.

For the sake of the statistical analysis, I’m going to go with the 30.4% for “very often” Church attenders for the conclusion as the “attend Church regularly” is already a factor. Note that this may be higher in the 21-24 age women population and less in the 25-29 age population.

(1) Total women in 18-29 age range, (2) who attend Church regularly, (3) who aren’t overweight or obese, (4) who stay a virgin until marriage = 2,241,949 * .304 = 681,552

I’d be interested to see what the statistic is for 21-24 + often/very often childhood attendance + parents married + very often attendance is. Maybe it reaches 50%+ for childhood attenders which would be much better.


Mark MacIntyre comments:

Shouldn’t you separate the single women in this age range from the partnered women before doing the rest of the sums? (I’m quite tired today, so the answer to this may be staring me in the face).

According to Pew Research, just 20% of Americans aged 18-29 are married. That would further reduce your eligibility number to 681,552 x 0.8 = 545,241 (rounded down, because who wants 0.6 of a woman?).

That is indeed the case. Therefore, adding a significant needed criteria this would be:

(1) Total women in 18-29 age range, (2) who attend Church regularly, (3) who aren’t overweight or obese, (4) who stay a virgin until marriage (5) who are single = 681,552 * .8 = 545,241


I factored in as many confounding variables as I could, and I was conservative at adding more variables to the equation because of confounding factor overlap. Other variables with confounding factors that I didn’t include in the statistics:

  • The National Marriage Project also found that “about 80 percent of young-adult men and women continued to rate marriage as an ‘important’ part of their life plans; almost half of them described it as ‘very important.’” Thirty percent of 25-year-old single women want to be married. Read more at . Only ~30% of women want to be married in the 18-30 age range on average approximately.
  • Those who attend church are not always “Christians.” Based on my experience and others I’d say that only 10-20% of Christians in churches are actually reading their Bible and striving to obey Scripture.
  • Worse measures of virginity in non-extremely conservative Church populations.
  • Denominational differences. Some of the stats clumps all religions together (hindu, muslum, etc.) not just Catholic and Protestant.

Thus, I believe the above statistics are a fairly accurate measurement compared to the previous estimate. If anything, it’s going to be a slight to moderate overestimate.



The third iteration resulted in these numbers:

In conclusion, there are approximately 545,241 Christian women in the US aged 18-29 who regularly attend Church, aren’t overweight or obese, are virgins at marriage, and are currently single. This is approximately 2.15% of the 18-29 total women population (545,241 / 25,332,752). In the US total population it is .17% (545,241 / 320,090,000).

Specifically, any random 18-29 year old woman in Church with the attributes of non-overweight or obese and a virginity and single is going to be .304 (virginity at marriage) * .5 (not overweight or obese) * .8 (single) = 12%. In other words, about 1 in 8.

These numbers are better than previous estimates, based on more accurate data. However, I did drop some potential relevant factors, so if anything it may be a slight overestimate.

The average Church size is approximately 186 attenders. Your average Church is 60/40 women to men as we mentioned before. The women tend to be disproportionately older or families with children. Total 18-29 women in the US who regularly attend Church make up 16.1% of the women population (25,332,752/(156,964,212)). I won’t factor in drop out rates among young people, even though it may be up to 33%. Hence, we get:

  • ~18 women (186 * .6 * .161) in the 18-29 age group in your average congregation.
  • ~2.2 women (18 * .304 * .5 * .8) who are age 18-29, not overweight or obese, virgins, and single in your average congregation.

Unfortunately, there is room for gloom. But don’t lose hope. Advice in the conclusion.

Conclusions and advice


  1. Women who are 18-29,
  2. regularly attend Church,
  3. aren’t overweight or obese,
  4. are virgins at marriage
  5. Single

Statistics based on these criteria:

  • 2.15% of women in the 18-29 total population.
  • .17% of women in the total US population.
  • 12% of Church going women 18-29 are not overweight or obese and virgins.
  • 18 women in the 18-29 age group in your average 186 member congregation.
  • 2.2 women who are age 18-29, not overweight or obese, and virgins in your average 186 member congregation.
  • 11.7 women who are age 18-29, not overweight or obese, and virgins in your average 1,000 member congregation
  • 117 women who are age 18-29, not overweight or obese, and virgins in your average 10,000 member congregation

The last 5 statistics are probably slight overestimates. More conservative Churches may have slightly more. More liberal Churches will probably have less. Larger congregation have a tendency to be more liberal; hence, it is probably less than 160 women per 10,000 members.

That said there are good indicators for who the attractive Christian virgins are. They wear feminine clothing, have long hair, have an innocent look, have strong masculine fathers, value family and marriage, love children, don’t have tattoos, don’t like alcohol, and other such traits.

Of course, most of the men are probably going after the 12% in each Church, so you need to learn how to be a strong, confident masculine leader if your goal is one of those women.

My advice:

  1. Attend one main Church.
  2. Go to young adult events at other Churches and gatherings to increase your chances of meeting one of these few age 18-29 attractive, Christian virgins.
  3. If you’re in your mid to late 20s, aim for the 20-24 age group of devout Church going women as your odds rise up to potentially close to 40% in that range for virgins.
  4. Potentially attend a mega-Church, although the theology of many mega-Churches nowadays can be questionable. If you do, understand the importance of vetting character and attitudes.
  5. At 3 women per average congregation you might just be better meeting many 18-29 year old women at various hobbies, dances, and other social events because 2.69% of them will be Christian women who regularly attend Church, are not obese or overweight, and are virgins. If it’s a physical activity your chances are potentially better since that tends to eliminate the overweight and obese.
  6. Use your friends and families to network!
  7. If you’re still young, perhaps volunteer in university campus Christian group(s) as a leader or continue to be one if you recently graduated.
  8. Other advice here on my detailed timeline and how to guide on the process of finding a wife.

My Church is smaller than the average congregation. I did not find my wife in my current Church. She was 23 and a virgin when I found her, so that lends credence to the 20-24 range as well.

Virginity pledges

Over the past two decades, virginity pledges have proliferated in the US, despite mixed results regarding their effectiveness. Few studies have examined possible mechanisms that may shed light on why pledges work for some individuals but not others. Using a sample of emerging-adults aged 18–24 years old (n = 1,380),we examine the influence of religiosity on pledge signing and adherence, specifically whether the effectiveness of pledges is moderated by religiosity. Findings show that while religious participation is positively associated with signing a pledge, there is amoderating effect of religious commitment. That is, when religious commitment is high, adherence to the pledge is greater. However, for pledge signers with low religious commitment, there are unintended negative consequences with regard to increased participation in risky sexual behaviors, whether compared to other people who signed the pledge who are equally committed to their religion or to individuals who have never taken such a pledge. Implications for research and policy are discussed.

Basically, virginity pledges somewhat work effectively if religious commitment is high. They pretty much don’t work for those whose commitment is low.

Thus, if Churches want to effectively implement them then they should have them as “optional” and don’t do them in a public setting where turning them in allows those with low religious commitment to feel peer pressured into doing them.


When vetting pay attention to these factors:

  • Virginity: Makes up most of divorce risk.
  • Ethnicity: Asian > hispanic > white > black
  • Age: Reverse bell curve around 25-30 years old. Though virginity is maximized around 21-24 years old in the baptist study, so that age range is more important.
  • Religion: Catholics > Active Protestants > Non practicing > Non-practicing Protestants > Other
  • Importance of religion: active > non-practicing
  • Education is a predictor of stable marriages.
  • Age of first sexual experience: 18 > 17-18 > 15-16 > 13-14 > 12
  • Her family Structure growing up : Father + mother > father > mother > none
  • Don’t cohabitate: No cohabitation > cohabitation
  • Income: husband earns more > equal income > wife earns more
  • Income total: Middle > higher > lowest (speculation: more cash and prizes for divorcing the highest income earners)
  • Prior marriage: no prior marriage is better than a prior marriage
  • Employment status: employed > part time > not employed
  • Interracial marriages: Some have more likelyhood of staying together (e.g. White man, black woman) and some have less likelihood (e.g. black man, white woman; asian man, white woman, etc.).
  • Country: US is pretty divorce happy compared to many other countries. For example, 50% of all Catholic annulments worldwide are in the US.
  • Ability to resolve conflict: Never argue > rarely argue > regularly argue > heated arguments
  • Alcohol use: None > some > regularly
  • Drug use: None > some > regularly
  • Mental illness: None > having one (depression, schizophrenia, BPD, etc.)
  • Age difference: reverse bell curve centered with least risk of men being 0-2 years older.
  • Length of marriage: the longer your marriage lasts the less risk of divorce
  • College education: Graduate > College educated > Part college > HS diploma > Part High School
  • Don’t have premarital sex: Children in wedlock > children within first 9 months of marriage > children out of wedlock
  • Forced premarital sex: None > forced sex (e.g. rape)

Social attitudes

  • Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can’t seem to work out their marriage problems
  • A young couple should not live together unless they are married
  • It is okay for an unmarried female to have a child
  • It is important for a man to spend a lot of time with his family than to be successful at his career

Obviously, you probably can’t get ALL of these traits in a Christian girl, but you can probably find a majority of them. There are some more important ones such as strong faith, virginity, lack of mental illness, not doing drugs or alcohol, and ability to resolve conflict that are stronger than others.

Out of all of these criteria, my wife had 23/28 of these criteria.

These were the other main criteria I was looking for, and you can see there’s a lot of overlap.

  1. Evidence of a relationship with God — daily Scripture, prayer, meditation, and service in the Church or community. A heart that is seeking after God and is fruitful in it with her actions.
  2. Evidence of cultivated godly femininity — long hair, dresses modest, wears dresses and skirts, smiles often, enthusiastic, kind, gentle, humble, preferably knows how to keep a home and cook, etc.
  3. Evidence of chastity in attitude and deed — Christian men and women are called to this prior to marriage, and I’m uninterested in having to deal with the drama that surrounds a woman that has had previous intimacy with other men. I’d readily consider a low N-count woman who has shown though her actions and attitude that she has repented (and not just feels bad about what she did) over a virgin Christian woman who has done everything but sex.
  4. Evidence of attraction/chemistry — I work in the medical and fitness industries, and it is important for me to have a wife who is a good ambassador for Christ in how she looks. I’ve dated women before who don’t care about good nutrition and exercise, and it never ends well because this is an integral part of my life. A woman who strives to be attractive even though it takes work is going to be a better ambassador for Christ than one who gives in to sloth and gluttony. This goes both ways as my potential wife should be attracted to me too.
  5. Evidence of a willingness for family prioritization — God willing I hope to have many children (3-5+) and am looking to home school them. I don’t care if my wife has a career, but she should be willing to lay it aside for her family. Age is not a primarily consideration for me, but since I want to have many children younger is better.
  6. Evidence of submissiveness, especially to God  — This pretty much sums up a Biblical marriage in that it encompasses the 3 major roles that a wife is called to: a helpmeet, with submission, and with respect. I tell women that my God given mission will put me in uncomfortable discussions and challenges, and if she’s coming along with me then it will be more of the same. If you’re not growing in your heart, mind, soul, and strength for Christ then what are you doing?

I think overall it’s not an exact “science”, but it definitely can help you “count the cost” so to speak to see if marriage is an overall good decision for you. I think for many men it’s probably not going to be, unless you can find a virgin.

At the end of the day though, you influence and lead her through your behavior and actions, so you need to know that what you are doing is affecting your risk of divorce through a marriage as well.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 10 Comments

The great divide

Gunner’s post on the great divide:

Of all the divisions and disagreements I’ve seen over the last decade in the Manosphere, the biggest is one that is rarely mentioned: the guys who’ve hit rock bottom and the guys who haven’t.

One one side is Mister Success with all the answers, the jet-set Lothario idly wondering which country to sample next, the bureaucrat-in-denial (hello, Pastor!) who managed to follow an Assigned Life Path to a gilded cage. The popular, wealthy and sheltered.

One the other side is Mister Frivorced who tried all the answers, the hard worker frozen out of the “global marketplace”, the poor bastard bastard who never had a father to teach him right from left. The unsexy, unworthy and unwanted.

The former do not know sympathy. In their view, if you suffer then you deserve to suffer, somehow. Failure is something you shrug at, write off your taxes and walk away from because you have three other irons in the fire.

The latter understand. Suffering is a part of life. Some failures are permanent. They’ll push you as much as the former but they do it because they’ve been there. Because helping you helps them come to terms with their own experiences. Because they want others to succeed where they didn’t. That difference in attitude is life-changing.

Generally, I consider there to be 4:

  1. Mr Successes
  2. Frivorced or struggling marriages
  3. Average single clueless guy
  4. Incels

Frivorced was at least decent enough with women that at least one woman wanted to marry him. Average single clueless guy sometimes gets interest and/or dates from women, but has no clue when they don’t like him anymore and end the relationship. The incels don’t get the time of day from women and are generally considered creepy.

These are generally the 4 tiers of men that encompass the SMP/MMP.

  • 8-10s — Mr Successes that get all of the attention when single and have wives that adore them
  • 5-7s — Frivorced or struggling and still married but don’t know how to long term relationship
  • 4-6s — the average clueless guy who sometimes get dates and relationships but can’t sustain an long term relationship
  • 1-3s — the Incels that are unwanted and ignored

It seems these days that most of the Incels have given up completely on women and are MGTOW.

Personally, I was your average single clueless guy.

Taking advice from Mr Successes is generally always a bad idea just like taking advice from women about how to date and/or marry and/or maintain a relationship with a woman. They hold too many blind spots about their own nature to reliably suggest good information for the rest of the population. It’s sort of like the celebrity world; everyone already likes them and caters to them so they don’t know what it’s like for the general joe who is mostly invisible or ignored.

Anyway, I’m still writing the book, and it’s mainly addressing to #2 and #3 categories obviously. The Incels who choose MGTOW that are Christian mainly just need to focus on God per 1 Cor 7. I’m hoping to have a finished rough draft soon.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 10 Comments

Digit ratio or 2D 4D ratio

A few commenters mentioned over on Dalrock’s recent post about the masculine finger ratio that the woman has.

It is always the little unintentional details that give away the bigger picture. I looked at her blog and towards the bottom is a photo of her hand with an engagement ring on the third finger. Her third finger is considerably longer then her first finger. This is always the case with men but with women it is reversed so that the third finger will be shorter than the first. A longer third finger on a woman indicates considerable masculinity and thus probably (given the ease) great promiscuity and of course that is exactly what she admits too although she insults the guys who were too polite to refuse her as ‘crazies’. Usual female projection methinks.

It’s not the 3rd finger but the fourth, and the ratio as the post is named is actually called “digit ratio” or “2d 4d ratio.” If we’re going to talk about it, might as well get it right.

You can read more about it on wikipedia. Overall, it’s a crude approximation to prenatal androgen exposure like testosterone, and it can generally be a predictor of various traits in the sexes. A shorter 2nd digit (pointer finger) compared to the 4th digit (ring finger) indicates higher exposure to prenatal androgens. Now that you know that, men tend to have a lower ratio than women because they are exposed to more prenatal androgens than women.

Here’s the relevant chart off the wiki that shows the different propensities with low digit and high digit ratios. Generally, low digit ratio is better for men and worse for women, and vice versa for high digit ratio. There are some negatives in each for both men and women though.

Low digit ratio High digit ratio
Physiology and disease
  • Increased risk of prostate cancer and prostate diseases in males.[52][53]
  • Slower utero fetal development in both sexes.[52]
  • Increased reproductive success in males.[54]
Psychological disorders
Physical and competitive behavior Increased aggressive behavior in sports.[76]
  • Reduced performance in sports[77]
  • Reduced financial trading ability[78]
  • Right handedness skills[79] (inconclusive)[80]
Cognition and personality
  • Assertiveness in females[9]
  • Psychoticism in females[81]
  • Aggression in males[17][82][83][84][85]
  • aggression in girls[86]
  • hyperactivity and poor social cognitive function in girls[87]
  • Masculinized handwriting in females[88]
  • Perceived ‘dominance’ and masculinity of man’s face[89][90]
  • In an orchestral context, rank and musical ability in males[91]
  • Right hand low digit ratio predicts academic performance[92]
  • Decreased mathematical ability[93]
  • Decreased empathy in response to adult testosterone levels[67]
  • higher propensity to attack without being provoked[94]
  • increased risk-taking behavior in men[95]
  • preference for normative behavior[96]
  • mean 2D:4D ratio among artists is lower than among controls[97]
  • higher numeracy (compared to literacy) in children[98]
  • higher criminal offending rates after puberty[99][100]
  • attenuated socio-affective skills[101]
Sensory perception
Sexual orientation
  • Sexual preference for more masculine men among women[116] and gay men[130] with high digit ratio; a preference for a masculine facial type means a more “feminized” mindset.
  • Lesbians are more likely to be femme and less likely to be butch with a high digit ratio.[118][131] Identical female twins discordant for sexual orientation still show the difference (lesbian less than straight, on average) in digit ratio.[120][132]
  • Homosexuality for men, according to some studies.[119][127][133] Other studies have disputed this; some have shown that the digit ratio in homosexual men is similar to,[117][124][125][126][134]or lower than,[121][123][128] that of heterosexual men. One study concluded that differences are dependent on geographical variation, with gay men having lower or similar ratios to straight men in Europe, but higher or similar in the United States.[135] But this finding has been questioned in a meta-analysis including 18 studies, which suggested that ethnicity, rather than geography, explained the differences previously found in men of different sexual orientations. The meta-analysis concluded that no significant sexual orientation differences in digit ratio exist in men.[136]
  • tendency toward monogamy[129]

Anyway, the relevant aspects in this particular situation with a woman with low digit ratio are some of the increased propensity of these cognitive traits that tend to lead to increases in promiscuity.

  • Assertiveness in females[9]
  • Psychoticism in females[81]
  • aggression in girls[86]
  • hyperactivity and poor social cognitive function in girls[87]

This is actually a very interesting talking point that I’ve used in the past as a tool in conversation and dates because of its ability to generally predict some behavioral traits. But it is also something to look out for in terms of potential risky factors in marriage.

It’s not by all means “proven” that someone is a particular way if they have a certain digit ratio. It’s a overall trend much like virginity and divorce. It’s likely riskier to date or marry a woman with a low digit ratio due to the combination of traits that she usually has with a low digit ratio that makes her personally more competitive like a business partner rather than a wife.

I’d give it a “yellow flag” overall until you get to know them more to see if it’s a red flag based on her past behavior or a non-issue.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 19 Comments

The deadbeat deception

Scott commented on Dalrock’s post:

Always remember the problem the Duluth model was created to solve was violent, abusive, controlling, deadbeat dads.

One thing I’ve been mulling over recently is the question: is there such a thing as a deadbeat dad or deadbeat mom in the first place?

We know that many women are often attracted and have sex with a lot of so-called “low lifes” — men that do what they want but can’t hold a steady job, are generally irresponsible, and don’t really care about supporting and/or caring for a mom and child. The women still sleep with them and have a kid anyway and expect them to pay child support, and if they don’t they have the fall back of welfare or family support.

It is reasonable to expect that these deadbeats would not even attempt to shoulder any responsibility for their actions given their character. Pinning another responsibility on them when they already shirk responsibilities is laughable. Every time I see men or women trying to shame deadbeats it’s a waste of time. They don’t care about taking on that responsibility when they weren’t responsible in the first place.

This leads to the conclusion that anyone who expects child support to support a family is dumb and unwise.

In other words, there is no such thing as a deadbeat. Don’t have sex with people of dubious moral character and who are irresponsible. Otherwise, you only have yourself to blame.

Also, inb4 you’re victim blaming.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 14 Comments

The masculinity myth: the real reason why men don’t go to church

A reader writes in asking about this article: the masculinity myth: the real reason why men don’t go to Church. Aside from the fact that this pastor hails from the liberal bastion of Washington State, let’s go through it anyway. It’s pretty long, so I’m just going to excerpt certain sections.

Today during worship, we were singing a song about God being our loving Father. As we sang, I realized it was the kind of song manly-men Christian pastors hate. It’s the sort of song they rail against while crusading for the resurgence of “real men” Christian masculinity. As we sang tender words about a tender, loving, heavenly Father, I immediately realized why some men are so angry at spiritually wimpy men and bold Christian women. The thought just popped into my head: It’s Cain and Abel all over again.

Although it’s probably one of the most profitable growth areas in Christian publishing, I’m not a big fan of the “what’s wrong with the church” book genre. In the past four plus years as a Christian talk radio host, I’ve received a large steady flow of books attempting to address the “what’s wrong with the church” writing prompt. Invariably, these books blame the lack of church growth on fatal flaws within church leadership, structure and theology. They assume that healthy churches grow and unhealthy churches decline. Consequently, if the church is to be healthy again, it needs to find a way to reach the people who no longer call the church their home.

“Why don’t men go to church” is a subset of the blame the church publishing niche. These books seem particularly popular as they make great reads for frustrated wives tired of attending church without their husbands. They’re also great reads for bitter men determined to justify and fortify their reasons for abandoning the body of Christ. Let’s face it, as the church declines in size and membership, the demand for church criticizing material will continue to increase.

There’s nothing wrong with singing about a loving Father. After all, that’s how God is primarily portrayed in the NT. The main issue is with the “feely” songs that romanticize Jesus. Jesus ain’t your boyfriend or lover.

He is right that it’s not always true that healthy Churches grow and unhealthy Churches decline. Churches can be in times of pruning such as the vine and branches. Yet, all of the other points lack context. For example, why do so many wives have to try to drag their husbands to Church? Missionary dating and marriage is a huge problem just like single motherhood. Yet, we almost never hear sermons against that.

The church isn’t masculine enough?

Almost every book, post or tweet concerning the plight of Christian men eventually blames the church for not being masculine enough. The theory is men don’t go to church because church is geared to the needs of women. There’s too much sharing of emotions, too much hugging, too much singing, with too many effeminate leaders giving the ladies what they want: a church with no testosterone. This theory suggests that men don’t go to church because churches don’t meet the masculine needs of men. Many widely respected preachers seem to adhere to this concept that the church has been weakened by an overabundance of femininity.

The first time I heard an author accuse the church of being too feminine, I was annoyed by the accusation. Over time, my annoyance hasn’t waned. Since I am a pastor, those who advocate for a more masculine church expression will likely label me as one of those effeminate, emotional male leaders who is ruining the witness of Christ to real men. Don’t worry, while making my argument, I’ll make sure I don’t cry in front of you and endanger your ability abide in the room with me.

It’s not wrong to have a Church that is like that, but men and women are different. Men tend to like concrete theology, apologetics, and rational discussion about how to know our faith is true and how to share our faith.

The Church is tasked to make disciples of all nations. Well, if you’re not doing a good job making disciples of men, then you’re going to have an issue keeping men in your Church.

Churches that focus mostly on emotions and faith as “just believing” tend to end up having terrible progressive theology. In fact, studies have begun to show that declining Church attendance is linked to progressive theology.

Calling the church too feminine is sexist

Most arguments that blame the church for the absence of men are rooted in sexist assumptions. If you believe men don’t go to church because the church doesn’t meet their needs, then you are implying that women go because more of their needs are being met. What if more women go to church because their faith has a greater integrity? What if more women go to church because they have chosen to persevere and demonstrate a moral fortitude that contrasts the weaknesses of men? What if women are more willing to work in community, more willing to repent, apologize and forgive? Maybe men are so emotional they are unwilling to learn how to abide in complex community. Maybe instead of following the moral lead of women, men have isolated themselves from the church to keep from having to mature and grow up.

There is another twisted, sexist logic to blaming the church for the refusal of men to participate. Instead of correcting those in rebellion, we attack those who are sincerely trying to be faithful. We tell the regular church attender that they are the problem, not the ones who abandoned the body of Christ. We tell the male leader who has remained, even in the face of tremendous cultural rejection, that He is the problem for the church’s inability to reach more men. Blaming the actions of the most dishonorable on those who are most faithful is an affront to the integrity of those who are actively supporting the church. To blame faithful women for the unfaithfulness of men is once again blaming the victim for being abandoned.

Such things are easily debunked by “fruit.” For example, we know that 70% of divorces are by women, and that frivorces happen fairly regularly in the Church — Jenny Erickson being a foremost example not to mention many of the readers around these parts.

Of course, you don’t have to believe me, but the Scripture also has words to say on this:

Ecclesiastes 7:28 which I am still seeking but have not found. I have found one man among a thousand, but I have not found a woman among all these.

The Church environment is blamed, yet the author makes it seem like the regular Church attender is the one to be blamed. Again, as mentioned, men and women are different. It’s not that hard to actually cater to both men and women and have different environments for each of them. Creating a false dichotomy and playing the blame game is exactly what feminists are always apt to do.

Contrasting worship

The story of Cain and Abel is the story of conflicting and contrasting worship expressions. Scripture states that “in the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. And Abel also brought an offering – fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock” (Gen. 4:3-4). At first glance to the modern reader, there doesn’t seem to be much contrast between these two offerings. Cain worked the soil, so he brought a product of the soil, Abel kept flocks so he brought a product of the herd. God’s response to Cain and Abel demonstrates that their offerings were very different. […]

This pattern of tearing down the righteous expression of others to defend an unrighteous expression seems to be the underlying force behind churches that tear down a strong feminine expression of worship to make room for a more masculine expression. To put it plainly, men refusing to give God their best have fallen into the rebellion of Cain. God does not accept leftover offerings and leftover worship. The absence of men in the church is ultimately the result of men rebelling against God, of men feeding themselves the best and choice fruit, while giving God little or nothing in return. In contrast to the Cain offering of men, we have the Abel offering of women. Despite the rebellion of their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons, women are still faithfully giving their best to God. They are giving their first and best fruit to God.

False. A more accurate analogy of what happens in a feminine environment where both girls and boys are forced to attend is education. Both girls and boys are forced to attend education from kindergarten to 12th grade.

Boys consistently underachieve in almost all areas because of the feminine environment. It has been noted several times that boys consistently score well on tests, but homework and other busy work boys tend to lag behind. Boys also suffer from sitting for long periods of time as they tend to have a lot more energy and the elimination of recess and physical activity leads to them being them dinged for behavior, diagnosed with ADHD, and even being drugged.

Girls learn well in certain environments while boys learn well in different ones. None of these are more “righteous” or “worse” than the other. This is the problem with the author’s take on Cain and Abel because “Church attendance” is not necessarily a marker of “righteousness” — especially given the terrible theology of most Churches nowadays.

They yell at the men and tell them to be more manly

At some level, these churches and leaders recognize that men have not given God their best. In response to this problem, they often try to rally men like an angry coach or drill sergeant. The assumption is to make men more manly, we need to treat them like our culture’s best examples of manly men. Without having healthy family examples of their own, these “masculinity” leaders often go to Hollywood to find their examples of real men. Sadly, these cartoonish portrayals of masculinity often contrast the way Jesus lived and the words he spoke.

One thing I agree with. AMOGing and the only “real man in the room” is destructive to both men and women.

They blame women for the faults of men

Leaders who champion a resurgence of Christian masculinity often also decry the presence of strong femininity or strong female leaders. They frequently speak of feminism as harming the ability of the church to reach men. They view women in leadership as a threat to men being able to follow God’s lead. They portray powerful women as a hinderance to men being able to participate fully in the advancement of God’s kingdom. In other words, they blame the weakness of men on the strengths of women. In my opinion, this is simply Cain resenting Abel. If Abel wasn’t such a show off, Cain wouldn’t look that bad. If women weren’t so strong, men wouldn’t look so weak.

Well, given that women are not permitted in leadership position in the Church according to the Bible, unfortunately for the author this is a huge issue. Liberal theology trying to worm its way into the Church.

Men as leaders in the Church and families need to be taught and discipled. If women are taking those opportunities, is it any wonder that you’re going to get Churches full of men who are apathetic.

Anyway, the author’s critique is mainly a bunch of false dichotomies, mixed with destructive liberal theology, and one good point about “the only real man.” It falls very close to the category of blame men for womens’ rebellion. So much for helping out men.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 18 Comments