"All of these men will make up the fabric of our future culture. They will live in our communities, vote in our elections. They will require public help as they age, with few friends or family to fulfill the role of elder care. They will be the old men sitting alone by themselves at the diner, if by the grace of God there are still diners to speak of."
Taylor's almost wistful piece on the loneliness epidemic coming for "future childless cat guys" is true enough. The situation will be made even worse by smaller families. Those guys can be great uncles and included in family functions. Will be less and less true in the future. Perhaps there will be a renaissance of men's fraternal organizations to fill that very need.
The story from Christianity Today on the First Christian Reformed Church leaving the denomination is a well-written and interesting.
In 2018, the church tried hard to split the difference and find a reasonable middle ground:
"...acknowledging that we are in a place of uncertainty, we move to invite all members of First Church to full participation in the life and ministry of the congregation...."
This is one of those half steps that is meant to just be a waystation on the way to full liberalization, but can be sort of cloaked in plausible deniability:
" 'We interpreted this as an inclusive but not affirming stand,' he [Jacobs] told CT. 'We never said that we interpret Scripture to say that God affirms same-sex marriages....' "
The pattern is the same: "discussion" --> "inclusion" (perhaps with fig leaf orthodoxy) --> affirmation --> celebration --> mandatory affirmation.
But it didn't work out that way:
“ 'They thought they were taking the lead and the denomination would come around,' he [Compagner] told CT. 'They presumed it would go like women in ordained office, and they were shocked when it didn’t.' "
-----------------------
The initial step of inclusion without full affirmation seems to be an inherently unstable equilibrium.
- Do you think that anyone really thought that would be the lasting solution?
- Does anyone have examples of institutions that have successfully found a way to manage the "inclusive but not affirming" settlement to avoid schism?
"The initial step of inclusion without full affirmation seems to be an inherently unstable equilibrium."
Arguably it is an unstable equilibrium, but depending on what you mean by "inclusion" I think it's the correct one. Regarding same-sex attraction as being akin to, say, having a bad temper--that is, recognizing that the person having it will have a natural tendency towards a certain sin that may or may not be taken from them, while still recognizing that what they have a natural tendency towards is still a sin--both upholds biblical orthodoxy and avoids judging people for things that are beyond their control.
Yes. We're not just talking about diametrically opposed views on tax policy, but diametrically opposed views about what is and is not sin. And Scripture calls for, at some point, confronting our fellow Christians in their sin, which is rather impossible to do if we have no consensus on sin.
Sorry to hear about all this. Do you have anyone in person that will offer you constructive or even harsh advice? I don't think you're too old, as a man, to meet someone, but you would need to get cracking.
Internet advice can only go so far, but for what it's worth, I wasn't good at this stuff for a long time, I'm by nature a socially awkward nerd with very bad natural instincts for all this (though not OCD), but I guess what finally helped me was abundance mentality and playing the numbers game. Once I had it in my mind that it was definitely time to marry (in my mid-30s), I was always pursuing first dates through all possible channels. If I had a girl that I kind of liked and could see things going far, then I would pursue first dates with other women even MORE aggressively, always trying to keep at least two plates spinning. Sometimes I'd take three separate girls out Friday evening, Saturday afternoon, and Saturday evening (to be clear, nothing sexual was transpiring).
I would sometimes take women out even if it seemed like a longshot that we would actually work out or I only found her marginally attractive, because who knows? And meanwhile that kept my options open, built confidence and conversation skills, and kept me too distracted to come across, as you say, needy/overbearing/creepy towards the girls that interested me more. It also softened the blow if a girl I really liked decided to cut things off.
"All of these men will make up the fabric of our future culture. They will live in our communities, vote in our elections. They will require public help as they age, with few friends or family to fulfill the role of elder care. They will be the old men sitting alone by themselves at the diner, if by the grace of God there are still diners to speak of."
Taylor's almost wistful piece on the loneliness epidemic coming for "future childless cat guys" is true enough. The situation will be made even worse by smaller families. Those guys can be great uncles and included in family functions. Will be less and less true in the future. Perhaps there will be a renaissance of men's fraternal organizations to fill that very need.
The story from Christianity Today on the First Christian Reformed Church leaving the denomination is a well-written and interesting.
In 2018, the church tried hard to split the difference and find a reasonable middle ground:
"...acknowledging that we are in a place of uncertainty, we move to invite all members of First Church to full participation in the life and ministry of the congregation...."
This is one of those half steps that is meant to just be a waystation on the way to full liberalization, but can be sort of cloaked in plausible deniability:
" 'We interpreted this as an inclusive but not affirming stand,' he [Jacobs] told CT. 'We never said that we interpret Scripture to say that God affirms same-sex marriages....' "
The pattern is the same: "discussion" --> "inclusion" (perhaps with fig leaf orthodoxy) --> affirmation --> celebration --> mandatory affirmation.
But it didn't work out that way:
“ 'They thought they were taking the lead and the denomination would come around,' he [Compagner] told CT. 'They presumed it would go like women in ordained office, and they were shocked when it didn’t.' "
-----------------------
The initial step of inclusion without full affirmation seems to be an inherently unstable equilibrium.
- Do you think that anyone really thought that would be the lasting solution?
- Does anyone have examples of institutions that have successfully found a way to manage the "inclusive but not affirming" settlement to avoid schism?
"The initial step of inclusion without full affirmation seems to be an inherently unstable equilibrium."
Arguably it is an unstable equilibrium, but depending on what you mean by "inclusion" I think it's the correct one. Regarding same-sex attraction as being akin to, say, having a bad temper--that is, recognizing that the person having it will have a natural tendency towards a certain sin that may or may not be taken from them, while still recognizing that what they have a natural tendency towards is still a sin--both upholds biblical orthodoxy and avoids judging people for things that are beyond their control.
Yes. We're not just talking about diametrically opposed views on tax policy, but diametrically opposed views about what is and is not sin. And Scripture calls for, at some point, confronting our fellow Christians in their sin, which is rather impossible to do if we have no consensus on sin.
Sorry to hear about all this. Do you have anyone in person that will offer you constructive or even harsh advice? I don't think you're too old, as a man, to meet someone, but you would need to get cracking.
Internet advice can only go so far, but for what it's worth, I wasn't good at this stuff for a long time, I'm by nature a socially awkward nerd with very bad natural instincts for all this (though not OCD), but I guess what finally helped me was abundance mentality and playing the numbers game. Once I had it in my mind that it was definitely time to marry (in my mid-30s), I was always pursuing first dates through all possible channels. If I had a girl that I kind of liked and could see things going far, then I would pursue first dates with other women even MORE aggressively, always trying to keep at least two plates spinning. Sometimes I'd take three separate girls out Friday evening, Saturday afternoon, and Saturday evening (to be clear, nothing sexual was transpiring).
I would sometimes take women out even if it seemed like a longshot that we would actually work out or I only found her marginally attractive, because who knows? And meanwhile that kept my options open, built confidence and conversation skills, and kept me too distracted to come across, as you say, needy/overbearing/creepy towards the girls that interested me more. It also softened the blow if a girl I really liked decided to cut things off.