Men, too, need rooms of their own...

(Tim, w/thanks to Kamilla) One more bit of evidence Calvinists are so busy defending the spirituality of the Church that only Roman Catholics have courage or interesting proposals for cultural reform. Check out this piece from by Anthony Esolen titled, "Brothers, Sing On," arguing for single-sex education.


Actually the Calvinists are doing something interesting--giving mothers the burden of educating their sons.

snicker snicker...uh oh

Thankfully the United States Marine Corps still gets it and trains the men and women in different units and separate parts of Parris Island. In my 17 weeks on that beautiful island I saw the female detachment twice.

I cannot imagine how much more tough Basic would have been if I would have been trying to impress the women in the unit.

Actually, boot camp would have been FAR easier with women in the unit.......they would have lowered the physical standards to allow accommodate women. There would have been far less physical hazing.

Esolen wrote, " -- some Catholics have begun to conceive the idea, hardly a novel one in the world, that at some point only men can make men out of boys."

The hidious irony here is that I'm not aware of any among Broadly Evangelical American Protestants (BEAPers) who think this way. It's an irony because of all the lip-service BEAPers pay to the Bible as their norm for truth. Yet, the idea that Esolen correctly notes is hardly novel in the world -- that only men can make men out of boys -- is the fundamental premise of the Book of Proverbs.

Try pointing out this fundamental character of the Book of Proverbs among a group of ordinary evangelicals -- take your pick (Presbys, Methodists, Bible-churchers, charismatics, Baptists, whomsoever among the evangelical brethren thou listeth) -- and watch the feminist fur stand on end! (Need examples? Ask and you shall receive)

But, don't try showing evidence from the Book of Proverbs itself for this characteristic of the book, unless you're wearing feminist-flame-proof armor and have a shield that can withstand 50-caliber rounds fired from baptized feminist guns.

Now, if you're hopelessly insane, try promoting the Book of Psalms as a quintessentially masculine hymnbook.

For the suicidal among you, try this at the next BEAPer gathering of any kind you attend: offer and defend the idea that worship is ~necessarily~ an exercise of the gathered faithful in which ~only~ men are up front and leading while the women are present as supportive participants, not leaders.

How we worship is an infallible touchstone to expose how we actually conceive the one ostensibly worshipped no matter what name we happen to attach to him, or her, or it. The Jews out of Egypt had their Golden Calf, hailed by Aaron as YHWH (cf. Exodus 32:4-5). BEAPers across the land have an anti-Christ they hail as Jesus, and you can know this in the same way you could have known that the Jews were worshiping the anti-YHWH whose priest hailed him as YHWH, because of how they worshiped (cf. Ex. 32:6).

Esolen mentions many specific activities, programs, and agendas that turn men into boys. These are not peculiar to, or original with, or the property of Romans -- they just happen (at this time in our history) to be things that ~some few Romans~ are pursuing. Esolen is not a triumphalist Roman in this essay; he freely admits that such efforts as he applauds are rare within the American Roman church.

But, similar efforts are also near to non-existent among BEAPers. And, so far as I can tell (and I've looked hard!!) BEAPers lack even the voice in the wilderness that Esolen is among the Romans.

Esolen is not churched, nor fired from his post as a professor of English at a Catholic university for saying such things. Let any evangelical seminary president, any other evangelical leader with a platform and an audience say the kinds of things Esolen is saying and watch how fast his star falls from the evangelical heavens!

Tony Esolen is a man of great insight and a real blessing. Sometimes Reformed navel-gazing and cannibalism keeps us distracted from genuine obedience.

There is no spell-checker or grammer-corrector than can overcome one's penchant for seeing what one wishes to write rather than what he has actually written.

This: " --that turn men into boys."

should have been this: " -- that turn boys into men."

On the other hand, this error makes me wonder if today's Christian men were ever truly boys themselves, or have memories of a boyhood like the one Esolen reports is being deliberately fashioned by these prudent Roman men for their boys.

My four year old shot 23 bear last week with his musket...

So which men are going to train boys to be men? The priests? Sure, beat up on 2k and overlook the transgressions and false doctrine in Rome. Can you say selective? Sure you can.

Growing up in a British-style education system, school uniform included, I had four of my five high school years at a boys' school (public school, not private or Catholic). Good for me academically, no real difference spiritually, disastrous for many of my relational skills. (Never forget the law of unintended consequences; it applies to Reformed believers as well).

>Sure, beat up on 2k and overlook the transgressions and false doctrine in Rome.

Actually they've been very blunt in the past about the transgressions and false doctrine of the Roman church. That doesn't stop us from acknowledging when they get something right.

>Can you say selective?

Absolutely. But we don't say it till it applies.

>Sure, beat up on 2k and overlook the transgressions and false doctrine in Rome.

Ecumenicism has its limits.

Sure, beat up on 2k and overlook the transgressions and false doctrine in Rome.

The church must battle false doctrine on every front in which it manifests itself.

I heard there's a new facebook group called, "Let's see how many Baylyblog posts can be quickly diverted to a 2K argument, regardless of the topic."

Darryl - what if the papists in question were like your buddy David Mills who just gave you a shout out at the First Things blog?

Seems to me you have friends - "selectively" chosen I'm sure - all around.

Good to see (perhaps) your ecumenical side poke through.

The link to the article is dead.

Here's a new link to the article.

Add new comment