Why Are There No Good Men?

 

Why are there so few good men around, able to lead and take their place of authority in society?? The answer to this is multifaceted, but there is one large foundation for this phenomenon which we see in a Bible passage that is often misunderstood and misapplied. That passage is Proverbs 31. In fact, this passage explains this phenomenon very well, at least a significant part of it.

This is a famous passage, and if you go to any Christian bookstore you will find all sorts of trinkets and items that husbands can by for their wives that describe her as the Proverbs 31 woman. Many have been taught today that Proverbs 31 shows that the Bible encourages women to work outside the home.

But that is not what the passage is describing, nor is it describing the average Christian woman. It is describing the kind of woman a leading man needs: he needs a woman so focused on the home, so focused on getting the best deals at the marketplace, and so focused on directing the household affairs, that he does not even have to worry about it.

The modern working woman is the opposite of this. She leaves her husband a list of chores and household duties every day, because she is too busy to manage the home. What time does he have to lead in society in a significant way?

Hence, the dearth of Proverbs 31 women is directly connected to the male leadership crisis. Let’s go through the passage so I can show that this is what the Bible is teaching in Proverbs 31.

Firstly, we need to recognize the context. At the start of the chapter we see that a King called Lemuel is recounting an oracle that his mother taught. She warns him not to give his strength to women (v.3), not to give himself to win or strong drink (v.4), and not to allow justice to be perverted (vv.5-9). This chapter is giving advice to a powerful man about how he can be a leading man. So, immediately we should recognize that this passage is giving advice to the elite men about how they should live an elite life. 

Then in the context of this Lemuel’s mother gives him advice about the kind of women he needs so that he can rule properly. We know this, because it is advice recounted by a king from his mother, but also because of verse 23, “Her husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land.” The rulers of cities in this era would sit at the gates among the elders to hear peoples cases of justice. This was the custom. So this passage is unequivocally about advice that a royal mother gave to her son, so that he would not be a foolish ruler but a wise and judicious ruler. The kind of ruler that will be honoured and respected by his people, because he does what is just, prudent and right. If he wants to do this well, he needs a woman who will rule his household well.

Firstly, she is trustworthy (vv.11-12). This is vital. A dishonest woman will bring down even a good ruler. She will engage in conspiracy, in slander, and will seek to direct her husband towards evil. Think Jezebel. He needs the antithesis of Jezebel. 

Secondly, she is a good steward of his finances,

“13 She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands. 14 She is like the ships of the merchant; she brings her food from afar 15 She rises while it is yet night and provides food for her household and portions for her maidens. 16 She considers a field and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard” (vv.13-16).

It is these verses and other similar ones that people like to use to argue that she has her own career. But this is simply not the case. She goes to the markets, as was the custom in that day, and she trades for good deals. She is not going out into the world to live under another man and seek to advance his business through her trade. That would be anathema to a leading man. No, she goes out into the market to make sure that her household is well looked after. She makes sure that her own husband's property is fruitful.

He can even trust her to spend his money well, because she will use it diligently, rather than foolishly. How frustrating would it be for a man to provide his income to his wife, and find out that she has gotten him into debt, or drained his savings on some unnecessary extravagance? This would be even worse for a ruler.  No, this woman is both wise enough to use his money well, and trustworthy enough that the husband does not need to micromanage how she stewards the home. He goes out to the gates and manages the affairs of the city, knowing he will come home to see his property and wealth multiplied by the wisdom of his excellent wife.

Thirdly, she is hard working, “17 She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong. 18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable. Her lamp does not go out at night. 19 She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle… 24 She makes linen garments and sells them; she delivers sashes to the merchant” (vv.17-19, 24). She does not spend her day in idleness. She is able to take what she got from the market and turn some profit with it. She can make a dress, create a pot, grow excess food to be sold at the markets. She is industrious. The home is not her prison, nor does she live in a permanent vacation. She is making sure that her household is well managed and productive.

Fourthly, she is generous (v.20). This is the mark of a righteous woman. But she is not giving away her husbands wealth against his will. She is giving out of the excess that she has brought to table. She is such a productive woman that his wealth is increased by her stewardship. Therefore, what she gives is truly his and hers, in every meaning of the word. Both the husband and the wife have brought their best to the table, and because he can trust her, he knows that she will give out of her excess, because she makes sure that there is clothing for her family, even fine clothing (v. 21-22) and that there is food for the entire household prepared and ready to go (v.15).

She is a woman of wisdom and diligence, “26 She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. 27 She looks well to the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness” (vv. 26-27). She knows what to say and when to say it, and who to say it too. Her husband and her children consider themselves to be blessed because of the quality of this woman, “28 Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: 29 “Many women have done excellently; but you surpass them all.” (vv.28-29).

Don’t miss what Lemuel said in verse 27 either, “she looks well to the ways of her household…” This woman’s focus is not career centric, her family home is not a port of call where she passes her diminished and working husband like passing ships in the night. She is focused on her household, and all her industriousness is focused on increasing the home's status, wealth, comfort and productivity. A beautiful woman might be nice to look at, however beauty fades, “but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised…” (v.30).

Those who twist this passage to say that women should work out of the home, are actually missing the whole point of this passage. The point is men if you want to lead, your wife needs to be focused on the home. She needs to make it so that you do not have to worry about how it is being run. This is especially true for a king, whose home would be a place of controversy and intrigue if he had a wicked wife.

This is one of the important reasons why there are less and less leading men in our world today in every sector of life. Women go to work, just like their husbands, and then they split the home duties. This diminishes the man’s ability to “sit at the gate” and be a leading man. If he has to worry about picking up the kids, getting the shopping, doing errands, on a regular basis, then he is going to have little time for the self-improvement necessary to help him stand out amongst other men, and he is going to have little time for contributing beyond his work and the home. This is the bind modern society is in today. Women want leading men, but they don’t realize how they are contributing to the dearth of leading men.

But men, this is where I challenge you. I must ask, are you asking too much of your wife? Peter warns us not to do this, “7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7). This passage is well known, but it is often reduced down to a warning to men not to abuse their wives. Of course, it does apply to this, but it applies much more broadly too. You see your wife will likely be incredibly intelligent, incredibly capable, willing to work hard, willing to contribute financially and more, and you might fall into the trap of asking her to do too much, and then wear her down.

There would be more Proverbs 31 women if less men were asking too much from their wives. I see a growing trend in society of older women leaving their husbands. My observation is that many of these women were at one point stay-at-home wives who went back into the work force to help pay the mortgage and the other bills. But men don’t realize that even though their wife is capable of doing this, that does not mean she was intended to do this, and they run the risk of this woman over-extending herself, and if she does that, you will likely be the one she comes to resent. Aussie men are known for asking too much of their wives. Some do it because they have been taught an incorrect reading of this passage in Proverbs.

In short:

A man cannot be the leader in the home, church or wider society that he is called to be, if he is forced to manage the home as well.

A woman is the weaker vessel, and therefore when she is asked to do too much, you are running the risk of burning her out and this will come back to bite you.

God delineates male and female roles for a reason. Just one look at the state of society today should be enough to convince us that we are foolish to not listen to him.  

 

 

Often a Lie

 

Often the official story is a lie concocted by corrupt officials to cover up some kind of crime or evil on their part,

"11 While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers 13 and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day" (Matt. 28:11-15).

This is a major lesson in the Bible. The Bible is full of active conspiracies and the authors of the Bible go into a lot of detail describing the means and methods of conspirators. It is in fact, a central theme in Scriptures and how it talks about evil. It is also central to the narratives of both King David, and the Davidic King Jesus.

This is a major lesson in history. Any student of history knows this.

Yet this truth about our world is very much denied by many Christians. Even though our own Lord was killed in an evil conspiracy, and they attempted to deny his resurrection with an extension of that conspiracy. Still many people refuse to accept that this is a major part of our world.

This does not mean that any given conspiracy is true. But it does mean we live in a world of lies, and that often those in charge of anything from a business, an organization, a church, or even society up to the top levels of government, will lie to cover up their real intentions. We should not automatically trust.

Coincidentally, sociopaths are much more highly represented in leadership positions than general society. Just an interesting fact...

There is a chapter on this in my book Like a Roaring Lion, at Lockepress.com

Trump, the Pharisee?

 

When I saw that Trump said that I immediately recognized that he was doing the same thing that the Pharisees continually are seen doing in the gospels. They continually are finding ways to ignore or nullify the law, so they can do that which is immoral, but claim to still be moral. Jesus challenges them on this in Mark 7:1-13 and Matthew 15:1-9. This is a common game that people play. There are so many versions of this sort of thing.

"If you dedicate the gift to God, you don't need to use it to honour you parents."

"If the pastor’s wife says she can preach, it is not assuming authority and is therefore ok."

"If your husband isn’t loving you well enough, then you don't need to be a wife to him."

"If you say it's not really an idol, it is just a picture of a Saint to help you pray it is not breaking the first two commandments."

"If you divorce your wife first to marry your hot secretary, then it is not really adultery."

Same logic, different situation. The yeast of the Pharisees is really the human spirit to avoid good laws with rationalisation.

Lawyers do this all the same. In fact, they do it so much many people joke that this is the job of lawyers, to find ways to get around the law. I was fascinating to see Trump say this so openly and brashly.

When you see someone say something like this, it is an indication that they know what they are doing is not right. But they also probably do not care.

So, Trump is not literally a Pharisee, and this sort of behaviour is not unique to the Pharisees. This is the way that people behave when they want to do something they know is not moral.

In A Sane World

 

In a sane world America's greatest ally would be Australia.

In a sane world they would surround our country with the most advanced military assets they had. Both countries would strengthen each other.

In a sane world US and Australian leaders would visit each other's countries regularly every year.

In a sane world the US would share its most advanced tech with Australia and Australia with America.

In a sane world, no too countries should be closer.

Why is this the case?

Think about it. Australia has fought in every war of the US's, even in this one we sent troops and defensive missiles to the Middle East. Australians and Americans are cousin kin. The majority of both of our populations come out of Great Britain. We share Lockean political philosophies, that is we both share separation of powers political systems, that draw from the wealth of English tradition. We share a language (mostly). We share our dominant faiths, both countries are strongly Christian, especially historically. We share cultural norms. Not exactly anymore, but overall. Australian actors thrive in the US. Australians and Americans are more alike than different. These two countries drawing together would be powerful.

We also share resource wealth. Australia and the US both are abundant in every resource both countries need. Both in the intellect of their people and in the ground. We share technological levels, though the US is ahead of us militarily, that is because of population size and focus, rather than inherent differences of ability. We share institutional depth. A degree in either country carries the same weight. The combined resource wealth of these two countries could literally rule the world, economically speaking, and make both countries richer and more powerful than either has ever been before. We would be a combined economic force the world had never before seen.

In fact, if you look at the relationship of both countries since World War 2 until about the seventies this exact relationship was taking shape. But it has faded away? Why?

Why are we a minor priority to the US and the two nations are growing apart? When together we could achieve great things?

Well, because since the 1970's, for theological, ideological, and misguided imperial reasons the US has tied itself to various Middle Eastern countries (Israel, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates etc, etc,) all of which have demanded increasing military aid, military help, military protection and military action. It has tied its economic destiny, and military might to countries that are alien in culture, to varying degrees at least, alien in religion, alien in philosophy and constantly in need of help. It is like an unequally yoked marriage, everyone can see will end up in divorce court, after it has been rough for years.

In other words the has US tied itself to a series of constantly at war nations, that have drained it, weakened it, and are now isolating it from nations more like itself in religion, philosophy and history. Consider the insanity of this. From about the 1970's the US drew closer to unstable partners, and has increasingly de-emphasized stable partners, like Australia.

Paul said that Christians should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. We are seeing this principle actually have a real and tangible effect on a national level, not just an individual level. Bringing powerful countries to disaster.

This should not surprise us. Paul knew that God judged King Jehosaphat (a believer) for allying with Ahab and his son (both unbelievers) (2 Chronicles 19-22).

In other words, Paul drew this principle in part from the leaders of nations allying with unbelieving countries. Most American presidents openly claimed to be Christians, but have drawn increasingly close to non-Christian nations, and look at the result.

The Australian-American resource alliance was a no-brainer. Two Christian, Anglo-Saxon nations in lockstep. It would have been beautiful. Instead, we got clown world.

A Quarrelsome Wife

 

Proverbs 21:9 - "It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife."

This is why some guys work long hours and come home late.

This is why some guys spend a lot of money on their sheds and basically live in them.

This is why some guys spend hours at the pub after work.

Nothing is to be cherished like a wife who can make the home a more pleasant place than anywhere else.

But don't pity the man with a quarrelsome wife, more often than not he has empowered her, and refused to challenge her, making her emboldened. She will spread her quarrelsome nature far beyond the home. Men who can't reign in their quarrelsome wives do a lot of damage to society. 

Now, on those men that it is not necessarily their fault? I will come back to that in a future piece. 

 

Can We Survive Sanctions?

 

This picture above is a bit exaggerated, but also still incredibly true. Across the globe countries are crying out from the stress of the war which is being waged in the epicentre of one of the most important trade routes in the world. The strait of Hormuz.

The global economy has, foolishly, become too interlinked. Too many countries, including ours, are too reliant on foreign services and products just to do basic things like transport food. We rely on foreign imported diesel to run our food chain! That is insane. It is not just insane but actually genuinely dangerous. Whoever is responsible for this either hates this country or simply lacks all wisdom and sense.  

Of course, some countries have no choice but to rely on the global supply chain for the vast majority of what they need. Small countries with little or no resources need to be globally interconnected just to remain viable states. But we do not need to act like that here in Australia. It is not our problem that there are small countries that do not have much natural wealth to draw on. Historically, countries like that would find themselves subsumed into larger countries over time anyway. But even if they are not, that is a problem for them to sort out.

I have written and talked about this for years. If you set up your economy to be reliant on foreign tech, foreign oil, foreign military aid, foreign food chains, then you don't really have a sovereign country. You simply live in an economic zone, a trade nexus. You might technically have borders, but they are truly meaningless. And I mean truly. Borders in countries like this are treated as outdated lines on a map.

Have you noticed that the Australian people, the population, have zero say over who comes here? Have you noticed that we have zero say over our economic direction? Have you noticed that while most Australians would like us to be an energy superpower, no government leader ever even considers this? (Except arguably Kevin Rudd, but they rolled him when he tried to make Australians the major benefactors of our mining sector, remember. Look it up if you don't).

Why are Australians never consulted on the most significant policies which effect us? Because when your country is made to be reliant on foreign nations for virtually everything, you lose your sovereignty, in practicality if not officially. And your national leadership is replaced by loyal servants of that foreign trade nexus who will make sure the reliance on foreigner products, and militaries keeps happening. Because too many foreign powers make too much money off of us to let it stop.

This is why our politicians never listen to us on immigration, energy policy, or economic direction. This is why our government ramps up immigration in a housing crisis, and makes sure you are likely outbid for a home to buy or rent by a cashed-up foreigner. Their primary motivation is to keep the economic nexus humming, and if you can't keep up, you are no good for their primary purpose. They might buy your vote with welfare, but that is really just a way of keeping you from questioning their system, or pushing for another one. Making you have to compete with foreign buyers is an intentional economic selection process. To keep the economic nexus running it needs more and more people coming in and those with higher incomes will be favoured. This is a problem of so-called free-trade systems, they do not serve the people of their nations, but rather make people replaceable servants of economic interests.

I actually address this problem in my book Like a Roaring Lion, you can find it on Amazon or at Lockepress.com. There is a whole chapter in the book on how this happens. But I have a shorter version here on my blog, with a sermon video version if you would prefer to watch that.

Free trade was the heroin they used to get us hooked to the international supply. In a stable world you can get a lot richer as a nation from an interconnected system. But there are three major downsides: 1) You need to constantly replace your people, to keep the economic nexus going. 2) We don't live in a stable world. We live in an unstable world with temporary mirages of stability coupled with complacency. 3) The massive movement of peoples required to make anything like free trade possible, fractures virtually ever institution in your society, especially the family.

As I said small, resource poor countries need this kind of system. But how is that our problem? We are a massive resource rich country. We never needed any resources from overseas for a food supply chain. Every car in Australia could run on cheap LPG (gas). And our not inconsiderable oil supplies could supply our entire truck network. Taxes on foreign countries buying our gas could subsidize our diesel so that it was very cheap. Or you could balance out the costs internally with slightly higher LPG for cars that helps subsidize diesel for the transportation network. There are many options for a country as resource rich as ours.

Nations that can resist sanctions are only those that are self-reliant. Countries that got self-reliant, did it by stripping apart the foreign tech they had and learning how it works, and improving on it. We could learn to make most of the tech we need, pretty quickly. This is how Japan got good at making cars. Limited trade could be used to fill in gaps in our own industry. This is not isolationism. It is wisdom. Instability is the global norm. Not being dependent on foreign nations for most of what you need is a national security issue. Finally, people are seeing this now. But that's because they had to be smacked with reality in the face.

We have a highly educated nation. We had a serious industry sector, it is not too long gone that it cannot come back. There are two major roadblocks though. Firstly, can our national leadership give up its privileges of promotions to international boards after they have faithfully served the foreign economic nexus? That reality needs to change, otherwise our nation is in real trouble.

Secondly, can people get off their addiction to maximising their lifestyles on credit? What would Dave Ramsey say?

 

This post is funny.

But it also insightful.

We are a country that could save up for hard times, at the national level.

But at the leadership and voter levels our nation is addicted to consumption and debt.

We can't blame our government entirely for this. Our leadership is a product of our culture. A culture where dropping $150,000 on a 4wd, including mods, all on credit is the norm. A culture where living in a house you bought with maxxed out credit, is the norm. A culture where a pay rise means you buy a bigger house or newer car is the norm. A culture where holidays on the credit card are the norm. A culture where debt is a way of life. A culture that will be rudely shocked in hard times.

This meme is funny and incredibly insightful. Because it shows that our country could not stand up under sanctions not just because of poor leadership, but because of the quality of our population. We lack wisdom as a nation.

The South Australian Election

 

The SA election* is indicating that Australia is following European trends.

-        Right of centre parties have failed.

-        Entrenched slightly more right ring parties fail to capture the populations interest in any meaningful way.

-        In the meantime the left gets giddy on unquestioned power and proceeds to remind everyone why progressivism is the reason they keep moving out of cities and states.

-        This creates genuine right-wing sentiment. But it takes time to build.

But as it builds the pendulums starts to shift in the right direction.  

This means we have likely a couple more election cycles of leftwing dominance. So we have some time to go before the devastating nature of these leftwing policies starts to finally effect enough inner city elites so much (aka their taxes are too high and their gated compounds feel more like forts in a sea of chaos than affluent communities) that they stomach their pride, and vote for, and even more importantly, financially fund actual right wing politics.

This would indicate that the right is entering its wilderness years. Many will try to spin this as an Orange wave, that One Nation is surging. But I do not think that is going to happen. We have observed a similar trend across the West that conservatism needs to utterly collapse before people realize that those of us who said we despise conservatism said it for a good reason: because it truly does not even fulfill its primary function of conserving your society. Many conservatives still cannot accept this. They refuse to accept it.   

The next stage of this trend is conservatism pretending its right wing. We are in that stage. Do not get me wrong, there are some true shining lights in the One Nation Party. Some of them have a solid understanding of the issues plaguing Australia. But I am old enough to remember many election cycles going back to the beginning of this party, where it surged in primary vote, but this was always curtailed by preferences. It is likely that this party could do some things better than the current centre right party. But many of us are waiting for the true Christian surge. When we get politicians who are leading political parties saying it is time to restore the Christian nature of our country, then we will know that we are on the right track.

Christless conservatism cannot preserve this nation. All is can do is fall into the same patterns of previously conservative or centre right entities. 

*exact numbers still TBC.