It’s unnvering to think about how precarious our situations may be and sometimes we become so comfortable and blinded by our surroundings that we fail to see danger lurking in the shadows. When something as superficial as not liking the look of a sub-ordinate can cause an honest man to (potentially) lose his job [1], the truth about the world and the ever-diminishing thoughts [2] of kindness hits home hard.

When I told the man about how we cannot hold onto our expectations of others and that we must take care of ourselves first, it was an advice that I am giving to myself. The world is hungry for value but will never be willing to pay if they can.

The thought I have is what our reward is for ekeing out an honest living; that whether or not the (sometimes overwhelming) temptation to be ruthless, unkind, dishonest and unethical can be overcome.

(I believe the answers lie somewhere in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.)

So until I can figure my way out, I have to consider the value I bring to this secular world.

[1] in ancient times, his head. (Then again, this is why those period dramas about palace intrigues are so popular)
[2] not even acts


Moose Noresman’s post about what qualities in a woman young men should consider as his wife is excellent. It adds to the many echoes of similar comments and advice that I have gleaned from the Men’s Sphere (borrowing Cane’s term). I believe some (more so for members of the weaker sex) may find it a hard read especially when the anecdote in the post is about the endearing loyalty of a dog. Yet, it carries a lesson ab0ut the qualities that a husband treasures in such a wife, for she is worth far more than rubies.

Coming from another perspective, Donalgraeme’s post about choosing your spouse is also illuminating:

 “Whether you are a man or a woman, you shouldn’t marry a fixer-upper- someone who needs some serious work before they are fit for marriage. Especially don’t marry them with the goal of making them fit for marriage. That is not your job (and frankly, it shouldn’t be). To tie in with my last post, it isn’t your obligation to make an honest man or woman out of someone. That is between them and God.

The way I see it, and I might have borrowed this from some commenter in the past, but when you marry someone you should assume you are marrying them at their best, and they won’t get better from there. So if you wouldn’t want to be married to someone as they are when they marry you, don’t marry that person. [Confusing, I know.]”

Meanwhile Cane summarises the hypocracies of the pro-life cuckservatives over two posts (1) and (2). The premise of his criticism stands on the oft-misunderstood opinions about why God allowed infants to be slaughtered (in the Israelites’ conquest of Canaan) and references Deuterounomy 3:10-18.

In his post about the Sacrifice of the Canaanites, he answers the question:

“Children, especially infants, are innocent. However; they are not perfect. They are not sinless. They are not selfless, or even aware of others. They are not worthy and they have no worthy works. Innocent means they are not accountable; not that they do not offend, or that they are good. They are also signs of innocence, and that important for us and for our instruction…”

Just because:

“Jesus is more than innocent. He is the Christ who chose to take on mere flesh. He is the only begotten Son of God. Unlike an untested infant, Jesus was tested in the refiner’s fire and found flawless, and a worker of many and marvelous good works; perfect as His Father in Heaven is perfect. He is unique, flawless, utterly selfless, and very God of very God.”

So Cane carefully builds his tower of rubuttal and delivers the punch:

“Here’s what I think: Pro-Lifers, a multitude of whom are professed Christians, are hiding their belief that, on the issue of babies, women are like God. They believe that the child belongs to the mother as its creator, just as Christians believe we all belong to God as our creator. They believe that because women give birth, women–like God–have power over life. They believe that therefore we must not trespass on a mother’s power to kill their creations.”

“Abortion is murder” rarely gets a mention from the pulpits but the murders of innocents by the Israelites gets a quizzical looks amongst Christians.

In his second post, Cane paints the landscape with which men, as husbands, have to navigate amidst the secular philosophies so loved and held dearly by our Christian societies:

“Now the cult’s shadow advances rapidly and we have passed quickly through the penumbral age of No-Means-No into the silent dark of Yes-Means-Yes and Marital Rape; when every man must first pray to his woman for sex, and then wait for an audible acceptance lest he trespass.”

Over at Deep Strength’s, the issue of a husband’s headship is discussed in this post.

For me, there are two important points he raised.


“Generally speaking, churchian leadership likes to be intrusive into various marriages dictating what is true and what is false. This is to say that husbands are called to be “servant leaders” or “spiritual leaders” rather than just “headship” as the Scriptures call it because they need qualifiers and limitations on how husbands are to act in their own marriages.

This appears to be a mistake as the Scriptures affirm that marriages have a separate authority structure which connects in the Church in different ways.”

Just relecting on this a little, it mirrors how it may be tempting to advise or even correct another parent’s discipline [3] of his child when really, it is none of our business. 


“Why are women — or perhaps wives — told to keep silent in Churches? Well, 1 Corinthians latter chapters speak mostly of order in the Church. That is those who speak out in Church are disruptive. God is not a God of chaos but of order. However, the other lesson that is less brought up here is that tasks are delegated to the husband because of the way authority work in establishing order. This is important because the Scriptures continually affirm headship and submission in marriage as it’s own sphere.”

Here, Deep Strength explains how headship within a family and the Church operate independently of each other. One thought about how the lines are not that clearly about the prohibition of women speaking in the gathering of saints (which, to me, is the church) is because the many and varied activities that our churches have as compared to maybe in the first century. 

In the comments section, there is an interesting discussion about being “too submissive” which is really a false argument and a sin.

[3] not abuse.

Elsewhere, spandrell is beginning a series about Chinese history, especially the Northern and Southern Song dynasties. That its existence centuries before the Qing Dynasty (considered by some to be one of China’s golden periods — especially during the reigns of Kang Xi, Yong Zheng and Qian Long) is an astounding achievement. It started from his tales about herodudes from one of China’s four great literary classics The Water Margin.