Excellent article, id have a few things to add for further thought:
1. There needs to be intentional, well thought out communication of the fundamentals of masculinity and femininity taught to the young people in the church. In the past much of this was intuitive and lived out in front of people, it didn't really need to be "taught". But due to the long term effects of the destruction of both men and women through feminism, red-pill garbage and the loss of an intuitive understanding of purpose, meaning and a shared understanding of reality, I think it must be taught. Too few couples even within the church can be examples of these things, more often we see the healed or "being healed" couples who carry the wounds of the modern relationship landscape within their marriages-wether exhibited as multiple relationships in the past, abnormal dynamics in their families, or simply that they are still working through their own trauma from their past ways of living.
2. It gets tricky to discuss because men always feel like everyone harps on them. The phrasing is usually "women have these preferences which are reasonable, and men have these demands which are juvenile". The feminism/red pill baggage makes this worse as both of these things are a blame shifting to the other and a letting off the hook for yourself. The reality is though that it starts with men because the masculine is the one that can be defined, it's the part of the human person which defines and draws boundaries and limits. To be masculine is to judge and order, to act and form. Femininity is responsive and elusive, it is harder to define. (The example is that we are all feminine when we come to the Eucharist, and the priest is always masculine. We come to partake of something life giving, the borders of which are drawn clearly by the priest) That's not letting anyone off the hook, but an acknowledgment that hierarchy exists, and the thing with being the "head" is that means the head has to define things and act in the world first. What modern culture has done is imasculate men and feminize them. That's not just exemplified by the loss of ambition or achievement, but also in that they are waiting to receive something, waiting to passively encounter.
3. The third thing is something uniquely Orthdox, and that is that marriage is intended for your salvation, and symbolized in the crowns of the wedding-which are crowns of martyrdom. Both men and women need to understand that marriage is not a church sanctioned path to participate in the things your worldly friends are selfishly indulging in-but is a call to martyrdom , service, sacrifice and salvation. It is joyous, but the joy comes because the struggle is born out, and when persevered it refines you and leads to a deeper union with God and your spouse. If we truly understand that then I think what we are looking for in the other person might shift slightly. It's no longer "6' and 100k salary, or hot and willing to have 15 kids and make me lunch". It's a man who is honest with his failings and confesses from the heart, who is willing to work himself to help others, who is lenient with others but strict with himself, it's a woman who's heart is not stone and who is open to life, a woman who can put aside vanity for charity or who isnt offended at her priest giving an obedience.
Most certainly they are different, and they require different skills. When I was young I had an above average ability to retain read information, most likely due to the obscene amount of books I read in high school, easily 200+/yr. After getting married and having kids, these last couple decades I've scarcely picked up a physical book. When I do get an opportunity to do so I've noticed I don't have nearly the aptitude I used to for retention. On the upside I'm much better at learning through listening than I used to be-thank you audible. :)
@MrsMagdaBeard Currently we do guest and clergy, elderly, then everyone else for Trapeza. In very traditional Russian friend's homes I've seen men, then the rest of the family. I grew up with the mother is served first, and am admittedly most comfortable with that.
That's not the reference he used. You make a good point about that particular verse and story, and you are right-that the point is not being willing to kill for Christ or of ever doing so, but to die for him-which St. Peter does.
Andrew's point still stands, that Christianity has never historically been a pacifist religion. Early cannons dictate qualifications for Christian's who serve in the military, including the necessity of repentance if they had to even justly spill blood. Because the Church recognizes (then and now) that the world is fallen and that sometimes the right thing in a situation is still not a good thing. Self defense, defense of others, defense of country-these things have always been recognized as valid uses of force-which still require repentance if engaged in.
Eh, I mean they have grown in popularity partially because of how abysmal the sequels are. Also, Lucas has always been good at crafting a story and terrible at execution of the script. He got away with it for New Hope simply by the charisma of Harrison Ford. Other script writers and directors took his overall vision and made the others smoother (Ewoks aside). The prequels have grown on me simply for nostalgia and meme humor, and because the story bones are good, even though there are huge plot and motivation issues (particularly in Ep 2). The actors were class acts but the script is terrible.
Interesting. I think there could be something to that. Also, I think the fast paced nature of other entertainment/new mediums have added to the problem. I've been an avid reader my whole life, and I've definitely noticed a decided trend in fiction, at least, towards fast paced as well as the unexpected or unpredictable. The first person present perspective has become increasingly popular, despite it being objectively the most awkward (and in my opinion stupid) to actually read.
Yes, this verse is actually read and was also read by the church from the beginning.
Here is a rubric that can be useful: if you read something that seems super clear in scripture, but no one for 1700 yrs of the church read it that way, look deeper.
I promise you, there is not a single scripture which is a surprise here, as the ones who understood this view are also the ones, assembling, translating, copying and teaching the scriptures.
The issue here is that the word in Greek which gets translated into English as "until", does not have the same meaning exactly. The Greek word does not require a time after the "until", while the English assumes it.
@MiddleearthMixr@JackPosobiec@SouthernKeeks He seems incapable of seeing "Christian story" as meaning anything other than a one to one allegory. Lord of the Rings is more Christian than most "Christian stories" produced with either allegorical elements or straight stories with lots of churches and sermons.
@Andrewnsnyder I'm perpetually hopeful, and usually disappointed. But I'll wait and see; if it's terrible I'll have to reread the books again which is a win anyway.