Let's set this up clearly:

  1. Christ is the groom.

  2. The Church is his bride.

  3. Producing spiritual children is evangelism - tantamount to spiritual sex through the oneness bond we have with Christ/the Spirit/God's Word.

  4. Raising spiritual children is discipleship, which requires both a mother and a father.

  5. A child who is birthed, but abandoned by the parent is an orphan.

  6. Congregational structures collect spiritual orphans, becoming spiritual orphanages.

With this in mind, what do we make of our role within congregational structures - if any at all? Should we abandon them? Work within them? Worship them as many do? Did Jesus intend for the Church to become a spiritual orphanage? Or did he intend for his Kingdom to be made up of patriarchal lineages of grandparent to parent to child to grandchild to great-grandchild, and so on, and that the Church would be the name of the Kingdom under which these family units would live?

Let's go back through the list and contemplate these:

Christ is the Groom - Do we actually recognize our (instead of one-flesh) one-Spirit relationship with Christ? Is it an abiding relationship where he and his Spirit dwell within us, together with God's Word? If not, then the Church would be a single woman or a wife who has divorced her husband. Is that really what we want for ourselves? And if not, then what does it mean to live as if we are one-Spirit with Christ and he is head over us?

The Church is his bride - Do we really embrace the role of a bride in the relationship?Are you willing to live toward Christ the same way we talk about a woman should love toward us? After all, how can you lead your wife to follow you if you're not willing to model it in how you follow Christ? Contemplate 1 Cor. 11:3 on that. And this is where the MGTOWs get it wrong. A MGTOW mentality that communicate's a man's refusal to engage in the sexual marketplace is akin not to our abandonment of the Church, but Christ's abandonment of the Church. Christ does not forsake the Church or his people. Nothing can separate us from his love. Neither should we model with our lives something distinct and separate from what would reflect the accuracy of Christ's relatoinship with his people - UNLESS we are already living out the spiritual reality to which the physical representation was meant to point. In that case, and that one alone - if a man is already united with Christ and reflecting to the World Christ's oneness bond with him through the way he spiritually reproduces and spiritually raises his children - then such a man is free from the model of the physical representation because the spiritual reality is already evident in his life and he doesn't need the road-map to get him where he already is or to show the world how to get to where he has already arrived. He merely says, "Here I am. Come with me." That is the only viable MGTOW man, who is in his physical singleness fully living in light of his spiritual marriage to Christ as an evangelist and disciple-maker.

Producing spiritual children is evangelism - One of my family members - gorgeous as she may be - cannot physically have children. She recently posted on Facebook that she's frustrated at the number of Christian men who insist on a bride who will give them children of their own, even saying that some were arguing that adoption is unbiblical. It's not, but that's beside the point. What man wouldn't want his seed to produce an heir for him? Of course you do. God gave you that innate desire. Yet when Christ wants a bride who will produce children for him, rather than raising someone else's kids, why do we suddenly shy away and think it's okay to ignore evangelism in favor of just teaching a class within our congregational unit? Just as sex is the most physically pleasurable and fulfilling (and if it's been a while, full-filling) thing we can do in life, so also is evangelism the most spiritually pleasurable and fulfilling aspect of the Christian life.

Raising spiritual children is discipleship - How many husbands and wives take a purely evangelistic approach, thinking, "I want to have as many kids as humanly possible so that I can fill the orphanages of the world and make them glorious with how many kids they raise!"? That's absurdity. The expectation - and even LEGAL OBLIGATION by default - is that parents must raise their own children. Virtually everyone recognizes that raising children into mature, upstanding citizens who can birth the next generation, giving you grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and so on is the most rewarding aspect of life, even as sex is the most pleasurable.

Which requires both a mother and a father - Here's where too many people misunderstand the balance of authority in discipleship. Many red pill men are quick to jump to the conclusion that "women are to raise the children at home" while the "men are carrying on a mission." I don't disagree, except to the extent that men are to be active fathers and the ultimate authority in deciding how the children are to be raised, even if the wife spends more of the day-to-day time implementing it. The congregational structure is quick to cut out Christ's model of spiritual parenting in how he discipled his 12, and which they modeled with others, such as Paul with Timothy or Peter with Mark - instead, acting as if the mother (the Church) has the final say and authority in how children are to be raised. As such, we get congregations all over the world who come up with their own philosophies that they believe are based on various teachings of Jesus, while ignoring the example of Jesus. Others take the reverse approach: they cut out their own role in mothering/nurturing children, commissioning them to Christ on the expectation that God will carry the person on to maturity if the person is truly saved. In reality, Christ works through the Church as the vehicle through which his parental authority is carried out, and we must embrace his role in being a spiritual father just as much as we cannot abandon our role in spiritually nurturing the young and immature.

A child who is birthed, but abandoned by the parent is an orphan - This is when we evangelize someone, but refuse to be a parent to them. I love this quote in Dawson Trotman's message, Born to Reproduce (here, for those who want to listen):

A boy came into my office one day and told me about all the souls he had won. He said they were all Armenians. He was an Armenian. He had the list. I said, "Well, what's this one doing?" He said, "That one isn't doing so good. He sort of backslid." "What about this one?" We went all down the list and there was not one living a victorious life.

I said, "Give me your Bible." I turned to Philippians and I put a coardboard right under the 6th verse, and I took a razor blade out of my pocket and started to come down on it. He grabbed my hand and asked, "What are you going to do?"

"I'm going to cut this verse out. It isn't working." Do you know what was wrong, friends? I had been taking the 6th verse away from the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th verses. Paul didn't just plot that down and say, "All right, the Lord has started something, He'll finish it." You know, that's what people tell me when they win a soul. They say, "Well, I just committed him to God."

I see Norm Lewis here. He's the father of 7. If I went up to Norm and said, "Who's taking care of your children, Norm?" "Huh, oh, I left them with the Lord." I've got a verse for you, Norm, if you say that. If any man provide not for his own household, he is worse than an infidel. Paul said to the elders of the Presbyterian ... er, the church at Ephesus, "Take heed to the flock over which the Holy Ghost has made YOU the overseer." You don't make God the overseer. He makes you the overseer.

Congregational structures collect spiritual orphans, becoming spiritual orphanages - The reality is that most people aren't willing to parent their own spiritual children. They pretend they don't know how. They're good at having sex, but the concept of actually raising a child is too terrifying, so they either abort (i.e. engage in self-defeating evangelism strategies) so they don't have to worry about raising the child, or they leave the child up for adoption for the church to raise, hoping that they can find someone who can raise the child. The reality is that there aren't enough parents willing and able to adopt children - and even if you're not ready to parent a child, it's better if you try. It's better than letting the child die in the womb or sending them to the overcrowded mass-structure for them to be a number in the crowd.

God bless those who run orphanages. They are a necessary and praise-worthy part of society. Never stop supporting those who care for these little ones! But even better if we didn't need them. Even better if parents learned to raise their own children without killing them or giving them away. In an ideal world, there would be no congregations because every family unit would stay a family unit - and the Church would be meeting together not to teach all those orphans how to be good little boys and girls, knowing very few will actually listen - rather, it would be meeting to discuss how we can produce more children and raise them and make our family lineages even more fruitful in comparison to the opposing kingdoms around us - even dominating those kingdoms and making their children our own.

Support your spiritual orphanage, but always make it your primary goal to transform the world around you until they become totally and completely unnecessary because the Church becomes a united Kingdom of families rather than a structure to contain orphans.