Rollo Tomassi wrote a scathing assessment of modern church culture a couple years ago. It’s held up tragically well.
Church culture is now openly hostile towards any expression of conventional masculinity that doesn’t directly benefit women and actively conditions men to be serviceable, gender-loathing Betas. The feminist narrative of “toxic masculinity” has entirely replaced any semblance of what traditional masculinity or manhood once was to the church. Any hint of a masculinity not entirely beholden to a now feminine-primary purpose is not only feared, but shamed with feminine-interpreted aspersions of faith.
This problem is further compounded by the sexual expectations placed on the Christian man:
For the agnostic or areligious man, discarding a Blue Pill social conditioning for a Red Pill awareness is a difficult task, but for men raised to believe that their only doctrinally approved path to sex with a woman is abstinence until marriage, that man’s only hope is to accept his fate and stay the Beta a feminized church has conditioned him to be.
And once he gets to marriage and his approved expression of his sexuality, the “Christian” man finds that the feminized church, even the male elders, expect endless qualifications to women and his wife’s unceasing appeasement in exchange for that approved sex. It’s a tail-chasing that holds men to the old books social order expectations while absolving women of all accountability and expecting him to also make concessions for a new (feminized) social order that’s ensaturated the church.
The institutional church can offer a man no hope. But Christ called us to build and expand a kingdom. And a kingdom requires men.
Ideally, the church and the kingdom of God would be the same. But we cannot serve the institutional church at the expense of doing what God called us to do.
I’m not a revolutionist. I believe it’s good for a man to belong to a church as long as he is able. But I suspect we will see an increasing divide in the coming years between the “church” and true men of God… if for no other reason than that masculine men will be completely ousted from the church.
In tomorrow’s post, I’m going to cover the essential mindset of a kingdom-centered man.
Until Christians acknowledge that this is what’s driving the abortion industry, being “pro-life” is merely virtue signaling:
- Get FUCKED
- Thou shall not suck the dick if he does not lick thy CLIT
- absolutely NO condoms
- If someone tells you to drink water tell them to FUCK OFF
- Swallow the kids Bitch
- Shackers must leave by 10am
- When in doubt drink another
- The less clothing the better
- NO [cock] Blocks
- Chuck + rally
The other day I got in a Twitter “fight” with some random girl named Sherry.
I’ve reproduced the argument below for instructive purposes. Comments are in brackets.
Tony Reinke: Al Mohler (June 2014): “If you get any report of any kind of sexual abuse, certainly involving a minor, you be committed before that ever happens, that before you leave that room you are going to dial 9-1-1 and you’re going to call for help.” [Virtue signaling]
JT: Translation: Always assume the man is guilty and turn the matter over to the secular courts. Hmm…
Sherry: He only said pastors aren’t qualified to investigate. Let the authorities do that. The ‘secular courts’ have presumption of innocence with burden of proof that has to be met. Not like the kangaroo courts we’ve seen in colleges where students can be railroaded with no defense.
JT: Perhaps you don’t know that it is shameful for Christians to go to court? (1 Cor 6)
Sherry: You can’t be serious to think there is a correlation between neighborhood litigation and sexual assault. Perhaps you don’t know that Christians are also sinners and commit crimes. Is this a parody account? [Both women and gamma males argue the same way: address an imaginary argument (“so you’re saying…”) rather than what was said. Then they attempt to change the topic with pseudo-logic and discredit the messenger.]
JT: Taking a sexual assault accusation to court is litigation by definition. Christians are called to use wisdom to judge each case fairly.
JT: Again, have you read 1 Corinthians 6?
Sherry: Yes I have and you’re definitely a joke.
Sherry: Christians are also called to follow the law.
JT: So turning a brother over to the court is following the law?
Sherry: I’m probably foolish to answer, but in this case Yes. @AlbertMohler is referring to sexual abuse. I stand by my first comment. 1 Cor 6 doesn’t apply. This isn’t a trivial or small matter to be handled between believers. Especially if a child is involved. [This is where she has given up. People who argue on an emotional level are quickly exhausted by logic. Also note the callout to @AlbertMohler. She is hoping a higher authority can affirm the opinion she cannot defend.]
JT: Sherry, you are allowing emotion to cloud your judgment. Just because a child is involved doesn’t automatically mean the man is guilty.
JT: 1 Cor 6 is a universal principle for all disputes between Christians. Each case must be examined with wisdom… without knee-jerk reactions
From what I can gather, there are three Christian goals to arguing:
- To shame opponents of truth into silence (Tit 2:8)
- To instruct a watching audience (Prov 19:25)
- To give the opponent opportunity to repent (2 Tim 2:25)*
My recent Twitter exchange inspired me to come up with a simple argument formula that Christians could use that I think meets all the above criteria:
- Decode the jargon – most opening statements from angry women and false teachers are nothing more than virtue signaling disguised with righteous sounding jargon. Decode the B.S. so that everyone can see the plain meaning.
- Have you not read? – call attention to the Scripture passage that corrects the false assumption. Phrasing it as a question makes it irresistible to the ego. No one wants to be ignorant. The intensity of the rhetoric here depends on the type of person you’re dealing with (e.g. man vs. woman, teacher vs. layman, educated vs. naive, etc.)
- Correct and dismiss the false argument – most of the time, you’ll be arguing with a gamma male or a woman. They won’t address your point and will almost without fail counter with a “so you’re saying…” line or something similar. Quickly correct and dismiss the false argument and immediately move to the next step.
- Restate the question. Go back to Step 2. Repeat Steps 3 & 4 if necessary.
* Note that the biblical concept of “gentleness” implies using strength. It’s an expression of power, but with reserve. In other words, only use as much strength as necessary for the situation.
There’s a great post over at the Red Pill Christians Reddit on distinguishing between healthy sexual desire and lust.
Biblically, the idea of coveting is not merely any old desire. It’s an I would if I could mentality. If you see your neighbor’s cow and think, “If I knew I wouldn’t get caught, I’d totally steal his cow!” that’s coveting. If you see it and think, “Dang, that’s a great cow. I wish I had a cow like that. But I don’t … oh well.” That’s not coveting. That’s desire.
Desire is healthy. Coveting is not. It’s really that simple. If we were to stifle all of our desires and pretend we never wanted anything that anyone else has, we would totally lack all ambition in life and fail as a species. Paul saying things like, “Run in such a way to win the prize!” (1 Cor. 9:24) makes no sense if we’re not allowed to desire something we don’t yet have.
The author goes on to define a helpful rule-of-thumb for judging whether you’re lusting:
- Is the object of your desire not your spouse?
- If there were no earthly hindrances to gratifying yourself with the object of your desire, would you do it?
If the answer to both questions is yes, then it’s sinful lust. If the answer to either question is no, then it’s not sinful.
The only thing that holds someone with a covetous heart back from defrauding his neighbor is external pressures such as the force of law or social consequences. This is why Jesus bluntly called out the Pharisees in Matthew 5. Just because they weren’t breaking the law, they harbored a “would-if-I-could” attitude in their hearts.
While I can’t peer into the heart of other Christian men, I’d guess that the typical man is not guilty of biblical lust. Rather, he has allowed his conscience to be bound to false teachings which blaspheme God’s good creation (the male sexual instincts.)
Or, to paraphrase my old college professor, if you are worried whether you are lusting, the warning is not intended for you. If you immediately think you’re righteous and have nothing to worry about, take heed.
Over at the Red Pill Christians subreddit, I came across an interesting set of questions posted by the user “Red-Curious.”
Other than my own blog and Sigma Frame, I don’t know of any other blogs that are trying to develop practical frameworks for married Christian men to use in light of red pill truths.
Dalrock and company have some good insights. But their specialty tends to be calling out feminism in the church rather than providing usable strategies for awakened men.
So the church is woefully lacking resources to help married men who have recognized and accepted the true nature of women.
But if we were to start a larger conversation, I think these questions would be a good place to start. (I’ve given my own opinions as a response.)
1. How can you reconcile the message of Christ with Red Pill Praxeology? What about Married Red Pill? Does the message of Paul and Peter change the picture?
The Red Pill is simply re-awakening us to biological truths that are suggested at the beginning of Genesis. Christ’s message was about a new kingdom, not a new biological imperative, so there is no conflict. But the marriage teachings of Peter and Paul do change the frame of red pill truths. Men are expected to take responsibility for their wives just as Christ takes responsibility for the church.
2. Why are Christians such bloop caricatures? How did we go from Warrior Knights of the Cross to this mess of de-testosteronized “men” in the church today?
My best understanding is that this is due to the cultural forces that contributed to the Nice Guy Syndrome. Men have been conditioned for several generations to seek approval from women and view traditional masculine qualities as “toxic.” This message is further reinforced in the church by the “sacrificial love” rhetoric. Nice Guys believe that if they do the right things and sacrifice more, they will get what they need. “Sacrificial love” is changed to mean doing what the wife wants… which only makes marriages worse. On top of that, most Christian men are pre-occupied with the so-called “battle of lust,” thus ensuring they will remain in perpetual state of feeling guilty over their sexual instincts and believing they are a “sinner” unfit for any significant duty in God’s kingdom.
3. Do you agree with Dalrock that feminism has invaded the churches and that more and more apostate Christians are replacing the worship of the Lord Jesus with Vagina worship?
4. What Christian denominations have been able to hold back this feminist onslaught and why?
None that I’m aware of. Though my experience is limited to Pentecostal and Reformed denominations. Pentecostals seem to be more blatantly egalitarian. Reformed churches seem to give lip service to the abstract concepts of headship and submission. But they ignore the gritty details of the problems and fail to provide any workable advice to men dealing with the effects of feminism.
5. Can a Christian man use Dread Game with a disobedient wife?
Yes. Dread Game is about arousing a woman’s jealousy in order to reform her behavior. We learn in Romans 11 that God brought in the Gentiles in order to make the unrepentant Jews jealous. So provoking a disobedient wife to jealousy is (literally) a godly thing to do.
6. Who agrees with me that we can fix this for the next generation if we bring back the authority of a man over his family, including his wife, and children? Can we? Should we?
Agreed. First, we must attempt to do so through teaching and rhetoric. If that doesn’t work, we simply wait for our civilization to crumble so we can rebuild. Build your own household on the rock so that it does not crumble when the storm comes.
I just had a guest post published over at Sigma Frame (my new favorite red pill blog.)
It’s about recognizing Satanic rhetoric. Probably the most important thing I’ve written to date.
Go check it out below and subscribe to his blog as well:
The Satanic Persuasion Formula
Lest any of my readers should dismiss me as a heretic, I thought I might clarify my intentions of yesterday’s post.
There were two specific statements I was calling out as idolatry:
- “Without systematic theology you can’t be the church.” (Stephen Wellum via The Gospel Coalition)
- “I don’t have Calvinism in a little compartment of my life. It is my life.” (John Piper)
Now, I realize that many people think anti-theology = anti-God. This is precisely why theological-based arguments are so powerful. Who are you, oh man, to question the attributes of God?
Well, if “theology” simply means the study of God as an activity, then I’m all for it. But most often, theology is used to refer to a particular theological theory or system… such as Calvinism, Arminianism, pre-millennialism, or any other “ism” you want to throw in there.
The problem with theology, is that proponents of one “ism” or another will perform a “Procrustean Bed” operation in order to make the Scripture fit their pre-conceived framework.
In Greek mythology, Procustes was a rogue smith who invited every passer-by to spend the night. He had a single iron bed which he would force every guest to fit into. If they were too short, he’d stretch them to fit. If they were too tall, he’d amputate the excess length.
As an ironic example of the Procustean Bed phenomenon, consider the often debated passage from 1 Corinthians:
Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
Is this a challenge to “saved by grace alone”? Is it referring to a separate judgment? How do works and salvation relate?
These are questions one might ask if he was approaching it from a theological frame.
But if you simply let Scripture itself frame the passage, the meaning becomes clear. At the beginning of the argument, Paul states:
For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?
What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
The biblical frame of this passage has nothing to do with the grace vs. works paradigm. It has to do with the jealousy and strife created when choosing one teacher (or theologian) over another.
This jealously and strife is what causes the church to divide. Rather than facilitate open discussion, true intellectuals who challenge extra-biblical church doctrine are branded (and, in the past, burned) as “heretics.”
It shouldn’t take much “theology” to understand that this behavior is despicable in God’s sight.
If you think that one teacher (e.g. John Calvin) or a theological system is the true foundation of the faith… you might be in for an unpleasant surprise when you find all your study, promoting, and defending of that system was in vain! You’ll escape with your life, but you’ll have no reward for all that work.
If a Calvinist or an Arminian or any other pointed you to Christ and the gospel, praise God! But be careful how you build from that point forward.
Paul says that no man can lay a foundation other than the one that has been built (i.e. the Scriptures).
Frame determines meaning.
Anything framed outside of the Scripture text itself is inherently fragile.
Any teacher who doesn’t see the plain point of the text is either dishonest or over-educated into a theological frame.
Any teacher who dogmatically promotes a particular theological framework is an anti-intellectual. Not only is he too dull to perceive his error. He is too prideful to accept correction.
I say this not because I care whether any of my readers lean one way or another theologically. We can remain united in Christ while holding different opinions.
I only want to encourage my readers, literally for the love of God, to do two simple things:
- Be aware of how the passage is being framed
- Reject any frame that is contrary to the biblical frame
It’s nice to see that the churchians are starting to openly declare their idols:
Soon it will be quite easy to separate the wheat from the tares.
In the mean time, rather than rely on the fragile theories of over-educated anti-intellectuals, here’s a better plan:
1. PRAY for wisdom
2. READ the scriptures
3. DO what they say
Once again, in our backwards age we find that the sinners are preaching truth while the “righteous” teachers ignore reality.
The Chateau Heartiste gives a spot-on analogy to explain male sexual desire and inequality:
A man goes to a car dealership. He’s a sensible fellow, and just needs a commuter vehicle. He sees a cherry red Corvette center stage. He salivates. He walks over, runs his hand across the finish. Maybe he asks to sit in it and dream, gripping the leather steering wheel. But he knows he can’t afford it, so he quickly focuses his thoughts and leaves fantasyland behind, to browse the boring sedans. He consoles himself with the hope that maybe, someday, he’ll have made it and can return with enough to buy that Corvette. In the meantime, he haggles like a champ with the seller to drive down the price of his sedan and maximize the amenities at his budget. No undercarriage rust protection, thank you! Finally, he signs on the dotted line, and drives off content that he got the best deal he could, and as he’s heading home he thoughtfully itemizes all the good things about his new car. The smell! The climate control! The gas mileage! He’s happy for himself.
As I’ve written before, the modern church’s teaching on “lust” is one of the most perverted doctrines out there. Not only does it ignore the context of the command, it completely ignores the basic nature of male sexuality.
A man will always notice hot women. And men will always wish (i.e. briefly fantasize) that they could have sex with the hottest women that they see.
But far from being a lust problem, this is simply a man’s biological programming on the lookout for signs of life and fertility. In other words, man was programmed to “be fruitful and multiply.”
But men are also used to living in an unequal hierarchy. And, unless he’s a gamma male, he accepts that hierarchy.
A ordinary man may briefly wish he was in the position of the alpha male when he sees him with a hot babe. But he also realizes that to attract a woman of that caliber would require more of him than he’s able or willing to do.
So he contents himself with his own, less-than-perfect-10 wife. He is fully able to appreciate her good qualities.
Furthermore, ordinary men admire alpha males. For example, Donald Trump is 70 years old and having sex with a supermodel. Like most men, I have briefly fantasized about what it would be like to be married/ have sex with a supermodel. But then I realize I wouldn’t want to do all the work Trump had to do to attain his status. Nor would I want to be under the amount of pressure he faces.
So, like most ordinary men, I think “good for him. I’m glad he’s on our side.” This is the healthy and ordinary response to a higher status man.
But since the church has driven out or emasculated all the alpha males (who might have a legitimate temptation to lust), the preachers must now content themselves with brow-beating ordinary men to feel even worse about their “toxic masculinity” than they already do.
Is it any wonder why Christians are a big bunch of pussies?
NOTE: This post is more philosophical, less practical. (i.e. it won’t help you get laid, but you might find it interesting.)
What creates a marriage?
It’s a simple question, but one that reveals a lot of confusion when you try to answer it.
It also has practical significance. What is your duty as a husband? Under what circumstances is a man legitimately no longer responsible for a woman?
The other week I got in a brief debate with a Christian red pill blogger by the name of “Artisanal Toad.” He caused quite a stir in the comments section on Dalrock’s blog a few months ago with his “eligible virgin” theory.
You can read his argument here. Basically, he’s taking the common “sex = marriage” to it’s fullest, strictly technical conclusion.
If Artisanal Toad’s argument is correct, it has some shocking implications. Specifically…
- If a woman is raped, she is automatically bound to the man who raped her
- If a man marries a woman who was previously penetrated by another man (including rape) he is committing adultery
- If a Christian man is married to a woman who was raped, he must divorce her if he’s going to remain a Christian
If these conclusions sound absurd…well… they are.
But I chose to engage with his argument because he is arguing from a common premise. Many Christians who deny that the state creates a marriage believe that sexual intercourse creates a marriage.
While I acknowledge that ideally, sex and marriage would always be one and the same, I find several probelms with Toad’s argument and the sex = marriage belief.
Toad’s argument doesn’t pass my basic “sniff test.”
The Apostle James tells us that wisdom from above is “gentle” and Christ says that “his burden is light.”
Toad’s teaching, if taken seriously, would place a heavy burden on any Christian married couple where the wife was not a virgin (either through rape or prior promiscuity). Fathers would have to tell their children, “well, we found out that your mother is not actually my wife so I’m going to have to divorce her. Sorry kids.”
That just doesn’t seem sensible to me or consistent with God’s character, so my B.S. detector immediately kicks on.
Much of Toad’s argument depends on Old Testament laws about marriage, rape, and virginity. Such as this often misunderstood and abused law:
If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
But Toad ignores the basic principle for applying Old Testament law given to us by the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy:
But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers…
Those who marry in order to find an outlet for their sexual passion are doing the righteous thing. But Toad is twisting the meaning of his proof texts by inducing guilt on those who are righteous and providing a loophole for those who are promiscuous.
I think it is clear that the Old Testament texts about rape and marrying the virgin were intended to prevent young alpha males from using the “pump-and-dump” strategy to getting laid. If a man could be legally forced to marry the young virgin he seduces, it forces him to consider the needs of his neighbor… even if only out of self-preservation.
We know that a righteous person will not be promiscuous. (If they are, they are not righteous by definition.)
But what happens when unbelievers marry (or co-habitate) and then one becomes a Christian?
Paul tells us the believer is not bound to the unbeliever if the unbeliever does not wish to continue living with the believer. The believer is then free to remarry. I see no reason why this principle wouldn’t also apply to unbelievers engaging in promiscuous sex and “long-term relationships” prior to becoming a Christian.
I find Toad’s argument rather weak when you strip away all the rhetoric. His argument is essentially:
1. daraq means sex
2. Genesis 2:24 describes the creation of a marriage and uses daraq
3. Therefore daraq = marriage (i.e. A includes B; therefore B = A)
4. Now look at what these laws mean with this new definition in mind
5. No one can disprove what I’m saying, therefore I’m right!
He pulls a persuasion trick by getting his readers to “think past the sale.” His opposers argue about his application of the individual Old Testament laws. But he’s framed the argument in a way where no one can disprove his interpretation because they implicitly accept his definition.
Furthermore, Toad ignores evidence that contradicts his theory, such as Matthew 1:
“And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son”
So here, we have a clear case where marriage was not created by sex.
Also, we have a case in 2 Samuel where penetrating a virgin was presumed to be a separate act from marriage with Tamar and her step-brother:
“No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this disgraceful thing! As for me, where could I get rid of my reproach? And as for you, you will be like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.”
Tamar knew she was about to be raped and pleaded with her step-brother to marry her instead. There would be no point for Tamar to plead this if marriage was created by penetration.
So What is a Marriage?
All that said, I must credit Toad with bringing to my attention an important question: what defines a marriage?
My current belief is that a marriage occurs when a man agrees to allow a woman to live with him. This includes providing her with food, clothing/shelter, and regular sex. (per Exodus 21:10).
If a man has sex with a woman outside of this household provision and protection, he is committing the sin of fornication. If he has sex with another man’s wife, he is committing adultery.
Any time a man and woman separate (i.e. no longer live together) this is a divorce in God’s eyes. (Paul explicitly states in 1 Corinthians 7:11 that a wife who leaves her husband (unlawfully) should remain “unmarried” or be reconciled to her husband.)
Two righteous spouses will never divorce. But a righteous person may no longer be bound to an unrighteous spouse in certain circumstances.
Obviously, God’s design was that sex and marriage would be one and the same. But I believe in His wisdom, he makes sensible exceptions for us on account of living in a sinful world.
As far as I can tell, this view is most consistent with Scripture and accounts for all the difficult gray areas.
Hopefully, there will be more discussion of this in the fledgling Christian Red Pill space. I’m surprised there’s been so much confusion on the matter for so long.