Week 9 in the year of our Lord 2022

Love, marriage & reforming the West

9 minutes to read

A lot of younger Christians are being scared out of getting married by weird takes from all sides.

For example, strongly desiring marriage isn’t idolatry. Go for it.

Whoever produces the most godly, happy, and productive marriages/households wins the culture war.

“But family court, but divorce laws, but but but…”

Yes, those are awful, present real risks, and need to change. But can they be solved in a single generation? No. They they are multigenerational problems, which means we have to “generate” people who carry our values into the future. That requires households. And households mean marriage.

Either make a community where marriage is esteemed and divorce is rare, or find one and move there. They exist. The statistics on marriage may look bleak, but remember that statics are one step down from damned lies.

Can you control every outcome and guarantee you won’t be divorced?


Can you control the main variables so the chances of being divorced become extremely low, and the outcomes not as destructive?


Statistics don’t determine anything.

A lot of men in the “manosphere” space can come up with a great vision for their lives and society. They are great at arguing for their vision, but they can’t get people (a wife, or other men) to follow them “in real life.” They tend to place that blame on others and not their leadership ability.

Regardless, great vision without great people is irrelevant. “Visionaries” without leadership ability are just as irrelevant to long term reformation as men without households.

That said, how do we, the Church, deal with dearth of suitable candidates on the dating scene? Here is a simple four step plan that we are both seeking to follow in our own ways:

  1. Plant or renew churches where men can be masculine and women can be feminine.
  2. Rebuild informal networks of likeminded churches. The idea behind this is to be able to establish events to function as mixers, and ensure pastors can compare notes with other pastors on their marriageable singles.
  3. Correct the overly-romantic view of marriage from both the pulpit and in counseling, by highlighting the confessional three purposes of marriage: helpful companionship, protection against sexual immorality, and the propagation of a godly seed.
  4. Encourage singles to have short lists centered on the three purposes of marriage, rather than long lists for what attributes they are looking for in a potential spouse.

It’s not perfect but it’s a start.

We’ve talked in the past about the dangers of the “red pill.” That term has evolved somewhat since then, but being red pilled still basically involves discovering how blameworthy society in general has been, how bad other people can be compared to you, and how many problems that you thought were your fault actually weren’t.

That’s good because it’s fixing a broken lens.

But we have observed that trouble often comes when men make the blameworthiness of society their entire lens for life.

This sets a new frame on the world, where everything is always someone else’s fault. By default, you are thus always the most virtuous party in any situation.

In other words, the red pill is a helpful lens for getting a clearer and more accurate view of the world. But it is also a lens that can give you a softer, rosier, and less accurate view of yourself—if you don’t apply it consistently.

This is antithetical to growing in grace, which requires you to see your own sins with greater clarity and sorrow than the sins of others.

You need a clear view of both the world, and yourself, to grow in wisdom and righteousness. But you need the latter in far greater proportion to the former.

From Tyrannus Hall: #

One of my cousins wed a local pastor’s son in Tanzania a few years ago (2017 or 2018, I think), and my uncle Bob traveled down to give her away and meet the groom’s family and such.

The Maasai, of whom my cousin-in-law is a member (and my cousin now a member by marriage), kept asking what Bob wanted for her.

As he told it, it was several minutes of, “I want the best for them and to see them walk with Christ and raise up Godly offspring,” et cetera, before he realized they were asking the white American to name his daughter’s bride-price.

“No! I don’t want any cattle or money; you need it more here. I approve of this union and am giving her to your son free of charge, like God gave His son to us free of charge for our salvation!”

I’m paraphrasing of course. But the groom’s father, an Assemblies-of-God pastor who’d be officiating the wedding, was sufficiently impressed with Bob’s point in refusing to take a dowry, that the wedding homily was about dowries being unbiblical in the face of God’s grace, bringing us into His household free of charge.

And because of the frequency there of families incurring massive debt to marry off sons or daughters, it was a moment of, “We need to repent of this and stop it; we’re hurting each other!” for the church there.

Would you would like to be a member of Tyrannus Hall?

Learn more at our members site

A response to a reader critique of our book #

A reader writes with a question about something we say in our book about people like Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan:

I sometimes had the feeling of “whoa, where did that come from?” One specific example was displaying Jordan Peterson as an evil “Absolom” who is trying to steal the heart of the people (page 14, see attached screenshot).

While I don’t necessarily agree with everything JP says, I do respect him a lot for what he has done so far. I know he is probably not a Christian but talkes about Christianity and Jesus with great respect.

So I don’t see what was the reason of you putting him in the same category as Absolom who was clearly an evil person.

Page 14 of It’s Good To Be A Man compares Absalom and Jordan Peterson

This is a reasonable critique. The way we have written is extremely brief, and the association might be confusing without further explanation.

Read what we say here in light of the larger pattern we identify with the two patriarchies.

I.e., we are not saying that Jordan Peterson etc are self-consciously nefarious people. Rather, we are noting that they follow a general pattern which we can find in Absalom: they are subverting the existing order which they perceive to be contrary to the interests of their “constituents” by winning men’s hearts.

Most importantly, they are doing it as sons of the devil, rather than as sons of God.

This doesn’t mean they are self-consciously evil—but it does mean they are not self-consciously seeking God’s ways. It is their ideas that matter to them, not God’s.

So it’s not a question of “X is doing exactly what Absalom did.” It’s rather that X is following a general pattern of stealing men’s hearts by siding with them, but in a way that doesn’t build God’s kingdom because it is based on X’s own wisdom about what is best.

This will inevitably lead to more chaos even if it helps men in the short term.

We weren’t concerned with intent so much as with effect. And we weren’t suggesting that Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Rollo Tomassi, and others, are all just the same. Indeed, we are hopeful of Peterson’s salvation someday soon. Pray for him, that he may be brought into God’s glorious kingdom, and become an instrument for building it.

New content this week: #

Bnonn talks to Shaun Tabatt about why it’s good to be a man (a pretty unique take, we will grant you):

Notable: #

A woman laments being allowed to sign away her life with student loan debt at the age of 17

Read and share this email on the web: #


Talk again next week,

Bnonn & Michael

This email is archived, but you can receive new ones free every Saturday.

Subscribe to Notes on Manhood

You’ll get the newsletter every Saturday morning, Eastern time.


You’re now subscribed to Notes on Manhood. You will get the next newsletter in your mailbox on Saturday.

You can safely close this dialog and keep browsing now.