This week we’re trying out a new format for emails.
You probably noticed, the last time you got an email from us was quite a while ago. This is partly because creating original content is a hit-and-miss process, scheduling-wise, but mostly because Bnonn’s energy has been sucked up with a battle at his church over accusations that this masculinity stuff is false teaching.
Thankfully, that is now over, so we’re restarting the emails—but with a new format. Basically, from now on, Bnonn is going clip together whatever observations, insights, or news he comes across during the week, that he thinks are worth sharing, and then send these out on Saturday.
So here goes:
Michael joined the Red Man Group this week to discuss the red pill and religion with George Bruno and Anthony Johnson. It was a good show and worth a watch:
We’ve been thinking about women and white knights in the church lately. They’re a bad combination.
When women hold power in a church—whether officially or unofficially—two things tend to happen:
- They strive to include anyone agreeable, regardless of error;
- They strive to exclude anyone disagreeable, regardless of orthodoxy.
This is how women are designed, and it is good—in its proper context. Which is why the proper context for feminine influence is under masculine rulership.
False teachers are experts at being agreeable; men mimicking Jesus and the prophets are highly proficient at the other thing. This, of course, started in Eden with the smooth-talking serpent. In an ecclesial context, therefore, women’s social instincts are roughly inversely proportional to ensuring orthodoxy. Women are likely to approve and endorse flatterers, hirelings, soft men; likely to disapprove and ostracize truth-tellers, shepherds, tough men.
This isn’t fanciful speculation. The data is in. We have multiple independent tests to refer to: mainline denominations, the PCUSA, etc; and now the OPC, PCA, and SBC are mid-experiment. The results are highly predictable because of these basic sexual psychological distinctions.
It’s important to understand how white knights enable and exacerbate the tendency of influential women to lead churches into error. Like women, men have natural instincts that, in their proper place, are good—but removed from it, quickly turn destructive.
Two of our interrelated instincts are to elevate women, and to defend them. Men defend women because we’re made to subdue and protect; women are weaker vessels. We elevate women partly because they are our glory (1 Cor 11), and partly for reasons discussed here:
However, there are many men in the church who have twisted these natural instinct into a mindset that automatically seeks and defers to female approval. This is their default frame.
It is enormously destructive, because it makes them easily-aimed weapons for influential women.
All these women have to do is take offense at someone and turn on the waterworks, and the white knights will unreflectively try to destroy him using any means necessary. And because they are “nice guys,” and using feminine tactics, this means they start with character assassination and whispernets.
The overall effect is a feedback loop of social instincts trained toward conforming everyone to agreeable, approved behaviors, rather than to true but often offensive doctrines. The white knights become chump enforcers for a new orthodoxy. For a real life example, see the pile-on from pastors in the OPC against the men running Genevan Commons, even when these pastors know nothing about the situation:
We’ve noticed a peculiar blind spot with pastors of the baby boomer era. If you’re a Boomer pastor, this is for you:
Modern men are bastards.
Like actual bastards. As in they weren’t fathered. As in they didn’t receive the loving discipline of a father and therefore didn’t “catch” masculinity.
They are really clueless. It isn’t an act.
The things you think should come naturally to a man only come naturally when the natural family is intact. The natural family has experienced rapid decay. The extended family became the nuclear family, and the nuclear family became a single parent family or some chaotic blend.
Sexuality being natural doesn’t mean it’s automatic. Boys are trained into being men. Hence, Proverbs. Girls are trained into being women. Hence, Titus 2. The lack of parents and the prevalence of androgynous assumptions regarding childrearing are preventing this.
So, yes, these men (and women) don’t get what you got “naturally” because that world was destroyed by feminism/modernism and they have grown up in the ash heap. This is why things like the “manosphere” have come into existence. It’s a resistance and reformation movement of sorts.
We’re not down on Boomers. We want to help them understand. Generations tend to have similar tendencies, both good and bad, and one of the bad tendencies we’ve noticed with Boomers over and over again is a kind of obliviousness on this point.
There is only one adventurer in the world, as can be seen very clearly in the modern world, the father of a family. Even the most desperate adventurers are nothing compared with him… Everything is against him. Savagely organized against him. Everything turns and combines against him. Men, events, the events of society, the automatic play of economic laws. And, in short, everything else. Everything is against the father of a family, the pater familias; and consequently against the family. He alone is literally ‘engaged’ in the world, in the age. He alone is an adventurer." - Charles Peguy in Clio 1.
We’ve crossed 6000 likes and are 7000 follows on Facebook. If you were part of that, thank you very much for your support. If you weren’t, and you’re on Facebook, you can find us here:
Talk again next week,
Bnonn & Michael