Raiders of the Lost Covenant

Red-Curious · 2019-04-21T06:47:39+00:00

This is a truly interesting article. I always love reading your stuff, especially when it comes from unique angles that aren't often talked about in RP circles. While my time is limited, let me hit some highlights. Although I understand that your book addresses religion in general, I'm going to reply purely from the Christian biblical perspective (as opposed to the Christian cultural, which the article demonstrates you're already familiar with).

I would still never remarry were I to find myself single tomorrow – I simply cannot endorse marriage, as it exists today, as a good idea for any young man. Remember, this is coming from a guy with a damn good marriage.

I've made remarkably similar comments in the past as well. While my intimate knowledge of marriage law may contribute to this conclusion, the Bible independently leads me to this view as well.

Covenant marriage presumes a mutual religious reverence and understanding of what is expected of a man and a woman before they enter into marriage

While this may be true of the cultural Christianity model, the Bible doesn't make any such prerequisite in the formation of a marriage. While I would still use the word "covenant," the Bible is extremely relaxed on what constitutes a covenant. For example, in Exodus 22:16-17 we see that when two people have unmarried consensual sex, even though they did not intend marriage, the option of marriage must be presented. The implication is that God views the two as married already (i.e. spiritual marriage), which is what triggers the option for a transactional exchange with the woman's father (i.e. legal/contractual marriage). That's not to imply that these laws are still "on the books," so to speak, but that's a much larger conversation.

Why marry at all if what you’re taking away from it is nothing you can’t get outside of marriage without the risk?

Right, but this goes to the underlying premise of the blue pill mentality in the first place, right? What a blue pill man gets out of marriage is not sex, service, support, etc., but the hope that his fantasies in these things might actually come true. There is a power in this ill-placed hope that makes the blue pill so alluring to people that they not only are blind to the red pill, but even those who are aware despise it.

This reminds me of a case where my client's husband exercised stock-purchase options in his company. It was a closely held corporation, so he was honored when they offered him the right to buy-in a 20% interest. He paid FMV. Turns out it was a sinking ship and the partners were trying to unload their interest before the next company valuation, which would have reflected the downturn. The poor guy bought the stock on the hope that being an invested partner would yield a greater result. What's a guy to do? Either he gave his goods and let the other parties walk away scot-free, or he buckled down and saved the company to realize the gains on his investment while the other parties free-loaded on his efforts, him resenting them all the while.

Sound familiar? The constantly devaluing "golden ticket" is the sinking ship.

And for the premarital sex mindset it’s the only game in town if they want sexual access.

Biblically, there are a couple ways to take this.

Per the Exodus passage, above, when sex occurs, an offer of marriage must follow. This is somewhat different from the assumption that an offer of marriage must come first with the sex to follow (at least insofar as a man's ideologies may compare to reality).
This phrase also assumes that a man's want of sexual access would compel him to make an intentional effort of seeking a bride to wed. Philosophically, this is a logical leap to make, but it is still contrary to the theological compulsion of Scripture, so you're speaking only about those men who claim to adhere to theological truth while operating on philosophical principles for decision-making in their own lives.

it serves a purpose to convince oneself that a man’s spouse is necessarily on the same page as they are with respect to his idealistic concept of love (versus a woman’s opportunistic concept of love)

Assuming you've never heard my story, this was the exact situation that led to my marriage. Several years in, my wife admitted openly: "I lied to you about who I was - my sexuality, my spirituality, etc. - in order to get you to marry me." I know many men who can empathize, though their wives have proved less honest (or self-aware) with admitting to what I now see as a shamefully common trope.

he leads with his Emotional Process rather than his Rational Process.

Interestingly, even men in the reverse are not immune if their rational process has a low ceiling. I have met a couple men in the last few months who married because they believed it was the wise thing to do, given influence from church culture (in the absence of their own personal examination of the Bible), even though they felt no emotional passion toward the woman. Both ended up divorced very quickly after.

he wasn’t willing to somehow give up on the heroic fight to reform the ‘Contractual’ marriage

Heroic or idiotically wasteful ... six or half a dozen. I'm all for legal reform, but the Bible only predicts the degradation of society, not a revival of godly principles among secular laws.

To assume a spiritual bond somehow requires acknowledgement from a secular government is nothing short of what should be the most offensive word to spew at any person who claims to follow a religious text: eisegesis.

This has been a constant theme among the Pastors and church leaders I’ve been interviewing

I'm not surprised, but exceptions do exist. I recently red pilled one of my pastors. Sadly, he was fired by the head pastor after less than a year because his ideologies didn't line up with the prevailing church culture. Oops, I guess exceptions don't exist ... at least not for long. No, I don't attend that congregation anymore.

Churches are business franchises today

While I don't disagree in premise, as a matter of unpopular semantics, there's a difference between congregations that we culturally call "churches" and what the Bible actually defines as the church. Your thoughts only reflect those who are following the cultural definition.

For example, Underground Church, by Brian Sanders, goes into great detail about how he has formed a "church network" that does not depend on finances. As such, his ministry throughout Tampa, FL is not dependent on appeasing anyone to maintain a revenue stream. I follow a similar model of ministry that requires even less budget than he has, and I'd expect our numbers are not vastly different. This model frees leaders from the constraints that force them to appease the feminine imperative. That doesn't mean all such leaders will reject the feminine imperative (even Brian Sanders embraces female leaders, for example); rather, that leaders can decide for themselves without financial constraints how they interpret the Bible and lead their people.

to ensure their Pastor is on ‘team woman’

Oh, like when the head pastor of the congregation I just left once preached, "If Jesus were alive today, he'd be tweeting, 'I support #metoo!'"?

“You should’ve married a ‘real’ Christian woman” excuses are something I encounter a LOT from Christian church leaders

Sadly, it's something I've had to fight against regularly even on RPC. There are two ways this plays out:

There are the cases like mine. I'm confident I was better at vetting when single than any of the guys I've yet met on RPC. But no amount of vetting could have seen through my wife's intentional and openly-acknowledged deception to get that ring.
I have also known countless cases where the "real deal" happens to change after the wedding. All women are subject to change.

I simply cannot win the “God says so” clause

Nor should you. If God is real and did say so, wouldn't that be determinative? Nevertheless, as I have often proclaimed here: the secular red pill is merely just now discovering from observation what God said through theological revelation long ago. That is, God most certainly DID NOT "say so," as to the many things you're likely hearing from these pastors when they say that phrase. For example:

“It doesn’t matter if contractual marriage is one of the worst decisions a man can make today – “God says you should marry.”

The God of the Bible never actually says this.
Jesus says in Matthew 19:12, when the apostles suggest that it's better for a man not to marry: "The one who can accept this should accept it."
In 1 Cor. 7 Paul refrains numerous times that it is better not to marry.

Overall, excellent article. While you've hit the nail on the head with regard to mainstream religious culture, there are a few pockets of exception that I've found - many produced through my own ministry, but some even naturally occurring (Dalrock being a great example). These people often part ways with the cultural congregations that dominate the scene, but are significant nonetheless.

I'd be curious if your book presents only the mainstream view, or acknowledges the existence of the rising minority as an actual (perhaps only?) expression of the church. For example, is someone like Dalrock merely reference material, or does his ministry have credibility in your book as an entity to itself? While I'm sure you're unaware of the things branching out of RPC (as I have yet to disclose most of them publicly), would your book assume that groups like us do not exist simply because the mainstream has attempted to monopolize the word "church" under the prevailing cultural model?

I suppose my curiosity here is more in how well you understand ecclesiology and if your book will primarily be targeting a structure that doesn't fit even the most basic bones of biblical ecclesiology in the first place.

rocknrollchuck · 2019-04-21T05:44:02+00:00

Contractual” marriage is an all-downside proposition for men today. I tried to make my best case for why men shun it in the discussion. Naturally, there’s a common impulse for Publicity Pastors to AMOG from the pulpit and shame men for avoiding marriage, but they can’t argue against the marriage stats and the life-destroying fallout of divorce for men. It’s all too verifiable. The marriage & divorce rates today are unignorable, so men deductively go with the pragmatic response and avoid marriage or go MGTOW.

All that means nothing to the faithful Christian mindset. “It doesn’t matter if contractual marriage is one of the worst decisions a man can make today – “God says you should marry.”

“What about the incentive of cash & prizes women have in divorce?”

“Doesn’t matter, God said get married”

So I can’t argue with the divine creator of the universe. God says jump, so you jump. That’s the absolutist-moralist win button for any rational argument to the contrary.

Let's clarify here: God doesn't say "Get married." 1 Corinthians 7:9 is quite clear:

"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

If you have sexual self-control there is no need for the Christian to marry. Marriage is only recommended for those who would sin otherwise. So the statement you've made is misleading. Realize too that for those who are truly serious about their faith (yes, the "True Scotsman"), pastors are not the benchmark - the Bible is.

Also realize that you will never truly understand Christianity and the Christian point of view until you invest some serious time and effort into learning why Christians make a distinction between True Christians and False Christians. There IS a difference, and it's not simply a matter of "us vs. them." It's really the pivotal point of what separates Christians from the rest of the religions out there. I hope you'll take the time to discover what I mean, because your book will not accurately reflect what's really at stake for Christians unless you grasp this concept.

Other than that, this was truly one of your best articles.

[deleted] · 2019-04-21T17:48:22+00:00

Looking forward to the new book! I will listen to the whole podcast...

And yes, I would still never remarry were I to find myself single tomorrow – I simply cannot endorse marriage, as it exists today, as a good idea for any young man. Remember, this is coming from a guy with a damn good marriage. As MGTOWs are fond of saying, endorsing marriage today is leading the lambs to slaughter. I agree. It is simply, statistically, the worst decision a man can make in his life at present, yet so many men want to believe they won’t be one of those statistics.

This confuses a lot of people. Fundamentally, I think the institution of monogamous marriage has been one of the bedrocks of success for western civilization. Marriage is a good idea; it’s how we execute it in the late 20th and 21st centuries that makes it one of the worst prospects imaginable for men. So, I’m technically not anti-marriage; I’m anti-never-saw-it-coming-Pollyana-how-could-she-do-this-to-me?-hypergamy’s-doesn’t-care marriage.

Apparently no ‘real’ Christian woman would ever initiate divorce and if men were only Godly and wise enough to discern from the outset of ‘courting’ that their “bride” wasn’t a fully devoted woman of Christ then it’s their fault for marrying her – or their fault for screwing up God’s perfect plan for his married life later in the marriage. This is ex post facto rationalization that reinforces moralistic beliefs, but also justifies the reaming you’re going to take in divorce court for not being wise and Godly.

Yup - a bunch of BS. There is a Christian book called, "Kingdom Man" which I was told was the most red pilled book to be out there. The first story the guy tells is of this woman murdering her kids because she was in a rocky relationship - she drove her van into a river and they all drowned to death except one. GUESS WHO was blamed???? The man - if only she had a good kingdom man who didn't threaten her earlier that day, then maybe she wouldn't have murdered her kids and done so much evil.

The church has become feminized and men don't care enough. Women make all the decisions on where to go, they complain the most to the pastors about messages, they are the sqeaky wheels and now the church has responded and all the pastors and messages are based on the feminine imperative.

Our country did the same thing. It's all to serve the female. AND our women think they are the most oppressed women on earth. It's insanity to comprehend how a middle class rich white woman thinks she's one of the most oppressed humans in history when in reality she is the most protected, pampered, entitled humans throughout all time. It's truly insane.

“Contractual” marriage is an all-downside proposition for men today. I tried to make my best case for why men shun it in the discussion. Naturally, there’s a common impulse for Publicity Pastors to AMOG from the pulpit and shame men for avoiding marriage, but they can’t argue against the marriage stats and the life-destroying fallout of divorce for men. It’s all too verifiable. The marriage & divorce rates today are unignorable, so men deductively go with the pragmatic response and avoid marriage or go MGTOW.

All that means nothing to the faithful Christian mindset. “It doesn’t matter if contractual marriage is one of the worst decisions a man can make today – “God says you should marry.”

“What about the incentive of cash & prizes women have in divorce?”

“Doesn’t matter, God said get married”

So I can’t argue with the divine creator of the universe. God says jump, so you jump. That’s the absolutist-moralist win button for any rational argument to the contrary.

As one of the few unmarried guys that are probably posting here - I 100% agree with and understand these last comments.

I do believe in Jesus though so while I do agree with and understand the MGTOW position and prefer the never get married thing - if I want to have a family, I would probably get married - if I didn't have a family though - ZERO reason to marry.

Willow-girl · 2019-04-21T11:49:49+00:00

Why marry at all if what you’re taking away from it is nothing you can’t get outside of marriage without the risk?

This is not true, at least in the U.S. As a person in an unmarried partnership, this is a subject of which I'm well aware. There are some Social Security and tax benefits to marriage that you can't get outside of it. OTOH, combining assets through marriage doubles the risk of losing everything under some circumstances. In my age group, the biggest threat isn't "divorce rape," IMO, it's that one spouse will have a heart attack or develop cancer, etc., and the resulting medical bills will wipe out the couple's joint assets and retirement savings.

Title	Raiders of the Lost Covenant
Author	Rollo-Tomassi
Upvotes	9
Comments	16
Date	April 21, 2019 3:05 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/RPChristians
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/RPChristians/comments/bfkhkn/raiders_of_the_lost_covenant/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/RPChristians/raiders-of-the-lost-covenant.301326 https://theredarchive.com/post/301326

datpostmil