A Response to Jason’s Comments.

Readership: Jason (lastmod); Lexet; Derek (ramman3000); Others who may be interested;

Dear brother Jason,*

This week, you left quite a few comments under Monday’s post, Courtship and Power (2020 February 17), which was Lexet’s critique of an earlier article on Sigma Frame, Models of Courtship and Marital Structure (2018 October 3).

You’ve covered a lot of ground in all your comments, and it took me a while to see what you’re really getting at.  Just to let you know I haven’t forgotten about you, I wrote this post to cover some of the issues you brought up.

Here, I cited several of your comments, which are followed by my views on the matter.

On the Male Social-Sexual Hierarchy

“So, a beta, or cuck, or chump, or simp who is married… is alpha because he is leading his life?  He works hard at his job, initiative, leads his life… or is still a cuck because he doesn’t agree with Dalrock, or DS, or others… but takes responsibility, works hard, and has initiative…

What I am seeing more and more… in Red Pill, in MGTOW, in the general “help” for men is this:

Being an Alpha is pretty much strictly now a “genetic” thing.  You were born a certain way, or have a certain temperament, and now you are deemed “alpha”.

The rest need to study, hair-split words, spend a vast amount of free time reading medieval literature to find out how much of a cuck they are…  study, study, study…  and then be told “Umm, no…  alpha also means this”.”

“I just don’t like people claiming a term that most could and will never attain and how goalposts move and shift like the mist.  People claiming this or breaking other men down into scales like this just seems very unchristian to me.”

Concerning the greek letter male hierarchy, I just see it as a generalized typological model.  Each type represents a certain kind of attitude, a social strategy, and an area of expertise (and weakness).  All men fit into every type in some aspect of their lives, while no man fits perfectly into only one type.  If you’re confused about which type you are, then you’ve missed the forest for all the trees.  It’s just an abstract model to describe behaviors.

Using myself as an example, I identify as a sigma because it describes my outlook, my values, and the general trend of my behaviors.  It doesn’t mean I’ve never ever behaved as an obsequious, supplicating beta, or a cynical, self-righteous gamma, or even a reclusive, nihilistic omega, because I have.  Everyone has under certain circumstances at some point in their lives.  But the value of having the hierarchy nomenclature is that these terms allow us to label these behaviors and talk about them in an easy-to-understand way.

Concerning the Biblical Legitimacy of the Ontological Power-Based Presumptions in the Study of Courtship Models

“Did Jesus punch evil doers in the mouth?  Did he brag about himself being a provider?  He was trained or training to be a carpenter but he never once mentioned his provider status.  He even told slaves to obey their masters…  Did these men refuse to act?

Scripture may clearly define masculinity…  Have your yes mean yes, and your no mean no…  But I don’t recall anywhere talking “power” and “courtship” or so many steps, models to follow, and when to implement them, or having marriage is being masculine.”

You’re right that (the word) power is not mentioned in the context of marriage anywhere in the Bible.  This whole study of courtship models is an attempt to think outside the box and start from the ground up.  It’s a fresh approach to the problem.  Does that make it wrong or unbiblical?  We’re yet to find out.  In the meantime, we’ll be learning how things work and why God’s way is best.

Having a proper appreciation for Language Texts

“Why have church if the translation boils down to is “well, you have to know Greek and Aramaic.”  So is now being Alpha in the Christian sense, “he knows Greek and Aramaic”?  So now anyone else is a beta, chump, cuck, simp for not knowing this?  Will the ante be upped further?  “Well, he can speak these languages… but what seminary, what university does he teach at, and who did he study under?  Which texts did he translate?”

“Why have the bible in English if every word is going to be hair-split, have dual meanings, and meanings that could be, or might be, or should be.  This is like the former President Clinton lecturing us on what the word “is” means back in 1998.

Why even worry, ponder or even debate what Jesus said, or Paul, or Moses, or what king said what to whom when we don’t know what they really meant…  you know…  because we don’t know Greek or Aramaic, and you should…  and if you don’t?  Well, “trust us” we know what he really meant.  So why read the bible, study it… if everything is “Well, that’s up for debate, you don’t know Greek and don’t know what he really meant”

If indeed Jesus’s message was for all, and its “very simple, easy to understand” most followers have made it into something that is a lifelong quest and you still may not know “what it means”.  Face it, this faith is for the arrogant, the high intellect and self-righteous.  They also spend more time now debating on how a few poets and writers made it into feminism back in 967 AD or whatever.”

Just how important is our mastery of ancient languages (i.e. Greek and Aramaic) when studying the Bible?

If you can learn something from it, then that’s great!  But if it is confusing or frustrating to you, or if you know it’s never going to bring you closer to God, nor fulfill your purpose for living, then why break a sweat about it?

We come closer to God through opening our hearts to the truth of the Gospel, not by opening our minds to the Biblical exegeses of John MacArthur or William Lane Craig, et al. (although it does happen that way for some).  Some people have the heart to learn more about God, and they share what they’ve learned with others.  We can be thankful for that.

The same goes for any other advanced topic, like martensitic phase transformations in equiatomic alloys, thermal/intrinsic stress in thin films, or glissile dislocation generators that increase the entropy in hexagonal crystals.  (These are my own areas of expertise, and no, I’m not GeekMOGing.)  I don’t blog about these subjects because it’s unreasonable to expect anyone to know everything there is to know about any particular subject, or even take any interest in it.

This is essentially what Derek said when he wrote,

“Scholars do the work of translation and analysis.  In seminary the clergy learn language concepts, but otherwise utilize and rely on the material produced by scholars (including whole Bible translations).  Nevertheless, large numbers of clergy delve into the original languages in preparation for their weekly sermons.  Layman don’t generally have the interest and/or ability to do this, so they rely on the clergy to teach them.

Just because someone has to do it doesn’t mean everyone does, but the output of their work is extremely important.  Nobody has to learn other languages.  It is okay to be a follower.”

The thing about being a follower is that you have to trust that the authority is telling you the truth of the matter.  Much of the argument and debate surrounding the definitions of this greek word or that one, are really about whether we can trust that interpretation as being true.  Even experts disagree and falter in trust.  No one knows everything with 100% certainty.

I believe this is where you might be running into trouble – you’re afraid to trust.  There is a fear that either they might be wrong and lead you astray, or they might abuse your trust.  I’m not saying this to ridicule or reject you, but rather to affirm your experience as authentic.  I too struggle with trust as a result of childhood issues.  But being aware of it is a huge step in overcoming it.

For example, although I may know a lot about one field of study, it’s just not constructive for me to read those research papers about other things I know nothing about, and then criticize the authors for being deliberately confusing and arrogantly high-minded.  I have to realize that deep down, the reason why I want to reject those authors/papers is because I can’t trust (or even understand) what they’re saying.  Going further, I have to recognize that my inability to trust has no correlation to whether a matter might be true or not.  The problem is with me.  As I wrote in an earlier post, The Evils of Solipsism (2019 November 19),

“I am foolish, therefore, objective truth exists.”

I could very well be excluding myself from some information that would make my life better.  But if I can’t help myself by overcoming my inability to trust, then the next best thing I can do is to know when to put my fork down, and to not be ashamed of admitting my limitations.  I can’t assume to be the most noteworthy expert on every matter, and that’s fine.  That’s just less work and responsibility for me!

So stick to whatever it is you do best.  If you can’t trust the source, and you don’t know any better, then put it on the back burner for a while.  If it is really, truly important in the grand scheme of things, you can be assured that God will continue to bring it up again (and again) in a different way, maybe one you can understand next time around.

Honest Discussion Requires a bit of Trust (Faith)

“I encourage readers to leave comments that are insightful regarding the topic, or which might prove useful to other readers.”

Translation: Agree with my post / take on this”

You might be surprised to know that it doesn’t really matter whether you agree or disagree.  As far as this blog is concerned, agreement and disagreement are both educational.  There are benefits either way.  If you agree, then we might build trust.  But if you disagree, and you could articulate exactly why you disagree, then you would be contributing some valuable insight to the topic.  You also invite others to trust you.

The point of all this blogging and discussion is to hopefully learn some things in the process.  I know I have, and I hope you have too.

So have you?

“I read the article, your insights are brilliant.  If only men just were Alpha, not beta everyone would be married.  I was a loser and a chump and I read your advice, now I am an Alpha, and now I am going to be married to a top tier woman.  Thanks!  I am studying Greek right now so I can lead, teach and be a real mighty man of God who is doing his bidding: being Alpha, getting married to a woman who just wants men to be aggressive!  Thank you so much.  You should publish a book!”

Brother, I can see through you.  The insincerity here is all too obvious.

I’m sorry Jason.  If we haven’t gained your trust, or if you can’t believe anything we’re saying, or buy into the discussion here, then what are we offering to you?  What do you get out of reading and commenting?

We want to know what you think, but you’re not telling us your honest opinion, and we feel disappointed that you won’t share your mind with us.

Concluding Statements

Here and on other sites, you’ve said a lot about how lousy (the converged) church is, and how inconsiderate Churchians can be.  Most of us can empathize with you about that.  We’ve experienced much of the same.  But we’re not satisfied with the way things stand, nor will we be content with resigning ourselves to a fatalistic outlook.  I hope you could agree on this point.

We know the church is converged.  We know the current “Courtly Love” model of chivalry doesn’t work.  We know the current “Christian” methods of getting into a marriage are not all that different from the wider secular culture.  Thus, it seems ridiculous that people should expect the results to be different just because they show up to a church service once a week and stick a Jesus label on it.  There has to be more to the story.  But what?

In the previous post, Is Biblical Courtship Possible? (2020 February 19), Ed Hurst pointed out a major ontological reason why courtship in the west is a sham.  I think this is quite informative of where western culture stands in relation to both the world’s historical norm and what facilitates God’s blessings.  Does that mean we need a revolution first in order to do God’s will?  No, it’s just some insight that helps us understand where we are and what we’re dealing with.

We invite others to join us in this discussion, including you, Jason!

What do you honestly think about all these new ideas about courtship models (or any other topic)?  Of course, you’re free to disagree, but please do all of us the favor of telling us why.

Best regards!

Your younger brother Jack

* Readers can see more of Jason at his blog, Top Face – The Aging Mod’s Forgotten Story.

Related