Over at Sigma Frame, Jack is concerned about violations to his comment policy.
This is exactly why the comment policy says…
2 — Comments vehemently attacking religious faiths of any variety are subject to moderation.
7 — Please refrain from making assumptions or accusations about whether anyone is a “true believer”, or a “born again Christian” or not. I believe it’s impossible to know the answer to this question without knowing the person on a day-by-day, face-to-face basis. Instead of resorting to this brand of ad hominem, readers should be attempting to comprehend the viewpoints offered, and place them within a meaningful context, preferably the one intended.
This time, it is my own fault.
— comment by Jack @ Sigma Frame, “An Open Letter to Christian Wives“
Jack had questioned a man’s claim to be a Christian, in clear violation of his own comment policy. His comment was precipitated by the article which claimed that a husband could command his wife to abort—murder—their child:
“Well, what if he wants me to get an abortion??” Then you do what he demands. You picked him.
— thedeti, “An Open Letter to Christian Wives”
The following discussion ensued:
So you’re okay with abortion if that’s the father’s choice? Great Christian teaching here.
— comment by nellperkins
Yeah, OP is wrong on that one. Nobody can force you to commit a sin, especially a mortal one. Not even God will ask you to do that. You are allowed to refuse if your husband is asking you to rob a bank. But as long as it is not a sin, a wife should comply.
— comment by Bardelys the Magnificent
The Word says wives are to submit to husbands, even when those husbands are in sin, nonChristian, do evil, and are evil. The Word says they’re to submit to their husbands in everything. Everything means EVERYTHING.
— comment by thedeti
See Deti’s reply to me below. I don’t need to say any more. But I do assume that Deti is, in fact, not a Christian.
— comment by nellperkins
I really couldn’t care less whether someone believes I am not a Christian based on my reading of a very clear, very plainly written verse that is by its very terms absolute…
— comment by thedeti
I had also weighed in, pointing out how thedeti was advocating that a wife sin, in clear violation of scripture.
Jack’s worry over the comment policy is a secondary concern. Nitpicking comment policy violations while not correcting a greater sin is analogous to Jesus’ warning in the Sermon on the Mount. If Jack’s and nellperkins’ comments were following Jesus’ commands in Matthew 18 to confront a brother’s sin, that duty overrides any comment policy.
Jack at Sigma Frame allows and defends anonymity (as opposed to, for example, Bruce Charlton who bans anonymous comments on his blog). This means that commenters cannot be contacted privately, nor a sinning brother brought before witnesses or the congregation. Public comments are the best (and only) remaining way to address the blatant sin of advocating sin.
By my count, five witnesses—myself, nellperkins, professorGBFMtm, Bardelys the Magnificent, and Sharkly—have attested to Deti’s error and confronted him with it, more-or-less satisfying the second step of the process laid out by Jesus. The only remaining step is for the whole congregation to decide if a sin has taken place, and in the further absence of repentance to delete the offending post and comments and to excommunicate the offender. The duty to facilitate this falls to the leader of this congregation.
It is the responsibility of the (possibly de facto) leader of any congregation to ensure that sin that occurs within his domain is corrected. It is also imperative that there be a way to resolve sin within the church according to Christ’s commands. To fail to do this invalidates such a forum as an arm of the church. If the comment policy takes priority over implementing Matthew 18, then it is not a Christian forum.
For all the talk about headship authority, two things lacking in the manosphere are the willingness (1) to submit to authority; and (2) to execute authority where required. Authors and commenters are generally not willing to submit to the church’s judgment, nor are leaders willing to reign in sin. I suspect this is why some feel like it is all falling apart:
“One of the main downsides of the manosphere and its now remnants is the wildly variant sectarianism.”
— comment by The Eye of Sauron
“I have noticed that schisms have been appearing all over the manosphere lately.”
— comment by Jack
In a healthy church, schism is the natural end-point of following the Matthew 18 protocol. Assuming it indicates anything negative at all, schism in the manosphere may be highlighting a refusal to confront sin and/or a refusal to repent, that is, to follow the Matthew 18 protocol. Debate itself is not the problem, nor is schism, but a failure to acknowledge error and to repent might be. Moreover, refusal to schism—or at least excommunicate—when necessary is a clear violation of Jesus’ teachings.
When GunnerQ publicly excoriated me (in contravention to Matthew 18), I did two things. First, I repented as best I could: I edited my original post to address GunnerQ’s concerns and updated my site to make my purpose clearer. Second, I suggested that he review my posts before I posted them, so that another Christian could provide spiritual guidance and correction. He did not accept the suggestion.
Why is it that the Christian manosphere has compartmentalized the commands of Jesus? Following his conflict resolution protocol has been largely made literally impossible. How can the manosphere be part of Christ’s church if it does not follow the commands of Christ? In what way can it be called Christian and its members Christians?
 If a person refuses to repent, the Bible instructs the church to treat them as if they are unbelievers. This doesn’t mean they are not Christian before God, for no man can know the heart of another, but they must be treated by the church as if they are pagans.
 I’ve written thousands-upon-thousands of words on my disagreement of patriarchy. I think it is based on non-biblical principles, that is, it is merely wrong. It does not advocate sin. This is different.
 I allow anonymous comments, but I am not anonymous. If anyone wishes to confront me privately man-to-man, Christian-to-Christian, in accordance with Matthew 18, my email address is firstname.lastname@example.org. I must assume that anyone who confronts me with sin publicly or anonymously is either not a Christian or is a Christian possibly violating Matthew 18, but in any case their possible sin is their own responsibility. I recommend against anonymity. There is no duty to confront someone privately if one is only arguing that they made a mistake and did not sin.
 Excommunication does not necessarily mean banning. To “…treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector…”, that is, an unbeliever, is not the same as kicking them out. It is, properly, disfellowshipping. The purpose of excommunication is twofold. First, it is to remove sin in the church. Second, it is the final attempt to try to get a person to repent in order to restore lost fellowship.
 I don’t know if I went far enough, but GunnerQ stopped commenting and has since closed comments on that post.