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.[1]
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.[2][3]
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[4] 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[4]—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.[5] 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?
Footnotes
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] 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 me@derekramsey.com. 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.
[4] 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.
[5] I don’t know if I went far enough, but GunnerQ stopped commenting and has since closed comments on that post.
I have contended with thedeti before about his “in all things”, interpretation over at Spawny’s Space. My opinion is that the understood meaning should be, “in all things lawful”. 1 Corinthians 11:3 spells out God’s chain of command. And I don’t ever see God giving men the authority to override the Father’s own law. Any commands issued in opposition to the command of a superior are already null and void of any delegated authority from that same empowering superior authority which they are presuming to contradict. Using a superior’s delegated authority to override your superior via their own sub-delegation of a limited authority to you is not possible. Superiors don’t delegate the authority to others to override themselves, otherwise the delegate would then in fact be the superior. A husband’s limited subdelegated authority does not enable him to alter or repeal the Father’s overriding laws.
This is an interesting post but it begs the question, “what church?”
The manosphere is not a church. So there is no authority to take it to once the few brothers have discussed it “in private” first.
Your premise is a category error.
We see from scripture that Christ’s church—or congregation—is the body of believers, whether local or universal. It is made up of those who have confessed Jesus as their Lord and Savior. It is not a matter of membership in an denomination. The causation from the correlation flows in this direction: Christ’s church tends to congregate within denominations.
Jesus made it quite plain that the church is any collection of believers—even two or three—gathered together in the name of Christ. It is not a time nor an event nor a location nor an organization.
We will see if Sigma Frame is an arm of Christ’s church or not.
And there it is. If Sigma Frame doesn’t do something like church discipline according to your understanding of it, and [I guess kick Deti off the site or something?] he is not a real Christian.
I didn’t say that, so no.
Then stop being coy. What does “we will see if Sigma Frame is an arm of Christ’s church or not” mean?
Be precise.
Sigma Frame must [fill in the blank action to deal with the false teaching of Deti] OR [what?]
I’m not being coy. This has been taken as far as possible and now can only be administered by the one in authority to do so. It is out of my hands and I have no authority to command what anyone does moving forward. That should be the end of this discussion.
…
Jack’s sole obligation is to obey what Jesus said in Matthew 18. Wouldn’t you agree that failure to obey Christ means that any such gathering is not in Christ’s name?
In any case, there are a number of ways this could take place, but I cannot say what must be done.
Jack could follow your advice, reach out to Deti, and seek resolution before a meatspace congregation. Or Jack could instead take the word of the church of Christians at Sigma Frame (either in those who have already weighed in or in some other format TBD). Only Jack has the power to move this forward.
If the church—whichever takes authority over the matter—decides that a sin has taken place, it can decide what the resolution is in accordance with the Bible’s instructions. Or Jack can decide for himself how to resolve it.
If Jack chooses to do nothing and allows blatant sin to remain, that will be its own answer too.
Jack must obey Christ’s commands in Matthew 18 because Christ is sovereign or else he won’t be obeying Christ.
There is a pattern here with Deti promoting sin and it is the duty of his Christian brethren to attempt to correct it. Not only has he suggested that a wife was obligated to sin, but he promoted divorce….
…and suggested that fornication was not a sin here and here:
These are serious errors.
FYI there are some situations where I would advise divorce too. Like when we are not permitted to properly follow God’s law and execute the adulterer and adulteress. I think it is the very same abomination, if not worse, to welcome them back into a sexual union in the same way that a man cannot again marry the same woman he divorced, after she has been with another man. (Deuteronomy 24:4) Or in the situation when an unbelieving spouse wants to leave. (1 Corinthians 7:15) Like thedeti commented, I probably should have ended things early on when she was refusing to be a Christ follower and was wanting to leave.
Jesus himself said there were cases where divorce was permissible. I’m not referring to those times, but it is good that you pointed it out. That said, divorce is always bad even if it is permissible. Just because it doesn’t rise to the level of adultery in every case doesn’t mean it is a good thing.
Pingback: Despair
Pingback: It's Always Someone Else's Problem
Pingback: Habitually Being Wrong
Pingback: Mutual Submission, Part 10
This was a good exchange, linked to in the 7/9/24 post.. I wish Scott would have kept going instead of dropping out of the back and forth.
Yours and Sharkly’s exchanges were normal here also.
It does raise a question though, you formulate that the blog space is a church of sorts, or can be. Without pushing that too far, but only looking at one thing -distractions. Distractions aren’t a meatspace issue because a person would get removed from a service, a physical, by-force, expulsion. Maybe not even Tourette-type of noises, but let’s say a person responds loudly to the sermon with “amen” loudly, but no one else does. Or asks questions aloud.
Not really a sin, but definitely disorderly.
So my question is about online “church” Distractions. Do you think it’s possible to derail online talks with long and multiple posts, that aren’t on-topic, or only tangentially so? The post and comments above are edifying, without Distractions, and it’s refreshing.
Surfdumb,
As with Jack, Sharkly once showed me the benefit of the doubt, but I’ve since “revealed my true colors.” What you see now is the consequence: no longer are they willing to treat with me as a brother in Christ. For Sharkly this is explicit, for Jack this is implicit.
For Scott, it was always passive aggressive (or worse), despite the appearances. To wit:
You wouldn’t say that if you saw his other comments. To maintain Christian charity, I deleted our interaction and modified article(s) to remove quotation(s).
The OP was written just before Scott’s GiveSendGo and his angry tirade where Jack put Sharkly and me in moderation (but did nothing about Scott’s personal attacks). Remember this angry comment by Jack?
See Scott’s comment here, made shortly before the OP was written. That is the same thread that led directly to “Mutual Submission, Part 8” (and your advice to me in the previous article) It’s all connected in ways you may not have been aware.
The men at Sigma Frame generally won’t converse with me here, whether Jack, Scott, Deti, Info, RPA, etc. To do so would be to legitimize my authority, to be submissive (in the biblical sense). Commenting about me elsewhere—including gossip—is to be preferred to direct interaction and constructive debate. Some even ‘group shame’ those who comment here. That’s been the pattern since (at least) the above happened.
Yes, of course. But what do we mean by derailing discussion?
Do you remember the backdrop behind all the drama above? It was my discussion on Roman Catholicism with Kentucky Gent in October, 2022.
It was that topic that raised the issue of what constitutes marriage and whether marriage is a covenant, contract, or sacrament. That conversation was objectively “derailed”, but it also drove the topic of conversation on Sigma Frame and this blog for parts of more than a year. The effects are still ongoing! Whole topical discussions and many dozens of posts have been influenced by that initial “derailed” discussion.
If you read those weeks of comments, you’ll see that the basis for the conversation was actually on-topic, but that the discussion naturally led back to the assumptions and axioms underlying the basis for that discussion.
Would you say that my discussion with Kentucky Gent was also edifying without distractions?
As I implied back then, long discussions over weeks or months are an indication that a proper discourse is taking place. I thought my discussion with Kentucky Gent was highly constructive, relatively calm, and informative. It was, admittedly, very long and detailed, but we had a lot of material to go through.
Peace,
DR
Speaking of distraction, here is what I wrote on 2022-09-28:
Surfdumb,
There has been a long history of back-and-forth interaction between this blog and Sigma Frame. I think that this history is lost on many people. I’ve documented the history below for the record. You may find it informative. If not, skip to the bottom.
————————————————————————————————
It all began after “Only Hunky Monks can find a Sanctified Marriage” (2022-08-26) @ Sigma Frame. I questioned the central tenants of Red Pill orthodoxy. I wrote a response in “Sanctified Marriage: Part 1” (2022-08-29), kicking off the beginning of a series that would fuel the interaction between the two blogs (e.g. Sigma Frame would link to three of the first six articles in the series).
A few days later, “The Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife Analogy” (2022-08-29) @ Sigma Frame, became one of the most influential articles on that site. Then, in the comments under “On Choosing the Flesh Over Christ” @ Sigma Frame (2022-09-10), I commented on Jack’s portrayal of sanctification and the error of focusing on authority. I got into a discussion on headship with RPA until he started hurling insults. Then I wrote “Sanctified Marriage: Part 2” (2022-09-12), “Sanctified Marriage: Part 3” (2022-09-12), “Kephalē in the New Testament: A Review” (2022-09-13), “Kephalē in the New Testament: The Meaning” (2022-09-14) while continuing the related discussion at SF. Once the discussion died down, I wrote the related “Sanctified Marriage, Part 4” (2022-09-16), Headship: Authority or Preeminence?” (2022-09-22), and “exousia vs authentein” (2022-09-23).
A few days later, “5 Years with Σ Frame” @ Sigma Frame (2022-09-27), Jack reviewed the previous five years, placing current emphasis on sanctification. In the comment section, info and I renewed the debate on headship.
In response, I wrote “Sanctified Marriage: Part 5” (2022-09-27), “Chiastic Structure of Ephesians 5:22-33” (2022-09-28), “Authority Saves the Day!” (2022-09-29), and “The Head-Body Metaphor” (2022-10-01).
(It is within this context that the discussion between myself and Kentucky Gent took place. I wrote a series of related articles on Roman Catholicism during that time.)
A couple weeks later, “Woman submit to their Head” @ Sigma Frame (2022-10-17), argued for headship.
As I was discussing Roman Catholicism, I did not respond until much later, when I followed it up with “The Meaning of Head in Colossians 2:9-10” (2023-04-12) and “Headship: An Evidence Summary” (2023-04-13). A few days later, “The Tennant Authority Structure” @ Sigma Frame (2023-04-17), cited those two articles.
(It was during this time that things got really heated with Scott. He questioned my motivations and so I wrote them down.)
I wrote “An Analysis of Genesis 3:16” (2023-04-17) and “The Context of Genesis 3:16” (2023-04-18). Then Scott wrote his comment (where he mocked mutual submission and sola scriptura) and Deep Strength responded by citing Grudem. In that same thread I also debated with Deti on mutual submission and responded with the article “Divine Command Theory” (2023-04-18)
In the comment section under “16 Bible Passages for Teaching Wives and Daughters about Male-Female Roles and Marriage,” Scott began a significant discussion, in which I took part, regarding whether or not marriage was a sacrament. We’ll come back to that in a bit.
I wrote “Male-Female Roles in Marriage” (2023-05-15) which was the subject of “Invisible Magic Authority” @ Sigma Frame (2023-12-13). I wrote “John Chrysostom vs the Red Pill” (2023-05-16) and “The Master of the House” (2023-05-17). I wrote “Sanctified Marriage: Part 6” (2023-05-24), which was one of the case studies in “Brides are Subject to Vetting” @ Sigma Frame (2023-10-23). I wrote “Sanctified Marriage: Part 7” (2023-05-25).
Then “Cathodoxy’s Sacramental Marriage Construct” @ Sigma Frame (2023-05-29) referenced back to that discussion Scott started on marriage as a sacrament. I responded with “Cathodoxy’s Axiom” (2023-05-30).
(It is within this context that I wrote “Correcting Sin in the Church” on 2023-05-31.)
Under “Are Common-Law Marriages the most Biblical?” @ Sigma Frame (2023-06-03) the discussion with Scott got so heated that Jack placed Sharkly and myself in moderation and told me to stick to my own blog (not that I hadn’t already been doing that, as you can see above).
In response I wrote “Axioms of Faith” (2023-06-05). In “Divided We Fall” @ Sigma Frame (2023-06-06), Jack lamented about the division that he himself was actively causing (falsely accusing Sharkly and I of “making arguments in bad faith / intellectual dishonesty / trolling” and later of “Active Persecution”). A year later, Jack is still writing about this topic. Meanwhile, the interaction with Scott had gotten so heated, that I wrote “Hate the sin, not the sinner” (2023-06-07) in response to his abuse.
Coinciding with this, Jack posted “The Peaceful Unity Marriage Model” @ Sigma Frame (2023-06-07), which was recently referenced in a few of the recent articles/comments at Sigma Frame. I followed this up with “Choosing one or the other” (2023-06-09), “Why is the Sacrament of Marriage Important?” (2023-06-13), “Sacraments are the reason for the Priesthood” (2023-06-13), “What is Grace?” (2023-06-14), “Authority or Unity in Marriage?” (2023-06-15), “Marriage isn’t Magic” (2023-06-21), “Unity in the Church” (2023-06-22)
In “The Mystery of Glorifying a Provision for the Flesh” @ Sigma Frame (2023-06-20), “Meta Cognitions” @ Sigma Frame (2023-06-23) and “Synopsis of Sacramental Marriage” @ Sigma Frame (2023-06-25), Jack referenced a number of the above posts.
At this point things mostly dried up between Sigma Frame and my blog for a while.
Then “Brides are Subject to Vetting” @ Sigma Frame (2023-10-23) was written and I wrote “Paul’s Use of Submission” (2023-10-25), “Jesus Sanctified Himself” (2023-10-25), “Christian Discernment” (2023-10-26), “The Structure of Ephesians 5” (2023-10-27), “Women Act; Women Acted Upon” (2023-10-30).
(At this point, in early November, 2023, my discussion with Sharkly began and continued for a few months.)
In November, 2023, Jack linked to two of my articles to from one of his articles, so I wrote “On Sacrifice and Sanctification” (2023-11-06). In December of 2023, Sigma Frame wrote three different articles that linked to seven different articles on this blog.
————————————————————————————————
I had mostly stopped interacting with Sigma Frame on this blog after June of 2023, confining most of my writings to this blog.
My engagement rate on that blog’s comment section was a mere 7% of articles in 2023, and dropped off precipitously after June, 2023, when I was censored:
The only reason I began commenting again was because Jack stop censoring me. Yet, even after my most recent ban this year, I had already long since stopped commenting on most articles.
On this blog, I linked to Sigma Frame (whether articles or just comments) in less than 20% of articles from July, 2023 to May, 2024. Considering the previous interaction (as described above), this was quite a change. To illustrate this by contrast, I’ve linked to Sigma Frame in 10 different articles or comments in the last 30 days!
But that didn’t stop Jack from writing “Signs of Demise” where he wrote:
Almost every part of this paragraph is lie. Yes, five different lies: I pointed out the errors, and Jack has knowingly and intentionally refused to correct the known falsehoods. He knows they are wrong, but persists in leaving that slander up on his site.
The personal attacks have ramped up even while hiding behind obviously false claims of being victims.
————————————————————————————————
As you can see, there has been a lot of fruitful back-and-forth between this blog and Sigma Frame for a long time, but the tone changed from April to June of 2023. You wouldn’t know it from Scott’s comments above, but the irony is that the hostility was mostly kicked off by Scott’s comments, complaints, and inability to stay calm in the face of disagreement. So even though Scott is gone, the well has been poisoned. I’m now forced to decide whether or not to walk away. The reason it is no longer fruitful is because the other party has become hostile, even as I remain who I have been the entire time.
Peace,
DR
Frankly, I had GBFM in mind because when I was going through the articles looking for your questions, it became tedious because of the multiple, same-note, comments filled by quotations. It’s as if length is on purpose since it was the same at SS. So it seems that type of online “tick” seems either purposefully malignant or a cry for help. Since this post is about excommunication, it led me to wonder about the techno-version, especially in cases of actions that don’tappear to be sin. I wasn’t realizing it may have made you think of SF. Do you have more thoughts about distractions on Christian blogs in light of my examples? I think yelling, “amen” in a church normally quiet is an apt example, and not as personal as GBFM’s multiple long posts.
It’s a responsibility to have a blog because let’s say someone is on edge and gets moderated or suspended, and then has no other outlet and hurts themselves. It’s not your responsibility, but it would be sad. In the “amen” hypothetical, confronting such a person privately and lovingly is still most likely to fall flat and result in that person looking for another church, and in some cases, have a damaged faith. But as a consumer, I thought Sharkly’s banning of a Christian woman made the blog much more enjoyable, as one example.
Surfdumb,
Forgive. Allow for discernment. Be kind, gentle, and full of grace (“tolerance”).
But let’s be clear: excommunication is about not treating someone as a fellow Christian, the same as you’d treat an unbeliever. In earthly terms, this isn’t as severe a punishment as it seems. It is largely the spiritual consequences that matter.
I understand what you are saying, and it is probably a valid criticism, but this blog is a home for outcasts, even if that makes the content tedious. As Jason noted, everyone has their own cross to bear. We can do little but show grace.
I’ve attended a meatspace church where I’ve been similarly frustrated by the behavior of other members of the congregation. My advice to myself was “get over yourself and show some humility.”
It’s also worth noting that it was largely the Professor who got a number of people to come to this blog in the first place by advertising it. BtM, Sharkly, Liz, and others did not leave because of lengthy comments from the Professor. Most (but not all) left because of me.
I once told ‘someone’ who was criticizing the Professor—and my lack of criticism of the Professor—that if they really feel the way they do, then they should thank me for “distracting” the Professor here, for if I didn’t give him a home, he’d just go somewhere else. But what happens when he has nowhere to go? That’s what you’ve alluded to here.
This blog will never be run in a populist or popular manner. I’ve recently lost a number of commenters, and I’m not trying to get them back. I suppose once Jason leaves, that will be the final straw for the comment section and I’ll go back to writing posts for nobody but myself. There is no limit to popular blogs giving people what they want to hear. This just isn’t one of them.
Misfits are welcome here, just beware that spot on the floor.
Peace,
DR