An article was recently released, “On BAPism and Christianity”; do you see now, the siren song of ‘Nietzschian Christianity’? The Devil, perhaps, doesn’t tempt – but, much like feminism, merely points out a real problem and offers a false solution. The problems are real. But is a growing paganism really a solution? Why does it seem so tempting? Why doesn’t anyone else seem to be offering a solution to the very real problems described? This is the key point.
Regarding, first of all, the ‘Christian critique of Nietzschianism’ in the aforementioned article, one can go ‘beyond’ our modern conceptions of good and evil and still find certain things good, and others evil. BAP is not contradicting himself or missing a hidden pseudo-Christian worldview when he supports the lives of wolves – wolves, in his worldview, have a greater right to life than humans – by their behavior and animal focus on strength and pack brotherhood. Where he contradicts himself, perhaps, is the fact that wolves wouldn’t be killed if they were really strong, and not weak – life, in the end, even vitality itself, may have proven itself weak in the face of the cult of mechanical existence, of death and decay. This is perhaps a more important point than many seem to realize – Christ, after all, came to support the weakest – but it’s a digression, nonetheless.
My main point is fairly simple: Christianity is not masculine because it is no longer following Christian beliefs when they become inconvenient. Corinthians is especially telling – how many have read, or obey? Wives must obey their husbands in all things! Wives should not deprive their husbands – what would the feminist churches say? No divorce! Not even an unbeliever. Is this taught, or enforced? More significantly is verse calling for women to always be silent in church – I wonder, how could these Protestant churches be women’s clubs at all if women weren’t allowed to talk? Further, the same section talks about how women are not even able to question the teachings directly, but instead must ask their husband to interpret the priest or pastor’s words, and only at home. Women must dress modestly, cover their heads, and obey men! Christianity has ceased to be Christian, in a deeper sense – “as the Law says”! Indeed. They ignore the law when it comes to women. How can women be advocating for a female Catholic priesthood? Advocating? Why are they even speaking? Should perhaps be our first question.
They might ask, then: why are these rules, as you interpret them, so important? The answer is clear: don’t you see? Men are nowhere to be found! Your churches are female. The church is not female. Nor is it a bride. It is a chosen child, as we are all children of God. I cannot be Catholic, I suppose, because it seems the worship of Mary is a profound mistake. Perfectly happy are these bridal churches, I suspect, to admonish the sins of lecherous men, of aggressive men, lust, passion, etc, etc – but do they admonish the women, who deprive men, or dress immodestly (dangerous territory, I know!) with uncovered heads, and thus lead men into temptation. According to their own text, no less! Do not deprive, it says, or lead each other into temptation! How deprived is the unmarried man who hasn’t the strength to be holy. Paul, interestingly, didn’t suggest that people simply repress their desire as seems common among modern Christian teachings – he said get married if you lacked the gift of sexual self-control! And which of the two sexes, today, presents the greatest obstacle to that path for so many men? More relevantly, I can’t imagine Paul would have admonished his followers: ‘you men are not pagan enough, not vitally masculine enough (not enough a servant of Mammon, perhaps) to deserve marriage! The women are right to deny you and sleep with many stronger men!’ This is the path of pagan Christianity.
Let’s go back for a second: women must not question the teachings directly, but must ask their husbands to interpret. The implications of this are, perhaps, more interesting than are immediately apparent (for reference, 1 Corinthians 14:35). All women are to ask their husbands? All women in church, shockingly, are to ask their husbands. Then, can we ask, where are the single women? And what about the single women? It seems, for all practical purposes, they don’t exist. Curiously absent is a strongly defined set of rules for matching and mating – perhaps, because, whatever was happening at the time didn’t need to be changed (excepting, of course, a little more female subordination). How many single women are in churches today, I wonder, asking questions, speaking, interpreting the Bible themselves, or doing other things which should be scandalously irreligious, but somehow aren’t.
Christianity is no longer masculine because it is no longer solving the problem men experience in the real world. Men, especially masculine men, recognize they have to compete for the favor of these pagan women – who, in selecting for fitness, emulate nature – and the church does nothing for them; it only, perhaps, attacks them for their competitive behavior. This attack is deserved, but what is a masculine man to do? Not compete? Perhaps he is lucky, and finds a woman who isn’t just a pagan girl larping as Christ’s servant, and is one of the few men to join a church. Or perhaps he joins the prosperity gospel, which seems to revel in the spoils of competition as ordained by God. These Laws in the Holy Bible served a purpose! They solved a very real problem, not just for men, but for women, who are secure and free also from female competition – a different, but also cruel, reality of the pagan world.
What solution does the addition of BAP to Christianity really offer? BAP doesn’t want women to be forced back into the kitchen, of course – what does he want? He wants to write, I imagine, an erotic novel for women which will seduce them back into their proper role. He wants men to become cruel pagans, strong and vital – and perhaps weak for their anachronistic posturing – in order to, again, seduce women into choosing, for now, to obey. However, a law is something that is enforced; it’s not an opt-in opt-out arrangement, depending, most likely, on whether they believe their husband is strong enough for them, today, tomorrow, every day for the rest of their lives the husband has to display himself for her.
Christianity solved a problem for men, now Christianity ignores it, in favor of the pagan dreams of its feminized, often homosexual, adherents. I know little of Orthodoxy, but I heard of a marriage ceremony, and a priest, at least, talk about how women we defined as subordinate to their husband, and how a female onlooker exclaimed it as slavery, amusingly – reflecting the view of the typical modern Christian. Perhaps the Orthodox do it right, I can’t say. I haven’t heard an Orthodox woman speak (kidding!). But all I know is, more paganism is not the answer.
A BAPian Christianity may be filled with more men, but it would be a profoundly unchristian place. The men would be strong and proud-eyed, and would hate the weak man who approached – dare I say, the feminine man who approached and begged help, would be destroyed, when he should be saved. And as for the men themselves, save for a rare few paragons they would have that miserable sort of strength which I have seen men’s eyes – a strength bordering on hatred, which results from a life which is only struggle for dominance and advantage, no matter how superficially Christian their lives may seem to be.