# BAP, or how to engage Biblically with the stranger recesses of the internet



## Irenaeus (Apr 20, 2021)

Is anyone here familiar with the pseudonymous writer/internet figure known as Bronze Age Pervert? It's difficult to sum up his writings in a nutshell. Despite my general aversion to Wikipedia, I find that this article gives a fairly decent, quick, and objective summary. One can also get some further idea of his writing by reading the reviews of his book on Goodreads. To spare busier souls the trouble of following those links, I can attempt a summary by saying that it's a mix of Neo-Nietzschean thought (his own admission; I have not personally read anything by Nietzsche to date), alt-right political leanings, and dark meme-based humor.

My reason for asking is pretty straightforward: I have close friends (saved, as far as I know), who are influenced by writings such as this. I've read _Bronze Age Mindset _and as a believer I find it deeply concerning. However, I could use advice on how to engage with it.

I have noticed some common threads among his fans:
- a strong, instinctual rather than reasoned reaction to anything suspected of being liberal or left-leaning
- a general rejection of the concepts of expertise, consensus, or established fact (flowing out of reason 1)
- a strong tendency toward unchecked "conspiracy theory" thinking (flowing out of reason 2)
- formative exposure to meme-based internet culture
- a general desensitization to the profane, vulgar, and sexually charged environment in which we live
- a lack of willingness or ability to critically process and engage different viewpoints

In raising this topic I have *zero* desire to start a political discussion. My primary concern is how to respond to what I believe to be the negative spiritual influence this book and its kindred philosophies are having on people I care about.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 20, 2021)

I don't know the figure in question, but I still have an opinion about what needs to be said.  

This may sound harsh, but today much of the church needs to hear, "What fellowship has light with darkness?" The political climate is so bitter, and the stakes seem so stark, that many believers are ready to embrace any figure who promotes the political side they believe most closely fits Scripture or protects the church and a Christian worldview (in our circles, usually the political right). They will excuse all manner of other perversions so long as that figure seems to be standing up against political/societal threats.

"I realize that site spews some lies, but much of what they say is important stuff that must be heard."
"Yes, that guy can be mean-spirited and indecent, but he is protecting us against dangerous influences."
"I know some of it is conspiracy-theory hooey, but part of it is truth no one else will report."
Enough already. What fellowship has light with darkness? If the first half is true, the "but" part of it should not make it all right. It is not of God, period. Put it aside and read your Bible instead, and you will be well equipped to deal with whatever comes our way. 

Of course, the impulse to latch on to this sort of thing comes from some real concerns about where our society is headed, so my approach probably ought to be more sympathetic than how I phrased it. Still, the error comes down to a willingness to give up core Christian virtues like truth and compassion and decency for the sake of a political/social cause. We need to see that we lose much, and gain nothing that lasts, when we do this.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## ZackF (Apr 20, 2021)

Engage your buddies’ behaviors and beliefs as you believe are influenced by this dude rather than the dude himself.


----------



## Irenaeus (Apr 21, 2021)

ZackF said:


> Engage your buddies’ behaviors and beliefs as you believe are influenced by this dude rather than the dude himself.


What might that look like?


----------



## ZackF (Apr 21, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> What might that look like?


It won’t be easy. If one isn’t given any pause on taking someone called “Bronze Age Pervert” seriously, then you may have limited success. In any event there are no guarantees. You may be ignored. Just shake off the dust.

In engaging people with different deeply held, visceral beliefs one on one is best. One on two is a _distant_ second best. One on three is a bust unless you have equal support with you and are on the same page.

If their emotions are escalated, wait until they come down before continuing. In our circles we’re often dealing with angry types. They will not be persuaded while riled up. Social agitators across the spectrum understand this. It is not that there isn’t a place for emotions, including anger, there is. You’re not giving a sermon though.

Agree where you agree. There are no doubt respectable alternatives to BAP.

I’d say some stuff like-

“I see what your saying. I agree. I just don’t think it calls for that kind of language. Language influences thought and thought can influence behavior. We live in a society calloused already from crudeness. A Christian version of it isn’t salt nor light. Christians trying to be good at sounding bad will fail and earn no seat at the table. Women certainly are not going to benefit from it. Mercifully, God hasn’t put any coals on my tongue but He has plenty of cause to. Why give Him more?”

”Theories should require evidence. When I have time I’m more than eager to evaluate evidence. As I agree that a conspiracy theory label is used cynically to discount true concern, viable hypotheses and theories, without evidence it remains at best a theory.”

“Some of the clearest thinking available is being done on the left about the left. That can often be powerful in engaging friends and family on the left. Why clumsily and unnecessarily polarize those you are trying to convince?“

”I think it was Thomas Sowell who said ‘for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.’ Expertise and experience exists but doesn’t remove the need for reason and evidence for anyone. Replacing a cult of expertise with a cult of amateur doesn’t resolve a dispute.“

Those are just a few. Praying for you and your interlocutors however you may be connected to them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Apr 21, 2021)

I have some limited and indirect acquaintance with BAP. 

I suspect there has always been a problem with engaging carefully: it's detailed and requires attention and clarity. Those are relatively rare gifts, and may be more rare now with the frequency of changing stimulation and lack of sitting and thinking that people used to be able to do.

So within that general constraint that applies across the board of different ideas people like, I appreciate what Jack says. It is important to reject error, and do so decisively. Of course it's also important to note what people like about that particular error, and what draws them in. Because in engaging with them about it, I think there are three points that can be helpful, but two of the points require a certain amount of sympathetic understanding.
1. The error is unbiblical, and therefore to be rejected.
2. The error is going to obstruct what it pretends to give (idols always disappoint).
3. The good thing the error promises is actually contained in the truth.
It's a good idea to be able to make all three points, but then to be able to vary their order and expression according to what you learn in interacting with each individual.


----------



## Irenaeus (Apr 22, 2021)

Thanks to all who replied for these thoughts; I'm most grateful for the good advice and will pray over how best to incorporate it into my discussions. Meanwhile, I hope that figures like this will attract the attention of credible Reformed writers and thinkers so that smarter people than I can take a stab at addressing this type of thinking. [So, if anybody here wants to sink a couple hours into reading this book at some point (warning: it is moderately trashy and obscene)...]

Jack, I didn't mean to bypass your comment. I had no immediate reply and had to think that over. If I tried that line of reasoning, I know what would happen - anytime I used any argument or quote from a non-Christian source, your lines would be thrown right back in my face. We all interact with problematic sources, whether it's sorting out the gems from the heresies in Aquinas or getting our news from *insert biased news source here because they all are*. The issue is the distinction between interaction and fellowship, a distinction which I suspect _might _be grasped intellectually but certainly not experientially.


----------

