The first war any warrior will encounter, is the war on boys. I say all warriors will encounter this because a warrior, in the most physical sense of the word, must be male. The fact that we have had, and now have, female warriors is a misunderstanding and/or disregard for the teachings laid out by the Bible. In the Old Testament, only men went to war (Num 1:2-3, Gen 14:14-15), only sons were chosen for war (1 Sam 8:11), daughters served in domestic roles (1 Sam 8:13), wives and daughters did not go to war (Duet 3:19-20, 1 Sam 18:6-7).
But that’s the Old Testament right? We’ve outmoded that, right? There’s that New Testament, right? Right, and the New Testament says that we need to consider what the Old Testament says, (2 Tim 3:16-17). Or to be more blunt about it, I give you Clement of Alexandria (ca. AD 155–215): “For we do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war; since we wish the men even to be peaceable” (The Stromata, Bk IV, Ch VIII). War isn’t something to aspire to. We have warriors because we live in a fallen world. Men fulfill this role because it is necessary, and man’s nature demonstrates his qualifications for such a role.
This may not be a popular view in a culture that celebrates the de-naturing of all of life in the name of “freedom”. Furthermore, in a culture that loves nothing as much as it loves to glorify sex and violence, the merging of the two into the mythic female warrior goddess stimulates our lusts like very few things. But we are now digressing from the topic of this post. The main point is that true warriors, will first battle just being who they are: boys.
You will notice in this video about this “first battle” that many of the attributes of boys which are a part of his nature, are warrior attributes. In the four reforms offered to help boys do better academically, the first admonition is to “Turn boys into readers”. Why are they not readers? They say that boys will read what interests them, which is often not the school assigned “Little House on the Prairie”… Boys are more inclined to read and to write action stories rather than introspective and emotion-driven stories.
Then the example is given at this point in the video of a boy who drew a picture of pirates decapitating one another, (combative violence), which a teacher disapproved strongly of. The problem with this “boyishness” isn’t just that it isn’t introspective, but that it is violent. The problem here is the warrior nature being exercised by the boy in his imagination. Because we don’t approve of warriors in our society, or anything related to violence, we suppress it with “zero tolerance” policies. But reducing combat to an absolute evil is to impoverish and distort our understanding of reality itself. Rather than fear and suppress violence, we need to understand and cultivate honor and nobility in those who must engage in it until Kingdom Come. We must recover our understanding of chivalry, lest we are left merely with UFC fighters and bikini-clad Playboy models. Under the pressures of a “zero-tolerance society” you will either become a hyper-female, or due to your inability to conform, will be “rejected by the program” and left an unpolished ruffian cage-fighter. In a society so far gone as to suggest that “tug-of-war be replaced with tug-of-peace”, we are heading rapidly toward a civilization that cannot civilize its natural brutes, nor instill courage into the hearts of its naturally sensitive.