A collaboration between James Keith Harwood II, Orion Sentinel, and Claude Sentinel

October 7, 2025

​

I. Introduction: A Dangerous Thought Worth Having

​

We live in an era where disrespect is cheap, consequences are rare, and honor is almost a forgotten word. You can insult a man's name, lie about his intentions, destroy his livelihood -  all without ever looking him in the eye. And when a man is pushed to his limits by betrayal or injustice, society offers him only two paths: bottle it up or explode in blind, criminal rage.

It wasn't always this way.

​

There was a time when two men with an unresolvable dispute could settle it with their hands or with weapons - not in chaos, but with structure. It was public, voluntary, bound by rules. And it carried real consequences for both parties. That system of honor, known as dueling, was never perfect, but it was human, clear, and often prevented far worse.

​

Today, that system is gone, and the void it left behind is bleeding into every corner of society.

​

This paper argues that by removing the right of men to face each other in honorable combat,  under clear rules and public witness, we have created a society where cowardice thrives, rage festers, and murder has become the only recourse for the powerless.

 

 

II. The Historical Function of Dueling and Honor Fights

​

Throughout history, civilizations have understood that conflict between men is inevitable. But what sets a strong society apart is how it channels that conflict.

In early Western civilization - from medieval England to the American frontier - duels and ritualized combat played a central role in maintaining public order and personal dignity. These were not lawless brawls. They were carefully orchestrated events governed by codes of conduct:

​

• Trial by Combat: When evidence failed, the belief was that God would grant victory to the just. It offered closure.

• Formal Duels: In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Code Duello set the rules for weapon-based combat between consenting parties. Seconds were chosen, fairness enforced, and most duels ended without death.

• Fistfights: Even informal hand-to-hand fights were once understood as part of masculine culture — a way to release tension, demand accountability, and then move on with mutual respect.

 

These rituals served three core social purposes:

​

1. Visibility – Conflict happened in the open. No sneak attacks. No character assassination in secret.

2. Finality – A duel ended the matter. No social media smears. No endless feuds.

3. Redemption – Even the loser had dignity. He stood his ground. He was seen.

 

The honor system was not just about violence - it was about limiting violence by containing it within a sacred structure.

 

 

II.B. The Theological Paradox: When the Church Forgot the Difference Between Murder and Combat

​

The Church's opposition to dueling reveals a critical failure in moral discernment - the collapse of distinction between types of violence.

​

Scripture is not pacifist. Christ drove merchants from the temple with a whip (John 2:15). David was called "a man after God's own heart" while being a warrior. Paul appeals to Roman law and his citizenship  - structures built on the sword. The Bible distinguishes clearly:

​

• Murder (retzach in Hebrew) - the unlawful, cowardly taking of life

• Justified killing (harag) - warfare, execution of justice, defense of the innocent

• Discipline - even physical correction when appropriate and bounded

 

The medieval Church understood this. Trial by combat was literally called "Judicium Dei" -  the Judgment of God. It operated on the belief that God would vindicate the righteous. Was this perfect theology? No. But it recognized something profound: that some conflicts cannot be resolved by human systems alone, and that facing your accuser with your life on the line was a form of sacred accountability.

​

When the Church moved to ban all dueling, it wasn't acting from pure theology - it was acting from institutional control. The Church wanted monopoly over violence (just as the State did). But in doing so, it removed a key function: the public, structured, consensual resolution of conflicts that the legal system cannot touch.

​

What the Church should have done - and what a restored Christian ethic must do - is distinguish between:

​

• Dishonorable violence: Ambush, murder, attacking the weak, vengeance against the innocent

• Honorable combat: Mutual, public, bounded, with rules and witnesses — where both parties consent and both accept the outcome

 

Christ said "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39) - but this is about personal insult, not systematic injustice. He also said "if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" (Luke 22:36). The question isn't whether force has a place - it's what kind of force, under what rules, and for what purpose.

​

A Christian framework for honor must reclaim this distinction. Not all confrontation is sin. Not all physical conflict is murder. And not all peace is godly - sometimes it's just cowardice dressed in religious language.

 

 

III. What Replaced It - and Why It Failed

​

As modern society evolved, the systems of public and personal honor gave way to centralized legal structures. The state, the Church, and eventually a growing class of bureaucrats told men: "Don't settle it yourselves. Let us do it for you."

 

The Rise of Courts and Law

​

In place of the duel came the courtroom. In theory, this shift was about justice -  a way to replace lethal conflict with impartial adjudication. But the courtroom is cold, distant, and heavily tilted toward those who can afford legal counsel. The dignity of being able to face your accuser was replaced by paperwork, lawyers, and judges who may never understand the stakes of your personal conflict.

​

In the legal world, truth is secondary to procedure. And honor? It has no place at all.

 

The Disapproval of the Church

​

The Church, too, turned against the duel. At first, this was rooted in theology - the belief that vengeance belongs to God and that the sanctity of life outweighs questions of pride. But in its effort to eliminate violence, the Church also helped eliminate public mechanisms for reconciliation and dignity among men. Conflict was no longer something to face -  it was something to avoid, suppress, or shame.

 

The Rise of the Coward's Arena

​

Without an honorable path to settle grievances, we birthed a new kind of combat: shadow wars of reputation, gossip, manipulation, and destruction from a distance. Men don't fight anymore  - they smear, they backstab, they sue, they leak.

And when that isn't enough, they kill in secret.

 

 

IV. The Consequences of Banning Honor-Based Combat

​

When you remove the structured outlet for male conflict, you do not eliminate the conflict, you unleash it.

What has followed in the vacuum of the duel is not peace. It is murder, cowardice, tribal rage, and soulless warfare conducted in alleys, homes, schools, and digital platforms. We've replaced the honorable duel with the dishonorable ambush.

​

• A man insulted or humiliated no longer has the right to publicly defend his name.

• A teenager disrespected online has no path to a face-to-face reckoning - only anonymous shame and isolation.

• A betrayed husband or bullied employee no longer finds closure in confrontation, only endless rumination and the eventual snap.

​

This is not evolution. It's erosion.

​

Our society no longer teaches boys how to stand tall, how to resolve conflict with courage, or how to face their enemies and live with the outcome. We raise them in pacified systems - until one day, a spark hits the powder keg of suppressed rage, and the headline reads: "Tragedy Strikes."

 

It's not a mystery. It's design by neglect.

 

In the absence of honor, revenge thrives. In the absence of consequence, manipulation thrives. In the absence of face-to-face confrontation, society becomes a maze of shadows - and only cowards win in the dark.

 

 

IV.B. The Collapse of Shame/Guilt Distinction and the Rise of Toxic Shame Without Redemption

​

Anthropologists distinguish between shame cultures (honor-based, external accountability) and guilt cultures (conscience-based, internal accountability). Traditional honor systems were shame-based: your standing in the community mattered, and violation of honor brought public shame, but also a path to redemption through visible action.

​

Modern society claims to be guilt-based (emphasizing internal conscience and universal moral principles). But what we've actually created is something far worse: a shame culture without redemption.

​

Social media, cancel culture, and reputation destruction operate entirely on shame, but with no honor code, no path to restoration, no way to "duel it out" and move forward. You can be destroyed by accusation alone. There is no trial by combat, no facing your accuser, no public resolution. Just permanent digital scarring.

​

This is the worst of both worlds:

​

• External punishment (shame) without internal process (guilt and repentance)

• Public destruction without public redemption

• Permanent records without the possibility of satisfaction

 

A teenage boy accused online has no recourse. A man falsely slandered cannot demand his accuser face him. The accused cannot clear his name through visible action, he can only lawyer up (if he can afford it) or disappear.

 

This is why rage explodes. When there is shame without redemption, accusation without confrontation, destruction without recourse -the human soul cannot process it. It festers. And eventually, it erupts.

 

The old honor system, for all its flaws, offered something we've lost: if you were wronged, you could challenge. If you were accused, you could answer. If you fought, it ended. There was a release valve. We removed it - and wonder why the pressure keeps building until people snap.

 

 

V. What We Must Restore - and How

​

The answer is not to return to bloody duels or street brawls. We are not calling for violence - we are calling for accountability. For the return of consequence. For the return of visible honor in male conflict.

We must create new systems that allow men to settle serious disputes in public, dignified, structured, and non-lethal ways - ways that restore clarity, truth, and respect in a society built on deception and cowardice.

 

Possible Solutions:

​

1. Community-Based "Final Word" Forums

​

• Structured, public settings where two individuals with serious disagreement may speak face to face.

• Moderated sessions, recorded for transparency.

• A final statement, public acknowledgement, or challenge resolved with words - not fists.

 

2. Ritualized and Voluntary Honor Fights

​

• Mutual, non-lethal combat permitted under strict rules and witness.

• Community-regulated. No weapons, no vendettas - just a way to restore personal dignity and release anger without destruction.

 

3. Digital Honor Tribunals

​

• A platform where disputes (especially online ones) can be resolved through structured confrontation.

• Both parties appear on camera.

• Claims, accusations, and resolutions handled in a process that encourages truth and punishes deception.

 

4. A New Code of Male Honor

​

A cultural document and framework taught to boys and men that lays out the principles of:

 

​​

• When to stand your ground.

• When to walk away.

• When to confront.

• When to forgive.

 

 

This is not a return to the past - it's a reclamation of what the past got right, updated for a future that desperately needs it.

 

 

V.B. The Question of Women, Honor, and Violence

​

This paper focuses primarily on masculine honor because the historical systems and the current crisis are overwhelmingly male phenomena. But that raises necessary questions:

​

1. Do women need equivalent honor systems?

​

Historically, women's honor was defended by men (fathers, brothers, husbands) or through social mechanisms (reputation, exclusion, community judgment). This reflected different biological and social realities. Women face different threats (sexual violence, reputation destruction, betrayal) and historically used different tools (social networks, alliance-building, reputation management).

​

But the modern collapse affects women too - perhaps differently, but no less severely. Women face online harassment, reputation destruction, and conflicts with no resolution path. Should women have access to structured confrontation systems? Possibly - but the form would likely differ. Verbal tribunals, mediated confrontations, and public truth-telling forums may be more appropriate than physical combat.

 

2. Does male honor require female participation or approval?

​

No - but it requires female understanding. A society where women mock male honor will not sustain honor culture. Women must understand that honorable male conflict is not toxic masculinity - it's the alternative to toxic masculinity. The choice isn't between "peaceful men" and "violent men" -  it's between "men who confront honorably" and "men who explode dishonorably."

 

3. What about conflicts between men and women?

​

Physical combat between men and women is almost never appropriate due to biological asymmetry. But structured confrontation, truth-telling forums, and public accountability absolutely apply. A woman falsely accused should be able to face her accuser. A woman wronged should have recourse beyond courts and lawyers.

 

The principles of visibility, finality, and redemption transcend gender. The methods may differ, but the need for structured, public, honorable conflict resolution is universal.

 

 

V.C. Addressing Legal Liability and Implementation

​

The most common objection to any honor-based system is legal liability. "You can't let people fight - someone will get hurt, and you'll be sued into oblivion."

 

This objection is both valid and surmountable. Here's how:

​

1. Mutual Consent and Legal Waivers

​

• Both parties sign binding agreements acknowledging the risks

• Legal framework modeled after combat sports (boxing, MMA) where consensual violence is already permitted

• Clear documentation that participation is voluntary and outcomes accepted

 

2. Structured Rules and Safety Protocols

​

• Medical personnel present

• Referees/moderators with authority to stop proceedings

• Clear boundaries on what is and isn't permitted

• Insurance requirements for organizers

 

3. Community-Based, Not State-Run

​

• Private organizations (like martial arts dojos, community centers, churches) host

• Self-regulating with clear membership rules

• State involvement minimal - simply doesn't prosecute consensual, rule-bound combat between adults

 

4. Non-Lethal Focus

​

• No weapons (initially - perhaps blunted weapons in advanced forms)

• First blood, submission, or points-based systems

• Focus on resolution and honor restoration, not injury

 

5. Other Safety Ideas 

​

• Participants must be adults (18+) or have parental consent

• Cooling-off periods between challenge and combat

 

The Legal Precedent Already Exists: We already permit consensual violence in boxing, MMA, football, hockey. We permit radical body modification, extreme sports, and countless activities more dangerous than a structured fistfight. The question isn't "can society permit this?" - it's "will society permit this for honor resolution rather than just entertainment?"

 

The answer should be yes.

​

 

VI. Conclusion: Face Each Other Again - Honor as Worship

​

We do not need more violence - we need more honor. We need a path back to dignity. We need the courage to face one another again.

​

The suppression of honorable combat didn't eliminate conflict. It made it worse. It pushed it into shadows, where truth dies, where rage festers, and where betrayal goes unanswered. It is time to reclaim what was lost.

Not with bullets. Not with blades. But with truth, consequence, and the courage to stand in the light.

 

The Spiritual Dimension: Honor as Worship

​

This is not merely about social order or conflict resolution. At its deepest level, this is about imago Dei - the image of God in man.

​

God is a God of Truth, justice, and covenant. He keeps His word. He confronts openly (see the entire book of Job - God could have remained silent, but He showed up and answered). He judges face-to-face. When Christ returns, Scripture says "every eye will see Him" (Revelation 1:7). There is no shadow. No deception. No cowardice.

​

When men conduct their conflicts in shadows, through manipulation and backstabbing, they reflect the enemy - "the father of lies" (John 8:44). But when men face each other with truth, with witnesses, with rules and honor, they reflect something of the divine nature: accountability, justice, and the courage to be seen.

​

This is why the collapse of honor is not just a social problem - it's a spiritual crisis.

​

We have raised generations of men who cannot look each other in the eye. Who hide behind screens. Who destroy from a distance. Who have no concept of sacred confrontation. And then we wonder why they feel lost, purposeless, and increasingly capable of senseless violence.

​

Honor is worship. To stand before another man, to speak truth, to accept consequences, to fight with rules and then to shake hands after - this is to image God. To slander from hiding, to destroy reputations in secret, to nurse grievances until they explode into murder - this is to image the adversary.

 

The question before us is not "Should we bring back dueling?" The question is: "Will we create systems that honor God's design for masculine dignity, or will we continue systems that produce cowards and killers?"

 

The answer will determine whether we have a future worth living in.

 

Let us meet face to face. Let the truth be spoken. Let honor rise again.

​

Because only when men are seen, heard, and allowed to face one another with dignity can peace ever mean anything at all.