I want to take a deeper look into the Dalrock’s chart from the underlying assumptions of each of these and add in more analysis.
Let’s examine all of these in order.
Christianity’s biblical marital roles and responsibilities are based on God’s design.
To summarize them we have:
- Husband’s headship, love, and honor
- Wifely submission, respect, affection, and helper
- Marital debt of each spouse to one another: freely give each other sex.
- Marriage is the place for sex and what makes it holy
- Marriage is a permanent covenant between a husband and a wife
- Each spouse adheres to the marital roles and responsibilities out of desire: they want to please God and meet their spouse’s needs.
- The fundamental goal of Christians is to follow Jesus. Husbands and wives both follow Jesus, but the wife has the added role to follow her husband.
If you want to delve deeper into them you can see Genesis 1-3, Prov 31, Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Cor 7, 1 Cor 11 and 14, Titus 2, 1 Peter 3, and others.
These are clear guidelines.
Chivalry is its own religion that has replaced Christianity for multiple tenets:
- A man must win his wife through masculine virtue (just as a knight wins a lady’s hand)
- A husband must earn his place in the marital bed (corollary of the above, even in marriage. This leads to choreplay and the slow cooker theory)
- Romance is what makes sex holy (leads to divorce and adultery as ‘feelings’ change or a husband and wife idolizing the wife’s feelings as to what sex)
- The implicit assumption through all of this is that the woman/wife is the head of the marriage, either by her husband perpetually trying to win her or by her feelings. This leads to an inversion of roles: a husband must respect his wife and her feelings as holy, while the wife’s feeling become the ‘love’ (not even agape love) that the husband receives.
Chivalry is essentially a covert reversal of roles within the relationship, and replaces desire with works (husband must continually to win his wife) which is the antithetical to the Christian faith.
Complementarianism is chivalry except attempting to Biblically justify it.
- The husband and wife are equal, except the husband is the head. But “in practice” the husband is only a “tiebreaker” and not even that: servant leadership is touted that Jesus died sacrificially for the Church so the husband should die sacrificially for the wife (e.g. cater to her opinions and feelings) rather than the actual context of the passage which is Christ loved the Church sacrificially for the purpose of sanctification not to cater to his wife’s feelings.
- A lack of sexual desire of a wife for her husband is seen as the husband being ungodly (e.g. romance is what makes sex holy).
- A wife with a lack of sexual desire must be won through the husband doing more for her as he is not sacrificing enough (e.g. choreplay, meeting her emotional needs, etc.)
- Pastors who tout complementarianism try to weasel out of telling wives to submit and husbands to be the head of the marriage. It is often the case that they say that it’s not the husband’s job or place should not be telling the wife she has to submit (even though it is, given the husband is tasked with helping his wife be sanctified).
- Likewise, they never talk about the how the Scripture says that each spouse has a marital debt to each other, regardless of their feelings. Instead, you get weird dogma that a wife will want to freely give herself to her husband if he is acting godly.
As you can see, complementarianism is basically chivalry given another name but still disguised as Christian.
It must be stated that the original CBMW who ‘invented’ complementarianism probably had good intentions, but it has ended up as wife worship much like many different attempts throughout Christian history to ‘reform’ have failed. See Aaron Renn’s The History of the Church and Men (feminization of the Church).
Feminism is a clear offshoot of chivalry, except made more overt in nature.
- Overt change: The claim of equality of the husband and wife, but clear overt role reversal: the wife is in charge as any male leadership is evil.
- Overt change: The complete autonomy of the wife: she chooses whether or not she wants to have sex with her husband, divorce him, work when she wants, put her kids in daycare, etc. Yet, the husband must still sacrifice to make her happy so she can have it all.
- Continued chivalry: A wife’s feelings are still the measuring stick of the relationship or marriage: if she will want to have sex with him or divorce him. If she’s not feeling it, either she just fell out of love and that’s the end or he’s doing something wrong.
- Continued chivalry: romance and the associated feelings must still be earned through sacrifice and doing things for her to make her happy.
There are some places where feminism has overtly diverged from Christianity such as husband headship and wife submission. But much of the same principles of chivalry remain under such as the wife’s feeling being the barometer of the health of the marriage.
Feminism simply gives the wife more tools to punish the husband if her feelings aren’t into him anymore.
Egalitarianism is feminism, except attempting to Biblically justify it.
As you can see the parallels, you should not be surprised at this conclusion.
- The claim of equality of the husband and wife, and clear denial of authority via passages such as ‘no male and female but you are one in Christ’ and ‘submit to one another in the fear of Christ’ are taken out of context. The husband as the head is clearly bad, so the leadership defaults to the wife.
- As the wife is equal: she can decide what she wants to do in the marriage. She basically has autonomy to decide what she wants to do like in feminism. Where the husband and wife each want the same thing that’s “good.” But if she differs, she can and will do her own thing (though the husband can’t since he’s supposed to love her).
- Like chivalry and feminism, a wife’s feelings are still the measuring stick of the relationship or marriage: if she will want to have sex with him. If she’s not feeling it, either she just fell out of love or he’s doing something wrong. The only difference is that they generally pay lip service to not divorcing.
- Like chivalry and feminism, romance and the associated feelings must still be earned through sacrifice and doing things for her to make her happy.
Egalitarianism is a weird mix between chivalry and feminism and trying to Biblically justify it. The main difference between feminism and egalitarianism is that they need to at least give consideration to the Scripture (though they twist it in certain ways). However, they can’t get around some of it like no divorce but usually do it anyway in practice.
Game unfortunately is hard to discuss because there’s no agreed upon definition of what it is. However, Dalrock does a good job of defining how it works in relation to the above:
Game came about as a reaction to the practical reality created by chivalry and chivalry’s spawn feminism. Game is a logical response to chivalry and feminism’s joint rebellion against Christian sexual morality. Game is a reaction to the chivalrous and feminist lie that women are sexually attracted to masculine virtue, and that the way a man can seduce a woman (or otherwise please her) is to submit to her. Game is a practical rejection of the obvious lie regarding what sexually arouses women. Rejecting a lie is in itself virtuous, but the most learned practitioners of Game employ it to take full advantage of the feminist and (modern) Christian rejection of Christian sexual morality.
At the fundamental core, game is aimed at several different tenets of chivalry and feminism. Dalrock mentioned a couple here, but there are several.
- Game rejects that women are attracted to masculine virtue, or, in other words, a man must work to be attractive to her. (e.g. the idea that a man must win her with a huge and elaborate engagement and other displays of behavior).
- Game rejects that men must earn sex with women (e.g. the idea that a man must be romantic and do things such as taking her out on dates, giving her flowers, giving her compliments, giving her gifts, etc.).
- Game rejects the implicit chivalrous and feminist role reversal that a woman is in charge (e.g. a subset of what most would call game is about ‘teasing’ and/or ‘negging’ to bring a woman down a notch and/or elevate your own position in her eyes. Note: I’m not arguing about the morality of such actions here).
- Game aims help men understand that attraction is based on desire and not of works (e.g. men cannot do anything to make a woman like him more).
- Game aims to show men that their goal should not be women as the pedestalization of women leads to relationship failure (e.g. outcome independence, mission not women, etc.).
As you can see, game rejects many of the principles of chivalry and feminism (and by extension complementarianism and egalitarianism) and supposedly agrees with Christianity on many principles which is why there are various and continued disagreements about it’s morality within the Christian community.
Personally, I wouldn’t call chivalry a parody of Christianity like Dalrock. As I described in usurpers, in ancient Canaan the goddess ‘Asherah’ is synonymous with the goddess of heaven, and another name for her is ‘Qudesh’ or ‘holiness.’ Therefore,
Chivalry and its offshoots are basically another form of goddess worship.
There is a reason why we call inversion of roles the pedestalization of women. It’s literally place her on a pedestal, like those in Biblical times would place their idols on to worship. Serving a woman and her feelings is literally synonymous with being holy, according to the cult goddess offshoots chivalry, complementarianism, feminism, and egalitarianism.
It should be no surprise that Jezebel was one of the people who made Asherah worship much more prevalent. Jezebel usurped Ahab’s authority (and he went along with it, as do complementarians and egalitarians) to do much evil in Israel. Jezebel is one of the role models for feminism as well.
This is also why the so-called divorce rates of Christians are similar to the secular culture. When the Church is only peddling versions of cult goddess marriages and twisting the Scriptures to fit their whim, it shouldn’t be a surprise that marriages are going to fail at similar rates.
I’m pretty terrible with graphics, so I’m not going to try to attempt to do a chart like Dalrock’s. Any of you who have seen my MS paint skills need not see another one.
Chivalry –> Complementarianism (attempt to justify chivalry biblically)
Feminism –> Egalitarianism (attempt to justify feminism biblically)
Game (works against chivalry, complementarianism, feminism, and egalitarianism)
Also, I am still of the opinion that ‘game’ is unneeded and that focus on the Bible marital roles and responsibilities with good fathering and mentoring/discipling are all that are needed. Everything is an offshoot of Christianity as God made everything.