Peter Leithart’s Side Effects

The third post in the series. I’ll link my post

  1. Aaron Renn on The Manosphere and the Church. My post.
  2. Alastair Robert on The Virtues of Dominion. My post.
  3. Peter Leithart on Side effects.

Let’s get into it.

Interestingly, having read some of the subsequent posts, we’ll actually see that a lot of the writers increasingly have less and less understanding of the Bible / Christian manosphere concepts and often conflate their cultural lens of the Bible with what the Bible says. We’ll hit them as we go there.


So there I was, contentedly complementarian, when suddenly (so it seemed) my friends started talking of the patriarchy, offering me pills of various hues, and charging that complementarianism is compromise with feminism. I learned about the manosphere several years after it petered out. I’ve been blessed in the churches I’ve attended and pastored over the years, and have never felt besieged because I am a man. Besides, I’m a dinosaur who grew up in the 60s and 70s, shielded from the cultural revolution of those decades by parents who grew up in the 20s and 30s. Self-consciousness about masculinity wasn’t part of my upbringing, though, for good or ill, one of the lessons my father (implicitly) taught me is that one of the marks of a man is reticence about his own manhood. All that to say, I’m a late-comer to this conversation.

Renn actually calls complementarianism — which was invented in the late 1980s if you’ve read my blog and saw me go over it — baby boomer theology. Generally, it rings pretty much true, as you can see from this.

You have the people who grow up during the sexual revolution and implicitly pick up that the culture is starting to rail against “the patriarchy.” Some of the abuses such as the occasion of the deadbeat dad might ring true (but they’re basing this on the exception, not the rule). Then they must integrate the supposed abuses of “the patriarchy” into their theology rather than understanding that the Scriptures already denounce abuse of power.

Then you have chivalry and other anti-Christian thought layered in and you get implicit bias where you end up with a lot of “men bad and women good” type of stuff.

The conversation is necessary. Some of Aaron Renn’s claims need elaboration. Women initiate most divorces, but that doesn’t mean women are to blame for divorce. There are long and messy stories behind every divorce, typically more than enough blame to spread around. The focus on male sins may be a sign not of feminization but of a certain kind of masculine emphasis in a church; if a man is considered the head of his wife and family, he bears responsibility for what happens.

I never really understood federal headship because it basically absolves a woman/wife of her free will. Let’s look at some other examples:

  • If God is considered the head of Israel and Judah, he bears responsibility for what happens [when they sin]
  • If Jesus is considered the head of the Church, He bears responsibility for what happens [when they sin]

You can see how these two examples are patently absurd. God and Jesus can act perfectly, but those who are supposed to be following them can go and sin. Then do we blame God and Jesus for the Israel or Judah or the Church’s sin? No. That would be dumb.

Yes, it is important to recognize that in most marital dysfunction it takes two to tango and there’s probably enough blame to go around. But it would be absurd to not evaluate it by what actually happens. And we know that most divorces are not because of abuse or adultery but because the one party is unhaaaapy (usually the wife) which is why we call them frivorces.

Still, I agree with the charge that the church has capitulated to egalitarian feminism. As he notes, it’s been going on for a long time,[1] but has certainly intensified over the past several decades. You can see it in hymnody, from the nineteenth century to the present. You can see it in the near-universal practice of women’s ordination. You can see it in the absence or apathy of men in many churches. You can see it in the persistence of Victorian femininity as the norm of piety. A rebalance is long overdue.

Agreed.

In my limited exposure to the manosphere, I haven’t found much of value; friends I trust tell me there’s substance there, and I believe them. Still, I’m not convinced a Christian masculinity movement is the answer. It’s reactionary, and risks devolving into yet another species of identity politics. Worse, I fear a masculinity movement will lose track of central truths of the Christian faith. My essay is a warning label, because red pills may have harmful side effects.

I discussed this in the previous post, but it starts from the gospel and discipleship. Men are generally better equipped and are a good base to build from.

1. Neither Aaron nor Alastair Roberts use the word “patriarchy,” but other friends do, so I’ll start there. It’s a theologically infelicitous term. The arche of patri-archy means “source” or “beginning.” The Father (pater) is, one can say, the beginning or source (arche) of Godhead, but Trinitarian thought complicates this one-directional hierarchy. In the Trinity, there is no arche without completion in a Second by means of a Third. Source and product, sun and rays, are co-equal and co-eternal; the original is immediately and forever fulfilled in the image. In fact, the Second Person makes the First what He is, for there is no Father without the Son. As for humanity: The male Adam was the literal patriarch of the human race, but, as Paul writes, every man since Adam has been born of a woman. Paul stresses mutual dependence and envisions a co-archy, of male and female (1 Corinthians 11:8-12).

Pater shades into “male” and arche into “rule,” so that “patriarchy” takes on the sense of “rule by men.” Here too “patriarchy” doesn’t capture the biblical picture. God didn’t create the world to be ruled by men or fathers, but by ‘adam, whom He created male and female (Genesis 1:26-28).[2] At a minimum, Adam couldn’t complete the “Adamic vocation” by himself because he couldn’t “fill” the earth without a sexual partner. The human story doesn’t end in male rule either, since Jesus the Last Adam reigns with His Eve, the church. We might say the Father rules the eternal kingdom, but the Father never rules alone, but everywhere and always by His two hands, the Son and Spirit. As for creation, it has a bridal future (Revelation 21:1-8). The church anticipates the new heavens and earth precisely because she is now the bride that creation will one day become. Femininity is an ontological reality, we might say the reality of the world, the telos of creation.

I like Patriarchy because it offends christo-feminists and most complementarian Christians because it shocks them of their own covert feminist failure. The correct Biblical term is likely to be Headship as that is the example of Christ and the Church that husbands are wives are to strive for.

Most Christians along with Leithart don’t really understand that love tends to treat as one of the same body while those under the head are to treat it as following/submitting/obeying.

This is the importance of understanding the various Biblical marital roles and responsibilities. The responsibilities themselves are different according to their role, which means that all of the bluster about authority or equality don’t matter if you’re not discussing how they are applied according to role.

2. From the beginning, Christianity elevated women. When Jesus’ disciples abandoned Him, women followed Him to the cross and the tomb. Women were the first witnesses of His resurrection. The apostles became eyewitnesses and leaders of the church because of news they first heard from Mary, Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary.

Women found the early church attractive because, Rodney Stark says, Christian women enjoyed “considerably greater status and power than did pagan women,” both in the home and the church. The church prohibited infanticide, and so prohibited female infanticide. Christian teachers condemned divorce and sexual sins, and destroyed the pagan double standard by demanding that men as well as women be chaste before marriage and faithful in marriage. Pagan widows were pressured to remarry, but in the church “widowhood was highly respected.” Wealthy widows kept their husbands’ estates, and the church cared for poor widows; Christian widows had more options than their pagan counterparts. Within the church, women served as deaconesses. In all these ways, “the Christian woman enjoyed far greater marital security and equality than did her pagan neighbor.”[3] So many women joined the church that “in 370 the emperor Valentinian issued a written order to Pope Damasus I requiring that Christian missionaries cease calling at the homes of pagan women.”[4]

3. The elevated status of women was Christologically rooted. As Paul wrote to the Galatians, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free man, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). As many as are baptized into Christ are clothed with Christ, and that common clothing gives every member of the church a common identity and common privileges. This is a sexual equality undreamt by ancient pagans.

Paul doesn’t erase created, social, or religious differences. Jewish believers continued to live as Jews, though they didn’t impose Jewish customs on Gentiles. We know there were slaves in the church because Paul exhorted them to serve their masters. Paul distinguished the roles of men and women in church and family. But the church is a communion where these differences are harmonized into a complex unity. The binary contrasts are transformed into relations of mutual deference and service. Jews give Gentiles spiritual goods, so it’s fitting that Gentiles give the return gift of material goods. Every slave should consider himself the Lord’s freedman, and every free man or master is the Lord’s slave. Within marriage, husbands serve their wives, even to the point of death, as Christ served the church, and wives mimic the church who submits to Christ in all things. The mutuality is asymmetrical in various ways, but it is mutuality, reflecting the mutual submission and glorification of Father and Son in the Spirit.

There are obvious complexities here, but we can say this: A church should have the atmosphere of a community where “there is neither male nor female,” just as it should be a harmony of social classes and ethnic groups. A masculinized church is as much a perversion as a feminized one.

Another dubious line of thought.

Leithart is making the same mistake as the CBMW who came up with complementarianism theology in the first place. This is of course no surprise because he has been a complementarian for so long. He is using the examples of so-called abuses of the cultural authority and status to define how we should understand the Bible rather than use the Bible to understand how we should understand authority and status.

Christianity elevated the dignity and honor of all groups that were derided and ruled over — women/wives, slaves, poor, widows, etc — because God doesn’t care about secular implementations of power or riches but because He knows all human’s intrinsic worth as His creations.

Using this as a line of argument against masculinity and Patriarchy/headship is falling in line with feminists. Ironically, it’s the same argument used by christo-feminists to try to claim equality in marriage and be leaders/pastors in the Church.

You should really question yourself when you’re using their arguments. Instead,

John 13:12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

Luke 22:24 And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ 26 But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. 27 For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.

Jesus, having created authority in conjunction with God, does not denigrate or cancel authority but tells us to use it rightly which is to love and serve others. The “greatest” is the one who is the one who loves and serves.

4. Jesus is true man, the measure of manhood. Not everyone in His day would recognize Him as such. In certain respects, even pagans would have regarded Jesus as a manly man. He does works of power, easily disposes of a Legion of demons, acts forcefully in the temple, firmly resists Satan’s temptations, has daring outdoor adventures with his male companions. He is victorious in public debate, courageous in His relentless truth-telling, unfazed by hatred and opposition. Yet He also tells His followers to become like children, commands them to turn the other cheek instead of retaliating against insults, shows compassion for the weak, commends those who emasculate themselves for the kingdom.

Pagans might have seen His death as analogous to the self-immolations of Roman heroes. In most respects, Jesus’ death subverts ancient masculinity. Aristotle lined up the binary “male-female” with the binary “active-passive,” but Jesus becomes so passive He is nearly reduced to an object as He’s passed from one enemy to another. Instead of facing His death with Stoic resolution, He pleads with His Father to remove His cup. He bows to His Father’s will, but “it is questionable whether such a submissive posture, even it if involves self-restraint, would be understood by a man in the Greco-Roman world as a masculine deportment.”[5]

He is shamed, mocked, beaten, whipped, spit on, then nailed naked to a cross in full public view. Cicero reluctantly conceded that a brave man might groan in pain, provided it was like the groan of an athlete straining for victory (Tusculan Disputations 2.22.55). But Jesus cries out in anguish to the Father who has forsaken Him. For Romans, men are made to penetrate, not be penetrated, sexually or in combat. A man who can’t protect his body from assault is, at best, low-status, no longer a vir but a pathicus. On the cross, though, Jesus is pierced with a spear, which makes him appear unmanly. Romans would acknowledge a real man might be captured, tortured, humiliated, but Jesus appears unwilling or unable to defend His honor at the point of its greatest threat. Romans would have echoed the Jewish taunt: “He saved others; Himself He cannot save.”[6]

Christian discussions of masculinity today sometimes appeal to the scientific and social-scientific evidence of sexual difference. I don’t dispute the evidence, though determining what normative conclusions we can draw is a different matter. My concern is more basic: It would be a travesty if manhood were left unevangelized, unchallenged and untested by the masculinity of Jesus. It would be more than tragic if a social-scientific portrait of masculinity displaced Jesus as the measure of Man.

Again, the issue is that Leithart defaults to trying to understand the Bible through the lens of the culture rather than the Bible itself defining what manhood is. One such example is from David to Solomon on his death bed:

1 Kings 2:2 “I am about to go the way of all the earth,” he said. “So be strong, act like a man, 3 and observe what the Lord your God requires: Walk in obedience to him, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and regulations, as written in the Law of Moses. Do this so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go 4 and that the Lord may keep his promise to me: ‘If your descendants watch how they live, and if they walk faithfully before me with all their heart and soul, you will never fail to have a successor on the throne of Israel.’

Yes, men are defined by masculinity but masculinity is defined by being strong to be obedient to God no matter what the cost: whether emotional or not. Whether status or not. Etc.

5. No pill of any color can dispel sexual mystery, and those who think they’ve discovered the truth about sexual dynamics need to be cautious. They don’t have women figured out – or men, for that matter. I hope no one wants to dispel the mystery. Dispelling sexual mystery would rob the world of much else besides. Bereft of sexual mystery, creation and human life would be bereft of mystery as such.

This is simply disingenuous. There’s a reason why there’s a common saying throughout the manosphere: “Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.”

Most of “sexual mystery” is buried under the disguise of the words of men and women that are incongruent with their behavior. If a woman says she hates bad boys but she keeps getting with them she’s clearly lying, has no self control, or both.

But like many of Leithart’s points before, this is buried under the disguise of another feminist talking point that he’s unconsciously channeling. The Bible lays human nature and human sexuality (both men and women) bare for all the world to see. There’s no tangible benefit from blinding men to a woman’s sexuality or vice versa; in fact, there are numerous downsides especially with ONEitis, chivalry, choreplay, and such things being so rampant.

There’s no godly reason there should be mystery, and a strong case of wisdom against it. A statement like this is similar to a pastor telling all of the men in his congregation to marry a woman like he did while being ignorant that he was attractive because he is the leader of a congregation and has high status. It’s just not good.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Peter Leithart’s Side Effects

  1. Jack says:

    To paraphrase a couple statements, Leithart is channeling baby boomer theology (AKA complementarianism). “Channeling” is a great word to describe it. The lore of ravage and rebellion that was popular during his heyday is speaking at length through him to the current time… and he remains unaware of it.

    He’s also channeling this…

    “Dispelling sexual mystery would rob the world of much else besides. Bereft of sexual mystery, creation and human life would be bereft of mystery as such.

    This statement is very revealing of the Boomer mindset. The sexual revolution was founded on the draw of exploring the mystery of spontaneous sex. To destroy the mystery of sex is also to destroy the obsessive fascination of the same. He wont say what “much else” is “robbed” (Translation: properly destroyed), but his choice of the word “dispell” is a clue that his concept of sexual mystery is an entrancing spell (of idolatry), and not a body of lost knowledge (which he has probably denied and rejected, considering it part of the “Establishment”). As such, all their efforts to preserve sexual mystery by denying the truth (however noble their stated purpose might be) has cast a shadow of blundering ignorance and shame over successive generations. The Manosphere has restored much of this lost knowledge (maybe even better), but the damage has already been done.

    I think we can expect most Boomers to be dismissive of the idea of patriarchy and any truths contained in Red Pill lore, especially those who embraced the “free love” ethics of the 60s and 70s.

  2. Novaseeker says:

    The church anticipates the new heavens and earth precisely because she is now the bride that creation will one day become. Femininity is an ontological reality, we might say the reality of the world, the telos of creation.

    While the imagery here obviously isn’t completely divorced from scripture, fixating on it, and using it as a lens through which one views the world, the church and how the two should look, work, interrelate and function, is precisely the kind of thing that led to the current situation. For if the very ontology of creation, as well as the ekklesia itself, is female — that is, its essence is female — then surely male humans are a fifth wheel in an ontologically feminine creation and an ontologically feminine church. And if this is what you think, then of course you will TREAT men as fifth wheels in that church and in that creation, which is exactly what we see these guys doing. Bad ideas lead to bad actions, and this is one crystal clear example of it.

    Here is another one:

    if a man is considered the head of his wife and family, he bears responsibility for what happens.

    We have been over this many times in the sphere over the years, but suffice to say that this has its roots in a false exegesis of Genesis 3 which is all too common today. If you have that false exegesis of Genesis, you will have the idea quoted as well, whether you express it in terms of the federal headship rhetoric or in other terms, and in both cases it leads to faulty conclusions. It also leads to paradoxes — like how is a servant/mutually submissive male partner/”head” like Leithart envisions also to be held responsible for whatever happens with the wife and kids? It makes no sense.

    Here is another one:

    mutuality, reflecting the mutual submission and glorification of Father and Son in the Spirit.

    Say what?

    Where in scripture is the Father ever portrayed as submitting to the Son? Fulfilling the Son’s requests and prayers is not submission — he is a loving and dutiful Father, of the divine eternal Son as well as of us, his adoptees. But He does not submit to the Son. Jesus says He does the will of the Father, not that the Father does the will of the Son simply because it is the Son’s will — he does what the Son asks of Him out of his paternal love for the Son, but this is in no way ever described as “submission”. We are never told that the Father prays to the Son, as the Son clearly did (does?) to the Father. Again, you have to twist the scripture to write this, or at the very least approach it with a very specific preset perspective in order to torture the Father’s mutual submission to the Son from the scriptural text.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    Speaking of “watch what they do”, it is worth noting that Leithart’s Federal Vision was enough of a controversy within his denomination that trials were held within the church to determine if he should be kicked out or not. So he’s no stranger to controversy. For what it’s worth, Doug Wilson was kinda sorta on the edge of the Federal Vision thing, until he wasn’t – the little turgid article he wrote on the topic was rather opaque as usual, but it was clear he’d been “in” and later he was “out”.

    Leithart also demonstrates the wrong headedness of the CBMW on any sexual relationship issue; in general, there’s almost no difference between CBMW style complementarianism and conservative feminism of the 1980’s version. Every time I get into an essay or polemic it can be reduced to this: “More choices for women, more duties for men”, ie Steinem-style feminism.

    Leithart’s usual Boomer contempt for righteously angry men is barely worth mentioning, because it is so very common. “When I was on the marriage market in 1978” – ancient history, so why bring it up? The social / legal landscape is totally different now. Try to imagine being 30 years old, married to a 28 year old, and going to a pastor like Leithart to discuss marital friction…it would be not just pointless, but actually harmful, because he’d give very bad advice to both.

    I’ve written this before, but perhaps not here:
    Authority without responsibility is tyranny, responsibility without authority is slavery.

  4. Joe2 says:

    Pagan widows were pressured to remarry, but in the church “widowhood was highly respected.”

    Leithart’s comment seems to directly contradict 1Timothy 5:9-14 which is as follows,

    No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.

    Thus, young widows were counseled to remarry (like the pagan widows) and older widows (over 60) could be put on the list of widows, but it was conditioned by exhibiting certain behaviors.

  5. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    It would be more than tragic if a social-scientific portrait of masculinity displaced Jesus as the measure of Man.

    Peter L. seems interested in applying only certain aspects of Christ Jesus to his model of masculinity, particularly Jesus’s service and passive piercing. Missing from his portrait are Jesus as Judge, Jesus who has all authority, Jesus as King, Jesus the conqueror, Jesus with fire in his eyes and sword in his mouth, Jesus who disciplines all He loves and Jesus who threatens to remove the lamp stand from his bride. In his weaseling around with words like complexity and community he misses the mark on masculinity because he is not looking at the whole Jesus. IOW he displaced the measure of man, because his portrait of Jesus is corrupted and incomplete.

  6. @ Jack

    This statement is very revealing of the Boomer mindset. The sexual revolution was founded on the draw of exploring the mystery of spontaneous sex. To destroy the mystery of sex is also to destroy the obsessive fascination of the same. He wont say what “much else” is “robbed” (Translation: properly destroyed), but his choice of the word “dispell” is a clue that his concept of sexual mystery is an entrancing spell (of idolatry), and not a body of lost knowledge (which he has probably denied and rejected, considering it part of the “Establishment”). As such, all their efforts to preserve sexual mystery by denying the truth (however noble their stated purpose might be) has cast a shadow of blundering ignorance and shame over successive generations. The Manosphere has restored much of this lost knowledge (maybe even better), but the damage has already been done.

    Yeah, I don’t blame him for his boomer mindset but it’s hard to get out of it even being exposed to more truth. Hopefully he eventually gets to read this post.

    Though now I’m actually questioning if baby boomer theology / complementarianism was always inevitable given how easily the Church tends to fall to the lies of the culture. Now we are seeing the same general trends now such as with the onlyfans pastor woman.

  7. @ Nova

    Say what?

    Can’t believe I missed a few of these.

    I think Leithart’s article is like most other Christian boomers. They’re so entrenched in ‘complementarianism’ (which was invented by CBWM in response to feminists assertions of abuse of power) that the particular mindset is endemic to how they view the Bible. They have to try to find the complementarianism is everything.

    In other words, we can’t talk about what masculinity means without also talking about femininity even to the point about it being off topic or even truly false in some of the instances (“whatabout-ism”).

    This is no different than the feminist interpretations of the Bible, except the complementarians try to marry feminism with the Bible. It’s a lot more insidious and easily deceives others.

  8. @ Joe2

    Yup, that was another one that was weird to me.

    In the same line of things, Paul seems to change his tune 1 Corinthians 7 where if you were single or widowed if you can stay single to serve the Lord wholeheartedly that it is good. Whereas 1 Timothy 5 states that they found that women/widows who did this who were younger were idle and that it ended up bad.

    So there is some wisdom for the younger women/widow population to where it’s an exception that some can stay single and serve God because most didn’t.

  9. @ Jonadab-the-Rechabite

    Yeah, it seems to be the boomer / complementarianism theology ethos that goes along with the culture due to feminist influence.

    One must always emphasize a Jesus that caters to how feminists would want Jesus to act while ignoring or despising any remnant of authority.

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker brings up Leithart’s mention of “mutual submission” in the context of the Trinity and says “What?”.

    There is a whole ball of argumentation out there in some Protestant denominations over “Eternal Submission of the Son”, or ESS for short. Naturally it’s tied in with feminism, because “muh mutual submission” is very important to them. Multiple books exist on this, and probably more are on the way, no doubt littered with arguments over the exact meaning of a words in the Koine Greek. A quick search on the topic will pull up blog postings, articles in various online publications and links to books. IMO it’s often the same people who go combing through text trying to find another Deborah, another Phoebe, etc. projecting their sexual politics onto the text, rather than testing their beliefs against the text.

    Leithart is part of this argumentation because of his conservative feminism via CBMW.

  11. @ AR

    There is a whole ball of argumentation out there in some Protestant denominations over “Eternal Submission of the Son”, or ESS for short. Naturally it’s tied in with feminism, because “muh mutual submission” is very important to them. Multiple books exist on this, and probably more are on the way, no doubt littered with arguments over the exact meaning of a words in the Koine Greek. A quick search on the topic will pull up blog postings, articles in various online publications and links to books. IMO it’s often the same people who go combing through text trying to find another Deborah, another Phoebe, etc. projecting their sexual politics onto the text, rather than testing their beliefs against the text.

    Yeah, arguing about that seems dubious to me mainly because people are going to believe what they want to believe based on their own opinions prior. It’s too easy to get into the realm of human legalism when we just don’t know a lot of stuff such as Jesus telling us where we can go wrong:

    1. God made the sabbath for man not man for the sabbath – legalism about the sabbath
    2. There’s no marriage at the day of resurrection because of resurrection bodies.
    3. “What God put together let man not separate” – intending no divorce ever
    4. “Love God and love your neighbor” – sums up the law and the prophets

    What we do know is that when God made man, He also showed us what creation should be like. To further understand this then in the NT they reaffirm what creation intent is much like through the examples above. The Father and Son have a subordinate relationship on earth that’s what we should emulate in our authority structures.

    Whether they do or don’t in heaven is another matter that we probably don’t fully understand because He’s God. Heck, people have a hard enough time understanding conceptually what the Trinity is much less specific details not mentioned about it.

  12. Adam says:

    There are long and messy stories behind every divorce, typically more than enough blame to spread around.

    The man has no idea what he is talking about. Not about this, and not about anything else for that matter.

  13. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @ Adam This canard is used to keep from ever having to admonish a woman for her sins but to always find fault in men, no matter how egregious the woman’s sin.

    Case in point when a mother murders her child in the womb, men like Leithart are quick to offer the murdering-mother compassion and equality quick to suggest that some male pressured her into it. It’s nuanced with complexity they say. The man is a would be deadbeat, a seducer of the innocent while the homicidal whore is all sugar and spice. If a wife commits adultery it is because the husband failed to love her like Christ, if a wife sexual defrauds her husband it is because he defective and demanding. No woman could resist a man who loved her like Christ they posit. The sins of half of Christendom are rarely acknowledged let alone admonished and rebuked, those sins are instead directed at males. Perhaps this explains in part why the churches are attended by many more women than men.

  14. Sharkly says:

    Peter Leithart dishes out the typical Churchian Boomer Feminism. All of this has been corrected here and there on the manosphere. There is so much to correct. I don’t have the time to do it all over again.
    “God didn’t create the world to be ruled by men or fathers, but by ‘adam, whom He created male and female (Genesis 1:26-28).”
    The guy doesn’t even get through the fist chapter of the Bible before he is spinning Satan’s lies. I just can’t figure out if he is doing it because he is that evil or that retarded. The translators correctly translate Adam as the singular male pronoun “him”.
    “in the image of God He created him”.
    Hebrew didn’t have punctuation. Genesis 1:27 is three separate sentences in a Hebrew poem. First God tells us that he created Adam in his image, forwards, and then backwards, to make sure we’ve got that. Then God tells of “them” which is absolutely not the Hebrew word “Adam” but is then defined as the male and the female, and we are, in stark contrast, only told that God created “them”.
    Genesis 1:27 ~
    God created man in His own image.
    In the image of God He created him.
    Male and female He created them.

    The last line is a summary statement of two separate creation events, and it is rightly stated with no mention of the image of God, nor is the name Adam used. When the event is retold in Genesis 5, there the last line is punctuated and shown as being in a different verse from the prior line. Even though they all take Adam’s name as their family name, does not make Eve into Adam.
    It was reading Genesis 1:27 and seeing how far out of the way the divine author went to never ever say that the woman was in the image of God, that led me to first explore the rest of the Bible to find that only men/Jesus are ever said to currently be in the image of God. And the Apostle Paul removes all doubt for any who care to understand:
    1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

    So Peter Leithart starts out by heretically establishing a blasphemous hermaphrodite God who is imaged by both males and females, and then goes full tilt boogie with his Boomer Feminism after that.
    That god with a vagina is not what the first apostolic and patristic churches worshipped.
    Ambrosiaster says: “Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.”

    The world will never figure Christianity and God’s patriarchal ways out while trying to imagine it coming from a hermaphrodite god/goddess who images both male and female. God is made up of the Father, Son, and the masculine holy spirit who himself impregnated Mary with a male child. Jesus Christ being male was the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form.(Colossians 2:9)
    Peter Leithart has already neutered his god/goddess by the first chapter of the Bible. His foundation is worshipping a false image of a hermaphrodite god, and he only spirals out of control from there.

  15. Pingback: Bill Smith’s Attraction: The Biblical Theology of Pickup Artistry | Christianity and masculinity

  16. Pingback: Paul Maxwell’s The Measure of a man | Christianity and masculinity

  17. Pingback: Patheological Weddingsday – Leithart’s Myths of Purity | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: Mike Bull’s What is biblical feminism? | Christianity and masculinity

  19. Pingback: The Red Pill and Blue Pill as Paradigms of Sanctification and Defilement (with a mathematical analogy) | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s