Paul Maxwell’s The Measure of a man

The fifth 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. My post.
  4. Bill Smith on Attraction: The Biblical Theology of Pickup Artistry. My post.
  5. Paul Maxwell on The Measure of a man

Let’s get into it.


If you will recall, Paul Maxwell several years ago was the writer of “Real men love strong women” on Desiring God where he grossly misinterpreted several passages of Scripture to agree with feminism. My post in response to that.

He’s actually come up a few other times (he seems to have found out about the manosphere somehow) and has progressively become more oriented to the true nature of attraction, but he still has some ways to go. According to his bio, he’s no seminary student anymore either but an “independent researcher” and likely entrepreneur or something along those lines.

But what is a man, really? A collection of necessary properties? Operations? Can a man be uniquely evaluated meaningfully in any way? Can he fail? Can he do what he wishes? What liberties does he have—from whom, and to what? What rights is he able to exercise, and how are those rights sourced, defended, properly and improperly exercised, and most importantly, how are they bounded? Who draws the lines? How are they drawn? Where are they drawn? Why are they drawn there? Why does his maleness shade these questions with gendered idiosyncrasies?

What happens if a man crosses a boundary? What happens if he crosses it twice? What degree of punitive severity should he expect in proportion to the intensity of his transgressions? What opportunities are available to a man qua man? To what degree are those criteria fixed or flexible? Who sets them, and how, and do they take macro- and micro-social factors into account? Can we know the verdict? Can we appeal the criteria? How ought they to be understood and applied directly?

What are theologically (and socially) acceptable methods available to a man to cope with sub-optimal life circumstances? What should a man do when he wakes up full of suicidal anguish and can’t help but start drinking every day at 2pm? What should a man do when his wife leaves him for another man and sues to take his children? How should he respond when she documents all of his private failings before a judge as a means to remove his children from his custody? What is a contrite single father supposed to do after he strangles his son with an electrical cord in a drunken rage, and doesn’t remember the next day? What happens when he does it again the next weekend? What is the son supposed to do? What is the son supposed to do 20 years later when all of the Christian men in his life are telling him that he is too angry?

All good questions that Maxwell says he wants to answer. We’ll see what answers he has.

Whether William James had a soul or not, he understood how people worked. That is why James’s students (such as G. Stanley Hall, who went on to influence John Dewey) founded the American Psychological Association, which reconstructed the failing enterprise of early 20th century German Psychology. The new Westernized, pragmatic, “medicalized” approach to the self produced a sanitary treatment infrastructure in which new versions of licensure were created to service human issues classified within the “personal problems jurisdiction,” which came to replace those basic services often provided by Christian pastors for centuries.[1]

This new space exists, and pastors should feel a legitimate sense of competitive anxiety with the new cohort of secular shepherds. That this movement was founded by the founder of pragmatism is no coincidence. More often than not, the advice of these secular shepherds works. Men see results in the gym. Men learn David Burns’ cognitive distortions to achieve emotional regulation. They get what they want. A man might even get a woman to like him—perhaps even to fall in love with him. A man has fun manipulating the mechanics of the universe available to him in order to pursue different values across time. In Erik Erikson’s model, between the ages of 17 and 41, men traverse from cultivating fidelity to love to caregiving. Men have fun playing with things, and the laws of nature is the most enjoyable, tinkerable pack of toys a man could have, whichever values are in one’s crosshairs.

But as with all fun and games, there are rules. And if you break the rules, you will be expelled, disqualified or, when the game is real life, cause serious physical or emotional injury to another living being. The National Institute of Health reports: “In 2018, the suicide rate among males was 3.7 times higher (22.8 per 100,000) than among females (6.2 per 100,000).” We might say this is all James’s fault — this is all happening within his wet dream, after all. But there are too many variables to consider. Perhaps James saved millions from suicide. We don’t know what our culture would look like if conservatives took the intellectual lead in the 20th century and produced significant bodies of practical knowledge related to the psychology of the Christian life in the context of male stress — rather than, say, the justifiably waning biblical counseling movement.

But the question this data really puts before us are: Why men? What rules are they breaking? Why such dire consequences? Why such extremely broad spectrums of violence and emotional disruption?

This seems like a long tangent to the issue.

I generally agree that the Church has been too “anti-science” in the past century or so. It was actually the Church pushing science and arts through the dark ages all the way up to the 1800-1900s, but since then it’s become a lot more secularlized. Once the Church abdicated that sphere it’s been used against it.

It comes down to one thing: We want to be credibly seen and loved by other men. But what is credibility? In the 21st century, it is indisputable competence. For Joe Rogan, it’s that he’s a Jiu Jitsu blackbelt, successful standup comic, a free thinker, in incredible physical shape for 53, and he’s a millionaire. … What’s John Piper? What’s Matt Chandler? What have they said or done in the past 10 years that has made an impact on anything that men face every day?

Let’s return to what men want. Men desire to be credibly seen and loved. Everything comes down to this. Purpose. Vision. Work. Acceptance. Sex. Faith. Grief. Alcohol. Pills—opioid, red, blue, white, black. It’s all a way to cope with an unseeing love, an unloving presence, both, or neither.

Here Maxwell makes a big mistake that is commonly seen in the ‘sphere.

Men don’t want to be loved. Men want to be respected. The Bible clearly spells this out between husbands and wives, but it is also true between men and other men as well. The main love that men need is only God’s love, but men primarily are love givers and respect receivers

This mistake is easy to make if you are operating from a feminized (Christian or not) point of view. Women want to be loved. This particular mistake is typically seen in the decline of quality of relationships from father to son which is showing them how to grow into a man who can be respected and typically the other encompasses a mother’s love for her son.

This basic mistake doesn’t give me hope for the rest of the article.

Can preaching Christ crucified on Sunday morning do something as effective as William James? In my view, the church is called to outdo James. The pragmatism of the left is good at hitting targets, but it’s not good at knowing what targets to hit. The church is good at aiming, but bad at shooting.

What men need from the church is a cooperative, credible, and holistic endeavor on behalf, not of “the church,” but of local churches, to identify men inside and outside of the church, conduct a triage, and begin helping each man one at a time to get on his feet, acquire the appropriate meta-skills for the task before him (and in light of the path behind him, for good or ill) and supply him with resources that he can leverage to advance the causes in his own life.

OK, sure, that’s part of it. The main thrust of what’s been missing is equipping and discipling men for the gospel mission: evangelism and discipleship.

A lot of the issues of wallowing in mediocrity or despair are immediately addressed by the gospel itself and the hope that comes from it. But it just doesn’t stop there obviously.

This is why pastors often fail to reach men. Reaching men requires more negotiation. And men can be very difficult to negotiate with. Pastors, in one sense, are bracketed from the stresses of the market, and over time can become soft and easily unsympathetic to cutthroat posture many men need to cultivate in order to thrive in the workplace. Men don’t want to have this posture all the time. But they need another man who can go toe-to-toe with him, not to fight him, but as a gesture, communicating that trust and respect are worth earning, and that the pastor is willing to earn it. Then he can have a secure place in his life.

The pastor will only be able to parlay for the membership of a secure man when he is able to explain in the man’s own terms what he’ll get out of it. I know plenty of men over the past year who have not left the church or the faith, but have simply walked away from evangelicalism — not over theology or ideology, but over the weirdness of the culture and the suspicious incompetence of its credentialed professionals. The manosphere sometimes calls these men MGTOWs (men who go their own way), but most men would just call it being one’s own man.

Pastors desire submission as a down payment for care. And men don’t want to submit. Most men already suffer under a crippling deluge of daily anxiety. Anxiety is about control. And the request for the submission of church membership is a request from men to give up what little control they have left in their lives. Pastors underestimate the scale of this ask, which is why they often fail to close the sale — they forget what it’s like to be a gunslinger in the West, bearing the burden, not only of providing, but of long-term profitability for the sake of the long-term financial security of their loved ones.

Again, part of it, but not the primarily parts.

Bracketed by the stresses of the market? Give them practical advice to be more attractive instead of the pretty little lies like “godliness is sexy”.

Discipleship is the practical part of leading by example, showing these men how to, and then helping them walk the walk.

This is what men think about. They are not thinking about Adam and Eve. They don’t care. They have real problems and need real help. If the church is able to supply men with resources they can leverage to pursue their values, men will come to them. If not, it’s up to each church how much marketing work it wants to do in order to acquire men. In business, we call this a “customer acquisition cost” (CAC). What is the highest CAC a church would be willing to pay for a single new male member? They are already paying something, from the pamphlets they print to the electricity bill they pay. So, what’s the number? How much do churches want the real men of the world? The ball is really in their court.

Maxwell goes wrong again here. Drawing on business principles to help grow the Church gets you a Church that is ineffective. The Church must not be business focused but people focused.

I quit my job last week, because I have quite harshly overworked myself for the past 7 years due to my own compounding trauma, and reached a psychological breaking point. While I’ll finally get to build my own business creating courses on theology and meta-skills for young adults next year, writing fundraising letters with my wife was one of the most difficult things I’ve ever done. I couldn’t write the appeal for days. And I’m a full-time writer (er, was … or, still am)! I felt too pathetic. My sense of failure as a man was fortified by the 100 Matt Chandler sermons I had listened to when I was in my early twenties:

“What will they think?”

“I’m a failure as a husband.”

“I should be providing.”

“No one will show up.”

“No one cares.”

“Nobody cares about me.”

“This is so embarrassing.”

There you go—that’s masculinity. Pushing your neck against the knife blade of reality and saying, “Here’s who I am, here’s what I’ve got, here’s what I want, and here’s how I plan to get it.”

That is how the world sees men. Unfortunately, many in the Church have taken up this stance and do the same thing to men as the culture does: the demonization of men and masculinity.

My dad was a beast of a man. He taught me how to lift weights, pick up girls, and take shortcuts. I had to spit out some bones, but he taught me much that I never would have learned in the context of the church. And that’s okay. The church isn’t responsible for me. But he did teach me the softness of the most valuable business skills, the harshness of the economy, the abundance of opportunity in every context, a nose for sales tactics and how to parry them.

I met several men in the church in my early teens who taught me many of the basic competencies, including theological skills. I respected these men, because I saw how hard they worked. I saw them give up their seats for women on the subway. I saw them be gentle with hurting men. I saw them exercise restraint during the psychotic episodes of strong, unstable men. I saw them lead their families in morning prayer. I saw them thank God for Christmas presents. I saw stability.

What did I really see?

Men who were measured by their affection for Christ. Temperate. Controlled. Strong. Crass, but strategically appropriate. Open to the visceral, but spiritually disciplined. Family men, with wives and kids. In my mind, as a young man, if I could be like them, everything would be okay. I would be okay.

It wasn’t until several years ago that I found another man I respected just as much. The CEO of the company I worked for. Previously a church planter, now a tech CEO—no longer helping one church raise thousands, but helping churches across the globe raise millions with technology. He did it. He actually built something. Like Rogan, he had a black belt of sorts—that intangible quality that strikes men with something akin to the beatific vision. His skill, his accomplishments, his winsomeness, was enrapturing. When he spoke, his vision resonated with something deep inside me. What was it? It was the same thing I felt when listening to Joe Rogan. It was the same thing I felt when sitting under my pastor’s tree Christmas morning, grateful to have people who saw and loved me.

What was it? How do men speak in such a way so as to enrapture other men? What is the X factor for male mobilization that makes seeing-love meaningful?

It is credibility.

When men are seen and loved by men they find to be credible, they’ve caught the golden snitch. They’ve won the cup. Their hearts belong to that man. You know what I’m talking about. There is a male-male parallel to romantic love that operates along the axis of paternal needs in the male psyche—a father-son bond with significantly untapped potential which, unactualized for too long, succumbs to its half life and spoils into frustration and resentment when a man’s desire for intimacy is unreciprocated.

Again, Maxwell misses the main issue again: respect.

Masculinity whether via credibility, competency, strength or other traits from other men all build respect.

Renn makes note of the “incel” (involuntary celibate) community as a “community of low status young men extremely unhappy that they are unable to have sex with or go out on dates with women.” The incel movement is the tip of the iceberg. Yes, men want sex. They want the attention of women. They want to dominate, engineer, construct, tear down, burn, build, have sex, achieve spiritual enlightenment, and everything in between. But beneath all of this is a desire to receive credible love that cares about real circumstances and doesn’t let go.

In his article, Renn laments: “The church has adopted a very skewed approach that improperly berates and belittles men, and has badly misled them with teachings that just aren’t true.”

Men shouldn’t care what anyone thinks. Men shouldn’t care if churches degenerate them. Who cares? It’s a church. There’s a billion of them. There’s only one of you. Move on.

The real problem facing young Christian men today is not secularism. It’s not Joe Rogan. It’s not the heathen gurus. It’s suicide, alcohol, drugs, and obesity. Those are the four horsemen of the apocalypse slaying men by the thousands each and every day, and the golden thread among these vices is a lack of credible love.

The church has no presence in these conversations. Its pleas for abstinence are sufficient for instructing the church in standards for Christian morality, but bad for managing mental health pandemics. COVID tore out the rotting floorboards of social decorum that were hiding the deep state of mental unhealth that permeates the young American male psyche. Now is not a moment for reflection, but action.

Maxwell again misses the main thrust. Suicide, alcohol, drugs, and obesity are all symptoms of the issues of lack of mission, lack of respect, and lack of good discipleship and teaching men accurately about God.

Men need saving. Saving takes resources. The church has resources. If men can leverage them, they will. If the social interest rate is too high, men will discontinue the church as their spiritual payment provider. Visa can run as many anti-Amex commercials as they want — they will never achieve 100% among credit card users, and neither will the church achieve 100% market share among men.

When businesses lose market share, they don’t blame the clients — they take ownership and fix the problem. Why, when the church loses market share, does it bemoan the spiritual immaturity of the culture rather than taking ownership and fixing the problem itself? There are men to be gotten. Either you’re getting them or you’re not. There’s not a deep social force at place driving men out of the church. Jordan Peterson once said: “You get the spouse you deserve.” Likewise, the church has the demographics it deserves.
Conclusion

The manosphere will be forgotten in 10 years, but we will all still be here. The universe will always bring more suffering. And men will make a choice either to become resentful and cruel, or hopeful and constructive. That’s why they flock to Peterson — men are looking for reasons not to kill themselves, and the church isn’t giving them a good one.

The real measure of a man is the man in his life who loves him best—he will function as his measure both in the sense that the younger man will strive to be like him, and yet, he also shows him how to be a measured man who, upon hearing what he believes is the church’s disdain for him, simply doesn’t care. To a man, the man who credibly loves him is his measure, for good or ill.

 

The measure of a man is the man in his life who loves him the best? Nah. That’s a recipe for failure.

Maxwell had a good setup to transition this to what a “real man” according to the Bible looks like. For instance,

1 Kings 2: 1As David’s time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, 2 “I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. 3 Keep the charge of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn, 4 so that the Lord may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’

Real men focus on putting their strength in God first, and everything flows from that. But Maxwell misses the context plaguing men again and again, and if you do a secular based analysis without information your opinion on a Biblical worldview you only get failure.

The posts in this series have honestly gotten progressively worse over time. Aaron’s was obviously pretty solid as he’s known about the ‘sphere for a long time, but the subsequent posters are more and more unfamiliar. Their boomer complementarianism colors their view of what they are saying, or they just aren’t taking actual Biblical worldviews and relying on secular analysis.

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

10 Responses to Paul Maxwell’s The Measure of a man

  1. Anonymous Reader says:

    Maxwell has some problems, and one of them is:

    My sense of failure as a man was fortified by the 100 Matt Chandler sermons I had listened to when I was in my early twenties

    He would have been better off reading 1,000 comments at Dalrock, just for a start.

    IMHO a lot of the Boomer pastors went to seminary pre-1973 because they wanted to avoid being drafted. This has echoed down the years. Now we have men who went to seminary for the same reason girls major in Psychology – to work out personal problems. Not a great reason, and possibly dangerous.

  2. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    The real problem facing young Christian men today is not secularism.

    Houston we have a problem.

    Not only is secularism in culture a real problem, secularism in the church is a monstrous problem as well. Perhaps a problem so big that lamp stands might be removed. Secularism has no need of Christ, not as Lord and not as a savior, because saved from what? Secularism redefines the male – female relationship away from God’s design. Secularism emasculates all but the most dominant men. Secularism has no teleological purpose beyond pleasure and pain avoidance, no divine virtues to shape and guide a society. Secularism is the slow suicide of the west, it leads to despair, destruction and death. Secularism is the turning away from Christ, I cannot fathom a more real problem. In fact I think we are at the center of the problem that plagues Maxwell, he doesn’t see Christ as the sovereign over epistemology, metaphysics and ethics, his Christ is too small to matter.

  3. Novaseeker says:

    In fact I think we are at the center of the problem that plagues Maxwell, he doesn’t see Christ as the sovereign over epistemology, metaphysics and ethics, his Christ is too small to matter.

    I think that’s true.

    But more fundamentally Maxwell is true to form for his style of approaching these issues: the problem must be in the man himself, and not outside the man. That is, the problem can’t be the church, or the culture, or secularism, or women’s behavior, or anything like that. The problem has to be traced back to men themselves, because men must be found to be to blame, ultimately, for everything in order to satisfy their worldview — so in this case, Maxwell sources the problem in men failing to provide “credible love” to other men, both inside and outside the Church. This is clever, because it makes sure that the issue is not traceable to anything but a failure that is “internal to men”, as a group, which is critical for his worldview.

  4. lastmod says:

    William James has helped more men in any intro to psychology class than any church has in the past fifty years

  5. Sharkly says:

    How can Paul Maxwell talk regarding downtrodden men, the manosphere, the church losing men, Incels, MGTOW, cheating wives, and never even mention Satan’s doctrines of Feminism? He is truly blinded. Like every father hating churchian he has always got to slander men by starting off with a story about a father repeatedly strangling his own son with an electrical cord. Such comments make me believe that he doesn’t reverence our Father in heaven, nor men created as His image and glory, and would prefer if men were all ruled over and guided by “loving” women, as if they are superior. He begrudges men respect! According to him, men like me, who have left the churches of Feminism, are presumed to be drug addled and hopeless. His article just had to make us men out to be the type to strangle our own sons. Statistics show that women are more likely to abuse children. But this guy just had to slander men, while blindly grasping for straws about why men are leaving the churches of Feminism disgusted by their contemptuous disrespect and Feminist false teaching.

  6. Joe2 says:

    FWIW, Paul Maxwell does speak about Feminism in the Evangelical church in the video “Evangelical Culture is Beta Culture”

    I think he does a good job explaining why men are leaving the church. He mentions how the Evangelical church emasculates men and demonizes their behavior as sinful through pastors who act like women. Thus, to survive in an Evangelical church, men are expected to behave like women.

  7. Sharkly says:

    Regarding the video above, I found these 3 errors in the first minute and a half:

    1. There is nothing at all about masculinity that is “toxic”. God is masculine. Adam was created masculine in God’s image and glory, and Adam was fully male and masculine while he was still sinless.

    2. False teaching Feminist pastors are not “rare” occurrences. There are currently only an infinitesimally small number of patriarchy comprehending pastors that correctly teach that men are superior to women, and the only sex that images God, the Father, and the Son, like the Bible teaches(1 Corinthians 11:7) and the original church unanimously believed, and I am not aware of any of these Spirit taught pastors operating a typical fixed church. Men were made preeminent and superior to rule their inferiors and cleanse them, just like Christ will come to rule and cleanse the church. The meek and lowly Christ who came to serve and to die, is finished serving and dying. He is soon returning as the bridegroom seated at the right hand of Power, to rule with a rod of iron, and for eternity His servants will serve Him.(Revelation 22:3)

    3. Paul Maxwell then says it isn’t women’s fault that young churchgoing men aren’t masculine, which is mostly a lie. Most men, Like Adam, will not forcibly seize responsibility that is not surrendered to them. If these young women were approaching these young men ready to submit to them in everything as unto the Lord, Like they would already be submitting to their fathers, trusting God and offering to surrender themselves to the authority of these young men who bear the image and glory of the Most High God, almost every one of these young men would take on such duty responsibly, as most all churchmen did when women being subject to men was the cultural imperative. But nobody want’s to be the captain of a mutinous ship. No man wants responsibility for a rebellious whore who denies his superiority, and will never accept his divine dominion over her in all things. Responsibility without authority is slavery. And God did not intend men to put themselves into bondage to usurping women. Men were not made the stronger vessel for no reason. The whole earth was cursed because the man hearkened unto the voice of the woman. And Satan is again still using women to lead men to forfeit their God given dominion to them, Paul Maxwell has just not been graced with the Spirit of understanding, from God, to understand that basic truth. Women have been cursed by God to be usurpers, and even after God told Paul Maxwell that, in Genesis 3, Maxwell is still duped by Feminism’s claims to the contrary, and actually fool enough to become feminism’s sock-puppet, still preaching this world’s earliest satanic deceptions for the Feminists, and thinking he’s sharing new stuff. Satan/women/Feminism have all worked together to emasculate men, the image of God, and even to blasphemously emasculate the Holy Spirit Himself, by claiming women are also partial images of some hermaphrodite god/goddess who created them.(Baphomet) Why is goddess a solely feminine word? Because God wanted to be called by a solely masculine title so that only the most gullible fools would be confused by a devil who delights to emasculate God, and get God’s own creations to join in that blasphemy. Jesus Christ, a male circumcised on the eighth day, was all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form.(Colossians 2:9) No female counterpart is necessary to complete the image of our solely masculine God, the divine patriarchy of a Father who gives power to his Son.
    Satan, women, and Feminism are the usurping, and emasculating parties. Adam did not refuse his natural masculinity and dominion, he was led away from it by Satan through the woman whom Adam loved. Exactly as men today, for the sake of women, give up their masculinity, dominion, and glory to become enslaved via those same defiling usurpers who, along with the serpent, were cursed by God for their part, and so women should be shamefaced as becometh women professing godliness. God did not curse Adam, because God would not curse His own image and glory, instead he cursed the earth in Adam’s stead, since Adam had been taken from the earth before God formed him into God’s own image and likeness.

    Later on I felt led to correct this bit:
    The church is not the first place boys should learn to be men, contrary to what Paul Maxwell said. If boy’s don’t have a father to learn masculinity from, they’re at a huge disadvantage, and if they don’t live in a patriarchal culture, they are at a huge disadvantage. You aren’t going to override what boys learn all week long, in one hour on Sunday. Learning masculinity at church, would have been laughed at back when society was correctly patriarchal. The church has always taught men meekness, humility, and to be mutually submissive to their brethren. But early on, they started with the right foundational beliefs to bolster men’s intrinsic dignity, while deflating women’s sense of entitlement that fuels their tendency towards discontentment, those beliefs now have been traded in for Feminism.(Female Supremacy in direct opposition to God-ordained Male Supremacy)

    Jonadab-the-Rechabite was correct in assessing that Paul Maxwell has envisioned God wrong. The fathers of the early church were unanimous in their writings, that women are not by themselves images of God. The heresy of women independently imaging God came about towards the end of the fourth century AD, in Rome, after Constantine had made Christianity the State-religion, and state/church leaders were looking to make their State-religion more acceptable to the many forcibly converted goddess worshippers, by deifying Mary. To make Mary divine, she had to also become the image of the divine. Prior to this syncretism with goddess worship, the church fathers handed down the truth they had learned from the apostles, that only males are independently the image of God. The protestant churches, which are the whoring daughter churches descended from the Mother of Harlots (Revelation 17:5) during the reformation, rolled back the deity of Mary, but they never took the presumed image of God back away from those who do not image God, but instead were created to be under subjection to the image of God, and were made “unclean” for a foul period of shame and penitence every month.

    First you have to know who our masculine God is, to understand who His masculine image is, and know why the wife should reverence her husband, and Etc. If your “god” has a vagina and is on the rag half the time, your church will inevitably become a bloody mess. And if your god is a hermaphrodite like Baphomet,(whose name is a medieval corruption of Muhammad, the founder of Islam) then you would probably want to circumcise both girls and boys to the god they are both presumed to image and belong to. Whereas Christians know that the woman was made, not for God, but, for the man and given to Adam to serve him and be his mate and glory, while men are made to serve God directly, by sharing in His representative likenesses and glory, and have dominion over all the creatures on the earth, including women. However women can get elevated into one flesh with the image of God through mating/marriage, which is why sexual sins are such grave and capital sins, because they frivolously defile the image of God. As though our jealous God were instead fickle and unfaithful. Two men having sex together is both a capital offense and an abomination, because they bugger the image of God. Whereas lesbians only defile themselves unfruitfully by their own unnatural use. Once the Spirit correctly lays the foundation with an authentic God-Christ-man-woman chain of command,(1 Corinthians 11:3) all the other Bible pieces begin to snap into place. Many churchians can put the chain in the right order, but they don’t correctly understand who the four Beings are, and what their similarities and differences are, and they almost always try to make men and women “equal” or to equalize the Father with the Son. They’re steeped in Satan’s deceptions.

    Paul Maxwell concludes: “We have to reclaim a traditional vision for masculinity or the church is culturally doomed”
    I’d say we have to teach the Biblical basis for holy patriarchy, which is partly intrinsic male-superiority. Men are absolutely superior in rank/authority, primary purpose, sex/image, and glory, the Bible states that all plainly. And men are most generally superior physically, constitutionally, emotionally, rationally, morally, and relationally. Or, as Aristotle accurately observed and wrote, women are “more mischievous, less simple, more impulsive … more compassionate … more easily moved to tears … more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike … more prone to despondency and less hopeful … more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, of more retentive memory [and] … also more wakeful; more shrinking [and] more difficult to rouse to action” than men
    Basically “equality” needs to be abandoned and women need to be properly repressed back into their correct place, ruled over by men for the good of all, while men need to be empowered and respected, to the glory of God, and for everyone’s greater contentment, effectiveness, and holy unity.

  8. lastmod says:

    Who were the prophets? Yes, they were men. The apostles? Men. Now that we have that established we know they were used by God, divenly inspired, and many of them…if not most…….fit so well into Moses’s posed statement of “Who am I?”

    We have no idea how “masculine” in a carnal sense they were. Sure…….being a fisherman on the Sea of Galiee may invite us to conclude that many were rugged, pretty tough and “working class” for their time. Daniel was educated, dedicated to keeping God’s sabbath, kept his collective persona even while exiled out of his land into a place that had just conquered and murdered ten of thousands of his countrymen. Paul was a “Jew of Jews” educated, and hardly a man who spent his days at the gymnasium all day. Jonah ran from what God told him to do………and then was upset that God didn’t destroy these people…….hardly a man who “knew his mission and purpose in life”

    There are countless examples of ordinary men doing extrodinary things in the name of God, in the name of Christ, in action of what was on their heart, or how God indeed used them for that moment(s).

    I say this to maybe help flesh out….”what is a man?” or “who am I?”

    God does indeed have a place for us. All men. His comission tells us this.

    Maxwell, Renn and the others seem to…..SEEM TO………..be purporting on the “how” a man is supposed to look, behave, act and believe while in Christ, or a church, or denomination community. God has no use for this. None. God doesn’t care if you are the toughest of men that could indeed take on the bad guys like Bruce WIllis. He doesn’t care if you or your son can throw a football like Eli Manning. God doesn’t care if you are slim waist hipster with a beard and tattoos who married the geeky / cute gal and drives a Prius. God doesn’t care if you are rich or poor. God doesn’t care if you are deemed ugly or good looking on a cultural standard. Renn and Co SEEM to think He does care.

    All men will and must submit to the Cross who claim Him. Period. Renn and Co seem a little too concerned about the church community, labels like “Beta” and “classifiying men as “lesser” in a faith that supoosedly loves, wants and expects all. A little too concerned about attracting which woman and when…….that’s man’s invention….not God’s.

    Paul mentioned that ALL are needed in the body…….and when the skillset that is purported that the only men needed are the top-tier posters in a forum or “movement” like this…..it can come off as spitting in the face of what God instructed us to be.

    I don’t need anyone to tell me how much of a man, or what a man is. I was born one. That in itself is enough and well above a baseline or starting point.

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

  10. 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