Mike Bull’s What is biblical feminism?

The sixth post in the series.

  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. My post.
  6. Mike Bull on What is Biblical Feminism
  7. Aaron Renn’s final response

I won’t be covering Renn’s final response because it’s just an extremely brief sum up of the articles with one comment. Thus this is the last post.

Honestly, this last one is so dismal I didn’t even really want to cover it.


The continued push for equality between the sexes has been a disaster—not because equality is a bad thing, but because it is a good thing, and good things only come from God.

Having anything to say on the issue of gender roles is like walking in on a domestic dispute to offer advice. Even worse, being on the spectrum makes me the last person you would ask for help with interpersonal relationships. But a terrible driver might yet make a good mechanic.

There’s no such thing as equality. It’s not something God cares about which is why He doesn’t discuss it at all in the Bible.

What God does care about is headship and submission, love and respect, and honoring others. While one may claim that some of these are analogous to “equality” (e.g. Jesus washing the disciples feet or loving others), that is tunneling in to what the world considers important rather than what God does which is caring about others.

Matthew 20:25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.

Trying to force equality on the Bible is the same worldly mistake as high officials trying to exercise authority over others, except in the reverse direction.

The end of feminism

Like the movie Thelma and Louise, feminism has been a tragedy in three acts. Abuse led to recklessness, further abuse, and now, despite continued calls to turn around, third wave feminism, as a vehicle of liberation, has shifted gears into its final nihilistic gesture.

Freedom from reality is not really freedom, and feminism as a social construct is not reality. Real-life evidence comes, strangely, from the failed UK reality TV show Eden. In an experimental attempt to create a new utopia, the participants were left to fend for themselves for a year in remote countryside. But instead of proving that the differences between the sexes are essentially social constructs, the absence of social structures allowed the sex differences to quickly reassert themselves. The men became lazy brutes, the women were treated as maids and sex objects, and the show was cancelled.

While it is easy to demonize feminism because of what it has become, the independence it has achieved means that there is no going back. But the agenda will accelerate into oblivion unless the Church can offer a better destination. Providing a Promised Land is, ironically and inescapably, the job of men.

Feminism = bad. Mmmkay.

Dominion, not domination

That land is not the Manosphere. Like the Death Star, this brave new world was a man-made bubble. Instead of a light filling the earth with abundance, the men’s rights movement is a pale moon in a distant orbit with a chip on its shoulder, circling society like a pirate ship. The issue is not a battle but a troubled marriage, which means that ongoing conflict makes everyone a loser.

Men exploited women, now women exploit men. Men respond by inventing new ways to exploit women. Feminism rebels against the commodification of women but merely results in commodification of a different kind.

This is domination instead of dominion, a Baalistic appropriation of the blessings promised by God. Seizing territory and farming the land are different things, as different as impatience is from patience. Like feminism, the Manosphere is an expression of angst in the creeping barrenness that is sterilizing secular humanism from the earth.

As a response to abuses suffered under the overreach of the women’s rights movement, masculism boils down to Adam seizing Eve’s half-eaten fruit. Like feminism, the men’s rights movement desires something good but is disqualified by its method (2 Timothy 2:5). Intimidation is the death of intimacy. Theft is the nemesis of grace. Men calculate and women manipulate, demanding from the other what can only be obtained as a gift. As soon as it is seized, it is a worthless counterfeit, and what was once intoxicating becomes toxic.

Rehashing Peter Leithart and Bill Smith’s boomer complementarianism. Already critiqued this in the previous posts.

God made a world in which equality can never be taken but only bestowed. I know a married couple who have lost all reason. He goes out of his way to love and spoil her, far beyond what she could ever possibly deserve, and she respects and honors him far beyond what he could ever possibly deserve. It is almost comical. Neither of them seems to realize how insane they are.

This is not equality in any sense of the words used by feminism (equals) or the Bible (not used in the Bible). Bull is trying to somehow marry the two — that’s exactly how complementarianism was developed in the first place — by impressing feminism onto Biblical concepts.

Bull also conveniently leaves out submission by the wife including only respect and honor.

The source of all inequality in the world, and its remedy, are found in the relationship between the Father and the Son by the Spirit. For Adam, Jesus, and by extension, Eve, and the Church, equality in any God-ordained sphere is not something to be grasped but received (Philippians 2:6-8). The forbidden fruit always comes to us freely from God’s hand when we are ready to freely give.

This arrangement, so counterintuitive to us, is an outflow of God’s own “seed and harvest” character. All of life is death-and-resurrection. To preserve what was intended to be sacrificed is to kill it. He who would save his masculinity will lose it. She who would be delivered from masculinity will be made more vulnerable to it.

It’s interesting Bull reference these verses:

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

This is an example of Jesus submitting to God, so by the very analogy (e.g. God:Jesus as well as Christ:Church::husbands:wives) we can consider that wives should not consider “equality” with a husband something to be grasped but are servants to their husbands even obedient unto death. This is synonymous with 1 Peter 3 where Sarah is lauded as being submissive and obedient to Abraham even in situations where Abraham lied by omission to Pharoah and Abimelech and almost caused her to commit adultery with possibly the violence of war breaking out.

Oh wait. That’s probably not what he was going for there.

The abolition of Adam

The offer to the Woman was always intended to trap the Man that they might both be cut off.

Feminism delivered women from bad men by emancipating them from womanhood. Germaine Greer’s “female eunuch,” repressed sexually by the constraints of culture, sought to be free of the chains of nature but became something unnatural, something sexless. To Greer’s chagrin, external feminine attributes are now fetishized by transexuals, so even womanhood has been appropriated by men. The revolution always eats its own.

As we know, feminism also disenfranchized men. The masculization of women not only emasculates men, it also feminizes the world and alienates men from it. Increasingly, we are a society of male and female eunuchs. What we have stolen from each other has turned to ashes in our mouths. However, “punching up” is not the same for men as it is for women. Given the opportunity, yet at great cost, women can abandon their God-given roles for those of men. But the men who have found themselves without purpose as a result of this experiment have either given mere lip service to the cause, opted out of reality entirely, or circled the wagons to create a “safe space.”

The problem is that in none of these three scenarios can men be men in the way that God intended, so we have to settle for cosplay. Self-conscious masculinity is little more than anti-drag. It looks into the mirror for validation instead of being transformed by the Word of God.

True masculine attributes are the natural outgrowth of husbandry—the fruit of a life voluntarily given to being food and shelter for others as a tree of righteousness. When it comes to the hearts of men, God judges the book and then designs the cover. Ask Adam. His use of studied externals, a cloak of dead leaves to hide the absence of fruit, was the first act of manly virtue signaling.

Bull’s analysis of feminism is too basic and, to no one’s surprise, complementarian in nature.

Feminism is not just bad for men, it’s also bad for most if not all women. The main women that benefit are the most attractive women because of the ensuing dysfunction in the relationship and marriage marketplace harms most men and women at the benefit of the top few. Feminism pushes not just for the feminization of men but also for the masculinization of women. Both are bad.

These examples and many more are why there are no redeeming qualities of feminism.

A man’s world

Where the Spirit of God harmonizes things that were set at odds by sin (truth and love, man and woman, priesthood and kingdom), the world deals with disharmony by attempting to homogenize them. But the gifts of God can never be revoked, the Man’s headship can never be abolished, and his responsibility for the Woman can never be evaded.

A man is a mission, born as a drawn bow and held in a necessary tension. His life itself is a tour of duty. His identity is indivisible from his purpose, which is why the pent-up, puffed up potency of the Manosphere is ultimately impotent without God.

In contrast, a Christian man, whether single or married, is never without purpose. The single life is priestly and the married life is priest-kingly. In either case, and in any domain or pursuit, submission to heaven as a child of God brings dominion of the earth as a father to people. We are to be passive before heaven that we might be active upon the earth. We see this one-and-many in Jesus’ ministry of prayerful solitude and public preaching. A godly man mediates between heaven and earth. His strength, like his mission, comes from above.

Generally correct, but like most of the boomer complementarians they also refuse to reject feminism or call out female rebellion. You really can’t discuss men without discussing women, especially if we’re talking about relationships and marriage.

In its attempt to deal with rogue males, however, the Church has made the same mistake as the world, turning the exploiters into the exploited. By divorcing Jesus’ priestly ministry from His subsequent enthronement, the Church has beaten men into submission under the banner of “servant-leadership.” Godliness in now considered to be passivity on the earth. The Man receives orders from God and from the Woman.

But Jesus now possesses all authority. Priestly humility qualifies one for kingly rule. A priestly man is not a butler but a guardian. The term “servant-leadership,” which implies passivity, needs to be replaced with the term “priest-kingdom.” A man has the authority required in order to serve but it is still authority. Moses was the meekest man who ever lived and he was no pushover.

But our rights as heirs are always preceded by priestly responsibilities. Fixation with rights turns everyone into an accuser and results in discord. A focus on responsibilities turns everyone into an advocate and harmonizes the world as God designed.

Bull begins to go astray from the mark again here.

While it’s true focusing on rights is often the wrong way to go about things, the focus on responsibilities is as well. Honing in onto responsibilities is precisely what “servant-leadership” purports to do in the first place. This inevitably morphs into the focus of serving your wife, Church, etc. Bull basically just trades servant-leadership for the same thing under a different name.

Finding your mission and thus your role is the most important thing because that grounds your responsibilities to pleasing God rather than your wife, Church, or man.

The Bible is the problem

The “discord” of sexual hierarchy established in Genesis 2 was not, as some claim, a result of sin, yet, like the “not-good” firmament in Genesis 1, it is indeed a temporary divide that aches for resolution.

Complementarians rightly argue that the entire Bible presents male headship as the norm, while egalitarians rightly argue that the Bible itself demonstrates a gradual shift towards equality between the sexes. As in a domestic dispute, both parties have legitimate grievances, and both justify their position from the Word of God.

The Scriptures themselves thus present us with an apparent contradiction. Is there a theological solution that takes both male headship and female equality in its stride without violating either one? Most certainly.

Priest-kingdom works with the grain of the created order. God prepares all of us for glory, but men especially, by getting us out of our comfort zones. What He made is good but He intends to make it great—to broaden our shoulders for a more glorious mantle and greater burdens (Isaiah 9:6; Hebrews 2:10).

The Tabernacle, a tent of sacrifice, was humaniform, cruciform, because a man is a house designed to be inhabited by God (John 1:14; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17). Adam was opened up so that his bride could be built by God. He was then expected to “empty himself” as a safe space for his wife and children. Tested as a servant (priesthood), the house would become a household (kingdom). Adam would then speak as God’s legal representative (prophecy).

The roles of priest, king, and prophet were expected to be fulfilled by Adam in the Garden. They then played out corporately in the history of Israel. As a process of growth to maturity, they also correspond to the three waves of feminism, but it is a false prophetess. The only lasting solution is a society of priest-kingly men like Jesus instead of usurpers like Herod.

Complementarians argue that headship is the norm is correct, but their headship is figureheadship. Egalitarians are simply wrong there is equality.

I simply have no clue what he is talking about in the last 3 paragraphs though as they don’t even relate to complementarian version of figureheadship and female equality, even if there was such things.

The throne of Eve

As James B. Jordan has observed, the Bible mentions kings and queens, and prophets and prophetesses, but no priestesses. This is because the empowerment of the Woman depends upon the prior faithfulness of the Man. Like the Man, the Woman was designed for glory, but she requires a godly enabler. This is biblical feminism.

Women are prone to striving for inclusion at the expense of orthodoxy. Thus, if a woman takes the office of priest, she is sawing off the very branch upon which she sits in safety (Isaiah 47:7-9). The Old Covenant priesthood was entirely male because the Sanctuary was not safe for the Woman. This is also why Jesus’ disciples were all male, even at the Last Supper. The serpent had not yet been crushed by the Man. Until this happens in our culture, the Man and the Woman will continue to crush each other under foot.

Like Eve, although married to the king, Esther was little more than a chattel, a thing. We see the same progression in the difference between the Ten Commandments in Exodus and their repetition in Deuteronomy. The woman is not longer a possession but has been given co-regency in the “resurrected” order.

Once enthroned, the ascended Christ sent His Spirit to gather the bride, a corporate Woman who would not be deceived because she had a better Adam than the Herodian “man of sin” (Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4). Revelation begins with a vision of this Adam, ends with a vision of His Eve, and in between there is the “carnage” of the spiritual war against the dragon. Once defeated, the saints are enthroned with Jesus just as Esther was enthroned with Ahasuerus. If Adam had been faithful, both he and Eve would have been robed in righteousness as co-regents and joint-heirs.

Since God always works through a process of planting and harvest, gender roles, while distinct, are not static. They are covenantal, that is, they proceed from promises to fulfillments. God gives us a “firstfruits” taste of coming glories, a downpayment of grapes or wine or even the Spirit of God, and prepares us for the glorious burden of wise government on His behalf.

So, the difference between secular feminism and biblical feminism is that feminism grasps (or manufactures) what God has in store while biblical feminism receives it in God’s time.

Biblical feminism sees the Woman exalted to the status of co-regent via the faithfulness of the exalted Man. Feminism seizes the throne, appoints self-interested flatterers and sycophants, and alienates those who would truly protect the people.

One must wonder by Bull keeps pushing a bibical version of feminism. Bull is right that Christians are co-heirs with Christ, but he also misses the point where Christ rejects the disobedient believers in Revelation 2 and 3. Jesus says “if you love me, obey my commandments.”

Only the obedient are lifted up by the one in authority. Those who are disobedient are disciplined. The “godly enabler” is only enabling insofar as the one who is being enabled respects and submits to authority. If Esther was disobedient to the king like Vashti then she would have ended up the same as her.

God’s love is indeed unconditional, but that love has different responses to obedience (repentance) and disobedience/rebellion (hell). Same with the husband and wife. 

This is why we can’t understand the roles and responsibilities of only men as has been seen through the past few articles. Ignore womens’ agency to sin and rebel is extremely perilous.

The voice of the bride

A church truly governed by godly men will be filled with godly, empowered women. But due to a failure to think in terms of covenant process and sacred architecture, complementarians describe the liturgical role of women in terms of what it is not.

Egalitarians rightly complain that if women are expected to keep silent in the Church, why are there so many vociferous women in the Bible? This is not a question of why but of where and when. The women at the tomb were told to testify about the resurrection of a Man. Their testimony was a response to the Word. Their domain is outside the Sanctuary, an image of the testimony of the Bride of Christ to the nations.

Bull makes a weird argument about outside of the domain vs inside. I don’t think that is correct. Evangelizing and prophesying (all Christians) are not the same thing as teaching or leadership positions (men only).

I already covered why some of these types of examples are terrible in other articles such as women in leadership positions.

The light of the bridal city is the Lamb of God. Only a lamb is worthy to open the scroll in the Sanctuary. A self-sacrificial man in the Garden is a light to all men and women. A female priest has removed the linch-pin decreed by God for the maintenance of the Sanctuary.

The role of the “preacher” has been conflated with that of the prophet. If there are prophetesses, why cannot a woman be a priest? The answer is that all roles are prophetic. The faithful priest will speak for God. The faithful king and queen will speak for God. The faithful prophet and prophetess will speak for God. The Bible is filled with wise, wily women, yet not a single one of them was an egalitarian.

And not a single one was complementarian.

The voice of the bride in the Scriptures is always a response to the “male” Word, and very often it is a brutal song of victory. In the case of Esther, the legal “prophecy” was the identification of the serpent. I suspect that if Adam had spoken as a prophet against the lie of the devil, it would have been Eve who suggested that he kill it. It is by God’s design that women not only are capable of unfathomable springs of love but also, when betrayed, of a fury that is hotter than hell.

A very strange argument again that is conceptually backwards. Women generally do not instigate violence except through more covert or underhanded means. Esther basically buttered up the king with banquets before exposing Haman. It was also Christ who is coming to rule and destroy the enemy and not really at the behest of the Church.

All roles require faithful testimony as legal representatives of Christ. Godly women have plenty to say to godly men, as confidantes and advisors. Women perceive things that men do not. But there are also women who are singled out by God with the gift of prophecy. The Word flows out of them as a spring of life. To be encouraged, edified, or rebuked by one of these ladies is to hear from God Himself. Yet not one of them would ever dare to darken a pulpit. Their true glory is in their submission. They are empowered because their deference to God’s way enables Him to bestow His power upon them.

And here we go again into the “wife is your Holy Spirit” territory instead of your wife is your helper. Inverting sex roles again like complementarian figureheadship does.

Conclusion

At the core of the debate over equality between the sexes is our failure to understand that the good things we desire cannot be grasped but only given to us. This is the heart of the Scriptures. Jesus Himself inherited all the kingdoms of the world but would only receive them from the hand of His Father.

The way in which we receive good things is through patient faith and obedience—not because we are earning them but because we are not yet ready to bear them. That includes true equality between the sexes as co-regents in the Garden, the Land, and the World.

In conclusion, more false boomer complementarianism that you should ignore.

I won’t be covering Aaron Renn’s final response, but he did take issue to one of the things I said about feminine mystery.


Overall, I was hopeful with this series as Aaron is fairly versed with the manosphere, including the Christian portion of it. However, it was pretty clear starting with the 2nd article that there is still a lot of heretical feminist and boomer complementarian lenses still clouding the eyes of these men where they interpret the Scriptures incorrectly and give poor prescriptive advice.

This article in particular clearly summed it up for us: if you go along with their advice you’ll just get more of the same just under a different name. Servant-leadership and boomer complementarian figureheadship are still two sides of the same coin as is men stepping up into responsibilities without authority and calling out female rebellion.

It’s pretty sad because these men seemed like they really started to understand some of the concepts of the manosphere, but just found another way to twist the concepts to fit their own boomer complementarianism again. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

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

24 Responses to Mike Bull’s What is biblical feminism?

  1. Jack says:

    I’ve really enjoyed your review of this series. Thanks!

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    Suggest Mike Bull change his name to Mike Steer. A true complementarian would never be a Bull.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    One excerpt:

    While it is easy to demonize feminism because of what it has become, the independence it has achieved means that there is no going back.

    Ignorant of history prior to the 20th century, or even the 1960’s. I’d point Pasha Glubb’s work Fate of Empires out to him, but really in my experience these older men just won’t read anything that doesn’t confirm their own prejudices.

    But the agenda will accelerate into oblivion unless the Church can offer a better destination.

    The churches are all on board the oblivion train. It is obvious. Like a bunch of alkies staggering down the street, there will have to be a close encounter with “rock bottom” before substantial change can happen.

    Providing a Promised Land is, ironically and inescapably, the job of men.

    Huh. So, Moses provided a Promised Land? All by his own self? Is that what Exodus is all about? For real?

    Aging Boomer steers really need to find a nice pasture and just keep to themselves. For their own good, and for the benefit of everyone else.

  4. Novaseeker says:

    These guys fall into two groups.

    One group is what I would call “feminist lite” — these are the complementarians. They like equality as an idea, even though they recognize that it isn’t actually called for by the Bible, and so they are interested in recasting the Bible in ways that reach de facto feminist outcomes without calling it feminism. In many cases, they are not doing this cynically — that is, cynically trying to concoct arguments from a pre-determined endstate, but are in fact trying to balance the Biblical texts with their sincere desire for more equality between the sexes, so that Christian couples are not quite so much at odds with what the world calls for them to do, and, again, because these guys like more equality — also for their daughters, as I have spoken about in other comments. They are de facto feminists, in practice, even though they spend a lot of ink setting forth why they think that are not actually feminists.

    The other group sees the problem of this approach being de facto feminist, but they are coming from a perspective where they don’t see a practical alternative to de facto embracing feminism “through the back door” of complementarity, because they don’t think that any full-throated rejection of feminism, front or back door, by openly embracing headship/submission as the model, is possible without driving many people away from the churches. This group is less idealistic and more tactical — its embrace of complementarianism, in practice, is not because they are sympathetic towards equality, but rather because they do not think that the mission of the church can function if the churches do not embrace some kind of de facto feminism in practice, while dressing it up as Biblically Christian. In particular, many in this group are very worried about the response of women, given that women are primary when it comes to churches in America in 2020, not men.

    Because of this, we can expect to see the current situation continue indefinitely in the churches, I think. I honestly don’t see much change in this specific area, other than in the direction of more feminism, more women involved in ministry and leadership, and more drift from de facto feminism to de jure feminism throughout these “conservative” Christian churches in the years ahead.

  5. Boogie says:

    Feminism is here to stay, boys. Get used to it and move the f*”#@ on with your lives. It’s not going to change so find something new to bitch about, for crying out loud.

  6. cameron232 says:

    Feminism has already lost-natural selection guarantees it. The future belongs to those who show up.

  7. Jack says:

    In response to the cocksure Booger…

    “Everything We Assume Is Permanent Is Actually Fragile.

    Masking the rot and fragility is not the same thing as strength or permanence.”

    https://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2020/10/everything-we-assume-is-permanent-is.html

  8. cameron232 says:

    Obviously, the final victory is already won so we can be without fear, anxiety in all things. Praise Jesus!

    Feminism is ubiquitous, aggressive. The natural and artificial (e.g. culture transmitted through family, organizations) selection against it produces strong immunity . One and the same I suppose as “the future belongs to those who show up.” This sort of selection is unprecedented – this is an exciting time to be alive. They’re history!

  9. @ Boogie

    Feminism is here to stay, boys. Get used to it and move the f*”#@ on with your lives. It’s not going to change so find something new to bitch about, for crying out loud.

    No one is complaining. Temptations will always be here including feminism.

    The real rubber that meets the road is how to disciple men and women to resist the temptation.

  10. @ Nova

    One group is what I would call “feminist lite” — these are the complementarians. They like equality as an idea, even though they recognize that it isn’t actually called for by the Bible, and so they are interested in recasting the Bible in ways that reach de facto feminist outcomes without calling it feminism. In many cases, they are not doing this cynically — that is, cynically trying to concoct arguments from a pre-determined endstate, but are in fact trying to balance the Biblical texts with their sincere desire for more equality between the sexes, so that Christian couples are not quite so much at odds with what the world calls for them to do, and, again, because these guys like more equality — also for their daughters, as I have spoken about in other comments. They are de facto feminists, in practice, even though they spend a lot of ink setting forth why they think that are not actually feminists.

    The other group sees the problem of this approach being de facto feminist, but they are coming from a perspective where they don’t see a practical alternative to de facto embracing feminism “through the back door” of complementarity, because they don’t think that any full-throated rejection of feminism, front or back door, by openly embracing headship/submission as the model, is possible without driving many people away from the churches. This group is less idealistic and more tactical — its embrace of complementarianism, in practice, is not because they are sympathetic towards equality, but rather because they do not think that the mission of the church can function if the churches do not embrace some kind of de facto feminism in practice, while dressing it up as Biblically Christian. In particular, many in this group are very worried about the response of women, given that women are primary when it comes to churches in America in 2020, not men.

    Yeah, basically the complementarians and egalitarians. Both viewing the Bible from subtle and overt feminist glasses. Ironically, the both like chivalry for that reason, though in different ways.

    It was never not here to stay. Any and all temptations known to man will always be there to deceive and tempt others from the Truth.

    Effective discipleship is going to be the key similar to Jesus rebuking the Churches from falling to various worldly temptations.

    Most are deceived right now which is a bad thing; they don’t even know they’re doing things wrong. However, once it’s brought out into the light more at least people will have the choice between good or evil.

  11. Sharkly says:

    “The term “servant-leadership,” which implies passivity, needs to be replaced with the term “priest-kingdom.”

    “If you go along with their advice you’ll just get more of the same just under a different name. Servant-leadership and boomer complementarian figureheadship are still two sides of the same coin as is men stepping up into responsibilities without authority and calling out female rebellion.”

    I agree. These old goofballs remind me of Feminists realizing that they tipped their hand with the term “toxic masculinity” making plain to everyone that they just hate the masculine sex. Feminists are now wanting to come up with a less obvious term for their man-hate. Their term reveals that they are just man haters, they don’t really have a plan, just a grudge against godly submission to any man. So also, the churchian pastorbaters who have alienated men via “SERVANT leadership”. They now want a new term that hides that their satanic goal is to steal men’s headship and enslave them to women, while claiming that being pussy-whipped is somehow showing Christ-like “leadership”. Their satanic goal is to reduce men to taking all blame for every bit of their wife’s unhappiness and discontentment, while the pastorbaters openly devalue the husbands and steal their moral authority to rule, causing women, under their sway, to feel entitled to more, and be discontent and unhappy with the husbands they have. And ultimately the pastorbaters, just like Satan, want to force the men into unending servitude to their wives, instead of serving God through being who God made them to be, and exercising the dominion God told men to exercise. Satan cannot enslave or humiliate God, so his plan is to enslave and humiliate God’s image and glory, men.(1 Corinthians 11:7) The Feminist false-teachers like Mike Bull don’t all necessarily have a malicious plan, most are feminized and are easily led, exactly like women, to serve their lord and master Satan’s purposes. Those who preach the emasculation of men and deny all men the authority to correct their wives, by tarring most forms of discipline of women as “abuse”, are either Satan’s servants or Satan’s useful idiots. Mike Bull is either evil or blinded, based upon the satanic foolishness he preaches.

    Also, the Feminist Chatty-Cathy calling herself “Boogie”, has commented at my site under a dozen different screen-names and claimed to be both male and female at different times under different names. while she may enjoy verbally emasculating men by calling us boys, she is the one who should “find something new to bitch about”. I looked her up, and, basically she’s a nobody. Just another Feminist failure. LOL You can never tell with such crazies whether she was abused by men, or just feels “abused”. Either way, she lies, so you just need to disregard her.

  12. @ Sharkly

    The Feminist false-teachers like Mike Bull don’t all necessarily have a malicious plan, most are feminized and are easily led, exactly like women, to serve their lord and master Satan’s purposes. Those who preach the emasculation of men and deny all men the authority to correct their wives, by tarring most forms of discipline of women as “abuse”, are either Satan’s servants or Satan’s useful idiots. Mike Bull is either evil or blinded, based upon the satanic foolishness he preaches.

    I think most of the these guys have good intentions, but they still have some work to do to take off the glasses.

    Hopefully, some of them will see this series eventually and realize their errors. Otherwise, it’s unfortunate as the road to hell is paved with good intentions many a times.

  13. Sharkly says:

    Deep Strength,
    It was my impression that these guys preach and lead for a living, and are well aware of the manosphere. If after investigating the manosphere, they just respond with condescending claims about us, painting with a broad brush, and they double down on their same old woman worship. While they may still be ignorant, it is mostly willful ignorance. God’s Spirit is not in them, because God’s Spirit is not in approval of anybody straying the least bit away from the holy patriarchy God prescribes. So they are godless, willfully ignorant, and serving Satan by repeatedly telling men to hearken unto the voice of their wives, like Adam did, according to Satan’s plan, resulting in the whole earth being cursed.
    To me, if they are godless willfully ignorant servants of Satan, trying to help Feminists to smash God’s holy patriarchy, whether or not they are well intentioned, makes little difference.

    My wife’s church has literally taught her the way of rebellion, divorce and, to worship her own disordered feelings above the commands of God. They and my wife are teaching my son’s to defy their father and soon to become immoral by attempting to strip away all fear of God from them. Mike Bull is the exact same cunt-worshipping bag of shit as all of them. He would get along with them just fine. He wouldn’t have the natural enmity with the servants of Satan like I have. Feminism is Satan’s rebellion started with Eve, and Mike Bull is not trying to reassert God’s holy patriarchy, or battling the world’s Feminist culture like those who are servants of God. He is a blinded fool false-teaching people into hell. While we can hope and pray for his salvation and repentance from his wicked works of rebellion against God our Father, He is running a whoring daughter church of the Mother of Harlots, where women’s feelings are religiously elevated above God’s commands. Why don’t women cover their heads when they pray in his church like God demands? because women are his hearts goddess. He doesn’t want his goddesses to have to wear a symbol of subjection! I could go down a huge list of Feminism that plagues churches like his, that he dares not to address in any substantive way, but like women’s head coverings that got tossed out 50 years ago, to worship women instead of God, it is always the same. he, by his actions, curses God Most High, and smears the Father’s earthly counterparts, to elevate his goddesses giving them dominion above God Himself.

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    I may have referenced the 2020 movie Greyhound before. It’s a Tom Hanks film taken from a book by C.S. Forester written during WW II. It is a fictionalized account of a convoy sailing from North America to England in 1942. Once beyond the reach of land based aircraft, there is no air cover. 40+ ships carrying troops, oil, supplies, etc. are protected by four (4) escorts against U-boats. Hanks plays the role of the convoy commander, a US Navy officer who also commands the biggest and fastest warship, a Fletcher class destroyer. The character is a devout Christian and Hanks is credible.

    In this scene, the U-boats are attacking the convoy on the surface at night. A tanker has been torpedoed. Hanks is not just commander of the fastest escort, he’s also commander of the entire escort group. Survivors in the North Atlantic waters cannot live long before hypothermia kills them. But the entire convoy is his responsibility.

    This is a well performed scene that shows what command looks like. Authority and responsibility are balanced. Look at the faces of the young sailors as they wait for a decision.

    This is what command authority and responsibility looks like. Those Boomer steers totally don’t get it. They do not.

  15. bee123456 says:

    “Biblical feminism” is fried ice. Feminism can not be rehabilitated, reformed.

    The fact that Mike Bull & the Theopolus Institute think we need a Christian form of feminism is very revealing.

  16. feeriker says:

    Sharkly says:

    It was my impression that these guys preach and lead for a living.

    They do, which is of course a very big part of the problem. It bears infinite repeating that in this day and age, as North American “churches” are more often non-profit corporations functioning as “Jesus Fan Clubs” for those seeking an ephemeral and cost-free “spiritual high” or validation of their worldly lifestyles rather than bodies of committed believers, their CEOs, who fancy calling themselves “pastors,” have to behave like businessmen and cater to their customers’ wants or be driven out of business. Given that the bulk of their “customers” are now women, it’s either tickle the customers’ itchy ears with worldly messages dressed up as the Gospel, or see the collection plates fill with cobwebs and dust. In anticipation of those who would respond, as they so often do, “there are plenty of churches that reject feminism/complimentarianism and preach the true Gospel. Mine is one of them,” no, there are NOT “plenty” of such churches; they are as rare as head-covered women in evangelical churches. If they were plentiful the disease of Christo-feminism, of which Complimentarianism is one strain, would be far less pervasive than it obviously is.

    If after investigating the manosphere, they just respond with condescending claims about us, painting with a broad brush, and they double down on their same old woman worship. While they may still be ignorant, it is mostly willful ignorance.

    That Bull conflates the “manosphere” with the “Men’s Rights Movement” is very telling, and yes, it is very clearly willful ignorance. There are abundant resources across the internet that clearly differentiate these two groups, so if Bull is unaware of the distinction it’s his own fault, either through laziness or willful ignorance. I believe that it is 100 percent safe to say that Bull, like most “Boomer theologians,” is wholly uninterested in educating himself in the manosphere’ s philosophy, especially the Christian manosphere. He has a vested interest in the status quo, has invested too much of himself in it over the decades to reverse course, and, as is characteristic of faithless men such as himself, is content to lead himself and others down the road to Hell, a place one has to wonder, give his and his fellow Boomer theologians’ behavior, if he truly believes in.

    [Bull] is a blinded fool false-teaching people into hell.

    Like all churchian franchise CEOs today, he’s AFRAID – of women, of other feminized, cowed churchian men; of temporal government and its agents, of empty collection plates and financial ruin. His fear is the fear possessing men who have never truly been born again or trusted God to guide and protect them in serving Him. That most men of Bull’s position today seem to be of this mold tells us everything we need to know about the corporate church today and the feminized, capitulationist theology behind it.

  17. @ Sharkly

    Oops forgot to reply.

    It was my impression that these guys preach and lead for a living, and are well aware of the manosphere. If after investigating the manosphere, they just respond with condescending claims about us, painting with a broad brush, and they double down on their same old woman worship. While they may still be ignorant, it is mostly willful ignorance. God’s Spirit is not in them, because God’s Spirit is not in approval of anybody straying the least bit away from the holy patriarchy God prescribes. So they are godless, willfully ignorant, and serving Satan by repeatedly telling men to hearken unto the voice of their wives, like Adam did, according to Satan’s plan, resulting in the whole earth being cursed.

    I definitely think that could be the case.

    I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn’t seem like any of them actually did any deep research like into Dalrock’s stuff which correlates to your line of thought unfortunately.

    We’ll see.

  18. Novaseeker says:

    I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn’t seem like any of them actually did any deep research like into Dalrock’s stuff which correlates to your line of thought unfortunately.

    It’s because from their perspective the “manosphere”, broadly construed, is like any other non-Christian cultural phenomenon — it’s just that it involves men rather than another aspect of the culture. It’s not a part of the Christianity they are familiar with, or its existing ecclesial entities or one of its many parachurch manifestations, and so therefore it is treated like any other cultural phenomenon outside Christianity: not something you study intently, but something that you glance at enough to form the standard “American Christian” view on it, analyze it in those terms, and move on. No muss, no fuss. It really doesn’t stand out to them — if it did, they would have been aware of it and its material in greater detail. It’s just another contemporary cultural artifact that is to be seen exclusively through the lens of how their settled view of “American Christianity” views such artifacts in general, with a good helping of “American Christianity”s skepticism towards men in general.

    It’s the classic case of everything on earth looking like a different kind of nail when you only have a hammer as your only tool.

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    It’s because from their perspective the “manosphere”, broadly construed, is like any other non-Christian cultural phenomenon — it’s just that it involves men rather than another aspect of the culture.

    Sure, this is why the manosphere was essentially ignored for years. However the problem for Boomer steers is two fold: the conspicuous divorce rate within the churches is not that different from the larger society, and the Manosphere actually is right about some things, such as the nature of women.

    In my opinion Dalrock did more to bring the Manosphere to the attention of various church going people than anyone else. Church people could ignore Roissy, RooshV and Rollo because “not one of us”, but Dalrock took on famous Protestant church leaders, often in terms of “what does the Bible actually say?” and that did leak over into the church bubbleworld. Doug Wilson. Tim Bayley. Those two for sure.

    This entire series from Aaron Renn is just a grudging, rather poor-spirited way of dealing with the obvious fact that bloggers come and go, but the truths about men and women remain constant. The worst part for preachers – much of this is actually in the Bible. It’s there in Proverbs, it’s there in parts of Judges, etc. and for sure it’s there in the letters of the New testament. Previously church leaders could just ignore texts such as 1 Corinthians 7:5, but now it’s being recognized. Of course, now the fallback position is a ‘Yes, but…’ reaction that somehow twists normal male human sex desire towards a wife as “abusive” in some fashion. Eh, it’s ok, the Churchians can’t ignore reality any more, now they have to lie about it. That’s a step forward. Next up, “That’s what it says, yep” which is supposed to carry some weight in a Protestant church…

    A friend of mine who is sorta between churches suggested that any time anyone in a church gets That Look When … and blurts out “Does it really say that?” it’s a teaching moment. Because “Did God Really Say…?” is a rather well known quote. Just not in the modern context. Because nobody in a church wants to seriously consider whose side they are taking in that “….really say?” moment.

    In short, the manosphere progresses from being ignored, to being ridiculed, to being lied about. Next up — more younger GenX pastors like Bill Smith. Men who may not like where all this info came from, but who can’t deny the reality.

    Then we’ll see if pastors keep on using words like “patriarchy” with that sneer…

  20. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    I’m a little late to the party, but here is my observation for what it is worth.

    These feminist-lite writers seem to be gerrymandering the Word of God to support their a priori commitments. They ignore the multitude of verses concerning a wife’s submission to her husband, a wife’s honor and respect toward her God appointed head – again her husband, a wife’s obedience to her husband that when it is withheld is called blasphemy, the principle that equality when it is mentioned in scripture is held out as something not to be grasped, that is if emulating Christ is in view. These are set aside to further the narrative of men who abuse or are derelict toward authority and unjustly subjugate women simply because they are women and lack a penis. While not explicitly advancing the following, it harmonizes with the worldly view that bearing children is a burden and not a marvelous blessing, that home-making is odious labor and unfitting the dignity of an empowered woman and that a woman’s body is her own to offer sexual consent as she pleases. Their focus is nearly completely on failing men and completely absent not on proud women. Not only is the model unbalance and incorrect, but worse yet they rob half of the church from a needed admonishing while rebuking the rest for sins that are not really sins. They call evil (feminism) good and good (biblical-patriarchy) evil. Scratching itching ears they have a following, but they themselves are not following the Shepherd of souls, but the way of a perverse culture. They may not like make authority but the reject female submission with extreme prejudice. The saddest part is that God’s model is a type of the gospel lived out on the stage of human life. The picture is Christ and the church. These egalitarian and egalitarian-lite models make the church equal with Christ! I call that blasphemy and so did Paul. A loving shepherd caring for his wife, who honors and obeys her shepherd, as he sees to her good is a picture that God loves, but that the ear-scratchers loathe.

  21. Sharkly says:

    … a wife’s obedience to her husband that when it is withheld is called blasphemy…
    The picture is Christ and the church.

    The churchians can’t accept those truths. They grossly misinterpret the 27th verse of the Bible to make females equally the image of the Father, the Most High God, making women equal with men. Then they interpret the rest of the Bible wrong, according to that Feminist error, gerrymandering the Word of God to support their a priori commitments.
    They ignore verses like 1 Corinthians 11:7, that make clear that only men are the image and glory of God. Nor will they admit that in Ephesians 5 the husband also clearly images God/Christ, while the wife images the church/(which is not God). Because of their desire to force women into the image of God, a Father and Son patriarchy, and thereby blasphemously make God a hermaphrodite or androgynous being, they have to ignore that throughout the Bible God makes clear that He is male, and that there is none beside Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus is all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. The point being, that if foundationally you get who is the image of God wrong, then stuff like disobedient wives blaspheming the image of God isn’t obvious, and husbands imaging Christ Who is God while wives image the church which is prone to whoring, also seems not to fit. However, once you realize that only Adam was created in the image of God, and that male and female He just created “them”, but that the both of them are contrastingly not said to be in the image of God, only “created”. Then suddenly the pieces all start to fit into place, and you can believe like the early church unanimously did, that only men are the image of God, while wives were created to be under subjection to the images of God, and reverencing their own husbands, as such.(Ephesians 5:33) It really is a beautiful picture once you can see it. The Savior guiding His church, which is a weaker vessel. Marriage is not two equal Christs battling for operative control.

  22. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jonadab, Sharkley – just a suggestion for you: use paragraphs to help organize your thoughts. It really helps. Each of you has at least one good phrase that other men can use:

    These feminist-lite writers seem to be gerrymandering the Word of God to support their a priori commitments

    and

    Marriage is not two equal Christs battling for operative control.

    Thanks for those. Well done.

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

  24. Pingback: Unpacking and tying together the meta-levels of Christianity, reality and the red pill into a hierarchical understanding: theological, scientific, and philosophical/cultural | Christianity and masculinity

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