Feminism: Destroyer of Worlds - Part 5
So far in this series, I covered the history of feminism in part one, I addressed common ways feminism presents itself within the church in part two, I began addressing solutions and preventions in part three, and I exposed some of the lies of feminism in part four.
In this final installment of the series, I will be addressing how feminism has effected men and masculinity. I’ve tried for weeks to shorten this, but I think each point needs to be explained in its entirety. Thanks for reading it!
Upon seeing the bad fruit of feminism, many young men are beginning to pursue a revival of masculinity. And strangely, podcaster Joe Rogan and clinical psychologist Jordan Petersen seem to be the types of figures to which young men are turning. Why aren't they turning to Christianity to rediscover manliness? The answer is simple. As John Eldredge explains, "As Christians, we have stripped men of masculinity and called it sanctification."
The result of this is that these cultural icons like Rogan and Petersen are stealing the hearts of men away from real Christianity with a masculinity that Christianity should be providing them, a masculinity that is congruous with what God designed men to be. Ben Zeisloft calls this “the Absolom effect”, named after the stealing of men’s hearts done by the biblical character of the same name in 2 Samuel 15:6.
To stop the concept-creep of feminism into the church, we require a positive emphasis on true masculinity. The biblical kind. The kind that resonates with the telos or end purpose of men.
The ancient Greeks used the word telos, which basically means “the end point of a thing”, to refer to fulfilling the purpose for which a thing is made. They recognized that certain things were natural and innate, and could be an indication of the purpose of the thing. Today this is known as teleology.
While teleology certainly has limits and the potential for abuse, we all use it intuitively as part of the natural deductive reasoning God has placed in us. We observe the emotional, mental, and physical qualities of women, and we deduce that they are made to be mother and nurturers. Feminism tells women to make those apparent, innate purposes disappear. In other words, don’t control the instincts to be a wife and mother. Instead, make those instincts go away entirely and even consider those traits bad for women. And look at the chaos this denial of innate gifting has caused.
But that brings up the question, what is the innate purpose or telos of men? What do we observe naturally in males? What has God's natural law imprinted on us? And what is the result of telling Christian men that they should not have those traits?
From the time we’re boys we love to wrestle and be rough. We explore and see if we can do hard things just to see if we can, even if it’s risky or painful. Men are naturally interested in violence, struggle, and victory. Combat sports, really nearly all sports, are largely watched by men. Victory in challenge is naturally the interest of men. It is undeniable that enduring against resistance is the natural interest and gifting of men.
A man needs to be tender at times, and a woman will sometimes need to be fierce. But if a man is only tender, we know something is deeply wrong, and if a woman is only fierce, we sense she is not what she was meant to be. —John Eldredge, Wild at Heart
Obviously, there are some boys that don’t exhibit the aforementioned boyish traits as much, just like there a some girls who are “Tom boys.” Girls like that are sometimes called “boyish.” Parents acknowledge that such girls have a different personality but if they are wise they also teach her the importance of being feminine. It takes extra teaching. So we are forced to admit then that when a boy lacks boyish interests, he is being feminine. It may be to some degree his personality, but if we’re wise we teach them the importance of being masculine.
Yet all too often, as our boys grow into Christian men we tell them boyish interests are either the flesh, childish, or unwise. For example, a girl who plays with dolls is told she’ll be a mother one day. But boys who love to wrestle and fight are told to become passive and completely disinterested in conflict because “love is patient, love is kind”, and so on. That advice is overly simplistic and lacks nuance.
To explain further what I mean about natural inclinations in men, we need an example. A desire for a woman is an innate drive in men, part of his telos, if you will. God who made nature, made men this way. A man who doesn’t have this innate desire for a woman at all is effeminate or has a medical problem. But we don’t preach that a desire for a women shouldn’t exist. That’s weird. That would make a man not a man. Rather, we preach against the fleshly use of that natural drive, namely lust. We preach that this natural interest must be controlled, not that it must be gone. It must directed toward his wife alone, a relationship in which that natural desire is sanctified. And if we’re dealing with an unmarried man, the exhortation is to get married rather than burn. In other words, take on a sanctified outlet for those natural interests.
Likewise, men like a good fight. They are willing to take on more risk. They are explorers, adventurers, soldiers, and inventors. To stifle these interests in boys and men in the name of sanctification is a travesty. Biblical masculinity values sanctified outlets for these interests rather than neutering men in the name of sanctification. Stop telling boys who want to break something that their desire is inherently evil. Give them a sledgehammer and a demolition job. Let them know it’s not wrong in itself to enjoy the use of power. Power is useful. It’s just must be controlled and used the right way. Don’t tell a boy who likes to fight that it’s always sinful to like that. Sign him up for Jiu-jitsu. He should probably learn it anyway. It will teach him humility, sportsmanship, strategy, and something that will make his future wife and kids feel safer. Don’t tell a boy who likes taking risks that such a mindset is always foolish. Teach him to start a business or plant a church.
Men are hard-wired for risk taking—particularly young men. The number one killer of fifteen- to twenty-four-year-old males is accidents. Female investors hold less risky investment portfolios than their male counterparts and generally take fewer chances with their money. Churches need men because men are natural risk takers—and they bring that orientation into the church. Congregations that do not take risks atrophy. Jesus made it clear that risk taking is necessary to please God. In the parable of the talents, the master praises two servants who risked their assets and produced more, but he curses the servant who played it safe. He who avoids all risk is, in the words of Jesus, “wicked and lazy".
― David Murrow, Why Men Hate Going to Church
A man needs a battle to fight; he needs a place for the warrior in him to come alive and be honed, trained, seasoned. If we can reawaken that fierce quality in a man, hook it up to a higher purpose, release the warrior within, then the boy can grow up and become truly masculine.
— John Eldredge, Wild at Heart
That being said, I am proposing several solutions in our approach to Christian masculinity:
Be Clear About Man’s God-given Natural Abilities
The Corinthians were facing literal, physical persecutions. And Paul used the words "quit ye like men, be strong." It means “behave like men.” They were facing physically gritty and dangerous things, so he says to be like men. Not cuttlefish, not lamas, or anything else. "Men" are what he identifies as the unique creature to pattern oneself after if you want endurance and grit in the face of insurmountable aggressions. God imbued men with this naturally, otherwise, Paul would have used a word other than “men”. He also did not say, "Well, there are different types of toughness." For some reason he did not say, “Be Spirit filled,” even though that’s important. His “quit ye like men” statement means that spiritual toughness alone was insufficient for this task. They needed natural, male qualities for this, the same masculinity that enabled Jesus to endure His sufferings.
Men are known for physical stamina and the enduring of hard work and toil. And Paul’s point is that since men already know the ability to be tough and enduring laborers and risk-takers, that should then translate to the Corinthians' persecution. Let me be unequivocally clear on this: the physical familiarity with toil and endurance was not just the illustration of Christian endurance, in this passage; it was the preparation for the Christian endurance they needed in that moment.
Some men avoid discomfort, labor, hardships, pain, and struggle at every turn. They see no point in putting themselves in difficult situations. These men should not be trusted in times of persecution. They are simply not prepared to ignore "quit signals." And as men, we instinctively know this about men who are unwilling to work hard, toil, or get dirty. We rarely call on these men in times of real need. Be clear about these natural strengths of men and how they can help prepare men for strength of a spiritual sort.
A stallion is hard to tame. If you want a safer, quieter animal, there’s an easy solution: castrate him. A gelding is much more compliant. You can lead him around by the nose; he’ll do what he’s told without putting up a fuss. There’s only one problem: geldings don’t give life. They can’t come through for you the way a stallion can. A stallion is dangerous all right, but if you want the life he offers, you have to have the danger too. They go together… But you cannot teach a boy to use his strength by stripping him of it. Jesus was able to retaliate, believe me. But he chose not to. And yet we suggest that a boy who is mocked, shamed before his fellows, stripped of all power and dignity should stay in that beaten place because Jesus wants him there? You will emasculate him for life. From that point on all will be passive and fearful. He will grow up never knowing how to stand his ground, never knowing if he is a man indeed. Oh yes, he will be courteous, sweet even, deferential, minding all his manners. It may look moral, it may look like turning the other cheek, but it is merely weakness. You cannot turn a cheek you do not have. Our churches are full of such men. — John Eldredge, Wild at Heart
Speak About Christianity Differently to Men Than to Women
The way we speak of Christianity has gone a long way toward feminizing men in the church. Stop using words like “intimacy” with Jesus to describe the Christian life.
When Christ called disciples, he did not say, ‘Come, have a personal relationship with me.’ No, he simply said, ‘Follow me.’ Hear the difference? Follow me suggests a mission. A goal. But a personal relationship with Jesus suggests we’re headed to Starbucks for some couple time.
― David Murrow, Why Men Hate Going to Church
If you're going to speak of Jesus as a Lamb, which is biblical, do not simultaneously de-emphasize that He is also a Lion. If you speak of His love, don’t deemphasize His wrath and judgement. And when you do speak of His love, define and describe it properly. His love is shown greatest, not by the one instance of John leaning against His bosom, but rather in the heroic toil, suffering, and self-sacrifice He was willing to endure and that all the Gospels were driving towards (John 15:13 cf. v. 12, 1 John 3:16). Love may often include tender feelings, but that’s not what love is. Love is selfless sacrifice for the benefit of another.
I would not shed a tear if tomorrow we just stopped using songs that speak of me being in a garden alone and then Jesus whispers softly in my ear. And there are a number of other songs that it’s just weird for men to sing because they present Jesus as a sort of romantic. I’m not singing “He Touched Me” or “Somebody Touched Me”. The intent of sanctification is not to make men comfortable with being romantically involved with Jesus. This type of misdefining of love may be moving to Christian women, but it is typically not so for men, nor should it be. Jesus is my King, not my lover.
Unapologetically Focus on Men
A church is wise to focus on the things that keep things running well. It must triage things to best make use of its resources and time. If you take care of certain things, other things get taken care of naturally. We often preach that male leadership is the backbone of the family and church, and if men go wrong so does everything else. And yet, often for fear of offending people we feel this tension to insist on ministry equality. Feminism has thus slipped in. This may sound controversial. And that is my evidence that feminism has crept into the church, because it shouldn’t be controversial at all.
There is often in church a subtle feminist notion that women will always be missing something unless they hear the Bible explained through the lens of women; a form of the insidious "Standpoint Theory”. Worse yet is that it is sometimes come from the underlying notion that men don’t have the right to comment on things pertaining to women because they are men. This is the feminist notion that men need to “know their place.”
Here’s a mind bender: What if we canceled the children’s ministry and put that effort into building up the men of the church? I firmly believe that such an approach would, in the long run, win more youth to Christ. It would also save more marriages and produce happier women. Children’s ministry and youth ministry are good things—but spiritually healthy male role models are the best thing.
― David Murrow, Why Men Hate Going to Church
It is a step of faith to focus on men and see that over time, all of the others get taken care of. It is a faith that says, “I truly believe in the family and church hierarchy defined in the Bible”. The result is that fathers become disciplers. Husbands become Christ-like leaders in the home. In a strange way, it’s not the church's job to make everyone grow. It’s their job to help men grow. And it’s then the job of those men to lead their families to grow. This is not to say we should not address ladies and children. We should not ignore them. We just must not let the feminist notion of equality keep us from boldly prioritizing teaching men to be godly men as husbands and fathers. The onus of our preaching applications must be laid at the feet of the people God made responsible for leadership — men.
Properly Define Bible Words Like Meekness, Gentleness, and Harmless
The fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 includes meekness or sometimes translated as gentleness. This is often misdefined as "weakness" or “mildness”, the idea of inability to be forceful. Instead, it actually carries the idea strength under control. I heard a preacher once try to denounce this definition by saying “It doesn’t mean ‘strength under control’ like all the blogs say. It’s like taming a horse gently rather than beating it into submission.” Although, if a man could beat his horse, but chooses rather to control himself and not use such a tactic, that is in fact a man who is in that moment controlling his strength. He could…. but he doesn’t. Same thing. But I digress. “A” for effort.
Being meek or gentle means to avoid using all of your abilities so you don’t come on too strong. To have little or no ability to come on strong at all, well, that’s a different word. We just call that man “weak”. That’s different.
Men are often harder to control and subdue because of natural traits like aggression. We often cringe at the word "aggression". Aggression by itself does not mean angry or brutal. It does not imply meanness. It does not by itself carry ill intent. It simply has the idea of forward action. The etymology of this English word is from the idea of stepping forward. That’s not a sinful trait when directed properly. When you confront a sin, when you witness to someone, when you reject a sinful thought in protest against your own flesh, when you submit your will to God’s will, this is forward action directed properly. It’s a step forward in order to rule your own spirit (Proverbs 16:32). That is aggression. It means to push through.
When Paul confronted Peter about his hypocrisy, he was confronting the man who was seen as a pillar of the church. This was an act of aggression properly directed. Without the concept of aggression, the "boldness" we read of in the Bible is meaningless. Jesus was often aggressive with the religious leaders. It doesn’t mean he yelled or got angry. At times he even said, "Have you not read...". A modern equivalent to this might be, "Shouldn't you know better?" This is not passive "nice guy" speech. Aggression in such a case means that you say words that have the risk of bringing yourself harm or ill favor, and with alacrity you push through and suppress any feelings of fear in order to do the right thing. You go forward. This places aggression somewhere between courage and motivation. It carries force. Some men use aggression sinfully, but in and of itself, it is not sinful. It is at times a necessary part of life. Don't strip men of this trait in the name of sanctification. Teach men to have their traits under the Holy Spirit's control.
Additionally, don’t be confused about “gentleness” being a fruit of the spirit either. Today's dictionaries define this word as “easily managed or handled, docile.” But this is not what the word in the Biblical text means. It rather means “kindness” or “politeness.” It is also used in the sense of being useful and profitable. And it even carries the idea of being philanthropic. One does not have to be a soft-handed, soft-spoken pushover to be kind or philanthropic.
Also, when Jesus told the disciples to be "harmless" in Matthew 10:16 (KJV) (also see Philippians 2:15 and Hebrews 7:26), a better way to translate that would be "not mixed with deceit" or "without blame." Basically, it means innocent or blameless. It does not mean “incapable of causing harm or offense” as modern dictionaries suggest.
Sadly, because of poor definitions of these English words, it’s been implied to Christians to suppress masculine traits and you'll be truly sanctified. They’re taught to be docile, soft, pedestrian men who avoid all conflict. Don’t let culture and feminism misdefine what aggression is, or any other masculine trait for that matter.
Stop Feminizing Jesus
The same Jesus that could make things with His hands, walk nearly twenty-five miles in a day uphill to raise a widow's son from the dead, speak with authority, stand up to His enemies and make them look foolish, endure incredible amounts of suffering in self-sacrifice, and knock men over with the simple words "I am He" — this same Jesus is often feminized by our very own preachers.
One writer said that the church has “very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah,” making him “a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies.” (D. Sayers, Letters to a Diminished Church: Passionate Arguments for the Relevance of Christian Doctrine)
One reason we have men who do not step up into leadership, take responsibility, insist on righteousness, and take care of business is that all these things require assertiveness and even aggressiveness. But we've painted this picture of Jesus in which He just lets things happen, when in reality, he is rather active in bringing about the things he wills.
He ...works all things according to the counsel of his will. Ephesians 1:11
“Works” here refers to dynamic energy. And all means all, does it not? Thus, Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself was part of an active strategy to redeem sinners, not a passive response to man's evil.
Making Jesus out to be a pacifist hippy is not consistent with the Jesus of the Bible. When it does say that He was like a “Lamb to the slaughter,” this does not mean this is what every man should aspire to be in all instances. Jesus’ acceptance of man’s treatment of Him was a single, temporary part of a larger strategy to redeem men, destroy the works of the devil, dominate His enemy, and decimate evil. Don’t get tunnel vision looking at the passivity of a suffering Servant. See the big picture of conquering King.
I hope you’re getting the picture by now. If a man does not find those things for which his heart is made, if he is never even invited to live for them from his deep heart, he will look for them in some other way.
— John Eldredge, Wild at Heart
I know some Christian men that view having masculine outlets as unnecessary, vain, and the province of meatheads and bros. They suggest it doesn’t matter if a man can lift heavy things, fix stuff, or win a fight; that it doesn’t matter as long as a man is “spiritually strong” (whatever they mean by that). Garrison Keillor observed in his book, The Book of Guys, “Maybe [that is] an okay report card for a person, but I don’t know any persons . . . For a guy, it’s not good. A woman would go down the list and say, ‘What does it matter if a guy can handle a boat? Throw a curveball? Bag a deer? Throw a left hook?’ But that’s a womanly view of manhood.”
If you’ve followed this series, I trust you can by now identify the subtle encroachment of feminism into the church, and the solutions to it. Now spread the word. Spread the word that to resolve feminisms destructive influence men must be men of action, men of strength, men of risk, men of endurance, men of aggression, men of duty, men of holiness, men of the Word. It could be more simply said — be men.
We do not admire the man of timid peace. We admire the man who embodies victorious effort; the man who never wrongs his neighbor, who is prompt to help a friend, but who has those virile qualities necessary to win in the stern strife of actual life. —Theodore Roosevelt