1 KINGS 2:2
I am about to go the way of all the earth. So be strong and prove yourself a man.
JOB 38:3
Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
PROVERBS 27:17
As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
JUDGES 6:12
And the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon and said, “The Lord is with you, o mighty man of valor.”
ISAIAH 3:12
Youths oppress my people, and women rule over them.
ISAIAH 19:16
In that day the Egyptians will be like women. They will tremble with fear beneath the uplifted hand of the Lord of Hosts, when he brandishes it against them.
toxic : of, relating to, or caused by a poison or toxin; affected by a poison or toxin; acting, or likely to act as a poison; poisonous
toxin : any of various poisonous substances that are specific products of the metabolic activities of living organisms, are colloidal substances related to proteins and usually very unstable, are notably toxic when introduced into the tissues but are almost all destroyed by the digestive juices, and are typically capable of inducing antibody formation in suitable animals
– WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY
If adhering to the definition, masculinity is not a toxin, and therefore cannot be toxic.
I’ve heard that masculinity is toxic. The male sort of masculinity, that is. Masculinity with a feminine side is weak, pathetic, submissive, stepping aside for bullies, backing away from intruders, capitulating to threats and declining to engage in protective actions, and is fondled by the aether of fantasy. The masculinity that is called toxic accepts the reality of sexual differentiation, is able to make necessary and emotionless decisions, has the impetus to protect and to defend, as well as offend when circumstances warrant violent action, shoves itself rudely aside to perform required deeds that may bring harm to the man, and is cemented in reality. Good masculinity supposes there cannot be any sexual differences. A man who is good, who is “in touch with his feminine side,” will subjugate himself to women while also performing all of the physical tasks that women are incapable of, even though sexual differences are nonexistent. Toxic masculinity declares, “I am a man.” Good masculinity declares, “I am actually a woman.”
This absurd and purposeful ignorance of maledom is now being taught to congregants within churches. It is, ultimately, a rejection of the Creator, the Maker of heaven and earth and all that is in them, since he is thoroughly and precisely described as male, expressing distinctly masculine characteristics, and because man was made in his image. The argument from churches is that Christ established women as absolute coequals with men, thereby negating the hierarchical structure established by God when he created man and made the woman from the flesh of the man.
The only way to sustain this argument is to “interpret” Holy Scripture as the produce of faulty men who were not inspired, but who rendered on scrolls within their limited capacity the words whispered to them by God. If such were true, the Bible could not be the word of God. The other avenue used by these churches is to claim those passages dealing with male and female positions were a response to particular women in a particular church who were exhibiting disruptive behaviors. It was a localized cultural problem that was being addressed, and not a commandment from the Holy Spirit, who is God. Homosexual churches avail themselves of the cultural argument, as well.
Some congregations of the body are being told that many upheavals in society have their root in masculinity, that maledom ignites familial trouble, sparks conflict in the church, oppresses women, and destroys civility. Yet, the exact opposite has been proven true by history, and by the Holy Scriptures. Because of the alleged detrimental effect masculinity has had on family and church, we must reduce its influence, and so bring a more peaceful climate through emotion and feeling. One of the tools we should use to accomplish this goal is to soften rough masculinity with feminization. Men will need to be proactive in abetting this reduction, which is not to reject who we are, but to recognize that our masculinity is a problem and can interfere in the harmony of church proceedings, such as worship.
I cannot figure how a man can be capable of retaining the essence of himself, while practicing a simultaneous suppression of his masculinity. If our masculinity contains the potential to impede the quality or capacity of our worship, the condition of being male must be a somewhat hideous thing. Males cannot be divest of masculinity, because masculinity is defined by the state of being male. If God made someone male, then he made the male a masculine being. To wrest masculinity from the male would be to nullify what the Maker made. To say that masculinity ought to be set aside, or diminished to some degree, in order to worship more appropriately, is to say the state of being male is inherently wrong. Which must then preclude all descriptions of God in his Holy Bible, since God is always said to be male, as well as negate God’s declaration that what he’d created was good. It is to call God a liar.
It was suggested to me that perhaps supposing our masculinity can become an impediment to our worship is an appeal to adopt humbleness, or sloughing away pride, both of which are noble endeavors. However, that would mean to categorize masculinity as something undesirable or ungodly, to conflate it with pride and arrogance, along with a dearth of humility, and I cannot accede such an argument. To my mind, the argument is untenable as it would necessarily indict the character and the nature of our Father, who is distinctly male according to all descriptors in Holy Scripture. The male is not inherently prideful or lacking humility. Pride is ubiquitous among human beings, and is not peculiar to the male. Neither is arrogance, nor a lack of humility, peculiar to the male. All human beings suffer these afflictions.
God himself is always acknowledged as having a masculine nature, his characteristics being those distinctly exhibited by masculinity, and which characteristics he weaved into the image of himself, called man. It was then from this man that he fashioned another, more visually fascinating, creature, whom the man called woman, whose characteristics were distinct from those of the man. Note that God did not name the helper he created for the man, the man named her, affirming the position of authority God established over the woman. (Genesis 2:22-23, Genesis 3:20) Also note 1 Corinthians 11:7-10, which declares that man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. And man was not created for woman, but woman was created for man. The man was created in the image of his Maker, masculine characteristics and nature, a male, and the woman was created from the image of the man, with characteristics and nature designed to complement the male. Together, they were called man, or mankind.
You know the story, of course, and repeating it will likely serve no benefit to you. So, I’ll succinctly say that from the very beginning, the male has been directly accountable to the Creator, while the female has been directly accountable to the male. It’s been a consistent format, a hierarchy established by God, and sustained through almost the entirety of human history. Its purpose, I am convinced, was to educate both aspects of mankind, the male and female, about the nature of God and our intended relationship with him. It was not to establish superiority or inferiority in respect to our eternal status as souls that will have no sex once we’ve departed our physical flesh.
There is a dichotomy to our existence that is too often ignored by church leadership in general. This is referred to in Scriptures such as Romans chapter 4, Romans 8:16-25, and Hebrews chapter 11, where the promise is represented as an inheritance, and believers as heirs. In Romans 8:24-25, it says hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see? So we say that we have eternal life, even though we do not yet have it. We are heirs, coheirs with Christ because his inheritance has been imputed to us through him. We remain heirs until we have received the inheritance, so we remain in this physical existence until that day, remaining subject to all the physical laws, as well as the order of things God established for this physical existence. Romans 8:23 says we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, which is the redemption of our bodies. The next, spiritual, eternal life. Not this present, physical, temporal life.
In Christ there is neither male nor female. Yet no one seems able to refute the distinct characteristics peculiar to either gender. If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation. Yet we all seem unable to recognize any alteration to our physical, emotional, or mental, conditions. Galatians 3:28 says there is no Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, female, for we are all one in Christ. So how can these assertions be valid if the reality of our physical condition persists? Galatians 3:29 explains we are heirs according to the promise. An heir is no longer an heir once the inheritance is received, and we’ve not yet received our adoption as sons, which is the redemption of our bodies. This is the dichotomy of our existence. As it was with Abraham, believing he’d received what was promised, even though he’d not received it. God, calling into being what does not yet exist. (Romans 4:17) All of this is pointing to an eternal spiritual existence, not a temporal physical one. What is to come, not what is now. Let’s include 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:1-5, Philippians 3:20-21, and Ephesians 1:14, which all refer to our inheritance, what is to come.
We are presently subject to the physical realm, being male and female, yet we are all sons, according to Galatians 3:26. I think the logical explanation is that son does not refer to physical sex, but to the nature of God, and that we will be like God in this respect when we’ve been freed from our bodies, since God is spirit. 1 John 3:2 says what we will be has not yet been revealed. But that “when Christ appears, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.” This also implies that Christ’s incarnation was not his true form, since Christ is God, and God is spirit. So, when Jesus told Philip that seeing him was the same as seeing the Father, Jesus was speaking of his deific characteristics and nature, and not the physical form he was then occupying. (John 14:9)
We have eternal life, though we don’t yet have it. This is the covenant God made with us. The church is the betrothed (promised) bride of Christ, and the marriage of the Lamb is a future event. We have the Holy Spirit to seal us, the church, Christ’s bride, for that day. The consummation of his covenant, of our betrothal to him, will occur after we’ve been redeemed from these earthly tents, our physical bodies, to receive our eternal spiritual bodies. It’s difficult to imagine how this consummation will appear, since it obviously won’t be an act in the manner of physical consummation enjoyed by man and wife, but I believe the intimacy of sexual bonding, the act that makes a man and woman one flesh, is symbolic of the intimacy we’ll have with our Savior.
The same applies to the human promise given for marriage. When a couple makes a covenant to be married, a betrothal, they are bound by that covenant, even though they’ve not yet performed the marriage ceremony. The promise is made, and the consummation is to occur later. The man takes the woman to be his bride, giving her his name, providing for her and protecting her, grooming and pruning her, teaching and guiding her, leading her as he is led by Christ. It is symbolic of the Lamb and his wedding with his bride, his church. All things point to Christ, all of Scripture and all of human experience. Our salvation is in Christ. These things are about eternity with our Maker, and not strictly about this physical existence.
Our modern way of conducting marriages deviates from Hebrew laws and traditions practiced during the time of the new covenant Scriptures. We have an engagement, which is not legally binding, then a wedding, which is legally binding, then the much anticipated consummation of the marriage. Conversely, an ancient Hebrew couple would enter a covenant, a betrothal, which was legally binding, and the couple were considered married. The wedding would take place after a year of preparatory activities performed by both the bride and bridegroom, after which the much anticipated consummation would take place. Only then would the couple cohabit as husband and wife. The ancient Hebrew marriage practices are the context in which the church is described as being betrothed to the Lamb, the wedding to take place after the church has been redeemed from the physical realm.
There are Scriptures that attest to the legal status of a betrothal prior to the wedding or the consummation of the marriage (without referencing Jewish law and tradition) : Deuteronomy 20:7, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Luke 1:26-27, Matthew 1:18-19, Matthew 25:1, Matthew 25:10, Ruth 4:9-13
We have further evidence of our future incorporeal existence in Matthew 22:30, which states there will be no marriage because we’ll be like the angels in heaven. 2 Peter 3:10-13 describes the dissolution of the physical realm, and institution of a new heaven and a new earth where righteousness dwells. The spiritual eternity in spiritual bodies, with a spiritual heaven and spiritual earth, and all forever imperishable. Include 1 Corinthians 15:35-50. And, logically, if the church is wedded to the Lamb, we cannot legitimately be also marrying each other, for that would be adulterous. Also logically, our souls cannot remain eternally housed in male and female bodies, elsewise the dynamic of male and female would eternally remain in effect, since that’s the dynamic established by the Creator when he made the man and woman, and because any distinction must preclude true equality. But we will all be truly equal on the day we receive our inheritance, because we will all be sons.
Scriptures do establish Christ as “the exact representation of God,” but this does not necessarily establish Christ’s visual aspect as what we’ll perceive upon meeting him in our glorified spiritual condition. (Hebrews 1:3) Various versions will implement various words in translating the concepts contained in Scripture, but the concept is staid. Jesus represents the nature of God, the aspect of God, but is not likely an exact visual copy of God. Neither are we. Neither are we informed with the nature of God, his deific attributes, as many false teachers declare. We have been created in the image and likeness of the Creator, a description similar to that of idols. (Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 5:1, Leviticus 26:1, Deuteronomy 4:15-16, Deuteronomy 5:8, Acts 17:29) But Jesus is the exact representation of God, not merely an image or likeness, such as an idol. And Jesus is not a created being as we are, he is the Creator. (John 1:1-3) Idols are called gods, in Scripture, and there’s one instance when human beings are called “gods.” (Psalm 82:6, John 10:34) Idols cannot move themselves, nor do they have power to accomplish anything, and Scripture says the same about us. (Genesis 2:7, Acts 17:28)
“Do you mean to say that we’re idols fashioned by God, you moron?”
No. I mean to say there’s a patently obvious distinction between Christ the man, and every human man who’s existed, or is slated for existence. The point of it is to further demonstrate how our existence, the dynamic of the family, that of husband and wife, our dominion of the earth, is all a visual and experiential lesson about the Maker of heaven and earth, our Creator. Splinter the boundaries God constructed, and we pervert the order he established for male and female. We become adversarial to the way of God, disobedient, rebellious, and begin expunging the tuition in the nature of things that he prepared for nourishment of our knowledge and understanding of himself.
When a child rebels against God’s command to obey parents, the child rebels against God. Whenever a man rebels against God’s command to obey the authorities placed over him, such as church elders, deacons, pastors (shepherds), or laws of state, he rebels against God. When a woman rebels against God’s command to submit herself to her husband in everything, she rebels against God. (Ephesians 5:24) Feminist ideology spurns acceptance of what God established, no more than Israel discovered in itself a diminished capacity for submission to God’s commands. To live within moral strictures that inhibit physical and mental pleasures from our experiential sphere must be a state of oppression. To live within the mental, emotional, and physical reality of male dominance must be a state of oppression, and so we must also “interpret” Scriptures to fit the feminist ideology.
We have endured such an assault on masculinity in recent years, mainly from the feminist camp, but also including many political camps, and I’m disconcerted to hear similar language emanating from church leaders. We’re lambasted by many church leaders who’ve been deceived by false doctrines, pressing the argument that homosexuality is not abhorred by God, but is accepted, and so must we do likewise. (Subscribing to the argument of a localized cultural problem.) The so called prosperity gospel, the new apostolic reformation, the unity church, the charismatic movement, and so many others, pursue misunderstandings of both history and the Holy Bible, claiming the Holy Scriptures are flawed because they were given through the filter of fallible man.
These groups are disposed to regard particular verses from outside the framework of their contextual guidance, including the grammatical and conceptual context of languages in which the Scriptures were written. One example is Ephesians 5:22, where in the Greek there is an exclusion of the word “submit.” This would then read, “wives, to your husbands…” And so it is taken to support the argument that wives are not commanded to submit, but to gently support their husbands. According to some articles I’ve read, wives are to defend, or go to battle for, their husbands, asserting that culture was responsible for the idea of submission, (or the original sin) and that Scripture was advocating the mutual yielding of authority to one another of both wife and husband. One of the more outlandish articles I’ve read makes the claim that Eve was innocent of sin because she was deceived, and her exit from Eden was voluntary, and an act of love toward her husband. All of this being the result of “interpretation” through the lens of feminist ideology.
Whatever wrangling one may do with translation and culture, the crux of the matter is the context of this verse, which is verses 23 and 24. It says the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the savior. This is not a state of equal partnership, nor is it a mutual submission (depending on how you define submission). But the argument is that culture determined the definition of headship, so that the husband is merely acting as provider for the wife, in the same way as Christ provisions the church. If this argument is to work, the church must be equally independent of the commands of Christ as the wife is from the authority of her husband, since Christ is merely the provider for the church. Otherwise, the specificity of the stipulation “just as” would have no purpose or influence in this section of Scripture.
This is continued in verse 24 where, as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. If the idea being expressed in all these verses is the wife supporting her husband by doing spiritual battle on his behalf within the frame of interdependent relationship and mutual submission, then the church must be necessarily doing spiritual battle for Christ, supporting him in order to sustain his spirit through mutual yielding of authority, and not actually submitting ourselves to him. Which, in my opinion, is absurd, considering that Christ is God and does not submit himself to his creation, nor does he need to be defended by his creation from any other part of his creation, nor does he have a need to be taught by any part of his creation. Again, the stipulation “just as” would have no purpose or influence otherwise.
Is God in control? If so, then God’s commands could not have been the produce of culture or society. To say that culture dictated the roles of men and women is to declare God’s sovereignty void. It is to declare that his Holy Scriptures must be so afflicted with incompetence that we are compelled to properly interpret the meaning of it, which would be to claim that we know better than the Prophets and Apostles through whom the Holy Scriptures were given. There’s no tinge of pride in that claim, is there? It is also to ignore the patently obvious plethora of distinctions between men and women, physical, emotional, and mental, characteristics that so plainly delineate the roles we were meant to fulfill. Each one is specially equipped to do so, male attributes, and female attributes, and neither sex can sustain the role it wasn’t equipped for.
Further, in order for this argument to work, it is necessary to press it from outside the context of the entirety of Scripture and human history, from the moment of creation. For Genesis 2:18-24 describes God’s formation of a suitable helper for the man, and how she was taken from his own flesh, not the dust of the earth from which God had formed the man. God did not form a companion equal to the man in every way and in every authority, one for whom the man would be suitable. God created a helper, suitable to the man. God established the order of things from the beginning, and this order has been carried out for the overwhelming majority of human existence, until recent decades have seen rebellion against this order in the form of feminism and the perversion of Scripture by various modern “denominations” of the church.
Some try to ascribe the dynamic of dominant male and submissive female to the punishment handed to Adam and his wife by the Creator, saying that a truly equal partnership was extant in Eden, but along with sin came an unintended dynamic in which the man is unjustifiably dominant and the wife must suffer the unruly dominance. This is chronologically inaccurate. God established this order from the beginning, and did so before sin came into the world through the one man. He created the woman for the man, not the man for the woman, and he brought her to the man to be his helper, and the man named both her being and her person. (Genesis 2:23, Genesis 3:20)
The harmonious dynamic between man and wife was knocked askew when the woman was deceived and the man sinned. The man was placed in charge of the garden of Eden, to tend it and cultivate it, as well as to tend the garden of Eve, to be her husband and to groom her. The woman was created to be his helper, submitting to his lead, his guidance, his teaching, to be husbanded and groomed by him. God gave specific instructions to the man he created, but Scriptures do not indicate that God gave these same instructions directly to the woman. It is implied that her husband was responsible for guiding her in obedience to God’s command regarding the trees, since she was created out of the man’s own body after the commands were given to the man. (Genesis 2:15-18)
In support of this, we can observe Eve’s reply to the serpent. Genesis 3:2, The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.'” Eve did not say, “God has commanded us,” but that God had said. This indicates that her knowledge of God’s instruction had been communicated to her by her husband. God then accosted Adam first, since he was directly responsible, and the woman was questioned next. In other Scriptural instances this concept can be observed where an angel of the Lord speaks directly to a man or woman, but the text states that God spoke to the individual, or to the people. So, in a similar manner, God gave his ordinance to both the man and the woman.
The woman was deceived by the serpent, (Did God really say that? Did you utilize proper interpretation? Genesis 3:1) and she rebelled against the leadership of her husband. The man succumbed to her example and rebelled against the direct command from God, instead of submitting himself to God’s ordinance. By their actions, both the man and his wife failed to fulfill the roles God intended for them within the hierarchical structure that he established. Their disobedience caused a resultant imbalance in their marriage, which would be inherited in the flesh of all their descendants. God cursed the ground because of Adam, and cursed him with toil and adversity in producing a living from it. God cursed the woman with pain in birthing their children. But the former harmony of their marriage was also cursed in Genesis 3:16, when God told the woman that her desire would be for her husband, and he would rule over her.
The concept in the Hebrew of this verse is similar (but not precisely so) to the concept in Genesis 4:7, where the Creator is reprimanding Cain for the murder of his brother, Abel. “But if you refuse to do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires you, but you must master it.” The concept is one of control. God established the man as his wife’s head, her leader, her spiritual authority. This is implied by God giving instructions directly to the man, but not to the woman. She is to learn from her husband, following God’s established order. But when her husband failed in his submission to the ordinances of the Creator, she no longer viewed him as the reliable leader he once was. Whereas before, she willingly and confidently submitted herself to her husband’s authority, his failure now instigated doubt in her mind concerning his ability to lead her.
The man, having become tainted with sin, would now respond to his wife’s reticence to occupy her role of submission by ruling over her forcefully, relying on himself, instead of God, to bring her into submission to his authority. So the harmony of their marriage became discordant, corrupted by their disobedience of God. The woman’s natural inclination to submit to the man is fraught with doubt of his leadership, and she rebels against it when his decisions are not in conformity with her way of thinking. The man’s natural inclination to teach and guide his wife is fraught with resentment at her rebellion against his leadership, and he responds by attempting to force her compliance through dominating her. The concept in Genesis 3:16 seems to be clearest in the NLT : “And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”
It is through the one man that sin came into the world, not the one woman, and it’s because she was literally the man’s own physical flesh and bone that she partook in the retribution for his sin, so that death is inherited in the flesh of all their progeny. It’s also the reason that Christ was born of a virgin, and his Father was the Holy Spirit. The sin is passed from the male, not the female, and whereas the first man and woman were literally of one flesh, all subsequent unions of flesh are figurative, though spiritually and physically binding. It is through the one man that salvation is brought to us, not through a woman, for God is not female. (Romans 5:12-15) And he was without sin, because he was not sired by a human male. God does not have a feminine side, despite the argument that since God created mankind in two parts, male and female, and in his own image, God must be part female, or must have feminine characteristics. This is a matter of verbiage, and of Hebrew literary devices and grammar, and requires proper hermeneutics to comprehend it. Not “interpretation,” but understanding.
One instance of man is referring to the male, while another instance of man is referring to mankind, or both the male and female. God created man in his own image, then he created mankind in his own image, male and female. In Genesis 1:26-27 we see God creating man in his image, making them male and female. In Genesis 2:7 we see God making man from the dust of the earth, breathing life into him so that he became a living being. The mention of man is in the plural sense, or mankind, in 1:27, but the mention of man in 2:7 is in the singular, referring to the male. Thus, it is the man who was created in the image of God, while the female was created in the image of God by virtue of being mankind. This is affirmed in 1 Corinthians 11:7-10.
This technological age has bequeathed many conveniences, but it has also constrained our recognition of natural femininity and natural masculinity, and how they naturally compliment and augment each other. We tend to dismiss the bulk of human history, ignoring the reality of it, denying that men have established civilizations, built the infrastructure, conquered and defended, bled and died. That not one instance of a civilization being built and defended by women has ever occurred in all of history. That not one instance of a people deposing another has ever been engineered by women in all of history. Men are consistently accused of oppression, instead of being lauded for their accomplishments, especially the comforts and conveniences and liberties women enjoy in this present technological age.
We have come to reject the nature of things. Things such as the natural inclinations of male and female, the natural desire a woman exhibits for a strong, dominant man, and the natural desire a man has for a soft, submissive woman. 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 says nature itself teaches us that a man’s long hair is disgraceful to him, but a woman’s long hair is to her glory. Since the Scripture speaks of the very nature of things in respect to something so innocuous as hair length, how much more significant ought the other natural aspects and characteristics of male and female be to our mental perceptions?
When we embrace the nature of our sex, we’ll inevitably discover an otherwise hidden delight in our sex, and a delight in the opposite sex. It will also germinate respect for the opposite sex, and bring us closer to God. When we’re able to fully experience what we are, male or female, we recognize what God created, and bring honor and glory to his name. Beyond that, we begin to recognize the eternal merit precipitated by our behavior in this life, bending our will to the will of our Creator and so blessing his name. An example of a woman’s influence in her husband’s life is in 1 Peter 3:1-7. Shouldn’t this be sufficient motive for a Christian woman to submit herself to God’s order?
The apex of feminine beauty is in her character, her gentle and quiet spirit, putting her hope in God and being submissive to her husband, just as Sarah obeyed Abraham. A wife of noble character is desirable, highly prized, because she is her husband’s crown. (Proverbs 31:10-31, Proverbs 12:4) She is precious to God and will be blessed, even as she blesses her husband and children through her femininity. Her submission to her husband will ignite greater degrees of masculinity in him, and a deeper level of submission to his Creator. Her obedience to God will bring her husband closer to God, stirring her husband to honor her, and the intended dynamic of marriage will be closer to fulfillment. This is the Biblical view. The God view.
The feminist argument is that women have been oppressed by men for thousands of years, and thus not allowed to see their full potential realized. It is an attempt to nullify any argument from the stance of natural ability, such as are peculiar to males and females. Feminists claim success has evaded them because of male oppression, but fail to acknowledge the inseparable logic that counters this claim. Since, if men have truly curtailed the success of women, then it is only because of men standing aside to allow women to proceed ahead of male competence that women are able to see success. If the success of women can only be realized after men have stepped aside, then it is logically concluded that men are superior to women in some way. If women are strong and independent, fully capable of success by their own merit or ability, then men should not be a factor in either the success or the failure of women. The claim of male oppression is subsequently invalidated.
If the Creator intended absolute equality for humanity in both male and female, I wonder why the Creator failed to anoint any women to rule over Israel. God always instructed his prophets to anoint men to be kings. The strong will lead and are dominant, but to occupy a leadership office is to be subjugated by the heftiest grade of obligation and servitude. As Jesus said, the greatest among you will be the servant of all. It seems that whenever women become cognizant of this responsibility, the truth is revealed that equality is not what they actually desire. Their true desire is for command without the weight of responsibility or servitude, or worse, accountability.
Men have been compelled by feminist ideology in our present social state to desist male behavior and mentality. This makes men resentful, self disdainful, and we begin losing self respect, as well. This condition increases and exacerbates aggression, making men more likely to lash out, or to adopt a posture of violence when they would normally not do so. It is the infection of feminist ideology making rubble of God’s created masculinity that germinates the very thing feminists claim they’re attempting to eradicate, what they call toxic masculinity. This toxic masculinity is, in fact, a lack and suppression of masculinity, the only remedy being heavy doses of masculinity.
When men subscribe to the belief they can be absolved of the duties and responsibility charged to them by the Maker of heaven and earth, there is a gradual departure from reason and godliness, as we’ve seen most especially in the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as European nations. Nations that enjoy a greater convenience of technology, and a commensurate degree of contempt for masculinity and femininity. Men have become weak, and I cannot comprehend how masculinity contributes to the problems caused by the assault on masculinity. Similarly, our political sphere seems to believe the problems caused by implementing Socialistic doctrines can be cured by the application of more Socialism. Wouldn’t it be strange if doctors were to prescribe an increased dosage of arsenic as an ameliorative for arsenic poisoning, or to flush bleach out of your eyes with a bottle of bleach? It’s the same logic, and it bears a parity of ignorance.
Masculinity does not interfere with or impede our worship, nor does it adversely influence the conduct of church affairs, family, or civil proceedings. A lack of masculinity does that. A deficient amount of masculinity has caused our nation to lose its adherence to Scripture, to weaken the family, and to shame women for being feminine. The man is to be the head, the spiritual leader, the teacher, the authority over his children and his wife, as ordained by God. The man is specially equipped to fulfill that role. The woman is specially equipped to fulfill the role of helper. The man is held to account for managing his family and household, but the woman is not. She was designed to nurture, to support, to encourage, to build up, and she can’t very well pursue these tasks if she’s burdened with leadership and responsibility she’ll not be accountable for, that wasn’t delegated to her by God in the beginning. Our modern, enlightened, culture of equality and its denial of difference is detrimental and offensive to both men and women, who are vastly different from each other.
Both men and women are, however, necessary. We are necessary to the roles God designed us to pursue and fulfill. We are necessary to society, to the church, and to our families. We are coheirs with Christ, and when we’ve received our redemption, our inheritance, we will have received true equality. But that’s our spiritual and eternal state, not our physical and temporal state. This, I think, is possibly one of the reasons the Apostles responded to Jesus’ teachings about marriage by saying, “if this is the case, it is better to not be married.” (Matthew 19:10) It can be a difficult task for a woman to accept the authority of her husband, and it can be a difficult task for a husband to accept the responsibility of managing his household. But if we can find ourselves able to make this acceptance, we can find ourselves fulfilled both emotionally and mentally as man and wife, with the addition of sexual fulfillment, and an ultimate blessing of a greater knowledge of our destiny in the marriage of the Lamb, and an eternity of wondrous pleasures we cannot imagine.