My last two posts offer a humorous look at questions and inconsistencies that women and men face when practicing strict gender roles. This week it honors me to post a satirical piece by Nate Sparks. He digs into common theological arguments for men to “man up.” When pushed to logical ends, we see painful limits many men face while working out what it means to live in Christ. Sadly, the outcome is less than ideal in marriage and family relationships. Thankfully, in Scripture, the dance of our Triune God (Creator, Word, Spirit) is not a chain-of-command; it is possible for unique individuals to live in interdependent oneness (more on this in an upcoming post).

There is a wealth of material available today, instructing Christian men how to achieve a godly masculinity. Church bookstores are full of materials on “biblical manhood.” Despite the wealth of resources available, the men of the Church simply cannot seem to figure it out. Our pews are full of sissy-boys and cowards. [1]

Since no one else seems able to stem the tide of “soft,” “weak” men being emasculated by the Feminist Agenda, it is apparent my opinion is what the Church is missing. Because I have years of experience leading and piloting men’s ministries, it is time I shared my vast wisdom with everyone else. I will outline below three critical things I am convinced every man in the Church MUST do to be a true man of God.

1. Be the boss of your wife.

According to the eternal word of God, the Bible, your wife needs a patriarch. You can’t love her by empowering her to overcome patriarchy. Patriarchy is the dominant cultural background of the Bible, and God NEVER calls his people to go against the dominant culture of their society.

God has placed deep within her feminine heart knowledge that she is a delicate princess. She wants to be your damsel in distress. In all your masculine glory, you must guide her into her greatest dreams, marriage and motherhood. In return, she will grant you the greatest gift any man can receive: full submission to your every sexual desire.

I realize this sounds backwards, but that’s because you’ve been spiritually castrated.

Because of her God-given feminine heart, your wife doesn’t want equal partnership. She wants strong male leadership, to be reminded that separate and subordinate roles don’t diminish her value. If she doesn’t desire this, it’s because she’s rejected God’s design, rejected the only true femininity.

We all know most Bible translations and scholars treat subjugation of women as evil, a systemic injustice. But, thankfully, after 2000 years of confusion, the ESV has officially arrived at the only inerrant and immutable translation of Scripture. We owe this wonder to the patriarchal vision of one man.

We needed justification for treating our wives as lesser beings, and in response Wayne Grudem has arisen to quell the Feminist onslaught. Recognizing that the inspired word of God simply didn’t support a patriarchalist hermeneutic, Grudem took upon himself the mantle of reinterpreting the entire Bible.

If your wife begins arguing she needs more say in the household, hand her an ESV Women’s Study Bible and bask in her defeat. She’ll thank you for it later, as she realizes the call for men to model Christ in Ephesians 5 means Jesus is eternally subordinated to the Father, and thus she is ontologically subordinate to you. Not only does this establish your rightful place as dominant male leader in your household, it also puts her in her rightfully subordinate feminine role.

2. Train Up Your Children

If there’s one area where godly men need to take a stand against the Feminist Agenda, it’s in the arena of parenting. The reasons for this are simple.

Our culture tells girls they ought to be powerful, strong, self-reliant; but this is the work of Satan. Even the most powerful woman in the world knows deep down she is a delicate princess in an ivory tower needing a man to rescue her. When we empower our daughters, we give them false hope that they can grow up to be police officers or, God forbid, pastors. Such moral failure will bring about the fall of Western civilization.

Instead, we must remind the girls in our lives that they need strong male headship in order to protect them from the evils of the world. If someone should assault your wife while she is out alone with the kids, empowering her to defend herself and your children would prove futile. We all know women are weak and helpless. Thus, what your daughter needs is her father constantly controlling her, treating her like property. After all, the woman she grows up to be must bring glory to you as her father.

As the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians, “Women exist for the glory of men.”

However, don’t ever think allowing your wife to over-mother your son is acceptable. In the same way your overbearing presence will cultivate a godly femininity in your daughter – one your wife simply cannot impart by via firsthand experience of growing up female – allowing your wife too much influence in your son’s development will stunt his masculine development. You might as well castrate him, because strong feminine influence will make your son into a skinny-jean wearing, light beer drinking, peace-loving ninny.

Just as Jesus is depicted as slain lamb and mother hen in Scripture, your son must be a violent conqueror of his sphere of influence. He must prove his masculinity by getting in fistfights and risking severe brain damage playing football before his pre-frontal cortex has time to fully develop. God wants manly soldiers to rise up and take back our culture in exactly the same way Christ did when he refused to call a legion of angels, allowing himself to be crucified as a blasphemer and rebel by religious authorities and Roman Empire.

Just as Jesus chose to eschew tyranny, teaching his followers to “turn the other cheek” and “walk the extra mile,” we must teach our sons to defend the faith by policing borders and reminding all would-be challengers that theological certainty trumps the well-being of any person every time.

Further, we all know men are visual creatures, turning into rabid dogs at even the slightest hint of female skin. Your son will be no different; every v-neck sweater will send him into sexual overdrive. Thus, in order to avoid sexual temptation, you must teach him to do the only rational thing: assume headship over women by policing every curve of their bodies.

In doing so, he’ll not only protect his own heart, but also protect the females in his life from secular men, who only see them as pieces of meat. In doing this, he will take full responsibility for the lusts of his heart and ensure he remains pure for his wedding night.

We live in a society which systemically oppresses and devalues women. Ergo, if we neglect to teach our daughters that feminine freedom is found in full submission to men and our sons the freedom of men in headship, then we can never hope to be a Church which opposes and overcomes sexism and misogyny in our culture.

3. Demand Obedience

Just as God is ruler of all of creation, the husband is unquestionable ruler of his home.

This is made clear when we study the theology of Bruce Ware. Ware has shown that passages which say Jesus is equal to the Father, revealing his fullness, are evidence that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father. Thus, because the Christian family must model Trinity, women are ontologically and eternally subordinated to men. This theological truth is self-evident in Scripture, not a single author in the Bible wasted time discussing it.

The logical conclusion this doctrine is just as the Father sends the subordinated Son, the Father and Son send the Spirit, who must also, then, be eternally subordinate. In the Trinity inspired home, the Spirit is then represented by children. And, because all submission requires subordination, we see the members of Trinity are equal in substance, but two are subordinate in function. In the same way the wife and children then must obey their male head.

In light of this, discipline in the Christian home takes a particular shape. I advise 3 time-tested, biblically sound principles.

  • Failure to obey your every command the first time deserves corporal punishment.

Looking at the cross, we realize God punishes every act of disobedience. In 2 Peter 3, Peter tells us God is patient, withholding wrath from those we think deserve immediate destruction. God’s patience with the wicked is rooted in his desire that none should perish and all repent. Likewise, in Psalm 103 we learn God is slow to anger, merciful, and abounding in love.

From these passages it is evident God punishes every act of disobedience immediately. God is perfect in his wrath. Just as he tolerated Moses’ challenging his authority by defending the Hebrews from utter destruction, and just as he patiently negotiated with Abraham over Sodom, God punishes all who question him. Since we’re called to model this perfection in our own lives, we must parent our children after his example.

  • All disobedience is a challenge to your masculine authority, to be met with a commensurate level of corporal punishment.

God cannot abide any sin; thus our every act apart from Christ is an offense to his perfect holiness and authority as creator, thus God chose Jesus, his Son, to be killed in order to satisfy his righteous wrath. In murdering his own innocent son, God ensured everyone would realize how much they need to repent before he does the same thing to them.

Just as God rules us with fear, so we must instill fear of retribution in our children.

  • A child’s will must be broken until they learn to respond to violent, retributive punishment with a defeated whimper.

In Exodus, God used the plagues to break the defiant will of the Egyptian people in order to achieve the freedom of the Hebrew people. Through these ten acts of terror, God secured the legacy of Israel, which resulted in the birth of Jesus and salvation for all.

In the same way, a father must discipline his children until they cease to hold any will to defy him. If they resist, we must break that will through retributive corporal punishment. In doing this we prepare them to be adults, to curb their sinful desire with absolute submission to God and his divinely appointed human authorities.

Secular leftist “science” wants us to believe corporal punishment causes the same psychological and emotional effects as physical. However, we must remember God’s Word tells us sparing the rod will turn our children into evil adults.

Again, consider that God in his desire to show love to us, beat Christ to death – crucifying him in order to ensure we conform to his will. In this we see that physical violence perpetrated to save a person from their own sinful will is God’s definition of love.

Some will call such a God a monster, claiming this theology undermines notions of consent in relationships, making children vulnerable to abuse by robbing them of the ability to question authority. These are not true Christians. They hate the word of God and promote their own agenda of “social justice” apart from Scripture’s clear teaching.

Conclusion

Remember, our children are the future of the Church. If Christianity is to stand strong against the Feminist Agenda, our children must learn to embrace the sacredness of testosterone driven Christianity and pass it on to their children. If we fail our duty as fathers, our children will become godless feminists, egalitarians, and homosexuals. Without faithful men embracing the dominance and conquest of biblical manhood, all is lost.

Are you man enough?

[1] This post is purely satirical. It is my hope that, by this medium, people will rethink toxic theology and hermeneutics. For my work dismantling these toxic ideologies see here and here . . .

Nate Sparks-Bio PhotoNate Sparks is a stay-at-home dad with a Biblical Studies degree from Judson University. His passion for social justice and equality is poured into his work, as he often writes about the theological and practical issues surrounding church abuse. His blog, Sparking Conversation, can be found here. He can be followed on Twitter at the handle @NateSparks130 and Facebook at Nate Sparks.

Please follow and like us:

8 Comments

Post Comment
  1. This post is terrifying because it is so effective. It’s sad it required a “Poe’s Law” disclaimer so people would understand it was satire, because this is what is being taught out there.

    Just as throngs of churches are falsely teaching New Covenant 10% tithes to home churches so members can avert calamity or that nepotism in the church is a “biblical” trait, these teachings are becoming too commonplace. It’s getting to the point where these teaching and charlatans aren’t being challenged.

    My concern is that one or two generations from now these false teachings will be considered proper teachings. Generation Z, who aren’t into source document research, will assume this is how the church has always existed. These kids will grow up to be adults who will believe that for over 2,000 years people have engaged in Word of Faith, Prosperity Gospel, building multi-million dollar family empires, NT tithes and abusive complementarianism, because that’s how God founded the church. Then hope will be lost. Eugene Peterson’s Lord-less version of the Bible will sit next to the ESV and that will be their only choice.

    Our only hope will be Denzel Washington studying Braille somewhere.

  2. As satire it doesn’t work. What comes across is a disdain for more extreme forms of complementarianism has morphed into a disdain for the bible itself. I get it that the bible can be misused and this needs to be resisted. This piece is not an effective way of doing this. It comes across as overly cynical rather than lampooning the folly of some complementarian teaching that has gone beyond the new testament writers.

    The NT does actually tell a wife to submit to her own husband whether we like it or not; discussing what this means today, and how to obey is legitimate, as is making sure it is not abused by men who forget what God has commanded them, but mocking this is out of order. I have a feeling an outright Patriarch of the Vision Forum variety (which I am not!) will write this off when they see the author is a stay-at-home dad. Is he so hard on submission because it can be abused, or because his wife is in effect the head of the household? He rather invites that criticism even if it seems a bit mean.

    I fear that egalitarianism has become the author’s religion and his God – he would be far from alone in this, or if that is too strong, he has lost the fear of the biblical God which is the beginning of wisdom.

    1. You seem to have confused a specific hermeneutical lens with the Bible itself. The complementarian lens – regardles of the form it takes – is untenable. I will make no apologies for pointing that out.

      Also, I don’t do the whole “Oh no, you insulted me” thing. Patriarchy is a form of oppression in every form it takes. I don’t give two shakes what Vision Forum, or anyone else, thinks of me being a full-time parent. I would say, that for all the talk of a gathering crisis, complementarian are so often threatened by men who are being intimately involved fathers.

      I don’t let oppressive systems dictate my words, I don’t play by complementarian rules.

      As far as headship goes, I never said it didn’t occur in Scripture. I simply pointed out the absurd ways in which complementarians assume headship ought to be practiced.

      Perhaps actually knowing my work would be better.

      Here:

      https://natesparks130.com/2015/10/11/the-head-of-man/

      https://natesparks130.com/2015/10/26/a-cruciform-submission/

      While I have chosen to answer this time, I will not continue to respond to ad hominem. If you have a well-reasoned argument to make, by all means do so. Otherwise, I bid you peace.

  3. ‘Patriarchy is a form of oppression in every form it takes’

    Presumably including Abraham. God was happy to withentify with the Patriarchs, so it can hardly be oppressive by its very nature, notwithstanding cultural differences in the OT.

    Your generic attack on complementarianism is gender politics. I would probably agree with you on some of your critique of this, but putting everyone in the same boat leads to inaccurate stereotyping. It would be similar if I said all egalitarians are like RHE and her mocking attitude to the bible or rejection of Christian morality, for example.

    1. I said “the complementarian lens – regardless of what form it takes – is untenable.

      Please remind me how recognizing the diversity of opinions within a particular theological movement is “putting everyone in the same boat.” Regardless of what version of the argument people use, they all end up self-defeating. But there are a host of varying arguments.

      You can’t make an argument by misrepresenting the words I wrote – especially when they are available for all to see.

      Also, remind me how God endorsed the patriarchal behavior of the Jewish patriarchy. How did he feel about Abraham pawning his wife off on foreign kings to save his own butt?

      What was God’s opinion on Abraham ignoring his promises and sleeping with Hagar?

      If patriarchy was so well-loved by God, why did he inspire a biblical text in which the Patriarchs are depicted as flawed? Why does the Bible routinely undermine patriarchal systems, such as the rights of the firstborn son?

      Also, Rachel is a personal friend, so I’m happy to be lumped in with her ?

  4. When you say patriarchy is oppressive in all its forms, you don’t obey oppressive systems … complementarian rules, I think I could be forgiven for thinking you consider all complementarianism monolithic. OK you did mention complementarianism ‘in what ever from it takes’, but I still took that as generic condemnation, that is it in essence all the same, and all bad.

    What about complementarians who are not oppressive? Where she submits and he agape loves and cherishes? I’ve seen couples like this many a time. I’ve been in churches where no women teachers or pastors is adhered to, that are in no way oppressive. Where biblically literate, Spirit-filled and active women are perfectly happy with the arrangement, and don’t think they are being put down.

    My point about patriarchy was not to endorse the behaviour of the patriarchs, their sins are in the bible for all to see! I agree with you there. It is that that arrangement was not intrinsically evil, or surely God would have condemned it. Is there no such thing as benign father-rule, notwithstanding human imperfections?

    As for Rachel, I don’t like those complementarians who unchurch her/glibly say she is unsaved. I do think she is in very real danger of drifting away from the faith, of embracing the broad road that leads to destruction. ‘Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?’ I think she has a skewed idea of what ‘God loving the world’ actually means. It is not unconditional acceptance without repentance, in particular regarding Christian morality.

    That’s all!!

    1. God working through imperfect systems through imperfect people doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take God seriously when he severely undermines those systems. That argument is like saying, “Because Paul presupposes the Roman Pater Familias system will be understood by his audience, he is just endorsing it wholesale in Ephesians.” Where a social/political/historical backdrop is presupposed in Scripture it is important to note the difference between being set in a context and endorsing the context. When the text promotes deviation from the norms of its historical context and/or offers critique of said context, that is significant and should not be ignored.

      And time and again in the Bible, the systems of patriarchy are undermined and critiqued.

      Now, notice a key difference between what I said versus what you said here. I didn’t say there is one way for a marriage to work. The issue is the notion that men rule women submit (you used the words Father Rule). That is biblically untenable and leads time and again to abusive men being empowered. That in and of itself raises serious questions.

      Further, there will be situations in which the marriage functions well. That cannot be ignored, and should indeed be commended. But just like we don’t ignore political corruption because there are some good politicians, and just like we don’t ignore systemic racism because there are white people fighting against racism, we don’t ignore the significant theological failures and actual abuses of complementarianism, or patriarchy in general, just because there are some good persons teaching it.

      And again, I have never heard an argument for complementarian theology that does justice to the biblical text. If you have one, you are welcome to email me your proposal at nate.sparks130@gmail.com and I’ll be happy to take a look at it.

      In the meantime, I stand by the fact that I have never encountered a benevolent form of complementarian theology which empowers women to fulfill the purposes for which God created all human beings.

      As for Rachel, let me be clear. There are scant few places in which her theology significantly differs from mine. Perhaps reading over my blog would help. The link is available in my bio.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.