the year in books [XXI]

Early this year I decided to try out a few fantasy novels in the hope of finding an author or two I really like. I hadn't read much fantasy (Tolkien aside), so I didn't know what to expect. In 2020's travels through the fantasy genre, I've found that this kind of writing draws me in. It surprised me a little, to be honest, for I've generally eschewed fantasy. Wizards and sorcerers and high magic have never really been my thing, but I didn't know that there are different types of fantasy. I tended to lump all fantasy into the 'High Fantasy' category with little knowledge of anything else. As it turns out, there's also what's called 'Low Fantasy,' or fantasy absent much magic. It's much grittier and down-to-earth, and this sub-genre has become my jam. My 2021 Reading Queue is mostly fantasy, and I'm not mad about that at all. I've already found some good authors I intend to follow, and hopefully next year I can add some more to the mix.

This six-book gauntlet included two books of Joe Abercrombie: Half the World (which is actually the second book in a trilogy; I didn't do my research and was halfway through it before I realized it) and The Heroes. I wasn't too impressed with Abercrombie's first book, The Blade Itself, but these two books have convinced me to give him another try. He's definitely got a few books in my 2021 Reading Queue. Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time, despite its high marks on Amazon and Goodreads (not to mention its prominent placement in 'Best Fantasy' categories online), didn't live up to the hype: it read like a walk-through of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, except Tolkien did it much better. Andrzej Sapkowski's The Witcher: The Last Wish is the first in the 'Witcher' Series, which I stumbled across on Netflix of all places. Of course the book was much better than anything Netflix could pull off, so I stopped watching the show and plan to plow through the eight-book series next year. Sean Russell's The One Kingdom wasn't as good as I'd hoped (though it had high points, it was mostly a drag and, like The Wheel of Time, seemed overly influenced by Tolkien). Mark Lawrence's Emperor of Thorns was the last in his Broken Crown Trilogy, and I couldn't put it down. I've added another of his trilogies to next year's queue.

the year in books [XX]

This slew of nonfiction revolves around colonial America (undoubtedly my favorite time period of American history). Nathaniel Philbrick's Mayflower is an excellent and sweeping look at the first years of settlement at Plymouth Rock; James Flexner's Washington: The Indispensable Man is a good biography of George Washington; Ray Raphael's A People's History of the American Revolution is so-so: though it is filled with lots of great information (his treatment of the nature and make-up of the Bostonian mobs during the Years of Crisis leading up to the Revolution is unparalleled), it nevertheless follows in Howard Zin's socialist-, communist-oriented thinking, thus skewing much of the information. Allan W. Eckert's That Dark and Bloody River is a riveting look at the history of colonial expansion along the Ohio River; Stephen E. Ambrose's Undaunted Courage is the classic treatment of the Lewis and Clark expedition to the Pacific Ocean, and David McCullough's The Pioneers explores early westward expansion. And now, just for fun, here are pictures of what my wife and I would look like in 'colonial America,' from teenagers to middle-aged and on to old age:

the reformation: a six-week update

These past six weeks have seen some decent changes in how I'm going about achieving my goals. My goal weight is 150 pounds (according to some, that's technically still overweight, but given my medium-large frame, 156 pounds is considered the high end of my healthy weight). While I'm confident I could get down into the 140s or even 130s (which is where I stood ten years ago), I've found that my short stature and youthful looks - slightly ameliorated by a scraggly excuse for a beard - are only intensified when I'm skinny-looking. I'd rather maintain a bit of a pudge - a 'healthy belly,' as my doctor would say, as he goes on a tirade against our culture's maligning of healthy body fat in lieu of media-promoted stereotypes - than look half my age. Besides, Ash says she prefers me to retain some chubbiness, and I don't think she's just saying that (personally, I've never been attracted to skinny women, so I know where she's coming from!).

My last weigh-in was at 170 pounds. Around this time last year I was hovering around 160, which means I've gained rather than lost weight. This is likely attributed to (a) gaining muscle and (b) the fact that I spent a solid seven months drinking every night. I never got drunk, but when I added up the empty calories consumed each week by having a three-ounce bourbon nightcap after the girls were tucked in bed, I knew I had to be more self-controlled. As it stands, I've had a six-pack of beer in the fridge for well over a month, and I don't plan on drinking bourbon again until Ash and I are glued to the TV on Election Night. Now, while I've gained ten pounds since this time last year, that's a net gain, as I've also lost about five since my previous weigh-in at 175; thus slashing alcohol from my diet has already been reaping good consequences.

I've also been retooling my diet and focusing on a slight caloric deficit whilst keeping protein around 150-170 grams a day. It was hard deciphering my TDEE, but after a lot of research (read: time on Reddit), I was able to calculate it to around 1700 calories a day. My caloric limit each day has been 1500 calories, though often I'm around 1200-1300. That sounds low for a man, but remember that I'm also 5'5". The shorter you are, the less calories you need to keep yourself humming along. Once every ten days I have a 'refeed' day in which I vault my caloric intake up to 1700, keeping my protein intake the same but increasing carbohydrates. It seems to work in keeping my leptin levels where they need to be and staving off hunger. Most of my meals consist of meat (chicken, fish, lean pork, and beef) and vegetables (primarily broccoli or Asian medleys; those baby corns are my jam). I also eat a lot of cottage cheese and protein shakes. 

In regards to my workouts, I've been following a more disciplined schedule in which I hit every muscle group at least twice a week. Each muscle group has a day of low rep, high weight sets and a day of high rep, low weight sets. I've been increasing my weight records week-by-week, slowly adding pounds to the dumbbells, so progress is definitely happening. Once we get the basement finished and the garage relatively cleared out, I'll be investing in a workout bench. One day I'd love to get a rowing machine, but that's likely years into the future. I'm still struggling to find ways to work out my legs; every time I discover an exercise that promises to work with bad knees, I get excited, do it, and then spend the next two weeks waking up every hour at night due to throbbing knee pain. At this point I'm just continuing with Pilates, keeping the blood-flow going, but chicken legs may be a staple in my future. Alas, not everyone can be an Iron Man. 

Biblical Manhood: A Primer

~  Biblical Manhood  ~

In this post we examine six marks of biblical manhood. Granted these are sweeping generalities, which is to be expected when the subject is so broad. Four-hundred-page books have been written on the subject (and some of them even manage to be good!), so suffice it to say, we won't be 'plumbing the depths' but, rather, sketching the barebones of biblical manhood. The six marks of biblical manhood we'll address are as follows:

Men are to LOVE GOD.

Men to be STRONG. 

Men are to LEAD

Men are to PROVIDE and PROTECT

Men are to DISCIPLINE

Men are to PRODUCE

Men are to LOVE GOD.

What does God require of you, Oh man, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? - Micah 6.8

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength and all your mind. And love your neighbor as yourself. - Luke 10.27

The command to love God isn't just for men but for all people. It is the foundation of both biblical masculinity and biblical femininity. Biblical manhood and womanhood spring out of it; without this foundation, manliness and femininity are but parodies of what God intends for us. It should go without saying that godly masculinity involves godliness at its root. We are designed for relationship with God. We are designed to love God. This love isn't mere feel-goodery: it is devotion to the Creator, a trusting submission to Him in every aspect of our lives. It's a love that produces ever-growing obedience to Him and submission to His laws for us. If masculinity is viewed as a tree, then the roots are love for God and the branches are all those aspects of masculinity that separate manliness from femininity. If the roots of a tree are healthy, the branches flourish; if the roots are unhealthy, the tree will be limp and insipid at best and poisoned at worse. If a man wants to be a man as God designed Him to be, then he must first get on his knees and submit himself to his Creator.

Micah speaks of this devotion to God in the phrase of 'humbly walking' with Him; Jesus speaks of it in the sense of a full-faceted devotion to God. Both make the key point that devotion to God produces an outward disposition towards others that seeks their good. The man who is devoted to God cannot help but to love others, to seek justice, and to show mercy. This is the testimony of both the Old and New Testaments. As we look at aspects of biblical masculinity, we must not miss the forest for the trees: the bedrock of true masculinity - the masculinity that men are designed to embrace - is love for God.

Men are to be STRONG.

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. - 1 Corinthians 16.13

Strength isn't just physical, though physical strength is indeed part of what it means to be a man (in our effeminate culture, strength should be pursued not for vanity but for the ability to carry out our tasks and to bear witness to the reality that men are to live as men). To be strong as a man involves steadfastness, patience, alertness, and courage. The Apostle Paul commands the Corinthian Christian men to 'play the man,' to embrace biblical manliness. Biblical manliness is summed up in the idea of strength: men are to be firm, resolute, standing tall against the storms and not crumbling under pressure. It isn't easy to do, which is why it requires strength. Husbands are to be their wives' strength; the Apostle Peter says in 1 Peter 3.7 that women are the 'weaker vessel,' which isn't just a reference to the biological fact that they are generally weaker but an observation that they are not designed to be the protectors, the providers, or the ones who stand before their families and absorb the blows thrown at the household. Men who cover behind their wives are no men at all.

The source of biblical strength isn't in our own abilities but in the power of God working in us. Masculinity is corrupted by the fall: all men tend towards abdicating their masculinity by being weak or by corrupting their masculinity by tyrannizing others. Godly masculinity isn't natural to fallen man; its source is in the God who works in our hearts to conform us to His will, and His will is for men to be strong and courageous.

It is a sin to be a 'soft' man. Men are to be strong and resilient; or, in other words, hard. This is reflected in our anatomy: men become hard when procreating, whereas women are soft and supple in the act. The Apostle Paul puts 'soft' men on the same level as homosexual activity: 1 Cor 6.9-10 reads, 'Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals... will inherit the kingdom of God.' The Greek word translated 'effeminate' is malakos, and it refers to men who are 'soft' or 'womanly.' Some modern translations render malakos and arsenokoites (which we looked at last month) and conflate them in English as 'homosexuals,' the idea being that malakos refers to the catcher and arsenokoites to the pitcher in gay sex. However, this understanding of malakos is a recent idea, and older translations capture the true meaning of malakos and translate it as effeminate. When we see malakos used in contemporary Greek writings, this meaning is clear:

Herodotus makes the observation that'soft men [malakoi] are wont to spring from soft countries.' In a speech from The History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides records a warning given to an assemblyman who might foolishly vote for war for fear of being 'thought a coward [malakos] if he did not.' Twice in The Athenian Constitution, Aristotle speaks of the malakoi: once when it is recorded that men of the house of Codrus were no longer chosen as king 'because they were thought to be luxurious and to have become soft [malakous]'; and again when it is said that 'some of the kings proved cowardly [malakous] in warfare.' Closer to the time of the New Testament, the Jewish historian Josephus writes: 'After this, the Israelites grew effeminate [malakōs] as to fighting any more against their enemies, but applied themselves to the cultivation of the land, which producing them great plenty and riches, they neglected the regular disposition of their settlement, and indulged themselves in luxury and pleasures.' Again, Josephus says, 'Do not you pretend to be either more tender [malakōterous] than a woman, or more compassionate than a mother;..." The meaning of malakos is clear: to be effiminate or soft is to play the woman.

Thus in 1 Corinthians 6, Paul is talking about two types of men who will not inherit the kingdom of God: the effeminate man and the one who practices gay sex. What, though, is effeminacy? An effeminate man is soft, indulgent, a playboy, vain, and womanly. Club-hopping party-boys, those who sleep with lots of women and refuse to do the hard work of building a family, bodybuilders who glory in the limelight and love showing off their bodies, those who seek to embrace their 'feminine side' and wear women's clothing - all these are effeminate acts, and those committing them are failing at manhood and need to repent. In our culture, which hates masculinity, effeminate living is praised as enlightened and revolutionary, but really it is wickedness.

So we see that men can fail at being strong by abdicating their strength (giving up their strength and being soft weaklings), but they can also fail at being strong by corrupting their strength (by being domineering or tyrannical towards others). Biblical strength is resolute and steadfast; it is not domineering or tyrannical. Men are naturally dominant - due to the patriarchal order built into the world - and just as being weak is a failure to be strong, so being tyrannical or overbearing is a corruption of manly strength. There is such a thing as toxic masculinity, but it isn't masculinity itself but the corruption of that masculinity. A toxic masculinity poisons all it comes into contact with, especially the one who is behind the wheel. Biblical strength strengthens and encourages those whom it comes into contact with.

Men are to LEAD.

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?). - 1 Timothy 3.2-5

God's patriarchal order built into creation has established that men are to be leaders in society, in the church, and in the home. In 1 Timothy 3, the Apostle Paul instructs Timothy on the sort of man who is qualified to serve as an overseer in the local church. This 'requirement list' gives us a snapshot of what biblical masculinity looks like in practice. Men are to be:

The Husband of One Wife (not adulterers or polygamists)

Temperate (not drunkards)

Prudent (sensible)

Respectable (known for integrity)

Hospitable (not quarrelsome)

Able to teach (wise and informed)

Not pugnacious (or hotheaded), but

Gentle (fair and moderate)

Peaceable (not quarrelsome)

Not in love with money or its trappings..

And he is to be one who manages his household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (or gravitas). Let's unpack this: the Greek word for 'manage' is actually used to mean 'rule,' so that a man is to rule his household well. When we look at the roles of husbands and wives in a few weeks, we will see how men are to lead their wives; but men are also to lead their households. To put it more bluntly, God expects them to rule their households. What does this mean? Well, it's actually quite simple: men are to be the kings of their castles.

Men are to rule over their wives.

Men are to rule over their children.

Men are the ones who make the rules.

Men are the ones who enforce the rules.

Men have the final say in what happens in their homes.

Period.

Because men are to rule over their wives, wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, even to the point of calling their husbands 'lord.' But men are to rule their wives lovingly and gently, seeking their wives best interests and the interests of the household over their own. The tyrannical or domineering ruling of wives is strictly prohibited and is a corruption of manliness. This caveat on leadership was given by the Apostle Paul, and it was radical in a time when men could beat their wives and cheat on them with impunity.

Because men are to rule over their children, children are commanded to obey the head of the household. At the same time, godly men are to keep their children 'in subjection' not with harshness, cruelty, or beatings but with 'gravitas,' an aura of respect and authority. Fathers are to discipline their children not out of anger or wrath but from godly principles. This caveat, like the one above, was also radical in a culture in which children could be beaten and even orphaned for disobedience.

Biblical manhood involves real leadership and authority, but because the root of it is love for God and, consequently, love for others, it is not a tyrannical or despotic sort of rule. Men fail to rule in two ways: they either abdicate or give up their rule by letting their wives call the shots or by letting their kids run free so that the household is in shambles, or they rule with an iron fist, keeping wife and children in submission through fear and coercion, which also leaves the household in shambles. Biblical, manly leadership involves a loving, just, and tender ruling of the household, but it is a ruling nonetheless.

Men are to PROVIDE and PROTECT.

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. - 1 Timothy 5.8

Paul is straightforward: men are to provide their families with what they need. Food, shelter, and clothing are immediate needs, but other needs include leadership, discipline, and protection. A man who fails to provide for his family has, according to Paul, denied the Christian faith and is worse than an unbeliever.  A man can fail to provide in two ways: he can fail to provide the necessities of his household, or he can fail to provide the more ephemeral needs, such as leadership, discipline, and protection. Lazy, self-indulgent men often fail to provide the necessities in that they can't hold down a job or, if they do, they spend their earnings on themselves or rack up debt, failing to pay the bills while indulging their own needs and wants over those of their household. Other men may fail in that they keep a fat bank account, keep the pantry full, and pay the bills, but they fail to lead their families by spending their time 'with the boys' or in video games, or they fail to discipline their children, or they fail to protect their family from the world. Biblical manhood is exhausting: it requires hard work, time, energy, and a denial of your own wants and needs. Because of this, many men fail to provide what their families need simply because it is hard. Effeminates especially fail in this regard, because when you are soft, you cannot at the same time have the hard qualities needed to provide fully for your family. Is this to say that any man who struggles to provide has denied the faith? Not at all! The mission of providing for a family doesn't come naturally; it has a learning curve and requires repentance along the way. But those who refuse to provide by virtue of loving themselves over their families have indeed denied their faith and are worse than unbelievers.

Another form of provision is protection. Men are to protect their families: they are to take the front line against hostilities towards their household. Just as God protects those under His care, so men are to protect those under their care. God designed men to be fighters, and distortions of this innate design include abdication - not willing or afraid to fight for one's own - and wonton violence. A man who fails to protect his family isn't only failing to provide something they need - namely protection - but also failing to rule his household. If a man's home is his castle, it stands to reason that at times that castle may need to be defended, and it is the head of the castle - not his wife nor his children - who is tasked with being the first into the fray.

Men are to DISCIPLINE.

Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him. - Proverbs 13.24

For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. - Hebrews 12.11

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. - Ephesians 6.4

Men are tasked with leading the discipline in the home. The husband is the head of the household, the head of both his wife and children, and so that responsibility falls on him. This discipline isn't simply the dishing out of punishment, though sometimes it certainly is that: children are to be punished when they do wrong, but that punishment is towards a specific end. It isn't simply about negative reinforcement - 'If you do this, something you don't like will happen!' - rather, it's about showing a child the way forward. When Paul says in Ephesians 6 that fathers are to discipline their children, he isn't saying that children need to be spanked when they do something wrong; he's building upon a standard Greco-Roman concept in which fathers are tasked with disciplining - or training - their children so that they will be honorable members of society. Children are inherently foolish; it takes hard work and discipline to grow into a mature adult who contributes positively to society. Greco-Roman fathers were tasked with leading this development; the pride and joy of a father was a son or daughter who contributed positively to Roman civilization. When parents speak of disciplining their children so that they grow into mature, respectful, honest, and hard-working members of society, they are echoing a long tradition that stretches back to antiquity.

Paul, building on this concept, carries it a step forward. Fathers aren't tasked merely with raising their children by discipline and instruction so that they contribute to the larger society rather than being a drain on that society; Paul's more concerned that fathers raise their children to be productive and responsible members of the kingdom of God. This is why Paul says fathers are to discipline and instruct their children in the Lord. It is a father's responsibility to impart to his children the gospel message, biblical teachings, and love for God; it is his job to show them what it means to love and serve the Lord; he is to show them and teach them what it means to be a member of God's kingdom. He is to model obedience to God, confession of sin, and repentance. In this vein, fathers shouldn't be leaving the instruction of the Lord to private Christian schools or even churches. Only recently has this become the norm: for much of history, most Christian teaching took place in the home. It wasn't unusual for families to have devotions and worship each night.

Fathers fail in discipling their household when they fail to discipline their children at all - letting them run amuck, giving them everything they want, and leaving their education in the hands of the state or even in the church. Fathers also fail when they are overbearing, dictatorial, or tyrannical; this was common in the ancient Greco-Roman world, which is why Paul is adamant in ordering fathers to not provoke their children. The idea conveyed by the Greek word for 'provoke' is the anger and discouragement produced in children by a father's arbitrary and unsympathetic rule. A father's household rule isn't to be arbitrary - in other words, it needs to have direction and focus, in this case gearing the child for life as a Christian in the wider world - and it isn't to be unsympathetic - fathers need to remember that children are children, that they will act like children, and that they shouldn't be expected to act like adults. Psalm 103.14 tells us that God remembers our frame: He is mindful of the fact that we are made of dust. The psalmist recognized that God doesn't expect perfection from us; He knows that we are sinful, prone to wandering, and in need of constant correction; He keeps this in mind when He deals with us, and so He deals with us patiently, with mercy and pity. Fathers are to deal with their children in the same way.

Men are to PRODUCE. 

Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. - Genesis 2.15

In Genesis 2 we see man's original vocation: he was to cultivate and protect the Garden of Eden. He was designed to produce. He was to work and tend the Garden and preserve and protect it. But protect it from what? From the outside wilds as the Garden advances across the globe. God could've made the whole world an Edenic paradise, but His intention was to use His image-bearing creatures to do the work. God embraced a two-fold approach to get this done: Eden would be physically extended by working the grounds and subjugating the wild frontier, and 'gardeners' would be multiplied as women bore children and raised them to function as God's image-bearers in the Garden. People are, at heart, gardeners. Wherever civilization advances, what do we find? We find the cultivation of land and the building of parks; from the ancient Hanging Gardens of Babylon to Central Park in New York City, mankind has an innate urge to shape and beautify the world, an echo of our original vocation.

Men are designed to work. They are designed to produce, to put food on the table and shelter over their families' heads. Because of the Fall, however, this labor has been stained, and it's become a real struggle:

Then to Adam [God] said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

Cursed is the ground because of you;

In toil you will eat of it

All the days of your life. “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;

And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face

You will eat bread,

Till you return to the ground,

Because from it you were taken;

For you are dust,

And to dust you shall return.”

- Genesis 3.17-19

Though work has been stained by our Fall in the Garden, men are nonetheless tasked with working.  They are to be producers; this is why it falls upon men to be the 'breadwinners' in the household. Ruling a household inevitably means providing for it, and access to provisions happens through work: whether that means working the ground to produce food and raising livestock for meat, or performing a service to earn money with which to purchase necessities, men are called to be the ones leading the acquiring of provisions whereas wives - as we will see - are tasked with taking those provisions and applying them skillfully to the home.

The statement above would make a modern feminist howl. Does this mean that women can't work? Does this mean that a mother can't have a job? Does this mean that fathers shouldn't be stay at home dads? These are prickly questions, and there are a variety of answers, often depending on specific situations or circumstances. At the core, however, is the biblical reality that God has ordained households to operate a certain way, and His creatures should seek to adopt those operations insofar as they are able to do so.

Parting Shots

What do all these aspects of biblical manhood share? They are reflections of the Creator, who is known for His strength, His wise and loving rule, and His provision and protection and discipline of those He loves. True masculinity is a reflection of God. But masculinity on its own doesn't complete a man. Adam, whose masculinity was pure prior to its corruption in the Fall, was lacking in something; specifically, he lacked a feminine side. Men need a feminine side, but it isn't found in adopting womanly pursuits or feminine manners of living. It is found in a wife. 

on Household Codes

When discussing household codes and what God expects of men, women, husbands and wives, and children, we must be adamant about the reality that none of us will live up to our calling. We are all infected with sin, and we won't be sinless until we are glorified in the new heavens and new earth. Every human heart is filled with sin, and so every family is filled with sin. Every man fails to live up to biblical manhood, and every woman fails to live up to biblical womanhood. Every man fails to live up to being a biblical husband, and every wife fails to live up to being a biblical wife. Every child fails in their obedience and submission to their parents.

As good as you think you are, you're not.

As bad as you think you are, you're worse.

Failure is inherent in all of us. But in what direction are we failing? We are either failing in the right direction or in the wrong direction. When we strive to be obedient to God and to live as He created us to live, we will fail. We will fail frequently, in big and small ways (and sometimes in spectacularly dramatic ways). But what matters is what direction were failing in.

All striving after obedience is grace.

When I do good as a father, it is grace.

When I fail as a father, it is of my own accord.

Every success I have is a gift of a God's grace, and every failure is my own; if it weren't for God's grace, for His work on my heart and His Spirit in my life, I couldn't help but be a constant bundle of failure.

God's Word is clear in what God expects of men and husbands, women and wives, children and even slaves. These commands are given in what scholars call "household codes," and they are found in the New Testament. During the days of the Roman Empire, household codes were common: it was clear what was expected of the members of all households. The Romans understood that the household was important, for it was the center of a person's reality; while our culture makes the government the centerpiece of the state, the Romans understood that the family is the bedrock of the state. If the family is in order, the state is in order; if the family is in disarray, the state is in disarray (and we know this to be true from current climate!).

The New Testament takes the form of Greco-Roman household codes and reorients them around the gospel; whereas the household was the foundation of the Roman state, in the New Testament the household is the launching point of the kingdom of God. Though secularists condemn the New Testament household codes as ultra-conservative, they were actually very liberal in Paul's day and age. The liberalism of these codes is one reason many scholars hold that the idea of women's rights, and even feminism, began with the Apostle Paul: he would've been considered a 'radical feminist' in his day for the value, privileges, and responsibilities he gives to women in light of the gospel.

Progressive Christians - those Christians who put one foot in the secularist camp and one foot in the camp of orthodoxy - argue that the New Testament household codes are not binding on modern families. They argue that the codes were appropriate for that ancient culture, and  the biblical writers advocated them in order to placate wider culture. They believe that there is no distinction between men and women (which naturally leads to women becoming men and men becoming women), and they argue that the patriarchy built into the New Testament household codes are vestigial remnants of a less enlightened age. They argue that the writers of the New Testament were either closet secularists or simply unenlightened (but if either of those are the case, why trust the Bible at all?). They argue that the traditional values espoused in the New Testament were as far as the New Testament writers were willing to go because their Greco-Roman culture wasn't ready for the radical feminism and shattering of patriarchy that the gospel requires. This is, of course, nonsense, and these arguments lead to the conclusion that the NT writers can't be taken seriously at all; this is why progressive Christians interpret scripture in light of secularism rather than interpreting secularism in light of scripture. Secularism, not scripture, becomes the ultimate authority in progressive Christianity.

~  In progressive Christianity, secularism - not scripture - becomes the ultimate authority.  ~

Are we to assume, then, that the household codes of the New Testament are authoritative? In other words, are they still binding upon us? Do they truly inform us of how God wants us to live? The answer is a resounding YES. Though the household codes are framed in terms and forms of Greco-Roman household codes, their foundation is not on Roman traditions but on the created order. Patriarchy was run-of-the-mill in the Roman state because it is the natural state of the created order (though Roman patriarchy was corrupted, the patriarchy of the New Testament is pure, hence its radicalism for its time). The household codes in the New Testament reflect the natural states of mankind in relation with one another, and thus these codes are binding on all generations.

~  It is God's desire for men to marry women and for the husband and wife to have children and raise them in the Lord so that the pattern continues and the world is filled with God-worshipping families, communities, and societies. The greatest mission a Christian can embark upon for the spread of the kingdom is to get married, have kids, and raise them in the Lord.  ~

Household codes are found throughout the New Testament. Some of the big ones are found in Titus 2, 1 Timothy 5, Colossians 3, 1 Peter 3, and in Ephesians 5 and 6. Over the next few weeks we will be examining most of these passages. The majority of these codes emphasize household roles rather than gender roles; while men are mentioned, husbands get more air time, and its the same with women. This is because the Bible assumes that men and women will get married and have children, as that is the pattern and calling established at creation. It is God's desire for men to marry women and for the husband and wife to have children and raise them in the Lord so that the pattern continues and the world is filled with God-worshipping families, communities, and societies. The Bible promises that the kingdom of God will spread throughout the whole world, and this won't be accomplished primarily by evangelizing neighbors or establishing churches but by the establishing and growing of godly households. Godly families are the linchpin upon which the kingdom advances. The greatest mission a Christian can embark upon for the spread of the kingdom is to get married, have kids, and raise them in the Lord.

Smash the Patriarchy?

Patriarchy is written into the fabric of civilization and has been the predominant mode of operation for human society up until the present era. It is present in all societies, in varying degrees, and those few societies that broke from the mold - such as the matriarchal Iroquois - retained patriarchal undertones (though women served in leadership roles, it remained the case that men and women operated in masculine and feminine spheres). The reason patriarchy is written into the fabric of societies is because it is written into the created order. It is the way God designed the world to work.

Patriarchy comes from the Greek and means "father rule." The word patriarchy, in our day and age, can mean two different things. It can mean the basic creational design that God has built into the world, in which men are generally oriented towards leadership; OR it can mean the man made system of cultural and legal principles or customs that arise from the patriarchal order built into creation. Patriarchy in the first sense is good; patriarchy in the second sense can be good or bad, depending on how faithful it is to the Father who men are supposed to represent. The patriarchy of Pharaoh in Moses’ day was monstrous, inasmuch as it tried to destroy its competition by drowning Hebrew boys. Some “Christian” patriarchy in our day is tyrannical, inasmuch as it twists the Scripture in doctrine and practice, teaching men to oppress women rather than lovingly lead them. Any patriarchy that is a man-made manifestation of God’s design, whether good or bad, can be “smashed.” The patriarchy of Western civilization has been largely destroyed in our day, by our adoption of anti-biblical, anti-creational ideologies. However, we have done this largely to our own hurt: it means we end up living contrary to the way we were designed.

Biblical patriarchy is, in a nutshell, the reality that God has created the universe in such a way that men are designed to lead: they are designed to lead in society, in the church, and in their homes. This isn't to say that women are relegated to "inferior" roles; it's simply the fact that men are designed for THAT rule. In a well-ordered creation that reflects the Trinitarian godhead in which Father, Son, and Spirit are equal but yet exist in a hierarchy, an authoritarian hierarchy is written into the fabric of creation. God could have created a world in which anarchy - the absence of authoritarian order - was normative, but God desires order rather than chaos, so He designed His creation in such a way that order is present. Patriarchy is simply the name we give to the order which is apparent to anyone with eyes to see. 

If God had wanted to create an anarchic world, He would have made men and women the same in every way; but because He desired a natural order, He designed men and women differently in order to further His designs. This isn't to say that God made one gender more important or valuable than the other; both are created in God's image, of equal worth and value, but there are distinct design differences between men and women. These design differences reflect the way God designed men and women to operate in His well-ordered creation, fulfilling their roles in society, in the church, and in the home. When these roles are embraced and taken seriously, society, churches, and homes flourish. Thus when we talk about biblical patriarchy, we are talking about two different things:

(1) The basic creational way God designed the world, and

(2) The basic creational differences between men and women that exist to operate in the creational, patriarchal way that God designed the world's primary spheres (society, church, and home). 

The fact that patriarchy is a reality is seen in a simple telescopic look at the world's societies. Societies tend to be male-dominated, and men and women tend to occupy different roles that, together, make for a well-ordered society. The animal kingdom, too, reflects this patriarchal reality. That these realities exist cannot be denied; opponents even acknowledge them, though they explain them not as creational realities built into the fabric of creation but as evolutionary byproducts of human development. Thus patriarchy is evident in an honest look at the world; but is there any evidence for it in scripture? While scripture doesn't outright say "Patriarchy is in the Created Order," it is evident in several passages and by the way God instructs the church and home to operate. Some will argue that since the Bible doesn't explicitly endorse patriarchy word for word, its foreign to the Bible; against this we argue that (a) we wouldn't expect the Bible to speak of 'patriarchy' since it is a relatively recent word used to address biblical realities (like the term "Trinity", referring to the godhead, which is deduced from scripture but not outright stated), and (b) given that patriarchy was the dominant system of operation, it would be redundant for the biblical writers to explicitly mention it since everyone knew about it and lived within that reality. 

Patriarchy in the created order is often referred to as headship: Adam, as the head of his wife, was held responsible for her actions in Genesis 3. This is because he is in authority over her; in the same way that a boss is responsible to his boss for his employees' successes and failures, so Adam was held responsible for Eve's failure. The opening chapters of Genesis narrate God’s creation first of Adam, then of Eve from and for Adam as his “suitable helper". The notion of Adam’s “headship,” that is, his position of ultimate responsibility and authority for his marriage and family, is supported by a series of factors: Adam’s creation prior to the woman; Adam’s naming of the animals prior to the creation of Eve; Adam’s naming of Eve subsequent to God’s creation of her; God’s holding Adam—not Eve—responsible for his and Eve’s sin even though Eve had sinned first; and the woman’s designation as the man’s “suitable helper”

In the New Testament, Paul speaks of Adam’s representative actions on behalf of all of humanity (what theologians have called his “federal headship”) and of Christ’s serving as the head of a new humanity (Rom. 5:12–21). Paul also repeatedly affirms God’s creation first of Adam and then of Eve and on this basis makes pronouncements with regard to the man’s headship (1 Cor. 11:8–9; 1 Tim. 2:13). Thus in 1 Cor. 11:3–5, reference is made to Christ’s headship over the man; the husband’s headship over his wife; and God’s headship over Christ, conveying the notion of authority (cf. 1 Cor. 11:10). In Ephesians, Paul speaks of Christ’s headship over all things in the church, again conveying the notion of authority (Eph. 1:21–22; cf. 4:15; Col. 1:18; 2:10, 19). In Eph. 5:23, Paul writes that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. This connotes both loving provision (Eph. 5:25–29) and authority (Eph. 5:22). Though there is no "proof-text" of patriarchy in the Bible, it is evident and implied throughout. 

Much of our culture's rejection of patriarchy is fueled by an appropriate rejection of wicked practice based upon patriarchy. Men beating wives and failing to provide for them; men failing to discipline and raise their children; men being treated as inherently better or more valuable than women: all these are distortions of patriarchy and must be rejected. But rather than reject the abuses of patriarchy, our culture seeks to eradicate patriarchy altogether. This effort began with the feminist movement and has even been taken up by the western church as it has sought to continue being relevant and relatable to our changing culture. 

Opponents to patriarchy will claim that patriarchy is nothing more than a societal tradition that began in the Stone Age and has been retained by men wishing to cling to power. Patriarchy, rather than being built into the fabric of the created order, is seen an evolutionary byproduct; as humans have become enlightened, we've caught on to this, and we've seen how oppressive patriarchy can be to women. Sure, patriarchy is obviously woven into the fabric of the animal kingdom, but it's an evolutionary rather than moral imperative. Those who wish to retain patriarchy are those who enjoy the power it bestows (in other words, men), and their attempts to cling to it are nothing more than attempts to keep women under their boot. Society - and especially women - would be better off if patriarchy were dismantled.

The dismantling of patriarchy has been going on for a long time, and what are its fruits for society? We are seeing that fruit now: fatherless boys turned into toxic men, career women who are more depressed and miserable than ever before, a rejection of what it means to be a man or a woman (and the idea you can be whatever gender you want to be), a rootless and drifting society in which riots and wickedness are paramount. In every society that has rejected patriarchy, there has been a period of excess, a period of decline into chaos, and then utter chaos followed by a rebuilding along traditional patriarchal lines. It's almost as if people, when finally enjoying the fruits of their rebellion against the created order, yearn for that created order again because - gasp! - it's actually good for society.

The rejection of patriarchy has gone hand in hand with a rejection of gender roles, or differences in purpose and function (but not equality or worth) between men and women. The thing about gender roles that unbalances people in a world obsessed with leveling men and women into a single identity is how roles result in a concentration of authority in the head of the house. Modern people resist this idea in a household, though they accept it with perfect ease when we speak of the workplace. Of course there must be hierarchy at work, for that is where we get important things accomplished. The fact that people expect perfect equality in the home is evidence that they really don’t think anything productive happens there. It used to be that a man worked to provide for a functioning and productive home; nowadays people view the home as a place to "take a break" from the productive workplace. The home has gone from being the center of a person's life to a rest stop. 

We must extinguish, once and for all, the false idea that gender roles translate into differences in value. A difference in roles does not mean a difference in worth. Men are not naturally superior to women; women are not naturally inferior to men. People can be equal in one way and not in another. This makes no sense to some people; either people are equal or they are not. They think this way because they believe hierarchies must reflect real worth to be justified. If someone is higher up the ladder, he must in some sense really be a better person. If the Trinity is our model, however, it is not only possible but also necessary to say that everyone in a hierarchy has equal worth. In the Trinity, each of the persons is equally God, yet each has a function within an ordered hierarchy. The Son obeys the Father, but the Father does not take orders from the Son. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but the Father and the Son do not proceed from the Spirit. By using the Trinity as a model for understanding human hierarchies, people are free to honor those above them without degrading themselves. And those in authority can honor those beneath them without any loss of authority.

The created order reflects the hierarchies of the Trinity. Patriarchy is the hierarchy God has built into His creation: when it is embraced, creation flourishes, but when it is rejected, creation is subjected to chaos. Over the next few weeks we will look at what God expects of men and women, especially as it relates to the household. Gender roles will be discussed, and they are to be celebrated and not condemned as just more Stone Age "old hat."