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."

the year in books [XIX]

This next series of 'books read' are all in the science fiction category. Kim Stanley Robinson's Green Mars was an epic sequel to the first book of his Mars Trilogy, which I read last year (I've got the third book, Blue Mars, on the dock for 2021). Robinson's Galileo's Dream mixed a fantastic biography of Galileo with a science-fiction twist in which Galileo is tasked with championing for science over religion in the far future; though it was good, Robinson doesn't mince words in his ill-treatment of religion. Larry Niven's Draco Tavern is a collection of short stories about a bar in the Siberian arctic circle that caters to alien life-forms, and it was a fantastic romp; his The World of Ptavvs, one of his earliest works, was good but nowhere near the quality of Draco Tavern. David Weber's Off Armageddon Reef was decent, but I felt the story could've been told much better (and far fewer pages); this book clocked out at around 700 pages, but most of it was rehashing the same old politics over and over (the battle scenes were pretty great, though). Taylor Anderson's Into the Storm held promise - what book that mixes dinosaurs and World War II battleships doesn't hold promise? - but I couldn't stand the writing. The cover art is great, though!

the year in books [XVIII]

These last four entries for 2020's 'Western Queue' include some heavy-hitters: Mary Doria Russell's Epitaph, sequel to her Doc: A Novel (which I read earlier this year) was an excellent and historical treatment of the shoot-out at the O.K. Corral. She's written several other books, notably science fiction, and I plan on reading those, as well. Ron Hansen's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford has been made into a movie, and I'd like to watch it. Hansen, as usual, captures the atmosphere of the Wild West, making it relatable and picturesque while remaining gritty and down-to-earth. His dialogue is on point, as well. Louis L'Amour's Sackett's Land was, if I'm honest, a disappointment. While I used to really enjoy L'Amour, the discovery of western writers much his superior has been a dent in my enjoyment of his literature (he's been called the 'Harlequin Romancer' of the western genre). Craig Johnson's The Cold Dish, on the other hand, was phenomenal. I've wanted to start the Longmire series since the wife and I devoured it on Netflix years back. There's a slew of books in the series, and I've added a couple to next year's Western Gauntlet.

LGBTQ and Secular Philosophy

Classical Christian philosophers considered homosexuality a dysmorphia because it is a deviation from nature, and up until the last few decades, psychologists recognized it as such. It is only recently that it has been embraced as a legitimate form of human living, along with transgenderism and - slowly but surely - pedophilia. This isn't because there were scientific breakthroughs; it's because psychologists began to pay homage to modern philosophy rather than to reality. Progressives - who have advocated modern philosophy lock, stock, and barrel - have jettisoned the facts of nature. They rejected Plato and Aristotle and Aquinas, the greatest western philosophers. They rejected them because their arguments naturally lead to the evidence of God and objective morality; it wasn't that western philosophy was found wanting and rejected, it was that their conclusions were found distasteful and so they were jettisoned. In fact, the rejection of classical western philosophy wasn't a well-considered shift in philosophy but a knee-jerk attempt to disentangle from the responsibilities of living under the weight of a Creator and objective reality. They did not want there to be a God; they did not want there to be such a thing as absolute Right and Wrong; they did not want things such as men and women to have definitions; and so they rejected the very foundation of the western world and sought to build something else in its place, a reality that fit their own tastes. Centuries later, we are in a culture in which feelings are more important than facts, and those who disagree - even those who politely disagree - are labeled as bigots, racists, and haters who are anti-science (though the ‘science’ which we supposedly reject isn't science at all but philosophical ideas couched in scientific terms).

Western classical philosophy, which started with observing the world and using logic to determine the nature of reality, naturally leads to the existence of God, the immateriality of the soul, and the reality of objective truth. Modern secular philosophy, as I’ve said, didn’t arise because later philosophers reevaluated Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas and discovered that their logic and conclusions didn’t hold up under scrutiny; rather, they disliked the natural conclusions of classical philosophy and sought to create something more palatable to their tastes. Modern philosophy takes the opposite route of classical philosophy: rather than examining the world and coming to conclusions based on those observations, it begins with its conclusions and seeks to justify them by reinterpreting reality. Modern philosophy begins with the assumption that classical philosophy is wrong; it’s sustained not by persuasive argument or honest logic but by ideological convictions. Modern philosophy’s obsession with naturalistic materialism – the idea that all that exists in reality is the material realm – isn’t a conclusion drawn from logic but an attempt to keep a ‘divine foot’ from getting in the door. Modern philosophy builds upon the work of the 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes – called the ‘father’ of modern philosophy – who believed that the human brain and body were built of nothing more than purposeless material components acting according to blind physical laws; a materialistic reading of Darwin’s theory of evolution only bolstered this proposition. While the main foundation of modern philosophy is an ideological rejection of the classical worldview, a second ‘foundation’ is the materialist interpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution: accordingly, human beings are nothing more than bloated bags of molecules arranged in such and such a manner. We aren’t distinguished from dogs, jellyfish, or eagles in any way that matters. We are, ultimately, animals, and we are held to the same standards as animals (this is why, in the segment from which the video below is taken, Bill Nye argues for secularist sexual ideas using a clownfish as an argument). We are ‘atomistic individuals,’ no longer united as human beings to a human nature by which we are judged and held accountable. Human beings, as ‘rational animals,’ are free to live as they please and do as they will; because all that exists is the material world, there’s no absolute Right and Wrong, for such objective morality can come only from essential natures or a Creator. Things such as justice, love, and honesty are abstract ideas, and in a world composed only of the physical, they are just silly thoughts of atomistic brains; they, like morality, don’t really exist, and no one can be compelled to subject themselves to them. Perhaps the greatest problem facing modern philosophy is that of morality: ‘If Right and Wrong don’t exist, then how are human beings to get along?’ If human beings are free to live and do as they please, bound by no moral hedgerows, and because we know that human beings are naturally bent towards violence against one another, how, then, is harmony to be achieved? 

Modern philosophy is the undercurrent to much of the liberal thought of western philosophy, and children are being raised to swallow it without thinking. Our liberal-minded schools teach modern secular philosophy as if it’s proven fact, as if only fools or archaic luddites could ever think differently. It’s only when you get to the higher-level philosophy classes that you begin to sense the trepidation and concern among the secular philosophers: they know their philosophy is built on sand, and most of them struggle to keep modern philosophy from following its natural trajectory to a world in which the most heinous crimes are justified and accepted. It’s ironic that while modern philosophers have exulted in overthrowing the rigid atmosphere of objective morality, they nonetheless live as if objective morality were true (perhaps because, it is!), and they’re frightened of a world in which their modern philosophy is taken seriously. We will examine the conundrum facing modern philosophy’s stance on morality in a moment, but bringing this to bear on the subject at hand: ‘How does modern secular philosophy guide liberal views on human sexuality?’ The song My Sex Junk in perhaps the most cringe-worthy Bill Nye episode to air illustrates the answer:

that this video is 1.4k likes and 29k dislikes is encouraging

The singer says, ‘It’s evolution, ain’t nothing new; there’s nothing taboo about a sex stew.’ Her statement rests upon the modern philosophical idea that materialist evolution is the greatest reality, and as such human beings are nothing more than ‘rational creatures’ who are products of evolution. If this is true, then human beings are not made in the image of God and are not bound by a nature of what it means to be a man or woman; if this is true, then human beings are held to no moral standard above that of the animals; if this is true, then human sexuality is just the ‘causeway’ by which evolution proceeds, and because we are animals, there’s no right or wrong – no ‘taboo’ – way of embracing our sexuality. Classical philosophers argued that certain sexual acts or lifestyles were taboo because they violated the purpose and function of what it means to be a sexual human creature; Christians have agreed and gone further, saying that certain sexual acts and lifestyles are sinful because they violate God’s design for human living, which directly correlates with the essential nature of what it means to be a man or woman. When the idea of ‘essential natures’ and a divine created order are tossed out, what’s left but ‘atomistic’ creatures who like to have sex? And if there’s no essential nature and no divine created order, then there is also no morality constraining sexual expression: therefore there’s truly nothing wrong with a sex stew (though, it must be said, I’m sure most liberal philosophers would agree that kidnapping and raping a four-year-old girl is wrong, though they couldn’t tell you why or how). 

The singer says, ‘Drop some knowledge: sexuality is a spectrum, everyone is on it.’ With this, even a Christian would agree (though they wouldn’t use her terms). She’s saying that all human beings find their sexuality on a spectrum that ranges from the orthodox (heterosexuality) to the unorthodox (homosexuality and other perversions). Some peoples’ sexuality is unflinchingly heterosexual; others are unflinchingly homosexual. Some people – what we used to call bisexuals but who are called by all sorts of names now – are sexually drawn towards members of both sexes. The ‘sexuality spectrum’ has room for everyone’s particular preferences. That this is true is a no-brainer; the Bible even assumes it to be true. The difference between secularists and Christians is that a secularist looks at the spectrum of human sexuality as an expression of all the beautiful ways human sexuality is expressed, and if it falls on that spectrum, it is justifiable and okay (as a side note, I’ve seen these spectrums in various places, and it’s interesting that they tend to exclude necrophilia and pedophilia despite them being sexual preferences for some people). A Christian would look at the ‘sexuality spectrum’ and see all the ways sinfulness has infected us to our core. Human beings are sexual creatures, and it is thus our sexuality that is often the most twisted; we are prone to strange desires because our sinful infection runs deep. The classicist looks at the ‘sexuality spectrum’ and sees all the ways human sexuality fails to conform to the essence of what it means to be a man or woman; the Christian looks at the ‘sexuality spectrum’ and sees all the ways human sexuality fails to conform to the created order; the secularist looks at the ‘sexuality spectrum’ and claps his or her (or their?) hands in glee at all the ways humans have found to express themselves (though they stop short, for some reason, of including sexual preferences that are, at this moment, still distasteful to most people). 

The singer continues, ‘Just do what feels right.’ In the classical worldview and in Christian thought, one doesn’t simply do what feels right; one is commanded to do what is right, feelings aside. This singer’s statement reflects the overarching conviction of modern secular philosophy: because we are mere animals, because we are constrained by no objective morality, we are thus free to live and do as we please. This kind of talk is also what makes modern philosophy so tempting: because we are depraved creatures, bent in on ourselves and driven by sinful impulses, a philosophy that validates everything we feel and want and approves of our autonomy is incredibly appealing. People want to believe that they are free to do as they please; people want to believe they are not bound by a morality by which they may be judged. Modern philosophers will tell you that we are free to do as we please, but because they know precisely where this leads – who is to stop a murderer from doing what he pleases? a kidnapper from doing what he pleases? or a rapist from doing what he pleases? – they will then add disclaimers by which they try to keep morality’s foot in the door. The secular philosopher W.T. Stace writes:

‘The world, according to this new picture [of modern secular philosophy], is purposeless, senseless, meaningless. Nature is nothing but matter in motion. The motions of matter are governed, not by any purpose, but by blind forces and laws. . . . [But] if the scheme of things is purposeless and meaningless, then the life of man is purposeless and meaningless too. Everything is futile, all effort is in the end worthless. A man may, of course, still pursue disconnected ends, money, fame, art, science, and may gain pleasure from them. But his life is hollow at the center. Hence, the dissatisfied, disillusioned, restless, spirit of modern man. . . . Along with the ruin of the religious vision there went the ruin of moral principles and indeed of all values. . . . If our moral rules do not proceed from something outside us in the nature of the universe – whether we say it is God or simply the universe itself – then they must be our own inventions. Thus it came to be believed that moral rules must be merely an expression of our own likes and dislikes. But likes and dislikes are notoriously variable. What pleases one man, people or culture, displeases another. Therefore, morals are wholly relative.’

W.T. Stace captures the problem: if there’s no objective morality by which we are judged – whether that morality comes direct to us from a Creator or by the natural essences of what it means to live as a human being – then morality can only come from ourselves; and we are not in any way arbiters of what is right and wrong. Modern philosophers have sought to redefine morality and explain why it is something human beings seek to live by. A classicist or Christian would argue that morality comes top-down, from God to human beings, and that it is objective because it is rooted in essential natures and the created order; a secularist will argue that morality is horizontal – something unique to mankind and of mankind’s invention. A classicist or Christian would argue that we are beholden to morality because we are constrained to it from On High; a secularist will say that we are beholden to morality because it’s simply the best way to operate as a society. Let’s look at some of the high-points of secular morality and how they fall apart:

Morality as a Reflection of Widespread Human Values. Some modern philosophers have argued that there is such a thing as morality, but it doesn’t come from above but from within the human race as a whole. When one takes a telescopic look at humanity, it becomes apparent that certain values tend to be widespread. A classicist or a Christian would say, ‘Well, yes, and that’s exactly what you would expect to see if human beings are inherently moral and instinctively know of an objective moral code.’ This kind of reasoning doesn’t work for the secularist, of course, and they would say that the widespread values common to humanity are merely an illusion of moral objectivity – and all the while they cling to the illusion as if it were a life-raft preventing them from drowning in their own philosophy. If human morality is simply about what is common to human beings as a whole, then what happens if these widespread values shift? Does morality then change? And if it does change, it certainly can’t be promoted as moral advances or retreats, since morality, ultimately, doesn’t exist. Accordingly, the now-widespread horror of slavery can’t be considered a moral advance; it’s just a change in personal tastes. Nor can widespread acceptance of adultery and homosexuality be considered a moral regression; it just reflects a change in attitudes. The secular idea that the murder of unborn children is justified isn’t a moral advance or regression; it’s just a matter of personal taste (though if you oppose abortion, you’re often treated by secularists as if you’re lacking in morality, but that’s beside the point). One must ask: ‘What if people come to sincerely believe that it is good to kill unwanted infants, or unwanted toddlers or teenagers, or unwanted old or sick people? What if people come to sincerely believe that it is good to kill Jews, Christians, Muslims, blacks, or whoever?’ According to the secularists, this wouldn’t be a moral advance or a moral regression; it would just be a change in attitudes, and you wouldn’t be able to condemn it from any objective ground. Human beings, after all, aren’t made in God’s image; they have no intrinsic worth not shared by a mushroom, a beetle, or – if we’re honest – a piece of poop. We’re all just bags of gooey matter. In the last century, Nazis, communists, and jihadists have sought to remake society in their image; the classicist who believes in essential natures and the created order can oppose such activity as irrational and wicked behavior, but all the secularist can say is, ‘Boy, I hope they don’t succeed!’

Morality as a ‘Social Contract.’ Secularists claim that morality is nothing more than whatever rules people agree to follow for their ‘mutual advantage’ or for the ‘greatest happiness’; this has been called moral utilitarianism. Because everyone benefits from not being killed in their homes while they sleep, a rule against murder is acceptable. But because lots of people want to have sex without the constraints of marriage, fornication is okay; because lots of people want to have sex with people other than their spouses, adultery is okay; because lots of people want to have sex with members of the same sex, homosexuality is okay; because lots of people want to have sex without being burdened by children, abortion is okay. While this is touted as morality, it’s really nothing more than a ‘non-aggression pact between self-interested bundles of impulse and willfulness.’ Murderers, kidnappers, and racists aren’t condemned by society because they did anything wrong but simply because they violated the current social contract; if you get your kicks by kidnapping, murdering, and raping little boys, the social contract tells you that you’ll be hunted down if you follow through on your desires, so it’s smart to go along with the social contract so you don’t have to suffer for ‘doing what feels right.’ Of course, if widespread human values change, and kidnapping and murder and rape become acceptable, you’ll be able to rock your socks off and walk head-held-high through society without being burdened by anything as pesky as Right and Wrong. Secularists thus consider human morality an assertion of the prevailing and ever-shifting sensibilities of the majority of human beings (or at least of those with the loudest voices). Morality has no ultimate basis in objective fact or reason; it’s founded on sentiment and existing custom. 

We close with a quote from the classicist philosopher Edward Feser: 

‘Contemporary Western civilization, or at least its liberal-progressive ‘mainstream,’ cannot fail to seem a stinking cesspool of wickedness and irrationality. There was a time when even many liberals would have agreed with this judgment. Had you told a William Gladstone or even a John F. Kennedy that the liberalism of the future would be defined by abortion on demand and ‘same-sex marriage,’ and that its avant-garde would be contemplating infanticide, bestiality, and necrophilia, they would have thought you mad. Certainly if you could have convinced them that this is the sort of thing to which their principles were leading, they would have been moved to do a serious rethink. But we are well past the time when slippery-slope arguments might be used to try to shock a liberal or a secularist out of his folly. You can no longer attempt the reductio ad absurdum with him, for he will now simply embrace with enthusiasm any absurdity that follows from his premises and thank you for suggesting it to him. He is well through the looking glass, his mind and his moral sensibility so thoroughly corrupted that to him it is obvious that black is white, up is down, sodomy is marriage, and scraping a fetus from its mother’s womb is compassion. After a centuries-long climb up to the light that began with the ancient Greeks and culminated in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, modern man began a descent that has ended with the contemporary secularist lost once again in the bowels of Plato’s cave, as blind as the pathetic denizens described in the Republic and as certain of his own rightness and of the madness and evil of those who would try to free him from his delusions.’

LGBTQ: Paul and Plato in Romans 1

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. [Romans 1.18-32, NIV]

In Romans 1.18-32, Paul gives us a telescopic look at mankind’s depravity. He asserts that God’s wrath is being revealed upon His rebellious creatures, and then He expands upon their rebellion: mankind inherently knows that God exists, for He has revealed His power and divine nature in creation. Creation instructs us to fear God and to be grateful for His provision. However, mankind has willfully suppressed these truths, refusing to honor or thank God, and our thinking has become futile and our hearts have been darkened. We exchanged the truth about God for lies of our own creation, and we became idolaters, worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. It is because of this – our suppression of natural truth, our rejection of God, and our idolatry – that God’s wrath is being revealed. His wrath manifests itself in that He ‘gives us over’ to our sin. Sometimes God’s judgment is to let us have our own way. It is here – in verses 26 and 27 – that Paul refers to homosexual activity: women sleeping with women and men sleeping with men. He says these practices are unnatural, or against nature, depending on your translation. However, these shameful acts provoked by shameful lusts are just the tip of the iceberg: all mankind, regardless of whether or not their sexual proclivities tend towards homosexual activity, stand in the docket for a variety of sins. Paul chastises not only those who commit these sins but also those who approve of those who practice them. A man may not be gay, but by showing solidarity in a Gay Pride Parade, he’s courting the unnatural evil of deviant sexual living and is judged alongside it. 

That Paul condemns same-sex sexual activities is apparent; but what does he mean when he says that such activities are ‘against nature’? Some have argued that Paul is talking only about those whose sexual orientation is straight; for them, homosexual sex is against their personal nature. In the same vein, if a man of homosexual orientation were to have straight sex, that would thus be going against ‘his nature,’ and thus he would be guilty of personal aberrant sexual behavior. This assumes that God makes people homosexual and that He intends they live a homosexual life; many ‘Gay Christians’ (as oxymoronic a phrase as ‘Adulterous Christians’ or ‘Idolatrous Christians’ or ‘Incestual Christians’) argue that their homosexual orientation is a gift from God, that it is part of their nature, and thus they honor God by living how He created them (this is an example of what ‘futile thinking’ looks like in practice). We must reject this interpretation of what Paul says, for on the one hand he wouldn’t be aware of the concept of sexual orientation, as it’s a modern concept; and on the other he expressly believes that human beings are sinful to the core, so the whole argument of ‘this is how God made me’ would be met with ‘no, that’s how deep sin has infected you, so repent.’ Ultimately, Paul isn’t addressing one’s orientation so much as he’s addressing one’s behavior. He isn’t talking about those who war against shameful lusts but those who embrace those lusts in action. Some have argued that Paul is talking about the natural world: it isn’t natural for members of the same sex to have sex with each other. However, anyone who’s owned a dog can tell you that’s not true. A frisky male dog will mount other male dogs, their own brothers, a luckless human’s leg, and even inanimate objects. Dogs, then, are guilty of homosexual sex, incest, bestiality, and just plain stupidity. If Paul was talking about what we see in the animal kingdom, then he’s shown for a fool, and can we then assume that homosexual sex, bestiality, and incest are thus okay for human beings, since they’re present in the animal kingdom and we are animals, too? That’s absurd. We aren’t dogs and shouldn’t make canine behavior the litmus test for what is right and wrong for human beings. What, then, is Paul talking about when he says homosexual activity is ‘against nature’? The answer is found in Greco-Roman philosophy. 

Classical Western Philosophy: A Primer

The Greek philosopher Plato lived in the 4th century BC, and it was his brand of philosophy that was tweaked by Aristotle and fine-tuned by the medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas to become the foundation of classical western philosophy. Plato believed that all of reality is encompassed by three realms: the Immaterial realm, or ‘The Realm of Forms,’ which was the world of the abstract and home to concepts, ideas, and perfect forms; the Material realm, which was a dim and distorted reflection of the Immaterial realm; and the Internal realm, which was the world of consciousness and reason by which we know the Material and Immaterial realms. Plato taught that within the Immaterial realm were the ‘Perfect Forms’ of those things that appear, in dim and distorted form, in the Material realm. Forms are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations. Every object or quality in reality has an immaterial form to which it corresponds and by which it is judged: dogs, human beings, mountains, colors, courage, love, and goodness all correspond to their perfect forms in the immaterial realm.

How does this work? Let’s take dogs for an example. There are plenty of dogs in the world, and they vary in all sorts of ways, and each and every one is an imperfect representation of the ‘true’ concept of dog that exists in the Immaterial Realm as an abstract yet perfect idea. This ‘form’ of the dog in the immaterial world defines what it means to be a ‘Good Dog.’ A ‘Good Dog,’ then, is one that conforms to the pattern of the Form of Dog. The Form of Dog defines the purpose and function of the dog. Let us say that the ‘Good Dog’ is one that travels in packs, eats meat, doesn’t shit where it sleeps, and fetches a stick and returns that stick to its owner. It would follow, then, that a dog that doesn’t have a pack is still a dog but is not a ‘Good Dog’ in the sense that it’s not being true to its form; a dog that eats cucumbers would, in the same vein, not be a Good Dog. A dog that fetches the stick and then drops it wouldn’t be a Good Dog, nor would the dog that defecates in its own cage. In all these instances, the dog is failing to conform to the Form and is thus a ‘Bad Dog.’ Platonic philosophy teaches that all dogs are imperfect representations; in some way or another, all dogs fail to conform to the Form of Dog. Some dogs do it because they’re stubborn or don’t care; some may be too stupid to fetch a stick, and others may be crippled by no fault of their own and would thus be unable to fetch a stick. The reasons for the imperfections are absolutely irrelevant; what matters is whether or not a dog conforms to the Form of Dog. The more a dog does conform to its perfect Form, the ‘better’ the dog is; conversely, the farther it varies from the perfect Form, the ‘worse’ it is. Note that a ‘Bad Dog’ doesn’t cease being a dog; it’s simply a dog that is failing to live up to its nature – to its purpose and function – as defined by the Form of Dog.

There is also a Form of Mankind, even a Form of Man and a Form of Woman. For Plato – and Aristotle, and the medieval philosophers who followed them – the Form of Mankind captures the essence of what it means to be human. To be a ‘Good Human’ – or a ‘Good Man’ or a ‘Good Woman’ – is to conform to the Form in the Immaterial Realm. What makes a man or woman good isn’t subjective – it isn’t based upon feelings or personal values – but is objective, and this objective ‘good’ captures the essence of what it means to be a man or woman; the Form informs the nature of mankind, and of man and woman respectively; the Form informs the purpose and function of mankind, and of man and woman respectively. ‘Goodness’ as a man or woman has literally nothing to do with what any individual man or woman happens to value or desire at any given time; goodness has to do entirely with how much (or little) a man or woman conforms to what it means to be a man or woman in the Immaterial Realm. In Christian thought, God as Creator has established what it means to be a ‘good’ man or a ‘good’ woman, and the Christian life involves abandoning our deviations from that form and striving to adhere to it. 

The Forms in the immaterial realm don’t only correspond to physical things, like atoms or rocks or trees or dogs or human beings. The Forms in the immaterial realm also include things not physically present in the material realm but which are instinctively known (such as ‘Justice’ and ‘Love’) or found to be true (such as mathematics, geometry, language, etc.). To deny the Immaterial Realm is to completely corrode the basis for mathematics, geometry, and even science itself (and this is a problem that modern philosophers continue to tackle, though unsuccessfully). Let us take, for example, the abstract concepts of ‘Justice,’ ‘Love,’ and ‘Truth.’ Plato argued that there was a Form of Justice, a Form of Love, and a Form of Truth in the Immaterial Realm, despite their physical absence in the material realm (you can’t tell me the color or shape or texture of justice, can you?). To deny the Immaterial Realm is to deny the reality of justice, love, and truth; modern philosophy has done this very thing, and the consequences have been absolutely disastrous. If there is no such thing as Justice, then there is no such thing as Injustice; if there is no such thing as Love, then there is no such thing as hate; if there is no such thing as Truth, then there’s no such thing as Lies. To get rid of the Immaterial Realm, where Justice and Love and Truth are defined and used as a measuring stick for us in the ‘real world,’ is to plunge society into a dark age wherein justice, love, and truth are no more than silly ideas with no moral authority. 

Plato taught that human beings instinctively know of Justice, Love, Beauty, and Truth because human souls are immortal and, before being planted in the material realm, existed in the immaterial realm where they came into contact and came to know the Forms of these abstract concepts. The highest Form, according to Plato, was The Form of the Good. The Form of the Good cannot be clearly seen or explained, but it is the form that allows one to realize all the other forms. The definition of the Good is a perfect, eternal, and changeless Form, existing outside space and time, in which particular good things share. Medieval philosophers taught that Plato’s Form of the Good was, in reality, God Himself. God is perfect, eternal, and changeless; God exists outside space and time; and He is the source not only of everything that exists but also the source of the Forms themselves. Medieval philosophers believed that the reason human beings knew of the Forms – in what we would nowadays call ‘common sense’ – is because we are created in God’s image. As God’s special creatures, just a bit lower than the angels and a good step above the animals, we have one foot in the Immaterial Realm and one foot in the Material Realm. Our instinctive knowledge of Justice, Love, and Truth is a knowledge not shared by any non-human creatures; it is a knowledge that has been given to us not because we existed ‘eternally’ with the Forms in the Immaterial Realm but because we have been granted this knowledge of the Forms by the God who created us. 

The Nature of Man and Woman in Romans 1

This brings us back to what Paul says in Romans 1. When he says that men and women acted ‘against nature’ in engaging in sexual acts with members of the same sex, he was borrowing from Greek philosophy. To say that homosexual activities are ‘against nature’ is to say that they do not correspond to the essence of what it means to be human. Both the form and function of men and women, their reproductive organs, and the result of sexual union informs us that it is normative for a man to bed a woman and to produce children: the form of the penis and vagina fit lock-and-key, and the intended result or function of that union is the production of offspring. The form of man and the form of woman indicates that we are designed for heterosexual sex: it was for the purpose of procreation that God designed the penis and vagina the way they are – He designed the penis to fit deep inside the woman, He designed the vagina to secrete lubrication to facilitate this penetration, and He designed the penis to ejaculate semen into a specific place in the female so that the sperm can connect with an egg and fertilize. This may be a bit graphic, but it’s an important point: the basic biological design of man and woman indicates that sex is designed for procreation between a man and a woman. Any sexual activity that deviates from this is inherently unnatural; this is why Paul can say, in Romans 1, that men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women is ‘against nature.’ It is clear that God designed men and women to operate sexually in tandem with one another. 

No one can argue that the final and natural purpose of sex isn’t procreation. It doesn’t matter if people engage in sex for their own reasons; their reasons may differ from nature’s reasons, but it is nature’s reasons that inform us of what is natural and good for mankind. Some may argue that the purpose of sex is pleasure, and there’s no denying that sex is pleasurable; but pleasure isn’t the final or natural end of sex. Sexual pleasure has its own ‘final end’ in getting people to have sex so that they will procreate. Just as eating is pleasurable, the biological point of eating isn’t to give us pleasure but to fuel our bodies for survival. The pleasure we experience in eating is God’s way of getting us to do what we need to do to keep us trucking along. In the same way, the purpose of sex is procreation, and pleasure serves to get us to the point where we have sex so that we can procreate; God commanded us to ‘multiply and fill the earth,’ and He gave us pleasure so that we had a reason to do it. God has also built us in such a way that sexual arousal is hard to resist and occurs frequently; the end result is that it’s difficult to avoid pregnancies resulting from indulging that arousal. Thus God didn’t just make sex pleasurable for us so that we would engage in it, but He also made our desire for it frequent so that we really would ‘fill the earth.’ With this in mind, we can address a poignant question and make an observation:

The Question: ‘Is it sinful to have sex for the purpose of pleasure?’ The natural end of sex is procreation; that is its purpose. The purpose of sexual pleasure is to get us to have sex, and the purpose of sex is to get us to have babies. Some might argue that because the ultimate purpose of sex is to have babies, then having sex for the pleasure of sex is somehow sinful. This is preposterous! It’s like saying that because the purpose of eating is to fuel the body with nutrients, it is sinful to eat a shepherd’s pie because you like the way it tastes and are satisfied afterward. God made food taste good so that we would be driven to eat; He knows most of us aren’t sitting down at a banquet saying, ‘I’ve really expended some calories this afternoon, time to refuel my energy so that I can continue operating at peak performance.’ Nor does God believe that most of us are going to have sex for the sole purpose of procreating; as any married couple who’s trying for a baby knows, sometimes the act itself can be exhausting if that’s your prime motivation. God has designed us with arousal and the desire for sexual pleasure, and it isn’t sinful to be driven towards sex by virtue of seeking that pleasure, because that is the way God designed us. However, it is sinful if we seek to wholly deprive sex of its intended end, frustrating its natural goal. While there are often good reasons for delaying procreation, there are far more reasons not to delay procreation; and while there are good reasons for engaging in foreplay that may not result in procreation, there are no good reasons for deliberately terminating the life of an unborn child that results from sexual activities. Abortion, at its most base level, is the brutal termination of life and a frustrating of the natural purpose of sex, which is procreation. 

The Observation: A Nuclear Family is a Natural Product of Procreation. If ‘nature takes its course,’ then women are put under a heavy burden. They’re bound to become pregnant and to do so frequently. The children, too, are burdened, because for a long time they are utterly dependent upon others for their needs. These needs include biological needs – food, water, and shelter – as well as moral and cultural needs, since human beings are rational creatures. Children require education in what is right and wrong and discipline when they error. For human beings, procreation isn’t just about producing a bunch of new organisms but also of raising them into persons who can fulfill their essence as rational and moral people. Thus, if the nature of procreation runs it course, women and children are put under a heavy burden – which is why nature has also ‘ordained’ someone to provide for them. Fathers have a strong incentive to look after their own children rather than the neighbor’s kids, and they are naturally jealous of the affections of the women with whom they have children. Thus nature – or, as Christians understand it, God – has put a heavy burden on fathers, too, so that they’re pushed to devoting their daily labors to providing for their children and the mother of his children. When the nature of procreation runs its course, it’s only natural that the man fathers multiple children, so that his commitment is necessarily long-term. In this way, the final purpose of sex – procreation – pushes the man and woman who procreate towards something like marriage and the nuclear family. Marriage, and the nuclear family, exists not merely as a consequence of reproduction but for the purpose of nourishing children biologically, morally, and culturally. 

We have thus seen that classical western philosophy teaches that all things have certain natures – which encompass both their form and function – and that deviation from that nature or essence is to reject conformity to what it means to be good. Homosexual activity, which deviates from the form of heterosexual sex and the function of procreation, is thus a ‘defect’ in that it is a refusal to conform to the natural essence of what it means to be a man or woman. Some have argued against this by asking, ‘So what if homosexuality has a genetic basis? Would it thus be natural?’ Even if it were to be discovered that there’s a genetic basis to homosexuality, that doesn’t mean homosexuality is thus ‘natural’ for human beings. Researchers have found that genetics plays a role in babies being born with cleft lips; are we then going to state that cleft lips are ‘natural’ for human beings, corresponding to the way humans are to look? Obviously cleft lips are unnatural, a defect, despite there being a genetic basis; they are defects because they break from the nature of how a palate is to form. No one who has a cleft lip would take offense if you were to note that cleft lips are unnatural; nor would someone with a cleft lip be necessarily led to embrace and celebrate it because it has a genetic basis. The possibility of a genetic basis for homosexual desire doesn’t mean that the desire is natural, anymore than a genetic basis for cleft lips means cleft lips are natural. 

Thus we can see, from the position of classical western philosophy, that the form of man and woman are matched in order to procreate. Since the final cause of human sexual capacities is procreation, what is good for human beings in the use of those capacities is to use them only in a way consistent with this final cause or purpose. To embrace sexual perversions is to embrace a lifestyle that is subhuman, in the sense that the lifestyle falls far from the mark of what it means to be human. This doesn’t mean, of course, that those who embrace sexual perversion are no longer human; it simply means that they aren’t acting as a human should act. They have not lost any of the inherent worth, value, and dignity that human beings have by virtue of being made in God’s image. To embrace forms of subhuman living – and, in reality, all sins have in common the fact that to practice them is to court subhuman living – is to embrace a detrimental lifestyle. The goal of Greek philosophy was to live a fully flourishing human life, what the Greeks called eudaimonia. Greek philosophy sought to determine how to live as a fully flourishing human being. To live as such is to acknowledge that there is such a thing as good living and bad living, and the litmus test of such living was the perfect Form of man and woman. A fully flourishing man lived as a man was to live; a fully flourishing woman lived as a woman is to live; to live otherwise was to detract from a flourishing life. Christians acknowledge that there is such a thing as a fully flourishing human life: it is living as God designed men and women to live. We can know how God designed us to live from both natural revelation – ‘What does basic biology tell us about men and women, of their form and function?’ – and divine revelation, in which God reveals what He expects of us. It isn’t shocking that natural revelation and divine revelation go hand-in-hand, informing us that sexual perversions are against the essence of what it means to be human. All sin is deviation from the way God created us to live, and sanctification – the process whereby we daily repent of our sins and seek to conform ourselves to God’s desires for us – is not only about pleasing God in the way we live or in our obedience of His commands; it’s ultimately about getting back on track with how human beings are created to live. Morality doesn’t rest on arbitrary divine commands but on what is good and proper for human nature; this is the teaching of both the Bible and classic western philosophy. A fully flourishing life is discovered in living as God designed us to live specifically as men and women. 

To bring all this to bear on the subject at hand, sexual activity between two members of the same sex is a deviation from what it means to be a sexual human being. It is an unnatural thing to do, and it is a defective way of living as a human being. Such a statement is seen nowadays as shocking and offensive, but it’s been the standard view of western civilization for up to about five minutes ago, and it remains the standard view outside the secular west. In the western world, not only homosexual behavior, premarital sex, and the like, but even contraception between married people was widely condemned until very recently. Sigmund Freud himself noted matter-of-factly that: ‘It is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse – if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently.’ Western society has gone on a totally different path in the way it views human sexuality and sexual expression, and we’ll look at this next week; but in light of this, it’s good to remember this golden rule as established by Anthony Esolen: ‘If people have always said it, it is probably true; it is the distilled wisdom of the ages. If people have not always said it, but everybody is saying it now, it is probably a lie; it is the concentrated madness of the moment.’