A great deal of the collapse of the Western church can be traced to a combination of white knights and overly-influential women. This is both a historical reality, and an ongoing pathology in most churches today.
Here we canvass the circumstances and ideologies that fueled the culture wars, and keep them burning.
White knights are men who derive their value from defending damsels in distress against evil forces. They are willing to engage in a fantasy to achieve this—imagining evil women to be damsels, and good men to be dragons. This is a kind of arrested development caused by a failure to emotionally separate from their mother during adolescence.
The world has been falling apart since Eden. It’s part of the plan. Destruction is necessary to the work of restoration. And restoration is a multi-generational project.
Piety is the willing pursuit of our duties toward God and man. A living faith always issues in such piety—for men, this looks like natural masculinity. Yet many of the Christian Elite seem to loathe masculine piety. This should not be surprising when a majority of the Christian Elite are spiritual and physical dumplings.
Daniel was a hero for flouting the king’s 30-day edict against lawful worship during the exile. So why have churches today capitulated en masse to the state’s indefinite edict against lawful worship during lockdown?
If the COVID-19 crisis has revealed anything about many of America’s most public-facing Christian leaders, it’s that many of them are tone deaf to the concerns and crisis facing the majority of ordinary, working class people.
Trained to think almost exclusively in globalist terms, it is fashionable among the current generation to believe that true and meaningful change occurs primarily through the championing of large-scale, societal causes.
Most of the snowballing social problems that we are dealing with today are a result of rejecting the biblical view of covenant. Androgyny, identity politics, social justice, cancel culture—all the “Clown World” pathologies that are indistinguishable from parody—are the inevitable outworkings of this.
Despite the confidence that conservative evangelicals have in it, complementarianism is not a firm and clear-headed articulation of Scripture’s holistic teaching on sexuality. It is an erratic defensive effort to preserve a few traditional exceptions to androgyny, on the basis of piecemeal exegetical arguments, while accepting this androgyny in principle by jettisoning the embarrassing telos that underwrites gendered duties. This concession represents a major break from the church’s universal historical teaching.
You can tell a lot about a leader by the people he surrounds himself with. In modern evangelicalism, there are three kinds of false teachers on biblical sexuality who can be known by their followers.
If Martin Luther were alive today, he would not be preaching sola fide. He would be preaching the father-rule of God, the creation order of Adam and then Eve, and the culturally-despised theology of sexuality which flows from these.
Feminism, egalitarianism, and even complementarianism are all simply new versions of androgynism—a doctrine at the heart of pagan religions, which images their denial of the creator/creature distinction.
Although the Bible does not specifically comment on women preaching in every setting, this is not because God is indifferent on the matter. Rather, it is because the shapes and patterns of Scripture and creation so strongly draw women away from this duty, that no specific command should be necessary.
Because manhood is caught, not just taught, becoming a mature man requires a father. Hence, many young men today are “clueless bastards”—and even more so when they won’t take advantage of God’s provision of fatherhood through the church.
The evangelical hermeneutic that rejects any sexual doctrine which can’t be prooftexted in as many words is a kind of modern Pharisaicalism. It demands the letter of the Law, and so denies its spirit. It is driven by our modern Gnosticism: in downplaying the importance of embodied existence, we become unable to see the larger “shape” of theology beneath the Bible’s commands, and so we reduce sexual doctrine to the explicit propositions of Scripture. But Scripture itself does not merely teach us what to think—it also teaches us how.
Although servant leadership could be a biblical doctrine describing leadership as the service that men render, in reality it is a term used to convince men that servitude is in fact what leadership is.
Feminism hates the power hierarchy that God has built into creation. But we cannot restore that hierarchy by hating it ourselves—and we do hate it.
Marriage is the norm that God established for men and women from the beginning, so to normalize singleness is to normalize the abnormal. There is no “gift” of singleness; there is only the gift of celibacy or the curse of singleness. The counsel in 1 Corinthians 7 is given explicitly as special advice to suspend the normal way of life because of persecution—not as general instructions for the entire church age.
Comedy is a powerful tool of acculturation—and it is effective even if you know what it is doing. If you are conditioned to treat our culture’s wrecking of good things as amusing, how will you take it seriously, or remain sober-minded about the work of repair?
What you wear, the mannerisms you employ, the way you hold yourself—these are a form of expression. What does your bearing say about you?
To restore men’s confidence in what it means to be men, we need to work beyond individual performance and judgment. We must re-establish the kind of tacit cues that other cultures have taken for granted as shaping masculine (and feminine) expression.
Preteen boys and girls are getting the strong message of feminism, whether their parents are secular or Christian. This message calcifies the boys, and brassifies the girls. Both need the antidote of biblical instruction.
From the beginning, God established children as the natural fruit of marriage. Barrenness is a curse—so why would believers voluntarily bring it upon themselves?