Clarifications & expansions of our book
Cross Examine’s review of our book prompted us to do something we have had in mind for quite a while—addressing some common criticisms of It’s Good To Be A Man.
Today we are going to expand or clarify what we have said, for those who want to understand us better. We are obviously not directing any of this to the typical one-star critic, who is obviously not reading in good faith to begin with.
Btw, if you haven’t read our book you can see buying options here »
Do we make many generalizations? #
Yes. We deliberately wrote this book in the rhetorical vein of Scripture itself, especially Proverbs, which draws our attention to general patterns without often qualifying them. We leave it as an exercise to the reader to recognize the implicit qualifications, by comparing various generalizations that stand in tension with one another—and with the Reformed theology we take as given.
Do we ignore love? #
One criticism that has somewhat surprised us is that we ignore the importance of love. Our less charitable critics, for instance, try to say that we never even mention the need for husbands to love their wives. Better reviewers are still sometimes prone to make inferences about our lack of explicit comments. For instance, Cross Examine’s review suggests that in chapter 2, we throw away love as a reason for mankind’s creation. Not so.
We agree that love is foundational to God’s plan in creation. In fact, this is an area of particular study for Bnonn, so it is actually presupposed in everything we write. See for instance his sermon, Biblical love as integration through covenant. But we don’t feel the need to rehearse what we consider to be very basic Christian truths about the importance of love. We simply take them for granted—because pretty much all Christians take them for granted.
In the same vein, we agree that the bond of love is foundational to marriage, even in its own right. In fact, that was a key point of Issue #41 of Notes on Manhood, a couple of weeks ago. (And that content originally appeared as an article on our site in early 2019, in case suspicious minds think we are retroactively papering over our gaps.) But again, there are hundreds—thousands? more?—of books already emphasizing love in marriage, so we simply take it as given.
Our focus in more specific: on how love functions as a basis for exercising dominion. This is not to suggest that love is utilitarian, as if it exists for the sake of dominion. In fact, dominion exists for the sake of love, which is a positive good in its own right, imaging the positive good of Christ and his church being one body. What we want to emphasize, however, is that it is not a sentimental bond; love is naturally fruitful, and reducing the marriage relationship to romance robs it of its glory to the point that such marriages ultimately devour themselves. An integrative understanding of love, as articulated by Bnonn in the sermon above, is presuppositional to our theology here.
Do we describe sex and arousal salaciously? #
Much hay has been made over our remark that men like what is tight, smooth, and beautiful. We certainly did not intend this to be lewd, nor to lay a snare for anyone. That it is interpreted as pornographic says much more about the disordered state of some readers’ minds than our own intent. We were simply being descriptive.
That said, we certainly were unapologetic about facts like these, and did not try to tone them down or accommodate our descriptions to feminine sensibilities. This was a deliberate choice to offset the common impression that many young men in the church get, that their desire for sex is at best suboptimal—usually just plain disgusting—and that they should really aspire to be less base-minded. God is not embarrassed about how he made men, nor about how he made women to arouse them, so neither are we. Beware of critics who are holier than God.
Do we make femininity out to be lesser? #
Most negative reviews of our book are basically “this wasn’t a book about femininity, therefore misogynism.” But women who read charitably and think clearly can easily see that this impulse is wrong-headed. For instance, one of the things we appreciated about Cross Examine’s review was that she acknowledged that this common knee-jerk reaction—that we are downplaying or dismissing femininity—is obviously just a product of our focus on masculinity. It is not because of ill intent toward women.
There are several specific points under this category where we repeatedly hear the same accusations, so it is worth addressing each of these separately:
1. Are women inferior to men? #
We do use the term “inferior” with regard to women. We are drawing directly from the Westminster Larger Catechism in doing so:
Q. 129. What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?
This cites, among other prooftexts, Colossians 3:19 (“Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them”) and 1 Peter 3:7 (“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered”). In doing this, the catechism clearly relates husbands and wives as superiors and inferiors.
Notice, by the same token, that none of the prooftexts cited to support the duties and sins of equals in Q. 131–132 have to do with the marriage relationship.
Like the Catechism, we are talking about rank. We are not talking about essence, worth, or value. The terms inferior and superior are used in Catechism, and in our book, as we would speak today of superiors and inferiors in the military. No one would imagine that a captain is of more inherent worth as a person than a lieutenant. Neither should anyone imagine that we are saying this of husbands and wives. Headship and submission are not on account of one person being of lesser importance, humanity, or anything like that. It is simply a natural part of the hierarchy of God’s creation. The touchiness of people over this language when it comes to gender shows how bad the social conditioning is, and how hard it is to break free. Christians are people of the word. We must retake our authority over language—not submit ourselves to a yoke of linguistic slavery from the world.
2. Are women subject directly to God? #
This is a strange one that pops up repeatedly. We don’t know anyone who teaches that wives are not directly subject to God (i.e., that their husband actually mediates between them and God in some Christ-like sense). It should go without saying that women answer to God directly. That God instituted a hierarchy of rulership in marriage in no way obviates that every person is directly accountable to him, any more than his setting up a hierarchy of rulership in the civil sphere does. Many critics seem so laser-focused on how our hierarchical claims about husbands and wives turn their stomachs, that they forget that men, too, are subject to hierarchies. They also forget that children are. If you are having trouble understanding our position—or, more correctly, figuring out its implications—a simple shortcut is to replace husbands and wives with mothers and children, or magistrates and men, and see what follows. Hierarchy is natural and normal, and doesn’t have the kind of bizarre theological side-effects that many critics appear to believe.
That said, it is difficult to know what to make of some of the ways that we have seen critics speak on this issue. For instance, Cross Examine suggests that Ephesians 5:21–33 shows us a hierarchy in which all people are directly subject to God “primarily,” such that there is only one superior party in terms of authority. But in fact, it shows precisely the opposite. Firstly, verse 21 (“subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ”) is attached to the previous instruction about knowing the will of God within the church, and properly relating to the saints, submitting to one another. Paul then moves on, with this in mind, to how subjecting oneself applies in the case of wives:
Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; 26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: 29 for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; 30 because we are members of his body. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church. 33 Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she fear her husband. (Eph 5:22–33)
Notice how the word “fear” in verse 33, obscured in most translations, ties this passage together; cf. v. 21. This is another word most critics are unable to think clearly about, but Paul is clear. If we are to fear Christ, and husbands are as Christ to their wives, then wives should fear their husbands. If this makes you uncomfortable you don’t understand the biblical fear of God. There is not the slightest indication that Paul means here for husbands to submit to their wives (i.e., “mutual submission”). “As unto the Lord” (v. 22) absolutely precludes that. If the husband is the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the church (v. 23), then submission can only possibly flow one way.
This is not to say that husbands cannot receive counsel or even rebuke from their wives, for obviously husbands are not all-knowing and without sin, as Christ is. Yet in terms of delegated authority there is simply no way around the airtight connection Paul draws between husband and wife, and Christ and church. There is no “mutual submission” between Christ and the church. Christ rules. The church submits. In the same way, the husband rules, and the wife submits. Again, if this language makes you uncomfortable, you don’t understand biblical rulership; Bnonn touches on this in his sermon, Qualifications for pastors that pastors won’t preach. Just as Christ’s rulership is characterized by loving and sanctifying his bride, so husbands must love and sanctify their wives. Their rule is not onerous nor tyrannical, but the love of a man for his own body.
None of this implies that a husband mediates between God and his wife. She answers to God directly. But Ephesians 5 is not about that, and cannot be used to drive a wedge between our subjection to earthly authorities, and our subjection to God. The early authorities are established by God as his representatives. To be subject to God is to be subject to those authorities.
3. Are all women subject to all men? #
This claim, related to the one above, is equally ubiquitous. Yet we know no one who teaches this either. Indeed, we have made the point on occasion, along with Doug Wilson, that the social hierarchy of mankind is more complex than some men in our circles would like it to be. For instance, it really would be beneath some women to marry certain men. Yet the way God designed women to relate to men—even men beneath them—is more indirect and meek. Conversely, men relate to women—even women above them—in a way more direct and assertive. It is not that all women must submit to all men, but rather that femininity by nature subordinates itself to masculinity. How this works out varies between cases and cultures, but the principle remains true.
4. Should men marry doormats? #
Some of our advice about the kind of wife to seek has been misconstrued. We advocate for modest women; not women with no agency. A woman with no agency is of no value as a helpmeet. So we certainly would not counsel that men seek wives who are passive and submissive with regard to sinful behavior—wives who will meekly accept wickedness from their husbands. We are advocating, rather, that men seek wives who do not despise the place of a helpmeet, but rather love the duties God designed them for, of building up their man’s house.
In other words, we are not contrasting passivity and agency, but rather modesty and immodesty as spiritual conditions that manifest in either love or hatred for one’s station. It should go without saying that helping a man to build his house includes helping him in the process of sanctification, without which the house may fall. Correcting and caring for one another is something that happens routinely within our own marriages, and any good marriage. A wife can and should be a good, godly influence on her husband. This does not violate the hierarchy of God’s creation—see our article, Why do men care what women think?. What men should avoid is not wives who will correct them, but wives who want to correct them even when they aren’t wrong, or wives who think that correction is necessarily an exercise of authority.
That said—and this is quite important for properly finessing this issue—Peter’s instruction is of great importance to understanding the general dynamic when it comes to wives whose husbands sin:
ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives; beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear (1 Peter 3:1–2)
In other words, it is not primarily the wife’s place to rebuke or challenge her husband, but rather to set a godly example if he is erring; it is no coincidence that Peter goes on to use the example of Sarah, submitting to Abraham in faith to God, despite Abraham’s…shall we say…questionable decisions that led to Pharaoh taking her as his own. Men simply do not respond well to women challenging them, because femininity is designed to subordinate itself to masculinity. It is therefore generally the job of other men to rebuke an erring husband (as indeed Pharaoh does with Abraham). So being in a church with strong, wise shepherds is of great importance. A wife needs masculine backup when her husband is misbehaving, and the greater the need for correction, the more this is the case.
5. Should women have a voice in the church? #
We talk in the book about how feminine psychology causes doctrinal instability and error to creep into churches when women have undue influence. We don’t see any need to qualify or defend these remarks, as the evidence is so widespread and obvious. The jury really is in on this one. But critics tend to fixate on this and infer that we are advocating for all kinds of wicked practices.
For instance, we are not suggesting that women should be ignored if they report bad behavior—what kind of useless shepherd would not investigate a report of sin just because it came from a woman? What we do insist on is biblical standards of evidence. Witness the chaos that occurs when these are discarded: MeToo and BelieveWomen gave opportunity to at least as many liars as actual abuse victims, and ruined the lives and careers of untold innocent men.
We are less sanguine about women’s Bible studies, just because our own experience tells us what a terribly mixed bag these are. Scripture certainly would encourage women to form close bonds within the church, and for older women to teach younger; but the primary responsibility for their learning Scripture falls to the shepherds of the church, and to their own husbands (1 Corinthians 14:34). Women are not to be an independent force within a church. While we would not forbid women’s Bible studies, we would be cautious about the frequent pattern of them becoming a seedbed for highly subjective and false readings of Scripture, and origin points for many of the errors that creep into the church.
6. Are women incapable of critical thinking? #
What we say about feminine psychological tendencies is also generalized by some critics into a blanket denial of women’s ability to think properly at all. If you met either of our wives you would know why this is absurd. Obviously many women are excellent thinkers.
Nonetheless, it just is the case that women tend to process facts through how they feel more than men, and are more anxious about social conflict than men. It just is the case that they are more easily deceived than men. And it just is the case that, in consequence, their influence in a church can lead to doctrinal drift. We don’t see any of this as either disputable nor misogynistic, any more than pointing out that most prisons are full of men is disputable or misandristic. Indeed, as is clear in our primer on how influential women and white knights destroy the church, we do not lay the blame fully on women at all. Masculine social instincts are also key to understanding this drift—because it is men who are the guardians of doctrine in the first place.
7. Is usefulness “uniquely masculine”? #
A final critique worth mentioning is of how we talk about workmanship as a masculine virtue. This is a fair criticism as far as it goes, since our phrasing here was bad—this particular paragraph was probably the most clumsily written in the book. Describing usefulness as uniquely masculine is not a good way to put it. However, we do go on to explain what we mean: that usefulness is “integral to masculinity in a way that it is not to femininity” (p. 147).
We stand by this statement. But you should consider it in light of what we say in our upcoming book on marriage: that one of the uniquely feminine traits that attracts men is a “glorifying productivity”—that is, the willingness and ability of a woman to take resources, and magnify or beautify them. Cooking is an obvious example. This is certainly a kind of usefulness, so it would perhaps be better to say that the usefulness of provision is integral to masculinity in a way it is not to femininity, and the usefulness of producing out of that provision is integral to femininity in a way that it is not to masculinity. We would beg the reader’s indulgence as we work out a good way of systemizing these concepts, which have not really been systemized before. The occasional course-correction is inevitable.
Notable: #
Talk again next week,
Bnonn & Michael