The Apostle Paul writes the following in 1 Corinthians 11:3, 8, 9, 14:
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. . . . 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. . . . 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
The Head of the Woman Is the Man
For brevity, I cherry picked the statements from 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. The section is all about this as are several other passages in the Bible. “The head of the woman is the man.” Everything in the section is about this statement. Paul argues from God’s created order or divine design. This explains the male role. Paul continues with saying that nature teaches the distinction, which is natural law. Creation order, divine design, and natural law overlap to a large degree.
The Untied States itself is not making room for the male role today, even for expressing it. The West now labels “misogyny” to a support of the male role. Society or the culture trains against the male role, calling it toxic masculinity. Only acceptable so-called masculinity is egalitarian at least if not female dominant, as some kind of hedge against patriarchy in the past. The same people treat the natural female role, the one designed by God, as a kind of slavery that is abusive to women.
The Apostle Paul under the inspiration of God says that nature teaches that the reversal of mere symbolism of the male role is a shame. This takes it further than just delineating the roles. It’s not even saying that the role reversal is shame. No, it’s saying that even symbolizing or communicating role reversal is shame. It’s a shame when it shows up.
Nature, Shame, and Empathy
Shame goes further than, “It’s wrong.” You can say something is wrong and then you can take that further and say, “It’s a shame to you.” This is in the category of the “abomination” of the Old Testament. It is more extreme than dislike and not tolerating.
Right now a serious discussion exists out there on empathy, something some now call “toxic empathy,” a kind of reversal for the “toxic masculinity” conversation. A subservient role for women hurts female feelings. Return to the male role says, go ahead and hurt the feelings of women. They feel diminished by this talk. Is that what you want, men? Take that then to hate speech. Not just that, but if you won’t stand up for women having the male role, then silence is violence. Apparently men are killing women with advocating for the male role or even allowing it. Don’t believe it, but this is a narrative today.
As far as nature teaching something, you might read about the huge decrease in male sperm count. Is this a result or a cause? Are men losing their desire to lead because of a greatly lowered sperm count? This is not the case. Something in God’s created order, in nature, lowers male sperm count when he surrenders his role. It’s similar to women not getting pregnant because of environmental conditions. Production of sperm correlates to male ambition, leadership, rough and tumble lifestyles in the nature of men. Male bodies react to their abdication.
No Role, Role, or Role Ambivalence
A woman came into the comment section of part one here and said it was weird. Professing Christian women today also hate the male role. Women feel permitted to put down a man in public. Churches themselves are full of feminists who want the status quo. Scripture, however, says this is shameful for women, reversing their nature, divine design, and role.
We’re not at the stage of changing this to what it should be. Right now we’re at what we believe, what is right, or what is the truth. It seems that today people can say that “no role” is the truth, essentially women taking the male role. With no role, the male role still exists, but men and women both take it. It’s not male in that it’s not only male — it’s male and female. If there is no role, it’s the female role that is lost, because neither men or women generally want or tolerate subservience or lesser authority.
Women, who want the female role, get a name today, that also brings at least a bit of mockery: trad wife. “She’s a trad wife.” It’s like she belongs to a weird cult and very close to the word “trans.” Both can apparently self-identify. One woman wants trad and the other wants trans. Some choose some kind of role ambivalence. That has become the most popular public position on this. People can support defined roles based on the created, designed differences between men and women for themselves, but they can’t hold this in public. The only acceptable public position is, women can be whatever they want.
Know the Role
The first layer to this is knowing a male role. Maybe you’re reading and this is a no-brainer to you. Even in the middle of the Bible belt, it’s not that obvious to most people. To get the male role back, men themselves must admit or agree that right now the male role does not exist. To do so, they must acknowledge and support the male role as the truth. No male role is a lie. It is natural law. God’s Word teaches it. God Himself requires it. Men need to get together on this, believe it, and fight for it. We need to start with knowing that the male role is the male role.
Being a man starts with strength. That’s what God says and nature shows. Being a man is not being soft and increasingly men are soft.
More to Come