Thread by @scott_m_coley

“Biblical manhood” (whatever that may be) isn’t the same thing as “being a Christ-follower.”

They’re two different things—they must be, otherwise it wouldn’t be possible for women to be Christ-followers.

(“But wait!” you may say, “that’s what biblical womanhood is for—Christianity for women is biblical womanhood; and Christianity for men is biblical manhood.”

But that would mean there are two different Christianities: one for men and another for women. And that can’t be right.)

So Christianity and “biblical manhood” are two different things.

Which takes priority—being a Christ-follower, or being a “biblical man”?

It cannot be that both objectives are equally important, since that would be tantamount to serving two masters:

we can only have one telos—one ultimate purpose that we pursue, for the sake of which we pursue all our other goals.

So either the goal of being a “biblical man” serves the ultimate (i.e. higher) purpose of being a Christian, or the goal of being a Christian serves the ultimate (i.e. higher) purpose of being a “biblical man”.

If the higher goal is “biblical manhood,” then the point of Christianity is “biblical manhood.” That would be problematic for a couple of reasons. First, it would mean that the point of being a Christian is fundamentally different for men and women—again, two Christianities.

Second, it would mean that the purpose of Christianity is ultimately something other than Christian faith and practice—i.e., that the point of Christianity is to initiate us into an altogether different faith: namely some sort of gender hierarchy cult.

(I understand that some well-meaning folks believe that their embrace of gender hierarchy is commended by Scripture. But if you think gender hierarchy is *the whole point* of Christianity, you’re practicing a faith that isn’t Christianity.)

So it must be that in the context of authentic Christian faith, “biblical manhood” serves the purpose of being a good Christ-follower.

In other words, being a good Christian is a higher purpose than being a “biblical man.”

It follows that any sound argument to the effect that “men should do such-and-so because biblical manhood” can be justified relative to the ultimate telos of being a good Christian.

And the essence of Christian practice is found in love of God and love of neighbor, as expressed in the Beatitudes.

Thus, in the context of Christian faith and practice, whatever “biblical manhood” might mean, it must be reconciled to those core tenets of Christian morality.

But the defenders of “biblical manhood and womanhood” rarely (if ever) attempt to reconcile their own claims to authority with these core tenets of Christian morality.

Instead, they cite a handful of proof-texts that allow them to smuggle in culturally constructed norms of masculinity, and then change the subject from Christianity to an unrelated thing they call “biblical manhood:

They move the target from Christ’s actual teachings to a different thing—namely, “biblical manhood,” which is based not in Christianity per se, but in a few Bible verses devoid of context.

They then present “biblical manhood” as a divinely inspired guide to Christian practice.

So, in the name of Christianity, defenders of “biblical manhood” have come to fetishize their own power and authority instead of embracing meekness and humility as Christ clearly commands.

Thus “biblical manhood” has come to resemble secular manhood far more than any kind of manhood commended by Scripture—it has become its own religion of sorts, loosely based in fragments of the Christian tradition but ultimately unrecognizable as a version of Christianity.