Complementarians are Effeminate!

…and married men who tolerate unsubmissive, disrespectful wives are going to ћә11 in a handjob.

Readership: Christian men;

Fellow blogger Lexet sent me some screenshots he took about a year ago from It’s Good To Be A Man’s Faceb00k page.  He said they went on a spree of posting bizarre interpretations of scripture, and then deleted some posts and comments, and started blocking anyone who raised any questions.

This one caught my attention.

“You’re being far more precious with language than Scripture is.  “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, no effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1st Corinthians 6:9-10).  It is effeminate to unrepentantly fail to rule your family.”

Here, the author (presumably either Tim Bayly or Bnonn Tennant) cites 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 from the NASB…

“Do not be deceived; neither… nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, …will inherit the Kingdom of God.”

In this passage, both the effeminate and h0m0sexuals are mentioned specifically, which implies that there is a distinction between the two.  The original Greek for effeminate (μαλακοὶ) suggests perversion of some sort, cross-dressing, a tr@nsvestite, or a catamite, whereas the subsequent term, h0m0sexual (ἀρσενοκοῖται) is synonymous with sodomite.  I suppose that the difference between the two is that h0m0sexuals are shucking in the corn hole, while effeminates might be those who refrain from the impalement exercises but who dress up in drag and/or play the social role of the part.  Another wild but somewhat plausible interpretation is that sodomites are the dominant drivers, or “ones”, and effeminates are their receptive targets, or “zeros”, but I kinda doubt that St. Paul would be so exacting about the particular positions.

But then Bnonn concludes,

“It is effeminate to unrepentantly fail to rule your family.”

I did a double take when I read this.  Bnonn is essentially saying (in PC approved language) that every married man who is not in a Headship structured relationship is literally a ph@gg!  LMAO!!!

I had to go take a look at the article cited at Warhorn Media (Tim Bayly): Confessions of a Repenting Effeminate (2019 August 22).  The gist of his message is somewhat obscured behind the Greek terms, μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται, which mean effeminate and h0m0sexual, respectively.  But sure enough, that’s what he was saying.

After discussing the difference between effeminate and h0m0sexuality, he offers a long testimony leading to the following epiphany.

“What made this a harder pill to swallow than it otherwise would have been was that I was doing a lot of things that I know to be good—disciplining and catechizing our children, leading family worship, making sure we were serving in church.  And while it was not all a sham, it was certainly a bargain I had made with my sinful flesh to go so far in the way of leading my family and no farther; I would do the things I liked and not the things I did not.

Certainly, there was more sin involved in my failures than just effeminacy, but I have come to understand that effeminacy was at the root of it all.  Fundamentally, effeminacy is a refusal by a man to occupy the place and role he should in a given relationship.  I stepped back when I could, only did difficult things when my unwillingness to do so would have made plain what I sought to keep hidden about myself.  I complained loudly of work at home because I had the sense to keep such complaints out of my friend groups, church family, and workplace.”

Look at how Bayly defines effeminacy (in boldface).  He is adapting the word effeminate to mean wimpy or spineless, which is truly a part of what effeminacy is, but being a püssy whipped husband is different from being a limp wristed drag queen.  St. Paul doesn’t say that pusillanimous men would not inherit the Kingdom of God, but Bayly makes this claim by implying that effeminate means mousy, or that being wimpy is a form of faithlessness.  Granted, I’m sure the latter is true in most cases.

According to my earlier study of Marriage Structures and Archetypical Models (2020 September 28), the proper place and role a man should hold in marriage is one of dominant authority.  So Bayly’s description of effeminate husbands would include Complementarians!

Going further, according to Bayly’s interpretation of 1st Corinthians 6:9-10, this essentially means that every married man who willingly subscribes to the servant leadership bit, every husband who tolerates his wife’s disrespect and insubordination, is an effeminate, and is therefore excluded from the Kingdom of God!

Therefore, if we applied Bayly’s eisegesis to all married men in general, then that would condemn about 80-90% of all churchgoing men today!

Bayly’s honesty is laudable, but actually, this was his own personal lesson, which may not be applied to every married man in general.  Even so, I have the opinion that the gist of Bayly’s main point is more or less correct, in spite of his technical error.

I’m sure some chivalrous Complementarians and Egalitarians will cringe at this.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Churchianity, Homosexuality, Introspection, Male Power, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Relationships, Satire. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Complementarians are Effeminate!

  1. cameron232 says:

    I’ve read that in the KJV language, effeminate is referring to the catcher (as opposed to the pitcher) and that this distinction was made in 16th century England – I have no sources to back this up.

    There are absolutely men that will pitch but will not catch (“manly homos”) because some of them openly state this.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ed Hurst says:

      Agreed, Cameron. In the broader Ancient Near East, there was a common image of the hyper-manly omnisexual who would rape anything, but would never be receptive to another man. It was all about the dominance.

      Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      Yes. “Effeminatus” in Latin also had the meaning of “passive/receipient partner in gay sex”. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans were culturally against gay male sex, per se, provided that the male adult (in Greece) or citizen (in Rome) was not an “effeminatus” (i.e., he was the “active” and not the “passive”). [More than you want to know about this is here: https://infogalactic.com/info/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome ]

      I think Paul was likely intending to capture not only these and, unlike the ambient Greco-Roman culture, he did not want to draw a moral distinction between “active” and “passive”, so included both “effeminates” and “homosexuals” to make sure it was clear that all participants in gay male sex were clearly covered (and, I would argue, female homosexuals as well) — again, precisely because this was different from what the ambient Greco-Roman culture believed, when it came to “active” role male homosexual activity (passive role activity was viewed as unvirtuous for adults and/or citizens).

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Men are the image and glory of God.(1 Corinthians 11:7) Women are just the glory of men. Men engaging in faggotry bugger the image of God, thus it is a capital offense, and removes your inheritance in the Kingdom of God. Women fooling with women is just a fruitless unnatural act. They only defile themselves, not the image of God. I believe that is why lesbian sex was never given as a capital offense, nor listed as a sin that precludes a person from inheritance in the Kingdom of God. Our God is not a careless writer who forgets stuff. Women just can’t defile God’s image without a man being present.

        Like

  2. AngloSaxon says:

    Men who fail to rule their families out of cowardice come under this verse: “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8.

    Not sure if effeminacy is relevant when discussing cowardly men who fail to rule their households.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Yes, I think cowardly would be a more accurate descriptor of a harried husband, rather than effeminate. But even cowardly would not apply in every case. Some husbands keep a low profile, not because they are cowardly, but because they just don’t want to hassle with all the senseless female drama. This is what makes me believe Bayly’s article exposes his own personal lesson, and not an epiphany about men in general.

      Like

      • AngloSaxon says:

        I was under the impression that men must engage with “senseless female drama” because you are to rule over your wife, wash her with the word and are her head. If husbands don’t keep women on a tight leash then we all have to put up badly behaved women.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        @ AngloSaxon,
        Yes, that’s right. So all a man has to do for evil to flourish is to do nothing. Being a coward just makes it harder and more unlikely.

        Like

  3. Lance Roberts says:

    I think he’s right. Effeminacy isn’t just about sex. It’s about a man not being in the man’s role. Like being immodest for women isn’t just about clothing. It’s an attitude.

    Like

  4. If you will remember that Warhorn were the people who tried to smear Dalrock.

    I find it very interesting that they can get to this interpretation, but they themselves are still hung up on chilvalry and other feminist stuff in actual implementation.

    Liked by 3 people

    • feeriker says:

      Yes, I noticed that, too. For guys who resist discussing true biblical headship at all costs and who clearly subscribe to the Complementarian concept, the conclusion stated by Bayly really seems self-defeating.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. eutrapelia2001 says:

    Here is a definition of Effeminacy that was used by the medieval Scholastics:

    Effeminacy is the “unwillingness to set aside one’s pleasure to pursue the arduous good.”

    One of the Latin words for Effeminacy is “mollitia” which means softness or weakness. Interestingly, it is also a word used in many contexts to refer to masturbation.

    So, effeminacy is when men are so attached to a certain type of pleasure, even if the pleasure of vicarious peace in the home, not to mention pornography, etc., to do what is necessary to be head of their own household. Church Fathers also assign this sin to Adam, who was so attached to the pleasure of being united to his wife, Eve, that he feared losing the pleasure of being united with her and so refused to stand up and risk losing the pleasure of that association. We all know how that ended.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Lexet Blog says:

    The problem with Bnonn is two-fold.

    1- while griping about people taking scripture out of context, he does so himself. Lolz

    2- how him and his ilk (Wilson, bayly) define ruling your household. These tricksters are wordsmiths. They will view any person who is trying to rule their household as a failure if there is disobedience in the household. Ie, not only does the H have to try, and be manly, but there has to be submission — because Non submissive family members are a result of failed leadership. (They don’t explicitly say this – you have to piece it together from various articles. This is the result of their theology not being systemic, and being contradictory)

    In their world, there is no such thing as a good man and an unruly wife, which not only contradicts reality, but also portions of proverbs that describe a crappy wife.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      It’s the common idea that wherever there is a woman’s sin, there is ultimately a man’s sin that is responsible for the woman’s sin. Lots of people believe that implicitly, even if it is not stated explicitly in those terms most of the time (it is explicitly stated when people are pushed to do so).

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        @ Novaseeker,
        Actually, it’s the other way around. Women lead men into sin, following the archetype of Adam and Eve.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Right, but the common view among American Christians, including most of these kinds of preachers we are talking about here, is that the only reason Eve was distracted by the serpent was that Adam was not properly supervising her, such that Eve’s sin was a result of Adam’s prior sin of failure to husband her properly.

        Under the view of most conservative American Protestant preachers, all roads lead back to male responsibility for female sins, including Eve’s sin. I agree with you that this is an incorrect view of Gen 3, but it’s also the mainstream conservative Christian view in the US, unfortunately (the libs, for their part, don’t believe in Gen more or less at all and so don’t really care about Gen 3).

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lance Roberts says:

        Eve was fully responsible for her sin, but Adam still sinned by yielding to her and not stopping her. If a kid was reaching for a hot stovetop and you the parent had the ability to stop them then it would be a sin for you to let them burn themselves. He may not have been able to stop her, but he didn’t even try.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        Lance Roberts,
        Your comment assumes Adam bears some guilt for Eve’s sin. God made no mention of any such implication, but clearly told us that Adam’s sin was hearkening to his wife and eating the fruit that God had forbade him. In the version of the story told in the Book of Jubilees:
        Jubilees 3:17 …the serpent came and approached the woman, and the serpent said to the woman,…
        20 And the woman saw the tree that it was agreeable and pleasant to the eye, and that its fruit was good for food, and she took thereof and ate 21. And when she had first covered her shame with fig leaves, she gave thereof to Adam and he ate, and his eyes were opened, and he saw that he was naked. 22 And he took fig leaves and sewed them together, and made an apron for himself, and covered his shame.

        The Book of Jubilees account leads me to believe that Adam wasn’t necessarily “with” Eve when she was beguiled by the serpent. He was “with” her in the Garden, but not necessarily at her side as she sinned. I tend to believe that Book of Jubilees text more than your churchian view, because it doesn’t blame Adam for additional sins that God is presumed to have forgotten to mention. Furthermore it specifically mentions that God was wroth with the serpent and the woman.

        God directly cursed the serpent and the woman, however God did not curse His own image and glory directly, but cursed the earth on account of the man’s sin, because the man had been taken from the earth before being made into an image of God, his Father.

        Like

      • Lance Roberts says:

        I’m certainly not interested in a non-biblical account of creation. I do believe the wording is plain in Genesis that he was present. I do not think Adam bears guilt for her sin, he bears guilt for his own. Sin #1) He should have acted and he was passive. Sin #2) He ate of the apple.

        I would note that Adam is the federal head of mankind (until Jesus Christ replaced him for the elect) and it was his sin that caused the fall.

        Like

  7. Lance Roberts says:

    “apple” meaning fruit

    Like

    • Sharkly says:

      In the Genesis account the serpent twice “said unto the woman”.
      Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
      If Adam was present, then God is also deceiving us, He should have said that the serpent said, unto “them” or unto “the man and the woman”, if they were both there and heard it. Adam clearly wasn’t with Eve at that moment.

      In verse 3:6 the preposition “with”(עִם) just implies an association, not necessarily that they are in the same location, and it is only given when Adam eats the fruit.
      Like Jubilees, Genesis also makes it clear that the woman ate the fruit before giving it to her husband to eat. They were not all together with the serpent, eating it simultaneously as artists often portray. Adam’s sin was exactly as God told us, not as you say it is. Nor was Adam wrong to blame Eve, or Eve wrong to blame the serpent. God did not correct anyone for blame shifting, but instead God directly cursed the two who were rightly blamed, while the earth was instead cursed on Adam’s account. The sentence of death upon the eaters of the fruit had already been told prior. The account you believe where Adam made some other sin besides listening to his wife and giving her words the worth-ship to be followed above God’s own forbidding to eat the fruit, is just a Feminist fairy tale.

      Who knew there were two original sins, and that God fibbed to us about what brought death on us all? I guess we all die because Adam didn’t man-up. LOL /S
      Adam sinned because he loved Eve and put her before God, harkening to her instead of God. If I were God, and that happened to me, my first commandment would be that God should be put first.(Mark 12:30) If Adam’s first sin had been some combination sin with a failure to forbid or stop his wife’s transgression, you’d think God might have specifically mentioned that somewhere in the Bible?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      “Sin #1) He should have acted and he was passive.”

      What you are implying is that God has lied to us about Adam’s first “Original Sin”, by omitting this other sin which you claim happened while Eve was being beguiled and first ate the fruit, before Adam later hearkened to His wife and ate the fruit as well.
      The apostle Paul teaches us that the woman was the last thing created and the first thing to transgress against God.

      Why are you so against Adam, the first man, that you would try to also fault him for not preventing Eve from rebelling against he and God? Eve had been made completely aware, as she also told the serpent, that she was not to eat from that forbidden tree. There was no transgression before Eve’s transgression. Therefore, preventing Eve’s transgression was not a sin, otherwise Adam might be guilty of it, and God most certainly was guilty of it. Blaming Adam for Eve’s sin is pure satanic Feminism.

      The obvious proof to me, that Adam was not at fault for Eve’s sin, is that after Adam blamed Eve, she did not blame him back, like any woman would, if there was something to blame her husband for. She sinned against God in a perfect sinless world, and then, knowing good from evil, she tempted her husband into defiling himself as well. And that is why women should remain shamefaced if they want to profess godliness.(1 Timothy 2:9-10)
      The church used to know this stuff:

      I’ve seen better translations of that Latin quote, with more context, but you get the point. Tertullian was explaining about why women should dress modestly not in costly array.

      Like

      • Lance Roberts says:

        I guess you didn’t really read what I said. Here’s the first line that says it all and agrees with what you’re saying about Eve sinning. No where do I ever excuse her sin or blame Adam for it.

        “Eve was fully responsible for her sin, but Adam still sinned by yielding to her and not stopping her.”

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “Lance Roberts”,
        Perhaps I am responding against the churchian viewpoint, and am wrongly assuming you espouse it. But when you say “Adam still sinned by … not stopping her.” That leads me to believe you don’t find Adam faultless even before he ate the fruit himself. Plus you seem to be insistent that Adam was right there as the serpent beguiled Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, and I’ve shown that the Genesis account certainly doesn’t imply that, and additional ancient scriptures which are in complete agreement with the Bible’s Genesis account, actually refute your Feminist theory that Adam, who was not at all deceived,(1 Timothy 2:14) stood there silently and watched passively as Eve was deceived into eating what God had forbidden.

        Like

      • Lance Roberts says:

        I do think he was right there, he wasn’t deceived, but he didn’t try and stop his wife from doing wrong. You can probably make an argument that the only real sin was the eating of the fruit by Adam since it was the sin that caused the fall, but there’s probably some nuance needed for what Eve did and what Adam didn’t do. It could be that those other things were sins, but not the covenant-breaking one. While they didn’t have a sin nature until after the fall, they obviously could sin since they ate the fruit. The garden is definitely complex and I don’t think we have near enough information to understand it all, though I’ll keep studying things to try and figure out cause that’s what I like to do.

        Like

  8. feeriker says:

    I was trying to post an explanation of the word μαλακοὶ and its variants as used in Modern Greece (I spent four and half years there a few decades ago), but apparently your filters don’t like my use of the English equivalents and won’t allow me to post. LOL!

    Like

    • Jack says:

      @ Feeriker,
      I have no such filters. It must be a global filter on WordPress. Write it in a MSWord document and email it to me. I will make sure it gets posted.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s