A comparison of Christ and the church with a man and his wife.
Reader’s Note: In this essay, “Redemption” is used in the sense of restoration, or of adding value to someone that is relatively low status, and not so much in the sense of eternal salvation, although I suspect there is a connection. If the reader has the time and interest, it may be revealing to read through this post a second time while questioning how a Woke Feminist might react. The answer is given at the end.
Length: 2,300 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes
This post covers a deep Truth that I’ve never seen anywhere else on the Manosphere, so I hope to earn my place among the greats here. These Truths are already a central focus of Biblical Gender Roles, but I hope to add a foundational insight. In a future post, Women Rely on a Man’s Frame for Redemptive Introspection (&), I’ll review several quotations from around the Manosphere that should add credibility to the application.
This concept is rather hard to explain in only a few words, so I’ll start off by describing the relationship between God and Man as the primary Archetype for the relationship between Man and Woman. This metaphor is based on the following Scripture, where I assert that the church (ibid.) is comprised of Christian men and husbands (as well as females).
“22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.”Ephesians 5:22-24
For those readers who have an issue with the Biblical ideas of ‘submission’, and of ‘husbands being the head of the wife’, I believe that if you’ll follow through this discourse, you’ll discover that it explains many of the common experiences between men and women, including things like the feminine imperative, sh*t tests, and true love. As such, my argument does in no way rely on the ‘assumption of the conclusion’ fallacy, and is, in fact, a bedrock Truth.
First, we’ll explore the relationship between Christ and the church.
Man’s Dependency on God for Introspection and Redemption
The life of St. Peter, of whom Jesus said, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church” (Matthew 16:18), is a characteristic illustration of how a man comes into the Kingdom of God.
When Jesus first called Peter, saying “Follow Me”, Peter had followed easily, because he was fascinated by the person of Jesus. (Matthew 4:18-20) He did not need the Holy Spirit to draw his attention and allegiance to Christ. Afterwards, Peter willingly followed Jesus for three years.
But then came the time when Jesus was put on trial for blasphemy, which was a crime punishable by death under Judaic law. (Matthew 26) When Roman soldiers came to arrest Jesus, Peter fought with a sword, but Jesus commanded him to lay down his weapon. Later, Peter came to face a situation in which he would likely be killed by a mob if he merely identified with Jesus. At this point, he feared for his life, and the fascination and natural inspiration he had of the Man Jesus was not sufficient to retain his faith. As a result, he denied Jesus out of fear of mortal death. This decision may have saved his life, but his heart broke, and he forfeited his soul. Consequently, Peter hid himself in fear, until after Christ was crucified.
Judas, who was Peter’s fellow disciple of Christ, betrayed Jesus (possibly in the hope of inciting a revolution), and broke his own heart as well. But unlike Peter, who hid himself, Judas killed himself.
After Jesus’ resurrection, the impartation of the Holy Spirit came upon Peter and the other disciples. Jesus appealed to Peter once again, saying, “Follow Me”. This second invitation tortured Peter’s soul with the guilt of his betrayal, and required him to submit himself to the Lordship of Jesus for his reinstatement into the Kingdom of God. In other words, he had faced his weaknesses, and his inadequacy in meeting his own needs, and then he needed to humble himself.
In retrospect, we see that the first invitation from Jesus had nothing mystical about it, as it was an external following which appealed to the inclinations of the natural man. The second invitation from Jesus required an internal martyrdom of the self (c.f. John 21:18). Between these invitations, Peter had denied Jesus with oaths and curses. He had reached the limits of the natural (vis. feral) man. He had come to the end of himself, forfeited his will, and lost all sense of self-sufficiency. He had nothing left of himself or his own power upon which he could ever rely upon again with confidence. However, it was in this state of destitution that he was in a fit condition to receive an impartation from the risen Lord.
Judas killed himself in the wrong way. Peter killed himself (figuratively speaking) in the right way.
Only when we have come to the end of ourselves, not as we might imagine ourselves to be while in a state of desperation, but in totality, are we are able to receive the Holy Spirit. All our vows and resolutions end in denial because we have no power to carry them out. Only Christ has that power. Because the natural man is not able to reach beyond its own martyrdom, it requires the invasion of the Holy Spirit.
At the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Love and Grace of God’s Truth pounces on our heart and dominates our spirit, against our will, and contrary to our natural mind. We may try to fight the realization (e.g. by relying on vain rational justifications or emotional defense mechanisms), or run and hide, just as Peter did, but deep within our being, we know that we will inevitably be dominated by the gracious providence of God, and that our self-centered will shall be overruled by His greater will. We are filled with a sense of gratefulness for having received this greater purpose for living, and the honor that it entails.
Now within the next section, we will examine the relationship between a Man and a Woman, i.e. his wife, as an analogous comparison to the relationship between Christ and the church. We’ll also see how a man’s response to her challenges are characteristic of how a man “washes his wife clean” with the Word of Truth. The previous example of St. Peter will be used to construct the model.
Woman’s Dependency on Man for Introspection and Redemption
When a man takes a wife, he is basically saying, “You are my wife, and with your womb I will create a family.”
When a man first woos a woman, he says, in effect, “Follow Me”. (In this analogy, we will assume that the man is one of sufficiently high socio-sexual value.) The woman follows him easily, even naturally, because she is fascinated by the Tingles and the possibility of becoming one who is loved. She does not so much require the enticements of a contrived Game, social justifications, such as a recommendation from her friends or family, or promises of status and security, in order to turn her attention and allegiance to the man. No one needs to teach any woman how to fall in love with a man. Women seek and discover this quite readily.
But then comes a time when the woman loses that natural appeal for the man. Perhaps this happens because the Tingles dried up, or perhaps his own personal shortcomings have come to light. At this time, the woman naturally recoils to the relative security of various defense mechanisms, which have been outlined by previous Manospherians, such as hamstering, bulverizing, stonewalling, gaslighting, etc. She may use any of these weapons to cling to her previous illusions, but the man will make it clear that she must abandon these ‘weapons’ and submit to his authority.
The woman now faces a situation in which her previously cherished notions of Disneyland fantasy are likely to be destroyed if she submits to the man’s authority. At this point, she fears for what may become of her life if her vain hopes are not fulfilled, and she is terrified to face the fact that they may not even be true. The fascination and natural inspiration she initially had of the man is not sufficient to retain her faithfulness to him. As a result, she may reject this particular man, and go off in the hope of finding another man who can fulfill her dreams, or at least, not destroy them. This decision may preserve her false hopes and her egotistical sense of well-being, but in reality, she has faced the fact that life is not as she once believed. If she follows through with her resistance and rebellion, her heart will be broken, and she will forfeit her soul. The soul decimating effects of this choice are clearly manifested in women who choose to burn through one man after another, thereby racking up their N count, and destroying their real opportunities to find the true love they deeply crave.
Feminists, who initially held the same hopes and dreams for their relationships with men, betray the authoritative structure of the God ordained male-female hierarchy (possibly in the hope of inciting and/or perpetuating a cultural or sexual revolution), and unwittingly break their own hearts as well.* But instead of clinging to the hope of finding a ‘perfect’ (or better) man, they instead choose to revile the fundamental nature of men, deny the Truth, and languish in bitterness, thereby creating disorder and chaos within the time tested Traditional structure.
After getting her @ss kicked by the stark realities which she had been unwilling or unable to face in the past, she starts to see her husband from a new perspective – namely that he is a source of vital characteristics which she lacks, e.g. structure, strength, sustenance, and steadfastness. She begins to see that life is not about making her dream a reality, but in making her reality a dream. In other words, she accepts the fact that she has an arena of responsibilities that are uniquely hers, and that she’ll lose more skin in the game if she doesn’t face the music. At this point, the woman is faced with a crucial choice which determines both her spiritual and carnal identity.
The man continues to appeal to the woman, effectively saying, “Follow Me”. This ‘second’ invitation, after the discovery of the Truth, tortures the woman’s soul with the guilt of her betrayal, and requires her to submit herself to the authority of the man for her reinstatement into her position of his beloved wife. In other words, she has faced her weaknesses, and her inadequacy in meeting her own needs, and now must humble herself.
In retrospect, we see that the first invitation from the man had nothing mystical about it, as it was an external following which appealed to the inclinations of the ego and the feral nature. The second invitation from the man requires an internal martyrdom of her self. Between these invitations, the woman goes through a difficult process which requires her to accept the man as her head, or choose the wandering life of one unloved. She reaches her human limits. She comes to the end of herself, forfeits her will, and loses her sense of independence and self-sufficiency. She has nothing left of herself or her own power upon which she can ever rely upon again with hope. However, it is in this state of utter vulnerability that she is in a fit condition to receive the attention and affirmation of a loving man/husband.
When a faithful, loving husband presents his Frame of mind as a structure in which the wife can discern objective truth, the husband’s (and by extension, God’s) love and grace pounces on her heart and dominates her spirit, against her will, and contrary to her hamstering mind. She may try to fight the realization (e.g. by relying on vain justifications or emotional defense mechanisms, as mentioned earlier), or run and hide, just as Peter did, but deep within her being, she knows that she will inevitably be dominated by the gracious providence of God through her husband, and that her self-centered will shall be overruled by His greater will. She is filled with a sense of gratefulness for having received this greater purpose for living, and the honor that it entails.
Females inclined towards Feminism destroy their own worthiness to receive the heartfelt love of a man, simply in order to preserve their own microcosm of autonomy and power.* Faithful wives and mothers kill their self-centeredness and their desire for independence, and assume their God ordained role of exercising their soft power to increase the quality of life for their husbands and children.
Only when a woman has come to the end of herself, not as she might imagine herself to be while in a state of solipsistic desperation, but in totality, is she able to receive the place of honor as a beloved wife and mother. All her presumptions, projections, imperatives, and resolutions are nothing more than a denial of the power and Lordship of Christ, because she has no power to change the reality of her life into that for which she hopes. Only a faithful loving man who is obedient to Christ can take on that role. But because the feral woman is not able to reach beyond her own solipsism, she requires the invasion of the Christ-like man’s Frame of mind.
* Answer to the Reader’s Note: It’s quite revealing to see how the Feminist viewpoint conforms to the archetype of Judas.
- Σ Frame: Discipline in Marriage