Deformed masculinity results from affirming a false antithesis. In so doing, two complementary aspects of manhood are wrongly made out to compete with one another inherently. When it comes to principles such as male headship and servant leadership, we must be quick to celebrate and affirm what God calls good. Simply put, we cannot pick and choose what aspects or characteristics of masculinity we prefer and leave the others aside, or reject principles of biblical masculinity due to ways in which other professing Christians may abuse such doctrines. Falling prey to a false antithesis on masculinity is a surefire way to become a caricature and overcorrect into error as we swing the pendulum violently the other direction. Instead, we ought to hold to all the Bible calls good, allowing God’s Word to have its sanctifying effect upon us, de-caricaturing us by conforming us into the image of Christ.[37]

In this essay, I take aim at a false antithesis pertaining to God’s purposes and calling for men. For true masculinity to be pursued and attained, we must not fall prey to a false antithesis, which wrongly posits an either/or in place of a both/and. As D.A. Carson asks and answers:
So which shall we choose? Experience or truth? The left wing of the airplane, or the right? Love or integrity? Study or service? Evangelism or discipleship? The front wheels of a car, or the rear? Subjective knowledge or objective knowledge? Faith or obedience? Damn all false antithesis to hell, for they generate false gods, they perpetuate idols, they twist and distort our souls, they launch the church into violent pendulum swings whose oscillations succeed only in dividing brothers and sisters in Christ.[1]
We could easily and legitimately add the following questions to Carson’s fine list: Which shall real men choose? Courage or gentleness?[2] Nature or cultural customs (stereotypes)?[3] Male headship or servant leadership? It is this last false antithesis I take on in this essay. Of course, the correct answer for each of these questions is: yes. As fallen human beings, we are liable to label masculine virtues as vices or to label male vices as virtuous. And as Carson does well to draw out, the damnable lie at the heart of such false antitheses breeds violent pendulum swings that divide the body of Christ. It seems to me that in the broader evangelical world, the common cycle relating to gender and sexuality (and more specifically for this essay, masculinity) debates, is a swing toward an egalitarian or narrow complementarian view on one side of the false antithesis, which is met by an equal and opposite overcorrection by the biblical patriarchy movement,[4] leaving evangelicals with whiplash and blame toward the other side for the injury.[5] In what follows, the “camps” of egalitarianism, narrow complementarianism, broad complementarianism, and biblical patriarchy provide a conceptual framework through which I will think through the false antithesis of male headship and servant leadership. I will begin by unpacking the historical movement from egalitarianism to complementarianism to biblical patriarchy in evangelical circles, arguing that broad complementarianism is closer to biblical patriarchy than it is egalitarianism or narrow complementarianism. I will then make the case as to why I find broad complementarianism the more viable label for conservative evangelicals to rally around in the last section of this essay.
Before I interact with other positions, let me put my cards on the table. I am convinced the root error in many (if not all) reductionistic presentations of masculinity is that the good, true, and beautiful are treated like a buffet rather than a full course meal. Manhood is indeed good, true, and beautiful, and therefore ought to be revered and celebrated as a crucial component in God’s good design for human flourishing. When this is not the case, men will plague society as domineering despots or apathetic abdicators. The question is not whether men will lead, but how? True to my complementarian leanings, I contend that rather than compete with one another, male headship and servant leadership complement one another, such that apart from both, true masculinity cannot be attained in theory or practice.
I am a broad complementarian, which means that I understand there to be a covenantal headship given to men in both the church and home. Furthermore, since grace restores nature, and in no way abrogates it or cuts against the grain of God’s design, the call for men to lead has necessary implications beyond the church and home. In other words, male headship in the church and home is a reflection of created order being restored, therefore it would be unnatural for egalitarian principles to ground the broader society. God’s gracious covenantal arrangements correspond with nature, meaning they are not arbitrary but fitting with who he has made men to be and what he calls them to do. This is not to suggest that all men are the head of all women, as the covenantal headship of men over women is limited to the husband and wife relationship, and the church under its male pastors/elders. What this means is that natural law or created order as it relates to the relationship between men and women in society does not speak with the applicational specificity that Scripture does regarding male headship in the church and home.[6] So, prudential reasoning and epistemic humility are required as to how we ought to apply the principle of male headship beyond the church and home. But let me be very clear, we must affirm and honor nature/created order in our reasoning and in our application via cultural customs for human flourishing to occur.[7] With my cards now on the table, it is time to engage others.
Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Patriarchy
Increasingly, egalitarians are charging complementarians with being patriarchal, and the biblical patriarchy movement is charging complementarianism with being functional egalitarians. This is due in part, I believe, to the reality that complementarianism has situated itself “between” egalitarianism and patriarchalism, not because we complementarians are attempting to be the perfect mean or “third way,” but because we find tendencies in these other movements to denigrate or reject good aspects of masculinity. This may be best evidenced by how egalitarians reject male headship; they and some narrow complementarians then confuse servant leadership for male servitude, and in response the biblical patriarchy crowd scoffs at servant leadership and doubles down on male headship.[8] I find there to be evidence of the false antithesis being wrongly affirmed in each of these reflexes. I by no means think that real and perceived abuses of male headship invalidates it as a principle. I also do not cede servant leadership to those who abuse it.[9]  Glad affirmation and promotion of all that God calls men to is the aim. Using two good doctrines/principles as a proxy war is not the way forward.
Egalitarians see male headship as a product of sin, not as a good component of God’s created order. Increasingly, to reject male headship, egalitarians are forced to not only denigrate the clarity of the created order,[10] but even more brazenly, Scripture too, by speaking of God’s Word as though it is an irreducibly cultural artifact.[11] In so doing, egalitarians undermine the reality that the Bible’s calling for men to lead in the home, church, and society is a reflection of nature. In other words, male headship cannot be summarily dismissed as merely an arbitrary and now-outmoded social construct of a bygone era. To reject male headship as a principle is akin to rejecting the institution of marriage on the false grounds that it is a mere social construct, because both are revealed in Scripture to be pre-fall/sin realities, both of which are ordained by God and called “good.” Mature Christians, whose powers of discernment are trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil, will recognize the feminist-egalitarian spirit of the age we live in as evil, and not partner with the works of darkness (Heb. 5:14; Eph. 5:6–12).
On the other hand, there is a growing trend to advocate for “biblical patriarchy” or “dominionism” in the Reformed sector of the evangelical world. Now, there is more agreement between a broad complementarian such as myself and the biblical patriarchy movement than with egalitarianism and even narrow complementarians. As Kevin DeYoung rightly argues, “The biblical vision of complementarity cannot be true without something like patriarchy also being true.”[12] What he means by this is that the reality of male headship in Scripture is inherent to complementarianism. Thus, if there were a scale with egalitarianism labeled as a 1, and biblical patriarchy a 5, broad complementarianism would not be a 3 right in the middle (a narrow complementarian would be a 2–3), but a 4, closer to patriarchy than to egalitarianism. The suitability of men and women for one another as affirmed in creation and redemption is hierarchical pertaining to their roles and calling. To not affirm this, DeYoung suggests, is to choose anarchy over God’s good design.[13] He is correct. As Herman Bavinck rightly explains, “Authority and obedience, independence and subordination, equality and inequality, correspondence and variation, unity of nature and diversity of gifts and callings—all these have been present in the family from the very beginning, and in no sense came into existence as a result of sin.”[14] This logic is grounded in a right reading of Genesis 1–2 and is affirmed in Paul’s clear teaching in places like 1 Timothy 2:12–15 and 1 Corinthians 11:7–12.
In fact, this is why I think egalitarian critiques of complementarianism (not to mention the increasing number of narrow complementarian critiques of broad complementarianism), tend to conflate patriarchy with broad complementarianism.[15] These critiques are both right and wrong in their conflation. Right, because broad complementarianism readily affirms the fatherhood of our Father in heaven.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by T.M. Suffield |
Tuesday, March 7, 2023
The age to come is the one which is breaking into ours, it’s the one where Christ’s kingdom rules and reigns triumphantly, the one where death is defeated by the hand of Life riding a white horse. We are saved for this glorious revisioning of the cosmos.

I suspect most of us give little thought to time. It’s simply something we move through, or exist in, or bemoan the passing of as the years slowly strip away the vigour of our youth.
The fact that what time is amounts to a philosophical question that is notoriously tricky and nevertheless vital to any sense of trying to live a good or harmonious or flourishing or blessed (delete as appropriate) life, is a fact that passes most of us happily by.
Afterall, philosophers are a notoriously unhappy bunch, so contemplating their tricky questions is unlikely to contribute to our sense of a good life, right?
That may be, and yet the Bible has a lot of things to say about time as a broad concept and as something to be inhabited well. Our theology, at least at the popular level within our churches, leaves these questions alone most of the time. It sounds esoteric, irrelevant, and impractical.
While I would want to mount a spirited defence of the relevance of the esoteric and impractical, today is not that day, and my introduction is already long and meandering enough to have lost you.
Here are five theses on time.
We Are Saved from Time
In Galatians 1 we are described as being delivered from the ‘present evil age.’ We are saved from a time. We tend to think of salvation either psychologically (rescued from the guilt or shame of sin), ontologically (union with Christ), spatially (rescued from Hell or the earth for heaven), chthonically (rescued from the powers of evil and death), or in terms of dominion (transferred to the kingdom of light).
All of those are Biblical, though I would suggest that spatially is not the best way of describing that particular set of realities. Rarely do I hear anyone speak of salvation chronologically (or kairologically?). We are saved from time.
There are lots of things to bemoan in our age, and there have been in ages past too. The Bible would see these as a weave stretching back to Eden: not several ages but a succession of sin’s dark marring written across the face of the world. We are rescued from this age, so we do not have to face its consequences if we choose not to, we are free to call it evil where it is and should do so, and we do not have to live according to its rules or principles.
In other words, we’re free from the curse of this time.
We Are Saved for a Time
Positively we are rescued for the age to come (Matthew 12, Ephesians 1, Hebrews 6)—that time after our stint in the presence of Christ in what we often call ‘heaven’ as shorthand. By the age to come we mean the time after the resurrection of the dead and the triumphant and everlasting victory of Jesus the Christ over all powers and authorities.
The age to come is the one which is breaking into ours, it’s the one where Christ’s kingdom rules and reigns triumphantly, the one where death is defeated by the hand of Life riding a white horse. We are saved for this glorious revisioning of the cosmos.
This time is breaking into our time because Christ came at the end of time (1 Peter 1, Galatians 4, Matthew 26, Mark 1, John 7). We now live in the collision of two epochs, the time between the times.
Read More
Related Posts:

That’s a question that needs to uncomfortably confront any of our commitments and loyalties. We don’t stand at the foot of Sinai in the shadow of the golden calf, but there’s plenty of calves erected in our society and hearts and many are willing to break loose before them — there are idols before whom we celebrate, laugh, and dance.

On top of Mount Sinai, Moses received a revelation of Jehovah. The one, true, and living God delivered to him two tablets of stone inscribed by the divine finger that summarized his moral will — epitomized in a love to God and a love to neighbor. But as Moses tarried on the mountaintop the people of Israel grew restless and fashioned for themselves a golden calf and celebrated, laughed, and danced. Moses’ anger burned hot and in a symbolic gesture he shattered the tablets of stone at the foot of the mountain – the covenant was broken. Then he challenged the people of Israel asking: “Who is on the Lord’s side” and only the sons of Levi crossed over, and that day three thousand men on the other side were killed at their hands.
Who is on the Lord’s side? That’s a question that needs to uncomfortably confront any of our commitments and loyalties. We don’t stand at the foot of Sinai in the shadow of the golden calf, but there’s plenty of calves erected in our society and hearts and many are willing to break loose before them — there are idols before whom we celebrate, laugh, and dance.
As summer fades and we slip into our fall routines there’s nothing that will dominate the first day of the week like professional football. Beginning with the NFL draft and marching toward “Superbowl Sunday,” there will be more than 100 million viewers of America’s most popular sport — with last year’s end of the season game drawing 115 million viewers. With religious excitement and commitment the masses will gather in stadiums or around screens to watch what the Wall Street Journal estimated to be a per-game average of eleven minutes of actual action. Those eleven minutes will determine how many Americans decide to spend their Sunday orienting hours around them.
Read More
Related Posts: