…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
- Do What’s Right: Sexual Identity and the Big Picture (2014 December 17)
