I hear the phrase "reconcile RP with Christianity" a lot. Let's explore for a bit what that phrase actually means and how the reconciliation process actually works, as it's more than simply "filtering out what doesn't fit" or "rejecting the sinful parts of RP" (whatever that means).

There are three branches of thought relevant to a study of human behavior: philosophy, theology, and praxeology.

  • Philosophy: attempts to solve problems and answer questions through the application of logic and reason. It is concerned with what should be true.

  • Theology: attempts to discern Truth through the interpretation and application of Scripture and divine revelation. It is concerned with what is actually true.

  • Praxeology: attempts to understand human behavior through the application of observation, repetition and experimentation. It is concerned with what can be observed to be true.

On the assumption that God is real and the Bible is true (as I assume every Christian agrees is the case), then all things must fit in the framework of what it teaches, and thus theology is the baseline form which all other things are derived. If a philosophical thought or a praxeological observation is in conflict, then we know there is either a logical fallacy in our thinking or a mistaken context to our observation.

But we also know that theology does not answer every question useful to life or developing healthy and productive interactions with other human beings. It only addresses those things that we need to know to live rightly with and for God. Accordingly, it says a lot about the value of interpersonal relationships and the principles for how they should function, but it's not going to tell you specifics, like how most women like having their hair pulled during sex or how to pass a fitness test.

Now, where theology stops some people like to philosophize about what should come next. Accordingly, philosophy is built on ideologies. It looks for how things should ideally function. But theology tells us that the world is broken and will never function in an ideal setting, which makes most philosophies moot. The blue pill is based on philosophy. And it is true: if the world actually functioned under blue pill ideologies, it would probably be a much better place. There would be lots more "happily ever afters" instead of a 50% divorce rate. People would be rewarded for being "nice" and "good," promoting positive values in the world. Instead of the DNGAF attitude necessary to increase sexual attraction, people would be motivated to care deeply and to help one another. Women would not turn into nagging harpies; rather, they would be supportive angels well-deserving of their pedestal.

But none of that is how the world actually works. Be it the result of sin or natural design or a combination of both - I don't care - praxeology pulls philosophy out from the clouds and slaps it in the face. Praxeology doesn't care about what the world should be like; it cares about how it actually is.

The reason praxeology is subservient to theology is that it is based on human perception rather than divine revelation. The whole point of faith is that we trust what God tells us over our own senses. But because God is the one who created the world and sovereignly guides the direction of history, it makes sense that most praxeological observations will not conflict with theological truths, except to the degree that we have only scratched the surface on a praxeological observation and do not yet know the full context behind it ... or when God decides to defy otherwise genuine praxeological principles.

For example, a praxeology of master-slave relationships in the time of Israelite captivity under Egypt would conclude that the masters losing their slaves would be a bitter event and cause tense and unfavorable interactions from the masters to the slaves. But Exodus 12:36 says, "The Lord had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians." No praxeology could have concluded this to happen because God divinely intervened.

Now, when we consider modern intergender relational dynamics, theology continues to give room for similar behavioral norm defiance. In fact, the very act of someone coming to Christ should cause such an internal transformation that they defy the behavioral norms observed in the rest of the world (2 Cor. 5:17). This is why I draw the following two conclusions:

(1) Many people in the church whose lives do not have an appreciable difference from before their alleged salvation to "after" (other than the fact that they now attend a church service) are probably not saved. We should see a stark praxeological difference between these people and the genuine Christians. Yes, we do still have the sinful nature, but part of the point of salvation is that we have a directive to overcome it and to replace our sin with proactive biblical commands, like the compulsion to make disciples, and not with other sins or our own self-amusement. So, if a man stops watching porn and thereby saves himself an extra 30 minutes a day, if he merely shifts that time into vegging out to the TV instead of increasing in godliness, he is no better off and his life still does not reflect a praxeological behavioral change.

(2) God must employ a degree of household salvation. Although I am not firm on this conclusion (/u/BluepillProfessor was the first to make me aware of it as an actual theological line of thought), there's substantial biblical support. The concept is that if the husband is following God, then anyone else in the familye who is following the husband will be following after God as well, as they are moving in that same direction. Anyone in the home who is defiant against the male head would obviously not be following God, and thus would not share in his salvation (ex. parable of the two sons and parable of the prodigal son). So, a wife may retain most or even all of the praxeological truths of the rest of the world even after salvation because she is sanctified through her husband, who is her conduit to God by virtue of his direct sanctification from God. Or to combine concepts from a couple key biblical passages (Exodus 4:16 and 1 Cor. 11:3 - both passages on the discipleship model, as marriage should mirror as well): God speaks through the husband and it will be "as if [he] were God to [her]."

My point in saying these is that even in a theological framework where God can and does change hearts, a husband can rely on most praxeological observations when interacting with his wife, just as a single man can when interacting with girls in the SMP and RMP. Contrarily, every woman whose husband claims to have a personal relationship with Jesus should rightly expect her husband to defy secular praxeological norms about male behavior to the degree that those mannerisms are the result of the fall and not a product of intended design, accounting for the influence of his ongoing sinful nature, of course. That is, a man who is well-on in his maturity with Christ should exhibit severely different behaviors than the one who has only just discovered he has the power in Christ to escape sin.

Where, then, is there room for philosophy when considering Christian marriage dynamics? There isn't any. Because theology already tells us the foundational framework in which humanity operates, and praxeology fills in the gaps through observational reality, conceptualizing what should be doesn't make sense if it is in conflict with what actually is, and if there is no conflict, then there is no point in the philosophy to begin with.

I hope you've enjoyed my musings on this subject. I'd love some feedback or suggestions on how to apply this stuff in new ways that I had not previously considered. As I've commented to some of you, I have been working on a book addressing RPChristianity and much of the content in this post is pulled from the introduction to the book. So, fire away with feedback!