LARPers vs. Pastors | RPChristians

There was a funny post on the sub this morning before the OP deleted it. It was mostly a normal post for this sub, being well-grounded biblically and RP flavored. But it contained this one weird statement:

Complementarianism and feminism in the church aren't just theological errors on a spectrum. They are heresies...

The liberal churches are all feminist, and the orthodox are all complementarian. Who can pass this purity test?

I looked at the OPs profile, and it was full of polygamy posts in /r/patriarchy_lifestyle (NSFW) and r/BiblicalPolygynyUSA/. When I pointed this out, OP deleted all of his posts and his reddit account. In doing so, he proved the point I made in the thread:

In my experience, nearly everyone who speaks this way 1. does it anonymously online, not in person (in other words, they are duplicitous cowards), and 2. has some personal sin angle they are working.

The congruent Christian guy doesn't try to hide what he said or wrote. He doesn't have one theology for church and a different theology online. He is not afraid of being "found out." He accepts, and even expects, that some people will disagree with, disapprove of, and dislike him. Who in this world do you know who is like that?

It's your pastor.

I submit that even the most liberal pastor in a brick-and-mortar church has more frame than the anonymous patriarchy LARPer. The pastor has to stand on what he says publicly. The LARPer is just looking for approval for his sin, whatever it might be. Don't be taken in by these people. Find a good pastor and spend your life living accountably to him, and to the body of believers around you.

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 56M | Married 18 yrs 4 points5 points6 points 4 months ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]vitrael3[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 56M | Married 18 yrs 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]vitrael3[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I can't even respond to your comment in the thread without getting an error 500. But I did want to expand on our different positions on "complimentarianism." You wrote:

The church, in response, has redefined the roles in marriage under Complementarianism, a less distasteful term for the society at large. Complementarianism, while reflecting much of what God has ordained in marriage, falls short of the Patriarchal structure that was the standard for thousands of years. It is essentially the church unwilling to stand up for Patriarchy instituted by God.

It seems we are disagreeing in terminology but not in substance. If complementarian means, "different and complementary," that definition can encompass patriarchy and is opposed to egalitarianism. If complementarian means, "nodding at headship while winking at egalitarianism," then it's just dressed up feminism and should be opposed.

Personally I'm willing to give the a pastor the benefit of the doubt when he says "complimentary." If he says patriarchial, he will be misunderstood.

[–]istruthselfevident 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 56M | Married 18 yrs 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Edited to add my other comment that was to you in the other post:

Complementarianism and Egalitarianism ARE heresies. They both violate God's headship order, which is Biblical Patriarchy.

Oh...of course, that makes sense. Ok, here's the comment copied and pasted if you care to expand on what you wrote above, my response to your comment above will be below the line at the end:

Paul says the husband and wife relationship is patterned on Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:22-32), which means the framework runs in both directions. If the wife is to the husband as the church is to Christ, then we, as the church, are in the covenantally feminine posture before God. Sit with that for a moment, because it reframes everything. Every behavior the Red Pill identifies as corrosive in a wife maps directly onto what the Western church, and frankly most Christian men, are actually doing in their walk. Hypergamy in a woman means she's always scanning for a higher-value option, always willing to trade up when something better presents itself. The theological version of that is idolatry. The Old Testament calls it adultery against God, Israel chasing other gods the way a faithless wife chases a better man (Jeremiah 3:6-10, Ezekiel 23:1-11). We don't usually frame our theological drift that way, but the prophets did, and they were right to. When Christ's terms get inconvenient, when a text cuts against what we've already decided we want, the instinct is to find a framework that accommodates us better. That's branch-swinging. Paul calls it having itching ears (2 Timothy 4:3-4). The prophets called it whoring after other gods. The vocabulary is different. The behavior is identical.

Wow, never thought about it this way in comparison, but biblically you’re right.

Complementarianism and feminism in the church aren't just theological errors on a spectrum. They are heresies that actively prevent men from understanding the posture Scripture calls them to before God.

You are correct on this as well. Feminism has led society away from Patriarchy (God’s design) towards Egalitarianism and gender-neutral roles in the church and society. The church, in response, has redefined the roles in marriage under Complementarianism, a less distasteful term for the society at large. Complementarianism, while reflecting much of what God has ordained in marriage, falls short of the Patriarchal structure that was the standard for thousands of years. It is essentially the church unwilling to stand up for Patriarchy instituted by God.

The Red Pill framework, whatever you think of its origins, describes something real. Hypergamy is the female tendency to perpetually audit whether a better option exists, to calibrate attraction to dominance and frame, to operate in comfort and compliance when a man holds his ground and to test or branch-swing when he doesn't. Beta behavior is what happens when a man inverts this dynamic, pedestalizing the woman, seeking her approval, letting her emotional state set the terms of the relationship. The man who operates in her frame rather than his own doesn't get a grateful partner. He gets a woman who loses respect for him while he wonders what he did wrong. Read Tomassi on frame and you're reading a secular account of what Genesis 3 already told you: someone will lead in any relationship, and when the man abdicates, the woman doesn't become an equal partner. She becomes the de facto head of a household that was never designed for her to carry.

This is the essence of Servant Leadership, something we’ve discussed in great detail on the sub in the past. Servant Leadership. They argue, "If you want your wife to serve you, you must show her how to do so by serving her first. After all, that’s what Jesus did with his disciples." While this approach to marriage acknowledges that the man has biblical authority as the head of the household and that the wife is to submit to that authority, it then suggests that the way a man should lead is by always putting his wife's interests first.

Therefore if there is a conflict in the home the man gets the final say, but in essence his say is wrong if he doesn't submit his position to his wife's desires. They teach that the way to experience marital bliss is to do everything in your power to make your wife feel comfortable and secure, and refer to Ephesians 5:21, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” as the ultimate framework. “Mutual submission”, they’ll say. Hey, maybe she'll agree to being your “accountability partner,” wouldn't that be helpful? You are told that being vulnerable is the way to a woman's heart.

It’s basically all of the responsibility but none of the authority. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, that’s how most businesses operate these days in their leadership structure. Servant Leadership originates from a 1970 essay called “The Servant as Leader” by Robert K. Greenleaf, an American business executive and leadership consultant, and the founder of the modern Servant Leadership movement and the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

While not explicitly framed by Greenleaf as a feminist theory, its non-hierarchical, relational, and nurturing approach aligns with feminist ethics. Research indicates women often excel at these traits, using them to invert traditional patriarchal leadership stereotypes. Key connections between Servant Leadership and feminist perspectives include:

• Shared Values: Both prioritize collaboration, empowerment, nurturing, and relational, non-hierarchical structures over traditional, power-based, and autocratic models.

• Focus on Care and Nurturing: Similar to feminist ethics, servant leadership focuses on the well-being and growth of people, with an emphasis on listening and empathy.

• Gendered Advantage: Research suggests that women are often better than men at enacting servant leadership, which can help overcome gendered expectations of leaders in professional settings.

• Ethical Framework: Both perspectives advocate for a more holistic, ethical approach to organizational leadership.

Greenleaf's philosophy, which often emphasizes "power" in the form of service rather than control, resonates with feminist critiques that challenge patriarchal power structures. Thus, this non-biblical leadership model aligns quite well with Feminism.

Servant leadership was adopted by the church to keep husbands from becoming dictators in their marriages by saying “The Scripture says you must submit” to their wives. However, in most cases wives refusing to submit to their husbands as Scripture commands them to do is PRECISELY the problem.

Ultimately, modern “Servant Leadership” smells biblical but is psychologically reframed in ways that soften or functionally neutralize biblical headship. If a husband, in good conscience before God, believes something is right for the family, and the wife strongly disagrees, can he still lead? If the answer is no, then headship has been redefined, giving the wife emotional veto power in the relationship. If the answer is yes, and he does so with gentleness and accountability to God, then the biblical order remains intact.

In the end the husband answers to God for leadership. The wife answers to God for submission. The husband does not answer to God for pleasing his wife at all times. He answers for fearing God. This is Biblical Patriarchy, which is what God has always intended. When we look around at the state of society in general and the church in particular, the results of ignoring God’s headship order are glaringly evident.

It seems we are disagreeing in terminology but not in substance. If complementarian means, "different and complementary," that definition can encompass patriarchy and is opposed to egalitarianism. If complementarian means, "nodding at headship while winking at egalitarianism," then it's just dressed up feminism and should be opposed.

Personally I'm willing to give the a pastor the benefit of the doubt when he says "complimentary." If he says patriarchial, he will be misunderstood.

No, he won't be misunderstood, he will be vilified and ostracized.

Biblical patriarchy as laid out in God's word holds that God ordains a father-led household where the man bears primary authority, responsibility, and headship over his family in both spiritual and practical matters, extending in some views to broader social order.

Complementarianism, by contrast, teaches that men and women are equal in worth before God but have distinct, complementary roles, typically limiting male headship to the home and church while affirming broader participation of women in education, work, and many areas of society; thus retaining role distinctions but in a more narrowly defined and culturally adapted form.

These are important distinctions. Complementarianism is simply Patriarchy with little to no real authority.

[–]vitrael3[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Complementarianism, by contrast, teaches that men and women are equal in worth before God but have distinct, complementary roles

Is fully compatible with your definition of Biblical patriarchy.

typically

Which means "not definitionally"

limiting male headship to the home and church while affirming broader participation of women in education, work, and many areas of society

These are strange inclusions to me. If your view of "Biblical patriarchy" does not include "broader participation of women in education and work" then what do you make of the Proverbs 31 woman?

"She considers a field and buys it; from her earnings she plants a vineyard." Is that not participation in work?

"She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue." Is that not participation in education?

Patriarchy is merely leadership of the household and social order by fathers. I would submit you don't have to go full Taliban to satisfy the definition.

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 56M | Married 18 yrs 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The statement is not incompatible with Patriarchy, but it is incomplete. Scripture defines those “roles” with real authority structures: “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church” (Ephesians 5:23), which establishes not just distinction, but ordered headship.

Complementarianism…typically limits male headship to the home and church

Which means "not definitionally"

You’re actually supporting my point brother. Scripture itself does not present male headship as optional or cultural, but rooted in creation: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13), making it definitional rather than merely typical.

limiting male headship to the home and church while affirming broader participation of women in education, work, and many areas of society

If your view of ‘Biblical patriarchy’ does not include ‘broader participation of women in education and work’ then what do you make of the Proverbs 31 woman?

The limitation itself is the issue. Scripture consistently ties authority to order beyond just church settings (such as family and inheritance structures, i.e. Numbers 27), and nowhere explicitly confines male headship only to church and home while excluding society at large.

The Proverbs 31 woman clearly engages in productive labor, yet always within an ordered household structure: “Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land” (Proverbs 31:23), showing she operates alongside, not in contradiction to, male headship.

”She considers a field and buys it; from her earnings she plants a vineyard.” Is that not participation in work?

Yes, this affirms a wife’s economic endeavors, but not independent authority over the household. The same passage frames her actions as contributing to her household’s prosperity under her husband’s standing (Proverbs 31:11, 23). And it is limited to the home; she isn’t going to work outside the home like modern women do.

”She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.” Is that not participation in education?

This reflects godly instruction in the home and influence within her circle of women friends (Titus 2:3-5). It does not mean she participates in educating others outside the home.

Patriarchy is merely leadership of the household and social order by fathers.

Biblically, it is more than “mere” leadership. It is covenantal headship with accountability before God: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man… neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).

I would submit you don't have to go full Taliban to satisfy the definition.

Agreed. Scriptural Patriarchy is not oppression but ordered, sacrificial leadership patterned after Christ: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Ephesians 5:25), which explicitly rejects harsh or tyrannical rule. However, it’s more than “distinct, complementary roles”; after all, 1 Peter 3:6 says ”Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” (1 Peter 3:5-6)

[–]vitrael3[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 56M | Married 18 yrs -1 points0 points1 point 4 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What part of considering, buying, and planting a field is ‘limited to the home?’ What does ‘the home’ even mean in this context?

“The home” in Scripture refers to the household sphere under ordered authority, not a physical building; her work is explicitly oriented toward her household: “She looketh well to the ways of her household” (Proverbs 31:27), showing her work serves for the support of her household rather than redefining authority structures.

Can a woman not work even if her husband approves of it, as Lemuel apparently does?

Scripture does not forbid women from working; rather, it affirms work under proper order: “She worketh willingly with her hands” (Proverbs 31:13), while still recognizing headship: “The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her” (Proverbs 31:11). Yes, there were women working outside the household in Solomon’s time but those examples do not reflect the Proverbs 31 woman specifically.

Moreover, if God's pattern for women's work is ‘limited to the home,’ what do you do with Deborah, Esther, and Lydia?

These are exceptional cases within God’s providence, not the stated norm. Deborah herself notes male abdication of leadership (“If thou wilt go with me, then I will go” Judges 4:8-9), while Lydia’s work remains consistent with hospitality and household influence (Acts 16:14-15), not a redefinition of male headship. Esther was a queen, and thus her situation was a bit different. Still under the king’s headship tho.

Then why are there prophetesses throughout the Bible?

Prophetesses demonstrate that women can speak God’s word, yet this does not overturn ordered authority in teaching offices: “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Joel 2:28), while still maintaining church order: “Let your women keep silence in the churches” (1 Corinthians 14:34).

Why did the Lord speak to Huldah instead of Josiah and his priests?

God is free to use whom he wills without establishing a general rule: “So Hilkiah the priest… went unto Huldah the prophetess… and she dwelt in Jerusalem” (2 Kings 22:14), yet this single instance does not replace the established priestly structure.

Why did Miriam lead the Israelites alongside her brothers?

Miriam’s role is described specifically as prophetic and celebratory, not governing headship: “Miriam the prophetess… took a timbrel in her hand… and Miriam answered them” (Exodus 15:20–21), while primary leadership remained with Moses and Aaron (Numbers 12:1–10).

[–]vitrael3[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	LARPers vs. Pastors
Author	vitrael3
Upvotes	5
Comments	11
Date	March 27, 2026 3:23 PM UTC (4 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/RPChristians
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/RPChristians/comments/1s577ei/larpers_vs_pastors/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/RPChristians/larpers-vs-pastors.1576514 https://theredarchive.com/post/1576514

Comments