Fleeing manhood...

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife... (Genesis 3:17).

(Tim) A thought likely obvious to the rest of you came to me on Mother's Day.

Every man who is a feminist is so because he desires to avoid the weight of glory God has placed on him.

A father doesn't want to do the hard work of vetting his daughter's choice of a husband, so he pays for her degrees and establishes her in a profession where she'll be impervious to any husband's future failures. A husband doesn't want to do the hard work of silencing his wife in the church, so he argues that women need a place at the table, too, and that good churches will enfranchise women's voices. Elders don't want to do the hard work of training their daughters how to dress modestly and conduct themselves in a feminine manner, so they condemn all efforts to teach and encourage modesty or feminine deference within the church as legalism, patronization of women, and masculine insecurity.

Any interface between godliness and femininity is the precise place where our man-feminist stands proclaiming his righteousness and others' sin. He is enlightened and others are antediluvian. He is tolerant and others are insecure. He is graceful and others legalistic. He is confident of his sexuality and others quivering in fear...

He's for freedom and others oppression. He's for beauty and the varieties of personal expression while others are all about "don't look" and "don't touch" uniformity. As Stuart Briscoe once put it when Mrs. Kent Hughes and I were debating him and his wife, Jill, during a Moody Bible Institure chapel, "I believe women are persons." It was the eminent former British banker contra mundum. The entire world lost in masculine insecurity had given themselves over to the oppression of woman until he came along and took a principled and courageous stand for woman's personhood.

To which Barb responded, with a feminine grace, "Aren't I a woman?"

Feminist men are schemers hiding their rebellion against God. They abhor the weight of woman's glory God has placed on them in their duties as pastors, elders, deacons, husbands, and fathers. But rather than following the time-honored pattern of cowards who turn their back on the battle and run, these men use their uniform as cover for attacking and killing their comrades. They betray every duty towards woman God has dignified their sex by, then claim they are faithful to that duty by their very betrayal. "I believe women are persons!"

Well yes. Pastor Briscoe surely does believe women are persons, but does he believe women are women? Does he believe in womanhood?

Every man who is a feminist is so because he desires to avoid the weight of glory God has placed on him.

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. (1 Corinthians 11:7)

And this strategy is as old as the hills. Adam had a choice between obeying the Father from Whom all fatherhood gets its name or listening to his Eve, and he chose listening to Eve.

That's where it all started. And likely, where it will all end.

What did the first feminist give and abandon his wife to?

Greatly increased pain in childbirth, followed by death.


Technically, I believe the first feminist gave "death" to his wife, too. Now if that ain't love, I don't know what is.....

(j/k on the second part there....)

>>I believe the first feminist gave "death" to his wife, too.

Thanks, I added that.

Feminism among men is such a wolf in sheep's clothing. And this is how Satan operates.

"A husband doesn't want to do the hard work of silencing his wife in the church"

What exactly do you mean by this? I completely agree with your post, but I'm not sure if I completely understand what you mean here.

>>I'm not sure if I completely understand what you mean here.

I was simply thinking of how embarrassingly difficult it is to write (as the Apostle Paul did), let alone obey, this statement by the Holy Spirit: "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says" (1Corinthians 14:34).

Silence is required. When and where and to what degree are matters I'm not addressing. But the difficulty of application should not be justification for a complete abandonment of this Apostolic and Holy Spirit command.


Ah ok, thank you very much.

The first century context of 1 Cor 14:34-35 is that the phrase "the law says" means "the Oral Torah of the Pharisees says". And Paul repudiated the Pharisee's desire to silence women in 1 Cor 14:36 with the use of 2 Greek eta's which are expletives of repudiation (which he uses a lot in 1 Cor) and can be translated as "Pffft!" or "Bunk!".


You are so very right. It was a man, my professor and academic advisor at Denver Seminary, who introduced me to religious feminism. And it has been largely men in the so-called Evangelical seminaries which have sold themselves over to the heresy of the day.


Dear Don,

Two thousand years of consistent understanding of this text were not wrong, dear brother. It's called feminine deference of Eve to Adam and it flows from the Creation Order. We may have different ways of interpreting the nature of the silence here commanded, but that some sort of silence is commanded is unquestionable.

As Calvin says: "...women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs. It is the dictate of common sense, that female government is improper and unseemly.... authority to teach is not suitable to the station that a woman occupies, because, if she teaches, she presides over all the men, while it becomes her to be under subjection."

All ages of the Church have always understood this from the Genesis account and this command of 1Corinthians, and they were (and are) not wrong.

You are in grave error and need to repent.



You are taking the verses out of context with the result that you agree with Pharisees and their legalism which opposes Christian freedom.

I think you need to repent. That others might need to also repent is not relevant.

Dear Don,

Can't figure out what I've taken out of context, but I'm certain you are certain where and when. As far as I can tell, what I've written is simply boring Christian teaching across 2,000 years. If there's a place you think I'm original, do feel free to let me know. We may not agree, but it will be nice to read beyond your simply calling me a legalist (which in our antinomian day is really to say nothing).


You are taking the verses out of cultural context, which is deadly and easily results in legalism as we see in your case. This is what Jesus and Paul opposed and what I oppose also.



Dear Don John (from Virginia),

Several times, you've commented making nonsensical statements or contradicting Scripture with novel arguments. I've asked you here to explain yours comment above, but you chose not to in this new comment.

Thus, you are not to comment on this blog again until you send me, privately, a proper response to the request I made.


Tim Bayly

I recently re-read 1 Corinthians 11. I was particularly struck by verse 7 and have been reading every commentary I can find. My question is, what does woman is the glory of man really mean? Is it a blanket statement? All women are the glory of all men or is it more specific, speaking of husbands and wives?


I, with you, eagerly await what others may offer as explication of that phrase.  Having heard some answers, I point out the following:

In 1 Cor. 11:3-16, Paul is expounding the differences between males and females. For a helpful demonstration of this, please consult the citations of the NASB and the ESV of this passage contained here:


in a post by Pr. Tim 32 months after the blog post at the top of this page.

Consequently, whatever man, the glory of God means, it names something true about men which is not true about women.

Also, woman, the glory of man names something true about women which is not true about men.

So, even before we explain what Paul means by these phrases, we know from the entire context that man is the glory of God and woman is not; woman is the glory of man, and man is not.

Now, with that settled by the overall context of Paul's exposition, I (like you) am interested to learn what someone in our company thinks Paul means by these phrases.

Add new comment