The Curmudgeon’s Chronicle

God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Comprehensive Case for Complementarianism, Part 5

Posted on 07/14/2025 at The Curmudgeon’s Chronicle

Biblical Masculinity: Leading with Humility in a Confused Culture

Rising to prominence in 2022, Andrew Tate’s videos flooded X and TikTok, drawing millions of young men to his “alpha male” vision: real men dominate, flaunt wealth, and reject weakness. A former kickboxer turned influencer, Tate promotes male supremacy, secular patriarchy, and a lifestyle of fast cars and private jets, resonating in a culture grappling with gender roles. His message faces backlash – banned from major platforms for misogyny, he navigates legal battles in Romania, the UK, and the US over serious allegations, which he denies. Some Christians, swayed by cultural feminism, view his emphasis on male strength as a step toward biblical roles, though overly extreme, while others see his bravado as contrary to Scripture’s call to sacrificial love (Ephesians 5:25). Amid this confusion, young men seek true manhood. This fifth article in our 12-part series explores biblical masculinity – humble, Christlike leadership rooted in God’s design (Genesis 2, Mark 10). What does it mean to be a godly man today? Let’s test Tate’s influence against the Bible’s timeless wisdom.

Biblical Masculinity: Core Teachings and Strengths

Scripture offers a clear vision for masculinity, rooted in creation and fulfilled in Christ. In Genesis 2:15-23, God forms the man (הָאָדָם, hā-ʾādām, the man) to “dress and keep” the garden (2:15), name animals (2:19-20), and lead alongside Eve, his עֵזֶר (ezer, helper, 2:18). As Article 2 showed, hā-ʾādām denotes a male charged with responsibility, not superiority, emphasizing stewardship and care. This foundation shapes God’s design: men lead humbly, reflecting His image (Genesis 1:27).

The New Testament builds on this. Ephesians 5:25 commands, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”. Men are called to sacrificial leadership, mirroring Christ’s self-giving love, not domination. In 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Paul outlines elder qualifications – reserved for men (more on that later) – emphasizing humility, sobriety, and godliness. Mark 10:42-45 cements this: “The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many”. Jesus, the ultimate man, models servanthood, not supremacy.

This vision’s strengths are compelling. Biblical masculinity gives men purpose: to lead in homes (Ephesians 5:25), churches (1 Timothy 3:2), and society (Genesis 2:15) with strength tempered by humility. It rejects cultural extremes – Tate’s aggression and egalitarianism’s role erasure – while honoring women as “joint heirs” (1 Peter 3:7). Aimee Byrd rightly critiques domineering masculinity, though her broader views differ from biblical complementarianism. Amid a culture adrift, Scripture’s clarity anchors men in God’s design, offering identity and calling.

Cultural and Egalitarian Challenges: Weaknesses in Competing Views

Yet, competing visions muddy the waters. Andrew Tate’s “alpha male” ideology, surging since 2022, draws young men with promises of power. His secular patriarchy – male supremacy, conspicuous wealth, and misogyny – appeals to those feeling disenfranchised in a shifting economy and culture. Tate’s rhetoric, like dismissing women’s autonomy, thrives on X, where his followers amplify “hustle culture” and dominance. But this vision crumbles under scrutiny. Mark 10:45’s call to serve, not rule, exposes Tate’s ego-driven model as hollow, what Douglas Wilson calls “counterfeit masculinity.”

Equally troubling is the “Biblical Patriarchy” movement, which claims to restore God’s design for gender roles but distorts Scripture’s vision. Emerging in the 1970s–1990s, this movement reacted to feminism’s rise and what it saw as “soft” complementarianism – evangelicalism’s attempt to balance male leadership with equality in dignity. Figures like Bill Gothard, with his “chain of command” teachings, and Mary Pride, in The Way Home (1985), laid its groundwork, while Douglas Phillips’ Vision Forum formalized it with the “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” (2002). These cast husbands as “prophets, priests, and kings,” extending authority to trivial matters, such as a husband demanding his wife wear a specific color daily to assert control. On X in 2022–2023, the movement gained traction alongside Andrew Tate’s secular “alpha male” rhetoric, with some pastors excusing Tate’s dominance as a flawed step toward male leadership.

Yet this vision also falters biblically. Its hermeneutic leans on Old Testament patriarchal narratives (e.g., Abraham, Job) as prescriptive, ignoring their cultural context and sinfulness (e.g., polygamy). Reformation 21 (2016) notes, “Ecclesiology was not fully developed in the Patriarchal era,” and Jesus’ call to servanthood in Mark 10:42–45 redefines leadership. Furthermore, the movement’s view of husbands as near-absolute “kings” creates a theological inconsistency. While it rightly limits pastoral authority – seeing pastors as under-shepherds under Christ, the chief shepherd (1 Peter 5:4) – it treats husbands’ authority as almost divine, akin to Christ’s headship over the church (Ephesians 5:23). Thomas Schreiner notes in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that both roles are derivative, limited by Christ’s ultimate authority (1 Corinthians 11:3), and defined by sacrificial love, not control. Andreas Köstenberger echoes this, arguing that human authority, whether in home or church, points to Christ’s headship without equaling it.

By over-elevating husbands to “prophet, priest, and king,” Biblical Patriarchy misreads Ephesians 5:21–25, distorting the husband’s headship into authoritarian control rather than the sacrificial, servant-leadership modeled by Christ. The movement’s overreach risks harm. Vision Forum’s 2013 collapse, after Douglas Phillips’ scandal, exposed how unchecked male authority can enable abuse. Rachel Miller’s 2015 critique warns of its “soul-numbing dangers,” echoing Aimee Byrd’s concerns about domineering masculinity. Complementarianism, not Biblical Patriarchy, is true biblical patriarchy: leadership rooted in Genesis 2:15’s stewardship and Ephesians 5:25’s sacrifice, not authoritarian control. By blending Tate’s bravado with evangelical rhetoric, the movement distorts God’s design, offering a counterfeit to Christ’s humble strength.

Egalitarianism offers another challenge. Scholars like Ronald Pierce and Rebecca Groothuis, in Discovering Biblical Equality, argue Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” – eliminates distinct male roles, advocating that “…one must argue that the new creation has brought in the time when the Spirit’s gifting (the Spirit who is responsible for ushering in the new order) should precede roles and structures, which are only a carryover from the old order that is passing away.” William Webb’s “redemptive-movement hermeneutic,” which seeks to engage a text’s “redemptive spirit” to extend its contemporary application beyond its original cultural framing, argues in Slaves, Women & Homosexuals that Ephesians 5:23’s headship is cultural, not universal, promoting fluid masculinity. These views resonate with a culture valuing equality, aiming to free men and women from rigid gender expectations.

But egalitarianism falters biblically. As Article 4 argued, Galatians 3:28 addresses salvation equality, not role sameness. Ephesians 5:23 states, “The husband is the head (κεφαλή, kephalē, head) of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church”. Egalitarians interpret κεφαλή as “source,” but BDAG defines it as “authority” in this context, supported by 1 Corinthians 11:3. Genesis 2:15’s charge to Adam to lead is pre-Fall, universal, not cultural. Egalitarianism’s fluidity, while rejecting Tate’s extremes, risks leaving men without a clear calling, unlike complementarianism’s grounded purpose, as we will explore.

Tate’s selfishness, Biblical Patriarchy’s overreach, and egalitarianism’s vagueness fail. Can men lead humbly without distinct roles? Scripture suggests roles rooted in creation provide the clarity Tate’s followers crave, but with Christ’s heart, not his hubris.

Biblical Masculinity’s Faithful Path

Complementarianism offers a robust vision of Biblical masculinity, weaving Scripture’s threads into a cohesive call for men to lead as servants. Genesis 2:15’s charge to steward creation, Ephesians 5:25’s model of sacrificial headship in marriage, and 1 Timothy 3:1-7’s qualifications for eldership in the church collectively shape men to lead with humility, not dominance. This reflects the gospel – Ephesians 5:32 ties a husband’s sacrificial love to Christ’s devotion to the church, a depth Tate’s self-interest and egalitarianism’s role erasure miss.

Consider Boaz in the Book of Ruth, a model of biblical masculinity. As a “mighty man of wealth” (Ruth 2:1), Boaz wielded influence yet led with humility and sacrifice. He protected Ruth, a vulnerable foreigner, ensuring her safety while gleaning (Ruth 2:9) and providing generously beyond obligation (Ruth 2:15-16). His redemption of Ruth and Naomi’s inheritance (Ruth 4:9-10) reflects Ephesians 5:25’s sacrificial love, mirroring Christ’s care for the church. Unlike Tate’s self-serving dominance or Biblical Patriarchy’s authoritarian control, Boaz’s strength served others, fulfilling Genesis 2:15’s call to steward and protect. His leadership, rooted in godliness, honored God’s design, showing men today how to lead with compassion, not coercion.

Schreiner affirms this in marriage: “Correspondingly, the husband’s loving leadership is not a reflection of a patriarchal society but is intended to portray Christ’s loving and saving work for his church. The institution of marriage and the responsibilities of husbands and wives within it are not culturally limited but are God’s transcendent intention for all marriages for all time, since all marriages should reflect Christ’s love for the church and the church’s submission to Christ.” This sacrificial leadership extends beyond marriage, informing men’s roles in family, church, and society as Christlike servants.

We must acknowledge abuses. Tate’s secular patriarchy, with its domineering edge, mirrors misuses of headship that Aimee Byrd critiques. Some Christians, reacting to feminism, flirt with Tate’s ideas or Biblical Patriarchy’s authoritarianism, mistaking strength for godliness. But Scripture corrects this. Mark 10:45 demands service: “Whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister”. 1 Peter 3:7 commands husbands to honor wives as “joint heirs,” not subordinates. Biblical masculinity rejects authoritarianism, calling men to love like Christ.

In a culture swayed by Tate’s bravado, Biblical Patriarchy’s control, or egalitarianism’s ambiguity, complementarianism shines. It equips men to lead with purpose – protecting (Genesis 2:15), providing (1 Timothy 5:8), and pastoring families (Ephesians 6:4) – while grounded in humility. Wilson’s call to raise “future men” who blend strength and sacrifice captures this: lead like Christ, not culture [4]. This path offers clarity and joy, aligning with God’s design.

Practical Takeaways: Embodying Godly Manhood

How can men live this out? First, study Scripture diligently. Examine Genesis 2, Ephesians 5, and Mark 10. Second, pursue humility. Model Christ’s service (Mark 10:45), rejecting Tate’s dominance and Biblical Patriarchy’s control as empty. Third, lead sacrificially: husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25), like Boaz cared for Ruth (Ruth 2:9); fathers, nurture your children in the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). Fourth, engage egalitarians graciously. Listen to their concerns about equality, but anchor discussions in creation’s design (Genesis 2:15), as Article 4 modeled. Finally, churches must teach biblical masculinity clearly, equipping men to lead humbly, not like Tate’s “alpha” caricature or Biblical Patriarchy’s authoritarianism. Reflect: How can men lead humbly in a confused culture? Share your thoughts below.

Conclusion: Anchored in God’s Design

Andrew Tate’s “alpha male” vision, the Biblical Patriarchy movement’s domineering overreach, and egalitarianism’s fluid roles promise clarity but deliver confusion. Tate’s bravado, rooted in ego, and egalitarianism’s rejection of distinct roles falter against Scripture’s witness. Biblical Patriarchy, despite claiming biblical roots, distorts God’s design with a modern, authoritarian hermeneutic. Biblical masculinity – humble, sacrificial leadership (Genesis 2:15, Ephesians 5:25) – offers men purpose, reflecting the gospel’s beauty (Ephesians 5:32). Complementarianism, as true biblical patriarchy, equips men to lead like Christ, serving, not dominating, in a culture adrift. Our next article will explore biblical femininity, complementing this vision with women’s God-given call. What challenges do you face in pursuing godly manhood? Join the conversation, and let’s study Scripture together, praying for wisdom to reflect Christ’s love.