In a world that praises sissy men and butch women, Andrew Tate’s rhetoric, on full display during a recent interview with Piers Morgan, appeals to many people. Despite the fact that his worldview is in shambles – the Muslim Tate is consumed with anti-Christ thinking, polyamory, and materialism – it is understandable that Tate’s ditch, shambles and all, is immensely more appealing to young men sitting in the other ditch. After all, from their seat in the current ditch of Western feminism and transgenderism, young men are repeatedly hit over the head by some trannie about how evil it is to be a man who likes the old-fashioned type of woman – you know, one with a vagina and breasts.
Tate calls on young men to take control of their lives and be financially successful, and he calls on women (or at least women that he wants to have relationships with) to submit to their men and stay at home, always being ready to support and serve the man. It doesn’t take long to see how polarizing Tate’s rhetoric is – some hate it (among whom are those happy to see young women get their breasts hacked off in the name of transgenderism) and some love it (among whom are young men who really like women’s breasts and would rather not see them dispensed them).
It is true that Tate stains the biblical model with some grotesque horseflies in the ointment, including fornication, sexually open relationships (polyamory) and depictions of women as unable to be productive (quite contra the Proverbs 31 woman). Taken as a whole, Tate’s vision of the world belongs in the ditch. To be clear: Do not follow Tate’s advice; follow the Law-Word of God.
But I will say this: Tate’s reflections, as contaminated as they are, do far more to reveal the folly of the other ditch than the reflections of feminists do to reveal Tate’s folly. And that is why Tate’s arguments are so appealing to young men (and some women) – they appeal to a man’s (good and natural) desire to lead a woman, and they appeal to a woman’s (good and natural) desire to please a man and be provided for by a man. (To what good and natural desire does feminism appeal to?) No healthy man is attracted to a loud, brash, unresponsive woman; but a woman who wants to be led by a man is very attractive. And no healthy woman is attracted to a weak, docile man; but a man who wants to lead a woman is very attractive.
Tate’s arguments are rather effective at destroying feminist strongholds and are far more robust and appealing to men than feminism and gender bending. Hence, I do not believe the arguments coming from the ditch of feminism (and its trans fruit) can defeat Tate’s rhetoric. (Imagine the laughter of an Islamic civilization looking on at a culture of boys with their penises lopped off and girls with no breasts – it is easy to see who wins that cultural fight.) Only the Law-Word of God can destroy the arguments in the ditches on both sides of the road. If Christian pastors fail to teach the biblical vision of a submissive wife who joyfully calls her husband “lord” and serves him in the home, many young men will be drawn to Tate and his critiques of feminism. If Christian pastors are afraid to enter the fray, fearful of being labelled as misogynistic for declaring that women belong in the home, submitting to their husbands as lord of the home (cf. Titus 2:5) then I believe Tate’s arguments will become more and more appealing to young men who long to kill the dragon and get the girl. If these young men have been taught a watered-down Christianity, one in which boys are taught become weak, compliant men who look for a woman who will demand “equality” of leadership in the marriage, then I don’t see how Tate’s ditch won’t keep filling up.
So, in what follows I want to call on everyone to get out of whatever ditch they are in. But in so doing, if you find that my rhetoric is similar to Tate’s at times, that is only because his ditch has less sludge than the other one does. Here’s a for instance: At least his ditch still thinks female breasts are very nice (for several reasons) and ought to remain, and to that I can say, “Amen.”
A Wife Belongs to Her Husband
This is clear from Scripture: “For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.” Hence, the old marriage ceremony asks the question: “Who is giving this woman to be married to this man?” The woman goes from being under the authority of her father, to being under the authority of her husband. She belongs to her husband – not as a piece of equipment or slave, but as his wife. She is, after all, his wife, not his neighbor’s wife. Thus, as the old vow goes, the wife is called to forsake all others, and cleave only unto her husband. The vow also calls for the bride’s obedience to her husband (“And will you love, honor, and obey him in joy and in sorrow…”) – obedience that is not required of the husband towards his wife. The husband is not to obey his wife, rather, he is called to “keep her in joy and in sorrow.”
A Wife’s Job Is to Please and Submit to Her Husband
It’s not her only job, but it is part of it. The Apostle Paul recognizes that the married woman is focused on “how to please her husband” (1 Cor. 7:34). Thus, she is not to deprive her husband of his conjugal rights (cf. 1 Cor. 7:3). Again, she is his wife, and he has a right to her body. Furthermore, her focus is to be on loving her husband (and children) and managing her husband’s home. This is why the Bible calls on older women to teach younger women “to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Titus 2:4-5). The “Proverbs 31” woman is highly productive and hard-working, but it is done in submission to her husband’s headship. “She looks well to the ways of her household” and does her husband “good, and not harm, all the days of her life.” She exudes joy in her role as a wife and mother and “the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.” She serves her husband’s interests (raising his children, making his home warm and welcoming) so that he might do what he is called to as a man (e.g., being known “in the gates”).
And, woefully misguided as he is in other areas, Tate is spot-on to recognize that a woman’s role in the home is powerful. Marriages undoubtedly suffer when the wife rejects her role as a homemaker and submissive helper to her husband, and instead grasps for feminist straws. Martin Luther said, “Let the wife make the husband glad to come home.” If more wives focused on that, instead of trying to change their husbands or find fulfillment outside the home, much pain could be avoided. Tate is also correct (and of course many Christians have said this long before Tate) to recognize the stupidity of condemning the role of the wife as a submissive homemaker while simultaneously encouraging a woman to submit herself to some corporate boss who will take advantage of her (sometimes sexually) in order to advance his company’s interests. “Oh, you chauvinistic pigs,” the feminists screech, “you want to provide for your woman and give her what she needs.”
The Bible presents a beautiful picture of a godly wife, a woman who submits to her husband as to the Lord (that’s why Sarah called Abraham “lord”) and keeps herself pure and beautiful for the continued pleasure of her faithful husband. The godly woman tells her groom, “I give myself to you, for your help, for your companionship, and for your pleasure. I will give you children and raise them. I ask you to lead me, protect me, provide for me, and be tender with me.” Only a perversion of God’s holy order would give us men who wouldn’t want a woman like that, and only a perversion of God’s holy order would give us women who don’t want to be that woman.
A woman like that is the desire of every warm-blooded man. And Andrew Tate knows it. He presents the picture of the beautiful damsel, waiting to be taken by the strong man, and he draws in young men who want that woman and want to be that man. But his great failure (among many) is that he does not tell men how to love this woman. He shows men the dragon, he shows men the damsel, but he does not show men what it means to be a man.
So, let’s complete the picture.
A Husband Belongs to His Wife
This is clear from Scripture: “the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” (1 Cor. 7:4). Hence, the old marriage vow calls on the groom to keep himself “only unto her.” His wife belongs to him and owes him respect and submission. She is called to serve him in the marriage and in the home. But he belongs to his wife, and he owes her faithfulness, provision, protection, tender care, and love. The beautiful thing about a Christian marriage is that each party seeks to outdo the other in showing honor and love to the other despite the shortcomings and failures of the other. A wife does not earn her husband’s love, and a husband does not earn his wife’s submission.
A Husband’s Job Is to Please and Lead His Wife
The Apostle Paul recognizes that the married man is focused on “how to please his wife” (1 Cor. 7:33). Thus, he is not to deprive his wife of her conjugal rights (cf. 1 Cor. 7:3). Biblically, however, a husband is not called to please his wife in the same way a wife is called to please her husband. The wife is to please her husband by acting like a woman. And the husband is to please his wife by acting like a man. The model man, however, is not Andrew Tate, but the man who follows Christ and his Word. The husband is to treat his wife with tender care (cf. 1 Pet. 3:7), recognizing that she is a weaker vessel and more emotionally fragile than he is. Once again, Tate gets this correct (at least in principle): women are highly emotional. Tate also correctly notes that this is actually a “super-power” of women, giving them the ability to nurture children in ways that men could never dream of. (There is a reason Mother’s Day card sales utterly destroy Father’s Day card sales.) So, the man is to use his strengths – stoicism, vision, stability – to lead his wife, the weaker vessel. He is to so love his wife that, as Martin Luther said, his wife is “sorry to see him leave” each morning.
A Husband Is to Provide for His Wife
Tate majors on this point, and it is sound, as far as it goes. However, Tate certainly appears to be a slave to the love of money and obsessed with being “rich.” He takes a good thing (the duty of husbands to provide for their wives) and abuses it. Be that as it may, the husband is called to provide for his wife, both materially and spiritually. This does not mean that he can get her everything she wants, but it does mean that his wife’s interests and desires should be central in his thinking. Unfortunately, the rise of socialist education centers (i.e., public schools) has pulled women from the home, suddenly making them “free” to work for someone other than their husbands. This has been to the detriment of American, and even many Christian, homes. Tate is correct that a woman working a 9-5 is going to have a very hard time keeping house and being ready to warmly receive her husband each evening when he arrives home. If a woman works eight hours a day for another man, how she be expected to be mentally and physically ready to please her husband after his long day at work? Just as a godly wife keeps house for her husband, so that he can do what God has called him to do, so too does a godly man provide for his wife, so that she can do what God has called her to do.
The Bible presents a robust picture of a godly husband, a man who leads his wife and loves her as Christ loves the church. A man who keeps himself only for his wife and rejoices with his bride, letting her breasts satisfy him at all times (cf. Prov. 5:18-19; see, even the Bible commends female breasts). He does not let his “fountains be dispersed abroad,” but rather drinks “water from [his] own cistern.” He utterly despises the forbidden woman, pornography, and sexual infidelity, and is rather intoxicated by his wife’s love – a task made immensely less challenging by a woman who is ready and willing to please her husband. The godly man tells his bride, “On my honor as a man, I pledge myself to faithfully love you, lead you, and protect you. Follow me, submit to me, and be responsive to me. Carry my children and I will nourish you so that you become a beautiful woman, wife, and mother.” Only a perversion of God’s holy order would give us women who don’t want to serve men like that, and only a perversion of God’s holy order would give us men who don’t want to be that man.
Women Will Be Women
The cries of feminist pundits notwithstanding, women were created to be led by men in the marriage covenant. And men were created to lead in the marriage covenant. Because women are inevitably drawn to follow, the feminist state (the lord of the feminist “home”) also calls on women to submit. And the fairer sex has freely followed. “Submit to me,” the state says to our young women, “and you will be given a corporate job, healthcare, and a sense of purpose. I can provide you with this, and I ask you to give me children – I will either empower you to butcher these children, conceived by the seed of some worthless man who cannot provide like I can, or at the very least, you will give me these children so you can keep being empowered to break free from the chains of the patriarchy.” In essence, the state says to a woman, “Give me your submission, and carry children for me, and I will turn you into a grotesque hag.”
Little wonder Tate’s arguments have some appeal in our world. But let us respond with the Law-Word of God and say to young men and young women, “We will show you a still more excellent way.”
Chris Hume is the host of The Lancaster Patriot Podcast and the author of several books, including Seven Statist Sins. He can be reached at info@thelancasterpatriot.com.
This is a needed take. Thank you.
Years ago as I read these passages noted above with my daughter I asked her what woman in her right mind would be reluctant to submit to a man who is doing his best to love her as Christ loves the Church.
My daughter was joined with her husband in Holy Matrimony before God and witnesses without applying for a state-issued marriage license. She has given us ten (10) grandchildren all of whom were and are being educated at home. We do have hope for the future for the truth will prevail.
Well written Chris.