All Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible 1995 Ed. (NASB95) published by The Lockman Foundation

There are several critical areas of Christian thinking and living that are corrupted among western Christians today, due to worldly traditions, false teachings and deceptions, compromise, and misunderstandings of Scripture. While the issues of Scripture’s sufficiency, and the authority of apostolic practices are more important in general, there’s barely any other issue that comes close to causing so much damage as the confusion of gender roles. Largely, western evangelical Christians have capitulated to the world’s egalitarian views of men and women in almost every area of life, and not least in how they serve in the context of Christ’s body. If you’ll take a short survey of the most popular and well-known Christian books on the market, you’ll soon find that a large proportion of the Bible-teaching or devotional books were written by women. Just take a look at prominent blogger Tim Challies’ recent article, “New and Notable Christian Books of 2025”. It’s shocking that such an otherwise faithful man of God would endorse such a book as The Appearing of God Our Savior: A Theology of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus by Claire Smith and Meet Me in the Bible series by Colleen Searcy. Although you’re probably asking, “what’s the big deal?,” Scripture gives no warrant to women teaching the Bible to a general audience, and certainly not in a public medium like widely-available books. We’ll explore the indirect reasons for this in this study.

However, what’s the worst travesty of our common “Christian” views of men and women is the horrible negligence of Christian men to see themselves as the leaders of their households, their organizations, and their churches, and their failure to act as the leaders. Let me give you a few examples of how western Christian men have bowed down to the effeminacy of our culture, and given up their proper place as the main authorities and managers of their communities. I’ll start from the most blatant compromises to those which are most subtle. First, think of how many local assemblies permit women to teach and exercise authority over men, which Scripture clearly prohibits (1 Tim. 2:12). How many churches do you know of in which women fill the roles of Bible teachers, committee leaders, and public speakers? Where are the men who are supposed to be teaching Bible studies, leading these committees, and speaking in the weekly assembly?

Second, where are the male announcement leaders, song leaders, and heads of church groups? They are the ones that need to be standing up and leading! Instead, we often see women filling these roles. But Paul the apostle would never have this go on in the assemblies that he oversaw. Just read what he writes in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

“. . . 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 . . . for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”

It should go without saying that Paul isn’t giving a blanket prohibition from all speaking by women, but of all public speaking to the whole congregation. Why? Clearly, because speaking publicly contradicts the stance of being “subject” to their husbands and male leaders. He implies this by saying that instead of speaking, women are to “subject themselves”. Why does he use the Law to support this command, and in a letter to a Gentile audience at that? Because the Law expressed God’s general will toward gender relations in its commands on that subject. And the Law said that women were to subject themselves to their husbands, and to the male leaders of their communities. From the beginning of the Bible, God’s Word teaches that men are the leaders of society, since Adam was the leader of Eve. However, this order of leadership goes even deeper than simply an arbitrary hierarchy of men over women. Rather, the leadership and authority of men over women is a reflection of God’s trinitarian nature. Paul explains this a few chapters before this last passage, in chapter 11.

In this study, I want to use 1 Corinthians 11 as our jumping-off point, and show you the glorious and harmonious role that God has given to men in their relationships with women, and how this should be generally carried out in marriage, the body of Christ, and society.

Man is the Head of a Woman

To preface this study, I’ll give you a brief concession about the nature of Christian men and women. In their natures, both men and women are equally human. There’s nothing less human about women, and there’s no way that women are less important or valuable than men. It only appears that way when many mistaken Christians hear about what’s called “patriarchy” because they don’t understand and appreciate the harmonious relationship between the authority and headship of men alongside the submission and helpful support of women. This isn’t a matter of importance, but of God-given roles, since both genders are essential to the right functioning of families, churches, and society in general. Further, in Jesus, both men and women are equal children of God, blessed sons of God, and therefore heirs of all that belongs to Jesus, including the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, eternal life, spiritual gifts, and a perfect standing with God the Father.

Having conceded all this, we’ve so corrupted our views toward the roles of men and women by giving masculine roles to women, and feminine roles to men, that we’ve blurred the functional distinctions between the two sexes, thus marring the display of God’s character that He wants to show through us. And Paul lays this fundamental basis for man’s headship over women in 1 Corinthians 11:3, which says,

“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”

In these three relationships, Paul shows us that men’s authority over women is simply a reflection of the authority structure that exists between God the Father and the Son. First, however, Jesus “Christ” “is the head of every man”. Paul starts with the authority of Jesus. His meaning is that all Christian people (including women) are in a subordinate relationship to Jesus. But then comes what’s most relevant. Second, men are the heads of women. In context, he’s specifically referring to husbands serving as the heads of their wives. Yet, as we’ll see, this relationship is typical of the relationship that men and women have in all spheres of life. And finally, this headship and subordination is based on God the Father’s headship over Jesus. Hence, just as the Father has the authority to issue commands to Jesus, and receive His obedience, so also husbands have this command-authority, and ought to receive the submissive obedience of their wives.

But Paul doesn’t stop with this picture of God’s nature in his explanation of the proper relationship between men and women. Later on in this passage (which is the one about head coverings), He also bases the headship of men on God’s original order for men and women at creation.

In verses 7-9, Paul elaborates the foundational reasoning for this head and body relationship between men and women:

“For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.”

In God’s mind, there’s an integral connection of the order in which men and women were created to the roles that they fill in their relationships. We’ll begin in the middle of this passage, since that serves as the basis for Paul’s distinction between man’s imaging of God, and women’s imaging of man. Note that he points out that “woman” “originated” from “man,” and not the other way around. Then, he expresses it in terms of who was created for whom. He states that the first woman was created for the first man, and not the other way around. That is, from the beginning, women were meant to help and support the man’s role. This clearly implies that Adam’s, and all men’s, role in the purpose for humanity takes precedence over women’s role. Why? Because Adam was made first. Remember that it was a while before Eve was created in the Garden. Before she was even made, God presented Adam with every animal, which was an effort to offer him a partner that would harmoniously help him in his task to tend the garden, and to rule the earth and its creatures. It was only after Adam realized that none of the animals would be able to complete what he lacked that God initiated the creative process for Eve by taking a part of Adam, and turning it into a woman. And according to Paul, this original purpose of Eve has the basic meaning of tailoring the specific way in which women display God’s image. For he makes a clear distinction between the “image” or “glory” that man manifests as a male, and the “glory” that woman manifests as a female (v. 7). You can tell this from the fact that he uses the word, “but”, to contrast men’s relationship to the “glory of God”, and women’s relationship to “the glory of man”. This is a perplexing statement, since it seems like Paul might be saying that women don’t bear God’s image, while men do. However, this would contradict what Genesis says in the statement “in the image of God he created them”.

So what does Paul mean by this? If you simply take this verse at face value, Paul is saying that there’s a different way in which men and women image God. He begins by asserting that “man,” or males, are “the image and glory of God”. This means that in a direct and unmediated sense, men bear God’s image, since He created the man first, and from the dust. On the other hand, women are “the glory of man”. In a similar way in which God created man directly from the dust of the ground, so He also created the woman indirectly from an existing human being (from Adam’s rib). Thus, women don’t bear God’s image directly, but insofar as they bear man’s image. The main theological implication of this is that men are primary bearers of God’s image, and the corporate imaging of God through human society is to be carried out under their leadership, with the support and help of women who bear man’s image – and therefore bear God’s image.

Again, Paul’s support for this teaching is that woman originated from man (v. 8). And this was done so that man would have a helper and supporter in woman (v. 9).

The implications from this teaching for the order and function of families, communities, and the body of Christ are massive. Paul is laying heavy emphasis on men’s responsibility to be the leaders in putting God’s character and nature on display as His image-bearers. Under their leadership then, women are to follow, and participate in the communal imaging of God. And there’s no greater sphere in which God is imaged and glorified than through the body of Jesus, the Assembly (aka “church”). Therefore, it’s essential that men serve as the leaders, teachers, and protectors among the community of God’s people.

Second, it follows from this that in marriage, which is the second fullest earthly manifestation of God’s nature, husbands should act as the heads and leaders of their wives. Let me hopefully remind you of what Paul says about this in Ephesians 5:23-24:

“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”

Finally, if the distinct ways in which men and women image God in society incorporates the hierarchical roles they serve for each other, then it follows that even in wider society, men should be leaders, and women should be followers. And this simply aligns with the pattern we see all throughout Scripture, as well as non-biblical history. Almost all the leaders both in the Old and New Testaments are men. So we see that male leadership and headship is natural, godly, and essential for rightly imaging God, and glorifying Him. But what are some specific applications of these truths for Christian men in western society?

Brothers, You Need to Stand Up as Men to Lead

Much could be said, and much has been said regarding the specific ways in which Christian men need to repent of their effeminacy, complacency, laziness, and selfishness, and diligently fulfill the masculine calling that the Lord has given us in our families, our fellowships, and in society. But let me offer a few of my own to encourage and challenge you.

The most crucial, but often most overlooked, facet of manly leadership in marriage, the church, and organizations, is simply the action of men making decisions for the women and men under their leadership. If you’re a man, it’s most likely that there is someone following you, and looking to you for guidance, teaching, and wisdom. If this is the case, it’s imperative that you’re able and eager to make the final decision on major decisions for your followers. Obviously, this requires you to understand God’s will, and to be increasingly obeying it yourself. But it also requires you to take responsibility for the well-being and growth of those under your leadership. To do this, you must be able to make decisions, and to persuade your followers of the goodness and rightness of those decisions.

Coming as a close second to decision-making is the masculine role of presenting such decisions to communities, like your family, church, or business. As men, we are called not only to decide on things, but to persuade and instruct people about those decisions. This is tightly connected to the responsibility of men being the ones presenting public declarations of the decisions of church bodies in the weekly assembly, and other meetings. It shouldn’t be women who display the authority and leadership of God and the Lord Jesus through publicly declaring the decisions of the fellowship, but men. Just as Paul writes, women shouldn’t be the ones publicly speaking authoritatively in Christian gatherings, but men.

Third, it logically follows from these first two areas of masculine leadership that it must be men who teach truth and wisdom to groups of believers (or unbelievers). To go back to what has already been examined, this follows from God’s created order of humanity. Because Adam was the first one created, and the leader of Eve, he was therefore the teacher and guide of Eve. So it should be among God’s people, and in society at large. All speaking on Scripture’s behalf to mixed groups of people ought to be executed by men.

In conclusion, the effeminacy and egalitarianism of the majority of western evangelical Christianity can only be fought against if we Christian men understand our God-given masculine roles, and diligently seek to fulfill them in the face of fierce opposition. The reform of godly womanhood and femininity needs to start with the restoration of, and refocusing on, biblical masculinity and patriarchy. And this can’t be limited only to those spheres in which we’re comfortable. We must take a stand on God’s Word, and boldly live out the Christ-exalting manly leadership, headship, teaching, and authority that the Lord has gifted us with. If we wish to see revival and reformation in western Christianity, this is an issue we must rethink and resolve zealously, lovingly, and courageously. Rise up, O men of God!