Thoughts on “Masculine Christianity”. Something of a Review.

 

(Updated 30 July 2025)

Zachary Garris is pastor of Bryce Ave Presbyterian Church (PCA) in White Rock, New Mexico. In 2020 he published the 312-page paperback, "Masculine Christianity" with Reformation Zion Publishing. The following is something of a review.

To begin, I appreciate what seems to be Garris’s intent – the desire to confirm that men are to be men (a good thing) and women are to be women (a good thing), and reaffirm men taking leadership in their homes and churches, etc. It’s good for women to be women and men to be men. With this, I deeply appreciate his push against pornography and men seeking to ‘conquer’ women by means of sex (164-5).

 

Second, our denomination (the Presbyterian Church in America) is complementarian, and complementarianism is a spectrum. On one side is the egalitarian, and if you fly off at that end you’ll be with the egalitarian-ists. The other side is patriarchal, and if you fly off that end you’ll be with the patriarchal-ists. The "ists" are those who think they're on the side of the angels, as it were. They're right and all others are terribly wrong. Two-thirds or more of our denomination are on the patriarchal side of complementarianism, without falling into the "ists." Which means, we would feel comfortable with much of what Garris says he is promoting: men leading, etc.

 

Further, yes, our sex and sexual/gender distinctions are grounded in creation, and I would go further. In some way, they are grounded in the economic Trinity (not the ontological Trinity). The economic Trinity is the outworking of the Trinity’s actions. To put it in brief, the Father and Son are of the same essence, equal in power and glory, and yet the Son submits to the Father for us and our salvation. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of the same essence, equal in power and glory, yet the Spirit submits to the Father and Son for us and our salvation. By the way, Paul roots the headship of men, and submission of their wives, in the economic Trinity in 1 Corinthians 11:2-3.

 

Therefore, before I jump in, let me use an analogy. You’re driving your car, and you can feel it pull to the right just enough that you sense something is wrong. But it’s later you start noticing the outside tread on your front wheels going bald. Now you know something is off, even though the car can still run. Then you start to notice, as you chug along down the road that it pulls and bounces a little. Yep, something is really off here, and sure enough you start to notice bald patches forming on one of your tires. The car still runs and will get you somewhere, but it’s definitely out of alignment. If you keep pushing on, sooner or later your tires will get down to the metal radial cords under the rubber, and pop, leaving you stranded on the side of the road. In a similar way, “Masculine Christianity” is out of alignment, though it can still travel down the road toward the right destination. But on down the road the tires will show the wear, get down to the radials, and finally pop, leaving folks stranded on the side of the road.

 

There are several subjects I would differ with in the book. Such as his evil boogeyman, feminism, being the “major culprit in this societal decline” (pg. 2). It’s far bigger than that, and more multifaceted. It’s too easy to point at one “single cause” and interpret it as **the** cause of all our woes. But, for the sake of brevity I will only focus on three or four areas that strike me as problematic or downright troublesome.

 

First, the whole section titled “Effeminate Men Will Not Enter the Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) is debatable and worrisome (especially pages 35-44). First, the passage is clearly about the active and passive side of homosexual behavior (as we used to say, the AC/DC, or the pitcher-catcher sides). But he takes one word (malakoi) and begins to wring it to get every last ounce of moisture out of it he can, going well beyond its context and meaning in context. Therefore, he makes “softness” in a man a matter of salvation (the title of the section tells you he is making it a matter of salvation), without describing, biblically, what qualities he is especially pointing at. Notwithstanding his broad assertions, he then authoritatively declares, “therefore, we conclude that effeminate men – and not just homosexuals – will be excluded from the kingdom of God. Christian men must act like men and forsake soft behavior and effeminacy” (pg. 40). And then, he promotes real masculinity. And all he can get to, regarding real masculinity, is that masculinity is authoritative (hold that thought, I’m coming back to it at the end of this post), and real masculinity eschews men being nice, because that is being “soft” (pg. 41). And a church that uses grape juice in communion is effeminate, too (pg. 44)… Now, follow the logic here, he is implying that churches that use the fruit of the vine (unfermented) rather than fruit of the vine (fermented) are out of the kingdom (something he will say more about later in pages 235-236). Wow.

 

Yes, the KJV, NASB and others translate malakoi as effeminate, but the context makes it quite clear what Paul means in using this word. As Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich put it in their Greek lexicon, “of pers(ons) Soft, effeminate, esp(ecially) of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually” (pg. 489). Even Thayer in his lexicon says, “Like Lat(in) Mollis, metaph(aphorically) and in a bad sense effeminate, of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness, 1 Co. vi.9” (pg. 387). The context is king.

 

What I see he’s done is (misusing a biblical passage) to make “effeminacy” a heinous crime – but he actually leaves out the details, beyond “softness”. What exactly does it look like? Is a boy who is surrounded by girls most of his day in a home full of sisters and homeschooled by a mother, and if he picks up some of their mannerisms and traits, maybe even being more of a tent-dweller like Jacob, rather than an outdoorsman like Esau – is he effeminate? I have met many men who were raised in that situation, who have far more feminine mannerisms than I think healthy, and yet they have often “manned up” when necessary. That whole section leaves a large, gaping, dark hole just waiting to be filled in by whomever (by society, culture, Garris’s own prejudices, an idealogue, etc.). And then society, culture, personal prejudice or ideologues can point a finger at others they may feel are “girlie-men” (to quote Arnold Schwarzenegger), so they can damn them to hell, and whip the rest of their followers/listeners/readers into their own image (I am speaking from loads of experience here).

 

Second, when he gets to 1 Timothy 2:8-15 he ends up going where I had hoped he wouldn’t. He blames Eve for the fall by adding to Paul’s words, in the section titled “The Significance of Eve’s Deception” (pg. 182-185). Especially “women are more prone to deception than men due to their differing natures and proclivities, including that God designed women to follow, not lead” (185). He puts this proneness to being deceived on her shoulders elsewhere, “Yet Paul seems to indicate that women are more prone to deception because God designed women to follow…” (233). Just 10 minutes on social media will blow this out of the water. Men and women on the right and the left, posting and sharing fake news reports, conspiracy theories, AI-generated faked pictures/videos and more seem to make that assertion suspicious. Spend some time in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, where whole populations (men and women) are deceived because “they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” His assertion clearly makes women the problem. That is a problem.

 

Of course, what he completely dismisses (or dodges) is that though Eve was deceived, it was Adam – who was not deceived (let this sink in) – who was with the woman while she was being deceived. God had given the command directly to him (Genesis 3:6 and 17). Isn’t that Paul’s reasoning for males being leaders – in Adam we men weren’t deceived, we failed. And now it’s time for men to man-up and be the leaders we were meant to be. In other words, the blame is “ours” as men, not Eve’s as woman. Woman is not the problem. Sin is!

 

As I will put it this Sunday in my sermon (3 August 2025), “God is the first speaker and revealer (Genesis 1), and Adam and Eve are the first receivers of speech and revelation. But speech was perverted and mangled (1) as the serpent misused words; (2) Eve let misused words deceive her; and (3) Adam tolerated misused words to deceive his wife. Garris leaves us standing with Adam, shifting the blame to the woman – and thus to God, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” (Genesis 3:12). But we’re intended to grow up, man-up, and take our licks (as we used to say).

 

Third, on pages 260-262, as he is interacting with Deuteronomy 22:5, he ends up straying off the path into the poison ivy at the side of the trial. All of the Hebrew words sound impressive, but knowing Hebrew as well as Garris does, it doesn’t take long to realize he is squeezing the orange rind hoping lime juice will come out. The fact the geber is used in both halves of the verse, and both halves of the verse are dealing with apparel, explains how to translate both parts of that verse into English. Further, the keli (in the keli-geber ‘man’s garments’) can mean a host of things such as musical instruments, garments, utensils, articles, vessels, etc. The context tells the team of translators how to translate that word. And a lone pastor, who was taught in Hebrew class in seminary, “If in your translation work you find a novel translation that no one else has found, or think your translation is better than all the others done by teams of translators, you’re wrong” (all of my Greek and Hebrew Professors at RTS-Jackson hammered that into our heads decades ago), should know better. The context is clearly a woman’s cloak and a man’s garment.

 

Since most people don’t know Hebrew, here is an easy way to put it: why does no reputable translation (from the KJV, to ASV, to NASB, to ESV, etc.) ever translate a man’s garments as combat gear?????? Why? Because the clear parallel reasons of both sides of Deuteronomy 22:5 tell the translators what to bring out from the Hebrew to the English. First, I also do not think women should be in combat for creational reasons, but the author’s conclusions are another example where the author’s agenda-driven tail is wagging the dog. Second, this verse is clearly about cross-dressing, and his approach (that can easily be shot to pieces) now might well make the genuine prohibition in this verse look suspicious. He is sabotaging the clear meaning of the verse to get what he wants out of it.

 

Here's the final note. By the author constantly emphasizing man’s authority gives me the sense there is some kind of problem lying behind the book. First, Paul really only mentions his own authority and Apostolic rights in only a few cases, to show he doesn’t exercise his right (1 Corinthians 8-10), nor does he flex his Jesus-given authority (2 Corinthians 1:24; 10:8; 13:10). Instead, he persuades, points, implores, loves. Second, something I learned in the military long ago during my 20 years of active duty: when a Sergeant or Officer has to talk about their authority, claiming a right to their authority, and you ‘best obey because I outrank you,’ etc. then that is almost always an indication of failed leadership. There is a problem there. The same in the book. More I can say, but I’ll leave it at that.

 

I end with this. For all that he says about women in civil society, I ask: so what? I don’t mean that flippantly. I really do mean, what can you do about it? In the end, not much. So, what do you do? You start in your family working on what it means for your daughters to be godly women and sons to be godly men. But, so that you don’t fall into a moralistic, legalistic trap or lead them into one, you give biblical principles to them – rather than a load of specifics (and always circle back to the gospel!). You teach them to think biblically and apply that biblical wisdom where they are in life. But you recognize you don’t live in a perfect nation. Instead, you live more in Jeremiah 29:1-14 and Daniel chapters 1-6. You live in Babylonian exile where God has sent us, and you and I have no control of the direction of this country or leaders or societal mores. So, you and your family, engaged in society and neighborhoods and relationships, plod along in sincerity and godly simplicity, and not by earthly wisdom (2 Corinthians 1:12). You love your brothers and sisters actively, aspire to live quietly, mind your own affairs, and work with your hands so that you can walk properly before outsiders and not be dependent on anyone (1 Thessalonians 4:9-12).

 

And as for women being in politics, etc., well, you will have to make some messy decisions every election cycle, because it’s a messy world. And you will have to trust that justification covers that, too.

 

I simply could not recommend this book to anyone, in good conscience.