As we have said many times here, the so-called 'Red Pill' or 'Game' philosophy that dominates the Manosphere is essentially a cult, that is hostile both to Christian and to traditionally Conservative values, although its proponents claim it a purified version of both. They routinely attack mainstream Christianity as a feminized religion; while offering their cult as an alternative.
We often point out that one of the main flaws in the Red Pill argument is that they can never point to a time or place where Christianity supposedly deviated from the point to which they hope to 'restore' it. A Game guru who blogs under the name Dalrock has made an attempt at this, citing an obscure Scottish writer named Callum Brown. His article is titled The Roots of Modern Christian Wife-Worship, for those who care to read it. His basic is standard Game fare: that the Church has become gynocentric and that Christian husbands are taught to submit to their wives, etc.
First of all, Callum Brown is a self-described Postmodernist and empiricist historian, which ought to discredit him as a source immediately. Postmodernist academics reject all traditional academic paradigms, including their research methods. Empirical History is a badly-flawed research method that relies more interpreting history through contemporary opinions and experiences, rather than from objective data and comprehensive sources. The problem with the Empirical Method is that it is extremely superficial and reductionist. For example, Brown once published a book titled Becoming Atheist in which he extrapolated from interviews with 80 atheists in 18 countries a complete sociological paradigm supposedly explaining the decline of religion in the West. Obviously a method like this is simply guesswork; and one could just as easily interview 80 converted Christians to come to the opposite conclusion.
Dalrock falls into the same fallacy by comparing some of Brown's observations in his book The Death of Christian Britain to some of Dalrock's own prejudices against American Christianity. The obvious problem is the enormous differences between Brown's observations of 19th Century Britain and the realities of 21st Century American Christianity. The not-so-obvious (to the Red Pills, anyway) problem is that Brown's observations are based wholly on 19th Century Christian art and other media presentations that reflected a shift in how women were portrayed. These changes were reflections of the attitudes of popular culture and had nothing to do with church policy.
Some statements that Dalrock quotes from Brown are completely wrong anyway, such as: "Nowhere did evangelical literature have such an influence in the public domain, including the 'secular' domain as in its demonization of men," referring to literature from the late 19th-early 20th Centuries. Much more typical of that period were virtuous heroines being romanced or rescued by strong and daring men; but that fact is politically incorrect for both Postmodernists and Game Cultists.
Dalrock is especially upset with a particular literary plot of the period that he claims is being replicated in the modern Church. That has to do with virtuous wives who redeem and reform a fallen husband---which is actually just a variation of the knight-and-damsel theme. The Game Cultists hate the latter theme for the same reason that Feminists hate the former. It doesn't fit into the gender-supremacist theories that both promote.
Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that God loves both genders equally, and that there are virtues specific to each. The reason that the above-mentioned plots are so common in fiction is because they are universally recognized as virtuous behaviors. But to the Gamers, this constitutes 'wife-worship'. This is just another of their blasphemies and another pretext to attack mainstream Christians, which Dalrock does, using the article to attack Rev. Glenn Stanton and others.
There was never a time when the Church taught wife-worship or became feminized. The mythology that it has is simply a cultish attack on religion: seeing corruption where there is none to be seen.