Women, Stop Submitting to Men

Russ Moore, Dean of Theology, Southern Seminary - 12/5/11

Those of us who hold to so-called “traditional gender roles” are often assumed to believe that women should submit to men. This isn’t true.

Indeed, a primary problem in our culture and in our churches isn’t that women aren’t submissive enough to men, but instead that they are far too submissive.

First of all, it just isn’t so that women are called to submit while men are not. In Scripture, every creature is called to submit, often in different ways and at different times. Children are to submit to their parents, although this is certainly a different sort of submission than that envisioned for marriage. Church members are to submit to faithful pastors (Heb. 13:17). All of us are to submit to the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). Of course, we are all to submit, as creatures, to our God (Jas. 4:7).

And, yes, wives are called to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1-6). But that’s just the point. In the Bible, it is not that women, generally, are to submit to men, generally. Instead, “wives” are to submit “to your own husbands” (1 Pet. 3:1).

Too often in our culture, women and girls are pressured to submit to men, as a category. This is the reason so many women, even feminist women, are consumed with what men, in general, think of them. This is the reason a woman’s value in our society, too often, is defined in terms of sexual attractiveness and availability. Is it any wonder that so many of our girls and women are destroyed by a predatory patriarchy that demeans the dignity and glory of what it means to be a woman?

Submitting to men in general renders it impossible to submit to one’s “own husband.” Submission to one’s husband means faithfulness to him, and to him alone, which means saying “no” to other suitors.

Submission to a right authority always means a corresponding refusal to submit to a false authority. Eve’s submission to the Serpent’s word meant she refused to submit to God’s. On the other hand, Mary’s submission to God’s word about the child within her meant she refused to submit to Herod’s. God repeatedly charges his Bride, the people of Israel, with a refusal to submit to him because they have submitted to the advances of other lovers. The freedom of the gospel means, the apostle tells us, that we “do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1)
.
Despite the promise of female empowerment in the present age, the sexual revolution has given us the reverse. Is it really an advance for women that the average high-school male has seen images of women sexually exploited and humiliated on the Internet? Is it really empowerment to have more and more women economically at the mercy of men who freely abandon them and their children, often with little legal recourse?

Is this really a “pro-woman” culture when restaurant chains enable men to pay to ogle women in tight T-shirts while they gobble down chicken wings? How likely is it that a woman with the attractiveness of Henry Kissinger will obtain power or celebrity status in American culture? What about the girl in your community pressured to perform oral sex on a boyfriend, what is this but a patriarchy brutal enough for a Bronze Age warlord?

In the church it is little better. Too many of our girls and young women are tyrannized by the expectation to look a certain way, to weigh a certain amount, in order to gain the attention of “guys.”

Additionally, too many predatory men have crept in among us, all too willing to exploit young women by pretending to be “spiritual leaders” (2 Tim. 3:1-9; 2 Pet. 2). Do not be deceived: a man who will use spiritual categories for carnal purposes is a man who cannot be trusted with fidelity, with provision, with protection, with the fatherhood of children. The same is true for a man who will not guard the moral sanctity of a woman not, or not yet, his wife.

We have empowered this pagan patriarchy. Fathers assume their responsibility to daughters in this regard starts and stops in walking a bride down an aisle at the end of the process. Pastors refuse to identify and call out spiritually impostors before it’s too late. And through it all we expect our girls and women to be submissive to men in general, rather than to one man in particular.

Women, sexual and emotional purity means a refusal to submit to “men,” in order to submit to your own husband, even one whose name and face you do not yet know. Your closeness with your husband, present or future, means a distance from every man who isn’t, or who possibly might not be, him.

Your beauty is found not in external (and fleeting) youth and “attractiveness” but in the “hidden person of the heart” which “in God’s sight is very precious” (1 Pet. 3:3-4). And it will be beautiful in the sight of a man who is propelled by the Spirit of this God.

Sisters, you owe no submission to Hollywood or to Madison Avenue, or to those who listen to them. Your worth and dignity cannot be defined by them. Stop comparing yourselves to supermodels and porn stars. Stop loathing your body, or your age. Stop feeling inferior to vaporous glamor. You are beautiful.

Sisters, there is no biblical category for “boyfriend” or “lover,” and you owe such designation no submission. In fact, to be submissive to your future husband you must stand back and evaluate, with rigid scrutiny, “Is this the one who is to come, or is there another?” That requires an emotional and physical distance until there is a lifelong covenant made, until you stand before one who is your “own husband.”

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as unto the Lord. Yes and Amen. But, women, stop submitting to men.

Male Call

by Janie B. Cheaney - World Magazine - 11.5.11

The cultural decline of men is a problem for us all

Illustration by Krieg Barrie

"Most of us [men] were raised by women," reflects the iconic Tyler Durden in the movie Fight Club. "I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need." Around the time that he was born, a significant number of women were deciding that men weren't the answer—which led to large numbers of Tyler's generation being brought up without fathers. And that leads to the oft-remarked phenomenon of the couch-potato man-child, thumbs twitching over his PlayStation. It's a disturbing trend, especially to social observers like William Bennett.

Bennett's latest book, patterned on his classic Book of Virtues, is titled The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood. It's obviously intended as a guide to pre-men, a selection of instructional and inspirational passages. "Why Men Are in Trouble," an opinion piece for CNN, explains why he wrote it: "For the first time in history, women are better-educated, more ambitious and arguably more successful than men. ... We celebrate the ascension of women but what will we do about what appears to be the very real decline of the other sex?"

Maybe it's not a total decline; in some cases, young men are simply taking longer to mature. I know several who dragged their feet after high school, drifting through jobs or college majors, but finally snapped into a responsible mode after marrying. The average age for marriage is five to seven years later than it was 50 years ago, but is not dissimilar from other periods in history. The real problem is that (a) too many men aren't marrying at all, but they are (b) fathering children, who (c) grow up with no understanding of either (a) or (b), thus perpetuating the cycle.

Who's to blame? Feminism is an obvious target, with its ideal of the independent woman who doesn't need to be taken care of. Also single mothers who capitulate to their sons, girlfriends who don't insist on marriage before sex, and young men themselves, who find plenty of excuses to feed their slacker tendencies. Bennett cites "a culture which is agnostic about what it wants men to be." His book sets out to correct that agnosticism with a "clear and achievable notion of manhood." He would surely agree, though, that with no father or mentor to offer a book to a restless boy, the boy is more likely to plug himself into the latest electronic distraction. (And girls outpace boys in reading skills by 16 percentage points, anyway).

The root of the problem, like so much else, goes back to the Garden. The man neglected his leadership role, allowing the woman to make a bad decision, which broke their bond with God and set their relationship at odds. Mutual dependence ever since—men for protecting, women for domesticating—held a rough approximation of the creation order together by force. Until now, that is. Now we're dependent on the grid instead of each other. Anyone can fake independence, as long as the infrastructure holds up and the checks keep coming.

But even though we're not so obviously dependent, men and women are still connected. What God joins together is impossible to sever totally. Men need high expectations, worthy goals, respect. Women need security, approval, love. Each needs what the other can give, but if we refuse to support each other with our positives, we'll drag each other down with our negatives. If men and women don't mutually pledge their strengths, they will default to their weaknesses. The harder a woman pushes, the faster a man retreats. The more a man forfeits, the more a woman takes on. He gets lazy, she gets bitter. He turns violent, she becomes passive.

Fight Club ends with a symbolic collapse of civilization, but an actual collapse of civilization is not out of the question. Some men (especially Christian men) are waking up to their responsibility. May God wake up more and more. It's not just their wives and sons and daughters who need them; we all do.

Does Christianity Have a Masculine Feel? by Tim Challies

John Piper sparked quite a storm with his biographical message on the “frank and manly” J. C. Ryle. One of his conclusion was that Christianity is meant to have a masculine feel to it. Response to his message ranged from outrage to applause. I found myself perplexed and needed to give it some time to work itself out in my mind. For a while I gave up, but then decided that it would be worth the effort, so sat down and began to hash out my thoughts. It took a long time, but having done so, I find that I am pretty sure I disagree with Piper. I will tell you why, but first, a short refresher on his message.

After some introductory observations about the prominence of masculinity in the Christian faith—like the fact that God is revealed to us as a king and father rather than as a queen and mother, that Jesus came as a man, that all priests and pastors in the Bible are men and so on—Piper went on to define this “masculine feel” or “masculine Christianity” more precisely. A masculine Christianity is a Christianity in which,

"Theology and church and mission are marked by overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ, with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, and contrite courage, and risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading, protecting, and providing for the community—all of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s the feel of a great, majestic God, who by his redeeming work in Jesus Christ, inclines men to take humble, Christ-exalting initiative, and inclines women to come alongside the men with joyful support, intelligent helpfulness, and fruitful partnership in the work."

What Piper saw as characteristic of a masculine faith is the presence of these sometimes-paradoxical virtues, exercised in the Spirit of Christ and for his glory:

• tender-hearted strength
• contrite courage
• risk-taking decisiveness
• sacrificial leadership, protection, and provision
• humble initiative-taking

He went on:

… "I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel. And, being a God of love, he has done it for the maximum flourishing of men and women. He did not create women to languish, or be frustrated, or in any way to suffer or fall short of full and lasting joy, in a masculine Christianity. She is a fellow heir of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). From which I infer that the fullest flourishing of women and men takes place in churches and families where Christianity has this God-ordained, masculine feel. For the sake of the glory of women, and for the sake of the security and joy of children, God has made Christianity to have a masculine feel. He has ordained for the church a masculine ministry."

I find that I do not agree. For those of you who are given to over-reaction, just breathe—I am allowed to disagree and I’m sure Piper is just fine with people disagreeing. If you don’t have a category for charitable disagreement on secondary matters, you need to develop one! I still love the man, but want to offer an alternative to his masculine Christianity.

An Alternative

I believe it is a category mistake to say that Christianity is either masculine or feminine just as it would be a category mistake to say that Christianity is Caucasian or African-American or young or old. It exists beyond or outside of such categories. I affirm that male headship is clearly laid out in the Bible, that God assigns church leadership to qualified men, and that God has given to men certain traits or virtues that allow them to lead well. However, it does not follow from these facts that the Christian faith ought to feel more masculine than feminine.

Here’s the thing: Whatever masculinity and femininity are, they are equally downstream from God, collections of traits that flow from God himself. Whatever femininity is, it is a means through which a woman can reflect the image of God. Whatever masculinity is, it is a means through which a man can reflect the image of God. When a man acts like a man he is displaying the image of God and the same is true when a woman acts like a woman.

It’s not like God gave his own attributes to Adam—masculine attributes—and then had to invent a collection of new, feminine ones when he created Eve. It seems that God chose to give some of the traits that exist in himself in greater measure to men and some in greater measure to women. Not only that, but he also gave each a particular role or sphere of operation in which those distinct virtues could be practiced and put on display. Thus to behave in a feminine way is to act in the image of God by faithfully displaying some of his characteristics and to behave in a masculine way is to act in the image of God by emphasizing other of his characteristics.

This is a large part of what we mean when we say that that men and women are complementary. The two genders form a sharper picture of what it means to be made in God’s image than would be the case if there was only one gender. Thus the church needs to go on encouraging men to be masculine and women to be feminine, each embracing the distinct and complementary ways in which they serve as the image of God. The Christian faith, being neither masculine nor feminine, is the ground in which both can thrive in equal measure and through the very same means.

In the broad picture, both masculine and feminine thrive under the same conditions: taking joyful advantage of those beautifully ordinary means of grace the Lord has provided for our sanctification. Michael Horton says it well:

"[T]he larger goal here shouldn’t be to trot out more gender stereotypes from our culture, whether feminist or neo-Victorian, but rather to rediscover the ministry that Christ has ordained for making disciples of all nations, all generations, and both genders. We need less niche marketing and more meat-and-potatoes service to the whole body of Christ. There, men and women, the young and the old and the middle aged, black, white, Latino, Asian, rich and poor hear God’s Word together, pray and sing God’s Word together, and are made one body by receiving Christ’s body and blood together: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Tim Challies is a leading evangelical blogger, book writer, co-founder of Cruciform Press, editor of Discerning Reader, and on staff at Grace Fellowship Church. He lives in the outskirts of Toronto, Ontario with his wife and three children.

Masculinity ... or Maturity?

"The Church’s biggest problem right now is a lack of maturity, not a lack of masculinity...Gender is not the problem...The real problem is a failure to grow up, to take initiative and be leaders," So, in sum, says David Dunham, who weighs in on the latest installment of  the debate about what is a Real Deal Man. Check out David's perspective ...

What is a man? If we were discussing anatomy, the answer would be simple enough. But I don’t think that is what is in view when popular preachers and theologians talk about biblical manhood or the Church’s masculinity deficit. It’s probably for the better, since I was never very good at science. I am a theologian.

So, what is a man? The answer, contrary to popular opinion, is not so simple. The Bible doesn’t necessarily give us specifics on what constitutes masculinity. And most definitions are far more culturally bound than some admit. That’s what makes the gender discussion so frustrating for some of us in the Church. It’s not that I am naïve to the Church’s problems with young men. As a pastor of a church fully comprised of college students, I see them regularly. But I don’t think this problem has anything necessarily to do with gender. I think the Church’s biggest problem right now is a lack of maturity, not a lack of masculinity. And that distinction is important if we’re going to avoid creating bigger problems for the Church.

The Church is full of “boys who can shave,” adultolescents, or rejuveniles. It’s not uncommon for pastors to discuss and dissect this problem. What is strange is how often this discussion immediately shifts to an issue of gender identity. What begins as an issue of maturity shifts to an issue of masculinity. The problem, we are told, is that feminists have influenced our Church culture. Church is a place for women, and the pastors who lead them look and act like women. And don’t get popular preachers started on this mamby-pamby Jesus that “feminized” church worship. Jesus is a Dude, we are told (note the capital D). “Turn the other cheek” might have been one of his teachings, but sometimes you have to give a man the “right hand of fellowship” across the face. 

Of course, this only represents a shade of the real position. But it is a position that seems to be missing the real point: Gender is not the problem.

The problem is not that men can’t fight or wear pink neckties. Popular preachers might like to highlight those things because they get a laugh, but such things don’t identify the real source of a young man’s failure. The real problem is a failure to grow up, to take initiative and be leaders. And while some theologians want to root this failure in abandoned gender roles, it seems more likely that it is rooted in a culture that coddles teens and expects them to be selfish. Some will call this an issue of semantics. After all, in calling little boys to grow up, aren’t we saying they need to “act like men”? At one level, I suppose we are. But by making this an issue about gender and not maturity, we are creating some real problems for the Church. I have seen at least three potential and real problems.

First, we become judgmental. Because we struggle to identify masculinity in concrete terms, we end up evaluating young men based on their clothing, hobbies and hands (“Are they calloused from manual labor?” and so on). What many popular preachers end up doing is adopting the cultural norms for masculinity, which may or may not reflect the biblical expectations. Masculinity is very hard to define in concrete terms. I might speak of man’s function as head of his home, provider and protector, but how that plays out in any specific context can’t be nailed down by quoting a few Bible verses. Men come in all shapes and sizes, even in the Bible. David is sometimes a warrior and sometimes a poet. Solomon is never a warrior. Jeremiah the “weeping prophet” and Shamgaur, the “Dude” who killed a bunch a people with an ox goad, are clearly different men. Because of personality, skills and context, being a man may look very different from person to person. The failure of so many critics is that they assume there is a one-size-fits-all “man” and that anyone outside those boundaries is in sin. In asking young men to lead, however, we are not calling into question their gender; rather, we are calling them to grow up. 

Second, we ostracize women. If the problem is “over-feminization,” it doesn’t seem like a faulty assumption for some women to feel unwanted in the Church. Women have long been denied a place of importance in the Church, and this trend to promote solely macho men only continues a failure of pastoral leadership. For some leaders, there is a direct relationship between getting godly men and getting godly women. Such a view devalues and degrades women and assumes that you don’t need to spend time working with women. It’s sometimes easy to sympathize with those critics who accuse the church of being patriarchal.

Last, we create a machismo culture that threatens to undo godliness. I have seen many a young man influenced by the “be a man” rhetoric who have become arrogant, unteachable and divisive. They may be behaving “manly,” as the common trope identifies, but they have yet to grow up. This machismo model continues to miss the real problem and only exacerbates the church’s efforts to move forward.

Maybe I am not very “manly.” The desk I am sitting at wasn’t built with my own two hands, and the callouses on my palms aren’t from swinging a screwdriver (you do swing one of those, right?). But I am husband, a father and a pastor. I believe in leading my home and my church. I believe protection and provision are part of my God-given responsibilities. And I want to spend my time teaching our young men about those principles. That means, then, that I need to spend less time making jokes about pick-up trucks and UFC and spend more time doing real discipleship.

David Dunham is Associate Pastor at Revolution Church in Portsmouth, Ohio and holds a Masters of Divinity from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

l

Act Like Men: A Titanic Lesson in Manliness
by Dave Brown, WACMM Director and Pastor

Churches cannot thrive if there’s not a solid core of men leading them who are Gospel-driven followers of Christ.  

When men are absent, lackadaisical or weak when it comes to God and the things of God, churches atrophy and eventually die. If men become ensnared in therapeutic moralism now rampant in many churches, they will become self-focused rather than living sacrificially for the sake of others. And churches will atrophy and die.

Among the many distinguishing characteristics of men who live out of their God-assigned roles and responsibilities are boldness and courage. Godly men - men of true valor - are supposed to fight for their families, the gospel, for the weak, innocent and vulnerable who are being threatened or oppressed by evil and danger.

100 years ago - April 14th, 1912 - the RMS Titanic struck an iceberg with 2,223 people on board. In the midst of that disaster, courageous men sprang into action to ensure that women and children would be saved. Today authentic manhood seems to be sinking. This is one of the most significant issues of our time.Interestingly it is being seen as such by more and more secular analysts and academics but not by most churches. Check out this trailer of a new film called Act Like Men - HERE

Fake Love, Fake War: Why So Many Men Are Addicted to Internet Porn and Video Games
by Justin Taylor (a summary of an article by Russell Moore - link below)

The new ebook The Demise of Guys: Why Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It is a secular argument by psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo and Nikita Duncan that “an addiction to video games and online porn have created a generation of shy, socially awkward, emotionally removed, and risk-adverse young men who are unable (and unwilling) to navigate the complexities and risks inherent to real-life relationships, school, and employment.”

Russell Moore explores this from a Christian perspective [highlights]

But porn and video games both are built on novelty, on the quest for newer and different experiences. That’s why you rarely find a man addicted to a single pornographic image. He’s entrapped in an ever-expanding kaleidoscope.

There’s a key difference between porn and gaming.

Pornography can’t be consumed in moderation because it is, by definition, immoral.

A video game can be a harmless diversion along the lines of a low-stakes athletic competition. But the compulsive form of gaming shares a key element with porn: both are meant to simulate something, something for which men long.

Pornography promises orgasm without intimacy.

Video warfare promises adrenaline without danger.

The arousal that makes these so attractive is ultimately spiritual to the core.

He goes on to look at Satan’s strategy as upending God’s original intention:

Satan isn’t a creator but a plagiarist. His power is parasitic, latching on to good impulses and directing them toward his own purpose.

God intends a man to feel the wildness of sexuality, in the self-giving union with his wife.

And a man is meant to, when necessary, fight for his family, his people, for the weak and vulnerable who are being oppressed.

The drive to the ecstasy of just love and to the valor of just war are gospel matters.

The sexual union pictures the cosmic mystery of the union of Christ and his church.

The call to fight is grounded in a God who protects his people, a Shepherd Christ who grabs his sheep from the jaws of the wolves.

He also looks at the ways in which these addictions “foster the seemingly opposite vices of passivity and hyper-aggression.”

The porn addict becomes a lecherous loser, with one-flesh union supplanted by masturbatory isolation. 

The video game addict becomes a pugilistic coward, with other-protecting courage supplanted by aggression with no chance of losing one’s life.

In both cases, one seeks the sensation of being a real lover or a real fighter, but venting one’s reproductive or adrenal glands over pixilated images, not flesh and blood for which one is responsible.

Read Russ Moore's entire article HERE

Unashamed Masculinity from a Woman's Perspective

by Gloria Furman - May 18, 2012

(Gloria Furman lives in Dubai with her husband Dave, a pastor. They are raising three young kids. Gloria is currently writing a book for Crossway on applying the gospel in the home)

I live in a culture that admires a man’s earning power, and his fertility, and his ability to rule his domain with an iron fist.

While Scripture certainly calls for a Christ-like masculinity that provides for and protects his family, the Bible takes a wrecking ball to the culture-based ideals of masculinity that are celebrated around the world.

By God’s grace, I enjoy the fruits of living with a man who demonstrates biblical masculinity. This is the kind of masculinity that emerges from the gospel, points back to the gospel, and celebrates the gospel in my home.

Unashamed

The masculinity I appreciate as a wife is of far greater value than wealth-earning power. It’s a masculinity that is unashamed of the gospel which is the power of God (Romans 1:16).

The unashamed masculinity I enjoy in my home leaves a legacy that is more enduring than prolific fertility. It’s masculinity that fervently loves others from a heart that has been born again, born not of seed which is perishable, but imperishable. True masculinity is reborn through the living and abiding word of God.

The unashamed masculinity I love to follow in my home is far more impressive than macho pride. It’s masculinity that is willing to take the painful shrapnel in the battle against his own sin, rather than run from sin and hide in the comfort of silence. It is a masculinity that willingly exposes its life to the iron-sharpening-iron of open and honest male accountability relationships.

The unashamed masculinity that guards the hearts in my home puts away rash, cutting words that pierce like a sword. My husband’s Christ-honoring masculinity understands the power of words, and he uses words to bring healing to me and our children.

The unashamed masculinity I cherish in my home is such that fixes its eyes on Jesus and turns its eyes away from all the vain things of this world that hold a potent charm over other men. My husband’s Christ-honoring masculinity flees from promises whispered by a hiss.

The unashamed masculinity I need in my home is concerned that others find their delight in God. Nothing quite says, “I love you” to me than when my husband is willing to humbly stand up to the things I pursue that obstruct my everlasting joy in God. His loving masculinity reassures me of Christ’s atonement made on my behalf, and of the privilege I have to boldly approach the throne of grace.

Unashamed masculinity has less to do with how many horses a man owns, or how fast he can run. Unashamed masculinity is about what a man does with the gospel.

Where can you see this unashamed masculinity? You see it whenever a man has peered into the empty tomb and found new motivation to lay down his own life to spread the gospel into the souqs of Casablanca, into the office spaces in Dallas, into the cafes in Geneva, into the shantytowns of Mumbai, into the barrios of Sao Paulo, and into the universities of Toronto.

My Unashamed Husband

My dear, godly, husband once explained to someone that he wasn’t able to shake hands because of the nerve disease in his arms. This person said, “That’s awful! Everyone can tell a real man by the firm grip of his handshake.”

I just smiled to myself.

I’ve watched my husband find his strength in the joy of the Lord. He has a firm grip on grace. And I can testify that he is “a real man” by his unashamed passion for the gospel.

When he cares for our family, our church, and our city with the gospel, he grabs hold of the gates of hell and shakes them without fear and without shame.

That is the kind of gospel-centered masculinity that I thank God for, and it’s the masculinity that I want to celebrate.

Horton, Wilson, Burk Spar Over Whether Cultural Expectations Should Shape Christian Views of Masculinity

Is Christianity masculine? Has ministry become effeminate? The consideration of such questions by leaders in the Reformed movement (for example, John Piper recently said that Christianity has a ("masculine feel") has initiated a debate about whether the modern resurgence of "muscular Christianity" is scriptural and, more generally, whether cultural expectations should shape Christian views of manhood.

Position #1 - In an article for Modern Reformation titled "Muscular Christianity," Michael Horton, a professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary, argues that "In the drive to make churches more guy-friendly, we risk confusing cultural (especially American) customs with biblical discipleship":

The back story on all of this is the rise of the "masculine Christianity movement" in Victorian England, especially with Charles Kingsley's fictional stories in Two Years Ago (1857). D. L. Moody popularized the movement in the United States and baseball-player-turned-evangelist Billy Sunday preached it as he pretended to hit a home run against the devil. For those of us raised on testimonies from recently converted football players in youth group, Tim Tebow is hardly a new phenomenon. Reacting against the safe deity, John Eldredge's Wild at Heart (2001) offered a God who is wild and unpredictable. Neither image is grounded adequately in Scripture. With good intentions, the Promise Keepers movement apparently did not have a significant lasting impact. Nor, I predict, will the call of New Calvinists to a Jesus with "callused hands and big biceps," "the Ultimate Fighting Jesus."

Are these really the images we have of men in the Scriptures? Furthermore, are these the characteristics that the New Testament highlights as "the fruit of the Spirit"---which, apparently, is not gender-specific? "Gentleness, meekness, self-control," "growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ," "submitting to your leaders," and the like? Officers are to be "apt to teach," "preaching the truth in love," not quenching a bruised reed or putting out a smoldering candle, and the like. There is nothing about beating people up or belonging to a biker club.

Position #2 -- In his reply (Michael Horton, Gender Stereotypes, and Me), Doug Wilson, pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho and Senior Fellow at New Saint Andrews College, says that Horton's critique appears to rest on a confusion about the role of what gender stereotypes from our culture means since creational differences are expressed in a cultural context:

Suppose you overheard one of the kids from your church telling one of the sweet little church ladies to "eff off." Suppose you confronted him about it, and he defended himself by saying that the meaning assigned to those particular sounds were assigned by our culture, and not by the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. Suppose further that he scoffs and says that the whole thing is "linguistically arbitrary." And, you know, he's right, and I suppose you also know that he is entirely and completely in the wrong. It is linguistically arbitary, and he still doesn't get to speak that way.

The Bible never tells us that men should take out the garbage, or that a gentleman holds a seat for the lady, or that opening a car door for your wife is a class act, and so on. Never. But that is irrelevant. Our culture gives us the vocabulary of honor, but the Bible tells us how we must do something with that vocabulary.

Scoring the Debate: Horton makes an excellent point that some Evangelicals---especially those within the "Young, Restless, and Reformed" camp---have created an unscriptural vision of masculinity that is built on "a Jesus with 'callused hands and big biceps,' 'the Ultimate Fighting Jesus.'" In an attempt to make church more appealing to men, some evangelicals churches have even promoted questionable "ministries" which focus on violent sports such as Mixed Martial Arts. These types of activities pervert the view of Biblical masculinity. As Horton correctly notes, the fruits of the Spirit are not gender-specific and are often antithetical to the popular hyper-masculine view of how Christian men should act.

Yet while this is a helpful and much needed corrective, I believe that Wilson is right to point out how Horton has gone too far in separating scriptural admonitions from their cultural context. My own view is best expressed by Denny Burk, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, who says:

In 1 Corinthians 11, the apostle Paul argues for male headship (1 Cor. 11:3), and he does so on the basis of the order of God's good creation (1 Cor. 11:8-9). Yet in the midst of laying down this creation norm, Paul also references a number of particular issues that are conditioned by cultural considerations. The one that immediately comes to mind is the bit about hair length.

The passage overall is concerned with men and women inhabiting their proper roles, and a part of that means looking the part. Men should look like men, and women should look like women. And so Paul says, "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her?" (1 Cor. 11:14-15).

So here is an instance in which the apostle Paul himself says that God-ordained gender roles must be lived-out with an eye toward cultural expectations of masculinity and femininity.
There are other texts that we could go to that illustrate this same principle (e.g., Deut. 22:5), but let's leave it at just the one for now. The point is that we have to live out our gender roles in the culture that we find ourselves in. The apostle Paul probably never wore trousers. But that doesn't mean that he was less masculine for wearing something that would probably have looked more like a dress to us. His own culture informed the way he obeyed God, even though the creation norm remained an ever-fixed mark. He had an eye to his culture's impressions about masculinity and femininity. I don't think we can do any different.

by Joe Carter is a Marine Corps veteran, an editor for The Gospel Coalition and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator.

Gospel Men

Gospel Men

I see four ways masculinity is expressed by Christian men today; three wrong, one right.

1. Soft exterior, soft interior. Effeminate inside and out, top to bottom. Yuck.

2. Hard exterior, soft interior. Posers. Macho. Insecure, covering it with how much they can bench.

3. Hard exterior, hard interior. Genuinely strong, willing to lay down their life for Jesus and family, but earnest to make sure everyone knows that about them. Not only wants to be strong in actuality but needs to be strong in image. Stiff not only in conviction but in demeanor.

4. Soft exterior, hard interior. Rock solid, responsible, risk-taking, calls heresy heresy, calls error error, willing to take shots for the good of the team, able to stick his neck out in elder meetings when the pastor is being maligned by fellow-elder-golfing-buddies--but all soaked in a gentle demeanor, seasoned with grace, someone the guy struggling with homosexuality would confide in.

The answer to the first two is not the third but the fourth.

Paul said 'Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men' (1 Cor 16:13) and he said repeatedly to do all things with gentleness (Gal 5:23; Eph 4:2; 2 Tim 2:25). I think in the past I've received the first thing to the neglect of the second.

A mature oak tree is immovable when the storms rage against it, but it's also beautiful, and invites shelter to others. Isn't that what gospel men should be?

By Dane Ortland, Bible Publishing Director at Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois.

Chronological Snobbery and the Spirit of Our Age

The other day I recalled a statement by C. S. Lewis back in the early 1950s. He was asked by Decision magazine whether he was concerned about the “de-Christianizing” of the West, especially Europe. Lewis replied, “I’m not really qualified to speak to the question of the culture, but there is definitely a de-Christianizing of the church.” 

Lewis' observation is even more telling and concerning today as much cultural faddishness not just creeps, but freely gallops, into churches and into men's ministries.

I am blessed to belong to a church that would seem to the culture to be hundreds of years behind the times and amazingly indifferent to popular fashion. On the other hand,  it would seem to me to be a horrifying thing to belong to a church that feels itself nano seconds behind the times, huffing and puffing to catch up to the cultural climate.

J. I. Packer in Surprised by Joy describes the heretical spirit of our age, which holds that:

• the newer is the truer,

• only what is recent is decent,

• every shift of ground is a step forward,

• and every latest word must be hailed as the last word on its subject.

This is what C. S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery” (a lesson he learned from his friend Owen Barfield). Lewis defined it thus:

"the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited."

Lewis explained what’s wrong with this approach:

• You must find out why it went out of date.

• Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood.

• From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also ‘a period,’ and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also a "period," and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions.  They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them.

Thanks to Justin Taylor - Two Worlds - for putting me onto this.

.