jump to navigation

In Case You Aren’t Tired Yet… November 30, 2007

Posted by Jack Hammer in : Jack Hammer , 26 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

We have opened up a new feature called “discussion.”  The tab for the discussion side of our blog is at the top of the home page, and it will take you to some very nice features.  One feature is the “One-on-One Debate Center” where people like Christopher can go to deal with their issues.  Dave has started things off by graciously offering Christopher his shot at a debate on the repentance issue.  Feel free to follow the debate.  Per Dave’s request, the debate will be limited to six exchanges, and then it will be closed.  So Christopher, you’ve got six chances.  Give it your best shoot! 

Meanwhile, if everyone else would refrain from posting in the middle of the debate, it would be appreciated.  Feel free to start your own threads on the issue, or simply to comment on the debate in the comments portion of this thread. 

Bang away!

P.S. You must register with JackHammer to participate in the discussion pages. It’s not hard; just follow the link on the left of the page.

Should a Wife Ever Disobey Her Husband? November 27, 2007

Posted by Kent Brandenburg in : Complementarianism, Feminism, Marriage , 33 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

Yes.

A wife should not disobey God in order to obey her husband.  Acts 5:29Open Link in New Window is the pivotal verse for this:  “We ought to obey God rather than men.”  The chief responsibility for the wife is to obey God.

Obeying the husband and obeying God shouldn’t conflict, but we know that sometimes they will.  In Matthew 10:36Open Link in New Window, Jesus said that “a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”  He doesn’t mention the husband-wife relationship, but the husband and wife are an obvious example of two people who live in the same household.   The Lord brought a sword that separates family members and that conflict will come when a saved wife follows the truth in disobedience to her husband.  We see the same type of affect on a marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:13-15Open Link in New Window:

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

The unbelieving husband might depart because of the wife’s sanctifying type of lifestyle, which would again be her obedience to the truth.  The unsaved husband might not like it and decide to end things.  If she was obedient to him in all matters of his opinion, that contradicted God’s Word, there would be no conflict between the saved wife and unsaved husband.

1 Peter 3:1-6Open Link in New Window gives the example of a saved, obedient wife with either an unsaved husband or a disobedient, saved husband.  In the 1 Peter context of a Christian’s suffering at the hands of the world, the unsaved husband is mainly in mind, but the text simply says he “obeys not in word.”  How will the unsaved husband be won to salvation or the disobedient be won to obedience?  Verse two says by her “chaste conversation.”  What is a chaste lifestyle?  It is an obedient-to-God lifestyle.  She shouldn’t be attempting to win him by preaching the right thing to him, but by living the right thing before him.  She’ll probably suffer for it, and that’s the assumption of the 1 Peter context, but the continuation of that chaste lifestyle has the best opportunity of his being won.

Later in verse six of 1 Peter 3Open Link in New Window, we get the example of Sara obeying Abraham.  It does use the Word “obey.”  However, the command of 1 Peter 3:1Open Link in New Window and 5 is “be in subjection,” a different word than “obey.”  The responsibility of a wife to her husband is to be in subjection to him (cf. Eph. 5:24Open Link in New Window).  Obeying her husband is a good way to respect him and honor his authority, even as Sara did with Abraham.  However, she is commanded to place herself underneath her husband’s authority.  This does not demand carte blanche obedience.

You might be thinking of Titus 2:5Open Link in New Window where the young women are to be taught to be “obedient to their own husbands.”  “Obedient” there is the same Greek word as “be in subjection” in Ephesians and 1 Peter.   It is not the standard word for “obey” like we see with the child in Ephesians 6:1Open Link in New Window.  Children obey their parents.  Wives submit themselves to their husbands.   She respects and places herself under his authority.  The word “obey” is primarily an action reserved for God.  Many times men are called upon to obey God.  Women are called upon to be in subjection to their husbands.  That will often require obedience from her.  However, she isn’t required to obey him when that means disobeying God.

God’s Word is absolutely consistent.  God will not deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13Open Link in New Window).   God’s nature is perfect in every way.  Men will contradict their own positions, but God will not.  A woman has a hierarchical relationship with her husband as it relates to the authority Divinely imparted to him.  However, the man has an authority over him, Who is God.  God is the higher authority, so when the husband and God contradict, the wife obeys God.

What will often occur when a wife obeys God instead of her husband?  She will suffer for it.  The husband often won’t like her disobedience and will give his wife a difficult time.  She should keep obeying God.

Of course, this doesn’t assume that she is right to disobey her husband in areas that are either Scriptural areas or even non-Scriptural ones.  Her general pattern is obedience within the sphere of subjection.  She does what her husband says.  This pattern will hold true until he uses his authority to require disobedience to God.   This saved woman will sanctify the home, implying her children, by being an example to them of obedience to God.  This will allow them to see the difference between the obedient wife and the disobedient husband, which will bring the sanctifying effect to their souls.

If a father desires for his daughter to obey God with her life, he shouldn’t give her to an unsaved man as a wife.  He should decree in his heart and keep his virgin daughter (1 Corinthians 7:36, 37Open Link in New Window).  In this proper use of his authority, the father will have done well.   However, for any woman who finds herself in the unseemly predicament of marriage to an unbeliever, she still should remain loyal to God in all things, even when her husband would have it another way.

Here’s Lookin’ at You November 24, 2007

Posted by Jeff Voegtlin in : Complementarianism, The Family , 4 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

First, let me state at the top that I have not been able to find exact scriptural support for the view I’m going to suggest here.  Nevertheless, I believe that the point I will make grows out of a biblical understanding of the sexes.  

There is a natural self-concern about our appearance.  This concern is not wrong or sinful by itself.  Of course, everyone can go to extremes, but being concerned about our appearance is godly.  Now, I believe that parents should teach their children how to dress right and also how to take care of themselves.  But I think that this general idea goes in different directions for boys and girls.  We should want to see pretty girls and handsome boys.  And this idea should mature in our teenagers and young ladies and men.  Ladies and girls should look beautiful. Gentlemen and boys should look handsome.

In the androgynization of our culture, we have developed a desire for both men and women to look sensual.  Today, girls and boys both are looking for “lookers,” and girls and boys are dressing to be “lookers.”  They want to be stylish rather than appropriately handsome or pretty.  Maybe I’m just making this up in my own mind, but do a little thought experiment for me:  think of the young men in your church’s youth group.  Do you picture them as handsome men or cool teenagers?  Think of the young ladies there.  Are they pretty and beautiful or flirtatious and sensually appealing?

Even how we teach our children and teens to groom themselves is complementary, and how we look should compliment our Christianity.

The Seriousness of the Symbolism for Male Headship (part two) November 22, 2007

Posted by Kent Brandenburg in : Complementarianism, Feminism , 5 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

“Scorched-earth” is a military strategy of devastating all land and buildings in the course of advancing or retreating troops so as to leave nothing salvageable to the enemy. The strategy transfers to other types of endeavors, including legal defense, the goal being to discredit the prosecution and its investigation in every way possible so as to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury. This scheme was used by the O. J. Simpson lawyers to win that infamous murder case. As they say, he got away with murder. Scorched-earth is very often also what pants-on-women proponents use to defend their position. I found a proof-text for their methodology.Rolling Eyes

And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

They don’t have to offer a single explanation themselves for Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window or 1 Corinthians 11Open Link in New Window, but they must cause enough doubt in the teachings of these texts to allow whatever kind of dress they want to have. They present seventeen kwabillion different other possibilities that the passages could say. They find almost everyone that offers a different meaning than what a majority historically have said. The scorched-earther is looking to cause reasonable doubt.

After the scorched-earthers are done inducing the doubt, then, “you know, it really is not something clearly taught in Scripture, so we need to give latitude to disagreeing Christians, look for unity, try to avoid dissension among the brethren, prunes are good for you, the gravitational force of the earth, and what about dem Cubs?” And on top of that, “snicker, snicker,” and “ROFL” (where’d they pick up how to scoff?). And “do you really believe that?” When they face God? Well, they’re saved already, and a lot of people believe just like them, and how could God expect me to practice something that is so unclear?

They’ve got their bases covered. Will it fool God? Of course not, but that’s not the point with traditions and vain philosophies anyway. They’re to supply credible replacements for obedience and enough built-in excuses to make them look orthodox.

Problem: we can spend decades obliterating what a passage says to do, but we’re still required to obey it, because man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Mt. 4:4). And by the time we pass our fraudulent beliefs and practices down to our children, they’ll still be responsible to obey what God said too, even though we’ve made it exceedingly more difficult for them with our massive cover-up.

The Position of the Scorched-Earthers (like they say it)

The Answer

For a number of reasons, men who take a position on this like I do often are stereotyped as people who don’t look closely at Scripture. My experience in this debate has been that the women-wear-pants men refuse to look at the actual text to get their position. On these passages, they are shallow and self-serving.

I covered Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window like I do all others and when I did, the words of the verse strongly contradicted my former position, which was that pants were permissible for women, if not the best. What I saw in the text was that “the thing that pertaineth,” was something of distinct design. The assumption was that it was designed within a Godly culture, such as God intended Israel. That thing designed for men alone was not to be worn by women.

The idea within Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window wasn’t that men and women were to look out into the culture and find out what it wore as a guide, so that if the society changed in its practice to something Scripturally indefensible, believers were free to change with it, because this was intended only as a cultural issue. The articles designed for men were not to be worn by women, and vice-versa. The articles had a design. That didn’t mean that you could take the male article, dye it pink, and that then it would be female, or that you could make it more form-fitting and that then it would be female. Of course, when women started wearing pants, they weren’t designing a new article for women. Women were simply taking the male article and wearing it. At first Christians argued against that, and finally they just capitulated. Now they argue for the unisex apparrel.

The woman wearing the male garment is an abomination to God. She rebels against God’s design. The man that wears the female garment also is an abomination to God for the same reason. This conforms to the teaching in Romans 1Open Link in New Window. At the root of man’s rebellion is his trouble with God as Creator. For that reason, men take on characteristics of women and women of men. They suppress truth in the most basic fashion, worshiping and serving themselves (they’re own comforts, leisure, recreation, fads, purposes) rather than God’s.

The Point of the Symbol

At the root of a refusal of the symbols is a rejection of God’s goodness. God made us and it was good. He made male and female and it was good. We should subject to and trust in that goodness. God knows what is good for us better than what we do. What we think is comfort ultimately will not be if it is in violation of God’s good will.

Families break down when the roles break down. The dress issue is a role issue. God knows that boys and girls grow up learning their roles by what they see. When they don’t see clear support of what God has done, we get role confusion. We now see this chaos all over the United States and the rest of the world. We Christians, God’s salt and light, must let the world see our good works so that men might glorify God in heaven. If we are not willing to praise God’s design on earth, why would the world be interested in His heaven?

Gloria Deo

Posted by Dave Mallinak in : Mix 'n Match, Worship , 1 comment so far Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post
To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

Thanksgiving is here, and hopefully not without your taking time to give thanks. Of course, our thanksgiving should not be limited to one day of the year, duly set aside and observed. Every day should be a day for thanksgiving (I Thes 5:18Open Link in New Window; Heb 13:15Open Link in New Window). Nor should a single day end without our taking note of the many reasons we have for giving of thanks.

Are we not blessed in the simple fact that we have someone to thank? We have so many blessings, both simple and grand. Who do we thank? To God only wise, be glory. We would glorify Him as God, and we would be thankful. We need not wonder whom to thank, as if we received an anonymous gift. God gave the gift, and He put His name on the tag. We know Whom to thank, and that is a blessing.

But we should also note that God is glorified through Jesus Christ. God filled the earth with all things to delight the senses, and for that we thank Him as Creator. But Creation is not the greatest gift given by God to man. Creation, in the grand scheme of things, is sort of the “stocking stuffer;” the preliminary gift. Creation is indeed a grand gift, chock full of good things. But our deepest gratitude is reserved for God’s unspeakable gift (2 Cor 9:15Open Link in New Window). And thus we glorify God through Jesus Christ.

It is through Jesus Christ that we are able to glorify God. Apart from Christ, we were God’s enemies, alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that was in us, because of the blindness of our heart. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: Through Christ we are reconciled. Through Christ, fellowship with the Father is possible, for Christ is our mediator. Through Christ, we can please God. Through Christ, God is glorified.

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

May our praise never cease. May our thanksgiving only increase. May God be continually glorified through Jesus Christ for ever.

AMEN!

Who Wears the Pants? November 20, 2007

Posted by Dave Mallinak in : Complementarianism , 21 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post
Sooner would I single live than to my wife the britches give.  (Anonymous, of the Pennsylvania Dutch variety)

Contrary to popular opinion, it does matter who wears the pants in your family. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. When we take note of who wears the pants in the family, people generally understand that we are referring to authority and headship. If we point out that the wife wears the pants in the family, we are commenting about the rule of the home. The husband is following, and the wife is leading. The roles are reversed, the husband has abdicated, and the wife has usurped authority in the home. Of course, even when the wife wears the pants in the family, the husband remains the head. Ephesians 5:23Open Link in New Window is a statement about the way things are in the home, not a command about the way things ought to be. The husband IS the head of the wife. Just that he has abandoned his role and abdicated his responsibility.

The reason for pointing this out is because more than any other single item of clothing, pants mean something. In western culture, the wearing of pants has always carried a connotation with it. We understand this, even today in the year 2007. Pants symbolize the roles in the family, and the one who wears the pants rules the roost. Pants, in other words, symbolize something that T-shirts and ball caps do not symbolize. One need only consider the signs that grace the doors of public restrooms for further evidence.

Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window requires a designed distinction in dress. The woman is not to wear that which pertaineth to the man, neither is the man to put on a woman’s garment. And all that do so are abomination to the Lord. God puts the line at the point of distinction between men’s clothing and women’s clothing. Men must not wear what is distinctively feminine, while ladies must not wear what is distinctively masculine. And I believe that this would prohibit ladies from wearing pants.

I would be an insufferable blockhead if I refused to acknowledge that there is considerable opposition to this position. And I fully understand that this issue stirs up heated passions like almost no other (besides the version issue and Calvinism). Part of the reason for this can be traced back to our built-in sensitivity about the things we wear, and part of it because of the awful arguments that have been used by those who take my position. Calling women “sluts, whores and heifers” does not add anything to the issue. Nor is that a good argument. And I should be clear that I consider those kinds of statements to be ungodly.

This issue is, above all else, a cultural issue. In other words, if there is rebellion on this issue, that rebellion is a cultural rebellion, not an individual rebellion. If a young lady goes out and gets her eyebrows pierced and installs a bone through her nose, she is in rebellion against culture itself (hence the term “counter-culture”). But if a young lady wears pants, she is not being “counter-cultural.” She is dressing in a way that is completely acceptable in American culture. If there is rebellion on this issue, that rebellion is a cultural rebellion. Our culture has rebelled against God’s intention for a designed distinction that is to be maintained between men’s clothing and women’s clothing. And therefore, the issue must be addressed on a cultural, rather than an individual level. Certainly it is possible that a woman would be wearing pants out of rebellion. But it is equally possible that she is not. And it is also possible that the woman who doesn’t own a pair of pants is as rebellious as her skirt is long.

That being said, and for the sake of time, I will limit this particular post to answering the objections to our stated position. There are three basic reasons, from what I can see, why Christians object to our position on pants. First, some object on the basis that Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window is Old Testament ceremonial law. Secondly, some argue that this verse forbids cross-dressing in general, but does not forbid any particular item of clothing. And thirdly, some argue that we should adjust to the culture in which we live, rather than attempting to retain some specific article of clothing from the past.

Several years ago, I got into a discussion with a missionary friend on this issue. As the discussion progressed, I stated my conviction that Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window applied to the issue of pants on women, and he replied with a series of questions. Did I have a battlement on my roof? Did I plant my garden with a mixture of corn and beans and tomatoes? Did I wear a wool blend suit? Did I have fringes on the four quarters of my clothing? His point was, of course, that we don’t regard the rest of Deuteronomy 22Open Link in New Window, so why should we emphasize just that one verse? In other words, Deuteronomy 22Open Link in New Window is part of the Old Testament ceremonial law, and we need not obey it today.

There are several problems with this approach to Scripture. First, Deuteronomy 22Open Link in New Window is a part of the “all scripture” that is given by inspiration, and is therefore profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. Put simply, Deuteronomy 22Open Link in New Window is as authoritative as the rest of Scripture. Matthew 5:18Open Link in New Window tells us that one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. So in other words, we do not get to arbitrarily dismiss Scripture as inapplicable. Unless God specifically stated that this particular law is fulfilled, we must continue to apply it and obey it. And even after God tells us that a particular command is fulfilled, we still find it profitable.

That being said, Deuteronomy 22:8Open Link in New Window requires us to make a battlement for our roof. The rooftop of the home in Israel would have been flat, and used for family gatherings almost the way we use a porch or deck. The law required that a wall or rail be placed around the roof for safety, so that the thing which was designed for blessing would not become an occasion for a curse. The command itself gives very good reason for this… that thou bring not blood upon thine house. In other words, we are responsible to take care for the safety of others when we build a porch, a deck, a balcony, or when we dig a ditch or a well. Deuteronomy 22:8Open Link in New Window requires us to provide for the safety of others by putting up guardrails in places where people can fall and be harmed.

Deuteronomy 22:9-11Open Link in New Window teaches us about things that must not mix. The word “defiled” in verse 9 indicates that these commands pertain to ceremonial cleanness. Gill points out that the law forbids the mixing of clean and unclean animals, which would further support the argument that verses 9 through 11 refer to ceremonial cleanness. While our cleanness is more than ceremonial today, and we need not observe the particular requirements of ceremonial cleanness, we still find much of practical application in these verses. Deuteronomy 22:9Open Link in New Window reminds us that the incorruptible seed must not be mixed with the corruptible. Verse 10 tells us that the chosen generation must not mix with the generation of vipers (2 Corinthians 6:14-16Open Link in New Window). Verse 11 instructs us that the garments of God must not mix with the rags of this world.

Deuteronomy 22:12Open Link in New Window should be considered with Numbers 15:38-41Open Link in New Window. In trying to understand this command, we should note that the people of God were to distinguish themselves from the heathen nations with this fringe on their garment. Again, this would seem to be a ceremonial requirement. Believers are marked in different ways. Yet we find that this law is applicable to us as New Testament Christians. As Matthew Henry said,

The Jews being a peculiar people, they were thus distinguished from their neighbours in their dress, as well as in their diet, and taught by such little instances of singularity not to be conformed to the way of the heathen in greater things. Thus likewise they proclaimed themselves Jews wherever they were, as those that were not ashamed of God and his law. Our Saviour, being made under the law, wore these fringes; hence we read of the hem or border, of his garment, Mt 9:20.

So, Deuteronomy 22Open Link in New Window can no sooner be ignored than any other passage in Scripture. These are the very words of God, and we are as much bound by the spirit if not by the letter of these laws as we are bound by any other command in Scripture. And especially this is so with Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window, which says that all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Clearly, this is a moral command, for ignoring this command makes us abominable to God.

Others object to our position because in their view the passage does not forbid any particular item of clothing, only cross-dressing in general. Now, I should be clear at this point that I agree with those who would say that cross-dressing is prohibited by this verse. But I would argue that it prohibits cross-dressing because it prohibits particular articles of clothing. *The word pertaineth (keli) in the Hebrew means that pertaineth to (just like it says). The word is keli-geber - that pertaineth to man.  Geber is the distinctively masculine word for man, as oposed to adam, which refers to mankind in general.  If keli were paired with another word, say ishshah, then it would mean that pertaineth to woman.  But in this case, keli is paired with geber, which makes it the masculine item.  So, the woman is forbidden to wear the male-specific article of clothing.*  Gill says,

It being very unseemly and impudent, and contrary to the modesty of her sex; or there shall not be upon her any “instrument of a man”, any utensil of his which he makes use of in his trade and business; as if she was employed in it, when her business was not to do the work of men, but to take care of her house and family; and so this law may be opposed to the customs of the Egyptians, as is thought, from whom the Israelites were lately come; whose women, as Herodotus relates, used to trade and merchandise abroad, while the men kept at home; and the word also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it,

“take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman;”

We can imply from this, as Gill does, that women are not to join the military or go into combat. But this is an implication drawn from the particular command, that women are not to wear that which pertaineth unto a man. Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window forbids particular garments, namely those that are distinctly masculine. The distinction between the sexes is to be maintained, and that distinction is to be maintained in our clothing. Consider Matthew Henry on this:

The distinction of sexes by the apparel is to be kept up, for the preservation of our own and our neighbour’s chastity, De 22:5. Nature itself teaches that a difference be made between them in their hair (1Co 11:14), and by the same rule in their clothes, which therefore ought not to be confounded, either in ordinary wear or occasionally.

Again, Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window forbids the wearing of particular articles of clothing. It would be nice if believers could follow a simple argument with the skill of, say, a feminist like Amelia Bloomer. Amelia was not confused when, as a leader of the women’s rights movement, she sought to throw off those stifling symbols of male oppression better known as the dress or skirt. I don’t understand why believers struggle so much with this. Never mind what the Polynesians are wearing, in American culture, if a man puts on a dress, we all understand that this violates Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window. A dress or skirt in American culture is a woman’s garment. And its counterpart?

I don’t think we can say that our culture no longer has a garment that is distinctively masculine. Our culture still, despite all our attempts at throwing off the symbols, recognizes the symbol. We don’t designate the men’s room with a T-shirt and ball cap. We don’t designate it with a fleece or a coat. We designate it with pants, as opposed to a skirt. We regularly recognize the symbol, THE article of clothing that distinguishes men from women. That is, until a debate like this comes up.

We cannot argue for a universal without recognizing that universals play out in the particulars. In other words, if all dogs are canines, then that means collies are canines too. If all women are people, then that means my sister is a person. And if Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window forbids men to wear women’s clothing, then that means I’m not supposed to wear a dress, even if it is within the privacy of my own home. Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window applies both generally to cross-dressing and particularly to specific articles of clothing, namely those articles of clothing that maintain the distinction between men and women.

That being said, there is also the argument that since our culture has changed its “dress code” so significantly, we should simply live within the culture, while at the same time maintaining the Scriptural principles of modesty and distinction. This position argues that we should not attempt to retain specific articles of clothing from a certain era in time. And we would agree that Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window must be defined in terms of the culture in which we live. This passage certainly will apply differently in a culture where the men wear robes and turbans as opposed to a culture like ours. That is true. But I see two problems with this particular argument on this particular issue. The first is that by arguing this way, the culture ends up defining Scripture where Scripture should define the culture. In other words, western culture certainly has its own unique designs in distinction. And our interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window must include American styles.  But the fact that our culture has thrown off designed distinctions by no means gives us license to follow in the world’s footsteps. And the second problem comes when we ask ourselves how a culture goes about changing the designed distinctions in dress? In other words, how could it ever become acceptable for men to wear dresses? Suppose that a new line of “men’s dresses” comes out, and is duly promoted by magazines such as GQ. Of course, the Christian men immediately reject such a fad as a clear violation of Scripture. After fifty years or so of increasing pressure, do we decide that it is now culturally acceptable, and therefore men can now wear dresses?

I think not. Pressure from the culture does not change God’s demand that we maintain gender distinctions in our clothing.

The Seriousness of the Symbolism for Male Headship (part one) November 14, 2007

Posted by Kent Brandenburg in : Complementarianism, Feminism , 34 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

I’m happy that God commanded me, “let not the sun go down upon your wrath” (Eph. 4:26Open Link in New Window), because I would be incessantly angry over this issue if not.  It’s not just the blatant disregard of historic doctrine and practice that I regularly hear on this, but also the disrespect, from the flippant comments to the grating sarcasm.  I guess before I spend too much more time expressing how I feel, I should tell you the belief so disparaged and brushed off.  I’m talking about the external symbolism of male headship that God requires in Scripture from His saints.  Does it bother you that we first no longer have a symbol of male headship in our culture, and, second, that most have also given it up in churches?

For the entire history of the United States from the founding of the Jamestown colony in 1607 to the 20th century, men had a symbolism of their headship in our culture—that symbol:  pants.  Women wore skirts and dresses.  Men wore pants.  Pants represented male authority.  All of the fashion historians say this.  They also say that women took the male symbol out of disagreement with male headship.  The change didn’t occur because a group of Godly men and women got together and decided this was the best way to honor God.  And since the change, no male symbol, no distinct male garment, has replaced the pants, so that today men have no distinct item of clothing.

Studies show that children do not receive their gender only from their genes.  They learn their gender by what they see.  Sure children can normally distinguish between a man and woman.  They, however, lose out on the connotative marks attributing the distinctive roles God intended them to inculcate.  If you look at early elementary curriculum, they begin with shapes and colors.  They begin deciphering meanings and drawing parallels. If they are the slightest mixed up at this point, they will be sent off in the wrong direction, potentially careening into an aberrant lifestyle.  Role confusion has sped the growth of homosexuality all over the world.  I don’t like this.  God hates it worse than I do.

The LORD says it is an abomination to Him—to Him, not to us.  We might be abominated too, like sometimes happens, but God says that He is uniquely offended with this.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

You might be fine with erasing gender distinction in appearance.  After all, you can tell who’s a man and a woman..  And as long as you can tell, well, everything’s probably just hunky-dory.  I wish so much that you knew that whether you could tell the difference or not is so… not the issue.  It is whether you are willing to honor God’s design in creation.  God made us different.  He liked it; said it was good.  And He wants us to indicate that we think He did a good job too.  We do that by maintaining distinctly male items of clothing.   You say, “Where does Scripture say that?”  In the verse you just read above.  It doesn’t tell us to look different.  It tells women literally not to put on the male item.  And it tells men not to put on the female item.  That means that we must have a visible, distinct male garment and a visible, distinct female article of clothing.

Paul spent half a chapter in 1 Corinthians (chapter 11) dealing with this.   Women were subservient to men in Roman culture and Corinth was no different.  Built into the Roman way of life was the head-covering for women to distinguish them from men and symbolize their submission to men.  Women in some settings were treated as a mere possession.  Christian women, however, knew their essential equality with men in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:28Open Link in New Window).    Due to this, Christian women discarded this cultural symbol of femininity, the head-covering, during church gatherings.  Paul instructed the Christian women to keep their head covered when they assembled, even as it was a symbol of male headship over them (1 Corinthians 11:3-16Open Link in New Window).  Through Paul, God confirmed His will for men and women to distinguish their roles by means of distinct items of clothing.

Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window and 1 Corinthians 11Open Link in New Window do not say men-dress-like-men and women-dress-like-women.   The head-covering was a female item.  Men weren’t to wear it and women weren’t to take it off. 

I recognize that 1 Corinthians 11Open Link in New Window is a controversial passage.  So is Deuteronomy 22:5Open Link in New Window.  Is there any wonder why?  What I do know is that Christians believed and practiced these a certain way for centuries.   Men wore pants.  Women wore dresses.  These were the passages that explained why.  When the changes started occurring, the godly people protested.  Godly people would have at least replaced pants with another equally distinctive symbol.   But the point of women wearing pants was to eradicate the symbolism altogether, to do away with it once and for all, to efface God’s design in honor of the more acceptable belief in human evolution.  In so doing, God doesn’t get credit for His perfect design, the good that He intended, demolished by rebellious mankind.  And now by professing Christians too!

Love and Respect November 12, 2007

Posted by Jeff Voegtlin in : Complementarianism, Feminism, Marriage, The Family , 2 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

While summarizing the Holy Spirit’s work in a believer’s life, the Apostle Paul says in Ephesians 5:21Open Link in New Window that Christians are to submit themselves one to another in the fear of God. On the surface, this appears to say that every Christian is equal to all other Christians and all should submit in the same way to each other. But the Bible continues to tell us how we are to submit to each other in the basic positions we find ourselves as Christians. Ephesians 6:1-4Open Link in New Window addresses how fathers (parents) and children submit themselves to each other.  Ephesians 6:5-9Open Link in New Window tells us how masters (employers) and servants (employees) submit themselves to one another.  But the first and most lengthy description of complementary submission is in Ephesians 5:22-33Open Link in New Window.  Here, husbands and wives are told what submission to each other involves.  Now, we must understand that these commands to us are necessary because we are naturally (read, in the flesh), opposed to working this way in our marriages.

In my short experience, I have found that we naturally do what our spouse is commanded to do, i.e. husbands respect and wives love. But in order to have a godly marriage we must obey the Bible’s commands to each spouse.  These are explained in this passage and summarized in verse 33, which says,

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Here, the way a husband submits to his wife is by loving her.  And put shortly, he loves her in all the ways Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it.  And I must include that Christ’s love was not unemotional.  So the man must recognize that while he admires his wife, if he doesn’t love her as he does himself, he is disobeying the Lord.  We also see that the way a wife submits to her husband is by reverencing him.  All the emotional, “loving” things a wife does for her man are worthless to the strength of their marriage if she does not respect and reverence her husband.  Wives must do more than obey their husbands; they must reverence them.

Christian mother, if your children only obeyed your instructions outwardly, would you accept that as godly obedience?  I think not!  So it is with your relationship to your husband.  The Bible demands more that strict obedience to your husband.

Christian husband, do you take care of yourself?  Do you ever lack?  Do you think often of what would make your life simpler and easier?  “…no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it.”  You must think and care for your wife at least this much.  “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.”  The implication is that if you don’t love your wife in this way, you won’t get the benefits that you think taking care of yourself will give you.  You see, this is related to the biblical principle of losing life.  When we seek to preserve “our life,” we lose what we wanted to keep.  When we give ourselves up, we gain what we thought we would not receive.

I once heard a sermon for couples titled, “Submission, submission.”  The text was Epesians 5:21-33.  The premise that I remember was that wives could get what they wanted from their husbands by showing some submission to them.  I could have gotten the point of the message wrong, but if I didn’t, the message was in error.  Now, if a wife’s desire is a godly marriage, then she’ll submit by reverencing her husband.  A wife who submits to manipulate her husband has NO respect for him at all.

The world today has great fear of manly leadership, and rightly so.  Man fell and is a supremely selfish being.  When an ungodly man leads, the results are disastrous.  But godly ladies should have no fear of godly male leadership.  The Bible does not teach egalitarian or equal roles in Christian homes.  Ephesians, particularly, tells us how husbands and wives complement each other.

An Open Challenge to Followers of Jack Hyles November 9, 2007

Posted by Dave Mallinak in : Jack Schaap, The Gospel , comments here Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

The issue of repentance in salvation is important to you.  It is important to me as well.  You deny that repentance must accompany faith in salvation.  I affirm it.  You consider my position to be heresy.  I consider yours to be heresy.  You blacklist those who teach repentance and faith.  We speak against those who deny it. 

Seems to me that we have sufficient grounds here for a debate.  We have a fundamental disagreement, that disagreement is over an issue that we both think is important, and we both have arguments that we think will ultimately win the day. 

So, here is a proposal.  I will offer to let you debate the issue on this blog.  Rather than relegating you to the comments section, we will give you space on the front page.  I will write and you will respond, or you will write and I will respond.  Either way.  Others will be permitted to respond in the comments section.  But the affirmative and negative cases will get front page exposure.

Think of the wonderful opportunity this will afford you.  You will stand for truth and against error.  You will have the opportunity to expose the doctrine of repentance as a true enemy of soul winning.  And while you do, you can consider your work as part of your soul winning requirement.  After all, you might win someone to Christ right here on this blog, and besides, hundreds and hundreds of people read our blog every day.  You might be famous… the next big name in Fundamentalism. 

We will negotiate what the resolution will be.  Here are some possibilities —

Resolved: Repentance must accompany faith in salvation.

or

Resolved: The teaching that repentance must accompany faith in salvation is adding works to salvation.

or

Resolved: Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

(oops! didn’t mean to put that one in there.  Guess you probably wouldn’t want to debate THAT!)

or

Resolved: In order to be saved, one must repent of his sin.

or

Resolved: In order to be saved, one must simply believe.

We can negotiate affirmative and negative, the stated resolution to be debated, and so forth.  The format will be quite simple.  The affirmative will state his case in three typed pages or less, and the negative will have a day or two to respond.  Both will be posted at the same time, so that the posting will be simultaneous.  We will limit the debate to between four and six exchanges, although that also can be negotiated.  The negative will get the last word.

I think that about covers it.  Of course, any Hyles Follower is welcome to answer the challenge, although I do have my wish list… including (but not limited to) Stephen L. Anderson, Tom Neal, Greg Neal, Brent Neal, Jack Schaap, Ray Young, Bob Hooker, any Hyles staff member, any staff member from Tom Neal’s school, or Bubba Jones.

Of course, if you’re really chicken, you could always use a fake name.

Interested parties will please contact me via e-mail at pmallinak@berean-baptist-utah.com

Should a Man Ever Be Under the Authority of a Woman? November 7, 2007

Posted by Kent Brandenburg in : Complementarianism, Feminism , 17 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

Women couldn’t vote in the United States until 1920.  Men were in charge.  Things changed and it wasn’t from a group of Godly individuals getting together to search Scripture and pray about it.  You won’t find anything in the Federalist and Anti-federalists papers about women’s suffrage.  It wasn’t even an issue.  So that’s the way things were in general for hundreds of years of American colonial and U. S. History.   The United States has gone a long ways away from an almost entirely patriarchal society.

Feminism has no doubt made its inroads from society at large to churches.  We have controversy about the woman’s role in the home and church.  If we have it there, then we will see exponentially more conflict when we talk about men and women in general.   The theological liberal says no distinct role for either gender.  The emergent sees it as unclear.  Charismatics are all over the map on roles.   Evangelicals divide on the issue, complementarian or egalitarian, and most choose to see it as a secondary issue.  Many professing fundamentalists see it just like the evangelicals, but mainly they say that the man heads the home and the church.(1)  Very few any more say that the man heads the woman—period—everywhere:  church, home, work, government, society.  If they do, they’re, you know, “chauvinists.”

We look at around at our world and we see a woman in charge of men in the workplace, including the military, the police force, the fire department, and the school system.  We might see her as the next president of the United States.  She’s at least already the Secretary of State, a United States Senator, and Supreme Court Justice.   She’s already run for Vice-President.   Should women be in charge of men?  Are we OK with all that?

I’m not.  And of course, you know why.  I’m sexist.  That has to be it, doesn’t it?  But really, I can be fine with women leading.  Just ask my wife (smiling).  I get tired of doing it myself.  I wish that I could just go along for the ride sometimes.  But I don’t.  It isn’t because I don’t think men and women are equal.  I think they are.  Why?  The Bible says men and women are equal.  They are equal in value or in essence.  That is the point of Galatians 3:28Open Link in New Window:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Men and women are of equal value or worth to God.  So we don’t get our value or worth from our role, but from the essence of who we are.  Both male and female are made in the image of God, even as Genesis 1:27Open Link in New Window says:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Man and woman, both created in God’s image, are equal in essence.  A good comparison is the relationship of the Son to the Father.    They’re equal, and yet the Father is in authority over the Son.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Even though the Son submits to the Father as His superior in authority, He is equal in essence with the Father, even as Philippians 2:6Open Link in New Window says:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

Many fundamentalists and evangelicals will argue for complementarianism in the home and church—masculine headship at home and male pastoral leadership.   They treat the rest of society differently.  Is that the Scriptural position?

What Scripture Says about Universal Male Authority

Part of the conflict in the church at Corinth related to the fulfillment of the role of the man and woman.  Roman society of which Corinth was a part practiced the authority of the man.  Some believers in the church at Corinth knew of their equality before God, just like Paul taught in Galatians 3:28Open Link in New Window.  However, equal in essence did not mean equal in role.  Just like the Corinth church saw roles operational in the culture of Rome, the man was the head of the woman.   He reminds them of the proper order in 1 Corinthians 11:3Open Link in New Window when he says that “the head of the woman is the man.”  The Father is the head of the Son.  The Son is the head of the man.  The man is the head of the woman.

When this verse says that ”the man is the head of the woman,” is it saying that God’s divine order is men in authority over women in general?  I say, yes.   Certain practices within the church regarding the roles of men and women are ordained in 1 Corinthians 11Open Link in New Window, but they are not bound in cultural norms but on permanent facts of creation.  Christ is the head of the man—not just husbands or just men in the church, but of man generically.  “The man” is a generic singular noun, speaking of no man in particular, but of man as an entity.  With that established, the man is generally in authority over (”head of”) woman.  Since Paul appeals to the relation between members of the Trinity, he is not viewing relations here as only cultural nor merely the result of the fall.

Other passages corroborate with 1 Corinthians 11:3Open Link in New Window, looking to something more than just marriage and the church.  1 Timothy 2Open Link in New Window is within the context of the church.  Within this context, women have a subservient role to men (vv. 11, 12).  Why? Verses 13-14 bring two reasons that are not related to culture or situation, but to God’s design of men and women.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The woman is assigned a role submissive to men in the church, the more restricted setting, because of the larger, universal context:  all of God’s design in creation.  God had a purpose in creating man first, which manifests itself in Genesis.  He expected the man to take charge, to embrace the role of authority.  The woman would function as man’s suitable helper.  Divine order will be reflected by man’s conforming to the design of God.  Women are to behave in fitting with God’s purpose for the woman.   The woman was created for the man, from the man, and the man named the woman.  Women aren’t to usurp authority over man in the church because they aren’t to supercede man’s role in general.

God made the woman different in order to fulfill her distinct role.  However, innate to this role for the woman is a God-given vulnerability.  She is the nurturing sex.  The next verse, v. 15, reminds us of her special relationship to children.  Verse 14 is stated as a reason for the woman’s role in the church.  Adam wasn’t deceived; Eve was.  God made the woman especially susceptible to deceit.  For that reason, she needed Adam to fulfill his role, that is, headship.

The woman’s God-ordained vulnerability is not to say that sometimes certain women won’t have more discernment than certain men.  It is to say that God created the man in part to protect the woman from deceit.  A woman’s submission to the man can nuture his ability to lead as God intended.  This is the way God created it to be.  If you don’t think that women are in general more naturally subject to deceit, then look at the voting statistics in the last six or seven presidential elections.   But even if the women could do a better job, this doesn’t excuse women from what God wants for them.

When women do rule men, Scripture sees this as a curse to society.  When it happens, as it sometimes does, it isn’t good or to be admired, but Isaiah 3:12Open Link in New Window says that it is a shameful reality:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

God didn’t intend for women to rule men or even effeminate men, men who act like women, to have authority over men.  This violates God’s intentions revealed in the Garden of Eden.

The Historical Understanding of Christians on the Woman’s Role (2)

John Gill wrote:

Now inasmuch as the serpent did not attack Adam, he being the stronger and more knowing person, and less capable of being managed and seduced; but made his attempt on Eve, in which he succeeded; and since not Adam, but Eve, was deceived, it appears that the man is the more proper person to bear rule and authority, as in civil and domestic, so in ecclesiastic affairs.

Matthew Henry wrote:

And as God is the head of Christ, and Christ the head of the whole human kind, so the man is the head of the two sexes: not indeed with such dominion as Christ has over the kind or God has over the man Christ Jesus; but a superiority and headship he has, and the woman should be in subjection and not assume or usurp the man’s place. This is the situation in which God has placed her; and for that reason she should have a mind suited to her rank, and not do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing places.

How Does This Apply?

Women should have no authority over men.  God made men to lead and women to submit to male authority.  The fall of man is the classic example of what happens when men abdicate their God-given role.  In order to obey God and His Word:

If the Apostle Paul directed us to God’s creation to express the will of the Lord on the roles of men and women, then we know that this is what God intended for everyone that He created, not just the church.  There was no church setting in Genesis.   We are responsible to support the design of Almighty God everywhere in society as the salt of the earth.   This is better for men and women.

Women will still have plenty to do of eternal benefit in which God will be honored by their fulfilling His design.  They can preach to women and children.  They can function within the home as an entrepreneur of sorts, like the Proverbs 31Open Link in New Window woman.  They can ask and encourage men to lead.   They can work under the authority of men.  Like most men, they can learn.  They can fulfill God’s role for women.

Men and women stand as equals before God, both bearing the image of God Himself but not making one inferior to the other. God calls upon both men and women to fulfill roles and responsibilities designed specially for them in certain situations. In fulfilling those God-given roles taught in Holy Scripture, women are not limited. They are reaching their fullest potential because they are following the plan of their own Creator and Designer.

[(1) John Piper supports the above view of the world in an extremely cautious way in the first chapter of the mammoth volume, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. In this thread over at SharperIron, when this issue arose, I found that professing fundamentalists were less biblical than Piper in their thinking on the woman's role in general.]

[(2) John Knox wrote a 72 page essay on this subject, supporting the point of view of this author.]

[(3) Here's an article that agrees with this in general, making Scriptural arguments.]