JackHammer

Jacob went to find his wife.

Joseph found his wife.

Moses found his wife.

Eleazar took a wife.

The priests were instructed to “take a wife.” — Leviticus 21:13

The pattern is continued in Jeremiah 16:2

Hosea went and took his wife.

Jesus went to find his bride.

Proverbs 18:22 says,

Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favor of the LORD.

it doesn’t say,

Whoso’s father findeth him a wife obtaineth favor of the LORD.

My point in this drive-by post is just to say a few things related to finding a mate, marriage, and complementarianism.

1. Godly families rear their boys to be men and their girls to be ladies; therefore, the boys and girls should also find their mates in different (complementary) ways.
2. Parental involvement is present with both boys and girls, but vastly different.  If your son has not been trained by you how to seek and find a wife on his own (but with your guidance), how is he going to lead the family YOU put together for him?
3. Fathers, please recognize the huge responsibility you have to prepare your son to be able to find his wife. You are definitely involved, but the involvement shrinks as your son gets closer to marriage.

Yes.

A wife should not disobey God in order to obey her husband.  Acts 5:29 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 10:36, 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 7:13-15:

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 3:1-6 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 3, we get the example of Sara obeying Abraham.  It does use the Word “obey.”  However, the command of 1 Peter 3:1 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. 5:24).  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 2:5 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 6:1.  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 2:13).   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, 37).  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.

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.

“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.

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 22:5 or 1 Corinthians 11, 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)

• Deuteronomy 22:5 is ceremonial law, something we don’t keep today, any more than we refrain from wearing “a garment of. . . . woolen and linen together” (v. 11). Big smiles and periodic mad scientist laugh.
• The “thing that pertaineth unto a man” is armor and “man” is a “soldier.” I’m against women wearing military stuff! (Not actually in real life because we’ve got two enlisted women on our prayer list that have different shaped and sized camoflauge.)
• You’re a fundamentalist, aren’t you?!?! (”Um, n..) Thought so!! Well, well, you’re like that!! (”Like w…”) Legalistic!!
• The passage is like telling us that men and women are to look different. I, chuckle, don’t think, chuckle, that you would say that, bigger chuckle, my wife and I, giggle, look like each other, repeated giggles, when we both wear pants.
• Women wear hats and socks!!
• Scottish men wear kilts!!
• Barry Bonds wears an earring! I dare you to tell him he looks like a woman!!! (Long, loud hyena laughter)
• It’s not saying that! (”Saying what?”) Whatever it is that you are saying that it’s saying? (”I haven’t said yet.”) It doesn’t matter; it isn’t.
• Both men and women wore robes in Bible times, so as long as she has on women’s pants, then she’s all set. (”How do you know they’re women’s pants?”) They have a different size and cut. (”You mean they’re tighter?”) No, just cut different in the hips, you know, because women have different hips than men. (”Fascinating. And so what if a woman put on a pair of loose fitting men’s pants, does that violate the verse?”) Well. I guess it would, so she probably shouldn’t do that. (”And that’s what an abomination to God is?”). But they both wore robes. That’s my point.
• Men who teach women-wear-pants have treated women badly.
• Women started wearing pants during World War 1 when they worked in the factories. They were more comfortable.
• Everyone wears underwear!
• You’re not going to say that John MacArthur, John Piper, Bob Jones, Dave Doran, Kevin Bauder, Mark Dever, Larry Oats, and Tim Jordan are, well, all an abomination to God are you?
• The Caananites utilized transvetitism in their worship and God was forbidding Canaanite worship by saying this.
• Moses and Paul both were chauvenists!
• This is forbidding homosexual-type cross-dressing.
• You’re making a major issue out of something that is minor. That’s only in the Bible one time!
• You just want to keep women bare-foot and pregant!
• Men who believe like you do have called women “whores!”
• A lot of women’s skirts are much more immodest than pants!
• Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart!
• My grandmother wears pants and she’s the most Godly woman I know!
• You use the King James!

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 22:5 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 22:5 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 1. 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?

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 5:23 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 22:5 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 22:5 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 22:5 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 22, so why should we emphasize just that one verse? In other words, Deuteronomy 22 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 22 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 22 is as authoritative as the rest of Scripture. Matthew 5:18 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 22:8 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 22:8 requires us to provide for the safety of others by putting up guardrails in places where people can fall and be harmed.

Deuteronomy 22:9-11 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 22:9 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 6:14-16). Verse 11 instructs us that the garments of God must not mix with the rags of this world.

Deuteronomy 22:12 should be considered with Numbers 15:38-41. 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 22 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 22:5, 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 22:5 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 22:5 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 22:5. 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 22:5 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 22:5 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 22:5 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 22:5 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.

I’m happy that God commanded me, “let not the sun go down upon your wrath” (Eph. 4:26), 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 3:28).    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 11:3-16).  Through Paul, God confirmed His will for men and women to distinguish their roles by means of distinct items of clothing.

Deuteronomy 22:5 and 1 Corinthians 11 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 11 is a controversial passage.  So is Deuteronomy 22:5.  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!

While summarizing the Holy Spirit’s work in a believer’s life, the Apostle Paul says in Ephesians 5:21 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 6:1-4 addresses how fathers (parents) and children submit themselves to each other.  Ephesians 6:5-9 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 5:22-33.  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.

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 3:28:

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 1:27 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 2:6 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 3:28.  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 11:3 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 11, 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 11:3, looking to something more than just marriage and the church.  1 Timothy 2 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 3:12 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:

• Women should hold no office in civil government. (3)

• Women should stop directing, bossing, superintending, administrating, or managing men in the workplace.

• Women should cease leading churches.

• Women should discontinue preaching to men.

• Women should no longer challenge or moderate men in blogs and online forums.

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 31 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.]

To strengthen the hearts of those doubting Jehovah, either His ability or His plan for His people, Isaiah wrote these words in Isaiah 42:1-4:

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.  He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.  A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.  He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

The encouragement comes in a prophecy of the Servant of the Lord, the One predicted already in Isaiah 7-12, Who is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In these verses, we see why the Messiah will come, and the text repeats this purpose three times: in v. 1, it says “he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles,” v. 3, “he shall bring forth judgment unto truth” and then v. 4, “He shall not fail. . . till he have set judgment in the earth.” So why does Christ come? Well, judgment, judgment, and judgment. And this isn’t talking about the second coming, but His incarnation, His first coming. So what is this judgment all about?

Bringing Everything in Line with God’s Purpose

The Hebrew word translated “judgment” (mishpot) speaks of societal order. Christ came to save, yes, to save from disorder and vanity. God saved us for Him that we might live a life for His glory on earth. Salvation involves a wholesale change in how society operates, first among the people He saves and ultimately everywhere. God’s salvation changes the alignment of someone’s life and when the Lord finishes off salvation, everything will line up with Him. The work of Christ establishes order. In the end, the people who disrespect Him and His laws won’t be in charge and they’ll get their just due. They might think they’re getting away with peverting His ways, but these verses say they won’t.

The mishpot of the Messiah is a life-giving order that exists when the creation is functioning in accordance with His purpose as its Lord. Jesus came and will come to conform everything to His original design. By being witnesses of Him, He uses us to bring mishpot, realigning earth with God’s intention. The design of mankind was the apex of God’s creative work. The fulfillment of His objectives for the man and the woman stand at the top of God’s will.

The Design of Male and Female Roles

Genesis 1:27 says that “male and female created he them.” God created a separate man and woman with separate roles. God gave man and woman different bodies, abilities, positions, and jobs. The woman was the “help meet” for the man (Gen. 2:18). 1 Corinthians 11:3 tells us: “the head of the woman is the man.” The Fall ruined that. The life-changing mishpot through the powerful gospel of Jesus Christ will produce complementary roles between the man and the woman to bring them back to the Garden of Eden. We should expect the fulfillment of God-designed roles when the Lord has done His saving work.

Many today, however, even in professing Christianity, would call the distinct roles of men and women negotiables or non-essentials. They don’t see male headship and female submission as core values. Since so many disagree today over Bible teaching on this subject, many evangelicals contend that Scripture could teach an egalitarian relationship between the man and the woman. Feminism and the women’s liberation movement has changed society and now it has entered churches. We are likely to see the first female major party candidate for President of the United States. In the workplace men submit all over to women in authority. The feminine voting block outnumbers the men and decides elections. The state of California touts its two female United States Senators. Lady pastors abound. Women boss and administrate church leaders with immunity in online evangelical forums. No obvious symbol of male authority exists in American culture today and churches and their leadership eagerly cooperate with this trend. Numerous evangelicals and young fundamentalists now confess to the egalitarian view. More “Christian men” than ever manifest overtly effeminate qualities.

Missing Mishpot

The Divine order (mishpot) that supernaturally follows genuine conversion is missing among manifold churches today. Women often run churches. Men sit silently as they speak out. Children grow up with no clear symbolism or appearance of male authority and, therefore, the roles are eroded even more. Boys are confused about manhood and girls about femininity. The male role has almost disappeared. We have a broken down society and we are being led to believe that this is at least somewhat consistent with the gospel. Churches and their leaders are fearful of the ostracization that results from a strong stand on Scriptural roles. Families are crumbling.

The arguments against complementary and distinct roles are often emotional, cultural, and non-scriptural.  Authority commonly stems from hypothetical situations and personal attack instead of the Bible.  The historic and orthodox understanding of the appropriate passages is explained away and replaced with something ambiguous and weak.  The plain meaning is given novel definitions by “evangelical feminists.”  When all is said and done, the church looks and acts just like or close to the world.

The gospel transforms someone into a pleasure to God (Rom. 11:33-36).   We see this in Ephesians 2, where in vv. 2-5 we read:

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. . . . But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,  Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;).

The role issue isn’t a negotiable.  Salvation changes the pattern of our living.  We take on the mishpot of Christ, exchanging vanity and vexation without form and void for the purpose and order of God’s original design.  If that isn’t happening, then it isn’t salvation, and perhaps it wasn’t even the gospel.

We should respect everything that God said and follow it. If not, then we better at least move the Scriptural teaching on roles into the “essential” column and out of the “tertiary” one. If not, then we might have a difficult time passing down what we believe to the next generation whether it is Scriptural or not. We’ll either lack a posterity to which to consign the belief or any conviction worth passing down even if we wanted.

Enough of the fluff! Time for something weighty! We’re embracing our fat selves, and charging headlong into a thoroughgoing treatise on the much deliberated proposition of complementarianism.

Shew! Got that out of my mouth just in time, before it started marching back down my throat.

OK, so, we think complementarianism is important. Maybe you do too. Maybe you don’t. Maybe you think this will be a great waste of time. Maybe it will be. Maybe it won’t.

“We think you look very nice. ” “And you are so very smart. ” “And you have the nicest way of telling us to shut up. ” “We really appreciate you. ” “You are so important to us.”

There you have it. Complements, every one of them. We’re just getting warmed up here. We’ve got more coming. Like the one about your tie. And the one about your sermon. Oh yea, and we can’t forget the one about how well-behaved your children are.

Yup! There you have it. We’re being complementarian. We’re practicing our complementarianism for the upcoming first ever Annual Consistent Complementarianists Convention, to be held, I think, in beautiful Sunshine, Arizona. We’ll be there, with Complements to the Conventioners.

“What,” you might ask, “exactly is a complementarian?”

Hmmmm… How do we say it?

“Great question!” “You really think of everything, don’t you!” “Now, why in the world didn’t we think of explaining what that is first?” “Maybe this will help…”

Only, we want to apply it consistently, like say, to the way we dress. Like, for instance, someone ought to actually wear the pants in the family. And someone else should wear the dress. Instead of both wearing the dress the way it is now.