This is the final post in the series. I hope that it has proved helpful and I would definitely appreciate feedback on any points here. Thank you and God bless you all! Soli Deo Gloria.

Vision-Casting: What Each View Envisions in the Church

While the casual observer might, justifiably, expect that the vision of each view for the Church is that their own particular perspective would dominate and become part of its orthodoxy, it would be irresponsible for any student of the controversy to presume that such is the ultimate goal. In fact, for each side there is a tangible, effectual end besides the acceptance and consensus in their favor. These are determinative for the possibility and process of redemptive response to the controversy as we begin to develop it.

In a review of Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, edited by R. Pierce, R. Groothuis, and G. Fee – an egalitarian anthology of articles covering the scope and depth of issues at stake in the controversy – Ruth Gouldbourne, herself an egalitarian, states that,

I have wondered if it is possible to be evangelical and egalitarian. I believe it is. But if our definition of what evangelical means is something pre-decided then perhaps our evangelical identity needs closer examination. By taking the biblical material so seriously, and dealing with it so carefully, the writers have challenged the notion that simply to attach the label evangelical to a position means that by definition it is Scripturally accurate. (Gouldbourne, 2006, 82-83)

In short, Gouldbourne, prompted by what she felt was an excellent publication and exploration of the exegetical arguments for egalitarianism, is looking for the reevaluation of evangelicalism itself. Egalitarianism is not merely a call for adjustment in practice or a cry for justice for churched women, then, but envisions itself as a catalyst for the entire evangelical world to reconsider its orthodoxy and identity in light of the Scriptures. For them, it’s about redefining a dying evangelicalism.

Interestingly enough, an egalitarian review of W. Grudem’s Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: an analysis of 118 disputed questions informs us of the complementarian vision:

Grudem sees the issue of male and female roles as a key one for today’s church.  Failure to understand this issue as Grudem does and act accordingly, will result in a drift to heresy and ultimately a society that is characterized by no gender differences. In his concluding chapters Grudem identifies denominations that have already embarked on this road by ordaining women as ministers and elders. It is of crucial importance to study the scriptures and live according to the guidance. (Fulton, 2006, 71)

What Fulton states, then, is the complementarian vision is a church that is safeguarded from heresy and false teaching, devoted to Biblical orthodoxy, and seeking to live faithfully to the Gospel they’ve received. So, like egalitarianism, complementarianism seeks to call the evangelical church to consider and be introspective. Unlike egalitarianism, however, the complementarian view is crying for an evaluation of where evangelicals stand in relation to Christ and the saving truth of the Scriptures. At the end of the day, for complementarians, it’s not about men and women, but about the Gospel.

Here, then, we have a subtle contrast. Complementarians envision a change of people in submission to the Scriptures that they may more accurately live out, teach, and spread the Gospel. The question is not fundamentally about the trappings and practices of orthodoxy, but about how it will lead to the compromise of orthodoxy. Egalitarians, on the other hand, envision a change of the trappings and practices of the orthodox, but itself having no goal or effect for the Gospel. Here, then, we begin to observe why each view fails to truly engage the other: they are aiming at two different realms – one visible, one invisible.

Answering the Question: Is It a Worthwhile Debate?

We have seen that while both define themselves as a defense of orthodoxy against their opposition. However, the way they define that opposition is at two different levels. Where complementarians see the opposition as a set of beliefs, egalitarians see their opposition as a group of people who happen to hold a certain set of beliefs. This, in turn, impacts their respective visions for the local church as egalitarians are intent on defining the beliefs of evangelicals and complementarians set on calling people back to a universal submission to doctrine. With such difference in goals and perceptions, one might question whether this conflict should continue to be engaged by Christians at all levels – congregations, pastors, theologians, and scholars. Two participants in this conversation, Wade Burleson and Kevin Higham, have presented their theses in this discussion to bring reconciliation to these groups.

As a pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention, Wade Burleson has set himself on a mission to promote and practice justice regarding gender roles in the local churches, particularly those of Southern Baptist convictions. In a remarkable interview that effectively removes him in much of the controversy, Burleson steps aside from the issue of pastoral leadership and focuses on the issue of justice in those areas where there is, for him, clearly no call for distinction of service to the church in gender: seminary professorships, administrators of ministries, missionaries, and church staffers (Burleson, 2008).

Key to Burleson’s thesis are two fundamental claims: (1) regardless of whether one is egalitarian or complementarian, it is owed to women that churches have not always done justice in treating them in a manner worthy of Christ; (2) in both views, there is a broad need for humility and self-examination necessary if we are to move forward. Only when we have these, says Burleson, can we continue the discussion of women’s roles in the local church, and other arenas (Burleson, 2008, 12).

Interestingly enough, Kevin Higham’s thesis parallels these demands, but takes them one step forward in application. Working from within a complementary framework, Higham gives a call for evangelicals to accept that women have leadership giftings and those do not, by necessity, demand a role of authority such as that of pastor/elder. He outlines the steps as follows:

First, we need to accept it [women’s leadership gifting] and not be afraid of it. [...] Whether that gift of leadership is used within the church or within secular society,  the church leadership should help develop and grow the gift. [...] Secondly we should not ignore it. Ignoring it will only lead to discouraged women. [...] Thirdly we liberate them by treating them as equals with dignity and love, also ensuring that a woman is “planted” within the house of God. [...] Finally, we need to release them from fear of overstepping the mark and work with them on their leadership gifting within the defined limits of the environment it is to be engaged within. [...] It is the leader’s responsibility to help release women from fear and into the security found in Christ. (Higham, 2003, 91).

In other words, say Burleson and Higham, we must engage this conversation. For the sake of the Church, both men and women, there must be resolution – an end of conflict and a deliverance from distortion of Scripture and oppression of believers on any extreme. And, so, for both egalitarians and complementarians, we find the utter need to move forward and seek reconciliation in the midst of this controversy.

Application and Conclusion: Moving Beyond Expressions and Divisions

There is no doubt as to the nature and intensity of this controversy. While much of the popular literature has only been briefly alluded to in this examination, it is telling that even in the midst of scholarly or educated literature from egalitarians and complementarians there exists a tension and, in some cases, hostility. If even among those who are sophisticated and seeking to instruct, rather than inflame, there can be such conflict, how much more so for those who are involved purely out of their feelings or loyalties to their own traditions!

We are left then with the question of where this conversation must go. There is a broad range of responses that could be given. Things could continue as they are, and hurt will expand on either side. We could part ways, creating an even more starkly divided evangelicalism. Neither of these is remarkably appealing and would, I think, dishonor the call of Jesus and his redemptive work on behalf of us as the people of God. Rather than the status quo, we ought to distance ourselves from division and seek reconciliation.

How can this be done? Moving in a similar trajectory as Higham, my argument would be that the local churches should adopt a complementarian framework with an egalitarian attitude. To clarify, our reconciliation can be found in the recognition of gender equality and difference. Men and women, being equal in person, in standing before God, and in giftedness, bear roles in submission to Christ that are equal, primarily shared with some separation for each gender to lead according to their gifting and calling. Thus, it is primarily for men to serve as elders – the oversight of the local church – as it is primarily for women to serve as leaders in character.

Now, lest there be any confusion, neither position is essentially inferior to the other. Elders, according to the pastoral epistles of Paul, are given to serve all believers, in a position that is lower than any other in the course of this world’s workings. Leaders of character, too, are servants and models for life in Christ. Where elders present the whole counsel of God, leaders present the whole character of God – and these are far from being strictly segregated (since the primary qualifications of eldership deal with character and the primary test of character is sound doctrine). Thus, we have a complementarian framework. Where we begin to have an egalitarian attitude is in recognizing, affirming, and developing leadership in women, as well as men. Neither gender has an inferior ministry or an inferior calling, but both are gloriously contributing to the glory of God and the building up of the Church.

Concluding then, I would remind us all of the words of the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians:

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. [...] And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. (Eph. 5:1-7, 11-13 English Standard Version)

Self-Expressions: How Each View Defines Itself

Although we have defined, for our purposes, the meanings of egalitarianism, complementarianism, and gender and while this is a crucial step as we begin to seek reconciliation in the area of gender roles in the local church, we cannot begin the work of reconciliation until we have addressed each view’s self-understanding and self-perception. More important, perhaps, than an outsider’s view of any group is their own understanding of who they are and what they are about.

In the scope of egalitarian literature, very few pieces seem to be concerned with defining who they are. Fundamentally, it seems, they are concerned with responding to their opponents: complementarians. Now, this is perhaps a significant observation in itself, but let us not neglect what answers that egalitarians have offered for themselves. Kevin Giles, an Anglican vicar in Australia, says by way of describing egalitarianism in a scenario that,

Egalitarians consistently argue that the Bible treats the issues of slavery and the subordination of women in much the same way. The writers of the Bible – as men living in cultures that accepted the institution of slavery and subordination of women as unquestioned facts of life – depict both social realities as if they are agreeable to God. Neither are ever condemned or specifically questioned in Scripture. Given another cultural context, egalitarian evangelicals argue, slavery and the subordination of women are to be repudiated because, at a primary, theological level, the Bible depicts every human as being of equal worth and dignity, never prescribing some social roles to men and others to women. (Giles, 2002, 7)

In other words, egalitarians believe themselves to be the interpreters of Scripture’s true trajectory. They perceive themselves to be the defenders of God’s “original intent” for revelation: that the people of God would progressively move toward the liberation and equality of all humans, regardless of status and gender. In this sense, then, the egalitarian position is one that thinks in a trajectory of progressive redemption.

Yet, not so surprisingly, the complementarians also see themselves as thinking in the trajectory of progressive redemption. John Piper states that,

God has not placed in us an all-pervasive and all-conditioning dimension of personhood and then hidden the meaning of our identity from us. He has shown us in Scripture the beauty of manhood and womanhood in complementary harmony. He has shown us the distortions and even the horrors that sin has made of fallen manhood and womanhood. And he has shown us the way of redemption and healing through Jesus Christ. [...] Our understanding is that the Bible reveals the nature of masculinity and femininity by describing diverse responsibilities for man and woman while rooting these differing responsibilities in creation, not convention. (Piper, 1991, 35)

Complementarians, then, see themselves as guardians of a biblical theology of gender. By biblical theology, I am referring to the discipline of theology concerned with the progressive development of redemption in all its various arenas throughout the narrative of Scripture. Not only are men and women equal in value, being, and before God, but they are entrusted with distinct, diverse roles that complete and nourish the creational purpose of God and, even though they are imperfectly fulfilled, can find their fulness and healing in the work of Jesus Christ.

What is significant about the self-perceptions of each view, interestingly enough, is they both understand themselves to be defenders or guardians against some encroaching theology or opposition that, ultimately, is violating the will of God and in dissent from the intent of the Scriptures. Neither side has understood itself as the proactive interpreter of Scripture or taking the offensive in a contest of theology and application. This, then, is a significant factor in how they perceive each other.

Apologetics: How Each View Defines the Other

The essential claim of egalitarianism (or “evangelical feminism”, as it is often called in complementarian literature) is not disputed by complementarian scholars and writers. Complementarians acknowledge fully the argument of egalitarians and, rather, question its grounding in the Scriptures – particularly how that understanding of Scripture can be compatible with doctrines pertaining to the sufficiency and infallibility of Scripture in every area of life. One text describes egalitarianism as a “step on the path toward [theological, heretical] liberalism” (Grudem, 2006, 42, 48, et alia.).

In responses that are both exegetical and excoriating, egalitarian interpretations have been described as “eccentric” (Ortlund, 1991, 103), bearing “refusal to submit to the authority of Scripture at all” (Grudem, 1991, 198). The curious reality of complementarians’ perceptions of egalitarianism is that, rather than characterizing its proponents anywhere in their arguments, they portray the egalitarian arguments and interpretations as contrary to Scripture, dangerous, or questionable. In the material surveyed, there was no assault on persons of egalitarian persuasion (although, it should be noted, that it is likely such assaults would exist in popular literature with complementarian sympathies).

This picture, however, is precisely what is maintained of egalitarian perception of complementarianism. S. Gallagher, in her history of the movement from an egalitarian perspective says that “conservatives continued to portray the movement as undermining both biblical truth and the traditional family” (2004, 226). Additionally, they are called “hierarchicalists” (Giles, 2002, 7) or some form thereof (Bilezikian, 2008, 7; Gallagher, 2004, 215), as well as the defenders of patriarchy (Gallagher, 2004; Giles, 2002).

In fairness, egalitarians will do their own exegesis and interpretation of the text and provide ample material to work with. However, they rarely, in the corpus of literature surveyed, respond or counter the exegetical work put forward by complementarians. Complementarian individuals or groups (such as the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) are generally given a label of some sort (“hierarchical” or “patriarchal”) and, because of that label, their argument is dismissed, making room for the egalitarian exegesis.

Thus, in the realm of apologetics, there arises the first difference in perceptions. Where complementarians see the opposition as an “ism” or ideology, egalitarians typically perceive a particular set of individuals who are seeking to perpetuate an unjust patriarchy in the name of Biblical interpretation. It is not so simple, however, to draw a conclusion from this difference. While one could interpret this reality as being indicative of a lack of sound logic in the egalitarian perspective, it could also be interpreted as the appeal of the oppressed egalitarians against a group who is aiding the oppressor. Yet, the view of the present can only be limited evidence. Only when we begin to understand their respective visions for the local church in the years to come can we decide which it is.

Note: This paper was presented at Bethel University on February 21, 2009 for “Imagining the Future: The Reconciled Community“, a sociological conference on reconciliation. The goal was to explore the egalitarian/complementarian debate and see if there is hope for reconciliation in the church. This will be presented in a series over the next few weeks.

Examining the Expressions of Egalitarian and Complementarian Views of Gender in the Local Church

Introduction

While society continues to explore the postmodern questions about gender and sex identity and roles, the Church is engaged in what is, at best, a dialogue and what can be, at worst, a divisive controversy. It is well-known that the egalitarian position takes the “giftedness-not-gender” approach to understanding feminine roles and their perceptions in the local church. By contrast, complementarianism has taken for its stance that both giftedness and gender (and, some would add, grace) determine feminine roles in the life of the local church.

As it stands, however, few have undertaken to display and understand the dialogue and explore how each of these views can express itself in the context of the local church. Like any issue of church polity, this is not simply a matter of doctrine or opinion, but of functional and Scriptural significance in everyday workings of local congregations. By exploring these “expressions” it is to be hoped that a helpful understanding of the differences and their impact can be reached so that Christians – pastors and congregations alike – can respond redemptively in the midst of conflict.

Definitions of Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Gender

At the most basic level of this conflict is definition. Often popular egalitarian and complementarian literature (in contrast to the theological and scholarly literature) has tended toward assuming definitions or caricaturing “the other side” with a straw man (i.e., Bilezikian’s description of complementarians as “the hierarchical approach” [2008, 2]). The need arises, then, to ensure that we have properly defined each position, as well as a definition of gender, to establish a lens and foundation with which to understand the conflict and build a redemptive locus of reconciliation.
Because of the biases of the literature currently available, I have determined to define these terms to the best of my ability, without appeal to the said literature. It should be noted that these definitions are given under the assumption that each view is attempting, as far as is possible, to represent “the Biblical approach to gender”. While this also has implications for the nature of marriage, family life and other arenas, our primary concern is with the local church and, our definitions will be primarily concerned with that.

To begin with, egalitarianism is the perspective or conviction that there is an equality of calling and role in the local church, marriage, and other institutions, such that masculine and feminine roles are essentially the same. From an egalitarian approach, then, men and women alike can serve as pastors, elders, deacons, ministry directors/coordinators, et al., as the qualification is not based on gender, but on calling and gifting.

In contrast, complementarianism is the perspective or conviction that there is an equality of calling in the local church, marriage and other institutions, characterized by distinct masculine and feminine roles. The complementarian, in other words, affirms the necessity and goodness of masculine and feminine participation in ministry while seeking to understand these roles and ministries in a way that lauds difference in gender for the greater good of the local church.

Gender, for the purposes of this paper, will be defined as the quality of being masculine or feminine. The 1828 edition of Webster’s American Dictionary of the English language defines gender as “properly, kind; sort”. Masculinity and femininity are determined, in part, by physiological characteristics. Being male and female, however, does not determine whether behavior and/or inclinations are masculine and feminine. Therefore, another element of gender is an internal quality which, within the individual, complements the physiological characteristics. Thus, gender can be defined as the expression of complementary characteristics, both physiological and internal, in either the masculine or the feminine variety.

Note: You can find Hännah Schlaudt’s third part of her series on Biblical femininity, entitled “It’s Not My Life: Stewarding Feminine Singleness” at Beauty from the Heart.

The 2000 billboard hit by Jon Bon Jovi, It’s My Life typifies rather clearly the attitude that today’s men and the boys now becoming men take with regard to their relationships to others:

It’s my life,
It’s now or never,
I ain’t gonna live forever,
I just want to live while I’m alive.
(It’s my life!)

Possession, provision and protection of self form the core values presented. I own myself. I’m providing for myself. I’m not letting anyone get in the way of myself. As we have already seen in Hard Rock, every man has built into his own personality and way of thinking a sense of independence and separate-ness from others, particularly other men. These three values or actions form the foundation for how we as men demonstrate our masculinity. It is rooted in what we posses, what we provide for, and what we protect. Apart from these three, there is no other thing that has any hold or claim on our commitments, much more our lives.

Of course, just helpful proverbs and truthful statements are most effectively conveyed by humans in the form of example and story. In thinking about this issue, however, one ancient Hebrew story came to mind that would demonstrate how pervasive the values of possession, provision and protection are in the souls of men (and by men, I refer to males of the human species):

There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms, and it was like a daughter to him. Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.

So let’s talk about these two men. One is rich and one is poor. For most of us, one of those will trigger a reaction against one or the other. We are naturally inclined to be suspicious of either the rich or the poor man. And how is one rich or poor? It’s a judgment of his possession, his ownership.  A man who is the master of plenty is rich, but the one who has trouble owning the little he does have is poor. Basic stuff, right? Each has possession – whether great or little – of something.  Not only that, but each clearly provides for that which he possesses. The rich man provides much for the many herds that he has, and the poor man provides as much as he can for the one lone ewe lamb that he has. Yet, when it gets down to it, only the rich man is able to effectively protect his possessions entirely but, however, does this at the cost of the poor man. Clearly unjust.

Some of you may have recognized this story. As a matter of fact, this parable is told by Nathan the prophet to King David in 2 Samuel 12. It is used by the prophet to convict David of his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba and the subsequent murder of her husband, Uriah. David, of course, repents, accepts the consequences from the LORD’s hand and surrenders to the will of God. But, for all the good that resulted from it..the poor man, Uriah, is dead and has gained nothing from this. Here’s the shocker, though…as men, I believe we ought to be imitators of Uriah the Hittite in his role as possessors, providers, and protectors.

From Scripture, we know very little of Uriah the Hittite. Apart from the David and Bathsheba scandal, the only piece of information that we have for certain is that he was numbered among David’s “mighty men” in 2 Samuel 23 and 1 Chronicles 11. Even the normally rich Jewish tradition has little to say about this man’s history in these passages. So, what we would learn about Uriah, we must learn from 2 Samuel 11. So, pursue with me what about Uriah we are to imitate and read that chapter now.

And, instead of expositing or questioning, I want you young men reading this to write your own responses. Get your friends involved. Get your fathers involved. Get your pastors involved. Let’s try to lay hold of God’s example and challenge to us in our masculinity in the person of Uriah the Hittite.

Note: Hännah Schlaudt continues her series on Biblical femininity, “A Desperate Housewife-to-be?”, with her second post at Beauty from the Heart.

A man’s word is his bond. We’re all familiar with the cliche and those of us from Christian backgrounds, or (truthfully) “moral” backgrounds, would even claim to believe in the truth of the statement. But let’s step back from the statement. There’s another’s word that is your bond. Did that test something of your independence? Your manhood? Rightly so. We’ve always been told, taught and felt that a man’s his own man and no other man’s bond can lay hold of him justly. What I’m referring to, however, is not the bond of man, but that of God’s Word. God’s Word is our bond. Period.

Much has been discussed (read “argued”) about the authority of the Scriptures through the 19th and 20th century, particularly with the rise of Christian liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, fundamentalism, evangelicalism and, now, Emergent and the emerging church movement. Those terms may mean nothing to you, or they may stir your blood. In either case, suffice it to say that groups of Christians took remarkably different stances on how, where, and in what the Bible has authority over our lives. Were we to go back through 3,000 years of Judaic theology, and even further with the life of the Hebrew Scriptures, however, there really only comes forward one answer with regard to the authority of the Word of God: it’s total.

That said, it is not totalitarian. It is, in fact, holistic and benevolent, working in our lives as the tool of God’s grace and the clearest means by which He communicates with His Creation. Countering much of the apathy of today’s Western culture, the Scriptures demonstrate to us the frequent, effective, and gracious interest of the Creator God in human beings which, He claims, are made in His image. Preposterous much? If that is what you think, consider a few realities around you.

Whether you are premodern, modern, postmodern, post-postmodern or entirely unsure of where you fit with the above, the reality is that you accept and acknowledge some form of authority in your lives. It may be tangible – like yourself, your parents, your church, your government – or conceptual – Scripture, logic, rationality, instinct, goodness. It may be personal choice or socially enforced on you. Whatever the case, we are not creatures apart from authority of every kind. Even the rebel has his own authorities.

It is not my purpose here to make an apologetic for why you should put yourself under the authority of the Word of God. That has been done far better than I could ever do, by Mark Dever and Dr. Al Mohler at this year’s New Attitude Conference. By all means, listen to their messages and hear the strength of their case, if you doubt that. No, for the rest of the series, I will assume that you have a basic commitment (at the least) to the authority of Scripture as it pertains to every area of life.

It does, however, have great relevance and authority over what our masculinity looks like. While many today have argued that gender roles and the like are culturally-defined, not something that is essential to Biblical understanding of life, the truth of the matter is that we cannot ignore that the Scriptures speak to this topic, with authority that is timeless and defining for our lives as we pursue God’s grace. It is as Abraham Kuyper once stated (paraphrased), “There is not one square inch of life over which Jesus Christ does not stand over and shout, ‘Mine!’” He does this in our masculinity and, if we love Him, we will obey what He has commanded (John 14:15) for us in this area.

What claim has Jesus Christ over your manhood? To begin with, He is your Creator. Were that not enough, He is the only one to live the human life in perfection and total righteousness, thus bearing dominion over all men. Still more, He redeemed you by His suffering on the cross, bearing all of God’s wrath against your sin. Still more, God has placed Him as King over all of heaven and earth, and will give to Him all the kingdoms of the earth in the future. So when He comes to judge the living and the dead, will He have your allegiance? The truth is evident: Jesus Christ has every claim over your manhood and, indeed, your entire life. Does that offend your independence? Good, because our desire to be independent from God must die, and that quickly. Get with it. God’s Word is our bond.

Note: This series intentionally complements that of Hännah Schlaudt, “A Desperate Housewife to Be? Delighting in God’s Design for Femininity” as hosted by Beauty from the Heart. Construction will like continue on the site as the series goes forward.

Go to college. Graduate with $25,000 in savings. Get a steady job. Meet a pretty girl. Talk to her dad. Court. Get married. Buy a house. Live life (and all to the glory of God, to boot). That’s the “big picture” image of what many a conservative Christian young man has envisioned for his future, and for what a responsible, “manly” Christian life looks like. After all, it meets what we typically define as the roles of manhood – provision and protection. Contrast it with the more common “big picture” image of masculinity these days: Go to college. Party. Graduate. Start working to pay off loans. Date around to find Mrs. Right. Propose. Get married. Live life. Now, it’s important to note that these are basically only “ideals” of either side that is given here. Yet, it is still essentially getting at the roles of protector and provider. In essence, all are agreed on what manhood involves principally.

John Piper, in his book What’s the Difference? (Crossway 1990) defines masculinity in this way:

“At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships.” (22)

If the problem were in agreeing on definitions, then this would not be an issue to address in the Church. Yet, what has proven to be the case, time and time again, is that men are not really pursuing these roles Biblically and with discernment. We assume that making lots of money makes us good providers. We assume that living in a suburban neighborhood or installing a security system and not letting our kids run rampant over all creation makes us good protectors. We assume that if we love our wives, love our children and devote ourselves faithfully to seeing them prosper in that regard, we are going to fulfill what God has called us to do. Even though I speak as if I am married and have children, I am not. I am one single guy, who isn’t currently “courting” or “dating”, with the hopes of being a husband and father in the somewhat-near future and yet, I find it impossible for us to separate our masculinity from how we function in the family. The truth of the matter is, brothers – whether you are married, engaged, courting/dating, or single – we are failing at Biblical masculinity if we think that by providing and protecting in the ways presented above, we are fulfilling God’s design and intention for us in the Creation!

In 1 Corinthians 16:13, Paul commands that the men there to “act like men”. In another place, he expresses desire for men (1 Timothy 2). In yet another place, he exhorts the men to relationship (1 Timothy 5). Still more he urges men to action (Titus 2:6). Even more amazing than these words of the Apostle Paul is the writing of John in 1 John 2, as he writes and addresses men specifically with the echoes of God’s voice flooding from every word. There is much that the Scriptures have to say to men…and about men. And I suppose that were one to write on every thing, you could easily produce a series of books, not simply a short series. The point is, gentlemen, we have a need and we need to recognize it. When it gets down to it, most of us do not have a Biblical framework for expressing our masculinity, even if we can baptize our framework with Biblical terminology.

I plead with you then, for the sake of your sisters in Christ, for your wives and children, for the good of the Church, for the good of your fellow men and, above all, for the sake of Christ, take time to hear the Word of God. Let us search out the Word for His intentions, designs, and amazing plan for us. Let us see where God has forbidden our entrance, and where we should flourish. Let us see and understand more deeply the significance of God’s good creation of gender. Let us call on God to give us wisdom and insight to lead and live well in the light of the glory of the Gospel of God in Christ Jesus. Brothers, will you join me in this adventure? There is more to come and much more to see in the Word of God.