In an effort to help clarify the viewpoints at play in the gender debate, I offer a definition of terms that carry so much of the meaning cargo: complementarian and egalitarian. Complementarianism is the idea that both sexes are made in the image of God and are thus fully equal in value, yet very different in role as is taught in Scripture. Biblical manhood encompasses a loving, humble disposition to lead. Biblical womanhood involves a wise, submissive disposition to honor the servant leadership of worthy men.

The counterpoint perspective to this view is Christian egalitarianism. It is held by those who "believe that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all ethnicities and all economic classes, based on the teachings of scripture as reflected in Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Most egalitarians hold that all people are equal before God, have equal responsibility to use their gifts, and are called to roles and ministries without regard to class, gender, or race.

Egalitarians hold that God's created order to not only bestow an equality of essence and value to men and women, but a similarity of function as well. They teach that it was the entrance of sin into the world that introduced an illegitimate hierarchy into the relationships between men and women. Men, because of sin, take on a disposition of dominance and women, because of sin, take on a disposition of subservience. Value and function are both skewed by sin, in their view, and therefore the redemptive Gospel of Jesus Christ must include a restoration to equity in both value and function.

At CBMW we recognize that in some sense all careful Bible readers will see an element of truth in the egalitarian position.  Because of verses like Galatians 3:28 quoted above and many others, we know that God loves men and women equally, that they are depraved and in need of grace equally, and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and promised His presence in heaven equally. To make that truth plain has been historically needful and remains so today.

However, the question that must be considered is this: is it possible that hierarchy is not inherently sinful, but woven throughout creation before sin entered into the world—even seen in God's Trinitarian nature?  The Bible reveals a beautiful hierarchy between men and women, the old and young, parents and children even among the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  In each of these examples no superiority or inferiority exists. None is valued above the other. Yet mysteriously, the difference between the persons highlights their unified beauty.

These definitions are far from mere abstractions, but influential in the lives of real people, as we'll see in tomorrow's post.

What do we mean by the term complementarian? We're glad you asked.

In an issue as important as God's design for men and women, defining the terms is critical to clarifying opposing positions. For some who may yet be undecided in these matters, such clarity might be the means of resolving the matter in a way that increases their joy in God's design and thereby brings him glory.

The term complementarian was coined by Wayne Grudem and the other founders of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to capture the Bible's teaching on the equal value, but different functions of men and women in God's created order. God designed both women and men to be fully human and therefore fully equal. At the same time both reflect God's image in very different ways, such that neither is sufficient to portray fully the magnificence of God. The sexes complement each other.

For instance, we see this idea of complementarity in Ephesians 5:21 and its application to human marriage. There Paul says we all are to be "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." He goes on to show how the way a wife should submit is markedly different from the way a husband should submit. A wife's submission chiefly means respect for her husband's Christ-like leadership (v.22). On the other hand, a husband's submission chiefly finds expression in that very sacrificial, loving leadership (v.25).  Christ, as the husband of the Church, submitted himself in sacrificial love to the Church.  And the Church, as Christ's Bride, submits to his humble, loving leadership over her.  This is biblical complementarity in action.

Another term that helps to fill out the complementarian position is patriarchy.  Often this term is used pejoratively.  However, when it is used in its biblical sense, referring to God's loving fatherhood over us, we strongly embrace it. Any humble, loving headship that an earthly father exerts, he does so reflecting God, our heavenly Father. This is an important definition to clarify, because we reject any notion of patriarchy that says a husband is superior to his wife, or rules women by virtue of his ancestry. 

Sometimes the complementarian view is confused with the traditionalist view.  That is an unfortunate mistake.  Traditionalists are those who stand to benefit from keeping things just as they are: status quo. Traditionalism often arises out of a self-serving slothfulness that sees no need to do the hard and humble work of cultural challenge and biblical exegesis.  There are traditionalists on both sides of the gender debate. We reject this view and are pleased to find that many of our counterparts in the evangelical egalitarian position do as well. The only traditions we seek to uphold are those biblical ones of which the Apostle Paul speaks in II Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."

If you would like to know more about the complementarian position you may wish to read Piper and Grudem's Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood or this helpful Summary by Dr. Bruce Ware on the two key terms in the gender debate. Tomorrow, I will take a look at the meaning of the counterpoint position evangelical egalitarianism.

It almost seems like it would be easier to defend a cottage against angry villagers armed with torches and pitchforks than to speak a word today in defense of the traditional covenant of marriage.  Some object to the "until death do we part" duration of marriage and instead treat the institution as sequential contracts through life with different partners.  Others seek to redefine marriage as the holy union of two men, two women, a human and a robot, or one presumes eventually some combination of people, higher primates, or other creatures. Many others now consider marriage to be irrelevant, simply one option that some prefer for living together or parenting children.  Nevertheless, marriage as instituted by God will endure.

The divine origins of the institution of marriage are evident in its resiliency in the face of these assaults from many fronts.  Any man-made institution would have crumbled to dust long ago.  Rather, the Bible is clear about how we should view marriage, "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous" (Hebrews 13:4).  Churches that teach this truth and help believers live it out in vibrant, healthy marriages will stand out more and more in a culture where the prevailing view of marriage is increasingly dishonored.  Two recent television ads illustrate this erosion:

In a recent PETA commercial airing in ten states, a mother and father sit down in their daughter's bedroom for an important talk about sexuality. However, in crass terms the parents encourage their daughter to pursue premarital sex, and "a lot of it."  Shrugging off his daughter's concerns about becoming pregnant, the father exclaims, "So what? You should pop out all the kids you want.  We will just leave them in the shelter; dump them in the street."

In explaining the ad, Melissa Karpel, spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, explained, "This is a way to get the message into the mainstream. It is irresponsible to let your children have unprotected sex and it's irresponsible not to spay and neuter your animals."  I agree that animals are an important part of God's creation, but it requires an extremely low view of marriage to link the one-flesh union to concerns about the overpopulation of cats and dogs.

Another commercial for Heinz mayonnaise in Britain was intended to convey that the product "Tastes as if you have your own New York deli man in your kitchen."   To this end, the spot features a brawny short-order chef with a Brooklyn accent making sandwiches in a home kitchen.   A young boy and girl refer to him as "Mum."  Before the father figure leaves for work, he plants a kiss on the lips of the deli man.  Lest the viewer miss the point, the chef calls after the father, "Love ya! Straight home from work, sweet cheeks."

Both ads are intentionally shocking, using premarital and homosexual sex to communicate an advertising message in a memorable way.  But the marketers know better than to use an electric chair or a reference to the Holocaust to sell condiments, because by today's standards that would be unacceptably shocking.  The ads clearly use carefully-chosen acceptable shocking situations in a way that essentially winks and gives approval to the underlying behavior.  Imagine the outcry if a baby duck were injured to "shockingly" convey the same message!

In God's providence, there are three reasons for believers to find encouragement in these dismal commercials.  First, the fact that people still find them offensive shows an deep, if unstated, respect for God's gift of marriage.  Because marriage is still held in some regard, the ads evoke offense rather than indifference.  Second, the second commercial was pulled from the air after concerned citizens took the time to register formal complaints.  We can be grateful to God that the respectful voices of many people calling for decency still carry weight in this world.

Third, it is likely that few youngsters saw the Heinz commercial because the British government has child-protection rules which limit the broadcast hours for commercials advertising unhealthy products like mayonnaise which are high in fat, salt and sugar....

Recently, Randy Stinson addressed the problem of self-preoccupation among modern men, but, the principles he set forth apply to women as well. He explained that biblical manhood should not be characterized by an excessive delight in self-pampering, but rather a Christ-like, self-sacrifice that places others wants and needs before our own—all so others might see Christ. In the same vein, Christian womanhood should include more self-sacrifice than self-preoccupation. This is not to say that women should give up on proper hygiene, shopping, or even getting their nails done. The Bible only says that women should not be hoping in those things for their value and worth—rather they should be hoping in God (1 Peter 3:3-5). It is important to note that the Bible is not silent about beauty. God has much to say about such things.

Mrs. Mary Mohler, wife of seminary President and Council Member, R. Albert Mohler Jr., addresses beauty at the Capitol Hill Baptist Church women's retreat. Mrs. Mohler's teaching and humble spirit is a tremendous gift to all in the church, especially women. She encourages us to see that beauty is important to God. While dispelling the notion that femininity equals frumpiness, she also dispels the idea that femininity equals "dressing to the nines" all of the time. God, being the Creator of the Universe, has created beauty and the beauty that displays his creation is what we should pursue.  But, beauty is not simply defined by external appearance. There are examples of biblical characters, like Absalom, who destroyed themselves, and others, because they did not give praise to God for their beauty—their beauty was merely external. Beauty is both an internal and external desire in the life of the believing woman.

But we must separate biblically defined beauty from worldly beauty. Worldly beauty is empty. After giving us a framework for seeing beauty, Mrs. Mohler exhorts us to see that the world's understanding of beauty is empty. She discusses the danger of vanity and cautions us to not make an idol out of worldly beauty because it will eventually fade. What doesn't fade is the beauty of a woman who has spent her life in front of the mirror of God's Word, rather than the mirror in her bathroom.

God cares about beauty. But the point of beauty is not our own glorification. God designed beauty for our enjoyment and for his glory—so we should take an interest in how we look, but not for man's empty praise. We should care about how we look because we want the Creator of our features to be praised for his handiwork. If we spend our time adorning ourselves only, we will miss the point. We cannot hope in the empty promises of a $90 straightener and Great Lash mascara. Rather we should be adorned by the Word of God. This looks differently in other women, but the goal of our femininity is so people will see Christ in greater measure, not our fancy clothes and manicured nails. So let us not be ashamed to recognize true beauty as we see it, but let us also put our hope in Jesus blood and righteousness, lest we think on that final day that it's our trendy outfit and size-2-body that will save us.

Mrs. Mohler's messages are excellent, and I would highly encourage you to follow the links to listen to them. May God bless you greatly as you listen. You can access her talks here and here

How will you respond when your local church is asked to perform a wedding ceremony for two women, or two men? We do well to have a gentle, but firm, answer ready for just such an occasion. There are specific groups who are advancing the homosexual agenda aiming to legalize same-sex relations, and the naïve cultural acceptance of immorality as legitimate behavior.  The biblical view of marriage is under assault—and nowhere pricklier than in the local church.

Recently a wedding photographer was fined $6000 for refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. In an article for the Christian Science Monitor staff writer Ben Arnold draws our attention to the fact that many churches find themselves in the role of ‘conscientious objector' when it comes to same-sex ‘wedding' ceremonies.  There is legal footing in some states for contra-natura unions. At the same time, other states have pledged to recognize, if not create, such alliances.

This trend should come as no surprise since the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 described what John Piper calls, the dark exchange.  "...Women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,..." (Romans 1:26-27).  When this exchange knocks on a pastor's office door seeking a blessing on its existence, how will we respond?

A good start includes an in-house policy explaining how Christian marriage can only mean the joining of two dissimilar human sexes, who are saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and are willing to undergo some regimen of pre-marital mentoring.

Yet there's more. Make much of godly marriage and godly singleness among the young people of your church. Surely, we must shore up the marriages of our churches with retreats, curriculum, sermons, couple-to-couple mentoring, conferences and a library of great resources. This will help to spiritually inoculate them against unholy particles floating in the cultural air.

Pray often and deeply for your pastor and church leaders.  And speaking of church leadership, it might be wise to identify a godly, trusted attorney in your church or community that you or your leaders can turn to in times of legal uncertainty.

Most important of all: make much of God in the local church. He created marriage for his own glory. He alone has the right to determine how it is carried out. His plentiful resources enrich those who stand against assaults upon his Son and his Bride.

Marriage must not be surrendered. Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California, Marc Handley Andrus suggests that the church give up its claim on marriage and leave it completely to the civil magistrates to conduct. I cringe. Courage, not collapse!

Legislative exemptions from immoral laws currently exist, but only God knows for how long. He also knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10) and is surprised by nothing.  And his promise to his people is that he will keep us blameless until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.