I recently confessed a secret to my accountability partner that I had been harboring for many months: My wife and I have become moderately addicted to American Idol.

My gracious friend barely took a breath in responding: "I watch it too, but never wanted you to know." Now that the unadorned truth was out, both of us laughed heartily at our attempt at Pharisaical "super piety" and assured each other — as if we were both still a little unconvinced — that there is "nothing wrong with watching American Idol, so long as we do so discerningly and in moderation."

While I always seek to observe and analyze popular culture through the lens of a Christian worldview with the aim of taking every though captive for Christ, one incident between the "talent" and judges earlier this season was so blatantly atheistic (and unmanly), it bears a bit further analysis. Under the not-so-subtle headline "American Idol Virgin Fires Back at Seacrest," Cybercast News Service recounts the sad (if unsurprising) details:

"At the Dallas auditions for the 2008 season of "American Idol" last month, 19-year-old Bruce Dickson discovered that his singing wasn't the only thing that got a no vote from the judges, who also questioned his decision to "save everything for that one special woman."

When Dickson, from Bastrop, Texas, was asked to share something about himself, he said he'd never kissed a girl.

"What?" Randy Jackson asked. "On purpose?"

"On purpose," Dickson said. "On my wedding day, that will be my first kiss."

Jackson's advice to Dickson after the judges sent him packing: "Go kiss some girls."

Simon Cowell, eyebrows raised, told him: "Avoid Ryan (Seacrest) on the way out."

Seacrest himself ended the segment featuring Dickson with these words: "Maybe next year he'll come back less a boy and more a man." But Dickson fired back at Seacrest in an interview with Cybercast News Service. "A real man would rather wait than just do whatever with whoever," he said."

Bravo! Way to demonstrate true manhood, Bruce Dickson!  

It seems that perhaps this young man has something transcendent to teach the presumptuous judges of AI about the qualities that comprise genuine manhood.  After all, manhood according to our sovereign Creator's inspired blueprint is not measured by romantic conquests, but by Spirit-imbued humility and servant leadership that demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, one of which is self-control.

The real man protects the purity, honor and integrity of women; like Paul, he makes his passions submit to the bridle of self-control. Like Joseph, he flees from flirtatious temptation and knows well that "the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey...her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol." (Prov 5:3a, 5) He knows that the answer to Solomon's question "Can a man carry fire next to his chest and his clothes not be burned?" (Prov 6:27) is a resounding "no." He understands well that a young man "Dies for lack of discipline and because of his great folly he is led astray." (Prov 5:23) 

He knows that God did not make women for the distinct purpose of satisfying his carnal urges, but realizes that God created them in His own image, full of dignity, worthy of respect and honor. The real man does not see a woman as an object to be used, but as a gift to be cherished as a perfectly suitable helpmate.

[Andy and Jenni Naselli live in Deerfield, Illinois and are members of CrossWay Community Church. Jenni is a  preschool teacher of four-year-olds at Christian Heritage Academy and is eagerly expecting her first child in June. Andy is pursuing his second PhD at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he serves as a research assistant to Dr. D. A. Carson. More from the Naselli's is available on their website. - David Kotter]

Last year a close friend began telling me about the book Girl Talk: Mother-Daughter Conversations on Biblical Womanhood by Carolyn Mahaney and Nicole (Mahaney) Whitacre. Carolyn and Nicole are the wife and daughter respectively of C. J. Mahaney, who serves as the Vice-Chairman of the board of directors for CBMW.

My friend had recently given birth to her first child, a baby girl, and was thoroughly enjoying the book's emphasis on teaching daughters about biblical womanhood. I soon began devouring it! Then I discovered the Girl Talk Blog and two other books written by Carolyn Mahaney:

• Feminine Appeal: Seven Virtues of a Godly Wife and Mother (an ideal place to begin reading Carolyn Mahaney)
• Shopping for Time: How to Do It All and NOT Be Overwhelmed (coauthored with her three daughters)

I also found a treasure trove of free teachings. I began spending hours each day listening to Carolyn on my MP3 player while working in the home. I even bought the three books above and gave them as Christmas presents to my Mom, sister, mother-in-law, and three sisters-in-law!

Throughout these past few months, Carolyn has mentored me at a distance through her books and talks on the disciplines of biblical womanhood:

• Her Titus 2 series has challenged me to think seriously about my role as a believing wife and mother.
• Her emphasis on "discovering the idols of your heart" in our motivations has convicted me to examine my own life and discern what motivates my decisions.
• Her practice of encouraging others about God's grace at work in their lives has challenged me to be more intentional about edifying others this way.
• Her seriousness about confessing and dealing with sin has sobered me to examine and deal with the sin in my own heart.
• Her teaching on motherhood has meant the most to me since our own baby girl, Kara Marie, is on the way! May God give me the grace to be half as intentional in teaching baby Kara about the disciplines of biblical womanhood as Carolyn was with her daughters.

I am so grateful for Carolyn's mentoring over the last several months. Rather than giving fluffy women's talks, she applies the gospel to all of life—especially to our roles as wives and mothers for the glory of God.

Many of us can probably remember our first C.S. Lewis experience.  For me, I was introduced to Lewis' works through the old PBS Chronicles of Narnia series.  I loved these movies, and would often step into my bedroom closet just hoping that on the other side the world of Narnia and Aslan would be waiting for me.  As I got older my encounters with Lewis became more intellectual.  I distinctly remember thinking that I had long way to go at my first, and second, attempts at reading Mere Christianity.

C.S. Lewis is a staple of thought-provoking, engaging evangelicalism, which is why I was delighted to read a complementarian essay by my favorite Narnian.

In his book God in the Dock, Lewis pens an essay entitled "Priestesses in the Church," where he expresses his dismay over the Anglican communion's decision to ordain women.  As a result of a shortage of priests, much like today, the Anglican church voted to bring women into the priesthood.

He says:

To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation.

Lewis saw the decision to ordain women as one that would have lasting repercussions on his denomination.  And it did.  The very denomination that once moved in the direction of the ordination of women is now wrestling with the ordination of homosexuals.  The Anglican Church now ordains more women than men.

Lewis saw that the ordination of women has everything to do with the doctrine of God. It is not simply about women being in the pulpit.

To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents God to us and us to God. Our very eyes teach us this. Sometimes the priest turns his back on us and faces the East-he speaks to God for us: sometimes he faces us and speaks to us for God. We have no objection to a woman doing the first: the whole difficulty is about the second. But why? Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? Certainly not because she is necessarily, or even probably, less holy or less charitable or stupider than a man. In that sense she may be as God-like as a man; and a given woman much more than a given man. The sense in which she cannot represent God will be perhaps plainer if we look at things the other way round.

Suppose the reformer stops saying that good woman may be like God and starts saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to "Our mother which art in heaven" as "Our Father." Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called Daughter as the Son. Suppose finally that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.

And there is the reason. The ordination of women is not simply a preferential issue, like we decide music styles. Rather it is deeply rooted in a theology of God, a theology of his Triune nature, and theology of His Gospel. To abandon male ordination is to be set on a trajectory to abandon these fundamental doctrines. Lewis even goes so far as to say that moving away from masculine images and male priests is "against Christianity."

According to Lewis, gender matters.  Not simply in technical terms but for the gospel itself. As is evident from his from his writings, C. S. Lewis saw in advance the problems that the church now suffers as a result of the ordination of women.

At the conclusion of this series, we must ask about the pastoral implications of the eternal subordination of the Son.  What does this doctrine show us about the character of God and what effect should this truth have on our hearts and relationships today?

From one perspective, the eternal subordination of the Son does not define our understanding of the marriage relationship between a man and a woman.  Direct teachings of Scripture instruct men to assume the role of humble, loving leader in marriage (Ephesians 5:22-28; 1 Peter 3:7).  Likewise, women are clearly taught to assume the role of joyful, intelligent helper (Genesis 2:20; Ephesians 4: 24; 1 Peter 3:1-6).  Whether or not we believe that the Son was eternally submitted to the Father should not necessarily have any effect on our obedience to these straightforward commands which define the marriage relationship.

Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 11:3 leads us to understand that there is a direct connection between the Trinity and our roles in marriage.  In this verse, Paul writes, "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God."  Hierarchy has always existed in the Trinity itself, because the head of Christ is God.  The goodness of hierarchy is built into the very fabric of creation.  Though we are all sinful, it is fundamentally good that children submit to their parents, Christians submit to lawful governments instituted by God, and that believers submit themselves to the leadership of elders in the church.

How this is expressed in marriage is especially beautiful. If headship and submission can exist between the equal persons in the Godhead itself, then we can understand how the same type of relationship can exist between equal persons in marriage.

The husband is called to be the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the church.  He imitates the headship of Jesus Christ.  The wife is called to imitate the submission of Jesus Christ to the Father.  Jesus Christ is so great that both a man and woman together are needed to display his glorious leadership and servanthood.

What difference does the doctrine of the eternal submission of the Son make in our hearts? It reassures a wife that her role in marriage is not ignoble or demeaning.  If this imitates the role that Jesus Christ assumes in the very Godhead, then a wife's role is fundamentally noble and good.

There are few things more counter-cultural and gospel-displaying than a wife joyfully imitating Jesus Christ in his submission to the Father.  Though Jesus was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but humbled himself.  For this He was highly exalted, and in the same way a wife of noble character is more valuable than precious rubies.

As Shawn Wright pointed out on Gender Blog recently, church history is neither authoritative nor decisive in establishing correct doctrine. Most evangelicals are "people of the book," and thus hold firmly to the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation, sola scriptura or "scripture alone" as their sole source of authority. 

But church history is by no means unimportant in the discussion of doctrine. After all, we are not the first Christians who have wrestled with the proper interpretation of Scripture as evidenced by thousands who have written on Christian doctrine and practice. Likewise, we are not the first Christians to see an intra-trinitarian authority/submission structure in Scripture.

Egalitarians often argue that the doctrine of the Son's eternal submission is akin to the heresy of Arian subordination that was condemned in the early church. Arius argued that the Son was a created being and that "there was a time when he was not;" in other words, there was a time when the Son did not exist. This heresy (which lives today and is seen most clearly in the teachings of the Watchtower Society) viewed the Son as ontologically inferior to the Father; that is, the Son was not equal in essence to the Father.

The doctrine under consideration in this series, however, must not be confused with the heresy of Arius and others. The orthodox view of subordination has been affirmed by many in the mainstream of orthodoxy throughout church history, including: 

• Hilary of Poitiers (c. 291-371), who was widely known as the Athanasius of the Western tradition. His work on the Trinity, De Trinitate, clearly expresses order and ranking in the Godhead. 
• Athanasius (c. 296-373) argued against Arianism at the Council of Nicaea in 325 and saw his view emerge victorious. Yet, in his Orationes contra Arionos (Orations against Arius), he articulates the eternality of the Son and expresses a clear order within the Godhead.
• St. Augustine (354-430), famed bishop of Hippo, whose theology undergirded the Reformation. In his classic work On the Trinity, Augustine emphasized the unity of the Trinity and also reflected on the eternal subordination of the Son.
• Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-394), Basil of Caesarea (c. 329-379) and Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330-390), the great Cappadocian Fathers, whose teachings on the Trinity were formative for the nascent Christian church, expressed order or ranking within the Godhead. 
• Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), a profoundly important philosopher and theologian in the scholastic tradition. In his classic work Summa Theologica (Sum of Theology), he argues that, as the Father is not from another, it is in no way fitting for Him to be sent, but only for the Son and the Holy Spirit.
• John Calvin (1509-1564), a father of the Reformation and author of the first systematic theology, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin adopted Augustine's view of the Trinity.
• Charles Hodge (1797-1878), principal of Princeton Theological Seminary and stalwart theologian in the Reformed tradition. Hodge, in his renowned Systematic Theology, writes, "In the Holy Trinity there is a subordination of the Persons as to the mode of subsistence and operation..."
• B.B. Warfield (1851-1921), among the last of the great Princeton theologians who fought for orthodox Christianity at the turn of the 20^th century. Warfield also serves as a model of self-sacrifice commensurate with the intra-trinitarian relationships; soon after his marriage to his wife Annie in 1876, she was struck by lightning and was rendered an invalid. Warfield traveled little and served as Annie's primary caregiver until her death in 1915.
• Augustus H. Strong (1836-1921), a renowned Baptist theologian at Rochester Theological Seminary.  Strong, in his Systematic Theology, upholds the doctrine and applies it to the home, writing that "In office man is first and woman is second, but woman's soul is worth as much as man's see 1 Cor. 11:3."
• Louis Berkhof (1873-1957), noted Reformed systematic theologian, who, in his great Systematic Theology, sought to separate the heretical doctrine of subordinationism that was condemned in the early church from the orthodox teaching that the Son has a subordinate functional role to the Father.

For further study:

• Wayne A. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions, pp. 415-422.
• William Weinrich, "Women in the History of the Church," Chapter 15 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism.