Gender Blog

Complementarian Spouses and Egalitarian Extended Family

Mike Seaver — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:00:00 +0500

Chip and Celia have been married for 5 years. They love and respect Chip's parents, but Chip's parents feel that the couple needs to spend more time with them, take their input more seriously about parenting, and allow Celia to work outside the home ("...since she does have her Master's Degree").

In a society where we breath the air of feminism, many young couples face the struggle of building a complementarian marriage while having parents who see through egalitarian lenses. Here are a few tips on how to honor egalitarian parents while also not compromising your biblical convictions.

1. Humility: We are always told to "honor our parents," so the best way to honor parents when you disagree with them is by humbly hearing them (without interrupting) and humbly responding. It is okay to disagree, but if there is a lack of humility in your heart during hard conversations, it is probably going to stir more strife than peace. James 4:8 says, "God is opposed to the proud, but give grace to the humble." God will give pour out his amazing grace as you seek to be humble and honor him.

2. Remember the Gospel: Alfred Poirier encourages us to see criticism with our eyes on the cross. He says, "In light of God's judgment and justification of the sinner in the cross of Christ, we can begin to discover how to deal with any and all criticism. By agreeing with God's criticism of me in Christ's cross, I can face any criticism man may lay against me. In other words, no one can criticize me more than this cross has. And the most devastating criticism turns out to be the finest mercy. If you thus know yourself as having been crucified with Christ, then you can respond to any criticism, even mistaken or hostile criticism, without bitterness, defensiveness, or blame shifting. Such responses typically exacerbate and intensify conflict, and lead to the rupture of relationships. You can learn to hear criticism as constructive and not condemnatory because God has justified you."

3. Did you always hold this position?: For many of us, we did not always hold the complementarian position that we now embrace. Give your extended family an opportunity and grace to learn. Allow them to see the way you function as a family and not seek to teach them "why you are right." I have heard C.J. Mahaney say, "Time and truth are on our side" and I think this quote can apply here.

4. Get the log out of your own eye: Are you more aware of your sin or the sin of your extended family? Jesus says that you need to get the phone pole out of your own eye before you get the tooth pick out of theirs.

5. This is not your worst problem: Your worst problem is your sin and the wrath of the Father that you deserve and the eternal hell that should come to you. Through the cross of Christ, your worst problem is fully and finally handled because Christ was a substitute for the punishment you deserved. An offense by your extended family is not nearly as significant as your offense against God. Your worst problem is solved.

6. Husbands, lead graciously: A heavy handed husband is not going to win over anyone. A husband who is loving his wife as Christ loves the church is going to be respected. Your extended family is watching you and your marriage can be a picture of the gospel or a distortion of the gospel. Husbands, it starts with us.

7. Wives, submit intelligently: A feminist society cannot comprehend a loving wife who is positioned toward her husband and home. When wives joyfully serve and show that complementarianism is not "doormat-ism" the watching world marvels. Wives, use the gifts God has given you for his glory and the good of your family. Your extended family may never understand, but your Savior will say, "well done."

New Book Encourages Men to Pray for Their Wives

Jeff Robinson — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:53 +0500

[Andrew Case is a second-year master of divinity student at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who has written a book of prayers-Water of the Word: Intercession for Her-that a husband may pray for his wife. Case is single, but is praying these prayers already for his future wife. Water of the Word is presently is available through the CBMW webstore. Case also writes and records Christ-centered, God-exalting songs and has been leading worship for the past�8 years. His songs are available for free download at http://www.hismagnificence.com/. Case is a member of Clifton Baptist Church in Louisville.]

Gender Blog interviewed Andrew about his book:

Gender Blog: You are a single man, so what made you desire to write a book encouraging men to pray for their wives?

Andrew Case: First of all, I believe that, if I'm to be married someday, God has already ordained from before the foundations of the earth who my wife will be.� I can pray with confidence because I know that He knows who I'm praying for even though I don't.� Second, the Bible teaches that Christ intercedes for His Bride (Heb 7:25, Rom 8:34), even before she meets Him face to face (I Pet 1:8; Rev 22:4).� Since His elect are the Bride, He is praying continually even for people who have not yet come to know Him.� So if Jesus prays for His future Bride, then why shouldn't I?� If I want to show Christ to the world and follow His perfect example, one of the inevitable conclusions is that I should pray for my future wife.� I think this is obedience to Ephesians 5:25 for the single man.� It isn't always obvious, and it's definitely not always easy.� But I think every man who wishes to be married should diligently pursue such prayer.� It's glorifying to Christ.� It's sanctifying for the soul.� It's romantic.� And it certainly is a better use of the energy of a guy who's "burning with passion" than fretting or moping or worse.� So, in a nutshell, that's the theology behind me praying for my wife as a single man.�

God has also used many other means-big and small factors in my life-to bring about this joyful discipline. For example, I've learned through watching numerous friends and acquaintances through college and post college, that falling away and proving oneself to be an unbeliever happens all too often.� There have also been many who have settled comfortably into mediocrity.� Perseverance on the narrow road is a miracle of grace.� I don't want "the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things" to enter in and choke the Word in my wife before or after I meet her (Mark 4:19).� God must keep her in the love of Christ (Jude 1:1), and I am confident that He uses prayer as a means to that end.� I am keenly aware of the propensity within my own heart that Robert Robinson described in song: "Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it-prone to leave the God I love."� Why not pray for her, as I pray for myself, that He would bind her wandering heart to Himself?�

GB: How did the creative process work itself out?

Case: I didn't really sit down one night and decide that I was going to write a book of prayers like this.� It was a slow, organic process.� To make a long story short, when I was just out of college, I came up with a great idea (in my opinion at least).� I bought one of those pretty cranberry, filigree ESV compact Bibles and began spending an hour every Thursday praying through Scripture for her.� When I prayed, I used that Bible and highlighted the passages that I chose to turn into prayer for her.� I thought this would be a good gift to be able to give her whenever she came along, to show her what I had been praying for her before we even met.� This I did for a while, until I had gone through two Bibles.� Then I decided to start writing them down, so I could reuse them.�

Around that time a friend told me that he had been struggling to pray for and with his wife consistently.� I wanted to help.� So I thought, "If I compile these prayers that I've been writing, he might be able to use them, and hopefully gain some benefit."� The number of prayers kept growing and growing, and when some other friends were about to be married, I thought that if I put the prayers in the form of a booklet like The Valley of Vision, it would make a practical, meaningful wedding gift.� That's more or less how the book version got started.�

GB: Are you praying some of these things for a possible future wife of your own?

Case: Yes.� I'm praying these things for a possible future wife of my own because God clearly has not granted me any so-called gift of singleness.� On the contrary, He has given me the same good desire He gave to Adam-for a helper, as it says in the Hebrew, "like opposite him."� Of course, God has every right to give me such a desire and never fulfill it...for my good (Rom 8:28).� But that possibility doesn't worry me, because praying Scripture is never a waste of time.� I'm a Christian hedonist, and praying the Word of God brings me great pleasure.� Moreover, it changes me because I get to commune with Him.� If He were never to grant me a wife, I would thank Him still for leading me to compile these prayers not only because they've helped many married men, but mainly because I've met with Him sweetly through them.� He's used them to conform me a little more to the image of His Son, and for that I am grateful.��

�Transgender� Boy Illustrates Triumph of Self Over Nature

Jeff Robinson — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:01:51 +0500

This week I read one of the more disconcerting pieces of news in recent memory.

It seems that a seven-year-old boy in Douglas County, Colo., wants to start dressing as a girl and be addressed with a girl's name. And the adults in his life (who should be guiding and teaching him) are apparently putting their unreserved imprimatur on his newfound identity.

"As a public school system, our calling is to educate kids no matter where they come from, what their background is, beliefs, values, it doesn't matter," said Whei Wong, Douglas County Schools spokesman.

According to one news report, Wong says the staff at this child's school is preparing to accommodate the student and, in what would seem to be a gross understatement, said the school is ready "to answer questions other students might have." These are, after all, omni-curious seven year olds.

Wong says teachers are planning to address the student by name instead of using gender-specific pronouns. The child will use the school's two unisex bathrooms.

Not surprisingly, a socio-political organization called "TransYouth Family Advocates" is intimately involved in this boy's life, "educating" both his family and Douglas County schools on the particulars of "gender transitioning" among children. Kim Pearson, executive director of TransYouth Family Advocates, said children as young as five years old are "realizing their true gender identity," and her group wants "to help parents who may be resisting it."

Parents should be-must be- resisting such utterly foolish and destructive counsel. God gives children parents, who ostensibly possess maturity and wisdom, and he calls parents to point their children to transcendent truth in times of confusion. He also calls them to protect their children from the wicked agenda of groups such as TransYouth Family Advocates, whose behavior in this case seems nothing less than predatory.

This is the latest, and perhaps most egregious example, of what theologian David Wells, in his latest book The Courage to be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World, calls the exchange of nature for self. For nearly 1,800 years, humanity was spoken of as possessing "human nature," and Christians understood that nature as being created by God in His own image. But in the post-Enlightenment world, Wells argues (correctly, I think) that self has emerged to eclipse the traditional understanding of nature.

"The self is our interior world, made up of our own thoughts, private intuitions, desire, yearnings, springs of creativity, particularities, all that makes us distinct from every other person. My self is what in fact is unique about me," he writes. "I have a body like that of others, the same legs and arms, but my self is unlike what anyone else has." An accomplice to the emergence of self, Wells argues, has been the newly perceived "right" to define one's own existence. Therefore, I may be born a male biologically, but I say that I am a female or something in between, and so, I am whatever I define myself to be; there is no such thing as intrinsic nature. As illustrated in this tragic case that is unfolding in Colorado, anything is possible in this brave new world.

Sadly, a young boy in Colorado is being led down this insidious and deadly path, making Wells' great exchange (which is of course nothing more than the great exchange of Romans 1)� by adults who are foolishly calling on him (a seven-year-old no less!) to embrace his inner self, which may in fact be a her. This case is also illustrative on a deeper level, for this exchange, this will to self-definition is surely driving much of the contemporary transgender, gay, lesbian and bisexual agenda.

The effects of the Fall are profound and we must admit that the first Adam left in his wake a tsunami of existential confusion, broken relationships and self idolatry.

But thankfully, sin will not have the final word, for the Second Adam has come and has brought wisdom to the confusion, healing to the fractured relationships and is Himself a righteous King whose justifying grace smashes self idolatry to dust. Let us pray for this child in Colorado and for his family, that the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ would break in and bring light to their darkness.

New Book Weighs Egalitarian Claims on Headship and Submission

Jeff Robinson — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:45:25 +0500

How does the Bible define submission and headship? Does the Bible teach that husbands and wives are to submit to each other in the home? Are both husband and wife to serve as head of the home?

In his new book Headship, Submission and the Bible: Gender Roles in the Home (College Press), Jack Cottrell gives definitive biblical answers to those questions. Cottrell focuses on three biblical texts that exist at the center of the contemporary debate over gender roles in the home: 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, Ephesians 5:21-33 and 1 Peter 3:1-7.�

A veteran scholar, Cottrell provides an expert defense of the church's historic teaching on complementary gender roles in the home and shines clear light on the exegetical fallacies of the feminist/egalitarian interpretation of biblical texts on submission and headship.

"Since these terms (headship and submission) give every appearance of establishing a hierarchical or complementarian approach to gender roles, and since they have traditionally been interpreted this way, it has been very important for feminists to provide an alternative way of interpreting these biblical concepts," Cottrell writes.

"Thus over the last few decades they have labored to develop a new, revisionist paradigm for headship and submission, one that is consistent with their basic philosophy of egalitarianism."

Cottrell serves as professor of Theology at Cincinnati Christian University in Cincinnati, Ohio, and is a member of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW).

This work is the third volume in Cottrell's ongoing series evaluating egalitarian hermeneutics. The first, Feminism and the Bible, serves as a general introduction to feminism and its overall hermeneutic. The second work, Gender Roles and the Bible, examines the theological framework of biblical feminism, and unpacks the effects of creation, the Fall and redemption on gender roles.

The argument of Cottrell's latest work is divided into two main sections, one dealing biblically with submission, the other looking at headship. Within each sections, Cottrell writes on key topics such as the egalitarian concept of "mutual submission" (an exegetical novelty peculiar to post-feminist Christianity, he argues), the meaning of hupotasso (Greek for ‘submit') in light of egalitarian claims of mutual submission and kephale (‘head') in light of the egalitarian attempts to redefine the biblical term "head."

In the latter chapters Cottrell unpacks the purpose of Christ's headship (salvation) as well as the manner of the Lord's headship (love). Cottrell interacts with egalitarian scholars throughout the work and concludes with a chapter on practicing headship in the home. Husbands are to love their wives in a way that is faithful to the Gospel and the infinite love of Christ for His church, he writes, because, Christ Himself serves as the model for authentic headship in the home.

"Nothing is more important in the husband-wife relationship than the husband's learning to use his headship in a loving, serving, Christlike manner," he writes. "Wives are commanded to submit (Eph 5:22, 33), but it is very difficult for them to do this when the husbands set themselves up as selfish, oppressive, domineering, all-controlling dictators. Some husbands mistakenly think that such ‘macho' masculinity is a sign of strength, but in fact it is more a sign of weakness, insecurity, fear, and lack of self-confidence.

"Christ is the one who established the pattern for true headship, and Christ through His Holy Spirit can equip every husband with the strength to conform to this pattern. Let us not forget that ‘Christ is the head of every man' (1 Cor 11:3). As such, He wants to encourage and empower every husband to develop his own innate potential for true headship. When a husband accepts this responsibility and follows in the footsteps of his own Head, he will then be the kind of husband to whom a wife can submit with relief, confidence, and pleasure."

Headship, Submission and the Bible is available through College Press.

Why Support CBMW?

David Kotter — Mon, 05 May 2008 23:14:53 +0500

As a Christian reader of Gender Blog, our prayer is that you are committed to a solid local church and that your charitable giving primarily supports the congregation.� Perhaps you are one of the many readers who have been blessed by God with additional resources to devote to further kingdom ministry.� What should you consider in supporting a ministry outside of your local church?� Or in other words, why should you prayerfully consider becoming a financial supporter of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood before July 1^st?� Consider the following seven reasons:

1. CBMW is committed to the centrality of the gospel. The substitutionary death of Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of salvation history, and the cross is central all that we do in ministry. Only through the blood of Jesus can men and women turn from sin and accurately display the glorious image of God. In Christian marriage, a man and a woman have the privilege of portraying the relationship of Jesus Christ to the church.

2. CBMW is positioned to serve local churches. We draw upon thousands of hours of research from some of the best scholars in the world to help local pastors teach sound doctrine about biblical manhood and womanhood. Throughout history, local churches have been served in specialized ways by Bible translators, mission agencies, seminaries, and organizations like CBMW.

3. CBMW takes seriously its stewardship of a treasury of biblical teaching on gender. We have made available for free untold thousands of books and articles over the past 20 years. Our goal in the coming year is to better organize the amazing resources on�our website so that more scholars, pastors, husbands, wives and single men and women can benefit.

4. CBMW has a worldwide reach in the gender debate. Whether it is an orphanage in India teaching about biblical womanhood, a journal for scholars in Slovakia, or Anglican churches wrestling over doctrine in Australia, we are continually hearing about how CBMW resources on gender are being used around the world. People from more than 100 countries continue to access the CBMW website every month.

5. CBMW serves as a voice for timeless truth in a culture of change. Every day, readers of Gender Blog receive updates on ways to think biblically about men who receive alimony payments, women who rent their wombs, denominational developments in the gender debate, and even the goofiest of distortions of manhood and womanhood.

6. CBMW is currently limited in its ministry by financial constraints. We have more opportunities to serve Christian men and women through scholarship, conferences and literature distribution than we have resources for this coming fall. We could be more effective over the next six months if more people would partner financially with this ministry.

7. The impact of your gift on the gender debate will be doubled for a limited time. A generous and anonymous donor has pledged to match every donation up to $30,000 made to CBMW before July 1, 2008.

We would like to ask you to take advantage of this strategic opportunity and join the team of financial donors who help CBMW serve the church.� If you would like any additional information about this ministry please use the "feedback" link below or call our offices at 502-897-4065.� Thank you for reading Gender Blog and for your commitment to biblical manhood and womanhood.

The End of Fatherhood?

David Kotter — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:45:02 +0500

"Same-sex couples could create children" reads a recent headline in the London Telegraph online, and it could not be more serious. The article reports that last month international leaders in embryology research asked the British government for permission to allow babies to be conceived using "artificial" sperm and eggs.� They are developing a technique which uses embryonic cells from an adult man or woman to grow artificial sperm in a laboratory.� These manufactured gametes could then be used to create a human pregnancy through in vitro fertilization.� This scientific procedure has been used to create pregnancies in mice, and is expected to take only 10 years of refinement to prepare for human use.� Whether it takes more or less than a decade, the scientists are confident that this will be a reality.

In short, this would allow two women to produce a child without any intervention whatsoever from a man.� One of the women would donate a cell which would be transformed into an artificial sperm and used to fertilize an egg from the other woman.� Either could carry the baby to term.� The child would be their biological descendent with no male contribution required at any level. For the first time in history, fathers would be completely optional in procreation.� For some, the realization of utopian dreams seems to be in sight, and the experts "called on ministers not to restrict such ‘important' research."

The process would be only slightly less convenient for two men to create a biological child of their own.� In that case, they would need to hire a "gestational carrier" and rent her womb to carry their baby to term.� Women in the United States, India and other countries around the world are increasingly willing to provide this feminine service.

Where does this research stop?� The answer is it will never stop.� Human beings, with a sinful nature and driven by pride, will continue to take on the prerogatives in procreation reserved for God himself.� Just because a scientific technique is possible, does not in itself require that it be performed.� Even if society makes it legal, Christians must never take part.�

"Children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward" (Psalm 127:3).� It is not an accident of creation that a father and mother are both required for procreation and raising children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). �Unless we hold to biblical authority as a solid rock, there is no end in sight for scientific research.

Breaking Up is Hard to Do Legally for Gay Couples

Jeff Robinson — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:35:00 +0500

USA Today recently reported that formally breaking up is as hard to do for gay couples as is finding a state that will marry them.

Same-sex marriage is currently legal in only one state, Massachusetts. Same-sex couples can form legal civil unions in four states: Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire. And they can enter into domestic partnerships in California, Oregon, Maine, Washington, Hawaii and the District of Columbia.

Many of these couples only travel to these states to ratify legally binding unions and live in other states. Now, it seems many are seeking a divorce from their partner, but are finding it virtually impossible to secure. Getting a divorce is proving especially tough for gays in the 43 states that have explicitly banned or limited same-sex unions.

In Rhode Island, for example, the state's top court in December ruled that gays married in neighboring Massachusetts cannot get a divorce in the state because they are not legally married; lawmakers have never defined marriage as anything but a union between a man and a woman.

USA Today reports that a judge in Missouri is deciding whether a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts can get an annulment. Missouri banned gay marriage in 2001 and one conservative lawmaker in that state has urged a judge not to grant an annulment to the couple. Cases like this will only proliferate in the future as our country seeks to come to grips legally with same-sex relationships.

Given the clear teaching of Scripture regarding homosexuality, it is no surprise that such confusion has resulted from some governments putting their imprimatur on that which God has forbidden. When the great exchange of Romans 1 is made and even celebrated, moral chaos is bound to ensue.

Hopefully, by God's grace, these "divorces" will lead some gays out of darkness and into the marvelous light of God's redeeming love in Christ Jesus. Every follower of Christ is an illustration that sin will not have the final word in this world and it is the Gospel that restores order to the chaos and gives hope for every moral rebel.��

UMC Weighing �Transgender� Petitions

Jeff Robinson — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:56:28 +0500

Spring and early summer serve as the season for the official meetings of church denominational bodies across the evangelical world and in recent years, issues of sexuality and gender have boiled on the front burner.

This year will most certainly be no exception as bodies such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America and various mainline meetings and synods convene to do their yearly business.

Some denominations such as the SBC and PCA presently have confessional statements that reflect a complementarian position.� Many other denominations, particularly the mainline churches, are debating issues such as the propriety of ordaining women, homosexuals and transgendered individuals.

Issues of human sexuality and gender are already under consideration by the United Methodist Church, leaders of which are meeting this week in Forth Worth for the UMC's quadrennial meeting. The UMC General Conference this year has before it two landmark petitions aimed at changing the church's current policy on homosexuality.

One petition seeks to define marriage as "the union of two loving adults," while another states that homosexuality "is a subject about which Christians disagree." The upshot of these petitions is an attempt by homosexual activist groups to gain the affirmation of "transgendered" persons serving in UMC pulpits and other roles within the church.

In the UMC at least, the momentum is already rolling toward full affirmation of the substance of these petitions. �As the meeting convened last week, young Methodists from the Mosaic Youth Network greeted delegates outside the Forth Worth Conference Center with a 24-hour "drumming and rally" in support of gay and "transgender" church members.

In 2006, the UMC's highest council affirmed the appointment of "transgender" minister Drew Phoenix as pastor of St. John's United Methodist Church in Baltimore, Md. The church court agreed that while the denomination bars self-avowed practicing gay clergy from ordination and does not support gay unions, the UMC Book of Discipline is silent on gender change. ��

The team at CBMW wants to encourage complementarian delegates who hold to the Bible's teaching on God's good plan for men and women to stand firm at these denominational meetings. Standing by while such proposals pass allows Scriptural errors to be introduced and solidified into the church.� Let those who affirm God's clear teaching on these issues not shrink back in silence.

If you are not a delegate this year, please pray that God will give wisdom to the leaders and laypeople who are participating in these meetings. The church ultimately changes through the Holy Spirit opening blind eyes and unstopping deaf ears to the truth of His inspired Word.

Highlights from The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Spring 2008 Edition

Christopher W. Cowan — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:11:26 +0500

The latest issue of The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is now in print. The Spring 2008 edition offers a new format, which will include regular contributions in the following sections: Essays and Perspectives, Studies, the Sacred Desk, and Gender Studies in Review (click here for the table of contents). For a description of the new format, see the editorial by JBMW's new editor, Denny Burk.

Some highlights:

Mark Dever: "It seems to me and others (many who are younger than myself) that this issue of egalitarianism and complementarianism is increasingly acting as the watershed distinguishing those who will accommodate Scripture to culture, and those who will attempt to shape culture by Scripture. You may disagree, but this is our honest concern before God. It is no lack of charity, nor honesty. It is no desire for power or tradition for tradition's sake. It is our sober conclusion from observing the last fifty years" ("Young vs. Old Complementarians").

J. Ligon Duncan III: "The gymnastics required to get from "I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man," in the Bible, to "I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise authority over a man" in the actual practice of the local church, are devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of the people of God" ("Why ‘Together for the Gospel' Embraces Complementarianism").

Micah Carter: "Must Jesus, as the Christ, have been male? If Christian theology desires to place itself under the inspiration and authority of Scripture, then the answer must be yes" ("Reconsidering the Maleness of Jesus").

Ray Van Neste: "Our culture is infatuated with youth and encourages you not to grow up. . . . If you would be men, you must reject this siren song and swim against the tide. You must diligently seek to throw off immaturity and to grow up" ("Pursuing Manhood").

John Piper: "God designed the relationship between a husband and his wife to represent the relationship between Christ and the church. This is the deepest meaning of marriage. And that is why ultimately the roles of headship and submission are so important. If our marriages are going to tell the truth about Christ and his church, we cannot be indifferent to the meaning of headship and submission ("The Beautiful Faith of Fearless Submission (1 Peter 3:1-7)").

The essay by Ray Van Neste�and the�essay by Randy Stinson and Christopher W. Cowan�are available online now. Click here for subscription information for the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Men Seeking Alimony: The New Male Abdication and the Biblical Standard

Christopher W. Cowan — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:29:35 +0500

Cultural commentators have repeatedly observed in recent years that many of today's young men lack motivation and direction. It is not out of the ordinary for even thirty-something year-old males still to be living with (and supported by) their parents and lacking any real plan to pursue a vocation and provide for a family. For many men who do marry, it is more and more common to find that their wives are the primary bread-winners. While she is establishing herself in the workplace, he is often content in his low-demand, low-income job—with his video game appetite and other toys fully funded by her. He has no work ethic, no career, no future, no clue. The role of provider was once seen as an essential and noble aspect of manhood. But for too many of today's young men, being responsible to provide for a family is neither necessary nor desired.

Unfortunately, things seem to be getting worse rather than better. The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story entitled, "Men Receiving Alimony Want A Little Respect." The article reports that gender discrimination in alimony was ended by the Supreme Court nearly 30 years ago. However, in that time, "few male beneficiaries have stepped forward to talk about it." "But today's men," writes Anita Raghavan, "are shaking off the stigma of being supported by their ex-wives." Raghavan interviewed several of these men, and the article's subtitle says it all: "Modern males say living off the ex-wife is no cause for shame."

Apparently, we've come a long way, baby.

Alimony is the money that a court orders a higher-earning spouse to give to their husband or wife following a divorce. While divorce itself is a travesty that has ripped apart and scarred countless families, my focus here is on how modern men respond to yet another opportunity to abdicate their role as provider-even as provider for themselves.

One of those interviewed in the WSJ article is John David Castellanos, a Hollywood actor who receives alimony from his ex-wife—to the tune of $9,000 per month. According to Castellanos and a growing number of men, they sacrificed their careers for the sake of their wives' careers. Now they want some "payback" to maintain their marital standard of living. Others seek alimony—not due to marital sacrifices—but so they may continue to have their toys fully funded. After his divorce, Phillip Upton, a shop foreman, "couldn't have afforded the $20,000-a-year cost of maintaining his 1960s-vintage collection of cars with outsized motors." According to the divorce settlement, he receives about $40,000 a year from his marketing executive ex-wife. "Had I not gotten that," Upton contends, "I would have lived a different lifestyle."

Surely, our culture is rejoicing over this advance in gender equality, right? The fact that the relatives of one woman call her alimony-receiving ex-husband a "deadbeat" would seem to indicate otherwise. The woman herself says, "In some instances, alimony has become akin to a social-welfare program provided by working women to their ex-husbands." After the court ordered her to make sizeable alimony payments, another ex-wife was even more blunt: "Why the courts don't tell a husband, who has been living off of his wife, to go out and get a job is beyond my comprehension." Indeed.

How should Christians respond? As R. Albert Mohler Jr. has written, "We understand that men were made for work, and that a man's responsibility is to care and provide for his wife and family." It is not merely that men seeking to live off of their wives (ex- or otherwise) are "deadbeats"—more seriously, they are abdicating their God-given responsibility to work and be providers. Contrary to the men interviewed, this is undeniably a cause for shame. Men were not made to live off of the income of others; they were made to labor. Even if a man has no wife or children, his responsibility to work remains—not only to provide for himself but so that he might provide for others who are in need (note especially the biblical concern for widows and orphans).

Scripture attests from the beginning that man was created for work (Gen 2:15), and it consistently chastises the lazy (e.g., Prov 18:9; 19:15; 21:25). "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess 3:10). Beyond this general biblical expectation that men are to labor, Scripture assigns men the primary responsibility to be providers for others—especially a wife and family. After the Fall, it is Adam who undergoes pain and toil in working the ground (Gen 3:17-19)—understood as his primary area of responsibility. Paul commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph 5:25). While this involves more than provision, it can hardly include less. Concerning the care of widows, Paul writes, "But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse then an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8). While one may argue that the "anyone" includes both men and women, surely the husband bears the primary responsibility. Paul expected wives and mothers primarily to care for the home and nurture children (1 Tim 5:10; Titus 2:5). Thus, the apostle considers a man's role as provider to be so significant that he equates abdication with denying the faith.

This phenomenon reported by WSJ is simply a further symptom of a culture filled with men who have no idea what it means to be a man. And, unfortunately, the church has not remained unaffected. Christians must respond to this crisis of manhood by exhorting our young men to be men. We must be intentional in raising our boys to be providers—to accept primary responsibility to support a wife and family. I do not need to know (now) what specific vocation my six-year old son will follow when he grows up. What I do need to know (now) is that I'm raising a future provider, so that he may nourish and care for others who will depend on him.

May the church not merely decry the manhood crisis; may we confront it by bringing up godly, noble men. As we do, let us continually point our young men to the one whom they are to model, Jesus Christ: a divine Husband who sacrificially provides for his bride (Eph 5:25-27). And let us be eternally thankful that he expects no "payback" from her.

Women�s Group Contending for Complementarianism in Australia, Part 2

Jeff Robinson — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:00:00 +0500

Editor's note: As reported Tuesday on Gender Blog, the Anglican Church in Australia has been fighting a battle over biblical truth on the issue of women's ordination for much of the past two decades. Anglicans there recently moved to ordain women as bishops, but one group of women known as ‘Equal but Different' (EBD) has organized to contend for biblical truth in Australia. EBD formed in 1992 in response to a push for female ordination by the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia (ACA). The organization exists to promote and defend the biblical pattern of relationships between men and women in both the church and home. Gender Blog interviewed Claire Smith, one of the group's leaders. Today is the second of a two-part interview with her.�

Gender Blog: How has your group been received among Anglicans in Australia?

Claire Smith: We are aware and have contact with Anglican women and men around the country who have remained faithful to the biblical teaching. As best we can, we try to represent, encourage and minister to those people - some of whom have had to leave their churches rather than sit under ministry they consider to be conflict with Scripture. They are grateful for the ministry of EBD.

Others who believe the Scripture teaches identical roles for men and women have not been so accepting. Robust debate is one thing, but regrettably, some members of the EBD Steering Committee have been verbally persecuted for their attempts to promote and defend biblical teaching.

Gender Blog: What do you see as being at stake with the issue of gender roles in the church and home? What are some of the mischaracterizations of complementarianism that you are hearing in your country?

Smith: What is at stake with the issue of gender roles is primarily the authority of Scripture as God's inspired Word, and beyond that, the temporal and spiritual welfare of individuals and the strength of families and churches, since these are matters of Christian obedience and the blessings that come from living according to God's wisdom.

Some egalitarians of course seek to justify their position from the Scriptures, but invariably they do not accept the plain reading of the text; and/or allow one text of Scripture to silence others they do not accept; and/or base their arguments on rare or novel meanings of Greek or Hebrew words; and/or depend on historical reconstructions as the background for NT texts so as to marginalize the text's application to the modern church; and/or overlook the non-culturally specific reasons the NT writers use for their teaching about the different responsibilities of men and women, such as Genesis 1-3, the relationship between Christ and the church, and the relationships within the Trinity.

The most recent misrepresentation of the complementarian view is that it justifies domestic violence and abuse. The Sydney Diocesan Synod in 2007 passed a motion saying that such aberrations cannot be justified by, and are entirely contrary to, the biblical complementary pattern of relationships for women and men. Domestic violence and psychological and spiritual abuse are contrary to God's Word and contrary to the loving headship of a husband, and intelligent, voluntary submission of a wife.

Gender Blog: Does the fact that the group is composed entirely of women take some of the heat off the issue? Do you find that you have more credibility in asserting this teaching among women in Australia or are they merely dismissive of your views?

Smith: A founding rationale of EBD was that this issue was one in which ‘a woman's voice' needed to be heard and that men who were seeking to oppose identical ministries for both genders could easily be dismissed as ‘sexist' or ‘misogynist.' In this respect, it has been helpful to be a ministry organized by and directed to women.

Increasingly however, as the not-unrelated question of homosexual and lesbian clergy and same sex unions appears on the horizon, often promoted by the same proponents of women's ordination, EBD may have to rethink our focus on ministering to and speaking only for women. Thankfully these innovations, although accepted in other Australian denominations, have not as yet gained sufficient momentum within the ACA to force legislative change. Praise God and may it ever be so!

Women�s Group Contending for Complementarianism in Australia, Part 1

Jeff Robinson — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:35:23 +0500

Editor's note: As reported yesterday on Gender Blog, the Anglican Church in Australia has been fighting a battle over biblical truth on the issue of women's ordination for much of the past two decades. Anglicans there recently moved to ordain women as bishops, but one group of women known as ‘Equal but Different'(EBD) has organized to contend for biblical truth in Australia. EBD formed in 1992 in response to a push for female ordination by the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia (ACA). The organization exists to promote and defend the biblical pattern of relationships between men and women in both the church and home. Gender Blog interviewed Claire Smith, one of the group's leaders. Today is the first of a two-part interview with her.�

Gender Blog: Tell us more about the group and its activities.

Claire Smith: Since its inception, EBD has been involved in successive debates about the role of women in the church, both within the Diocese of Sydney and in the national ACA. We have presented Synods with statements signed by thousands of women opposed to unbiblical innovations of ordination of women to the priesthood and the consecration of women as bishops; we have spoken in Synod debates; we have made submissions to ACA committees and tribunals ruling on the question of women in the episcopate; we have contributed to the debate as it has spilled over into the secular media; and we have prayed the Lord will keep our church faithful to His Word, and have mercy on those faithful Christians who have to live with the consequences of these departures from biblical teaching.

EBD publishes a journal three times a year. This includes at least one major article of Bible teaching, interviews with women in various types of ministry (paid and unpaid), book reviews, ideas for ministry and updates on events or developments in the ACA or other denominations. EBD is also invited to run seminars in churches for women, and members of the steering committee speak at conferences, promoting and explaining the biblical teaching of complementary responsibilities for women and men. These opportunities arise within the Sydney Diocese, around Australia and internationally.

We have been involved in producing resources including a book, a documentary-style video/Bible Study program, a website (under review) and CD's of sermons covering the main Biblical texts.

Gender Blog: How many women are involved in EBD? Are most of them pastor's wives?

Smith: EBD is a Sydney based group that has a Steering Committee of eight women, ranging in age from their 30's to 60's; some are married; some are mothers and some grandmothers; some are clergy wives; some are in full time ministry positions (parish and university campus based); two are ordained as deacons; one is employed as an itinerate women's evangelist; one is pursuing doctoral studies in the NT; the majority of the steering committee has formal theological qualifications.

The diversity in our life situations is deliberate, since it enables us better to represent, minister and communicate with the different women in our diocese and the national church. Beyond the steering committee, the involvement of women is expressed through readership of the journal, and as signatories to statements defending the biblical view of gender relations during Synod debates.

Gender Blog: What is the situation in the Anglican Church of Australia? Are the majority of its members and leaders calling for all Anglicans there to embrace the ordination of women?

Smith: Many dioceses have proceeded to allow women to be ordained to the priesthood. Others, such as the Sydney Diocese, have sought to remain faithful to scriptural teaching and the Anglican tradition and have not changed the nature of ordained ministry; others, whilst having no real objections, have not as yet introduced women priests.

The Sydney Diocese, where EBD is based, is a large metropolitan diocese with evangelical leadership and a strong evangelical theological college. Over one third of active Australian Anglicans live in the Diocese. It is well known for its complementarian view of gender relations but also has churches, clergy and parishioners that would demur from the diocese on this matter and others.

In Sydney, there are growing numbers of gifted women pursuing theological training, and taking up ministry positions in parishes, university campuses, youth and children's ministries, chaplaincies in hospitals, schools and prisons, and being sent out as missionaries. Some of these women are ordained as deacons, or commissioned as Diocesan Lay Workers, and others are licensed pastoral workers. The strength of women's ministry in Sydney is testimony to the goodness of God in raising up women who are gifted and called to ministry, but also testimony to the goodness of God's pattern of relations between men and women in his church, and an indication it is not necessary for women to have identical ministries to men, for their ministry to be effective or appreciated.

In the ACA as it now stands, women can be ordained as priests, and can preach and lead parishes in most dioceses. A recent controversial decision by the ACA Appellate Tribunal has ruled there is no constitutional barrier to women being consecrated as bishops. The appointment of a woman as bishop in Perth is a consequence of this decision.

In dioceses which have not accepted these innovations, however, the ministry of women who have been ordained as priests is not always welcome or recognized, and even within those dioceses where women are ordained, there are individual churches that do not believe women should have identical ministries with men and would resist the appointment of a female priest, and within individual churches, there are people who believe the same.

Acceptance has been far from uniform. At every level from the national church right down to the person in the pew, there are those who have remained faithful to the scriptural teaching of differing ministries for men and women and not departed from this biblical pattern or Anglican tradition.

The innovation of women in the priesthood, and now women in the episcopate, means we are a church divided, without a common ministry and more significantly, without a common understanding of the word of God.

Anglicans in Australia Move to Ordain Women as Bishops

Jeff Robinson — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:58:33 +0500

Anglicans in Australia recently embraced the ordination of women as bishops and asked Archbishop Jeffrey Driver to "help" conservative members who oppose female ordination to accept them.

According to a news report from an Australian news service, the Anglican general synod met in Canberra late last fall and adopted a proposal to ordain women and then charged Driver with bringing dissenters on board.

"While I have been a supporter of women for 30 years, I understand that for some this development in the church has difficulties and even confrontation," Driver said. " I look forward to the consecration of a woman as a bishop in the Anglican Church of Australia. I am also committed to that happening in the spirit of unity."

Women have been able to be ordained as priests, deacons and archdeacons since 1992, but could not become a bishop. The ruling was accepted in some, but not all diocese of the church. In South Australia, for example, two of the three dioceses allow female ordination, but a third does not.

Female minister Tracey Gracey speculated that some will leave the church over the issue and acknowledged that men and women possess different gifts. Gracey said she hopes members will recognize her ministry "complements male leadership."

Elsewhere in Australia, the resistance to female ordination appears to be more robust. In the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, the issue of women's ordination again arose this year after being overwhelmingly defeated two years ago. Working within this diocese is a strong group of conservative women who are advocating for the maintenance of biblical gender roles in the church known as "Equal but Different."

Over the next two days, Gender Blog will run a two-part Q&A with Equal but Different to better inform readers as to how the issue is playing out in the land down under and what Equal but Different is doing to assert biblical authority.�

Together for the Gospel Affirms Strong Complementarian Position

Jeff Robinson — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:58:02 +0500

The much-anticipated Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference concluded Thursday with over 5,000 attendees committed to the advancement of the gospel.

Attendees were treated to an incredible banquet of Gospel-centered, Christ-focused teaching and expository preaching from T4G leaders Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, C.J. Mahaney and R. Albert Mohler Jr., and their friends, Thabiti Anyabwile, John MacArthur, John Piper and R.C. Sproul.

We are pleased that the leaders of T4G have made a clear proclamation and defense of the gospel as well as on biblical manhood and womanhood. Dever, Duncan, Mahaney and Mohler have spoken unambiguously on manhood and womanhood in Article XVI of T4G's Affirmations & Denials.

"We affirm that the Scripture reveals a pattern of complementary order between men and women, and that this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel, even as it is the gift of our Creator and Redeemer. We also affirm that all Christians are called to service within the body of Christ, and that God has given to both men and women important and strategic roles within the home, the church, and society. We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings and that men are to lead in their homes as husbands and fathers who fear and love the Lord."

"We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical distinction of roles excludes women from meaningful ministry in Christ's kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel."

Piper made clear his feelings regarding the place of godly women in the church, calling churches to cultivate female sages who take seriously both the close careful study of God's Word, while serving as wise, theologically-informed mentors for younger Christian women. In one of the most unforgettable lines of the conference, Piper expressed his deep love for women who live and labor fearlessly for an invisible kingdom and the glory of God. Piper answered his own question about where these women can be found:

"Where are these women? The single women and the married women and the pastor's wives like Esther, who, when Mordecai came to her and said, ‘you have to do this because your people are perishing,' [she said], ‘Tell them to fast and I will go into the king though it is against the law, and if I perish, then I perish.' Where are those women? Our church is crawling with them. I love them....I married one of them."

Audio from the entire conference is available here.

Complementarian Singles: Who Should I Marry?

Walt Alexander — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:00:00 +0500

[Single female readers of Girl Talk and single male readers of Man Speak are regularly encouraged to prepare for marriage.� Then the challenging and intoxicating process of discernment can begin (whether called courtship, rescued dating, or whatever) to answer the question posed in the title of this post.� Walt Alexander is a regular contributor at Man Speak and provides the second part of a two-day challenge for single complementarians. — David Kotter]

If we become the "right" person who is prepared to marry, who should we "court" with the intention to marry?

This is a list to consider:

1. We should court someone who is a Christian. Because we — as Christians — are forbidden by Scripture to marry a non-Christian (2 Cor 6:14-15), we should not court one. This is a no-brainer. If you are courting/dating a non-Christian, break up with them.

2. We should court someone who knows and treasures God. We should not court people who do not know God and treasure God. We should not court someone who is stagnant in their love for and pursuit of God. Now, this does not mean everyone has to be John Piper, but it does mean they should treasure God and be content in Him. Look for what they delight in and you will discover what they treasure.

3. We should court someone who is pursuing humility (by the grace of God). No one is humble so don't look for perfection. But do look for humility. Court someone who is pursuing humility — someone who is accountable to friends, to small group leaders, and to pastors, someone who follows the wisdom of their parents and small group leader, someone who is patient, etc.

4. We should court someone who we see God at work in. Now — because we are often blinded by lust — we tend to prize externals (appearance, weight, personality, etc.) but fail to value what really counts, godliness (1 Tim 4:7-8). So court the person who is growing in godliness. Do not court the guy or girl whose life is not adorned with the fruit of godliness. If you marry someone for externals, that is what you will get. So be wise and look for fruit. Guys, look for the Proverbs 31 woman and, girls, look for the Mark 10:43-45 man!

5. We should court someone who is committed to a local church. We should not court a drifter. A drifter is someone with many, shallow relationships who is uncommitted. In fact, they shirk at relational and church commitment. The problem, ultimately, is not merely that they are drifters. The problem is their wandering, sinful hearts (like all of ours!) need the sturdy ground of the church, otherwise they (and we) will drift and wander to their demise. So, we should court someone who is committed to a local church. It is in the church that we experience the fullness of blessing in the Christian life.� It is where we receive invaluable instruction from God, plug into God-glorifying relationships, and serve God's people. Therefore, someone committed to a local church will most likely be growing in godliness and will be accountable to others.

6. We should court someone who is personally mature. We should court someone who has their life in order! If they don't have it in order now, they will not have it in order when you marry them. Court someone who is faithful, organized, and self-controlled.

7. We should court someone we "like". Should this even be here? Oftentimes this is elevated to number one. We will not court someone unless they are someone we hang out with, someone we could see ourselves with, someone who is "cool" (whatever that means!), someone who we've been thinking about, etc, and we decide all this before we even court them!! This should not be. We must get back to what God requires of a man or woman and submit our criterion to God's Word. In other words, we shouldn't court someone who we merely like.� Like is somewhat important but it is not ultimate. Like must be submitted to God's rule. Properly submitted to God's Word, we should be open and willing to court someone who we would not normally like but who is a Christian, growing in godliness, serving the church, and mature enough for marriage. God's Word is trustworthy, but romantic ideals of like and dreams are deceitful.

Finally, in any and all of these areas, do not look for perfection, except that we should not court a non-Christian. Look for growth. Look for God at work, transplanting new desires and new delights in place of old desires and old delights.