Chris Cowan on Low Expectations for Men

After writing my short post yesterday about how young people, especially males, consistently dodge responsibility, I came across a thought-provoking article. Chris Cowan, a wonderful man of God and co-laborer in the gospel over at the Gender Blog, wrote a wonderful article about young men and their God-given need to provide physically and spiritually for their families.

After describing the problem, Cowan gives the following solution:

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.

Read the whole article here.

The Problem with DINK's

One of my favorite theologians to listen to and learn from is D.A. Carson. He has such a keen wit, but he is also a faithful preacher of the Word; He loves the gospel. The other day, while I was listening to him while falling asleep late at night (it wasn't his talk that put me to sleep!), I came across this great comment on men and women in the 20 and 30's who shun responsibility in dating and marriage.
In the climax, he asserts that the root issue is narcissism, thinking of yourselves above anything else. It's quite the powerful talk.

Audio found in sermon, Waiting in the Meantime, at Wheaton College Church.

The following is the transcript of a part of his message:

Many studies have been done in the last decade or two, for example, about how the new, younger generation coming along—the under 30’s or 35’s—are remarkably slow to grow up. Many are DINK’s—Double Income No Kids. [They are] Very slow to settle to anything, very slow to take serious decisions, very slow to actually ask somebody to marry them, very slow to make long-term commitments, very slow to serve. [They are] always looking over their shoulder because something better could come along; someone better could come along! They are just very slow to take responsibility.

It’s narcissistic. It’s immature. Where will the Church emphasize growing up, and becoming adults, and pulling your own weight? Be counterculture! This isn’t right!

This short clip reminds me of the following verses from the Apostle Paul:

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also the interests of others. (Philippians 2:3-4, ESV)

Why We Moderate the Comments

The purpose of this blog is to foster discussion on the issue of gender roles, specifically concerning Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. We have received some feedback asking us why we occasionally do not post their comment. Why not simply allow all comments to pass through? If discussion is what we want, wouldn't this be the ideal way to attain our goal?

The simple answer is, of course, yes.

The longer answer is a little more complex.

We do want to encourage dialogue on these topics; we do so because we believe it is important. But we want to have a discussion that is Christ-centered, engaging ideas genuinely and respecting the other person(s). To give you a good idea of what we want to see in the comments, here is a list of guidelines that we can all abide by while commenting:

1.) Remember the person. We are talking to other real, live humans. Strive to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). We unabashedly desire to be constrained by the Word of God--what it says, we desire to do; what it forbids, we desire to shun (John 17:17). Therefore, may our talks be seasoned with as much grace as possible. Any insults or slanderous or ad hominem remarks will not be tolerated. Remember, there is a person on the other side of the web.

2.) Engage the ideas; this is not a podium for one's own pet theology. This is a blog about gender and the authority of Scripture. If it is evident that a reader has failed to even read the post upon which he or she is commenting, their comment will not be accepted. Read the posts. Engage the ideas.

3.) As creators of this blog, we have the final say for what we deem to be an inappropriate post. We will try to be fair; we are not simply going to post comments with which we agree. Abide by our other two rules, and your comments will be posted. At the end of the day, however, we will decide what is appropriate.

Has Northwestern College ever taken a complementarian stance? (Part 1)

As with many other issues, Northwestern has never officially recorded its beliefs about biblical manhood and womanhood in its doctrinal statement, yet the overwhelming evidence indicates that the college has historically held a complementarian position. For example, here is a statement on women students printed in the July 1933 Pilot, the college’s monthly publication:

“The Northwestern Bible School has been from its inception co-educational. In this new development that arrangement will remain. The Theological Seminary is not primarily intended for women students, as we hold that the primary product of the seminary is the pastor, and find no women pastors mentioned in the New Testament; and it is not our purpose to prepare women for that particular office. But, we do recognize the fact that as missionaries, effective witnesses to the Truth as revealed in the Word, and particularly as the wives of pastor-husbands, such an education would contribute greatly both to their pleasure and effectiveness in the Lord’s service; and so we admit them on equal terms to the Seminary course.”

It is important to note that this was printed in the Pilot, the publication that functioned as the college’s communication to its constituents and was largely responsible for Northwestern’s reputation with the general public. A published statement like the one above would have been carefully scrutinized by college leadership with the realization that it would be regarded as “official.”

The September 1931 Pilot addressed the question, “What part can women have in Christian service?” C.W. Foley, a Bible professor, gave an extensive, biblically supported answer on behalf of the college. While he carefully noted the many opportunities for women in the church that were in keeping with Scripture, he concluded from the New Testament that, “the man is the head of the woman” and that “it is plain as anything could possibly be, that a woman is not to take the oversight of the church, and publicly teach or preach in the man’s appointed place.” He also asserted that these roles were not the result of culture or a specific time period but were “founded in creation.”

This attitude was not isolated to the 1930’s. In fact, William V. Trollinger says in his book God’s Empire that Foley “summarized well Northwestern’s later teachings regarding the role of women in the church” (106). Even half a century later, this stance could be seen in something as widespread as the Student Handbook. For example, the 1987-1988 Northwestern Student Handbook stated in a section addressed to men, “All men at Northwestern are training to be leaders in the family and church” (12). Nothing was mentioned about such leadership in the corresponding section for women.

These are just a few glimpses of Northwestern’s historical attitude towards manhood and womanhood. Much more evidence could be offered. But for the time being, it seems fair to observe that there have been significant and public statements of complementarity at Northwestern.

Are Complementarians Hierarchalists?

All words and terms contain preconceived notions, some more loaded than others. The terms "patriarchy" and "hierarchy" consistently draw a sort of "knee-jerk" reaction from egalatarians and some complementarians alike, assuming that authority necessarily leads to male abuse. Equal authority and mutual submission, some contend, is the best defense against the slippery slope of abusive power. Undoubtedly, complementarians must be the first to denounce abusive male leadership as the sin that it is, but, at the end of the day, we must be constrained to define our terms as the Bible would rather than by our modern culture.

So, we must ask ourselves, "Is patriarchy inherently sinful?" More pointedly, "Is hierarchy unbiblical and simply a term that has been hijacked by power hungry males?" Distinguished Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke, in his colossal work An Old Testament Theology, disagrees. Male authority is grounded in the nature of the Godhead. He explains:



Hierarchy in government is not the result of the Fall. It exists eternally in the Godhead itself, wherein the Son is always voluntarily subservient to the Father's will and the Spirit to both. In the mystery of the Godhead, in which the three persons are one and equal, the Son obeys the Father, and the Spirit obeys both. Paradoxically Jesus says both "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Jesus veils his own glory to follow the path of humble obedience (Phil. 2:6-11). The idea that hierarchy is an evil than can be transcended is a failed Marxist notion, not biblical teaching. (243)

Authority is not the result of the Fall, it has existed eternally in the Godhead, with the Son submitting to the Father before the beginning of time (Acts 2:24). Hierarchy cannot therefore be inherently wicked, at least not in all senses. But is it permissible in human relations? The answer is "yes." Not only is it permissible, but it is necessary for mature godliness to form, for, as Waltke hints at in his last sentence, hierarchy is the biblical teaching because human interactions are a reflection of the relations of the Godhead. The Apostle Paul writes, "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3, ESV)

Despite male authority being biblical, what then are we to do with terms like "patriarchy" and "hierarchy?" Should we refuse these labels and adopt phrases like "mutual submission?" To this, we must also answer "no." If we do reject the descriptions of "patriarchy" and "hierarchy," we will lose the gender debate, for we implicit concede that male authority is unbiblical and always slides down the slippery slope of spousal abuse. Instead, complementarians should seek to sanctify these terms, trumpeting the tension that authority is biblical but need not be demeaning and abusive. And it must be trumpeted, for it is rooted in the Godhead itself.



Russell Moore, in his insightful article After Patriarchy, What? Why the Egalatarians are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate, gives the following helpful thoughts:

Ironically, a more patriarchal complementarianism will resonate among a generation seeking stability in a family-fractured Western culture in ways that soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism never can. And it also will address the needs of hurting women and children far better, because it is rooted in the primary biblical means for protecting women and children: calling men to responsibility. Soft Patriarchs is, in one sense, a reaffirmation of what gender traditionalists have known all along—male headship is not about male privilege. Patriarchy is good for women, good for children, and good for families. But it should also remind us that the question for us is not whether we will have patriarchy, but what kind.

the freedom of limitations

In a culture that celebrates freedom, limitations are not warmly welcomed. Telling a child he cannot stay up past nine evokes anger similar to the woman who is told she cannot do everything a man can.

In her book Let Me Be a Woman, Elizabeth Elliot points out, “There are those to whom being a woman is nothing more than an inconvenience, to be suffered because it is unavoidable and to be ignored if at all possible. Their lives are spent pining to be something else.”

We naturally prefer to be in control and determine who we are and what we do. When another puts limitations upon us we feel belittled and trapped. But what if those limitations were put upon us by the One who created us? Our Creator God designed with purpose, though to us it may at times appear an inconvenience.

Elizabeth Elliot explains:

Every creature of God is given something that could be called an inconvenience, I suppose, depending on one’s perspective. The elephant and the mouse might each complain about his size, the turtle about his shell, the bird about the weight of his wings. But elephants are not called upon to run behind wainscots, mice will not be found “pacing along as though they have an appointment at the end of the world,” turtles have no need to fly nor birds to creep. The special gift and ability of each creature defines its special limitations. And as the bird easily comes to terms with the necessity of bearing wings when it finds that it is, in fact, the wings that bear the bird – up, away from the world, into the sky, into freedom – so the woman who accepts the limitations of womanhood finds in those very limitations her gifts, her special calling – wings, in fact, which bear her up into perfect freedom, into the will of God.

When we align ourselves with God’s design we must accept certain limitations. I am not a man. As simple as that sounds, the implications are real and if I try to live like a man I will be greatly disappointed. We are only satisfied when we live in such a way that fulfills our purpose. Only then will the Creator be glorified and will we be truly free.

By: Kalli Amstutz