A Gentle and Quiet Spirit

At our most recent ‘Exploring Womanhood’ event, we discussed what it meant for us as women in Christ to have a gentle and quiet spirit. We get this term from 1 Peter 3:3-6:

“Do not let your adorning be external - the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothes you wear - but let your adoring be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

These verses tell us that the characteristics of a gentle and quiet spirit are not an external adorning, but an adorning of the hidden person of the heart. This means it’s not merely how we act or what we say…but how our heart is before God. A common misconception with this term “gentle and quiet spirit” is that women ought to be gentle and quiet, therefore we cannot be outgoing, probably shouldn’t do anything too “rough” like play sports, and should not talk too loud or too much. These things might describe someone with a quiet or gentle personality, but that is not what Peter says the Lord is asking of us. The imperishable beauty that comes from a gentle and quiet spirit is one that comes from the inside out. This beauty that is “very precious” in the sight of the Lord will be visible to others as well because “out of the abundance of the heart a man speaks” (Luke 6:45). Whatever is in our hearts is going to overflow into our actions!

But what does this look like? In a talk Carolyn Mahaney gave at Celebration East in 2004, she gave the following definitions of gentle and quiet:

Gentle carries the idea of humility, not thinking one is too important, that results in patiently accepting whatever comes one’s way…especially wrong doing from others.

Quiet carries the idea of calmness and tranquility that delivers one from both selfish assertiveness and anxious striving.

She brought much clarity to my understanding of the term with this description: “A gentle and quiet spirit is an inner disposition of humble contentment and quiet tranquility, rooted in an unwavering trust in God and His purpose.” She sums it up as “A steadfast peace, because of a steadfast trust in God.” We can find this in Isaiah 26:3 “You will keep in perfect peace, him whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts in You.” This gentle and quiet spirit is not so much an action as it is an “inner disposition.” Do you trust that God is who He says He is and that He’s going to do what he says He’s going to do? God promises in Romans 8:28 that “in all things He works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.” If we trust that God truly is working all things to our good, then we don’t have to respond sinfully when we are sinned against, and we don’t have to strive anxiously when the boy we like isn’t pursuing us. 1 Peter 1:6-7 tells us that God brings us through trials to refine us and make us more like Himself, and although we can’t see at the time how this painful situation is good for us, we can have a steadfast peace because our trust is rooted in a steadfast God!

Now you might be thinking, “This is all well and good on my computer screen, but how do I even begin to remain faithful to this overwhelming calling?” Thankfully, we’ve been given an example in our Savior Jesus Christ who “committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at Him, He did not retaliate; when He suffered, He made no threats. Instead, He entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by His wounds we have been healed” 1 Peter 2:21-24. Christ died and bore our sins so that we would die to sin! He is the one who makes it possible to not lash out at the person who cuts you off on the road or freak out at your sister for stealing your clothes for the umpteenth time. When Christ was insulted and experienced injustice, He entrusted Himself to the One who judges justly. We in turn must continually entrust ourselves to Christ and look to His grace and mercy for our supply.

Here is a link to Carolyn Mahaney's talk on a gentle and quiet spirit. You can download it for free at the Sovereign Grace Ministries Store!
A-Woman's-Beauty-Regimen

Our next 'Exploring Womanhood' event will be Tuesday, October 28th at 7:00 pm. If you are interested in attending or have any questions please e-mail me at em2006@msn.com!

Blessings,
Emily Tarter

Monthly Manly Movies

Friday night, September 26, kicked off our men’s events for the year. Just as last year, we are having what we like to call Monthly Manly Movies. One Friday a month, a group of 10-12 guys from Northwestern meet at the Robertson Student Center at 6:00, then carpool over to Dr. Tim Tomlinson’s house to enjoy a wonderful home cooked meal by Mrs. Tomlinson. After being thoroughly stuffed, we head down to the basement to watch a movie in which at least one character exudes traits of a biblical man. After the movie, we head back to the kitchen for dessert and discuss how men in the film did or did not act as Christian men ought.

This past Friday, we watched “The River of No Return”. In this classic, Matt Calder just got out of prison for killing a man in self-defense, and after finding his nine-year-old son (Mark) in a “Sodom-like” town, he takes him home to lead a quiet life. On the way, however, a card shark named Weston steals Calder’s horse and gun after beating him up, then essentially leaves him and his son for dead. The love aspect of the movie then unfolds when Weston’s girlfriend, a saloon girl named Kay (who previously befriended Mark at the town), stays with the two men in sympathy. As the plot unfolds, Calder leads Kay and his son down the river of no return without a horse or gun. In the process, he does not sink into self-pity over their circumstances, but rather provides for Kay when the cold river makes her sick. He also protects his son from a mountain lion, and refrains from revealing how much danger the three are actually in. In addition, after they make it safely to their destination, he does not allow Kay to return to her life as a saloon girl, but literally drags her out of that lifestyle. Matt Calder did much to lead, feed, care, and protect Kay and Mark throughout the movie, but still had some moral failings. In fact, our conclusion over dessert was that Mark, the nine-year-old boy, was the one who exuded the most consistent traits of biblical manhood. He was courageous in the midst of trouble. He expressed a real care for Kay despite her immoral lifestyle. He did whatever he could to help his father provide for the three of them. And at the end of the movie, he even had to do the hard task of shooting Weston in defense of his father. Mark was consistent in his values throughout, and taught us all a thing or two about biblical manhood.

All of us who are involved in Monthly Manly Movies appreciate what can be grasped in all of the movies that we watch. Nevertheless, we do not look to role models in movies as a guide for how to be biblical men, but weigh the values and actions of these characters in light of the Word of God. My hope and prayer is that these movies continually point us back to the ultimate man, Jesus Christ, and are used as tools to teach how to provide, protect, and lead others (especially women) as Christ leads His Bride, the Church. I hope this synopsis of Monthly Manly Movie night was helpful, and if any men would like to come next month, shoot me an email!
zbtarter@yahoo.com

Zach

We're Back!

Welcome! If you're a returning reader, thanks for coming back after our long summer break! If you're new, we're so glad you're here! As our home page says, we are in the blogosphere seeking to "foster discussion at NWC for a joyful submission to the authority of Scripture concerning Biblical manhood and womanhood." We are back in the swing of school and that means that the Gender Matters blog is back in action! This year, we hope to share what the Lord is teaching us about His Word as it relates to our identity in Christ! With that by way of introduction, here are a few dates that are coming up FAST!

*September 26th (Friday)
What: Monthly Manly Movies
When: 6:00 pm (meet @ Student Center for ride)
Contact: Zach Tarter (612) 986-1271 -OR- zbtarter@yahoo.com

* September 30th (Tuesday)
What: Exploring Womanhood
When: 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Subject: What IS a Gentle and Quiet Spirit
Contact: Brittany LaBonte (906) 399-3188 -OR- BKLaBonte@students.nwc.edu

*October 14th (Tuesday)

What: Men’s Event
When: 7:00 pm
Where: Student Center classroom 392

Subject: Why Theology is Important in Pursuing Biblical Manhood
Contact: Zach Tarter (612) 986-1271 -OR- zbtarter@yahoo.com

Please feel free to contact Zach or Brittany about the above events or just post a comment and we'll get back to you! We are excited to see what the Lord has in store for Gender Matters this year and hope you'll join us in our endeavor to make much of Christ!

Blessings,

Zach and Emily Tarter

"Her Children Rise Up And Call Her Blessed"

I’ve heard this statistic more than once: 80% of proclaimed Christians were saved a young age. Whether or not this is correct, it is safe to say that many believers are saved in their youth. The evangelical community typically looks to pastors, evangelists, youth group leaders, etc. to bring people to Christ, and although these are all much needed roles within the church, we all too often overlook the importance of a mother’s influence. With Mother’s Day weekend at hand, I think it might be worthwhile to address an important question that arises in light of the above statistic.

If most believers come to Christ at a young age, why is a Titus 2 ministry treated with such scorn? Egalitarians have often scoffed at the idea of “limiting” a women’s ministry to only women and children. Yet, this statistic implies that a ministry to children is perhaps the most important of all ministries. The church needs to praise the mothers that pour truth into their children from a young age, not diminish the significance of motherhood. In her book, “The True Woman,” Susan Hunt writes of a Puritan mother, Mary Fish, who raised her children in the Lord. Mary’s son, Benjamin, praised his mother:

She was a heroic woman and encountered with firmness the trials and terrors of the American Revolution in which my father was largely concerned…In her widowhood, after my father’s death in 1790, she struggled on in embarrassed circumstances and gave my brother and myself a public education, forming our minds at home to purity and piety. Whatever I have of good in me I owe under God mainly to her. (Hunt 47)

All too often, the church neglects the high calling of motherhood for “better” positions such as pastor and elder. I find it very interesting that unlike pastoral positions, the role of “homemaker” is rarely envied. Yet, if we consider the implications of how many Christians are saved at a young age, we will see how tragic this is. The mindset of the church must be radically transformed. Until we see the ministry of a mother who thrives as a homemaker as completely equal to a man who thrives as a pastor, we will continue in this rut of church secularization. I am forever thankful to be blessed by a mother who viewed the souls of her children as the highest priority, and like Benjamin Fish, I proclaim, “Whatever I have of good in me I owe under God mainly to her.” Let us praise such women instead of diminishing their labors. Happy Mother’s Day!

By: Zach Tarter

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