Ten Quotes: The Mark of a Man by Elisabeth Elliot

Here are ten of my favorite quotes from a book I recently read. Who/what book do you think these quotes came from?

Masculinity and femininity, being elements of the original design, radiate glory. They shine.

If the original distinction is lost-the vital one between men and women-we end up recognizing no distinction in sexual conduct. It is the logical conclusion. If sex has no transcendent meaning, what different does it make who you go to bed with? You can be promiscuous, homosexual, incestuous, bestial, or otherwise perverted. The only lasting sanctions against such behavior are based on the divine man-woman order. 

Four extremely important events [in Genesis 1-2] illuminate where woman stands in relation to man: 1. She was made for man. 2. She was made from man. 3. She was brought to man. 4. She was named by man.  

Clearly such women [Gloria Steinem] are adrift. Yet other women follow them, blindly hoping that what they are offering is freedom and fulfillment. The awful truth is that what they offer is bondage and destruction; for they would strip us all-men and women alike-of all mystery and, indeed, of our very humanity.  

Masculinity means initiation. Femininity means response.

If a husband can look upon his gift of initiation as a privilege, instead of a right; and if the wife can look upon her gift of response in the same way, instead of as an obligation, both might be surprised to find that Jesus' promise actually comes true for them: The yoke proves to be easy, the burden light.

People come with standard equipment. Tongue, eyes, ears, hands, and hearts are usually provided for both men and women. But there is equipment which is radically differentiated: the reproductive system. Its functions are plain enough. Quite unarguably, they are designed for initiation and reception. Is it unreasonable to probe deeper than the temporal function and recognize that these, too, are signs? May we not infer from them, as well as from creation's order, the meaning of masculinity-initiation; and of femininity-response? 

The refusal to accept things which cannot or ought not be changed is neurotic. These matters of what men are and what women are have been beautifully thought out and put in place. The sooner and the more wholeheartedly we settle into the places assigned, the greater will be our peace and the more harmonious our world. Resentment about it leads to neurosis and bondage.

 It is at best a misguided chivalry and at worst irresponsibility that prefers to take a backseat and let women run things. 

The husband is the head of the wife. The Book doesn't say he ought to be or he must work at it and become. It says he is, in the same way that Christ is the Head of the Church. 

And One:

First [in what a man should look for in a woman to marry] she ought to be glad she's a woman....a real woman has accepted the given: her femininity. This is an act of faith. She accepts the place her femininity gives her in God's world. She knows she was made for man, from man, brought to man by God and named by him. She does not covet the not given...a real woman understands that man was created to be the initiator, and she operates on that premise. This is primarily a matter of attitude. I am convinced that the woman who understands and accepts with gladness the difference between masculine and feminine will be, without pretense or self-consciousness, womanly.

Quotes From Other Books
From the Pen of Pastor Paul by Daniel Hyde
Fool's Talk by Os Guinness
The New Pastor's Handbook by Jason Helopoulos
On Being a Pastor by Derek Prime and Alistair Begg
How to Exasperate Your Wife by Douglas Wilson
The Things of Earth by Joe Rigney
A Son for Glory by Toby Sumpter 
Escape from Reason by Francis Schaeffer
Crazy Busy by Kevin DeYoung
Making Gay Okay by Robert Reilly 
Christ Crucified by Donald Macleod
Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God by John Calvin

Where and What, But Not Who?

It has become common, even among conservative Christians, to hold that the restrictions on women teaching and having authority over men in I Timothy 2:11-12 are limited to preaching and in some cases church discipline. Mixed Sunday school classes, small group studies, and church conferences can all have women teaching men and not be in violation of this passage. Pastor Philip Ryken argues this in his commentary on I Timothy 2:11-15. He bases this on the use of the Greek word διδάσκω, which means to teach. Here are some quotes from his commentary on I Timothy 2:12. By the way he titles this section of his commentary "But Not to Preach."

He says the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-18 means that all "God's sons and daughters exercise prophetic ministry" which makes "it clear that at least certain kinds of teaching are to be carried out universally within the church." He does not explain what he means by this, which is odd because in principle no one disagrees. The question is not can women teach in the church. The question is can they teach men. He then notes that Priscilla taught a man and thus it must be okay for women to teach men at least in some circumstances (Acts 18:24-26). Again no clear indication of what these circumstances are.

Then he says (all bold is mine):

There is at least one place where it is not appropriate for women to teach however:in the authoritative proclamation of God's Word in the context of the public worship of the church...What he [Paul] writes is not intended to govern men and women in every situation, but applies especially to those occasions when the church gathers for the preaching of the Word of God...What the Holy Spirit does not permit women to do is to transmit apostolic doctrine publicly and officially. To put it more simply, the main thing God forbids women to do is preach (or to exercise the doctrinal and disciplinary authority that is tied to the preaching ministry). 

Ryken goes on to link "authority" with teaching, thus restricting the entire phrase "to teach or have authority" to:

Writing of creeds and confessions that summarize Christian doctrine, and also the formulation of church policy on theological issues. The word authentein [authority] hints that church discipline also may be in view. These things are the exclusive work of the elders of the church....to preach is to exercise teaching authority.  

Depending on the discretion of the elders in the church, some other teaching situations may fall under the category of teaching with authority. The training of elders, for example, or classes on fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. But elders are by no means required to teach every  Bible study and Sunday school class in the church. Women and men who are not ordained may teach a wide variety of biblical, historical, and practical subjects (although they should not, in my view, teach confessional doctrine).

Perhaps this is the best place to emphasize that beyond this one biblical restriction, women are at liberty to use their spiritual gifts to their fullest extent in the church.  

Why He is Wrong
"At least one place where it is inappropriate...the main thing God forbids women to do is preach...beyond this one biblical restriction."

Ryken believes Paul's restriction on women in I Timothy 2:11-12 is about where they teach (worship) and what they teach (fundamental doctrines), but not who they teach. They can teach mixed Sunday School, Bible studies, and small groups, but what they cannot do is preach at the regular gathering of the saints and they cannot pass on apostolic doctrine in any official way. Ryken's interpretation falls flats for several reasons.

First, in the text the key is not where they are teaching or what they are teaching, but who they are teaching. Women cannot teach men in the church, which is the subject of Paul's letter (I Timothy 3:15). Ryken's commentary on this section of Scripture is a classic exercise in trying to get around in any way possible what the text actually says.

Second, Ryken wants didasko (the Greek word for teach) to mean preaching, as in Sunday morning in the pulpit. But unfortunately for him the word and its derivatives have a wide variety of meanings including teaching from house to house (Acts 20:20), all Christians teaching all Christians (Col. 3:18), older women teaching younger women (Titus 2:3), the whole teaching ministry of the apostles ( Col. 1:28, 2:7),  and what nature teaches us about men having long hair (I Cor. 11:14).  Didasko cannot be restricted to official preaching on Sunday morning. It can include that of course, but it also includes other teaching as well.  More than likely, Paul here is talking about the entire teaching ministry of the church. There is no reason in the passage, I Timothy, or in the use of the word to restrict this the Sunday morning preaching.

Third, Ryken wants the content of the teaching to be "apostolic doctrine," "confessional doctrine," "church policy on theological issues," and possibly church discipline. Ryken is not clear about what he means here. Obviously, the whole New Testament is apostolic. But Ryken does not mean that women cannot teach men the Bible. He says later that women can teach men "on a wide variety of biblical, historical, and practical subjects." According to Ryken, women can teach men the Bible in a public setting. It just can't be Sunday morning. And they cannot teach the fundamentals of the faith.

However, the word didasko is not limited to fundamental doctrines. Paul's teaching covers a whole host of "Biblical and practical" subjects that are not creedal or confessional in nature. In I Timothy Paul encourages Timothy to "teach (didasko)" on things like sex, marriage, food, and exercise (I Timothy 4:1-11) and how slaves are supposed to react to masters (I Timothy 6:2).  In Titus, there are false teachers who are "teaching things they ought not to" (Titus 1:11). In response to these false teachers, Paul encourages Titus to  "Speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine (Titus 2:1)." The word "doctrine" is a derivative of didasko. Paul then tells Titus to teach older men, older women, younger women, and younger men about things like wise speech, loving their husbands, being reverent in behavior, being sober minded, and not drinking too much wine.  In other words, sound doctrine includes a lot of practical stuff (Titus 2:1-10). This section ends with an appeal to slaves to be faithful so the doctrine, again a derivative of didasko, of our God may be adorned (Titus 2:10). Some form of the word for teaching is used in Titus 1:9, 11, 2:1, 7, 10.  Paul does not encourage his pastors, Timothy or Titus, to restrict their teaching to the fundamental doctrines of the faith. In other words, teaching includes "Biblical and practical subjects" and therefore Ryken's assertion that didasko is limited to key doctrines is wrong. I Timothy 2:11-12 does not mean women shouldn't teach men the fundamentals of the faith. It  means, in the church, women should not teach men at all, whether the subject is fundamental doctrine, other Biblical subjects, or practical subjects.

Ryken's position has become popular over the years. The restrictions on women teaching men in the church have become lax. We don't let them in pulpit...just yet. But anywhere else in the church it is often fine for women to teach men.

Ironically Ryken goes on in the next section to say this:

The preceding explanation of I Timothy 2:11-12 (or something close to it) has been the nearly universal understanding of the Christian church. Only in the late twentieth century did it come under relentless attack...The liberal strategy has been to deny the authority of these verses. 

Ryken counts himself among the conservative interpreters. But he isn't. He is just a softer liberal than the evangelical feminists he mentions later, but his interpretation will eventually gets us in the same mess.The way he limits I Timothy 2:11-12 is exegetically untenable. His restriction of the word didasko is unnecessary and strips the passage of its force. His failure to be clear on what he means provides the necessary wiggle room to look conservative while not sounding too harsh on the fairer sex. This is an interpretative and pastoral failure right at the point where the barbarians are storming the gates. Ryken believes he is preserving the church from the forces of liberal, feminist, Christians. But the reality is he has cracked open the door just enough for them to slip in.

Related Posts
Why a Conservative Interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-12 is Not Enough

I Don't Want It

Desiring God just posted an article about Holly Holm. She is the woman who beat up Ronda Rousey on Saturday night during a Ultimate Fighting Championship match and sent Rousey to the hospital. One might think that given what the Scriptures teach and Desiring God's commitment to the Biblical view of women that this article would be decrying the fact that Americans get their jollies by two women beating each other into a bloody pulp in the ring. But no. Instead this article praises Holly Holm for her humility and selflessness.

The article cites Proverbs 16:18, "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Ronda Rousey was the arrogant, loud mouthed, braggart, while Holm is the humble woman who overcame all odds. The author ends his article by comparing Holm to Jesus

The UFC now has a new kind of queen on the throne. The reign of this queen will have a fresh flavor, marked by humility and quiet confidence that echoes a true and better king. Such a counter-cultural reign, no doubt, will be underappreciated, even mocked, by the world. It won’t capture the attention and hype of a Rousey reign, but it will leave its mark, and remind us of the path and calling of the true champion.

This is one of the more astounding statements I have seen in print in a long time, especially coming from a conservative, Christian blog. A Christian woman, created by God to nurture and care for children, commanded by God to have "a gentle and quiet spirit," (I Peter 3:4), created by God to give life, as her mother Eve did (Genesis 3:20, I Timothy 2:15, 5:10, 14, Titus 2:4) and yet here she is praised by a PCA pastor for beating another woman up so bad she had to go to the hospital. She has spent her life beating up other women for pay and somehow she is model for other Christian women?  She is going around kicking other women in the head and somehow she is like Jesus? The article shows how far the church has fallen from the Scriptural view of what women are and who God made them to be. Holly Holm is a Christian. I cannot doubt that and nor should I. But her model of womanhood is so far removed from the Scriptural pattern for females that she should not be praised for what she is doing. 

Here is why those of us who believe in the classic roles of men and women in church, home, and society think so little of many 21st century complementarians. They cannot even get the basics right. Yes, there are gray areas, but this not one of them. Women beating each other to a bloody pulp in a ring for money is not a gray area. Women donning military garb and heading into battle is not a gray area. Women busting down doors to arrest drug dealers is not one of them. Women refusing to marry and have children or marrying and refusing to have children so they can pursue money is not one of them.  Too many complementarians want to push almost every distinction between men and women into the culturally conditioned gray area. When an article like this gets published by a complementarian leaning blog is there any wonder we want to go back to the term "patriarchy." If this is the fruit of complementarianism then I don't want it. 

A Plea to Flee

The obliteration of the sexes marches on, at least in one Illinois town. Palatine High School District 211, the largest in the state of Illinois, was cited by federal officials for not allowing a student who "was born male, but identifies as a female" to use the women's locker room at the school. What is amazing is how much has already been done to "accommodate" transgender students including: changing names, changing gender records, and providing access to the bathroom of the identified gender. In other words, boys who identify as girls already use the girls' restroom.   The school offered to let him/her use a privacy curtain in the girls' locker room. But that was not enough. The ACLU representative said, "She had to go down long hallway to the other bathroom, she noticed she was singled out, it didn't make her feel part of the team." She/He wanted full access to the girls' locker room as well. And she will get it. The US Dept. of Education is going to make this happen. You will tolerate us, accommodate us, and bow down and do what we say.

Here is the end of rejecting God's created order. A person creates their own reality. Who cares if you have male reproductive organs. You can still be a woman. Who cares if your skin is white you can still "self-identify" as black. Reality is pliable.

But of course, this encroaches on other people's realities. My reality says that a guy, as in someone who has a penis, should shower with the guys. But my reality apparently isn't as good as the reality which says naked or mostly naked women should be subjected to a naked or mostly naked man because in his head he identifies as a woman. Their reality will win. You will bend the knee.

And so here we are.  Our grandparents' common sense is now not only rejected, but considered heresy. What are those of us who still think men should use the men's locker room supposed to do?

A Plea to Pastors
Pastors, teach creation order. Teach that men and women are different and that is a wonderful, delightful, joyful thing. Teach that women were created by God to be wives and mothers. Teach that marriage is not just about free sex, but about children. Teach men to lead, provide, protect, defend, and love their wives.  Encourage parents to raise their sons to be men and daughters to be women. Do not flatten it all out so gender is irrelevant. If you do that, you have lost. We must preach and teach the basics once again. Reject feminism and egalitarianism in all its forms. It is a parasite that will eat up your people. And if you don't want to do this or don't have the courage to do it then at least get out.

Pastors, be prepared for a generation that will be sexually broken, confused, and guilty. By the time they graduate high school most of them will have had numerous sexual encounters, been exposed to hard core pornography (including the women), many of them will have been sexually abused or raped, some will have had abortions, some will have sent naked pictures of themselves, and some will have had same sex encounters, thoughts, or indoctrination. Include in this all the false thinking that has been pumped into them and this generation has been gutted sexually. The sexual revolution has done its work. It is easy in a culture so twisted to get caught up in the particulars. How will I handle this or that situation? We should think those things through and read up on them where we can. But the longer I am in ministry the more I have come to trust the basics. So while the problems may be deeper than previous generations the answers are the same. Justification by faith in Christ. God's Word as the final authority. Regular worship and fellowship with the saints. Growth in holiness. Marriage for most. Forgiveness and obedience. Sexual purity in all stages of life. God's sovereignty over all things. The answers to the sins of our generation are the same they have always been.

A Encouragement to Flee
Parents, if your children are in public school please pull them out. Not every public school is this bad. But if you think your children can spend twelve years of their lives being taught that gender is a social construct and come out thinking biblically you are wrong.

Christian teachers, I encourage you to abandon the public school system as well. I had many good Christian teachers in my public high school. But the time has come to let the dead bury the dead. Why would you want to be a part of system that denies God and the world he has made? If kids come out learning how to read, but think girls and boys are basically the same have we really educated them? I know Christian public school teachers want to honor Christ in their vocation. And I know it would be a sacrifice to leave that vocation. But Christ has said that whatever we leave for his name in this life will be rewarded in the life to come. Why continue as a teacher when the Department of Education insists on hanging millstones around the necks of our children?

Finally, I urge any Christians in churches where the pastors are not speaking out biblically and regularly on the major cultural issues of our day, such as sodomy, abortion, feminism, fornication, etc. to leave. If you are in a church that is silent on these matters, encourages grace, but not holiness, does not discipline its members for major sins, thinks homosexuality is fine, has women elders, or has other women leaders that are teaching men then get out and get out now.

Gender is a Cage

George Gilder wrote the following paragraphs in 1986.

To the sexual liberal, gender is a cage. Behind cruel bars of custom and tradition, men and women for centuries have looked longingly across forbidden spaces at one another and yearned to be free of sexual roles. The men dream of nurturing and consoling; the women want to be tough and child free. Today it is widely believed that the dream of escape can come at last. 

This belief leads to a program of mixing the sexes in every possible way, at every stage of life. In nurseries and schools, in athletics and home economics, in sex education and social life, the sexes are thrown together in the continuing effort to create a unisex society. But the results are rarely as expected, and the policies are mostly founded on confusion.

Some of the confusions arise in the schools, where the androgynous agenda has made the greatest apparent headway and its effects can best be studied. It turns out what seems elemental to many expert educationists is actually bizarre from the long perspective of history and anthropology

Until recent years, for example, most American parochial schools have kept strict sexual segregation. The boys and girls joined chiefly on ceremonial occasions-assemblies and graduations. Even the playground was divided into male and female territories. The restrictions were lifted only during carefully supervised dances, when young couples made their way chastely around the floor of the gym under the watchful eyes of nuns. Any unseemly body contact brought a swift reprimand: "Leave six inches for the Holy Ghost."

There is no room for the Holy Ghost any longer at most of our schools. The bodies and minds rub together from kindergarten to graduate study. The result is perfectly predictable. Sexual activity occurs at an increasingly younger age. In communities where the family cannot  impose discipline, illegitimate children are common. Classrooms become an intensely sexual arena, where girls and boys perform for the attention of the other sex and where unintellectual males quickly come to view schoolbooks as a menace to manhood.

He closes the chapter with these words:

In the United States and Western Europe girls and boys are expected to traffic together intimately for years before they can marry. They are subjected to intense sexual distractions and competitions during the critical stages of their educations. They are brought up in a society where sex is continuously advertised and propagandized.

The result is that boys and girls are driven into periods of sexual experimentation and stress unparalleled in length or intensity by other societies. One aspect of sex is drastically downplayed, however, and that is the most important, fundamental, and sexually differentiated part-procreation. 

Thus the American system of increasingly far-reaching sexual integration vividly teaches the lesson that boys and girls are sexually similar and that sex is a matter of exchanging pleasures between them in a reciprocal way. This approach is inimical [hostile] to durable love and marriage. The boys do not learn to venerate the procreative powers of women, and the girls stunt their own consciousness of a more elaborate sexuality. Thus, in effect, despite the feminized regimen of many schools, in sex itself-the domain of women- masculine patterns prevail and both sexes are diminished.

The advocates of sexual integration, moreover, seem ready to stop at virtually nothing-not sex education classes, not sports, not even, so it seems, the ultimate male arena of military combat.

Stephen Clark in Man and Woman in Christ says that boys and girls spend more time together now than at any previous point in human history. What impact does that have on their emotional, physical, and spiritual development? Gilder's point throughout this chapter is that we have created an androgynous society where men and women are interchangeable and integrated across the board. They are educated in the same rooms and in the same way. They work in the same fields. They play on the same sports teams. They play the same sports. They both are encouraged to pursue careers. There is no incentive to marry, raise children, and establish a family. Men are not encouraged to provide because after all the wife (or lover or girlfriend or mom) can provide just as well. Women are not encouraged to use their young years to do the great work of  bearing children. Instead they are encouraged to spend the younger years pursuing money, status, and freedom. And of course, the men are happy to let them, as long they get an occasional favor.

Since Gilder wrote this things have only gotten worse. Can we tell boys and girls they are the same from daycare to graduate school and then expect boys to become men and girls to become women? Why are we shocked by Jenner, sodomy, lesbianism, and transgender bathrooms when for decades we have taught that men and women are interchangeable? The slow, steady obliteration of male and female is the goal of our society. This goal is fueled by a slow, steady rebellion against God. Unfortunately many churches and Christians have bought into it. Why do so many churches, denominations, and Christians raise their sons and daughters as if they are the same? Until we acknowledge that men and women are different and train our children that way we will continue to lose the battle on sexuality.

Book Review: 50 Crucial Questions about Manhood and Womanhood

50 Crucial Questions About Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A great introduction to most of the main issues surrounding feminism and the church's capitulation to it. The answers are not comprehensive, but they are good and will point the reader in the right direction. The great benefit of this short book is the amount of ground the authors cover. I am not sure any reader will agree with everything. But most readers will learn something and even where they disagree will find their views challenged. It would be a good book to put on a book table or to hand to someone who is curious about the key teachings in Scripture on male female roles in the church and in the home.

View all my reviews

Why a Conservative Interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-12 is Not Enough

Attacks on Scripture must be defended by exegesis of specific passages. For example, hammering out the meaning of I Timothy 2:11-12 and the surrounding verses is an essential exercise in dealing with men who want to subvert God's teaching concerning women pastors and elders. But correct interpretation of key passages is not sufficient. Exegesis of specific passages must be placed in the overarching paradigm of Scripture. Is I Timothy 2:11-12 an extension of the way God made the world, the creation order applied to leadership and teaching in the church, or is it the exception to God's created order? How we answer this question will probably have more impact on our view of ordaining women than the specific exegesis of the passage.

The reason is that if we believe that men and women are interchangeable then a conservative interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-12 does not make sense. Why would God restrict women in the pulpit, but no where else? If men and women are interchangeable in the created world as a whole, in places such as homes, businesses, politics, parenting, seminaries, etc. then why would they not be interchangeable in the church? A man can hold to the conservative interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-12, but if his position is egalitarian everywhere else then he is putting a square peg in a round hole. Eventually something has to give. Usually the first generation holds the line despite the incongruity. But the following generation will often smooth out the square peg, which usually means denying the plain teaching of a passage.

But if God made men and women for complementary, but distinct roles in creation then I Timothy 2:11-12 fits with the way God created the world. If men and women are not interchangeable then the conservative interpretation of this passage (and many others such as I Corinthians 11:3-16, Ephesians 5:22-33) is not odd or strange, but naturally flows with the teaching of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. It is round peg in a round hole. What Paul says in this passage is what we would expect him to say given the rest of Scripture.

My point is simple and applies to other areas of interpretation as well, such what is love or marriage in the sodomy debates. We should exegete specific passages, but we must do so using all of Scripture, not just the specific passage in question. We should not assume that correct interpretation of a passage is enough. Even if we get I Timothy 2:11-12 correct, if our paradigm is off then feminism will win. A conservative interpretation of this passage that is not rooted in creation order cannot hold the line.

How We Got Here or Principles of Modern Thought: Full Potential

Here is the third post in a series on Stephen Clark's five guiding principles of modern thought. The list with links to the previous posts can be found below.

The Principle of Equality
The Principle of Freedom
The Principle of Developing Full Potential 
The Principle of Authenticity
The Principle of Being a "Full-Person"

Here is Clark's description of the third principle that drives modern thinking:

The Principle of Developing Full Potential or Achieving Self-Fulfillment-"This an individualistic principle closely related to the principle of freedom. Self-fulfillment and full potential become ideals under conditions of little social cohesion where each individual feels the need to watch out for himself...It emphasizes gifts and abilities rather than personal relationships. 

A principle of self-fulfillment cannot be found in scripture. The scriptural teaching presumes a cohesive communal lifestyle and sets forth an ideal of servanthood. The scripture allows Christians to seek reward, but the criterion for action is love, that is, laying down one's life for the Lord and the brothers and sisters." 

The thought here is that anything or anyone that prevents me from achieving what I think is my full potential is restricting  my freedom and ultimately harming me. People and things exist to give me fulfillment and make me happy.

Perhaps no principle on this list is as thoroughly rejected by Scripture as this one. The Christian life is one of love and service that is focused on giving of our life, time, money, and energy to others. A principle of achieving full potential runs hard against that truth. It is impossible to live like Christ and still be focused on achieving your full potential. Yet because this is the air that we breath we still function this way. Popular Christian preachers make millions promising people that if they come to Christ he will help them fulfill their potential. On a more day to day level, we assume that if I am not becoming who I think I ought to be then something has gone wrong.  How many "Christian" men have left their wives because they felt held back by them? How many college children reject their parent's faith because it keeps them from "stretching their wings?" How many pastors have stopped preaching the hard truths of service and sacrifice so their people will be happy and feel fulfilled? How many young men enter the job force expecting it to help them fulfill their potential? How many young ladies bear children for the same, ungodly reason? The Christian life is one of service. The minute we make our personal satisfaction and fulfillment the goal then have abandoned the narrow path.

I would add that when we follow Christ we will ultimately find happiness and satisfaction. We were made for God and in him we will be filled. But that satisfaction comes from the well-done at the end. And that well-done comes from living for Christ, dying to self and serving others. It does not come from putting our own personal fulfillment at the center of our existence.

Women's Ordination and the Rejection of the Created Order

Stephen B. Clark's last chapter in his great book Man and Woman in Christ  covers ordination, occupation and legislation. He makes three points about women's ordination that are worth quoting. All words in the quote blocks are him, except for brackets. First;

The study done here [his book] reveals that both Scripture and tradition teach very clearly that the positions of overall government in the Christian community are to be held by men. This is one of the clearest and most consistent principles concerning the structure and order of the Christian people from the time of Christ and the apostles until a very recent period of Christian history. If any authoritative statements about order among the Christian people are undisputed in scripture and tradition, this is surely one of them. To change it is not simply a matter of changing one rule: If this principle can be changed, the Christian people can change any feature of order, and they are not bound by scripture and tradition in shaping their life together. The judgment to ordain women, then, involve the judgment that modern society has reached the point where scripture and tradition cannot definitely guide the structuring of the common life of Christians.

His first point is that ordaining women is a complete rejection of the teaching of Scripture and the history of God's people. By the way, when he says, "Christian community" he does not mean just church.

Clark goes on to say

Second, the study done in this book indicates that the question of who should be the heads of the Christian people is actually a question of God's purposes for the human race and how the new humanity [Christians] should be formed. Government of the Christian people is not merely a secondary question of social roles that can be changed with little consequence. Rather, the question involves a broader vision of what human life should be like according to God's ideal. The ordering of governmental responsibilities is only an expression of that underlying vision. Deciding to have women acting as heads of the Christian people means deciding that the scriptural vision of the life of humans together is no longer applicable or appropriate. A decision about structure and order in this area is a decision about what a body of Christians is trying to be. 

Clark's second point, derived from his study of Genesis 1-3, is that traditional male/female roles are inherent in the created order and are necessary for the flourishing of the human race.  Christ came to restore the human race through making new creatures.  Becoming a new creature in Christ includes maintaining this distinction between men and women. The rejection of this distinction does not just change the church structure, but is an explicit rejection of God's goal for the human race. It is odd that many feminists and evangelicals believe that a true restoration of the human race would abolish all these differences.

In his third point he addressing churches, which do not want to ordain women:

These churches are trying to maintain this position without attempting to provide a corresponding social structure to support it. For instance, they do not any longer normally teach very clearly about a difference in the roles of men and women. Yet, unless they do, their position on ordination will become more and more difficult for their people to understand and accept. When rules of order do not structure social life in a helpful way, such rules are often experienced as both restrictive and senseless. Of course these churches could claim a basis other than social structure for holding that women should not be ordained.  That is, they can, for example insist that ordination is a sacramental matter which operates by an entirely different set of rules than the rest of life, and which should have no consequences for social structure...In short, if the churches that presently maintain the prohibition of women's ordination do not (1) back up their position with clear instruction on family structure, and (2) provide their people with adequate social support to live a way of life different from the technological society around them (one which includes the role difference between men and women) these churches will fail to resolve the current controversy in this area.  Either the issue of women's ordination will remain a sore point, or it will contribute to an even greater separation between "sacramental" matters and the daily life of the Christian people. 

This final quote is perceptive by Clark. His point is that a refusal to ordain women cannot be properly maintained without being placed in an overarching paradigm of male and female roles that derives from Genesis 1-3, is meant to apply to all humans, and is taught that way to Christian people. Here is how Clark says it in another section of his book:

Christians cannot obey the few clear scriptural directives about order in personal relationships and live in every other respect according to the functional relationships of the modern world and still expect to experience the scriptural directives as an unqualified blessing. 

He lists only two options when the paradigm does not hold: continued contention or sharp dualism. But there is a third option: compromise. Many Christians long before they promoted women elders rejected the traditional reading of male and female roles outlined in Genesis 1-3 as a normative goal for all societies at all times and therefore one that is to be lived by all Christians. For a while the line holds because there is chapter and verse that says, "No women elders." However, once the traditional reading is rejected, eventually someone says, "I Timothy 2:11-12 and Ephesians 5, as traditionally taught, do not fit our new paradigm." Those texts, along with others that teach the traditional reading, are eventually reinterpreted to fit the previous reinterpretation of Genesis 1-3. Unless Ephesians 5, I Timothy 2 and texts like these are just a normal extension of God's purposes for creating the human race then they become "senseless" and arbitrary.

How We Got Here or 5 Principles of Modern Thought: Freedom

This is the second post in a series on Stephen Clark's list of guiding principles of for modern thought. Here is the list with a link to the first post.

The Principle of Equality
The Principle of Freedom
The Principle of Developing Full Potential 
The Principle of Authenticity
The Principle of Being a "Full-Person"

Here is Clark's second principle that guides modern thought.

The Principle of Freedom-"Each individual should guide his or her own life and make his or her own decisions independent of the thoughts or interference of others. This principle considers all forms of social control other than state-authorized bureaucratic or educational forms as morally wrong, and it regards them as forms of oppression or domination. Personal subordination is evil and degrading. Underlying this Liberal principle of freedom is an individualistic notion that the highest good resides in the greatest degree of personal autonomy and freedom of movement.

Scripture also teaches a principle of liberty, but is the liberty to be sons and daughters of God and freedom from that opposes this status-especially the world, the flesh, the devil, and sin. The type of freedom scripture describes is compatible with a strong commitment to a body of people and with the acceptance of personal subordination. In fact, scripture sees corporate commitment and personal subordination as aids to freedom." 

A couple notes on this principle:

First, state control seems at odd with this principle, but Clark understood that state control would not be seen as restricting freedom. Clark wrote this 35 years ago. The state would set itself up as the guarantor of freedom. Isn't it strange that we all cry for freedom and person autonomy, yet we send our children to state run schools that have a state approved curriculum administered by state approved teachers? Even those of us who do not do that must usually be "state approved" in some way. How odd that a people who value personal autonomy allow their sons and daughters to be shaped for years by the state? Clark understood that we all serve someone.

Second, here is why many forms of libertarianism are modern through and through . Supreme value is placed on personal autonomy.

Third, here is one of the roots of post modern relativism. Who are you to restrict my freedom, especially in moral areas? Who are you to tell to me what I can and cannot do? This flows easily from the first principle of equality. If all men are to be treated equally then they should have freedom to do as they please. Restriction, for the modern, equals inferiority. So if you take away my personal freedoms you are not treating me as a equal.

Fourth, freedom for the Christian is always freedom from sin, never freedom to be whoever we want to be. A Christian teacher who says the Christ came to set you free must carefully explain what he means. The modern mind naturally drifts towards freedom meaning "no restrictions on my life."

Fifth, in the Christian life subordination is part of our freedom in Christ. A Christian wife is not enslaved to her marriage or her husband. She is free. The modern mind has a hard time grasping this. But Ephesians 5 is particularly strong in this area. Freedom means freedom to obey. Slaves are free to obey. Wives are free to submit. Children are free to obey. Freedom does not mean I escape from obligations and responsibilities to God's Word.

How We Got Here or Principles of Modern Thought: Equality

Stephen Clark lists five guiding principles of modern thought. The list is interesting since it was written 35 years ago. But looking back one can see that it is spot on. How did we get to a place where sodomite marriage is fine, abortion is fine, women go into combat, and the rejection of one's God given status as a man or a woman is fine ? This list gives you the blocks that build the modern mind.

The Principle of Equality
The Principle of Freedom
The Principle of Developing Full Potential 
The Principle of Authenticity
The Principle of Being a "Full-Person"

Just to be clear on what Clark thinks of these five principles he closes the section saying this:

These five ethical principles exert a powerful influence over Christian discussions of men's and women's roles. Yet none of them are intrinsically Christian principles and none of them derive from a Christian ethical system.

I am going to address these in five posts. Here is what Clark says about the first principle:

The Principle of Equality-"This principle states that all individuals should be treated identically, except for differences in ability or interest...Sometimes the principle of equality is phrased as an attack on anything that would make one person be regarded as 'inferior' to another. This principle militates against social roles ascribed according to age and sex and also against personal subordination. 

Scripture also teaches a principle of equality, but it is a principle of equal care for all members of the body. The scriptural principle is compatible with social roles and personal authority. It is not based on the individualizing of people for a functional society, but is instead based upon a communal life and personal relationships."

There are several things to note about this principle:

First, equality as defined by moderns naturally leads to sodomy, transgenders, and the rejection of male/female roles, among other things. All "roles" become choices we make based on what we enjoy and like, not based on any inherent, built in standard. So a person might be fine with my wife being a homemaker, but they would not be fine with me saying, "Homemaking is the normal, God-ordained, path for women." A person might be fine with men leading my church, but they would be upset with me saying, "Men must lead the church." Each person is equal and what they end up doing is based in the individual's choice, not in any divine law. It also means we can move in and out of "roles." On one level, egalitarians should have a live and let live mentality. But see the next point.

Second, modern equality means you forcefully eradicate anything that makes one person "inferior" to another. The goal is to destroy all positions of authority or empty them of their power.  Egalitarianism is militant.  It is not ultimately content to let others believe in hierarchy. For a while, it pretended to get along, but the goal has always been to drive out by force anything that smacks of inequality. We cannot all just get along. Egalitarians know this better than many conservative Christians.

Third, a plain reading of Scripture beginning in Genesis 1 shows how unbiblical modern equality is. A plain reading of nature shows how unnatural it is.

Fourth, there is an equality in Scripture, but that equality does not eradicate power, authority, hierarchy, male/female roles, etc.  Just because all men are saved the same way, by faith in Jesus Christ, does not make all Christians androgynous, equal in wealth, power, authority, background, knowledge, age, and experience.

Updated at 12 pm on November 13th. 

One Flesh Points to Reproduction

Stephen B. Clark commenting on Genesis 2:14.

"While it would be a mistake to regard one flesh solely in terms of sexual intercourse, it would be an even greater mistake to miss the reference to family and reproduction and concentrate instead on the modern idea of companionship. One reason that animals will not do as a partner for man is their inadequacy for reproductive purposes. The man needs someone with whom he can live and establish a household. Implicit in this, especially for the first man, is the need for sexual relations and reproduction."

Once we make reproduction an option in marriage instead of a normal requirement and expectation we remove one of the impediments to gay marriage. If siring and birthing children is a central part of the marriage relationship then gay marriage makes no sense. Sodomites and lesbians cannot do this. But if the marriage relationship is based primarily or solely on companionship, love, mutual affection for and interest in one another then why can two men or two women or three men with five women or a man and dog not get married? Once again we are reminded that how we interpret Genesis 1-3 will often set  a trajectory for how we view the rest of the Scriptures, the world, man, and fundamental institutions, such as marriage.

There are many reasons gay marriage has become normal in our society. But the failure of Christians to see bearing children as an essential part of marriage has been a contributing factor.

By the way, I am not saying a couple who cannot bear children has a deficient marriage. Note my phrase "normal requirement and expectation." There are exceptions, but the norm for a married couple should be reproduction.

Individual Rights are Anachronistic

Stephen Clark on why saying that women did not have full rights in traditional societies is historically anachronistic. All is his except what I put in the brackets.

A second historical error [made by feminists] is the view that women have been deprived of full human rights since the beginning of human society and have only won these rights within the past two centuries-since the beginning of movements for women's rights. In the past two centuries women have attained equal access to education; full rights to inherit, own, sell, and control property; full rights of citizenship; and access to most professions with equal compensation. Women may not always be treated equally with men in these areas, but these rights have a fundamental legal and moral recognition. To be sure, women in most societies did not have these "rights" before 1900. However, this is because traditional society made little or no use of the category of "individual rights" for anyone-men or women.  This concept is an aspect of the shift from a society based on relational groupings to a society based on a mass of individuals...Before the advent of technological society, men did not have these "individual rights" either; the structure of traditional society made these rights a meaningless category. Traditional society was based instead on the rights of relational groupings [Think classes, guilds, wealth, family ancestry, etc.] and the position of men and women formed their personal relationships within these groupings. 

Later he adds:

The purpose of this discussion of women's rights is not to assert that women always received better treatment in a traditional society than in technological society. Such comparisons are difficult to make. Rather the key point here is that "individual rights" is an inappropriate category for making historical comparison between the status of women in traditional and technological society.  

It is easy to take a contemporary way of thinking and apply it to all men throughout history. However, this is a grave error.  Our fathers and mothers did not think like we do. If we assume they did we do not really learn to understand them.

The more I read the more convinced I am that the fundamental shift in the last 200 years has been from a society composed of groups that contain individuals who identified with those groups, were loyal to those groups, and lived within the parameters set by those groups to a society that is composed of a mass of individuals who easily cross lines from group to group with little loyalty to anyone but themselves.  I am no longer Peter, husband of Julie, father of Sam, Will, Ben, Calvin, Amelia, Cecily, Elijah, and Bronwyn, son of Jerry Jones, grandson of Nils Jones, a Protestant American Southerner loyal to my country, family and church. Now I am just Peter the isolated. I could be anyone or no one. I have no creed, no country, no family, no political party, no race, and no gender. I am not saying that family or country loyalty is everything. But when we can't even be loyal to the body parts we are born with there is a problem.

Dress, Manners, and the Created Order

Stephen Clark's book Man and Woman in Christ has been an excellent read. Near the end of the book he summarizes his conclusions from his study. One point is that Christians should use cultural expressions to express the role differences between men and women. Most societies throughout history, including Western society, have had ways of distinguishing between men and women and their roles. This was done in many ways, but primarily through different modes of dress and manners. Manners here would include what was done and said between men and women. An example my wife just read me was how in the Civil War South women did not discuss their pregnancies in front of men. When they became visibly pregnant they stopped going out into society as well. Whatever we think of the practice, it was a way of women distinguishing themselves from men.

In our society there has been a breakdown of differences between men and women. (That sentence is like saying the Titanic was a ship that sunk.) There are now coed bathrooms on many colleges, as well as coed dorm rooms. There are women firefighters, policemen, boxers, wrestlers, soldiers, pastors, and football players. Add to this the sexual confusion seen in sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuals, transgender, divorce, and abortion and we see a society that has lost any vision of the distinct, God-ordained differences between men and women. Therefore it is not a surprise that we have tossed aside cultural expressions of those differences. I want to briefly explore how we have done this in dress and manners.

Clothing for men and women has become more uniform. Can you imagine a store with male and female employees requiring their female employees to wear skirts? That thought experiment is enough to show how far we have come. Many movies depict women in pants and military style tank tops just like men wear. Men wear skinny jeans,which are basically yoga pants with buttons. There are clothes that are more feminine or more masculine. But our culture does not demand or expect that. For example, a girl could wear a nice dress to school, but she should just as easily wear a tank top, jeans, and tennis shoes. Her hair could be long or short. Feminine dress has become an individual expression instead of a cultural expectation and norm. Many women dress a certain way, not because they are women, but because it is an expression of their personal desires. That is why a woman can wear a nice dress to church, but go work a man's job, dressed like a man the rest of the week.

But the loss of manners, which distinguish men from women, is more pronounced that the uniformity of dress. Men used to open doors for women, give their seats up for women, wait for women, speak with careful respect to women, avoid certain topics when speaking with women, not lay their hands on women, etc. Men used to be cautious about what they said in front of the ladies. Now we talk to them just like they are one of the guys. Men and woman playing each other in sports would have been unthinkable. Now it is normal. We have completed flattened out the differences between men and women. Do we have any normal, social manners where we distinguish men from women?

There is no Biblical command that says, "Open doors for ladies." However, it is a cultural expression of a Biblical truth: Women and men are different and are to be treated differently. We don't have to necessarily hang on to opening doors for women. Here is the crux though. We have jettisoned our fathers' cultural expressions of role differences without replacing them with new ones. Therefore we are left with little non-verbal language by which we say, "Men and women are different."

There are many people, including some Christians, who do not think there is much of a difference between men and women. They are happy that these walls have been broken down. These people are in rebellion against the created order.

But for those of us who still think men and women were created by God for distinct roles, then cultural expressions of these differences are necessary. Here I offer two suggestions. Dress in a way that says, "I am a man." Or "I am a woman." I am not saying women can't wear pants or jeans. Nor am I saying that men must wear camo. But make sure your dress fits your sex. There is a lot of freedom here. I am not encouraging a return to all women or men wearing the same thing. I am encouraging men and women to wear clothes that distinguish them from the other sex.

Second, we should bring back distinct ways of treating the opposite sex. The men are primarily responsible for this. We should open doors for the ladies, wait to sit until they are seated, not speak of certain things in front of them, smoke our cigars outside, run late night errands instead of sending our wives into the night, rise when they enter the room, protect our ladies physically and spiritually. In short, we should find ways of saying, "Men are different from women." Ladies should let men do this. I find that many ladies hate having a man give up his seat for them. Why? We don't have to do all of these, but for Christians who think men and women are different we need to work at creating a cultural language that defies the egalitarian ethic that dominates the world we live in. It is not enough to preach from the pulpit or write in books that men and women are different. We must embody that truth in our homes, churches, and communities.

Feminism Kills Girls

Here is an interesting little tidbit from that renowned source of all things liberal, The Huffington Post. A pro-life group in England tried to sue because doctors did sex-selective abortions. The parents chose to abort female babies because they wanted boys.  Many people were upset, including numerous "health" officials in England. One Andrew Lansley said, "Sex selection is illegal and  is morally wrong."  We need to be clear what people are upset about. They are not upset about abortions in general. By at least one poll 70% of those in England support some type of abortion. The health agencies in England are pro-abortion. People are not upset about girls being aborted. There were 196,082 abortions in England in 2011. At least half of these were probably girls. The officials did not try to prosecute those doctors. No, they are upset about girls being aborted instead of boys. But unfortunately for them the Abortion Act of 1967 (this legalized abortion in England) does not prohibit sex selective abortions. A woman can have an abortion if two doctors agree that an abortion is necessary to prevent grave mental injury to a woman. The phrase is a catch all used to cover most abortions in England.  Sex selection is not illegal. So parents can kill all the girls they want so they can have the boys they want. 

Sex selection is the natural outcome of the attitude that promotes abortion to start with: personal freedom and choice, which have been hallmarks of the feminist agenda for decades.  If someone is pro-choice, but opposes sex selective abortions they are hypocrites. If I can kill my baby, why can I not kill the girl so I can have a boy? If I can be pro-choice with the baby, why I can I not be pro-choice with the sex of the baby. So why the outrage? When sex selective abortions are allowed it is the girls who get killed, not the boys. England meet China. China meet England. According to this article by 2020 China will have 35 million extra men. What did Chinese parents do when the could only have one child? They killed the girls and kept the boys.  No matter what feminists say, it would be the same way in England or anywhere else. 

What fruit feminism has wrought! The feminists and those who buy into the feminist agenda by insisting on abortion find themselves throwing their own sex into the grave. Feminism kills girls.  And so what was spoken by the wise man has been fulfilled, "All who hate me [God's wisdom] love death." (Proverbs 8:36)

Also posted at Kuyperian Commentary.