2.23.2010
Dr. Moore on Gender Roles
Dr. Russell Moore came to Northwestern College three years ago and gave this talk at a gender matters student club event. It is a 38-minute lecture on Genesis 1-3 divided into four 10-minute segments. Click on the link below to check out the talk.
2.10.2010
Manhood: Servant Leadership
Being a godly man is really quite simple: all one must do is love God and love others.
True love for another begins with true love for God; true love for God depends on God’s redeeming love for us: “We love because he first loved us” (1 Jn 4:19). We are connected to God’s love if we believe that our true needs of having our sins forgiven (cf. 1 Jn 1:8-9) and the wrath of God appeased (cf. 1 Thes 5:9) have both been met in the atoning death of Jesus (cf. Rom 3:23-26). Consequently, we consider Jesus as having supreme worth (cf. Phil 3:7-11), for our own spiritual life depends on him.
Now we necessarily make the transition from loving God to loving others, because love comes from God and flows through us. “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God” (1 Jn 4:7). Therefore, we are empty vessels that must be connected first to God, and love is a stream that flows from him, through us, unto others.
Only when we are men who love God and subsequently love others can we begin to fulfill our roles as men. Jesus, as the God-man, exemplifies manhood for all men. He portrayed his leadership in service (cf. Mk. 10:45), and he expects us to do the same (cf. Jn 13:12-17). In order to serve, we must first be humble; only as we are connected with Christ does God give us humility (Phil 2:1), characterized in “do[ing] nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourself” (2:3).
Paul latches onto this vision of servant leadership in his exhortation to the Ephesian men. He states the husband’s role of leadership as being the “head” of his wife (5:22-23). The question then is: “In what manner shall he lead?” Paul’s only mandate for husbands in how they lead is that they love (5:25). The subsequent verses clarify the nature of this love.
Love that Paul writes about is modeled after Christ’s love for his church and is manifested in providing for a woman physically and spiritually. First, a husband must provide for his wife spiritually: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . so that . . . she might be holy and without blemish” (5:25-27, emphasis mine). Just as Christ’s love for the church sanctifies her, so a husband’s love for his wife must lead her to holiness.
A husband must also provide for his wife physically. Paul writes, “Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church” (5:28-29, emphasis mine). Paul does not so much command self-love as he presupposes it; thus, being one flesh with a woman, a husband must strive to make her interests his interests and her needs his needs.
The call to lead is not an excuse to be served but an exhortation to serve. Service is embodied in the husband’s roles of provision and protection. The husband bears the responsibility to lead his family physically and spiritually to God’s glory. Husbands should, like elders who shepherd the flock, pastor their families by example (cf. 1 Pt 5:1-4).
Young man, where do you stand before God? Do you humble yourself before God and his Word daily? Are you able to provide yourself with spiritual nourishment? If not, how do you expect to lead another (i.e. your wife) toward holiness?
We are here at college to pursue a career, but are we even considering becoming husbands who can love and serve according to biblical standards? We must start growing in these areas of biblical manhood now, because it does not happen overnight. Women, if the man you are interested in has no desire to even grow in these areas of love, humility, and servant leadership, let him go. Men, may you heed well the words of Paul for all godly men: “Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness” (1 Tm 6:11).
True love for another begins with true love for God; true love for God depends on God’s redeeming love for us: “We love because he first loved us” (1 Jn 4:19). We are connected to God’s love if we believe that our true needs of having our sins forgiven (cf. 1 Jn 1:8-9) and the wrath of God appeased (cf. 1 Thes 5:9) have both been met in the atoning death of Jesus (cf. Rom 3:23-26). Consequently, we consider Jesus as having supreme worth (cf. Phil 3:7-11), for our own spiritual life depends on him.
Now we necessarily make the transition from loving God to loving others, because love comes from God and flows through us. “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God” (1 Jn 4:7). Therefore, we are empty vessels that must be connected first to God, and love is a stream that flows from him, through us, unto others.
Only when we are men who love God and subsequently love others can we begin to fulfill our roles as men. Jesus, as the God-man, exemplifies manhood for all men. He portrayed his leadership in service (cf. Mk. 10:45), and he expects us to do the same (cf. Jn 13:12-17). In order to serve, we must first be humble; only as we are connected with Christ does God give us humility (Phil 2:1), characterized in “do[ing] nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourself” (2:3).
Paul latches onto this vision of servant leadership in his exhortation to the Ephesian men. He states the husband’s role of leadership as being the “head” of his wife (5:22-23). The question then is: “In what manner shall he lead?” Paul’s only mandate for husbands in how they lead is that they love (5:25). The subsequent verses clarify the nature of this love.
Love that Paul writes about is modeled after Christ’s love for his church and is manifested in providing for a woman physically and spiritually. First, a husband must provide for his wife spiritually: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . so that . . . she might be holy and without blemish” (5:25-27, emphasis mine). Just as Christ’s love for the church sanctifies her, so a husband’s love for his wife must lead her to holiness.
A husband must also provide for his wife physically. Paul writes, “Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church” (5:28-29, emphasis mine). Paul does not so much command self-love as he presupposes it; thus, being one flesh with a woman, a husband must strive to make her interests his interests and her needs his needs.
The call to lead is not an excuse to be served but an exhortation to serve. Service is embodied in the husband’s roles of provision and protection. The husband bears the responsibility to lead his family physically and spiritually to God’s glory. Husbands should, like elders who shepherd the flock, pastor their families by example (cf. 1 Pt 5:1-4).
Young man, where do you stand before God? Do you humble yourself before God and his Word daily? Are you able to provide yourself with spiritual nourishment? If not, how do you expect to lead another (i.e. your wife) toward holiness?
We are here at college to pursue a career, but are we even considering becoming husbands who can love and serve according to biblical standards? We must start growing in these areas of biblical manhood now, because it does not happen overnight. Women, if the man you are interested in has no desire to even grow in these areas of love, humility, and servant leadership, let him go. Men, may you heed well the words of Paul for all godly men: “Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness” (1 Tm 6:11).
Manhood and Responsibility
There is a difference between being macho and manly.
The macho man looks to himself and seeks to justify his manhood in superficial exploits. Whether it is athleticism, charisma, or worldly success, the macho man begs for respect with self-glorifying acts. On the other hand, the manly man looks to God to be conformed into the image of Christ. Manliness is Christ-likeness and displays humility, service, and love.
At the very center of a godly, mature man is a desire to embrace responsibility and to lead lovingly. It is not enough merely to accept responsibility begrudgingly.
From the very beginning, responsibility is distinctively laid upon man. God not only gave Adam a leadership role to provide for and protect Eve within the garden, he also held him responsible when he failed in his task. It was Adam who was told not to eat from the tree (Gn 2:17); when Eve was being tempted by the serpent, Adam stood passively by her side and followed her into sin (3:6). Although it was Eve who first took of the fruit, God addressed Adam individually and held him primarily responsible for the sin (3:9).
Christian man, do you fear God? You will one day be the leader of your family, so do not make the same mistake as Adam, failing to lead and love responsibly. Just as we see God addressing Adam for his sin, so also men will principally be addressed by God for their actions. At the judgment, you will stand before God to give an account of the state of your family, and you will be held primarily responsible for how you lead. Now obviously, Eve and the serpent were also addressed in the individual curses, but we as men should be sobered by the responsibility that comes with the call to lead.
Not only did God hold Adam responsible for the Fall, we all owe our sinful condition to Adam. Paul testifies, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). As Adam failed in his task so will we, but Paul also gives us good news: “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (5:19). The failure to lead as we ought is a sin issue, but Christ came to redeem sinners. Therefore, grace enables us to keep striving to lead lovingly and well with faith-inspired obedience.
John Eldridge, author of the best-seller book “Wild at Heart,” claims that our culture has tamed men. He argues that men need to claim once again their wild spirit for adventure, but he almost completely glosses over the call for men to embrace responsibility. This sense of responsibility, however, is at the very crux of manhood. I fear that far too many young men read his book as an excuse for their boyish immaturity rather than growing up into practicing disciplined, God-honoring, and Christ-exalting behavior. Sadly, our nation, our churches, and our families are desperate for men like this.
There is a lie, however, that most of us have believed throughout our teen years and beyond. That is, who we are and what we do now has no effect on what kind of person we will be when we “grow up.” Men, you cannot flip the switch in becoming a responsible husband on your wedding day. If God has called you to glorify him as a married man in the future, that means embracing responsibility in the present.
To have truly heard this message, one must now feel a certain sense of fear and trepidation. By God’s grace though, this will not be a paralyzing but a holy fear which leads to right living. How are you handling your responsibilities? Your grades, your job, and your friends provide an excellent indicator of where you stand. Be faithful in these tasks as a single man; only then should you take on the responsibility of a wife and, God-willing, children. The next generation will be better off if we rise up as godly, responsible men now.
The macho man looks to himself and seeks to justify his manhood in superficial exploits. Whether it is athleticism, charisma, or worldly success, the macho man begs for respect with self-glorifying acts. On the other hand, the manly man looks to God to be conformed into the image of Christ. Manliness is Christ-likeness and displays humility, service, and love.
At the very center of a godly, mature man is a desire to embrace responsibility and to lead lovingly. It is not enough merely to accept responsibility begrudgingly.
From the very beginning, responsibility is distinctively laid upon man. God not only gave Adam a leadership role to provide for and protect Eve within the garden, he also held him responsible when he failed in his task. It was Adam who was told not to eat from the tree (Gn 2:17); when Eve was being tempted by the serpent, Adam stood passively by her side and followed her into sin (3:6). Although it was Eve who first took of the fruit, God addressed Adam individually and held him primarily responsible for the sin (3:9).
Christian man, do you fear God? You will one day be the leader of your family, so do not make the same mistake as Adam, failing to lead and love responsibly. Just as we see God addressing Adam for his sin, so also men will principally be addressed by God for their actions. At the judgment, you will stand before God to give an account of the state of your family, and you will be held primarily responsible for how you lead. Now obviously, Eve and the serpent were also addressed in the individual curses, but we as men should be sobered by the responsibility that comes with the call to lead.
Not only did God hold Adam responsible for the Fall, we all owe our sinful condition to Adam. Paul testifies, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). As Adam failed in his task so will we, but Paul also gives us good news: “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (5:19). The failure to lead as we ought is a sin issue, but Christ came to redeem sinners. Therefore, grace enables us to keep striving to lead lovingly and well with faith-inspired obedience.
John Eldridge, author of the best-seller book “Wild at Heart,” claims that our culture has tamed men. He argues that men need to claim once again their wild spirit for adventure, but he almost completely glosses over the call for men to embrace responsibility. This sense of responsibility, however, is at the very crux of manhood. I fear that far too many young men read his book as an excuse for their boyish immaturity rather than growing up into practicing disciplined, God-honoring, and Christ-exalting behavior. Sadly, our nation, our churches, and our families are desperate for men like this.
There is a lie, however, that most of us have believed throughout our teen years and beyond. That is, who we are and what we do now has no effect on what kind of person we will be when we “grow up.” Men, you cannot flip the switch in becoming a responsible husband on your wedding day. If God has called you to glorify him as a married man in the future, that means embracing responsibility in the present.
To have truly heard this message, one must now feel a certain sense of fear and trepidation. By God’s grace though, this will not be a paralyzing but a holy fear which leads to right living. How are you handling your responsibilities? Your grades, your job, and your friends provide an excellent indicator of where you stand. Be faithful in these tasks as a single man; only then should you take on the responsibility of a wife and, God-willing, children. The next generation will be better off if we rise up as godly, responsible men now.
1.16.2010
Gender Roles: Recovered in the Gospel
Our churches have debated it. Our school refuses to take a stance on it. Why then be so out-spoken about gender roles? We (the Gender Matters Club) are passionate about this issue, because we want the Gospel to define every area of our lives—including gender.
Most people are only aware of gender roles in the New Testament, leading to many accusations of these roles (“cultural regulations” they say) as being restrictive on our freedom in Christ. A fuller teaching, however, and a correct understanding of the redeeming work of Christ, will reveal God’s beautiful design in gender roles.
When Moses writes, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gn 1:27), he accomplishes two things. First, he establishes the equality of men and women. Since each are made in God’s image, both enjoy the benefits of knowing and enjoying God forever. Second, he not only clarifies that we glorify God as a race of “man,” he implies something very distinct in our being created “male and female.” This distinction is manifest in different roles.
God created Adam first (2:7), put him in the Garden (2:8), and gave him his primary roles: “to work and to keep it” (2:15). As God called mankind to “have dominion over . . . all the earth” (1:26), he gave man these roles of leadership and responsibility, duties summarized in provision and protection. Because God saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone, he created “a helper fit for him” (2:18): Eve. She was to come alongside Adam, to support and encourage him, as they together obeyed God’s command: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (1:28).
Gender roles are assigned to men and women in creation, in a world without sin. Therefore, when God looked upon these assigned roles on the sixth day, he declared them “very good” (1:31). When Paul wrote Ephesians 5 with the Genesis account on his mind, he calls the husband the “head” in part because he is to provide for and protect his wife as a servant leader. He calls the wife to “submit” in part because she is to help and encourage him, affirming his leadership.
Adam and Eve, however, did not fulfill their roles. As Satan tempted Eve, Adam stood passively by her side (3:6) and did not protect the Garden from sin. Eve also, rather than affirming Adam’s role to “keep” the garden (2:15-16), usurped his headship and took the fruit.
Subsequently, the curse twists these very roles, as God addresses Eve, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (3:16). This verse is illuminated by God’s address to Cain just before he killed Abel: “Sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it” (4:7). Just as sin desired to control Cain like a puppet, so too, joyful submission in women is now supplanted by coercion and manipulation. In the same way, as Cain was to rule over sin, so too, loving headship in men has given way either to passivity or to unloving authoritarianism.
Even though gender roles are twisted in Genesis 3, and the whole world becomes enslaved to sin, the Messianic hope dawns as God addresses Satan concerning an offspring of the woman: “He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (3:15). This hope grows (12:1-3; 22:18; Jer 4:2; Gal 3:16) and becomes manifest in the God-man Jesus Christ (Acts 3:26). Through his atoning sacrifice, he not only pardons all who come to him in faith, he also ushers forth his sons and daughters to once again regain loving headship and joyful submission in marriage. This is evidenced by Paul each time he addresses gender roles (1 Cor 11, 14; Eph 5; 1 Tm 1), when he also references the creation account (1 Cor 11:8-9; 14:34; Eph 5:31; 1 Tm 2:13-15).
Fellow students, let us glorify God as men and women, freed by Christ to live in the Genesis 2 world. Take your gender seriously and submit to the authority of Scripture on this issue.
Most people are only aware of gender roles in the New Testament, leading to many accusations of these roles (“cultural regulations” they say) as being restrictive on our freedom in Christ. A fuller teaching, however, and a correct understanding of the redeeming work of Christ, will reveal God’s beautiful design in gender roles.
When Moses writes, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gn 1:27), he accomplishes two things. First, he establishes the equality of men and women. Since each are made in God’s image, both enjoy the benefits of knowing and enjoying God forever. Second, he not only clarifies that we glorify God as a race of “man,” he implies something very distinct in our being created “male and female.” This distinction is manifest in different roles.
God created Adam first (2:7), put him in the Garden (2:8), and gave him his primary roles: “to work and to keep it” (2:15). As God called mankind to “have dominion over . . . all the earth” (1:26), he gave man these roles of leadership and responsibility, duties summarized in provision and protection. Because God saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone, he created “a helper fit for him” (2:18): Eve. She was to come alongside Adam, to support and encourage him, as they together obeyed God’s command: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (1:28).
Gender roles are assigned to men and women in creation, in a world without sin. Therefore, when God looked upon these assigned roles on the sixth day, he declared them “very good” (1:31). When Paul wrote Ephesians 5 with the Genesis account on his mind, he calls the husband the “head” in part because he is to provide for and protect his wife as a servant leader. He calls the wife to “submit” in part because she is to help and encourage him, affirming his leadership.
Adam and Eve, however, did not fulfill their roles. As Satan tempted Eve, Adam stood passively by her side (3:6) and did not protect the Garden from sin. Eve also, rather than affirming Adam’s role to “keep” the garden (2:15-16), usurped his headship and took the fruit.
Subsequently, the curse twists these very roles, as God addresses Eve, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (3:16). This verse is illuminated by God’s address to Cain just before he killed Abel: “Sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it” (4:7). Just as sin desired to control Cain like a puppet, so too, joyful submission in women is now supplanted by coercion and manipulation. In the same way, as Cain was to rule over sin, so too, loving headship in men has given way either to passivity or to unloving authoritarianism.
Even though gender roles are twisted in Genesis 3, and the whole world becomes enslaved to sin, the Messianic hope dawns as God addresses Satan concerning an offspring of the woman: “He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (3:15). This hope grows (12:1-3; 22:18; Jer 4:2; Gal 3:16) and becomes manifest in the God-man Jesus Christ (Acts 3:26). Through his atoning sacrifice, he not only pardons all who come to him in faith, he also ushers forth his sons and daughters to once again regain loving headship and joyful submission in marriage. This is evidenced by Paul each time he addresses gender roles (1 Cor 11, 14; Eph 5; 1 Tm 1), when he also references the creation account (1 Cor 11:8-9; 14:34; Eph 5:31; 1 Tm 2:13-15).
Fellow students, let us glorify God as men and women, freed by Christ to live in the Genesis 2 world. Take your gender seriously and submit to the authority of Scripture on this issue.
Gender Matters For Singles
Gender matters.
Moses agreed. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gn 1:27). Mankind alone bears the image of God, and he made us distinctly male and female. Don’t you think this matters?
Paul also thought gender matters; Peter agreed. Have you ever noticed though that they only write to husbands and wives? Thus, many are left wondering how much gender matters for single people. It is true, gender roles are addressed to husbands and wives because the teaching comes to fruition in marriage, but what about those who are single like Paul? Does gender still matter?
Yes.
All men should grow to maturity as fathers; all women should grow to maturity as mothers. Whether you ever get married and start your own family, this is your calling because you belong to the family of God in a local church.
The family unit each of us grew up in is simply a microcosm of the Church. Paul calls the church the “household of God” (1 Tm 3:15), and he uses the family as a training ground qualification for elders: “[F]or if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (3:5).
In fact, the family structure is modeled after this truer spiritual reality. Notice how Paul addresses Timothy (“my true child in the faith,” 1 Tm 1:2) and Titus (“my true son in our common faith,” Titus 1:4). A family relation in blood can be superficial if there is no family relation in the Spirit. What joy is ours then when these ones we care for the most are also a part of the “household of God” (Eph 2:19)!
Paul never had any biological children, but he fathered many spiritual children. Along with Timothy and Titus, Paul mentions another: “my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment” (Phl 10). Paul was a mature man of God, and he fathered several individuals and entire church families.
Paul, as a single man, thought that gender matters, and he met numerous needs within the church family; are we able to see those same needs? Timothy had no father figure as he was raised by his mother and grandmother (cf. 2 Tm 1:5), and there are many children and young adults like Timothy in our churches. We need more people like Paul: older men to teach younger men and older women to teach younger women (cf. Titus 2:2-5).
Paul, who wrote extensively on gender roles, heeded his own teaching, though he himself was single. Everyone is commanded to be a mature believer: for men it means being fatherly, for women it means being motherly. The family of God is huge, and so are the needs, which should be nurtured by mature men and women—married and single alike.
Moses agreed. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gn 1:27). Mankind alone bears the image of God, and he made us distinctly male and female. Don’t you think this matters?
Paul also thought gender matters; Peter agreed. Have you ever noticed though that they only write to husbands and wives? Thus, many are left wondering how much gender matters for single people. It is true, gender roles are addressed to husbands and wives because the teaching comes to fruition in marriage, but what about those who are single like Paul? Does gender still matter?
Yes.
All men should grow to maturity as fathers; all women should grow to maturity as mothers. Whether you ever get married and start your own family, this is your calling because you belong to the family of God in a local church.
The family unit each of us grew up in is simply a microcosm of the Church. Paul calls the church the “household of God” (1 Tm 3:15), and he uses the family as a training ground qualification for elders: “[F]or if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (3:5).
In fact, the family structure is modeled after this truer spiritual reality. Notice how Paul addresses Timothy (“my true child in the faith,” 1 Tm 1:2) and Titus (“my true son in our common faith,” Titus 1:4). A family relation in blood can be superficial if there is no family relation in the Spirit. What joy is ours then when these ones we care for the most are also a part of the “household of God” (Eph 2:19)!
Paul never had any biological children, but he fathered many spiritual children. Along with Timothy and Titus, Paul mentions another: “my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment” (Phl 10). Paul was a mature man of God, and he fathered several individuals and entire church families.
Paul, as a single man, thought that gender matters, and he met numerous needs within the church family; are we able to see those same needs? Timothy had no father figure as he was raised by his mother and grandmother (cf. 2 Tm 1:5), and there are many children and young adults like Timothy in our churches. We need more people like Paul: older men to teach younger men and older women to teach younger women (cf. Titus 2:2-5).
Paul, who wrote extensively on gender roles, heeded his own teaching, though he himself was single. Everyone is commanded to be a mature believer: for men it means being fatherly, for women it means being motherly. The family of God is huge, and so are the needs, which should be nurtured by mature men and women—married and single alike.
7.10.2009
Should We Say "All I Ever Need is You" to our Wives?
Some time ago, James wrote us this question. I thought it would be helpful to put up as a main post:
"I have one question from you that I'm curious about. Since you said the song is idolatrous, if I same this song to my wife [singing "All I ever need is you"], would I be committing idolatry? "
James,
I am so sorry that it has taken me a while to write back to you. I have not checked this blog (regrettably) for quite some time.
Concerning how we are to interact with others, the Lord Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26, ESV)
This is strong language. Now, I take it to be hyperbole mainly because we are commanded to love our children and wives in other places (Ephesians 5 & 6, for example). Nevertheless, the command to "hate" still exists, which I take to mean that our love for Christ must be so great that it makes our love for others seem as though it were hatred.
Idolatry is simply taking a good thing (wife, girlfriend) and making it a "God thing"--that is a bad thing.
Of course, saying things like "All I ever need is you" to your wife/girlfiend is NOT necessarily idolatry, if one's partner knows that they supremely love God. However, why would one say something like that if it has to die the death of a thousand qualifications, if "all you ever need" is really NOT "you"?
Let me put this a different way: What is love? Is it:
1.) Making much of another individual.
2.) Striving and caring with all one's energy to enable another to make much of God.
The first is idolatry. And I say that very purposefully. That is not love; it is elevating another finite human to the realm of all-sufficiency, when they simply are not.
The second is love. It is one that labors for his wife/girlfriend to see Christ as glorious in all things. And that is what is of most benefit to their soul.
"7But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith." Philippians 3:7-9
"I have one question from you that I'm curious about. Since you said the song is idolatrous, if I same this song to my wife [singing "All I ever need is you"], would I be committing idolatry? "
James,
I am so sorry that it has taken me a while to write back to you. I have not checked this blog (regrettably) for quite some time.
Concerning how we are to interact with others, the Lord Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26, ESV)
This is strong language. Now, I take it to be hyperbole mainly because we are commanded to love our children and wives in other places (Ephesians 5 & 6, for example). Nevertheless, the command to "hate" still exists, which I take to mean that our love for Christ must be so great that it makes our love for others seem as though it were hatred.
Idolatry is simply taking a good thing (wife, girlfriend) and making it a "God thing"--that is a bad thing.
Of course, saying things like "All I ever need is you" to your wife/girlfiend is NOT necessarily idolatry, if one's partner knows that they supremely love God. However, why would one say something like that if it has to die the death of a thousand qualifications, if "all you ever need" is really NOT "you"?
Let me put this a different way: What is love? Is it:
1.) Making much of another individual.
2.) Striving and caring with all one's energy to enable another to make much of God.
The first is idolatry. And I say that very purposefully. That is not love; it is elevating another finite human to the realm of all-sufficiency, when they simply are not.
The second is love. It is one that labors for his wife/girlfriend to see Christ as glorious in all things. And that is what is of most benefit to their soul.
"7But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith." Philippians 3:7-9
4.14.2009
Relationships: Healthy Expectations
Note: From early February to mid-March, I taught a series of lessons on sexuality and relationships for the youth group at First Baptist Church in Webster, WI. This article, hopefully followed by a number of others, will draw from those talks.
Some men follow rainbows, I am told,
Some search for silver, some for gold
But I have found my treasure is in your soul
All I ever need is you
Without love I would never find the way
Through ups and downs of ever single day
And I won’t ever sleep at night until I hear you say
“All I ever need is you”
With these words, Kenny Rogers and Dottie West conclude their country hit song, “All I Ever Need is You.” The song is about romantic relationships, and we as humans, both young and old alike, naturally find ourselves identifying with the message. Of course, God has created love, and it is a wonderful thing is his eyes, but is this song an attitude a young man or woman should have in a relationship? Or, more pointedly, could one feel these words and truly be loving? I would suggest that although they seem innocent enough, these lyrics are NOT loving, but rather selfish and idolatrous.
To see how this works out, let’s look to the Bible. In the beginning of time, God made Adam and Eve, and he proclaims everything as being “very good.” Given as a test, a tree is placed in the center of the Garden, and God forbids the happy couple from eating of its fruits. After some time, the serpent comes along, makes God’s rules look terrible, and convinces Eve to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the events following hereafter, we learn three things about relationships: Adam chose gift over Giver, a conflict between the sexes ensued, and a hope for redemption was administered.
We first learn that Adam chose gift over Giver. When Eve ate of the fruit, she disobeyed God. Adam, who was standing right beside Eve, was then presented with this fruit, and it was at this time that he had an incredible choice to make. On the one hand, he could obey God’s commands and trust him, or on the other hand, he could enter into sin with the gift given to him, his wife. He chose poorly. He turned to Eve and said, “I think I will find true life with you, obeying you, rather than obeying God and getting my life from him.” Sadly, Adam did not realize that Eve was given as an aid and complement rather than one that could fulfill.
Secondly, as soon as Adam placed Eve above the place of God, conflict ensued. Though he should have taken responsibility for what he had done, Adam cowardly places the blame on God and Eve (“The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” 3:12). The woman is cursed, having a desire to manipulate men through beauty and sex, serving their own desires rather than the glory of God (3:16). The man is cursed in relation to his sphere, the field, where he will now struggle to provide for his wife and family. Idolatry in relationships did not pan out well.
Finally, we see hope for redemption. In Geneses 3:21, an animal dies to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve. Their sin caused the death of another. All the progeny of Adam and Eve have found themselves elevating different things to the level of ULTIMATE, and this often includes the opposite sex. We are cursed, drowning in our inward-bent. Someone needed to become a curse, like the lamb, and die so that we could be released from that curse. That man was Jesus Christ. He came so that we could finally be givers and leaders and nurturers rather than simply takers, expecting others to satisfy us. In Christ, we can finally truly love our boyfriends/girlfriends, fiancé, or spouse by pointing them to God rather than self to find true fulfillment.
Are you looking to another boy or girl to fulfill you? Are you pining away for a relationship, thinking that you will only be satisfied if you have it? This approach did not work well for Adam and Eve, and it will not work well for you. Only when you trust in God as the wellspring of life (Ps. 16:11), are you then truly ready for a relationship, being a giver rather than just a taker.
3.21.2009
Boys Wrestling Girls?
John Piper recently wrote an article about a local wrestler making history as the first girl to compete in the state tournament. He rightly addresses the need for fathers to step up to the plate and say, “Over my dead body are you going to wrestle a girl.” He continues his exhortation by stating, “Give your sons a bigger nobler vision of what it is to be a man. Men don’t fight against women. They fight for women.”
Piper’s exhortation is much needed and greatly appreciated. As my wife and I wait for the birth of our first child I occasionally think of my future as a father. I want to preach into my sons that men fight for women to the glory of God and for their good. This is what the apostle brings out in 1 Peter 3:7, “Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel.” Piper writes:
There is a way to honor a woman. That’s our job as men. This honor “understands” something. It understands that women are the “weaker vessel.” This has nothing to do with less personal worth and in many cases not even with physical stamina. It has to do with pervasive realities that shape the way healthy societies work.
It means that we should raise sons to think of themselves as protectors. Tell them they should lay their lives down to protect girls. Help them know that God designed them to grow up to be a picture of Jesus in their marriage. Nurture the instinct of a boy to fight for girls not against them.
I pray that God gives me the grace to teach my sons to fight for their sisters, their mom, and their wife as Jesus fights for the Church. It is a tragedy that culture flips this biblical principle on its head by praising the girl who wrestles against boys and scorning the boys who seek to honor girls by refraining (see comments at the end of article). May we build men who fight for women and not against them.
Zach
Piper’s exhortation is much needed and greatly appreciated. As my wife and I wait for the birth of our first child I occasionally think of my future as a father. I want to preach into my sons that men fight for women to the glory of God and for their good. This is what the apostle brings out in 1 Peter 3:7, “Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel.” Piper writes:
There is a way to honor a woman. That’s our job as men. This honor “understands” something. It understands that women are the “weaker vessel.” This has nothing to do with less personal worth and in many cases not even with physical stamina. It has to do with pervasive realities that shape the way healthy societies work.
It means that we should raise sons to think of themselves as protectors. Tell them they should lay their lives down to protect girls. Help them know that God designed them to grow up to be a picture of Jesus in their marriage. Nurture the instinct of a boy to fight for girls not against them.
I pray that God gives me the grace to teach my sons to fight for their sisters, their mom, and their wife as Jesus fights for the Church. It is a tragedy that culture flips this biblical principle on its head by praising the girl who wrestles against boys and scorning the boys who seek to honor girls by refraining (see comments at the end of article). May we build men who fight for women and not against them.
Zach
3.09.2009
A New Post: Complementarians and the Issue of Competence
Although we may no longer have any followers due to our very long delay, this blog will be an attempt to get the ball rolling again. This article first appeared in NWC's newspaper The Column on Feb. 26, 2009. Thanks for all who have not left us!
Complementarians and the Issue of Competence
In the Column’s recent issue outlining the gender debate on campus, there were some comments made by complementarian students that ought to be corrected. When asked what position they hold, they said something like, “I am complementarian because God made men and women different, and each gender is better at different things.” Although not completely incorrect, this comment implies that men have roles that women can’t fulfill (and vice versa) because a certain level of competence exists in that area. But is this really the case? I think the student in favor of egalitarianism maintained much better logic when she argued, “Men and women can do the same exact things, and sometimes women can do the task and jobs better than men.” In terms of competence, she’s exactly right! But is competency really the issue?
I have been married now for just over 2 years and continually see how incompetent I am in comparison to my wife. For example, she will meet a person one time and never forget their name. I really struggle with names. If a pastoral search committee wanted an extroverted individual who was more competent at remembering every church members name, my wife would be a better choice than I would. Likewise, there are many women, like Nancy Pearcey and Elizabeth Elliot for instance, who may be more competent at speaking and writing than their husbands. Shouldn’t competent women, like these, at least join their husbands in pastoral ministry?
Good biblical research will find that the Bible never speaks on competence as the reason for gender complementarity. When Paul writes to Timothy under the context of church leadership, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,” he roots his reasoning in the creation account, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:12-13). Note that Paul does not say, “For Adam, and all men, are better than women at leading people.”
Paul writes what he does in 1 Timothy not because of any supposed level of competence, but with the knowledge that God created men and women to joyfully complement one another for His glory. Eph. 5 reveals that husbands are to “love their wives, as Christ loved church” (v. 25) and women ought to submit to their husbands “as to the Lord” (v. 22, 24). He then goes on to write of this “mystery” (a hidden plan that God has now revealed) as “profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (v. 32).
He is pointing out that the union between husband and wife was created by God as a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church. In other words, the roles of men and women have nothing to do with competence in as much as obedience to God, so that in our marriages and church life, we might be a living reflection of the Gospel.
The question still lingers, however, if the issue is not competence, how are we different? Say, for example, Freddy and his wife, Carly, are asleep in their king-sized bed when they hear a loud noise in their house. Now, Carly is a black-belt in karate and Freddy is not so coordinated. Should he passively let her search the house since she’s more competent? Or should he protect her as Christ protects the church despite his lack of coordination?
This is a measly attempt to do justice to the reality of God’s creation. But here’s the point: God’s plans for His creation are never based upon the competence of an individual. Rather, he works through incompetent fishermen, tax collectors, and even introverts to accomplish His will (1 Cor. 1:26-31). I pray that we all step out of our anthropocentric, competence-centered mindset to see that the gender debate is not so much about boundaries as it is about God’s creatures functioning as obedient vessels for His glory.
Zach Tarter
Complementarians and the Issue of Competence
In the Column’s recent issue outlining the gender debate on campus, there were some comments made by complementarian students that ought to be corrected. When asked what position they hold, they said something like, “I am complementarian because God made men and women different, and each gender is better at different things.” Although not completely incorrect, this comment implies that men have roles that women can’t fulfill (and vice versa) because a certain level of competence exists in that area. But is this really the case? I think the student in favor of egalitarianism maintained much better logic when she argued, “Men and women can do the same exact things, and sometimes women can do the task and jobs better than men.” In terms of competence, she’s exactly right! But is competency really the issue?
I have been married now for just over 2 years and continually see how incompetent I am in comparison to my wife. For example, she will meet a person one time and never forget their name. I really struggle with names. If a pastoral search committee wanted an extroverted individual who was more competent at remembering every church members name, my wife would be a better choice than I would. Likewise, there are many women, like Nancy Pearcey and Elizabeth Elliot for instance, who may be more competent at speaking and writing than their husbands. Shouldn’t competent women, like these, at least join their husbands in pastoral ministry?
Good biblical research will find that the Bible never speaks on competence as the reason for gender complementarity. When Paul writes to Timothy under the context of church leadership, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,” he roots his reasoning in the creation account, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:12-13). Note that Paul does not say, “For Adam, and all men, are better than women at leading people.”
Paul writes what he does in 1 Timothy not because of any supposed level of competence, but with the knowledge that God created men and women to joyfully complement one another for His glory. Eph. 5 reveals that husbands are to “love their wives, as Christ loved church” (v. 25) and women ought to submit to their husbands “as to the Lord” (v. 22, 24). He then goes on to write of this “mystery” (a hidden plan that God has now revealed) as “profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (v. 32).
He is pointing out that the union between husband and wife was created by God as a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church. In other words, the roles of men and women have nothing to do with competence in as much as obedience to God, so that in our marriages and church life, we might be a living reflection of the Gospel.
The question still lingers, however, if the issue is not competence, how are we different? Say, for example, Freddy and his wife, Carly, are asleep in their king-sized bed when they hear a loud noise in their house. Now, Carly is a black-belt in karate and Freddy is not so coordinated. Should he passively let her search the house since she’s more competent? Or should he protect her as Christ protects the church despite his lack of coordination?
This is a measly attempt to do justice to the reality of God’s creation. But here’s the point: God’s plans for His creation are never based upon the competence of an individual. Rather, he works through incompetent fishermen, tax collectors, and even introverts to accomplish His will (1 Cor. 1:26-31). I pray that we all step out of our anthropocentric, competence-centered mindset to see that the gender debate is not so much about boundaries as it is about God’s creatures functioning as obedient vessels for His glory.
Zach Tarter
11.09.2008
The Importance of Sexual Purity
Once a month, we hold a men's event at NWC promoting biblical manhood. Last month, Dr. Tim Tomlinson spoke to men about the importance of theology in the life of every man (and every human for that matter).
This month, Dr. Irv Woolf spoke to men about sexual purity. He began by asking the question, "What master's you?", and we went on to look at 1 Cor. 6:12. Paul writes, " 'All things are lawful for me,' but not all things are helpful. 'All things are lawful for me,' but I will not be mastered by anything." Dr. Woolf made the point that although God has given us much in His grace, we still have a moral responsibility to uphold. For example, eating is lawful, but gluttony is not. Drinking alcohol is not necessarily sinful, but drunkenness is. Sex is good in the covenant of marriage, but is sin outside of marriage.
Under this context, Dr. Woolf mentioned how most men get stuck in a sin pattern that cannot end apart from a divine work of the Spirit. This pattern is extremely destructive, and unfortunately, very common. 65% of evangelicals admitted in an anonymous survey to looking at pornography every month. Perhaps a more disturbing statistic revealed that 35% of evangelical pastors admitted to the same sin. Despite these discouraging statistics, we do have a savior. Jesus Christ died to save people from the bonds of sin, and so, through Christ's victory over sin, there is victory available to us as well. Dr. Woolf did make it clear, however, that there is no quick fix. In fact, he mentioned that one will not be free from sexual immorality until they have the deep conviction that "I would rather die than continue in this sin!"
He went on to mention 5 crutches that prevent men from coming to this conclusion:
1. "It's no big deal." This minimizes a monumental lie from Satan. The Bible makes sexual sin a very big deal (1 Cor. 6:12-20, Eph. 5:3) and we ought to as well.
2. "I'm not hurting anyone but myself." This is also an outright lie. One caught in sexual sin affects their wife/girlfriend, women they are lusting after, and first and foremost, God
(Psalm 51).
3. "I can quit any time I want." Clearly, sin is still in driver's seat here. These comments reveal the bondage of those addicted to porn, etc.
4. "Everybody does it. It's just normal for guys." This is also false. Research suggests that 15% of evangelical men are sexually pure. What is more, this crutch implicitly accuses the Bible of making false commands. Eph. 5:3 states, "But among you, there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality."
5. "You don't understand, I have a stronger sex drive than other men." Again, this is a lie. The very fact that this is a common "crutch" shows that many guys have believed this. And so, it's illogical for anyone to make the claim that their sex drive is stronger than any other man. I think a better claim is that God gave men strong sex drives. Thus, we should not distort God's plan for sex in marriage by using this lie as a pretext to sin.
In the end, sexual immorality is as prevalent as it has ever been, and the availability of sinful material does not make the struggle for purity any easier. As men, we must begin by recognizing the wickedness of distorting God's plan for sex, and press on with the conviction that "I would rather die than continue in this sin!" God is gracious, and when one continues in this conviction and in the power of the Holy Spirit through Christ's death and ressurrection, victory is possible.
Dr. Woolf leads the National Coalition for Purity, and starts purity boot camp for men on January 17th, 2009 at River Valley Church in Apple Valley, MN. For more information, shoot me an email at zbtarter@yahoo.com
Zach
This month, Dr. Irv Woolf spoke to men about sexual purity. He began by asking the question, "What master's you?", and we went on to look at 1 Cor. 6:12. Paul writes, " 'All things are lawful for me,' but not all things are helpful. 'All things are lawful for me,' but I will not be mastered by anything." Dr. Woolf made the point that although God has given us much in His grace, we still have a moral responsibility to uphold. For example, eating is lawful, but gluttony is not. Drinking alcohol is not necessarily sinful, but drunkenness is. Sex is good in the covenant of marriage, but is sin outside of marriage.
Under this context, Dr. Woolf mentioned how most men get stuck in a sin pattern that cannot end apart from a divine work of the Spirit. This pattern is extremely destructive, and unfortunately, very common. 65% of evangelicals admitted in an anonymous survey to looking at pornography every month. Perhaps a more disturbing statistic revealed that 35% of evangelical pastors admitted to the same sin. Despite these discouraging statistics, we do have a savior. Jesus Christ died to save people from the bonds of sin, and so, through Christ's victory over sin, there is victory available to us as well. Dr. Woolf did make it clear, however, that there is no quick fix. In fact, he mentioned that one will not be free from sexual immorality until they have the deep conviction that "I would rather die than continue in this sin!"
He went on to mention 5 crutches that prevent men from coming to this conclusion:
1. "It's no big deal." This minimizes a monumental lie from Satan. The Bible makes sexual sin a very big deal (1 Cor. 6:12-20, Eph. 5:3) and we ought to as well.
2. "I'm not hurting anyone but myself." This is also an outright lie. One caught in sexual sin affects their wife/girlfriend, women they are lusting after, and first and foremost, God
(Psalm 51).
3. "I can quit any time I want." Clearly, sin is still in driver's seat here. These comments reveal the bondage of those addicted to porn, etc.
4. "Everybody does it. It's just normal for guys." This is also false. Research suggests that 15% of evangelical men are sexually pure. What is more, this crutch implicitly accuses the Bible of making false commands. Eph. 5:3 states, "But among you, there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality."
5. "You don't understand, I have a stronger sex drive than other men." Again, this is a lie. The very fact that this is a common "crutch" shows that many guys have believed this. And so, it's illogical for anyone to make the claim that their sex drive is stronger than any other man. I think a better claim is that God gave men strong sex drives. Thus, we should not distort God's plan for sex in marriage by using this lie as a pretext to sin.
In the end, sexual immorality is as prevalent as it has ever been, and the availability of sinful material does not make the struggle for purity any easier. As men, we must begin by recognizing the wickedness of distorting God's plan for sex, and press on with the conviction that "I would rather die than continue in this sin!" God is gracious, and when one continues in this conviction and in the power of the Holy Spirit through Christ's death and ressurrection, victory is possible.
Dr. Woolf leads the National Coalition for Purity, and starts purity boot camp for men on January 17th, 2009 at River Valley Church in Apple Valley, MN. For more information, shoot me an email at zbtarter@yahoo.com
Zach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
