Mahaney on Pastoral Application of Gender Roles

Here is the fourth and final post from the Together for the Gospel conversation on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. These are excellent posts and if applied would revolutionize much of pastoral ministry. Merry Christmas!

Deliberate Complementarian Pastors
by C.J. Mahaney (June 11, 2006)

Mark, Lig and Al, thanks for serving us big time with your insightful posts on this important topic. Please keep this stuff coming, boys. And Al and Mark, any possibility you guys could live-blog the Southern Baptist Convention this week? How exciting would that be? So, how about if you cover the SBC this week, and I will take responsibility for the U.S. Open (that would be an important golf tournament, Al and Mark)? Lig, who ya got in the World Cup?
Well, you have heard from three of my favorite scholars; and now it’s time to hear from a simple, but athletic pastor. Here’s my concern: It is all too easy for us to affirm biblical manhood and womanhood and humbly contend for the complementarian position, and yet fail to intentionally and consistently apply this body of teaching to our lives and churches. So this post is a reminder to us as pastors that we must not only proclaim truth but practice truth. Preaching on biblical manhood and womanhood is not enough--we must transfer this body of truth to every member of our churches. Complementarianism must be functional in our personal lives and in our churches, not simply professed. And we must not lose sight of the difference biblical manhood and womanhood can and should make for husbands, wives, children and singles.

Our responsibilities as pastors fall into two categories: Personal Application and Pastoral Strategy.

1) Personal Application

Our teaching on this topic will only be as effective as our personal example. Modeling precedes teaching. Biblical instruction cannot be divorced from personal example. We must provide our churches with a genuine (not perfect) model of biblical masculinity. It is possible to skillfully teach Genesis 1-3 or Ephesians 5 and yet neglect to apply these passages to our lives. So, let me ask you: Where and how are you going to demonstrate biblical manhood to your wife and children this week? What difference is your complementarian position going to make in your life and for those you love, lead, and serve? If I spent the week with you, would your conviction about biblical masculinity be obvious?
Gentlemen, here is a gift you can give to your wife this week. Set aside a few hours of uninterrupted time, and ask her to honestly evaluate your personal example of godliness and your leadership in the home.

I dare you to ask her this question:

Where do I need to grow in serving and leading you?

For bonus points, ask this question:

Where do I need to grow in serving and leading the children?

This one conversation could initiate dramatic changes in your life.

After you've talked to your wife, I would encourage you to relate the details to a fellow elder, pastor or friend. Invite their questions and observations and make yourself accountable to them for application. This step will weaken pride and cultivate humility. Because God gives grace to the humble, this is a very smart thing to do. In fact, it would be stupid not to, since God opposes the proud. So, let us avoid being mere advocates of the complementarian position. By the grace of God we must be functional complementarians, and this must be evident for all to see.

I double dare you to ask your wife that question.

2) Pastoral Strategy

Do you have a strategy for helping your church demonstrate biblical manhood and womanhood? If so, what is your strategy? What is your plan to clarify, cultivate and celebrate biblical manhood and womanhood in your church? This must be done intentionally, strategically and consistently--not occasionally. And it won't get done if you don't lead humbly, wisely, and boldly.

Here's why: The members of our churches are daily being assaulted by a feminist worldview and culture. They are breathing feminist air each and every day. So do not assume that your statement of faith or last year's teaching series are sufficient to protect your church from cultural or evangelical feminism.

Here's how: Begin by thinking through each ministry in your church. Is biblical manhood and womanhood modeled and explicitly taught in each ministry? What about your children's ministry? How about the youth ministry? The worship team? The counseling ministry? Thoroughly evaluate every aspect of your church, including the teaching diet on Sundays. Then devise a specific plan to channel this important body of teaching through each ministry of your church to every member of your church for every year you pastor the church.
Although I attempted to be brief and concise, this has once again become the never-ending post. My apologies. The fact is, I am not sufficiently gifted to be concise. But before I conclude, I must reaffirm that our motivation for biblical manhood and womanhood is the gospel. I am convinced that the complementarian position will strengthen the church in her God given-role to proclaim and protect the gospel. And the most effective apologetic (apart from Scripture) for the complementarian position is marriages, families and singles who radiate the beauty and wisdom of God's plan for men and women. Biblical manhood and womanhood is the life-transforming effect of the gospel on full display. When a church teaches, practices and honors gender distinctions determined by our good and wise God, the gospel will advance. But this will only happen where there are humble and courageous pastors who lead every member and ministry of the church by personal example and with strategic pastoring.

Mohler on Complementarianism

Here is the third blog from the "Together for the Gospel" blog. I know these are long, but they are worth the read.

The Glory of God and the Question of Gender
by Al Mohler (June 8, 2006)

Thanks, Mark and Lig for two outstanding posts on the issue of complementarianism. Let me deal with the gender question Mark raised for a moment. He made a generalization, of course. Nevertheless, I agree with Mark and I believe the generalization to be generally true. Younger complementarians seem to be more concerned to contend for complementarianism than (some . . most?) older complementarians.

I see this as part of the larger pattern visible in the church today. I can see it in the students at the seminary and I can sense it among younger, seriously-minded pastors. Put bluntly, this younger generation has been, of necessity, ready to assume a counter-cultural posture and then to find a way to contend for their convictions in the context of hostility, derision, and worse. In a very real sense, this generation has been swimming upstream all their lives. They know nothing of the cultural Christianity their parents took for granted. Even in pockets like the deep South, where cultural Christianity still remains a factor, young Christians soon find themselves facing a very different context when they go to the university, move to a large city, or enter the professional world.

Their parents, on the other hand, may find a counter-cultural posture to be strange and difficult. They may share the same convictions concerning God's gift of gender and sexuality, but they are less enthusiastic about standing apart from the dominant culture. When they went to seminary and graduate school, egalitarianism appeared to be ascendant.
A couple of additional suggestions would involve marriage, parenthood, and theological vision. Many younger pastors are in the midst of getting married, establishing a household, producing and raising children, and all that comes with this season of life. Given the shape of the larger culture, these young complementarians have had to think through all the issues and then forge their own way. Having forged their convictions in the midst of an adversarial culture, they understand that young couples need explicit and clear support and encouragement in order to obey Scripture and establish marriages and homes that reflect these commitments.

Further, they have heard and read all the (aging) arguments on behalf of egalitarianism, and they grow frustrated with what they (correctly) see as a pattern of exegetical and theological corner-cutting. They are convinced that complementarianism is the winning argument. They are not interested in playing defense.

Finally, younger pastors have had the encouragement of those who have been pointing evangelical Christians to a comprehensive vision of the glory of God in all things -- and this produces a commitment to complementarianism that goes far beyond just "getting it right." They want to display God's glory in their marriages and in their churches on these very issues, knowing that nothing less is at stake.

Once again, they are right. Our belief that this is a watershed issue explains why an explicit affirmation of complementarianism appears in our statement.

Ligon Duncan on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Here is the next post from the Together for the Gospel blog. I am so thankful for these man!

Thanks Mark (more on T4G and Complementarianism)

by Ligon Duncan (from June 6, 2006)

Your post on the complementarian question was excellent Mark. I've waited a week before posting to follow up, in part because I didn't want anything else to deflect attention from your reflections on that important matter. There were dozens of comments left here at the T4G and the conversation was all over the place in the blogosphere.

Two notes before I make a few remarks. First, as I was preparing to post tonight, I think I noticed new formatting for the T4G site going up. Looks good. Way to go team. Second, I plan to start blogging through our T4G statement to give some context to it. Hope you, C.J. and Al will join me.

Now, as to the issue of younger conservative evangelicalism and complementarianism, I think your observations are spot on - though I want to point out that guys like Harry Reeder, Kent Hughes and Ray Ortlund (who were in that meeting and who are over 50) have led brilliantly and faithfully in the whole area of biblical manhood and womanhood, not to mention our own dear C.J. who has been on this issue like white on rice for years. Once again, C.J. shows his world-class discernment!

Allow me to reiterate a few points you made, as a public expression of solidarity, and to explain why I think this is so important, and warranted inclusion in our T4G statement.
One, the denial of complementarianism undermines the church's practical embrace of the authority of Scripture (thus eventually and inevitably harming the church's witness to the Gospel). The gymnastics required to get from "I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man," in the Bible, to "I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise authority over a man" in the actual practice of the local church, are devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of the people of God.

By the way, this is one reason why I think we just don't see many strongly inerrantist-egalitarians (meaning: those who hold unwaveringly to inerrancy and also to egalitarianism) in the younger generation of evangelicalism. Many if not most evangelical egalitarians today have significant qualms about inerrancy, and are embracing things like trajectory hermeneutics, etc. to justify their positions. Inerrancy or egalitarianism, one or the other, eventually wins out.

Two, and following on the first point, the church's confidence in the clarity of Scripture in undermined, because if you can get egalitarianism from the Bible, you can get anything from the Bible. Paul may be excruciating to read aloud and hear read in a dominant feminist culture, but he's not obscure in his position! In 1 Timothy 2:11-12 he says, "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." Elsewhere, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, we find the confirming parallel to this previous pronouncement: "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." These verses (and many others) are uncomfortably clear and certainly politically incorrect, and though some of us may be consoled by "exegesis" that shows that they don't really mean that women can't preach, teach, rule in the church, yet there remains this nagging feeling that such interpretive moves are the victory of present opinion over clear but unpopular biblical teaching. Cultural cooption of the church's reading of the Bible, robs the church's ability to speak prophetically to the culture and to live distinctively in the culture, which in turns undermines the church's Gospel witness.

Three, because the very ideal of equality championed by egalitarianism (whether secular or Christian) is a permutation of a particular strand of Enlightenment thought, and because this particular ideal of equality is actually alien to the biblical anthropology and ethic, whenever and wherever it is read into the text of Scripture and its principles are worked out consistently, there is a competition with a biblical view of manhood and womanhood. For instance, try to find this view of equality in Genesis 1 - it's just not there. Consequently, commitment to evangelical egalitarianism opens the door for two competing but incompatible ethical norms and ideals within the individual, family and church. If the egalitarian impulse wins out, the church is compromised precisely at the point where paganism is assaulting the church today. For, as Peter Jones has brilliantly demonstrated, paganism wants to get rid of Christian monotheism by getting rid of the Creator-creature distinction. And one way paganism likes to do that is through gender confusion. Hence, the bi-sexual shaman, the sacred feminine, goddess worship, etc. Paganism understands that one of the best ways to prepare the way for pagan polytheistic monism over against the transcendent Creator God of the Bible is to undermine that God's image in the distinctiveness of male and female, and in the picture of Christ and the church in marital role distinctions, and in the male eldership of the church. Egalitarianism is just not equipped for that fight, and in fact simply capitulates to it.
Four, when the biblical distinctions of maleness and femaleness are denied, Christian discipleship is seriously damaged because there can be no talk of cultivating distinctively masculine Christian virtue or feminine Christian virtue. Yes, there are many Christian ethical norms that are equally directed and applicable to male and female disciples, but there are also many ethical directives in the NT enjoined distinctly upon Christian men as men and Christian women as women. Furthermore, the NT (and the Bible as a whole) recognizes that men and women are uniquely vulnerable to different kinds of temptations, and thus need gender-specific encouragement in battling against them in the course of Christian discipleship. Evangelical egalitarianism, fearful as it is that any acknowledged difference between men and women could set the stage for inequality of role or status, is utterly unprepared to help the believer with these distinctive commands or temptations. Egalitarian discipleship of Christian men and women has, then, an inherent androgynous bias. But that is not how God made us. He made us male and female. Thus Paul warns Christian men against the soul-peril of "effeminacy" without in any way criticizing (and, indeed, admiring and encouraging) the "femininity" of women. We need masculine male Christians and feminine female Christians, and that kind of discipleship requires an understanding of and commitment to complementarianism. Hence, denial of complementarianism compromises Gospel discipleship.

For these reasons and more, Mark, I think we were right to "deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel." But we'll have a chance to say more on this later.

Mark Dever's Concern

Over the next week or so, I am going to post a series of posts that the "Together for the Gospel" blog did in late May and early June of 2006. These are some great insights by some theological giants (Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and C.J. Mahaney).

Undermining Tolerance of Egalitarianism
by Mark Dever (May 31, 2006)

Lig and I were recently at a gathering of 40 or so pastors. We had a great time there. Wonderful fellowship. Much theological agreement. However, when the question of complementarianism--there are gender roles in home & church that are culturally expressed, but some gender roles are actually rooted in and mandated by Scripture--when this question came up, though there was large agreement on theological substance, there was dramatic disagreement on strategy for presentation.

The core of this blog entry is simply this-->it is my observation that those older than me who are complementarian generally want to downplay this issue, and those younger than me want to lead with it, or at least be very up front about it.

SKIP THIS PARAGRAPH UNLESS YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THE PURITANS [I think I see a parallel between the Elizabethan puritans--Sibbes, Gouge--and their more radical sons in the faith--Goodwin, Cotton, Owen--on this issue. The older generation had known fruiful ministry in the established church. The younger generation saw the direction in which things were moving. They had few differences of theology, they had great differences in assessing the significance of various matters, and therefore of the strategies for faithfulness which they should adopt. Probably parallels to SBC inerrantists who were politically moderate in the Southern Baptist Convention, and the more radicalized following generation, but that's another blog!]

Why is this? Is it because the older group is theologically unfaithful, or the younger group culturally insensitive? I don't think so. I don't know, but my guess is that there are at least a couple of factors playing into this difference. The two groups have different personal experiences, and the two groups have different theological assessments.
First, the two groups have different personal experiences. Normal for the older group is evangelicals as upstanding members of the society. They are mayors and bankers and respected persons in the community. The tendency is natural to do what would be culturally acceptable, as much as is possible (parallel to John Rawls and his idea of publicly accessible reasons). Normal for the younger group is being shouted at publicly, being told that they're narrow, intolerant hate-mongers because of their opposition to homosexuality or abortion or false religions. The tendency is to advocate biblical mandates in an unvarnished, open fashion, and yet to do this with an eye to explaining and demonstrating them as winsomely as possible. Both groups want to be faithful to Scripture and sensitive to culture, and yet their ideas of where the right balance is, differ.

Second, the two groups have different theological assessments. The older group is among peers who see women's ordination as an extension of civil rights for people of different races. The younger group is among peers who see women's ordination as a precursor for creating legal categories of gay rights. But having a certain skin pigmentation is to the glory of God; having a sexual partner of the same gender is sin. The younger group is more alarmed not simply by the egalitarian position, but by what it is assumed that will eventually entail, either in those who allow it, or in those who come after them.

There are, of course, many evangelical feminists. Some Christians whom I most love and respect and have learned from are in this category. Just to take one example, I think of my beloved professor at Gordon-Conwell, Roger Nicole, who is a father in the faith to me. My respect for him is huge. My debt to him is great. I was his teaching assistant for two years at Gordon-Conwell. He and his wife were and have been incredibly kind to me and my family. He prayed for me publicly at my installation at CHBC. I got a letter from him just last week! However, on this issue, after years of being taught feminism at Duke then at Gordon-Conwell, I had to come to disagree.

"Well then" you might say "why don't you leave this issue of complementarianism at the level of baptism or church polity? Surely you cooperate with those who disagree with you on such matters." Because, though I could be wrong, it is my best and most sober judgment that this position is effectively an undermining of--a breach in--the authority of Scripture. As Lig the paedo-baptist has often said "If there were a verse in I Timothy saying 'I do not permit an infant to be baptized . . .' we wouldn't be having this conversation about baptism! There is such a verse about women serving as teacher/elders!"

Dear reader, you may not agree with me on this. And I don't desire to be right in my fears. But it seems to me and others (many who are younger than myself) that this issue of egalitarianism and complementarianism is increasingly acting as the watershed distinguishing those who will accomodate Scripture to culture, and those who will attempt to shape culture by Scripture. You may disagree, but this is our honest concern before God. It is no lack of charity, nor honesty. It is no desire for power or tradition for tradition's sake. It is our sober conclusion from observing the last 50 years.

Paedobaptism is not novel (sadly). But, on the good side, evangelicals who have taught such a doctrine have continued to be otherwise faithful to Scripture for 5 centuries now. And many times their faithfulnesses have put those of us who may have a better doctrine of baptism to shame! Egalitarianism is novel. It's theological tendencies have not had such a long track record. And the track record they have had so far, is not encouraging.

Of course there are issues more central to the gospel than gender issues. However, there may be no way the authority of Scripture is being undermined more quickly or more thoroughly in our day than through the hermenuetics of egalitarian readings of the Bible. And when the authority of Scripture is undermined, the gospel will not long be acknowledged. Therefore, love for God, the gospel, and future generations, demands the careful presentation and pressing of the complementarian position.

Ain't Got Your Porn...

Isn’t it interesting that those who are prone toward feminism blame those of us who believe in biblical manhood and womanhood with suppressing women. The cultural air that we breathe leans heavily toward feminism, but the same culture is flooded with scantily dressed women on billboard, TV commercials, and internet sites. I know no one who is a complementarian porn star…okay, so I actually know no porn stars, but I honestly don’t think you could be one and still functionally hold a position where: 1. Sex is for marriage; 2. Men are to be servant leaders; and 3. Women are to be loving intelligent helpers.

This does not function in the porn industry. What functions there is the suppression of women, the degraded view of sex, and men who are seeking selfish thrills instead of seeking to love and care for others. The cure to the porn problem is not the feminist agenda, but the Gospel. There is no satisfaction in pornography (at least that lasts for more than a few seconds), but many kids are fatherless, wives are abandoned, and men are left ashamed because of this lust for more and more perversion. The cure is the Gospel. The Gospel tells us that we are all sinners and we are separated from God and can’t get to Him. However, the good news is that Jesus Christ came to earth and lived a sinless life and died on the cross and was raised three days later. His death was the payment for our sin. Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. (1 Peter 2:24). This verse goes on to say, “by His wounds we are healed.” We can be healed by the grace of God because the cross is enough to help us and enough to change us. It is through the cross of Christ that we can approach a Holy God. So, if you have any questions about Jesus or if you desire to be healed from the addiction to pornography, e-mail me. The gospel is the help and not our culture and not another picture of some man’s daughter.

A Harsh Word to Mommies...

Linda Hirshman is a leading feminist and is not happy about American Moms that stay at home with their children. When speaking of “stay-at-home” moms, she says, “These women are not using their full human capacity. They are not independent, and they are not doing more social good than harm.” She demeans these moms and says that they need to be in the work place to fulfill their full capacity. She is sadly a loud voice in our culture and the feminist air that we breathe everyday is slowly going to her extreme thoughts. Read a full article here.

Roles with Jelly…and Peanut Butter

Some who are readers of this blog are parents and if you have been a parent for any length of time, you will know that your child(ren) have a tendency to disobey you. So, how might the roles of Daddy and Mommy effect one area of parenting: discipline.

One way that my wife and I found that my leadership in the home could help our kids and serve her is by me being the primary disciplinarian when we are together as a family. Since it is my responsibility as the husband/father to lead my wife in how we train and discipline our children. This does not mean that both my wife and I are not constantly training our girls, but it does free my wife to gear the girls toward my leadership as Dad (the head of the home and accountable to God for our home). It also frees her to not have to be the one disciplining after she has been with the girls all day doing training and disciplining. I don’t know if this might be helpful for you, but it has been great for us.

This model teaches our daughters that the marital relationship between my wife and I is the primary relationship in our home (and not the parental relationship). They see me honoring my wife constantly in front of them and they know that they are expected to respect and honor her as well. They have learned that “Mommy, is Daddy’s wife” and they should not to disobey her. This gives comfort and security to my wife that I train and position our children to obey her when I am not home and it gives security and stability to our girls that we are seeking to obey God as we train and discipline them.

Biblical Womanhood, Marriage, and Singleness

Here is Justin Taylor's post link to some great resources on biblical womenhood. The ladies at GirlTalk do an excellent job of providing amazing examples of godly, intelligent, femininity. Enjoy!

Credibility Debated

Al Mohler comments on a recent article about whether or not the Christian church's stance on homosexuality is making us lose credibility.