When I started reading the first book I was expecting it to talk about masculinity and femininity from scripture. I was thinking something along the lines of John Eldridge's Wild At Heart or Way of the Wild Heart. While it did address masculinity and femininity, the focus was much more specific: defending the complimentarian (gender roles do exist within scripture, such as male headship, pastor/elders, and the sort) view and responding to the egalitarian (gender roles do not exist within scripture and there should be no difference in the manner men and women approach God or each other) view. The topic of gender roles in the church is not one of the most popular topics. In all fairness, I don't think I have ever sat through a sermon addressing gender roles, at least not in person. I have listened to a number of sermons which the gender roles were addressed from time to time but not in detail that would compare with this material. I have read 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Timothy 2, Ephesians 5-6, Titus 2, a number of times. Until a few weeks ago, I never read any articles/essays concerning the Greek text in those verses, or really exploring these topics in depth. Frankly, I was rather unaware of the research and doctrinal implications of these two views. Don't worry I won't attempt to condense the 400 pages I've read so far on this topic into this blog. I wanted to narrow in on what I noticed as a prime issue at the heart of this debate.
The first point I noticed, which has been a bit of a recurring theme among Christian debates, was the immediate approach to scripture. How does each side approach the scriptural support, lack of support, or silence regarding the topic at hand? Did one group tend to focus on arguing from experience vs. scripture? How did they go about trying to address a difficult or culturally unpopular instruction? Did the denial of one non-essential view overflow to a greater essential doctrine peril? One of the variables which make Christian debates particularly easy and painful at the same time is that no matter what, both sides need to rely on Scripture to have any ground. I say easy and painful because many arguments in the secular world cannot come to a solid starting point, yet painful because there should not be such levels of dissension regarding clear teachings of scripture. One side or another often finds themselves judging God's Word instead of humbly approaching it seeking to understand its mystery and submit to its authority.
The second point of controversy within the discussion of gender roles is the misunderstanding of domination compared to headship. Domination is the embodiment of might-over-right, overbearing, abusive, much of what defines popular culture's idea of masculinity. Instead of domination being regarded as the enemy for what it is, masculinity at large was assaulted. Men were told to be passive teddy bears that didn't hurt anyone, their feelings, or to even have a desire to inflict hurt. Some men laid down their masculinity by abdicating their roles as leaders, protectors, and providers. Other men sprinted into the other direction to become dominating womanizing thugs, who disguise themselves as gentlemen because they wear a suit. The modern man has been in crisis to define himself. Domination works for many men as a sense of identity because few women can compete in that arena. The fruit of domination expressed further expressed itself in violent crime, abusive attitudes, and general disregard of others. I would never attempt to defend justification for domination as it is the epitome of immature masculinity. This is the target of reference which egalitarians hone in on to destroy, and for good reason. I have yet to read and I don't expect to ever hear a scriptural defense for a dominating attitude. Headship is the embodiment of mature masculinity, one of my favorite sections of verses in Ephesians 5 describes headship. Christ is to his Church as a husband is to his wife. An excerpt from RBMW which also hits home:
At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships...A man might say, “I am a man and I do not feel this sense of responsibility that you say makes me masculine.” He may feel strong and sexually competent and forceful and rational. But we would say to him that if he does not feel this sense of benevolent responsibility toward women to lead, provide and protect, his masculinity is immature. It is incomplete and perhaps distorted.“Mature” means that a man’s sense of responsibility is in the process of growing out of its sinful distortions and limitations, and finding its true nature as a form of love, not a form of self-assertion." -pg 29
I recall some students in the high school group picking my brain on the infamous "woman submit" theme found in Ephesians 5:22-24, my response was twofold. One, a man not dare quote verses 22-24 without including 25-33, to do so is not only incomplete to the context of the text but it can lead one to wrongfully think scripture rubber stamps a dominating attitude, yet it immediately gives instruction to the husband on how to love his wife. I found it interesting that the instruction of submission, an action, for which men are more typically action-oriented was given to the wife. While love, an instruction of emotional-orientation, was given to the husband.
Christ perfected headship by his sacrifice, leadership, and love. This is to be the example that men are to follow that we might be mature men. I'm not saying to be mature Christian men, this is just to be a mature man. Because this is what it means to be a man, how much more should we look to the men in the Church fulfill this role in an exemplary manner?
