Reformed SHEology

In January, I had stumbled across a fantastic article written by Elisabeth Elliot simply titled, “Femininity.” In this piece, she writes: “But what is this man, what is this woman? What are these elusive and indefinable but universally acknowledged qualities on which every culture and society has shaped its existence?” I thought she did a fine job of trying to explain the inexplicable, at least, far better than I could! So when we decided to examine the concept of masculinity this month, I certainly did not consider myself qualified to take on a task such as defining an equally elusive term. Instead, I sought the wisdom of John Piper. The following material has been excerpted from Chapter 1 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:


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.

“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 . . . His sense of responsibility will find expression in the ways he conquers self-pity, and gives moral and spiritual leadership for his family, and takes the initiative to provide them with the bread of life, and protect them from the greatest enemies of all, Satan and sin.

Benevolent responsibility is meant to rule out all self-aggrandizing authoritarianism (cf. Luke 22:26). It is meant to rule out all disdaining condescension and any act that makes a mature woman feel patronized rather than honored and prized (cf. 1 Peter 3:7). The word “benevolent” is meant to signal that mature masculinity gives appropriate expression to the Golden Rule in male-female relationships (Matthew 7:12).

Masculinity is a God-given trust for the good of all his creatures, not a right for men to exercise for their own self-exaltation or egosatisfaction. It is less a prerogative than a calling. It is a duty and obligation and charge. Like all God’s requirements it is not meant to be onerous or burdensome (1 John 5:3). But it is nevertheless a burden to be borne, and which in Christ can be borne lightly (Matthew 11:30).

1. Mature masculinity expresses itself not in the demand to be served, but in the strength to serve and to sacrifice for the good of woman. Jesus said, “Let the greatest among you become as the youngest and the leader as one who serves” (Luke 22:26). Leadership is not a demanding demeanor. It is moving things forward to a goal. If the goal is holiness and Heaven, the leading will have the holy aroma of Heaven about it - the demeanor of Christ.

2. Mature masculinity does not assume the authority of Christ over woman, but advocates it. The leadership implied in the statement, “The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church” (Ephesians 5:23), is not a leadership that gives to the man all the rights and authority that Christ has. The analogy between Christ and the husband breaks down if pressed too far, first because, unlike Christ, all men sin. Christ never has to apologize to his church. But husbands must do this often. Moreover, unlike Christ, a husband is not preparing a bride merely for himself but for another, namely Christ. He does not merely act as Christ, but also for Christ.

3. Mature masculinity does not presume superiority, but mobilizes the strengths of others. No human leader is infallible. Nor is any man superior to those he leads in every respect. Therefore a good leader will always take into account the ideas of those he leads, and may often adopt those ideas as better than his own . . . The aim of leadership is not to demonstrate the superiority of the leader, but to bring out all the strengths of people that will move them forward to the desired goal.

4. Mature masculinity does not have to initiate every action, but feels the responsibility to provide a general pattern of initiative.In a family the husband does not do all the thinking and planning. His leadership is to take responsibility in general to initiate and carry through the spiritual and moral
planning for family life.

5. Mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance. In a good marriage, decision-making is focused on the husband, but is not unilateral. He seeks input from his wife and often adopts her ideas. This is implied in the love that governs the relationship (Ephesians 5:25), in the equality of personhood implied in being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and in the status of being fellow-heirs of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7) . . . His awareness of his sin and imperfection will guard him from thinking that following Christ gives him the ability of Christ to know what’s best in every detail.

6. Mature masculinity expresses its leadership in romantic sexual relations by communicating an aura of strong and tender pursuit. This is very difficult to put into words. But sexual relations are so basic to human life we would be delinquent not to at least try to say how masculinity expresses itself here. It is the mingling of tenderness with strength that makes the unique masculine quality of leadership in sexual relations. There is an aura of masculine leadership which rises from the mingling of power and tenderness, forcefulness and affection, potency and sensitivity, virility and delicateness. It finds expression in the firmness of his grasp, the strength of taking her in his arms, the sustaining of verbal adoration, etc. And there are a hundred nuances of masculine pursuit that distinguish it from feminine pursuit . . . But there is a difference. A feminine initiation is in effect an invitation for the man to do his kind of initiating. In one sense then you could say that in those times the man is responding. But in fact the wife is inviting him to lead in a way as only a man can, so that she can respond to him.

7. Mature masculinity expresses itself in a family by taking the initiative in disciplining the children when both parents are present and a family standard has been broken. Mothers and fathers are both to be obeyed by their children (Ephesians 6:1). Mothers as well as fathers are esteemed teachers in the home (Proverbs 1:8; 6:20; 31:1). They carry rights of authority and leadership toward their children, as do their husbands. They do not need to wait till Dad gets home from work to spank a disobedient child. But children need to see a dynamic between Mom and Dad that says, Dad takes charge to discipline me when Mom and Dad are both present. No woman should have to take the initiative to set a disobedient child right while her husband sits obliviously by, as though nothing were at stake. Few things will help children understand the meaning of responsible, loving masculinity better than watching who takes the responsibility to set them right when Mom and Dad are both present.

We should humble ourselves before God for our failures and for the remaining
tendency to shirk or overstep our responsibilities. The call to leadership is not a call to exalt ourselves over any woman. It is not a call to domineer, or belittle or put woman in her place. She is, after all, a fellow-heir of God and destined for a glory that will one day blind the natural eyes of every man (Matthew 13:43). The call to leadership is a call to humble oneself and take the responsibility to be a servant-leader in ways that are appropriate to every differing relationship to women.

It is a call to risk getting egg on our faces; to pray as we have never prayed before; to be constantly in the Word; to be more given to planning, more intentional, more thoughtful, less carried along by the mood of the moment; to be disciplined and ordered in our lives; to be tenderhearted and sensitive; to take the initiative to make sure there is a time and a place to talk to her about what needs to be talked about; and to be ready to lay down our lives the way Christ did if that is necessary.

Masculinity and femininity are rooted in who we are by nature. They are not simply reflexes of a marriage relationship. Man does not become man by getting married. But it is clear that the form which leadership, provision and protection take will vary with the kind of relationship a man has with a woman -from the most intimate relationship of marriage to the most casual relationship with a stranger on the street . . .The point here is that even though a man will not take initiating steps of leadership with a stranger or with a colleague the same way he will with his wife, his mature manhood will seek a pattern of initiative appropriate for the relationship.

The above material was excerpted from "What's the Difference?", Chapter 1 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, by John Piper. You can read all of John Piper's works online at www.desiringgod.org.

Recently, one of our readers asked me, "What do you think about women wearing pants?" Anxious to write about some other issues surrounding biblical femininity, I originally told this reader that I'd save that for another time, but I've changed my mind and decided to write about it now. In light of all the discussion surrounding headcovering, it would not be fair for me to postpone writing about this topic as well, especially since it also relates to masculinity.

I personally have never been convicted that pants are unfeminine or unbiblical. Perhaps that will change for me one day, but I currently don't see any biblical reason for women to be made to feel that wearing pants is wrong.

From what I gather, the entire issue surrounds a mandate given in Deuteronomy 22:5, which reads in the NASB as follows: "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God". Other translations will make reference to a woman's cloak or a man's garment, but the meaning is the same from translation to translation -- men should wear men's clothes, and women should wear women's clothes.

The question is, what are women's clothes? Conversely, what are men's clothes? In my lifetime, most people have answered this by saying, "Skirts are for girls and pants are for boys. End of story." I am not so sure about that. I don't think there is anything in the scripture that makes such a distinction between pants or skirts. It just simply says, "clothes." I don't think God is saying "I want women to wear skirts and I want men to wear pants." Rather, I think God is simply saying, "I want women to look like women and men to look like men."

The real issue is that there is a distinction between male and female. God cares very deeply that we adhere to that distinction, because He created two types of people: men and women. When we try to blur that line, we are polluting His original design for the sexes. Things like cross-dressing, and the androgynous look that was so popular in the 80's are definitely examples of things that God is speaking out against in this passage. For example, God would be against this:


One of the things I will never forget is watching an episode of Beavis and Butt-head back in the 90's in which a Boy George video was featured. Upon hearing the lyric, "I'm a man," one of the characters said, "Uh, you're a man? Huh-huh. Huh-huh. Huh." It struck me that even two godless animated characters recognized that Boy George's appearance was unnatural and even confusing. When Boy George first came on the scene in the early 80's, I can remember countless debates in grade school as to whether or not he was actually male. We honestly did not know for sure!

Because God is a God of order and not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), I think God's intention for mandating how we are to dress is simply about making sure you can actually tell if the person is a "he" or a "she". No "its" or "she-males" allowed! That being said, I believe that women can wear pants, as long as they appear distinctly female while doing so.

There is even more compelling evidence that God wasn't even referring to pants at all, when we consider that pants did not even exist when Deuteronomy 22:5 was penned. In fact, pants are a relatively new fashion, even for men.

Kiltmen.com is a website dedicated to abolishing "Trouser Tyranny." The website does a nice job of advocating for a return to more traditional men's clothing, pointing out that men used to wear tunics all the time. It's true! Picture in your head all the drawings you have ever seen of male biblical characters such as Moses, David, and Paul. Did the artist's rendering ever depict these fellows in a pair of pants?

When I used to work at the Holy Land Experience, the men all wore tunics, even the actor playing Jesus. None of the park guests ever pointed to Deuteronomy 22:5 and cried "foul!" Not once did I ever hear a child ask, "Mommy, why is Jesus wearing a dress?" That's because it is understood by everyone that a tunic was the standard garment once worn by men. In similar fashion, women were also dressed in tunics, but theirs were distinctly feminine. The color, texture, and style of the tunic made it clear that it was a women's garment and not a man's garment.

(Sidenote: Although it is not a Christian site, Kiltmen.com does an amazing job addressing Deuteronomy 22:5 in its proper context. Not only does Kiltmen.com present its point from a historical/cultural perspective quite nicely, but it makes a killer argument from a biological perspective: kilts and tunics are actually better suited for men because they "do not confine the male genitals the way trousers do." Tight jeans have been known to significantly lower a man's sperm count because they create an uncomfortable and unhealthy environment for the testicles. The Bible states that children are a gift from the Lord and that we are to "be fruitful and multiply". The idea of men wearing tunics and kilts becomes even more sensible in light of the fact such garments promote a healthy sperm count and thus increase a man's chances of being a father. In this sense, the kilt is seen as a strong symbol of maleness and masculinity.)

Today, we have numerous examples of clothing being recognized as either men's or women's clothing by the color, texture, or style of those garments. Both men and women wear sneakers. Both men and women wear sandals. Both men and women wear jackets, button-down shirts, watches, sunglasses, hats, coats, and gloves. There is no distinction that says "Men wear sneakers and women wear sandals." The item is appropriate to be worn by either a man or a woman, provided that the man or woman is not wearing an article of clothing designed for the opposite gender. For example, I used to own a pair of pants in high school that were light grey with pink flowers all over them. Nobody asked me why I was wearing men's clothes. It was obvious by the color, texture, and style of my pants that I was wearing clothing designed for a female.

Finally, I will leave you with a cute little anecdote a Baptist preacher once shared with his congregation. It goes like this:

There was a certain pastor who decided once and for all he needed to enforce a strict dress code upon his congregation. He decreed that all women in his congregation immediately go through their closets and get rid of all their pants, because pants are "men's clothes." So all the ladies of the church got together and collected all of the pants and brought them to the church to decide what to do with them. One woman, who happened to be organizing the effort, noticed several pairs of pants that looked as though they were just the perfect size for the pastor. "It would be a shame to throw these away," she thought, so she took them to the pastor's home.

When the pastor opened the door, the woman offered him the pants. He asked her, "What am I supposed to do with these?" The woman explained that she thought the pants might fit him, and wondered if he might get some use out of them. The pastor looked at the woman in disbelief and said, "Surely you can't be serious! I can't wear these! These are women's clothes!"

This little story demonstrates that clothing can be recognized as either male or female, not for what type of garment it is, but for the way the garment looks. The Bible says God created them male and female. Unless your appearance is causing major confusion over your gender, I do not think God is displeased with your choice as a woman to wear pants if you so choose.

This month's feature film is The Best Years of Our Lives, a story which follows three American servicemen as they try to adjust to life after war. Hailed as a classic masterpiece, the film portrays the challenges and crises of masculinity in society, in the home, and in the mind. In spite of the many battles fought and won overseas, perhaps the toughest battle of all is a man's silent fight for respect.

STATS
Year: 1946 (Not Rated)
Robert E. Sherwood (writer), William Wyler (director)
Starring Friedrich March, Dana Andrews, and Harold Russell.
Setting: Post World War II America.

Seven Oscars including Best Director (Wyler), Best Supporting Actor (Russell), Best Actor (March), Best Screenplay (Sherwood), Best Music Score, Best Editing, and Best Picture.

Content warning: Some scenes portray drunkenness. One plot line encourages the deliberate demise of a marriage that no longer seems to be working. This film also warrants a SEVERE KLEENEX ALERT.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR
1. The importance of biblically feminine support in a man's life. A woman can either make or break a man's spirit. In this film, we encounter both types of women.

2. The "Impostor" Syndrome: No matter how many awards and accolades are bestowed upon a man in an effort to acknowledge his greatness, he still feels like an impostor. The fear of being "discovered" as a fraud or failure can drive a man to either work harder or completely withdraw from others altogether.

3. The importance of respect in a man's ability to feel valued. This month's film not only portrays men crushed by disrespectful women, but also by society as a whole.

4. Body image. One man discovers that true love is unconditional, even when presented with a physical disability. One woman's constant dripping completely disfigures her otherwise stunning looks.

5. Perhaps the most valuable currency among men is loyalty. Loyalty to one's country, one's values, and one's family and friends can make even the toughest times we face feel like the best years of our lives.

TRIVIA
Harold Russell is a real life WWII veteran/amputee who lost both hands while serving in the United States Army. William Wyler discovered Russell in a documentary and cast him in the role of Homer Parrish. Russell went on to win the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor.

The film is available for rent at most video stores and it is common for many public libraries to own a copy of it. The movie can also be purchased online.