A Call To "Act Like Men"

“act like men” (1 Corinthians 16:c)

Is it still okay to say this in our day? No doubt many today would find such a demand offensive. Strangely, some would deem it inappropriate if you were addressing men (as Paul is in the text) and appropriate if you were addressing women. Others would simply be appalled by the gender-specificity of the imperative regardless of the target audience. This is just one example of the moral confusion we are dealing with in the present day. Just this past week, Leon Panetta, our nation’s top Pentagon official reversed our military’s long-standing policy prohibiting women from serving in combat. This new position will no doubt lead to some very dangerous roles for women compromising their safety and frankly, their femininity. Such compromise is not entirely new of course, but will likely now increase in degree and frequency. This should be seen as a national, moral and social tragedy.

The Bible knows no such confusion. In the creation narrative we are told, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27, ESV). God created male and female of one kind, designated here by the word “man” (Hebrew, adam). In other words, both are human beings made in the image of God, and, as such, both are equal in dignity and value. But God also made them with differences. He made two sexes, male and female. Inherent in the two sex distinctions are role distinctions. So, while male and female are equal in dignity and value, they have different God-given roles to fulfill, each complementing the other. These distinctions do not result from individual preference or societal consensus. They are not religion-specific nor are they tied to particular cultures or times. They are rooted in creation. They are the direct product of the wisdom of our benevolent and sovereign Creator. This is what we mean when we refer to them and other sexual issues as “natural”. They were and are God-intended.

It would require too much space to define these distinctions in detail but certainly the responsibilities of protection and provision belong at the top of the list and probably provide a sum of all the rest. It is primarily the responsibility of the man to protect and provide for the woman and not the woman for the man. While many in our day deny these truths, I am not convinced that they really don’t know them to be true. In a recent broadcast of his “The Briefing”, Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, drew a fitting parallel between the new rule for women serving in combat and the old rule of “women and children first” in vacating a sinking ship. Mohler raised the question of whether we would think it wrong for men to abandon the “women and children first” rule when the sinking vessel is being evacuated? Of course we would! There is an innate sense within males to protect women as well as children. Some men suppress this inclination and some even deny it. But when the public hears of such cowardice we are disgusted, and rightly so. Remember the Concordia?

And if it is true that primarily the responsibility for protecting and providing falls upon men rather than women regarding physical safety and wellbeing; how much more concerning spiritual matters? That is to say, it is primarily the responsibility of the man to shepherd his family, faithfully feeding them the word of God. And it is primarily his charge to guard against the ravages of false doctrine. In fact, this is no doubt Paul’s meaning since his exhortation to “act like men” falls right in the midst of his admonishments to “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith…be strong” and to “love”.

I am thankful for women who have the courage and fortitude to protect and provide for their families when their husbands will not or can not; or when the husband simply needs help in doing so. I applaud women who are willing to risk their lives for their country. But to applaud their courage and commitment is one thing, to view it as their responsibility, in the same sense as that of a man, is quite another. Regardless of public opinion, Christians must not loose sight of the reality and value of the role distinctions of men and women. Physical differences are obvious. Role distinctions can be blurred but are no less objectively real, natural and even pleasurable.

In a day when women are encouraged to be like men and men are encouraged to be less than men, it is hard to imagine a time that necessitates more a call for men to act like men. In this, as in so many matters, we would do well to echo Spurgeon’s clarion call – “Here is the day for the man—where is the man for the day?”

To answer my own question at the beginning of this article: No! It is probably no longer socially acceptable to say such a thing (i.e., to demand that men act like men and fulfill their God-given responsibilities). Yet, it is non-the-less right. And, like Paul in his day, say it we must!

Skip