“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
