A Tale of Two Kings

First off, apologies are in order for my delayed absence. Between wedding prep, a honeymoon and adjusting to a new house and schedule, writing sort of gets put on the backburner. But I am alive and ready to get back into the swing of things.


Being married has caused me to contemplate certain issues on a new level. Topics that were once theoretical concepts are now experiencal realities. Biblical manhood and family structure has been an important issue to me for a long time. It started out as the quest of a pre-teen boy trying to figure out what made me different from the girls I grew up with. It’s matured into a fuller understanding of masculine identity and responsibility. Now, these concepts have to be put into practice on daily basis.

It is out of this new experience that I’ve been contemplating an important distinction that needs to be made when we discuss issues like manhood and headship. This distinction is illustrated by comparing the rule of two kings. In about 483 B.C., King Xerxes of Persia made an interesting decree commanding that “all women will give honor to their husbands, both great and small” and “that every man should be the master of his own house.”On the surface, Xerxes’ decree seems Complementarian, even Pauline. In fact, the parallels in terminology are striking.

• Xerxes: “all women will give honor to their husbands” (Esther 1:20)
• Paul: “the wife must see to it that she respects her husband” (Ephesians 5:33)

• Xerxes: “every man should be the master of his own house” (Esther 1:22)
• Paul: “Wives, be subject to your own husbands…for the husband is the head of the wife” (Ephesians 5:22-23a)

At a glance, it seems like the Apostle Paul and King Xerxes are pretty much saying the same thing. But in fact the one is worlds apart from the other. The first rule in interpreting any text from the Bible, to a legal document, to a shopping list, is to consider the context. And in the contexts we find that Paul and Xerxes are describing two very different things.

Xerxes is describing tyrannical chauvinism while Paul is describing sacrificial servant-leadership. Xerxes’ decree was promoted when his wife refused to obey his stupid, self-serving edict (Esther 1:10-12). His ego offended, Xerxes throws a tantrum and banishes his queen. Still in an ill mood, he writes up a decree commanding all the women of the kingdom to shape up and “mind their man”.

Xerxes is the first king. He’s motivated by love of self. He uses his position of authority to fulfill his own desires at the expense of others. When his authority is maligned or questioned, he becomes angry and suppresses the opposition. This is the type of king all men are by nature. We all seek our own interests and our pride is angered when our rule is challenged. But thankfully, Paul gives us another example.

While Xerxes is the kind of king and husband we all are in our natural state, divine grace allows us to put on a different kind of King and Husband. Paul describes for us the rule and husbandry of King Jesus. While Xerxes cast his wife away, King Jesus is called “the Savior of the body.” (Ephesians 5:22) His rule is not based on petty edicts or vengeful enforcements but on the fact that “he gave Himself for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot of wrinkle, or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:25-27) While King Xerxes degraded his wife, King Jesus presents His bride in all her glory.

And it is this Husband-King that Paul commands us men to emulate: “Husbands love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,” (Ephesians 5:25) and again, “So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies.” (Ephesians 5:28) This is the difference between pagan patriarchy and biblical patriarchy. The one is about the man seeking his own interests. The other is about the man giving up his own interests for the sake of others. The one is maintained through force and wrath. The other is maintained through love and self-sacrifice.

Therefore, let us resolve to put on the character of our Lord and lead as He led.

Savage Equality

It may very well be that outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's last act will prove to be his most impactful. Secretary Panetta has ordered to remove the ban on women serving in combat. The responses vary from zealous approval to pragmatic reservation. But I submit that stronger statements are needed. Let me be as clear as I know how to be. This is not a political mistep or strategically ill-advised. This is utterly barbaric. This is a savage equality.

Let me clarify what I mean by that. Not all equality is savage. In fact, the right kind of equality will save us from savage equality. It is a true and faithful saying that all men (and women) are created equal. Likewise, manhood and womanhood are equally valuable. However, they are not equal in the sense of indentical or interchangeable. But they are equally important and indespensable. Failure to grasp this truth will lead to barbarism.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that feminism and chauvinism are not opposites but two sides of the same horrific coin. They both deny the complementary of sexes and their roles and replace it with the Darwinist doctrine of survival of the fittest.

The chauvinist says that the roles of men and women aren't equally valuable and so he just slams those women folk into subjection. The feminist says that the roles of men and women aren't equally valuable and so the woman must act like a man. But the result is not harmony and fidelity. It's violence and savagery.

Engaging in combat is not a right or even a privilege. It's a horrific duty and I applaud all those who have served in our nation's armed forces. However, it's not a duty that should be trust upon just anyone. Likewise, it's not a statement about the value of a person.

David established a principle in I Samuel 30:24. The ancestor of our Lord divided the spoils of war equally among those who had fought in the front lines and those who had guarded the supply lines. Thus, differences in role (including in warfare) does not necessarily suggest a difference in value.

Thus, women should not be in combat. Not because they are incompetent, but because of the weight of responsibility God has placed upon men. Combat is a horrific thing and in all civilized nations (certainly all Christian nations) men have shielded women and children from its devastating effects. Only a barbaric society would tell women to protect us, rather than protecting them.

Increasingly, we are becoming a culture of violence. Guns are the scapegoat, used to trickour senses to believe that these string of mass shootings is just an external problem and not a systemic, heart-level catastrophe. We've become a culture of rape, violence and abuse. The aggression of masculinity is no longer tempered and channeled by the virtues of responsibility and self-sacrifice. Thus, women are left to fend for themselves.

We shake our fingers at the Roman coliseum and Aztec temples without realizing that we've become a culture of barbarians. I'm not trying to be melodramatic or over the top. I simply know no other terms that due the issue justice.

So, what are the people of God to do? Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. (Colossians 3:19). Men, take responsibility and do the hard jobs so that others won't have to. We are in a battle between "women and children first" and "survival of the fittest". Which does your life best portray?

Dealing With Thunder Puppies

Doug Wilson and Justin Holcomb talk about  thunder puppies HERE in this ten minute clip. What's a thunder puppy? you say. Well, I'm glad you asked. Watch and learn.

Here's the punchline: the biblical view on gender roles in as much the opposite of chauvinism as it is the opposite of feminism.