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.

The Symbols of Power

I recently read Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism by Doug McLachlan (which you should totally read, by the way). I found it to be a very interesting and helpful book. In particular, I enjoyed his chapter on servant leadership. In that chapter he made an observation that is very relevent to the Christmas season:

“The symbols of God’s power are a manger and a cross. What could be more vulnerable or more powerless than a newborn baby in a manger or a crucified man on a cross, yet the incarnation (the manger) and the crucifixion (the cross) were both works of great power. The most powerful thing Jesus of Nazareth ever did was to assume our humanness in the incarnation and our fallenness in the crucifixion. Likewise, real power is released into and then out of us when we are prepared to identify with sinners (as Christ in the incarnation) and sacrificially give ourselves to meet their needs (as Christ did in the crucifixion). Yet, how many contemporary Christian are interested in either sinners or a cross?”

This season let us remember that God became a helpless infant. And as we marvel at the awesomeness of the Incarnation, way we embrace the power of weakness.

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.

Addicted to Service

Recently, I came across a verse in Scripture which stood out to me. It isn't some great theological text. Nor is it of a memorable or important verse. In fact, the section in question is actually show in parenthesis by most translators as if it were an after thought that the Apostle Paul just kind of plugged in there. The passage is I Corinthians 16:15, which states: "I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints)" (KJV)

When I first read this passage in the good ol' King Jimmy Version, I had to laugh at the choice of words. Addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. The English Standard Version simply says "that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints".

But then I got to thinking about the powerful word picture that is painted by the word addicted. Our world is full of addicts. It seems nearly anything can be an addiction. Smoking, drinking, porn, food, media, sweets and even exercise. Some of my friends accuse of me being a coffee addict and their assessment is probably not entirely untrue. But here Paul describes a man and his family that had addicted themselves to service of the saints.

What is an addicted person like? By definition it means that their life is no longer their own. It is under the mastery of something else. An addict no longer calls the shots. He does what his master demands of him. He is bound to the object of his addiction to the point that is almost impossible to break that bond. Eventually, it gets to the point where the addict's life is completely and thoroughly controlled by something other them himself. Addiction is a powerful thing.

Most addictions are bad. They rob us of the loving lordship of Jesus Christ and bring us under the bondage of a spiritual idol. But what would it look like if we addicted ourselves to the service of the saints?

In his epistle, Paul commends Stephanas and his family for devoting themselves to serving the Body of Christ. Here was an entire family that had commit themselves to laboring for others. Paul uses some very strong language to describe their dedication of this ministry. He says that they addicted themselves. How addicted are you to serving and ministering to your brothers and sisters in Christ? Do you fit the profile of person addicted to serving others?

It always breaks my heart to see spiritual siblings strive against each other instead of laboring to serve each other. It also breaks my heart to hear people of talk of ministry as if it's something reserved for professionals. However, we see that in the early Church, ministering to others was something that average church-going laymen did.

Something I've been convicted about lately is my attitude when I go to church. Do I simply want to get blessed and ministered to spiritual or am devoted to blessing and ministering to others spiritually? Is service something others owe me or something I owe them?

In short, we all need to follow the example of Stephanas and his family. We need to addict ourselves to the service of the saints in a real and dedicated way.

The Church's Man Crisis

Over the past few weeks I've been reading a verity of things that have all got me thinking about the way the Church seems to be masculinity. The first was an article at the Art of Manliness which addressed the decline of masculinity in our culture. I found myself in agreement with the article. It seems that in our society in which Egalitarianism and Feminism are the dominate worldviews, men get left out in the cold. These doctrines, in a reaction to Aristotelian chauvinism, promotes the idea that men are women are identical. Despite this, there is almost the suggestion that women are superior. Women can do anything and everything. Men are only good for so much. As such, masculinity has become a vice and not a virtue.

Later, I was reading an article by Dr. John Piper which really brought home to me the dangers of the Church accepting these philosophies. The result has been the emasculation of the Body of Christ. Now, understand that I'm not advocating the complete defeminizing of the Church. Throughout the Bible God gives us certain word pictures of terminologies that will appeal to both men (the armor of God) and women (the Bride of Christ). However, contemporary Christian seems to be reaching out almost entirely to women and children.

Across the board, women are generally more religious than men. I think that's because we guys seem to struggle with more egotistical pride. We don't like to submit to anyone, much less God. As such, preachers and church leaders have tried to appeal to their base and in doing so have emasculated the Church. Walk into most churches and you'll see a festive arrangement of pink, baby blue and lemon yellow. The music is hyper-emotional and a very love song-esque.

Notice that I'm not saying women don't have a part in the Church. Women have a vital part and the total removal of Christianity's feminine elements would be equally fatal. However, that's not the problem our culture faces. We guys have failed to do our part. Most men in the Church are either chauvinists who abuse their power or cowards who avoid it.

Thankfully, we are beginning to see an increased awareness of the this issue. Many of the young up-and-coming preachers, such as Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler, have made this a signature of their respective churches. The New Reformed movement has also made Complementarianism a doctrinal staple. It's no longer just those crazy Quiverfullist and family-integrated churches that are aware of the problem. Many of the more mainstream churches are also waking up to it.

However, this will ultimately need to happen on an individual level. We guys need to start taking responsibility and initiative. Servant leadership needs to be prized virtue among young men again.We need a return to courageous manhood in which guys aren't afraid to take a few hits for a just cause. We need to start leading through humility and not self-centered dominance. I believe that the extent to which we respond to this "man crisis" will determine the Church's effectiveness in the upcoming generation.

Election in Perspective

My overall emotion concerning Tuesday's mid-term elections is enthusiasm. Granted, things didn't go just as I would have wanted them. I'm disappointed that Brenna Findley will not be our next attorney general and that we have to put up with Congressman Boswell for another two years.

However, by and large, I'm pleased with the election's outcome. Personally knowing some of the candidates has added a whole new dimension to this year's election. I'm very excited that young Josh Cockroft won his state house race in Oklahoma.

I'm also very glad that Kim Pearson won her race. I remember running into Mrs. Pearson shortly after she had announced her candidacy. Though she did express a great deal of enthusiasm, she also seemed reluctant to show too much optimism. I remember her commenting that at least she would make her opponent spend some of that Union money. Now she's going to the Iowa House!

And I couldn't be more thrilled for Kent Sorenson. His opponent played dirty and took some really low shots. But he came out the victor. I honestly can't help but think that he's invincible now. There's really no mud left to sling at him. They're already unleashed every piece of ammunition they had and it still couldn't bring him down.

I believe that this election, particularly the race of Iowa governor, illustrates a very interesting point. The day after the election I was riding around with one of my co-workers. Now, you have to understand that my co-worker is an unsaved, die-hard Democrat that practically worships the ground President Obama steps on (that really isn't much of an exaggeration.) However, when it was announced over the radio that Terry Branstad had soundly beaten Governor Chet Culver, he pumped his fist and said, "Good. That's what he gets."

Upon further questioning, I discovered that my co-worker, like a lot of people, was mad at Culver. Very mad. In fact, I can't help but wonder if the Republicans could have won that race even if they had nominated Joe Blow from Anywhere City.

However, that wasn't what I found so interesting. What I found interesting was that my co-worker wasn't mad at Governor Culver because of his decisions, but because of his indecision. He felt like his governor never took a stand or was wiling to make the really hard calls. To me, that was just a great remember of the need for leaders to take a stand and be decisive. No decision at all is almost worse than a bad one. I believe that the success of this new movement which was established this year will depend on their ability to not fall into the trap of limp-wristed indecision.

The issue on the Iowa ballot which probably carried the most long term weight was the judicial retention vote. I was very pleased to see that vote go in our favor. Iowa sent a very strong message that they will not stand for judicial tyranny or the obstruction of marriage. We the people did our job of keeping wickedness at bay. We should be excited about the way the vote turned out.

However, it is also important to remember that this is not the answer. Getting righteous people into office and keeping our laws pure of wickedness is very, very important. But at the same time we mustn't put too much stock in politics. Politicians, even the best among them, will fail. The real answer is a change of heart in our people. Real change will come only after we've seen a spiritual awakening in this land. While I'm very glad to see that the political sphere may be turning back in our favor (at least for the time being), I believe it is important that the ambassadors of Christ keep our eye on the ball and not become enchanted by the whimsical movements of this age.

The Need for Young Male Leaders

Okay, I have a confession to make. I'm not the biggest Mark Driscoll fan. Don't get me wrong. I love him as brother in Christ. He's a tremendous preacher. I agree with about 90% of his theology (which is actually pretty good for me). No one can deny that he knows how to reach the very anti-Christian culture of Seattle, Washington. Likewise, I have no doubt that God has used him in great ways and will continue to do so.

However, there are a few cases in which I wish he'd be a little less crude and I disagree with some elements of his philosophy of ministry. That said, he's very much a modern John the Baptist. Blunt, direct, rugged and real. He certainly drives a point home in this video.

While I might not have worded it quite like that, I definitely agree with what Pastor Mark is saying. Though, while Driscoll puts most the blame on the Church, I think that we young men are also the blame. The young men in our churches have failed to step up to the plate. In most churches, young men are more rebel than leader.

We as men have the duty and God-given responsibility to be leaders. We were designed, according to our Father's perfect plan, to take the initiative. Women are designed to respond to our initiative. But, with us guys failing in our responsibilities, women have forced to step in any many areas that are designed for men.

If the Body of Christ is going to prosper, we need men to be leaders. They need to be heads of their families, their businesses, their communities and their churches. And we, as the succeeding generation, need to begin right where we are.

We must never forget that we, whether we like it or not, are the leaders of the future. We will either lead with our action and inaction. So, the question is not whether or not we will be leaders, but what kind of leaders we will be.

It is vital that we have a vision for the future. Regardless of what are vocation may be - be it pastor, missionary, elected official, movie directer, businessman or janitor (I'm sorry, it's custodian) - we need to have an idea of how to best live our life for the glory of God.

So, my challenge to my fellow guys is to simply be men. Take the initiative. Make a stand. Learn how to lead. Serve others. Have a God-centered vision. Live in light of eternity. Lead by example. This is key to the success of the Church.