The Problem with DINK's

One of my favorite theologians to listen to and learn from is D.A. Carson. He has such a keen wit, but he is also a faithful preacher of the Word; He loves the gospel. The other day, I was listening to him while falling asleep late at night (it wasn't his talk that put me to sleep!), and I came across this great comment on men and women in the 20 and 30's who shun responsibility in dating and marriage.
In the climax, he asserts that the root issue is narcissism, thinking of yourselves above anything else. It's quite the powerful talk.

Audio found in sermon, Waiting in the Meantime, at Wheaton College Church.

The following is the transcript of a part of his message:

Many studies have been done in the last decade or two, for example, about how the new, younger generation coming along—the under 30’s or 35’s—are remarkably slow to grow up. Many are DINK’s—Double Income No Kids. [They are] Very slow to settle to anything, very slow to take serious decisions, very slow to actually ask somebody to marry them, very slow to make long-term commitments, very slow to serve. [They are] always looking over their shoulder because something better could come along; someone better could come along! They are just very slow to take responsibility.

It’s narcissistic. It’s immature. Where will the Church emphasize growing up, and becoming adults, and pulling your own weight? Be counterculture! This isn’t right!

This short clip reminds me of the following verses from the Apostle Paul:

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also the interests of others. (Philippians 2:3-4, ESV)

Are Complementarians Hierarchalists?

Note: This post originally was penned at my other blog, www.gmtf.blogspot.com.
>

All words and terms contain preconceived notions, some more loaded than others. The terms "patriarchy" and "hierarchy" consistently draw a sort of "knee-jerk" reaction from egalatarians and some complementarians alike, assuming that authority necessarily leads to male abuse. Equal authority and mutual submission, some contend, is the best defense against the slippery slope of abusive power. Undoubtedly, complementarians must be the first to denounce abusive male leadership as the sin that it is, but, at the end of the day, we must be constrained to define our terms as the Bible would rather than by our modern culture.

So, we must ask ourselves, "Is patriarchy inherently sinful?" More pointedly, "Is hierarchy unbiblical and simply a term that has been hijacked by power hungry males?" Distinguished Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke, in his colossal work An Old Testament Theology, disagrees. Male authority is grounded in the nature of the Godhead. He explains:



Hierarchy in government is not the result of the Fall. It exists eternally in the Godhead itself, wherein the Son is always voluntarily subservient to the Father's will and the Spirit to both. In the mystery of the Godhead, in which the three persons are one and equal, the Son obeys the Father, and the Spirit obeys both. Paradoxically Jesus says both "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Jesus veils his own glory to follow the path of humble obedience (Phil. 2:6-11). The idea that hierarchy is an evil than can be transcended is a failed Marxist notion, not biblical teaching. (243)

Authority is not the result of the Fall, it has existed eternally in the Godhead, with the Son submitting to the Father before the beginning of time (Acts 2:24). Hierarchy cannot therefore be inherently wicked, at least not in all senses. But is it permissible in human relations? The answer is "yes." Not only is it permissible, but it is necessary for mature godliness to form, for, as Waltke hints at in his last sentence, hierarchy is the biblical teaching because human interactions are a reflection of the relations of the Godhead. The Apostle Paul writes, "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3, ESV)

Despite male authority being biblical, what then are we to do with terms like "patriarchy" and "hierarchy?" Should we refuse these labels and adopt phrases like "mutual submission?" To this, we must also answer "no." If we do reject the descriptions of "patriarchy" and "hierarchy," we will lose the gender debate, for we implicit concede that male authority is unbiblical and always slides down the slippery slope of spousal abuse. Instead, complementarians should seek to sanctify these terms, trumpeting the tension that authority is biblical but need not be demeaning and abusive. And is must be trumpeted, for it is rooted in the Godhead itself.



Russell Moore, in his insightful article After Patriarchy, What? Why the Egalatarians are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate, gives the following helpful thoughts:

Ironically, a more patriarchal complementarianism will resonate among a generation seeking stability in a family-fractured Western culture in ways that soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism never can. And it also will address the needs of hurting women and children far better, because it is rooted in the primary biblical means for protecting women and children: calling men to responsibility. Soft Patriarchs is, in one sense, a reaffirmation of what gender traditionalists have known all along—male headship is not about male privilege. Patriarchy is good for women, good for children, and good for families. But it should also remind us that the question for us is not whether we will have patriarchy, but what kind.

23 going on 13? A Call to Mature Manhood

Note: This is an article I recently penned for the Northwestern College school paper, The Column.

“Oh, come on! Be a man!” Undoubtedly you have heard this phrase. More often than not it is used by a group of rather snobbish delinquents daring a naïve friend to do something quite stupid. Point is, if he does this daring physical feat, he is a man. If he does not, he has come up short in attaining desired masculinity.

I fear that for many young, male Christians, their conception of manhood is similarly blind. The assumption is that true manhood in Christianity is nothing more than being a wildman who embraces adventure but cringes at responsibility. A man who welcomes mystery with open arms but buckles at the thought of leadership. A man who values being a “lone ranger” but sneers at the call to be a spiritual provider for others.

Simply put, the growing pattern for young men is to imitate the passivity that is so commonplace among men in our culture. For some, it is called adultolescence—a phenomenon where men never grow up and simply become 30 and 40-year-old boys.

Men throughout the ages have struggled with passivity, but how did this recent phenomenon come about? Many answers could be given, but the following strikes at the core of the issue: We as a Church have failed to speak courageously and clearly from the Word of God on what the calling of a man is.
Growing up, I never was exhorted to become a man. I frankly did not know what defined a man. As far as I was concerned, I wanted my life to echo the old Toys-R-Us jingle: “I don’t wanna grow up; I’m a Toys-R-Us kid.” If someone were to ask me what the difference should be between a mature man and a mature woman, I would have responded with eerie silence.

As I grew older, I came to appreciate that the call for manhood found in the Bible was unmistakably clear. Being a man is taking responsibility rather than shirking one’s tasks. It is realizing that a man is called to be a spiritual provider in appropriate ways to men and women (1 Tim 3:4-5; Eph 6:4). It is acknowledging that husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the Church (Eph 5:22-33). It is also the courage to lead in a likewise manner. It is affirming that fathers are to provide physically for their families, and if they do not, they are worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim 5:8). Above all, it is the calling to grow in godliness and be zealous for God’s glory (1 Tim 4:7).

What is a man? It is certainly not a passive man, one who simply does not “wanna grow up” and spends all of his free time on the internet or Halo. It is not a bullying, tyrannical leader. Much less is it a Christianized wildman, one who loves the thrills of the outdoors and extreme sports but has no capacity to shepherd others. It is a humble, firm leader. It is a providing, protecting, loving, nurturing, God-fearing, mature man.

This is the biblical calling. Men, how shall we respond?