This post is part of a larger series of posts by Dwayne Forehand and Mark Tubbs on the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (RBMW). The entire book is available online for free here, or buy it on Amazon.
Before reading this post, I would encourage you to read Dwayne’s post on the same chapter. And of course, I would encourage you to read the chapter itself.
This is the second time in my life that I have read through the material in the first chapter, “A Vision of Biblical Complimentarity.” The first time I encountered it was in the form of Piper’s book What’s the Difference?, which is adapted from the first chapter of RBMW. The first time I read this book/chapter I was a complementarian (from now on, “comp”), as I remain today. But at that time I was a comp of the more traditionalist variety, as I hadn’t yet encountered biblical teaching on gender roles. Despite the underlining, circles, and check marks in my book from the first reading, I don't really recall my reaction to the chapter/book overall. What I do recall clearly, however, is my concern with the two lists in the second half of the chapter. More on that later in this post.
Piper kicks off the first chapter with a description of his family life growing up. Since his father was a traveling evangelist, his mother fulfilled both masculine and feminine roles when his father was on the road. When his father was home, however, he fulfilled the masculine roles – and his mother looked forward to this. Obviously some of those roles were culturally informed, a point that Piper doesn't mention. As so often in this series, we will have to wait for future chapters in order to flesh out the question of how biblical gender roles interact with contemporary culture. We don’t want to get too far ahead of ourselves, thereby misrepresenting the book. This also goes for Piper’s assertion that “Differentiated roles were corrupted, not created, by the fall. They were created by God.” We will put off this discussion until Ray Ortlund, Jr., addresses it in the third chapter.
The first chapter is singularly dedicated to defining “Biblical Manhood” and “Biblical Womanhood” according to the Bible. I found myself wondering what Piper meant by “definition” in this case, which led me to the varied definitions of “definition” at Wikipedia. I'll let you do your own digging at that site. This research fortunately pre-empted me from becoming frustrated with the lack of exegetical work in the chapter.
Those who know Piper know that he holds fast to the Reformational understanding of Sola Scriptura. But in this chapter he says, “Commending Biblical truth involves more than saying, ‘Do it because the Bible says so.’ ” Does he mean that Scripture is not enough, even insufficient? Far from it. He is making the point, I believe, that while two Christians can agree on theology or practice because “the Bible says so,” biblical manhood and womanhood are premised on the joy that we should derive from obedience to God. “This sort of commendation may result in a kind of obedience that is so begrudging and so empty of delight and hearty affirmation that the Lord is not pleased with it at all.” Piper’s Christian Hedonism comes through loud and clear, but it is nothing more than the biblical teaching that all our Christian duties should ultimately be delightful for us, extended here to manhood and womanhood specifically.
For the most part I found Piper’s definition of masculinity to be excellent, albeit in need of nuance, which obviously ensues in the following chapters. I did find one paragraph on feminine musculature to be arguably unnecessary and out of place – my wife has cyclist’s calves that she’s never had to work out to retain, while I walk on chicken legs attached to chunky thighs – and am reserving judgment on his point that when husband and wife are present, the husband should always carry out discipline of the children.
A major potential difference I might have with Piper arises when he begins to prescribe certain occupations for women according to “the ways appropriate to woman’s differing relationships.” He lists many leadership occupations in which men could be (and definitely are) placed in a subordinate role when women occupy those roles, from Prime Minister or President, all the way down to bookstore manager or bus driver. “One or all of these roles might stretch appropriate expressions of femininity to the breaking point.” A more extensive list occurs at the end of the book, articulated in a more positive tone: “Opportunities for Ministry.” I’m not sure if Piper expects any of these ministries to be remunerative, but I would see many of them as paid occupations as well as volunteer ministries. I question the helpfulness of such lists for at least a couple of reasons. One main reason would be that many readers would take this list as prescriptive. Another would be that such a list is obviously culturally conditioned, and not definitively biblical.
In this post I have obviously focused on areas of disagreement, but on the whole I am profoundly and extensively in agreement with Piper. I look forward to the coming chapters and leave you with Piper’s call to men:
Where are the men with a moral vision for their families, a zeal for the house of the Lord, a magnificent commitment to the advancement of the kingdom, an articulate dream for the mission of the Church and a tenderhearted tenacity to make it real?
In proofreading this post for me, Dwayne asked a very helpful question: what part of me resonates so much with this vision? As I have sat for hours (hours, Dwayne!) pondering this question, my best answer would be that this vision encompasses the micro and the macro of the Christian life. Micro in the sense of my individual family and my local church, macro in the sense of the advancement of the kingdom and the mission of the Church. It puts the onus squarely on me, in the power of the risen Christ, to be tenacious in pursuing these holy ideals in all these arenas. That’s a high call, a heavy call, and a heartrending call.
Your task: Please interact with us over on Dwayne’s blog. More specifically, I would appreciate interaction because the conversation will directly impact the review of What’s the Difference? that I will be writing for posting next week. Thank you.
