Piper makes an nice explanation why women going to war is not a good thing - it undermines and goes against the very God-designed idea of manhood. Besides the scriptural bans on women with teaching / governing authority, I think this is a great second-level argument we can share with "the common person" and grab onto for why elders should be men. What do you think?
Here's Piper's comments:
"The exhortation is a good one that we not minimize the sacrifice of the American women who have died in combat, even if we think their presence on the front lines is a powerful commentary on the cowardice of our male military and political leaders. It is not a commentary on the cowardice of women. I do not commend women in combat. But I commend the sacrifices of love in a cause of truth and justice.
My whole position assumes that competencies and character are not the "first" criteria for who fights the enemy. Women may be more courageous than men in any given situation. They may have nobler vision. They may be smarter. That is not the issue. What God has written on our hearts and designed for our survival and our joy is the issue. Manhood puts itself forward between the women and the enemy. That is part of what manhood means. That is who we are by God’s design. The courage of women will show itself in a hundred ways. But when a man is around, he will not exploit that courage to fight the battle where he belongs."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
to be honest...i'm not real sure where i stand on this issue. i totally agree with the overall fact (generally speaking) that men have abandoned every front line of "defense" on the western landscape - education, religion and statehood. we have lost ground completely in the area of education...more ground is being lost in religious leadership (although i read in a recent study on socialogical trends in america that churches who ordain women in religious leadership are NOT growing numerically compared to churches who do not...those churches are growing more rapidly). now we are on the verge of america's first female president.
how do you view deborah in the book of judges? is she a religious leader, political leader or both? how does her inclusion inform our consideration for women in leadership within the church as well as without?
i don't believe we need to affirm manhood at the expense of "discrediting" a woman's contribution to the overall good - in education, religion and politics. where do we encourage women to pursue studies in christian thought and to write subsequent materials on the subject? do we encourage and affirm women who work out of the home? because they WANT to...or only in cases where they HAVE to?was not mary the first preacher of the NT, proclaiming the message that Christ is risen?
to be clear...i do stand firm on the belief of a male-led eldership. 1 Tim is crystal on that point. i think our modern church structure of "a pastor for every area in the church" is a complete abuse of secular business structures that rob the church (the body) of being what Luther adequately deamed "the priesthood of ALL believers".
so basically it all comes down to discipleship and jon van horn is going to lead in that area of the new church plant!
Post a Comment