Do you want to read this site in other languages?

Sunday, July 24, 2016

A Complementarian "Samurai" Man Emerged! : Christian Headcovering And The Recovery Of Biblical Masculinity And Femininity



 
Dear brothers and sisters, today, I'd like to share my joy with you regarding the Christian Head Covering in 1 Corinthians 11. A few weeks ago, a Japanese brother wrote to my blog, saying that by reading the HCM articles, he was convicted that the Christian Headcovering is applicable for today (though he was not sure, at that time, that this command should be applied to ALL Christian women or not.)

Then, this evening, this same brother wrote to me and said as follows: I made a small leaflet regarding my personal conviction of the woman's headcovering practice and distributed it to my wife and several other sisters in the church today.

Wow! Isn't he brave? Isn't he like a 21st century "samurai"? Yeah, I think he is! Not only this brother, but I've also witnessed other courageous and valiant complementarian brothers who stand firm on the Bible doctrine.

And I strongly believe that there must be many other potential "samurai" brothers in the churches across the globe whom the world is waiting for their emergence! We need more brothers like him who dare to testify the Bible truth gently and fearlessly.

As regards to the recent phenomenon called the “feminization of the church", the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood said as follows;

Walk into the average evangelical church in America, and you will likely sing lyrics such as “I want my life to be a love song for you, Jesus” and “I want to fall in love with you.”

Then you might hear a sermon encouraging Christians to be “intimate” with Jesus and attend a “care group” where everyone is expected to share their feelings.

Such tactics might appeal to women, but they are at least partially unbiblical and push men away from Christianity, according to Randy Stinson, executive director of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and assistant professor of gender and family studies at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS).

Where are the men in our churches today?” Stinson said in a lecture sponsored by the SBTS theology school council March 29. “We have a crisis going on in the local church. Number one, men aren’t coming. And number two, when they are coming, they’ve [sic] marginalized, they’re being passive, they’re being pushed to the side.”

I believe that the recovery of the practice of the headcovering will reinforce and further the Biblical masculinity and femininity. And it must be one of the strongest testimonies of the 21st century Christian churches to the gender-confused world that God exists and that there is a creation order of men and women which reflects His infinite wisdom and beauty!  

26 comments:

  1. Today I saw my friend at church. She was visiting from another province. It's the province where I consider to move. My friend wears headcovering during worship. Her parents are Chinese. She was born in Canada.
    I just thought may be the Lord is calling me to another place bease of the church. That place has more opportunities to minister, outreach, more resources.
    If the Lord provides the job, I will go.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Irina,
    Yes, my dear, you are in our prayers. Moreover, you are under His constant care:) If the Lord calls you to another place, then please go! "For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and He pondereth all his goings." Prov.5:21
    with love, Kinuko

    ReplyDelete
  3. God may allow something wonderful happen in our country church,I think. Praise Him!

    Now I know that sincere christians are in trials,not only in Japan.And many of them are suffering in their churches.
    Knowing Him more deeply,knowing forgotten biblical doctorine.May His will be done more in our churches and among us.Thank you for sharing this wonderful news on this blog!

    Sanae

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you so much for your comment, Sanae. Yes, I also believe that He is doing something wonderful in the hearts of believers in Japan and that He will rise up new generations who will defend Bible truth regarding the gender issues, courageously and faithfully. We hope that this news will delight our readers' hearts, too!! Love, Kinuko

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is such an answer to prayer, Kinuko! I'm so excited to see what the Lord has in store for that church! He is brave, and it sounds like the Holy Spirit is working in their hearts :-) Praise the Lord! We will continue in prayer. -Ruthie

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Ruthie, thank you so much for your warm comment and your prayers! Yes, he is brave indeed. (And I will deliver your message to him for his encouragement.) Let us expect to see what He is going to do in his church! with love, Kinuko

    ReplyDelete
  7. I really don't like the 'feminization' of the church argument - it begins by associating feminine with something negative or bad. Why not just say "x kind of music doesn't appeal"? If "feminine" is something bad, then by default, that's make's 'masculine' something really good, right? So when people ask: "How was your day?" You'd answer "Feminized." For "bad" and "Masculine!" if it great, right? Does that make feminine women pretty feminine and masculine men really masculine? (meaning good/bad?) We should do our best to choose adjectives that really say what we mean. If one thinks the worship is weak - then just say 'weak' and not 'femininized.'
    I really don't think they understand how different the original Christian church was in it's culture. Historians criticized "the way" for being a religion of "slaves, women, and children" - the three least powerful classes of humanity - you couldn't get a connection to a powerful patron or ally yourself with fellow wealthy and powerful men because most wouldn't be caught dead with a whisper of an association with such a weak, useless faith system. Then the historians noted that "there were these hags called widows" that were very active in the Christian community. Whereas there was usually a good warrior cult, such as the worship of Mithras - Christianity's central figure was a man who never killed, never taught about battle and war, and who died. It was as 'feminized' as a religion could be - short of being one of the myriad cults run entirely by women - such as Artemis (which plagued the Ephesian Church with false teaching, apparently.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > it begins by associating feminine with something negative or bad.

      This is not true. It just says that it is not well-balanced, not "bad" as you say. Think of this, if the earth was populated only with women, it's feminized and it's not well-balanced, right? The author's intention is to say feminization is not well-balanced, not to say it's bad in an absolute sense. So your argument is not really correct. It's not well-balanced, either. You distorted her intention.

      Delete
  8. Christianity isn't very well-balanced at all, now is it? Every church I've been to in recent years all insist that leadership positions are male-only. So women may only exist in follower-ship positions. That's a complement, but entirely the wrong kind. The complement of 'male' is 'female' right, so why is there no 'female' leadership to complement what 'male' leadership lacks? Why is it that all men are leaders and all women are followers? Aren't we all to follow Jesus alone?
    I've seen countless more articles describing the feminization of the church as the worst thing to happen in Christianity - so it still seems that "feminization is bad" even if you're not using it that way, most other people seem to.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lovely! And you feature a Catholic style covering. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  10. >why is there no 'female' leadership to complement what 'male' leadership lacks?

    This is a wrong question. God is sovereign, and He decided the order of His creation. We, who are His creation, are to simply accept and obey what He has ordained. That's what the Bible teaches. Go to Romans9, and you'll find your question is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  11. God doesn't seem to care about 'order' - frequently choosing a younger brother over the first-born, Raising up Deborah as a judge rather than even the worst man, Jesus said 'the first will be last'; Men were first and men will be last. Women were last and women will be first. If God is as sovereign as you say, then he's not bound by or bound to order.

    ReplyDelete
  12. >God doesn't seem to care about 'order'

    Yes, He still does care about the ”order” of creation in terms of a relationship of man and woman called marriage. Look at Eph.5:24~: the Church will never be the head of Christ, so as wife to husband. This is the Church that we have been talking about. Brothers, as you cited above, are both men. So your argument is out of “order” in terms of the relationship between man and woman!!! (Deborah seemed to be an exception, unlikely a common pattern that the most prophets were men. )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Considering Moses is said to have written Genesis; it would have taken place a few hundred years, possibly a thousand years after the original events of creation. Between Creation and Moses - we see multiple wives and concubinage. By the time Moses actually wrote down Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, it was normal for men to have more than one wife - take a look at Deuteronomy 21:15 " If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other ...", Deuteronomy tells the Israelites that their king must take many wives; but doesn't specify that he can only have one. David had about a half dozen wives and concubines; Solomon had many - hundreds of them. Maybe they misunderstood Moses. Jerub-Baal, a judge, had seventy sons by his many wives - perhaps he misunderstood God. Samuel's father had two wives - if he had just one, Samuel might not have been born. Odd - these (and a great many others) didn't seem to recognize that Moses taught in Genesis 2 they can only have one wife. They didn't see any order between men and women. God did chose 'sisters' over 'brothers' Deborah and Huldah (also a prophetess) in the Old Testament, Anna, Phoebe and Junia in the New Testament. Take a pink highlighter to the name of every woman who is mentioned in the New Testament and it might surprise you that a great many are listed. You just might not know that their name is a woman's name and assume they're a man. (Persis, Apphia, Nympha.) God didn't seem to care an iota about order in the Old Testament, and since He doesn't change, it doesn't seem like he cares all that much for it in the New Testament or even now.

      Delete
    2. >God did chose 'sisters' over 'brothers' Deborah and Huldah (also a prophetess) in the Old Testament, Anna, Phoebe and Junia in the New Testament.

      The Bible says Anna was a prophetess. I know that. But she is nowhere described to lead the whole nation, namely the Bible never says she (and also two other women) lorded it over men. Phoebe was not an elder but a deacon, which originally means a servant in GK. Junia is said she was most likely to be a wife of Andronicus, not a female Apostle.

      Visit this site below and learn what we believe about the biblical creation order:

      Paul’s Concept of Teaching and 1 Timothy 2:12
      https://bible.org/article/paul%e2%80%99s-concept-teaching-and-1-timothy-212#_ftn1

      Delete
  13. How then do you explain the women leaders in early church history and the post-Bible era ... Grapte, Marcella, the order of the Widows, and the two deaconesses that Pliny the Younger had tortured? Pliny the Younger was born in 60 and died in 110 - so the deaconesses were recognized even in the era of the Bible. The early church developed an ordination service for deaconesses that included the laying on of hands and this prayer: "O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of man and of woman, who didst replenish with the Spirit Miriam and Deborah, and Anna, and Hulda; who didst not disdain that thy only begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, didst ordain women to be keepers of thy Holy Gates, do thou now also look down upon this thy servant, who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her thy Holy Spirit, and cleanse her from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her to thy glory, and the praise of thy Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to thee and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen."
    By sticking to a Biblical time-frame, you're sticking to the years 0-100 a.d.; you've stuck God to a point and place in time beyond which He cannot go, nor can his church grow. It never continues the story or lets events unfold after that - tells you who became the leaders and what the teachers said after revelation. How Lent became a tradition, how a backwards cult became the primary religion of a mighty empire and the role that men and women played in all that time an beyond. Looks like even they missed the point of creation order.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If those records say something contradicts what the Bible teaches, I don't believe it. That's it. I am a fundamentalist.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Is fundamentalism in the Bible? Does it not contradict that which Jesus taught?

    ReplyDelete
  16. >Does it not contradict that which Jesus taught?

    I really don't understand what you mean. In case you are one of "liberal quasi-Christian theologians", visit this site:
    http://www.gotquestions.org/liberal-Christian-theology.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jesus saved his harshest criticism not for sinning sinners, but for the teachers of the Law. He called them out for twisting Scriptures, not doing as they preached, neglecting the spirit of the Law in an attempt to obey the letter of the law so very completely.
    It's not right doctrine or right knowledge that saves us - that puts us in danger of gnostic-thinking; that we can "know" the secret or correct knowledge, say the secret words or correct to be saved. Only for us it must be the sinner prayer in order to achieve true salvation.
    Jesus alone saves us, not because of what we believe about the Bible. He would save us even if our sum knowledge of Scriptures originates from children's songs. "Faith comes by hearing", if I'm not mistaken.
    Jesus seemed to teach that the Pharisee's 'fundamentalism' was missing the forest for the trees. How is it wise to ignore the lessons of history because they aren't in the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  18. >He called them out for twisting Scriptures

    It’s OK for you to criticize my belief. It means nothing. But let me say this. As far as I know, it is egalitarians who are twisting Scriptures, not us, complementarians. Go to this site and read the last two paragraphs.

    http://www.gotquestions.org/complementarianism-vs-egalitarianism.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. gotquestions itself seems to be a good example of what I'm seeing even on the other side - it's bias leans toward American Evangelicalism of the Southern Baptist flavor - it doesn't stop to consider the Methodist or Presbyterian or Lutheran perspective on the questions it answers. Neither side is immune, really. It's author seems to know who is a Christian and who isn't, and what true Christians truly believe.
    As a single believer, complementarianism is not applicable to me or the rest of the 51% of the world that is not married at this point and time. Complementarianism doesn't provide us with useful instruction for our day to day life, thankfully Paul wroite in 1 Corinthians 7 some advice on the subject. Complementarianism seems to ignore singles in Christianity for the sake of pushing the idol of marriage and family as the biblical ideal. Ask the singles in your church how they feel how complementarianism has fulfilled them and see what they say.

    ReplyDelete
  20. > Complementarianism seems to ignore singles in Christianity for the sake of pushing the idol of marriage and family as the biblical ideal.

    This is simply not true at all. I know there are some different beliefs even among complementarians. But the author of this blog does not say things like this, neither do I. In that, you are completely wrong. Besides that, we never push our beliefs to other members of our churches. We let them have room to choose how and what they believe.

    There’s one more thing I want to say at this point. I suspect you only believe in the Bible partially. The other half of your belief is constituted of your own human reason, right? If so, two of us will never come to an agreement over our theology. So you have come to a wrong place in the first place. You can’t convince us no matter how smart you are. We can’t do that to you, either. We choose to believe what we want to believe. Therefore... I encourage you to leave here unless you want to change your mind and believe what we believe. Look how patient the author of this blog has been with us! If you want to insist on your belief further, do it in your own place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many sermons have you heard preaching the virtues of singleness? Now how many have you heard on marriage? I've never heard a single sermon preached about God-honoring singleness in any of my complementarian churches. What's more, I only hear mention of singleness as if to say: "God says singleness is good, but it's better to marry so that you don't burn with passion." or "Listen up you singles, you're going to be married one day and that will be the test on what you learned here." I find that, within Christianity, it's almost an unquestionable assumption that all men and women will marry, husbands will lead and their wives will follow.
      I remember growing up in a church where people with divergent theology were united by their faith in God, their status as brothers and sisters was more important than whether or not they were Calvinists or Arminians. They worshipped side-by-side for decades. But in recent years, a new spirit has taken hold in Calvinism with an attitude of "my way or the high-way" it has destroyed unity of spirit and replace it with unity of thought. My denomination has lost hundreds of thousands of people every year - many are wounded by 'friendly fire'. I know that neither one of us has the monopoly on faith, nor has either one of us cornered the market on belief. I'm here to remind you that it's not a sin to not be on the same exact page theologically; I'm a hold-over from the church where people with different beliefs could worship together. That's what I appreciate about Kinuko's heart and spirit - graciously letting me speak when others are more apt to block and silence those who have points of views that are not in agreement with their own. It takes a big person to hear someone out especially when they aren't theological clones of each other. It's easy to love people who believe as you do, who think as you do, who understand the same words as the way you do - but it's not so easy to love brothers and sisters whose experiences differ - who hail from other denominations, who don't look at things in the same way. I saw that with Jesus' disciples - constantly bickering among themselves and yet Jesus loved them all. Do you think he would have said: "If you don't all get on the same page on this, you can just leave!"?

      Delete
  21. I think, with you or without you, most of us hear enough of what we don't want to hear. To me, what you're doing here is yelling out loud right next to our ears. I don't think it's love in Christ or righteousness of God, but you are nothing more than a peddler. I've never seen someone who is truly godly doing such a thing like you do.

    ReplyDelete
  22. In Matthew 19:16~22, Jesus talked to a rich young man who looked godly. But it turned out that he didn’t really want to follow Jesus when he left grieving and distressed. What happened after that? Did Jesus follow the young man and go into his house saying the same words over and over again? No! He let the young man walk away.

    Put another, He respects our choice. He never pushes His teaching to us. Instead, He leaves it in our hands. But look what you’re doing here. Is it not opposite of what Jesus did and does?

    ReplyDelete