Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!



Gender roles

Striving to be godly men

A men's conference that had to turn hundreds away can now be watched online

*****

I don’t think I can quite grasp the measure of tension that must have seized the hearts of those three young men on the morning of November 2. Months before they had together hatched the concept of a Men’s Conference pitched to encourage men to provide support to one another in the abundant strife of this mortal life. They’d cobbled together a web presence to push out the concept, had highlighted the featured speakers and invited expressions of intent to join the effort.

Slowly momentum for the event had grown. A few dozen said they’d come…, then a hundred, two hundred…, five hundred – and ultimately more than 750 men from across Ontario (and beyond!) raised a finger to commit to coming to Smithville to attend the 2024 Strive Conference! But the venue could seat only 550; the three spearheading the initiative had to tell more than 200 men that they were placed on a waiting list.

Why would three family men expend the effort to organize a Men’s Conference? Why seek to capture its purpose under the term Strive? And why would so many men give up their normal Saturday routines to seek encouragement to strive together? What was this huge interest saying?

This was autumn 2024. For months and years already Christian straight men had been told to sit down and shut up; it was time for women to give leadership, for people of alternate sexual orientation to shine, for minorities of all sorts to take the reins.

How were the sidelined meant to respond to that signal? The three men who birthed this Strive Conference saw the need to encourage men to push back against this effort to emasculate Christian men. As the autumn of 2024 unfolded, awareness grew across our civilization that men needed to dare to be men. Instead of sitting down placidly and passively, men should boldly strive to be the men God created us to be. More than 750 men from some 14 denominations understood the need and sought encouragement in the battle.

But planning a conference is one thing. Making sure it runs smoothly is another, especially when attendance demonstrates the Strive concept hit a nerve. Would the plans deliver?? I dare to say that Scott, Dan & Kevin had to be men to handle the nervous tension that invariably dominated their collective persona that morning.

Strive

The term “strive” appears in numerous passages of Scripture in the context of encouraging Christians in the battles of faith. The passage that featured in this Strive Conference was Phil 1:27f, where the apostle Paul instructed his readers:

“Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents.”

The concept of Christian men battling alongside each other in the face of serious opposition lies at the heart of God’s will for His people as we live in our present world. Such striving needs encouragement, equipping, arming.

Three speakers had been lined up to open the Word of God for us listeners eager to understand better how we can best strive side by side to be the men God wants us to be.

Speakers

Dr Will denHollander, professor of New Testament at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, started us off with an address under the promising title: “Be Complete: the Word of God for the Man of God” (asking our attention for 2 Tim 3:16f). On the basis of that Scripture, he drew out that the “man of God” has all the resources he needs to “be complete, equipped for every good work” – for the Lord God has given us a God-breathing Bible that prepares us to handle all the hard questions of our day.

The obstacle we face is not a lack of resources to handle the battles of life but is rather that we too often choose to give some other activity greater priority over reading and wrestling with God’s divine Word in the face of today’s challenges. So we end up floundering in the dark in the midst of those challenges, unable to function as the men of God we otherwise can be. The speaker’s public admission to his own personal struggles added considerable credence to his encouragement to us to be men of the Word – both personally and side-by-side.

Dr. Ian Wildeboer, pastor at Mercy Christian Church in Hamilton, followed with an address that could not help but hold the attention of today’s men: "Men in covenant with God: Guarding our hearts and those we love from Sodom." He ably laid a finger on the fact that Lot chose to live in Sodom and made his decision on the basis of present-day comforts. The potential price to his family did not seem to play a role in making the decision or in sticking with it.

We cannot get out of our world, but we can certainly take responsibility for how living in our world impacts our families. Here was a challenge to us to have our eyes wide open to the abundant attacks of our families and how we men can best strive side by side to protect those whom God has entrusted to our care so that in turn they flourish in God’s service.

After a hearty lunch of pulled pork on a bun capably served by a number of ladies from the John Calvin Christian School in Smithville (and the bonus of lots of valuable heart-to-heart conversations among the attendees), a third talk followed; Rev Al Besuyen, pastor of Zion United Reformed Church in Sheffield, encouraged us to “Strive for Godliness in our leisure time.”

Speaking from personal experience, he pressed on us that misuse of leisure time can become a trap that takes us to places where we cannot strive side by side as men of God. He urged us to recognize that the time we receive has purpose: it’s not for self and personal preferences but is opportunity to serve the other in service to the Master of all time. In service to others we’re also making ourselves available for another to encourage ourself.

A panel discussion followed the three speeches, under the capable leadership of Rev Rolf denHollander from Living Light Canadian Reformed Church of Grimsby. As he pulled the material of the day together with the assistance of the three speakers, perhaps the most unforgettable moment was when a brother, once a slave to alcohol, expressed the fervent hope that soon he could drink the wine new in the kingdom of God with Christ himself. Till then, total abstinence. Yes, it’s a fight, one in which we need one another. His public testimony was distinctly an inspiration to many.

Singing

Interspersed throughout the day were multiple opportunities for the assembled men to sing the praises of the God in whose service we battle. 550 men on their feet, under the leadership of capable musicians using various instruments – it truly was momentous, stirring, most heartening. And then the accompaniment ceased… and 550 men were on their own, side by side leaning into the privilege of raising voices and hearts to God Most High with eager abandon, each line building on the previous in volume and joy and enthusiasm – as here and there men reached up a hand to dry an eye at the sheer beauty and majesty of together delighting in the God whose servants we may be. To so many of us Ps. 150 will never be sung the same again.

Example

In concluding remarks, a grateful participant made mention of the fact that God’s first words to the man Adam was the instruction to guard and keep the garden – for God knew there was an enemy out there intent on hijacking God’s world. Where Adam failed, Christ Jesus did not. Now the task still to guard God’s world remains. Organizers Dan and Kevin and Scott set us an example in doing precisely that, striving side by side to pull off an excellent conference!

The 550 men then headed out in all directions. I dare say the conference sparked in every participant a renewed determination never to sit down and shut up, but instead to stand tall together in the battle, striving side by side in struggles against pornography, gambling, alcohol misuse, drug abuse, slothfulness and countless other vices seeking to emasculate men of God.

May Strive 2025 be just as successful.

Information on the 2025 Strive Conference will be posted to www.StriveMensConference.com as it is developed. 

Red heart icon with + sign.
Gender roles, Marriage

Men and the Marriage Dance

Maybe I have been looking in all the wrong places, but in my ten years of being a Christian, I seem to have heard an awful lot more on the subject of wives being in subjection to their husbands than I have on the subject of husbands loving their wives. In the interests of redressing the balance, I wish to focus on the other side of the marriage bond. Love before submission One of the first things to notice about Paul’s teaching on marriage is that although he mentions wives before husbands in both the Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 passages, the onus is clearly on the men to act first. Husbands are told to: ...love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her (Eph. 5:25). Elsewhere in Scripture we are explicitly told the order of Christ/church relations: “We love Him because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). So if the husband/wife relationship is to look anything like the Christ/church relationship, it is very much the responsibility of the husband to first ensure he is loving his wife before he starts worrying about whether his wife is submitting to him. Sacrificial headship In Ephesians 5:22-24 we read a passage that many a man loves for all the wrong reasons.  Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Some husbands, while properly recognizing that this passage is about headship, conveniently ignore the fact that it is about sacrificial headship. Their thinking goes something like this: “Christ commands his church, right? And his church is meant to be in subjection, right? That’s what Paul says, isn’t it? So if the marriage relationship is meant to be like the relationship between Christ and his church, then clearly I get to decide everything and you must obediently follow.” There are two big problems with this type of blockhead masculinity. The first is that although Christ commands His church and His church is called upon to submit to Him, He commands her as a sinless, spotless head. Which means that all of his commands are made in love, righteousness, and truth, and that nothing he has commanded to his church is dictatorial, and that nothing he asks his bride to do is necessarily grievous. Sure, the church disobeys and acts like these things are grievous, but that is because the church is stuffed with sinners, not because her Husband is in the wrong. The second big problem with this way of thinking, is that even Christ – though He had every right to just command and expect submission – had to die sacrificially in order to win His bride. His headship is not one of mere headship – I command and you obey – but rather a headship that is born of giving Himself, at great personal cost, for the bride that He loves. Any husband who just commands and expects submission is therefore wronging his wife in expecting her to obey whilst he himself fails to obey the command directed to him. He is failing to understand the import of Paul’s command, which is not to just assume headship, but to assume it in a self-denying and sacrificial way. Four different dances I tend to think that what Paul has in mind is something akin to a dance. Now in any really good male/female dance that I’ve ever seen, the man leads and the woman follows. Yet the man does so in a way which is firm and masculine, rather than authoritarian, and the woman follows in a way that is neither overbearing on the one hand nor a pushover on the other, but rather firm in a feminine way. But let’s just play around with this analogy and see what happens when we add various factors into it. Picture the scene: a husband and wife are about to begin a dance upon a high stage with no barriers surrounding it, set to a Strauss waltz. 1) The modern couple Now into this scene steps the modern couple. The way they do this “marriage dance” looks, shall we say, a little different to what Paul had in mind. Instead of a graceful scene of husband and wife dancing in unison, with the man gently but firmly leading his wife while she gracefully and willingly accompanies him, many modern marriages look like the two spouses just doing their own thing on separate corners of the stage. Maybe he’s making one last attempt over here to perfect his breakdance technique before middle-age sets in, while she’s over there doing her twerking thing. The two of them are utterly independent of each other, and it is no surprise when they split, citing irreconcilable differences. And poor Strauss carries on in the background, treated in much the same way as that beautiful gold ring on the end of the pig’s snout. 2) The feminist dance Then there is the feminist dance. You know, where the powerhouse woman tries to lead the man around and he either willingly submits and the dance ends up looking plain silly, or he resists and they end up pushing each other over the edge. 3) The apathetics Or there is dance of the “apathetics.” This is where the performers are so floppy and without backbone, especially the man, that you wonder whether they are actually trying to dance or to do a distinctly underwhelming impression of two octopi skulking across the sea bed. 4) The cro-magnon But what of the over-bearing, authoritarian, she-ought-to-submit-to-me-because-that’s-what-Paul-says dance couple? What does their dance look like? It looks like a man dragging his wife rather than leading her, and then when he starts veering too far toward the edge of the stage and his wife tries to pull him back from the brink, he gets mad, accuses her of not being submissive, and carries on doing his thing until they both fall over the edge. Such a guy thinks he’s doing what God commands, yet is in far more danger of disobeying Paul than his wife is. The dance done right So what will the kind of dance envisaged by Paul really look like? As with a beautiful waltz to a bit of Strauss, it will look like the man leading his bride gracefully but firmly around the stage, with his wife gladly following his lead. It will look like him making sure he does nothing to grieve her or put either her or the both of them in jeopardy. So he will not only be aware of his steps, but will be aware of her steps too, and of both their steps together. If he happens to wander too near the edge and his wife gently pulls him back, he will not accuse her of being unsubmissive, but rather will accept the reproof and adjust his ways accordingly. In practical terms, there is no thought in this type of dance of a man commanding his wife regardless of her feelings and opinions, and her being expected to just submit to everything he says. Rather the thought is that the kind of man Paul is thinking of will always take his wife’s desires and opinions into account. If there is disagreement about a decision that needs to be taken, yes it is ultimately the man who is called upon to make that decision and the wife who is called upon to submit. But if the man has not first spoken to his wife, sought her opinion, taken it into account, considered whether maybe she is right and he wrong and that perhaps he needs to die to self before making the decision – unless he has gone through those steps – he is not leading his wife in the dance the way Paul says he ought. Conclusion Now, this piece doesn’t address difficulties and problems, such as, “what if a woman is married to a husband who is a blockhead. How far should she go in obeying him?” That’s really not an easy question. Suffice it to say that when Paul teaches headship in Colossians 3, his command for wives to “submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” suggests that this is by no means an open check, and that there are limits to her submission, as when Abigail didn’t just go along with her fool of a husband, Nabal. However, difficult as these questions are, a good place to start in addressing such issues would be for more and clearer teaching on the role of men. This is the surest way of warding off problems and creating the beautiful marriage dance envisaged by Jesus Christ, the true sacrificial head. “So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself” (Ephesians 5:28). Rob Slane is the author of “A Christian & an Unbeliever Discuss: Life, the Universe & Everything” which is available at Amazon.ca here and Amazon.com here. This first appeared in the January 2016 issue which you can download here.  ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Christian education - Sports, Gender roles

Daughters in sports

Women and men are different, so they should play differently **** I promised in a previous column that I would address the touchy subject of daughters playing in sports, and so I guess I can't get out of it now. It is all fine and good for sons to be subjected to the discipline and competition of sports, but what about our daughters? Is it healthy for them to be competing? Here is my decided take on it: it all depends. We are not raising our daughters to be "fighters" the same way we are with our sons. At the same time, self-discipline and godly determination are great qualities for women to have. Daughters can learn a lot from sports. They can benefit from learning to push themselves, to work hard, and to be part of a team. Besides, physical activity has benefits for everyone. Women can enjoy the thrill of the race or the game like anyone else. Still, we have to look at sports for our daughters a little differently than we do for our sons. Women shouldn't be men, and vice versa The goal we have in mind in raising sons is to inculcate masculinity. And we want our daughters to embrace a godly femininity, not a worldly feminism. So when parents consider sports for their daughters, they ought to be thinking about whether her participation will help develop or hinder her. Some sports are so completely masculine that young women shouldn't even think about participating. These certainly include football, boxing, baseball, and hockey. And it is just plain pitiful to see a woman force herself onto a male team just to cause a stink and force the boys to play with her. This is just a sad attempt for attention. Once when my son played football for a government high school (while he attended a local Christian school), the other team had a girl suited up and standing on the sidelines. My husband told my son, "If she gets out on the field, don't go near her, and don't tackle her. Just stand out of her way." Tackling is no way to treat a lady, even if she is refusing to act like one. But the next important thing to consider is what kind of program is available. For example, volleyball can be a great sport for girls. But if the program is bent on treating the girls like they are boys, and they are encouraging the girls to act like boys, then I wouldn’t want my daughters participating. But if the coaches are teaching girls to play well and to play like ladies, it can be a great experience. The same is true of basketball, softball, soccer, or track. If the girls are trying to act tough and masculine, it is deadly. But if they are enjoying the game and learning to work as a team, this can be working with the grain, teaching them to be feminine and beautiful as they handle the ball or hit it over the net. When our daughter played basketball for her Christian school, the team all wore blue ribbons in their hair as a feminine statement that they were not trying to act or look or play like boys. And they were good. They didn’t trash talk or play dirty. They were taught to play like Christian women. Positive character traits So if the sport itself is not masculine in nature, and if the program is deliberately striving to promote feminine virtue, then it can be a great blessing to young girls. But there are still pitfalls. Boys need to get hit and learn to take it, but girls need security and love. When insecure girls play sports, they are more susceptible to the temptations to try to become masculine. They may be looking for attention and affirmation from the sport when they really need it from their dads and their moms. They may “feel” unfeminine, so they gravitate to sports where they don’t have to be feminine. This means that wise parents will closely monitor their daughters while they participate in sports. And if they begin to show signs of becoming “macho” or unfeminine, they should consider pulling them out. I have seen the discipline of sports teach girls to be better stewards of their time, thus causing their studies to improve. Some exposure to sports can give our daughters confidence and make them “well-rounded” in their education. My daughter especially recommends volleyball for Christian girls because it is a team sport that can include lots of people, of all ages, and is a great activity for church picnics. And team sports are revealing when it comes to testing a daughter’s character. She has to think fast, look out for others, follow directions, and develop skill. This is all good, and none of this is contrary to a biblical femininity. Uniforms Of course I have to say something about uniforms and modesty. Christians ought to insist on dressing modestly. That means we shouldn’t be wearing tank tops with huge armholes and sports bras underneath. Neither should they be wearing what are called butt-huggers. It doesn’t matter if the other team is wearing skimpy outfits. Christians ought to refuse to participate in a sport where they will have to compromise in this area. A girls’ team can be dressed appropriately and modestly, even if it is no longer “cool” to do so. And this doesn’t mean wearing knee-length culottes,  (or any length culottes for that matter). Volleyball and track teams are now wearing virtual swimsuits as uniforms, and it just isn’t necessary. You can’t tell me that they really can play better or run faster in less clothing. It’s about making the slower women’s sports more interesting to watch. Male volleyball players don’t seem too hampered by actual shorts. Sports are not evil in themselves. But bad coaches can make for a miserable experience. If your daughter is in a sport, know the coaches, be at the games, and know how your daughter is doing. She certainly shouldn’t be forced into playing a sport if she isn’t inclined to do so. But if she wants to play, parents ought not hinder her for the wrong reasons. Questions for discussion There is one line in this article that upset many readers: "When our daughter played basketball for her Christian school, the team all wore blue ribbons in their hair as a feminine statement that they were not trying to act or look or play like boys." It struck some as demeaning, elevating how a girl looks (how pretty!) over how a girl performs. But is that the author's point? If the girls themselves had made this decision, would it still be demeaning? Or courageous? Why? Our worth comes from being made in God's Image (Gen. 1:26-28, Gen. 9:6). The world rejects Him, and instead grounds our worth on our abilities. That's why abortion and euthanasia are permissible because the lives of the less able unborn and elderly are deemed as being less valuable. This "abilities-based worth" is also why the world pushes women into understandably male-dominated roles like soldiers or firefighters. They pretend women can do these jobs just as well as men, because to acknowledge otherwise would be to say that women weren't as valuable as men – this godless understanding of our value pushes women to seek their value by acting like men. In the sports world that has led to girls trying out for high school football teams, and it's now controversial to object. When we recognize that men and women get their worth, not from what we can do, but from Whose Image we reflect, should it still be controversial to say there are sports that women shouldn’t play that men can play? Do you agree with the author's list of football, boxing, baseball, and hockey? What ones do you disagree with and agree with? Why? What are differences between "godly femininity" and the world's feminism? The author gives several examples of how women can be feminine in sports. If you don't like these examples, can you think of other ways girls can be feminine while playing sports? What is the author’s main point? Do you agree? The world says that men and women are not different, and certainly haven't been called to different roles. Meanwhile, God's people know that He has not only given men and women different roles but also made them different in some notable ways. But are the genders' differences something that has implications for the sports field? Do any of our Christian school sport programs encourage girls to act masculine? If so, how so, and what could be changed? Reprinted with permission from Credenda/Agenda, Volume 16/1 published by Canon Press (www.canonpress.com)....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Gender roles, Theology

No, complementarianism is not inherently misogynistic

Complementarianism is the belief that God made male and female different and gave them different but complementary roles in the Church and in marriage. It is also understood as the opposite of egalitarianism, which, aside from acknowledging the obvious reproductive differences, holds that God hasn’t given men and women different roles in the Church or in marriage. Egalitarians will sometimes accuse the complementarian position of being inherently misogynistic. They say, if men are told they are to lead in their marriages and in Church as well, that will puff them up, and get them thinking women are inferior, and then men will feel free to lord it over and even abuse women. Dr. Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. is shown presenting this argument in the recent By What Standard? documentary where he puts it this way: “This whole sexual abuse scandal thing is a judgment of God on Southern Baptists, because once you devalue a woman to say she cannot preach on the Lord’s Day…you are telling men it is okay to abuse her, like has been documented.” I was struck by the irony of this accusation coming from a pastor. Wouldn’t this same line of reasoning argue against leadership of any kind? If you put a pastor up on a pulpit and tell him he can preach but his parishioners do not have that same calling, then won’t that get him devaluing his parishioners such that the pastor will feel free to lord it over, and even spiritually abuse, them? It only follows, right? Our example of leadership Or might there be a way for someone called to a leadership role to be able to lead without abusing followers? In her Dec. 10 Christianity Today article, "What if I'm not the 'submissive' type?" Rebecca McLaughlin shows how the male leadership God’s prescribes is the very opposite of misogyny. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). How did Christ love the church? By dying on a cross; by giving himself, naked and bleeding, to suffer for her; by putting her needs above his own; by sacrificing everything for her. I asked myself how I would feel if this were the command to wives. Ephesians 5:22 is sometimes critiqued as a mandate for spousal abuse. Tragically, it has been misused that way. But the command to husbands makes that reading impossible. How much more easily could an abuser twist a verse calling his wife to suffer for him, to give herself up for him, to die for him? Our example of submission Just as complementarian leadership is nothing like how egalitarians portray it, so too complementarian submission isn’t what it has been made out to be. On the January 2nd episode of the What Have You podcast, Rachel Jankovic addressed submission, and while she did so in the context of feminism, her point is equally applicable to egalitarianism. Jankovic said: “The central heresy of feminism is to believe that submission equal inferiority. We believe that Jesus submitted his will to the Father’s without becoming less than God. it is actually really important that we believe obedience and submission do not mean inferiority.” The leadership husbands and elders are called to is not the dominating, power-corrupts "leadership" of the world, but the dying-for-his-bride servant-leadership of Christ (Luke 22:25–26). And the submission that wives are called to does not make them any less the Image of God than their husbands (Gen. 1:27). Just as Jesus’s submission to his Father's didn’t diminish Him, so too our own submission – whether as a wife to her husband (Eph 5:22) or a congregation to our spiritual leaders (Heb. 13:17) – isn't about inferiority. It is, instead, an opportunity to imitate Christ! Whether men or women, pastors or parishioners, we are all called to submit to the will of our Father. So why would any Christians think submission is inherently bad?...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Gender roles, Humor

#chairchallenge highlights male/female divide

We live in a curious age in which the self-evident isn’t. So if you have a friend muddled about whether men and women are different, here’s some help. It’s the #chairchallenge already making its way around the Internet, and while women can do it, men can’t. What’s involved? One easy-to-lift chair, one wall, plus at least one male and one female participant, both ideally wearing shoes. Stand facing the wall, toes touching it, and then move back two footsteps (not paces – just the length of your own feet). You should now be standing two full foot lengths away from the wall. Place a chair under you touching the wall (or have someone else do it). Bend forward over the chair at a roughly 90-degree angle and lean the top of your head against the wall. Grab the chair by its seat and raise it to your chest. Then, stand up! That’s all there is to it! We tested this out at our house, and I found while I could almost, sort of, kind of do it in my socks, there was no way once I had shoes on, as that brought me just a smidgeon further away from the wall. Meanwhile, my wife did it with ease. So why the consistent results? A number of possible explanations have been offered: Men generally have larger feet, putting them further from the wall. Women generally have a lower relative center meaning more of their weight is over their feet making it easier to move off the wall. Women are generally more flexible than men, making it easier for them to shift the center of mass. Whatever the reason, a sharp male/female divide is evident and that makes this not only a funny experiment to try, but also an important one. God says we are created male and female (Genesis 2:17) and for different roles (Ephesians 5:22-33). Our rebellious world dares insist the opposite: infinite genders, no notable differences between them. Now we’ve got an experiment that makes the self-evident obvious again. ...