Wednesday, October 28, 2015

God Designed Roles, Their Symbolism, and Sodomy

God designed male and female.  He also designed each for a different role.  Being male and female looks different because they are made for two different purposes.  Sure, there is similarity.  They are both human being, man and woman.  They are both made in the image of God.  They are both equal in essence.  Their roles are different.  God designed them different and designed their bodies different for the two distinct roles.

The two roles, male and female, are equal in value.  The male role isn't more important than the female one.  Role does not determine worth. Worth is found in the essence of each.  God made man, both male and female, of equal value in essence.  The two roles are equal in value, but they are not equal in authority.

The roles are modeled in the Godhead.  The Father and the Son are equal in essence, but each Person has a different role.  The Father is in authority over the Son, but that does not make the Son less than the Father.  Their roles are different, but equal.  However, the Son always fulfills His role, as does the Father.

To acknowledge, support, and even celebrate the distinct roles, to rejoice in one's particular role, God also designed differences in appearance, symbols of manhood and womanhood.  Male and female look different.  It's not a matter of looking different.  They look different.  God expects designed distinctions in appearance.  These are symbols of the roles God designed.  This is how Christians have believed and practiced through history.

The world doesn't recognize roles designed by God.  It doesn't recognize God as Designer.  The world doesn't want to obey God.  The world wants to do what it wants.  Christians are different.  True Christians, the only Christians, recognize God's designed distinctions and support them.  Like Jesus received His role, followers of Jesus receive theirs.  The world doesn't acknowledge, support, or celebrate the roles God designed, and a difference between Christians and the world is the former's embrace the roles in such fashion.

Bruce Jenner says he's a woman.  How does he show that?  He wears the female symbol -- the dress, the skirt.  Everyone knows that.  When you break down the roles, you break down the symbols.  This is why 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is given such space.

The world, as of its Father the devil, hates God and hates His design.  So-called Christians today want a Christianity that gets along with the world.  They even explain it as an evangelistic strategy.  They call it incarnational and missional.  They are relating to the world by dressing like the world.  They are even more godly because they don't look different than godless pagans, who reject God's design.

A symbol in Corinth was the head covering.  The symbol in most places for much of history, and especially in cultures that recognize God's design has been men wearing pants and women wearing skirts.  This isn't fundamentalism.  It has been the entire Western culture.  This was a good thing, just like the head covering was in Corinth.  The culture began eradicating the symbol in rejection of the designed distinct roles.  Most everyone knew that.  Most still know it.

Sodomy links a man with a man in intimate ways.  Men using each others bodies.  That is a deviation from God designed distinction.  It starts with other deviations, confusing the symbols.  Our culture never replaced the symbols, and it doesn't recognize the distinctions in role.  Christianity has followed suit.  Now Christians are mocked if they believe and practice like Christians did for the entire history of Christianity.  And even now sodomy is accepted in churches.

You might reject Sodomy, but principally you don't if you reject distinct roles and you principally don't if you reject the symbolism. You rebel against the role distinction when you rebel against the symbols.  God wants public support.  Not supporting, not advocating, not celebrating, is going against.

Truth is antithetical.  You can't love truth if you don't hate error. Those who reject the symbols support the error of role reversal.


Anonymous said...

Hi Bro. Brandenburg,
You know I couldn't resist commenting on a post on 1 Cor. 11:1-16, right ;)?

So, those of us (the vast majority of Christians in history) who believe 1 Cor. 11:1-16 is about headship symbolized by an artificial headcovering worn by women during worship and not the pants/skirt issue are soft on or for sodomy?

The cultural view's problem is not only historical but mainly and more importantly textual, what the text says.
The words for pants/skirts are not found in the text nor are there indications in the text to point the reader in that direction.
Is the headship order (v.3) different in locales other than Corinth?
Is the image God and the glory of God & man different in locales other than Corinth (v.7)?
How does every man/woman not mean every man/woman (v.4-5)?
We rightly argue that 1 Tim. 2:12-14 is permanent/universal and not cultural because creation is invoked. Why is that not the case here (v.8-9, 11-12)?
Are there angels only in Corinth (v.10)?
The custom the churches of God have is an artificial headcovering (v.16).

I'm not arguing against pants/skirts, I just don't believe this text should be cited for pants/skirts.

John Gardner

Kent Brandenburg said...


I'm assuming that you have read everything else online that I have written on this, but I will come back later to answer your questions. This is an actual appropriate place to bring in this topic, because I dealt with it in the post. I want to talk about it some.

While I am waiting to make that comment, do you think the overall point is wrong, or do you think the symbols are unrelated to sodomy?

Anonymous said...

I have read most of the content here and been edified much over the years, thank you sir. I read your post on the historical doctrine (6 witnesses - Sept. '14) last year and reread it recently. The problem with the historical angle is that it tends to end up being a tally mark match to which I still think the headcovering view is much ahead.

I don't see pants/skirts in the NT explicitly. I see headcoverings. I see long hair on women and short hair on men (contra Jenner / Ellen). I see modest, non-flashy, non-costly array.

I am not arguing against your point nor the pants/skirts issue, really. I just disagree with your interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:1-16 and object to its use to defend the pants/skirt issue.
John G