The Fall 2009 issue of the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has arrived. Select articles are available to read online at this time, including:

• Editorial: A Critical Look at the Barna Study on the Religious Life of Homosexuals by Denny Burk
• You've Come a Long Way, Baby by Mary A. Kassian
• "Son of Man" or "Human Beings"?: Hebrews 2:5-9 and a Response to Craig Blomberg by Barry Joslin
• Finally Unconvinced: A Review of John G. Stackhouse Jr., Finally Feminist by Robert E. Sagers
• New Testament Theology and a Biblical View of Gender: A Review of Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology by Christopher W. Cowan

All of the articles will be available online on February 15, 2010. If you would like to subscribe to JBMW you may do so here.

This is Part 2 of our series on Richard Baxter's instructions for the Christian family. You can read Part 1 here.

It is important to realize, when reading Baxter and the Puritans, that there was no guarded language when speaking of how the Christian household ought to look like. They simply assumed the clear, biblical teaching of a husbandʼs authority in the family and a wifeʼs joyful submission. So then, at one level, Baxterʼs direction for women wouldnʼt sound too different than John Piperʼs or Wayne Grudemʼs.

However, Baxter, in a way that Puritans are known for, approaches the heart of the wife. What would cause a wife to rebel against the biblical mandate to follow the leadership of the husband? Baxter gives a few reasons:

1. Failure to believe Godʼs will is best. Godʼs design for the Christian family, which includes the structure of authority and submission, is best! God is wise and we, as sinners, need divine wisdom. He writes, "Who are you to assess Godʼs Word in a way different than his own qualifications." What Baxter means is, we are to allow Godʼs Word to explain itself in its own terms. We must not explain away difficult, but clear, instruction. As Christians, we must trust Godʼs counsel for the home. Failure to trust Godʼs will can only bring turmoil and unrest.

2. Discontentment. There is something about the sinful heart that is always wanting something other than the place in which God has placed him or her. When something other than God is the desire of the heart, it begins to desire more than the portion granted. The sinful cravings of the heart are deceitful and can justify sin or can explain away divine instruction. Baxterʼs appeal to wives is to find your contentment and treasure in Christ and you will recognize the joy in resting in his purposes.

3. Distrust in the leadership of your husband. Following the leadership your husband is not first and foremost based upon his merits, but upon the design of Godʼs intentions. Baxter recognizes the failures of husbands, since he was one himself, and there is no biblical expectations for women to follow their husbands in sin or submit to abuse. Yet, many may see the husbandʼs imperfections as an opportunity to exchange roles, as if he has lost his chance to lead. Baxter encourages wives to put away their fears of following their husbands, for it is not in him that you place your trust, but in the Lord who has given you good and perfect instruction for your joy. Rebelling against Godʼs instruction for the home will never bring peace or contentment.

For Baxter, submitting to Godʼs will for the home, whether it be for men or for women, is fundamentally a heart issue. Baxter wrote in a day when feminism didnʼt exist as a movement. There were no books to argue for egalitarianism. No one was attempting to re-interpret Ephesians 5. Yet, he understood that men and women have always had sinful impulses to rebel against Godʼs instructions.

Much could be said about Richard Baxterʼs, the 17th century puritan, instruction for the Christian family. He is deeply practical and has the actual family in mind when writing. What I mean is that he is not speaking to academics, scholars, or, even other pastors. He is mainly speaking to fathers, mothers, and, also, children. For the Puritans, every home was a small church, with the father as the shepherd. So then, Baxter has two concerns when writing to families: perseverance in the faith and growth in godliness. He begins his directions for the family with the husband.

Directions for Husbands

The husband has the authority in the home. Baxter doesnʼt argue for the husband's headship in the home, but rather assumes it as biblical. There is a question, however, of first importance that every man should ask of himself: Am I fit for task? The purpose of the question is not necessarily to see whether or not one should start a family (though it may be a good one to ask before you begin), but ultimately to know exactly what to repent of and, then, seek godliness. Out of all the qualities a man needs in leading his family, godliness has pride-of-place. Baxter writes:

And if God shall not govern in your families, who shall? The devil is always the governor where Godʼs governments is refused; the world and the flesh are the instruments of his governments; worldliness and fleshly living are his service. Undoubtedly he is the ruler of the family where these prevail, and where faith and godliness do not take place. And what can you expect from such a master?

According to Baxter, an ungodly man is the chief stranger and enemy to Godʼs design for the Christian family. A godly governed home “is an excellent help to the saving of all the souls that are in it.” Men, fit yourselves for the task!

Why is godliness so important to the task of leading the home? For Baxter, the husband is responsible for the normal teaching and instruction in godliness. Therefore, the husband must hunger and thirst for the knowledge of Godʼs Word. Baxter writes, “Those husbands that despise the word of God and live in willful ignorance do not only despise their own souls, but their families also.”

Because the husband is responsible before God for his family and all this included in it, apathy is not an option. An apathetic husband has authority over his family in name and image only. Husbands, do not be marked by a couch and a remote control. Do not lie to yourselves, thinking that your work is done at 5:30 pm. Too many young husbands, today, spend more time on XBox than instructing their families in godliness. Men, if your children relate you with video games more than service and care, then you should repent.

Tomorrow, we will look at Baxter's directions for wives.

Here's an excerpt from David Jones' 2003 article examining whether or not there is a connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality.

Evangelical Christian organizations that hold to a complementarian view of gender roles, such as The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), have expressed concern over a possible connection between an egalitarian view of male/female gender roles and homosexuality. For example, in the list of central concerns stated in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood-perhaps the most thorough defense of complementarianism-the authors declare, "We are concerned not merely with the behavior roles of men and women, but also with the underlying nature of manhood and womanhood themselves. Biblical truth and clarity in this matter are important because errors and confusion over sexual identity leads to ... homosexual tendencies and increasing attempts to justify homosexual alliances."¹ Furthermore, later in this same list of central concerns, the editors of this book note, "We believe that the feminist minimization of sexual role differentiation contributes to the confusion of sexual identity that, especially in the second and third generations, gives rise to more homosexuality in society... . It is increasingly and painfully clear that Biblical feminism is an unwitting partner in unraveling the fabric of complementary manhood and womanhood that provides the foundation not only for Biblical marriage and Biblical church order, but also for heterosexuality itself."²

Evangelical feminists,³ however, have asserted that the notion of a possible connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality is both an unwarranted concern and an unfair allegation.⁴ For example, Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), arguably the leading evangelical egalitarian advocacy organization, has repeatedly noted that they do not affirm homosexuality, and the CBE Statement of Faith clearly states, "We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and faithful heterosexual marriage as the patterns God designed for us."⁵ Additionally, several prominent evangelical egalitarians have written works that report their opposition to homosexuality.⁶ Indeed, the fact that egalitarian organizations such as CBE do not directly affirm homosexuality has been recognized by a number of complementarian authors;⁷ yet, a concern that evangelical feminism ultimately leads to the embrace of homosexuality still persists among those who champion a more traditional model of gender roles.

In view of the foregoing discussion regarding the possibility of a connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality, this work will address and attempt to answer a very important question in the gender roles debate-that is, "Is there sufficient historical evidence to support complementarians' concern over a possible connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality?" If this concern is warranted, the final part of this essay will begin some introductory work with a view to a second important question-that is, "What is the nature of the link between these two ostensibly unrelated ideologies?"

You can read the rest of this article here .

[This article originally appeared on Dr. Mohler's blog .]

"Clothes are never a frivolity -- they always mean something." Thus spoke James Laver, a famous costume designer and interpreter of fashion. He is right, of course. Clothes always mean something, which is why The New York Times gave major attention to an issue facing many schools: "Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?"

The article, right on the front of the "Sunday Styles" section of the paper, announced, "When gender bends the dress code, high schools struggle to respond." The story reveals a confusion over gender that goes far beyond the dress code.

As Jan Hoffman reports, high schools generally have very specific rules about clothing these days. Boys are forbidden to wear muscle shirts and saggy pants, and girls cannot wear midriff-exposing tops or skirts that are too short. But what happens when a boy wants to wear a skirt?

"In recent years, a growing number of teenagers have been dressing to articulate — or confound — gender identity and sexual orientation," Hoffman reports. "Certainly they have been confounding school officials, whose responses have ranged from indifference to applause to bans."

This is no longer an issue limited to isolated examples. Districts across the country have reported teens who have attempted to cross the gender line in dress. Many of these cases have captured media attention, with highly publicized controversies. In other cases, the challenges have been more quiet.

The cases are, to say the least, both interesting and troubling. Boys are making news for wearing skinny jeans, makeup, wigs, and skirts. Girls are bending gender in their own way by, for example, wearing a tuxedo for the school picture or to a school event.

Jan Hoffman does a good job of setting the issue in perspective:

Dress is always code, particularly for teenagers eager to telegraph evolving identities. Each year, schools hope to quell disruption by prohibiting the latest styles that signify a gang affiliation, a sexual act or drug use.

But when officials want to discipline a student whose wardrobe expresses sexual orientation or gender variance, they must consider antidiscrimination policies, mental health factors, community standards and classroom distractions.

Well, that certainly presents a very complicated challenge. Diane Ehrensaft, an Oakland psychologist cited in the article, states the obvious: "This generation is really challenging the gender norms we grew up with. . . . A lot of youths say they won't be bound by boys having to wear this or girls wearing that. For them, gender is a creative playing field."  She added that adults then "become the gender police through dress codes."

As Hoffman makes clear, these challenges to dress codes can quickly become legal skirmishes pitting students (and often their parents) against school administrators. Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute argues that this is one reason that so many schools have shifted to students wearing uniforms.

"It's hard enough to get students to concentrate on an algorithm," she reminds, "even without Jimmy sitting there in lipstick and fake eyelashes."

That sets the issue in a very clear instructional perspective. Schools are about teaching and learning, and both teachers and administrators face daunting challenges. The last thing they need is the added distraction of gender-bending teenagers on parade.

And the issues can be far more troubling than classroom distractions. Hoffman reports that some schools have faced boys wearing "pink frilly scarves" and makeup and girls trying to dress like male gang members. In Columbus, Ohio a boy wore girl's clothing but used the boys' bathroom. Jeff Grace, faculty advisor for the school's gay-straight alliance club told Hoffman, “One day I heard a student say, ‘Man, there was a girl in the guy’s restroom, standing up using the urinal! What’s up with that?’" Another student then quipped, “That wasn’t a girl. That’s just Jack."

These adolescents represent the younger face of a society that is giving itself over to a confusion about gender and dress that reveals a much deeper confusion about gender, sexuality, and the limits of self-expression. The controversy also reveals an even deeper cultural and moral divide over the same issues.

Should a boy who shows up at school dressed as a girl be celebrated for self-expression and transgressing the boundaries of gender roles, or should he be seen as signaling a need for help and adult-imposed rules? The widely divergent answers to that question reveal the great worldview divide in postmodern America. This controversy cannot be isolated from the movement to normalize homosexuality, and that movement cannot be separated from an effort to remove all notions of fixed gender roles and sexual identity.

The controversy over boys wearing skirts to school is a symptom of our loss of sexual sanity and the will to preserve any reasonable and healthy understanding of gender. These teenagers are telling us something important -- we are losing our sexual sanity.

For Christians, the issue is a matter of biblical concern. The Bible reveals a concern for respecting and honoring gender as God's gift. In the Old Testament, the Law taught respect for these distinctions and roles. In the New Testament, we find similar expectations. As the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11: 7-15:

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

While addressed to the specific concerns of a church setting, this text also generalizes the point by making a specific reference to what nature teaches concerning the recognition of the difference between males and females. The Creator is honored and glorified when men and boys dress and present themselves as males and when women and girls dress and present themselves as females. Culture by culture and generation by generation the specific form of this distinction may change, but the point remains.

God made human beings to show His glory, and an essential part of that glory is the visible difference between males and females that is reflected even in the public presentation of dress. We should be able to tell the difference between a boy and a girl by the way they dress and present themselves in public.

As James Laver reminded, clothes always tell us something. This article from the "Sunday Styles" section of The New York Times tells us something as well -- something we need to hear.