Randy Stinson, president of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood said Tuesday afternoon that he is both grateful and hopeful after Zondervan announced earlier in the day that it will revise its New International Version (NIV) translation of the Bible to correct the "mistake" it made in publishing the gender-neutral version of the NIV.

 Evangelical scholars associated with CBMW were concerned with more than 3,000 changes that appeared in the TNIV when it was published in 2002, changes that flattened gender language, eliminating many references such as "son," "he," "him," "his," "father," and "brother," references that diverged from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

Translators from Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society), admitted in a press conference announcing the new NIV that many concerns regarding the faithfulness of gender-neutral translations to the original languages were legitimate and that such translations had divided the evangelical community. In his comments, Biblica CEO Keith Danby referenced the gender-neutral NIVi, which was published in 1997 in the United Kingdom.

"It is very humble of Zondervan and Biblica to admit mistakes and acknowledge the controversy that they brought to the evangelical community over the past several years," Stinson said.

"We are grateful for the godly approach to try to reconcile this. We are hopeful for the new product. I don't have any reason to believe that they are not sincere about their willingness to revisit the more than 3,000 gender changes to which we were opposed."

 Stinson said he has been in conversation with scholar Doug Moo, chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation (the committee that is responsible for the new translation) and believes that the evangelical concerns over the accuracy of so-called "gender neutral" language will be taken seriously.

 When Zondervan first announced a revision of the NIV in 1997, a group of evangelical leaders and scholars including CBMW, Focus on the Family, God's World Publications (publisher of WORLD) and others, met in Colorado Springs and developed a set of guidelines for biblical interpretation as it relates to gender language.

The guidelines were to serve as a baseline for translation of the gender language in the TNIV, but translators did not abide by them. Stinson said he is encouraged that the translation committee for the newest NIV may at least loosely follow the Colorado Springs Guidelines.

"It is my understanding that the Committee on Bible Translation does not see themselves as obligated to the Colorado Springs Guidelines, but still may end up translating some of those passages or maybe many of those passages in a way that is commensurate with those guidelines when they revisit their decisions from the past," Stinson said.

"We will reserve judgment and we are going to be watching this closely with hope and giving the benefit of the doubt to the people revising the NIV. We will evaluate the product based on things like the Colorado Springs Guidelines and other parameters we think are important in the debate."

"It sounds like they are very genuine about involving other scholars who would have been in opposition to the changes to gender language in the TNIV and who desire to engage in genuine dialogue."

Like many conservative evangelicals, I am always wary when government - whether it is conservative or liberal in its ideology - puts forth a program that is focused on curing those societal ills that have adverse effects on millions. Many of us recall Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign in the 1980s that took aim at illegal drug use. Despite its positive sloganeering, it was a program that had - as such programs are wont to do - limited effectiveness. The problem with "Just Say No" and others like it is that these programs bypass the main issue, the depravity of the human heart. They cut down the weeds but leave the roots in the ground to re-grow the pernicious plant. Only the Gospel can transform the human heart. Because the state is not the church, "Just Say No" dealt with drugs at the level of Law and not Gospel. The failure does not surprise us.

More recently, President Barack Obama articulated his National Fatherhood Initiative, a program that actually originated in 1994. The initiative is designed to challenge men to be "responsible, committed fathers." Obama, who grew up with an AWOL dad, said his own personal history has made him keenly aware of the devastation that is often wrought when fathers are nowhere to be found:  

In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its absence-both in my life and in the lives of others. I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill. We can do everything possible to provide good jobs and good schools and safe streets for our kids, but it will never be enough to fully make up the difference. That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.

I couldn't agree more. Real men don't get a woman pregnant and then check out. They lovingly and sacrificially raise their children to the glory of God. They lead, provide for and protect their wives and children. The problem is, men in America increasingly abdicate this most solemn of callings, and the Fatherhood Initiative's website provides a scoreboard counting the deadly fallout of such abdication. "When dad doesn't get involved, his children are two to three times more likely to: engage in drugs, alcohol, violent crimes, and other harmful behaviors; drop out of school; live in poverty; face teenage pregnancy and struggle with depression and even commit suicide." These are devastating results, but these numbers capture only the socioeconomic fallout. Worse still are the spiritual/eternal casualties that result when dad goes MIA.

The National Fatherhood Initiative includes a number of programs designed to encourage "24/7 dads."  The website sells products for fathers, including the "Why Knot Marriage Readiness Program for Men," "DadVentures" (a book of games for dad to play with preschool children), and even a "24/7 Dad" kit for Christian organizations.

Among the things the president recommends for fathers is writing "have a good day" notes for their children each morning before leaving for work, starting rituals such as reading a story at bedtime and being affectionate.

Though I would argue that many of the other initiatives the president supports (examples: abortion on demand, so-called "same-sex marriage," and feminist-driven lobbies such as NOW) actually undermine and discourage substantive (biblical) fatherhood, I am encouraged that the president wants to see fathers taking their place as leaders of the family. It a good start, but it is only a start. It seems unavoidable that the aforementioned initiatives, by their very nature, will devour the fatherhood push, but I will leave critique for tomorrow's post. I'd also like to build on this theme and discuss a more robust, Gospel-driven fatherhood initiative that should be implemented, not by government, but by the local church.

[The following excerpt is from Wayne Grudem's book Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? (Crossway, 2006: 149-150). See chapters 3-17 for the specific examples that prompted this list.]

[The beginning chapters of Evangelical Feminism] detail fifteen ways in which evangelical feminists, either directly or by implication, undermine and deny the authority of Scripture.

Various evangelical feminists

1) deny the authority or truthfulness of Genesis 1-3;
2) say that Paul was wrong;
3) say that some verses that appear in every ancient manuscript are not part of the Bible;
4) say that our ultimate authority is found not in what is written in Scripture but in developments that came after the Bible;
5) follow a "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" that casts all the ethical commands of the New Testament into doubt;
6) claim that everyone's position just depends on what Bible passages people choose to prioritize;
7) silence the most relevant Bible passages on men and women by saying they are "disputed";
8) say that women can teach under the authority of pastors or elders;
9) evade New Testament commands by saying, "We are not a church";
10) put church tradition above the Bible;
11) put experience above the Bible;
12) put a subjective sense of "calling" above the Bible;
13) put contemporary prophecies above the Bible;
14) put unique circumstances above the Bible;
15) nullify the Bible's statements by saying they are a joke.

And what will happen to churches and organizations who allow these approaches to stand as acceptable options? As evangelicals accept the validity of these claims one after the other, and as evangelical pastors preach sermons adopting the methods found in these claims, evangelicals are quietly and unsuspectingly being trained to reject this verse of Scripture and that command of Scripture, and this passage, and that teaching, here and there throughout the Bible. As this procedure goes on, we will begin to have whole churches who no longer "tremble" at the Word of God (Isa. 66:2), and who no longer live by "every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4), but who pick and choose the things they like and the things they don't like in the Bible, using the very same methods they have been taught by these egalitarian writers. The church will thus be led step by step, often without knowing what is happening, to a new liberalism for the twenty-first century.

And in this way the authority of God's Word, and the ultimate authority of God himself over our lives, will be diminished and increasingly rejected.

A strange case of gender confusion is brewing in South Africa surrounding the recent accomplishments of 18-year-old runner Caster Semenya. Earlier this month, the teenage girl easily won the 800-meter gold medal in the world track and field championships at Berlin. Semenya won by 2.45 seconds, completing the run in a world-best 1 minute 55.45 seconds. In winning, Semenya defeated defending champion Janeth Jepkosgei, who finished second, and another star, Jennifer Meadows of Britain. While her victory was somewhat stunning, it was not necessarily headline news.

Her victory became a global news story when word leaked that the sport's governing body, the IAAF, is conducting gender tests on Semenya to prove whether or not she meets the requirements to compete as a woman. Concerns apparently arose after Semenya exploded onto the world track scene by turning in such unheard-of finish times, times that represented a dramatic improvement over her previous performances. Her muscular build and deep voice also fueled speculation about her gender and led to the investigation. Besides the obvious physical examinations, how do "gender experts," as they are being called, determine the biological, and thus God given, gender of an athlete? Evaluation will include reports from a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, internal medicine specialist, and a "gender expert."

South Africans have exploded in fury over the tests and thousands in her homeland have rallied to Semenya's side. Several thousand greeted her at the airport, singing and dancing upon her return from Berlin. Most of them seem convinced as to her gender as well. One sign at the airport called her "our first lady of sport." It will take several weeks for the results of the investigation and testing to be finalized.

This case is both curious and unprecedented. Only in the gender-confused postmodern world would we need such rules as those adopted by the 2004 International Olympic Committee that govern the conditions under which a "transgendered" person may compete against one of the two genders without giving them an unfair advantage. There has been no speculation as to whether Semenya has undergone so-called "sex reassignment" surgery, but this case proves two things we argue here regularly. First, God has made every person either male or female, an identity that may not be denied by social engineering. And second, God has made men and women different from each another.

The case upholds the first truth because the IAAF has only two options with Semenya. Either she was born a female, remains a female and should retain her medals with apologies from the ruling body, or she is a man posing as a woman (whether through surgery or disguise) who remains a man in either case and should be stripped of the medals and disqualified permanently from the sport. With either option, Semenya was born either a man or a woman and remains so, even if a pernicious form of "reassignment" surgery is involved. 

This case also proves another biblical truth: God made men and women different. The very existence of the IAAF investigation is nothing less than a vindication of the light of nature, which is, as C.H. Spurgeon famously put it, God's "second book" of revelation. And of course, God's general revelation serves to validate many of the great truths of His special revelation. The recognition of those differences is evident in this case. God created men to be physically stronger and thus, it would be unfair (and unwise) to have them compete against women in sports. Because of their physical strength, men would have an unfair advantage. Social engineers want to flatten gender distinctions and often seek to do so by arguing in favor of some sort of physical uniformity of humankind. But as this case proves, God's truth abideth still, and in His common grace, is validated by the light of nature. The outcome of this case will be interesting, even newsworthy for many, but it will not change that which is unchangeable - God created them male and female.

Gender Blog continues with the latest installment of our "Unchanging Truth" series. These articles, while not as current, are still beneficial, and they demonstrate the consistent application of biblical truth by complementarian scholars and authors through the years.

The following is excerpted from Andreas Kostenberger's article "Saved Through Childbearing? A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 2:15 Points to Protection from Satan's Deception." It originally appeared in 1997.

"But women will be saved through childbearing" (NIV): this simple statement has mystified average Bible readers as well as Christian scholars for centuries. Is Paul here suggesting salvation by works? In what sense can a woman be "saved" by bearing children? What would be so virtuous about bearing children that could become the cause of women's salvation? And what about single women or married women who do not or cannot have children? Even apart from these interpretive questions, the passage sounds horribly sexist and out of date in the days of female Prime Ministers or Supreme Court Justices. How are we to understand this passage, and how are we to apply it?

Consulting The Translations

Turning to existing translations does not alleviate the difficulty. The NASB reads, "But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children"; the NIV has, "But women will be saved through childbearing"; the New Living Translation adds to this in a footnote, "Or 'will be saved by accepting their role as mothers,' or 'will be saved by the birth of the Child.'" To which the Contemporary English Version adds, "Or, 'saved by being good mothers.'" Clearly, there is no agreement on what this passage means!

Checking The Commentaries

Consulting commentaries likewise does not solve the problem. Indeed, the array of alternatives surely must cause most to throw up their hands in utter despair of ever arriving at the verse's meaning. Some church Fathers, such as Augustine, thought Paul was here speaking of the bearing of "spiritual children," that is, good works. Other ancient interpreters, such as Chrysostom and Jerome, thought women's salvation was contingent on their (physical) children's perseverance in holy lives of faith, taking the latter part of the verse ("if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint") as referring not to the women themselves but to their offspring. Or perhaps Paul, as G. Knight claims, is here speaking of "the" childbirth, Mary's giving birth to Jesus the Messiah, which became the cause of our salvation. But then why is 1 Tim. 2:15 merely referring to women and not also to men, since surely men are the beneficiaries of Christ's saving work as well?

In light of the high rate of women dying in childbirth in the ancient world, some, such as C. Keener, have suggested that the verse speaks of women's physical preservation through childbirth. But what of the Christian women who were not kept safe but rather died while giving birth? Non-evangelical interpreters may claim that the author (not the apostle Paul) really believed, for some odd reason, that women would experience spiritual salvation by fulfilling their procreative role, however that may be understood. This, of course, would introduce a contradiction into the canon, since the statement could hardly be reconciled with Paul's adamant insistence that it is "by grace you have been saved through faith - and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).

Finally, the most common interpretation among conservative evangelical interpreters today is that women will eventually be spiritually saved by adhering to their God-ordained role centering around the home. This view seeks to alleviate the difficulty of the phrase "saved through childbearing" by interpreting the term "saved" as referring to a woman's consummated salvation on the last day rather than the salvation she already has received at the time of her conversion. And "childbearing" is understood as referring not merely to the birthing process but, by extension, also to the raising of children and the managing of the home.

You can read the rest of this article here.