Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

Casey Anthony.

Arguably the most hated woman of the decade.

In spite of the not-guilty verdict handed down at her trial last Tuesday, an overwhelming majority of the country believe the 25-year-old is guilty of abusing and murdering her two-year-old daughter Caylee. Due for release from prison in just a week (July 17), the newly free Ms. Anthony won't find many waiting with arms open wide.

One of her lawyers admitted that he fears for Casey's safety, "It's as much her country as anybody else's," Mason told Savannah Guthrie on the "Today" show Monday. "She just needs to have some time and counseling ... She's been in lockdown for 23 hours a day for three years."

People everywhere are left feeling that justice was not served. Christians are outraged that the death of this little girl will not be avenged. Facebook blew up with comments of hatred, disgust and loathing as people posted their reactions to the verdict.

I admit, I've stayed on the sidelines of this fight, more out of shock at the frenzied reaction than lack of an opinion. But days later, as I sit here thinking and praying over this awful story, it hits me that many Christians have jumped into the fray of a vigilante mob out for vengeance before stopping to ask what Jesus would have them do about Casey Anthony.

So, my Christian readers, what would Jesus do and say about Casey Anthony? How would our Savior respond? In grief (Mt. 19:13-15)? In justice (Ex. 20:13)? In forgiveness (1 Jn. 1:9)? In love (Mt. 5:43-48)? In repentance (Jn. 8:1-11)? In judgment (Rev. 20:11-15)?

What Scriptures do you think apply to the Casey Anthony situation? How are we, as followers of Christ, to respond? What should our stance be to the world? We want to know what you think.

(Gabrielle Pickle is a regular contributor to the Unlocking Femininity blog where this post originally appeared: www.unlockingfemininity.com)

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

Recently, several bloggers tackled a highly sensitive and debated topic- the need for women to attend to their beauty and appearance. I published a post, extracted from my  Girls Gone Wise book, which examined some Scriptural directives for women on what and what not to wear. I came under fire for focusing on such mundane matters rather than really important stuff-like comforting the sick and war-torn.

I admit it. The topic of woman's appearance is trivial compared to the war on the other side of the world - but given the reality of our culture, it's a battle that hits much closer to home.

The Debate about Female Beauty

Tim Challies, a popular Christian blogger, published his thoughts on women "letting themselves go." While he was careful to stress that "the beauty the Bible commends is the beauty of character more than a beauty of appearance," he suggested that inner and outer beauty are actually inexorably connected, and concluded that women need to make the effort to remain beautiful to their husbands.

Another blogger, Rachel Held Evans, was disappointed by Challies' refrain that "outer beauty reflects inner beauty" and that "a good wife will keep up appearances for her husband choosing an attractive sweater instead of the stained Mickey Mouse t-shirt." She argued that

The Bible never demands that women be beautiful nor does it justify a man's infidelity because his wife "let herself go." If anything, it presents a fairly consistent picture of beauty as a passing pleasure. Challies and company are free to teach that women should stay beautiful for their husbands, but I wish they would stop referring to this teaching as "biblical" when it is not.

The discussion surrounding this issue was intense. Challies' and Evans' posts attracted several hundred comments. When Mark Driscoll mentioned my "What Not to Wear" post on twitter, Girls Gone Wise got flooded with so many visits that it temporarily downed the site. Incidentally, Driscoll took a whole lot of flak, a few years ago, when he offered to take one for the guys, by decrying pastor's wives for "letting themselves go."

A Sensitive Issue for both Sexes

Woman's appearance is a sensitive issue, because from a man's perspective, a wife's effort to be beautiful for her husband speaks of her care and respect for him, and communicates her desire to be sexually attractive and available for him. Making a reasonable effort to care for and beautify herself is a demonstration of her devotion. In his view, a lack of effort in this regard demonstrates a lack of concern for him. Bottom line - whether we like it our not, it's important to our guys. Challies points out:

In all of these things, a woman ought to understand (and believe) that what a man finds (or ought to find) beautiful in his wife is more about care and respect and effort and availability than it is about figure and proportion. In too many cases a woman who lets herself go is simply symbolizing that she has let her marriage go. Conversely, care for herself shows her care for her husband, respect for him, love for him.

It's even a touchier subject for women, because as Evans points out, "many are so burdened by the impossible standards imposed by our culture that they feel as though their efforts will never be enough." Like Evans, I have never in my life met a woman who did not want to be beautiful for her husband.

When it comes to beauty, women react against the burden of expectation, the fear that they will fall short of the desired standard, the inevitability of decay, and the resentment that the script is different for men than women. A woman wants to be loved and accepted as she is. From a wife's perspective, a husband's attraction to/desire for beauty can magnify her feelings of personal inadequacy and insecurity, and she may fear that his love/acceptance depends on her ability to measure up.

Approaching the Discussion from a Different Angle

So who is right-Challies or Evans? Was Driscoll entirely off base in suggesting that it might negatively affect a pastor if his wife lets herself go? Or were his critics misguided in insisting that a woman's lack of attention to her appearance should in no way impact her husband's propensity to stray?

The stalemate in the discussion often boils down to the fact that women resent the fact that men are so attracted to beauty, while men resent the fact that women don't make the effort to properly attend to it. So how do we resolve the impasse? In my opinion, we can't hope to make sense of the question until we view woman's beauty and beautification through the lens of the biblical typology of gender, and the eternal, cosmic meaning of sexuality.

Beauty has a Cosmic Meaning

Psalm 45 is a song celebrating the marriage of a Hebrew king to a foreign princess. But it's also a messianic prophecy pointing to the relationship between Christ the King and His Church-Bride. The Psalmist notes that the king "desires her beauty", and that the princess, in turn, makes herself beautiful-"all-glorious"- for him.

Scripture uses this imagery to illustrate how we are to make ourselves beautiful for our King. The Lord wants us to clothe ourselves in fine, spotless garments of righteousness-in holy character and holy deeds. (Rev. 19:7-8) He wants us to be beautiful, and through Jesus, we are!  The great story of the gospel is that God gives us the opportunity to clothe ourselves in the beauty of Christ. He provides the beauty- and we don't need to work or strive to measure up, nor do we need fear that we will fail to meet the standard.

So what does all this have to do with our discussion about female appearance? It has a great deal to do with it. We live-as C.S. Lewis coined it-in the "shadow lands." The earthly, physical realities of our lives are but shadows-copies-of true and heavenly realities (e.g. Heb. 8:5; 9:24-25). The physical and temporal exist to point us to the spiritual and eternal. And nowhere is this more the case than in the relationship between male and female.

Human sexuality is a parable -a testimony to the character of God and to His spectacular plan of redemption through Jesus. This spiritual truth is so magnificent that God chose to put it on display permanently. Everywhere. Men were created to reflect the strength, love and self-sacrifice of Christ. Women were created to reflect the grace and beauty of the Bride He redeemed.

I believe that men are "wired" to be attracted to beauty in women because our Heavenly Bridegroom desires the beauty of His Bride. And I believe that deep down, every woman wants to feel beautiful and desired. This is the way that God has created us as male and female-and the illustration points to something far bigger than ourselves.

Beauty is More Than a Passing Pleasure

Many scorn beauty as "a passing pleasure." They think that the illusive, fragile, fading, temporary, and wrinkle-and-stretch-mark-prone nature of female beauty indicates that men (and women) should just "get over it" and focus on more important things.

Beauty is indeed a passing pleasure. But I think there's a deeper meaning here that we dare not trivialize. The symbolic importance of beauty/beautification is not unlike the symbolic importance of marriage. Woman's beauty, and all the broken, distorted ideas about it, will not so much pass, as give way-in the end-to that to which beauty points. There will be no marriage in heaven because the shadow will give way to the reality. Likewise, the illusive, fading, temporary beauty of women will one day give way to the breathtaking, spectacular, eternal beauty of the Bride of Christ.

The gospel doesn't negate man's desire to enjoy beauty and woman's desire to be beautiful, but it does shift the focus of our attention beyond the symbol to that to which it points. When we consider the jaw-dropping picture painted by Scripture, it would seem that our Lord finds our desire for beauty not too strong, but too weak. We get all wrapped up with the earthly and the superficial and temporal, while the supernatural and eternal is offered us. Like an ignorant tourist who spreads out his towel under the picture of the umbrella on the sign, because he does not know that the sign points to the beach. We are far too easily pleased. (Again, a favorite C. S. Lewis thought)

Embracing Beauty

Followers of Christ know that the symbol is not even fractionally as important as the reality. But they understand that it is not totally unimportant either.

So girls, let's give the guys a break. Let's stop condemning them for feeling attracted to beauty and wanting us to make a reasonable and sustained effort in that department. And guys... give us a break. Please understand how very personal and painful this issue can be for women. It's very difficult to stay engaged in fighting a battle we know we are destined to lose. The beauty of our youth will inevitably fade. And most of us don't have a hope of even remotely resembling the airbrushed model on the cover of the magazine.

And let's always remember that the whole issue of female beauty is merely a signpost. It's reminder to all of us-male and female-that the King desires our beauty, and that we ought to carefully attend to our character, and to making ourselves spiritually beautiful for that great destination wedding on the other shore.

In my opinion, the answer to the conundrum surrounding the discussion about female beauty is not to diminish or deny its importance, but to exalt and embrace the all-surpassing beauty to which it points.

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

If you asked a man if he loved his wife, most men would certainly say yes. “Of course I love my wife, that’s why I married her.” Marriage seems so simple. Two people fall in love and live happily ever after.

But in the real world, marriage isn’t so simple. Half of marriages don’t end anything like “happily ever after.” And lots of men don’t truly love their wives. Sure, men say they love their wives and genuinely feel love for their wives. The romantic attraction is unmistakable, like nothing else in the world. So how could I possibly say that lots of men don’t love their wives? Loving your wife in a godly way means not only having a feeling but acting that love out in real life.

Love Her Sacrificially

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Eph. 5:25
This is a direct command to husbands, one that is supposed to last “til death do us part.” While every husband feels love for his wife, obedience to this command is less common and not as easy as it might originally appear. If everyone was already doing this, then why even command it? But not everyone does this. Paul tells husbands that their love for the wife must be like Christ’s love for the church. How did Jesus love the church? He gave Himself up for her.
Jesus showed us what true love is. He left heaven to become like us and gave up the glory due to Him to be mocked and ridiculed. Instead of giving people the hell they deserved, He died to take the penalty for our sins, and forgave us for insulting Him in the process. That’s how Jesus loved us. And that’s the model for husbands. I know Jesus had strong feelings for us, but those feelings were not the end of his love. He acted out His love by giving Himself up for us. In the same way, husbands need to give themselves up for the good of their wives. Feeling love for your wife is not enough; you need to actually do something to love her.

Love Her By Leading Her To Christ

“That he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” Eph. 5:26-27
Men also need to love their wives in a way that makes their wives more holy. It’s not just about making her feel good. No amount of gifts, flowers, or compliments about her looks can accomplish this part. While these are all good in their place, they’re not enough to fulfill the command in Ephesians 5. Husbands need to lead their wives to become more like Christ. They need to build their wives up, not simply in their self image, but also as a fellow believer. Husbands ought to encourage their wives to read their Bibles, share Christ with others, and live out godly character. This shows a long, lasting commitment to working for her good. Christ loved the church by giving her his righteousness and sanctifying her, and husbands need to lead their homes to know God and live holy lives.
If husbands are going to follow Christ’s example of love, they need to be the spiritual leaders for their homes. If your wife has to drag you to church or shame you into reading your Bible, then you’re probably not loving her in a way that makes her more like Christ. When your family prays, are you waiting on your wife to volunteer? Step up to the plate and lead your family to pray, to discuss the sermon, and to share what you’re learning in your personal Bible reading.

Love Her As Your Own Body

“So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,” Eph. 5:28-29

When a man loves his wife like this, he takes care of her needs as if they were his own. If he knows that she likes the dishes to be done when she comes home, he puts down the remote and does the dishes. He doesn’t do it because he loves scrubbing pots and pans, but instead does it to help his wife. It doesn’t matter whose job it is, the loving thing to do is to actively work for her good.

Love Her By Understanding Her

“Husbands … live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.”  1 Pet. 3:7

Loving your wife can be a difficult task because it involves thinking about someone other than yourself. Husbands must learn to understand their wives as women. She’s not a man, and she doesn’t want to be treated like one. There are things that are appropriate for the guys that a woman would rather miss out on. But even beyond that, there are things that a man would appreciate that a woman simply would not.
One year for my birthday, my wife got me tickets to see my favorite college football team. I really appreciated it and felt really loved because she thought about what I enjoyed. If I wanted to make my wife feel loved though, I probably shouldn’t get her football tickets. I need to understand what she likes and what she wants because she’s different than me with unique needs and desires. I need to figure out how she feels love. Husbands, show your wives love in a way that’s meaningful to her, not just to you.
Men must also understand that their wives are “fellow heirs of the grace of life.” God created man and woman in His image and made woman from the rib of man. Eve was like Adam, she was a human in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27). They’re both children of God. Husbands need to respect their wives and love them “as their own bodies.”

Men must be careful to not misunderstand the talk of a “weaker vessel.” While some are quick to point to this language as a sign of the Bible being captive to its culture, in truth these words still hold true today. Peter used them to demonstrate that women are different than men. We must consider the feelings and attitudes of our wives and realize that they might not be the same as our own. The term “weaker vessel” doesn’t mean “inferior being” but simply refers to the fact that women aren’t generally as strong as men. Unlike the world, which usually treats “weaker” beings as inferior, Peter uses the fact that women and men have differing bodies to illustrate that husbands need to understand and love their wives.

Joshua Harris notes, “What God is saying here is a radical reverse of the way our world works. He says to husbands, “Don’t use your physical strength as justification to mistreat your wife-instead, show her honor.”

When you commit to marriage, you’re committing to putting her needs above your own. For all the single people out there, if you’re not ready to do this, then don’t get married. Don’t lie to the woman you supposedly love by telling her you love her and then being inconsiderate of her needs. For the married guys, give yourself up, give up fighting for your rights, and love your wife. Take care of her needs, look out for her good, and prove that your love is more than a feeling.

If you’re wondering if all this truly matters or if it can actually be done, read the second part of this series to see why the stakes are so high and how a husband can live this out in his own marriage.

(This post was originally published on the Unlocking Femininity blog at www.unlockingfemininity.com. Alex Montgomery is the husband of Diane Montgomery, a frequent contributor to Unlocking Femininity)

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

As if the Church of England does not have enough troubles, word is leaking out of Lambeth Palace that the church is about to allow the appointment of openly gay bishops, so long as those bishops remain celibate.

The news has emerged in the form of a leaked internal memorandum prepared for the Archbishop of Canterbury by the church's highest legal adviser. The legal guidelines are intended to bring the church into compliance with Britain's Equality Act of 2010, even as the church is considering new criteria for the appointment of bishops. That law prohibits discrimination on the basis of several characteristics, including sexual orientation. The Equality Act has already been used to force some British churches to hire youth ministers and other workers who are openly homosexual.

Back in May, Andrew Brown of The Guardian [London] described the church's predicament this way:

"The leadership of the established church remains tied in knots over how far it can comply with the Equality Act in its treatment of gay people. Church lawyers have told the bishops that while they cannot take into account that someone is homosexual in considering them for preferment, they also cannot put forward clergy in active same-sex relationships and, even if they are celibate, must consider whether they can ‘act as a focus for unity' to their flocks if appointed to a diocese."

Now, in light of that challenge, the church's legal authority has suggested guidelines that would call for the appointment of openly gay bishops, but would require them to be celibate. The logic of the legal guidelines draws a distinction that would allow the church to claim compliance with the Equality Act and also act in accord with the deeply held beliefs of many of its members.

The crucial part of the guidelines states the matter like this:

"It is not open to a crown nominations committee or a bishop making a suffragan appointment to propose someone who is in a sexually active same-sex relationship; it is not open to them to take into account the mere fact that someone is gay by sexual orientation."

So the "mere fact that someone is gay by sexual orientation" cannot be taken into account. But, of course, sexual orientation is not a "mere" matter in any Christian consideration. It is a matter of tremendous moral, spiritual, and theological significance. Our churches are filled with highly gifted persons who are struggling with their own sexual orientation, and many of these believers are living lives of faithful obedience to Christ.

But it is one thing to acknowledge and confess that one is struggling with same-sex attraction; it is yet another to announce and claim homosexuality as one's personal identity.

Consider this section from the proposed guidelines:

"A person's sexual orientation is, in itself, irrelevant to their suitability for episcopal office or indeed ordained ministry more generally. It would, therefore, be wrong if [during the selection process] account were taken of the fact that a candidate had identified himself as of gay sexual orientation."

This is a very dangerous statement, for it declares something as important as sexual orientation to be "irrelevant" to qualifications for ministerial office. It would be "wrong," the guidelines state, for sexual orientation to be taken into account.

At this point, the guidelines lose touch with theological sanity. Christians must acknowledge that, in a fallen world, people struggle with sexual impulses and attractions that fall short of the glory of God. That is not a new acknowledgment for the church. In some sense, this includes every human being since Adam. It also includes many whose particular struggle is with same-sex attraction. The Bible makes clear that even this attraction is demonstrable proof of human sinfulness. [See Romans 1: 18-32] The Gospel is our only rescue from sin, and this certainly includes the sin of homosexuality and the problem of same-sex attraction.

Thus, a believer confessing a struggle with same-sex attraction should not be condemned by the church, but brought under its care, discipline, ministry, and protection. In this sense, biblical Christians can understand sexual "orientation" to be a legitimate category that identifies a particular struggle with sin.

But the concept of sexual orientation that underlies the proposed guidelines for the Church of England is very different. In the context of Britain's Equality Act of 2010, a same-sex sexual orientation is something to be put on an equal status with heterosexuality, as if there were nothing wrong with such an orientation.

This is the fatal inconsistency of the Church of England's proposed guidelines. If a same-sex sexual orientation is not itself a problem, how can the church insist that homosexual acts are sinful? Again, these guidelines do not presume an individual who is just struggling with same-sex attraction, but one who claims a public homosexual identity. Understandably, the proposed guidelines are unlikely to withstand close scrutiny or to please either liberals or conservatives in the church.

Finally, a truly ominous issue is the Church of England's subservience to the state on the matter of the Equality Act. As an established state church, the Church of England is hardly in a position to reject the government's laws or to claim the high ground of religious liberty. Thus, it is in a trap from which it seems incapable or unwilling of extricating itself.

American churches and denominations had better take note. When a church or Christian institution bows to the authority of the state on a matter of such direct biblical importance, it is destined to lose biblical fidelity. The proposed guidelines for the Church of England should serve as an alarm to all churches concerning this real and present danger.

(This post originally appeared at www.albertmohler.com)

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

The 2011 edition of the NIV was released earlier this year and many evangelicals awaited its arrival with great expectancy. Zondervan's update of the NIV represented an improvement in accuracy over the controversial "gender-neutral" TNIV released a few years back. However, upon closer inspection by complementarian scholars, it has become disappointingly clear that far too many of the issues caused by a "gender-neutral" approach to translation have remained with the NIV 2011.

Vern Poythress, a leading thinker and theologian among conservative evangelicals, has assembled a detailed history of the NIV and its evolution to the 2011 version, along with detailed analysis of the changes and "non-changes" in the NIV 2011. Poythress serves as professor of New Testament interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary. His analysis is avaible in pdf format here:
http://frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2011Gender.pdf