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

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

Like many Christians, I love to listen to sermons while driving from place to place in the car. Only eternity will tell how deeply God has changed me through the means of hundreds of hours of preaching and teaching by godly men such as R.C. Sproul, John Piper, John MacArthur, James Kennedy, Mark Dever, Tom Schreiner, Al Martin, Adrian Rogers (greatest preaching voice ever!), Alistair Begg, James Dobson and scores of other faithful Gospel ministers.

Recently, I found myself deeply challenged as a father by the words of Alistair Begg as he taught on the topic of biblical parenting. This particular day, Dr. Begg (I could listen to his Scottish brogue all day!) was dealing with fathers, challenging them to live in light of eternity. I want to share his words with our readers, so I have provided a partial transcript below.

For my fellow fathers, read it, be humbled, instructed and moved to change if necessary. For our female readers, read and pray that God will make your husband this kind of father. To set the context, Dr. Begg begins by talking about the brevity of life and a father's responsibility toward his children in light of that reality. His text was the story of Jacob in Genesis. If you do not have time to read it all, I have italicized his particularly challenging words in the final two paragraphs.       

                        Alistair Begg:

"You are 365 days nearer death than you were at Father's Day last year, 24 hours nearer death than you were this time yesterday morning. We are dying. We will never die as Jacob died unless we live as Jacob lived. You cannot die in faith unless you live in faith and you cannot live in faith unless you come to faith. You cannot come to faith until you see yourself as a needy sinner before Christ, repent of your sin, ask Him to save you, cry out for His mercy and has Him to come and invade your life by the power of His Spirit.

"That's where the journey of faith begins-not because you decided to get religious, not because you wandered into a church, not because you are trying to do a little better-but because you encountered God. Jacob had such an encounter...Then (after we encounter God personally) we will be ready to die, but not until. We may be dead before the day is over."

"Until you have addressed the issue of dying, there will be no worthwhile blessing coming from you to your children. What am I blessing my children with? Are we blessing our children? We can't bless them with a patriarchal blessing in the manner of Jacob, but we can bless them in the way we love them, in the way we are firm with them, in the way we establish parameters and say, ‘This is it.' We can bless them in the way we pray for them, in the way we instruct them, in the way we guide them, in the way in which we take an interest in them."

"Jacob is 147 years old and he is worshiping God...Do your children know you to be a worshiper? How would they know? They would see you in worship. They would join you in worship. They would know whether worship for you was something that came out of the fullness of your heart or whether it was just something to get by one hour in the week to get on with the rest of life. When the pastor calls on your home and gathers the children around him and says, ‘Tell me some of your father's favorite hymns,' will they be able to answer? Or if he asks them, ‘Tell me some  of your dad's favorite verses,' will they have anything to say? [If he says] ‘show me your dad's well-worn Bible,' will there be anything to pick up?"

Dr. Begg then illustrates the point with his own father and how, as a young boy, he sat beside his dad each Lord's Day and saw him worship. This had a lasting impact on him.

"I don't know what day it was when I passed the rubicon between sitting beside my dad and grinding through every moment of what was being said by this guy (the preacher) at the front and suddenly listening. I don't know when I passed from winding my mother's watch round and round on her wrist so as to take her into eternity with an indelible mark of the fact I was always saying, ‘When will this be over?' I don't know when it changed, but it changed. And every song I sang and nearly every verse I know and almost every conviction of my life today has been framed by the fact that I lived in the house of a worshiping dad. I remember putting my hand into his hand in a Sunday evening service, wondering what the guy (preacher) was on about, but happy just to hold his hand. I remember, as if he was beside me right now, the way that hymn book always shook, even when I was tiny. And I remember thinking, ‘My dad must be old; the book shouldn't shake like this.' Will your kids remember? Will they remember that for you it was one hour on a Sunday morning and forget it for the rest of the week? If you die tonight, what kind of legacy have you left as a worshiper? Are you going to sit home and watch Bonanza tonight? If so, then remember this: every Sunday night spent watching Bonanza instead of worshiping in the house of the Lord is adding to the legacy that you are leaving for your children on the day when you aren't blessing them any more because you died and you checked out."

Where are you, dad? As we approach this father's day, contemplate how your example, for better or worse, will impact the next generation. We desperately need courageous, godly fathers to point their children on the narrow path that leads to life.

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

[Editor's note: The following post was originally published on the Girls Gone Wise blog at www.girlsgonewise.com]


There's been more ink spilled over the doctrinal interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 than any other passage. It's a controversial passage that evokes very strong emotional responses and reactions - particularly in this day and age.  And verse 15 is one of the trickiest passages in the Bible to interpret. Because of this, many pastors simply avoid teaching on it. So I give kudos to Tim Challies for preaching on the passage in a recent sermon, and having the guts to take a shot at explaining it in his blog post, "Saved through Childbearing?"

For those of you who aren't familiar with it, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 says,

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. " (1 Timothy 2:11-15, ESV)

Now that's definitely not the passage you want to be teaching on if you're trying to win a popularity contest! It sounds extremely sexist and abrasive to the modern ear. And the phrase "she will be saved through childbearing" seems non-sensical, if not downright outrageous. But I concur with Challies that "there is truth and freedom here if we are willing to go looking for it."

An Epiphany

Reading Challies' attempts to come to grip with verse 15 reminded me of my own attempts to wrestle with this passage over the years. The last time I studied the passage in-depth was a couple of years ago, while working on writing Girls Gone Wise. It's interesting how we can read a passage a hundred times, and still notice something new when we return to it again. I had been studying Genesis, and was immersed in the concept of the typological symbolism of Adam and Eve. (Adam is type of Christ, Eve is type of the Church), when I turned my attention to 1 Timothy 2.

It was then that I had an epiphany that seemed to resolve many of the interpretive difficulties with the text. It struck me that approaching the passage typologically harmonized many of the issues that arose from approaching it from a merely ontological standpoint - which has been the normative way of viewing this text.  I was so excited about the idea that I called up Wayne Grudem, to pick his brain about the veracity of my thoughts. He encouraged me to write them up and present a paper at ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) or to publish an article in their academic Journal (JETS). I haven't got around to doing that yet, but since Challies brought up the question, I'm itching to weigh in on the discussion.

So, for all you geeky theological tall foreheads, here's something for you to chew on. (Remember, you heard it here first!) For those who aren't familiar with the theological terminology, don't bail out. Bear with me... and keep reading. Theology is fun!

A Typological Approach to 1 Timothy 2:11-15

To begin, let me explain what the theological term "type" means. A "type" is person, thing, or event that foreshadows or points to something or someone else (the antitype). The type has a layer of intended meaning that is revealed by the antitype.  For example, Jesus told Nicodemus, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness" (the type), "so must the Son of Man be lifted up" (the anti-type) (Jn 3:14; cf. Nm 21:9). The Passover Lamb and the rock from which Israel drank in the wilderness were also types of Christ (Ex 12:1-13, 49; 17:6; 1 Cor 5:7; 10:3, 4) Types most frequently point to Jesus and the story of the gospel.

Paul was a big typological type of thinker. He taught, for instance, that Adam was type of Christ, and that marriage was type of the relationship between Christ and the Church.  He would have agreed with the writer of Hebrews that earthly, physical realities are but shadows-types-of true and heavenly realities (the antitypes) (Heb. 8:5; 9:24-25). The physical and temporal exist to point us to the spiritual and eternal.

Now before we go on, I'm going to teach you another big, daunting word: "ontology" (Just think how your opponent's eyebrows will rise when you use up three o's playing it in scrabble!) Ontology means "related to being or existence." It has to do with the essence of who we are.

Woman is Type of Church

As I said before, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 makes a whole lot more sense when we understand it typologically rather than merely ontologically. That is, from the perspective of what woman represents (typology) rather than just who woman is (ontology). And it may be that this is just what Paul had in mind.

We know for sure that Paul viewed Adam as a type of Christ. We also know for sure that he viewed marriage as type of the relationship between Christ and the church - in which the role of husband is a type of Christ and the role of the wife is a type of the Church. Thus, we can justifiably extrapolate that Paul also viewed Eve as a type of the Church.

Assuming that Paul has typology in mind, let's have a look at the passage again. First, Paul talks about how women and men are to conduct themselves in church: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."  Don't get caught up in what this means and how we apply it today. That's a discussion for another time. For now, I just want you to consider how a typological approach helps explain this and the next few verses, and how it solves some interpretive conundrums.

If Paul was indeed thinking typologically (and I believe a good case can be made for it), that puts an entirely different spin on the following verses. Paul isn't arguing that women are more gullible or that women need to bear children in order to be saved. No. He's trying to point out that male female roles in the church exist to bear typological witness to the gospel.

For Adam (type of Christ) was formed first, then Eve (type of Church) - and Adam (type of Christ) was not deceived, but the woman (type of Church) was deceived and became a transgressor.

Yet she (the Church) will be saved through childbearing (bearing fruit in Christ)-if they (man and woman) continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Voila. This solves the conundrum of thinking that Paul is saying that women are saved by giving birth to biological children. If Paul is indeed thinking typologically, he's not saying anything of the sort. Instead, he's saying that woman's ontology (her capacity to bear children) relates to her typology (the Church's ability to be fruitful in Jesus). She (the Church) is saved through childbearing. Paul reinforces the profound mutuality of men and women here. Both are church. Both are saved by the type of union that results in spiritual children-the union with our husband, Christ. Both must continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

It's not about us

Yes, Paul gives some pretty tough instruction about male and female roles in the Church. But then he elevates the discussion to an entirely different level. In his rationale, he mingles the imagery of Adam and Eve and woman and man together to make the point that in the end, how we conduct ourselves in church has much more to do with what we (typologically) represent than who we (ontologically) are. And that makes his directives on male/female roles in the church much easier to understand and swallow.

Ultimately, this is not about us. It's not about man. It's not about woman. It's about displaying the glory of Christ's story.

A typological approach to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 makes a lot of sense to me, and I'd like to throw it on the table for my fellow theologians to consider and discuss. We can't say with absolute certainty what Paul had in mind in verse 15, but we can be absolutely certain that there is indeed truth and freedom here if we are willing to go looking for it.

(Mary Kassian is a member of CBMW's council)

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

Is the Church guilty of beating people with the Bible? As strange as that argument might sound, it is actually a powerful weapon in the hands of those who are determined to normalize homosexuality and same-sex marriage within the Church. Those pushing for the acceptance of homosexuality now argue that Christians opposed to that agenda are "clobbering" sinners with the biblical text.

There seems to be no authoritative original source for this very powerful rhetorical innovation, but it has become increasingly popular in recent years, and it is deployed as a way of subverting the Bible's condemnation of same-gender sexuality.

In his new book, Fall to Grace, Jay Bakker presents a classic form of this argument. Bakker, the son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, is now co-pastor of Revolution Church in New York City - a congregation described by New York magazine as "a church that is still figuring out its message." Well, it may be trying to figure out its message on some issues, but on homosexuality its position is very clear.

Jay Bakker was only a tween when his parents became involved in the massive scandal that led to the collapse of their PTL ministry, complete with its theme park known as "Heritage USA." As Bakker makes clear, the big lesson he learned from that scandal was that Christians show precious little grace. In Fall to Grace, Bakker sets out his vision of Christianity. He levels some legitimate criticisms at the Church, but what he offers is a revisionist reworking of Christianity and the Gospel that is actually just a rehash of Protestant Liberalism in the early twentieth century.

In a lengthy and insightful profile of Jay Bakker, Alex Morris of New York magazine argues that Bakker has reduced Christianity to a message of forgiveness and little else. "The rest of Protestant Christianity, however, he's basically prepared to ditch - a stance that pushes him beyond the far liberal wing of the Evangelical Christian community and into what is known as the ‘Emergent' ministry," Morris notes. He describes the perplexity of some within Revolution Church who are trying to figure out what the Church actually believes. He asks: "Once you strip so much out of Christianity, what is left?"

Jay Bakker holds to an evolutionary theology. In Fall to Grace, he argues that there is an evolutionary theology within the Bible and that the character of God changes from the Old Testament to the New. Bakker credits author Brian D. McLaren with the argument that the Bible reveals "a trajectory that points inexorably from judgment and punishment in the distant past through time toward forgiveness and all-encompassing love." Bakker argues against "trying to maintain scriptural consistency" and proclaims that we are "not stuck with the angry God encountered in the Old Testament (and, yes, in some places in the New Testament)."

In the book, Bakker explains how he came to affirm homosexuality and even to perform at least one same-sex marriage. He argues that the Church must evolve in its understanding of the moral teachings in the Bible. He concedes that the Old Testament clearly condemns same-sex sexual behaviors, but he rejects this as irrelevant for the Church: "The truth is that the Bible endorses all sorts of attitudes and behaviors that we find unacceptable (and illegal) today and decries others that we recognize as no big deal," he says.

He rejects the Old Testament as containing laws, including laws concerning human sexuality, that merely "reflect social concerns of another time and place." Therefore: "Just as our thinking has evolved in these other areas, so it must evolve on the subject of homosexuality."

When he turns to the New Testament, Bakker identifies three texts he calls "clobber Scriptures." Why? Because, he explains, "they're used to beat people over the head."

These texts include 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Romans 1:25-27. Bakker draws from recent liberal scholarship to argue that these texts actually do not deal with homosexuality at all, but with promiscuity, gang rape, and "immoderate indulgence."

These arguments have become standard fare among those advocating for the acceptance of homosexuality, and they are trotted out in almost every public debate on the issue. But the arguments fail for two very important reasons. First, the arguments are just not faithful to the texts involved, which clearly condemn same-sex behavior. Second, the arguments are based on the absurd claim that the Church has misunderstood these texts for centuries, only to be "corrected" by revisionist scholars in recent decades.

Nevertheless, the most important aspect of Bakker's argument is his way of dismissing the texts as "clobber Scriptures" - suggesting that the Church is misusing them by telling homosexuals that same-sex behaviors are sinful.

Interestingly, the word "clobber" took on the idea of physical violence only during World War II, when, according to linguists, "clobber" was used with reference to aerial bombing raids. It is well established in our vocabulary now, which is what makes this rhetorical strategy so effective. It simply isn't right to clobber people.

But is that what Christians do when we affirm the truthfulness and authority of the Bible? Is it "clobbering" people to point out that Scripture identifies their behavior or attitudes as sinful?

Certainly not - at least not when the biblical truth is asserted honestly. In other words, not when we honestly confess that our sins, too, are condemned within the same Bible.

Without a knowledge of our sinfulness, we do not know of our need for a Savior. In this sense, we all need to be "clobbered" by the Bible so that we will know of our need for Christ.

God loved sinful humanity so much that he gave us the Bible - and the Law - in order that we might know with revealed specificity the truth about our own sinfulness. Then, we truly celebrate what it means that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." [John 3:16]

The Bible's condemnation of same-sex behaviors is comprehensive and clear. It is interwoven with the Bible's message concerning God's plan for humanity, marriage, and society - and the Gospel. Human flourishing is found only by living in obedience to God's revealed plan. Our rebellion against the Creator is never so insidious as when we declare that our own plan is superior to his.

When the Bible, in part or in whole, is dismissed as "clobber Scriptures," it is not only the Bible that is subverted, but also the Gospel. The Church must recognize that fact clearly - and fast.

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has published a new book called A Guide to Biblical Manhood based on the Biblical Masculinity class taught in January 2011 byRandy Stinson, CBMW president and  dean of the School of Church Ministries, along with Dan Dumas, senior vice president for institutional administration at SBTS. In the following excerpt, the authors explain their motivation for providing this resource. Readers can find more information about A Guide to Biblical Manhood at press.sbts.edu. Interested readers may order copies of the book. This story originally ran in Towers, Southern's campus newspaper.

We need men. If ever there was a time we needed men to know their purpose and to be men again, it's now. Our world is filled with great uncertainty and instability and leaders are hard to find. We need men who aren't pre-occupied with their amusements or appearance, but instead are willing and able to take on manly challenges. But it's not enough for men to take up manly activities here and there. Men abound who can do manly stuff (like shave with a straight razor, build fires without matches and deep fry turkeys) while still being disengaged where their leadership is needed most. Every day, men hide behind computer screens or pleasure pursuits instead of engaging. We need men with consistent character: integrity, courage, perseverance and a willingness to sacrifice and lead for the greater good.

We need men of God. We've written this book, however, with a major distinction from other manhood resources. We're convinced that what we need most are men of God. We need men who won't just stand up, but will stand on something solid and timeless. In a relativistic world, men need to understand who God designed them to be, how they are prone to sin in their manhood becauseof the Fall and how Jesus came to redeem them as men.

We need men of God who are doers of the Word.  We've also written this because we've seen too many men with great gaps between their beliefs and behaviors about biblical manhood. We need men of God who are active and consistent in living out their faith. "Be doers of the word," says James, "and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves" (1:22). It doesn't matter what you believe about God or biblical manhood if it doesn't make a meaningful difference in the way you live - in the classroom, on the job, as a husband or as a father.

This guidebook is all about practical theology - the doing of the Word. We provide recommended reading in the resource section for anyone who wants to learn more about biblical manhood, but what you'll mostly see in these pages are practical ways to live it out every day of your life, to push past the barriers that often separate belief from behavior. We realize this kind of practical application of biblical manhood can be seen as subjective. We're not going to say that acting on all the specifics of this guidebook is the only effective way to demonstrate biblical manhood. We are convinced, however, that beliefs have to result in action.

The last thing the world needs is men with great insights on biblical manhood sitting on thesidelines (or worse, acting in ways that contradict what they believe). We need men of God whoare doers of the Word for the sake of the Gospel. Ultimately, however, we wrote this book because we believe that biblical manhood has to lead to urgency for the sake of the Gospel. We need men who will shoulder the weight of manhood as God designed it, who will live it out day to day but will incline their manhood toward the Gospel. It is the Gospel that saves men - as Jesus replaces their sin and rebellion with his righteousness - and it's what makes it possible for men to be redeemed in their masculinity and to serve God with all of their manhood. And it's for the sake of the Gospel that redeemed men have a new commission for their leadership - to proclaim the good news and make disciples. Instead of compartmentalizing the Gospel, redeemed men are to see it intersecting with their life at work, in their marriage and with their kids. And pastors who understand this intersection as well shouldn't see cultivating redeemed men as a distraction from the Gospel but see it as a primary front for advancing the good news. The Gospel needs of our world    today provide unlimited opportunities for both men and women to serve. But so many of the needs - in rapidly growing urban centers, among unreached people groups and so on - require a kind of courage, toughness and self sacrifice, that God gifted men to bring.

And so we pray this book will admonish, encourage and instruct you to be a man of God who is a doer of the Word for the sake of the Gospel.