Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

Recently, Rob Bell, pastor at Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, has caused an uproar among Christian circles for his book,  ”Love Wins.”   He argues that a loving God would never sentence humans to eternal suffering. This is just one of the many theological controversies surrounding Mr. Bell.  In 2008,  Bell came out with the “She” video where he focuses on the “feminine images of God” throughout Scripture.

I want you to know I don’t disagree with everything that Rob Bell says in the video; he does have some good points. He is right in saying that both man and woman are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). He’s also correct in pointing out that women have been and sometimes are still treated like “second class citizens.” No one can deny this; it’s evident in history and has happened in almost every culture. Bell does right by praising mothers who care and nurture their children. Sacrificial mothers should be praised by those in their home (Prov. 31:28). Without women like this, we wouldn’t have the C.S Lewis’, Mother Teresa’s, or Albert Einstein’s of this world. They protect and care for their children in a way that no man could.

As Bell states, “There’s this internal impulse, this ancient mothering impulse, a divine impulse.” This is given by God and is a part of our role. While I agree with these few statements he made, he starts to go wrong when he makes God to have a feminine dimension from a few similes (a figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared, as in “she is like a rose”) in Scripture.

Early in the video, Bell says the Hebrew word for compassionate is “racham” and that “it’s also the word for ‘womb.’ So, God is compassionate. God is ‘womblike’? This is a feminine image for God.” Racham does not mean both “compassionate” and “womb.” They have the same root (compassionate is racham and womb is rechem) but do not mean the same thing, just because they’re related etymologically. Take the Latin word niceus which means ignorant and the English word nice (which is derived from the Latin). They have the same root but their definition is completely different. This is called a “root fallacy,” and Bell unfortunately falls prey to this.

But if Bell’s assumption about the Hebrew adjective (compassionate equals womb-like) were correct, it would be used mostly to refer to mothers, right? Actually this is far from the case. There are several cases when it’s used for warriors, rulers, and even a father having compassion on his children (Ps. 103:13),most of the time though it refers to God. Surprisingly, only two times is compassion used to refer to a mother’s compassion (Isa. 49:15 and 1 Kgs 3:26).

Midway through the video, Bell uses the “banner” verse of egalitarians, Gal. 3:28. Paul writes, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” He goes on to explain what he means by saying in 4:1, “What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.” As believers in Christ we are equal, but that does not mean our roles are the same. In Christ, a CEO of a company is equal to one of his employees in a cubicle. However, they have different roles. The employee would not take charge of the CEO and the CEO would not do errands for the employee. They are equal in Christ, but carry out different tasks.

While Bell never says, “We should call God by ‘Mother,’” his arguments are the same as most evangelical feminists who move towards referring to God by “Mother” or “She.” Bell is teeter-tottering on a very dangerous line towards liberalism through this push of God as part-female, and I think it’s important to address the issue of “Mother God.”

Bell then uses the metaphor in Job 38:29 as an example of “female imagery of God.” Deut. 32:18, Isa. 42:13-14, and Isa. 66:13 also use feminine comparisons to describe God’s activities, but just as in Job 38:29, they never use feminine nouns to describe God. Anytime God is referred to in Scripture, the gender markers are only masculine. For example, Deut. 32:18 (give you birth) uses a masculine participle, not a feminine one. He gave these feminine examples to the writers to help us understand what he is like. He uses the image of a mother’s compassion to say “Hey, this is what I’m like….but so much better!” What grace he has on our simple minds!

Just because feminine metaphors are used to describe God doesn’t mean that we then need to start calling Him “Mother” or starting using “she” when referring to God or Jesus. David (2 Sam. 17:8) and Paul (1 Thess. 2:7) are described as a”mother bear” or a “mother caring for her children.” Does that mean they were part woman and we should call them “she” now? If I can change a tire, have a take-charge attitude with projects, or throw a good spiral (football lingo), does that mean people should call me “he” now? Most people would say, “Of course not.” Why then do Bell, most egalitarians and feminists apply this method to God? God never uses female pronouns or nouns to describe himself, only masculine ones. He is, therefore, self-revealed by using masculine pronouns and we should only refer to him as such.

Furthermore, who said that compassion is limited to only women and is solely a feminine trait? Compassion does not come from a female but from the Lord. We would have no compassion, mercy, justice, strength, or kindness without Him. These are God-traits which were given to us when God created male and female. God is the model, women follow God’s example in obedience.

Though there are a few feminine metaphors used, we need to look at the rest of Scripture for answers. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit and is God’s revelation of Himself to us. Randy Stinson has a great article on this issue, “Seven Reasons Why We Cannot Call God ‘Mother.’” He points out, among other things, that (1) God’s own Word never calls him “Mother” or “She” but regularly uses masculine terms such as “Father,“ “He,” and “King” (never “Queen”) and “Husband” (never “Wife”); (2) God’s self-revelation in Scripture is His own chosen way of revealing His identity to us, and we should not tamper with that or add to it by calling God names the Bible never uses (and carefully avoids using.) God gave the words to write to all the authors of Scripture. How we think of God is affected by what His name is. If we start calling God “She” or “Mother,” we change God’s own description of Himself and call Him something He did not take for Himself. Only God can name God and He prescribes the language.

While Bell had some good points, he is tiptoeing on a dangerous line. When we try to identify Scripture with our culture, the problems subtly creep their way in. Blurring the lines of Scripture can lead to beliefs that are contrary to God’s Word and we must be careful to test all that we read and hear. It may sound good and right but does it follow Scripture? As it says in 1 John 4:1, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

(This article orginally appeared on Unlocking Femininity, a blog for which Diane Montgomery is a regular contributor. That blog is available at www.unlockingfemininity.com)

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

"Baseball is boring" is a cry that is often heard today. Perhaps, in the same way a classic novel is boring or long conversations into the night with your spouse are boring. But that is just it; we do not have time for those things either. A love for baseball cannot be passed on without fathers spending a lot of time with their sons. I fear many modern fathers want football-style fathering, a few big events a year where it is easy to get up to speed quickly. A father that refuses to take the time to teach his son a game like baseball probably will not take the time for other complex, mysterious things either, more important things.

As a Christian father this is where that uneasy pang in the pit of my stomach intensifies. The good news of Jesus Christ is a simple, yet infinitely profound message. The Bible takes us through the most important story in the history of the cosmos. The story has all kinds of twists and turns, nuances, and mystery (Ephesians 3:3-10; 5:32; Colossians 1:26-27). It is the story that defines every one of our personal stories. Passing on "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) to the next generation takes time, patience, and never ending conversations (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Psalm 78:1-8) about "the mystery of the gospel" (Ephesians 6:19).

I wonder if the changing mood of American culture has far greater implications than the fact football has vaulted over baseball as America's favorite sport. We do not have time to read the long complex story of the Bible and have countless conversations with our sons about the good news so we simply drop them off and hope the professionals at the church can take care of the heavy stuff. We prefer the gospel tract approach to teaching the faith- just the facts- hopefully get them saved, and then move on to other things. But in a faith whose Savior commands His followers to eat His flesh and drink His blood (John 6:54-57) there is more to be said than can be put on a tri-fold and tucked in a jacket pocket.

In a baseball family, morning breakfast includes checking the box score of last night's game and a discussion of the pitching match ups for the game that day. Those conversations are carried to school and continued with the other boys who participated in the same ritual in their homes that morning. The day is always better when time is carved out to play catch before dark or school is missed because first pitch is at noon. Every trip home from the store is received like Christmas morning when dad comes home with a fresh pack of baseball cards, complete with a sliver of cardboard gum. Little boys who grow up in this environment drift off to sleep thinking about their baseball heroes and invariably dreaming about becoming one. This is the way a passion for baseball, a love for the game, is passed on to the next generation.

Doesn't this sound like Moses command to God's people about their responsibility to pass on the faith and cultivate a love for God? "And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise" (Deuteronomy 6:6-7). Christian fathers have the responsibility to create an atmosphere in the home where talk of God and His Word is the norm and the gospel message overshadows all of everyday life because it is "on your heart" (Deuteronomy 6:6).

A dad who is passionate about baseball almost always extends his desire to teach and pass on a love for the game beyond his own sons. On a bright, sunny day in the middle of summer, a game of catch draws other neighborhood boys to the sound of leather popping with a magnetic attraction. My dad, and countless others before and after him, had a whole group of boys with absentee or disinterested fathers who attached to him as soon as the winter began to give way to the warmth of spring and a new baseball season was dawning. The last out of the season had to be especially difficult for these boys since more was at stake than a loss in the district tournament. Nevertheless, the investment my father made in these boys because of his desire to spread a passion for something he loved forged a bond that often transcended little league.        

Likewise, every Christian father has, not only, the responsibility to teach his own sons to know and trust the Lord Jesus Christ but also the opportunity share his ultimate passion and love with "children who have not known it" that they "may hear and learn to fear the LORD" (Deuteronomy 31:13). I remember those looks and whispers aimed at my father when he brought the fatherless kid with long, long hair and earrings to baseball sign-ups and later when he encouraged a couple of African-American kids from my school to play. He was no social crusader, by any means, but he thought every child ought to have an opportunity to learn and play a game that he loved and was passing on to his son. The glares and gossip did not bother him a bit. Far too many Christian fathers exhibit less passion and love for the gospel than my dad did for baseball. I wonder how many Christian dads are willing to scandalize others because every boy deserves an opportunity to hear and live the good news of Jesus Christ.

You may never develop my passion for baseball. You may always prefer other games like football, basketball, or even soccer, and I will accept that. I will not like it but I will accept it. If you give me the opportunity I will gladly discuss how baseball provides the best metaphors for life and the pursuit of godliness of any sport. If you keep the conversation going I am sure I will explain why the designated hitter in the American League strikes against the very character of the game. You may not even like sports. Your interest may be farming, construction, or perhaps even carpentry, like the father of a young Jewish boy named Jesus. But I will be content if baseball, whether you enjoy the game or not, helps every dad remember that teaching our sons to trust in Jesus and to serve His Kingdom takes time, effort,  instruction, modeling, and countless conversations. If so, the cry "Play Ball!" could be some of the most important words you ever hear. Even if you, in defiance of all sound reason, are glad football is considered America's new national pastime.

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

I heard the words blare from the car radio and received them with that uneasy pang in the pit of my stomach, the kind that comes when you hear really bad news. The radio show host said it without hesitation as if nothing was at stake, “America’s new favorite pastime . . . football.” The worst part was, as he ran through his list of reasons for asserting that football is more popular in America than baseball, I knew he was right.

It is likely that you receive this news with a yawn, but not me. I enjoy football. I used to coach high school football, and there is certainly something special about Friday night lights. The pomp and circumstance of a college football Saturday is a sight to behold: marching bands, fight songs, cheers, grilling out and watching a game with 70,000 friends who all decided to wear the same color is its own unique pleasure. But while I enjoy football, I love baseball. My delight for the game is close to that of George Will when he asserted that “Baseball is Heaven’s gift to mortals.”

Famed Baltimore Orioles manager Earl Weaver when he was being interviewed by a reporter concerned he might need to leave the dugout so Weaver could give his pre-game pep talk replied, “This ain't football. We do this every day.” There is a rhythm and pace to baseball that synchs up to the rhythm and pace of real life. Baseball rewards persistence in the face of managed failure. The rosters of the Major League All-Star game are filled with hitters who fail seventy percent of the time. There are no perfect seasons in baseball and that ought to be one of the treasures embraced by every fan that drives, walks, or rides a bike away from the park.

Baseball is not played in something as impersonal as a stadium with a playing surface possessing the exact, cookie cutter, dimensions of every other teams playing surface. Rather, baseball is played in a park, on a field which shares the beauty of its diamond with every other baseball field, but which possesses its own unique character as well. The pre-game ground rules are a declaration of the glorious individuality of every ball park whether it has a green monster, a short porch, or a hole in the chain link fence.

Even in the wake of baseball’s steroid era a glance at the players who compete at the highest level serves as a constant reminder that the key to success is not monstrous height or superhuman body mass. It was only a handful of years ago that the world watched as the World Series M.V.P. trophy was hoisted by 5’7” David Eckstein who is listed as weighing 175 pounds, which, if true, must mean he was weighed wearing full uniform and spikes. At that moment I saw a gleam of hope in my sons eyes that they do not possess when a seven footer dunks or a 350 pound lineman sacks a quarterback while running faster than they could travel while riding their bikes. Fat, chubby, tall, short, muscle-bound, skinny, fast, and painfully slow are all represented among our baseball heroes and even among the elite enshrined in Cooperstown. Just like its parks, baseball’s heroes possess an odd sort of everyday beauty.

But it is not my unapologetic belief in the inherent beauty and superiority of baseball as a game that was the primary reason for that uneasy pang in the pit on my stomach that day in the car. It was what I believe to be the primary reason for the present preference of football over baseball in American culture. I do not believe that football’s surge over baseball in national popularity can simply be explained by ESPN’s promotion of college football or the NFL’s amazing marketing. No, I fear it is a symptom of a seismic shift in American culture, particularly in the relationships between fathers and sons.

Now, there can be little doubt that football fits the mood of contemporary America in a way that baseball does not. But there can and should be a great deal of discussion about whether or not the change in national mood is for the better. Football games are huge events; they are parties. After all, a football team will only have five or six home games a year. I think it is safe to say that many people love the atmosphere of football more than the game of football. I was amazed to learn that it is not uncommon for football tailgaters to stay in the parking lot and watch the game on television even if they have tickets. I cannot imagine a baseball fan making such a choice. Baseball fans love the park, the sound, and the smells and most of all the game itself.

The game of baseball is not an easy one to understand. The learning curve for being able to enjoy football is much quicker than it is for baseball. I know that contemporary schemes like the spread option offense and the Tampa 2 defense are complex and an NFL playbook resembles a NASA training manual. Nevertheless, at its base, simplistic level one can become a football fan quickly. In fact, many people become passionate football fans in their adult years after having paid very little attention to the game in their youth.

Almost no one ever develops a love for baseball as an adult. That is not the way the game works. Baseball is a game full of mystery, nuances, and mechanics that has to be passed on from generation to generation for the game to survive. The one who does not understand baseball will not appreciate the game. And that is just the point at which contemporary American culture is working against the nation’s pastime. Baseball is only really understood in the context of countless hours of catch, shagging fly balls, taking batting practice, and never ending hours of watching the game with attendant conversations about all of its delightfully complex nuances and quirks. In a game with infield fly rules, balks, and squeezes; where shortstops are not necessarily short and the players run counter clockwise, even grizzled veterans take pleasure in knowing that they have not mastered the game.

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

(The following article appeared on the blog at albertmohler.com today. Dr. Mohler is a member of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood)


Is marriage a requirement for pastoral ministry? That question is not new, having been a major focus of debates at crucial points in church history, but it is being asked once again.

Erik Eckholm of The New York Times asked the question in a news story that put a focus on Mark Almlie, a single seminary graduate who has been looking for a pastorate. As Eckholm reports, Almlie, “despite a sterling education and years of experience, has faced an obstacle that does not exist in most other professions: He is a single pastor, in a field where those doing the hiring overwhelmingly prefer married people and, especially, married men with children.”

Mr. Almlie calls this unfair discrimination, and he suggested that the motive behind this discrimination comes down to what Eckholm described as “irrational fears” that an unmarried pastor would be hampered in counseling, might be susceptible to sexual advances, or “might be gay.” In Almlie’s words, “Prejudice against single pastors abounds.”

Mr. Eckholm called me for comment, and included this section in his article:

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said it was unfair to accuse churches of discrimination because that word implied something “wrongful.”

“Both the logic of Scripture and the centrality of marriage in society,” he said, justify “the strong inclination of congregations to hire a man who is not only married but faithfully married.”

Mr. Mohler said he tells the students at his seminary that “if they remain single, they need to understand that there’s going to be a significant limitation on their ability to serve as a pastor.”

I have received a good number of responses to the article already, and some clearly argue that I am giving students bad advice.

Well, the reality is that the very fact that the article has appeared indicates that I am right in warning students that remaining single will be a significant limitation on their future service as a pastor. At the first level, this is simply a fact — a fact attested by the article and the statistics reported by virtually all non-Catholic denominations. Pastor search committees, reflecting the sentiments of the congregations, clearly prefer a married pastor with a wife and children.

And yet, beyond the indisputable fact that this is indeed the reality, there lies the question of whether it ought to be so.

I made a remark about that as well, telling Mr. Eckholm that the logic of Scripture and the centrality of marriage in society do justify the strong inclination to secure a pastor who is not only married, but also happily married.

I would base my argument on the most normative New Testament texts that describe the pastor. In 1 Timothy 3:1-7, the Apostle Paul presents Timothy, and thus the church, with this instruction:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.  Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

This text clearly suggests that the minister will be married, indeed “the husband of one wife.” It does not say, “if married, the husband of one wife.” Now, the text does not explicitly state that a minister is not to be single, but it does hold out marriage as the default and normal state.

Importantly, the text’s concern does not end there. The pastor is to “manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive.” Once again, it does not state that a single minister is an impossibility, but it does hold out the expectation of a married pastor with a wife and a household, including obedient children.

Why is this so? Paul makes clear that this is all part of the minister’s credibility, “for if he does not know how to manage his own household, how will be care for God’s church?” Evidently, the ability to lead a family is an important sign of the ability to care for the family of faith.

A similar teaching is found in Titus 1:5-9:

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you — if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.  For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.  He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Once again, the normative expectation is that the pastor is a married man with wife and believing children. This does not mean that an unmarried minister is not “above reproach,” but it does indicate a default position of marriage within the context that not only states the fact but also places it within the larger context of the pastor’s qualifications.

Why is this so? Beyond what has already been stated, the married pastor has the protection of a wife, the status of a leader in the home, the fulfillment of the marital relation, and thus the freedom to relate to the congregation as one who is already committed within the covenant of marriage, and who is able to serve as a model for other men within the congregation and the watching community.

So, then, what about Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 concerning celibacy? There are two important passages within this chapter that directly address the question:

Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. [I Corinthians 7: 6-9]

The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.” [1 Corinthians 7:32-35]

Furthermore, Jesus spoke of those whom he described as those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” [Matthew 19:12]

There is obviously great honor directed here to those who can live without spouse for the sake of the kingdom. Paul describes their service, like his own, as undivided in interest. A married man must be concerned about how to please his wife, while the unmarried man has an undivided interest and is thus more free to serve the Lord in what, as Jesus made clear, is service for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

So, this is not a blanket statement affirming the priority of singleness, but instead affirming a state of uncompromised (not burning with passion) celibacy for the sake of kingdom service.

Note that this passage is addressed to all Christians, not specifically to ministers. Without doubt, an unmarried Christian with the gift of celibacy is more free for Gospel service and Great Commission deployment than a married pastor.

But Paul is not contradicting himself, and his advice concerning pastors stands.

I was asked for my advice and counsel on this issue, and I provided it in summary. I stand by my counsel. I do not have the right nor textual authority to state without equivocation that a pastor cannot be unmarried (as in never married), but I can advise that the logic of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 will lead most congregations to a very clear expectation, and that this expectation will be reflected in congregational intuitions as well.

I can also offer my own personal experience. I was called as pastor of a small country church when I was engaged to be married. This sweet church took a risk with a young seminary student who was anxious to be married and just waiting for the date to arrive. I can testify that my ministry was transformed the moment I showed up back at the church with Mary, my wife. My relations with church members of both sexes took on a much more natural shape, and this was amplified with married couples of all ages. When children came, my ministry in later years was also deepened and widened.

My experience is not normative, Scripture is. Nevertheless, my own experience helps me to understand the logic of these key New Testament texts. I know countless unmarried men and women who are serving the Kingdom of Christ with distinction and dedication. I am so thankful for their commitment and service. But this does not change the fact that when the Bible speaks of the teaching office in the church, it speaks of a man who is expected to be married.

If you know of a better way to answer this question, you will serve the church by presenting it and allowing Christians to judge all advice and counsel by the Scriptures. The New York Times has asked the question. How would you answer it?

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

The first of several excerpts from C.J.’s chapter on modesty his convicting 2008 book Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World (Crossway). Gender Blog will run these excerpts as an occasional series.

---

When it comes to fashion, I’m deliberately out of step. I don’t care if what I’m wearing is trendy or not—in fact, it’s my goal to resist the influence of others (from Paris or Hollywood or anywhere else) over my wardrobe. Like any man’s man, I relish being out of style.

I want to feel comfortable in what I’m wearing, which is why my stained In-N-Out Burger T-shirt and old gray sweatpants are the most well-worn items in my closet second only to my single pair of jeans, which I wear any place a T-shirt and sweatpants would be inappropriate attire.

If you ever see me sharply dressed in public, it’s only because my wife and daughters, out of great concern for my appearance, buy me clothes on my birthday and for Christmas.

My wife and daughters, in contrast to me, do care about what they wear. They are lovely women with impeccable taste. Each one has her own unique style of dress, and I enjoy trying to find gifts that fit their individual styles.

“Adornment and dress is an area with which women are often concerned,” writes George Knight (who must have had teenage daughters). This is a good thing. God created women with an eye for making themselves and everything around them beautiful and attractive. But, as Mr. Knight goes on to observe, dress is also an area “in which there are dangers of immodesty or indiscretion.”[1]

Many young women, though, are unaware of these worldly dangers. Several years ago I preached a message to our church from 1 Timothy 2:9 entitled “The Soul of Modesty.” Eventually, that message made its way into the hands of a young woman named Jenni. Prior to hearing my sermon, Jenni had no idea what God’s Word said about the clothes she wore, if anything at all. “Modesty used to be a foreign word to me,” Jenni later admitted in a testimony to our church congregation:

My friends aptly nicknamed me ‘Scantily.’ When choosing what to wear I thought only of what would flatter me, what would bring more attention my way, and what most resembled the clothes I saw on models or other stylish women. I wanted to be accepted and admired for what I wore. I enjoyed my attire, the undue attention I received, and the way it stimulated my feelings.

Perhaps you can relate to Jenni. Maybe modesty sounds unappealing to you. If we played word association you’d come up with “out of style” and “legalistic.” Maybe you think God is indifferent about the clothes you wear. What does he care?

But, as Jenni ultimately discovered, there is “not a square inch” of our lives—including our closets—with which God is not concerned. Even more, he cares about the heart behind what you wear, about whether your wardrobe reveals the presence of worldliness or godliness.

The evidence comes from 1 Timothy 2:9 where Paul urges “that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.” Like 1 John 2:15 this is a verse we’re inclined to ignore or reinterpret to escape its imperative. But we must not snip 1 Timothy 2:9 out of our Bibles. Rather we must carefully seek to understand how it applies to our lives, our shopping habits, and the contents of our closets.

Now, this chapter is primarily written for women, not only because that’s who 1 Timothy 2:9 addresses, but also because this is a topic of particular concern for women. George Knight is correct, and a woman’s experience will tend to confirm the relevance and importance of this topic. However, modesty does have application for men—increasingly so in our culture. And especially for fathers, whose primary responsibility it is to raise modest daughters.

I write this chapter as the father of three daughters, now grown. I write as a pastor with a growing concern for the erosion of modesty among Christian women today. I write because God’s glory is at stake in the way women dress. I write about modesty because God has first written about it in his eternal Word.

So let’s take God to the Gap.

---

[1] George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 133.