Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

 

Perhaps an accurate motto for one preschool in Stockholm, Sweden might be: "You have now entered the gender-free zone." The school, "Egalia," a taxpayer-funded school, has adopted a curriculum that does not employ gender pronouns such as "he," "she," "his" or "hers" in an attempt to avoid "pigeonholing and stereotyping."  Instead, leaders at the school instruct students and teachers to address each other as "friends." The school includes students ages 1 to 6.

The goal is part of the Swedish government's larger push for a gender-free society. Sadly, Swedish government is hoping other schools will follow Egalia's lead. The goal is as old as that of the serpent of Eden: to establish complete human autonomy:  "Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty, and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher at the taxpayer-funded school told the Swedish Daily Mail. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."

Here's the rest of the story from the Associated Press:

You get the picture.  At first glance, Charles Spurgeon's reaction to a theological novelty of his day seem an appropriate response to this preschool's actions: "We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement." However, this sad and sorry development is not to be dismissed with a rhetorical flourish. (Incidentally, the issue on which Spurgeon was weighing in was a tertiary theological matter, and deserved little more than such a dismissal)

Not everyone in Sweden is taking the news well; many parents are correctly calling it "gender madness." Indeed. This push to instill gender confusion in the children of Sweden is a high-handed illustration of the ungodly exchange of Romans 1:25 "...they exchanged the truth of God for a lie..." And it is deeply sinful because it is the path of the fool that Proverbs teaches: adults, who are called to teach their sons and daughters wisdom, instead, are intentionally leading them down the broad path to destruction.

Will the godly men and women, the faithful followers of Christ in Sweden rise up against such a bald-faced rejection of God's perfect plan for men and women and boldly counter those deadly lies with the transcendent truth? I pray they will.

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

 

[A Review of Timothy Keller, with Kathy Keller, The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God. New York: Dutton, 2011.]

There are dozens of good Christian books on marriage. Why another one? Because our cultural context has changed so drastically.

Tim Keller has witnessed this change from a front-row seat since 1989, when he planted Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, which he still pastors. He penetratingly understands how non-Christians and young Christians tend to think about the Bible's counter-cultural teachings on marriage. His church reflects the demographics of center-city Manhattan: over 80% of the people are single. Keller has found that singles are very interested in the topic of marriage, and this book is based on his most listened-to sermons: a nine-part series he preached on marriage in 1991.

This is Keller's sixth book published by Dutton. The first five are The Reason for God (2008), The Prodigal God (2008), Counterfeit Gods (2009), Generous Justice (2010), and King's Cross (2011). Like the previous ones, this book's target audience is broad. Keller successfully reaches his "primary goal": "to give both married and unmarried people a vision for what marriage is according to the Bible" (12). This is a book I would give to Christians and non-Christians, married and single, older couples and newlyweds, engaged couples and singles-including singles who are not interested in getting married. Keller weaves the gospel throughout the book while disarmingly exposing harmful views on marriage, realistically explaining how God designed marriage to work, and powerfully demonstrating how glorious marriage is. He anticipates objections (e.g., regarding homosexuality or the role of women), probably states them better than the objectors could themselves, and respectfully responds.

In contrast to some of Keller's previous books (e.g., Counterfeit Gods or King's Cross), Keller's exegesis is easy to follow straight through to his theological statements and applications. Sometimes Keller shares a brilliant insight but bases it on a text that I'm not convinced supports it. But this book straightforwardly explains and applies Ephesians 5:21-33, and Keller shares, "I follow closely [Peter T.] O'Brien's exegesis of the Ephesians 5 passage throughout this book" (253n53).

The book's argument unfolds in eight steps:

1. Our culture views marriage very differently than the Bible presents it; God instituted marriage and designed it to illustrate the gospel (ch. 1, "The Secret of Marriage").

2. The Holy Spirit enables husbands and wives to joyfully serve each other (ch. 2, "The Power for Marriage").

3. Marriage is about love, which is not merely romantic passion but commitment to our promise (ch. 3, "The Essence of Marriage").

4. The purpose of marriage is for two best friends to help each other become more holy (ch. 4, "The Mission of Marriage").

5. We can help our spouse become more holy with the power of constructive truth, renewing love (especially the "love languages" of affection, friendship, and service), and reconciling grace (ch. 5, "Loving the Stranger").

6. God created men and women with equal value but distinct roles (ch. 6, "Embracing the Other").

7. Singles should neither overvalue nor undervalue marriage, and those seeking marriage should take some precautions (ch. 7, "Singleness and Marriage").

8. God created sex solely for marriage as a glorious uniting act that maintains the marriage covenant (ch. 8, "Sex and Marriage").

One of Keller's recurrent themes is that the popular "I love you because you make me feel good about myself" concept of love is bankrupt and shallow. "In the long run," Keller comments in an interview about the book, "the more superficial things that made a person sexually attractive will move to the background, and matters of character, humility, grace, courage, faithfulness, and love will come to the foreground. So companionship, duty, and mutual sacrifice are, in the end, the sexiest things of all."

Except for chapter 6 and a short appendix, Keller writes the book in his own voice but acknowledges that it "is very much the product of two people's mutual experience, conversation, reflection, formal study, teaching, and counseling over thirty-seven years" (245n1). Kathy Keller writes chapter 6 and the appendix in the first person, and she winsomely show how the Son's submitting to the Father applies to the roles of husbands and wives (174-76, 242-44).

Most of my criticisms of The Meaning of Marriage are pedantic and not worth highlighting. I'll mention just one: with reference to God's commanding husbands to love their wives, Keller states, "Emotions can't be commanded, only actions, and so it is actions that Paul is demanding" (p. 103). I'm not convinced that dichotomizing emotions and actions like that is viable. I ask my three-year-old daughter to obey me "with a happy heart" (i.e., cheerfully, joyfully, without arguing or complaining), and I don't think that standard is unreasonable. The writings of John Frame and John Piper, among others, present a more satisfying view of emotions.

I could apply many adjectives to the book: insightful, shrewd, disarming, realistic, convicting, pastoral, warm, gracious, penetrating, theological, relevant, faithful, incisive, accessible, clear, compelling. But perhaps best of all (because of those traits), it's edifying. It has inspired me to glorify God by loving and leading my wife like Ephesians 5:21-33 commands.

[Andy Naselli  serves as research manager for D. A. Carson and is administrator of Themelios in Moore, South Carolina]

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

Those of us who hold to so-called "traditional gender roles" are often assumed to believe that women should submit to men. This isn't true.

Indeed, a primary problem in our culture and in our churches isn't that women aren't submissive enough to men, but instead that they are far too submissive.

First of all, it just isn't so that women are called to submit while men are not. In Scripture, every creature is called to submit, often in different ways and at different times. Children are to submit to their parents, although this is certainly a different sort of submission than that envisioned for marriage. Church members are to submit to faithful pastors (Heb. 13:17). All of us are to submit to the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). Of course, we are all to submit, as creatures, to our God (Jas. 4:7).

And, yes, wives are called to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1-6). But that's just the point. In the Bible, it is not that women, generally, are to submit to men, generally. Instead, "wives" are to submit "to your own husbands" (1 Pet. 3:1).

Too often in our culture, women and girls are pressured to submit to men, as a category. This is the reason so many women, even feminist women, are consumed with what men, in general, think of them. This is the reason a woman's value in our society, too often, is defined in terms of sexual attractiveness and availability. Is it any wonder that so many of our girls and women are destroyed by a predatory patriarchy that demeans the dignity and glory of what it means to be a woman?

Submitting to men in general renders it impossible to submit to one's "own husband." Submission to one's husband means faithfulness to him, and to him alone, which means saying "no" to other suitors.

Submission to a right authority always means a corresponding refusal to submit to a false authority. Eve's submission to the Serpent's word meant she refused to submit to God's. On the other hand, Mary's submission to God's word about the child within her meant she refused to submit to Herod's. God repeatedly charges his Bride, the people of Israel, with a refusal to submit to him because they have submitted to the advances of other lovers. The freedom of the gospel means, the apostle tells us, that we "do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal. 5:1).

Despite the promise of female empowerment in the present age, the sexual revolution has given us the reverse. Is it really an advance for women that the average high-school male has seen images of women sexually exploited and humiliated on the Internet? Is it really empowerment to have more and more women economically at the mercy of men who freely abandon them and their children, often with little legal recourse?

Is this really a "pro-woman" culture when restaurant chains enable men to pay to ogle women in tight T-shirts while they gobble down chicken wings? How likely is it that a woman with the attractiveness of Henry Kissinger will obtain power or celebrity status in American culture? What about the girl in your community pressured to perform oral sex on a boyfriend, what is this but a patriarchy brutal enough for a Bronze Age warlord?

In the church it is little better. Too many of our girls and young women are tyrannized by the expectation to look a certain way, to weigh a certain amount, in order to gain the attention of "guys."

Additionally, too many predatory men have crept in among us, all too willing to exploit young women by pretending to be "spiritual leaders" (2 Tim. 3:1-9; 2 Pet. 2). Do not be deceived: a man who will use spiritual categories for carnal purposes is a man who cannot be trusted with fidelity, with provision, with protection, with the fatherhood of children. The same is true for a man who will not guard the moral sanctity of a woman not, or not yet, his wife.

We have empowered this pagan patriarchy. Fathers assume their responsibility to daughters in this regard starts and stops in walking a bride down an aisle at the end of the process. Pastors refuse to identify and call out spiritually impostors before it's too late. And through it all we expect our girls and women to be submissive to men in general, rather than to one man in particular.

Women, sexual and emotional purity means a refusal to submit to "men," in order to submit to your own husband, even one whose name and face you do not yet know. Your closeness with your husband, present or future, means a distance from every man who isn't, or who possibly might not be, him.

Your beauty is found not in external (and fleeting) youth and "attractiveness" but in the "hidden person of the heart" which "in God's sight is very precious" (1 Pet. 3:3-4). And it will be beautiful in the sight of a man who is propelled by the Spirit of this God.

Sisters, you owe no submission to Hollywood or to Madison Avenue, or to those who listen to them. Your worth and dignity cannot be defined by them. Stop comparing yourselves to supermodels and porn stars. Stop loathing your body, or your age. Stop feeling inferior to vaporous glamor. You are beautiful.

Sisters, there is no biblical category for "boyfriend" or "lover," and you owe such designation no submission. In fact, to be submissive to your future husband you must stand back and evaluate, with rigid scrutiny, "Is this the one who is to come, or is there another?" That requires an emotional and physical distance until there is a lifelong covenant made, until you stand before one who is your "own husband."

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as unto the Lord. Yes and Amen. But, women, stop submitting to men.

[Russell D. Moore is the Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a preaching pastor at Highview Baptist Church, where he ministers weekly at the congregation's Fegenbush location. Moore is the author of several books, including The Kingdom of Christ, Adopted for Life, and Tempted and Tried. His blog is Moore to the Point where this post was originally published.]

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

 

The December edition of Focus on the Family's Citizen magazine reports on a troubling development in the realm of video games: a new Star Wars game will include gay characters after succumbing to pressure from homosexual advocates. So let parents pay close attention to what online games their children are playing and what they are buying them for Christmas. A game that seems innocuous and safe may in fact be a Trojan horse. Below is the news brief from Citizen in its entirety:

There are lots of video games you wouldn't want your kids playing. But a Star Wars game - well, that's pretty safe, right? Guess again. The makers of the upcoming online video game Star Wars: The Old Republic has announced that it will include "same gender relationship arcs." The way it works is that players will have certain "companions"-not other players, but characters built into the game. When (say) your son Johnny is playing, "companions" may ask him whether he wants a gay relationship. This wasn't originally in the game: In fact, though it goes online Dec. 20, the homosexual aspect won't be in effect till later. A couple of years ago, the game's makers said the terms "gay" and "lesbian" don't exist in Star Wars, bringing complaints from gay activists ever since. Now they've changed course, citing strong demand from "fans."

Score one for the Dark Side. And scratch one item off our Christmas gift list.

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

To the Divine blessing the work is again commended, in the hope that its perusal will stimulate many to aspire after "true womanhood."

The above book dedication sounds like it was written for True Woman 101 - the book Nancy and I just finished writing (available in Spring 2012). You've heard of the True Woman Movement, haven't you? It launched in Chicago in 2008 with the first True Woman conference, and to date has resulted in almost 25,000 women signing the "True Woman Manifesto."

The Great Awakening and True Womanhood

But the aforementioned book dedication isn't for our book. Nor is it for any resource associated with the current True Woman movement. It was written in 1829, for a biography entitled, "True Womanhood: Memorials of Eliza Hessel." I've been digging my way through several books written in and about the 1800s, and was surprised to discover that a "true woman" movement isn't unique to this generation. It appears that such a movement occurred on the heels of the First Great Awakening, and contributed to the Second and Third Great Awakenings-which were heightened periods of religious revival in American history.

Along with "True Womanhood" (1829), I'm also reading "The Mirror of True Womanhood: A Book of Instruction for Women in the World" (1883), "True Men As We Need Them: A Book of Instruction for Men in the World" (1888), "Noble Womanhood: A Series of Biographical Sketches" (1894), "Womanhood: Lectures on Woman's Work in the World" (1880), "The New Womanhood" (1904). These are just a few of what feminist historian, Nancy Cott, calls the "efflorescence of didactic writings about womanhood" that sprung up in the early 1800s. I'm also reading Cott's book, "The Bonds of Womanhood:  ‘Woman's Sphere' in New England, 1780-1835," (written in 1977) in which she quotes from the journals and diaries of women of that era.

The "Cult" of True Womanhood

Hessel's 1859 biography "True Woman" quickly sold out and went into a second printing. Apparently, womanhood was a popular topic amongst the women of that day. The True Woman Movement of the late 1700s and early 1800s was so strong and prevalent, that feminist historian Barbara Welter dubbed it a "cult."  (Barbara Welter, "The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820 to 1860." American Quarterly 18, Summer 1966. pp. 151-174.) Another feminist historian, Aileen S. Kaditor, called it the true woman movement of the 1800s the "Cult of Domesticity." (I had to smile, since I suspect that feminist historians will undoubtedly also call the modern-day True Woman Movement a "cult.")

Becoming a True Woman

It's fascinating to dig into these old books to get an idea of what concepts and ideas motivated the True Womanhood Movement of the 1800s. At this point, I can't say that I understand enough about it to discern its points of commonality and/or departure from the True Woman Movement of today, or whether or not I would agree with the doctrine and ideology. But I am intrigued to discover that this is not the first time in history that there has been a ground-swell of Christian women who have sought to determine-from a biblical perspective-what God's design for male and female is all about, and to become God's true woman.

As the True Woman biographer noted about Eliza Hessel in 1829:

"Soliciting divine assistance, she resolutely determined to attain the nobility of a true woman, and she succeeded."