Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

[Editor's note: Vivian Hyatt and her husband Trent are missionaries to Eastern Europe and Russia with Campus Crusade for Christ.]

 
I was blind-sided by the ‘gender wars.'  After all, I knew what the Bible said.  Or thought I did.

            My attitudes toward marriage were shaped in the context of growing up in what I would (much) later understand to be a traditional Christian home. I watched my father lead in church and in our family.  I took it as the nature of things that my mother was submissive to him, though I never doubted her strength as a person. Neither did I see him ‘lord' it over her.  In fact, they had, observable to us kids, an affectionate and close relationship, one we admired and wanted to emulate.  Not surprisingly, then, I desired a husband with those same - what I considered to be biblical - beliefs.  When he came along, we set out to have a traditional Christian marriage with headship (his) and submission (mine) fully in place. 

            After all, we knew what the Bible said. 

            But then, well into our marriage, my confidence in ‘what the Bible said' began to be somewhat eroded by voices within and without the traditional church. Views on women's roles were changing, the voices said. Books questioning the traditional gender roles were put in my hand. Conversations more and more frequently centered on ‘those passages' which could now be explained by the cultural situation at the time the New Testament was written.  Our society has moved on, the voices maintained, and so should the Church.  Women were strong and gifted and those gifts were going to waste!  The submission of the wife amounted to inequality and could not, therefore, be biblical.

Had I Missed Something?

            When I had heard that for a few years, I began to wonder: had I missed something?  Did I really know what I said I believed?  Did I believe what I was so sure I knew?  More to the point, was I acting on it?  The need to find out began to feel urgent.

             So I decided to sit down and wrestle with submission.  I put away the numerous Christian books on either side of the debate.  I wanted to figure out what the Bible could tell me on the subject of women, why God made us, what was unique about us-if anything-and how we were to live out His purposes for us. 

I opened my Bible to the very first page and did not stop until I got to the very end.  It took me two years and 27,000 words to study and record my findings in a growing stack of spiral notebooks.   I happen to be married to a theologian, but all I asked from him was prayer.  I needed to do this for myself. 

            It turns out that the opening pages of the Bible were a good place to start.  By the time I got through the first three chapters of Genesis, I had a sneaking suspicion they might be all I needed, anyway.  No matter where I went, Old or New Testament, I kept returning there.  Of course, I needed all the rest too, but much of it seemed to be variations on a theme-a theme that seemed at times simple and at times so complex that it still keeps me turning pages.

            What I found was glorious. 

The ‘glory' was well-disguised, however, in some pretty sordid stories.  One must read carefully, I found out.  But oh, it was fun, and it got me out of bed in the mornings. 

A Whole Picture

            After some months, I began to see an emerging picture, a whole picture, if you will, still taking shape under much scrutiny and my fine-liner pen.  

            The reason I got excited about ‘the whole picture' was that most of the writings I had previously read on this subject seemed to jump to the ‘instruction' passages, those oh-so-familiar texts from the apostle Paul, not to mention his colleague, Peter (far less quoted, I found out!).  How had God dealt with women and men from the beginning?  What could Eve or Sarah or Hannah or those single midwives tell me about myself?  Admittedly, I was concerned about myself in this major study I had undertaken, and Eve and the others gave me a clue.  As a matter of fact, I seemed to find in Eve all that I was meant to be and all that I was not.  Mostly, I began to see the gamut of womankind: here were women in all their glory, vainglory, and pretty wretched un-glory.

            Did God tell Eve to ‘submit' to Adam?  I could not find it anywhere.  Neither before nor after the fall.  (Where does that leave my theology? I wondered.)  So I kept observing. 

Order and Boundaries 

            One of my first observations in the beginning chapters of Genesis was a deliberate and intricate order in the sequence of creation, prior to and significant for the first marriage: the creation of the animals, then the creation of Adam, the prohibition against eating from the tree in the middle of the garden, the naming of the animals, the search for a helper for Adam, and the subsequent creation of Eve.  

            Inherent in this created order was the concept of boundaries.  The creation was separate from its Creator-that is, the creatures were bounded by their creatureliness.  Plants, animals, humans could not ‘cross over'-they were to be uniquely themselves, inhabiting the realm designed for them. 

            The facts of Creator, creature, and inherent boundaries seemed to imply something else: the concept, at least, of submission.  The creatures were to submit to the Creator and not the other way around.  The thought is foolish.  But the created animals and even the created plants were to be in submission to the created humans.  God gave humans ‘dominion,' a domain, where order was to be kept: the ground tilled, the animals under control.  God saw fit to put these concepts in place, I noticed, in an unfallen world.

            If God did not expressly tell Eve to submit to Adam, what did he say to Eve?  His first recorded speech to her does not appear until after the fall.  We know what he said to himself about her: he was designing her specifically to be Adam's helper, because it was not good for the man to be alone. 

Tomorrow: Part II

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

The new gender-inclusive NIV was published earlier this year. It contains thousands of changes to the Bible's male-gendered language. Having a gender-inclusive Bible appears to be the latest trend amongst cutting-edge, cappuccino-slurping Christian hipsters. Don't get me wrong. I like to be hip. And I enjoy cappuccino as much as the next person. But my biggest beef with gender-inclusive Bibles is that they lack doctrinal precision. If you mess with the words, you mess with the meaning. Respected Bible scholars have explained why inclusive translations such as the New International Version (NIV), New Revised Standard (NRSV), and Common English Bible (CEB) are deeply flawed. If you haven't yet considered their arguments, you might want to check out these Gender Neutral Bible Articles.

Notwithstanding the doctrinal imprecision and blatant politically-correct translating agenda, there are additional reasons why I dislike gender inclusive Bibles. Undoubtedly the publishers had good intentions, and genuinely wanted to help women, but in my mind, a gender-inclusive Bible is BAD for women. Really, really bad for women! I react to people reading from the new, gender-inclusive NIV the way I react to nails scratching down a chalk board.  Here are ten reasons why:

1.  It obscures the profound symbolism of gender:

Gender has a profound, cosmic meaning. God created manhood, womanhood, marriage and sex to put the love story of Christ and the Church on display. When we mess with the Bible's gender language, we obscure gender's symbolism. We make truths about God and the gospel more difficult to understand

2. It exalts gender above that to which it points:

Changing the Bible's gender language implies that the Bible's gender language is about us. It's not. The Bible is ultimately not about male and female-it's about Jesus, the Son of Man and Son of God. The Bible does not use predominantly male gendered language to exalt men; it uses it to exalt THE Man who paid the ultimate price to redeem His Bride.

3. It diminishes the unique beauty of womanhood:

Blurring the Bible's gender language contributes to the blurring of gender distinctions. It diminishes and devalues the unique role and beauty of womanhood.

4. It is less inclusive of women:

Gender inclusive Bibles cast women as "other" rather than part of the collective whole. God collectively named male and female "man" (Hebrew: ‘adam. See Gen. 5:2) to indicate that male and female would share a common condition for which He would provide a common answer. Because both male and female are ‘adam, both are equally represented by the first man, Adam. Both are fallen and in need of a Savior. The good news of the gospel is that both are also equally represented by the Second Man-the Last Adam-Jesus Christ. When God named male and female ‘adam, he had the Last Adam in mind. So when, in order to appease modern sensibilities, we change "man" to something we think is more inclusive," we diminish the theological meaning and exclude woman. If woman is not specifically identified as "man" then how can she be represented by the first man, Adam? What's more, how can she be represented by the Second Man, the Last Adam, Jesus Christ? Gender inclusive Bibles are supposed to be more inclusive of women, but pardoxically, the language theologically does the exact opposite. It excludes women from the collective whole.

5. It demeans women:

Gender inclusive Bibles imply that women are too stupid to figure out that in the Bible, the words "man" and "brothers" are inclusive terms. The male translators have to fix the words for us, since we're not theologically astute enough or bright enough to get it on our own. Quite frankly, I feel like gender-inclusive Bibles insult a woman's intelligence.

6. It patronizes women:

Poor little girls. The translators need to change the words of the Bible so our feelings don't get hurt. Boo hoo. Women are so easily offended.  Sorry, . . . but changing the words of the Bible because you think some women might be offended by its language is downright patronizing.

7. It calls God's attitude toward women into question:

Making changes to gender language is based on the premise that God ought to have given gals and guys equal air time. Trying to minimize the discrepancy suggests that God didn't care enough about women to take our feelings into account. The natural conclusion is that He obviously loves his boys more than He loves his girls. The conclusion is wrong. And the premise is wrong.

8. It calls God's wisdom into question:

Poor God. His bad. He needs our help. He wasn't smart enough to get the words right. He obviously isn't as enlightened as people living in the new millennium. We have to step in and update His image, to make the Bible more palatable to woman's modern sensibilities.

9. It encourages further changes to Scripture:

I know of at least one Muslim that is aghast that Christians would have the audacity to tamper with the wording of our Holy Book. And since we're audacious enough to tamper with gender wording for humans, it won't be long till we're audacious enough to tamper with gender wording for God. Translators will undoubtedly feel the need to update God's names so that HE becomes more gender inclusive. Terms like "Mother-Father God," "Jesus, child of woman and man," "Great Source of Being in the Sky" and our "God-Goddess" communicate the concept of a gender-inclusive deity much better than the male-gendered language of the Bible. Don't be naive. I've studied feminist theology long enough to know that naming self leads to naming the world leads to naming god.  It's audacious indeed!

10. It leads women away from truth:

I care about women. Deeply. I long to see them experience healing and wholeness in Christ Jesus. I do them a disservice when I apologize for the Bible, fail to embrace its unvarnished beauty and power, and shrink back from sharing the Words that are perceived by some as foolishness and a stumbling block, yet are actually the power and wisdom of God for righteousness and sanctification and redemption. I fail women when I try to make God or His Word more palatable. I empty the cross of its power (1 Cor. 1:17-30). 

(Mary Kassian is a member of the CBMW council. An author of multiple books, she blogs at www.girlsgonewise.com where this post originally appeared)

Gender and gender language is important. It touches on the essence of a woman's identity, the essence of the character of God, and on the essence of the gospel. We get things so very wrong when we think we can improve on the Bible's teaching on gender or the gender language it uses. The big picture informs us that from the very beginning, God's plan for gender has very little to do with us and very much to do with Him. And we need to trust that even if we don't fully understand them, the words, images and means He has chosen to display His glory are not only right, they are also good. Very good!  And also very good for women!

A Battle Worth Fighting

I understand that language changes over time, and that translation is not always an easy task. But I am saddened that Christians seem so eager to jump on the cultural bandwagon to update God's Holy Book with inclusive language. I don't think they realize what is at stake. I have had students struggle with understanding concepts about God because their native language did not lend itself to translating/expressing the gendered concepts that exist in the original languages of the Bible. We will lose something very critical and essential if we lose the linguistic concepts afforded us by the gendered nature of English. Retaining gender distinctiveness in our language is a battle worth fighting. There is a great deal at stake.

So ladies, please don't jump on the gender-inclusive Bible bandwagon. Be hip. Be courageous. Be politically incorrect. Insist on a Bible that acurately translates gender language- like the ESV, Holman Christian Standard, or  New America Standard.  Because in the end, inclusive language, and inclusive language Bibles, are bad for women.

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

Superwoman complex: A woman's wish to be excellent at all her roles (leader, professional, mother, wife etc.), that very often leads to psychological stress and feeling guilty toward family members or an expectation of being a superwoman that can and should do everything.

I have to confess: if you look this term up in the dictionary, you'll find my picture right next to it. Guilty as charged. I never realized I fit into this category until just a few weeks ago. I was a little over one month into marriage, taking summer school, making home-cooked meals 3-4 times a week, working out 4-6 times a week, packing my husband's lunches and mine, working almost 40 hours a week, involved in church ministry, cleaning house, writing papers, reading 200 pages a day for my class, trying to be a friend, daughter, and the perfect wife. I was exhausted by all of this and I don't even have kids yet! After working 10 hours for my job one Saturday afternoon in a dirty, sandy outdoor concert, I came home and broke down.

Have you ever seen that episode of Saved by the Bell, when Jessie Spano was trying to balance all her life activities and then becomes addicted to caffeine pills to try and succeed at everything? My life was similar to that, minus the drug addiction. At the end of the episode Jessie finally freaks out. She goes from trying to prove she can sing on drugs, to yelling, to finally incoherently balling/mumbling, "No time, there's never any time!" I think the writers of this show must have looked forward into the future, seen my breakdown and said, "This is great material! Let's add some pills and we'll have a great show!" Unfortunately for my husband though, he had to play theencouraging and consoling part of Zach.

The next day, I wondered why I had freaked out so much. I was doing all the right things. I was making homemade food, my husband was well fed and had a clean house to come home to, I was making good grades, I was trying to do a good job at work, and I was building more relationships at church. It seemed like I was doing all the things that the Proverbs 31 woman is said to do but then why was I breaking down out of exhaustion? What's wrong with being Superwoman?

1. Superwoman is too busy and exhausted to spend time with God.

By the end of my day being "Superwoman", I was exhausted and I needed to get a good night's sleep to be able to save the day again. I pretty much told God, "I'm too busy for you. I have to do everything tomorrow and I need my sleep so I can't read your Word." The very thing that would bring peace, contentment, and joy in my life was the thing I was rejecting. The Bible is the way God speaks to us. It breathes life into our souls and without it we become spiritually deadened.

The Proverbs 31 woman is exemplary because the Scriptures influenced her life.

She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. ~ Proverbs 31:24

How did she speak with wisdom if she didn't get it from God, the source of all wisdom and faithful instruction? She sought Him and His law which brought her wisdom, peace, dignity, and strength.

The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes.~ Psalm 19:7-8

How did I think I could make it as Superwoman, exhausting myself every day, without the very thing that would revive my soul? I was doomed for failure. Instead, I needed to be more like the Proverbs 31 woman who sought the Lord and His word which brought light to the eyes and joy to the heart.

2. Superwoman thinks she can save the day.

When you try to be your own superhero, there's no room for God to save the day. I thought I could do it all on my own and, foolishly, I thought I didn't need God's help. I was the center and controller of my life, God was not the one in control. When He is not your reason, your center, your all, when He is not in control, your life will not be peaceful or successful.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. ~Proverbs 3:5-6

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. ~ Proverbs 14:12

If you're trying to be Superwoman, you will eventually fail and breakdown but when God is in control, there is peace and rest. I was putting my trust in myself which seems pretty stupid when I think about it because I'm a sinful, simpleton of a woman. Why am I trusting in that kind of person when I have a Savior who's perfect, loving, strong, in control of the entire world and wants to do good for me? That's the kind of God I want to save the day.

Delight yourself in the LORD and He will give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the LORD. Trust also in Him, and He will do it. ~Psalm 37:4-5

For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.~ Deuteronomy 30:16

As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him. Psalm 18:30

3. Superwoman tries to be perfect in all her different faces.

A lot of Christian women think of the Proverbs 31 woman as being a type of perfect woman. She does everything perfectly, can be Susie-homemaker, smart, good with money, can sew anything, and her husband and children think she's just the best.

God requires His daughters to be like that, right? Aren't all those things in Scripture? They are and God does want them from us but there's a big difference between Superwoman and the Proverbs 31 woman. The difference is: God.

You can do all the actions of the Proverbs 31 woman but if your heart isn't God-centered then you're just a Superwoman destined to fail. God knows that only He and His Son, Jesus Christ can be perfect, so why are women trying to be perfect in all areas of their lives? Is it for personal glory? Is it so you'll appear to be the most talented girl in the dorm, the best wife in your small group, or the most desirable single woman men know? Unfortunately, I've been guilty of all these motives and they are purely selfish. They are "Me"- driven and that's what the Superwoman complex is centered around: Self. Whether it's to be the best or to please man, self is the motive, not God.

God does not want outward perfection, awards, or praises from man. That's not what He values. The only thing God requires of us is that we seek Him and fear Him. The Proverbs 31 woman sought the Lord and feared Him.

Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
~ Proverbs 31:30

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. ~ 1 Peter 3:3-4

Superwoman is charming, she's impressive, her worth comes from things that are outwardly seen but she fades away. A woman who fears the Lord, who has a gentle and quiet spirit, and whose heart reflects Christ, is the one who will continually be revived by Him, be of great worth in His sight, and can run the hard race towards holiness. If I had done these things, I wouldn't have broken down and you won't either if you put your trust in Him.

God doesn't call us to be superwomen; he calls us to be godly women. If you've been trying to do everything on your own, then stop. Jesus says to you and me,

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. ~ Matthew 11:28

When you put your to-do list, your troubles, and your full-schedules on His shoulders, life is much easier. It is lighter because He's carrying the burdens. He doesn't want you to have to because He knows you can't handle the weight and you'll collapse under it, like I did.

If you have been like the Proverbs 31 woman and putting everything in God's hands, thank you. You have been an example to your sisters and we need more women like you. I pray that I will not make the same silly mistakes again and become more like you.

So go throw your Superwoman cape away and let God save the day

(Diane Montgomery is a contributor to the Unlocking Femininity blog at www.unlockingfemininity.com)

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

The Southern Poverty Law Center wants our elementary school students to think about gender roles and the liberal civil rights group has gone so far as to develop a curriculum to facilitate such thinking. Titled "Gender Doesn't Limit You," the lessons are designed to flatten gender distinctions and teach children that, at the end of the day, boys are girls are exactly alike. Ironically, the curriculum is part of an anti-bullying initiative designed for public schools, but it's hard to see how the curriculum fails in itself to constitute bullying.

Below is a brief story on the curriculum by Matt Kaufman published in the October edition of Citizen magazine, a publication of Focus on the Family.

[The curriculum] works like this: Teacher gives students examples of bad things they might hear, like "Boys are better at soccer than girls, or "Girls are better at baking cookies thatn boys." The children are taught to holler in unison (after "one, two, three, GO!"): "Give it a rest! No group is best!"

 As they move through the program, they learn other slogans to shout in the face of sexist oppression. Like "Not true! Gender doesn't limit you!" And "That's weird! Being boys and girls doesn't matter here!" And our favorite, "I disagree! Sexism is silly to me!"

Oh, they also learn that there is no such thing as boys' or girls' clothes. Or haircuts. All this comes billed as an "anti-bullying" program. Which is ironic, since it's encouraging kids to do group shout-downs against their un-PC peers. Truth to tell, that sounds to us more like state-sponsored bullying.

Anyone out there think there might be better uses for classroom time? Say, reading and writing and ‘rithmetic for all the girls and boys?

For a wide variety of fairly scary "tolerance" curricula (all of it a bit intolerant in its tone, it seems to me) from the SPLC, see http://www.tolerance.org/activities 

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

[Editor's note: The following article was originally published on the Gospel Coalition website]

Millions tuned in recently to hear Jacqueline Kennedy in her own words recount her days in the White House. These taped interviews, now nearly 50 years old, revealed a woman who loved her husband and valued her role in helping him succeed as the youngest elected president in American history. They also opened up a new discussion in some venues on gender roles in marriage then and now.

Many were surprised by her devotion and view of women, especially when she revealed that all of her opinions came from her husband and that women didn't belong in politics. After all, we live in a very different world today. Women are all over the political arena these days. And a woman depending heavily on a man is seen as a sign of a different generation-one that is long gone and unlikely to return. Various pundits were shocked that a woman so revered in public life, and around at the dawn of the second wave of feminism, would believe such things. Even Kennedy's granddaughters expressed horror that their grandmother could actually live this way.

But it was a different time back then. Now women are marrying later in life, and when they do, they bring their own opinions, values, and often paycheck. It's not surprising that women today would scoff at a marriage like the Kennedy's. But is there anything for us to learn as Christian women from the marriage of Camelot?

Yes and no.

Some would say that to be complementarian in your understanding of gender roles in marriage is to go back to the 50s and early 60s, with June Cleaver as the archetypal housewife who every Christian woman aspires to become. Jackie Kennedy typified that with her efforts to make their home a place of comfort for the President, along with believing everything he believed. But being a Christian woman is so much more than a simple throwback to a generation gone by. Our understanding of womanhood actually goes back much farther than the 1950s.

Still, it's a lot easier to attempt to define God's plan for us by the culture around us. We see what works, or look longingly at what once was, and think that surely this idyllic world is in line with what the Bible lays out. But the problem with cultural definitions is that they are always incomplete. Every culture is flawed, from the fall at the beginning of time until now. This is why we can't rely on mere cultural representations to define biblical categories. A biblical understanding of womanhood is not changed by the culture. It is found in a rock-solid commitment to the Bible.

What We Can Learn

While we are not defined by changing cultural norms, we can see some elements of truth in how women like Jacqueline Kennedy support their husbands. Her devotion to President Kennedy is one that, as Christian women, we can admire and desire to emulate. This unswerving commitment to his success and good is reminiscent of the biblical command given to women by God in Genesis. God made woman to be a suitable helper for her husband, to submit to him and honor him. John Piper defines submission as "the divine calling of a wife to honor and affirm her husband's leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts."

Kennedy's support of her husband and desire to make her home a haven of rest for him is a picture of what God intended when he created men and women. But it's a blurry picture-faded in black and white, not clear enough for us to see all of what God created.

What Is Missing

In all of this discussion about whether Jackie Kennedy's marriage was antiquated and unrealistic for today's society, something profound is missing: the gospel. When Paul tells Titus to have the older women train the younger women in how to conduct themselves in the family, it was not so they could have a perfect, well-mannered, orderly home. It wasn't so people would look in and praise them for their devotion to their husbands. It wasn't so the outlying community would marvel at how submissive they were. Instead, Paul tells Titus it is so God will get the glory, and people will see him as infinitely valuable (Titus 2:5). Biblical womanhood is not getting all your opinions from your husband and only speaking when spoken to. Yes, we have opinions. Yes, we offer them. But when the decision time comes, God gets glory when we graciously submit to the leadership of our husbands, even when our opinion might be different. That's a very different rendering of womanhood than the one presented by Kennedy.

The ultimate point of womanhood, and manhood for that matter, is to reflect the One who created it-the almighty God. So many mainstream writers and secular feminists scoff at words like submission and suitable helper because they don't have eyes to comprehend the glory of Christ, where our gender ultimately points.

It's not enough to simply go back to a Victorian understanding of marriage, or copy the former First Lady's tips for keeping a happy husband, because as helpful as these examples can be, they don't tell the whole story. The story of men and women began in a garden in the Middle East many years ago, when God the Creator made man and woman in his image, each with a role to play in this great story. When Adam and Eve fell, so did our understanding of gender. But there is still a small whisper in our souls telling us that what is now here is not how it was supposed to be. Without eyes to see the original design we balk at it just like the media pundits and ambient culture.

With the curse came the promise that all of this would one day be made right. Christians have the unique and undeserved privilege of seeing God's plan for men and women, and by his grace living it out in this lost and fallen world. So while we can listen to the tapes of Jacqueline Kennedy and acknowledge that there is some good in her devotion to President Kennedy, devotion without the gospel isn't enough. Submission without the changed heart pointing onlookers to Christ is ultimately meaningless. And a cultural definition of womanhood is no definition at all.

[Courtney Reissig has written for The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. She is married to Daniel, and together they live in Little Rock, Arkansas, where Daniel is working to help plant Midtown Baptist Church. She blogs regularly at In View of God's Mercy]