Odds & Ends

Over My Dead Body, Son

Come on, dads, have some courage. Just say, "Over my dead body are you going to wrestle a girl." Of course, they will call you prudish. But everything in you knows better.

Yes, I am talking to the boys' fathers. If the girls' fathers don't care how boys manhandle their daughters, you will have to take the lead. Give your sons a bigger, nobler vision of what it is to be a man. Men don't fight against women. They fight for women.

They called it history-making here in Minneapolis. In March 2009, Elissa Reinsma became the first female to compete in the state high school wrestling tournament. It was not a step forward. Some cultures spend a thousand years unlearning the brutality of men toward women. This is an odd way to make history. Relive prehistory maybe.

One cheerleader said, "I'm sure it's weird for other people, especially if they've never experienced having to wrestle a girl." That's hopeful. Because it is "weird." Most people feel it. But who has the courage to trace this sense of weirdness back to the profound principles of mature manhood and womanhood?

It's just too uncool. The worst curse that can fall on us is to be seen as one of those nutcases who hasn't entered the modern world. This is not about courageous commitment to equality; it's about wimpy fear of criticism for doing what our hearts know is right.

Wrestling obliges you to grab, squeeze, and pull with all your might. If a boy tries not to touch or grasp a wrestler around the chest, or not to let his legs entwine with the other wrestler, or not to slam his full body length on hers, he will wrestle with a handicap. Of course, he is being taught that handicap is not a virtue.

Get real, dads. You know exactly what almost every healthy boy is thinking. If a jock from Northern Minnesota encircles her around the breasts and twists his leg around her thighs, trust me, he will dream about that tonight. Only in his dream she won't have clothes on. And if he doesn't dream it, half the boys in the crowd will. Wake up dads. You know this.

Manly gentleness is not an epidemic in our culture. Rap videos, brutal movies, fatherless homes, and military madness have already made thousands of women the victim of man's abuse. Now we would make the high school version of feministic naturedenial a partner in this undermining of masculine gentleness.

When the apostle of Jesus tells us to live with our wives "in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel" (1 Pet 3:7), he dumps a truckload of wisdom that fathers should build into their sons.

There is a way to honor a woman. That's our job as men. This honor "understands" something. It understands that women are the "weaker vessel." This has nothing to do with less personal worth and in many cases not even with physical stamina. It has to do with pervasive realities that shape the way healthy societies work.

It means that we should raise sons to think of themselves as protectors. Tell them they should lay their lives down to protect girls. Help them know that God designed them to grow up to be a picture of Jesus in their marriage. Nurture the instinct of a boy to fight for girls not against them.

I just watched a wrestling instructional video on line, illustrating some basic moves for the takedown and pin. These two guys are pressing and pulling on each other with unfettered and total contact. And it isn't soft. It's what we do not allow our sons to do to girls.

Okay, dads, here's what you tell your son. You say, "There will be no belittling comments about her being ‘a girl.' There will be no sexual slurs. If you get matched with her, you simply say to the judges, ‘Sir, I won't wrestle a girl. My parents have taught me not to touch a girl that way. I think it would dishonor her. I hope you will match me with a guy. If not, I am willing to be disqualified. It's that important.'"

Be a leader, dad. Your sons need you. The peer pressure is huge. They need manly restraints. They know this is wrong. But then they look around, and the groundswell of conformity seems irresistible. It will take a real man, a real father, to say to his son. "Not on my watch, son. We don't fight women. I have not raised you that way."

- John Piper

This essay originally appeared at www.desiringGod.org.

Has Modern English Really Gone Gender-Neutral?

In his address to Congress on February 24, 2009, President Barack Obama had this to say concerning the economy:

We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values.

Note that he used "he" in a gender-neutral sense to refer to "that neighbor down the street." The Bible does something like this thousands of times: "I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him and he with me" (Rev 3:20 NIV). But this kind of verse was at the heart of the controversy over the gender-neutral TNIV, because the TNIV translators insisted that this kind of usage of "he" is not currently understood by English speakers today! So the TNIV changes Jesus' invitation to one-on-one personal fellowship into a church banquet, and you don't know if Jesus will meet with you personally: "I will come in and eat with them and they with me" (TNIV). Changes to generic "he" alone resulted in thousands of changes from singulars to plurals, distorting the meaning of the original text.

The NIV's Committee on Bible Translation, and Zondervan, were simply wrong back in 1997 when they said that this usage is no longer acceptable or will soon disappear. The pronoun "he" referring back to a specific antecedent that is used as an example of a general case continues to be commonly seen in standard English. Except not in the TNIV! There, such singulars all become plurals, thus removing from the Word of God the use of such specific singular examples to teach a general truth, and thus diminishing the Bible's emphasis on the relationship between God and an individual person, and on individual, personal responsibility for our actions.

Would the TNIV supporters say that President Obama's words would likely be understood by young hearers to refer only to men who bought houses they could not afford? I doubt it. But that is their objection to "he" used in this sense in the Bible.

When they quote President Obama, would they change his words to refer to "that neighbor down the street who bought a house they could never hope to afford"? Or to "those neighbors down the street who bought houses they could never hope to afford"? If not, why should they change God's words?

- Wayne Grudem

Newsweek Comes Out for Gay "Marriage"

In December 2008, Lisa Miller penned an article for Newsweek that turned out to be a bit of a bombshell. The title of the article says just about everything that you need to know about this piece: "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage." In essence, Miller argues that a right understanding of the Christian tradition would actually favor gay "marriage" rather than oppose it. She appeals to the Bible and to history to make her point.

This piece is disappointing on a number of levels, and the subsequent critiques were sharp and justified (e.g., Albert Mohler, Christianity Today, Mollie Hemingway). For the most thorough response, see Robert Gagnon's 23-page essay posted online at http://www.robgagnon.net. I have little more to add to these, but a few remarks are in order.

Miller sets forth two lines of argument in this piece that are fundamentally at odds with one another. The first line is that the Bible (rightly understood) actually encourages gay "marriage." The second line is that the Bible is not a reliable guide for ordering the family or society. These two themes are present throughout the essay, and Miller doesn't seem to realize that they are self-defeating. It's fallacious to appeal to the Bible for guidance while simultaneously arguing against the Bible's relevance for modern culture.

Miller also profoundly misstates the New Testament teaching on marriage. She writes,

The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered ... while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Jesus' teaching about marriage can hardly be characterized as one of indifference. Jesus taught that faithfulness in marriage is a matter of discipleship. He even defined marriage according to Gen 2:24 as the union of one man and one woman—union that should not be dissolved cavalierly by divorce (Matt 19:5).

The apostle Paul also defined marriage according to Gen 2:24 and argued that God intended the one flesh union of man and wife to symbolize the relationship that Christ has with his church (Eph 5:21-33). For Paul, the gospel itself is the innermost meaning of marriage. To distort the one is to distort the other.

Time and again, Jesus looked at the most learned people of his day and said, "Have you not read?" We might ask the same question of Ms. Miller.

- Denny Burk

Same-Sex "Marriage" in the Dictionary

In March 2009, the conservative news website WorldNetDaily.com reported that the latest edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary has revised its definition of the word marriage ("Webster's dictionary redefines ‘marriage,'" www.worldnetdaily.com). In its online and print editions, the dictionary includes in its definition of marriage the following line: "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." The WorldNetDaily report implies that the expanded definition somehow means that the dictionary's publisher has taken sides in the current debate over same-sex "marriage."

Contrary to what many may think, the inclusion of this definition in the dictionary is almost totally irrelevant to the current debate about samesex "marriage." Dictionaries are not prescriptive books but descriptive ones. In other words, dictionaries do not prescribe for users how they are to speak and use words. On the contrary, they describe how speakers and writers use words at any given time. There was a time when the English word "gay" only meant "happy" (see for example the King James version of Jas 2:3). But no one thinks that fact should prohibit Webster from publishing its modern definitions as well. Likewise, it is without question that "same-sex marriage" and "gay marriage" are common fare among current users of the English language. That a dictionary would include that fact is not surprising at all.

This pseudo-hubbub is troubling, however, because it appears that some conservatives (and I fear some Christians) still don't understand what the same-sex "marriage" debate is all about. That is why I cringe whenever I hear someone appeal to the dictionary definition of "marriage" as if it were some kind of an authority to settle the whole issue. It is not. Do not misunderstand me. I believe that faithful Christians would do well not to give in to the culture's drift on the definition of marriage. Our language should reflect the definition of "marriage" that is established in Genesis 2, and we should resist the distorted use of the term that is currently on the ascent.

What Christians need to realize is that they have but one authoritative word on this question, and that word does not change though English usage and dictionaries might. "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). The Bible sets forth the covenanted union of one man and one woman as God's ideal and prescription for the family (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6), and it is this ideal that we are supposed to contend for in our churches and in our families.

- Denny Burk

Feminism the Culprit for Family Breakup? A Controversial UK Study Says So

Is female empowerment to blame for the breakup of the traditional family? A recent study backed by the Anglican Church in Great Britain argues that very idea: "Female empowerment has contributed to the break-up of the traditional family, leaving a generation of children emotionally damaged" in the U.K. To no surprise the study and its claims have caused no small controversy in the U.K.

The study describes an increase in the number of mothers going back to work when their babies are less than a year old as a "massive" social change from generations past. This reality means that women are now less dependent on their husbands and this combination has greatly damaged the family, the study concludes. The study is based on responses from data gathered from 35,000 poll participants. The report says,

Compared with a century ago, two changes stand out: first, most women now work outside the home and have careers, as well as being mothers. Seventy percent of mothers of nine-to-12- month-old babies now do some paid work, this compares with only 25 percent 25 years ago-a massive change in the way of life. Meantime, the children are cared for by someone other than their parents. Women's economic independence contributes to this rise. It has made women much less dependent on their male partner, as has the advent of the welfare state. As a result of increased break-up, a third of 16-year-olds in Britain now live apart from their biological father.

While the poll's findings are certainly worth pondering, a report by the London Telegraph quotes something from the research that is equally telling: 90 different studies suggest that children who do not have two parents living with them at home "suffer long-term damage."

Though this study does not establish a causal link between feminism and the destruction of the family, it is at least suggestive. Feminism, particularly in its more extreme manifestations, does not represent a worldview that promotes healthy families. God's ideal plan (Titus 2; Proverbs 31) is for mothers to serve in the home as the primary nurturers of children while fathers lead, provide, and protect the family.

The blame for the breakup of the traditional family certainly cannot be laid solely—or perhaps even mostly—at the feet of feminism. Given the crucial role that the father is called to play in the life of the family (as set forth in Ephesians 5, for instance), AWOL fathers are equally—if not more (see God's dialogue with Adam in Genesis 3)—blameworthy for the meltdown of the family. Many mothers who are in the workplace are not there to build a formidable portfolio, but are working out of financial or circumstantial necessity.

While feminism, at least as a worldview, is not what you might call "family-friendly," it, indeed, seems to be only one of a number of factors that have left families gasping for life in a fallen world.

- Jeff Robinson

Philip Towner, 1 Timothy 2, and Paul's Use of the Old Testament

Last year a significant and much anticipated book was published by Baker Academic: Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. It is an outstanding contribution to scholarship on a very important issue—the use that New Testament authors make of the Old Testament Scriptures. Serious Bible students will profit greatly from the work of the many contributors to this project.

In light of the popularity of this new commentary, a response to the treatment of 1 Tim 2:13-15 by one of the contributors seems worthwhile. Philip H. Towner, an egalitarian who comments on 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, writes the following in opposition to the complementarian view of the passage:

Determining the use to which the Genesis material is put in this passage begins with the question why Paul prohibited women from teaching and holding authority. If the reason was simply Paul's general principle, based on Genesis (the creation order), then one has to correlate this assumption with the evidence that women took vital roles in ministry elsewhere, and one also has to accept the inescapable implication of 2:14 that Paul believed women to be more susceptible to deception than men or less capable by nature to deal with false teachers. If, however, the instructions and backing were given in response to a particular interpretation of the Genesis account in Ephesus that somehow fueled inappropriate activities of women (teaching in a way that shamed men/husbands, somehow furthering the heresy, eschewing marriage because of the false teaching, etc.), then 2:13-15a supports the measures to be taken (2:11-12) by reproducing a better reading of the Genesis story. There are strong indications that women were involved in the heresy and so were teaching false doctrine; there are strong indications that certain elements of the traditional role of women (marriage and childbearing) were being set aside on the basis of the false teaching or secular cultural developments (p. 897).

Thus, according to Towner, the complementarian interpretation that women were prohibited from teaching and holding authority over men because of the creation order is (1) inconsistent with the biblical testimony of how women actually functioned in ministry roles and (2) stumbles over the "inescapable implication of 2:14" that women are by nature more easily deceived than men. Rather, he argues, (3) the reasons given in 2:13-15a are in response to a heretical interpretation of the Genesis account, which women in Ephesus were teaching.

However, neither Towner's two objections to the complemenatrian view nor his proposed reading of the verses stand up under scrutiny:

(1) There is no necessary contradiction between Paul's prohibition against women teaching and having authority over men in 1 Tim 2:8-15, on the one hand, and his description of the vital roles in ministry they performed within the early church, on the other. Women do indeed fill vital roles in the church (then and now). But this is not irreconcilable with Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 2. In his study, "Women in the Pauline Mission," Andreas Köstenberger considers every reference to women in the Pauline letters and writes,

Paul's teaching on the role of women and the way in which women actually functioned in the Pauline churches are consistent. Paul taught that women were not to serve as pastor-teachers or elders, and there is no evidence in Paul's epistles or Acts that women functioned in such roles in churches established by Paul ("Women in the Pauline Mission," The Gospel to the Nations [ed. Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson; InterVarsity, 2000], 237).

Towner has assumed a contradiction that is not supported by the evidence.

(2) The conclusion that women are more prone to deception than men is not an "inescapable implication" for the complementarian interpretation. In his chapter in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Crossway, 1999), Douglas Moo is one of many complementarian scholars who argues that, more likely,

Verse 14, in conjunction with verse 13, is intended to remind the women at Ephesus that Eve was deceived by the serpent in the Garden (Gen 3:13) precisely in taking the initiative over the man whom God had given to be with her and to care for her. In the same way, if the women at the church in Ephesus proclaim their independence from the men of the church, refusing to learn "in quietness and full submission" (verse 11), seeking roles that have been given to men in the church (verse 12), they will make the same mistake Eve made and bring similar disaster on themselves and the church (p. 190).

This leads to the third point, Towner's explanation for 2:13-14.

(3) Towner believes verses 13-14 are a response to a heretical reading of the Genesis account. This, then, supports the injunction against women teaching in 2:12 since there are "strong indications that women were involved in the heresy and so were teaching false doctrine."

However, in Women in the Church (2d ed.; Baker, 2005) Thomas Schreiner suggests that "egalitarians, who often complain that the proponents of the complementarian view cannot handle verse 14, are actually in an even more indefensible position" (p. 113). This is because verse 14 provides no evidence that women were teaching the heresy. Verse

14 says that women were deceived and, so, could be used to say that women in Ephesus were influenced by false teaching (there is evidence of this in 1 Tim 5:11-15). But it cannot be used to prove that women were propagating false teaching.

Furthermore, it is significant that Paul prohibits all women and only women from teaching and having authority over men in 2:12. Were all women teaching the heresy? If only some were doing so, why forbid all of them? Were only women teaching the heresy? Actually, it is clear from the Pastoral Epistles that men were spreading heresy (1 Tim 1:19-20; 2 Tim 2:17-18; 3:5-9). So why only forbid women from teaching?

In the end, it is Towner's explanation that lacks evidence and fails to persuade. While the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament is a very useful tool for one's library, Towner's take on 1 Tim 2:13-15 should be rejected.

- Christopher W. Cowan