Menu

100 Sermon Illustrations on Feminism

100 illustrations Page 1 of 2

Feminism in Christian preaching explores the roles and equality of men and women within the church and society, often engaging with debates around complementarianism and egalitarianism (Galatians 3:28). Illustrations typically use images of cultural shifts, church leadership changes, and scriptural interpretations to highlight tensions and evolving understandings of gender roles.

The Meaning of Marriage

In the name of liberation and personal careers, too many young adults are living empty lives.

I know I'm on dangerous ground; my own children say I'm a victim of my consuming desire to be a grandparent. But I think American men and women are waiting too long to get married. Instead of waiting until all the graduate degrees are earned, the BMW is parked in front of the condo, the invitation to become a partner has arrived and foreign lands have been explored, young people should be going for the gold - ring, that is - at a younger age.

How can I suggest something so obviously retrogressive? How can I dismiss all the liberating changes of the last 25 years? The answer lies in what I see when I look at young people today: too often unhappy creatures who seem, in spite of all their liberty and all their achievements, to be desperately searching for meaning in their lives.

Having reached adulthood at the very last moment before the youth revolution of the 1960s, I have watched the erasure of old rules and their replacement by unsettling new ones. And I have tried to be open-minded about the results. Would life be better in this brave new world? Although these changes took place after I myself was already married, I watched as the effects washed over the younger siblings of my friends and then held my breath as my own children threaded their way through the forest of new mores. As parents, those of us in my peer group HAD to pay attention; we were completely unprepared for these challenges because society was operating by a totally new set of rules. We were confused and not a little frightened, but we struggled to help our children learn what they needed to know to be happy adults.

The changes weren't all for the worse. The political demonstrations of the '60s and '70s awakened our youth to the need to be involved in the shaping of local and national policy. Feminism opened doors for our daughters and helped our sons to re-evaluate some pretty firmly held notions about the roles of both men and women. And the sexual revolution - really the toughest one for us parents to deal with - did mean that fewer adolescents took on marriage when all they really wanted was sex.

Unfortunately, our young people didn't always know how to handle all this freedom. Like many new Russian émigrés, they often found it confusing and difficult to suddenly have control over their lives. When decisions concerning LIMITS arose, they had no guidelines to help them. In some cases feminism produced young women who - free to “have it all” - nearly killed themselves trying to do just that. Dramatically higher abortion and teenage pregnancy rates, as well as enormous increases in social diseases (and now AIDS) resulted from the inability to set limits on sexual freedom. And now we have a generation so committed to success in the marketplace, or to “fun,” that it puts off for years the commitment to marriage.

As parents, however, we can see that many of our children are not, in fact, happier. What is often missing in their lives, it seems, is a sense of values - and here we parents must share the responsibility. Acquiescing in their demands for a less rule-oriented society, we somehow neglected to hand down the fundamental values we had learned in an earlier time. Now they have plenty of freedom but too little meaning in their lives.

Well, then, how does one go about this business of finding meaning in life? The basic tenet is what it has been since civilization began: “think of others.” That means avoiding actions that could harm another (ponder the ramifications of THAT in your professional and private lives). It means thinking of your work as something that makes a contribution to society, not just as the way to pay the bills. It means doing things that make other people's lives better.

CHALLENGES OF LIFE: Marriage both illustrates and reinforces the importance of thinking of others. For as long as there has been human society, men and women have recognized their need to mate - to establish a lifelong bond that provides the essence of the support that each human being needs as he struggles to face the challenges of life. Throughout history, it has been this union - in which each partner is concerned with the good of the other - which above all other forces has made it possible for men and women to experience their greatest joy. It is this built-in support system that enables them to be the best that they can be. It is this sharing of life's best AND WORST times that exponentially increases our ability to find meaning in life. A sunset watched in solitude on a foreign shore only increases your loneliness; the same sight shared with a loved one is a special moment. When we think back on our sorrows and our joys, we realize that in both cases the first thing we do is reach out for the person we are closest to. As happy as we feel when the baby is born or the promotion arrives, our true joy comes from watching that person's face when we share the news. When our twins were born, my husband was in Vietnam. He didn't see them or hold them until they were seven months old. It wasn't easy to care for them and their three-year-old sister by myself during those long months. But the truth is that the most difficult part was not being able to share them with their father. Until his return, my experience of childbirth was never quite complete.

Those who fear the commitment of marriage, who avoid the trouble and the responsibility in the name of more time, more money or more pleasure, cheat only themselves. Those who wait until they reach all their other goals before presenting themselves to a deserving mate often find their success empty. How much better to struggle WITH someone to reach a common goal, to be able to say, “We did it together,” than to strive for one's own good.

Several caveats here: first, I am not speaking about teenagers or those just out of college. Second, I am aware that some people are single through no choice of their own - though I think that the mind-set of the times has something to do with that, too. But the rest of you should take heed. And now that we've got THAT settled, can we talk about grandchildren?

________

McFarlane teaches English at Bethesda-Chevy Chase (Md.) High School. Her husband is former national-security adviser Robert C. McFarlane.

*

#103

*

from Newsweek: My Turn · Jonda McFarlane via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminismwomencommitment

Feminism and Christianity

Discusses masculine/feminine descriptions of God. Male language is not necessarily interchangeable. Feminism is actually trying to re-define Christianity and produce a new religion.

from Christianity Today magazine · James R. Edwards via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminism

Handmaid Or Feminist?

Luke 1:26

Mary is the most celebrated woman of all time. Even the Moslem Koran praises her chastity and faith. Among Roman Catholics, the Madonna is recognized not only as the Mother of God, but also as the Queen of the Universe, Queen of Heaven, Seat of Wisdom and even the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Conflict surrounds the notions that she remained ever a virgin, that she as well as Jesus was born without sin and that her sufferings at the Crucifixion were so great that she participated with her son in the redemption of humanity.

Many apparitions of the Virgin Mary have been claimed, and her vision to girls at Fatima in 1917 that predicted the fall of communism is being hailed. Pope John Paul II is a devotee and firmly believes her personal intercession spared his life when he was shot at St. Peters’ Square in Rome in 1981; the assassination attempt occurred on May 13, the exact anniversary of the first Fatima apparition.

Feminists, liberals and activists have stepped forward with new interpretations of Mary. One feminist thinker contends that Jesus had a human father and that the main point is Mary was “not identified by her relationship with men.” The revisionist views of the Madonna claim her as an active heroine who was variously an earth mother and a crusader for social justice. French writer Nicole Echivard says, “Mary is the most liberated, the most determined, the most responsible of all mothers.” Others emphasize the political dimension. “Mary stood up for the poor and oppressed,” says Sister Mary O’Driscoll, a professor at the Dominican orders’ Angelicum university in Rome; she points to the Magnificat.

Catholic and Protestant liberals are questioning some ancient dogmas:

Virginal Conception. Father Raymond Brown, a leading Catholic Bible scholar, has declared the issue “unresolved.” Jane Schaberg, who chairs the religion department at the University of Detroit, goes further. She contends, to traditionalist scorn, that the unwed Mary was impregnated by a man other than fiance Joseph and that she was a liberated woman who was “not identified or destroyed by her relationship with men.” — [used 12/20/92]

Perpetual Virginity. Tradition is 15 centuries old. Liberal Catholic theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann of Germany declares it to be, “a monstrous product of neurotic sexual fantasy.” Responds a Vatican official: “The church doesn’t have problems with sex. The world does.”

Immaculate Conception. Not defined as Catholic dogma by the papacy until 1854. Unofficial belief adds that Mary lived a perfect life. Protestants insist the Bible portrays Jesus as the only sinless person.

Some Protestants are softening their hostility to Mary. Vatican II emphatically subordinated Mary to her son in church teachings even though popular pressure was applied to proclaim her a Co-Redeemer with Jesus.

Says Sandra Schneiders, a professor at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley: “There has been a stupendous upsurge in goddess research and the feminine divinity as an antecedent to the male god. It’s not unrelated that the Virgin Mary’s popularity has also increased. Judeo-Christianity has been exclusively male, leaving a gap that cries out for feminine divinity.”

from Time Magazine · Richard N. Ostling via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database christmasfeminism

Many Evangelicals Unwittingly Live As Feminists

Luke 2:36

Egalitarians are winning the gender debate because evangelical complementarian men have largely abdicated their biblically ordained roles as head of the home and have, in practice, embraced contemporary pagan feminism, according to Russell D. Moore.

Complementarianism is the view that men and women have been created equally in God's image but have different yet complementary roles. Egalitarianism is the view that that men and women have been gifted equally so that no role is limited to one sex.

Moore called for a complementarian response built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of male headship in which men lead their families and churches by mirroring God the Father, whom Scripture portrays as the loving, sacrificial, protective Patriarch of His people. Many complementarians are living according to egalitarian presumptions, and research has shown many conservative and evangelical households to be among the “softest” when it comes to familial harmony, relational happiness and emotional health, Moore said.

“Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus,” Moore said. “That’s what our forefathers would have called feminism -- and our foremothers, too.”

Egalitarian views are carrying the day within evangelical churches and homes, Moore said, because complementarians have not dealt sufficiently with the forces that drive the feminist impulse: Western notions of consumerism and therapy.

This therapeutic and consumerist atmosphere has led evangelicals away from a view that sees Scripture as the external, objective standard of truth and has pushed them to look inside themselves to find ultimate truth, Moore said. Because self and not Scripture is the final authority, evangelical homes and churches hold complementarian views but practice egalitarianism, he said.

“Complementarian churches are just as captive to the consumerist drive of American culture as egalitarians, if not more so,” Moore said.

If evangelical homes and churches are to recover from the confusion of egalitarianism, Moore said, they must embrace a full-orbed vision of biblical patriarchy that restores the male to his divinely ordained station as head of the home and church.

Moore pointed out that the word “patriarchy” has developed negative connotations, even among evangelicals, in direct proportion to the rise of so-called “evangelical feminism,” a movement that began in the 1970s. But the historic Christian faith itself is built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of patriarchy, he said.

“Evangelicals should ask why patriarchy seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God and Father of Jesus Christ,” Moore said.

“We must remember that ‘evangelical’ is also a negative term in many contexts. We must allow the patriarchs and apostles themselves, not the editors of ‘Playboy’ or ‘Ms. Magazine,’ to define the grammar of our faith.”

The model of biblical patriarchy/male headship that evangelicals must rediscover is tied to Scripture’s teaching of the fatherhood of God, Moore said. The Bible portrays God the Father as existing in covenant relationship with the Son in a way that defines the covenantal standing and inheritance of believers, he said.

The fatherhood of God is central to the Gospel and male headship, and, when practiced biblically, offers a living picture of the redemption believers have in Christ, Moore said.

“Even the so-called ‘egalitarian proof-texts’ not only fail to demonstrate an evangelical feminist argument, [but] they actually prove the opposite,” he said. “Galatians 3:28, for example, is all about patriarchy -- a Father who provides his firstborn son with a cosmic inheritance, an inheritance that is shared by all who find their identity in Christ, Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free.

“This understanding of archetypal patriarchy is grounded, then, in the overarching theme of all of Scripture -- the summing up of all things in Christ [in Ephesians 1:10]. It does not divide God’s purposes, His role as Father from His role as Creator from His role as Savior from His role as King.

“To the contrary, the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to His headship -- a headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ [in Hebrews 12:5-11].”

An embrace of biblical patriarchy also protects the doctrine of God from aberrations such as the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism and the unstable “most moved mover” of open theism, he said.

A rejection of male headship leads to a redefinition of divine Fatherhood and divine sovereignty, Moore said. He pointed to open theism (a view that argues God’s knowledge of the future is limited) as an example of the dangers of rejecting biblical patriarchy. Open theism is built upon a denial of the Scripture’s portrayal of God as the sovereign Head of His creation, he said.

“Open theism is not more dangerous than evangelical feminism, or even all that different,” Moore said. “It is only the end result of a doctrine of God shorn of patriarchy.”

Moore pointed out that a growing trend exists within evangelicalism in which “soft” complementarians seek to indict other complementarians for not writing frequently against spousal abuse. This charge is a red herring, Moore said, because complementarians address the issue consistently.

This charge itself, however, reveals a tacit acceptance by evangelicals of a false egalitarian charge that says male headship leads to abuse, he said. Instead, Moore said, a biblical view of male headship and gender roles actually protect against spousal and child abuse because it does not posit male privilege, but instead demands male responsibility.

“Ironically, a more patriarchal complementarianism will resonate among a generation seeking stability in a family-fractured Western culture in ways that soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism never can,” Moore said.

“And it will also address the needs of hurting women and children far better, because it is rooted in the primary biblical means for protecting women and children: calling men to responsibility. Patriarchy is good for women, good for children, and good for families.”

________

The above is from a presentation at the 57th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) Nov. 17, 2005, in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Moore is dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

*

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

from Baptist Press · Jeff Robinson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Female Abortion In India

In India, one study showed that 7,999 out of 8,000 abortions were female fetuses. Females require a large dowry (though supposed to be illegal) and do not contribute anything to the family. Feminists oppose this practice and call it "feticide". Author says there is no difference from this and standard abortion - every abortion is "selective".

"Feminists have no moral standing from which to speak out against the selective abortion of girls. In insisting that they do, they have become just another special interest group, like the church or the state, trying to prevent women from exercising their right to choose. Once it is permitted to kill some fetuses for some reasons, I don't see why it isn't permitted to kill all for any reason."

from Newsweek · Jo McGowan via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminism

Women In the Church: A Conservative Reply

Acts 21

A critique of evangelical feminism's view of equality of sexes in the Bible. He is conservative and argues women must be under the headship of men, as 1 Cor 11 teaches. Veils, however, are not necessary. Women do have authority (given to them by God in Gen 1) but they do not have authority over males in the church. They share equality when it comes to salvation.

Feminism and the Church

Acts 19:27

Episcopals elect first women bishop, Barbara Harris, a divorced black with 8 years experience. According to Margaret McManus of the Center for Women and Religion at Berkeley, the issue is no longer equality, but the transformation of our religious institutions. Discussion of the gender of God, feminization of the church, de-sexed language, and understanding of God, trinity and Jesus. Feminists have developed new rituals.

Father James Burtchaell criticizes "the methodology of feminists whose central insights come from their own sense of injustice and then go to Scripture to find what they need." It has become, in effect, an assault on everything in Christianity but Jesus and his initial movement. One who dares to differ is Biblical scholar Elizabeth Achtemeier of Union Theo. Sem. in Richmond, VA. She repudiates the women-church movement as "a new religion." She criticizes mother metaphors for God because they resurrect the Near Eastern fertility goddesses whom the authors of the Hebrew Bible rejected in proclaiming a Creator who is qualitatively different from his creation.

From Coshocton Tribune newspaper, 2/12/89, page 1:

Rev. Barbara Harris was ordained Feb 11, 1989, to become the first woman bishop among the major Christian churches. She has no formal seminary or college degree, is divorced, very liberal, and has only 8 years experience as a priest. John Jamieson of the conservative Prayer Book Society's Chicago chapter voiced opposition but she received a standing ovation anyway.

Religion: God Gets the He-Ho

John 1:14

The Oxford University Press has a new "inclusive language version" of the New Testament and Psalms. God is no longer "Father," Jesus is no longer "Son," male terms for deity are abolished and terms like "kingdom" have been eliminated because of their "blatantly androcentric and patriarchal character."

Examples of changed texts are given. Woodward comments, "The editors do not claim that Jesus spoke in gender-neutral language. But they obviously think he should have. The changes they have made are not merely cosmetic. They represent a fundamental reinterpretation of what the New Testament says, and how it says it."

from Newsweek Magazine · Kenneth L. Woodward via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminism

Life After Eden

Acts 1

Looks at Genesis and especially Acts, which describes the fourth act (Pentecost) in the 5-part Biblical drama of salvation, to discover what it reveals about the role of women. Both men and women receive the Spirit. Being witnesses of God's salvation to a lost world is more important than gender roles. Not only are men and women both created in God's image, they also share in having dominion over the creation.

In Genesis 1 and 2, Adam and Eve are given dominion and social unity (like unity of Godhead?) In sinning, Eve overstepped the bounds of accountable dominion and Adam overstepped the bounds of human social unity.

Genesis 3:16 is interpreted as referring to women's unreciprocated longing for intimacy with men. Bilezikian writes: "The woman wants a mate and she gets a master; she wants a lover and she gets a lord; she wants a husband and she gets a hierarch." Van Leeuwen says the peculiarly female sin is "to use the preservation of relationships as an excuse not to exercise accountable dominion in the first place."

Jesus' positive view of women strongly contrasts with prevailing view of his day. He balanced male and female images in his parables, insisted on monogamy and eliminated divorce, valued the family of God over human families, and allowed women to be first witnesses of resurrection. Out of 633 verses on women in the gospels, almost none of them is negative in tone. He was preparing men and women for the "Emancipation Proclamation" of Pentecost.

Women In Leadership

Acts 2

Special section on the role of women in the evangelical church and an examination of Biblical passages, including the OT prophetess Huldah and the examples in Acts (and 1 Corinthians).

from Christianity Today magazine · [Several] via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminismprophecy

Who Wrote the Bible?

Series of articles from a liberal slant on the authorship of the Bible (Gospels, Paul, Catholic Epistles, Revelation) and the role of canon. The view is promoted that one person, a woman, may have written most of the Hebrew Bible. [1427]

Used in sermon on July 28, 1991:

I. The traditional Christian view of the Bible is under attack.

A. U.S. News & World Report, special 8 page article on the Bible.

1) "While some of the writings [of the New Testament] bear the

names of those who walked with Jesus on the dusty roads

of Judea, centuries of scholarship have turned up little

convincing evidence that his 12 closest disciples did much

writing, either.

2) Are [these writings] close to their original form?

Or were they revised by early church leaders

to reflect changing views of who Jesus was,

to address the problems of a growing church

or even to advance political agendas?"

3) "Liberal scholars have concluded:

that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor,

that the identity of the authors is forever lost

and that their work has been largely obliterated by

centuries of translation and editing." [1427]

*

from U. S. News And World Report via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminism

Who Invented Patriarchy?

Luke 1:27

The daughter of Frank Gabelein defends biblical feminism. If God used a "chain of command," he would not have called Mary directly, but would have sent her call through Joseph. Female leadership in the Bible is not an exception to the rule.

from Christianity Today magazine · Gretchen Gaebelein Hull via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database authorityleadership

The 'Natural Inferiority' of Women

John 2:4

Tama Starr put together a book composed of put-downs of women through the ages. Chapter titles include: "Her Lesser Biology", "Unclean and Disgusting", "The Wise Man Will Avoid Them." Women are described as nymphomaniac, masochist, virtuous, and sheep-like. She says, "The big guys come up again and again: Aristotle, Freud, St. Paul - Norman Mailer, of course." Her research uncovered more violent quotes than any other kind.

"Eloquence in women shouldn't be praised; it is more fitting for them to lisp and stammer." (Martin Luther, 1538.)

"Feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures." (Jerry Falwell, 1989.)

"Men have marble, women waxen, minds." (Shakespeare, 1594.)

"Nature intended women to be our slaves. ... What a mad idea to demand equality for women!" (Napoleon, 1817.)

"I enjoy them as a breed, like a dog. ... I don't mean that derogatorily." (Henry Miller, 1975.)

"A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke." (Rudyard Kipling, 1885.)

"I want to remind women that motherhood is the vocation of women. … It is women's eternal vocation." (Pope John Paul II, 1979.)

"Women are not equal and never could be." (Charles Bronson, 1977.)

"Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly." (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1883.)

"Women are hard enough to handle now, without giving them a gun." (Sen. Barry Goldwater, 1980.)

from Daily Record Newspaper · Kiley Armstrong, Reviewer of Book by Tama Starr via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminismbigotryprejudiceabuse

That's Outrageous!

The latest educational area for "politically correct" pedagogy is kindergarten, where it has even entered story time. At the Bryant School in Teaneck, N.J., children are indulged in their reading of Cinderella, but are then asked: "Will Cinderella be happy after she and the prince are married? Wouldn't it be better if Cinderella had wanted other things to make her happy?"

Debra Goldsbury, a preschool teacher at the Happy Medium School in Seattle, suggests confronting any tot who enjoys the fairy tale thusly: "This story is not fun for me. Cinderella isn't making decisions for herself or taking charge of her own life."

(Other examples of preschool p.c. are given.) [1692]

[compare "Beauty and the Beast" storyline.]

from Reader's Digest · Kay Sunstein Hymowitz In "The New Republic" via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database marriagewomen

The Place of Women In the Church

Luke 8:2

The place of women in the Old and New Testaments. (for verses, see sheet)

Evidence in the Old Testament:

Women as prophets.

Woman as judge.

Women as queens.

Evidence in the New Testament:

Jesus gave a big role to women.

He was blessed by them as a baby (Anna).

He forgave, taught and healed them.

Women served Jesus.

They gave him money and hospitality.

They prepared his body for burial.

They were the first to see the empty tomb.

They were the first to see the risen Jesus.

In Acts, women played an important role.

They prayed with the whole church and received Holy Spirit.

They were thrown into prison.

They were called the leading converts in Europe.

They evangelized and taught.

They were prophets.

Role of women in Paul's letters.

They were deacon(esse)s.

They helped him evangelize.

They prayed publicly.

Men and women are interdependent and equal.

Supposed negative passages:

Women must be silent in church.

Not allowed to teach men.

Under authority of men.

Questions of interpretation:

Are these passages timeless, or for a particular situation?

What exactly is a pastor? Teacher? Preacher? Leader?

Expository Articles

A brief summary of modern attitudes toward the Trinity, with an emphasis on the feminist problem. The heart of the Trinity is that God is structured as a

relationship.

from Interpretation · Cynthia M. Campbell via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminism

"Mom - In A Foxhole??"

1 Corinthians 11:8

Mother's Day sermon for 1993. Gender Roles.

1 Corinthians 11:8-12

====================

MOM - IN A FOXHOLE??

====================

I. The changing roles of women.

II. Is it the Bible, or prejudice?

A. Traditional view of gender roles.

B. Past assessments have often been warped.

C. There are 3 spiritual realities behind gender roles.

III. God's original intentions.

A. Both are made in image of God. Gen 1:27

B. Both share in dominion over creation. Gen 1:26

C. Jesus always focused on God's foundation. Matt 19:3-8

IV. The effects of the Fall from Eden. Gen 3:16-17

A. Adam and Eve sinned differently, and were affected differently.

B. Most gender roles are actually result of the Fall.

V. Redemption in Christ.

A. Jesus treated the sexes differently - than others of his day.

B. Jesus Christ makes a decisive difference in our relationships.

C. Instead of domination & revolt, mutual submission. Eph 5:21

D. Leadership imagery is radically transformed.

E. Interdependence is key once again. 1 Cor 11:11-12

#2508

*

from Condensed sermon outline (handout) by Rev. David Holwick · Serm93q.pco via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminism

Gender & Grace

Acts 2

Important article on biblical feminism. Three stages of gender roles must be analyzed: God's original intent, the effects of the Fall, and the changes redemption in Christ brings.

I. Basic gender questions:

A. Which gender differences are intended by God in Genesis?

B. How do gender differences come about?

C. Which differences are genetically inevitable and which are more cultural?

D. What are the costs of the current gender distinctions?

II. Adam and Eve sinned differently.

A. Each overstepped the bounds of part of God's cultural mandate.

B. Each got a differentiated curse.

C. Much that we see as "natural" is not what God intended.

III. Gender complementarity is just as important as gender equality.

A. Differences are usually not black and white, but tendencies and averages.

1) We are more alike than different.

B. Environment plays a big role.

1) "Baby X" experiments with mislabeled babies.

Small infants were dressed neutrally.

They are given to adults and told it's a boy or girl.

After some time with the baby, they described them.

Girls are described as more friendly, sociable, feminine,

physically "fragile," and easily upset.

Boys are described as more independent, masculine, tough,

and secure.

There's only one problem - the researchers lied about the

child's sex!

C. Actual differences are slight.

1) In perception, thinking, and personality.

2) Even differences in brain use have been exaggerated.

D. Cultural universals.

1) What men do is seen as more important than what women do.

2) Ironic since the NT describes becoming a Christian in childlike and feminine terms.

IV. Natural but fallen.

A. Gender roles are shaped by culture, and influenced by the Fall.

1) Distortions of the differences become the norm.

2) Yet Christians use them to support status quo.

B. Myths among Christians.

1) The nuclear family is primary.

a) Healthy families? Next to alcoholic families, incest and abuse is most common in highly religious homes.

2) People were content with their roles before feminism started.

V. Headship and Servanthood.

A. Traditional families are not necessarily healthy families.

B. There is more concern over who is in control than on whether family is healthy.

from Christianity Today magazine · Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminism

Traditional Roles Defended

Acts 2

Review of book on traditional gender roles. Critiqued for being too

positive about patriarchalism.

I. There is a biblical basis for traditional patriarchy.

A. Husband is supposed to be the ruler and provider-protector.

B. Wife is organizer and maintainer of household.

II. Men and women differ significantly in emotional, intellectual,

and social responses.

A. Subordination principle in Bible cannot be denied.

B. Feminism is a danger to the family.

III. Drawbacks.

A. Patriarchalism can be an obstacle to the spiritual unity of a

family as well as to Christian unity.

B. Patriarchalism has affinities to fascism.

C. Patriarchal imagery is used in the Bible, but is radically

transformed in Jesus Christ.

1) Principle of headship is reinterpreted in NT as servanthood.

2) Subordination is now seen as loving support rather than

servile submission.

3) Subordination in Biblical sense doesn't denote inferiority.

4) Christ's love for his church is the new paradigm of the

man-woman relationship within marriage.

from Christianity Today magazine · Stephen E. Clark via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database husband wifesubmission

Working Mothers

Acts 2

Women are different, but many gender roles are not from Bible.

I. Equal but different.

A. Hard for us to think in these terms.

B. Differences lie deeper than our social conditioning.

1) Only women can give birth.

C. The Bible speaks of women as nurturing, but also with careers.

1) Lydia, Priscilla, Prov 31 woman.

2) Jesus did not define a woman's place as in the kitchen.

D. Feminist: "Someone who believes women are human." (Alan Alda)

II. "Woman in the home" is a modern adaptation.

A. Years ago, whole family worked out of the home.

#2511

B. Past assessments have often been warped. [this issue?]

1) In 1830's, higher education was seen as a threat.

2) In 1920's, voting was seen as dangerous.

"The new woman has cast the church aside, because it

teaches subordination of the wife to the husband.

The church also encourages domestic duties from which

the 'taste' of the new woman revolts.

The new woman hates children, and is madly exerting her

ingenuity in frustrating the intent of marriage."

LUTHERAN WITNESS, 1898

3) Current standards are often read into Bible.

from Christianity Today magazine · Ruth Tucker via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database husband wifesubmission

Breaking the Gender Impasse

Acts 2

Gender roles are ambiguous in Bible, and may be for a good reason.

I. Ambiguity over gender roles may be God-inspired.

A. Both sexes are in the image of God. Gen 1:26-28

B. Side-by-side complementarity is God's intended plan. Gen 2:18-25

C. In Christ, the curse is substantially reversed.

1) Formerly politics of rule and revolt in the home. Gen 3:16

2) Now grace of mutual submission. Eph 5:21-33

D. Full equality in Christ. Gal 3:28

E. Joint heirs of spiritual gifts and co-leaders. 1 Cor 12:1-31;

Rom 12:3-8; Eph 4:11-16; Acts 2:17-18

II. Observations:

A. Great physical differences, incorporated in norms of societies.

B. Male priority is found in creation, not culture. 1 Cor 11:8;

1 Tim 2:13

C. Sexual distinctions must be made in ministry. 1 Cor 11:2-16;

1 Cor 14:34-36; 1 Tim 2:11-15

D. Husband is head of wife, as Christ is head of church. Eph 5:21-33

E. Much feminine imagery of God, but God is not to be called

Mother. God is our Father. Ps. 22:9; 36:8; 123:2

III. Two genders, one image.

A. Gender is a paradox that can only be understood from God's height.

1) Rational stance is inadequate.

B. Creation in God's image is a social metaphor.

1) Cleaving is evocative of life in God.

2) "Sex" means to cut or divide; to be one, we need each other.

3) Sexuality is meant to turn us Godward.

C. Culture reduces sexuality to a physical act.

1) Conservatives reduce sexual identities to roles and

hierarchies that require no faith.

2) Liberals dissolve the mystery into egalitarian togetherness

with no differences except for the genitals.

IV. Two into one.

A. The Trinity is a social being.

B. To Orthodox Christians, spirituality is the participation in the

mutual love, order and interdependence of the Trinity.

1) Becoming a Christian is to be taken by the Spirit into the

actual relationship Jesus has with the Father.

V. Becoming what we worship.

A. Full emancipation of the sexes requires a spiritual solution.

B. Confusion of the sexes.

1) Welcome liberation.

2) Refuse to undermine sexual distinctives. Resist unisexing.

VI. Shared ministry and marriage.

A. Both sexes are needed in church leadership.

B. One NT reference to decision-making in marriage, and it stresses

mutuality. 1 Cor 7:5

C. Scripture is silent on marriage roles.

VII. Male headship.

A. Headship is PRIORITY within a relationship of equals.

1) Not heirarchial, but sacrificial.

B. Submission is not intrinsically bad; neither is headship.

C. Bow and string: sexuality requires both sexes.

Women's Role In Church and Family

Acts 2

Series of articles on feminism and the Bible.

I. The church should be open to women.

II. Key passages are succinctly dealt with:

A. Gal 3:28. Equality.

B. 1 Cor 11. Women can publicly pray.

C. Acts 18:26. Women can teach men.

D. 1 Cor 14. Women can take part in worship.

E. 1 Tim 2:11-12. Silence should not be universalized.

III. The role of women in the home is more difficult to determine.

A. A parallel is drawn between Christ and husbands.

Related Articles in issue:

**************************

The Ordination of Women. (Pro and Con) p. 12.

The "Head" in the NT. p. 20.

Headship in marriage. p. 23.

Dealing with unequally yoked marriages. p. 28.

from Christianity Today magazine · (Editorial) via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database husband wifemarriage

"The Second Reformation"

The Church of England is threatened with schism due to its vote to accept the ordination of women. Gives a brief history of feminism within Protestantism and Catholicism. It is a strong current in today's church, but even many women are resisting it.

"The women's rights crusade is increasingly enmeshed with divisive projects of social, moral and theological reconstruction. Many devout Christians, multitudes of women among them, cling ever more fervently to the old ways when all that is hallowed seems in danger of eroding. That perhaps explains why conservative churches that defiantly oppose the ascent of women are still thriving."

from Time · Richard N. Ostling via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Kids Are Rotten

"The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behavior and dress."

That might have been written yesterday. In point of fact, it is an extract from a sermon preached by Peter the Hermit in 1274. The generations have never understood each other very well.

In the Name of Sophia

John 1:1

In the Name of Sophia: Seeking a biblical understanding of holy wisdom.

Few recent controversies have been as explosive as the one raging around the invocation of Sophia in worship, especially at the ecumenical Re-Imagining conference held last year in Minneapolis. Before that conference caused such a stir, few Christians realized the Christian heritage of that word: sophia is the Greek word for wisdom. The New Testament uses it when speaking, for instance, of the wisdom of God (Rom. 11:33; 1 Cor. 1:24; Eph. 3:10). However, other religious systems around that time had a goddess named Sophia, so the word can also express pagan notions.

Nevertheless, it also plays an important role in Scripture. In the Old Testament, Wisdom (chokma in Hebrew, sophia in the Greek Old Testament) is often celebrated, and most lavishly in Proverbs 1-9. Wisdom is there personified in female form. She is praised in exalted terms: “all the things you may desire cannot compare with her” (3:15), for “she is a tree of life” (3:18), and her “fruit is better than gold” (8:19). Wisdom cries out in the streets, especially encouraging the “simple” and “scoffers” to gain deeper understanding (1:20-23; 8:1-6). Nonetheless, most people reject her (1:24-27).

Wisdom also has a cosmic role: “I have been established from everlasting,” she sings, “from the beginning, before there was ever an earth” (8:23). When God created, “I was beside him as a master craftsman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him” (8:30). Yet despite these lofty functions, Wisdom in Proverbs does not seem to be an actual divine being, but rather a personification of one of Yahweh’s attributes.

This Wisdom imagery expands in later Hebrew literature, most of it now found in the Apocrypha. Since Protestants have not accepted these writings as canonical, they are often unaware of how great an impact some of it had on the New Testament. But notice the apocryphal book Wisdom, which declares that Sophia “pervades and penetrates all things. / For she is a breath of the power of God, / a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty… / a reflection of eternal light, / a spotless mirror of the working of God, / And an image of his goodness” (Wisdom 7:25-26).

Now compare this with Hebrews 1:3, which calls Jesus, God’s Son, “the brightness of his glory / and the express image of his person, / and upholding all things through the word of his power.” Almost all biblical scholars agree that in formulating this description, the writer of Hebrews was significantly influenced by the former passage.

Hebrew Wisdom imagery also helped shape John’s concept of Christ as the Word (logos). Like Wisdom, the Word was with God from the beginning (John 1:1-2; Prov. 8:22-23; Wisdom 6:22; Sirach 24:9). Both manifest God’s glory (John 1:14; Wisdom 7:25) and bestow light and life (John 1:4-5, 9; Wisdom 7:26; Prov. 3:18). Like Wisdom, the Word descended from heaven to bestow God’s truth (John 1:14, 17-18; Sirach 24:8-11; Baruch 3:37; Wisdom 9:9-10), but was not generally received (John 1:11; Prov. 1:24-27; 1 Enoch 42). These themes appear not only in John’s prologue (1:1-18), but also throughout his gospel.

Wisdom imagery also lies behind Colossians 1:15-17. This text, Hebrews 1:2-3, and John 1:1-18 are probably the three most extensive New Testament affirmations of Christ’s deity. Many evangelical commentaries illuminate these passages’ indebtedness to Wisdom terminology (see, for instance, the relevant volumes in the “New International Commentary on the New Testament” [Eerdmans] and the “Word Biblical Commentary”).

Moreover, most participants in the Christological controversies of the early Christian centuries, which formed the classical confessions of Christ’s deity, understood Wisdom in Proverbs 8 to refer to Christ. Jaroslav Pelikan, dean of current church historians, maintains that in this process “the basis for the fullest statement of … the divine in Christ as Logos was provided not by … John 1:1-14 but by Proverbs 8:22-31.”

If Sophia/Wisdom imagery occurs in such basic texts, it should not surprise us to find it elsewhere. Paul, in fact, calls Christ “the Wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24; cf. 1:30). Matthew seems to indicate that Jesus regarded himself as Wisdom. Consider, for example, Jesus’ well-known words “Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matt. 11:28-29).

This seems similar to Sophia’s call in Sirach 51:26-27: “Draw near to me, you who are untaught … why are your souls very thirsty? … Put your neck under the yoke, and let your souls receive instruction… See with your eyes that I have labored little and have found for myself much rest.”

Moreover, Luke reports that the “Wisdom of God” said, “I will send them prophets and apostles … “ (Luke 11:49); yet, in the parallel passage in Matthew, Jesus himself says, “I will send you prophets … “ (Matt. 23:34).

The basic point of this biblical overview should be clear: the central New Testament texts that affirm the deity of Jesus Christ draw on language about Wisdom/Sophia. Now, if the New Testament authors could employ Sophia imagery to describe the God revealed in Christ, contemporary Christians can surely make some valid use of it in worshiping this same God.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

But alas!-the issue of how we can use Wisdom language in worship, as the current furor attests, is far from simple. For although Sophia terminology was applied to Jesus in ancient times, it also designated non-Christian deities. How, then, in our world, where Sophia language is unfamiliar and open to misuse, might the church employ it? Let me suggest several guiding principles.

The first, fundamental principle of Christian worship must be that worship can be addressed only to the One, Trinitarian God. Worship of any other god or goddess is idolatry (1 Cor. 8:5-6).

A second worship principle, however, is that experience of this Trinitarian God is varied. As Creator of everything that is, and as Bestower of a many-sided, far-reaching redemption, the Christian God is known and praised through a wide range of creatures and activities. For this reason, Christian worship has ascribed a great variety of adjectives and names to God.

Consider, for instance, the beloved hymn “Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise.” I find 18 adjectives or names for God in its first two stanzas. Some-such as the mysterious “unresting, unhasting, and silent as light”-do not appear to be literal equivalents of biblical words. The poet’s creativity played a role in forming them. Yet they surely evoke awe of the biblical God.

“Wisdom” is among those titles often ascribed to Christ. Consider, for example, the moving imagery of an English text associated with Bach’s exalted music: “Jesu, Joy of man’s desiring / Holy Wisdom, Love most bright; / Drawn by Thee, our hearts aspiring / Soar to Uncreated Light.”

As with many other titles, Wisdom can sometimes be applied to Jesus without specifying who is meant. For instance, each stanza of the familiar “O come, O come, Emmanuel” begins by invoking a different name: Emmanuel, Rod of Jesse, Dayspring, Key of David, Wisdom, and Desire of Nations. Since it is clear who is being addressed, the words Jesus and Christ do not-and need not-appear in this hymn.

According to our second principle of worship, then, there is no reason why Sophia could not function as a divine title, or a source of imagery, enriching Christian awareness of God. Yet any such use must be consistent with our first principle: It should be clear that such worship is being directed to the Triune God alone.

Since Sophia is presently unfamiliar to most Christians, and is troubling to some, this title and its associated imagery is best used in conjunction with others that clearly refer to Christ or God. Sophia seems more likely to arouse objections when this name is invoked alone, allowing the impression that a different deity is being addressed.

Although Christian worship should engage the emotions and senses and does not always need to be filtered through the rational mind, it should always be consistent with Christian teaching. Thus, when new themes are being introduced, some instruction is helpful. Moreover, when novel or questionable practices emerge, it is appropriate to ask whether they accord with the church’s beliefs.

A POLEMICAL CLAMOR

I am glad that questions are being raised about events like Re-Imagining because some features accompanying the current Sophia emphasis are questionable in light of Scripture. For instance, while the Bible indeed teaches that God is “immanent,” or present in some sense everywhere (Jer. 23:24; Eph. 1:23), the biblical God is also “transcendent,” or vastly superior to and different from everything else; similarly, while Jesus Christ is like us in being fully human, Christ is quite unlike us in being fully divine.

Much current Sophia worship, however, is so focused on an immanent divine presence, and seems to regard Jesus as so little different from us, that one can often ask whether anything other than the depths of nature or the human self is being invoked, and hence divinized. When numerous such expressions emerge at a conference funded and attended by several denominations, church members can appropriately question them.

I am not entirely happy, however, with how this questioning has occurred. We live in a society where people’s awareness, shaped by the news and entertainment media, is dominated by conflict. Only disagreements seem to get attention. This atmosphere demands that individuals align themselves quickly with one of the warring camps in every dispute, and live thenceforth in dread of the demonic designs of the other.

In an atmosphere in which everything seems “black or white,” we may overlook the fact that new worship forms involve creativity, and hence risk. Some may place all who attend such events under suspicion, leaving the impression that all participants must have agreed with every public statement. This may frighten those attracted by the biblical Sophia either into silence, or into the arms of the pagan Sophia’s more extreme advocates.

To be sure, a line exists between truth and falsehood, and stand for truth we must. But even if we assess the effects of Re-Imagining very negatively, biblical Christians do not need to conform to the polemical pattern of our age. In the current controversy, we need to see more of the patient, humble attitude that recognizes the danger of being too “simple” or a “scoffer,” and heeds the call to “cry out for discernment, and lift up your voice for understanding … seek [Wisdom] as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures” (Prov. 2:3-4).

~~~~~~~~~~

Thomas Finger is professor of systematic and spiritual theology at Eastern Mennonite Seminary, Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Copyright (c) 1994 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine

#3457

*

Earthquake In the Mainline, Part 4: Is Sophia God?

Acts 19:27

The role of divine revealer denied to Jesus at Re-Imagining was filled by Sophia. “Bless Sophia, dream the vision, share the wisdom, dwelling deep within” echoed some two-dozen times through Re-Imagining like the Gloria Patri in a Benedictine monastery. There are, to be sure, passages in the Old Testament that personify sophia (Greek for wisdom), and on occasion speak of her as an attribute of divine activity (see “In the name of Sophia,” p. 43). At Re-Imagining, however, no speaker addressed the role of sophia within the biblical or theological tradition, and particularly the Eastern Orthodox tradition where it has played a significant role. Sophia, rather, was presented in unspecified relationship to the Christian tradition, independent and even alien to it.

Ostensibly, Sophia was intended to represent a feminine expression of the Holy Spirit, but in reality, Sophia was the elevation of an attribute of God (wisdom) to the place of God. The practical result was that Sophia became a subjective metaphor for the political, social, gender, sexual, or ecological preferences of various speakers. We have noted the shift in theological authority at Re-Imagining from transcendence to immanence. That is, theology was severed from its traditional moorings in the transcendence of God, the person and work of Christ, the institution of the church, and the Holy Scriptures, and rooted to human experience alone-a tendency, incidentally, increasingly characteristic of many modern theologies. Any distinction between the “Spirit” and human experience was effectively eliminated, thus positing ultimate authority in human experience, which, at Re-Imagining, meant feminine experience.

The endeavor to shift theology from dogmatic to experiential categories verged on spiritual narcissism. “I reverence the Presence within you,” began an opening liturgy, after which participants were instructed, “Whisper the sacred word that is your name.” Several speakers alluded to the divine within them. Aruna Gnanadason of the Church of South India wore a red dot on her forehead as a symbol of the divine in her. Chung Hyun Kyung of Korea spoke of spirituality as an archaeological excavation of the layers of God within her. Barbara Lundblad took the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 61, which Jesus applied uniquely to himself in Luke 4, and applied it to herself: “The Spirit has anointed me. I need to know that this word is spoken to me in the spirit of Sophia. Trust the stirring in your womb.”

The problem with locating theological authority in human experience is that human experience varies, making an objective standard impossible. In the name of Jesus Christ, the Ku Klux Klan, “German Christians” under Hitler, and the death-to-abortionists faction have advocated things that Christians - including Christians at Re-Imagining - abhor. The authority of human experience leads to the oldest and most violent ethic in the world: might makes right.

The equating of the Spirit with human experience at Re-Imagining resulted in elevating “the evil of patriarchy” to mythic proportions. Never defined, “patriarchy” fulfilled the stereotype of Re-Imagining that “subhuman” fulfills for the Fascist and “capitalism” for the Communist. In a story narrated by Aruna Gnanadason, patriarchy replaced sin as the source of all evil in the world. Man seized the demon of patriarchy to brutalize the creation, including woman, his innocent victim. The church, with its “brain- damaging theology,” sanctions the present state of oppression. There is only one thing patriarchy cannot stamp out, however. That is the feminine spirit, compassionate and regenerating, which will ultimately prevail.

Gnanadason’s mythic archetype might have been dismissed as a theological melodrama were it not echoed in Dirty Harry-epithets from speaker after speaker. One was left blinking in incredulity at such a simplistic-and self- righteous-world-view. But the show went on. Most of the fallout from the blast on patriarchy landed in the lap of the church. A male-dominated clearing house of power over women, the church became the object of all sorts of drive-by shootings from speakers. The upshot was that the institutional church was effectively eliminated as a viable community of faith. Virginia Mollenkott made it explicit when she advised that “it may be necessary for the substantial liberated minority in every denomination to leave the denomination in order to form the holistic church.”

Re-Imagining’s theology of immanence came to most explicit elaboration in sexual imagery. Susan Thistlethwaite declared, “Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism.” The motif pervaded Re-Imagining at every level. It was most apparent in the default apology for lesbianism, homosexuality, transgenderism, and bisexuality that characterized Re-Imagining. Not a few speakers identified themselves as lesbian. Decrying “the unspeakable treatment of lesbian and bisexual women in mainline churches,” Mary Hunt, Roman Catholic feminist of the Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (water) in Silver Spring (Md.), stated, “To be an out lesbian in Christian church circles is to live threatened with spiritual if not physical death.” Quoting Mollenkott that “grace is a lesbian,” Hunt urged breaking with “preoccupation with eternal truth ...and the excess baggage of patriarchy.” “People doing justice [for homosexual rights] ...is what it means to me to be religious. Whether it is Christian or not is frankly, darling, something about which I no longer give a pope.”

An appeal for consensual sexual acts followed in consort with the affirmation of lesbianism. “Imagine sex among friends as the norm,” continued Mary Hunt, “young people learning to make friends rather than to date. Imagine valuing genital sexual interaction in terms of whether or how it fosters friendship and pleasure.... Pleasure is our birthright.”

THE JUDGMENT OF HULDAH

Re-Imagining gave voice to the pain and alienation that many women experience in the church. Christians, especially those who affirm Galatians 3:28, for example, should hear such pain with a renewed commitment to the equality of women as coheirs of salvation and as complementary partners in the church. But Re-Imagining was not the way to go about it, as has been recognized from many quarters. Re-Imagining’s radical revisionism with respect to the way theology is done, the nature of God, the significance of the Incarnation, and the person of the Holy Spirit poses a theological danger that the church cannot ignore if it is to remain the church.

The steering committee and various denominational leaders have labeled critics of Re-Imagining as divisive and factious. A post-conference communiqué warned that “Unofficial conservative publications within ...denominations have attacked the conference as heretical and pagan.” The attempt to deflect responsibility with words like unofficial and conservative is a lame ad hominem. That is like accusing doctors of jeopardizing health for attacking illness, or the police of disrupting communities because they prosecute crime. What other word besides heresy is appropriate where the Incarnation and Trinity were dismissed, where orthodoxy was derided, where Scripture was repeatedly contradicted, and where a goddess named Sophia was actively promoted? It is not those who name heresy who divide the church, but those who practice it!

In conclusion, 2 Kings 22 preserves a judgment that is of significance for Re-Imagining. During King Josiah’s reign, repairs were undertaken on the temple. “The book of the Law” (Deuteronomy) was discovered and read before the king, who directed the prophetess Huldah to be consulted, “for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us.” Huldah’s interpretation did nothing to allay the king. “Behold, I will bring evil upon this place and its inhabitants,” said the prophetess. Johanna Bos interpreted Huldah’s prophecy as a condemnation of male domination of the temple, fulminating, “This old house of patriarchy has got to come down.”

That is a decidedly idiosyncratic interpretation. Huldah’s prophecy is not about male domination or patriarchy. It is about apostasy and idolatry, the very things that characterized Re-Imagining. “Because they have forsaken me and have burned incense to other gods, ...therefore my wrath will be kindled against this place” (2 Kings 22:17).

________

James R. Edwards is professor of religion at Jamestown College, Jamestown, North Dakota.

Copyright (c) 1994 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine

from Online Christianity Today (America Online) via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database liberalismheresy

Manhood's Great Awakening, Part 2

THE WOUNDED MALE SOUL

The work of Promise Keepers and other groups in the Christian men’s movement has arisen against the backdrop of a waning secular men’s movement. The late eighties and early nineties saw white baby boomers displaying a frenzy of interest over the perplexing puzzle of being a man in America. Sociologists and journalists were soon tracking the activity of a phenomenon that sought to get men in touch with themselves. The movement’s books shot high on the bestseller lists, and men lined up in droves to attend seminars and run around bare-chested during tribal-oriented “Wild Man” weekends. Some called it a reaction to the feminist establishment; others saw it as a way for men to be both vulnerable and aggressive without being lambasted for wimpiness or insensitivity.

In the long run, however, the secular men’s movement turned out to be more effective at identifying problems — confusion over the meaning of masculinity, the disappearance of fathers, the need for older men to mentor boys as they grow into manhood — than at providing solutions.

“The Christian men’s movement is not a spiritualized version of the secular men’s movement; it is the men’s movement,” says Stu Weber, a pastor and author of the book “Tender Warrior.” “I think the secular movement has come and gone because it didn’t have anywhere to go. You can only go so far with myths and tribal lore. Eventually, you’ve got to get to the Genesis spring, which is a Judeo-Christian foundation.”

Many of the speakers refer to what is called the wounded male soul. This woundedness springs from the cultural estrangement of boys from their fathers and the emotional repression American culture has deemed necessary for true maleness.

Like Rotundo, Oliver, who wrote the book “Real Men Have Feelings Too,” believes the Industrial Revolution is at the heart of the present dilemma. “It changed the meaning of manhood in America,” he explains. “Men left their homes and farms to work in factories and offices. Through much of our history, child rearing was shared by men and women. With industrialization, child rearing became a ‘feminine thing.’ Boys no longer had their father’s physical presence as a model and a source for their ideals and identity.”

Oliver adds that industrialization accelerated the pace of living, creating a major social shift from stability and community to insecurity and detachment. “I think this process caused men to lose touch with what it meant to be a husband, a father, a friend-and a person.”

The results can be seen at every hand in our society. The expectation for men to be the prime breadwinners in our society has driven them to correlate their self-worth with their earnings. And cultural images of John Wayne and Arnold Schwarzenegger taint perceptions of what a “real man” is, often leading men to buy into the strong and silent approach to life. All of this has led to men who are disconnected from their families and themselves.

And yet, as men try to overcome this legacy of inexpressiveness and emotional distance, they are faced with conflicting expectations. On the one hand, men are told — whether directly or implicitly — to be gentle and compassionate. On the other hand, the message urges acting strong and taking responsibility. Men must somehow navigate between being lions and lambs.

Some observers, like Steve Farrar, would say that the church sometimes errs on the side of gentleness. “Traits like tenderness and sensitivity are very important, but I think we sometimes elevate those over other traits like courage and aggressiveness.” True manhood, believes Farrar, should be gleaned from the example of Jesus. “Jesus could be tender and gentle, but Jesus could also walk in and clear out a corrupted temple.”

But is there a real biblical model of gender for understanding what it means to be a Christian man or woman? According to theologian Lewis Smedes, probably not: “Men’s and women’s roles may be situationally different and have different forms of expression, but the Bible is mainly interested in the moral and spiritual qualities of a human being.” Smedes, who recently retired from Fuller Theological Seminary, suggests that following Christ is a gender-neutral calling: “That which is important about Jesus being a model is not his modeling of maleness but his modeling of humanity.”

Promise Keepers has already entered into the tricky task of showing that feminine virtues and masculine virtues need not be a conflict in the lives of Christian men. But in a day when many men buy into the idea that being active in the church means putting one’s masculinity on hold in favor of characteristics associated with femininity (nurturing, servanthood, vulnerability), will men receive Promise Keepers’ version of the story? The thousands of teary-eyed, hand-holding men gathered in Boulder seemed to.

THE COACH

The climax of many of the Promise Keepers meetings comes with the rallying address of founding Promise Keeper Bill McCartney. Most of the men refer to him as “Coach McCartney,” which seems appropriate given the inspirational, locker-room brand of pep talk he delivers.

“We’re calling men of God to battle - we will retreat no more,” the coach declares. “We’re going to contest anything that sets itself up against the name of Jesus Christ.” The men respond with deafening cheers and standing ovations.

Although Coach McCartney can inspire thousands to stand up for Jesus, it does not take long to realize that these men are not flocking around him because of his charismatic oratory. After several minutes, his speeches begin to take on a rambling quality that makes one understand quickly why his first job was football. What gives McCartney such influence among thousands of men is his image as a championship-winning football coach who has taken a very public stand about his faith and about being a good husband and father.

Many, like Gary Oliver, see McCartney as the spark that has set the Christian men’s movement ablaze. “This movement was beginning in churches across the country on a smaller scale throughout the eighties,” says Oliver. “For years we’ve had Ed Cole, Gary Smalley, John Trent, and James Dobson writing and speaking on these issues. But the burden that God gave to Bill McCartney opened the whole thing up. It gave direction and clarity to it.”

Observes Ken Canfield, “Bill McCartney has been honest about issues he has struggled with, and he has spoken very clearly about how the Lord can change a man’s life.”

Without question, Christian men are proud to claim such a strong man as one of their own. Suddenly, being a Christian is for tough guys, too. “If he can be outspoken about his faith, heck, so can I,” exclaimed a fired-up Promise Keeper.

The coach is someone men can identify with. Indeed, the essence of many a Promise Keeper’s experience can be found in McCartney’s own story of how he allowed work to come between him and his family. He took over a football program that was going nowhere and produced a national championship; yet, in the midst of all the fanfare, at the very peak of success, he realized how he was failing to fulfill his roles as a husband and father-and chose to do something about it.

In the process, he has been very candid about his then-teenage daughter’s pregnancy (the father was one of his star football players) and his own share of responsibility for her actions. When she needed him, he had not been there.

In a tragic, but triumphant story, McCartney eventually led that football star who fathered his grandchild to Christ just before the young man died from an inoperable stomach cancer.

Recently, McCartney made headlines again by unexpectedly resigning from his coaching position at the University of Colorado while still at the top of the game, explaining that it was presently the best thing for his family.

As a result of his very public spiritual pilgrimage, McCartney has taken beatings for his outspoken pro-life views and for his denunciation of the homosexual lifestyle — a daring stance in ultra-liberal Boulder. Consequently, homosexual-rights groups have picketed the Boulder conferences for the past two years; during the 1994 meeting, poet Allen Ginsburg led a “diversity rally” targeting Promise Keepers’ “anti-gay” and “anti-women” agenda.

Still, McCartney continues to lead the charge for a return to Christian values among men. “It’s time for men who love Christ to stand up and make their presence felt,” he says. And, because of his example, thousands and thousands of men are taking the call seriously.

KEEPING THE PROMISE

Building on five years of sustained growth, from a small local assembly to six regional conventions, Promise Keepers has bold ambitions. International conferences are being devised, and plans are in the works to assemble 1 million men in Washington, D.C., in 1996 to pray for the nation.

Every area of the Promise Keepers organization is expanding. The group has gone from 29 staff members in 1993 to 150 full-time employees in 1994, and in that same period, its annual budget has risen from $4 million to $22 million.

But Phillips is quick to explain that it is not Promise Keepers’ purpose to grow big simply for the sake of numbers. “We do not want to build a monument. We want to serve this movement as a mission. It becomes a monument when the focus turns to personalities or the organization. It becomes a mission when it’s focused on God’s purpose to honor his Son through the church and bring millions to the person of Christ.”

So far, Promise Keepers has maintained its commitment to build up the local church through empowering pastors. The last two Boulder conferences have concluded with all the clergy in attendance going to the front of the arena to be prayed for and applauded by the other men. McCartney has made it an ongoing aim to restore the office of the pastor to one of respect and authority. “Our leadership is wounded, beaten down, and beleaguered,” he says, noting that too often congregations and committees have made pastors afraid to preach the gospel wholeheartedly.

The organization has also sought to strengthen local churches through encouraging the formation of men’s small groups for fellowship and accountability. Says Promise Keepers’ media director Steve Chavis, “All of our success here is contingent upon men taking part in small groups when they return home.” Clearly, the true measure of this present revival of Christian manhood is not the enthusiasm demonstrated during the summer rallies but rather the enduring commitment that will carry men through the year.

Can Promise Keepers make good on its promises? Demanding the establishment of home-grown discipleship and Christian-service groups is a good start, but, like other ministries before it, Promise Keepers could go even further.

If the problems Promise Keepers seeks to combat arise from the Industrial Revolution, a massive structural shift in our society, then ultimately, any solution to those problems must address structural as well as individual issues. The epidemic of fatherlessness is in part a consequence of massive social change. Racism is an institutional evil as well as a matter of individual wrongdoing. Will Promise Keepers itself eventually branch out to develop public-policy arms to support the goal of structural change? For instance, advocating flex-time programs for working fathers or racial- awareness initiatives for young men might be logical extensions of the organization’s current objectives.

As a movement, Promise Keepers has promise: a flexible leadership not concerned with building an empire, a commitment to communicating the basics, a holistic vision for men — encouraging them to be servants at home, at church, and in their community — and a desire to see things happen at a grassroots level. Admirable goals for a still-fledgling ministry. Yet, after several winning summers, it is still being determined how well this game plan is working in the cold off-season months.

If our culture continues in its current state of moral chaos, and if Promise Keepers’ ultimate promises of stable homes, unified communities, and stronger churches begin to be realized, America at large may find that promise-keeping is not just about evangelical religion or male leadership but about truth, responsibility, and agape love — concepts that find their true fruition in the Christian faith.

If Promise Keepers can accomplish this, it will prove itself as not only a men’s movement but also a powerful move of God.

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine

#3613

*

from Online Christianity Today (America Online) · Edward Gilbreath via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database racismfootballfathersmanhood

Fighting the Good Fight: A Plea For Healthy Disagreements

Job 6:24

"Is this the room for an argument?" asks Michael Palin's character in a classic Monty Python skit.

"I told you once," John Cleese tells him.

"No you didn't!"

"I most certainly did."

They continue in this vein to Palin's mounting frustration. Cleese simply contradicts everything Palin says. Back and forth the nonsense goes until finally Palin shouts, "THIS ISN'T AN ARGUMENT! AN ARGUMENT IS A SERIES OF PROPOSITIONS LAID OUT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A CENTRAL POINT. IT'S NOT THE MERE GAINSAYING OF WHATEVER THE OTHER PERSON SAYS!"

To which Cleese loftily replies, "Can be."

Christians need to learn how to argue properly. We usually talk past each other, especially on controversial topics like feminism. We have not stopped to listen, to consider, and to engage in mutually respectful argument. Our passionate commitments (pro-life, inerrancy, etc.) tend to make us see everything as right or wrong, as "us" or "them." We are rightly afraid of a relativism that forbids anyone to claim possession of truth, but we overcompensate by allowing no room for self-doubt. We don't even pause for the self-examination that would result if we actually took the trouble to set our arguments in order. Instead, we have taken our convictions for granted as gospel truth. We are too confident that we have a lock on the truth.

Yet only a fool resists a good argument. Arguing in a biblical way helps us to grow in wisdom. Sermons should not just tell us what the Bible says or refer to the Bible or have some vague connection with the Bible: they should show us that the Bible does say what the preacher thinks it says. We must speak in a language that our hearers understand so they can be persuaded.

One of the attitudes that is tearing our society apart is the insistence that everyone else better just agree with me when I give my opinion - and if some refuse to do so, then I'll write them off and associate exclusively with those who will. As the T-shirts read when Nelson Mandela first visited New York City, "It's a black thing. You wouldn't understand." Buzz off: it's a female thing / it's a Baptist thing / it's a homosexual thing / it's a conservative thing - you wouldn't understand.

We badly need instead an attitude of Christian humility that affirms that we don't know it all and that we'd like to know more. We badly need an attitude of Christian appreciation, one that recognizes that other people can give us what we do not have ourselves. We badly need an attitude of Christian obedience to the truth and a sacrifice of the ego so that the question is always what's right, not who's right - to the glory of God.

And so, as a seeker of gracious, edifying discourse in our friendships, families, churches, and workplaces, I invoke the magisterial Pythons once again and cry, "I'd like to have an argument, please."

----------

John Stackhouse, Jr., is professor of religion at the University of Manitoba.

#4308

*

Women In Mission

Acts 15:39

A stirring tale of women's pioneering spirit from the pages of Scripture to the present day, by Marguerite Kraft and Meg Crossman.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the last road ended, it was a two-day hike to where the Balangao people lived. The Balangao, a tribe of former headhunters, still sacrificed to powerful and demanding spirits who caused sickness, death and constant turmoil. Two single women missionaries, trained in Bible translation, were on their way to work among them.

When they arrived, they were greeted by men wearing G-strings and women wrapped in cloth from homemade looms. It is hard to say who was more amazed. The Balangao had asked for Americans to come live with them and write their language, but they never dreamed the Americans would be women!

An old man offered to be their father and was faithful in looking after them. Besides the work of translation, these women began giving medical assistance, learning about the spirit world, and answering questions about life and death. One of them, Jo Shetler, stayed for 20 years, winning her way into the hearts and lives of these people and completing the New Testament translation. Because of this dedication, thousands now know Jesus as Lord of the Balangao.1

Jo Shetler, a shy farm girl with a dream, has stirred many with her story. However, stories remain unwritten of multitudes of women who likewise obeyed the call of God to serve Him on the far horizons. Many women do not realize how greatly God can use their giftedness and commitment in situations such as this.

From the Earliest Days

The Book of Acts records the account of Priscilla, a woman specifically used of God to touch people in at least three different nations: Rome, Greece, and Asia Minor. Apparently a native of the eastern area of Asia Minor, this woman of Jewish faith lived with her husband, Aquila, in Rome until the Jews were expelled. When they met Paul in Corinth, they may already have become believers. They hosted Paul, led a house church, and were assigned by Paul to disciple the eloquent and committed Egyptian Jew, Apollos, "instructing him in the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:26).

Paul recognized and honored their gifts and they moved with him to the work in Ephesus. Since Priscilla's name is almost always listed first, some scholars suggest that "the wife was more prominent and helpful to the Church."2 It is perhaps most interesting to note that her role in cross-cultural service, leadership, and teaching were perceived as so normal they did not require special comment or explanation by the writer of Acts. Her role seems to have been accepted and expected rather than extraordinary.

Many women were martyred for their love for Jesus in the first three centuries of Christianity. Lucia of Sicily, who lived about A.D. 300, was involved in Christian charitable work there. After marrying a wealthy nobleman, she was ordered to stop giving to the poor; she refused and was sent to jail. There she was persecuted and condemned to death. Melania, coming from a wealthy family in Rome with estates all around the Mediterranean, used her resources to give to the poor and to build monasteries and churches for both men and women in Africa and Jerusalem. Her missionary journeys started as she fled from Rome during the invasion by the Goths in A.D. 410. As a refugee, she and many other women played an important role in the great missionary movement. Some women were taken as hostages to Northern Europe where they later married their captors and evangelized them.3 Clare, who lived and worked in the early thirteenth century, was a reformer where Christianity had forgotten the poor. She founded the Franciscan order of barefoot nuns in Italy.4 Women who chose to remain single, serve God, and live the cloistered life were given the opportunity through the accepted ecclesiastical framework to proclaim the Gospel. In the Catholic tradition, priests, bishops and nuns built churches and hospitals, and founded schools and orphanages in order to establish the faith.

In the Early Missionary Movement

The Protestant Reformation in the Sixteenth Century brought about changes in the role of women in Christianity. The reformers reemphasized that the role of women was in the home, to be supportive of men. Arthur Glasser writes, "the reformers also subjected women to the confining perspective that their only recognized vocation was marriage. With the dissolution of the convents, women lost their last chance of churchly service outside the narrow circle of husband, home and children."5 Within Protestantism, the problem then arose as to whether women had the right to respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Word of God.

In the early days of the Protestant mission advance, most women who went to the field were wives of missionaries. Discerning men recognized that contact with women in most non-Western societies was impossible for them, so women had to undertake this responsibility. They received little recognition for the heavy load they carried, managing the home and children as well as developing programs to reach local women and girls.

Initially, single women could only go to the field to care for missionaries' children or serve alongside the missionary family. However, little by little, new opportunities arose. R. Pierce Beaver describes the work of Cynthia Farrar in India, Elizabeth Agnew in Ceylon, and other single women who began to supervise women's schools.6 Quietly, they helped in zenanas and harems. Doors opened through medical service. Yet their effective work was seldom publicized.

However, leaders like D. L. Moody, A. B. Simpson, and A. J. Gordon believed in encouraging women's gifts for public ministry. Both J. Hudson Taylor, founder of China Inland Mission, and Fredrik Franson, founder of TEAM (The Evangelical Alliance Mission), saw the need to recruit and send women to evangelize cross-culturally. In 1888, Taylor wrote, "We are manning our stations with ladies."7 Throughout its initial history, his mission expected women, both single and married, to carry out all the missionary duties, including preaching and teaching.

In Jane Hunter's study of correspondence and published articles from women on the field, she discovered the "vast majority of women missionaries were motivated by a deep sense of commitment to God, far more than by any desire to attain personal recognition or power."8 From such moving reports, women in the churches at home caught a dynamic world vision, volunteering their money, time, energy, organizational ability, and prayer support. Leaders such as Annie Armstrong and Helen Barret Montgomery dedicated themselves to developing missionary prayer groups, raising funds, and mobilizing Christians to support field work of all kinds.9

A New Way of Sending

The Civil War in the United States became a catalyst for change in the way women were sent. After the Civil War, so many men died that women were either widowed or unlikely to marry. This forced women into an unusual range of responsibilities. They ran businesses, banks, farms, formed colleges, and for the next 50 years inherited a larger role than men as the major muscle of the mission movement.10

Since missionary boards still refused to send women directly to the work, women simply organized their own boards. First was the Women's Union Missionary Society. In the years to follow, many others were created. Their funds were raised above and beyond the regular denominational mission giving, indicating the phenomenal job of missions awareness these boards were achieving on the home front. They built women's colleges, specifically to train women for missionary service. Besides rousing women to go overseas, more than 100,000 women's missionary societies became active in local churches, an unmatched base for prayer and funding.

By 1900, over 40 denominational women's societies existed, with over three million active women raising funds to build hospitals and schools around the world, paying the salaries of indigenous female evangelists, and sending single women as missionary doctors, teachers, and evangelists.11 By the early decades of the 20th Century, the women's missionary movement had become the largest women's movement in the United States, and women outnumbered men on the mission field by a ratio of more than two to one.12 Sadly, as these boards were persuaded to combine with the denominational boards in the 1920s and 30s, women gradually lost their opportunity to direct the work.

And Still Today

Overall, probably two-thirds of the missions force has been, and currently is, female. Many mission executives agree that the more difficult and dangerous the work, the more likely women are to volunteer to do it! David Yonggi Cho concludes from his experience that women are the best choice for difficult, pioneering work. "We have found that in these situations, women will never give up. Men are good for building up the work, but women are best for persevering when men get discouraged."13

Some fear that because of the unique obstacles of reaching the Muslim world, Western women can play no part. Yet in a nomadic Muslim group in Sub-Saharan Africa, a single woman is effectively training Imams (Islamic teachers) in the Gospel. They perceive her to be non-threatening, "just a woman." Building upon a foundation of interpersonal relationship and Bible knowledge, she does not give them answers herself, but directs them to the Word. The Lord has confirmed her teaching, giving dreams and visions to these leaders. As they have been converted, they are now training many others. She is accepted as a loving, caring elder sister, who gives high priority to their welfare.

Jim Reapsome's editorial in World Pulse (Oct. 9, 1992), advocating more training and more support for women, received an almost immediate letter of thanks from a missionary to a Muslim group in Southeast Asia. He wrote:

Interestingly enough, despite the common emphasis on training and using men, here in ---- , some of the best evangelists are all women! In fact, three of our most important co-workers (who are really doing the most cutting-edge ministry) are women. In terms of Americans, we only have one single man who made the sacrifice to come here but there are four single women, with three more on the way. In the face of chauvinistic Islam, it is good to be reminded that true Christianity is not chauvinistic, but an equally exciting call to new, fulfilling life for women and men.14

______________________________________________

1. Shetler, Joanne, The Word Came With Power (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press,

1992).

2. Jameson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible (Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1,117, on Acts 18:18.

3. Malcolm, Kari Torjesen, Women at the Crossroads: A Path Beyond Feminism

and Traditionalism (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1982),

pp. 99-100.

4. Ibid., p. 104

5. Glasser, Arthur, "One-half the Church -- and Mission," Women and the

Ministries of Christ, eds., Roberta Hestenes and Lois Curly (Pasadena:

Fuller Theological Seminary, 1978) pp. 88-92.

6. Beaver, R. Pierce, American Protestant Women in World Mission (Grand

Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), pp. 59-86.

7. Beaver, R. Pierce, All Loves Excelling (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1968), p. 116.

8. Tucker, Ruth, Guardians of the Great Commission (Grand Rapids, MI:

Academie Books, 1988), p. 38.

9. Ibid., pp. 102-110

10. Winter, Ralph, personal interview, September 1991

11. Rober, Dana L. American Women in Mission: A Social History of Their

Thought and Practice (Macon, GA.: Mercer University Press, 1996), p. 129

12. Tucker, Ruth, Guardians of the Great Commission (Grand Rapids, MI:

Academie Books, 1988) p. 10

13. Paul Yonggi Cho at El Shaddai Pastor's Fellowship luncheon in Phoenix,

AZ, March 1988

14. Personal letter to Jim Reapsome, October 25, 1992. Used with permission.

Marguerite Kraft served as a missionary to the Kamwe people of Northern Nigeria. She is now Professor of Anthropology and Linguistics at the School of Intercultural Studies, Biola University and author of Worldview and the Communication of the Gospel and Understanding Spiritual Power.

Meg Crossman was the Executive Director of I.C.A.R.E. prison ministries for 10 years. Meg is best known as a mission mobilizer and a coordinator of the Perspectives course in Tempe, Arizona. She edited a version of the Perspectives course called Worldwide Perspectives.

This article originally appeared in Worldwide Perspectives, edited by Meg Crossman, 1996. Used by permission of William Carey Library, Pasadena, CA. It appears in this form in the recently completed Third Edtion of the Perspectives on the World Christian Movement Reader. Both volumes are available from William Carey Library at 1-800-MISSION.

*

from Internet: Mission Frontiers · Marguerite Kraft & Meg Crossman; Editor Rick Wood via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Foundering Feminism: What Do Women Really Want?

Proverbs 22:6

A corporate lawyer named Jill Natwick Johnston was about to be rewarded for 15 years of grueling work: She was offered a prestigious promotion where she'd enjoy double the salary and the freedom to write her own job description.

But Johnston turned down the promotion. As she explained in the Wall Street Journal, "There was no way I could take the job unless [I] wanted [my] children to be raised completely by the sitter and [my] marriage further stretched."

Johnston's decision is certainly praiseworthy. But it's one "woman's choice" that America's feminists are not likely to support.

In her book, "Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life," historian Elizabeth Fox-Genovese says that feminists have lost touch with the real concerns of everyday women. In particular, Fox-Genovese says, feminists tend to ignore the importance of children in the lives of most women.

While feminists insist that they respect any lifestyle choice a woman makes, Fox-Genovese writes, "it's difficult to find much feminist support for women who decide that their commitment to family must take precedence over their commitment to work."

For example, a few years ago the National Organization for Women held a convention offering hundreds of workshops on every aspect of women's lives. Only one workshop focused on children -- and that had to do with lesbian motherhood.

But mothers understand something that sometimes career-obsessed feminists don't: Children are not simply small appendages to their lives, something to put on their after-hours "to do" list. As Fox-Genovese puts it, to bear and rear children "might well be the most important and rewarding thing that most women... do in their lives." In fact, several recent studies reveal that many parents are doing exactly what Jill Johnston did: They're trying to find ways to cut down on their work hours in favor of spending more time nurturing their children.

For example, a 1993 poll by the Family Research Council found that "most working people would trade even early retirement for more time to devote to their children."

Scholar Dana Mack writes in The Women's Quarterly that "growing numbers of families are [renouncing] second incomes ... for the sake of their children's well-being." And a study reported in the book, "Staying Home," found that women who left their jobs in favor of full-time mothering said they did so in order to rear their own children "with their own values."

Teaching their own values: That gets to the heart of why both mothers and fathers are longing to spend more time with their children.

Proverbs 22:6 instructs parents to "train up a child in the way he should go." The verse tells parents that THEY are the ones who are primarily responsible before God for their children's moral education.

When parents strive to arrange their careers so they can nurture their children, as Jill Johnston did, they are fulfilling a Biblical mandate.

So three cheers for Jill Johnston, and for all the courageous parents across American who have made hard choices to slow down their careers to cultivate a richer family life.

Well-nurtured children are a much better "reward" than that next promotion.

------------------------------

Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Father Is Most Significant Name For God In the Bible

The eternal Fatherhood of God should be a balm to Christians who have a negative relationship with their earthly father, said Mary Kassian, popular women's author. Kassian is a critic of the feminist movement within the church and has written several books outlining the danger of feminist theology. She has a reputation as a defender of the biblical view of manhood and womanhood.

Young people are part of a largely "fatherless generation," Kassian said, and the inability of men to perform the duties of fatherhood have contributed to the contemporary attacks on the image of God as Father -- a view that some see as patriarchal and demeaning.

While relationships with earthly fathers are important to the identity of both men and women, Kassian said, poor outcomes of those relationships do not diminish the perfection of God.

"It's astonishing that the God of the universe would have us call him Father," she said. "Father is not an abstract term. Father indicates a personal being."

God the Father functions as a standard-bearer and a point of stability. But he is also a comforter. Father, Kassian said, is the most significant name of God in the Bible.

"Father is the Christian name for God," she said. "God is not merely like a Father; he is Father. We glean out meaning of fatherhood from him."

The relationship of God as Father was most perfectly realized and reflected in the life of Jesus Christ, who constantly referred to God as Father and made it his specific mission to share that relationship with others -- a mission that culminated in his death on the cross to make a personal relationship with God the Father possible for sinful humans.

"Jesus' relationship with God demonstrates the power and love of God," Kassian said. "When Jesus was on earth, his whole message was this: Come and meet my dad. Through me, he can be your dad, too."

To that end, God has put a "Father-longing" into the heart of each person, Kassian said. That longing takes the form of a need for security, comfort, support and love. Unfortunately, that feeling is only a dream for many because their earthly fathers have marred the relationship.

"When we become Christians, that dream becomes reality," she said. "Your heart longing will only be satisfied in loving relationship with him."

___________

Mary Kassian is the president of Alabaster Flask Ministries in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #4619]

*

Broken Relationships: Why Women Reject God

Luke 11:11

"Religion in all its forms [is designed to] continue the oppression

of women" by "invoking the words and deeds of the exclusive male

deity."

These angry words are from a book called "Lesbian Nation", written by feminist Jill Johnston, and her views are typical of how feminists view Christianity.

Why do so many feminists reject the masculine God of the Bible? According to a Christian psychologist, it may be because their earthly fathers rejected THEM.

In his new book, titled "Faith of the Fatherless," Paul Vitz argues that a person's rejection of God is linked directly to a defective relationship involving his or her earthly father. By defective, Vitz means the father has died, abused his child, or abandoned him.

But Vitz says that men and women behave very differently AFTER they have rejected God. For men, Vitz writes, "God seems to function primarily as a principle of justice and order in the world." He functions "only secondarily as a person with whom one has a relationship."

Vitz says this explains why atheistic men search for substitute gods through principles like reason, science, socialism, or existentialism.

But for women, it's their relationship with God that is primary. When women reject God, they attempt to replace Him with other relationships.

As Vitz puts it, "It is not the idea of a god per se that they reject," but rather, "the god of a particular relationship." As a result, they take up a new enthusiasm -- like feminism -- which offers "important new relationships to take the place of God the Father."

These women tend to put a strong emphasis on "sisterhood," and many of them embrace lesbianism. In addition, Vitz notes, "feminism is well known for its redefinition of God as female: the Goddess, or God the mother."

The backgrounds of modern feminists gives credence to Vitz's theory. For example, Jill Johnston was born illegitimate; her father never tried to contact her. Her obsession with her father is woven throughout her writings.

Atheist and feminist Kate Millett, author of the book "Sexual Politics," grew up in a devout Catholic home. She adored her father, a handsome, charming man. But when Millett was 13, her father abandoned his family and ran off with a 19-year-old girl. His daughters were devastated. Millett later told her sister that she would never allow another man to become important to her. Although she did marry, Millett ultimately traded in her husband for lesbian relationships. And she rejected Christianity in favor of neopagan witchcraft. According to her sister, Millett has lived her life "filled with rage."

Paul Vitz's book provides insight into why intense atheists of both sexes are so angry at God. It's because they've been deeply wounded by fathers who rejected, denied, hated, abused, or abandoned them.

This is why men must model God's love for their daughters, and why Christian men must lovingly minister to fatherless children within their congregations. They must take these children under their wings and teach them what it means to be loved by an earthly father figure.

That masculine love will go far in pointing them toward an eternal relationship with their heavenly Father.

___________________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Reversing Gender Roles

Several years before the Gulf War, Barbara Walters did a story on gender roles in Kuwait. She observed women traditionally walked about 10 feet behind their husbands. Walters returned to Kuwait recently and discovered men were now walking several yards behind their wives.

Always the venerable investigator, Walters approached a woman on the street for an explanation. "This is marvelous," she said. "What enabled women here to achieve this reversal of roles?"

The woman replied, "Land mines!"

from Gillmartin's Sermon-illustrations-each-week (SIEW) · Rev. John Gillmartin via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database marriage

Example of liberalism

Matthew 15:22

Re-Imagining God: Over the last few decades, mainline denominations have struggled with certain key issues. Can Christians use female pronouns in reference to God? Should men and women occupy the same roles in the church? Does God sanction homosexuality? Feminist and gay ministers and theologians have made their decision on these issues. For a long while, however, the grass roots membership has remained blissfully ignorant of how far their conclusions had gone.

The situation changed dramatically following an ecumenical feminist conference last November in Minneapolis. The four-day gathering, called “Re-Imagining,” was attended by 1,743 women and 83 men from 27 countries in 15 denominations; almost half were Presbyterians and Methodists.

People from all over the country voiced their outrage almost as soon as details of the conference broke in the pages of Presbyterian Layman and the United Methodist Good News. Many local governing bodies promised that they would withhold funds from their central organizations in protest of the financial support and apparent endorsement of “Re-Imagining.”

What caused all the stir? Conference participants used milk and honey for the communion, which were blessed and dedicated to “Sophia.” While supposedly representing nothing more than the feminine personification of wisdom, Sophia attained goddess status at the conference. “We invoke Sophia, Divine Wisdom, who chose to play with all the people of the world. Her voice has been silenced too long. Let her speak and bless us throughout these days.”

Here is a sampling of statements from various speeches:

Mary Hunt -- “Whether [being religious] is Christian or not is frankly, darling, something about which I no longer give a pope.”

Virginia Ramey Mollenkott -- “As an incest survivor, I can no longer worship in a theological context that depicts God as an abusive parent and Jesus as the obedient trusting child.”

Christine Marie Smith -- Regarding the Canaanite woman of Matthew 15:22-28: “It's so much easier to speak about her bold voice than to sense the silent rejection of both Jesus and the disciples ... I've always found this story angering and offensive.”

Elizabeth Bettenhausen -- “Creation out of nothing, is not as women would do it now, a solitary patriarchal creating. How boring. Yahweh all by himself. Although of course he refers to himself in the plural form at one point to remind us, probably inadvertently, of the goddess and the earth from which he came.”

On June 16, a General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) adopted the report of a committee setup to review “Re-Imagining.” The report criticized the administration for losing touch with its membership.

“Theology matters,” it proclaimed, and rejected views that went “beyond the boundaries of Reformed theological tradition but also beyond ... what makes faith Christian.” While it is encouraging to see a large body of people defend basic principles of belief in God, their struggles should serve as fair warning for Christians who believe they will never face similar challenges. -- Reason & Revelation, July 1994 --

*

from Source not recorded via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database heresyfeminism

Role of women

1 Timothy 2:9

ATTRIBUTES OF CHRISTIAN WOMANHOOD

By Jimmy Jividen

1 Timothy 2:9-15 contains four attributes of a Christian woman:

a. Her greatest beauty is to be found in modesty (9-10).

b. Her greatest eloquence is to be found in quietness (11-12).

c. Her greatest power is to be found in submission (13-14).

d. Her greatest glory is to be found in motherhood (15).

Some in our contemporary culture see such attributes as demeaning to women. They don't get it. God gave these attributes of his finest and final creation.

Modesty is not a sign of ugliness. Just the opposite. A woman who possesses the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit radiates a beauty far above that of jewels, and clothes. Her attractiveness is "inside out."

Quietness is not a sign of ignorance. Just the opposite. Holding your tongue, and being sure what you speak, where you speak, when you speak, and how you speak is the greatest wisdom.

Submission is not a sign of weakness. Just the opposite. It was by submission to the will of God that Jesus was highly exalted. He did not bear the cross out of fear and duty, but because he chose to. The greatest power is found in conquering you own ego by submission.

Motherhood is not a sign of inability. Just the opposite. It is the highest position of honor and the most noble calling of service. Far above all the titles of "Queen," "Princess," "Your Honor," "Madam President," and "Doctor" is the voice of a child saying "Mommy."

To change from such an ideal is degradation. Why would a butterfly ever want to be a caterpillar?

from Source not recorded via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminism

No One Wanted A Woman Doctor

Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman doctor in America, started her practice in New York in 1851. Not only was she unable to find patients, no one would even rent her a room once she mentioned that she was a doctor. After weeks of trudging the streets, she finally rented rooms from a landlady who asked no questions about what Elizabeth planned to do with them.

Quaker women, who had always been receptive to the goal of equal rights, became Elizabeth’s first patients. But no hospital would allow her on its staff.

Finally, with financial help from her Quaker fiends, Elizabeth opened her own clinic in one of new York’s worst slums. The clinic opened in March 1853. Elizabeth hung a sign out announcing that all patients would be treated free. Yet, for the first few weeks, no one showed up. Then one day a woman in such agony that she didn’t care who treated her, staggered up the steps and collapsed in Elizabeth’s arms.

When the woman was treated and recovered, she told all her friends about the wonderful woman doctor in downtown New York. The dispensary was soon doing well. It eventually expanded, moved, and is now a branch of the New York Infirmary on East Fifteenth Street.

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #1286]

Isn't the Bible Sexist?

Luke 10:38

There is a widespread belief around about the Bible that it is some kind of powerful patriarchal conspiracy which has been used to oppress women. As a female speaker I find that this question is frequently asked: “How can you as a woman promote such a sexist book? The church has tried to keep women down!” As Christians we need to be sensitive to the issues which underlie such an emotive question. While it may indeed seem to be the case that women have been discriminated against by religion, the Bible itself deserves closer examination on the subject. How is it that many of the greatest Jewish and Christian pioneers have been women? What does the Bible really say about this subject?(1)

Throughout the Bible there are numerous positive images of women and stories that involve women. In the Old Testament women share the image of God at creation. At the end of time at the Second Coming of Jesus, the church is represented as the bride of Christ. All the way through from beginning to end, the Bible includes the feminine as an integral part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. While it is true that the Bible is written over a long period of time into specific cultures and that some of these contexts did not give equal social advantages to women, it would not be true to say that the message of the Bible is sexist or discriminatory against women.

In the New Testament, there are quite a number of significant events involving women, particularly considering the conservative cultural attitudes of the context into which it was written. This context is demonstrated by a simple statement in John’s Gospel in the famous encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. There is a telling little sentence in 4:27 which sheds a great deal of light on just how radical the Bible is in affirming women. The disciples come across Jesus during his conversation with the woman and we are told they “were surprised to find him talking with a woman.” This is the context of Jesus’s ministry and yet he goes against these cultural trends time and time again.

He does this firstly by having female disciples. In a culture where the idea of women travelling around with a group of men, or having the status of disciple was seriously questionable, Jesus has a number of women who are included in his travelling circle who contributed financially to the needs of the group. In fact, when Jesus is told that his mother and brothers are waiting outside to see him, he points to his disciples and says “here are my mother and brothers.” This statement is unthinkable unless there were women among his disciples. In the Middle Eastern culture of the 1st century, it would be unspeakably offensive to point to male disciples and use female imagery to describe them. The group of disciples referred to must have included some women.

We also see Jesus teaching women in the New Testament. In Luke 10:38, we read of Mary who “sits at the feet of” Jesus and engages in theological study, much to her sister’s chagrin. This phrase “to sit at the feet of” is the same formulation as Acts 22:3 where Paul describes his training under Gamaliel. The clear implication here is that Mary is affirmed as worthy of a Rabbi’s theological instruction; indeed, it is interesting that later on in John’s Gospel we read of Martha, Mary’s sister, who is the first to be taught one of the most astounding theological statements of the New Testament. Jesus says to her “‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live even though he dies” (John 11:25). In contrast to the cultural norms of the time, Jesus made a habit of revealing great theological truths to women. The first person who discovers Christ’s true identity in John’s Gospel is the Samaritan woman at the well. We must not underestimate how radical this is: Jesus was turning cultural taboos on their heads by teaching women and allowing women to be his disciples.

In reality, it is clear that women played a full and vibrant role in the ministry of Jesus, both as examples within his teaching and as recipients of it. While this may seem absolutely right and proper in our 21st century context we must remember how radical this was in first century Palestine. Jesus intentionally affirmed and included women. We see a continuation of this in the early church, from Lydia and Tabitha to Philip’s daughters, where women undertook various roles. While it is true to say that there are two particular passages in Paul’s writings which seem to go against all of this, by commanding some women to be silent and forbidding others from teaching, these must be read and interpreted in the context of the rest of the Bible. Paul himself gives guidelines for women when they publicly prophecy and mentions women who do teach like Priscilla.

When we come to the text of the Bible with the issue of sexism in mind, we must be clear that while God is predominantly spoken of with male imagery and ultimately is incarnated in the man Jesus, this is not to say that women are undermined or undervalued. Some female imagery is used of God, and Jesus constantly affirms the value of women, teaching them and interacting with them as human beings. Both male and female are created in the image of God and both are so precious that Christ comes to the earth to redeem both male and female with his blood shed on the Cross.

________

1. A version of this article was first published in IDEA Magazine, Jul/Aug 2005. See also IS THE BIBLE INTOLERANT? by Amy Orr-Ewing (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006).

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #19810]

Good Is Not A Bad Word: Girls Gone Mild

Job 31:1

Eight years ago, a young writer named Wendy Shalit took the culture by storm with a radical book called A RETURN TO MODESTY: DISCOVERING THE LOST VIRTUE. While many people embraced the idea of a return to modesty — especially the young women whose struggles and aspirations Shalit wrote about — others were appalled. “I knew that my arguments ... might be challenged,” Shalit recalls now, “but nothing prepared me for the tongue-lashings I would receive from my elders.... [Feminist writer] Katha Pollitt called me a ‘twit.’ ... THE NATION solemnly foretold that I would ‘certainly be embarrassed’ and regret my stance ‘in a few years.’”

Well, it’s now been a few years, and Wendy regrets nothing. On the contrary, she has a new book out, GIRLS GONE MILD: YOUNG WOMEN RECLAIM SELF-RESPECT AND FIND IT’S NOT BAD TO BE GOOD. As the title proclaims, Shalit is still convinced that true strength and happiness come not from deadening one’s emotions and having sex for fun, but from practicing modesty and self-restraint.

And guess who’s on her side?

As Shalit recounts, “To find out why modesty is more appealing to younger people, [feminist writer Katha] Pollitt might have talked to her own daughter, Sophie, who ... was disgusted by contemporary sexual norms.” Wendy interviewed Sophie, now a college freshman, and reports: “Like many intelligent young women, Sophie Pollitt-Cohen now realizes that the boys’ immaturity cannot be separated from the girls’ willingness to provide sexual favors to those boys.... Sophie rejects sexual exhibitionism even though she identifies herself as a feminist.”

Then there’s Erica Jong, well-known novelist and advocate of what Shalit describes as “the concept of a random, guilt-free sexual encounter between strangers.” Jong’s now-grown daughter, Molly Jong-Fast, tried that lifestyle and found it utterly unsatisfying. The sad thing is, she tells Shalit, “You’re not allowed to admit that [promiscuity] just doesn’t work.” Though devoted to her mother, Molly is “embarrassed” by Erica’s writings and says to Shalit, “I was sold a bad bill of goods.” Well, their kids ought to know.

The sexual revolutionaries of the ‘60s and ‘70s may have thought they were helping kids avoid heartbreak by teaching them to treat sex as a recreational activity. But those kids have discovered that was untrue. They’ve realized that the older feminists, who were supposed to be about women’s rights and dignity, were actually advising them to make sex objects out of themselves! So they’re fighting back.

As Shalit studied trends like modest fashion shows and boycotts of sexually explicit T-shirts, she discovered that for every girl who’s bought into the cultural myths about sexuality, there’s another who is refusing to go along. While acknowledging the negative, anti-woman forces in this sex-obsessed culture, she focuses refreshingly on the women who choose to protect their own “dignity” and “vulnerability.”

Shalit has to reflect accurately the culture young women are up against today, so some of the situations she describes are a little rough. With that caveat, I urge you to read GIRLS GONE MILD. And have your children who are in their late teens or older read it as well. More than ever, they need know that good is not a bad word.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #9962]

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminism

Lady Preachers

Mark 16:15

My Source: INTERNATIONAL GOSPEL TEACHER

Volume 18, Numbers 3

May-June 1998

...............................

Author: Royce Frederick

...............................

--------Should a lady (a woman) be called a "preacher"?--------

To teach God's word accurately, we must use Bible words in the same way God uses them (see 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2 Timothy 2:2; 2 Timothy 2:15).

The Bible does not use the word "preacher" to refer to a lady. The Bible uses the word "preacher" to refer to a man who proclaims God's message (1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Peter 2:5). But ladies are never called "preachers" in the Bible.

All Christians, including ladies, should grow in the knowledge of God's word (2 Peter 3:18). All Christians should teach others about Christ by their words and deeds (Mark 16:15-16; Hebrews 5:12-14; Matthew 5:16). But the Bible sets limits regarding ladies teaching others.

God's word does not permit ladies to "preach" publicly to men. The Bible often tells about men preaching God's word to crowds of men and women (Matthew 4:17; Matthew 10:7; Matthew 14:14; Acts 8:12; Acts 17:2-4, Acts 17:10-12). But the Bible clearly teaches that a woman must not be the speaker, speaking to men in the assembly of the church: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:11-12). "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). The word "church" refers to the people who have been "called out" by the gospel. In the Bible, "church" never means a "physical building." In verse 34, "in the church" means "in the assembly" of Christians. A woman must not be the speaker, speaking to men "in the church."

"Preach" means "proclaim" or "declare." When the Christians were persecuted in Jerusalem, "... those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word" (Acts 8:4). Christian ladies were certainly among "those who were scattered" (see verse 3; Acts 22:4). Ladies should teach and proclaim the gospel to other ladies: "the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed" (Titus 2:3-5). Ladies should also teach children (see 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14-15). Ladies who teach God's word to other ladies or children should be called "teachers." People who hear that a lady calls herself a "preacher" may think she preaches publicly to men, disobeying God's instructions to ladies.

A lady can privately discuss God's word with a man and help him understand the truth. Priscilla and her husband talked privately with Apollos: "... he [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately" (Acts 18:26). This verse clearly tells us that both Aquila and Priscilla explained God's word to Apollos. And notice that they did not shame Apollos in the presence of the Jewish audience while he was speaking. Instead, they "took him aside" to talk privately with him.

We should give thanks to God for the multitudes of Christian ladies who have brought thousands of souls to Christ by their thoughtful teaching and godly lives. May God grant us many more ladies who are willing to live for Christ and teach "the way of God more accurately."

-— Royce Frederick

from Source not recorded · Rev. David Lemmons; http://lemmonsaid.net/ via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

17th Century Book Says Women Are Wiser Than Men

LONDON (April 20) - A historian in northern England says he has found a 370-year-old book proclaiming that women are better than men, a volume he calls an early voice for women's empowerment.

Alan Davies, heritage officer in Wigan, outside Manchester, said he found the 182-page book under a pile of papers in a town hall vault, where he had been hunting for something else.

The book, called "Womans Worth," carries the subtitle "A treatise proveinge by sundrie reasons that woemen do excell men."

No author's name is given. Davies said the antiquated spellings and writing style and the binding appeared to date the book to the 1630s or '40s.

"Most people think of the women's movement emerging around the start of the 20th century with Emmeline Pankhurst," he said, referring to the suffragette who led the battle for British women's right to vote.

"This book could prove very important. Events might have been brought forward by a few generations if it had been published," he said.

The book's first chapter is titled ''Eve more excellent than Adam," and the author goes on to detail the ways in which women are better than men.

"Women do excell men in virtues and rare endowments of the minde, and I think we shall finde that herein also women doe farre outstrip men," the text says.

Subsequent chapter titles include "Women loved Christ more than men," "Women wiser than men" and "Women more valiant than men."

*

from America Online · The Associated Press via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Opponents of TNIV compared to those who burned Tyndale

1 Timothy 3:11

Those who oppose the Today's NIV version of the Bible will be remembered and spoken of in the same breath with those who burned William Tyndale at the stake, according to a professor at Bethel Theological Seminary.

Mark Strauss, professor of New Testament at Bethel Theological Seminary in San Diego, Calif., made the comment during an Internet webcast debate about the TNIV with conservative scholar Wayne Grudem May 21.

"I guess we should be grateful -- as Bruce Metzger points out -- that at least today they only burn the translations and not the translators. I'd be afraid if I saw them building a bonfire outside tonight," Strauss said.

Grudem, research professor of theology and Bible at Phoenix Seminary, who has opposed the TNIV, responded to Strauss' comment, saying that those who opposed Tyndale and his translation did not want the Bible in the hands of the laity.

"They thought lay people could not understand Scripture. That was a wrong motive," Grudem said. "It really troubled me when Dr. Strauss said that I and those who oppose the TNIV will be remembered along with those who opposed William Tyndale. Those were terrible motives to keep the Word of God from people and terrible moves -- burning people at the stake. It troubles me that he could say that about those of us who are opposed."

Strauss, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, said that he was deeply concerned about the precedent being set by those who were attacking the TNIV. Critics, he said, "are, after all, attacking a highly accurate expression of God's inspired and authoritative word."

Worse than that, Strauss said, was that criticism of the TNIV was unfounded and based on misperceptions. Most critics, he believed, had never even seen the TNIV. Strauss has seen the translation and referred to it as "intentionally gender accurate and not gender neutral."

"Much of what I have read about the TNIV is often unfair, unwarranted and simply untrue," Strauss said. "Gender accurate translations like the TNIV seek to accurately convey the sense of the Hebrew or Greek original while utilizing the language people use today. That is the best possible goal for Bible translation."

Strauss said that such a goal was what the translators of the King James Version had in mind when they wrote the preface to their 1611 edition.

"Keeping the Bible current was critically important to the King James Version translators. It was critically important to William Tyndale, whose magnificent translation captured the hearts of the English people in their own words, and it is critically important to the TNIV translators."

Strauss emphasized that a number of New Testament scholars had endorsed the TNIV, among them Darrell Bock and Don Carson. Bock is professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and Carson is professor of New Testament Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

But Grudem countered Strauss' assertion, saying that he had spoken with Bock and that he had refused to endorse the TNIV. Carson also was said to have rejected the translation.

"I don't think you should use them if they haven't made a public statement," Grudem said.

Grudem, who holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, provided a list of over 20 conservative evangelical scholars who had rejected the TNIV, among them Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Paige Patterson, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; and R.C. Sproul and Verne Poythress.

Grudem noted that changes in gender language made by TNIV translators revealed a systematic agenda with the goal of "muting the masculinity of Christ" and attributing traditional male roles in Scripture to women.

"1 Timothy 3:11 (TNIV) says, 'In the same way, women who are deacons are to be worthy of respect.' That's a debatable question exegetically, and doubtful, but the TNIV puts it there and we have women deacons required and no longer debatable," Grudem said. "These are big changes revealing a systematic agenda."

The changes, Grudem said, were evidence that the translators had succumbed to political correctness and a feminist agenda.

Strauss, however, said that the application of "gender accurate" phrasing was neither politically motivated nor representative of any agenda. "The TNIV is not trying to make God into a woman," he said. The translation, according to Strauss, was only an attempt to bring the sense of Scripture into the modern vernacular.

"Why are we fighting about this?" Strauss asked. "Let's not let an issue like this divide and breakup the body of Christ."

Grudem answered that he, too, was for promoting the full equality of male and female in the sight of God, but the risk of altering meanings by applying "gender neutral language" to the Bible was to change the words of God. "I want to be remembered with William Tyndale, who would not alter one syllable of Scripture contrary to the meaning of God's Word. ... I stand before God with a clear conscience. I struggled long and hard before speaking out publicly against this, but I thought it was necessary because the purity of the Word of God was at stake," Grudem said.

--30--

Folios and Feminism: Deconstructing the Bard

It was a glittering, thousand-dollar-a-seat Washington dinner. The occasion? -- the seventieth anniversary of the Folger Shakespeare Library. But amid the rare, fifteenth-century folios was an all-too-modern approach to the Bard -- a postmodern approach, in fact.

Between the champagne and the chocolates, the library welcomed its new director, Shakespearean scholar and George Washington University English professor, Gail Kern Pastor. Pastor says she wants to make the literary past "vivid and alive." How? -- by deconstructing Shakespeare's plays for their treatment of sex and gender. Pastor told THE WASHINGTON POST, "For academic women who teach Shakespeare, feminism is an organizing principle for how we look at the plays." Now that's classic postmodernism.

Postmodernism says there is no real self -- that individuals are merely constructs of social forces, like culture, race, gender, and ethnicity. The important thing is not self-identity but social identity.

This explains why the classics are being scrutinized for sensitivity to blacks, women, homosexuals, and every other conceivable group. Instead of asking what Shakespeare intended to say, deconstructionism says we ought to filter the text through our own ideological grid. That means tearing texts apart to examine underlying ideological constructions.

For example, to a postmodern scholar, OTHELLO is not really about jealousy; it's about a black man struggling in a white society.

Traditional scholarship teaches that MACBETH is about the corruption that comes with a desire for power. But a postmodern scholar might say the real message is about keeping women from becoming too influential and that the message of HAMLET is about the power of unleashed female sexuality.

This approach to the classics has become deeply ingrained in our intellectual culture -- which is why Gail Kern Pastor could calmly say, "Feminism is an organizing principle for how we look at the plays." This view has become so accepted it's almost impossible to get a degree in English -- graduate or undergraduate -- without embracing it.

As Christians, we are called to stand against the spirit of the age. But first we need to identify that spirit, as it changes from generation to generation. Today's spirit is a worship of race, gender, and culture.

This approach to literature not only deprives us of a rich and accurate understanding of the classics; it also directs readers away from Christ.

Louise Cowan, former chairman of the English department at the University of Dallas, put it this way: "My serious encounter with Shakespeare and then with all the riches of the classics enabled me to see the splendor of Him who is at the center of the gospels."

This is why we need to expose our kids to good literary guides to great western literature. One guide I recommend is INVITATION TO THE CLASSICS, edited by Louise Cowan and Os Guinness. Try reading Shakespeare aloud with your kids and their friends, and then use this guide to help them understand the plays' moral lessons.

The guide will help you understand that the flap over folios and feminism is really a warning of something much deeper and much more troubling -- a dangerous idolatry.

For further reading:

Louise Cowan and Os Guinness, eds., INVITATION TO THE CLASSICS (Baker Book House, 1998).

The complete works of William Shakespeare can be found here .

Daniel J. Adams, "Toward a Theological Understanding of Postmodernism," METANOIA, spring-summer 1997.

Roxanne Roberts, "Much Ado About Something," THE WASHINGTON POST, 13 April 2002, C1.

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database postmodernism

Domestic Violence--An "Egalitarian" Phenomenon

Subject: [CCC-Forum] Domestic Violence--An "Egalitarian" Phenomenon

Dear List,

From another list where I lurk, I received the following, which I pass along to you. It's nasty stuff, though it does serve one purpose complementarians will welcome--it provides some documented evidence that domestic abuse is not the sole province of men (especially patriarchal men, as many feminists and egalitarians would claim). For those of you who need the data, here `tis:

***************

Domestic Abuse of men and children, the silent majority!

"Women must share responsibility for their behavior and contributions to domestic violence." - Judith Shervin (Psychologist)

Domestic violence and abuse are not committed only by men as is popularly believed. In fact, men and women abuse each other with almost equal frequency.[1] You've probably heard the statistic that claims a woman is abused by her spouse every 15 seconds. What you may not know is that the same study also found that a man is abused by his spouse every 14 seconds.[2]

Surprising Facts on Domestic Violence and Child Abuse

Until society recognizes and accepts the fact that women can and do commit domestic violence, the problem of domestic violence will never be addressed and a "solution" will never be found. Domestic violence is a societal phenomenon that is not gender-specific. To deny this fact is unrealistic, biased, and shortsighted.

Facts You Probably Haven't Heard:

More than half of all 'severe' domestic violence is committed by women against their husbands or boyfriends. [1]

Extrapolating from a 1985 survey of more than six thousand couples, the authors estimate that 1.8 million females are the victims of severe domestic violence each year (with injuries suffered by one in ten), but so were about 2.1 million men. [2]

A random survey of 2,143 American homes uncovered the fact that severe abuse was committed equally by men and women. [3]

One study of inner city child abuse found that 49% of all child abuse is committed by single parent mothers. [4]

Natural mothers are the perpetrators of:

* 93% of physical neglect of children * 86% of educational neglect * 78% of emotional neglect * 60% of physical abuse, and * 55% of emotional abuse [5]

A Bureau of Justice report found that Mothers (55%) are more likely than fathers (45%) to murder their children. [6]

According to the government's own figures, females kill 31 times as many children as natural fathers. [7]

Females comprise 78% of the perpetrators of fatal child abuse (child murder). [8]

As disturbing as these statistics are, even more disturbing is the fact that they are virtually unknown. Only recently has any attention at all been focused on the issue of female batterers.

As psychologist Judith Shervin writes, "Women must share responsibility for their behavior and contributions to domestic violence." These contributions are far bigger than feminists and the media are willing to admit.

Dr. Martin Fiebert, (1997) professor of Psychology at the California State University of Long Beach, listed 94 empirical studies that support the position that men and women are assaulting their intimate partners at nearly the same rate. When all the evidence is weighed, the only reasonable conclusion is that men and women commit spousal abuse against each other at nearly equal rates. [9]

REFERENCES

1. Research by M. Strauss & R. Gelles as reported in "Women Are Responsible Too", Judith Shervin, Ph.D. & Jim Sniechowski, Ph.D., LA Times. 6/21/94.

2. From the National Family Violence Survey (1975, 1985, 1992) developed by M. Strauss & R. Gelles, and funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.

3. 1980 study by Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmetz.

4. A study of child abuse in Lansing, Michigan. Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay in Child Abuse and Neglect, Volume 8. 1984.

5. Data from the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3) from DHHS, and also from the Bureau of Justice Statistics report entitled "Child Victimizers and Their Victims".

6. Bureau of Justice, "Murder in Families", NCJ-143498.

7. (From item 5, the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3)

8. Ibid.

9. Martin S. Fiebert, Cal State Univ., http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Copyright 2000 by FRTC, Inc. http://www.deltabravo.net/custody

from [CCC-Forum] · via Bill Mouser via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminismsuffering

Free Indeed: Christianity's Cultural Impact

The dictionary defines "machismo," which is derived from the Spanish word for "male," as an "overtly assertive or exaggerated masculinity." In South America, it means the right of a man to dominate a woman - even to the extent of beating her.

That’s why feminists, both in Latin America and North America, insist that machismo must be reformed if Latin American women are to enjoy full equality. And it appears that this may be happening. But what’s ironic is that the basis for this reformation is something that most feminists dislike almost as much as they dislike machismo: It’s Christianity.

Another characteristic of machismo, especially in poorer communities, is sexual irresponsibility. It encourages promiscuity among poorer men while allowing more affluent men to have mistresses.

But as Philip Jenkins writes in The New Christendom, machismo has met its match in Christian conversion. Jenkins writes that "the best scholarship" describes the "sweeping changes" that conversion to Christianity has had in the lives of women and their families.

Jenkins notes that across Latin America evangelical churches are playing a vital role in "reshaping" the lives of women and helping them to "find their voice" in cultures where machismo previously kept them silent.

And it isn’t only women. The spread of evangelical churches has "encouraged a new and exalted view of the family and of domesticity." And it has promoted male responsibility and chastity, especially among the poor. These churches teach men to listen to their wives and to take their needs into account, something they had never been taught to do. The result, according to sociologist Elizabeth Brusco, is nothing less than a "reformation of machismo."

There is an irony at work here: As Jenkins notes, North American elites regard Christianity as a "reactionary" force when it comes to women’s rights. Yet, south of the border it is Christianity that has set women free from an oppressive social order.

The social and cultural impact of Christianity is not limited to Latin America. As the faith continues to spread throughout Africa and Asia, it’s changing whole societies as well as individual lives.

One example is the conversion of millions of "untouchables," or Dalits, as they prefer to be called, in India. In Christianity, Dalits have found an escape from Hinduism’s rigid caste system that has kept them at the bottom of India’s social ladder. This mass conversion threatens to change India, which is one reason Hindu extremists are targeting Christians.

Stories like these and others make American ideas about excluding religion and religiously based ideas from public discourse seem ridiculous. Fortunately, as Jenkins tells us, these ideas that attempt to set a gulf between faith and culture are literally incomprehensible to most of the rest of the world.

Thus, Christianity in the rest of the world is free to exercise the kind of influence Jesus expected from His Church. And Christians here in North America are able to point to these and other examples of Christianity’s cultural impact when they talk to others about their faith - a faith about a God Who not only washes away sins, but also yearns to sweep away the cultural baggage that keeps women - and men - down.

FURTHER READING & INFORMATION

Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford University Press, 2002).

http://www.pfmonline.net/products.taf?_function=detail&Site=BPT&Item_Code=BKTNC&_UserReference=E56E4C6770BA50B03D35C6C7

"Machismo in Latin America," Zona Latina. http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata77.htm

Francine Cronshaw, "Review of Elizabeth E. Brusco, The Reformation of Machismo: Evangelical Conversion and Gender in Colombia," H-LatAm, H-Net Reviews, July 1996. http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=10169846691091

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES

The Next Christendom by Philip Jenkins is the first book to take the full measure of the changing face of the Christian faith.

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

'Mother God' Goes to Children's Church

Judges 6:25

There are places one expects to find feminist theology: the university doctoral seminar or the New Age spirituality section of the neighborhood bookstore. One does not expect to find radical feminist theism at sing-a-long time at Vacation Bible School or church camp. That could be changing.

Feminist theologian Jann Aldredge-Clanton, a Baptist, has teamed up with North Carolina Baptist minister of music Larry E. Schultz to author “Imagine God!” -- a children's musical that proclaims its use of “a variety of feminine, masculine, and non-gender images of God.”

The musical also draws on panentheism, the concept that God is the life presence within all things, an idea popularized within feminist circles by process theology and “creation spirituality.” Thus, according to the musical's lyrics, “God is in us and above, She and He and so much more.”

With this the case, children in this musical sing lyrics such as “Our God is a Mother and a Father too, and God is a Friend who will always see us through / Our God is a Sister who loves you and me, and God is a Brother who sets us free.” The lyrics speak of God as “Mother Eagle,” refer to the Deity with feminine pronouns and appropriate the “Sophia” devotion currently popular among feminist groups in several mainline Protestant denominations.

At first glance, it might seem that this children's musical is just fringe spirituality outside the orbit of the local congregation. But the musical is published by Choristers Guild, a major producer of music for churches. And it comes with the hearty endorsement of Baptist theologian Molly T. Marshall, until 1994 on the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and now perhaps the preeminent theologian of “moderate” Baptists in the South.

Marshall writes that Aldredge-Clanton and Schultz “perceptively understand that transforming the church's language for God can profitably begin with children, whose imaginations are less bound to traditional images.” Marshall notes that this musical “offers a fresh vision of the Triune God who reveals self in all of creation, especially through human creatures who share the divine imagination.”

The feminist theologians are correct indeed that it is easier to transform the imaginations of children in thinking about God. This is precisely what is so dangerous here. Children are indeed “less bound” to “masculine” images of God as Father, Lord and King at an early age than they will be after years of teaching from the church.

But the question is: From where did the church get these images?

The answer, of course, is from the God who has named Himself through His apostles and prophets in Holy Scripture. He is the One who “imagines” Himself as “He” -- and as “Father” and “Son” and “Lord.”

This was not mere cultural accommodation. After all, the Canaanite landscape was filled with “feminine images for the divine” (Judges 6:25-26), and yet the people of God remained with God's self-revelation about Himself. The first- century Roman world was indeed ready for language about “Mother God.” They, after all, adored female deities such as Artemis of the Ephesians (Acts 19:24- 35).

And yet, Jesus and His followers consistently spoke of God as “Father.” The concept of the “Mother God” or “Sister Spirit” was embraced after the ascension of Jesus by the Gnostic heresy movements -- and these theologies were rejected resoundingly by the apostolic and post-apostolic fathers precisely because they violated God's self-revelation in Scripture.

What is at stake here are not whether the church will accommodate more “gender- inclusive” language, but instead the doctrines of God and revelation -- and indeed the Gospel itself.

Aldredge-Clanton argues in the preface of the musical that such language -- indeed all language for God -- is “metaphorical” and thus there are many ways the church can “imagine” the Deity. Marshall's comments, as brief as they are, are tortured in their attempts to avoid using personal pronouns for this genderless Deity: God doesn't reveal Himself or Herself or Itself, but just “Self.” This is precisely the problem. Feminist theology abandons all of God's self-revelation to “metaphor,” at the cost of the personal nature of God. God no longer is Father; He is like a Father -- or a mother or an eagle or a baker- woman.

Thus, it is a sad trajectory to watch as feminist theologians continue in their respective journeys, speaking of God ultimately in impersonal terms such as “the Divine” or the “ground of being” -- anything to avoid speaking of Him as “Him.” Such an impersonal vision of God is closer to the unblinking Allah of Islam than to the “Abba Father” of Jesus and the apostles.

Most evangelical churches would never see such a bizarre musical performed. And yet it is a reminder of how serious the stakes are for the theological grounding of our children. We must remember that the heretic Arius spread his views of Jesus as a created being by teaching children to sing ditties about the time when “He was not.”

Today too many of our churches see music for children not as an opportunity to pass on the faith once for all delivered to the saints, but as an entertainment opportunity for adults to watch their children “perform” for them. Too many of our churches see children's Bible study as babysitting, and so we choose Sunday School teachers more gifted in crowd control than in the teaching of the oracles of God.

There is too much at stake for this. Instead our churches must recapture the priority of grounding our children -- through music as well as through instruction and example -- in the biblical revelation of the God of Jesus Christ. And that means we must embrace the ancient truth of what is increasingly seen as a countercultural and outdated theological claim: “Praise Him, Praise Him, all ye little children / God is love, God is love.”

__________

Russell D. Moore is dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #13861]

Japan women end parade float ban

TOKYO (AP) - Five teen-age girls sat among the court musicians aboard parade floats in Kyoto's Gion Festival on Tuesday, the first female musicians in the festival's 300-year history.

Since the 18th century, the upper deck of the floats, considered a sacred stage for court musicians, has been off-limits to women.

But this year, festival organizers were faced with a dilemma: permit women to participate or face a possible boycott from music groups opposed to the ban.

Shigeru Fukami, head of the organizing committee, said officials bowed to changing times, getting rid of the ban on female musicians in the parade, which comes on the final day of one of Japan's largest festivals.

According to police estimates, more than 1 million people watched as the giant wooden floats were dragged down the streets of Japan's ancient imperial capital.

The practice of excluding women is rooted in Japan's indigenous Shinto religion, which holds that women are impure and must be kept away from sacred land and buildings. That belief prevented women from setting foot on many Japanese mountains, including Mount Fuji, until the 19th century.

Equal opportunity laws have helped women make inroads in business, politics and academia. But long-observed customs and traditions die hard and change comes slowly.

Women are banned from entering the sumo wrestling ring. And they are still not allowed in tunnels and mining sites because of a similar belief.

Two Views of God's Design For Men & Women

1 Corinthians 11

A biblical position on gender roles in families and ministry is one of the most pressing concerns for today's church, the president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood's president, Bruce Ware, said.

Gender is a key example of American culture "rapidly and in so many, many ways moving away from God's plan and purposes for human beings in so many areas of life," Ware said during CBMW's "Different by Design" conference at First Baptist Church of Sweetwater in Longwood, Florida. Ware is senior associate dean of the school of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

The importance of a correct view of gender roles cannot be underestimated because the issue is the one area where the church interfaces with the culture most directly, Ware said.

"If this intersection of church and culture is most clearly seen on the question of gender roles ... then there is both the greatest degree of threat and promise in that intersection," Ware said.

In an overview of key issues in the gender roles debate, Ware noted that two movements exist among evangelicals regarding the roles of men and women -- egalitarianism and complementarianism -- "where there is great disagreement about what the Bible teaches," Ware said.

CBMW embraces the complementarian view, meaning that when God created men and women, he created them equal in essence but different in terms of how they are to relate to one another.

In contrast, egalitarians believe that God created men and women equal in every respect, a position Ware thinks is unsubstantiated by Scripture.

"One of the greatest tragedies of the egalitarian movement is it basically tells men in homes, 'You don't have to lead. In fact, you shouldn't,'" Ware said. "Men are already prone because of sin to that passivity anyway. It's just exactly the wrong message that needs to be conveyed to the men of our churches who need to stand up and embrace the responsibility they have as loving leaders in their home."

The egalitarian view, Ware said, rejects the notion of male headship and instead regards men and women as equal in their functions. Egalitarians believe that humanity's fall into sin resulted in the introduction of a sinful and illicit hierarchy with male headship, Ware said, and that, in redemption, there is a return to the created design of male-female equality.

Such a view is incorrect, Ware said, describing male headship as God's intention even in creation. Among Ware's reasons for his position:

-- Man was created first. Ware said the apostle Paul uses this argument in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 when he is arguing for male headship in the church.

"I draw the conclusion that if Paul thinks this is significant, we ought to also," Ware said.

-- The woman was created for the man's sake. Again, Ware pointed to Paul's use of this reason in 1 Corinthians 11.

"The woman is created to help the man in fulfilling his God-commanded, God-ordained role," Ware said. "If we have apostolic interpretation of this, then we ought to follow it."

-- Both before and after sin, Adam named his wife. Ware said in Old Testament theology, naming something indicated a responsibility for the ones named, like parents naming their children.

-- Man, not woman, was given the moral commandment in the Garden of Eden. God could have given the command to both Adam and Eve after she was created, but instead God chose to give the commandment to Adam, Ware said.

When Satan tempted Adam and Eve to sin, he came to Eve. In doing so, Satan was "usurping God's design of male headship," Ware said. "Satan knew God's design of male headship and he purposely went to the woman to indicate his disregard for what God had put in place."

When Adam and Eve sinned, they were equal in that action and both men and women share in the common judgment of God and in the need for salvation, Ware said. But the effect of sin was to distort what God had put into place -- namely male headship.

"So there is a tendency for women to seek the place of authority, seek the place of responsibility, that God has given to men," Ware said.

Redemption therefore results in a return to what God designed in the beginning -- "responsible, loving male headship leadership; creative, winsome, energetic, joyful, willing submission on the part of wives to their husbands," Ware said.

That doesn't give men the right to think of themselves as better, more valuable or more important than women, Ware said. It simply means that while men and women are equal in standing before God, they have different responsibilities they are to fulfill.

"Our heart is to set free men and women for all of the legitimate roles and ministries God has for them to do," Ware said.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was formed in 1987 by a group of evangelical Christian leaders "who were concerned over the erosion of the biblical framework for male and female differences and relationships in the evangelical church, as well as society at large," Randy Stinson, CBMW's executive director, told the Florida Baptist Witness. "From the beginning, these leaders shared a deeply held conviction that confusion over biblical manhood and womanhood was at the root of the breakdown of the family and the rampant acceptance of alternatives to biblical morality-often within the church itself."

CBMW is an organization that addresses the issues "raised by feminism from a solid, biblical and academic foundation, providing sound answers to help Christian leaders withstand its pressures," Stinson said. "Its mission is to proclaim the truth of God's Word regarding God's wise design for the complementary differences between men and women who share equally in the image of God, in order to better equip evangelical homes, churches, academic institutions and other ministries to be faithful to his Word and thus to experience the goodness of his created purposes for men and women."

from Baptist Press · Tim Ellsworth via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Theology, Not Opinion, Is Key To Femininity

Ruth 1:16

Raising a feminine daughter is not a matter for popular opinion or a prescriptive or formulaic approach - it is a matter of theology, said Susan Hunt, consultant for the Presbyterian Church in America's Women in the Church Ministry.

"Any discussion of femininity must be driven by God's Word or it's going to be paper thin and it simply will not last," Hunt said. Understanding a biblical approach to womanhood and ultimately living that design will equip girls to "be all that God will have them to be."

"Raising feminine daughters is not going to be a matter of fluff," she said. "It's got to be substantive or they simply will not go the distance." Trying to fit all women into one box and trying to teach girls about being feminine apart from the rest of Scripture is a fragmented approach that can lead to distortion resulting in a list of rules about roles and behavior.

To avoid distortion and to look at things in balance, Hunt suggested what she calls "Six Big Things" to learn about living biblically and understanding biblical womanhood:

-- First, the definition of being feminine is intrinsically woven into the creation design of women, and everything flows from a theology grounded in Scripture taught by one generation to the next.

Scriptural teaching about God as the reference point and authority for all of life is necessary in promoting a correct view of the creation design of women because a knowledge of being created in God's image, both male and female, gives women the capacity to reflect certain characteristics of God's image, Hunt said.

-- Secondly, it is an understanding of the gospel that "empowers and compels" women to exercise the creation design, Hunt said. The understanding of the theology of womanhood is reliant then, not on a list of things not to do, but on an understanding of redemption by a sovereign God, Hunt said, noting that, in this teaching, women must remember to not to let their families become idols.

-- Thirdly, women must live out the creation design within the covenant community of the church, Hunt said. This is where the creation design fits, she said, noting, "God's perspective of a woman is not going to make sense in a fallen world."

Like Ruth's vow to Naomi, the vows made in church, in relation to the church family early on, will relate to future vows, like marriage, Hunt said.

-- Fourth is the subject of headship and submission. Hunt said both are needed to fulfill the creation order. This starts as girls are taught to submit to the leader of the church, which will help to understand submission in marriage and will provide the context for the way "God has ordered life in the kingdom," Hunt said.

-- The fifth "big thing" is to remember the resources of prayer, the power of the Holy Spirit and of the Bible. "Pray hedges of protection around our daughters," Hunt urged, and "ask others in the covenant community to surround them with prayer."

-- Sixth is to not be "naive." Being aware of cultural influences and warning daughters about them will keep them from buying into the culture, Hunt said.

"Our daughters will be like pillars, carved to a palace ... a pillar that gives support and connects," Hunt said. "Again, the healthy design makes no sense in an environment of independence and individualism. It only makes sense within the structure of the covenant community."

*

from Baptist Press · Joni B. Hannigan via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database women

Like the Women of the Bible

LIKE THE WOMEN OF THE BIBLE

Like Deborah, I will serve the Lord in power and speak His word without fear.

Like Esther, I will intercede for God's people before the throne.

Like Abigail, I will humble myself to wash the feet of the servants of the Lord.

Like Sarah, I will respect my spouse and his ministry to the Lord.

Like Hannah, I will dedicate my children to the Lord.

Like Priscilla, I will explain the way of God more perfectly to those who are seeking.

Like the Shunamite widow, I will trust God in the day of adversity.

Like Lydia, I will be a worshiper of God and open my home to His ministers.

Like Tabitha (Dorcas), I will always do good and help the poor.

Like Joanna, I will use my wealth to support the ministry of Jesus.

Like Mary, the mother of Jesus, I will hear the word of God to me and answer, "Be it unto me as you have said".

Like Mary, the sister of Martha, I will know the voice of Jesus and hear his words.

Like Mary, the mother of Mark, I will make my home a haven for the followers of Jesus.

Like Mary, the Magdalene, I will keep at the feet of Jesus and love him unto death.

from Email · Author Unknown; Submitted by Linnea Mescall via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database feminism

Selflessness Or Self-Obsession?: Today's Feminist Quandaries

Radical feminists have got to be at their wits’ end. First, they helped spur the so-called sexual revolution to “empower” women. So what do we see today? Pornography has been mainstreamed. The youngest of girls wear the tawdriest of clothing. Female co-eds settle for meaningless physical “hook-ups” with male students. In essence, the culture has come full circle, where women willingly objectify themselves in the name of so-called “empowerment.”

And then there’s that other goal: breaking the so-called glass ceiling. Women could have everything they wanted, feminists said, a successful career and whatever marriage and family situation they chose.

Now, in many ways, that ceiling is breaking. Today, we have one woman who has a real chance of becoming the next president; another is the Secretary of State; and yet another is Speaker of the House. Yet our culture obsesses over the tragic lifestyles of hotel-heiress Paris Hilton, actress Lindsay Lohan, and pop-star Britney Spears, to name just a few. What’s going on?

Author Naomi Wolf addressed this phenomenon recently in the WASHINGTON POST. She says that while the “true situation of American women” today reflects “high levels of competence, idealism, and all-around effectiveness,” the media focuses on Paris Hilton wailing in a police car as she’s being dragged off to jail. Even Larry King scrambled to have Hilton on his show as soon as she was released.

While women “are surprising themselves and the culture every day by not falling apart as they take on” new challenges, Wolf continues, “the culture seems increasingly obsessed with showcasing images of glamorous young women who ARE falling apart.”

Wolf offers a provocative theory as to why this is: “In the past decade feminists such as Gloria Steinem joked that women could ‘have it all’ but might also have to ‘do it all’” — meaning “do paid labor as well as the lion’s share of child care and housework.” “Maybe,” Wolf concludes, “that’s what leads to our fascination with glamorized images of women who apparently can’t do any of it.”

Contrast those images with that of the late Ruth Bell Graham. Here was a woman who “found a way to be a supportive wife, a good mother, and her own person all at the same time,” as Gina Dalfonzo put it at our weblog THE POINT. She was positively countercultural. “What might seem to many like oppression,” wrote Laura Sessions Stepp in the WASHINGTON POST, “in fact set her free to shape a life that included, but by no means was limited to, a man she deeply loved.” And Billy Graham is the better man for it, in part, writes Stepp, because Ruth kept him from making many decisions that would have negatively shaped the course of his life and the culture he influenced.

As Gina Dalfonzo noted at THE POINT, Bell “had a deep and rare understanding of what it means to be a Christian servant.” She did not define achievement in terms of what she could obtain for herself, but in terms of what she could give in love to others. Glamorous? No. Powerful? Absolutely! But not in a way that most people can understand these days.

I for one can only hope that the culture awakens to the strength found in the selflessness of truly liberated women like Ruth Bell Graham.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #4350]

from BreakPoint Commentary · Mark Earley via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate