It all started when I worked as a therapist at a rehabilitation hospital and observed the stark difference in the attitudes of two particular elderly patients. One was a below knee amputee. The other had an archive of ailments that rivaled the number items on a holiday grocery shopping list. She was a hemiplegic, arthritic, osteoporotic, and half blind — and that was just for starters!

But the lady with the debilitating physical condition was cheerful, while the amputee was a intolerable grump. Granted, having someone saw off half your leg isn’t all sunshine and roses, but compared to the other woman, this woman’s rehabilitation would be relatively simple. She would be fitted with a fake leg, walk out of the hospital, and be fairly functional. The other woman’s prognosis was bleak. She would be dependent, confined to a wheelchair, and would finish her days in a full-care nursing facility rather than in her home.

Their rooms were next to one another, which made the contrast between the two women all the more striking.

The drapes in the cheerful woman’s room were open to let in the light. Cards and flowers of well-wishers were displayed on every available surface. She had a constant stream of visitors. One could often hear the murmur of conversation and laughter. Nurses and therapists loved to meet this woman’s needs, for they were always greeted with a pleasant smile and an appreciative, “Thank you so much, dear!”

The grumpy old woman kept her drapes drawn. She wallowed in darkness. Visitors, when they came, rarely stayed long. Instead of laughter, one could often hear her loud, critical complaints and verbal assaults as she tore a strip off of yet another health care worker. “Thanks” was a word that wasn’t in her vocabulary. I dreaded going into her room.

It was there and then that I decided I was never going to become a grumpy old lady. And it was shortly thereafter that I heard Elisabeth Elliott speaking on the radio, and raced for a scrap of paper to write down this quote:

“It is always possible to be thankful for what is given rather than resentful over what is withheld–one attitude or the other becomes a way of life.”

The quote hung on my fridge for years.  It reminded me that gratitude isn’t just for Thanksgiving. It’s for every day. Gratitude or ingratitude becomes a way of life. My half-legged patient’s physcial condition was far better than her counterpart, but her attitude was far worse. And that made all the difference.

So today, what will it be?  It’s your choice. It’s always possible to be thankful for what is given rather than resentful over what is withheld–one attitude or the other will become a way of life.

And that’s the lesson I learned from that grumpy old lady.

—————–

Question: How has choosing gratitude made a difference in your life?

No related posts.

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

1.  It obscures the profound symbolism of gender:

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

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

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

3. It diminishes the unique beauty of womanhood:

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

4. It is less inclusive of women:

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

5. It demeans women:

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

6. It patronizes women:

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

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

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

8. It calls God’s wisdom into question:

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

9. It encourages further changes to Scripture:

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

10. It leads women away from truth:

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

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

A Battle Worth Fighting

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

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

Related posts:

1. God Created MAN
2. Can Bad Boys be Godly Men?
3. Women, Typology, and 1 Timothy 2:15

So does God expect us to shut our mouths and never say anything? Are we not allowed to express our opinions? Or discuss, deliberate, or disagree? Does godly womanhood mean we get out the duct tape and slap and “X” over our mouths?  That we mutley nod our heads up and down like bobble head dolls?

When the Bible talks about quietness, it’s not referring to an absence of verbal noise as much as it’s referring to an absence of spiritual noise. Although there’s a connection, quietness has more to do with the state of our hearts than the quantity and volume of our words.

Quiet describes a mindset of calmness, serenity and tranqulity. It’s being settled, steadfast, and peaceful. A quiet dispostion is like a still, peacefull pool of water, as opposed to a churning, agitated whirlpool. A quiet spirit is the opposite of an anxious, distressed, disorderly, and clamourous one.

I think Amy Carmichael got the idea right in her poem, “Give Me a Quiet Mind” in which she cries out to the Lord to give her this beautiful disposition:

GIVE ME A QUIET MIND

When winds are blowing, waves are rising, falling
And all the air is full of dust and spray;
When voices, like to sea birds’ plaintive calling,
Confuse my day;

Then, then I know Thee, Lord of highest heaven
In newborn need discover Thee, and find
Nought can discomfort him to whom is given
A quiet mind.

When hopes have failed, and heavy sadness crusheth,
And doubt and fear would weave their deadly spell,
Then thought of Thee my troubled spirit husheth;
And all is well.

In midnight hours when weariness ignoreth
Heaven’s starry host, and battle wounds are mine,
Then Thy right hand uplifteth and outpoureth
Love’s oil and wine.

O Blessed Lord, beyond the moment’s sorrow
I see above, beaneath, before, behind–
Eternal Love. Give me today, tomorrow,
A quiet mind.

(From the collected poems of Amy Carmichael)

Related posts:

1. The Playground of Your Mind
2. Give Roukea Life for Lent – Week 3
3. Give Life for Lent – Week 4

During Sunday night ”singsperation” time– when people got to call out requests for hymns– I knew that if Mr. Purdie called out number 513, we’d be singing “He the Pearly Gates Will Open” again. It was his favorite. Number 206 meant I’d better get my fingers limber, because the pace of ”Wonderful Grace of Jesus” always resembled a train hurtling full throttle down a steep hill. I loved it when someone asked for number 40  — Great is Thy Faithfulness. That one, I could play without looking.

Over the next 25 years of my involvement on worship teams, I transitioned from playing the piano, to my first electric piano–a Fender Rhodes, to an ever-changing array of synthesizers. The trend moved from hymns to choruses to modern-day worship music. But those old hymns of my childhood still echo in my mind rich with doctrine. Today, I’m meditating on number 57… ”Jesus, I am Resting.” I love the thought of “resting in the joy” of who Jesus is. I hope you do too, and that these words encourage you:

—————————————-

Jesus, I am resting, resting  In the joy of what Thou art;
I am finding out the greatness of Thy loving heart.
Thou hast bid me gaze upon Thee, And Thy beauty fills my soul,
For by Thy transfoming power Thou hast made me whole.

Simply trusting Thee, Lord Jesus, I behold Thee as Thou art,
And Thy love, so pure, so changeless, satisfies my heart –
Satisfies its deepest longings, meets, supplies its ev’ry need,
Compasseth me round with blessings: Thine is love indeed!

Ever lift Thy face upon me As I work and wait for Thee;
Resting ‘neath Thy smile, Lord Jesus, earth’s dark shadows flee.
Brightness of my Father’s glory, Sunshine of my father’s face,
Keep me ever trusting, resting, Fill me with Thy grace.

Jesus, I am resting, resting in the joy of what Thou art,
I am finding out the greatness of Thy loving heart.

( Jean Sophia Pigott, 1845-1882)

Related posts:

1. O Love that will not let me go

For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 says,

“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. ” (1 Timothy 2:11–15, ESV)

Now that’s definitely not the passage you want to be teaching on if you’re trying to win a popularity contest! It sounds extremely sexist and abrasive to the modern ear. And the phrase “she will be saved through childbearing” seems non-sensical, if not downright outrageous. But I concur with Challies that “there is truth and freedom here if we are willing to go looking for it.”

An Epiphany

Reading Challies’ attempts to come to grip with verse 15 reminded me of my own attempts to wrestle with this passage over the years. The last time I studied the passage in-depth was a couple of years ago, while working on writing Girls Gone Wise. It’s interesting how we can read a passage a hundred times, and still notice something new when we return to it again. I had been studying Genesis, and was immersed in the concept of the typological symbolism of Adam and Eve. (Adam is type of Christ, Eve is type of the Church), when I turned my attention to 1 Timothy 2.

It was then that I had an epiphany that seemed to resolve many of the interpretive difficulties with the text. It struck me that approaching the passage typologically harmonized many of the issues that arose from approaching it from a merely ontological standpoint – which has been the normative way of viewing this text.  I was so excited about the idea that I called up Wayne Grudem, to pick his brain about the veracity of my thoughts. He encouraged me to write them up and present a paper at ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) or to publish an article in their academic Journal (JETS). I haven’t got around to doing that yet, but since Challies brought up the question, I’m itching to weigh in on the discussion.

So, for all you theological tall foreheads, here’s something for you to chew on. (Remember, you heard it here first!) For those who aren’t familiar with the theological terminology, don’t bail out. Bear with me… and keep reading. Theology is fun!

A Typological Approach to 1 Timothy 2:11-15

To begin, let me explain what the theological term “type” means. A “type” is person, thing, or event that foreshadows or points to something or someone else (the antitype). The type has a layer of intended meaning that is revealed by the antitype.  For example, Jesus told Nicodemus, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness” (the type), “so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (the anti-type) (Jn 3:14; cf. Nm 21:9). The Passover Lamb and the rock from which Israel drank in the wilderness were also types of Christ (Ex 12:1–13, 49; 17:6; 1 Cor 5:7; 10:3, 4) Types most frequently point to Jesus and the story of the gospel.

Paul was a big typological type of thinker. He taught, for instance, that Adam was type of Christ, and that marriage was type of the relationship between Christ and the Church.  He would have agreed with the writer of Hebrews that earthly, physical realities are but shadows—types—of true and heavenly realities (the antitypes) (Heb. 8:5; 9:24-25). The physical and temporal exist to point us to the spiritual and eternal.

Now before we go on, I’m going to teach you another big, daunting word: “ontology” (Just think how your opponent’s eyebrows will rise when you use up three o’s playing it in scrabble!) Ontology means “related to being or existence.” It has to do with the essence of who we are.

Woman is Type of Church

As I said before, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 makes a whole lot more sense when we understand it typologically rather than merely ontologically. That is, from the perspective of what woman represents (typology) rather than just who woman is (ontology). And it may be that this is just what Paul had in mind.

We know for sure that Paul viewed Adam as a type of Christ. We also know for sure that he viewed marriage as type of the relationship between Christ and the church — in which the role of husband is a type of Christ and the role of the wife is a type of the Church. Thus, we can justifiably extrapolate that Paul also viewed Eve as a type of the Church.

Assuming that Paul has typology in mind, let’s have a look at the passage again. First, Paul talks about how women and men are to conduct themselves in church: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”  Don’t get caught up in what this means and how we apply it today. That’s a discussion for another time. For now, I just want you to consider how a typological approach helps explain this and the next few verses, and how it solves some interpretive conundrums.

If Paul was indeed thinking typologically (and I believe a good case can be made for it), that puts an entirely different spin on the following verses. Paul isn’t arguing that women are more gullible or that women need to bear children in order to be saved. No. He’s trying to point out that male female roles in the church exist to bear typological witness to the gospel.

For Adam (type of Christ) was formed first, then Eve (type of Church) – and Adam (type of Christ) was not deceived, but the woman (type of Church) was deceived and became a transgressor.

Yet she (the Church) will be saved through childbearing (bearing fruit in Christ)—if they (man and woman) continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Voila. This solves the conundrum of thinking that Paul is saying that women are saved by giving birth to biological children. If Paul is indeed thinking typologically, he’s not saying anything of the sort. Instead, he’s saying that woman’s ontology (her capacity to bear children) relates to her typology (the Church’s ability to be fruitful in Jesus). She (the Church) is saved through childbearing. Paul reinforces the profound mutuality of men and women here. Both are church. Both are saved by the type of union that results in spiritual children—the union with our husband, Christ. Both must continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

It’s not about us

Yes, Paul gives some pretty tough instruction about male and female roles in the Church. But then he elevates the discussion to an entirely different level. In his rationale, he mingles the imagery of Adam and Eve and woman and man together to make the point that in the end, how we conduct ourselves in church has much more to do with what we (typologically) represent than who we (ontologically) are. And that makes his directives on male/female roles in the church much easier to understand and swallow.

Ultimately, this is not about us. It’s not about man. It’s not about woman. It’s about displaying the glory of Christ’s story.

A typological approach to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 makes a lot of sense to me, and I’d like to throw it on the table for my fellow theologians to consider and discuss. We can’t say with absolute certainty what Paul had in mind in verse 15, but we can be absolutely certain that there is indeed truth and freedom here if we are willing to go looking for it.

————————

A further note of clarification:

If Paul is thinking typologically, he is saying that “she” (the church, as typologized by woman and represented by Eve – I think all three are in view) will be saved through childbearing (a characteristic womanly function which typologizes the church bearing spiritual children in union with Christ– the child that was promised to Eve) if they (the church – man and woman) continue in faith, love and holiness. His argument brilliantly interweaves all the correlating pieces.

This interpretation supports Thomas Schreiner’s thesis that childbearing (childbearing capacity) is upheld as that which is distinct to womanhood, and that woman ought to embrace her God-given role. It merely suggests that there is yet another, deeper layer of meaning here – in fact, the typological approach allows for several layers of meaning:

• Eve will be saved through the birth of THE Child that God promised to her
• Woman will show that she is truly saved when she embraces, rather than rejects God’s created design for her.  AND…
• The Church will be saved through union with Christ (bearing spiritual fruit/children)

Paul  is providing the ultimate reason along with the behavioral directive. He is saying that woman ought not to teach men in the church because our roles reflect the fact that Christ leads/instructs the church, and not the other way around.  And that is a reason that makes sense. This explanation logically answers the “why” question, makes the roles of men and women in the church defensible, and coherently/comprehensively harmonizes it with Scripture’s vision of the meaning of gender. It’s a brilliant and complex, yet profoundly simple explanation that connects all the dots for us.

No related posts.