The Fall issue of The Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood is now out, and you can download five of the articles from the JBMW website. Both of the “Studies” are worthy of special note. Dr. Andreas KÃ¶stenberger responds to Philip Payne’s New Testament Studies article on 1 Timothy 2:12, and Barry Joslin contests Craig Blomberg’s translation of “Son of Man” in Hebrews 2:5-9.
I think you’ll find a great deal of useful material here, and if you are not a subscriber you should sign-up today. I’ve included the table of contents below.
|Odds & Ends||JBMW|
|Sorry, President Carter … This Argument Falls Flat||R. Albert Mohler Jr.|
|You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby||Mary A. Kassian|
|Raising Girls to be Godly Women in a Confused and Conflicted Culture||Nina Fry|
|The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12: A Rejoinder to Philip B.Payne||Andreas J. KÃ¶stenberger|
|“Son of Man” or “Human Beings”?: Hebrews 2:5-9 and a Response to Craig Blomberg||Barry Joslin|
|The Means, Mandates, and Motivation for Biblical Womanhood (Titus 2:4-5)||Eric M. Shumacher|
|Whence Evangelical Feminism?: A Review of Pamela D. H. Cochran, Evangelical Feminism||Mark Rogers|
|Finally Unconvinced: A Review of John G. Stackhouse Jr., Finally Feminist||Robert E. Sagers|
|New Paradigms or Old Fissures?: A Review of Mark Husbands and Timoty Larsen, eds., Women, Ministry and the Gospel||Jared M. Compton|
|Where Faith and Life Meet: A Review of Carolyn McCulley, Radical Womanhood||Candi Finch|
|Costly Tolerance: A Review of R. Albert Mohler Jr., Desire and Deceit||Timothy Shaun Price|
|New Testament Theology and a Biblical View of Gender: A Review of Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology||Christopher W. Cowan|
|Annotated Bibliography for Gender-Related Books in 2008||Jeff D. Breeding|
I would like to remind Mary Kassian that in her own province in the 1930’s children without a father and who could not be supported by the mother because she did not work, were put in orphanages, and locked in rooms, were classified as mentally deficient and then forcibly sterilized. Alberta managed to predate Hitler by about 5 years on this.
Somehow this makes the alternative, allowing women to work, not seem so terrible.
Thanks Denny for posting this. Its a real blessing for a poor pastor like me to be able to read such a great journal for free.
I am particularly interested in reading Dr. Kostenberger’s article as I have consistently found him to be one of the best scholars on the topic of gender roles and family.
I’m just stopping by to say “hi”, not to bicker today.
We heard that some ferry runs had to close down up there today. I hope that you can sty inside, warm, and safe. It’s pretty nasty down here, too.
Actually, Sue, I just want to mention a little fact of history. Here is a small excerpt from the Wikkipedia entry about the Alberta Eugenics Board. The women involved were feminists. That’s just a fact of history. Take some time to look up each of the women mentioned.
“The province of Alberta was the first part of the British Empire to adopt a sterilization act, and were the only ones who vigorously implemented it. The western provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, were close to the United States and highly influenced by American trends – during early debates regarding a sexual sterilization bill in Alberta, there were many references made to the U.S. legislation. Canada was rapidly becoming populated by immigrants, and the theme of Eugenics was emerging – supported by sponsors such as J.S. Woodsworth, Emily Murphy, Helen MacMurchy, Louise McKinney, Irene Palby, Nellie McClung, and the president of the University of Alberta, Dr. R.C. Wallace. In Alberta, Eugenics had seemingly positive intentions with the goal of bettering the gene pool.”
I think that Kassian should definitely work these facts into her writings.
Yes, I am aware of this. But one of the causes of so many “orphans” was the fact that women could not work. These were farm women who took up the cause of eugenics in Alberta. History is much more mixed than one would think.
I do not think we can or should go back to the days when single women, either widowed or unmarried, are treated as unfit parents and have children taken to “orphanages” etc.
Why does Mary Kassian deduce life in the 50’s from American TV shows. Does she have no idea what life was really like in the depression? Why does she write only about life from TV and the media, all these skankily dressed women she is concerned about now, and the wonderful idyllic Leave is to Beaver past. Well I was raised without a TV so I don’t know that the 50’s was perfect and the present is terrible.
I remember a lot of people living in poverty in those days, and some of our parents were orphans and know what that is like.
Nor do I think of feminism as an unadulterated good. I don’t have any “feminist” association, or connections or whatever in that sense.
I think people label me as feminist because I am against marital rape and subordinating women and keeping them in poverty because they have no work experience outside the home. I believe that women should have access to human rights in spite of whether their husband denies them this. I believe that women have the right to work and make decisions in order to raise their children.
Ny main interest is in enabling women to be responsible and accountable parents if God has decreed that they have to be single parents.
I believe in women being the kind of providers and protectors that men are.
Why do CBMW blog, Mary Kassian and Denny Burk, not devote posts to single women, or women who suffer under sinful authority? They do not discuss the development of female authority and providership and resistance to sinful authority.
Women need to develop courage and authority and leadership just as much as men.
Why this blank? Is Chrstianity not for the poor and unlucky? Is is only for those who can afford the outfit?
Honestly my sense is that terrible things are done in the name of secular feminismm and terrible things are done in the name of Christianity. Of course, I have suffered more from the latter, but I honestly accept feminism is just as likely to be used by those who are evil as Christianity is.
On another note, I am unaware of the ferry problems today but perhaps I will read about it in the paper tomorrow morning. Thanks.
Actually, Sue, for one thing, some of these feminists were Christian feminists. Then, what happened in Alberta during that time period and under those wrong-headed laws is nothing at all like what was done in Hitler’s Germany and their program of eugenics.
We have to be careful in invoking Hitler in our arguments. He is a case apart – along with Mao and Uncle Joe.
Take care, okay?
Besides, I deduce that you are a Christian feminist because I think that the first time I met you was on the yahoo discussion group called Christian Feminist. Weren’t you the owner, or at least one of the moderators?
I remember that you were nice to me, and I haven’t forgotten that.
It is worth knowing that the following government lead by Bible Bill Aberhart, did not roll back the sterilization program. There have been many years of Christian government leaders in Alberta who did not change the laws. They remained in effect until 1972, well after Leave it Beaver.
Sure, Sue. It’s all worth knowing.
It is now a mute point, really, since abortion is legal and sterilization is not necessary.
There is misery in every paradigm, that’s for sure.
The misery is in the human heart. It is Christ who changes the human heart.
Have a peaceful day, Sue. Be encouraged in the Lord.
Genesis 8 (TNIV)
21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of human beings, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
Matthew 11:28-30 (Today’s New International Version)
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
I enjoyed Robert Sagers’ review of Stackhous – and great title for the review!
The one thing he missed in discussing Stackhouse’s view of homosexuality is the footnote on p.89 of the book. I think that should be mentioned.