Spring Issue of JBMW Now Online

The Spring 2012 issue of The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is now online, and you can download the entire issue from the CBMW website. This issue includes articles from Russell Moore, John Piper, and more. There are several book reviews, including Heath Lambert’s take on the controversial book Real Marriage. Owen Strachan has contributed an excellent article about the interchangeability of men’s and women’s roles. Louis Markos has some important reflections on gender-neutral translations of the Bible. The table of contents is below, and you can download individual articles from there.

Standard Fare
Denny Burk Editorial
Various Odds & Ends
Essays & Perspectives
Russell D. Moore Women, Stop Submitting to Men
John Piper “The Frank and Manly Mr. Ryle”: The Value of a Masculine Ministry
Owen Strachan Of “Dad Moms” and “Man Fails”: An Essay on Men and Awesomeness
Louis Markos From the NRSV to the New NIV: Why Gender-Neutral Language Represents an Enforced Agenda Rather than a Natural Evolution
From the Sacred Desk
Denny Burk How Do We Speak About Homosexuality?
Gender Studies in Review
Heath Lambert The Ironies of Real Marriage // A Review of Mark Driscoll, The Truth about Sex
Kenneth Magnuson The End of Sexual Identity … or Sexual Morality? // A Review of Jenell Williams Paris, The End of Sexual Identity
Todd L. Miles Cultivating Womanhood in a World of Competing Voices // A Review of James Dobson, Bringing Up Girls
Andrew David Naselli and Jennifer J. Naselli Give Them Jesus: Parenting with the Gospel // A Review of Elyse Fitzpatrick and Jessica Thompson, Give Them Grace
Courtney Reissig A Valuable Historical Study // A Review of Diana Lynn Severance, Feminine Threads


  • Nathan Cesal

    re: How Do We Speak About Homosexuality?

    Denny, what do you actually do to help people be “washed and waiting”? I’ve found being “washed and waiting” is VERY LONELY and nearly impossible in the way church is set up and because the way conservative people view masculinity and femininity. I’m unable to thrive in a community where…

    * I can’t be honest about myself
    * People are afraid that I’m attracted to them
    * No one is committed to my well being
    * I’m told that I can’t have strong emotional connections
    * The things I’m told to do as a man are always couched in something that is denied me
    * I’m looked down on because I’m single
    * I’m looked down on because I’m not a father
    * It’s assumed that I have a mystical gift of celibacy

    Unless you actually address these and other issues, then all you really want to do is chaw on gay ears instead of actually doing something. Too many church people believe the onus is on the gay person to change and fit the church community, to approach friendships the way the church is comfortable with. Plenty of gays are part of the huge attrition that you see among single church goers. There is an enormous, nearly insurmountable mountain of stumbling blocks that gay people have to get by in order to be a real part of the church. It seems that you spend 95% of your article on what’s wrong with the gay person and 5% (at best) on what might be wrong with the church. In the meantime, gays are really only getting by in conservative churches.

    Church leaders HAVE to address these things head on. Do you think there are any action plans within churches to actually work on these things? Where are the leaders to lead the church to be what the “washed and waiting” need?

    The leadership’s responsibilities don’t end after the recitation of Romans 1!

    • Denny Burk

      Thanks for the comment, Nathan. I agree that this sermon doesn’t say everything that needs to be said about how Churches can be more effective in reaching out to homosexuals. My main goals in this sermon were to give a brief exposition of the three major NT texts on homosexuality and to show that Christians need to love homosexuals as they would any other sinner, not treat them like pariahs. How to do that is a subject worthy of many sermons. I hope to be able to share those too at some point in the future.

      In any case, understanding the basic ethical position of the NT on homosexuality is a worthy goal in itself simply because the issue is so contested today. Many people in our churches do not understand what the Bible teaches.

      Thanks for the comment.


  • Suzanne Mccarthy

    Louis Markos writes,

    “The phrase, “danger of linguistic sexism,” is a telling
    one; it makes clear that the changes made to the
    translation were not done primarily for the sake of
    clarity but to justify an agenda. Note as well that
    the “mandates from the Division specified” that
    traditional gender usage was to be proscribed in all
    but a very a small number of cases. In many ways,
    the NRSV sets itself against the English language
    itself, with its “inherent bias … towards the masculine

    However, I would argue that the changes are essential for clarity. And I would argue that keeping the scripture understandable is a legitimate agenda.

    These are examples from the CBMW website of various preachers who have misunderstood 1 Tim. 5:8. This verse contains no masculine of any kind in Greek and does not refer to “men” but to Christians as a generic class. However, the following citations indicate that these preachers, who possibly read Greek – I don’t know – were unable to understand the English translation which used a masculine pronoun and were influenced by the English to misread the passage.

    “The headship of men in the church and home is rooted everywhere in Scripture in protection and provision. This is why the apostle Paul calls the man who will not provide for his family “worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8 ESV). Russell Moore

    “Does the Bible not speak of manhood specifically in the terms some of these students provide (Matt 7:9-11; Eph 6:4; 1 Tim 5:8)?” Robert Sagers

    “Husbands and fathers are specifically given the role of provider in the New Testament (Eph 5:29; 1 Tim 5:8).” Stuart Scott

    “And even widows or women whose husbands have left them are not expected to leave their domain and children to work outside the home. Paul declared this in 1 Timothy 5:8.” John McArthur

    “In order to honor the Lord by filling his quiver, the man must take the burden of provision for the family squarely upon his shoulders. Though this may be difficult at times, he is doing what he is called to do (see 1 Tim. 5:8 and Titus 2 for starters).” Owen Strachan

    “She is not the nourisher. She is not the provider. You’re to do that. That is the man’s responsibility.

    And if a man doesn’t do that, according to 1 Timothy 5:8, he is denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Throughout Scripture the man is always the provider as Christ is the provider for His church. That’s key. We provide nothing. The church provides nothing. We just receive Christ’s provision, protection, preservation, His care, His nourishing, His cherishing. It comes to us. In a sense, it’s very one- sided. Men, we are to provide that in our homes.” John McArthur

    Is is acceptable that all of these men have misunderstood a fairly straightforward passage in the English Bible? Would not a translation which reflects the semantic gender, in fact, the actual sex of the referent or referents, be better and honour the text as it ought to be honoured?

    • Adam

      I’ll be surprised if this stays up. I have posted two comments in regard to the NIV article that have been deleted. It seems if one has an opposing viewpoint or wishes to engage in dialogue that it is not allowed.

  • Suzanne Mccarthy


    Denny has agreed that if I post using my full name, first and last (and I would suppose, if I do not make ad hominem attacks, which I try not to do) then my comments will be allowed.

    I have been concerned about this attack on the (T)NIV for the last 6 years, but it started in 1997, when I attended a translation workshop with Gordon Fee.


  • Don Johnson

    A quote from Strachan’s article “For millennia, followers of God have practiced what
    used to be called patriarchy and is now called complementarianism.”

    I commend Strachan for his honest speaking. Can we please dispose of the made up word now?

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.