My body is mine, and mine alone.
I can say no, or I can say yes.
I deserve to experience pleasure.
I am beautiful.
For a girl (me) who thought it was her duty to give her body to her spouse, no matter how she felt, this new mantra is huge.
I used to think men’s sexual appetites were so massive that if wives didn’t satisfy them, husbands would have to find something or someone else to satiate their hunger.
This meant that if a husband was addicted to pornography, it was his wife’s fault.
If a man had an affair, it was his wife’s fault.
And if a husband was feeling unloved or sad, it was his wife’s duty to “comfort” him.
I am sure you can see how patriarchal and stereotypical this way of thinking is.
Not only does this leave women feeling trapped and used, it also shortchanges men: they could have wives who actually enjoy sex instead of wives who are having sex out of duty.
I grew up when the Evangelical Purity Movement was in full swing.
Dr. Tina Schermer Sellers, a sex therapist, has spent many years exploring the harmful effects of the purity movement.
She explains that, because the purity movement included elements of shame, silence and fear, people who have been exposed to the movement display the same symptoms as victims of sexual trauma:
“This combination of Fear, Shame, and Silence wrapped in a religious context of 'This is of God' is what produces religious sexual shame that can manifest as symptoms of childhood sexual abuse in adults.
The Purity Movement delivered this in spades … and we have a generation of young adults now trying to heal from levels of shame, depression, anxiety and sexual dysfunction unlike we have seen in recent history.”
The purity movement appears to have begun as a reaction to the sexual revolution of the 60’s, which was a result of the feminist movement.
As feminists were asserting women's equality in the work place and in politics, they also began advocating for women's sexual equality.
According to a PBS article entitled "The Pill and the Sexual Revolution", “At the core of the sexual revolution was the concept -- radical at the time -- that women, just like men, enjoyed sex and had sexual needs.”
Feminists in the 60’s advocated especially for the sexual empowerment of unmarried women. They advised women to use birth control and be free.
Whereas, prior to this time, society emphasized the importance of “virginity and marriage”, now society celebrated the “single life and sexual exploration”. (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-and-sexual-revolution/)
You can imagine how terrifying this was for Christians, who were concerned about sexual promiscuity.
Even before the sexual revolution of the 60’s, Christians placed a great deal of emphasis on women’s sexual purity (aka-be a virgin until marriage, be modest, etc).
How then, should they respond to this increased sexual freedom for women?
Christians apparently felt they needed to affirm sex as pleasurable while also admonishing young people not to engage in sex outside of marriage.
As a teenager, I remember giggling while listening to the song, “I Don’t Want It” by DC Talk.
It was so scandalous; were they really spelling “S-E-X” in a catchy Christian song?!?
Give the song a listen: https://youtu.be/KEpZd6jqmuQ.
Though I enjoyed the song as a teen, now it makes me feel angry:
A message I received from this song was that girls can really lead guys astray with sexual tempation.
I also understood that good guys ought to stand strong because “God has set his standard higher Purity is his desire”.
My question now is, "What is God's purity standard?" I'm not convinced it is what DC Talk hinted at in that song...
I distinctly remember, after listening to the song, feeling hyper conscious about what I was wearing around guys. Was I unintentionally begging them to have sex with me?
Couched in the words of this song is the promise that if you wait until you are married to have sex, then sex will be really really good: “And trust that God will give us something better if we wait.”
In other words, delay your passion until you are married; it will be worth it.
As a young teenager secretly fantasizing about sex and boys, I took this message to heart.
After all, who wouldn't want fabulous sex?
While Christian singers in the 1990’s and 2000’s were putting out songs emphasizing the glories of sex after marriage and the pitfalls of sex before marriage, numerous Christian organizations were promoting the same messages in a variety of ways: through promise rings, True Love Waits conventions, father-daughter dances and an increasing emphasis on courtship over dating and delaying kissing until marriage (I Kissed Dating Goodbye).
Once again, I feel lucky my parents never encouraged me to become involved in any of these movements.
In spite of that fact, I absorbed its basic tenets: sex outside of marriage was bad; if I waited for marriage, sex would be wonderful; girls ought to be modest lest they lead guys astray.
I remember hearing that if you were sexually promiscuous before marriage, you would bring all of your former partners into the marriage bed with you.
Joshua Harris is the author of the book I Kissed Dating Goodbye. He now regrets having written the book, and recently participated in a documentary about its impact as well as that of the purity movement.
The opening scene of the documentary (which was also the opening scene of his book) involves a wedding ceremony in which the groom brings all his former girlfriends with him to the ceremony.
If you want to understand both Harris's book and the purity movement in more depth, I highly recommend watching the documentary here.
I have heard of some youth groups asking girls to chew a piece of gum and then spit it out. After that, the girls were asked, “Would you give this to someone else to chew?”
The message behind this exercise? Don’t have sex with other people before marriage. If you do, you are damaged goods.
And you don’t want to offer “damaged goods” to the man you marry on your wedding day, do you?
What an incredibly shaming message!
Earlier, I shared a quote by Dr. Tina Schermer Sellers in which she shares how the purity movement used “Fear, Shame and Silence wrapped in a religious context” to encourage young people not to engage in sex before marriage.
Writer Linda Kay Klein tells her story and the stories of other women affected by the purity movement in her book PURE.
In this article by VICE, the author shares some of the stories in Klein's book. The stories are maddening. No woman should ever feel this way!
From these examples, can you see the fear, shame and silence invoked by the purity movement?
It is hard for “good Christian girls” who have been told first to dress modestly and then not to be lustful to suddenly become sexual beings once they are married.
For years, I myself felt “naughty” (shameful) after having especially enjoyable sex.
This leads to a few honest questions:
I can't wait to explore these questions next week!
Do you have personal experience with the purity movement? If so, be sure to leave a comment and tell me about it.
She was a beautiful woman, a princess.
But she was also cursed: one day, upon pricking her finger with a needle, she fell into a deep sleep upon her bed.
A hundred years passed...
Her castle crumbled around her and brambles and vines swathed her bedstead, clinging to it like leeches.
She was helpless and hopeless, wasn’t she?
One day, a handsome prince came tromping through the forest where the princess slept, and lo and behold, he happened upon her just lying there, snoozing away.
No one knows how much time passed, or how many wake-up methods the prince attempted before making the decision to try kissing her...
What we do know is that when he finally decided to bend down and snog her, she awoke with a start.
Apparently it was love at first site, because the princess proceeded to marry lucky old Mr. McSmoochyPants.
This fairy tale plot, in which a helpless princess gets rescued by a handsome prince, is a perfect example of patriarchy’s deep-rooted influence on our culture:
Take a woman who is beautiful and kind; she needn’t have other skills. Have her encounter a serious crisis from which she needs rescue. Toss in a wandering hapless prince with the following assets: strength, courage, pizzazz. Have the prince rescue the helpless maiden and let them live happily ever after.
Does this plot sound familiar to you?
Cinderella. Sleeping Beauty. Snow White. Rapunzel.
In some ways, there is beauty in the images conveyed by these stories: just at the right moment, a rescuer appears to save the day; the rescuer fixes what was broken.
Other images conveyed by the stories make me ill…
Does it always have to be a man rescuing a helpless woman?
There ought to be at least some fairy tales where a helpless man is rescued by a strong, courageous woman, someone like Brienne of Tarth.
And there ought to be some fairy tales which center the rescue-of-the-helpless-victim around something other than romance.
Last week, I tackled the history and definition of patriarchy. I discussed examples of patriarchy at play in our society and families.
This week, I want to take a look at patriarchy in the Bible, because it is most certainly found there.
What the hell is it doing there?!
Seriously, patriarchy has not yielded beautiful things for women or children, in my opinion.
So why is it reflected by the Bible?
Has there ever been a time in your life where you were doing something because it was right and you weren’t supposed to question it, but deep down you felt sick to your stomach for doing it?
This was me for so many years. I lived trying to fit into a patriarchal family/church structure because “the Bible told me so”.
Then I read a story about a woman named Abigail. And yes, I read her story in the Bible.
Abigail’s story opens with a certain God-ordained King, King David, being on the run from his archenemy Saul.
One day, King David and his men, hungry, stumble upon a farm belonging to Abigail’s husband, Nabal. (Women at this time couldn’t own property. The Bible = patriarchal book, remember?)
King David sends some soldiers to Nabal’s home asking for food. Nabal, greedy and stupid, refuses to share.
Abigail sees what her husband is doing and realizes it’s really not that smart to incur the wrath of a King and his soldiers. So, behind her husband’s back, she sends food and supplies out to David’s needy army.
It’s all very Ezer-like of her.
And it’s the opposite of the quiet, submissive behavior of a “godly” wife.
It is an example of a woman being very aware of what’s going on around her and then using her wits to do what’s right, even though it’s different from what her husband says.
When I first read Abigail’s story, I was stunned.
Allow me to explain.
Last week, I coined the phrase “Biblical patriarchy”. By Biblical patriarchy, I mean the notion that the Bible condones patriarchy.
For example, Biblical patriarchy is when women are told to submit to their husbands as they would to God. Or when children are told to submit to their fathers as they would to God.
You’d think that if the Bible were teaching patriarchy, then any woman who went against her husband, snuck behind his back, in fact, would be struck dead (because that seems to be what happened to people in the Old Testament when they broke God’s law).
Instead, Abigail’s husband died, and King David married her. In a society in which widowed women were destitute and helpless, Abigail was blessed and given a high status in her community.
Furthermore, Abigail’s story is recorded in the Bible.
We have to assume Abigail’s story is supposed to be instructive: pay attention; be shrewd; do what you need to do to save your family; do what’s right at all costs; God is your authority, not your husband.
Abigail is not the only such strong witty woman in the Bible. Priscilla set a guy's theology straight (Acts 18), and Miriam worked alongside Moses and Aaron, leading the Israelites. Women announced Jesus’ resurrection, and Mary learned at Jesus’ feet like a Rabbinic student would. These are not all the examples we see in scripture either.
From these stories, the Bible does not appear to promote patriarchy.
But then there are other stories, like that of Sara, who was so submissive to her husband Abraham she went along with him in lying to a king. Yep, Abraham and Sarah tricked a king that they weren't married; they were siblings.
This nearly led to her whole family being killed. Later in the Bible, however, she is commended for being godly because of her submission.
There are really two main ways you can see Scripture on the matter of patriarchy.
You can see it as condoning and in fact, commanding, us to order our families and our churches in a patriarchal manner, or you can see it as a book of wisdom written by folks who were heavily influenced by their patriarchal cultures.
I’d like to take you on a journey through my thought process as I wrestled with these viewpoints.
Before I begin, do you want to know what I love?
I love differing perspectives, because they sharpen and grow me. I think there are very few perfect perspectives out there.
For example, in trying not to be a proverbial “fundamentalist”, you can be a “fundamentalist” about being liberal, judging folks who believe and live differently than you do. You can get so stuck in thinking “my way is right,” you no longer realize that you, too, have blind spots.
Let’s take a look at the first point of view:
Patriarchy Is A God-Ordained System
In previous posts, I shared the conflicting messages I received as a young woman growing up in the church.
On the one hand, I was encouraged I could be anything I wanted to be— I ought to get a degree and be independent.
On the other hand, I was taught that a woman’s highest calling in life was to be married and bear children. I was also told I should submit to my husband as the head of the household.
A few years ago, I attended a church in which some married women were stay at home moms and others worked outside the home. With such an eclectic mix of women, I assumed the church wasn’t patriarchal.
I got a nasty surprise when, upon attending a home group, everyone began to sing the praises of one particular woman in the church who was exceptionally submissive to her husband.
I began to see that whereas the parameters for ideal godly wife used to be, “a stay-at-home mom who submits to her husband and orders her home well”, they were now, “a wife who can be or do anything as long as she submits to her husband”.
In my opinion, when a husband and a wife both work outside the home, it is difficult for them to function in a completely patriarchal manner.
The wife, by nature of holding down her own job, makes quite a few of her own decisions. She earns her own paycheck. She will not always have time to do the housecleaning or care for the children.
This means the husband and wife have to make some decisions together; and in certain areas, the wife will be operating autonomously, using her own wisdom to make decisions within her area of expertise.
She will not be always available to be a “helpmeet” to her husband.
I don’t know about you, but I think if you are going to say that God commands women to submit and men to be the heads of the households, than you ought to follow that mandate wholeheartedly.
Even the phrase “equal yet different” implies more equality than what the Bible in its most patriarchal passages teaches. Sara, for instance, is lauded because she “obeyed” Abraham and called him “lord” (1 Peter 3:6).
I am not the only one who sees things this way.
Russell Moore is a theologian, ethicist and preacher, as well as a prominent member of the Southern Baptist Convention. He wrote an article in the “Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society” entitled “After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians Are Winning The Gender Debate”.
You can read the article here: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/49/49-3/JETS_49-3_569-576_Moore.pdf
Moore asserts that while many Christians say they believe men ought to be the “heads of their homes”, most are actually operating as egalitarians.
He mentions that women working outside the home is a problem to complementarians, stating, “While some evangelicals express concern about what dual income couples might do to the parenting of small children, very few are willing to ask what happens to the headship of the husband himself. How does the husband maintain a notion of headship when he is dependent on his wife to provide for the family?”
While I do not share Moore’s point of view, I appreciate that he is staying true to his reading of scripture.
In the article, he affirms that the complementarian view of male headship in the home should be called what it is: patriarchy.
Moore urges Christian complementarians not to become “soft” in following the Bible. He criticizes many modern Christian teachings for being too influenced by feminism.
Because I feel Moore is being forthright about what Christians who hold to patriarchy believe, I am going to examine his point of view.
Moore believes that not only is the Bible patriarchal, but God is also patriarchal. He believes the Bible has an actual patriarchal trajectory, and that the gospel itself is revealed through that system.
“[...] that trajectory [of the Bible] leads toward patriarchy—a loving, sacrificial, protective patriarchy in which the archetypal Fatherhood of God is reflected in the leadership of human fathers, in the home and in the church (Eph 3:14–15; Matt 7:9–11; Heb 1.”
“This understanding of archetypal patriarchy is grounded then in the overarching theme of all of Scripture—the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10).16 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.”
Basically, Moore believes male headship in the home and the passing on of an inheritance from father to son is THE way God has chosen to offer salvation to this world.
“Patriarchy then is essential—from the begetting of Seth in the image and likeness of Adam to the deliverance of Yahweh’s son Israel from the clutches of Pharaoh to the promise of a Davidic son to whom God would be a Father (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26) to the “Abba” cry of the new covenant assembly (Rom 8:15).”
When I read these quotes from Moore’s article, I understand why, to some complementarians, feminism’s insistence on male-female equality is seen as a threat.
Steve Golden is a writer on the Answers in Genesis blog. In an article entitled “Feminism: The Influence Of Postmodernism”, he claims that feminist postmodern thinking has led to “serious attacks on the authority of God’s word”.
The reason Golden thinks feminism attacks the authority of God’s word is that it forces people to question verses which are “clearly patriarchal”.
Both Moore and Golden claim that, by rejecting the patriarchal ideal of male headship in the home, feminism is destroying women, the church, and the family.
They claim that the freedom and equality of both genders espoused by feminism gives men permission to freely, without consequence, pursue sexual gratification, whereas when men are urged to be “men of God” and embrace godly male headship in the home, they are held to a higher standard and their carnal behavior/desires are checked.
One particularly stinging critique of feminism in the Answers in Genesis article is that feminism proclaims liberation to women from the “‘shackles’ of being wives and mothers”.
Golden and Moore and other Christians who believe the Bible teaches patriarchy as God’s model hold to God’s having a specific vision for men which is different from God’s vision for women. In a nutshell, men are to be the “head” of their households and women are to “submit”.
This succinctly sums up the viewpoint of those who would say the Bible promotes patriarchy.
Before I share another viewpoint, I would like to share some thoughts I had while learning about the “Bible promotes patriarchy” point of view:
Now let’s take at another view:
Patriarchy Is The Cultural Backdrop Of The Bible, But It Is NOT What The Bible Teaches
Ironically, I’d like to begin this section with the main verses used by those who hold to Biblical patriarchy, which I cited at the end of my previous blog post:
If I agreed with Moore and Golden, I would certainly use these verses to support my point of view.
However, as I queried before, how does one reconcile the verses above with this one: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”? (Galatians 3:28)
I’ve always believed you can’t just read a passage in the Bible and understand its full meaning without first looking at the historical context of the passage.
I used to place the “literal” meaning of a passage first, and then add in tidbits about the historical context.
Now, I look at the meaning of a passage in its historical context before I think about its possible meanings.
I try not to “lift” the passage out of its time period; I leave it there and ask, “What would this have meant to a person in that world?”
I also don’t solely rely on my own “wisdom”; I listen to those who know more than I do.
As I was thinking about these passages, I was intrigued to read some articles about the way first the Greeks and then the Romans ordered their home.
In Plato’s “Republic”, he suggested that human needs drive humans to form cities; and, once cities are formed, humans must decide how the cities will be governed.
Both Plato and his pupil Aristotle placed a rational mind above all else. This led Plato to further surmise that cities should be run by a hierarchy where men (who said were more rational) should rule over women and children.
Here is what Aristotle thought about household management:
“Of household management we have seen that there are three parts- one is the rule of a master over slaves, which has been discussed already, another of a father, and the third of a husband. A husband and father, we saw, rules over wife and children, both free, but the rule differs, the rule over his children being a royal, over his wife a constitutional rule. For although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female, just as the elder and full-grown is superior to the younger and more immature.”
Aristotle deemed the male to be “fitter” by nature for command than females. Interesting. He also stated that “a husband and father [...] rules over wife and children”. Patriarchal, right?
These patriarchal Greek ideas about men, women and children carried over into the Jewish philosophy of the times.
Here is what Josephus wrote about women:
“The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive, not for her humiliation, but that she may be directed; for the authority has been given by God to the man.”
Not only did the patriarchal Greek philosophers influence Jewish philosophers, they also influenced Roman culture/philosophy.
The Romans structured their families with the man as the “head” of the family. They called the rule of the father “paterfamilias”.
The paterfamilia held unlimited authority and power in the home. He was the religious intercessor for his family: he acted as the family priest over his ancestor’s cult. He was also the family’s representative to other members of his society.
For a more detailed examination of Greek and Roman philosophy surrounding family structure, read this article: https://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/priscilla-papers/woman%E2%80%99s-role-new-testament-household-codes.
Do any of these patriarchal notions about men, fathers, husbands, women, wives and children sound familiar to you? Do they sound a bit like the verses I listed at the beginning of this section?
Do you see any differences between what Plato, Aristotle and Josephus said (Greco-Roman Household Codes) and what the Bible passages (NT Household Codes) I cited say?
Rachel Held Evans, in this post and this post, pointed out some glaring differences between the Greco-Roman and NT Household Codes (loose paraphrase):
In looking at the differences between the NT Household Codes and the Greco-Roman Household Codes, we see that although on the surface it looks like the New Testament is urging early Christians to follow Greco-Roman rules, it is covertly pointing everyone towards "Christ-as-head" instead of "father-as-head".
In my opinion, if everyone is really subject to Christ, this does away with patriarchal hierarchy.
I love the way Rachel Held Evans puts it:
“What’s great about the Christian remix of the Greco-Roman household codes is that, when put into practice, it blurs the hierarchal lines between husband and wife, master and slave, adult parent and adult child. If wives submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ (Ephesians 5:24), and if husbands love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25), and if both husbands and wives submit one to another (Ephesians 5:21)—who’s really “in charge” here?”
A few weeks ago, I stumbled across a Jamaican-born poet named Claude McKay. McKay was born in 1889 and raised by peasant farmers. In spite his Jamaican origin, McKay retained a keen sense of his parents’ African heritage.
This poem of his really captures the longing and sorrow of a people displaced:
For the dim regions whence my fathers came
My spirit, bondaged by the body, longs.
Words felt, but never heard, my lips would frame;
My soul would sing forgotten jungle songs.
I would go back to darkness and to peace,
But the great western world holds me in fee,
And I may never hope for full release
While to its alien gods I bend my knee.
Something in me is lost, forever lost,
Some vital thing has gone out of my heart,
And I must walk the way of life a ghost
Among the sons of earth, a thing apart;
For I was born, far from my native clime,
Under the white man's menace, out of time.
Do you know what’s hard for me to fathom?
It is hard for me to fathom how a people captured and bartered like chattel could turn around and see in the religion of their captors a God who loved and cared for them, a God they could cry out to, as illustrated in this Negro Spiritual:
Now let us have a little talk with Jesus
Let us tell Him all about our troubles
He will hear our faintest cry and we will answer by and by
Now when you feel a little prayer wheel turning
You'll know a little fire is burning
You will find a little talk with Jesus makes it right
I may have doubts and fears my eyes be filled with tears
But Jesus is a friend who watches day and night
Oh, I go to Him in prayer, He knows my every care
And just a little talk with Jesus gonna makes it right
(Excerpt from “A Little Talk with Jesus”)
This, I think, illustrates the intensely subversive nature of the God we serve, the God who says, “My Kingdom is not of this world”; the God who came to “set the prisoners free”.
Instead of destroying all evil systems immediately, God’s truth infiltrates every culture, every system, every family, subtly. It is a whisper on the wind which touches everyone and everything.
Sometimes, God’s truth sounds so much like what everyone already thinks that no one notices it is actually different. But it IS different. So drastically dramatically different.
For, at the same time God is telling slaves and wives to submit, God is also gently intoning: “Your authority is not man. It is God,” and “You are all equal now.”
And while God may be saying to men: “Lead”, God is simultaneously saying to men, “Love the members of your household more than you love yourself. Submit one to another.”
God’s medicine goes down smoothly; then the healing begins...
Do drop me a comment and let me know what you think, friend. If you haven't already, follow me on Facebook.
Then tune in next week for a look at faith, feminism and sexual freedom.
She leaned forward, gripping the steering wheel, heavy-footed and radiating positive energy. Every few seconds she turned to me with a new detail, “He’s so wise!”, “He keeps himself so well-groomed”, “He tells such good stories!”
— ”Have you heard the pineapple story? It’s SO good!,” interjected one of my fellow female passengers...—
Every time our chauffeur turned to me with new, glorious descriptions of the amazing keynote speaker, her pupils dilated and sparkled animatedly.
I was a young teen, and I was canister-ed in a humongous van with several other girls from my church. They were all chattering and interrupting, filling me in on the amazing things I would learn at the conference we were about to attend.
I’ve always been annoyed by “people worship”, and I was unimpressed by the flattery. However, I couldn’t help but feel curious about this “great” man everyone was going on about.
The man’s name was Bill Gothard. You can google him if you want to; you’ll find he’s not quite as loved as he once was.
It is here I must interject, red faced, that my motives were not pure; I really could have cared less about the seminar.
I had a crush on a few of the boys in our church, who happened to be brothers to some of the girls in the van, and I was trying to make a good impression.
I remember, upon entering the convention center, feeling as though the vastness of the glass-windowed lobby vacuumed up my breath.
Women roamed the halls in packs, swarming into spacious tiled bathrooms.
Most wore dresses— not cocktail dresses, mind you: hand sewn, modest dresses.
As I navigated the busy hallway, I chuckled to myself— women lined the sidewalk outside, using the convention center's one-way-glass as a mirror, combing their long hair and re-applying lipstick, unaware that everyone inside could see them.
From inside, it looked as though they were silent circus performers repeating a simple routine: comb, apply, comb, apply, comb, apply.
Upon nearing the spacious room where the conference was to be held, I veered left into a restroom; it was bizarrely hushed.
The counter was lined with women soundlessly jostling each other, craning their necks to view their reflections, applying makeup.
I wondered why everyone was so concerned with their makeup and with how they looked. We were, after all, attending a seminar to learn more about God and the Bible. (Um, well, most of us were…)
Why did our appearance matter so much?
I still remember the one fleeting moment during the conference when excitement overtook me: I was handed a pencil and an empty workbook, all my own.
Oh, how I still love new workbooks and studying and assignments!
Now, however,when I recall this seminar and that crackling new workbook, I feel sick.
I want to stomp on that workbook, rip it to shreds and burn it; it was, after all, garbage wrapped in this beautiful, terrifying paper called Religiosity.
Looking back, I’m grateful my parents did not embrace this man or his teachings.
Many of the young women who attended that conference with me were scarred for life; years later, the world learned that Bill Gothard himself (a single man) had made inappropriate sexual advances on several young women who had interned as his secretaries.
It was at this conference I was introduced to the following diagrams:
This diagram illustrates the “Umbrella of Protection”. As long as us young ladies remained under our umbrella, we were told, we would be safe from the devil. Otherwise, he would certainly have us for lunch.
This diagram juxtaposes the “godly” family structure, protected by God, against the “worldly” family structure, governed by Satan. Talk about stretching a metaphor!
One of the most chilling aspects of the second umbrella is the statement (I apologize for the blurriness) that ordering your family incorrectly “disempowers the husband”.
Now, back to my story. Although my bullshit sensors were blaring at this point, and although my parents themselves never became followers of Gothard’s teachings (thank God), I couldn’t shake the fear induced by these illustrations.
Who in their right mind would want to have that dreaded dude Satan leading his or her family?
I wish I would have known then what I know now: that this whole illustration was an example of what I call Christianized patriarchy. And patriarchy has very real and lasting effects on people.
So What Is Patriarchy?
In simplest terms, patriarchy is a system in which men rule over women.
Dictionary.com defines patriarchy as “a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.”
Imagine with me for a moment what sort of cultural “needs” would lead to such a system. Why would it be important for the father to be the supreme authority in a family or tribe and for male children to inherit their father’s wealth?
Here are three detailed descriptions of patriarchy:
Most scholars agree that though patriarchy has been the basic structure for many societies, it has not always been the chief societal structure.
Remember my question earlier, about what sort of culture would benefit from patriarchy?
Not a hunter-gatherer culture, according to most scholars.
Most hunter-gatherer societies are thought to have been egalitarian: every member was equally important and job-roles were fluid.
People in hunter-gatherer societies, I’d imagine, were more concerned with having enough food to eat and surviving than with anything else.
Many would posit that hierarchical societal structures such as patriarchy emerged when societies became agrarian and began amassing wealth.
Agrarian societies needed to find ways to pass on wealth; what better way than to pass money along to other family members.
The focus on amassing wealth and passing it along family lines gave more authority and leadership capabilities to some (the wealthy) than to others.
What Are The Defining Characteristics of Patriarchal Societies/Structures?
From this short history and definition of patriarchy, what would you say are some of its defining characteristics?
My list includes: power, hierarchy, obedience to authority figures, structured living and rigid roles based on gender and age, dominance of the powerful/wealthy over the weak/poor.
Check out this series of slides, which gives an overview of patriarchy and also highlights how patriarchy manifests in a society: https://www.slideshare.net/nivi88/patriarchy-in-society.
One excellent point this slideshow makes is that patriarchy is a system which affects both men and women.
Men are hurt by patriarchy, and men can do just as much as women to open people’s eyes to the invisible patriarchal rules we follow.
For many years, my husband lived with the heavy burden that he, and he alone, ought to be the sole financial provider for our family: that was his job!
He was not allowed to pursue a career which interested him; he had to pursue a career which would provide.
Furthermore, in much of the church culture we were immersed in, “being a man” was all about speaking loudly, vying for power, jostling for authority, and being invested in sports.
My husband is quiet, sensitive and emotional. He does not desire the limelight. He is not a die-hard sports fan.
Under this patriarchal delineation of manhood, my husband wondered where he fit.
As a young woman, I also received a loud message about how to be a worthy woman, thanks to patriarchy:
It is a constant challenge for me, as a homeschool mom, to educate my son and daughters to see women as equal to men, and to know there are a myriad of ways families can be structured.
I strive to show them they don’t have to think or live according to “patriarchal” norms.
While I do stay home to educate my kids, I treat homeschooling as my job/career.
My husband and I partner on housework.
I am careful to also spend time pursuing my own interests, passions and friendships.
As you saw above, growing up, I had many friends whose parents followed Bill Gothard’s teachings.
I also had many friends and family members who did not follow Gothard, but believed women should submit to their husbands. This meant that in the event of a disagreement, a husband’s word on the matter was final.
I recall hearing a child being instructed by a parent that his parents’ words to him were essentially God’s words to him.
I also remember witnessing a child being punished because, when his father instructed him to do something, he (the child) questioned it.
He questioned what his father told him because his mother had told him something different.
The child was wondering who he was supposed to listen to. When the child queried the father about this dilemma, the child was punished severely.
This was presumably to show the child that the father’s word is always the final word.
As I have been researching patriarchy, I have come across an interesting debate over whether or not America is a patriarchy.
I have also read several online debates over whether or not the Bible is patriarchal (does it promote patriarchy?).
I think this conversation is complicated; it can't be right or fair to summarily label a society, a family, or a book as 100% patriarchal.
Cultures and systems are highly nuanced.
For example, though the family structure Gothard taught about placed fathers above all other family members, it also taught that wives had this special ability to hear a sort of cautioning wisdom from the Lord.
If a wife received this special wisdom from God, the husband was admonished to listen to her.
This gave women a great deal of power over their husbands.
I think arguing over labels distracts us from addressing real problems.
What if, instead of spending our time debating whether or not someone or something is patriarchal, we instead use the “characteristics of patriarchy” as a filter through which to run the “water” of our lives?
We ought to look at our families, churches, schools and governments and ask whether all people are being treated with equal dignity and respect, regardless of their wealth or gender.
We also ought to be asking whether or not all members of society are given equal voice and opportunity.
The Negative Consequences of Patriarchy
Some would wonder why I am making such a big deal about patriarchy.
After all, compared with much of the rest of the world, we American folks (especially us white middle class folks) have SO MUCH.
I have a friend who immigrated from Venezuela to Colombia. Her major life concern right now is figuring out how to get dinner on the table for her two growing boys.
Yet, I believe this conversation is important: it is in questioning and dismantling unjust systems that we begin to help this hurting world— the world needs empowered women.
Let’s apply the “filter of patriarchy” to our modern lives. Where do we see patriarchy at play?
Though I have recently seen some magazines and TV ads promoting a more positive view of women, many headlines and commercials for women are all about how to make a man happy (often by becoming prettier and slimmer).
Here are four examples:
-From Cosmopolitan: “4 Words That Seduce Any Man. Any Time.”
-Also from Cosmopolitan: “Times He Wants You To Be Jealous”
-From Woman’s World: “10 Years Thinner”
-Also from Woman’s World: “Lose up to 130 Pounds”
Do you see how these ads are all about helping women become more desirable?
What a harmful message we are sending women when we tell them their value lies in their appeal!
Something makes me think this is the message the women at the Gothard conference I attended were receiving as well...
Another area in which we can apply our “patriarchy filter” is in the workforce, where men have historically received higher wages and been given more opportunities to hold positions of power.
Take a look at these statistics: https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/stats_data.htm.
One cannot help but wonder why women are paid less than men for the same jobs?
Is it because men are considered to be more valuable?
Is it because of the myth that only men should provide for their families financially while women stay home?
Is it because of the false notion that women aren’t as good at being leaders as men are?
Wage equality would mean that:
Another area in which we can apply the “filter of patriarchy” is in the area of sexual assault.
Women who are sexually abused are often accused of inviting the abuse, while men are rarely held accountable for their actions.
I don't know about you, but I have heard many of these statements over the course of my lifetime:
Perhaps they (the women assaulted) were wandering in dark alleys they shouldn’t have been in.
Maybe they (the women assaulted) were wearing “slutty” clothing.
Maybe they (the women abused) were not being submissive enough to their husbands, or maybe they weren’t adequately “meeting his needs”.
This list of myths about people who are sexually abused sheds light on many of the cultural assumptions surrounding sexual abuse: https://www.ourresilience.org/what-you-need-to-know/myths-and-facts/
Do you see how often these myths let the perpetrators off the hook?
Do you see how this is about excusing those who hold more power?
I remember being teased by a group of boys when I was a young teen.
The teasing hurt deeply.
I was told, however, “those boys were just being boys” and, “they actually like you” (because if they didn’t like me, they wouldn’t be paying me any mind).
One of the areas in which I see patriarchal injustices in our society (and especially in the church) is in the implication that it is a woman’s duty to satisfy her man sexually, while downplaying or overlooking her right to pleasure.
I cannot help but wonder if, in those agrarian societies which first embraced patriarchy, women who “had a man” were more privileged and protected, and therefore focused on pleasing, and keeping, their men.
I will be writing more extensively on this topic in a future post.
We can apply the “patriarchy filter” to the treatment of men in our society as well as women.
As I mentioned earlier, many boys are taught they must grow up to be the providers and leaders in their families. They are admonished to be strong and not demonstrate too much emotion (“big boys don’t cry”).
Carolyn Custis James addresses the harmful effects of patriarchy on men in her book Malestrom. She warns,
“It isn’t overstating things to say there isn’t a man or boy alive who isn’t a target. The malestrom’s global currents can be violent and overt, but also come in subtle, even benign forms that catch men unawares. The malestrom is the particular ways in which the fall impacts the male of the human species—causing a man to lose himself, his identity and purpose as a man, and above all to lose sight of God’s original vision for his sons. The repercussions of such devastating personal losses are not merely disastrous for the men themselves, but catastrophic globally.”
Read more of her thoughts here: https://carolyncustisjames.com/2015/04/23/the-manhood-crisis/.
These are just some of the many ways in which patriarchy has affected our society in negative ways.
Patriarchy, The Bible, And The Church
As we have seen, patriarchal ideology is definitely at play in our society, and its effects are not beneficial.
As a child, I was taught that a system in which the man is the head of the family is biblical. Does this sound as patriarchal to you as it sounds to me?
Many scriptures were used to support this:
I believed that in order to be a woman of God I needed to be submissive to my husband.
I always wondered about single women, though. They were really not able to be “godly” without husbands, were they?
Guess what many of the single women I knew were taught (overtly and covertly)? That until they found husbands, they were under the authority of their fathers.
As I grew older, I saw so many ways in which "Christianized" patriarchy was harming women with the church:
I was tired of hearing “God’s wisdom is not our wisdom” as an explanation for why this hierarchical power structure must be followed.
What if there was another way to see scripture?
What if patriarchy was a societal structure in which the writers of the bible found themselves but not necessarily a god-ordained system?
I thought about slavery.
Many slaveholders used passages in the bible such as “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything” to condone slavery as biblical.
Yet most Christians would agree that the only reason Paul wrote these instructions to slaves was because slave-holding was a facet of the society he lived in. They would say there was a general redemptive bent to Paul's instructions.
What if the same thing were also true of the biblical instructions for women, specifically wives?
In other words, what if Paul’s thoughts on women and submission had more to do with the patriarchal cultural system he was writing from than with patriarchy being a God-ordained system?
After all, we can’t ignore other passages in scripture such as Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.”
As we have discussed in a previous post, Christian complementarians have coined the term “equal yet different” to address this issue. "Yes, we are all equal," they say, "however, we have different roles: leader and submitter."
Yet, what if equal truly means equal?
Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments, critiques and stories, friends. I really appreciate you.
Tune in next week for a deeper exploration of my journey into “what the heck is the Bible saying about patriarchy?!”
Follow me on Facebook to stay up to date on my latest posts. Comment here or on Facebook and share some ways in which you have felt the heavy weight of patriarchy in your everyday life.
Click on the links to catch up on Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
How vividly do I remember witnessing a childbirth for the first time. I was young, maybe nine or ten.
About thirty minutes before the birth, my dad summoned me, asking whether or not I wanted to see a babe make its grand entrance into the world.
My answer? Of course!
I hopped onto his motorcycle, and we hastened along a dirt path scratched out of the rainforest by some gargantuan finger.
Tall vine-tangled rainforest trees tried to nab us as we rode up and down mountains, bumping and winding and gulping down gnats.
We arrived at the thatched village hut, called a “shabono”, just in time. Ducking through a hobbit-high door frame, our eyes took a few minutes to adjust to the dim light of the smoke-filled interior.
I was surprised to hear no sound, though four or five women were gathered around the laboring woman.
Panting, neck muscles straining, she squatted above a gargantuan green banana leaf.
And just when our eyes had adjusted to the dimness and the stinging smoke, a tiny babe, coated in mucus, slid silently from between its mother’s legs.
For a moment, everyone stared at the babe. The babe had to be deemed worthy; it must be without defect. Otherwise, it would be taken into the jungle and killed.
After investigating the child for defects and finding none, the women began to care for the newborn. Soon, that universal infant cry, so like caterwauling, filled the room.
I will never forget this experience: The miracle of new life coupled with the earthiness of my surroundings and the “other-ness” of cultural customs so different from my own imprinted itself firmly on my memory.
Upon witnessing this birth, I was filled with this great sense of unity which binds all of humanity— new life is new life, whether cradled under the mossy trees of the Amazon rainforest or ensconced in a blue blanket in a sterile American hospital room.
This past week, as I pondered the various ways in which I have read and interpreted the Bible's take on a woman's life work, I could not shake this vivid memory.
You see, in Yanomamo culture, a young woman’s status was lower than a dog’s; she was a man’s property. A man often had multiple wives. Most women were regularly abused and violated.
Before my third child was born, my husband and I lived in Bolivia. While there, I became friends with several Bolivian women.
Women in Bolivia went to school, and some graduated from college even, but they were not allowed to drive cars. Furthermore, there were many jobs which were considered to be women’s work (childcare, cooking, cleaning), and the men did not engage with these facets of life.
Imagine with me an ancient culture not so different from the Yanomamo or Bolivian cultures, in which the men were seen as more valuable and held a higher status than women: this is the cultural backdrop of most, if not all, of the Bible.
Stated another way, when I picture these two cultures’ treatment of women, it helps me grasp why there are so many difficult texts about women in the Bible.
Yet, what is God's vision of "woman"?
In Part 2 of this series, I ended with a quote from Sarah Bessey in which she shared a vision of men and women being “warriors fighting in distinct unity”. This vision of women certainly sounds different from that of the cultures I cited above.
The portrayal of “women as warriors” didn’t make much sense to me until I delved into the meaning of “helpmeet”.
I had been taught that a “helpmeet” was man’s perfect partner, meant to submit to him and help him carry out his mission in this world.
Boy was I surprised when I learned how the two Hebrew words combined to formulate “helpmeet” were actually used in other parts of the Bible; they didn’t have anything to do with subordination.
What is a “Helpmeet”?
I have two precious daughters and one sweet son.
They are my inspiration and the reason I push myself, work hard and face my fears.
I am constantly asking myself what message I am sending my children about women.
Am I telling them women are only good at certain jobs?
Am I communicating through my actions that women are only meant to be “background people” and not leaders?
(I am not saying there is anything “less” about being a background person. I am just saying I don’t want my kids to think women “can’t” or “shouldn’t”. )
Am I working as an equal partner, a warrior, alongside my husband, or am I demonstrating a subservient nature?
This resolve to demonstrate female equality awakened when I finally “got” what a “helpmeet” was.
I’d like to begin by narrating two stories for you (these stories are the main reason I am a feminist woman-of-faith):
Once upon a time, divine love, the Word, breathed God-life into this planet.
And this Word said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness” so that they can rule over creation together.
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Then God told these two image-bearers to “fill the earth and subdue it”.
And God saw all that God had made, said it was good.
Once upon a time, divine love, the Word, formed this man-creature out of dust and breathed life into him. The man’s name was Adam.
God gave Adam some instructions, some “do’s and don'ts”, along with a job— name the animals.
And God noticed the man was alone, without a “suitable helper”. So he put the man to sleep and took out one of his ribs. God used this rib to form a woman. Her name was Eve.
Or, was that the beginning?
Whether or not you take them literally, both of these stories are in the opening chapters of Genesis.
Can you guess from which of these two stories we have gleaned the idea that a woman’s job is to stand by a man’s side, helping him?
“The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’” (Gen. 2:18) — Story 2
According to Story 2, the woman was made for the man, right?
At least, this was the narrative I grew up hearing.
But what does the phrase “suitable helper” mean?
The first creation narrative, Story 1, makes it clear that the man and woman were both created in God’s image. Wouldn’t that mean they both demonstrated God-likeness, and so were equals?
God spoke to both of them and gave them a job to do, together.
In the second creation narrative, Story 2, it sounds more as though Eve was secondary, an afterthought. It sounds as though she was designed to help the man do his job.
So why the contradiction?
Many scholars have certainly combined these two stories to affirm the idea that men and women are “equal yet different”.
At first glance, it seems obvious from these passages, doesn’t it?
Yet one glaring problem I see with the “woman-was-created-for-man” interpretation is that there are many women who are either single or do not marry a man.
This whole interpretation leaves them out!
There were many women featured in the Bible, in fact, who were exemplified for their character qualities; we do not even hear mention of husbands, or even men, in their lives, women such as Rahab, Mary Magdalene and Deborah.
To repeat, if the Adam and Eve story was supposed to provide us with wisdom, we need to ask this question: How does the “equal yet different, woman as "helpmeet" to man” interpretation apply to single women or women who aren't married to men?
Let’s dig into the meanings of “suitable” and “helper” in the Hebrew language...
The word translated into “suitable” is “kenegdo” in Hebrew.
The King James Bible translated “kenegdo” as “meet for him”. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon translates "kenegdo" as "corresponding to".
I love looking at how other languages translate words; interestingly, in the New Afrikaans Translation , "kenegdo" is translated as "sy gelyke" which means "his equal".
In your opinion, do any of these translations— “suitable” or “meet for him”, "corresponding to" or "his equal" — connote “subordinate” to you?
When I hear “suitable” or even “meet”, I hear “perfect fit” or “perfect complement”.
It was like a half-finished picture: something was missing for wholeness to be displayed; Adam needed a complement, an equal.
Eve was Adam's perfect counterpart.
None of the animals had been “suitable” as an equal to Adam; Eve was.
Marg Mowczko holds an MA with a specialization in early Christian and Jewish studies. She writes extensively about “ezer kenegdo” and what it means.
On her blog, she explains that “kenegdo” means “equal” or “corresponding”. If you enjoy getting into the nitty gritty meaning of words, I highly recommend reading her article on kenegdo here.
If “kenegdo”, then, means “equal to”, or “corresponding”, isn’t the implication behind these words similar to what the first creation narrative implies— that Adam and Eve were both made in God’s image?
Adam by himself was not complete. We can even assert that by himself, Adam wasn’t the full expression of the image of God.
Does this thought make your heart beat faster?
Stop and think about the women in your life. They are divine-image-bearers.
Have you affirmed this in them recently?
Have you told them the world wouldn’t be complete without them?
Are you empowering them to be fully who they are called to be?
My husband has been doing this for me. He does all the “house-and-kid” stuff after his job ends so I can write. He believes my life’s passion is important.
In Sarah Bessey's words, "In the early new light of Creation, God didn't set up a 'masculine' rule as his standard and plan for humanity. No, it was masculine and feminine, together, bearing the image of God." (Jesus Feminist)
Now that we have tackled “kenegdo”, let’s tackle “ezer”. This is the word which has been translated as “helper”.
Ever wonder who coined the complete term “helpmeet”? It was a poet named John Dryden (1631-1700). He decided to hyphenate “help” and “meet” into “help-meet” so as to describe his wife in a poem. Interesting, right?
Before I get into what “ezer” means, I’d like to ask: If someone helps you, does that make them subordinate to you?
In fact, what words would you use to describe a “helper” who is also subordinate? The terms “slave” and “servant” come to mind...
The word “ezer” is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament.
Blogger Rachel Held Evans, explained that “ezer” was used, “[...] twice in reference to the first woman, three times in reference to nations to whom Israel appealed for military support, and sixteen times in reference to God as the helper of Israel.” Read more here.
Wait. Military support? God-as-helper? These uses of “ezer” certainly don’t connote subordination.
Check these verses out. I have highlighted “ezer” in bold.
But you, God, see the trouble of the afflicted;
you consider their grief and take it in hand.
The victims commit themselves to you;
you are the helper of the fatherless.
-Psalm 10: 14
But as for me, I am poor and needy;
come quickly to me, O God.
You are my help and my deliverer;
Lord, do not delay.
Blessed are you, Israel!
Who is like you,
a people saved by the Lord?
He is your shield and helper
and your glorious sword.
Your enemies will cower before you,
and you will tread on their heights.”
God-as-helper, desperately needed, warrior-on-our-behalf, companion-by-our-side, rescuer...
Sit with these meanings for a bit.
The fact that God is an “ezer” for God’s people has been life-changing for me.
If I am an “ezer”, then I am a warrior.
This is so very different from what I previously believed. It means first of all, in marriage, that I ought to be working alongside my husband in everything.
In the larger sphere of society, this means that I ought to be bringing my whole self, all my gifts and talents, to the table, for the good of the world.
This means women should not in any way be valued as less than men.
Women ought to be compensated equally as much as men, and their word should be seen as equally authoritative to that of men. If a woman holds a title, she ought to be addressed by that title, just as men are.
If I am an “ezer kenegdo”, then I am a perfectly suitable warrior, fit to fight beside man- needed, necessary, valuable, capable, powerful and compassionate, bringer-of-aid, rescuer.
Sarah Bessey writes:
If a woman is held back, minimized, pushed down, or downplayed, she is not walking in the fullness God intended for her as his image bearer, as his ezer warrior. If we minimize our gifts, hush our voice, and stay small in a misguided attempt to fit a weak and culturally conditioned standard of femininity, we cannot give our brothers the partner they require in God's mission for the world.
Godself is in fact an Ezer to God’s people.
Before I go any further, I’d like to say I believe men and women alike demonstrate various facets of God’s image; I do not think these bearers of the “imago dei” should be categorized or delineated by gender (as in, "only women are compassionate" and "only men are loud").
Where does the idea that Eve was to be subordinate to Adam come from, then?
The short answer?
In my opinion, it comes from the pronouncements of “The Fall”.
Whether you see “The Fall” as metaphorical or literal, you can see it resulted in the “goodness” of everything God had brought forth getting mussed up.
After The Fall, a “curse” was pronounced on the man, the woman, creation and the serpent. The idea of “curse” implies that things were going to be very different from how they had been previously.
The “curse” for the woman reads:
“Your desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16
The subordination of woman, then, in my opinion, was a result of the fall, of humanity’s brokenness, of its “having gone wrong”.
This subordination of woman to man has not exactly born good fruit.
Take a moment to review these stats: https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures.
Need a Kleenex?
I love that God isn’t interested in leaving the world hopeless and fallen. God is about restoration and rescue. God is our ezer.
As my pastor often says, to loosely paraphrase, “God is going to get everything God wants”:
“He [God] will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” Rev. 21:14
What do you think we should be about, friends?
The fall, or “God getting everything God wants”?
Subjugation, or restoration?
Ultimately, we could haggle over words and meanings forever. For every argument one way, there is an equal argument another.
I would say most Christians, regardless of what their view of the meaning of “helpmeet” is, would agree that women are equally imbued with God’s image and should be treated with respect.
Most would agree that women can have careers or pursue higher education.
The difference in perspective, though, is highlighted when we look at the ultimate, highest purpose of “woman”.
Is “woman” fulfilled when she is subordinated to a man, acting as his helper?
Or, is “woman” an equal counterpart to “man”, a fellow image bearer, an important contributor to all the work which needs accomplishing in this world?
Can woman be fulfilled and effective without a man in her life? (A resounding yes! from me...)
Is woman a warrior armed for battle you’d be lucky to have fighting by your side?
"And men, what a gift for you! What a revelation! A man does not need to deny a woman's identity as a beloved and unique warrior in Christ out of misplaced fear or insecurity or a hunger for power. Let's praise God together for this truth. Sons, brothers, husbands, friends, can you imagine? God knew that it was not good for you to be alone, and he gave you your best ally." (Sarah Bessey, Jesus Feminist)
Does woman have valuable insight, wisdom, leadership and skills to contribute to this world? Absolutely!
I urge you to take some time to consider the implications of each of these points of view.
I love how Rachel Held Evans described male-female equality, and how she came to a more feminist viewpoint not by reading feminist literature, but by reading the Bible: https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/accidental-feminist.
"Most of all, if these critics knew me, they would know that it isn't feminism that inspires me to advocate gender equality in the Church and in the world; it is the gospel of Jesus Christ."
I feel the same way.
In this article, Rachel Held Evans mentioned the term “patriarchy”.
Remember my comparison at the beginning of this post of the Yanomamo and Bolivian cultural treatment of women to the treatment of women in the Bible? The word often used to describe this treatment is “patriarchy”.
Patriarchy is another plausible reason some of the Bible seems to be placing women "beneath" men.
I am excited to dig into this thought more in next week's post.
Meanwhile, I love hearing your thoughts! Thanks again to all of you who have followed my Facebook page, leaving comments there as well as on the blog. Your stories and thoughts mean so much.
“All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.”
Martin Luther King Jr.
It’s an ancient but well-known tale: the people were building a great tower. Working together, they were unstoppable. It was all so very glorious.
Then, someone went and fixed their vocal chords, and their speech came out all gobbledy-goo. Not being able to understand one another, they fought.
The vision lost, the goal garbled, all work ceased.
Oppressed, downtrodden, hurting people of this world have something to say; they have vision.
United, shoulder-to-shoulder, they would be an unstoppable force.
Stir them up, turn them against each other, and you’ve gone and shattered the beautiful Vase of Solidarity, rendering it unusable.
I love how Martin Luther King put it: “Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be…”.
Herein lies the intersection of faith and feminism: Faith says, “Love one another.” Feminism says, “Women ought to have dignity, rights, responsibilities and glories equal to men.” (See Sarah Bessey’s description of feminism in Part 1.)
Combine “love one another” with “treat women as equals” and you will create a potent elixir capable of bringing both healing and empowerment to “50% of the population”.
What do we women need healing from, you ask?
In reply, I shout, “SO MUCH!”.
And wrapped around the “SO MUCH”, I believe, is a thick saran-wrap called “Shame”. Without addressing this shame, I believe, we will never be truly free.
Research professor Brene Brown has spent decades studying shame (along with empathy, vulnerability and courage). In an interview on a website called “The Mothers Movement Online” , Brene Brown describes it in this way:
“Shame is the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing we are flawed and therefore unworthy of acceptance and belonging. Women often experience shame when they are entangled in a web of layered, conflicting and competing social-community expectations. Shame leaves women feeling trapped, powerless and isolated.”
For this reason, I would like to begin Part 2 of my faith and feminism series with a conversation about womanhood and shame and the power of love to heal.
There is always this danger of saying, “I am a feminist” and then isolating all women who don’t fit into our definition of “feminist”.
I get this. I’ve been there.
I wonder if we do this to each other because deep down we worry we have gotten some things “wrong”. Seeing someone making different life choices than us can make us feel shame, deep down in our bellies.
And guess what, friend? Shame moves us away from one another.
In Part 1, I described a feeling of being trapped by divergent “views” about marriage, motherhood and womanhood.
Instead of life feeling open, free and good, it felt constraining and frustrating. Can you relate?
Brene Brown actually talks about this feeling of being trapped, and explains its relationship to shame.
She says that many women experience a “trapped” feeling because, “There are hundreds of expectations, but very few realistic options for meeting those expectations available to us.”
For example, many mothers are faced with the following choice: "Build a career and place your children in childcare" or "Stay at home and lose money, time, and necessary resources to pursue a career".
(As an aside, I have witnessed so many amazing mothers coming up with creative solutions, refusing to be bullied by either/or options, and fighting for what is best for both themselves and their children.)
If, instead of pointing judgmental fingers at each other, we could step back and look at the problem of expectations-versus-options, we may just see a path through, a way to empower women.
Furthermore, a willingness to listen to other women’s stories would give us empathy.
Empathy, according to Brene Brown, is the polar opposite of shame.
What if, dear friends, we embraced a broad definition of feminism: “treat men and women equally,” and refused to hold up as unequivocally true other descriptors of what a feminist is or should look like?
What if we simultaneously embraced this motto: “love one another”?
For instance (and please forgive the generalizations):
As women, as human beings, our similarities far outweigh our differences. It is time for us to build solidarity. There is too much at stake not to.
If we as “feminists-of-faith” are a movement towards equality, we should not be guilty of isolating anyone.
Are you a woman who has experienced shame?
Have you felt trapped or guilty about simply trying to do what is best for yourself or your family?
How about the men out there, striving together through life with us? Any insight? Thoughts?
Last week, I promised to delve into the topics of sexual freedom, patriarchy in the Bible, the term “helpmeet”, and why it is important to give women equal leadership opportunities in the church.
I am so passionate about these topics, and am thrilled to share what I have learned with you.
As I’ve been researching, thinking and writing, however, I see these topics are juicy enough to take up several more blog posts (I wrote 15 pages this week alone).
I’m absolutely keeping my promise to address all these issues, and I can guarantee there will be one post every week, by Friday...
But would you hang in there with me over the course of the next few weeks to address all the issues I mentioned? There’s just so much proverbial ground to cover.
I appreciate you! Please do comment here or on my Facebook page. I'd love to hear from you.
And now, without further ado, let’s dive in.
On Marriage: Are We “Equal, yet Different” or “Equal”?
I’m not certain who began the narrative, or how it spread throughout the female population of our small church, but it went something like this: There was this gorgeous woman in a neighboring city whose husband was both verbally abusive and an alcoholic.
This woman almost left her husband, but in the darkening hours chose instead to do the “godly” thing and remain by his side, submissive and prayerful.
And, wait for it... because of her godliness, this woman’s husband became a believer, turned his life around 180.
You can imagine how this sounded to my young, “new-mother” ears. You can also imagine the feelings of horror it elicited in me. And yet…
Around the time this story was floating around, alighting on humble hungry ears, someone handed me “the best marriage book they had ever read”: Created to Be His Help Meet by Debi Pearl.
About the book, author Debi Pearl herself says, “[...] I want you to know that it is possible today to have a marriage so good and so fulfilling that it can only be explained as a miracle.”
I devoured this book, as always an avid and hungry learner. And though many of Pearl’s words made me feel ill, I could not pinpoint why.
She used verses and scriptures I had trouble arguing with.
If you’ve only ever been given one “narrative” for what scripture means, and you have simultaneously been told it is the simplest, most literal reading (whilst also being cautioned about your deceitful heart), it is very hard to think critically.
While I didn’t follow all of Pearl’s advice, her point of view about marital submission became mine, as did her view on the wife’s sexual role in marriage (more on that in a later post).
To sum up Pearl’s view on the woman’s marital role:
“If you are a wife, you were created to fill a need, and in that capacity you are a ‘good thing,’ a helper suited to the needs of a man. This is how God created you and it is your purpose for existing. You are, by nature, equipped in every way to be your man’s helper. You are inferior to none as long as you function within your created nature, for no man can do your job, and no man is complete without his wife. You were created to make him complete, not to seek personal fulfillment parallel to him.”
We will dig into the meaning of “helpmeet” later.
For now, I’d like to focus on this strong dichotomy between a husband’s role a wife’s role in marriage.
Remember how, in Part 1, I shared that I protected my “domain” from my husband? Yep, this is why.
Mrs. Pearl clearly states, “[...] no man can do your job.”
Furthermore, Pearl taught me that as a wife, I was created “to make him [my spouse] complete”.
Summed up, my life was to be about fulfilling a specific role only I could fill.
Furthermore, my purpose was eclipsed in completing my husband, and not in seeking any personal fulfillment.
How the "equal-yet-different" view affected my marriage...
Do you know what the fruit of this viewpoint was in my marriage?
I dropped my own desires and dreams in favor of “completing” my husband.
In losing much of my autonomy, I eagerly grasped at the little bit of power afforded to me by becoming the sole manager of my domain: the house and the children.
I felt ashamed about this, but I often swallowed bitterness and anger at having to take care of all the cooking and cleaning.
As the years passed, my husband and I found ourselves settling into this way of "doing marriage".
Changing my mind
I remember vividly when, one day, my husband, frustrated, pointed out to me that the pet passage for “separate-male-and-female-roles-in-marriage” opened with the statement: “Submit to one another” (Eph 5:21a).
Submit to one another...
I sat with this for quite a while.
It was the beginning of many “aha” moments for me about marriage.
I pondered why so many preachers focused on the woman’s job to “submit to her husband”, when it was clear from this passage that husbands and wives ought to be “submitting to one another”.
What did it mean for a husband and a wife to submit to each other?
This was a radical departure from everything I had thought up to this point; it was the seed which grew radical change in my marriage, change for the better.
Before I get into specifics, here are a few thoughts:
Here are some websites which discuss the two views of marriage. Some of them take a neutral stance, while others lean towards a certain conclusion:
And now, back to my new, “radical”, conclusions about mutual submission and how they changed my marriage (for the better).
Marriage Equality For the Win!
When I believed I had to submit, I appointed my husband as the final decision-maker in our home. It is stressful for a man to be “stuck” with making all the decisions himself.
Really, how can we say that a man, simply by nature of his male-ness, is all-knowing and all-discerning?
It was nice for my husband to know that I was standing beside him to face life, and not behind him.
As my husband and I navigated the new landscape of mutuality, we had more conversations than we had ever had. I learned that in some areas, I knew better what would be the right move to take, while in others he did.
Our conversations and debates sharpened each other, and, ironically, brought us both into more humility, mutual respect and admiration.
When we were doing marriage by playing out each of our "roles", I hadn’t realized how much I suppressed my own desires and dreams.
The more I awakened, the more I began exploring my own interests; I became much happier and more fulfilled.
Prior to this, I often looked to my husband to affirm me. After all, what else did I have? Submitting, meeting his needs, that was my job.
What a load off my husband’s shoulders when I found my own satisfaction and vision.
And what husband would not desire for his wife to feel capable and satisfied?
Stepping out of claiming any “dominion” over the house and kids also did wonderful things for our marriage.
First off, I used to denigrate housework as “woman’s work”.
Yet, isn’t all work around the house necessary and good? (Not to mention, since when did we begin qualifying work as work by whether or not we make money doing it?)
Oddly, seeing my husband cleaning the house and cooking elevated "house-care" and affirmed it as good work.
Secondly, my husband began to cultivate his own unique relationship with our children as he partnered with me in caring for them.
No one is perfect, and I have areas of weakness as a mother.
Disallowing my husband from comforting the children and meeting their needs was shortchanging them: how they have benefited from my husband’s nurturing style!
He has gifts and skills I do not, and vice versa.
Last but not least, I gained freedom to pursue my own business ideas and higher education opportunities. This made me a better mother.
My view of myself changed: I was not “just a mom” or “just a home-educator”, I was a smart, talented and creative woman.
I began to treat homeschooling as the job it is. This has greatly benefited my children.
Beauty in Equality and Covenant Relationship...
My pastor shared last Sunday an amazing vision for marriage as a covenant relationship: both parties enter said covenant agreeing to grow and learn and be affected by one another.
(A little hint about what I think of women's roles in the church: my pastor is a woman; I have learned so much from her...)
How often do we realize that God chose to enter a covenant relationship with us, "the bride"?
And because of God’s relationship with us, God is affected by our joys and sorrows, our celebrations and our pain?
In her book, Jesus Feminist, Sarah Bessey says this about marriage:
“[...] if our marriages can give some small and imperfect glimpse of the Kingdom of God in action, warriors fighting in distinct unity, then we need to dance, in and around and with each other, in intimacy and mutual submission.”
Wait, did she just call men and women, “Warriors fighting in distinct unity”?!
Single friends reading this: I promise, this entire discussion has to do with you, too. I know single women are often marginalized, especially in faith circles.
Dear one, you are just as important as the rest of womankind. The world needs you. We’re going to crack that powerful notion open.
Men reading this--we need you on our side, respecting us, fighting with us for equality in marriage and in the church and in the world.
So what does it mean for a woman to be a "warrior" fighting alongside men?
Let's continue the discussion next week.
Stay tuned for a post by next Friday, August 30...
If you haven't already, be sure and follow me on Facebook or subscribe to my RSS feed (on the right-hand side of my blog feed) to be notified of new posts.
A warm thank you to everyone who commented on my first post: your thoughts were super insightful and a blessing.
I vividly recall my high school graduation. It was held at a church, and I was graduating alongside a dozen or so fellow homeschoolers. The pastor of the church was doling out honorary awards to each graduate based on our “character qualities”.
When it was my turn to receive an award, the pastor announced I would be receiving the “Future Homemaker of the Year” award.
“Really?!” I thought to myself. “Is that really all anyone sees in me?!”
I was college-bound. Everyone knew that. I was planning to major in education and become a teacher; I most definitely wasn’t going to college to “shop” for a husband.
When I look back over my life so far, this moment of angst at being labeled “homemaker” and the subsequent feeling of invisibility I experienced demonstrated my early feminist leanings.
“Feminist,” of course, is merely a label. It can mean different things to different people, so for the sake of this article, I will begin by sharing my definition of feminism.
A few years ago, I began to think about what it meant for me to be a woman moving through this world. Sarah Bessey’s book Jesus Feminist was pivotal.
Indeed, I cried my way through the book.
I felt she was speaking words of hope into my ear while rubbing balm on a soul I hadn’t even realized was wounded.
Sarah Bessey defines feminism in this way: “At the core, feminism simply consists of the radical notion that women are people, too. Feminism only means we champion the dignity, rights, responsibilities, and glories of women as equal in importance— no greater than, but certainly not less than— to those of men, and we refuse discrimination against women" (Jesus Feminist).
Similar to Bessey's definition, for me, feminism means that:
I believe women should be given equal opportunities as men in every sector of life, whether religious, political or economic.
I believe women should be free to live their lives as they choose and should have power over their own bodies.
I believe women and men should be equal partners in marriage, submitting to one another.
Five years ago, if you would have asked me to read Bessey’s description of “feminism”, I would have told you I agreed with it. I would have said I believed women were equal to men, they just had different roles in marriage and in the church.
I would also have warned you the word “feminism” should not be used to describe an ideal of female/male equality because, in my imagination, a feminist was a man-hater who believed women should abort their babies; the feminist also hated those women who stayed home with their kids or homeschooled.
I see now that labeling “feminists” and “feminism” as dangerous was keeping me from exploring what feminism actually was. It was keeping me from asking hard questions about my life as a woman, my marriage and even whether or not I was understanding the Bible correctly.
As I mentioned earlier, when I finally opened myself up to exploring male/female equality, deep wounds and a great deal of withheld bitterness were revealed in my heart.
Before I get into my story, however, I’d like to take a few moments to “myth-bust” the idea that feminists are man-haters or that “feminism” means you can’t be what you want to be (even a stay-at-home, homeschooling mother).
Feminism includes a broad spectrum of viewpoints and ideas; you don’t have to espouse all the ideals of feminism in order to embrace gender-equality.
A brief history of feminism
Long before there were “waves” of feminism in our society, there were many people who had feminist ideals. Plato believed women had the same “natural capacities” as men. Throughout the years that followed, there were many female writers who espoused this belief.
It wasn’t until 1848 that feminism became an organized movement with a clear goal.
This era, from 1848 until 1920, has been labeled “first-wave” feminism.
The women who were involved in this movement were mostly white, middle-class women. Many of them were women of faith.
Incidentally, these early feminists worked side by side with Frederick Douglass and were outspoken against slavery.
First-wave feminists focused on women’s suffrage. They also called for women to be allowed an education and equal roles in the church. They pushed for women to be allowed to own property and keep their own paychecks.
One of the leaders of this movement, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, designed a "Declaration of Sentiments" expressing all the ways in which men were treating women unequally. I encourage you to read it here: https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/stantonsent.html.
When I learned about first-wave feminism, I was struck by a few things:
First, this was largely a faith movement.
Second, these women were fighting for equal rights for African Americans as well as women.
Thirdly, and finally, these women and their feminist movement are the reasons I have been able to vote and attend college.
Very few Christians would argue that these are evil objectives or that the result of these changes has somehow damaged women or the church.
First-wave feminism evolved into second-wave feminism during the 1960’s-80’s.
Whereas first-wave feminism had involved white middle-class women, second-wave feminism embraced the voices of African-American and Mexican-American women. Feminism also began spreading to other parts of the world.
Second-wave feminism included the ideals of radical feminism, which called for a restructuring of society in order to eliminate male supremacy.
New ideas and rationalizations for equality also came to the fore during this time. A few notions which came out of second-wave feminism were that women shouldn’t consider “male” characteristics to be an ideal and that women shouldn’t believe they could only find fulfillment through child-rearing and homemaking.
I wonder if some of these notions felt threatening to Christians since they believed that in marriage, women ought to be submissive to their husbands.
As a young woman, I heard sermons purporting that when Paul said “women will be saved through childbearing”, he was lifting up being a married mother as the highest ideal. It was pervasive in my Christian culture that girls ought to want to be married and have children.
These “Christian” ways of thinking damaged me in many ways, which I will expound upon later.
I wonder if in our embracing of a “Christian” subculture, a “Christian” way of doing womanhood, we have forgotten the stories of women in the Bible like Deborah, Rahab and Lydia who did much good in this world quite apart from childbearing or marriage.
Beginning in the 1990’s, a new wave of feminism evolved, known as “third-wave” feminism. This third-wave focused on getting rid of stereotypes based on gender-roles and including all classes, cultures and races of women.
Again, I can see where some Christians have felt threatened by this third-wave. If you believe God created certain roles for men and other roles for women, then the desire to eliminate gender-roles will fly in the face of what you believe is right and God-ordered.
I have often heard it said that men and women are equal yet different, meaning they have different jobs and duties. I used to embrace this view.
Unfortunately, the "equal yet different" view was deeply damaging to my marriage (more on that later).
One question I have for those who hold this view is how can you say roles are equal if those roles are hierarchical in nature? Perhaps “separate but equal” is not the best label for this point of view.
There are a myriad of sub-types of feminism. I would encourage you to study them. Even if you don’t agree, leaning into views you have never heard is like allowing a doctor to take an x-ray; it can help you see things more clearly and notice areas of need.
A few of these sub-types are "anarcha", "radical", "liberal", "postcolonial and third-world" and "multiracial".
Here are three websites you can dig into to learn more about feminism:
My dad used to tell me I could be anything I wanted to be when I grew up, so I suppose it’s his fault my wrestling with what-it-means-to-be-a-woman would lead me to unabashedly call myself a “feminist”.
He used to tell me a woman could be president if she wanted to, of course she could, and encouraged me to dream big about my future.
At the same time, calling myself a “feminist” would have been frowned upon in the church I grew up in.
Though I was born in the United States, I spent most of my childhood in the Amazon Rainforest in Venezuela. My parents were missionaries to an indigenous people group known as the Yanomamo.
I spent much of my early childhood devouring books and playing outside, daydreaming I would be someone great one day.
I think my earliest dream-of-greatness was to be a pastor, but I had no vocabulary for that.
Acting on instinct alone, I would gather indigenous children, sit them down and teach them to sing “Jesus Loves Me” (in English; yes, I’m blushing).
I also used to boss my little brother around, setting him on one step of the steep stairs in my family home, and then standing at the top to deliver a sermon and lead him in worship.
As I grew older, I tried on many different “hats”, focusing on jobs which were acceptable for women in my social circle.
For a while, I wanted to be a nurse, until I shadowed my aunt, who was a nurse, and almost fainted at the sight of pus and blood when she lanced a boil.
I attended boarding school for a while, wrote for my school newspaper, and decided I wanted to be a journalist.
I took piano and imagined myself becoming a great pianist; I also landed the lead role in a school play and daydreamed about becoming a famous actress.
When I hit my teenage years, my parents moved to a small Venezuelan neighborhood and we experienced small-town Venezuela life.
I noticed the children in my neighborhood were bored after school, and I started a little backyard VBS for them. I loved teaching these children, and decided I wanted to be a teacher.
After graduating from high school, I attended a private Christian college.
During teacher training, I dreamed about teaching children overseas, or in low-income neighborhoods. I wanted to lead and inspire my students.
Although I did not go to college hoping to get married, upon arriving and making friends, I couldn’t help but notice how guy-focused many girls were; and yes, I’ll admit, quite a bit of that pixie dust fell on me.
We young women were training for various careers, but when I look into the past, I see that for many (though certainly not all) of us, catching a guy and getting married was of primary importance.
I can’t help but wonder how we might have been different had we been more concerned with what type of people we were trying to become than about which guys liked us. If I’m honest, we gave those young male friends of ours too much power by being so hyper-focused on marriage.
My senior year in college, I fell in love with a sweet guy who had become my best friend.
Then, I spent a summer crying over the fact.
Subconsciously, I faced a choice: career or marriage and kids.
I did not know at the time that this is what I was struggling with; now I do.
I wish I could go back to that young woman and tell her she didn’t have to make an either/or choice, that she could love with her whole heart, love well in fact, without losing herself.
Deciding to marry Ryan, though, was the best decision I ever made.
Yes, I wish I would have entered marriage with a feminist paradigm; it would have saved me a lot of heartache. Yet perhaps the best lessons are the ones learned experientially.
After we were married, Ryan and I moved near my parents and their church. It was our hope to eventually “do ministry” full-time.
Ryan had majored in theology, and when we married, it was with the understanding we both wanted to use our degrees to help people.
My dream of helping low-income students came true with a job teaching fifth grade in a low-income neighborhood. I taught for four years, until my oldest child, a son, was born.
Up until the birth of my son, I had been the primary wage earner for my family (my husband’s theology degree hadn’t helped him find work). But right when our son was born, my husband completed his nursing degree and landed a job.
Being immersed in a church culture which said the man must be the primary provider for his family, my husband had struggled with feelings of failure up until this point. I was so busy working, I didn’t feel any judgment, though folks were constantly asking us when we’d have kids.
It was a given for us, however, that when we had kids, I would become a stay-at-home mom. The reasons for this were complex.
Yes, some of the beliefs I began to embrace upon becoming a stay-at-home mom, which were rooted in my traditional Christianity, were deeply harmful to myself, my husband and my children.
Other reasons I had for staying home were quite progressive and feminist:
I chose to stay home so I could nurse my babies and practice attachment parenting.
I chose to stay home so I could be free from an employer and the terrible disillusionment and stress which had accompanied teaching (though I didn’t tell anyone this).
Throughout my years of staying home I also experimented with a variety of businesses and endeavors; I read all the time; I kept my own mind and opinions. I refused to let anyone dictate to me how to parent.
I realize now that even dreaming of being able to stay home with my kids was a symptom of white middle-class privilege: My husband and I both were able to earn college degrees. We had grown up in middle class families. We were able to work hard after school to pay off school loans, and by the time we had our first child, we owned a house and a car and were debt free.
Now, back to what I stated earlier about my traditional beliefs being harmful to myself, my marriage and my family.
One of the primary toxic beliefs I embraced at this point in our marriage was that my husband was the head of our household and it was my job to submit to him.
The fact that my husband earned our family’s only paycheck elevated him (in my mind) to a higher and more worthy status. I was just the “grateful”, “taken-care-of” wife.
I would like to point out here that my husband never liked the idea of being the “leader” or “head” of our home. He wanted us to make decisions together, as equal partners. Yet, over and over again, I took a backseat in decision-making and would not express all of my opinions.
In all honesty, I was being lazy. It was nice not to have to worry. My motto has always been, “don’t worry, be happy”.
Not only did I force my husband to make decisions by refusing to speak my mind, but I also embraced a damaging notion that my husband had sexual needs I was supposed to satisfy. I buried feelings of resentment, anger and hurt deep within, and lost all desire for intimacy.
My husband sensed this, and a cold rift began to grow between us.
I fell into a sort of slumber, a deadness to myself. For so many reasons, from my religious beliefs about submission to my own insecurities, I had decided I was “less" than my husband.
I also became so caught up in being supportive of my husband and “his” ministry, I did not seek out friendships for myself.
Life went on. We had two more beautiful children. We moved around, across the states and even overseas, to Bolivia. For a while, we were engaged in full-time “ministry” with a non-profit, which had always been a dream of ours.
Meanwhile, I decided to homeschool our children. Though there was pressure from my Christian subculture to protect my children from the “world”, I can say honestly I chose to homeschool for other reasons.
Like I said, strong opinions...
The chief reason I chose to homeschool was that I loved the art and science of learning and because I felt I could best nurture a love of learning in my children by keeping them out of the “school system”.
As a teacher, I had witnessed children who were “different” being bullied and lost in the system, which had bigger things to worry about (like getting “able” students to pass state tests so as not to lose funding).
Now looking back, I see that in so many ways I held on to my own opinions in spite of my beliefs about submission. I “steered the ship” in matters related to child rearing and homeschooling.
At the same time, I built walls around myself, strictly defining and carefully protecting my “role” as manager of our household. My husband was not welcome to take part in housecleaning, cooking, or even comforting the sorrowing toddler.
Deep down, I felt trapped. I longed to pursue my own interests and ministry opportunities. Every time another woman said “I could never stay home like you do” I was filled with anger.
I viewed staying home as a necessary duty: I was doing what was best for my children.
At heart, I am a passionate go-getter. I long to make a difference in this world. Furthermore, I had no plans of being a stay-at-home mom forever. Once my kids reached high school age, I planned to get back into the “work” world.
Can you see the tension I was struggling with here?
At heart, I believed women could be anything, do anything. Yet, I couldn’t let go of the notion I was supposed to be submissive to and supportive of a husband.
I was supposed to be a “helpmeet”, which meant enabling my husband to be everything God had called him to be.
I couldn’t help but think for myself, yet I was so wrapped up in my “role”, I often chose to bury my own desires.
As the years rolled along, I became an expert on all aspects of my “domain”, but I could not justify pursuing any other realm for myself: friendship, career, etc.
And sometimes it’s easier to hide behind “submission” than to face the hard decisions and dilemmas this life throws at us.
I’ll be honest and say I had grown lazy, though being a stay-at-home mom is no cushy life of ease, especially if you struggle with guilt for not earning a paycheck, as I did, and don’t allow your husband to help with any “mom” tasks.
Deep down, I was empty, lonely, sad and trapped. I was growing angry and bitter. I did not enjoy life as I had when I was young. I was losing myself.
A few things woke me up and made me start to question my beliefs.
One was looking at myself through my children’s eyes.
What message was I giving them about womanhood? If I, like my dad before me, encouraged my daughters they could be anything they wanted, but then I myself wasn’t pursuing anything, what was I really teaching them?
Another thing that made me open up and start thinking about what it means to be a woman was choosing not to spank my children.
If I had come to believe the Bible did not actually tell me to spank, but instead pointed towards a redemptive form of parenting that involved love and grace and relationship, then could I be reading other things wrong? Was that why I was so miserable?
Finally, my lack of sexual desire, in fact, my anger and resentment towards my husband, scared me.
I picked up Sarah Bessey’s book and read it. I bought secular books about sex and desire, books which had a feminist bent. I pondered the way I had always thought about the Bible.
My who-a-woman-should-be paradigm was beginning to shift. It was uncomfortable, it was scary, but I was cracking the world-of-womanhood open like an egg. Suddenly, there was this succulent, runny, wet and wild goo of possibility, and I was swimming in it.
How about you, friend? Whether you are a man or a woman, have you experienced a paradigm shift such as the one I have been describing? If so, what were your feelings and how were you set free?
I'm not done yet!
Come back next week for Part 2, where I will be exploring sexual freedom, patriarchy in the Bible, a new way of looking at the term "helpmeet" and why it is important for women to be allowed equal leadership opportunities in the church.
We as writers understand how much words matter.
For example, there is a difference between calling people “invaders” and calling them “refugees”.
Pause for a moment and reflect upon the term “invader”. What words come to mind when you hear this term?
Now, do the same with the term “refugee”.
Buried somewhere beneath all the rhetoric, news reports and politics are flesh and blood people; the people who are having heated debates on the one hand, and the people who are being argued over on the other.
I wonder if we could pause amidst all the squabbling and squawking to ask why there are so many children — without grown-ups or caretakers— showing up in our detention centers.
So far this year, 56,278 unaccompanied children have come running into our country.
I can’t help but ask, “Where are these children coming from, and why are they here?”
Before I share what I have learned, I would like to note that many of these children are fleeing with an adult who is not a parent. The adult and child are separated once they are apprehended coming across the border.
Where are these children coming from? Why are they here?
There is a segment of Central America known as the Northern Triangle. This segment includes the countries El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Many of the people “caught” trying to cross the border into our country are from this part of the world.
One of the main reasons children are fleeing these Central American countries is because of increased violence towards women and children, including kidnapping, murder, rape and torture. Here is a very informative article: "Fleeing For Our Lives: Central American Migrant Crisis".
If your daughter were nearing puberty, and you saw the “writing on the wall”, the “ticking clock” to impending horror, would you not do everything in your power to protect her, including fleeing to another country and seeking asylum?
As an aside, these folks are not just fleeing to the United States but also to neighboring countries. They are desperate.
Other reasons children are fleeing are that they are targets of human trafficking, or because they are being recruited into gangs.
Can we really call these little ones “invaders”, friends?
Imagine a child showing up on your doorstep today, alone, cold and hungry. Would you really slam the door in that child’s face, trembling with terror, then begin to rant and rave about your own limited resources and this child’s desire to “take advantage” of you? Would you not help this child?
The only "side" we should be taking is the side of the victim...
My dear friends, do we not pay taxes to our government in the hopes our government will use our money well?
Do we truly want our government to be “threatened” by refugees, mostly children, seeking asylum? Are we okay with the negative rhetoric being used to describe these suffering citizens-of-Planet-Earth?
Would we like for our government (which is, after all, “of the people, by the people, for the people”) to swivel from a defensive posture to a more welcoming, prepared posture?
Do we want our government to place these least little ones in detention centers and treat them as though they are common criminals? Wouldn’t we like for our government to better use our tax dollars in addressing this humanitarian crisis?
Perhaps refugees aren’t on your mind. Perhaps they are not a priority for you. Perhaps your mind is currently flooding with all the “in-house” needs our country would be neglecting if it used our tax dollars for immigrants and asylum-seekers.
I would like to point out one more fact.
In 1992 the United States ratified a United Nations covenant entitled the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, or ICCPR for short.
Among other things, this covenant grants children certain rights, including “the right to security of person” and “the right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
When our country places children fleeing inhuman, degrading, and cruel circumstances into detention camps for extended periods of time rather than welcoming and caring for them, it is not keeping its agreement to uphold their basic rights.
If we can agree on anything, let’s agree that the United States can do better.
Let’s call our representatives and let them know what we’d like to see happen (and what we are unhappy about). If you are unsure who to call or what to say, click here for helpful information.
Let’s either volunteer or give money to organizations currently assisting these refugees.
Here are some organizations you can give through: Ciudad Nueva, Border Perspective, SEEK, RAICES, and World Relief. While these organizations were recommended to me by a party I trust, as always, do your research before giving.
Let’s refuse to use asylum seekers and refugees as ammunition for our political canons.
Let’s research, taking some time to think for ourselves about the situation, rather than gulping down spoonfuls of whatever our favorite people are saying about the situation along the border.
Finally, and most importantly, let’s refuse to use words that harm, and instead embrace words that heal.
Have you ever found a poem you wish you could adopt as your mouthpiece?
I am taking a free poetry class on Coursera called Modern & Contemporary American Poetry.
Recently, we studied Emily Dickinson's poem, "The Brain within its Groove".
I could not help but see the parallel between this poem and my life.
This is something I love about poetry: it makes you think.
The brain within its groove
Runs evenly and true;
But let a splinter swerve,
'T were easier for you
To put the water back
When floods have slit the hills,
And scooped a turnpike for themselves,
And blotted out the mills!
For most of my life, I lived within a rigid personal belief system.
I hated paradox of any sort.
If I spotted paradox, in fact, I quickly reconstructed it to fit into my "dualistic" paradigm.
Many years ago, a dear friend came to me with a personal story which ripped a hole in the walls of my belief system.
The story didn't fit into any of the boxes I had carefully labeled and filed away.
It forced me to open those boxes, dump them out and reexamine their contents.
That ol' splinter Emily mentions, well, it swerved me, derailing my thundering belief-train.
While I kept some of that content, I never rebuilt "the system", for I saw that if I was being completely honest, those boxes had always contained certain paradoxes and mysteries which could neither be labeled nor systematized.
Not only that, but this beautifully messy disorienting content was what gave my faith a heartbeat.
Just as Miss Dickinson suggests, once a splinter swerves the brain out of its groove, it would be easier to return a newly raging and rampaging river to its original placid path than to return the brain to its groove.
Once my mind had opened, I could not turn back to my old thinking.
The question remains, in Dickinson's poem, whether it is good or bad for a splinter to swerve the brain.
For me, it has been only good.
I run toward and embrace paradox and mystery.
After all, what joy is there in knowing everything that can be known?
A few months ago, I committed to writing one poem a day.
I am honestly terrible at keeping commitments, but the older I get, the more I see how a little self-discipline does me good.
Plus, I am pursuing writing as a career, and the only way to be a professional writer is to actually write, write and write some more.
I began sharing my poetry on Instagram daily. I gathered a small following.
And I wrote a poem through the proverbial thick and thin: at times around eleven pm and at other times from my perch in a hard-backed chair in my son's hospital room.
I stuffed an unlined notebook in my purse and pulled it out to scribble on anytime a thought, observation or idea assaulted me.
I was ever so faithful to my resolution.
Then, a few day ago, I was fed up, and it wasn't with my writing.
It was with this ridiculous tic I had developed: tapping the Instagram app on my phone every hour to see how many "likes" I had gotten on my newest poem.
Sometimes, I'd write a poem I loved, and it wouldn't garnish much attention. I'd wonder what was wrong with the poem.
Maybe I wasn't meant to write poetry?
At this juncture, in a move I never predicted, I broke up with my commitment to write one poem every day.
My reservoir, from whence had flown ideas and thoughts, well, it seemed to have dried up.
At around one o'clock a few mornings later, I was tossing and turning, wide awake in bed.
Why wasn't I writing?
Then I remembered something I'd read in Mary Oliver's book, A Poetry Handbook:
Various ambitions--to complete the poem,to see it in print,
to enjoy the gratification of someone's comment about it--
serve in some measure as incentives to the writer's work.
Though each of these is reasonable, each is a threat to that
other ambition of the poet, which is to write as well as Keats,
or Yeats, or Williams---...
I remembered this, and I knew why I couldn't write: I had lost focus.
My one-a-day poetry writing challenge was never about harvesting likes.
No, my foray into social media was about becoming a better writer and stepping "out there", being vulnerable!
I had become distracted by the pull of virtual accolades.
This realization was healing water, and it cleansed my creative spirit.
I woke the next morning refreshed...and promptly penned another poem.
Hey, you. I'm glad you dropped by...
I'm a busy mom of three asking hard questions about my faith.