Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., has died at age 77.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Majoring in homemaking
“Men make decisions; women make dinner” — a reporter’s summary of the philosophy behind the homemaking program at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dorothy Patterson, Professor of Theology in Women’s Studies, calls the summary “ludicrous” and gives another based on her own marriage: “I am his helper, and he is the leader in our home.”
Women pursuing a B.A. in humanities may choose a homemaking concentration, devoting 21 of 129 credit hours to homemaking courses. The concentration is one of four, and its eight students still have to take classes in Bible, theology, Greek or Latin, and history. The students will also use cooking and laundry labs to learn about nutrition, clothing design and clothing care. Patterson told WoW the classes affirm “the value of a homemaker,” but they also impart useful skills to missionaries or to women who never learned how to run a home.
Patterson said when God created Adam first, He decided “the man would be the leader in the home and the one who has that ultimate responsibility, and the woman would be the one who helps him in the task.” Patterson said this doesn’t imply inferiority: “It takes initiative to be a helper. It takes commitment to be a helper. I think it takes intelligence to be a helper.”
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, author of Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality, told WoW that while both men and women should know how to manage a home, “homemaking is not an academic discipline.” Groothuis said she disagrees with the “ideology of gender inequality” behind the program: “Jesus commended Mary for her zeal to learn God’s Word and did not urge her to become more domestic. But Jesus did make sure that Martha understood theology.”
Patterson said the woman was “created in the image of God, like the man,” but she has “a function distinct from the man.” Groothuis said if women’s purpose is to serve men and men have decision-making authority over women, then it “logically entails that women are not equal but are necessarily and intrinsically inferior to men.”
back to top103 Comments to “Majoring in homemaking”
I guess no one wants to touch this one.
We had Home Ec as a course in high school. I really would advocate young people take that course or one similar. Young men today spend far more time as single bachelors than did men in earlier decades. Knowing how to plan for and prepare good meals (and perhaps bringing a date over for a late lunch or early dinner) can only be a good “selling point”.
Culinary competence in a properly outfitted kitchen will probably impress far more folks than being able to select the right year of Dom Perignon or some other gastronomical show offy-ness.
So I’m for home ec for men and women. I’m also in favor of a good wood shop class or two for guys and gals but we’ll save that for another thread!
Report comment to moderator
“Separate but equal” is a colloquial phrase ridiculed for good reason. I am, personally, baffled by the idea of a Christian woman (or a woman engaging any of the three great monotheisms).
Why embrace a theology (or any other set of ideas) that makes a nonsensical claim to one’s perpetual second-class nature?
Report comment to moderator
Taking care of a home and raising children in the fear of the Lord is NOT a second-class venture, Adam.
Report comment to moderator
If the class only encourages a woman to be in the home and discourages her from being all she can be, I would have to question it. I do believe, however, that it is difficult for there to be two leaders in any area of our lives. Someone has to take the ultimate place of leadership in those few places where a consensus cannot be reached. I believe that task is given to the husband in the scriptures. Any wise husband will encourage his wife in her relationship with the Lord, in her learning the scriptures and in using all her gifts and talents. Any wise husband will also do as scripture says and love his wife as Christ loved his people and became a servent, sacrificing to the point of death. Any wife who sees her husband willing to sacrifice to that point, is not going to mind being beneath his leadership. It is difficult to put this in as short a form as we need to here.
As far as Home Economics, my son-in-law teaches in this field, which is called under various new names, such as Consumer and Family Science etc. All young people should know basic survival skills in the kitchen and home. Some will take it beyond that to be experts in the kitchen and home. Many fabulous chefs are men. Each couple can decide who will do what in their own home. Many men love to cook. My son-in-law does much of it himself, just because of the timing of his job, which gets him home earlier than his wife. They both cook together often. I do not believe God has only called us all to live as if we are still in the fifties. Today we do have many options and as long as couples are looking to the Lord for wisdom, not neglecting their children, each other or the Lord, we should respect that.
Report comment to moderator
Suppose a man applies for the homemaking program at this school. Aside from possibly calling him names such as wimp or fairy and the like, would they accept him?
Would this become a federal case?
I am very poor at homemaking skills. However, I am not very good at traditional “masculine” skills either. I would suspect that a mature person (which I am not) would have competence in both, whether they are male or female, and avoid being either defensive or unseemly prideful in regard to either.
I will encourage my granddaughter to develop her skills in both conventional “female” areas and in masculine areas as well as she feels an interest and motivation.
At the moment, at three years of age, she is learning to cook and she is fairly certain she will either be a fire chief or a railroad engineer.
Fine with me.
Report comment to moderator
I loved the phrase in My Big Fat Greek Wedding where the mom said that the man is the head, but the woman is the neck. She turns the head any way she wishes.
My interest in God came by observing the harmony of the sexes in nature. I spent much of my teen years hiking and observing nature. I noticed the female ducks swimming slightly behind the male duck. I watched mares running slightly behind stallions. The offspring were always the same kind. Oak trees making more oak trees. Such an order and harmony in nature. Could such harmony be the result of chaos or was there a purpose to it all?
There is a natural beauty in a man and woman being a man and a woman. Marriage is a dance of initiation and response. While our lives can get hectic and chaotic, on those occasions when my wife is clearly the woman and I am clearly the man, there is a primordial peace of divine union. Scoffers can mock all they want at the very fabric of things. Wisdom continues to whisper to them, but they chose not to hear. There is nothing more beautiful than men and women functioning as God intended. There is nothing second class about either role.
PS – this has nothing to do with who is responsible for domestic chores. I envy a friend of mine who married a doctor, so he gets to stay home and “man” the house.
Report comment to moderator
OUTKAST:
I never said they were. The second-class nature of the female existence in Christianity lies in her servant role to men and her subservience to men. If you really need scriptural reference I will be happy to provide.
KI:
Two questions:
1 – Why must there be a position of ultimate leadership?
2 – Why are men suited to this more than women? (Are all men more capable of leadership than all women?)
XION:
Did you marvel, also, at the female mantis beheading the male after copulation?
Let us not hide reality behind trite jokes and cheap velvet paintings of nature.
Report comment to moderator
I know a guy who got a degree in engineering. He worked while his wife went to school for her masters in computer language as well as having two children. When she graduated, she got a job making much more than him. He then quit, stayed at home, took care of the kids and continued going to school to earn his masters in engineering.
Both his parents and her parents complained bitterly. They felt a man should not be at home taking care of the children while the woman worked. I have never seen a couple that treated each other with more respect. It seemed the first thing out of his or her mouth was, “Let me talk to my wife/husband”. To me, they were a model of what marriage should be. Equal partners and respect.
Possibly it worked because neither held occult beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean: I stay at home, doing the dishes and making beds while my wife goes to an office and works during the week.
Still, I am the head of the home, and make the ultimate decisions. My wife respects this, as the Bible instructs her to, and we live in perfect harmony (just like ebony and ivory).
Report comment to moderator
“Equal but different” is not only a good slogan, but it makes perfect sense. Its ultimate example is found in our triune God. Was Jesus equal to the Father? Did he have a different role? Did this role make him inferior? No, just different … yet equal. Do we think less of Jesus because of his submission to the Father? No, on the contrary, we think more highly of him because of this.
Striving for equality misses the mark. If we, as Christians, don’t get this, then we misunderstand much of our own faith. We are to submit to our sovereign God. We are to pursue humility, not status. God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. We are to model Christ’s humility, and he humbled himself to the point of becoming a man and dying the humiliating death of crucifixion, and yet some think helping run a household is too lowly. Certainly there are extremes to be avoided, but God has clearly designed roles of authority; He models it in His own nature, and we glorify Him as humble servants who seek His glory.
Report comment to moderator
I’m all for women as homemakers, but I don’t think you need a college education to be a good homemaker.
Report comment to moderator
Adam, I did not say that men were better at leading. I said that the bible clearly has the man as the spiritual leader of the home. I also said a wise man would consult with his wife; listen to her and use her advice where it was wise to do so. If a wife is more gifted or schooled in economics, for example, he should probably give that a lot of consideration in his decisions.
One has to be the leader because sooner or later every couple will come to an impass on something. If they don’t, fine. All couples handle that impass differently. Some choose to live separate lives still together; some divorce. I believe it is better for families that both are under the headship of Christ and then the husband. If a wife is still determined that her husband is wrong, she can bring it to the Lord and leave it in His hands. This presupposes that both want the will of God in the first place. I am not saying this applies to nonbelievers.
Report comment to moderator
We live in a culture that pervades the church and its teaching on all things including the Gospel and the family. God ordained the family as a basic civil institution as well as a nurturing spiritual relationship. He puts headship squarely in the male domain. There is no debate here – but there is modern debate in the church because by and large modern evangelicals don’t believe God, and that is a problem, and a root cause in the modern church’s worldliness. Leadership is a bigger challenge and requires patience and love – as Christ for His church. And… men in the natural sense are very willing to retreat from this. BUt… women are called to submit in marriage – and this they very willingly abandon in the flesh. Both parties naturally tend towards running from God’s plan in marriage – we must be moved in a supernatural way towards his plan. Pray thet we may be able to, and to reject the world’s teaching on this.
Report comment to moderator
When I decided to be a full time SAHM I could have used these classes. Instead I bought lots of books. Cookbooks, books on speed cleaning, childcare, finance. It is not as easy as some think and most of it doesn’t come natural to me. You prepare for any other career why not this one? My husband is the head of the house. God holds him responsible. It is not fair to have the responsibility without the authority. Also society holds us responsible for traditional roles. If you came to my house and it was a mess (which is very likely) you would not go home saying.” boy that guy isn’t a very good housekeeper.” It would reflect badly on me. If the car got repossessed or we lost the house it would reflect badly on him. It doesn’t matter who actually does what, I will always be responsible for the house and he will be the provider.
Report comment to moderator
XION
Well said.
Report comment to moderator
#7 Did you marvel, also, at the female mantis beheading the male after copulation?
Well, what do you think he’s praying about?
And what does that say about the size of the female mantis’ brain? (Sorry!)
What I marvel at most is the savage nature of humans who bite the heads off of their fellow man simply for delighting in the natural order.
Report comment to moderator
Along with the gender role issue, there is simply the question of educational appropriateness: is a seminary the right place for such a program? They could offer auto repair, too, I suppose, but I had thought the education was a bit more specialized.
That said, I do note the difference between the classes at the seminary focused on equipping women to assist their husbands in ministry, and the Homemaking program at the the College at Southwestern. If you are a Southern Baptist woman, the tuition is a third more than that of non-resident community college (4x that for a Texas resident). In that light, the question still arises if this is the best use of skills and time of faculty — could they do the same cheaper offering seminars, while using a community college like Tarrant to cover the practical.
Report comment to moderator
#14 “society holds us responsible for traditional roles”
Kbells,
I’m not sure why that would guide our decisions. A large part of society thinks that divorce is the answer to an unhappy marriage, abortion is an option for an unwanted pregnancy, and premarital sex is OK especially if you’re “committed” to each other. But evangelical Christians don’t hesitate to say that what society thinks is wrong in those cases.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
I too rather enjoyed your posting. Good writing. Some in here will never understand the paradoxes of God’s design. If the school didn’t refer to it as “homemaking” choosing instead to call it “domestic engineering” or anything with “science” in it, the program would slip right past those looking for an opportunity to ridicule believers.
Report comment to moderator
#9: My wife respects this
As far as you know.
Just make sure she is not afraid of you. That’s the problem with unequal relationships, is keeping mum out of love, out of respect, or out of fear?
Report comment to moderator
Pure idiocy — how anyone can think that “homemaking” qualifies as a scholarly pursuit should be certifiable as being clinically insane. I have absolutely no objection to it being taught (though I think it sad that such a course is necessary), but it belongs at a technical or specialized school of some sort, not among legitimate academic scholarship and research. Harris is bang on here.
Report comment to moderator
Adam, I’m not KI, so feel free to ignore me.
You asked, “Two questions:
1 – Why must there be a position of ultimate leadership?
2 – Why are men suited to this more than women? (Are all men more capable of leadership than all women?),/i>
1. When there’s only two people, and they disagree, someone has to make the final decision (’win’, if you like). Yes, I understand compromise and all of that, but sometimes you reach a point where that isn’t applicable (I want a newer vehicle, he doesn’t-or whatever).
Because my husband and I have both ’signed on’ to this idea of Biblical submission, I can trust him to make the right decision for us, if it gets to that point. He listens to me, takes my views into account, and often accedes to my wishes. But sometimes it isn’t possible, and I trust that God is working through him to do His will.
2. No, not all men are necessarily suited to this. Biblical submission works for those who believe in it, work at it, and trust God. God called man all the way back in Genesis to be the head of the family, just as Christ is the head of the church.
While people focus on the woman’s submission, remember that the husband is to love his wife as Christ did the church–to the point of death. He bears a responsibility as our family representative that I do not.
Women often must step into these roles for various reasons (divorce, widowhood, single-parent adoptions, etc.), but this is not God’s plan from the beginning. God also called for the church to provide for the widows and orphans, which we sadly often neglect, allowing the state to assume our responsibility, but that is for another thread.
Report comment to moderator
And we need preview–I misplaced the tags that would turn off the italics. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
Stephen #22. I’m betting you’ve never done it. This is harder and more complicated the job I went to college to do. I’ve organized shoots that involved several locations, a dozen cast members, a crew of six and a van full of props, costumes and equipment. That took less preparation than a trip to the grocery store does now.
Report comment to moderator
I have been stewing on this all morning. If these women see their goal as homemaker, then why are they in college? Too many people these days assume college is necessary or expected.
If they are going to go to college, I think they would be better served by getting a solid liberal arts degree which would make them well-rounded, interesting individuals who can provide good conversation, counsel and company to their husband, children and community.
Their need for ‘education’ in basic home skills is the fault of the previous generation, but these skills would be better learned from a friend or mentor where relationships can be built as well.
Just so you know, I have a B.A. and am a full-time homemaker by choice.
Report comment to moderator
Paula,
If they are going to go to college, I think they would be better served by getting a solid liberal arts degree which would make them well-rounded, interesting individuals who can provide good conversation, counsel and company to their husband, children and community.
I thought the article said they were getting B.A. degrees in the humanities? This is simply a choice of several concentrations within the degree, according to the article.
Report comment to moderator
Is the Women’s Studies dept. here just trying to make a point by offering courses that from their description belong as a mandatory course in middle school. Even if you think women should have a subserviant role, would you not want them better educated?
Report comment to moderator
Once again, it’s a voluntary concentration, not a mandatory part of the B.A. degree… The B.A. would educate them just fine, I think.
Report comment to moderator
It strikes me as ludicrous in today’s age for a woman not to be educated to the degree that she can’t support herself if she needs to.
There is much to be said for a family devoting much of the time of at least one parent to taking care of children, and even educating them if they so desire and are so equipped. In our culture, that often falls to the woman, but it does not have to be that way. My brother and his wife have had fluid roles as money makers and parents throughout their marriage. She was a midwife; later went to nursing school; eventually became head nurse of a major hospital obstetrics department. He was a crafts jeweler; later he held several part time jobs and cared for their children and home schooled them.
Now his wife has returned to being a midwife; he operates a fairly good size crafts related business.
Even in the most loving, traditional man and woman role family, mishaps happen. People die or become unable to work. People who seem trustworthy betray their partner. Nobody can cover every possible base, but sensible people educate themselves so they can deal with a variety of life challenges and crises.
If a woman is intelligent and capable, there is nothing wrong with her devoting herself to raising and caring for her family, but it’s silly for her not to prepare herself for other options, including joining the work force if circumstances require it.
Report comment to moderator
I think there are a lot of people who behave more intelligently and sensibly than the language of their belief system and ideology, just as there are many who behave more stupidly and in a more harmful way.
Because the word “feminist” has so many loaded connotations to the conservative religious people here, many women who are strong, capable, decisive people in this community go through all sorts of terminology gymnastics to deny they are feminists, but act as strong, capable, decisive individuals anyway.
The same thing is true of marital decision making; there are many evangelical Christian families that in practice don’t live the values prated here. There is no one formula that works well for every couple, or even for the same couple throughout their married life. A lot of people reading this are living perfectly decent wholesome lives that don’t follow the conservative Biblical marriage cookbook.
It’s OK. You know who you are, but I won’t “out” you.
Report comment to moderator
If a woman is intelligent and capable, there is nothing wrong with her devoting herself to raising and caring for her family, but it’s silly for her not to prepare herself for other options, including joining the work force if circumstances require it.
I agree. My parents divorced (through no desire of my mother) and my mother was left with an incomplete college degree (they married when she was 21). Thankfully, she was smart enough to require my father to pay for her associate’s degree in bookkeeping so she could get a self-sustaining job. She took no traditional alimony.
Report comment to moderator
My dear Random,
You know you can out me as one who follows the “conservative Biblical marriage cookbook” and we’re still friends!
(Even though TJ generally does the cooking around here!)
Report comment to moderator
KBells, I’m a bachelor who was raised by his mother to be able to take care of himself (though my sewing admittedly shouldn’t be trusted except in the most dire of emergencies). I have no problem with anyone being a homemaker and would be quite content to be one myself if in the future I have a wife with a superior career to myself. Though I find it sad that not everyone has been as well prepared by their parents as me and my sister have been, I certainly can see the usefulness in having classes to instruct those people who have not been as fortunate in the important skills necessary to maintain a home. I do not, however, see any relevance whatsoever to the pursuit of academic research and peer scholarship and therefore strongly object to the classes existing in their present context.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron- I understand it is not a degree in Home Ec, but a few electives. I still think anyone, male or female, would be better off taking those electives in a broader range of subjects that increase our understanding of the world and human nature. There are, as others pointed out, technical schools and books for anyone who needs an education in the mechanics of how to run a household if they cannot find a mentor. A college education is better spent in the true Humanities.
Report comment to moderator
KI:
If a husband is not smart enough to know the right answer, might he also lack the intelligence necessary to take good advice from a more competent wife?
It seems that you freely admit that your Bible advocates a home situation that might very well lead to a less capable person leading. What sense does this make as a guide to life?
One has to be the leader because sooner or later every couple will come to an impass on something.
Like…?
If a wife is still determined that her husband is wrong, she can bring it to the Lord and leave it in His hands.
But the lord does not exist, so this is not really a solution to anything.
XION:
What I marvel at most is the savage nature of humans who bite the heads off of their fellow man simply for delighting in the natural order.
You are not “delighting in the natural order”, you are misrepresenting it to perpetuate a piece of ancient misogynist fiction.
And as I said, you avoid honest debate with insipid, unfunny joking.
Cameron:
Because my husband and I have both ’signed on’ to this idea of Biblical submission, I can trust him to make the right decision for us, if it gets to that point. He listens to me, takes my views into account, and often accedes to my wishes. But sometimes it isn’t possible, and I trust that God is working through him to do His will.
Why are you not the vessel of god’s will? Because you lack a penis?
You might as well say “I do it because I am told to” and drop all of this pretense. Compromise exists and it is your own belief in the need of a marriage daddy that forces you to require one. A self-fulfilling prophecy, as it were.
While people focus on the woman’s submission, remember that the husband is to love his wife as Christ did the church–to the point of death. He bears a responsibility as our family representative that I do not.
You are not responsible for dying for your children? Your husband?
I think you will find that, if you honestly examine this, you have all of his responsibilities and some that he does not. That is why men designed this religion the way it is.
Report comment to moderator
This is why I love RN, it’s his sweet reasonableness–a Biblical virtue.
As a SAHM for many years–with a degree in journalism–I stress to my daughters the importance of getting a college degree for all the reasons RN gave (or with one at least a career path). I don’t wish divorce on any of my daughters, but we live in a divorce culture. I have three friends who were widowed while still raising children. A wise woman knows how to be her own woman. I believe that is the Biblical model.
Report comment to moderator
#36 Here are a few questions for you Adam:
1. Are men and women physically different?
2. Do men and women think differently?
3. Do boys and girls generally have different interests?
4. Does childbearing have an affect on roles for husband and wife in the typical family world wide?
If these natural tendencies cause men and women to accept naturally different roles, then why all the rage against nature?
Are you just as enraged about two dancers who move in perfect harmony, where they work together as a team to create beautiful artistic harmony? Would you run onto the floor and chastise the man for being a misogynist and the woman for being a doormat?
The true misogynists and misandrists are people who refuse to acknowledge the uniqueness of the sexes. They pretend to be defending women, but in reality are sexually confused and do more harm than good. Unable to think for themselves, they are carried along by the winds of political correctness. Some take this to the extreme, adopting lifestyles contrary to nature. No wonder they become enraged when the the Bible simply reveals our true nature!
The root of misunderstanding about submission has to do with a misunderstanding of sexual differences and a misunderstanding of true love. The Bible is clear that men and women are to submit to one another (Eph 5:21). Yet because men and women are different, this love is expressed in different ways. Men crave respect, a pat on the back for a job well done. Women crave love and understanding. If women respected their husbands more and men loved their wives more, would this world not be a better place? Why deny reality?
The Bible is saying to love one another, which can mean different things for men and women, husbands and wives and children. Love means putting others first, seeking the best for them and sacrificing for them. It means doing things you do not want to do. Christianity is about dying to self and becoming a servant of others. This service is made all the more beautiful and fulfilling by living according to the purpose and plan of God each in our own unique way.
Report comment to moderator
As for humor, there are few things funnier than the differences between the sexes. Comedy exploits this reality. Psychology has finally caught up to what the rest of us have known all along.
In my own marriage, humor is a survival skill. There is so much I could either be angry about or choose to laugh about. Laughter is the best medicine.
Last night my son picked up his girlfriend from work. She wanted to go to a movie. He wanted to watch the Red Sox crush the Rockies again. But each was willing to defer to the other.
He said he would be perfectly fine watching a movie. She said, “No really. I know you love the Red Sox and we can watch a movie another time.” “Are you sure?, he asked. “Yes”, she said. So he thanked her and they headed home to watch the Red Sox. Silence. She was mad. “What are you mad about?”, he asked. “Nothing. I’m fine”.
Later as my son was telling me the story he was really upset. “Why didn’t she just tell me what she really wanted? It’s so infuriating!” I laughed and said, “Get used to it son. She’s a woman. She wants you to understand her deeply. That means knowing what she is thinking even though she says the exact opposite!”
Such is the saga of love and romance throughout the ages. Blessed are those who can find the humor in it!
Report comment to moderator
Being a homemaker is neither oppressive or stunting to your growth. It demands everything from you.
It stretches you. It keeps you looking up.
I’m for (almost) everything that honors and sustains this age-honored yet currently undervalued profession.
Paula,
About your question, why get a degree if you are going to be a homemaker? I think it’s a matter of personal enrichment, a good time and space to grow up, and ultimately, some professional training should you ever be called upon to be the breadwinner.
Our old pastor’s wife had an actual 4 year degree in homemaking.
He parents were furious with her. But, she did it so well!
Report comment to moderator
#38: If these natural tendencies cause men and women to accept naturally different roles, then why all the rage against nature?
I can tell by your statement that you are making certain assumptions. People have existed long before Christianity. Considering the age of the Christian religion as compared to other religion, Christianity was made up fairly recently.
You have heard the words “matriarch” and “patriarch”. There have been cultures that in the past have been headed by women. The assumption is that since men are stronger, they must be in charge. There is another fictional piece of work called, “Camelot” where some said, “Might makes right”. The struggle by that fictional King was to turn “Might makes right” to “Might protects right”.
The real strength among humans is the power of our minds. Something as small and simple as a 45 makes arm strength meaningless.
Problem solving, leadership ability, being a visionary, income, these are the things most likely to determine the head of the household, not fictional stories written by people who had multiple wives and slaves and concubines (sex slaves). These are people we should learn from in a historical context, not people we should in any way try to emulate. They believed in the occult.
Report comment to moderator
Stephen; I married late in life and took care of myself for a long time. But there is a big difference between taking care of yourself and taking care of a family.
SAHM: What should we have for dinner tonight? We had the chicken last week and none of the kids really liked it. We could have the Alfredo, Bob likes that, but it’s not good for his blood pressure. We can’t eat out, that’s just not in the budget. Maybe I should try that knew recipe. Nope. Who ate all the Cheddar cheese?
SINGLE PERSON: What do I want for dinner? Ohh, there’s cheesecake left.
Report comment to moderator
#38
Xion,
In many ways, my husband and I are different in the stereotypical ways. I multitask better than he does. I care more about talking for the sake of talking and building a relationship, he is task-oriented and wants to solve problems. He feels that he should be able to financially support the family and feels bad that currently he cannot (and I make about twice what he does). He certainly craves “respect, a pat on the back for a job well done” as you say, and I no doubt crave love and understanding.
But in other ways we are perhaps atypical. I am the one who works primarily based on logic, and he is the more emotional and affectionate. I certainly crave a pat on the back for a job well done as much as anyone I know. And while I don’t see myself as particularly competitive, he says that I am, but that I am so competitive that I choose not to participate in an activity that I will excel at because I don’t want to lose/look bad.
I had a class in grad school that discussed (among many other topics related to business ethics) the differences between men and women as it relates to the workplace. The professor described a continuum from what he called the “warrior” type at one end, to the “villager” type at the other end. The warrior is aggressive, competitive, and task-oriented. The villager is more interested in cooperation and fostering relationships. Most men are somewhere at the warrior end of the spectrum, most women at the villager end. But some people are somewhere in the middle, and a small number of men are near the villager end and a small number of women at the warrior end. (The professor said he was a “villager” himself.)
My point is that for the most part, yes, men and women are different in predictable ways. But what bothers me is that because most men are one way and most women another way, those because the standard against which people are judged and people who don’t fit the typical pattern are considered to be going against nature somehow.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe in college for girls. And the way most colleges (even Christian colleges) are nowadays, I don’t believe in them for guys either! Thank the Lord for coursework over the internet!
I believe that girls should learn homemaking from their mothers and from other SAHM’s in the church. That’s what the Titus 2 mandate is all about – teaching the younger women to be keepers at home and to love their husbands and children, that the Word of God be not blasphemed.
Report comment to moderator
It is interesting that the secular world is so dangerous that young people should not be allowed to go to college.
Bianca, are you old enough to be allowed to read messages by atheists such as qwerty and me? Even Pauline and Cameron may be dangerous people for you to read.
Christianity has survived 2000 years of being oppressed and oppressing, yet it’s apparently such a fragile flower in so much danger.
Report comment to moderator
Old enough to know better and young enough to do it again!
Report comment to moderator
XION:
1. Are men and women physically different?
Yes, just as men are physically different from other men and women different from other women.
2. Do men and women think differently?
Yes, just men think differently than other men and women differently from other women.
3. Do boys and girls generally have different interests?
Yes, just as boys have interests different than those of other boys and girls different than other girls.
4. Does childbearing have an affect on roles for husband and wife in the typical family world wide?
Yes. Some fathers have different roles than other fathers; some mothers different from other mothers.
What you are attempting to do is create categorical absolutes based off extremely imprecise generalities.
If these natural tendencies cause men and women to accept naturally different roles, then why all the rage against nature?
My “rage”, such as it is, is not against nature, but against your childlike mischaracterization of reality. If you understood nature at all you would realize that gender roles are not clearly defined from the top to the bottom of the phylogenetic tree; not even close.
Are you just as enraged about two dancers who move in perfect harmony, where they work together as a team to create beautiful artistic harmony? Would you run onto the floor and chastise the man for being a misogynist and the woman for being a doormat?
Only if one forced the other to be there.
They pretend to be defending women, but in reality are sexually confused and do more harm than good.
Wait… what? What “sexual confusion” are you referring to.
EYG:
Being a homemaker is neither oppressive or stunting to your growth.
I know this. My oldest sister, who I love dearly and respect as a viciously sharp intellect, has made the personal choice to stay home and raise her children. That is her choice.
What I do think is oppressive and stunting is a belief in supernatural that carries with it the notion that women are to submit to men as if that is a natural order issue and not merely a conscious choice.
Report comment to moderator
#43 …people who don’t fit the typical pattern are considered to be going against nature somehow.
That would be a wrong conclusion. How much money one earns or who does the checkbook or cooks dinner has nothing to do with nature or the Bible.
God created us male and female, but we are also incredibly unique. Vive le difference!
Report comment to moderator
Adam,
Why are you not the vessel of [G]od’s will?
I know you won’t agree, but my answer is that God created man first and assigned him that role. We compromise (or he accedes to my wish) probably 98% of the time. I can only think of one time in our six-year marriage where I needed to let him lead completely (and his decision was right, whereas my desire would have had negative consequences).
You are not responsible for dying for your children? Your husband?
I think you will find that, if you honestly examine this, you have all of his responsibilities and some that he does not. That is why men designed this religion the way it is.
It would first be my husband’s responsibility to defend me and our children to the death. I certainly would as well, but he is called to it.
While our responsibilities overlap, I certainly am not shouldering any of his.
Man did not design Christianity-God did. We would have made a list of do’s and don’ts so you could earn your way, we would have cleaned up the unflattering parts of the Bible unbelievers always harp on, we would have made heaven appear more interesting, and so on.
Report comment to moderator
#47 What I do think is oppressive and stunting is a belief in supernatural that carries with it the notion that women are to submit to men as if that is a natural order issue and not merely a conscious choice.
Who is saying it is not a conscious choice? A husband and wife submitting one to another (Eph 5:21) is by definition a conscious choice. It’s called love. That is the whole point. You are fighting with your own shadow.
Report comment to moderator
EYG- I don’t know if you’ll read this, but I did want to reply. I did not say I didn’t think you should go to college if you plan to be a homemaker. I just question the time spent in vocational classes, rather than in the enrichment of the whole person.
Report comment to moderator
#48 “How much money one earns or who does the checkbook or cooks dinner has nothing to do with nature or the Bible.”
Xion,
Well, it has to do with nature to the extent that some people’s nature (i.e. natural talents and interests) makes them better at and more interested in keeping track or finances or cooking than someone else. But those are differences between all people, not between men and women as entire groups – which I think we agree on.
But I was thinking more of some women who are aggressive and competitive, and are criticized for not acting according to God’s pattern for feminine nature, or men who have characteristics/interests generally associated with women and are labelled effeminate.
My autistic son spends most of recess time either walking around by himself, or playing with girls (they play “house” or “dogs” – the latter consists of taking turns roleplaying as dog and master). The aide who is assigned to him occasionally has him play with the boys in organized games such as kickball, but this requires her to ask the boys to let him play, then tell him what to do and remind him when it’s time to do it, because he finds something that complex too confusing to keep track of, plus they have to find him a role such as pitcher in kickball that he has enough physical coordination to handle. In some ways the “autism” label will probably save him from some teasing, because while he doesn’t look obviously different, the diagnosis will identify him to most people as someone who needs special consideration. But what if he weren’t autistic, and still preferred to play with girls?
#50 “Who is saying it is not a conscious choice?”
Neither of you is saying that. Adam suggests it could be “merely” conscious choice, as opposed to both conscious choice and also “a natural order issue.”
Report comment to moderator
One must look at the issue in the context of the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention and it’s member schools. The “Homemaking” major was instituted to appease those who think women belong in the traditional role, rather than studying to become ministers. Among conservative Southern Baptists it’s considered heretical for a woman to want to become a minister, and there has been a backlash against them over the last 20 years. There has been a sustained campaign to turn the clock back in the SBC toward the idealized (albeit fictional) stereotype of “Ozzy & Harriet”, where the woman stays home and the man goes off to work, and everything works out wonderfully.
Of course, there is no turning the clock back. But the conservative SBC is still going to try because they see it as a mandate from God.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron:
I know you won’t agree, but my answer is that God created man first and assigned him that role. We compromise (or he accedes to my wish) probably 98% of the time. I can only think of one time in our six-year marriage where I needed to let him lead completely (and his decision was right, whereas my desire would have had negative consequences).
How many times has he acceded to your wish and that has turned out to be the better choice? You are not making a very good case for the wisdom of automatically assigning absolute leadership to the man.
Also, what if he decided that he no longer wished to compromise? Would you have any authority then?
XION:
Who is saying it is not a conscious choice? A husband and wife submitting one to another (Eph 5:21) is by definition a conscious choice. It’s called love. That is the whole point. You are fighting with your own shadow.
You are saying it is not a conscious choice, you are (falsely) portraying nature as naturally promoting a male=leader female=follower
You are being thoroughly dishonest, XION, and it does not surprise me.
Report comment to moderator
What happens, as #9 suggests, when the ultimate decision of the man is to abort a pregnancy? Assuming the answer might be don’t have an abortion, does anyone have a Biblical citation for such (or similar type) a situation?
#32, 2nd paragraph is dead-on. How does a Christian woman deal with this? Pauline, what would you do? Hope you’re very well too!
Report comment to moderator
#55
Scott,
Regarding your first question, about abortion, the answer would be not to have an abortion. Submission to legitimate authority (such as government, or the head of the household) ends when the authority oversteps its legitimate bounds and requires one to do something that is morally wrong. The closest example from the Bible I can think of would be the midwives who told Pharoah that the Hebrew women gave birth too quickly, because they could arrive, because they (the midwives) were not about to obey Pharoah’s order to kill the male babies.
Regarding your second question, it sounds like Cameron’s mom dealt with the situation well. It’s hard for me to answer the question in terms of what I would do, Scott, because I did go to college, and got not only a bachelors degree but eventually two masters degrees. If my husband and I were to divorce, I would have no problem getting a good job to support myself and my children. (Not that I see any likelihood of that happening – we both agreed from the beginning that divorce was not an option, and that the answer to unhappiness in marriage is not to quit the marriage but to work through the problems.)
Report comment to moderator
Also, what if he decided that he no longer wished to compromise? Would you have any authority then?
If we reached that point, we would have also reached the point where he didn’t love, cherish, or honor me, which would violate our marriage vows. Counseling would be the first step, followed by church discipline, if necessary. Divorce is permissible if one abandons the marriage.
Scott,
32 was mine, and the Christian woman it happened to (my mother) tried desperately to keep her marriage intact, but when my father refused, she completed her education, and got a job. She has never even seriously dated, much less remarried. My father has had a string of girlfriends/serially monogamous relationships. It grieved her then, it grieves her now. It’s been twelve years.
Report comment to moderator
You are being thoroughly dishonest, XION, and it does not surprise me.
No. Instead, you dodged my questions, mischaracterized everything I have said, and twist the Bible to feed your anti-Christian rage. I honestly thought I could reason with you. My mistake.
The Bible says to love one another and submit to one another. Asking women to respect their husbands is a form of love. Your characterization that this is some sort of misogynistic male oppression is a sick perversion and completely false. Men are to love their wives. My appeal to nature was simply to see if you would admit that men and women are different by nature. You wouldn’t even do that. Instead you threw a temper tantrum. What can I say?
Peace!
Report comment to moderator
#33
I pretty much down with anything consenting adults choose to do.
Even missionaries who cook from the Missionary Position Cookbook.
Report comment to moderator
What did I mischaracterize, XION?
You said, ” My interest in God came by observing the harmony of the sexes in nature.” You then went on to list examples of males leading females, finishing with ” There is a natural beauty in a man and woman being a man and a woman.”
You misrepresent nature and then pretend you never did it? That is dishonesty, XION, and you should not bear false witness.
Asking women to respect their husbands is a form of love. Your characterization that this is some sort of misogynistic male oppression is a sick perversion and completely false.
“Respect”? What a charming euphemism for “exhibit abject obedience”.
Men are to love their wives. My appeal to nature was simply to see if you would admit that men and women are different by nature. You wouldn’t even do that.
I did exactly that. I answered each of your questions in turn. Again, breathtaking dishonesty.
What made you a liar?
Report comment to moderator
You know it has just occurred to me that the person who could benefit most from these courses would be the working mom. She has less time to do these jobs and could use the time saving methods that are probably taught. I’ve been there, too.
And has anyone noticed that most of those arguing for submission are women and those arguing against it are men. Makes me wonder if anybody really wants to be the leader.
To paraphrase Bill Cosby. “I’ve seen the boss’s job and I don’t want it. “
Report comment to moderator
Random,
You crack me up!
Please don’t go in January!
Report comment to moderator
Ok, then, clearly these is a line that can be crossed, at least according to what Pauline wrote. You example doesn’t address the head of household. I have to keep reading to find one I guess.
Cameron, I don’t know if it just the way you penned it, but it sounds like your mom suffered because of this belief. I am sure she is a nice lady, too bad she couldn’t get past it and move on to something more fulfilling. I guess that just the humanist in me coming out. But then again, it’s her life.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, then, clearly there is a line that can be crossed, at least according to what Pauline wrote. Your example doesn’t address the head of household. I have to keep reading to find one I guess.
Cameron, I don’t know if it’s just the way you penned it, but it sounds like your mom suffered because of this belief. I am sure she is a nice lady, too bad she couldn’t get past it and move on to something more fulfilling. I guess that just the humanist in me coming out. But then again, it’s her life.
Report comment to moderator
Scott,
There are too many pronouns in your post for me to follow this early in the morning!
What should she “get past”? and
I’m not sure what you’re asking about the head of the household that hasn’t been answered yet. I’ll do my best if you ask the question again.
Report comment to moderator
Paula and Adam,
Just checking in to say that I did read your comments.
Adam,
If it wasn’t for what I’ve lived and learned being a Christian all these years, I know I’d be right there agreeing with you.
When I first got married and a fellow Christian Marine officer’s wife counseled me that wives were to submit to their husbands, I looked at her like she had three heads. (In my opinion, she was FAR too submissive: Honey, can I have a cup of coffee?)
I even got mad at God for about two years: “Why did you even bother to give me a personality if you wanted me to submit?”
Both my Marine wife friend and I had a misunderstanding of submitting, and the word does say that husband and wives are to submit to each other. It also says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, giving themselves up for her.
It also says, “Wives, see to it that you respect your husbands.”
The only times I really ever have to actively submit to my husband is when we’re at an impasse and all negotiations have ceased.
It’s not ugly (I promise), and God always looks out for me, and I get to learn something wonderful about The Almighty.
Also, I trust my husband and God. So, it doesn’t bother me, and I do not feel like a second class citizen like I did when I thought submitting meant that I never picked the movie or the restaurant. It’s helped us grow closer to God and each other.
But, I only know this through revelation and field experience. But, I agree that it sounds oppressive on the onset to the natural mind.
Report comment to moderator
EYG said it much better than I could!
Report comment to moderator
#64,65
If I’m understanding Scott’s question correctly, he’s asking if there is an example in the Bible where a wife chooses not to obey the head of household because he is telling her to do something that she knows would be disobeying God, where obedience to God comes before submission to her husband.
No examples come to mind right off.
Report comment to moderator
Kidnap victims often fall in love with their captors; the Stockholm syndrome. One person’s breathless testimony to the wonder of relegation to second-class status is perfectly meaningless in the context of this discussion, as would the testimony of a happy heroin user in a discussion about the larger social problem of drug abuse (or the testimony of Uncle Tom re: the beneficence of massa).
What is key to understanding EYG’s post is the presumption that she and her husband understand the truth behind what Christ means in the big book when he tells wives to submit to their husbands.
EYG, how do you know that it is “too submissive” to ask before having a cup of coffee? What is your criteria for making that judgment? How do you know that you are simply not submissive enough? Because you are happy?
I am not saying that you need to change your life at all, that is your business, but your presumption is quite expansive and unfounded. Just as you think you have this whole submission thing mastered, your “too submissive” friend probably does, as well.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe she wasn’t too submissive.
But what I was trying to tell you was that coming right out of Boston University, and the Army, her question sounded ridiculous to me.
Later, she told me that she knew she was going overboard, but preferred to err on the side of submissiveness.
As to the perfection of my submissiveness, I’d have to direct you to God and my husband for that verdict.
You don’t know me very well, because if you did, you’d know that I don’t think I have anything mastered. I was just trying to relate my experience and what I’ve learned along the way to what you were saying earlier in the thread.
I don’t think any of us have Christianity down pat.
Thank God it’s about grace.
Report comment to moderator
EYG:
So the question sounded ridiculous because of BU and the Army, not because of doctrine?
Further to say “we had a misunderstanding” means that you no longer do, that is why you used the past tense (see also: “…like I did when I thought submitting…”). Even if you do not think your submissive role mastered, you talk as if you are closer to the mark now than when you were. How could you possibly know that?
Report comment to moderator
yes.
and
No, it doesn’t. The fact that I had one misunderstanding doesn’t mean that I couldn’t have another.
You must like to debate. I was just sharing my perspective.
Grace means that even if I blow it, God still loves, accepts and forgives and loves me.
You can give me a D- as a Christian, but Grace says Jesus paid for that.
Not sure what you’re wanting me to glean from your challenges. I think your objections are too hasty
and presuppose quite a bit, as well.
I’m not playing tit-for-tat, but Adam, you’re the one who sounds as if you’re coming from a place of authority. I’m pretty sure you’re going to think what you’re going to think, and that this isn’t a conversation, but an argument.
I really don’t want to go there. I have guests about to arrive.
Report comment to moderator
What makes it an issue worth vigorous discussion is this: If you have a daughter, what do you teach her? Do you teach her that she was created by an omnipotent deity to be submissive when a man tells her something and refuses to compromise?
I am sure it works well for you in your life. Good for you. What choice do children have when raised to believe that they were designed to be ignored if that is what their husband decides?
Report comment to moderator
“have absolutely no objection to it being taught (though I think it sad that such a course is necessary), but it belongs at a technical or specialized school of some sort, not among legitimate academic scholarship and research. Harris is bang on here.”
It’s at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; it’s NOT among legitimate academic scholarship!
“Is the Women’s Studies dept. here just trying to make a point by offering courses that from their description belong as a mandatory course in middle school.”
I think it highlights conservative Christianities petty attitude, that they gave that particular name to a department that has “labs” on laundry!
“I have been stewing on this all morning. If these women see their goal as homemaker, then why are they in college”?
Well, welcome to bourgeois capitalism where rich little white chicks can spend thousands of dollars on oppression, because Mommy and Daddy don’t want her becoming one of those “Brown lesbians” but still think she’s not going to find a nice boy in the hometown!
But when her husband leaves her for the “opinionated Dyke” who can’t cook but does have the income for a 5 star meal, she can crawl back into her old bedroom at home with her 2 lisping children, who will around the age of 16 resent her for stiffing their ambitions with her pathetic demands for sympathy and outright helplessness.
And she will probably be to unused to taking responsibility for herself that she will never look back on her sad little life and say, “Well, I got a college degree that only prepared me to depend on others, what did I expect”?
Report comment to moderator
Cameron #65, her need for suffering brought on by her belief. (in reference to the “getting past it” comment)
Exactly, Pauline, exactly what I was asking. Not ONE Biblical story to support this override? Humm, curious. Can you at least point to the passage that says that a woman has this right to disobey? In the meantime, I’ll keep searching for it to. It is the most moral book on earthy, surely it’s in there.
Report comment to moderator
Adam #47
What I do think is oppressive and stunting is a belief in supernatural that carries with it the notion that women are to submit to men as if that is a natural order issue and not merely a conscious choice.
It is a choice.
End of discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Xion wins; Beckham loses.
Report comment to moderator
#75
Scott,
The general principle is stated in Acts 5:29 “We ought to obey God rather than men.” It applies whether the men in authority are religious leaders, government leaders, husbands, etc.
Since there are relatively few examples of women in the Bible to begin with, I don’t expect to find an example of this. Are you saying that if the Bible were really as good an “instruction manual” as Christians often claim, that it would have a clear example of this type of situation?
I suppose that would be nice. But finding examples of behavior to emulate in the Bible is tricky business, since most narratives in the Bible simply tell what happened, and do not say whether the behavior was right or wrong.
So I’ll stick to the general principle as given in Acts 5:29, which does have a number of examples in the Bible though not of a wife/husband situation. And if a situation comes up in my own marriage I’ll have to deal with it according to my understanding of Scriptural principles, my conscience, and the advice of godly men and women whom I trust.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, so we salt the “obey the husband” with Acts 5:29. OK then. The Bible is often sited as the basis for a Christian’s moral compass, which is why I might expect to find this type of thing in it rather than ad hoc (your last paragraph) reasoning to make the point.
This just goes back to my point about the Bible in general and how it can be manipulated toward almost any position or point, even the outlandish ones. This Bible is just incredible to me. It has certainly, undeniably, suppressed woman in the past (and currently too). I don’t know you but I seriously doubt that you would agree to some lame (but not Bible contradiction) idea your husband had, just because he is the man of the house. On the other-hand, maybe you would. Does he want to buy a $12,000 TV you can’t really afford?
Viva Pauline.
Report comment to moderator
I thought Adam’s post #47 was sensible and well-stated. I am in agreement with it.
As a person who will celebrate 42 years of marriage in November, I found Xion’s #39 amusing and well-stated.
However, I thought his #58 was unfortunate.
Report comment to moderator
#46 Bianca
Good reply. I may have to hire you to write one liners for me.
Report comment to moderator
#62 Cameron
I love flattery, but it won’t sway me. Thank you, though.
Report comment to moderator
#79
Scott,
Are there really TV’s that cost $12,000? My husband tends to like some expensive toys, but not that outrageous. He knows he is not good with handling finances, so he insists that I control the purse strings. So if I say no to something we can’t afford, I’m actually doing as he wants, though not letting him get what he wants right at that moment. If I thought he were the sort of person who would insist on something that really was wrong for us even if I were against it, I wouldn’t have married him.
And yes, the Bible has been used to justify some awful things. I can’t agree with your statement as written that “It has certainly, undeniably, suppressed woman in the past” because the Bible doesn’t do anything, it just is. It’s how people use it that’s often wrong.
There is one school of thought, not one probably very popular among the conservative commenters here, that the words on the printed page of the Bible do not in fact constitute the Word of God. According to that view, the Spirit of God uses those words to speak the Word of God to the reader/listener, but naturally that reader/listener needs to be receptive to the Spirit, not trying to read what he is already looking for into the verses of Scripture. (I don’t know how well I’ve expressed that view, it’s one that I’ve only heard explained as the wrong view to have by those who do consider the printed words on the page to be the Word of God.)
Even the verse I cited, Acts 5:29, is no doubt sometimes misused to justify disobedience where disobedience is not necessary. For myself I would always take what you referred to as the “ad hoc” approach, using principles from Scripture, along with my conscience, my ability to think through the situation and possible consequences of a particular action, and seeking the guidance of the Spirit and the wisdom of mature Christians.
Report comment to moderator
So if I say no to something we can’t afford, I’m actually doing as he wants, though not letting him get what he wants right at that moment.
That is some tortured logic. One might say it’s been broken on Torquemada’s wheel.
Why bother with all of that bizarre rationalization?
Report comment to moderator
#84 “Why bother with all of that bizarre rationalization?”
Adam Beckham,
I only came up with it because of the discussion here. Actually in practice I don’t think primarily in terms of what I want or what he wants, but what is best for us as a couple. In theory, he is the final decisionmaker, and I gladly promised to “love, honor, and obey” (much to my anti-traditionalist mother’s dismay). But in practice he insists on getting my opinion and refuses to make major decisions without my agreement. In the early years of our marriage he handled the finances and sometimes bought things we couldn’t afford, but he realized that he wasn’t handling the finances well and turned them over to me.
The only time recently I can remember that he made a unilateral decision was telling me to stay home and rest when I was sick, instead of dragging myself in to work as I tend to do. That kind of “dictatorship” I can live with.
Report comment to moderator
#81 – Great, Random! Me needs the cash!
Report comment to moderator
Pauline:
But in practice he insists on getting my opinion and refuses to make major decisions without my agreement. In the early years of our marriage he handled the finances and sometimes bought things we couldn’t afford, but he realized that he wasn’t handling the finances well and turned them over to me.
What if he had not decided to hand them over to you? Is it your duty to let him continue to screw things up if that is what he thinks is best? Should you not simply say, “This is not working, I am going to start doing this.”? What if you did and he said, “No, I am doing it.”?
The only time recently I can remember that he made a unilateral decision was telling me to stay home and rest when I was sick, instead of dragging myself in to work as I tend to do. That kind of “dictatorship” I can live with.
Good for you.
I do not understand why people keep mentioning how nice it is in their own lives. This is small consolation to those stuck in poor marriages with men who oppress their wives; or wives who otherwise feel powerless to advance their own situation because they are tied to a male millstone.
What good does it do to teach our young women that they are to be subservient to whatever man they decide to marry? What good does it do to teach our young men that they are dominant over whatever woman they decide to marry?
Why are these relationships even cast in ideas of subservience and dominance?
To keep young women away from education, either by force or by social expectation, is to hamper their growth as individuals. To raise a girl by telling her that she is secondary to men in power and decision-making is to handcuff her from the start (and to tell a boy that he is the natural leader of women is to doom him in other ways).
What I am seeing from women so far is, “It might sound bad, but it doesn’t actually work like it says in the Bible.”
Why have the Bible get in the way?
Report comment to moderator
#87
Adam Beckham,
My husband didn’t initially turn over the finances to me when he said he would. It wasn’t because he didn’t want to surrender control, it was because he was ashamed of how badly he had messed things up and didn’t want me to see the details until he had a chance to improve things. I didn’t know all that at the time, but I sensed that being patient and asking about it without being combative or accusing would be better than demanding he turn it over. He couldn’t make things better, and finally he turned them over. I wasn’t happy about what I found, but there was nothing to be accomplished by telling him what a lousy job he’d done – he knew that already.
I haven’t known many women in poor marriages with men who oppress them; those I have known have been married to men who clearly had broken their own marriage vows in numerous ways (e.g. infidelity, physical abuse, alcohol or drug abuse which threatened the wife and children’s safety), and they refused to change. My husband’s view as a pastor is that the marriage is effectively dead at that point and the divorce is simply its funeral.
Where both spouses are willing to work to make the marriage succeed, it’s hard work but it will work. Where one spouse refuses to change, it depends how bad things are and how committed the other spouse is. My husband counseled one couple where it was the wife who refused to change, and he worked primarily with the husband, who did want to stick with the marriage and make it work.
As for the Bible “getting in the way,” I don’t see it being in the way. I can’t say to what extent the way my husband and I approach this is based on our own personalities, backgrounds, etc. and how much on the Bible – we’ve both tried for years to learn the wise principles of how to live from Scripture, so there’s no clear dividing line between “this is what I do because the Bible says so” and “this is what I do because it makes sense to me.” Since I don’t see a conflict, I have no reason to try to get the Bible “out of the way.”
Report comment to moderator
Hey Adam,
FWIW, I’d rather have a conversation with an atheist who is logical, thinks clearly, and can discuss issues without attacking the person, than with a fellow Christian who does none of those things. (Also, for the other Christians, I’ve met plenty of atheists who did none of those things either. People are people.)
The issue with Bible interpretation is not with some fault in the Bible or in God, but in human nature. People argue about the Constitution of the United States all the time, and many try to twist it beyond recognition. But the fault is not with the Constitution. Can we therefore say that the C. can be read any way we want, so it says nothing at all?
Of course not. What we need to do is consider the **intent** of the framers of the C. and listen to their reasoning for writing as they did. We have to consider the point of history, the personal experiences of the contributors, what they had to lose, etc. The debates over the C. will never end, but there is nonetheless an actual C. that was actually written, by actual people, for actual good reasons.
And so it is with the Bible. Context is everything, and most people simply do not have access to all they need to properly examine context. We’re talking about a collection of books written by over 40 different people, on several continents, over a period of about 1500 years, from various walks of life, and completed about 2000 years ago. What’s to misunderstand?
I’m saying it’s quite reasonable to expect different interpretations of the Bible.
That said, on to the specific topic at hand:
This debate, like those on the C., will never end. But I believe that through careful study, the Bible does give us a lot more concrete teachings than many people think. (Some, of course, can make “concrete” out of cotton candy, but I digress.)
Although I’ve written before in more detail, I recently wrote my own summary of what I think is a typical egalitarian view of the Bible at This Link. My goal was not so much to debate but to inform, to simply give a perspective. I hope it will answer some questions not only about what the Bible says concerning women, but what it says about how to approach it.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline:
Do you think your husband’s shame resulted from his being told (potentially from a young age) that he had an assigned role that he was supposed to be able to fulfill?
Why was he ever handling it? Surely you guys knew pretty quickly in your relationship that you were the one with financial acumen.
And if this is true of financial acumen, how many other things might it be true about? This is what I mean about the Bible getting in the way. A rational relationship would have established from the outset which partner was best suited to each task regardless of concepts of gender roles (religiously or politically or socially mandated).
BoatRocker:
I’m saying it’s quite reasonable to expect different interpretations of the Bible.
Exactly, which is why the Bible is functionally useless from a social perspective; it cannot be relied on to provide any sort of uniform moral instruction. You can make all the beautiful arguments you like about the Bible, but the core tenet of religion is having faith, and to the religious mind faith transcends reason.
This is why religious fundamentalism is on the upswing despite decades of brilliant apologetics.
(And this is why those who view the world in secular way no longer believe that maggots come from within the meat as they used to.)
Report comment to moderator
Is the US Constitution “functionally useless” as well?
Report comment to moderator
#90 “Do you think your husband’s shame resulted from his being told (potentially from a young age) that he had an assigned role that he was supposed to be able to fulfill?”
Adam Beckham,
Very possibly. He was the oldest of three children in a military family, with his father often gone on TDY and him as the “man of the house.” As a teenager he sensed the call of God to the ministry (he says now – I didn’t know him then), but he resisted it because he was tired of being in charge and having people depend on him. At age 30 or so, the call “reasserted” itself, and (after discussing it together and our agreeing on his course of action) he quit his job and went to seminary, and became a pastor. (Fortunately most churches have a financially savvy treasurer so the pastor doesn’t have to figure out financial stuff.)
There’s no question (in my mind) that people often have unrealistic expectations of others in the family and in society, based on their own personal experience and social traditions. And those unrealistic expectations may be connected to the Bible in people’s minds, because that’s what they’ve been told (directly or indirectly).
As for your statement that “the Bible is functionally useless from a social perspective,” I would say rather that it does not form as complete an “instruction manual” as is often implied in church/Sunday School.
We’re reading a book right now (in the small group I belong to at church) in which the author criticizes churches that focus on teaching people to be better parents, better spouses, etc. He says that if people got right with the Lord all that would fall into place. I disagree. It’s true that taking a class on dealing with conflict will not resolve matters if one person is unwilling to act in humility and love, but that doesn’t mean the knowledge in not important. I used to be so frustrated, in churches that only taught material directly from the Bible, that I didn’t seem to be improving much in my relationships with people. The problem, I discovered later, was that I needed good role models and practical advice on communication skills.
Report comment to moderator
Boat Rocker:
Is the US Constitution “functionally useless” as well?
No, it is not.
(Should I suppose you are attempting to equate the Bible and the Constitution?)
Pauline:
You and I actually seem to agree on quite a bit here.
Let me ask you this: What is it that the Bible provides that is not available elsewhere? Anything?
Report comment to moderator
Adam, my point is that we can play the “functionally useless” card whenever we want. All you have to do is show that people disagree over something, and use that to justify throwing the whole thing out.
And “no” is not an answer. Please explain **why** you believe the C. is not useless even though people debate it continually, or why the “useless” card works on the Bible but not the C.
Report comment to moderator
#93 “What is it that the Bible provides that is not available elsewhere?”
Adam Beckham,
Since I have grown up in a culture whose values and literature were heavily influenced by the Bible, and since I have limited knowledge of cultures without that background, that’s a difficult question to answer acurately. How much of what I think I get from the Bible is actually being read into the Bible, and how much that I think is only in the Bible is actually present somewhere else?
But the main thing that I see in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, that I do not see much of outside of the Bible or those aspects of our culture influenced by the Bible, is the idea of grace. Many people share my mother’s point of view – you get what you deserve. Or at least you should get what you deserve. That idea is present in the Bible also, but also it has a very strong theme of grace – being forgiven although I do not deserve it, and receiving good gifts that I have not earned. This grace is to lead, not to doing what I please because I can get away with it, but to joyfully living out a new life that grace enables me to live the way God meant life to be lived.
Report comment to moderator
BoatRocker:
You will have to make your case that the US Constitution is functionally useless, and it will be a very hard case for you to make, because it is the foundation for our system of government, which has been a resounding success (compared to other forms of government). It is over 200 years old and has only been amended 27 times (that works out to a little over once per decade).
The US Constitution has been the model for democracies around the world.
The Bible, on the other hand, seems to excel in only one area: being vague enough that myriad splinter groups can develop myriad theological backstories and still feel justified in claiming allegiance to it.
If it was good at promoting happiness, Christians would be happier than non-Christians.
If it was good at strengthening marriages, Christians would suffer less divorce than non-Christians.
If it was good at promoting morality, Christians would be far more moral in their behavior than non-Christians.
Case in point: The women in this thread defending the idea of being subservient to their husbands. Their arguments are Biblical in only a superficial sense. Their real arguments are about the practical realities of their lives and pointing out that their husbands do not, in fact, lead the family by making all important decisions. And that is great, because the Bible’s “god>men>women” attitude is positively destructive.
Pauline:
Since I have grown up in a culture whose values and literature were heavily influenced by the Bible, and since I have limited knowledge of cultures without that background, that’s a difficult question to answer acurately. How much of what I think I get from the Bible is actually being read into the Bible, and how much that I think is only in the Bible is actually present somewhere else?
I have no idea who your husband is, but I have a very hard time imagining that he has the moral and intellectual courage you appear to have. I would not mind you being my boss. That entire paragraph is breathtakingly honest.
But the main thing that I see in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, that I do not see much of outside of the Bible or those aspects of our culture influenced by the Bible, is the idea of grace. Many people share my mother’s point of view – you get what you deserve. Or at least you should get what you deserve. That idea is present in the Bible also, but also it has a very strong theme of grace – being forgiven although I do not deserve it, and receiving good gifts that I have not earned. This grace is to lead, not to doing what I please because I can get away with it, but to joyfully living out a new life that grace enables me to live the way God meant life to be lived.
So people get the “eye for an eye” idea from the Bible and they get “turn the other cheek” from the Bible. You will notice that the same people will hold these contradictory ideas in their head and say they have Biblical justification for each whenever it suits their emotional reactions.
I think you will find that the idea of receiving “grace” from a higher authority is a bitter pill (to say the least). What is it that you actually need forgiveness for? And beyond that, why do others even owe it to us to forgive us? Perhaps that is the most mature and healthy way for someone to live, but does it really matter if I refuse to forgive someone who stole from me?
What is so powerfully insidious about Christ’s message, especially, is how duplicitous it is. He tells you to turn the other cheek but he is perfectly happy to send (or “allow you to be sent” for the moral cowards out there) you to everlasting fire. And all this after he (or god, or whatever) earlier said “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”.
Where is the consistent moral instruction? If the Bible is my guide I have multiple mixed messages and I am left to interpret them. If I am interpreting moral behavior anyway, why even burden myself with a Bible? Why not just go straight to the moral judgment using whatever faculties I have that I am supposed to use to decipher the Bible?
If that had been the way of thinking, you might have been handling finances from the beginning and the ugly mess of transition (and the eternally irritating conflict with male ego) could have been avoided from the outset. Maybe he cooks better than you and you will never know (or anything, really, I do not presume to know your home life).
Report comment to moderator
Adam says,
You will have to make your case that the US Constitution is functionally useless, and it will be a very hard case for you to make…
I’m not the one claiming one thing is useless while the other is not, so the case for the Bible being such is yours to make.
… because it is the foundation for our system of government, which has been a resounding success (compared to other forms of government). It is over 200 years old and has only been amended 27 times (that works out to a little over once per decade).
The US Constitution has been the model for democracies around the world.
All of these are of course highly debatable. Ask people of other countries whether our system of gov’t “has been a resounding success” and they’ll strongly disagree. As an American, I personally believe the US C. is the best of any, but most people will always prefer their own form of gov’t so our personal beliefs about it are not something objective. Look at some of the ancient empires, how long they lasted, and how much they accomplished. Our republic is crumbling after a mere 200+ years in comparison.
And you’ve ignored the fact that the C. is highly debated even among our own people. The original issue was that you claimed the Bible is useless because people can’t agree on its interpretation, but now you’re changing to another objection since that one didn’t hold up as a consistent principle you apply across the board. The C. can be considered vague enough to cause quite a few problems. So now you’re switching to “The C. is better than the Bible because it works.”
If it was good at promoting happiness, Christians would be happier than non-Christians.
If it was good at strengthening marriages, Christians would suffer less divorce than non-Christians.
If it was good at promoting morality, Christians would be far more moral in their behavior than non-Christians.
To quote Spock, “You proceed from a false assumption.” You presume that the Bible is at fault for how people fail to practice it. You also presume that God is a cosmic hedonist who only exists to make people happy, or that he is a puppet master who forces people to do what he says.
The Bible has this purpose: To tell us about God and what he wants from us, to show us how badly we fail, to provide the means of helping us rise above our failures, and to offer mercy when we don’t. What people do with that is their own responsibility.
Even aside from all the disputed areas, the Bible has one unmistakable message: Jesus, the prophesied Messiah, lived the perfect life we couldn’t live, died in our place to pay the price we couldn’t pay, then rose from the dead to provide the eternal life we couldn’t provide. God did it all for us, and all we have to do is accept it. How can that be too much to ask? How can that be not good enough for you?
That, Adam, is what works. Millions through history have testified to this fact, just as you testify to the success of our C. Not all agree the C. is best, and not all agree the Bible is best. They are in the same boat by your standards, and you have yet to prove otherwise.
The women in this thread defending the idea of being subservient to their husbands. Their arguments are Biblical in only a superficial sense. Their real arguments are about the practical realities of their lives and pointing out that their husbands do not, in fact, lead the family by making all important decisions. And that is great, because the Bible’s “god>men>women” attitude is positively destructive.
Two errors in what you say here: one, that their arguments are a failure of the Bible and not the people making the arguments, and two, that the Bible teaches man over woman.
I don’t know if you’ve read my article yet, but I showed how consistent the egalitarian interpretation is, and that it shows there is no such male over female ordered by God. True that most who give lip service to male supremacy don’t live it out in practice, but there are also Americans who give lip service to the C. but live like they hate it. Same thing.
Anyway, please read my article, and I hope someday you’ll come to realize that Jesus died for you and rose again to offer you life. I have to attend to some projects I’ve been putting off and probably won’t have time to post here, at least for a while. Please consider whether your objections to the Bible really are consistent, that is, you apply them to all major documents that affect people’s lives.
Report comment to moderator
BoatRocker:
Ask people of other countries whether our system of gov’t “has been a resounding success” and they’ll strongly disagree.
They will? We have had one civil war and otherwise complete peace as far as government function and structure is concerned. You could make an argument, but it is going to be a very very bad one.
As an American, I personally believe the US C. is the best of any, but most people will always prefer their own form of gov’t so our personal beliefs about it are not something objective.
I did not say the best, merely that it was successful.
Look at some of the ancient empires, how long they lasted, and how much they accomplished. Our republic is crumbling after a mere 200+ years in comparison.
It is crumbling?
The original issue was that you claimed the Bible is useless because people can’t agree on its interpretation, but now you’re changing to another objection since that one didn’t hold up as a consistent principle you apply across the board. The C. can be considered vague enough to cause quite a few problems. So now you’re switching to “The C. is better than the Bible because it works.”
The US Constitution is supposed to be changed by people over time to adapt to what the people want with time. The Bible is held to be the absolute word of god for all eternity.
When we can vote on amendments to the Bible then they can be discussed as similar.
You presume that the Bible is at fault for how people fail to practice it.
Fault is not the issue, efficacy is the issue. If its job is to tell us how we should live, it is bad at its job. So bad, in fact, that two sincere believers can hold completely different ideas about the exact same thing and feel completely justified in holding them.
The Bible has this purpose: To tell us about God and what he wants from us, to show us how badly we fail, to provide the means of helping us rise above our failures, and to offer mercy when we don’t. What people do with that is their own responsibility.
But it does not really tell us what god wants from us. What does he want from us? Does he want us to stone abortionists or not? Does he want us to kill those who kill others or not? Does he want us to use contraception or not? Does he want women to be priests or not? Should we stone witches or not? Should we judge sinners or should we not judge sinners? These are questions the Bible presumes to answer but does not.
The Constitution, on the other hand, tells us how our government should be structured, and I rarely see Senators waltzing into the White House saying, “I’m really the president!” and pointing to something in the Constitution to justify it. The Constitution is fantastic at its job, and it even allows amending if we feel the collective need to do so. (And the most important distinction between the Bible and the Constitution is that the Constitution is merely the guide for political organization, it does not presume to hold answers for personal happiness.)
I don’t know if you’ve read my article yet, but I showed how consistent the egalitarian interpretation is, and that it shows there is no such male over female ordered by God.
Yes, your interpretation.
Anyway, please read my article, and I hope someday you’ll come to realize that Jesus died for you and rose again to offer you life.
And if I don’t realize it, Jesus will have me roasted eternally. Ah… infinite love.
Report comment to moderator
#97
Adam Beckham,
Most churches that teach the Bible as the Word of God (at least those I’ve attended) also teach something called “progressive revelation.” The “eye for an eye” teaching comes early in the Bible, and provided a way to provide justice but deter the common tendency to escalate injuries to avenge a wrong. “Turn the other cheek” came much later, in the New Testament, where Jesus also intensified the command against murder to include hatred, the command against adultery to include lust, etc. (There is also an alternative interpretation given by Walter Wink, who suggests that “turning the other cheek” was a way of making the offender treat the “victim” with respect due to the cultural understanding of what it meant to hit with the backhand vs the forehand.)
I used to find the idea of grace a bitter pill. At first I really didn’t think of myself as all that bad. Later, I came to see ways in which I had hurt people without even realizing it, and the depths of my self-centeredness. Still, I was used to being able to excel at most things I tried, and the fact that I couldn’t change myself into a better person (at any rate it sure didn’t seem to be working) really galled me. I wanted to earn God’s praise, as I always had earned praise for my excellent work in school and work.
Over the years that changed. I don’t remember any dramatic turning point, but now I am grateful that I am forgiven for my thoughtless words or action, for the times I am more concerned about what I want than the needs of others around me, and for sins I have committed that I have no need or desire to list in a public forum like this.
As for whether people have an obligation to forgive me – there are some stories Jesus told along those lines. If someone had nothing to be forgiven for, perhaps it would be hard to argue why he would be obligated to forgive others. But if, as Christians believe, we are all in need of forgiveness by God, forgiving others for how they have wronged us is natural and only right in light of how much more God has forgiven us.
I do struggle with the idea of people going to hell. My father believed that everyone would eventually be reconciled with God. There are some theologians who believe this, but it has generally been considered a heresy. However it works out, I do not think that God sends anyone to hell for arbitrary or capricious reasons. And I don’t think it’s based on intellectual acceptance or non-acceptance of certain doctrines.
The Bible says over and over that the righteous will see God, those who are pure of heart and whose actions also are pure and just. Often that’s interpreted to mean that hypothetically, someone who never sinned would go to heaven, but there is no such person (except Jesus), so the only way is to be imputed Jesus’ righteousness through faith in him. Not that I disagree with that – but too often the emphasis ends up being on belief in something about Jesus and not on living righteously. I allow myself to speculate that what matters most to God is that we recognize ourselves as people who have messed up, often badly, in need of His grace. (It was after all the people who thought they were just fine spiritually that Jesus rebuked most severely.) I would think that hearing the message of Jesus would make someone more easily accept that message of grace than if they had never heard it – but I allow myself to hope that even those who have never heard (or have heard a distorted version of what it means to be a Christian and rejected it) may receive God’s grace if they recognize in some way their need for it.
My mother did not believe in grace. She believed in karma, that everything good or bad that happens is deserved, whether for thoughts/words/actions in this life or a previous one. She was a miserable person because she could not make herself into the person she thought she ought to be. But she abhorred the notion that an innocent person could have died for her sins. If someone was going to suffer for her sins, it was going to be her. In her last coherent conversation with me, she talked about how bad everything was and said it must be because she was not a better person and God must hate her. That is what I would call “a bitter pill.” Shortly before she died, I prayed for her to receive God’s grace and she breathed a faint “Amen,” so I hope that near the end she was finally able to accept something better than what she felt she deserved.
Report comment to moderator
I stay at home, doing the dishes and making beds while my wife goes to an office and works during the week.
Outkast is a stay at home mom? That’s rich. But gay marriage is wrong? No wonder Outkast hates Titus 2 and gives me a hard time for quoting it to Sarah Rode. Young ladies in combat training, men staying home while the wife leaves the kids all day to go out and be the breadwinner…all this is in blatant contradiction to the Bible, the book Christians claims to live by. And while they ignore the stuff about male/female sex roles in the Bible that they don’t like, or conflicts with their “feelings”, they never stop raising heck about homosexuals ignoring the parts of the Bible about the roles of male and female that they don’t like.
Report comment to moderator
Scott,
What ‘belief’ are you talking about? My original post about my mother and her divorce was talking about how a complete college education would have benefited her once my father left.
her need for suffering brought on by her belief.
Maybe complete sentences would help
Report comment to moderator
My wife has been a homemaker for six years and we love it.
Report comment to moderator
Evidently that goes for everybody else as well.
Report comment to moderator
When Outkast gets done cleaning his own house, he can clean ours. I’m sure many women like myself would appreciate the help.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!