"How can the church compel men to rise up without pushing women down?"
The sad fact of the matter is that church is failing to do so, and I am altogether sick of my gender suffering the consequences of the church's failure in this regard. Women should not be pushed down just so that a "twenty-or-thirty-something male" will feel good about himself and, perhaps, be manipulated into going to, and participating in, the church experience.
This is why I am going to be using this blog for the next little while to compile all of the sermons, pieces of literature, radio broadcasts, and YouTube videos I can on the various ways in which the patriarchal church's leaders (which happen to be all men, not surprisingly) are hurting the church through their sexist, careless, and ignorant remarks, all the while their "submissive" little wives following closely behind them to mimic their distorted sentiments.
There are three things I would like to establish before continuing, however.
#1. My goal is not to bash my brothers and sisters in Christ, but to appeal to the church to stand up to this God-dishonouring sexism, - even if it is not intentional or is simply an isolated mistake, - and ask our Christian leaders, teachers, pastors, and other powerful Christian voices, to really ask yourself what message we are sending to those who are listening, and to recant and repent where they need to.
It is my conviction that when someone representing the church makes a public statement that is damaging, it is the responsibility of the entire church to publicly renounce said statement and rebuke the person in persistent sin so that all will fear (1Ti 5:20).
Though I have the highest respect for some of these teachers of the Word, like John Piper, I am here to say I respectfully, yet passionately, disagree.
#2. I will not be very merciful in these posts, because the seriousness of these offenses (though they may be unintended) require a harsh response.
#3. I am Canadian, as as such, I will spell some words differently than an American would. Just because you may find an awkward "u" popping up in a word, for example, does not necessarily mean it was misspelled. Just sayin.
So without further ado, let me introduce you to today's Twisted Patriarchal Message Of The Day this 19th day of July, 2011!
 |
| Kevin Swanson, Generations Radio |
 |
| Susan Bradrick, Family Discipleship Ministries |
Kevin Swanson, from Generations radio, outdid himself, along side Susan Bradrick, in his "Are You Raising Feminist Daughters" broadcast, in which he invoked the notorious Forbes article entitled “Don’t Marry Career Women.” (The original article itself was retracted by Forbes and subsequently re-posted with the counter-argument seen here.)
In the article, as Kevin Swanson would have it, Michael Noer refers to a “number of studies that have been done, indicating that professional women – that is, those with 4 year degrees in the professional white-collar market – are much more likely to be divorced."
This factor could be attributed to any number of causes. For instance, could this higher incidence of divorce be because women who are financially independent are more likely not to tolerate abuse? He doesn’t indicate whatsoever the reasons that may be behind this statistic, nor did he mention any of the situational variables that were taken into account (if any were) – and that means that the incidence of divorce in these cases may not necessarily be a bad thing, or necessarily be attributed directly to the professional status of the woman.
“And more likely to cheat – ah, more precisely, stated, 1.7 times more likely to have cheated than those who have high school diplomas.”
It would be interesting to read the actual statistics and see how husbands, for example, are factored in to the equation. For example, did they take into account to fidelity of the husband as well? What about the level of care and attentiveness the husbands gave to their wives? I mean, if it is alright to assert that “A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him either,” as Mark Driscoll contends without apology, then it‘s only fair to turn the tables around back on the men, don’t you think? (Of course, we all know that as it relates to patriarchy, what's good for the goose isn't typically regarded as being good for the gander.)
Regardless, the prevalence of divorce within the career-woman category does not in itself assume that the smaller prevalence of divorce recorded within the circles of their domesticated counterparts is actually indicative of these women being happily married. It could be that many of these financially-dependent women simply feel forced to stay in their unhappy or abusive marriages for a lack of self-sufficiency, which leads me to my next question:
If this is true, is a bad marriage and an abusive marriage better than divorce – and do you have the cold, hard data to back up this claim? Sure, there may be studies done which follow the impact of divorce on children; but there have also been studies published which measure and record the impact of violence in the home on children – neither of which is healthy by any stretch of the imagination.
“They are also less likely to have children; and if they do have kids they are more likely to be unhappy about it.”
There are plenty of men and women out there who do not want children. That is neither good nor bad; it is their choice to make. I don’t see Jesus commanding us to have children anywhere, though when a couple does decide to have children, it is a blessing.
“Women’s work hours consistently increase the possibility of divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours do not have such a statistical effect. “
As we’ve already established, there could be many reasons for this, and that statistic in itself is not evidence that it is better for our society (or the promotion of the Gospel) for women to avoid the workplace.
“'Social Forces' is a research journal that found that women, even those with a feminist outlook, are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.”
I’m so glad I have people to tell me what makes me happier as a woman, because I could not have decided by my little self without that research paper what would make me happy.
“Let’s face it, folks. It’s gonna be less efficient, and economically less viable, when you’ve got two people operating competitively instead of the way God designed us to be – and that was to be a complement one to another.”
First of all, you cannot presume that just because you have a husband and a wife both working that they are operating competitively. Secondly, if God designed us to be a complement one to another and that is the problem here, then it shouldn’t be a problem if a couple decided that it is more fitting in their situation to have the man to stay home and care for the children while the woman pursues her career. (Now remember, Swanson, according to you, homemaking is vitally important - a noble and worthwhile profession, satisfying in and of itself.) Yet, that would be considered a sin by the current evangelical patriarchy movement.
Apparently that is not the issue here, after all.
“Among those millionaires – those guys who operate in the American free-market system, these guys were asked what factors contributed to their success, and Tom Stanley reports that getting a supportive spouse was one of the number one factors of success for these millionaires. In other words, if they had a supportive spouse who was there to complement them in their household economic vision – if she were complementary to the guy – then the household would be successful. They account their success to having a complementary spouse.”
Stipulative definition, Kevin. You are using the very ambiguous word "supportive" in your own terms - namely, to mean "complement." "Supportive" can mean many different things to many people, and to suggest that in each of these cases the millionaire man actually understood "supportive spouse" to mean "complementary spouse,"is highly speculative - if not downright dishonest.
But even if they did, are you implying that the end-all for a man should be financial success, and should he have a lackey at home to do his bidding and take care of things while he goes off and makes a name for himself, it is indeed a successful homestead? Yeah. Tell that to all the children out there who don’t know their millionaire daddies because these daddies are too busy being ‘successful’ to actually bother to be nurturing, engaged fathers and husbands.
Why are you measuring the success of a man by his financial accomplishments anyway? How is that biblical???
Now, perhaps I am reading your intentions wrong here, but what I am taking from everything you have said is that 1) God has created me for the sole purpose of “supporting" my husband (whatever "supporting" means in this instance is far too ambiguous to actually be tenable); and, therefore, 2) I should just crucify myself completely and sink my own individuality and independence into my husband's aspirations and caprice...because the most important thing in life is a man's financial success?
Dang...
Thank you for cluing me in. And here I have been thinking that as a woman created in the image of God, along with man, I am an equal person to my husband, with my own individual personality and who has always had a sense of my own goals, dreams, and aspirations. I guess it was terribly wrong for me to be myself and have a sense of my own identity apart from my husband. But really, God should have thought of that before he gave me a brain and self-agency. ;-)
“My friends, what the feminist outlook does for women is degrade the woman’s role as being the guardian keeper, the maintainer of the home.”
And here I thought my womanhood was being degraded by those who insist, either by implication or blatantly, that as a woman I should not pursue an education or a professional career, lest it detract from my “role” as a woman to “help” and “complement” a man.
Oh snap.
“Only 49% of women now live with a husband.”
And… What’s your point? Is there something wrong with a self-sufficient, capable woman who doesn’t need to hide behind a man?
Never mind. I guess there is something wrong with that if your game is to push women down in order to rise up and feel significant as a man, eh?
And to be completely honest with you, Kevin, I am not sure I know how one would reconcile your frowning upon unmarried women with the words of Paul the Apostle as he explains the advantage of celibacy (yes, the advantages of celibacy!) in his first letter to the Corinthians: "The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. ... So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better"(1 Corinthians 7:32).
“Is it possible for some girls to appreciate the home – to love the home – to love children and raising children more than other girls – have you seen that?” Swanson asks Susan Bradrick. “I have,” she begins, “but I think that it goes back to faulty thinking in our training. We are grown up in a world where we are taught that we should do what we like, or do what we love; and I think God has called us to love what we do….now, of course we have different tendencies – some of us are artsy crafty; some of us are more science-oriented, and those kinds of things are going to hold greater intrigue for us – but we need to love to do all of those things for God’s glory…and deep down inside of every girl – even though she may have been conditioned to think otherwise – there is a desire to be that keeper at home – to do the things that God created woman to do. “
Oh my goodness! Thank you ever so, Susan, for pointing out that I apparently am so infantile that I need you to dictate to me my own innermost desires – that if I desire something that conflicts with your agenda and program for my life, I must not know what I really desire.
Please forgive me for my sarcasm, but seriously - do you honestly not see how condescending it is to tall women that you know better than they do what they truly desire?
And just for curiosity's sake, what, pray tell, would you say is a good way to re-condition a girl who does think otherwise?
Be careful, now, Susan, you would not want to endorse methods such as this, would you? You surely do not want to be responsible for the abuse of children. Don't you see how dangerous it is to reinforce culturally-defined gender roles and to perpetuate the notion that we should actually force people into them? Where is there latitude for us to just be who God has made us to be? I am seriously asking you this.
If your calling is to be a homemaker, fine – all the power to you – you should do it with all of your heart. But I am really offended that you would actually try to force your calling, or your preferences, down my throat. What I do, and what I do not do, and how I interpret certain biblical passages, and how I do not interpret certain biblical passages as a Christian woman is not your business. And just what gives you the right to usurp your own interpretations (as genuine as you are in them), on to others? If you want to debate them, fine. We should do that. But don't pass them off as if you are right in your convictions and everybody else who disagrees with you - and there are many good, solid Christians who do - are wrong or sinful.
Raising children, cooking meals, being a wife, cleaning, wiping runny noses and changing diapers are all tasks within my calling. My calling – and the calling of every Christian woman and man – is to bring the good news of salvation to the ends of the earth. That is what satisfies me. That is where my purpose is found. That is my identity. My husband is my brother in Christ, not my father or my god. And my children are my brothers and sisters in Christ, not my idols. Yes, I can do everything I can as a parent to bring them to Christ (as my husband should as well), and I will love and serve them, but I will not define myself by them or limit my value and life's purpose to them. And furthermore, as hard as this may be for you to hear, I couldn’t care less about homemaking.
...It’s all going to burn, baby.
The inconvenient truth for you, evidently, is that I have utterly zero interest in it other than making sure my house is livable and our needs are met. I have not, nor will I ever, get to the point where I devote my life toward being a homemaker. This is not my home, after all. I am a sojourner, traveling through this world on my way home. Even though I do love my husband and children and I will strive to walk-out my marriage in mutual submission and service to one another (God's word to women, as I understand it), the fact remains that entire span of my existence is not actually hinged on my husband or on my children; it's hinged on the Gospel of Jesus Christ alone. Who are you to pretend to know what God has called me for? That is slightly arrogant, don't you think - honestly?
And back to you, Kevin, yeah - I know - this is quite a scary revelation for a man to have to grapple with coming from a woman - it’s scary, indeed! After all, if men can’t force women to love and serve men, and look up longingly at them in sheer adoration, just where will men find their significance? They might actually have to find their security in Jesus. And if men can’t keep women financially dependent on them, and they actually have to compete with women in the workplace and share authority with their female counterparts, men might actually have to earn the respect of women by behaving in a manner worthy of respect, as opposed to just forcing or bullying people to respect you.
Absolutely. Horrifying.
And I ask you both now, what should I make of passages such as Matthew 10:37-38? “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
Or Luke 14:26-27? If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”
I'll tell you what. The callings of women will look different for each woman, respectively. We are not all generic, and we are not all cut-out to be mothers and housewives. It wasn’t so in the Bible, where Deborah, judge of the Israel (in other words, military leader, prophetess, and judicial leader) served under the anointing of God. Neither was that the case for Philip the evangelist’s four virgin daughters who prophesied as described in Acts 21:9. And whaddaya know! We also have Miriam and Huldah and Noadiah. Why didn't God know that they were supposed to be home-oriented?
And especially relevant to this topic is the solemn warning God gave to the Israelites about the procedures that a king ruling over them would implement. And can you guess what one of those warnings were? Have yourself a look, won’t you?
“He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers” (1 Samuel 8:13 NIV).
In other words, living under a monarchy would result in the absence of the Spirit, and as such will replace the freedom of the Spirit with laws – laws of which have a natural tendency to, among other things, squash women by relegating them to domestic servitude within these“female” roles.
I think that underlying all of this nonsense there is something vitally important that we need to be aware of: the sentiment and thus the implied suggestion behind the claims, however subtle they may be, that women are either better not educated, or don’t need as much education as men, and that they are better not active members of the workforce based on nothing but fear of an inability on the part of men to keep women under thumb.
And that, my friends, is the essence of oppression.
No comments:
Post a Comment