Where "Modesty" Leads, and the response of one very brave woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/sudan-woman-risks-flogging-over-uncovered-hair-143126249.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/08/sudan-woman-risks-flogging-over-uncovered-hair/

Amira Osman Hamed is fighting a law in Sudan which says that she must wear hijab and cover her hair. SHe refuses to do so, even though her refusal could mean a severe beating. My hat is off to this woman, who is risking much in standing up for right and justice.



Says the article:

"Sudanese woman says she is prepared to be flogged to defend the right to leave her hair uncovered in defiance of a "Taliban"-like law."

Amira Osman Hamed faces a possible whipping if convicted at a trial which could come on September 19.

Under Sudanese law her hair -- and that of all women -- is supposed to be covered with a "hijab". But Hamed, 35, refuses to wear one.

Her case has drawn support from civil rights activists and is the latest to highlight Sudan's series of laws governing morality which took effect after the 1989 Islamist-backed coup by President Omar al-Bashir.

"They want us to be like Taliban women," Hamed said in an interview with AFP, referring to the fundamentalist militant movement in Afghanistan.

She is charged under Article 152 which prohibits "indecent" clothing.

Activists say the vaguely worded law leaves women subject to police harassment and disproportionately targets the poor in an effort to maintain "public order".

"This public order law changed Sudanese women from victims to criminals," says Hamed, a divorced computer engineer who runs her own company.

"This law is targeting the dignity of Sudanese people."

Book review: Dance of the Dissident Daughter

This book was recommended to me by a friend recently, and while I don't relate to/agree with everything in it, I think it's worth reading.

The author, Sue Monk Kidd, is a one-time christian inspirational writer-turned-novelist, and is also the author of The Secret Life of Bees.

The general subject of the book is the importance of the Sacred Feminine in the spiritual and physical lives of women and those who love them, and it is the story of the author's journey from a more traditional, patriarchy-based understanding of God and spirituality to an understanding that includes both Sacred Masculine and Sacred Feminine, among other things. One of the aspects of her journey to which I cannot really relate is her leaving of the church entirely, not just certain churches or denominations, and her elevation of her own experience past the the point I'd peg as healthy. Unlike Ms. Kidd, I believe that a woman can find a balanced understanding of a genderless God within the Christian Church, and that she can find the closest possible relationship with God through a focus on the gospel and the teachings of Christ and with a community of christians to support her.

First, the writing- the book is divided into four sections- Awakening, Initiation, Grounding, and Empowerment. The chronology jumps around- the story is told in many smaller stories, and there is no organizational structure such as thesis points, a chronological timeline, or really any division between the stories, except for her own four general categories. The story is a progression, but not a strictly linear one. For this reason the style doesn't appeal to me and made the book difficult to finish; that's more a statement of preference than an evaluative judgement. If you like to segue between stories more than you like following a concept down a linear progression, Ms. Kid's style will probably appeal to you.

Ms. Kidd writes that her process of "awakening to her feminine self" began with a vivid dream, in which she gave birth to a daughter who was also herself. She says "For years I had written down my dreams, believing, as I still do, that one of the purest sources of knowledge about our lives comes from the symbols and images deep within." This reverence for individual truth and personal feeling is a recurring theme throughout the book. While I think that being knowledgeable and aware of oneself and in tune with feelings and reactions is important, I tend to elevate Truth that exists outside of myself as a litmus test by which to evaluate and quantify personal feelings, so this is not a theme I particularly relate to. I do think that it could be an important point for a person who is not self-aware, or is accustomed to being dismissed, ignored, or minimized; we should not dismiss or ignore, except perhaps temporarily so that we deal with them on our terms, our feelings and reactions. What a person believes about themselves has an enormous impact on themselves and the people around them, and self-knowledge is always healthy and necessary; I do think that this can be taken too far when people blindly accept their feelings as true, as the opposite extreme to repression and self-depreciation.

Ms. Kidd speaks of a gradual awakening to things she had seen all her life but never noticed, and a gradual process of a distinctly feminine self-actualization. This brings me to my main issue with her perspective- she is far, far more of a gender essentialist than I am, and some of her statements seem oddly reminiscent of gender-based statements I have seen in fundamentalist literature from the opposite perspective. Part of her perspective I find beautiful and true- namely, the ideas that a woman experiences spirituality in a deeper way and/or accepts her life as female with more passion and contentment when all holiness and deity is not exclusively male, and that women need strength and autonomy. I don't make the same correlations between women's biological ability to nurture life and a unique feminine propensity for relational nurturing as does Ms. Kidd. But more on that later.

Ms Kidd, who loves the christian monastic and contemplative sides, describes the pivotal experiences she had in monastic retreats, experiences which propelled her into an understanding of God as both Father and Mother, and she describes the dissonance between her growing need to identify with the feminine aspect of God and her attendance at a traditional Southern Baptist church. She remembers the messages both she and her own daughter received as children, messages of male headship and a limitation of certain levels of spiritual service to males. These experiences, along with any harassment and dismissal she experienced, she labels part of something called the Feminine Wound. Ms. Kidd writes that for the first part of her life, she had been asleep as a woman, and unaware of the injustices which she experienced as a female. She had been operating, unbeknownst to herself, in a paradigm which placed a man at the center of woman's existence, and put any personal goals, desires, or development secondary to the wishes and needs of the man. As her awakening progressed, she found herself realizing and recognizing unhealthy patterns and inequalities in her most basic relationships. I relate to this part of her experience- being naturally aggressive and independent, I assume that I have succeeded in overcoming stereotypes and co-dependencies, only to find another root of harmful philosophy that I never knew was a part of me.

Ms. Kidd describes something which she feels every woman should embrace- a uniquely feminine soul; a sense of the relational and interconnected, and the guiding force and power of women. Here I disagree with her, as I don't think souls are gendered, nor do I believe that every woman has a deep internal connection to a relational, earthy, nurturing, inner self. She goes on to say that women have been underrepresented in the historical naming and quantifying of spiritual truth- this I can believe, at least in the official sense. The basic orthodoxy we hold dear was, largely, codified by men, and I can certainly admit the plausibility of her assertion that this fact is responsible for the demise of the sacred feminine within Christianity. I agree with Ms. Kidd on the importance of the sacred feminine to women, in the sense that if God is both feminine and masculine, the idea of both genders as equally divine image bearers becomes more difficult to undermine.

Ms. Kidd describes our culture, even our faith culture, as anesthetizing the feminine spirit, and she quotes Clarissa Pinkola Estes, a quote which I loved:

When a woman is exhorted to be compliant, cooperative, and quiet, to not make upset or go against the old guard, she is pressed into living a most unnatural life- a life that is self-blinding.....without innovation. The world-wide issue for women is that under such conditions they are not only silenced, they are put to sleep. Their concerns, their viewpoints, their own truths are vaporized.

I'd like to think that in the years since Ms. Kidd was young, some of the ways in which she describes females being silenced, minimized, or objectified are no longer as prevalent, but I do think that such things still exist, whether in tempered form, in pockets of religious fundamentalism, or in other places around the world. The condition of women in other places ranges from equality or very near, in some western countries, to the most terrible slavery and oppression in places like the Middle East, parts of Asia, and parts of Africa. I wish I could say that my country was free from the oppressing and silencing of women, but there are echos of it here to varying degrees, more in certain sub-cultures than in others. Whenever I hear people blame a rape victim, or act as if a woman matters nothing if she is not beautiful, or deny higher education to a daughter because of her gender, or exclude women from equal participation in worship, I cringe, thinking of all the steps, all too few, between such polite oppression and the more serious forms of oppression in other parts of the world.

Ms. Kidd describes the course of her life prior to her feminine awakening as filled with attempts to fit external ideals of Christian Womanhood which she had internalized from church and society. She lists several archetypes which describe the good daughter of patriarchy she used to be- the Gracious Lady, that archetype of southern charm, sophistication, and reserve, the Favored Daughter, with all her compliance and man- pleasing and perfectionism, the Secondary Partner, with all her self-effacing and self-sacrificing, and the Silent Woman, with her repression and anger and desperation to be heard. I relate to this as well, knowing the pressure to conform to an ideal of feminine reality and the frustration of being deemed unfeminine because I cannot.

Throughout the book, Ms. Kidd describes various experiences in which she found the Sacred Feminine- dancing with her friends on the beach, experiences in nature, and study of and visiting sacred places of the Sacred Feminine. Many of her examples of the sacred feminine in early religions were new to me, and this aspect of the book was a catalyst for much enjoyable further study. She relates some of her experiences as a metaphor to the story of Ariadne, and the back-and-forth between this story and her own was interesting.

Ms. Kidd does not denigrate men, but respects and loves her husband, which I appreciate. All too often, I see the stereotype of the independent "feminist" woman inextricably linked in people's minds with a "bad wife", or a distant, disrespectful, or inattentive woman. Not so- I was never a better wife than I am now, in all my feminist glory. :) It's funny how a push for honesty, equality, and mutual love and respect actually doesn't ruin a relationship.....

Throughout this book, Ms. Kidd references many religions having to do with the Sacred Feminine, and seems to appreciate that aspect of their spirituality. In my own belief, while the only complete Truth is found in Christ, other religions can certainly have good mixed in with the not-so-good, and can be a source of revelation, as can many non-religious things. Ms. Kidd mentions the sacred feminine symbology of the serpent several times, which I find interesting considering its biblical symbology... which in turn simply reminds us of the fluid nature and limited empiricism of symbology. :) When drawing from many eras and cultures, it is wholly possible that multiple symbologies for the same object or idea can arise, and vice versa. It is also possible that multiple symbologies per the same object may exist within the Bible, and that other, later philosophies which were antithetical to feminine wisdom and equality may have tainted our perception of some of those passages.

I like Ms. Kidd's focus, too, on moving past anger and channeling emotion and energy into action. This is a concept which we'd all do well to imitate. She also acknowledges the importance of allowing for diversity and solidarity between women, and realizes that we are not all the same person with a different shell. All in all, I enjoyed the book and found value in it, though I do not agree with everything within it and though I relate more to the general concepts than to Ms. Kidd's specific experience.

Chivalry and Honor Codes

I grew up reading stories of brave, martial men and steadfast women. I was fascinated with Ivanhoe and G.A.Henty, with stories of knights and honor and the best and bravest of men. My parents tried to teach my brothers to be men of honor, and I try to instill a sense of honor in my children. However- not all chivalry is equal, and not all stereotypical expressions of the honorable man or woman are compatible with the realities of our culture and the dictates of scripture as I read it. (And for the record, I am well aware that the version of "chivalry" that is taught in the whitewashed and idealized books we read as children was not generally an accurate depiction of the societies represented by the stories. "Courtly love?" "Knightly chivalry" a la the Eroll Flynn Robin Hood? Yes..... I'm not sure that ever existed outside Hollywood. But that's another story for another time.) There is much good in having a code of honor, and in maintaining personal standards and convictions and taking responsibility for our actions. There is also danger in blindly accepting a code of honor from generations or cultures past, with all its accompanying ideological assumptions, without some careful scrutiny. 



What is a code of honor? As I understand it, it is a set of ideals and philosophies, and the rules and assumptions one chooses to live by. By implication, transgression of one's honor code will result in some form of consequence, be it a personal feeling of shame or failure or some sort of social stigma or in some cases even legal/criminal consequences. Honor codes, real or fictitious, vary immensely with location, time and culture- from the honor codes of fictional pirates or cowboys to the honor codes of historic American pioneers to the honor code of a traditional muslim family in Saudi Arabia. One dictionary defines "Honor Code" as " A code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men, that was maintained in some societies, as in feudal Europe, by force of arms" According to Wiki, "An honor code or honor system is a set of rules or ethical principles governing a community based on ideals that define what constitutes honorable behavior within that community. The use of an honor code depends on the notion that people (at least within the community) can be trusted to act honorably. Those who are in violation of the honor code can be subject to various sanctions, including expulsion from the institution." There is a code of honorable behavior here in America as well, though it is not legally enforced or universally adhered to by any means; it is what was taught to my spouse, my siblings, my self, and many of our young friends as children to help us understand how to be a person of reliable, excellent character.



The first thing that comes to mind when I think about a code of honor in a positive (and very general) sense is a passion for truth and justice, even at the expense of personal comfort or inclination. This is one I'll keep, and teach to my children; it is completely and repeatedly compatible with the teachings of Scripture. That, and it builds an unselfish and responsible character and its widespread existence would lead to a free and safe society. When I think about honor, I also think of the "golden rule"- treating others as we would like to be treated, regardless of their status or ours, and considering the effects of an action, not only on ourselves, but also on others, before we undertake it. The "honor code" I'll teach my children, in a nutshell, is justice, mercy, kindness, unselfishness, a love for truth and goodness, and both a sense of our personal responsibility for our actions and the effects of our actions on others and our responsibility to consider those effects. Too often, in our American society, children are raised with an inflated idea of their own importance and a feeling that they are entitled to various things. My goal, with my own children, is to fight the sense of entitlement and imbue them in its place with a careful consideration for others and a passion for justice and truth.



More specifically, we were taught that honorable men and women would not break a verbal contract, would not lie, and/or would be committed to being truthful and keeping agreements even at personal cost. This is a very positive thing, in my estimation- imagine how pleasant society would be if you could depend on people's truthfulness and reliability in general.... this idea of truthfulness/clarity/reliability, too, is a part of the teachings of scripture, the following of which is synonymous with my Christian faith.



Other specifics I think of when I think of honorable behavior include things like deferring to/assisting those weaker than yourself, E.G. holding a door for an elderly person, (some would say for women) a person with a heavy load, or giving your seat to a such a person in a crowded place, etc. Honesty in romantic relationships is another example- for instance, an honorable person will not lead a suitor on, implying more investment or feeling than is accurate for the sake of any personal benefits they might gain, and an honorable person will be decisive about whether they do or do not want a relationship, and will be willing to define both their feelings to the degree that they can and to share their goals and intentions for the relationship in an honest and forthright way.


Now, the negative- because the teachings on honor and chivalry I've heard generally originated in a culture and generation in which gender equality was not a widely accepted concept and gender roles were more rigid and static, some of the "honorable behavior" code promotes inaccurate and harmful assumptions and behavior. For example, take some of the rules on men relating to women in public: not sitting when there are women standing, holding the door for women, men paying for their female companions, etc. These rules assume that men are stronger, and women weaker, and thus men deferring to women in these conventions is conflated with the idea of the strong protecting the weak. The ideal of the strong protecting the weak is very, very good, but in our society it does not make sense to apply it strictly along gender lines. Any person should be willing to  hold the door, give up their seat, or physically assist a person who is weaker than they or who is dealing with heavy loads, cumbersome strollers, or vivacious young children. Sometimes, this ethic will lead to men holding doors for women; sometimes it will not. When I am out with my elderly grandfather, I hold the door for him. When my husband is carrying our youngest, who at 11 months is, together with his carseat, quite heavy, I hold the door for him. (my husband, at 6'8", is far stronger than I am in my 5'2", un-athletic self; in this case it makes perfect sense for him to do the heavy lifting. Thanks, babe! :) )When I see a man pushing a stroller or carrying bags, I hold the door for him. To be clear, I don't mind guys holding doors or giving their seats for me; no, not at all. I do think, however, that while those actions are nice and well-intentioned we should make every effort to separate a convention that a person may enjoy retaining from the flawed ideological assumption that may have originated it.




When it comes to the man paying for the lady, I think it is logical to assume that this came from a time when women were far less likely to have self-supporting careers, or even to be employed and earning wages, than their male counterparts, and so males were naturally left with a degree of fiscal responsibility that is thankfully unnecessary today.




Which brings me to my next point- male responsibility. One of the most negative aspects of the code of honorable male behavior I've observed in my culture is the idea that the husband/father bears ultimate responsibility, not only for children he may father, but for his wife/girlfriend as well. For example, the unequal alimony laws in some states still reflect this idea, as well as the assumption that the male will be more able to fiscally provide for the support of a family. (I'm not denigrating fatherhood or a male's reproductive or familial responsibility here- I'm simply saying that a man/husband/father does not have more responsibility than a woman/wife/mother. They are equally responsible.) This inflated idea of responsibility can be an unnecessary weight when a man's wife or adult children are not being great people and he must deal with feeling responsible, even though he cannot, and as per their adulthood should not, change them or manage their behavior. It can lead to a man, who is married to a woman who is mired in learned helplessness, feeling responsible for her welfare to a degree that he should not and putting up with more in his marriage than he should because he fears that to stand up to abusive, manipulative, etc behavior is somehow failing in a sacred manly duty. By holding males to a different standard, this hurts men and women both- men, because it binds them to situations to which they should not be bound, and women, because their voices are not valued to the same degree because of their reduced perceived responsibility. For example- if a man marries an adult woman with little to no education or job skills, and finds that he has also married a poor mother and a manipulative, emotionally abusive wife, he may hesitate to take steps to protect himself or his children because he feels responsible for his wife and her future welfare, even though she is a mentally capable adult. Then, too, a man may feel pressure to control his wife since he considers himself responsible for her; this can lead to very, very unhealthy relational power dynamics. Additionally, if a woman is raised to believe that she has/needs a man to be responsible for her, she may well not be as motivated to acquire the education or job skills that make such responsibility fiscally unnecessary, or she may remain in an almost childlike state, incapable of independence, lacking the mental independence and informed mind that make dependence on the responsibility of males unnecessary or even untenable.



Personal responsibility is a great thing, and teaching our kids to take responsibility for themselves, their choices, and their children is critical. But that responsibility should not be gender based, and when we decide to take responsibility for someone else, whether it's because they are mentally incapable, or our beloved parents or grandparents who can no longer be independent, or adorable little humans that we made, that responsibility should be thoughtful, intentional, and- again- not gender based. While many people fail to take enough responsibility for themselves, some people tend to feel responsible for others when they shouldn't, especially males, older siblings, and people with "care taking" personalities, from my observation. (older sibs and caretakers generally for very different reasons.)


Basically, I think that some of the ideas of honorable behavior, particularly for males, would be great if they were not based on gender and were regulated with common sense. The concept of honor, responsibility, altruism, etc is great, but it should be gender neutral. Every time.

Christian Egalitarianism

I assumed until recently that most of my acquaintance were familiar with egalitarianism/complementarianism, (which descriptors I don't care for, since they are not defined in common usage as their linguistic parts suggest they should be, but I digress) but recent conversations have led me to believe otherwise. I think it would be helpful for me to elaborate on what Egalitarianism means to me and why I embrace it; an understanding of my views on this issue is really foundational to interpreting my statements on many things.



Another way to phrase egalitarianism is biblical or moral equality. The christian egalitarian position maintains that all humans were made in the image of our Creator God, and are equal in intrinsic worth, dignity, and personhood. God did not make "seconds" or "mistakes," but fearfully and wonderfully made each of us as unique and creative expressions of the Imago Dei. Egalitarians believe that God does not dole out gifts in different "levels" based on characteristics such as race or gender.



One misconception I have encountered is the idea that egalitarians believe, not just in moral equality, but in the sameness of all people. This, of course, is ridiculous; God gave us different and unique gifts, and yes, some people have far greater capacity in various areas than do others. We are not all Michael Jordans, or Bachs, or Einsteins. Since egalitarians emphasize the uniqueness of the individual, rather than the individual as a representation of a group such as men, women, hetersexuals, caucasians, et c. we actually have more respect, not less, for the differing ways in which God has gifted and called us. I believe that God gives gifts of talents, capacity, et c. without regard to unchangeables such as race or gender, and so I believe that "roles" or "positions" in the church, home, and secular community should be based on ability and inclination, not arbitrary and unchangeable characteristics.



No, we are not all gifted alike. But to bind people to little boxes that we deem appropriately representative of their demographic does not enable them to exercise their God-given gifts; quite the reverse. It squelches the natural strengths of those who don't fit the "box", and instills false confidence in those who do naturally fall within the "box" and may hinder their future growth.



As to gender roles: instead of seeing men and women as typifications of a gender, into whose stereotypes they may or may not fit, I prefer to see them as unique people. The world is not Battlestar Gallactica, with synthetic humans of only a few types and which are all alike within their types. The world is full of unique individuals, and they are as unique from those within their gender as they are from those outside it. Egalitarianism does not suppose any functional, non-physical inequalities between the sexes, nor does it assume that any giftings or roles are based on gender. If a woman and a man have the same abilities and inclinations, they will be fitted for the same "role." In reality, I dislike the term "role" as it brings to my mind a picture of an actor playing a part, not an authentic follower of Christ who follows the Holy Spirit and the gifts God has placed within them to serve and do and be whatever and whenever they are needed and called. We should not be actors in a play; we should be real, living people, not bound to live out a certain symbology but rather following Christ as ourselves in an exhilarating, never-ending quest for Truth and deeper Dive Relationship. Every believer, of any tribe, nation or language or gender or orientation, is a child of God whose first priority should be knowing Christ, doing justice, loving mercy, walking humbly, and sharing the glorious gospel of a risen Savior in whatever way we are fitted, be that in preaching, art, business, or whatever.

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, part 4: Giving Prejudice to Precedent

One argument against Same Sex Marriage that I've heard a lot is the idea that we should give prejudice to precedent, and that precedent favors heterosexual marriage; in other words, the idea that the burden of proof is on the innovator, and the assumption that marriage as one man and one woman in a loving, faithful, mutually beneficial contract has been the historical norm. To believe that, you have to forget polygamous society, biblical societies, and every society where marriage was primarily for the legitimizing of heirs and which considered women as property and required no faithful monogamy from their husbands. Yes, marriage, throughout most of history, was strictly opposite-gender. But in most other respects, it looked very different from the sort of modern western monogamous marriages we think of today. Marriage provided heirs to property, economic stability, and social and political alliances. Men were, with a few exceptions, not required to be monogamous; women were. Marriages could certainly contain the companionship, mutually delightful sex, respect, and cooperative parenting that we associate with marriage today, but those things were more pleasant bi-products than the primary purpose of the institution and were not required for marriage. In many cultures, female consent has not even been a requirement for a legally binding marriage. The elevation of romantic love and personal feeling and companionship in marriage has waxed and waned; even in societies where "romance" and "courtly love" were revered these things were not universal, and varied greatly by economic class. Victorian romanticism and medieval chivalry have both been incredibly whitewashed in modern, conservative christian circles; chivalry was not as purely noble, or as universally applied, as some would have us believe. In Victorian society, child labor and prostitution were rampant and wives were both on a moral pedestal and considered mentally inferior to their husbands; there were also double standards of behavior for husbands and wives when it came to sex and marriage, and yes, that's an understatement. :) I really can't think of many civilised societies where men and women held equal power and responsibility for monogamy in their marriages. The technologically advanced society we have today allows for the valuation of non-manual labor, dna testing, and allows solitary females to support themselves with ease in a variety of professions. This, among other things, makes egalitarian, monogamous marriages more socially favored.


The assumption that the sort of marriage we American christians recognize has been the historical norm assumes that, at a basic level, mutual, monogamous marriage between two members of the opposite sex is more like polygamous and/or unilaterally powered marriages between members of the opposite sex than it is like mutual, monogamous marriage between two members of the same sex. It puts paramount importance on the gender of those involved in the marriage, and less importance on the nature of the marriage- monogamous/polygamous, mutual/wife as property, et c. It is for that reason that I find this view of marriage and its precedents deeply troubling. What is more significant about the creation of Adam, Eve and Marriage- that they were different genders or that they were made to populate and rule the earth together in a beautiful partnership of equals? I realize many christians disagree with my convictions on mutuality in marriage, but assuming an egalitarian framework, the behavior of the individual marriage partner and the structure of the marriage and its benefits for couples and families is more important than the unchangeable characteristics, such as gender, of the people involved.

A majority opinion does not, in my opinion, equal a correct one. Precedent is a good starting point, but precedent should also be subject to scrutiny and not held above principle, scripture, or reason.  There is nothing wrong with starting from precedent, but to give precedent credence when it contradicts other considerations like ethics, reason, and scripture is tantamount to judging an argument not by its merits, but by its origin.

Historically I think that marriage was as much an economic institution as a religious one, and even in its religious nature it was not necessarily congruent with scripture. In our Christian faith, marriage is considered a sacred, religious covenant, and I would not try to change that, but I would not force a religious view of marriage on those who do not share my faith.  (I would prosecute abuse, but that's a little different; illegal or abusive behavior should not be tolerated, but I have no right to dictate the beliefs of those who perpetrate it) I know some very, very healthy, loving, atheist marriages, and marriage as a means to companionship and co-parenting is by no means limited to the religious among us. I fundamentally view marriage as a partnership toward a common goal and a means to stability, physical, emotional, and spiritual support and companionship, safe sex, and co-parenting, not a mandate to live out a certain symbology or the fulfillment of a responsibility to procreate as much as possible or the arbitrary requirement of a deity or religion. 

Femininity

I am female. This should, by virtue of my profile pic, bio, et c. be self-evident. I cannot become "more female". Unless I were in the process of gender reassignment or was afflicted with a rare chromosomal abnormality, my gender is not a graded scale; it is a black and white, only-two-options phenomena, determined by my chromosomes. So- if I am as "female" as I am ever going to be, why would I waste time trying to be more female, or more "feminine?" It would seem rather silly, unless of course I equated "truly feminine" with an external checklist of subjective or objective qualities and attributes my adherence to which determined my femininity. I do not make such an equation, because I do not believe that there is a list which defines "true femininity", or "godly femininity", or "attractive femininity", et c.   Of course, there are external things which identify me as female in my culture. (My hairstyle, the cut of my clothes, wearing makeup, and so on) These things, however, are completely culturally relative (much like wearing one's hair up or down or wearing head coverings in the culture of Paul's letters to the Corinthians) and thus a matter of personal choice, never morally prescriptive, and not indicative of any internal gender identity. For example, I would not cease to be a woman, nor would I begin to feel male, if I buzzed my hair into a high-and-tight. (think short, stereotypically male military haircut) It would not necessarily be the traditional hairstyle for females in my culture, but that alone will probably not make anyone think I am male. I don't believe that the Bible endorses purposeful gender androgyny, or attempts to impersonate or become the opposite gender, but it's rather difficult to do that without a great deal of conscious effort. I really doubt there's anything I could do, wear, et c. on any given day that would make people wonder about my gender.




Having said all that, it troubles me that christian culture in general makes such a big deal about women being "feminine." We have "feminine" hairstyles, "feminine" souls, "feminine" colors, "feminine" ways of speaking and relating to men, "feminine" ways of sitting, standing, walking.... it seems there's a "feminine" way to do pretty much everything. I'm not trying to say that doing or wearing or exhibiting much of the typical cultural trappings of femaleness is a negative; there's nothing wrong with proclaiming oneself culturally female. Some of these cultural trappings I enjoy myself; I watch Downton Abbey, I love chocolate, I like scented bath products, and I get my hair cut at a nice spa, complete with relaxing music and complimentary wine. The problem comes when we take things that are amoral, culturally-dependent expressions of gender and make them a prescriptive requirement to embody that gender,  when we define "biblical" or "appropriate" femininity by external qualities that must be studied and adhered to, and when we hold women's female identity hostage to a standard of gender roles and expected codes of behavior; when we tell women that they aren't real women, or they aren't womanly, unless they subscribe to our idea of what they should be. Being feminine isn't something I must endeavor to do; it is something that I inherently am. I do not need to live up to anyone's definition of feminine; by virtue of being a female, I define feminine. I. Define. Feminine. Not the other way around. Yes, there are ways to be more culturally, stereotypically feminine. But those things are external, relative, and generally optional.



What happens when we make cultural externals the measure of "godly femininity?" We tell some women that their natural, God-given expression of the female personhood isn't right, isn't good enough, needs a tweak or a tweeze or a wax here and there. We teach women that don't like makeup, don't go crazy for every baby in sight, don't like to spend hours on their hair, don't like to giggle or paint their nails or shop or do brunch, don't like romantic books or movies, don't cross their ankles, don't act reserved and understated enough around men, like hunting or guns or fishing or serious physical challenges, or have serious professional and intellectual goals that may supercede their desires for immediate motherhood or wifehood, that their expression of femininity is somehow inferior to the women who adore babies, shopping, shoes, and taking a backstage role in conversation. The truth is, neither one is better or worse. Some women are bent to nurturing and emotional empathy; some are not. Some women delight in intellectual analysis of any sort; some do not. Some care whether their hair is done and their nails manicured; some do not. When we teach women that there is only one way to be a godly woman, we rob the women who do not fit that stereotype of living their calling to their fullest potential and being the best and most effective version of themselves. 



Being culturally female, and the ways that the female gender is culturally expressed, have changed drastically through the ages. Being a woman, and more importantly a person, has not. I think it's very, very important to separate the cultural externals that we sometimes use to define femininity from those things that actually make a Godly Christian Woman. Mercifully, that list is short: Be a follower of Christ. Preach the gospel, in whatever way you are best equipped to do that. Love God. Obey God, and follow the gifts and callings that God has put within you. Love your neighbor. If you are married, love your spouse. If you are a parent, love your children. Be chaste, be rational, be faithful, be humble, be merciful, be just. And yes, that list can be applied to either gender. Funny thing- being a Godly Christian Man requires pretty much the same stuff as being a Godly Christian Woman. (Yes, there are some social differences between the genders. But they are not uniform, universal, or prescriptive, and they pale in comparison to differences in background, culture, and personality type.) The most important feature of Godly Christian Womanhood isn't having a family, or being a wife, or anything else. It's being an authentic follower of Christ. 

The Timothy Verses

One of the most commonly misinterpreted passages about women in the church is 1 Timothy 2: 9-15

So many, many times I have seen this verse read as ” woman should not have authority over men. Period. Except when the men let them because it's really more convenient.” In contrast, here is the gist of an article that I think does a fabulous job with these passages- (click the link to read the whole thing)

"If anybody ever tells you that women should never teach men, or that women should never be in leadership over men, or that women should be silent around men, then you should mutter under your breath, "Stupid, stupid, stupid." These people, well intentioned as they may be, are committing spiritual suicide by acting on words of Scripture without looking at their meaning. The system they seek to impose is opposite to the overall tenor and teachings of Scripture on the subject of women (see above). Here are the words some commit spiritual suicide over:
"In like manner also, see that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."( I Timothy 2:9-15)



I recently had a Christian man paraphrase for me I Timothy 2:9-15 and then tell me, "I will never have a woman lead me, teach me, or allow myself to be in a position where women usurp my authority over them because I believe the Bible!" My friend has the problem of reading words of Scripture and acting on them without taking time to understand their meaning.
Until you understand the problem Timothy faced (the man to whom the words in I Timothy 2:9-15 are written), and until you are familiar with Ephesus (the place where Timothy lived), and until you have a working knowledge of the Amazons (the warrior women that the ancient Greeks believed founded Ephesus), and until you comprehend the influence of the cult of Artemis and the Temple of Artemis which was in Ephesus, the meaning of the Apostle Paul's words will never be rightly understood. F. F. Bruce once wrote, "Subjugation of a woman is a system of man's fallen nature. If the work of Christ involves... breaking the fall, then the implication of His work for the liberation of women is plain." Jesus Christ came to liberate subjugated women. The cultism in evangelicalism regarding women's behaviors will only be broken when people lay aside stupid, false obedience to I Timothy 2:9-14 and realize the meaning of Paul's words to Timothy.


Ephesus and The Temple of Artemis


Rachelle and I will be with a group of friends in ancient Ephesus (located in southwest Turkey) next month. One of the reasons I am excited to be there is because Ephesus is the location of the most magnificent of the Seven Wonders of the World--The Temple of Artemis.
This is the first temple in the world made completely of marble. The richest man in the world in his day, King Croesus (595-547 B.C.) of Lydia (modern Turkey), ordered the Temple of Artemis be constructed in honor of the Greek goddess Artemis. Work on the Temple of Artemis began in 550 B.C. and took over a century to complete. King Croesus lived long enough to stuff the foundation of the Temple of Artemis with tens of thousands of gold coins to serve as talismans, ensuring the Temple's protection from destruction. Generations of people, even in America, have used the phrase "Rich as Croesus" to describe wealthy people in their day. King Croesus is given credit by many historians as the inventor of cold and silver coinage. His wealth is legendary, and he gave his riches to fund the building of the Temple in Artemis. Croesus was a contemporary of Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire. Cyrus was the king who defeated the Babylonians, freeing the Jews from their Babylonian captivity, enabling them to return to Jerusalem to rebuild Solomon's Temple. Therefore, the Temple of Artemis and the Second Temple in Jerusalem were built during the same time period (the 6th century B.C.).
However, it was only the Temple of Artemis that became one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World because of its stunning beauty. The Temple of Artemis was a temple dedicated to the power, beauty and strength of women. Marble artesians from all over the world carved Amazon women into the base of the 120 columns. Amazons were "warrior women" from an area north of Ephesus and the Black Sea (modern Ukraine). These Amazon women were known for their fierce fighting ability and had been made famous by the Greek poet Homer in his portrayal of them in The Iliad.


Homer (c. 750 B.C.) also gave tribute in The Iliad to Artemis, the Greek goddess of women and of war. Artemis is called by Homer "Artemis the Hunter, Queen of the Wild Beasts" (Iliad 21.470). Artemis is also presented as the goddess Phosphorous or Light (Strabo, Geo. 1.9.). If worshipped properly and prayed to during childbirth, Artemis promised to deliver women from death while giving birth. For this reason, women in the ancient world revered and worshipped Artemis. Likewise, men worshipped Artemis during times of battle and war. Since the ancient world was always at war, Artemis was often on the lips of men during times of battle. The Greek men (and later the Romans) prayed to Artemis (the Romans called her Diana), not Apollo in time of battle. In Greek mythology, Zeus fathered the twins Artemis and Apollo through the Titaness Leto. The Artemus cult taught that Artemis was superior to Apollo because she came (was born) born first.
When men and women entered the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, the women would wear fancy hair braids, bedeck themselves with jewelry and ornate clothes as they prayed to Artemis. Heliodorus said, "Their locks of hairs carry their prayers." There were no sacrifices in this Temple. The women worshipped Artemis with their clothing, jewelry, and their words. Artemis, in turn, gave them their sexual prowess over men and their deliverance during childbirth. Likewise, men came to Artemis, acknowledging their need of her strength during time of war. The men would hold up hands, palms up, just above their waist as they prayed for victory in battle. Not surprisingly Ephesus, above all other places in the ancient world, celebrated the power, strength and beauty of women and their ability to use their sexual prowess to manipulate and dominate men. The Temple operations, which included prostitution and craftsmen who sold gold and silver idols of Artemis, drove the economy of Ephesus. Hundreds of thousands of people visited the city annually.


Paul and Timothy's Presence in Ephesus in the Midst of the Artemis Cult


Acts 18:24 through Acts 20:1 records for us that Paul and Timothy spent three years in Ephesus (c. A.D. 55-58), by far the longest time Paul spent in any one city during his three missionary journeys. Paul almost lost his life during a riot in the city because silversmiths who made little statues of the goddess Artemis were upset that Paul and Timothy were cutting into their business by winning converts to Christianity. Paul would later write in I Corinthians 15:32 that he "fought wild beasts at Ephesus." Did he fight lions, tigers and bears? No, the wild beasts were the people of Ephesus who were devoted to Artemis, "The Queen of the Wild Beasts." When Paul left Ephesus in A.D. 58, he traveled south for about 30 miles to the island of Miletus and then called for wise leaders of the church in Ephesus to join him at Miletus where he said to them, "After I leave, savage wolves will come among you and will not spare the flock. Even some among you will arise and distort the truth to draw away disciples after them" (cf. Acts 20:29-30).
Sure enough, less than five years later (A.D. 63) the Christians in Ephesus were in trouble. There were some women or maybe even a single woman, most likely a new convert out of the Artemis cult, who had begun to teach false truth in the assembly at Ephesus. Timothy is sent to Ephesus to help the church and give some correction. Timothy sends to Paul a letter from Ephesus, giving Paul an update on what is happening and asking some specific questions about how he should proceed (a letter that is not extant). The Apostle Paul sends a response to Timothy, a letter we now call I Timothy. It's important to remember (as we have seen) that nowhere in Scripture does Jesus, Paul or any other apostle restrict women in the assembly. In fact, when a false teacher nicknamed Jezebel begins to have influence among believers in the city of Thyatira, Jesus does not reprimand the church for having a female teacher, but rather He upraids the church for not doing anything about her false teaching (cf. Revelation 2:24).


The Meaning of I Timothy 2:9-15


Now, let's put up I Timothy 2:9-15 again in order to discover the meaning of the words in light of what we know about the Artemis cult in Ephesus:
"In like manner also, see that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."( I Timothy 2:9-15)


(1). "Let the woman adorn themselves in modest apparel" (v. 9).


Obviously, there were women coming to the assembly of Christ in Ephesus similar to the way they used to go to the Temple of Artemis, dressed to kill, with braided hair, gold, pearls and fine clothing. Paul is letting Timothy know that this mode of dress, particularly in the city of Ephesus, was not conducive to the worship of Christ. What Christ desires is the beauty of goodness toward others, not the drawing attention to oneself in public.


(2). "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection" (v. 11).


The reason I believe the problem in Ephesus is a particular woman who is in a teaching position within the assembly of Christ is because the noun "woman" is in the singular, not the plural. In verses 9 and 10, women is in the plural, but in verse 11, Paul switches to "the woman" or possibly that woman about whom Timothy has written Paul. It can't be a universal prohibition for all time against all women ever teaching men in the assembly because (a). That would violate the tenor and teaching of the rest of Scripture where women frequently taught men, and (b). Paul has elsewhere encouraged men and women to teach, to pray and to fully participate in the assembly as they are gifted (cf. I Corinthians 11:4-5 and I Corinthians 14:23-24).
Further, the word translated silence is hesuchia (quietness). It is used in I Timothy 2:2 to describe what the character of every believer should be, both males and females. It never means "don't speak," but addresses the character of humility. This woman in Ephesus, coming out of a society saturated with the power, strength, abilities and even domination of women through the Artemis cult, needed to realize that she had a great deal to learn about Christ and His kingdom.


(3). "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (v. 12).


This is the key phrase. First, the phrase translated "I suffer not a woman to teach" is literally in the tense of "I am not now permitting a woman to teach." Again, the woman not now permitted to teach is in the singular. It is the same woman of verse 11. This woman needs to learn in quiet humility before she ever presumes to teach, because she is still too influenced by Artemis cultic beliefs. This verse can NEVER be used as a proof text for women never teaching men or having "authority" over men.
(a). Deborah gave counsel and taught men and women about the Law of God (cf. Judges 2:16-19; 4:1-5:31). Huldah prophesied to Israel the word of the Lord and led the men of Israel (2 Kings 22:14-20). Priscilla and Aquila explained more perfectly to Apollos the way of God in Ephesus (cf. Acts 18:19-26). Most importantly, when Jezebel was teaching error to the church in Thyatira, Jesus never once told the church they were wrong for having a woman teach or lead them; He simply said they were wrong for not rejecting her false teaching (Revelation 2:18-29).
(b). "I suffer not a woman .... to usurp authority over the man" (v. 13).
This phrase "usurp authority" translates one Greek word authentein. This word is used only one time in all of Scripture--let me repeat that again--this word authentein is used only once in the entire Bible, right here in I Timothy 2:12. This word was used, however, in classical Greek literature and it meant "to murder someone." Paul could have chosen nearly fifty Greek words to speak of the ordinary exercise of authority, but he chose a word that more represents someone "dominating, controlling, or subjecting one to harm." Of course, this is precisely what the Artemis cult taught women to do. Artemis was the female goddess of fertility and war. Women in Ephesus were taught to use their voices, their charm, their sexuality and their beauty to dominate, control and subjugate men. It seems that this woman in Ephesus was causing trouble in the church by behavior in the assembly of Christ that was way too similar to the ways of the Artemis cult from whence she came.


(4). "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."


Timothy, tell the woman causing problems that her notion she should always have the floor and directing the assembly because she believes women are superior to men--since Artemis came first and Apollo came second--is a misguided belief. The truth is God created man first then He formed Eve from Adam, so it is very appropriate for her, a woman who considers herself a descendent of the Amazons, to sit quietly and learn from those who are older and wiser, even if they are males! Artemis taught the power of women to dominate men through sexual prowess, but Christ teaches that men are equal to women and there's nothing wrong with a woman learning from others (even men) before she begins to teach men.


(5). "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (v. 14).


And Timothy, remind her that the Scriptures teach that Eve was deceived. Contrary to what she learned in the Temple of Artemis, males are not always her problem. To be deceived and in need of correction is just as much a possibility for her as it was for Eve. She must move away from her belief in female superiority, a belief reinforced by the Artemis cult.


(6). "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" (v. 15).


Timothy, tell this woman that she will be okay during childbirth, even if she totally and fully renounces her trust in Artemis. Yes, she lives in a culture that teaches Artemis alone saves a woman from death during childbirth, but the truth is Christ holds the keys of life and death. When women continue in faith, hope and love--avoiding the sexual immodesty and looseness on display in the Temple of Artemis and the worship of the goddess of fertility and war--it will be the one true God who delivers them from death during childbirth, not Artemis."


Is it just me, or does this interpretation fit a bit better with the tenor of the rest of scripture, Christ's dealings with women, and the precedent of the women in the early church than does an interpretation that wishes women, all women, to keep silent, keep "in their place," and put themselves under men?

Respecting my Husband

As a girl, growing up in a conservative Christian home, I was always told that my future husband would want, and need, my respect. Books on marriage and wifehood that I've read by conservative evangelical authors echo that sentiment- "wives, respect your husbands." "Husbands need respect like wives need love." Even the Bible commands me, a woman, wife, and feminist, to respect my husband. (It commands mutual love and respect, from both of us to the other. I reject the gendering of love and respect and the assertion that men and women have different levels of these needs as patently false. I am focusing on wifely respect here, but respect of husbands for wives is just as important.) What does this mean? Or first, what doesn't this mean?

It does not mean treating my husband as a sex-crazed beast, who needs women to "dress modestly" so that he can control his lust.

It does not mean treating my husband like a child with a fragile ego who cannot abide criticism, censure, or disagreement.

It does not mean treating my husband like a potential abuser who will grow irate if his wishes are not acceded to in every particular.

 It does not mean treating my husband as if he were mentally inferior, regarding ineptitude in housekeeping and fatherhood with a knowing smile and an "Ah, well, men!"

It does not mean assuming that because he is male he is less complicated, less emotionally developed, less capable, or less sensitive than I am.

It does mean treating him like an adult and a partner.

It does mean refusing to belittle, manipulate, or indulge in other unhealthy forms of communication.

It does mean expecting him to be capable of the same self-control, self-sacrifice, openness, frankness, reason, and logic which I myself display.

It means supporting him when he needs it, confronting him when he's wrong, putting my foot down when he's about to make a big mistake, and loving him without condition or apology.

It means not allowing him to dominate, control or manipulate me. This disrespects both of us and destroys a marriage.

It means treating his opinion as valuable, but not infallible. It means being gracious, but not a pushover. It means seeing him as a worthwhile, valuable child of God and brother in Christ who deserves my serious consideration, my vulnerable communication, and my tender affection, but not my worship or my flippant disregard.

My husband tells me that he feels much more respected, not less, in an egalitarian framework. He feels more truly valued when my treatment of him stems from love and merit and not a command I'm obeying. I find it easier to respect him when he is not trying to mold us both into boxes which don't fit us.

It is my opinion that a headship/submission model for marital relationships actually destroys respect in favor of manipulation, hierarchy, and stunting personal and collective potential. Hierarchy also destroys oneness and openness, two things which have been instrumental in making my marriage as sweet and uplifting as it is. A true partnership with someone you respect and trust is a glorious thing.

Christian Egalitarian Marriage

I recently saw an article that I believe gives a good run-down of what an egalitarian marriage looks like. The article lists five principles aspects of a practically egalitarian marriage. While I disagree with the author as to gender essentialism, in most other respects it's a very good representation. Here's the gist:

1 – Flexible Roles – The husband and the wife value their respective roles.  These roles for the husband and wife follow from their gifts and abilities, not from their gender. How do we determine roles? These are derived from assessing the gifts we bring to our partnership and finding mutual agreement for the good of each other.  Sometimes our gender will reveals our gifts: for a woman this may mean childbearing and for a man it may mean upper body strength.  But our gender alone will not curtail or privilege our calling to any one role if we lack the ability for that role.  A woman’s ability to bear children is unlike a man’s, and so she may play that role in the marriage. But the role of a parent is open to both father and mother.  In a CEM marriage, both partners could agree for the wife to stay home full-time and for the husband to work full time.  Or they could both agree to work part-time so they can co-parent their children.   Or they could both agree for the wife to work full time and the husband to stay at home full-time.  Each marriage is different, with different personalities and different goals.  The CEM allows flexibility, because neither spouse will be gifted to lead in every area of marriage.  Each leads where they are strong and able and, like instruments in a duet, they each defer to the leadership of the stronger in their gifted area.

2 – Complementary –  In a CEM, both sexes, the husband and wife, complement one another, from sex to making final decisions. Since each man differs from other men and since each woman differs from other women, the CEM will complement each other in a unique unassigned way.  Because we believe in differences, each partner wants input from the other sex to inform and round-out decisions.  The husband doesn’t consult with the wife as an advisor, but as an equal partner, a human more similar to him than different (Hebrew “ezer kenegdo” a helper corresponding to him).  The wife can and often will make final decisions for the good of the family just as the husband will. All CEM live out a complementary partnership.

3 – Two Spiritual Leaders – In a CEM, each spouse is responsible of taking care of their own growth and well-being, both before marriage and during marriage.  As each is gifted, leadership is a responsibility for both genders.  The husband and wife are both leaders in the home, including spiritual leaders.  This is distinct from even soft complementarians, as Tim Keller reveals when he preaches from Ephesians 5, “Paul says, first of all, if two Spirit-filled people get married, the wife should grant the husband leadership in the marriage.” Keller qualifies this by saying the husband MUST have submitted his ego to God if he is to be the leader in the marriage and that the way this leadership is played out is up to each couple (read full transcript of his “Hope for the Family” sermon).  However, this leadership, if it means anything, puts some final responsibility on the husband to ensure everyone is as spiritually mature as he thinks they should be. Egalitarians say that this kind of husbandly leadership

1. debilitates the wife from being an equal in her spiritual responsibility and leadership
2. and shoulders the husband with Adam’s burden of being “alone” in his responsibility (a situation Eve was made to change).

For a CEM marriage, Jesus is the spiritual leader, not the husband or wife.  A CEM that walks daily with Jesus will find each partner leading, liberating each other with new insight. CEM believes that only by being responsible of taking care of ourselves are we better able to reach out and love our spouse.  The husband and wife are to challenge one another in spiritual growth equally and both lead their children equally. The CEM is concerned not only that each spouse have equal worth but that each spouse be treated as equally human. CEM believe permanent leadership or subordination of one spouse over the other is dehumanizing and spiritually insulting.

4 – No Tie-Breakers - Disagreements in an CEM do not require a tie-breaking vote from the man because both spouses hold 50% of the vote.  If an impasse is reached, and a final decision is necessary, what does a CEM do?  When a decision affects one spouse more than another, then the spouse most affected makes the decision.  The same is true of the spouse who knows more about a situation.  A CEM agrees to these protocols well in advance of the decision because they have practiced it in the day-to-day.  But when both spouses are equally affected and have equal knowledge, then counsel is required.  For a CEM, it is irresponsible to surrender a genuine concern about a final decision because we care about each other’s growth. Proverbs says that in a multitude of counselors there is safety.  A marriage that cannot come to agreement regularly is a weak marriage.  A marriage that refuses outside counsel is a failing one.  None of this means that each spouse must seek approval from the other for every decision, for in most areas we have already decided the freedoms each has to make decisions on their own, from budgeting for charity to planned vacation days to the best way to mow the lawn.

I may be moved to help a homeless man. I have the freedom to donate my time, money and a meal to him if I so choose.  I do not need Dale’s permission or blessing to give out of my or our funds.  If we want to purchase something beyond $500 we talk about the idea with each other, not to get permission, but to see if the other spouse has some helpful input. We decide together to purchase or move forward.  However, if the  item (a snow blower) will affect Dale more than me, I cede the final decision to him.

Recently I received an invitation to speak for a three day event. I wanted to go, but not if I would need to get a sitter for our son. Dale volunteered to watch our son so I could attend the three day event.  All things being equal, full-time child-care is not my or my husband’s ideal way to spend a weekend. We prefer co-parenting so we each get time to ourselves and together with our son.  However, since this event was more important to me, I chose the best way to make it happen. Dale agreed. If we had disagreed, we would have engaged in more discussion, prayer and if still no clarity, eventually seeking counsel (we recommend a professional, licensed marriage therapist for impasse situations).  Decision-making where

1. both parties have equal say 
2. and can choose to submit if the issue means more to other person 

takes a lot more time at the beginning, but it prevents one spouse muscling out the other’s perspective in an effort to “take charge” or “man-up” or “be the leader.” It also prevents my resentment, passive aggression or manipulation. I am never the victim of my husband’s final decision-making.

5 – Love, Respect and Headship -  The husband is the head of the wife.  This is a position of honor, not of authority.  Adam had this honorable place with Eve, since Eve was created out of man (the same reason, symbolically, children are to honor their parents).  If the wife cannot respect her husband, this position alone of modeling the First Man is to evoke the respect.  In the same way, all men after Eve come from women (1 Cor 11:12 “For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God).   If the husband cannot respect his wife, this position alone of modeling The Mother of All Living (the meaning of “Eve”) is to evoke his respect.  In the same way, even lousy parents are to be honored by children simply because all children come from parents (that is not to say that all children must obey bad parents).  The other metaphor Paul uses is Messiah and his church, for it is upon the Messiah that the church is built, just as Adam became the first life upon which Eve was made and marriage was built.  Much has been made about the wife submitting and the husband loving in marriage.  CEM believes this and vice versa, too. Both the husband and wife are called to submit to one another (Eph 5:21) and Jesus tells all Christians to “love one another” (John 13:34) and to “lay down your life for your friends” (John 15:13). Both love (Titus 2:4) and submission (CEM believe submitting means cooperation not obedience: see Strong’s note on Greek non-military uses of “submit”) apply to both spouses in marriage.



I would add, for my own marriage, that the key to functioning without rigid gender roles, especially if you were raised with them, is honesty, openness, vulnerability, and a thick skin. :)

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, part 3: Gender Essentialism

One issue that I see as central to the question of harm or infringement of rights by same sex marriage is the issue of gender, specifically gender essentialism. I would define gender essentialism as: the belief that there are uniquely feminine and uniquely masculine essences, specifically uniquely masculine and feminine social and behavioral traits, not referring to basic physical differences, which exist independently of cultural/social conditioning.


In my opinion, it is possible to reject gender essentialism and still believe that there are differences between men and women. Gender essentialism is more about behavior and psychological hard-wiring than it is about basic physical, biological, or neurological differences. For my purposes here I will assume that men and women have basic physical and psychological differences, but that those differences are averages, not absolutes (e.g. men are usually stronger and taller than women, but some women are stronger and taller than some men).

I would represent both social and physical traits, reproduction excepted, on a linear scale- meaning that for each trait there is a line, say aggression/compliance for example. On this line, the average female position and the average male position may fall weighted towards one end or the other, but individual positions for either gender could be anywhere on the line. I do not believe that men and women are opposites. I do believe that there are clear and significant statistical differences in physical areas such as upper body strength, though again they are not absolute- uncommon though it may be, some women are stronger than some men. (Also, training and conditioning have a huge effect on situational outcomes- for example, while assuming the same training and fitness level, men seriously have a significant advantage over women in the physical strength department, a woman with superior skill and training can absolutely be more than a match for a man who does not have that training.) In the case of social traits/behaviors, however, I believe that there is as much difference within genders as there is between them; that is to say, there is as much difference, or more perhaps, between two random women as there is between your average man and average woman. I do not think that all men are/should be dominant in certain traits, or that all women are/should be dominant in others. I see anecdotal evidence in my own life which supports my belief that I have more in common with males who share my personality type than with females who do not.

Also, if gender based social behavior was a biological, undeniable constant of the human experience then, except for the tendency towards male rule and oppression of the weaker by the stronger which I believe was the result of the fall, I would expect to see this gender based behavior as a constant across cultures and times, and socio-economic status. I do not see this- in fact, quite the opposite. The cultural norms for acceptable gender behavior may well be consistent in modern, western society, but that is not at all the same thing. For example- consider the view of women's sexual nature at the time of the reformation contrasted with the Victorian era. I would posit that gender norms in history as a whole are actually quite varied and fluid, but that is another post entirely. Also worthy of another post is the influence on our cultural perceptions of gender- not of fundamentally christian teaching, but of greek thought and philosophy.


The reason this issue is at the center of the debate over same sex marriage is, first, that it is reasonable to suppose that both a stable heterosexual couple and a stable homosexual couple could hypothetically bring the same backgrounds, education, experience, moral code, religious knowledge, et c. to their marriage and their parenting- really, the only difference is the gender of one of the parties. Are the genders so unique that a family or couple will lose a vital part of its essence if one gender is missing? No, I really don't think so. May they be different? Yes; but will they "miss out" on something to such a degree that we must refuse to legislate in favor of their marriage in order to protect society and any children they may have from this horrible loss? I really don't think so. This is, of course, merely my opinion; I am aware of no comprehensive studies of children/families/marriages which specifically compare same and cross gender couples, with other major variables being equal, to determine which families, spouses, and children are healthier.

Secondly, while gender differences/gender essentialism and gender roles are not the same thing, they are related- rejecting gender essentialism leads to the questioning of rigid gender roles and societal systems that require them in order to continue functioning. Unless gender-based prescriptive behavior is purely theological or ritual, with no basis in practical good or expediency/efficiency, believing that there are actually not rigid, biological, hard-wired social/behavioral ideals makes implementing rigid gender roles which are based purely on gender without regard to competency seems rather silly. In other words, why make mommies staying home/daddies working a moral/civil prescription if daddies can be just as nurturing as mommies and mommies really have no trouble navigating the wide, scary world of outside careers? Also, if men and women share social traits and differ more from opposite personalities than from opposite genders then the male rule, headship and female submission doctrines become at best a theological ritual with no basis in practicality. I honestly think that some of the more vitriolic rhetoric I've heard condemning same sex marriage comes from a place of fear- a fear that the systems that have supposedly kept society intact will slip away, or that a privileged position will be lost, or that the tidy boxes that we as christians are supposed to fit ourselves into in order to be "Godly" will go away. I honestly think that that would be a good thing, when it comes to gender roles.  We'd be left with freedom, relationships, and personal responsibility, and we wouldn't have to throw out godliness, christlikeness, or holiness to do it.

But.....roles and tidy boxes are easier. Really. They may not fit everyone, and they may chafe unbearably for some, but you're good to go if you can fit into them! It's certainly easier to have litmus tests and checklists for godly masculinity and femininity than it is to have to figure out how to hear the Holy Spirit, follow the guidelines Christ gives all Christians, and find and walk in the purposes, giftings and callings that are a part of each of our unique makeup as people and as followers of Christ. I am not saying, of course, to throw out all rules or commandments- but I think it would behoove us to resist making doctrines and prescriptive procedures of things that are not compatible with the teachings of Christ, the overall message of the gospel, and that don't work.

So- why is it, really, such an issue for gender to take less of a front seat in marriage and family issues? I have yet to see evidence that even reasonably assumes, let alone conclusively proves, that gender is the thing that makes such a difference to family and society that we must legislate it, even for those who believe differently than we do, as a moral and civil harm.

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 1: Framing the discussion

I am often frustrated by some of the more illogical arguments that I see employed in the debate over same sex marriage. Frankly, I find them a little embarrassing, coming as they do from Evangelical Christianity, which is where I place myself as well. Sometimes I want to ask- How do people who believe same sex marriage is evil think they'll ever win their point when their arguments go down in a logical fireball at the slightest test? Why choose shoddy arguments to prove a point that can be addressed with much more reasonable hypotheses, perhaps with similar results? I'd like to propose a few arguments that I think should really never be used in such a policy discussion:

1. It's always been this way

By this logic, the world is flat and women do not contribute DNA to their children. Also, science is evil and germs are not a thing.

2. It was this way in the bible

 (as opposed to endorsed specifically by scripture-the normative/prescriptive
 distinction is important here)

By that logic, marriage does not require consent, monogamy, or female agency. Scary.



3. The Greek Philosophers were for/against this

Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle are fun to read. They have a great many very smart things to say, particularly about law and government. Are they, however, infallible, or even universally reliable? Not a chance, as per their draconian views on gender, women, and the origins of the human race. Are they worthy of citation and consideration and thought? Yes! Does their opinion prove anything? No! It is their opinion, nothing more. The most intelligent and forward-thinking opinion, without substantiation, is still just an opinion. And some of their warped views of gender issues (yes, I'm going to get into that in more detail later) have shaped society, even christian society, and its views of the subject from their day to this one. That is not, in my opinion, a good thing.

4. Things we like will magically disappear if this happens

If we were legislating homosexual marriage instead of heterosexual marriage, this would be true. I do not think, however, that anyone wants to do that. All of the heterosexual people that would have gotten married will still, you know, get married. And allowing gay marriage does not automatically remove the commitment aspect of christian marriage, nor does it affect in any way the manner in which I or any other heterosexual christian lives out our marriages. This point is debated sometimes, in that some people say that allowing same sex marriage must completely redefine the institution in a way that damages and cheapens all marriages. I disagree; more on that later.

There are variations of these arguments which I will explore in more detail as time goes on, but the four above are the basis for those arguments which, in my opinion, it would behoove us to dismiss entirely.
So- what questions do I think we should be asking? What arguments should we be making

Assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that American judicial, legislative, an political policy is and should be based upon protecting its citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as they do not cause harm or infringe upon others' said rights:

Does same sex marriage infringe on the rights of others?

Does same sex marriage harm any one outside that marriage, specifically those who cannot advocate for themselves? (and yes, this includes hypothetical children raised in such a household)

Does same sex marriage remove/replace other, more expedient institutions?

What would same sex marriage cost, in resources, the state or community?

Does same sex marriage cause quantifiable harm to any person or institution which is not themselves causing harm?

Does same sex marriage carry any benefits to the state, community, or individuals?

Does the fact that many people believe something to be a moral sin mean that it should be legislated as such, purely for that reason?

Three things I think it's important to remember in discussions like these, particularly as we attempt to define harm and wrestle with what same sex marriage is and what are its implications for society-

 Correlation does not equal causation, 

 Genetic does not equal hereditary, and 

 Statistically likely does not equal universal, superior, or prescriptive.

In framing the discussion about possible harms from same sex marriage, too, I think that it is important to distinguish between data that may indicate a connection between harm (familial instability, for instance) and same sex marriage, and data that demonstrates in a reputable, scientific way a causality between harm of some sort and some aspect of same sex marriage: for example the gender of one's parents. To demonstrate this alleged harm, it would be important that the control parents be equitable in everything but gender. E.G. it would be illogical to cite two bisexual romantic partners who do not cohabit as a same sex couple for the purposes of comparison and statistics. We should try to approach data collecting and interpretation here with the same objectivity that we would any other question, in my opinion.

It should be noted that I have no intention of arguing whether or not homosexuality and same sex marriage are sin or inappropriate for christian practice. Nor do I feel that this series of posts is the appropriate venue to delve into my own opinions on that topic and my interpretations of the scriptures pertaining to it. Most christians believe that the bible clearly vilifies homosexual behavior, so for my purposes here I will equate that with the majority christian view. 

This series of posts is simply about legislating for or against same sex marriage- should we allow it, shouldn't we, or how do we decide?

Which Manifesto Represents Your Womanhood?

In all probability, if you are an evangelical christian woman in certain circles, you've heard of the True Woman conferences, Revive Our Hearts ministries, and the True Woman Manifesto. I attended a True Woman conference once, and found it- well, not stuff I should charitably say in public. Not that there is no good in it, but the bad hogties the good in such a way that I could not recommend it as generally helpful. =)
The True Woman Manifesto is a statement of what the leadership of the True Woman conferences believe to be an outline of christian womanhood. Some of it is good- like the importance of having a relationship with Jesus. But the following statements bug me to no end, as I consider them blatantly contrary to the intent of scripture and to the heart of God for His daughters. (read the full manifesto here)

We are called as women to affirm and encour­age men as they seek to express godly mas­culin­ity, and to honor and sup­port God-​​ordained male lead­er­ship in the home and in the church.

When we respond humbly to male lead­er­ship in our homes and churches, we demon­strate a noble sub­mis­sion to author­ity that reflects Christ’s sub­mis­sion to God His Father.

Self­ish insis­tence on per­sonal rights is con­trary to the spirit of Christ who hum­bled Him­self, took on the form of a ser­vant, and laid down His life for us.

God’s plan for gen­der is wider than mar­riage; all women, whether mar­ried or sin­gle, are to model fem­i­nin­ity in their var­i­ous rela­tion­ships, by exhibit­ing a dis­tinc­tive mod­esty, respon­sive­ness, and gen­tle­ness of spirit.

Mature Chris­t­ian women have a respon­si­bil­ity to leave a legacy of faith, by dis­ci­pling younger women in the Word and ways of God and mod­el­ing for the next gen­er­a­tion lives of fruit­ful femininity.

For one thing, I do not think that predominately or exclusively male leadership in the home, the church, or the world is God's design. I do not believe in a hierarchal Trinity, nor do I believe that any woman should submit to a man as she submits to God. Personal rights and boundaries are not automatically selfish- they are healthy. Should women be feminine? You betcha. =) But that doesn't mean being submissive, modest, "responsive", etc. and a "meek and quiet spirit" is equally advisable for BOTH genders. The writers of this manifesto do not believe in birth control, hence the "fruitful femininity" bit- I won't even dignify that one with a response. =) Rummaging around on the interwebs, however, I stumbled on an excellent replacement for the more offensive passages in the True Woman Manifesto. It's called- and I love this so much- the "Unladylike Manifesto." Here it is: (http://www.pamhogeweide.com/2012/05/26/unladylike-manifesto/)

Unla­dy­like Manifesto

• We believe that male and female are cre­ated to col­lab­o­rate, co-​​lead and co-​​exist in a mutu­al­ity of sub­mis­sion to one another. (Gen 2:18 – 23,Galatians 3:28)

• We believe that gift­ing is appointed accord­ing to the will of the Holy Spirit and that call­ing is deter­mined by gift­ing, not gen­der. (1 Corinthi­ans 12, John 20:1 – 20)

• We believe that the power of the Gospel restores men and women in right rela­tion­ship to one another to live, serve and lead side by side rather than in patri­ar­chal hier­ar­chy. (Gala­tians 3:28, John 4:7 – 39)

• We believe that the voice, influ­ence and author­ity of women is meant to be fully unleashed in accor­dance to the full per­son­hood that women pos­sess. Male head­ship is a myth. (Joel 2:28 – 29, 1 Peter 2:9 – 10)

• We believe in the mutual sub­mis­sion and part­ner­ship of mar­riage where nei­ther has author­ity over another by virtue of gen­der. We reject the headship/​submission model as a bib­li­cal truth and instead embrace the lib­erty and wis­dom of def­er­ence to the other. (Eph­esian 1:22, Eph­esians 5: 15 – 33, 1 Peter 5:5)

• We believe that the lead­er­ship of women is needed in full part­ner­ship with the lead­er­ship of men in all are­nas of cul­ture and church. Women were not cre­ated to fol­low any­more than men were cre­ated to lead. (Num­bers 12:15, Judges 4 & 5, 2 Kings 22:13 – 14, Acts 2, Romans 16:3 – 4, 7)

• We believe that Jesus mod­eled a rad­i­cal agenda of respect­ing women’s full per­son­hood in how he treated them as noted in the Gospels. Jesus went against cul­tural and reli­gious norms in his treat­ment of women. (Luke 13:10 – 17, John 4, Luke 8:1 – 3, etc.….)

• We believe that men and women of faith ought to resist the injus­tice of inequal­ity wher­ever it is found, includ­ing the halls of the church. Jus­tice is a king­dom of God value and is the lan­guage of love. (Hosea 2:19, Amos 5:15, 24, Micah 6:8)

So this is my man­i­festo, my unla­dy­like dec­la­ra­tion that true wom­an­hood is lib­er­ated per­son­hood. The king­dom of God does not per­pet­u­ate the injus­tice of inequal­ity among women. The king­dom of God frees women from sex­ism, even within the house of faith. Because being human is true womanhood

I know which one represents my womanhood best- that would be the second one, folks. =) 

How about you?