|
Wednesday September 7, 2011 ~ 45 Comments
On a recent post I reviewed the newly released movie, The Help, in two parts (part 1 dealt with the movie, part 2 dealt more with issues of race). As I noted then, the main issues in the movie are race and class, and people should not miss those, but I was struck by yet another issue. As I tweeted from the movie: "The Help's mix of elitism, judgment, & scorn (wrapped in cultural religion) is STILL real & even taught as discipleship in some places." Hilly Holbrook is the antagonist in the film, pitted against the two protagonists, an African-American maid and a young white woman writer, both of whom wanted something different than they inherited from society. But Hilly was a respectable "Christian" woman who took it as her responsibility to teach people cultural values and to look down on those who did not embrace her specific beliefs. When given a chance to help a maid in need, for instance, she takes the position that God would want her to work harder. Never mind that the average maids were making less than $1.00 an hour and many African-American men had to work for terrible wages as well. Hilly took it upon herself to keep people "in their place." Ultimately, she scorned everyone she didn't like or who didn't measure up to her standards-- and she did so using her "Christian" beliefs as a club. Grace was not a part of her life; it was all judgment and condemnation. And, the condemnation was built around the idea that others were just not "good Christian women."
As the movie played, I felt some strong emotions. I wanted to stand up and shout at the Hilly character: "I know you. You hurt people, and you do so in the name of religion." Hillys are still too common in the world where I live. They may not be focusing on the exact same issues she concerned herself with, but the tendency is the same. Cultural norms become elevated to the level of defining what it means to be a Christian-- particularly a "good Christian woman." I've seen how being a "good religious woman" that fits religious-cultural expectations destroys the lives and passion of women. My wife calls such training, "making Stepford Wives." While I watched The Help, I could not help but consider how many times I have seen that "Hilly look" when some women did not want to fit the same mold. There are biblical values and direction for the home and church-- and I believe they matter. That is not what this post is about. I have the utmost respect and admiration for my wife as she cares for our children and our home. I believe there is no greater calling than motherhood. Yet, for many, it is not just valuing motherhood that matters. They have taken the forms and structures of a particular American religious sub-culture and elevated them to the level of what it means to be a follower of Christ. Is it really biblical discipleship to look down on those who do not adopt our same forms and cultural values wrapped in religious language? Gospel-centered values must not be confused with the values held by Hilly Holbrook and her spiritual kin who look with scorn upon those who don't line up with their cultural religion--a religion that kills as thoroughly and completely as that of the Pharisees. I teach my daughters what the Bible says about men and women. I also teach them to watch out for people who teach Biblical womanhood by looking at others with elitism, judgment, and scorn. That's a cultural religion and it kills. I've seen its result (up close) in people who have been told that their gifts did not matter if they could not set the right table setting-- and it's wrong. Think about the implications of such unbiblical teaching. I have yet to find, in the Bible's lists of ungodliness, "You forgot the salad fork." Nor when Jesus spoke about the sheep and the goats did He say, "I stopped by for a visit and you didn't serve me tea." And I cannot imagine a Bema Seat scenario during which Christian women are judged by Miss Manners. Yet, with this pseudo-religious, cultural emphasis on housekeeping, you'd think "tending the flower garden" was a fruit of the spirit. Maybe you cannot relate to the specific scenarios I'm suggesting. But ask women about their anxieties when having others (especially other women) into their homes. Many know they will be judged on the basis of how clean, comfortable, or "classy" their house is. It's a softer, more feminine legalism, but just as deadly as any other variety. Hilly is alive and well teaching a cultural religion, all while confusing it with biblical womanhood. Too often I see tribalistic expressions of "biblical" femininity under the guise of biblical fidelity. Reject this unholy caricature--rebel against anything other than what the scriptures actually say. We need to speak out when we see cultural expressions forced on people as if they were biblical norms, even if it is dressed up as a self-improvement project. It is legalism. If a rose by any other name smells as sweet, then legalism by any other name still smells like the decomposing corpse it is. I agree with Chuck Swindoll who explained:
Yet, I also feel a bit of sympathy for those who have been locked into the cultural religion trap. I hurt for those who are so convinced they are right and are compelled to make people conform to their own ways of believing, way less biblical than cultural. They have long lost the joy of their salvation. At the end of the movie, Aibileen, who loses her job after her boss is pressured into firing her, asks a crying Hilly,"Ain't you tired, Miss Hilly? Ain't you tired?" People who spend their lives imposing cultural rules rather than living for a radical gospel do get tired. And they should; trying to live by rules and regulations does get tiring. I'd like to ask you Aibileen's question to those purveyors of cultural religion, "Ain't you tired?" Ain't you tired of creating rules that impose cultural values as if they were biblical teachings?" Maybe I am the wrong person for such a post-- a white, complementarian man in a conservative denomination. Yet, too often I see conservative evangelicals propagating cultural expressions of religion under the guise of biblical fidelity. At the end of the day, I think we can hold our best understanding of our scriptural convictions about gender and not re-create Stepford. Ironically, the Proverbs 31 woman-- a strong, female business owner-- would be shunned in many of the very places that proclaim that chapter. She would not fit into the cultural values masquerading as biblical truth. I am encouraged that some are rejecting Stepford and are following God's call and looking for more. Sharon Hodde Miller, who I met at The Summit Church and learned of her work from my friend J.D. Greear, put it this way on this blog back in 2008:
Some will pursue and live the high value of motherhood. Others will not marry at all. Some will stay home with their children, others will work in business, charity, and government. As all follow Christ, we can rejoice. Many of the readers of this blog are Christian leaders. I urge you to stand up to the legalistic machinery that demands the production of Stepford Wives. (Since Donna is a pastor's wife, and this expectation issue is common there, I will also add: defend the pastors' wives and make space for those who are not in the mold of this pseudo-Christian sub-culture.) The priority for all women who are followers of Christ is that they be encouraged to the abundant life that Jesus has for them, following him with passion as he leads them. Hilly did not think that others were "good Christian" women. I think some good Christian women are wonderful hostesses and I thank God for them. Others run businesses, some fight poverty, still others move to Nepal as missionaries. I thank God that Hilly (and her modern counterparts) did not get ahold of them before Jesus did. A woman's place is following Jesus. 45 CommentsComment PolicyComments are welcome on discussion posts. Comments are not moderated but do require a keyword to avoid spam. If this is your first time commenting, please review the comment policy. Leave a comment |
   
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Ed-
I remember when I was attending college in preparation for the ministry, I bought a book for my wife on being a minister's wife. She read about half of it and informed me that she if that's what being a pastor's wife meant, then the probably couldn't measure up.
It was written by a Hilly Holbrook.
It seemed clear to me that one of my responsibilities to Sonya was to help her find where she could best use her gifts rather than squeezing her into a pseudo-spiritual mold that someone else had created. Women flourish when encouraged to live to the fullest being God has created them to be; they die when forced to live up to unbiblical expectations.
This made me want to stand up and cheer! Love it, Ed. Thanks so much for your thoughtful, insightful words. I wholeheartedly agree and I think you're exactly the right person to write this- you have the credentials and influence to be taken seriously on this topic by those who may need a change of heart. Thank you.
I think you are exactly the right kind of person to speak to this.
The other part is the outside the church problem. My wife is a teacher. She has always worked at low income schools because she believes that is where she can be of most help, and because he hates working with helicopter parents. But she always hates that fact that there are so many Christians that think they should work at low income schools and be 'great white saviors' to all of these poor, primarily minority families. Yes poverty is real and there are some cultural values that reinforce poverty. But it is the attitude that they are here to save everyone that drives everyone nuts.
It is even worse when the great white saviors become administrators. Because they hire staff based on Christian adherence instead of competence. They open staff meetings with prayer and scripture regardless of how badly they treat the staff outside of staff meetings. I am all for being a Christian in the work place. But I do not want to work with Christians like these. And it takes so much work to be able to reach the non-Christians in the building that are turned off by this type of behavior.
Yes! Thank you for saying these words. Some Christian women perpetuate a legalism rooted in false notions of Biblical womanhood, and it is suffocating. I'm so glad you wrote this!
I would add that, in addition to constructing a womanhood that excludes certain women (ie standards that are unattainable for disenfranchised women or minority women), The Help also highlights a notion of womanhood that can only exist *by means of exploiting* other women. The vision of womanhood and Christian family life that Hilly Holbrook endorsed was only possible by means of cheap, Black, female labor.
Even today we need to be aware of this problem. For instance, if godly stewardship is equated with bargain shopping, women might be encouraged to shop at stores that have cheap, cute clothes, but exploit women workers in other countries. That is not to make a blanket statement about affordable clothing, but just because something is purchased cheaply does not by default mean a woman is stewarding her finances Christianly.
That is a topic for another day, but suffice it to say that Biblical womanhood should incorporate both personal holiness AND missional vision. If one constructs Christian womanhood in a way that does not include love of neighbor, then it is not Biblical.
Ed,
Thank you for this thoughtful post. I have not seen the film yet, but I plan to as soon as a "date night" can be arranged.
I think Marty's wife, Sonya, and I received the same book. I was a 19 year-old Bible college student, newly engaged to a pastor six years my senior. I had aspirations to graduate school and doctoral studies (goals my fiance fully supported), hoping for a future teaching and writing theology. My well-meaning fiance bought me a "handbook" for pastor's wives at a convention and, truthfully, the book took me to the edge of despair. I called him in tears, wondering if he really wanted to marry me if I couldn't fulfill the vision for the pastor's wife outlined in that book. Thankfully, he spoke wisdom then (and now), assuring me that he's interested in seeing me become who God designed me to be, not what some legalistic woman says I'm "supposed" to be.
Through a variety of other experiences, I was ultimately delivered from the shackles of "cultural womanhood"--a picture of the ideal woman based mostly on older white, middle and upper class Southern women. The image of the "Stepford wives" is a great one. I have nothing against those whose gifts and inclinations allow them to conduct their homes and lives in such a fashion. But, I am not one of them. Many of us aren't them! It is refreshing to hear a man in a position of influence denounce these poisonous, legalistic notions of womanhood that leave many women struggling daily with feelings of inferiority, guilt, and failure. May your tribe increase.
In the interest of full disclosure, perhaps I should say that I am no longer a complementarian, either--at least, not in the sense spelled out by Piper, Grudem, Ware, and the CBMW. But, it is my opinion that in order for the complementarian approach to gender roles to (1) make the strongest possible case for their "model" (biblically, theologically, etc) and (2) to work in a way that leads to the genuine flourishing of women (not to mention men and children), complementarian scholars need to work on disentangling theological and biblical teaching from cultural trappings of (typically) Southern white notions of womanhood.
Thank you again for raising this issue.
Grace and peace,
Emily
Sharon, I think you make a very important point. Women exploiting women, even among the people of God, has been a problem going back to Sarai and Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21. Thank you for making that issue explicit in this context.
Wow, I agree with what Emily said about Sharon's comment concerning "women exploiting other women." I believe that is so right on.
I also believe much of what Ed described is true of so much else that happens within our churches. Much of what I hear preached as the gospel seems to have more to do with middle class norms than with the Kingdom of God.
Ed,
Great post. Thanks for calling attention to these issues. Personally, I was very thankful that the "Christian" label used by Hilly in the movie was less pronounced, and the African American church scenes seemed to give a more accurate glimpse into what the body of Christ really looks like.
Like some of the ladies who have already commented, my wife went through a similar experience with the "pastor's wife" image. Thankfully, she's no Stepford wife. Life would be too boring and honestly, I probably wouldn't have a job! :) One book that helped free her was "Lose the Halo,Keep the Wings." GREAT read for anyone entering that world.
I love the article and the general emphasis. I would still take issue with saying that motherhood is a woman's highest calling. It is one of many callings that God may give a particular woman, and not all women are able to bear children.
Marty and Emily,
One common theme-- those books for pastor's wives did not turn out so well. ;-)
I wonder if it was the same one? (Don't tell me!)
Emily,
You comment was challenging and thoughtful. Your charitable admonition of complementarians is helpful:
Hilly, of course, would not approve.
Sharon,
Love this, "That is a topic for another day, but suffice it to say that Biblical womanhood should incorporate both personal holiness AND missional vision."
And, I appreciate you. Glad to see you writing for CT lately. I remember you when you were not so famous! Was glad to have you here on my blog back in those days.
Melissa,
Thanks, Melissa, I struggled with how to say that and wrote, "there is no greater calling than motherhood." I tried to nuance it, but am not sure it worked.
I don't believe there is a greater earthly calling that parenting, but there are many who are not called to be mothers (or fathers). So, I avoided the "highest calling" language, but maybe I still missed it with "no higher calling." (My sister died without every having children and I believe she lived out God's highest calling for her life.)
Either way, I do think that motherhood (and fatherhood) are high callings and there is nothing "higher," but the highest calling is follow Jesus, whether we have children or not.
Does that help? I am open to suggestions.
All,
Thanks for the great comments. It seems that many have had similar concerns.
Ed
I appreciate what you're saying. "Some will stay home with their children, others will work in business, charity, and government." Though some will disagree (and I respect your right to do so), I would also add that some will work in ministry. I am a woman minister and know some incredible women ministers. I realize you are a complementarian of a conservative denomination. Obviously, I do not subscribe to that. And that's ok. I'm not trying to spark a debate. But I couldn't leave without sending those women some love. We get the "Hilly treatment," too, and are still not well-received in some Christian circles. That bites sometimes, but we keep loving, serving and leading anyway. I would have thought your article to be perfect had we been mentioned, too. ;-) Nonetheless, it's a great article. Appreciated it. God bless!
I agree fully with Emily (coincidentally my name is also Emily). I moved from the Midwest into the South a couple years ago, and I can’t help but painfully reflect on my newly found struggles with God dealing with my feminity that did not exist in the 24 years prior to my move. It speaks a lot to the power of unspoken doctrine sometimes imprisoning the written doctrine, therefore become the controlling doctrine of our churches and lives. We all know the rules and live by them and feel judged by them, even though they are not written down. We all feel shame and ambiguous marginalization from created "sins" (which is in contrast to the Holy Spirit’s conviction from the Creator’s defined sins). These “sins” are not imposed by Scripture, but rather by culture, as Ed Stetzer addresses. It is suffocating, and truly acts as a tripping foot of demonization to women who are honestly trying to walk closely with their God and use the giftings God has given them.
I am biblical complementarian myself, yet I am convinced there needs to be a reform that happens. Though the more I desire to construct a 95 theses of true Biblical womanhood devoid of cultural influence and nail it to….something….I find that the real problem is that the reform needed runs deeper than just “womanhood”, but back to the primary essentials of the faith that are subtly being swept under the rug in deceptive ways. I think if we all worked to once again define God as Triune, and learn what it means to say Scripture is Canon, and learn the Truth, we can then find ourselves able to meet the issue of true Biblical womanhood effectively. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that now that God seems to be calling up and providing more opportunities for women in the world of theological studies, that there is a natural shifting in the hearts of women in the Church to know the Truth as well as the men. This has nothing to do with gender, but Truth itself, which knows neither male nor female. It is equally for all. As women learn to articulate and know God as Triune, the incarnation of Christ, and study Scripture, etc. in the same way and depth as men do and have been allowed., it will be no surprise for us to see that True Biblical womanhood may start to thrive for the very first time in church history. In all contradiction, we have been trying to do true Biblical womanhood without allowing women to fully confront God themselves.
Ed,
You may not have realized the undercurrent you tapping into with this post. This is such a difficult issue for thoughtful, educated, theological women who want to honor God but also use their intellect and gifts outside of the "Christian" cultural norms.
I am very encouraged and grateful for your words.
As a pastor's wife, I see the statistics that say 60% of all pastor's wives work outside the home. Yet, the denominational model set forth is much more Stepford wife than true Proverbs 31 woman. There is a huge disconnect between what leaders are saying and what our pastor's and their families are doing.
Many of us are strong, non-traditionally gifted women who have no desire to take on the Christian sub-culture establishment because we're working, doing ministry, and loving our families. So, thank you for saying this and shedding a little light on an issue that has been sorely overlooked.
As a father of two Jesus-loving daughters who are using their gifts to honor the Savior, I completely and unreservedly agree!
Ungodly Women: Gender and the First Wave of American Fundamentalism by Betty DeBerg provides some great historical insights on how Victorian gender roles influenced early fundamentalism's understanding of gender and the Bible. But beware, it is not biblical theology and so stops short of applying its conclusions to the question of "women in ministry"
Yes and Amen.
I always appreciate it when someone tries to support others and act and say things in a loving way. The more I translate interacting with others, Christian or not as good people skills the less problem I have with dead religion and dead knowledge. Are we open to feed back others are giving us?
Thanks for thinking and writing about these issues, Ed.
Our family moved to the from the west coast to the southeast about three years ago and were absolutely horrified at how much cultural legalism exists in the churches here. Quite honestly, we have had a hard time finding a conservative SBC church where we feel comfortable.
One pastor told my wife and I that we were in sin because my wife made more money than I did at the time. Another frowned on the fact that we had only two children, suggesting that we were biblically mandated to have as many as possible.
One pastor told me he would not staff with intentional diversity because he wanted to choose leaders on the basis of merits. Not surprisingly, his staff is made up entirely of white men. He did not seem willing to acknowledge the possibility that he had cultural biases.
Even when churches deny the basis of it, cultural legalism comes out subtly in the ways churches are structured and the criteria they use to empower leaders. For example, my wife has been often shut out of women's ministries because she works during the day. Meanwhile, virtually all men's ministry opportunities are scheduled to accommodate a working man's schedule.
In my west coast experience, being complementarian meant that the husband is the spiritual leader of the home. In my south east experience, being complementarian means that your wife is a stay-at-home mom. Thus it should be no wonder why our SBC churches are filled with rich white suburbanites and bereft of working class minorities.
I've begun to notice a certain hypocrisy in our so-called "missional" ethos. While we cross the seas to reach the poor among the nations (which we SHOULD do), we seem to marginalize the poor at home (which we should NOT do). We don't do this intentionally, we just structure our churches in ways that make it hard for the poor to get noticed.
We just tell 'em to "work harder" and some day, perhaps, they'll be more spiritual.
Blessings, Ed.
I love this article! If all Reformed Southern Baptists felt like this I think I could be one. Thank you, Dr. Stetzer.
Yes, those that cannot show love to anyone and disapprove of anything that's different from them, no one can stand them. Nothing new there, whether it's wrapped in religion or not. There are people like that in the secular world as well, who no one likes being around because we can't measure up. It is definitely worse seeing it in Christians. But honestly, people are so caught up in other's "legalistic" issues pointing out how wrong it is for them to judge us and look at us as unworthy if we don't comply, that they don't see that they are just as guilty on the same point as these "legalistic" Christians... Looking down on them for what they don't feel is right. We're all a bunch of sinners. What they're doing is wrong. We don't have a right to "tell them to get lost," as Swindoll put it. God says to love. Love "legalistic" people whether you agree or not. Love "sinners" whether you agree with them or not. Love the unlovey. Without love we are nothing to God on either side of the issue.
The Scripture that comes to mind is in 1 Cor. 13:2,3 "And though I have...all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." Pretty powerful. I think those verses sum up all you've talked about. I kind of feel like it's a bad thing to have convictions because then I'm obviously not living by the grace of God and following His direction in my life.
Just my thoughts as a Bible-believing Christian who wants to listen to the Holy Spirit's conviction in my life and not play "Holy Spriit" in other's lives in *any* matter, one way or another.
Just wanted to clarify what I said near the end... "I kind of feel like it's a bad thing to have convictions because then I'm obviously not living by the grace of God and following His direction in my life."
It's definitely not a bad thing to have convictions, I meant to say that after reading this article, it made me feel like that. I will never give up my convictions that are between me and the Holy Spirit of God and hope others don't either.
Yes, a woman's place is in following Jesus. Unfortunately Ed Stetzer's own denomination limits that ability. Women in his denomination (as in many) are supposed to follow Jesus inasmuch as it fits that denomination's ideas of which roles women should occupy in the Body of Christ.
His article is a step in the right direction, and I applaud that, but I abhor the statement "there is no greater calling than motherhood." That is not a Biblical notion. Motherhood isn't a calling. If we tell women that motherhood is their highest calling, then why would they ever pursue anything beyond motherhood? Do I believe motherhood is important and should be done with all earnestness and intention? Absolutely. But it is not my highest CALLING. It is a role I have.
My calling is to reach the lost, the poor, the disenfranchised (including women). I am raising my kids to find their callings. But we have to stop telling women that being a mother is the most noble job. Why would they then feel freedom to go and preach to the lost, teach as they are equipped, prophesy as God enables, and disciple the world? There is a greater calling than being a mother. And we sell our lives short when we don't ever find it.
I second what Ann said -- this was a refreshing change of tune from the Southern Baptists. I attend a church in that denomination and have really struggled to grow and find my place there because I have non-traditional gifts and interests. You're right -- it is like dying inside. And I know it isn't what God wants for me. I pray that God will guide me forward because right now, I'm not sure where to go or what to do.
Such an insightful article and comments!
I was recently reading some of the writings of Mormon anti-polygamists, a group of women, including one of the wives of Brigham Young, who petitioned the U.S. government during the 1800s to outlaw polygamy in the Utah territory. One essay noted these women's worst detractors weren't necessarily men, but often Mormon women, who insisted polygamy was the model of biblical womanhood.
I feel a certain amount of pity for this sort of women, who, in my experience, are often the victims of childhood abuse, and thus harbor low expectations for how they should be treated (and hence, how they should treat others). Unfortunately, religion, instead of elevating these women from their past, often gives them a platform to inflict the abuse on others.
I agree with Emily and others that the model for biblical womanhood seems reminiscent of the Antebellum South, rather than the Esther's, Deborah's and Proverbs 31 women I've read about in the Bible. Here in the west (Colorado), Christians might see someone like Sarah Palin as more of an ideal woman.
Great discussion. I think that we get so caught up in some of the particulars, that we forget the whole picture of sexuality. Paul explains in Ephesians that women reflect the bride of Christ, the church, and that men point us to Christ himself. We are walking stories of the gospel. If we boot out all the "silly Hilly's" we can encourage one another properly. I recently did a whole series on sexuality on my blog. I think so often we ask the wrong questions by focusing on the minors. (And I do speak from a complimentarian position.)
I know I'm a bit late to the party, but thank you for this. The timing is uncanny; my own thoughts have been running in the same direction.
I loved what Sharon Miller said in the comments, "If one constructs Christian womanhood in a way that does not include love of neighbor, then it is not Biblical." I just remarked to my husband a couple days ago, "I think so often role comes before relationships." I see women actually cutting people and interactions out of their lives, ostensibly so they can be better wives and mothers or spend more time with their families. And certainly, healthy boundaries are important. As a homeschooling mother of 5 I'm all too aware of the dangers of overscheduling. But boundaries aren't what I'm talking about.
We have indeed applied man-made definitions to God-assigned roles, shaping them according to our traditions and subcultures rather than the Word of God. Consequently, women reject and rebuff their neighbors, those God has put in their lives, in order to prove their godliness by a well-scrubbed commode! I have seen conversations politely cut short, pleas for help ignored, invitations rejected, and friendships refused so that women can "fulfill my role" which translated to keeping a spotless home or sewing clothing for the whole family or growing a vegetable garden. Homemaker of the Year seems, in some circles, to be a more coveted title and a better proof of godliness than Follower of Christ.
Finally, as a fellow pastor's wife I believe I too was a casualty of the book for pastors' wive mentioned by a couple other commenters. The first 3 times I tried to read it it made me cry because I knew I could never measure up to the gift-wrapping and guest-seating standards laid forth to be a proper "First Lady." On the fourth read I tried to eat the meat and spit out the bones, and after that I realized all God required of me is to love Him, love my husband, and love my neighbor, and I threw the book away.
I'm blessed to read all of the testimonies and additional insights that have been added to the conversation.
One more thought, though...
Maybe all of the pastors' wives who have been afflicted by the same legalistic, suffocating book should get together for a book burning party. Then we can take the ashes, bake them into a homemade pie, and mail it to the author. ;)
Amen, amen and amen. I laughed out loud at the "Stepford Wife" reference - it's the same one my husband and I have used for years.
Don't have time for more than that because I'm off to get my kids from the school I fell guilty we pay so much money to because I'm not capable of homeschooling and am thus a bad mother. :)
I pray this is read as far and wide as possible. It's so needed.
Having read the above blog post, I am left wondering what The author's point actually was. After all of the words and verbal shots at the supposed Pharisism among so many, I still am looking for some specific examples of a what you call a "religious-cultural expectations of what a good woman is".
Is the following quote a realistic statement of the true state of affairs of most women, or simply a provocative statement designed to make a point about the blogger's perspective on the role of women?
"Ask women women their anxieties when having others (especially other women) into their homes. Many know they will be judged on the basis of how clean, comfortable, or "classy" their house is. It's a softer, more feminine legalism, but just as deadly as any other variety."
Transforming frustrations at a movie character into a full-scale attack on the supposed cultural chains around the women of the Church is emotional and sensational at best and manipulative at worst.
Give us some examples of this type of person who "hurts in the name of religion that we must teach our children about. What is meant by "feminine legalism".
Or, would specific examples be too...legalistic?
Ed,
Thanks for this post. This is a much needed word, and the responses to it confirm this (28 comments here and more than 50 retweets (atleast, that I could locate)).
So, for Mr. Copp, who is looking for specifics and thinks this is a fanciful visceral projection from a movie to reality, he has obviously overlooked that this post has clearly communicated what many have experienced and others believed needed to be said.
Mr. Cobb, "calling names" is not the only way to be specific. Stetzer gave plenty of specifics, and it is clear that he was specific enough to make his point. No one, except for you, has commented, "I don't understand what you are talking about" (granted, rough paraphrase). Everyone else seems to know precisely what he is talking about.
The words of the women who have left affirming responses to this post are worth listening to.
The burden that he is wrong in this post seems to be on you. Good luck convincing all these women that they have not experienced what they think they have experienced.
Mike
I am not saying that the women who have posted here are not sincere in their posts and their experiences. In fact, their posts somewhat make my point. They are being specific while the original post was not.
This type of post, and perspective, in my opinion, does not empower women to walk in godly and biblical definitions and prescribed roles. It simply allows women who feel oppressed to find his ambiguous post as support and validation for their own experience of being wronged.
The women who post may or may not have been truly judged, wronged, or hurt. There is no way to know in this type of forum. In the end blog posts like these may only serve to, intentionally or unintentionally, enable alll types of inaccurate processes within various personal situations of wives, mothers, daughters, and young women who feel validated because Ed Stetzer saw a movie and now understands me.
Maybe it's the nature of blogging...
Thanks, Michael,
I appreciate the comments.
David,
Thanks for your comments. We disagree, but you've made your point. I am comfortable with what I said and that it was needed. I am encouraged by the response as well. Thanks, though, for your thoughts. You don't have to agree with mine... that is the nature of blogging. ;-)
Stephanie,
Your comment comment was passed around our office by an unnamed person. ;-) This part was highlighted:
It is so accurate. Yet, some teach these ideas as if they were discipleship. And, that view kills the soul.
Thanks,
Ed
Bravo!
I caught the same theme. Thanks for taking the time to articulate your thoughts. Well done.
David Copp,
I was wondering where your first comment was headed, but your second one made it more clear. I think this point was particularly helpful:
"This type of post, and perspective, in my opinion, does not empower women to walk in godly and biblical definitions and prescribed roles. It simply allows women who feel oppressed to find his ambiguous post as support and validation for their own experience of being wronged."
It seems that, despite your plea for specificity, your underlying concern is that Ed's general denunciation of "legalism" in (so-called) biblical notions of womanhood will serve to provide "support and validation" for women who are transgressing their "prescribed roles," not to mention a public place in which women may air wrongs and find encouragement in (online) solidarity.
There is some truth to this, I think. It is gratifying to most women who have experienced the kind of legalism that Ed describes to have someone in an influential position acknowledge their wrongs. Being seen and heard is a powerful thing (just ask Hagar: Gen 16:13). Moreover, the first step in a "revolution" is communication and solidarity among those who are being oppressed. We certainly don't want the wronged women of the SBC getting too cozy--and on the Lifeway Research Blog, of all things! ;)
Nevertheless, as one "disobedient" woman who chose to comment here, let me assure you that Ed's blog post ultimately does nothing one way or the other to influence my fulfillment of my "prescribed roles." I will continue to walk in the "good works" for which I was created in Christ Jesus, regardless of what Ed does or doesn't say. And, many in the SBC will continue to say I am being disobedient and rebellious. So be it.
Grace and peace,
Emily
Thank you so much for this post. It's like water to my soul to hear such grace and sense from "a white, complementarian man in a conservative denomination".
God bless you!
"A woman's place is following Jesus"
As a woman called and serving overseas, who's been told multiple times her place is following a man (so she'd better get married fast!), I cannot express the level of gratitude I feel at that line.
Thank you.
Wow. What an outstanding post.
I am a pastor's wife and mommy who also happens to be a (part time) physician. I prayed and sought the Lord's guidance frequently in making my decision to go to medical school, and like you wrote, was simply trying to follow Christ. My boyfriend, turned fiancee, turned husband supported me the whole time. I am thankful that so far in his career it hasn't seemed to be an issue, but I do sometimes worry that it will become one... Thanks for the encouragement!
Sarah,
Thanks so much for following Christ.
In regards to women’s roles, the Christian life is so much more than the regional cultural expression of “mom and apple pie.”
Thank you for your service and your comment.
Ed
I was just crying last night to my husband about not "measuring up"...through him, God reminded me to be brave and not lose the precious joy He daily gives me (as a ministers wife) just because I do not measure up to people's expectations.... I am a mother of two babies and I was worried that I didn't make dinner for enough people, didn't serve enough, wasn't "cool" enough....such destructive lies from the enemy. I hope that men and women take this truth to heart....always for the glory of God! ....there is still time to get "cooler"....
Rachel-
There is no biblical "pastor's wife" mold. You measure up.
Serve where, and only where, when, and only when, God calls you to serve.
Wow, all I can say is wow. I have been struggling between two worlds for some time now. I feel blessed at times to be surrounded by such a diverse group of Christians, and at times I feel such confusion when it comes to Godly Womanhood. I have to work part time so I don't plant a garden (I tried but it died) I don't spend my harvest canning veggies (although I would LOVE to have the time to) My house is always littered with home school books and toys.
There have been times when I thought that I was less of a wife and mother because I didn't just quit my job and stay home to do these things. I really, really struggled. I am confident now that God accepts me even when I don't have tea parties or flourishing gardens. He has provided me with a ministry to children in my home, my home school co-op, and in our AWANA program. I couldn't do all of this if I were locked up in my home doing other things that I am not good at. Hopefully, when I see some of those wonderful children in heaven, they will tell me that in some small way, shape, or form, I was a Godly influence in their lives!
Ed,
Everything you have related in this article is absolutely correct. However, you and most others who have reviewed this movie have neglected the other major issue--that of revenge. The vulger pie incident, which seems to be the major plot of the movie from midway to the end does in no way portray the attitude of a Christian woman or a Christian in general. Minnys are, also, are far too common in this world and serve no redeeming value at all.
Emily,
That was a pretty ungracious reading of David's post. I'm also a little disturbed by how easily you slip into the victim role.
I think David has a valid point here. I totally understand what Ed is saying, and my wife and I have had frequent conversations about this very thing. Both of us make an effort to take a stand against legalism and unbiblical "standards" for others. Not for ourselves, because we aren't so easily affected by the opinions of others, but for people whose personalities don't run that way. We do it so they can feel free to stand up as well.
So I get it, and I agree. However, David is right that there was a lack of specifics here. I don't think he's asking for names. I think he's asking for examples of the kind of standards Ed is referring to. Something a bit more meaty than the hyperbolic references to not putting forks in the right place. (I'm sure that has impacted some, but for most of us, the judgements are a bit more down to earth.)
As David noted, because of the abstract nature of this blog post, we can all too easily fill in whatever thing we feel is being "legalistically" imposed and then feel justified by the idea that Ed understands. I'll give a hypothetical example.
"Ed is so right. I'm so tired of these women thinking that I can't wear a six inch miniskirt, four inch heels and a tube top. Between that and their judgement over my lesbianism and I just feel so oppressed. I'm so glad Ed understands what we women are going through with all of these supposed biblical standards for women."
I think we can all reasonably say that if this woman was a member (somehow) of Ed's church that he would call her to repentance. He would not coddle her in her sin and tell her everything she was doing was right and godly. But with no real boundaries in the post there's nothing to prevent the reader from walking away with that impression.
Obviously, this can't be eradicated completely, and nobody really expects every line can be drawn in a blog entry. That'd be ridiculous. But a few bounding examples to give a frame for your concerns would probably have been a good idea.
Lest you think it hyperbole, I'll remind you that in this very thread a woman read it and saw your post as comforting to her in her work as a minister and the negative reception that receives from Christians.
Emily, one last thing. David suggesting that there are roles hardly requires leaping to the conclusion that he has a mold to put women in beyond the one God created for them. After all, God did create roles for both of us. We are equal, but we are not the same. The roles are not what many want to define them as, but roles do exist.
Ed, Thanks for an encouraging and insightful post. You get it, man. Some of us women need different role models.
@David - I respectfully ask you to refrain from dismissing other people's experiences. I believe that you are trying your best to be true to the Scriptures when you put down those of us women who are in ministry. Please show us the courtesy of believing that about us in return. Whether you agree with it or not, women are doing the work of the Kingdom. We are not disobedient. We have wrestled deeply with what God has asked of us. And we are following Jesus with as much integrity as we can. People are experiencing the rescue and freedom of Christ because of us. There is too much pain in the world for men only men to minister. If only the men work, so much less will be done because there's only so many men! God has sent women laborers into the harvest field, too. And not just to glean at the edges, but to reap generously.
p.s. I'm married, in part-time ministry, and I love to serve my housemates by cleaning our house and cooking for them. Some of us don't fit in boxes.
I hear this... and I have felt this myself.
I would, however, point out that a paucity of grace and cultural legalism are really a whole church problem, not just a women's problem.