I have talked with two women in the past week who had this to say about their past jobs:
First, “I'd been there full-time for seven years and part-time for three years, and I really wanted to do something else, but my husband wouldn't let me quit.”
Secondly, “My husband said if I started the training course to prepare for the job and didn't finish it, he would leave me,” and she was afraid to start.
If it's true, what a terrible thing for a husband to demand: “You can't quit. I won't let you.”
If it's true, what a terrible thing for a husband to threaten: “I'll leave you.”
I specifically say, “if it's true,” because it is possible that the first woman was justifying why she kept on working. It is even possible that the second woman was trying to explain away her fear of starting a different career.
Just suppose that what the first woman said isn't exactly how it happened. What a terrible thing for a woman to excuse herself by making her husband look like a tyrant.
Just suppose that what the second woman said isn't exactly how it happened. What a terrible thing for a woman to use her husband as justification for her own fear.
Either way, whatever happened, I know that's not how a good relationship should work. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Don't look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too. You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.” (Philippians 2:4, 5) I can't imagine Jesus not letting someone explore work opportunities. I can't imagine Him threatening. I think His followers would honor Him and one another by honest communication, consideration for others' hopes and fears, and willingness to negotiate.
Marjorie
Scripture quotation is taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. United States of America. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equality. Show all posts
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Sunday, April 11, 2010
But He Never Hit Me
Again, because of its relevance to women, I am publishing an entry which appeared previously on "Finding the Faith Way, January 8, 2009.
I am deeply troubled by the uneasiness I perceive when some women are with the men to whom they are attached by law or by love. Some of them I know well, and they are not these same cautious individuals when they are “on their own.” Others I see only as I shop or work on the job or attend church, but their discomfort is obvious even in public. I have to wonder if he is beating her—not with his fists, but with words and actions and attitudes that bruise her inner person.
The preferred form of abuse used by "good" men, even Christian men, seems to be whatever doesn't show. So they are unlikely to knock out a woman’s teeth or give her a black eye since that would be too obvious. And they certainly don’t want her calling the police or going to the emergency room. But all the same, many women in churched homes are repeatedly subjected to other forms of abuse: verbal attacks, emotional wounds, financial tyrrany, demeaning sexual behavior. "But he never hit me," does not make it okay.
►Some women do not recognize these actions as abuse. “Abuse” means bruises and broken bones and blood—doesn’t it? “Abuse” is something that happens in other homes not influenced by God and the Church—isn’t it? Many women brought up in the first half of the twentieth century believed that they must be subject to their husbands (and deferential to all males, for that matter) for much the same reason that Europeans accepted the “Divine Right of Kings” hundreds of years ago: "The right to rule comes directly from God, and the ruler is accountable to Him alone.” If these women have had religious instruction that is extremely conservative, they may be especially susceptible to abuse, believing they must learn to accept this mistreatment as “God’s will” for them. It is not.
►Other women accept abuse because it corroborates what they deeply feel they are worth. They may have felt their inadequacy as little girls who did not have the same acceptance and opportunities as boys. Perhaps the women they saw as role models were quiet and servile in relation to the men around them. These girls may have experienced shame as they matured into desirable young women and someone they trusted took advantage of them. With their self-esteem already damaged, they are open to believing they must learn to accept mistreatment as what they “deserve.” They do not.
►Still other women accept abuse because they grew up trusting others to be as kind and helpful as they themselves are. They are caught off-guard by someone who sees their good nature as a point of weakness and now uses it selfishly or even cruelly. The usual marriage counseling is unlikely to “fix” the problem; probably both parties will need to seek professional help from someone experienced in dealing with abusers—and with those who tolerate it. “But he loves me, and he will change.” Probably he will not.
A pattern of hurtful words and actions, even in a Christian home, can constitute abuse. The abuser does not call it that since he may think, “I’m just putting her in her place,” or “I am ruling over my household,” or “She is supposed to submit to me.” And sadly, the victim may not call it abuse either, convinced that, “If I object, he’ll be angry,” or “I don’t really have anything to say because he is the head of the home,” or “I know wives are supposed to be submissive to their husbands.” This is a distorted view of the Biblical injunction to submit to one another. Because the man usually is the stronger physically, probably is capable of more volume, and may have more experience in positions of authority, he imposes his own will on the wife he is commanded to love as Christ loves the Church. Her wishes and well-being are not considered or respected on the basis of the authority he supposes has been assigned to him. He chooses to believe a few selected portions of Scripture to the exclusion of all the rest of New Testament teaching.
One should not suppose that because the abuse does not directly injure the body that it causes no physical harm. Ask the woman who cannot concentrate, who is constantly on guard or is “jumpy” and easily startled. Ask the one who stares at the ceiling instead of sleeping, who has disturbing dreams when she does drift off. Ask the one who has chest pains or stomachaches at the end of every work day (when it’s time for her to go home or for him to come home). No physical harm? Her body may be saying, “I am going to tell you in no uncertain terms that something is wrong.”
In 490 BC, the Greek historian Herodotus described an Athenian solider who had not suffered personal battle injury but became permanently blind after witnessing the death of a fellow soldier. In our own history, we have spoken of "shell shock" or "battle fatigue" associated with war. Today we would call that post-traumatic stress disorder, a term coined in the mid-seventies and now recognized as a diagnosable condition, often needing treatment. A number of practitioners include not only single traumatic events as the precursor of PTSD but also prolonged, repeated, significant stressors. This is not to equate the “battle” at home with the mortal danger of warfare; I simply call attention to the fact that serious physical harm can also result from well-aimed verbal missiles.
Even though “He never hit me.”
Marjorie
I am deeply troubled by the uneasiness I perceive when some women are with the men to whom they are attached by law or by love. Some of them I know well, and they are not these same cautious individuals when they are “on their own.” Others I see only as I shop or work on the job or attend church, but their discomfort is obvious even in public. I have to wonder if he is beating her—not with his fists, but with words and actions and attitudes that bruise her inner person.
The preferred form of abuse used by "good" men, even Christian men, seems to be whatever doesn't show. So they are unlikely to knock out a woman’s teeth or give her a black eye since that would be too obvious. And they certainly don’t want her calling the police or going to the emergency room. But all the same, many women in churched homes are repeatedly subjected to other forms of abuse: verbal attacks, emotional wounds, financial tyrrany, demeaning sexual behavior. "But he never hit me," does not make it okay.
►Some women do not recognize these actions as abuse. “Abuse” means bruises and broken bones and blood—doesn’t it? “Abuse” is something that happens in other homes not influenced by God and the Church—isn’t it? Many women brought up in the first half of the twentieth century believed that they must be subject to their husbands (and deferential to all males, for that matter) for much the same reason that Europeans accepted the “Divine Right of Kings” hundreds of years ago: "The right to rule comes directly from God, and the ruler is accountable to Him alone.” If these women have had religious instruction that is extremely conservative, they may be especially susceptible to abuse, believing they must learn to accept this mistreatment as “God’s will” for them. It is not.
►Other women accept abuse because it corroborates what they deeply feel they are worth. They may have felt their inadequacy as little girls who did not have the same acceptance and opportunities as boys. Perhaps the women they saw as role models were quiet and servile in relation to the men around them. These girls may have experienced shame as they matured into desirable young women and someone they trusted took advantage of them. With their self-esteem already damaged, they are open to believing they must learn to accept mistreatment as what they “deserve.” They do not.
►Still other women accept abuse because they grew up trusting others to be as kind and helpful as they themselves are. They are caught off-guard by someone who sees their good nature as a point of weakness and now uses it selfishly or even cruelly. The usual marriage counseling is unlikely to “fix” the problem; probably both parties will need to seek professional help from someone experienced in dealing with abusers—and with those who tolerate it. “But he loves me, and he will change.” Probably he will not.
A pattern of hurtful words and actions, even in a Christian home, can constitute abuse. The abuser does not call it that since he may think, “I’m just putting her in her place,” or “I am ruling over my household,” or “She is supposed to submit to me.” And sadly, the victim may not call it abuse either, convinced that, “If I object, he’ll be angry,” or “I don’t really have anything to say because he is the head of the home,” or “I know wives are supposed to be submissive to their husbands.” This is a distorted view of the Biblical injunction to submit to one another. Because the man usually is the stronger physically, probably is capable of more volume, and may have more experience in positions of authority, he imposes his own will on the wife he is commanded to love as Christ loves the Church. Her wishes and well-being are not considered or respected on the basis of the authority he supposes has been assigned to him. He chooses to believe a few selected portions of Scripture to the exclusion of all the rest of New Testament teaching.
One should not suppose that because the abuse does not directly injure the body that it causes no physical harm. Ask the woman who cannot concentrate, who is constantly on guard or is “jumpy” and easily startled. Ask the one who stares at the ceiling instead of sleeping, who has disturbing dreams when she does drift off. Ask the one who has chest pains or stomachaches at the end of every work day (when it’s time for her to go home or for him to come home). No physical harm? Her body may be saying, “I am going to tell you in no uncertain terms that something is wrong.”
In 490 BC, the Greek historian Herodotus described an Athenian solider who had not suffered personal battle injury but became permanently blind after witnessing the death of a fellow soldier. In our own history, we have spoken of "shell shock" or "battle fatigue" associated with war. Today we would call that post-traumatic stress disorder, a term coined in the mid-seventies and now recognized as a diagnosable condition, often needing treatment. A number of practitioners include not only single traumatic events as the precursor of PTSD but also prolonged, repeated, significant stressors. This is not to equate the “battle” at home with the mortal danger of warfare; I simply call attention to the fact that serious physical harm can also result from well-aimed verbal missiles.
Even though “He never hit me.”
Marjorie
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Bruises
Acting again on my sense of responsibility to women in troubled situations, I am publishing today a post which first appeared on July 22, 2008, as an entry on my other blog, "Finding the Faith Way." Because of its relevance to women in particular, I have moved it to this location.
The other day when shopping, I was helped by a clerk who had a large, very discolored bruise around one eye. Now even though we care when others are hurting, polite folk just don’t say, “Oh, I’m so sorry. What happened?” So maybe she hit her head on the car door when she was buckling one of the children into the safety seat? Maybe she just had some kind of cosmetic surgery near her eye? Or maybe the baby kicked her when she was changing his diaper?
Probably not. Probably somebody hurt her.
I got to wondering why I have never, in all my lifetime of church attendance, seen a woman come to worship with a suspicious-looking black eye. One only has to read statistics to know that churched families aren’t immune to violence in the home. Perhaps it’s because there’s too much shame connected with abuse occurring in a “Christian” family. One or the other of the couple may have said, “I (or You) can’t go to church looking like this.”
More likely, though, the form of abuse these church-going men choose to inflict is something that doesn't show—no bruises, no black eyes, no knocked-out teeth, nothing that would send a woman to the emergency room. But many women in homes connected to the Church are abused repeatedly by verbal assaults, emotional withholding or emotional terrorism, financial vise-grips, or humiliating sexual behavior. "But he never hit me," is no excuse for the equally—or perhaps greater—damaging trauma of this invisible abuse.
The average onlooker might wonder, "Why does she take it? Why doesn't she just get out?" The reasons are many. "I have no money." "I'll stay for the children." "I'm afraid to live alone." "I promised till death do us part." But the underlying reason is often hidden more deeply than that: she does not realize what is happening.
We might question, "How could she not know?" One reason is this: Many women, particularly those who are now middle-aged or older, have been "brain-washed" by the patriarchal society that still exists in many branches of the Church. Abuse, these women believe, is something awful that can happen in homes—always other homes—where an alcoholic beats up his wife and children. Abuse is inflicted by wicked men; it might occur in worldly homes, but certainly not Christian ones. Abuse results in bruises, black eyes, knocked-out teeth, and trips to the ER, doesn’t it?
But this is not true. Abuse is also treatment that damages the other’s personhood: lies, vicious words and mean or dismissive attitudes. There are no visible bruises or cuts, only deep heart wounds caused by pounding blows of anger and scorn that crush the woman's hope for love and understanding, words that slash her fragile belief in herself as a worthwhile person. She takes it silently, shamefully, because it reinforces what she already believes about herself. She may have been taught—or caught on—in her parental home that little girls do not matter. In the effort to teach courtesy and respect, damage may have been done inadvertently by insisting that children be seen and not heard. She may have misunderstood her father's need to teach his sons "manly" sorts of things, and she felt there was favoritism, whether or not that really existed. She may have heard regularly, "Just wait until your father gets home," with the implication that her mother, being a woman, could not adequately handle difficulty. Family members or acquaintances who took indecent liberties with the child and made her keep their "little secret," teachers who always asked the boys to take charge of the playground activities, the rule that said only men got to have the interesting jobs—all these experiences reinforced the idea that girls don't count.
And when the quiet, compliant child grows up? She becomes a silently compliant woman. Try as she might, she cannot please her husband; this is no fault of hers—he simply chooses to be dissatisfied with whatever she does. He can cut her down to size with sharp criticism, bully her with unreasonable demands, and treat her opinions with scorn, but if she objects or tries to explain how hurt she is, he responds with, "Get over it!", "You're just too sensitive," or "Do you know what a godly wife would do?" His rule over her does not come from a true understanding of his place in the home, nor is it authorized by God. His "power" comes from his size, his sheer volume, or the impact of his repeated behavior. She still doesn't matter.
Why would a man, especially a Christian man, abuse the companion he has promised to cherish and protect? In all likelihood, he is addicted, perhaps not to drugs or alcohol, but just as dependent for a "high" as the substance abuser. He may be addicted to rage, convinced that he is a victim of his family or the legal system or the job market or even the Church. Because he is a victim and has been hurt, he has the desire and the "right" to hurt other people. Or he may be addicted to fear: someone, somewhere—maybe even his wife—will take advantage of him, abandon him, or reveal him as a fake so he will get to that dangerous person first, with a display of his authority. He may be addicted to the feeling of power he gets from his selfish control. Whatever the motivating factor, the continuing abuser will almost certainly not quit on his own. Yes, there are miracles; for example, God delivers some alcoholics instantly, and they never touch another drop. But many substance abusers have to get some help on a personal basis. And so, in almost every case, does the domestic abuser. "Let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think." (Romans 12:2 NLT) Without this basic change, there is little hope for a change in the behavior at home.
Marjorie
The other day when shopping, I was helped by a clerk who had a large, very discolored bruise around one eye. Now even though we care when others are hurting, polite folk just don’t say, “Oh, I’m so sorry. What happened?” So maybe she hit her head on the car door when she was buckling one of the children into the safety seat? Maybe she just had some kind of cosmetic surgery near her eye? Or maybe the baby kicked her when she was changing his diaper?
Probably not. Probably somebody hurt her.
I got to wondering why I have never, in all my lifetime of church attendance, seen a woman come to worship with a suspicious-looking black eye. One only has to read statistics to know that churched families aren’t immune to violence in the home. Perhaps it’s because there’s too much shame connected with abuse occurring in a “Christian” family. One or the other of the couple may have said, “I (or You) can’t go to church looking like this.”
More likely, though, the form of abuse these church-going men choose to inflict is something that doesn't show—no bruises, no black eyes, no knocked-out teeth, nothing that would send a woman to the emergency room. But many women in homes connected to the Church are abused repeatedly by verbal assaults, emotional withholding or emotional terrorism, financial vise-grips, or humiliating sexual behavior. "But he never hit me," is no excuse for the equally—or perhaps greater—damaging trauma of this invisible abuse.
The average onlooker might wonder, "Why does she take it? Why doesn't she just get out?" The reasons are many. "I have no money." "I'll stay for the children." "I'm afraid to live alone." "I promised till death do us part." But the underlying reason is often hidden more deeply than that: she does not realize what is happening.
We might question, "How could she not know?" One reason is this: Many women, particularly those who are now middle-aged or older, have been "brain-washed" by the patriarchal society that still exists in many branches of the Church. Abuse, these women believe, is something awful that can happen in homes—always other homes—where an alcoholic beats up his wife and children. Abuse is inflicted by wicked men; it might occur in worldly homes, but certainly not Christian ones. Abuse results in bruises, black eyes, knocked-out teeth, and trips to the ER, doesn’t it?
But this is not true. Abuse is also treatment that damages the other’s personhood: lies, vicious words and mean or dismissive attitudes. There are no visible bruises or cuts, only deep heart wounds caused by pounding blows of anger and scorn that crush the woman's hope for love and understanding, words that slash her fragile belief in herself as a worthwhile person. She takes it silently, shamefully, because it reinforces what she already believes about herself. She may have been taught—or caught on—in her parental home that little girls do not matter. In the effort to teach courtesy and respect, damage may have been done inadvertently by insisting that children be seen and not heard. She may have misunderstood her father's need to teach his sons "manly" sorts of things, and she felt there was favoritism, whether or not that really existed. She may have heard regularly, "Just wait until your father gets home," with the implication that her mother, being a woman, could not adequately handle difficulty. Family members or acquaintances who took indecent liberties with the child and made her keep their "little secret," teachers who always asked the boys to take charge of the playground activities, the rule that said only men got to have the interesting jobs—all these experiences reinforced the idea that girls don't count.
And when the quiet, compliant child grows up? She becomes a silently compliant woman. Try as she might, she cannot please her husband; this is no fault of hers—he simply chooses to be dissatisfied with whatever she does. He can cut her down to size with sharp criticism, bully her with unreasonable demands, and treat her opinions with scorn, but if she objects or tries to explain how hurt she is, he responds with, "Get over it!", "You're just too sensitive," or "Do you know what a godly wife would do?" His rule over her does not come from a true understanding of his place in the home, nor is it authorized by God. His "power" comes from his size, his sheer volume, or the impact of his repeated behavior. She still doesn't matter.
Why would a man, especially a Christian man, abuse the companion he has promised to cherish and protect? In all likelihood, he is addicted, perhaps not to drugs or alcohol, but just as dependent for a "high" as the substance abuser. He may be addicted to rage, convinced that he is a victim of his family or the legal system or the job market or even the Church. Because he is a victim and has been hurt, he has the desire and the "right" to hurt other people. Or he may be addicted to fear: someone, somewhere—maybe even his wife—will take advantage of him, abandon him, or reveal him as a fake so he will get to that dangerous person first, with a display of his authority. He may be addicted to the feeling of power he gets from his selfish control. Whatever the motivating factor, the continuing abuser will almost certainly not quit on his own. Yes, there are miracles; for example, God delivers some alcoholics instantly, and they never touch another drop. But many substance abusers have to get some help on a personal basis. And so, in almost every case, does the domestic abuser. "Let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think." (Romans 12:2 NLT) Without this basic change, there is little hope for a change in the behavior at home.
Marjorie
Monday, March 1, 2010
Serving or Subservience
Sometimes we hear Christian jargon batted about so much that we lose our grasp of what is meant by the terms. Because words like servant and servanthood have been used so much, I've chosen to use different ones.
If one has a spirit of helpfulness, it is easy to slip from freedom in serving into the bondage of subservience. Right away we can get a clue from the sub- prefix. It means "under," "beneath," "lower," "further down" or "less important." That meaning is useful, of course, when we talk about a subway or submarine, subzero temperatures, a subbasement, or a subhead. But sub- connected to service means, not retained and remunerated fairly for aid one has given, but service that is required because the server is under the other. He/she is beneath the one being served, lower and less important.
My purpose in pointing out this difference is that Christians sometimes confuse the two. (As I have done myself.) Too frequently, it can be seen in churches where officials use their position to assume a superior stance over others. They "deserve" their privileges and even if they do not require obeisance, they quite readily accept inappropriate deference. Sadly, it is found in home relationships too. The husband—backed by Scriptural teaching, he supposes, concerning the submission of his wife to his decisions and wishes—domineers or even abuses his family. The wife may not realize there is any other way to interpret those same Scriptures, and hates the position in which they have placed her. In these churches and homes, those who "under" are not able to give freely in serving, but are enmeshed in subservience. While risking oversimplification, I see the two sharply contrasted in these ways.
Serving allows one to understand and minister to others while retaining his/her own identity and objectivity.
Subservience requires one to give up autonomy, even one's own Spirit-led intentions.
Serving has genuineness about it; it is consistent with the rest of the giver's life.
Subservience means the giver may have to hide feelings of frustration and anger.
Serving is about honestly assessing need, not always yielding to what is wanted or demanded.
Subservience is allowing oneself to be manipulated by another, even when their agenda might not be particularly self-serving.
Serving means one chooses to be in a caring or giving situation.
Subservience requires one to co-operate or suffer negative consequences.
So what are people to do if they are caught in subservience rather than serving? Some situations can be altered so that the sub- part no longer exists to create an imbalance of power. That's why Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees. Some relationships have to enter a negotiation phase, where both giver and receiver act honestly and graciously. Remember Jesus washing Peter's feet? And some have to be ended. The Apostle Paul and Barnabas perhaps illustrate this when they went their separate ways, although thankfully, only temporarily. None of these are easy, especially if the inequality is firmly established. But serving is a Christian privilege, fully based on the Scripture; subservience is not.
Marjorie
If one has a spirit of helpfulness, it is easy to slip from freedom in serving into the bondage of subservience. Right away we can get a clue from the sub- prefix. It means "under," "beneath," "lower," "further down" or "less important." That meaning is useful, of course, when we talk about a subway or submarine, subzero temperatures, a subbasement, or a subhead. But sub- connected to service means, not retained and remunerated fairly for aid one has given, but service that is required because the server is under the other. He/she is beneath the one being served, lower and less important.
My purpose in pointing out this difference is that Christians sometimes confuse the two. (As I have done myself.) Too frequently, it can be seen in churches where officials use their position to assume a superior stance over others. They "deserve" their privileges and even if they do not require obeisance, they quite readily accept inappropriate deference. Sadly, it is found in home relationships too. The husband—backed by Scriptural teaching, he supposes, concerning the submission of his wife to his decisions and wishes—domineers or even abuses his family. The wife may not realize there is any other way to interpret those same Scriptures, and hates the position in which they have placed her. In these churches and homes, those who "under" are not able to give freely in serving, but are enmeshed in subservience. While risking oversimplification, I see the two sharply contrasted in these ways.
Serving allows one to understand and minister to others while retaining his/her own identity and objectivity.
Subservience requires one to give up autonomy, even one's own Spirit-led intentions.
Serving has genuineness about it; it is consistent with the rest of the giver's life.
Subservience means the giver may have to hide feelings of frustration and anger.
Serving is about honestly assessing need, not always yielding to what is wanted or demanded.
Subservience is allowing oneself to be manipulated by another, even when their agenda might not be particularly self-serving.
Serving means one chooses to be in a caring or giving situation.
Subservience requires one to co-operate or suffer negative consequences.
So what are people to do if they are caught in subservience rather than serving? Some situations can be altered so that the sub- part no longer exists to create an imbalance of power. That's why Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees. Some relationships have to enter a negotiation phase, where both giver and receiver act honestly and graciously. Remember Jesus washing Peter's feet? And some have to be ended. The Apostle Paul and Barnabas perhaps illustrate this when they went their separate ways, although thankfully, only temporarily. None of these are easy, especially if the inequality is firmly established. But serving is a Christian privilege, fully based on the Scripture; subservience is not.
Marjorie
Friday, January 8, 2010
Walking Behind
Just as happens with other social expectations, the role that women (wives, in particular) are required to assume tends to swing from one side to the other. Since very early times, women have been considered a creative source of life; they do bear children, after all. Historically, however, they have also been considered intellectually inferior to men and a major source of temptation to evil. In fact, Roman law declared women were but children and always subject to men.
We would like to think that Jesus changed all of that since He obviously respected women, extending courtesy and personal dignity to them. While it is true that the Bible (and the writings of other major religions too, for that matter) teach equality, men do not always see that balance as part of their spiritual obligation. Unfortunately early Christian theology perpetuated the discriminatory views. St. Jerome, a 4th century Latin church father, declared woman, among other derogatory descriptions, "a perilous object." Some centuries later, Thomas Aquinas, a Christian theologian, recognized woman's role as a helpmeet and necessary for conception, but said that "for other purposes, man would be better assisted by other men."
The attitude toward women in the East was at first more favorable, but evolving religious restrictions eventually required obedience of women toward men. They could not own property, and widows could not remarry. Women had to walk behind their husbands. This is still true in some cultures today, although I want to make it clear that this is not law now, nor is it demanded by religious beliefs. It is the custom carried over, not easily relinquished, from earlier times.
You would not expect to find this true in places where it has never been required, but here it is. Although far from the terrible abuse some wives suffer from their "devoutly Christian" husbands, one little measure of disrespect never fails to make me uncomfortable when I observe it, which is fairly often: Women walking several feet behind the men accompanying them.
Granted, perhaps he is taller and has a hard time fitting his pace to the smaller steps she takes. Even if her height is similar, though, that does not mean her legs are as long as his. (A torso of average length can be equipped with short limbs. I happen to know this!) But where is his common courtesy? Wife, friend, or co-worker—must she always be in an uncomfortable hurry to keep up?
Furthermore, I wonder if this may speak of how important the fellow assumes he is. Impatient to be about the "real business," he ignores some critical interpersonal business. Fifteen seconds in his time of arrival will make that much difference? If he comes in first, does that make him the main feature? Must she always have to appear to be slow or lagging behind?
Or in the case of the conservative church-going couple, does he outpace her to demonstrate to observers that he is the leader in his household? (This would be appropriate if they were confronting danger like lions or landmines, but is unnecessary in ordinary circumstances, I think.) Does it indicate that a domestic spat has occurred? Or that one is brewing? To be fair, I've seen angry women stalking off too, leaving a puzzled man in their wake.
Mostly, we may just be unaware of how much this one telling little action can tell. Think about it!
Marjorie
We would like to think that Jesus changed all of that since He obviously respected women, extending courtesy and personal dignity to them. While it is true that the Bible (and the writings of other major religions too, for that matter) teach equality, men do not always see that balance as part of their spiritual obligation. Unfortunately early Christian theology perpetuated the discriminatory views. St. Jerome, a 4th century Latin church father, declared woman, among other derogatory descriptions, "a perilous object." Some centuries later, Thomas Aquinas, a Christian theologian, recognized woman's role as a helpmeet and necessary for conception, but said that "for other purposes, man would be better assisted by other men."
The attitude toward women in the East was at first more favorable, but evolving religious restrictions eventually required obedience of women toward men. They could not own property, and widows could not remarry. Women had to walk behind their husbands. This is still true in some cultures today, although I want to make it clear that this is not law now, nor is it demanded by religious beliefs. It is the custom carried over, not easily relinquished, from earlier times.
You would not expect to find this true in places where it has never been required, but here it is. Although far from the terrible abuse some wives suffer from their "devoutly Christian" husbands, one little measure of disrespect never fails to make me uncomfortable when I observe it, which is fairly often: Women walking several feet behind the men accompanying them.
Granted, perhaps he is taller and has a hard time fitting his pace to the smaller steps she takes. Even if her height is similar, though, that does not mean her legs are as long as his. (A torso of average length can be equipped with short limbs. I happen to know this!) But where is his common courtesy? Wife, friend, or co-worker—must she always be in an uncomfortable hurry to keep up?
Furthermore, I wonder if this may speak of how important the fellow assumes he is. Impatient to be about the "real business," he ignores some critical interpersonal business. Fifteen seconds in his time of arrival will make that much difference? If he comes in first, does that make him the main feature? Must she always have to appear to be slow or lagging behind?
Or in the case of the conservative church-going couple, does he outpace her to demonstrate to observers that he is the leader in his household? (This would be appropriate if they were confronting danger like lions or landmines, but is unnecessary in ordinary circumstances, I think.) Does it indicate that a domestic spat has occurred? Or that one is brewing? To be fair, I've seen angry women stalking off too, leaving a puzzled man in their wake.
Mostly, we may just be unaware of how much this one telling little action can tell. Think about it!
Marjorie
Monday, November 23, 2009
A Helper
If it were not for the King James Bible, we probably wouldn't even have the word some people have chosen to use as the description of woman's place in the world. "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.' " (Genesis 2:18) And I wouldn't have just read a book called "Created to Be His Help Meet." The author, Debi Pearl, and her husband have founded a ministry on their interpretation of Scriptures having to do with family and home. I read a great many different types of books: for education, enlightenment, edification, and entertainment. It necessarily follows that I'll run across those with which I cannot agree. This book is just such a book.
First of all, "help meet" is not a term God used for the woman He planned to make, and it is something of a mistake to call her that. This is more than mere semantics. "Meet," usually a verb, takes the form here of a modifier to describe the kind of help: one that was suitable for him, comparable to him, an appropriate counterpart. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but my reference books indicate that the word used implies similitude. She would be like him. Adam had just finished naming all the animals—quite a task!—and he surely must have noted that all the living creatures had company with others that were similar, if not completely alike, in nature and habits. He alone was without a companion. He apparently was ready for verbal communication, calling out the name of each kind of animal, but they did not answer. We can assume that none had the power of speech except the Satan-serpent who was superior to all the rest. Eve was made "for" Adam for the same reason Adam was formed by God for Himself—for relationship. Although made from Adam's side, she too was in God's image.
The author says women are not partners with their husbands but were created to serve and satisfy him, and "God's ultimate goal for you is to meet your man's needs." In her role as a Titus 2 woman (the older women teaching the younger to love their husbands, be keepers at home, etc.), she lays out for women everywhere her description of a help meet, accompanied by Scriptures which, if followed, will assure a "glorious marriage." Apparently, when some women read this book, a fire is lighted in their hearts and they say, "Oh yes, I see! This is my calling!" If that is how one understands Scripture and the whole of God's plan—not just Genesis—then that is what she should live out. Serving a man does perhaps suit the gifts and temperaments of some women—and the men married to them.
But I submit that when others read, a different kind of fire is lighted in them and they say, "This is not us." (Note: not just me, but us.) Both readers are right. If both follow the path God has laid out for them, they do not need to make a pronouncement that encompasses every woman everywhere in every era. As I see it, the whole submission/silence/obedience issue is laid out along a continuum. It extends all the way from the non-person who is subsumed by her husband and the woman who lets herself be abused because she has no rights in her own personhood to the couple who see themselves as equals more alike than different, as true partners and companions. It is not up to me to decide where somebody else should be on that line of many points, and certainly not to declare that The Plan of God for Marriage looks the same for everybody.
The Proverbs 31 woman, long held as the ideal, probably nowadays is not seeking wool and flax for spinning; she does not dress in fine linen and purple, nor make garments and sashes to sell. Not having any maidservants, it is not necessary for her to make provision for them. She is not likely to be into real estate, buying and selling fields and vineyards. Those who hold this Scripture up as the standard will explain that we are not to take this old description literally, but are to use the principles therein. My point exactly. The wife may be a teacher or a waitress or a bank president, with a husband who is proud of her achievements and influence. He is not necessarily active in city government either; in fact, he may be the at-home parent with a grateful, wage-earning wife. I know a number of women who have/had a ministry calling even before marriage, and the husband-to-be pledged a supporting role, financially and spiritually. This is not being weak or effeminate. He is protecting and providing for more than just the woman he is asking to marry him; he is charged with some of the responsibility for her effectiveness in ministry as well
The Apostle Paul admonished wives' obedience so that the Gospel would not be shamed, but that was then. Those who try to lay the template of masterful husband/obedient wife on today's society are more apt to bring discredit to the Gospel, I think, than the couple who genuinely care for each other's welfare and don't pay a whole lot of attention to who is being "served" at any given time. (I actually know people like that!) It is no small thing to be a help or "helper," whether it happens to be the husband or wife. The Holy Spirit is a Helper, yet nowhere is He pictured as a servant to us or beneath us in any way simply because He is our helper. It is just as mistaken to consider the helping woman an inferior being who was created solely to serve a husband—or by extension, men in general.
Marjorie
First of all, "help meet" is not a term God used for the woman He planned to make, and it is something of a mistake to call her that. This is more than mere semantics. "Meet," usually a verb, takes the form here of a modifier to describe the kind of help: one that was suitable for him, comparable to him, an appropriate counterpart. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but my reference books indicate that the word used implies similitude. She would be like him. Adam had just finished naming all the animals—quite a task!—and he surely must have noted that all the living creatures had company with others that were similar, if not completely alike, in nature and habits. He alone was without a companion. He apparently was ready for verbal communication, calling out the name of each kind of animal, but they did not answer. We can assume that none had the power of speech except the Satan-serpent who was superior to all the rest. Eve was made "for" Adam for the same reason Adam was formed by God for Himself—for relationship. Although made from Adam's side, she too was in God's image.
The author says women are not partners with their husbands but were created to serve and satisfy him, and "God's ultimate goal for you is to meet your man's needs." In her role as a Titus 2 woman (the older women teaching the younger to love their husbands, be keepers at home, etc.), she lays out for women everywhere her description of a help meet, accompanied by Scriptures which, if followed, will assure a "glorious marriage." Apparently, when some women read this book, a fire is lighted in their hearts and they say, "Oh yes, I see! This is my calling!" If that is how one understands Scripture and the whole of God's plan—not just Genesis—then that is what she should live out. Serving a man does perhaps suit the gifts and temperaments of some women—and the men married to them.
But I submit that when others read, a different kind of fire is lighted in them and they say, "This is not us." (Note: not just me, but us.) Both readers are right. If both follow the path God has laid out for them, they do not need to make a pronouncement that encompasses every woman everywhere in every era. As I see it, the whole submission/silence/obedience issue is laid out along a continuum. It extends all the way from the non-person who is subsumed by her husband and the woman who lets herself be abused because she has no rights in her own personhood to the couple who see themselves as equals more alike than different, as true partners and companions. It is not up to me to decide where somebody else should be on that line of many points, and certainly not to declare that The Plan of God for Marriage looks the same for everybody.
The Proverbs 31 woman, long held as the ideal, probably nowadays is not seeking wool and flax for spinning; she does not dress in fine linen and purple, nor make garments and sashes to sell. Not having any maidservants, it is not necessary for her to make provision for them. She is not likely to be into real estate, buying and selling fields and vineyards. Those who hold this Scripture up as the standard will explain that we are not to take this old description literally, but are to use the principles therein. My point exactly. The wife may be a teacher or a waitress or a bank president, with a husband who is proud of her achievements and influence. He is not necessarily active in city government either; in fact, he may be the at-home parent with a grateful, wage-earning wife. I know a number of women who have/had a ministry calling even before marriage, and the husband-to-be pledged a supporting role, financially and spiritually. This is not being weak or effeminate. He is protecting and providing for more than just the woman he is asking to marry him; he is charged with some of the responsibility for her effectiveness in ministry as well
The Apostle Paul admonished wives' obedience so that the Gospel would not be shamed, but that was then. Those who try to lay the template of masterful husband/obedient wife on today's society are more apt to bring discredit to the Gospel, I think, than the couple who genuinely care for each other's welfare and don't pay a whole lot of attention to who is being "served" at any given time. (I actually know people like that!) It is no small thing to be a help or "helper," whether it happens to be the husband or wife. The Holy Spirit is a Helper, yet nowhere is He pictured as a servant to us or beneath us in any way simply because He is our helper. It is just as mistaken to consider the helping woman an inferior being who was created solely to serve a husband—or by extension, men in general.
Marjorie
Friday, September 25, 2009
Are Women People?
A hundred years ago a woman's suffrage advocate authored a column in the New York Tribune, entitled "Are Women People?" In 1915, some of the writings of Alice Duer Miller were published in a book by that title. The following is from her introduction:
FATHER, what is a Legislature?A representative body elected by the people of the state.
Are women people?No, my son, criminals, lunatics and women are not people.
Do legislators legislate for nothing?Oh, no; they are paid a salary.
By whom?By the people.
Are women people?Of course, my son, just as much as men are.
We would find that dichotomy humorous, except it is too true. Women were excluded from the electoral process, but conveniently included when it came to paying lawmaking and lawkeeping costs. Subtle reverberations of this attitude remain into the present.
It's been several decades ago, but when I applied for my first teaching position, the three board members who interviewed me asked, "Are you married? Are you planning to get married? We don't want a teacher getting pregnant." And it hasn't been all that long ago that car salesmen said to female prospective buyers, "When will you husband be able to come in with you?" Just recently, I overhead a delivery man make a disparaging remark about no women being present (or so he thought) to give the guys a hard time. Sometimes this slighting attitude is present even in the Church. One fellow made it clear that the men were meeting to pray about important issues like war and politics. The women, he scornfully assumed, met in "tea party" style to pray about the Sunday School and Aunt Susie's rheumatism.
So, it has ever been that men take care of serious business, while women are supposed to be less interested and certainly less capable. I grew up thinking that the only meaningful life for a grown woman was one of service (read: mother, teacher, nurse). Never mind that my real passion was ideas and words: reading them, and writing them. Society as a whole, and the Church in particular, believed that men and women were quite different inherently—God having made it so—and therefore must confine themselves to their prescribed roles. Those who study human behavior have changed many of their earlier-held views, but sadly, much of the Church has lagged behind.
Inequality, even arrogant domineering, shows up in many homes of the faithful. One writer, a man, says that ever since Eve, women have wanted to control their husbands. Is he implying that this would be wrong, but that it is okay for men to control their wives? Maybe so. With all due respect for his education and experience, I think that ever since that incident in the Garden, people have wanted to control other people. Unfortunately, some Christian men feel that the Scripture gives them license to do so.
Women, along with everyone else and perhaps not in any greater degree than others, want safety and security. I have to admit that not all women need or choose the same means of being secure. Some women want someone telling them exactly what to do. I think about one of the sweet songs from the movie, "The Sound of Music." Liesl sings to her admirer, the telegram-delivery fellow, "I am sixteen, going on seventeen . . . I need someone older and wiser, telling me what to do. You are seventeen, going on eighteen. I'll depend on you." Women of sixteen, twenty-six, even forty-six or ninety-six may feel that way, and that is their choice. But for someone to tell all women they must feel that way is ridiculous! Some women may prefer the security they find in knowing that that they cannot fully depend on anyone or anything but themselves and their relationship with God. They feel safe in their knowledge that there is no real security outside God Himself.
Of course women are people! In spite of traditional difficulties and prejudices, more and more women are recognizing that we matter to God and that we matter in His plan for life in this world.
Including election of the legislature or to the legislature, and paying taxes.
Marjorie
Source of Miller's piece: http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_awp000_introduction.htm
(is a part of The New York Times Company)
FATHER, what is a Legislature?A representative body elected by the people of the state.
Are women people?No, my son, criminals, lunatics and women are not people.
Do legislators legislate for nothing?Oh, no; they are paid a salary.
By whom?By the people.
Are women people?Of course, my son, just as much as men are.
We would find that dichotomy humorous, except it is too true. Women were excluded from the electoral process, but conveniently included when it came to paying lawmaking and lawkeeping costs. Subtle reverberations of this attitude remain into the present.
It's been several decades ago, but when I applied for my first teaching position, the three board members who interviewed me asked, "Are you married? Are you planning to get married? We don't want a teacher getting pregnant." And it hasn't been all that long ago that car salesmen said to female prospective buyers, "When will you husband be able to come in with you?" Just recently, I overhead a delivery man make a disparaging remark about no women being present (or so he thought) to give the guys a hard time. Sometimes this slighting attitude is present even in the Church. One fellow made it clear that the men were meeting to pray about important issues like war and politics. The women, he scornfully assumed, met in "tea party" style to pray about the Sunday School and Aunt Susie's rheumatism.
So, it has ever been that men take care of serious business, while women are supposed to be less interested and certainly less capable. I grew up thinking that the only meaningful life for a grown woman was one of service (read: mother, teacher, nurse). Never mind that my real passion was ideas and words: reading them, and writing them. Society as a whole, and the Church in particular, believed that men and women were quite different inherently—God having made it so—and therefore must confine themselves to their prescribed roles. Those who study human behavior have changed many of their earlier-held views, but sadly, much of the Church has lagged behind.
Inequality, even arrogant domineering, shows up in many homes of the faithful. One writer, a man, says that ever since Eve, women have wanted to control their husbands. Is he implying that this would be wrong, but that it is okay for men to control their wives? Maybe so. With all due respect for his education and experience, I think that ever since that incident in the Garden, people have wanted to control other people. Unfortunately, some Christian men feel that the Scripture gives them license to do so.
Women, along with everyone else and perhaps not in any greater degree than others, want safety and security. I have to admit that not all women need or choose the same means of being secure. Some women want someone telling them exactly what to do. I think about one of the sweet songs from the movie, "The Sound of Music." Liesl sings to her admirer, the telegram-delivery fellow, "I am sixteen, going on seventeen . . . I need someone older and wiser, telling me what to do. You are seventeen, going on eighteen. I'll depend on you." Women of sixteen, twenty-six, even forty-six or ninety-six may feel that way, and that is their choice. But for someone to tell all women they must feel that way is ridiculous! Some women may prefer the security they find in knowing that that they cannot fully depend on anyone or anything but themselves and their relationship with God. They feel safe in their knowledge that there is no real security outside God Himself.
Of course women are people! In spite of traditional difficulties and prejudices, more and more women are recognizing that we matter to God and that we matter in His plan for life in this world.
Including election of the legislature or to the legislature, and paying taxes.
Marjorie
Source of Miller's piece: http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_awp000_introduction.htm
(
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Circle of Relationship
The following post was first published on my blog, "Finding the Faith Way," on July 30, 2008. I have repeated here, with minor additions, because of its significance in this context.
I recently finished reading, “The Shack,” a controversial but wildly popular new book of Christian fiction. (A few days ago, #2 on the USA Today bestseller list of trade paperbacks; yesterday #1 on the NY Times list of the same!) It has big-name recommendations printed right on the cover, and can millions of buyers be wrong? (Yes, of course.) Even so, I found it less than engaging as a novel, not having the captivating beauty or staggering clarity I was told to expect. It does have, however, many very long passages of didactics by God the Father who appears to the main character as a large, outspoken black woman who loves to cook. Aided by an Asian-woman Holy Spirit who gardens in blue jeans, and by Jesus—a Jewish carpenter, naturally—God (called Papa) proceeds to teach Mack about the Trinity, and the suffering in life, and the ultimate plan of God.
Some readers can’t get past the “heresy” these characterizations represent to them. I’ll admit it wasn’t easy. Nevertheless, I came away from the reading with a new insight of significance. It is this: We will never quite understand the Trinity, because we cannot understand the Trinity. Mack marvels at the simple, beautiful, easy way the Three relate to each other. He can’t figure out who’s in charge; he’s always thought of God as being the Boss, but then that doesn’t seem to fit in this situation. So he asks about the chain of command.
God explains that there is no hierarchy because they are in a circle of relationship. Among themselves, they do not recognize the concept of a final authority. That is a problem humans have; they are so damaged in their relationships that they cannot imagine—let alone function in—a situation where there is not someone in charge. He (She) goes on to say that once hierarchy has been established, rules have to be made to protect and administer it, hence laws and enforcers of law. People then end up with a system that destroys relationships rather than building them, and seldom experience any relationships without some expression of power. That is the human paradigm.
Mack objects that after all we’ve adapted pretty well to that system, and the Holy Spirit girl is quick to point out that he must not confuse adaptation with intention. Made in God’s image, humans were meant to be unencumbered by artificial structure, free to just “be” in their relationship with God and one another. That intention was spoiled by man’s choice to act independently of God. The first step to restoring God’s intention then is to find, as much as we can on earth, the unity with God that the Three have in themselves, and then expand that unity into our human relationships. Is this possible? Yes. Jesus prayed, “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us . . .” (John 17:21)
Get the book. Read it if you can.
Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Marjorie
I recently finished reading, “The Shack,” a controversial but wildly popular new book of Christian fiction. (A few days ago, #2 on the USA Today bestseller list of trade paperbacks; yesterday #1 on the NY Times list of the same!) It has big-name recommendations printed right on the cover, and can millions of buyers be wrong? (Yes, of course.) Even so, I found it less than engaging as a novel, not having the captivating beauty or staggering clarity I was told to expect. It does have, however, many very long passages of didactics by God the Father who appears to the main character as a large, outspoken black woman who loves to cook. Aided by an Asian-woman Holy Spirit who gardens in blue jeans, and by Jesus—a Jewish carpenter, naturally—God (called Papa) proceeds to teach Mack about the Trinity, and the suffering in life, and the ultimate plan of God.
Some readers can’t get past the “heresy” these characterizations represent to them. I’ll admit it wasn’t easy. Nevertheless, I came away from the reading with a new insight of significance. It is this: We will never quite understand the Trinity, because we cannot understand the Trinity. Mack marvels at the simple, beautiful, easy way the Three relate to each other. He can’t figure out who’s in charge; he’s always thought of God as being the Boss, but then that doesn’t seem to fit in this situation. So he asks about the chain of command.
God explains that there is no hierarchy because they are in a circle of relationship. Among themselves, they do not recognize the concept of a final authority. That is a problem humans have; they are so damaged in their relationships that they cannot imagine—let alone function in—a situation where there is not someone in charge. He (She) goes on to say that once hierarchy has been established, rules have to be made to protect and administer it, hence laws and enforcers of law. People then end up with a system that destroys relationships rather than building them, and seldom experience any relationships without some expression of power. That is the human paradigm.
Mack objects that after all we’ve adapted pretty well to that system, and the Holy Spirit girl is quick to point out that he must not confuse adaptation with intention. Made in God’s image, humans were meant to be unencumbered by artificial structure, free to just “be” in their relationship with God and one another. That intention was spoiled by man’s choice to act independently of God. The first step to restoring God’s intention then is to find, as much as we can on earth, the unity with God that the Three have in themselves, and then expand that unity into our human relationships. Is this possible? Yes. Jesus prayed, “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us . . .” (John 17:21)
Get the book. Read it if you can.
Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Marjorie
Friday, August 28, 2009
Willing to Help
You know, of course, the story of The Little Red Hen and her friends—a duck, a cat and a pig (or a goose and dog and whatever animal your favorite version has). The Little Red Hen found a grain of wheat and, deciding to plant it, she asked who would help.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the cat.
"Not I," said the pig.
The Little Red Hen asked for help many times: when it was time to cut the wheat, to thresh it and to grind it into flour, to bake the flour into bread. Each time, her unwilling friends responded, "Not I--not I--not I." To which The Little Red Hen responded each time, "Then I will." And she did.
When the bread had been baked, The Little Red Hen asked again, "Who will help me eat this bread?" Her friends replied eagerly,
"I will!" said the duck.
"I will!" said the cat.
"I will!" said the pig.
"Oh no, you won't!" said The Little Red Hen. "I will!" And she did.
I hope you can see the connection between this story and the account from Scripture of repairing the city of Jerusalem when the residents returned from exile. The high priest and his brethren led the way, apparently not considering that this was work for only common laborers. Some, the "nobles" from the town of Tekoa, refused to assist, but Nehemiah lists many others (chapter 3) who made themselves available. There are no expert builders and carpenters available? "Then we will!" said the priests, and goldsmiths, perfume makers, district leaders, merchants and women.
Women? Yes, the daughters of Shallum, leader of half the district of Jerusalem, helped their father with the work of reconstruction. No sons in the family? "Then we will!" said the daughters. And they did.
Were they sturdy teenagers who could tramp among the ruins to locate burned bricks and carry them to the building site? Or were they older women of means, perhaps heiresses or rich widows, who gave liberally to advance the project? Were there two of them—or six? We don't know, but they are the only women mentioned among men and their sons who made a significant contribution to the work.
Never believe that what we as women have to offer our family, our community, our church, or the Kingdom of God is unimportant. Often all it takes is seeing where we are meant to help and saying, "Then I will!" and doing it.
Marjorie
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the cat.
"Not I," said the pig.
The Little Red Hen asked for help many times: when it was time to cut the wheat, to thresh it and to grind it into flour, to bake the flour into bread. Each time, her unwilling friends responded, "Not I--not I--not I." To which The Little Red Hen responded each time, "Then I will." And she did.
When the bread had been baked, The Little Red Hen asked again, "Who will help me eat this bread?" Her friends replied eagerly,
"I will!" said the duck.
"I will!" said the cat.
"I will!" said the pig.
"Oh no, you won't!" said The Little Red Hen. "I will!" And she did.
I hope you can see the connection between this story and the account from Scripture of repairing the city of Jerusalem when the residents returned from exile. The high priest and his brethren led the way, apparently not considering that this was work for only common laborers. Some, the "nobles" from the town of Tekoa, refused to assist, but Nehemiah lists many others (chapter 3) who made themselves available. There are no expert builders and carpenters available? "Then we will!" said the priests, and goldsmiths, perfume makers, district leaders, merchants and women.
Women? Yes, the daughters of Shallum, leader of half the district of Jerusalem, helped their father with the work of reconstruction. No sons in the family? "Then we will!" said the daughters. And they did.
Were they sturdy teenagers who could tramp among the ruins to locate burned bricks and carry them to the building site? Or were they older women of means, perhaps heiresses or rich widows, who gave liberally to advance the project? Were there two of them—or six? We don't know, but they are the only women mentioned among men and their sons who made a significant contribution to the work.
Never believe that what we as women have to offer our family, our community, our church, or the Kingdom of God is unimportant. Often all it takes is seeing where we are meant to help and saying, "Then I will!" and doing it.
Marjorie
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Kiss Your Elbow
When I was just a little girl, my older brothers teased me mercilessly for my inability to do the things they were able to do. They were bigger and stronger and older, and they were boys! They did hold out one bit of encouragement for me however: "If you can kiss your elbow, you will turn into a boy." I tried, I really did! But of course, I couldn't perform that feat of convolution, as they well knew. Eventually, I realized I had been duped and accepted my "inferior" position, a notion I eventually outgrew—thankfully!
The Apostle Paul took special pains to make sure believers understand that it makes no difference where the circumstances of life place us. "By faith in Christ you are in direct relationship with God. Your baptism in Christ was not just washing you up for a fresh start. It also involved dressing you in an adult faith wardrobe—Christ's life, the fulfillment of God's original promise. In Christ's family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female. Among us you are all equal. That is, we are all in a common relationship with Jesus Christ." (Galatians 3:26-28) Some might argue with this, saying: Of course it makes a difference! Racial minorities, and women, and the physically challenged, and the disadvantaged and other groups have always had to struggle for their rights. People have never treated them like they are equal!
Peter didn't think people were equal either. He was a strict Jew, and as such he knew it was unlawful for him to keep company with those who were not. But God, wanting to prepare Peter to give the Gospel to a Gentile (!) man along with many of his relatives and friends, sent a vision to Peter. He saw a great sheet lowered from heaven holding all kinds of animals, birds, and creeping things, some of them "unclean" and unfit for a law-keeping Jew to eat. A voice instructed Peter to kill and eat the creatures, but he was horrified. "Peter said, 'Oh, no, Lord. I've never so much as tasted food that was not kosher.' The voice came a second time: 'If God says it's okay, it's okay.' This happened three times, and then the blanket was pulled back up into the skies." (Acts 10:14-16)
Much of present society persists in observing differences. Does that truly matter? Again, it is Paul who writes, "It matters very little to me what you think of me, even less where I rank in popular opinion. I don't even rank myself. Comparisons in these matters are pointless. I'm not aware of anything that would disqualify me from being a good guide for you, but that doesn't mean much. The Master makes that judgment." (I Corinthians 4:3, 4)
I wouldn't kiss my elbow if I could! God says we are all equal. If God says I'm okay, I'm okay!
Marjorie
Scripture taken from The Message. Copyright © 2003 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group.
The Apostle Paul took special pains to make sure believers understand that it makes no difference where the circumstances of life place us. "By faith in Christ you are in direct relationship with God. Your baptism in Christ was not just washing you up for a fresh start. It also involved dressing you in an adult faith wardrobe—Christ's life, the fulfillment of God's original promise. In Christ's family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female. Among us you are all equal. That is, we are all in a common relationship with Jesus Christ." (Galatians 3:26-28) Some might argue with this, saying: Of course it makes a difference! Racial minorities, and women, and the physically challenged, and the disadvantaged and other groups have always had to struggle for their rights. People have never treated them like they are equal!
Peter didn't think people were equal either. He was a strict Jew, and as such he knew it was unlawful for him to keep company with those who were not. But God, wanting to prepare Peter to give the Gospel to a Gentile (!) man along with many of his relatives and friends, sent a vision to Peter. He saw a great sheet lowered from heaven holding all kinds of animals, birds, and creeping things, some of them "unclean" and unfit for a law-keeping Jew to eat. A voice instructed Peter to kill and eat the creatures, but he was horrified. "Peter said, 'Oh, no, Lord. I've never so much as tasted food that was not kosher.' The voice came a second time: 'If God says it's okay, it's okay.' This happened three times, and then the blanket was pulled back up into the skies." (Acts 10:14-16)
Much of present society persists in observing differences. Does that truly matter? Again, it is Paul who writes, "It matters very little to me what you think of me, even less where I rank in popular opinion. I don't even rank myself. Comparisons in these matters are pointless. I'm not aware of anything that would disqualify me from being a good guide for you, but that doesn't mean much. The Master makes that judgment." (I Corinthians 4:3, 4)
I wouldn't kiss my elbow if I could! God says we are all equal. If God says I'm okay, I'm okay!
Marjorie
Scripture taken from The Message. Copyright © 2003 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Ahead of the Culture
We don't always get a clear picture of Bible women when we extract only certain examples from the Scripture. There was the disobedient Eve and the treacherous Jezebel and Lot's reluctant wife. If we conclude that this is "how women were," we miss the grand challenge of Esther and Abigail and Mary of Bethany and the lesser-known Dorcas and the daughters of Zelophehad. If we focus on Abram's lies about his wife or Jephthah's ignorant treatment of his daughter and believe that all women were treated as property, we are not taking into account Elkanah's love for Hannah or Barak's confidence in Deborah's leadership. If we take a narrow view of Sarai as the submissive wife and of the silenced women at Corinth, we may say, "And this is how women should be." I doubt that there is any woman described in Scripture whose life we can take in every single aspect and relate it to our own.
I have come to the conclusion that whatever one has determined a Christian woman should be, Scripture can be found to corroborate that view! Women have, for a long time, recognized that organized religion lags somewhat behind our other social institutions, in that it does not grant to a large number of them equal opportunities along with men to participate in ministry and leadership and to represent faithfully the cause of Christ. Most often the rationale for their exclusion is, "That rule is straight from the Bible. Just read . . . [whatever Scripture seems to support the position]."
If we do "just read the Scripture," we may find something quite different than we have supposed. God was not, and is not sexist. In both the Old and New Testaments, we find some women of faith who were remarkably ahead of the culture around them. Many scholars agree that Jesus brought new dignity to women by including them among His followers, but long before that, the creation passages tell us that both man and woman were created in God's image. "So God created man [not just a man, but a whole new species: human beings] in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27 NIV) I am quite confident that God did not intend us to be second-class citizens!
For some of us, claiming our selves as Christian women is an arduous task. Our religious training, our early authorities, and the role models they prescribed for us have a great impact on how we see ourselves. We cannot change those early influences, but we can examine them. It is not wrong to do so, in fact, it is essential to spiritual growth. Part of maturity is learning to evaluate our beliefs. "Is what I am thinking based on what the Scripture says or only on what someone says it says? Am I considering the whole tone of Scripture or only a selection of 'proof' texts? Has more recent Biblical scholarship improved the understanding we had fifty or a hundred or two hundred years ago?"
A huge factor in how we see ourselves is how we presently permit others to relate to us. Here it is difficult to determine—like deciding which came first, the chicken or the egg—what is cause and what is effect. In some sense, we teach people how they can treat us by what we think of our own selves; on the other hand, how people treat us affects that self-evaluation. Whichever it is, cause or effect, we as individuals are the only ones who can break the unhappy cycle. Whether by personal reflection, serious Bible study, counsel from others, re-framing the past, or intellectual decision, gaining an appropriate self-esteem is a goal to be pursued. You may or may not be ahead of most of the culture around you, but wherever your opinion comes to rest along the wide spectrum of thought concerning the wisdom and worth of women, there will be others on either side!
You can probably even find a Biblical counterpart!
Marjorie
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
I have come to the conclusion that whatever one has determined a Christian woman should be, Scripture can be found to corroborate that view! Women have, for a long time, recognized that organized religion lags somewhat behind our other social institutions, in that it does not grant to a large number of them equal opportunities along with men to participate in ministry and leadership and to represent faithfully the cause of Christ. Most often the rationale for their exclusion is, "That rule is straight from the Bible. Just read . . . [whatever Scripture seems to support the position]."
If we do "just read the Scripture," we may find something quite different than we have supposed. God was not, and is not sexist. In both the Old and New Testaments, we find some women of faith who were remarkably ahead of the culture around them. Many scholars agree that Jesus brought new dignity to women by including them among His followers, but long before that, the creation passages tell us that both man and woman were created in God's image. "So God created man [not just a man, but a whole new species: human beings] in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27 NIV) I am quite confident that God did not intend us to be second-class citizens!
For some of us, claiming our selves as Christian women is an arduous task. Our religious training, our early authorities, and the role models they prescribed for us have a great impact on how we see ourselves. We cannot change those early influences, but we can examine them. It is not wrong to do so, in fact, it is essential to spiritual growth. Part of maturity is learning to evaluate our beliefs. "Is what I am thinking based on what the Scripture says or only on what someone says it says? Am I considering the whole tone of Scripture or only a selection of 'proof' texts? Has more recent Biblical scholarship improved the understanding we had fifty or a hundred or two hundred years ago?"
A huge factor in how we see ourselves is how we presently permit others to relate to us. Here it is difficult to determine—like deciding which came first, the chicken or the egg—what is cause and what is effect. In some sense, we teach people how they can treat us by what we think of our own selves; on the other hand, how people treat us affects that self-evaluation. Whichever it is, cause or effect, we as individuals are the only ones who can break the unhappy cycle. Whether by personal reflection, serious Bible study, counsel from others, re-framing the past, or intellectual decision, gaining an appropriate self-esteem is a goal to be pursued. You may or may not be ahead of most of the culture around you, but wherever your opinion comes to rest along the wide spectrum of thought concerning the wisdom and worth of women, there will be others on either side!
You can probably even find a Biblical counterpart!
Marjorie
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Questions Are Okay
We don't always use balanced examples from Scripture when we are deciding how to order our lives as Christians. Take those Corinthian women who were forbidden to speak in the church . . . Paul writes to the church there, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Those verses are I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 which I quoted from the King James Version of the Holy Bible, because that four-hundred-year-old version is where I first learned the so-called "place of women in the church." And silencing the voice of women is an idea still clung to by many folks today.
But let's look at another example:
I am struck by the fact that this wealthy and wise king—although his personal life was not well-ordered—permitted questioning by a foreign, "heathen" woman. Perhaps she asked about the things that amaze us as well. "Why do plants turn to the sun?" "Why do birds sing while donkeys bray?" "How is life created in a mother's womb?" She opened her heart to him, so she may have asked, "Why does Israel not have a queen?" "How should my kingdom meet the needs of the poor?" "Why do you worship your particular god?" Nothing was too hard for him to answer, and apparently nothing was too incidental either. True, this did not occur in a church setting, but it was, after all, in the court of the wisest of all men; God said there had not been anyone like him before nor would there ever be.
So I'm thinking that a woman's questions are legitimate. The Corinthian women lived in a Greek culture where "public women" were disreputable. For a woman to speak out would indicate she was shamelessly bold. No such prohibition is given for any of the other churches for whom there are letters in the New Testament, but only to Corinth and to Ephesus where Timothy was located. If a woman finds herself in a situation where speaking up would discount her testimony, then maybe she will want to keep her thoughts to herself. But otherwise . . .
Questions are okay.
Marjorie
Scripture taken from The Message. Copyright © 2003 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group.
But let's look at another example:
"God gave Solomon wisdom—the deepest of understanding and the largest of hearts. There was nothing beyond him, nothing he couldn't handle. Solomon's wisdom outclassed the vaunted wisdom of wise men of the East, outshone the famous wisdom of Egypt. He was wiser than anyone . . . He created 3,000 proverbs; his songs added up to 1,005. He knew all about plants, from the huge cedar that grows in Lebanon to the tiny hyssop that grows in the cracks of a wall. He understood everything about animals and birds, reptiles and fish. Sent by kings from all over the earth who had heard of his reputation, people came from far and near to listen to the wisdom of Solomon." (I Kings 4:29-34)
"The queen of Sheba heard about Solomon and his connection with the Name of God. She came to put his reputation to the test by asking tough questions. She made a grand and showy entrance into Jerusalem—camels loaded with spices, a huge amount of gold, and precious gems. She came to Solomon and talked about all the things that she cared about, emptying her heart to him. Solomon answered everything she put to him—nothing stumped him. When the queen of Sheba experienced for herself Solomon's wisdom and saw with her own eyes the palace he had built, the meals that were served, the impressive array of court officials and sharply dressed waiters, the lavish crystal, and the elaborate worship extravagant with Whole-Burnt-Offerings at the steps leading up to The Temple of God, it took her breath away.
"She said to the king, 'It's all true! Your reputation for accomplishment and wisdom that reached all the way to my country is confirmed. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it for myself; they didn't exaggerate! Such wisdom and elegance—far more than I could ever have imagined. Lucky the men and women who work for you, getting to be around you every day and hear your wise words firsthand! And blessed be God, your God, who took such a liking to you and made you king. Clearly, God's love for Israel is behind this, making you king to keep a just order and nurture a God-pleasing people.' " (I Kings 10:1-9)
I am struck by the fact that this wealthy and wise king—although his personal life was not well-ordered—permitted questioning by a foreign, "heathen" woman. Perhaps she asked about the things that amaze us as well. "Why do plants turn to the sun?" "Why do birds sing while donkeys bray?" "How is life created in a mother's womb?" She opened her heart to him, so she may have asked, "Why does Israel not have a queen?" "How should my kingdom meet the needs of the poor?" "Why do you worship your particular god?" Nothing was too hard for him to answer, and apparently nothing was too incidental either. True, this did not occur in a church setting, but it was, after all, in the court of the wisest of all men; God said there had not been anyone like him before nor would there ever be.
So I'm thinking that a woman's questions are legitimate. The Corinthian women lived in a Greek culture where "public women" were disreputable. For a woman to speak out would indicate she was shamelessly bold. No such prohibition is given for any of the other churches for whom there are letters in the New Testament, but only to Corinth and to Ephesus where Timothy was located. If a woman finds herself in a situation where speaking up would discount her testimony, then maybe she will want to keep her thoughts to herself. But otherwise . . .
Questions are okay.
Marjorie
Scripture taken from The Message. Copyright © 2003 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Roses, and Some Women I Know
A disclaimer: I am not a rosarian! I do have an area beside my home that I lovingly call "a rose garden," so I have been reading about different kinds of roses and their culture. Among my friends, I find some similarities to these wonderful flowers.
Greenhouse plants are cultivated for their singular beauty. There will not be a lot of flowers, maybe only one, but it will be "perfect." On the other hand, some garden climbers bloom so profusely that the trellis or fence supporting them is covered with roses and the ground beneath has been showered with petals. They are smaller flowers, true, and not so delicately formed, but the lavish display makes up for that difference.
To satisfy the American taste for what is big and bright, flower breeders have produced new strains of roses that have giant, long-lasting flowers in stunning colors. Along the way, though, most of the fragrance has been inadvertently bred out of some of those specimens. Many mass-produced roses have no detectable scent at all. Some of the garden-grown ones, however, are so sweet that one cut bloom can make a whole room fragrant.
If roses are obtained from a florist, they were probably cut before they were in full bloom, perhaps still only buds. The thorns will have been removed, and the stems tended carefully so that the flowers stay beautiful for several days inside one's home. Roses in the garden may not last as long, exposed as they are to the elements, pests, and disease. Some buds get damaged and never form a full flower. They have kept their thorns, however, to protect themselves from children and dogs, and many kinds bloom again and again throughout the season to please the rose-lover.
Need I explain the analogies? It's enough, I think, to say that all kinds of roses are lovely. And women whose experiences differ greatly and whose lives have not all been formed in the same way are equally lovely and valuable.
Marjorie
Greenhouse plants are cultivated for their singular beauty. There will not be a lot of flowers, maybe only one, but it will be "perfect." On the other hand, some garden climbers bloom so profusely that the trellis or fence supporting them is covered with roses and the ground beneath has been showered with petals. They are smaller flowers, true, and not so delicately formed, but the lavish display makes up for that difference.
To satisfy the American taste for what is big and bright, flower breeders have produced new strains of roses that have giant, long-lasting flowers in stunning colors. Along the way, though, most of the fragrance has been inadvertently bred out of some of those specimens. Many mass-produced roses have no detectable scent at all. Some of the garden-grown ones, however, are so sweet that one cut bloom can make a whole room fragrant.
If roses are obtained from a florist, they were probably cut before they were in full bloom, perhaps still only buds. The thorns will have been removed, and the stems tended carefully so that the flowers stay beautiful for several days inside one's home. Roses in the garden may not last as long, exposed as they are to the elements, pests, and disease. Some buds get damaged and never form a full flower. They have kept their thorns, however, to protect themselves from children and dogs, and many kinds bloom again and again throughout the season to please the rose-lover.
Need I explain the analogies? It's enough, I think, to say that all kinds of roses are lovely. And women whose experiences differ greatly and whose lives have not all been formed in the same way are equally lovely and valuable.
Marjorie
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Genny's Story - 6: Staying--or Leaving
To read all previously published parts, click on "Genny's Story" in the labels column at the left. Note that entries appear in reverse order, the most recent on top.
Genny explains why she was so long in dealing with her situation
Marjorie: I know there can be many factors keeping women in traumatic situations—fear of being alone, financial instability, the children, just plain uncertainty. But maybe denial is what keeps a lot of women in their abusive homes.
Genny: Yes, I think so. But giving it up is really hard. The truth can be very difficult to look at.
M: And why is that?
G: Lots of reasons. People's opinion of you, not wanting to expose the person you have loved, feeling like a failure. But for me, the huge obstacle was a whole group of religious issues. I was very active in our church. Jim was less involved, but still much loved and respected. People actually admired our marriage! I just couldn't stand to humiliate us both by admitting that anything was wrong. And even though he was very wrong in his treatment of me, I had no desire to ruin his name among our church friends. I think our pastors would have been understanding and compassionate, and I can see, looking back, that there may have been a couple of other friends I could have turned to. They say to me now, "I wish I had known. I wish I could have been there for you." But many people in our church still have very conservative beliefs about the marriage relationship. I'm not sure they--especially Jim's friends--would have been that openhearted. First of all, some wouldn't have believed it was true, and secondly, some surely would have blamed me. I just wasn't ready for that. So you can see that this was an area of real conflict for me.
M: You know, Genny, I may have some readers who, like you, have strong ties to conservative churches, and these men and women may feel that what you have described in our earlier conversations about submission and servitude is indeed a wife's role. What would you say to them?
G: Throughout Scripture, I believe, women as well as men are invited into relationship with God. Even the creation passages can be understood in ways that do not relegate women to a secondary place. In the New Testament, it is the clear expectation that both men and women will live lives that display the fruit of the Spirit and represent the cause of Christ well. The "woman passages" that seem so troublesome in Paul's letters almost certainly spoke to a particular problem in a specific church. They do not present a view of women that is consistent with his teachings or his relationships as defined in other passages.
The Apostle Paul is very clear that in Christ, there is no male or female, bond or free, and so forth. Nowhere does he teach that submission is one-way, that is, women--and wives in particular--to men. It just is not there. Submission to each other is one of the ways that love and honor are expressed between husband and wife. Before Paul speaks about the responsibilities of women and of men, he says, "Submit to one another, or be subject to one another, out of reverence for Christ." Or put another way, "Out of respect for Christ, be courteously reverent to one another."
M: And now that we've brought up religious beliefs—if and when it becomes clear that a woman, specifically a Christian woman, cannot survive in her abusive situation, what options do you think she has?
G: She has all the options that there are. Let me name some. First of all, there is just leaving, one or the other of the couple decides to move out, or maybe they can even decide together that would be best for everyone. But do not delay if your safety is threatened. Get out of there--now! And use every means, every legal avenue available, to ensure your peace and well-being.
There is just toughing it out, the worst option of all, and any more I don't even consider it a viable one. There is so much more to life than just waiting for your husband to die! Several years ago—and I have forgotten the source—I ran across, in a national news magazine, the personal account of an abused woman whose husband was killed in a highway accident. In the article, she stated that she was glad he was dead. A storm of angry letters was the response. "How dare she say such a thing?" "How can she be so cold-hearted?" "That's the same as murder." And so on. How preposterous is it for us to tell someone how they should feel? She didn't kill him even though she may have wished that he would die; she was just relieved and grateful that he was gone.
M: So waiting and wishing might be an option, but it's not a very good one! What are other possibilities?
G: Well, as Christian women, we don't want to consider murder as an option, but a great many good church folk think divorce is almost that bad. There's always a big laugh when someone says of their marriage, "Oh no, we never ever considered divorce. But murder? Oh yes, many times!" So are we to conclude that murder would be preferable to divorce? It's supposed to be a joke, but it is so not funny, because divorce is, in fact, one of the options. Yes, I am aware of church regulations, and I know many women who say, "Divorce is absolutely not an option." Then for them, it is not an option. But when a woman asks whether divorce can be an option, she probably is thinking, "Yes, I know it is, but what I'm really asking is, Will God be mad at me? Or, Will I go to hell?" I am convinced that God is more concerned about relationship than law. I cannot believe that He is pleased with someone—man or woman—being trapped in a non-marriage where the bond is already irreparably severed.
Some churches take the position that there are only certain "Biblical permissions" for divorce, usually citing adultery and abandonment. Well, how do we define those? Is adultery only an extra-marital affair, or could it also be conscious emotional entanglement, unfaithfulness at the heart level? Is abandonment the term for physically deserting one's spouse, or does it apply also to the person who may be present in the home but has long since forsaken his vows? These questions are something only the woman herself can decide, but she must be aware that if she makes a decision counter to the church "rules," she may then have to form a different church connection.
M: And what if the woman believes divorce is absolutely not an option?
G: There are other alternatives. Even if a woman feels she dare not divorce, she perhaps could consider separation—legally separated so as to make clear the financial and custodial issues. Sometimes that even provokes the husband to file for divorce, which is another possible outcome.
Then there is annulment, which actually does not dissolve the marriage but declares that it never existed. This has been misused sometimes to remedy general unhappiness with one's spouse, but still, it is a valid legal action. Each state has laws governing annulment just as they have for divorce; most generally those deal with fraud, concealment of facts, or the incapacity to enter into marriage. This sounds strange, I know, but it does happen.
M: Options aren't really "solutions," are they? It must be extremely difficult for a woman to sort out all of this alone.
G: Yes, so add to the reasons you gave for why women stay, "paralysis." They just don't know what to do. Regardless of what an abused woman chooses to do, finding her way is likely to be traumatic. Leaving a marriage is not going to be pleasant, easy, quick, or cheap. It can even be dangerous. Some men become vindictive; they threaten, harass, stalk, do damage, or even inflict physical harm. But when staying is no longer possible, she simply has to leave. I cannot emphasize too much: Get wise professional counsel.
To be continued.
Genny explains why she was so long in dealing with her situation
Marjorie: I know there can be many factors keeping women in traumatic situations—fear of being alone, financial instability, the children, just plain uncertainty. But maybe denial is what keeps a lot of women in their abusive homes.
Genny: Yes, I think so. But giving it up is really hard. The truth can be very difficult to look at.
M: And why is that?
G: Lots of reasons. People's opinion of you, not wanting to expose the person you have loved, feeling like a failure. But for me, the huge obstacle was a whole group of religious issues. I was very active in our church. Jim was less involved, but still much loved and respected. People actually admired our marriage! I just couldn't stand to humiliate us both by admitting that anything was wrong. And even though he was very wrong in his treatment of me, I had no desire to ruin his name among our church friends. I think our pastors would have been understanding and compassionate, and I can see, looking back, that there may have been a couple of other friends I could have turned to. They say to me now, "I wish I had known. I wish I could have been there for you." But many people in our church still have very conservative beliefs about the marriage relationship. I'm not sure they--especially Jim's friends--would have been that openhearted. First of all, some wouldn't have believed it was true, and secondly, some surely would have blamed me. I just wasn't ready for that. So you can see that this was an area of real conflict for me.
M: You know, Genny, I may have some readers who, like you, have strong ties to conservative churches, and these men and women may feel that what you have described in our earlier conversations about submission and servitude is indeed a wife's role. What would you say to them?
G: Throughout Scripture, I believe, women as well as men are invited into relationship with God. Even the creation passages can be understood in ways that do not relegate women to a secondary place. In the New Testament, it is the clear expectation that both men and women will live lives that display the fruit of the Spirit and represent the cause of Christ well. The "woman passages" that seem so troublesome in Paul's letters almost certainly spoke to a particular problem in a specific church. They do not present a view of women that is consistent with his teachings or his relationships as defined in other passages.
The Apostle Paul is very clear that in Christ, there is no male or female, bond or free, and so forth. Nowhere does he teach that submission is one-way, that is, women--and wives in particular--to men. It just is not there. Submission to each other is one of the ways that love and honor are expressed between husband and wife. Before Paul speaks about the responsibilities of women and of men, he says, "Submit to one another, or be subject to one another, out of reverence for Christ." Or put another way, "Out of respect for Christ, be courteously reverent to one another."
M: And now that we've brought up religious beliefs—if and when it becomes clear that a woman, specifically a Christian woman, cannot survive in her abusive situation, what options do you think she has?
G: She has all the options that there are. Let me name some. First of all, there is just leaving, one or the other of the couple decides to move out, or maybe they can even decide together that would be best for everyone. But do not delay if your safety is threatened. Get out of there--now! And use every means, every legal avenue available, to ensure your peace and well-being.
There is just toughing it out, the worst option of all, and any more I don't even consider it a viable one. There is so much more to life than just waiting for your husband to die! Several years ago—and I have forgotten the source—I ran across, in a national news magazine, the personal account of an abused woman whose husband was killed in a highway accident. In the article, she stated that she was glad he was dead. A storm of angry letters was the response. "How dare she say such a thing?" "How can she be so cold-hearted?" "That's the same as murder." And so on. How preposterous is it for us to tell someone how they should feel? She didn't kill him even though she may have wished that he would die; she was just relieved and grateful that he was gone.
M: So waiting and wishing might be an option, but it's not a very good one! What are other possibilities?
G: Well, as Christian women, we don't want to consider murder as an option, but a great many good church folk think divorce is almost that bad. There's always a big laugh when someone says of their marriage, "Oh no, we never ever considered divorce. But murder? Oh yes, many times!" So are we to conclude that murder would be preferable to divorce? It's supposed to be a joke, but it is so not funny, because divorce is, in fact, one of the options. Yes, I am aware of church regulations, and I know many women who say, "Divorce is absolutely not an option." Then for them, it is not an option. But when a woman asks whether divorce can be an option, she probably is thinking, "Yes, I know it is, but what I'm really asking is, Will God be mad at me? Or, Will I go to hell?" I am convinced that God is more concerned about relationship than law. I cannot believe that He is pleased with someone—man or woman—being trapped in a non-marriage where the bond is already irreparably severed.
Some churches take the position that there are only certain "Biblical permissions" for divorce, usually citing adultery and abandonment. Well, how do we define those? Is adultery only an extra-marital affair, or could it also be conscious emotional entanglement, unfaithfulness at the heart level? Is abandonment the term for physically deserting one's spouse, or does it apply also to the person who may be present in the home but has long since forsaken his vows? These questions are something only the woman herself can decide, but she must be aware that if she makes a decision counter to the church "rules," she may then have to form a different church connection.
M: And what if the woman believes divorce is absolutely not an option?
G: There are other alternatives. Even if a woman feels she dare not divorce, she perhaps could consider separation—legally separated so as to make clear the financial and custodial issues. Sometimes that even provokes the husband to file for divorce, which is another possible outcome.
Then there is annulment, which actually does not dissolve the marriage but declares that it never existed. This has been misused sometimes to remedy general unhappiness with one's spouse, but still, it is a valid legal action. Each state has laws governing annulment just as they have for divorce; most generally those deal with fraud, concealment of facts, or the incapacity to enter into marriage. This sounds strange, I know, but it does happen.
M: Options aren't really "solutions," are they? It must be extremely difficult for a woman to sort out all of this alone.
G: Yes, so add to the reasons you gave for why women stay, "paralysis." They just don't know what to do. Regardless of what an abused woman chooses to do, finding her way is likely to be traumatic. Leaving a marriage is not going to be pleasant, easy, quick, or cheap. It can even be dangerous. Some men become vindictive; they threaten, harass, stalk, do damage, or even inflict physical harm. But when staying is no longer possible, she simply has to leave. I cannot emphasize too much: Get wise professional counsel.
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)