feminism & me part 2 (the fallout)

First: A Year of Biblical Womanhood.

The review at Desiring God mostly takes issue with Evans' approach to Scripture, less than her takeaways from it, as she looked in depth at femininity in the Bible. The reviewer summarizes her complaints:

Throughout A Year of Biblical Womanhood, Evans works to prove that the Bible is not without error and therefore cannot be applied literally — and in some cases cannot be trusted.

I think that is... false. I did not see proving the error of the Bible as a goal of AYoBW. Did I see some historical critical analysis? Yes. Do I think that's an awful, heathenish way to read the Bible? Not necessarily.

Fact: the Bible cannot always be applied literally. We learned that even in my Sola Scriptura high school. For example-- The Song of Solomon is a poem. It's not a love manual. (cough Mark Driscoll cough)

The Word of God is living and active. It is not a static text. But this does not mean I agree with all of Evans' interpretation. She claims at the end that it is essential to read with a 'prejudice of love' (295). When talking to my parents about the book, though, I realized that it is also very important to read from a posture of humility. In reading Evans' thoughts on women's roles in relation to men, in the church and in the family, I did not find that I could read the Scripture with a prejudice of love and a posture of humility and get quite the same answers she did.


Next: Gender in the Church

One of the reasons I love Christianity so much is because my value as a person comes from God, who will never stop loving me. I am valued because I am loved, not the other way around. This is the same for me, as a woman, as it is for a man. I am valuable regardless of my occupation and life situation. Period. Martin Luther got this:

'A cobbler, a smith, a farmer, each has the work and office of this trade . . . and everyone by means of his own work or office must benefit and serve every other, that in this way many kinds of work may be done for the bodily and spiritual welfare of the community, even as all the members of the body serve one another.'

Man or woman, occupations are to be taken to the benefit and service of the community, the construction worker as well as the pastor.

But wait. Women pastors? --I'm not really sure what I think of Evans' justification for the passages that instruct women not to teach in church. But I do know that the discussion of women & men in church is heavily linked to the relationship between husbands and wives. The words Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 maybe should be translated as 'wives' and 'husbands' rather than 'women' and 'men.' So...

Last: Gender in the Family

I talked to a friend of mine for hours over video chat the other day, hammering out what we thought of complementarianism vs egalitarianism in marriage. If those words confuse you, join the club.

I think what it comes down to is this: complementarianism at its best and egalitarianism at its best are the same thing. To say that men and women have complementary roles in marriage and to say that men and women are of equal value and dignity (with roles decided by giftedness rather than gender) are not mutually exclusive.

I'll take two couples as examples of this: my parents, and a couple from my church in MD.

1. My parents follow fairly stereotypical gender personality patterns. Dad is an ISTJ. Mom is an INFP. He likes building things. She likes gardening. He's well-read and wise. She's intuitive and passionate. There's a sort of sense that my dad is a leader, but he values my mom more than himself. Zero hierarchy. They do things for the family based on what they are gifted to do.
2. The other couple does not follow any 'regular' pattern. He is a scatter-brained artist. She is organized to the max. He makes music and dinner. She fixes the plumbing and the finances. And again-- there is a sort of sense that he is a leader, but I've never seen him give her orders. He takes the initiative to serve her whenever possible. And they do things for their family based on their gifts.

In both of these, the men take on the leadership 'role' as one of servanthood: taking the charge to lead as one to love sacrificially. And in both of these, the women take on the submissive 'role' as one of... well, graciously being loved, and loving back. And in both of these, the 'roles' in organizing the family follow what the men and women are gifted to do, not some weird 1950s household code.

Once in a co-ed Bible study, we talked about marriage. What we came to was basically this:

1. Women should submit to their husbands. (Eph 5:22)
2. Men should love their wives. (Eph 5:25)
3. Christians should submit to each other. (Eph 5:21)
4. Christians should love each other. (John 13:34)

Soooo... basically, let's make this whole thing a question not of who obeys whom, and more of who serves whom. And we might get a little farther with the whole 'gender roles' business.

(I do not see how this helps me with gender in the Church, of course, but that's okay. I don't want to be a pastor anyway, so we can leave it at that?)