Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Femininity vs. Feminism

Femininity vs. feminism is an important topic, to me. You can't be in between you have to be one or the other. I am all for femininity, and not at all for feminism.
What is the difference between the two? I'm so glad you asked! ;) Femininity is the quality or condition of being feminine. A characteristic or trait traditionally held to be female. The sum of all attributes that convey womanhood.
Feminism is the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
Femininity is what God wants to see in all women. Feminism is a very worldly belief in my opinion. Proverbs 31 is full of femininity. Yes, she buys land and does other things but she's doing that for her husband and not for herself. I don't think it's bad to have a job, as long as it's the will of your husband/father and most importantly the will of God. God does call women to be missionaries.
I personally don't think a women should be mayor, governor, president, marine, join the army or air force etc. That is a place for a man to do not a woman. Women slandered men when they took up jobs that a man should do. This reminds me a lot of Eowyn and Arwen. I like both, but both have very different views.
Eowyn, I believe is a feminist. Arwen, on the other hand, believes and shows femininity. Here's why I believe this:
Eowyn- wanted to fight in war, therefore she wanted to do a man's job. She was going to take up Theoden's throne if he didn't return and have rule over Rohan, which I believe is very wrong.
Arwen- yes, she went out to find Aragorn and yes she took Frodo instead of Aragorn doing it, but that was to save Frodo's life because she was the faster rider. Even though she did those things, which I don't think we're acts of feminism, she shows femininity all throughout the movie. She's graceful, and well feminine.
Again, I'm not saying that I don't like Eowyn, I'm just saying she's a feminist.
A person can be feminine but not be biblical. How is this possible? Glad you asked another question! She could be feminine but not have a happy heart about it. This lady says; "Hi, yes I'm feminine but I wish I wasn't. I would rather be out getting a job. :(" A Biblical feminine lady says; "Hi, yes I'm feminine and I'm happy to be so for it makes my Lord happy. :)"

Do I believe being feminine means you have to wear a skirt 24, 7, 365? (366 if it's a leap year) Great question. No I don't. There are things that you can't possible do in a skirt, and I for one don't like wearing skirts all the time. I'm not saying I don't like skirts, don't get me wrong. I usually wear pants but I like wearing a skirt occasionally.

Do I believe that being feminine means that you can't do any work outside? Awesome question. Of course I don't believe that! We, as women/ young women, are to hold the fort together in the inside, but we can also do work outside.

I don't hate feminist's, most of my outside family are feminists, I'm just saying that I don't believe in being or encouraging them to be a feminist.
If you have any questions please let me know, and please share your thoughts of this topic with me. This post wasn't meant to argue, please don't get offended if you don't agree!

32 comments:

Rachel M. said...

Your background is very cute, Moriah!

Love in Him,
Rachel M.

Haley said...

Great post, Moriah! That is such a controversial subject. I totally agree with you though! I like your new blog look, it's cute!

In Christ's Love,
Haley

Elránia Peredhil said...

I admire both characters, but I must agree with you. I'll always like Arwen more :)

The Reluctant Dragon said...

Wait, I think you need a different definition. I don't consider myself a feminist, but according to that def. I would be because I believe women shoud have "social, political, and all other rights" equal to men's.

Ëarwen said...

I agree that feminism is bad, and femeninity is good, but I think that the Eowyn/Arwen debate is somewhat time-wasting.
They are FICTIONAL characters!
Now we can hold them up as examples, but I find it... oh, I don't know, silly to argue over them.
Did you ask me a question? I forgot it, I"m SO sorry!!

Moriah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Moriah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Moriah said...

Earwen, I agree with you it's time-wasting to argue over Arwen and Eowyn. I'm not debating over them, I'm using them as an example.

wildlyparenthetical said...

Mmm. What happens, though, if a woman is called to do what you're calling "a man's job"? There are many Christian women who believe that they are called by God to do a job, who then have others deem it to be inappropriate for them. What if the women who you think are 'slandering men' by doing 'men's jobs' are actually following God's will, and really have been called to perform these jobs?

Moriah said...

Wildly parenthetical, I personally don't believe God's will is for a woman to join in service or in political things. The bible is packed with stay at home moms/wives.
It's like Eomer said in lotr, "War is the province of men, Eowyn." It is meant for men not women.

wildlyparenthetical said...

Well, yeah, you pretty much said that in the post. But my question is, what if God calls a woman to do something that you think is a "man's job"? Do you assume that that's not true, that a woman would never be called to do those things? In the end, it seems to me that if you assume to know better than the individual being called, you're questioning God's will, and possibly even deeming sinful that which God has deemed to be virtuous. That seems proud and presumptuous to me.

And as for there being piles of stay at home moms in the Bible... well, actually, that's not entirely true: Esther, Deborah, Ruth, Naomi, even the woman honoured in Proverbs 31 that you mention; they're all women who go out and work, and who are called to do exactly that. In fact, Deborah, for example, is a military commander, a judge and a prophet, all things you have suggested are improper places for women, and yet she is called by God. You said that the woman in Proverbs is approved of because she's not selfish; but many women who take up jobs in politics or law or in the armed services are not being selfish at all! Some offer their lives for others! I'd suggest that stay at home moms are actually a rarity in the Bible. And that seems to me to suggest that when people claim that stay at home moms are the most virtuous or feminine of women, they're cherry-picking the Bible to fit their own ideas about what women ought to be, rather than trusting in God; and in so doing they risk not supporting their sisters in Christ, and even questioning God's will.

As for LOTR, you might be interested to know that Tolkein originally intended for Aragorn to marry Eowyn. And besides, it's quite clear that Aragorn, who is the real hero of the piece, believes that Eowyn is a great woman because she is fierce and passionate and fights. I think his opinion wins out over Eomer's!

Bracie said...

AMEN Wildly P!WELL put.

Bracie said...

Starting with the lovely Arwen: Quite a bit of Arwen's "fighting" parts were added with the movies. So it's easy for me to discredit them. But that IS my favorite scene!
Arwen is hardly a character in the books. While I admire her for respecting her father (although she DOES talk back to him in the movies)and sacrificing her immortality for Aragorn, you see little or no character development in her throughout the whole story. In the books she is mentioned almost exclusively as "being in Aragorn's thoughts."
And in the movies, her scenes are composed of her wearing (scanty, see-through) night gowns while she ummm... drools over Aragorn. Of course (typical me!), all the elf parts on our DVD to TTT skipped (so saddened!) so I could be missing a lot. I just reeeally wasn't impressed by the Aragorn-Arwen-lingerie scenes.
It's not that I don't like what she stands for, I just don't think she's a big enough character to get as many radical fans as I see.

Bracie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bracie said...

I do appreciate that Eowyn is a much larger character in the books.

I see Eowyn as holding a sort of "Deborah" place. Actually, a combination of Deborah and Jael. Tolkein had a job for her, and she did it- well.
Afterwards, she more than submitted to Faramir- she told him "He had tamed the wild shieldmaiden from the West." And they conquered the "shadow" together. Not the shadow of sin-but the shadow of the evil forces that had come so close to them.

Eowyn wasn’t ashamed to be a woman- right before she kills the witchking, she says “I am no Man) and in the movies, “then die, for you face a woman!”
Eowyn is proud, as a defect, it's true. Perhaps that's why I can relate to her. Perhaps it's because I love to see her GROW while reading her story.
Because she wanted adventure. Is there something unbiblical about a girl wanting adventure? Not in my Bible. Things were just so dangerous then, that a woman would probably get a little TOO much adventure if she left the periphery of her family's tents!
I managed to find enjoyment in Eowyn’s character, even though she was a “feminist.” Her spirit was not ugly- just proud, brave, and at times, hurting.

EchoOfMercy said...

Let it be understood that I'm not saying this in a haughty & mean-spirited manner.:)

Bracie,

The Dream Gown is not see-through.:)

Arwen had Elrond's permission to go & find Aragorn. Not to mention that no one else was going to help him.

As for her talking back to her father what he told her to do was WRONG & I always saw it as her being upset about him lying to her & not her being rebellious.

GO ARWEN!(And all Elves for that matter:),

EchoOfMercy

Caleb said...

---PART 1---

Hello everyone, I am one of Moriah's friends from church. May I join your discussion? ;)

First off, I do believe that feminism is ungodly. God has designed the woman as the weaker vessel, and therefore there are some things that are not her job to do. If you believe the Bible, then you must believe that because God said it. For example, with Deborah that some of you brought up... she WAS a leader in war and over others, but there is one important thing that you are all missing, and that is this: in the old testament, women in leadership was a sign of JUDGEMENT on a nation. Besides, she desired to for men to do men's jobs and asked her generals to lead in battle, but because they were not acting like men, she had to go along. God judged even these men for their abdication of their role and duty and gave the victory over to even yet another woman. SO the Deborah argument is not relevant to the femism debate.

{ReluctantDragon said: "Wait, I think you need a different definition. I don't consider myself a feminist, but according to that def. I would be because I believe women shoud have "social, political, and all other rights" equal to men's."}

That definition is straight from dictionary.com if you are wondering. You will find it almost the same in different dictionaries.

If you do believe that women should have equal ROLES in social, political, and all other areas then you ARE feminist. In reality, equal rights are not the issue, for we all have the right to do things that we should not. Its a question of roles. Men and women have two completely different roles. God has given men the task of leading women in love, and He has given women the task of following men who lead in love. Women should not do a man's job. A woman is not to be a leader over a man, and that is how God designed it. This is not my opinion, it is scripture, and not just my interpretation, just the plain meaning.

{Earwen said: "I think that the Eowyn/Arwen debate is somewhat time-wasting.
They are FICTIONAL characters!")

Yes, they are fictional characters, but we can still debate over them. An author of a script/movie puts HIS worldview into the hero of the movie, therefore we can learn about a REAL author by studying FICTIONAL characters.

{WildyParenthetical said: "Mmm. What happens, though, if a woman is called to do what you're calling "a man's job"?")

God will not call a woman to do a man's job PERIOD. Why? Think about this logically! If God designed things in a way that men have different roles than women and vice versa, then why would He call a woman to do a man's job since it is HIS OWN plan? This statement has no valid logical point.

Caleb said...

---PART 2---


{WP also said: "What if the women who you think are 'slandering men' by doing 'men's jobs' are actually following God's will, and really have been called to perform these jobs?"}

Unless you illogically disagree with what I just said, it's impossible for her to do this in a righteous manner! God will not contradict His own will, which is clearly given in scripture.

{WP again: "my question is, what if God calls a woman to do something that you think is a "man's job"? Do you assume that that's not true, that a woman would never be called to do those things?"}

Precisely.

{WP: "In the end, it seems to me that if you assume to know better than the individual being called, you're questioning God's will, and possibly even deeming sinful that which God has deemed to be virtuous.")

God will not violate His own will, and where do we know His will? By some individual revelation to a person? Yes, BUT, only if that lines up with what scripture says. If we receive any calling or spirit or knowledge of God's will and we think it is right and good, but it does not line up with scripture, we know it is wrong. The Bible tells us how to KNOW if something is from God, by searching the scriptures to see if it is true. If it is not (like if it violates God's principles for men and women's roles) then it doesn't matter how good it seems to us, it is not God's will. (Remember...there is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof is death...) So we don't have to assume anything, nor do individuals get called by God to do things that violate His will. They can do them, but they are not acting according to God's will. God may allow it for a season (like Saul, like David with Bathsheba, etc.) but in the end it always is plan B, not God's best.

Once again, God is not going to call someone to do the opposite gender's job in a righteous manner. Therefore an individual being called to do the role of the opposite sex is not REALLY being called, and therefore you can question this calling without questioning the will of God.

{WP: "And as for there being piles of stay at home moms in the Bible... well, actually, that's not entirely true: Esther, Deborah, Ruth, Naomi"}

Esther wasn't a mom.

Deborah was a judgement.

Thus you are left with only two, and how many mothers are in the Bible? A LOT! Are there any others that are not stay at home moms? Probably. But this isn't really a good arguement because you don't have to be a stay at home mom to NOT be a feminist.

Overall, men and women have completely different rolls and are NOT called by God to do each others rolls in a righteous manner. BUT just because they have unequal roles and rights does not mean that one is of lesser value in God's eyes. On the contrary, all people of both genders are valued equally in God's eyes. It is also true that those men and women who embrace their Biblical roles enjoy so much more happiness and freedom, you can ask my mom ;-)

Moriah said...

To all who have commented. I can't tell what Gods going to do. If he wants to call a women to work, I'm not going to question him. He knows best.

Katie said...

Amen Caleb!
I think we take it at a wrong direction a lot. Like you said you don't have to be married to be feminine but a lot of times we only talk about being feminine after marriage.
~Katie

Allison said...

As Christians, our goal is life should not be to be "most successful" in the world's eyes or to radically change the world by going out and doing something, but rather to glorify, honor, and serve God in everything we do. So instead of asking about God calling women to work, why don't we ask ourselves where God will be most glorified?

As to women working, there is not place in Scripture that advises or commands women to work. Men are responsible for providing (Gen. 3:17-19), while the wife’s job is to keep and manage her household. She is not idle or unproductive; on the contrary, she has embraced the highest calling! The Proverbs 31 woman “look[ed] well to the ways of her household” (vs. 27). 1 Timothy 5:14 told the widows who married to “manage their households”. Out of the 22 verses describing a Proverbs 31 woman, 9 refer directly to her work in the home.

You may have a desire to learn a certain thing, but I must state that God will not call women to do anything out of His revelation in Scripture. This means if a lady believes that God has given her a calling to be a pastor, I would say it is not from God, because 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids it. We need to carefully study and search Scripture because sometimes we try to interpret our own desires as God's will or calling. Does this mean a woman is incapable of performing a task such as a pastor? Absolutely not! BUT, God has a created order, and we have to trust that God will bless us if we obey. Any “calling” for a woman must be directed towards the home. But that does not mean that her gifts are neglected or shoved aside, just re-interpreted to how they will be used. God wants us to be useful and fruitful, but the way that will bring the most blessing is through the home. Certainly the practical aspect of that will vary for each person, but in general the I believe that God desires women to be fruitful and productive in their homes.

So again, the question is not whether God will let us use our gifts in a career, but rather, where God would be glorified and where HE desires for us to use them. Titus two commands the women to do specific things for a reason, “so that the Word of God will not be maligned.” God’s Word can be slandered if we choose to not obey!

I have many more thoughts rushing through my head but not the time to write them. Perhaps I will be able to add more later...
In Christ Alone,
Allison

Moriah said...

Right on Caleb, Katie, and Allison!

Pastor Patrick said...

Hello Moriah,

I am the dad of the other Moriah (The Preachers Daughter). First of all I would like to thank you for your wise and biblical critique of feminism. Keep up the courage of your convictions. Don’t waiver in the face of criticism. Also your Eowyn and Arwen comparison not only made me smile but also appreciate your literary analysis. Well done.

Second, I would like to extend my appreciation to Caleb. Your biblical analysis and rebuttal of WildyParenthetical is indeed accurate. It is good to see a young man so apt to teach and exhort. Keep up the good work. Also Katie, and Allison’s comments are quite helpful in this discussion.

Finally I would like to add just a word or two to the exchange if I may. One of the most important passages that directly addresses the issue has yet to be brought up, Titus 2:3-5. This passage gives instruction to the older women as to what they should teach the younger women so that they will live in a godly manner. Paul says to Titus “They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.” The word reviled here in the ESV is translated blaspheme in the KJV and NKJV and dishonor in the NASB. So for a young married woman to live in accordance with scripture she must work in the home and raise their children all the while being submissive to her husband. It really could not be clearer. In fact it is blasphemous to live otherwise, according to this passage.
This would not preclude working from within the home though. Let me explain. My wife has a passion for sewing. She made a wedding dress for a young woman in our church from an old dress she found at the thrift store. It turned out beautiful. So she decided to set up an edsy (?) shop and make more and sell them. All of this is done in the context of the home and does not take away from he kids being homeschooled, the keeping of the home, or taking care of me ;-). So she is faithfully being a godly and consistent woman. This is God’s design. We attempt to usurp God’s sovereignty when we begin to qualify away the God intended roles for men and women. We become man (or in this case woman) centered. God created us so I am confident He knows how to direct us in how we should live.
Well I could go on, I am a preacher after all, but I will leave you with this. The Bible is the standard for everything that pertains to life and godliness. To stray from scripture or to try to justify a cultural norm with scripture is to wander into all things shallow, worldly, and ultimately sinful. If we are to give God glory and praise His name in all that we do then we ought to go to His revelation and allow Him to govern our lives and not we ourselves.

Caleb said...

Thank you for your encouragement, Pastor Patrick. :)

Moriah said...

Yes, thank you for your encouragemnet, Pastor Patrick! I'm very blessed to have good friends that help me out! Also, thank you for reminding me of that verse I totally forgot! :)

wildlyparenthetical said...

PART 1

Well, what a pile-on! Anyone would think I was doing something other than asking a fairly innocuous question! Obviously I can't respond to everyone, but a few points might be helpful...

First of all, Caleb said: "God has designed the woman as the weaker vessel, and therefore there are some things that are not her job to do. If you believe the Bible, then you must believe that because God said it."

I believe you're referring to 1 Peter 3, which is actually a direction about how men should treat their wives. There's nothing in that chapter about there being things women ought not to do. It's basically exhorting men to be nice to their womenfolk. Which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

Second, from Caleb as well: "If you do believe that women should have equal ROLES in social, political, and all other areas then you ARE feminist. In reality, equal rights are not the issue, for we all have the right to do things that we should not. Its a question of roles. Men and women have two completely different roles. God has given men the task of leading women in love, and He has given women the task of following men who lead in love. Women should not do a man's job. A woman is not to be a leader over a man, and that is how God designed it." and then later "On the contrary, all people of both genders are valued equally in God's eyes."

Actually, I think you'll find that that definition from Dictionary.com is accurate. You're trying to say, I think, that actually we do have equal rights, and are equal in God's eyes. Which is feminist. Then you claim that actually feminism wants 'equal ROLES'. So you're redefining feminism so that it doesn't clash with your perspective (and redefining it in such a way as to make it unfamiliar to a fair few feminists, for the record). As for women not being leaders over men, well, let's talk about Deborah again. The interesting thing, if you actually go back and read about Deborah, is that nowhere in her story does it say anything that suggests that her being a judge and a leader of her people is a negative thing ('a judgement on them'). Yes, she wants men to come along with her in her military action, and given that her job was to be a judge and not a general, that's not altogether unsurprising: I'd want to have the best person for the job at my back, too. In fact, the verse doesn't say it's dishonourable for her to win the battle, or that it's a judgement on her peoples, but that Barak's being shown up as a coward because a woman - a woman whose job it was to judge, not to lead an army - will be the one who will win the day because it's God's will that she should. That's quite a different thing to claiming it's a judgement on her peoples. And besides which, she is still called to be a military leader. The fact that she'd prefer someone else do the job doesn't change it. But in the end, I don't see how this is "not relevant to the feminism debate". God *called* her. A woman. To be a judge, and then to take part in a military action. Just as he called Jael to hammer a tent peg through Sisera's temple. This is all seen to be God's doing, as the end of the chapter makes clear. So obviously these 'unfeminine' tasks were sufficiently feminine for God to call women to do them. So clearly when Allison says "Any “calling” for a woman must be directed towards the home," she's not taking these verses into account. In fact, whilst we might admire the woman in Proverbs 31 - and why wouldn't we? she sounds amazing! - that's no reason to assume that her behaviour is the only or the best way to 'glorify God'. The other women in the Bible make that clear. In fact, Jesus defends Mary Magdalene for not engaging in housework, and prioritising the time she spent with him, so...

wildlyparenthetical said...

PART 2

I was using Deborah to basically ask Moriah whether she would support one of her sisters in Christ if she was called to do as Deborah was, to make judgements and maintain peace, because it would seem to me that according to her original post, she wouldn't. In that case, if someone was called like Deborah was now, she would have to face the disapproval and condemnation of her sisters. And in the end, those who stood against her would be countering God's will because they arrogantly assumed that they knew better than God and the called woman what God's will was. It's just as well Deborah was a determined woman, isn't it? Could it possibly be that God made his vessel that way?

Allison says: "You may have a desire to learn a certain thing, but I must state that God will not call women to do anything out of His revelation in Scripture. This means if a lady believes that God has given her a calling to be a pastor, I would say it is not from God, because 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids it." And Caleb says pretty much the same thing: " A woman is not to be a leader over a man, and that is how God designed it. This is not my opinion, it is scripture, and not just my interpretation, just the plain meaning," well, I think you'll find that the verse I think you're referring to (1 Timothy 2 11-12) is one of the most contentious as far as translation goes. The word 'authentein' is usually translated as 'authority', and used to say that women ought not 'have authority over a man'. Yet for the most part, Paul uses another word when he means authority, in the sense of leadership and guidance: exousia. And in fact in early translations, 'authentein' is translated as 'dominate', or to denote criminal activity, even to kill. The idea that women ought not to dominate or do violence to men is not at all out of line with feminist thinking, which seeks for a non-violent and equal life for all... And so it's pretty telling, I think, that the King James version (which comes pretty late in the peace, really) originated a meaning that has then been used to claim a whole range of things, including that women can't exercise authority within the Church. What I mean by this is that it's a recent interpretation that suggests that women can't be pastors in the church, and it's on the back of one of the more questionable translations in the Bible.

"God will not call a woman to do a man's job PERIOD. Why? Think about this logically! If God designed things in a way that men have different roles than women and vice versa, then why would He call a woman to do a man's job since it is HIS OWN plan? This statement has no valid logical point." And then later, "God will not violate His own will, and where do we know His will? By some individual revelation to a person? Yes, BUT, only if that lines up with what scripture says. If we receive any calling or spirit or knowledge of God's will and we think it is right and good, but it does not line up with scripture, we know it is wrong."

I'm not really sure what this means. Deborah was called to do what you're calling a 'man's job': to be a judge. It's in 'scripture'. So it's already pretty clear that whatever assumptions you're making about the 'proper roles' for women, God really doesn't share them. And this goes for all those who have suggested that God wouldn't call a woman to do anything but work within the home: God never says anywhere that that's the only place a woman should be (in fact, Proverbs 31 has the woman 'bringing food from afar' and that she engages in trade outside the home, which implies that she doesn't work in the home, even if she does take care of it), and nor does He imply that 'doing a man's job' (whatever that is meant to mean) is actually wrong. Deborah shows that, and Jael shows that, when they become God's vessels. Similarly, Esther demonstrates, you're right, that you don't actually need to be a mum to be a significant and feminine figure and to do God's will and save your people.

wildlyparenthetical said...

PART 3

Allison says "So instead of asking about God calling women to work, why don't we ask ourselves where God will be most glorified?" Sure, we can do that. But God makes clear where he'd be most glorified in his calling to people. So... perhaps we should respect that?

"As to women working, there is not place in Scripture that advises or commands women to work." I think you'll find there's no place in Scripture that advises or commands *men* to work. So why does it only matter with women? Similarly, do we examine the Bible to find the most honoured men in it, and then refuse to allow men to do any jobs except those? Of course not! So why are all women supposed to only be called to work in the home, when there's a fair diversity amongst the jobs done by women in the Bible, and many outside the home? In fact, many of the jobs done by men in the Bible no longer exist, and a whole lot of new ones do. Why are only men allowed to be called to these vocations? Why have their career options broadened since the days of the Bible, but women's haven't?

Finally, to turn to Pastor Patrick, who asks us to look at Titus. Well, let's look very closely at Titus. "Working at home" seems to be the key phrase you're wanting us to attend to here. Yet there is quite a variety of translations of this particular phrase. For contrast, let's take the one from the original Greek, which asks women to "guardians of the house". That could mean a whole range of activities, none of which require women to never or rarely leave the home to be properly Godly, as you seem to be suggesting! And once again, I feel I have to point out that God has called many women to a diversity of tasks, some of which you are implying are unGodly. This is what I mean by cherry-picking the text: you are selecting one verse and claiming not only that it matters more for this particular issue than any other verse in the Bible, but that it has the power to counter, say, the lessons given us in the story of Deborah. And when we then use this selective reading of the Bible to condemn those women whom God has called to tasks that surprise or even shock us, we're setting ourselves above His will. In fact, I would suggest that we're doing exactly what Pastor Patrick said we ought not to do: we're trying "to justify a cultural norm with scripture."

I'm not going to post anymore comments here, because it's pretty clear that they'll only go on getting longer and longer and it's time-consuming to do this. I wanted to thank Moriah for her hospitality at having me on her blog. I posted this comment and those preceding it only because I want to demonstrate to Moriah and the other young women visiting this site that we need to be careful about judging whether or not other people are called by God, because it is, after all, only they who are called. We especially need to be careful because it's very easy for people to claim that God believes something that they wish He did, and then use that to condemn people they dislike or disapprove of, and to prevent women from living out their calling. Yet as I've shown, this claim to the authority of 'scripture' is a far more complicated matter than it might seem from going to church and listening to sermons: what the Bible has to say about men and women is clearly far from settled, due to a whole variety of things, including translation, interpretation and of course, cherry-picking so that only a single perspective appears legitimate. I know this, because I am the daughter of a priest and an internationally-reknown Biblical scholar (so I, too, could go on, Pastor Patrick) and I don't like people using their narrow understanding of the Bible to control other people's lives. And as a final hint in that direction, I would recommend that the young women visiting this site check up on what the word translated in the contemporary Bible as 'virgin' actually meant at the time the Bible was written, because it is not what you have been taught.

Pastor Patrick said...

wildlyparenthetical has brought up some points that I would like to address. I will only comment, as much as can, on that which is directed at me. There will be some overlap due to the topic of discussion.

Well to throw Greek around certainly might impress some but I am not one. The word that you are seeking to translate into English by the word guardian is actually the word “oikourgous” witch would be accurately translated by “worker in the home” so actually the version I quoted from, ESV, is quite accurate.

“That could mean a whole range of activities, none of which require women to never or rarely leave the home to be properly Godly, as you seem to be suggesting!” When you said this I must admit my confusion. Where in what I said did you get the idea that a women could never or rarely leave the home? The point of the discussion is proper God designed roles. The passage in Titus clearly defines the role of a wife with children. She is to be a homemaker, to do otherwise would bring reproach on the Word of God. Your ambiguous “whole range of activities” leaves one to wonder just what are you getting at? What does the “calling from God” you are trying so hard to defend mean?

You claim that I am cherry-picking this text and not accounting for Deborah. Two things here. First, as “daughter of a priest and an internationally-reknown Biblical scholar” then I would expect you to have been taught by your father that one of the rules of hermeneutics is that the didactic portions of scripture interpret the narrative portions. So yes this passage along with others (1 Timothy 5:10, 14, Col 3:18, Eph 5:22-24 cp/w Proverbs 7:11) has the power to “counter” the story of Deborah. Actually interpret the story is a better way to say it. That is why we can say that she should not have been in the position that she was. God does not contradict Himself. You do believe that don’t you? Secondly, you are the one making Deborah some kind of standard and example to follow. She is an obscure person in a part of the Bible that says of itself “everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” Is that really the book we ought to be going to for our feminist role models? I think not. Yes for a time God did use Deborah. God has used many people for accomplishing His ends. This does not mean that they are to be our role models in life. God used the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 to conquer His own people to punish them for their sins. We ought not to follow their example in anything. But how about someone a little more acceptable, David. He was the man after God’s own heart after all. Yet we find in this man who without a doubt loved God was also a man of bloodshed, immorality, lies, and murder. This is why we have passages like the 10 Commandments, and the epistles to teach us God’s designed principles on how we can be godly. We can’t just look to a narrative and assume that God was accepting of what was going on, even if the text does not say He was displeased.

I would like to say at the end here that you are doing the very thing that you accuse us of, namely “We especially need to be careful because it's very easy for people to claim that God believes something that they wish He did, and then use that to condemn people they dislike or disapprove of, and to prevent women from living out their calling.” A woman’s calling is clearly defined in scripture. You might not like it but you are the one who in this case is being judgmental. The subjective “calling” on a woman’s life must be checked in light of God’s revealed word. If that calling is inconsistent with the Bible as a whole then it must be rejected.

Miss jane said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hannah King said...

Hi! I love this blog, you look like you are very similiar to me :D As for feminity, I totally agree that woman should not try to be what they are not. Because God made them special just the way they are, and they have special gifts, that don't come out so well when they try to hide as men. I would like to ask you though; as for the Eowyn vs. Arwen thing; Have you read the books of the Lord of the Rings movies? Because although in the movies, Eowyn is played up as a feminest, in the book, she has a heart change, and it is truly beautiful. That is why I like Eowyn better then Arwen, because I know the whole story. I just thought I would recommend that you read those books; they are wonderful, and the continuing story with Eowyn is so beautiful; I learned a lot from it :D

Great blog!

God Bless,

Hannah

Anonymous said...

You are a Bigot and if you truly believed in what Jesus stood for, you would believe in equality for all people. Feminism is just that- equality. If you can't believe in something as simple as equality, you have no idea what spirituality is. If you continue to oppress women you will go to hell or whatever you believe in.

 
Designed by Lena