The Pleasure of Patriarchy, part five
Wed, 2010-04-28 12:33 — Anne Jones
Last month, I suggested that, as we battle the false teaching of feminism that pervades our daily lives, we need to take pleasure in godly femininity. Now, in order to find this godly pleasure, let’s investigate what pleasure is and how to pursue it. And before we can rightly see what it is, we’ll have to look carefully at the false view of pleasure held by our contemporary culture...
Recently, a woman who calls herself Amaranth illustrated the common understanding of pleasure as she responded to the first post in this series. She wrote in part:
“I don't believe there is anything deadening or demeaning in housework and raising children if that is truly where a woman's heart is. …I personally find housework to be boring and mindless …. I believe that God made me a writer and an artist first, and a homemaker/wife/mother second...and if my husband suggested that I give up the first to devote myself to the second, he would be doing me a grave injustice. He is not God, he is not my father, and I am not incapable of discerning what God wants for my life. … If a woman's heart is in the home, then that's where she needs to be. If a woman's heart is in a career, or out on the mission field, then that's where she needs to be” (emphasis hers).
Here our commenter points to the common understanding of how to find pleasure, beginning with rule number one: Follow your heart.
Do you notice the reasoning here? Do you see how she does not mind others being housewives (though she personally finds the work to be boring and mindless), provided they have made this decision according to the primary authority in their lives, their own heart? And do you see how, once she offers this conditional approbation, she then expects the same from others: “You follow your heart and I will follow mine, and as long as you don’t speak ill of me, I won’t speak ill of you (even though your crazy heart directs you to something that I personally find mindless and boring; but, as they say, ‘to each his own’).” Do you see how this worldview separates rather than unites? How it separates individuals who happen to share family, neighborhood, church, or blogs, into atomized creatures? Each one floats around in his own morality bubble, never touching or interacting, except to wave from a distance, and say, “Glad you have your own bubble there as you follow your heart!”
And what really is the heart? Scripture tells us that it is our will, thoughts, and feelings rolled into one. Contrary to our Romanticism-run-amok era, Scripture testifies that the heart is utterly unreliable as a guiding principal. We read in Jeremiah that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked”; but humanism and feminism announce that the heart is dependable above all things and exclusively trustworthy. Jesus declares, “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies; these are the things which defile a man”; but the secular spirit, even if it claims to be following Christ, declares that out of the heart proceed good intentions, good deeds, and excellent directives.
This worldview is one that opposes external structures of authority because it is so intent on following the imperatives of internal authority. In this perverted worldview, the God-given authority of Scripture, church, father, and husband is replaced by the authority of one’s own will, mind, and feelings. Amaranth says that she would balk if her husband suggested that she subordinate her art and writing to her children and home, because her husband is not God or her father. However, it seems very unlikely that she has habitually submitted her will to either God or her father, based on her own explanation of why she would refuse to submit to her husband: “I am not incapable of discerning what God wants for my life.” And here she lays out the modern ideal of self-governed ambitions. All truth in the modern age is individualistic truth, discernable through the individual psyche, for the individual’s good. Then, to crown our personal will with divine approbation, we speak of “discerning God’s will for our life,” even as we reject the authority He has placed over us. With this worldview, we set our own course and follow it to “happiness.”
So, does this lead to pleasure? Possibly. But does it lead to godly pleasure? Absolutely not. The road to godly pleasure is built of the cobblestones of selflessness, sacrifice, and—most especially—submission. The more I fall in love with the idea of submission, the more godly pleasure I experience. When I read through the gospel of John, and listen to Jesus speaking words of submission to His Father, I rejoice in His example. Jesus Christ, He through Whom all things were created, humbles Himself by submitting to the will of God the Father. May I, and Amaranth, and any who read this post, be humbled by His example and repent of the pride in our hearts that causes us to disdain and loathe submission. And may God be pleased with our repentance and give us the gift of joy and pleasure as we serve Him and bow low under the protective authority of Scripture, church, father, and husband.
Comments
Anne, I just finished reading
Anne,
I just finished reading C.S. Lewis's "That Hideous Strength". I am sure you have read it and, if you recall Jane Studdock's first encounter with the Director, where she begins to learn about submission and obedience -- you can see it is this first step which begins to transform her life, her attitude, and her heart. In the concluding scene of the book, she finally finds true joy, godly pleasure in that which she formerly despised.
Kamilla
I meant to comment about a
I meant to comment about a month ago...but am apparently about a month behind in life right now!
To Anne, thank you, for so lovingly challenging one of our culture's most accepted ideologies. This post was both encouraging and convicting.
To Amaranth, if you happen to be reading this - your comments inspired me to share some thoughts. Indulge me, if you will...
The patriarchal structure endorsed by many Christians can be difficult to swallow, yes. One thing that Anne is pointing out through her entries, however, is that Biblical patriarchy is so different than society's idea of patriarchy. This is not a husband barking "make dinner, woman!" as the wife quietly trudges to the kitchen. This is a man who will lay his life down for his wife and family - and that doesn't just mean taking a bullet for them. That means laying down his wishes and dreams. It means taking the hard job of protecting his family physically and guarding them spiritually - not because he believes his wife is incompetent, but because he loves her. Maybe women are suspicious of patriarchy because so many men would abuse their leadership, treating her like a child or a servant.
God calls men to take responsibility for the state of their marriages. As women, our natural tendency is to nurture relationships. Often, we exhaust ourselves working for a relationship while our partner focuses on other things, and end up becoming burnt out and embittered. What woman would have a problem with her husband taking responsibility for the state of the relationship? Instead of withdrawing at the first sign of conflict, committing to resolve it? God calls us to go against our nature - and that is why it is so difficult for men to lead, and women to submit. I believe that most women desire to have the last word, and have control over others. (Just by observing little girls - they all go through a monstrously bossy phase!) We must deny our human nature in so many ways (like loving our enemies!) - would we expect His calling of submission to feel natural? We are also wary of submission because it feels like God thinks we're just not as smart, talented, or capable as men. But the words of Jesus clearly show that He expects women to be strong, wise and discerning. The words of Proverbs show that women are expected to excel in many areas. Many passages in the Bible state that humility is a blessing . In the seemingly backwards kingdom of God, submission=victory. We may feel the opposite way, but feelings and reality are not always the same.
Along with the idea of following one's heart...I think women often object to "wasting their gifts" on motherhood and homemaking, because they could be out there "really making a difference" to society. The best way I can counter this argument is to use an example from my own life.
When I was growing up, my mom was always there, from the time I came home from school, until I went to bed. I liked this until I was a snot-faced teenager, and then I hated it. She was even there waiting when I came home from a party, a friend's house, a dance. Worst of all - she wanted to talk with me and ask me questions! I probably made this a most unpleasant experience for her. She is immensely talented in music and writing, and surely could have been making an impact as an artist somewhere else, rather than dealing with an unappreciative snob.
But I can't tell you where I would be if she had not forced an honest relationship on her teenage daughter. I have an idea though: most likely I'd be a single mother on welfare, embittered towards men, blaming the rest of the world for my messes. I thank God that my mom had the wisdom to know what an enormous impact she made on society by raising up human beings. This is not to say that women should blot their artistic/mathematical/scientific/literary talents out of their lives as they raise children (all of those abilities have endless applications outside of the workforce). But it does say that following one's heart out into the career field doesn't always lead to real or lasting impact, the way caring for one's family does.
Sorry this was so long!
Thank you again, Anne, for
Thank you again, Anne, for taking the time to address some of the issues I brought up previously. Kristen, your words actually remind me of a book our small group studied: Love & Respect, by Dr. Emerson Eggerichs. It doesn't espouse biblical patriarchy in so many words, but it does talk about the different ways that husbands and wives relate to each other, and I specifically remember the part about men laying down their lives for their wives and families. The book had some very good things to say...I'd recommend it to anyone here.
Here are some thoughts I've had on the post overall:
"Maybe women are suspicious of patriarchy because so many men would abuse their leadership, treating her like a child or a servant."
http://www.reformedsingles.com/not-where-she-should-be-douglas-wilson
It's not a maybe. The above was written by a theologian and a leader within the Christian community, and I'll be honest, the attitude of this man frightens me. This man writes books. The method he puts forth here for "training" a wife is similar to how I'd imagine most people would train their dogs. Is this Biblical patriarchy in practice? If it is, I'm not at all surprised that women are wary of it. If it's not...why is the larger Christian community not calling him out on his error?
"Do you notice the reasoning here? Do you see how she does not mind others being housewives (though she personally finds the work to be boring and mindless), provided they have made this decision according to the primary authority in their lives, their own heart? And do you see how, once she offers this conditional approbation, she then expects the same from others: “You follow your heart and I will follow mine, and as long as you don’t speak ill of me, I won’t speak ill of you (even though your crazy heart directs you to something that I personally find mindless and boring; but, as they say, ‘to each his own’).” Do you see how this worldview separates rather than unites? How it separates individuals who happen to share family, neighborhood, church, or blogs, into atomized creatures?"
I don't mind others being housewives in the same way I don't mind my husband liking Apple computers, or my mother enjoying photography. Those aren't things I have a particular interest in. I have a friend whose "crazy heart" led her to go to school in Hong Kong for a year, something I can't imagine ever wanting to do. Everyone has different interests, talents, and dreams...even those who share family, neighborhood, church, and blogs. Is that bad? Why would I want to speak ill of someone else's interests because they differ from mine? And yes, I would expect them to pay me the same courtesy, and not speak ill of my interests, even if those things don't interest them.
"Each one floats around in his own morality bubble, never touching or interacting, except to wave from a distance, and say, “Glad you have your own bubble there as you follow your heart!”
I don't think this is an issue of morality. If the interest in question was gambling or something...yeah, that might be a moral issue, and the larger community would have an interest in changing that person's mind. But people having different things they enjoy doing is not going to isolate them...in fact, that's part of what makes meeting people so fascinating. They're different! What they want to do with their lives is different from what I want to do with mine, and not only is that okay, it gives us something to talk about. I'm not going to walk up and tell someone what I think they should be doing with their life unless what they are doing is destructive.
And I guess that's where the proponents of patriarchy differ from the rest of the world: they believe that if a women is doing anything outside of the home or outside of the authority of a male, then that is destructive behavior. Personally, I haven't seen direct evidence of that, but that's why the topic continues to interest me.
"This worldview is one that opposes external structures of authority because it is so intent on following the imperatives of internal authority. In this perverted worldview, the God-given authority of Scripture, church, father, and husband is replaced by the authority of one’s own will, mind, and feelings."
The thing is, in a patriarchal society, that list of authorities is shorter for a man than it is for a woman. Not only must she answer to God, the scriptures, and the church, but she's also subject to the authority of her father, her husband, and any other male figures in her life. And no matter how one tiptoes around the subject, that is not equality. Why does a women require more sources of absolute authority in her life, unless she is somehow less adequate and less trustworthy than a man? If a supervisor at a business starts keeping an extra special watch on a certain employee, wouldn't most people infer that the supervisor does not trust that employee for some reason? Why else would the extra scrutiny be necessary?
A man has authority over certain things. A woman has authority over certain other things, but only as long as her husband/father/brother/pastor chooses to allow her this authority. This is not equality...no more than "separate but equal" water fountains for whites and blacks was "equality".
http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/01/27/the-god-card-subordinate-but-equal/
"However, it seems very unlikely that she has habitually submitted her will to either God or her father, based on her own explanation of why she would refuse to submit to her husband: “I am not incapable of discerning what God wants for my life.” And here she lays out the modern ideal of self-governed ambitions."
I believe God gives us certain talents and gifts because he wants us to use them. Therefore, I believe that he gave me the ability to draw and write well because he wants me to do those things. Why would he gift me for certain activities and then demand that I spend all my time doing something else? That's what I mean when I say I'm not incapable of discerning God's will for my life. Now, if both my father and my husband disagreed with me on that point, thought I should be doing something else, then I would listen and perhaps rethink where I was coming from. But I would do that not because they are men, but because I love them, and I value and respect their opinions. People that love each other submit to one another because each values the other above anything else.
I don't object to a woman submitting to her husband out of love; I believe that love, when acted upon, automatically encourages people to do just that. I think that the husband's call to lay down his life for his wife is a different type of submission, one that also stems from love.
I do object to a man holding the ultimate veto power over a woman's decisions just because he was born with different plumbing, as it were. Marriage ought to be like a team of oxen pulling a plow, not a President dictating to a Vice President and being solely responsible if the VP screws up. That works in business, but it can quickly turn into manipulation when applied to people you love.
People are imperfect. That's why even (good) monarchies have checks and balances on the monarch's authority...because absolute power can corrupt even the best-intentioned person. Yes, a good man will listen to his wife and consider her opinions, but under patriarchal rule, he doesn't have to. Patriarchy only frees the women if the men are good men. Patriarchy puts women at the mercy of a man's virtue...heaven help the women and children in a family where the "head" is suspicious, a perfectionist, a micro-manager, or prone to abuse. It happens. And patriarchy as a system has few safeguards in place to prevent it.
Ashley (Amaranth) There are
Ashley (Amaranth)
There are so many things that I want to say after reading your post that I'm not sure where to start.
You said:
"But people having different things they enjoy doing is not going to isolate them...in fact, that's part of what makes meeting people so fascinating."
I agree, differences make people interesting. It would be boring if we all were exactly the same. But there should be commonalities. God has given for women to be at home, raise and nurture children, keep the house and be a helper to our husbands. These things should be the same for all married women, because God has commanded it. Does this take away individuality? NO. I can't think of two women that I know who have all the exact same interests. They read different books, take their kids to different places, some paint, some write, some teach, some practice medicine, the list is endless. The difference is that they all use their gifts to God's glory, to serve their husbands, children and and body of Christ. Their impact is huge to the people around them.
You asked:
"Why does a women require more sources of absolute authority in her life, unless she is somehow less adequate and less trustworthy than a man? If a supervisor at a business starts keeping an extra special watch on a certain employee, wouldn't most people infer that the supervisor does not trust that employee for some reason? Why else would the extra scrutiny be necessary?"
It isn't really a question of Equality. Marriage is really just a picture of Christ and his church. Christ died for us (the church) and we are to obey and submit to him. The picture appears again and again. God and Christ are both God and yet Christ Submits to the father. Is Christ then less God. NO, he merely serves a different role. The wife is the weaker vessel, she depends on the husband for protection, guidance and love, just as the church depends on Christ. That doesn't mean that the wife is less in God's eyes, she just serves a different role in the beautiful picture that God has made for us to follow.
Lastly you mentioned the article by Doug Wilson. I have to say that I agreed with everything that it said. It seemed to me that he was telling the husband to be gentle, loving and to take the blame for the problems on himself. Like I previously stated, the husband is to guide the wife, he is Christ in the picture and we are the church. If we as wives go astray who is to help us back but our husbands? I say I agree with this, but sin always enters the picture. As women we always want to be the one that is leading, and it has been that way since Eve. So there is always pride that is brought up by such articles, because we believe that we don't really need correction, and by golly if we do we can certainly handle it ourselves.
That isn't the way God has set it up though. We must humble our pride and be willing to be led by men who sometimes make mistakes. We have to trust that God has a plan and knows what is best for us. He is the potter and we are the clay. Why not trust and obey God? For when we fully trust and obey, many blessings follow.
Except that if one reads
Except that if one reads Genesis carefully, God didn't set it up that way. Patriarchy is a result of the fall, and NOT God's "perfect plan" for the world.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 "So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Let them rule. THEM. Together. God didn't say that MAN was to rule and WOMAN was to submit. He wanted them in an equal partnership. That was God's plan for men and women: to rule together, in submission to EACH OTHER. Ephesians 5:21: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."
And yes, I know that verse goes on. The author creates an extended metaphor between the Christ/church and husband/wife relationship.
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
End of extended metaphor. The next verse illustrates is the reason why I do not believe the author ever intended for Christians to take this metaphor literally:
32 "This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church."
All of a sudden the author realizes that he's getting a little off topic. He realizes he needs to clarify to his audience exactly what he was talking about, and the point he was making. He was using an illustrative example of the sacrificial love Christ has for his church- but verse 32 is there so that well-meaning Christian couples WOULD NOT interpret the metaphor as an instruction manual on proper marital relationships. In fact, the author even summed up exactly what he wanted his audience to take away from the message:
33 "However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."
There's the point of the metaphor: love and respect. The passage begins with "submit to one another" and ends with "husbands, loves your wives as yourself, and wives, respect your husbands."
The author was NOT trying to say: "Men, be Christ to your wives. Women, be the church to your husbands." That would asking half the Christian population to play God to the other half. That is idolatry.
I'm not taking the scripture out of its context. It's all right there in the passage. I'm just reading the words on the page, and using basic reading comprehension to interpret what the author is trying to say. The Bible is written with words, and sometimes it's easy to miss the safeguards in certain passages to keep people from misinterpreting and misapplying those words.
Anyway, my point was if Christ's entire purpose was to reestablish the broken relationship humanity has with God, how can clinging to a vestige of the Fall possibility facilitate that? How can men setting themselves up as gods in their own households teach them to be humble men of Christ? How can the husband play God to his wife without making her into an idolater? How is a woman to truly form a relationship with Christ if that relationship must be filtered through the person of her imperfect husband?
Just because a particular practice is recorded in Scripture, does not mean that it bears God's stamp of approval. Slavery being a prime example. Legalism. Violence. That was the fallen world the writers of the Bible lived in, and they recorded it accurately. That doesn't mean God intended for it to be that way.
"If we as wives go astray who is to help us back but our husbands?"
And if they as husbands go astray, who is to help them back but their wives? Oh wait, how could a WOMAN possibly know when a MAN has gone astray? Sorry for the sarcasm, but I still can't wrap my head around God wanting only half his people to be accountable to the other half. I'm pretty sure he wanted ALL Christians to be accountable to each other.
"Lastly you mentioned the article by Doug Wilson. I have to say that I agreed with everything that it said. It seemed to me that he was telling the husband to be gentle, loving and to take the blame for the problems on himself."
And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. The man depicted in that article was treating his wife like a child or a dog. (And over dishes, for pity's sake!) His "taking the blame for the problems himself" is an extremely manipulative device to get his wife to do what he wants. He is using her love for him as a form of guilt; worse, he is using her love for God against her. This is the same sick, dysfunctional method that abusive people use to get what they want and blame their abuses on the victim. "But honey, if you had just done what I wanted in the first place, I wouldn't have had to "chastise" you. So it's really all your fault. And now I have to take responsibility for it."
The ironic part is that such a plea from a man would never work on a truly rebellious woman. She wouldn't care. But the well-meaning woman, the earnest woman who is truly, truly trying to please God and her husband, as best she can? Can you imagine her agony, having the man she loves tell her this? Can you imagine how a life of this would convince her that she's never good enough, that Christ's love ISN'T enough, that every spiritual problem or sin in the marriage is HER FAULT, how she's burdening her husband, how her "rebellious spirit" is ruining everything because she just can't, just CAN'T, be the perfect wife? Do you see how easily such an attitude could destroy a well-meaning woman's soul! The man has forged her love for him, her love for God, and her earnest desire to please them both into a blade, and patriarchy gives him the right...nay, the RESPONSIBILITY, to plunge that blade into her heart every single time she screws up. My soul weeps, knowing that well-meaning men are commanded to do this to their life-partners in the name of Christ.
Is this how God commands men to treat their fellow sisters in the Body of Christ...as immature children in need of "loving correction"? Where is the Scripture to back THAT up?
Hi! I just wanted to make a
Hi! I just wanted to make a few comments about the artist. I am an artist and when my son was four I was taking art lessons at the community club. What I did was bring my son with me and set him up with watercolors, lots of paper and he painted away with me. Later on when he was in school, the Christmas toys were all war orientated and I didn't want he to learn the concepts that go with that so we bought him a big art kit, made a little studio and set him up a place to paint. Later, has he got older he joined 4-H and the kids wanted to learn art, so his friends and others evoled into art classes. In high school, he started doing portraiture and did well. He joined a Christian Drama Group after graduating from high school. In University he majored in film and now has produced his first film. The point is, don't exclude your children from learning whatever is your particular gift. I was fortunate that he loved art so everything worked out ok.
There is a wonderful book about artistic gifting written by Edith Schaeffer, called "The Hidden Art." It is a good foundation for any mother to follow is raising your children. She had some wonderful ideas and in the beginning of the book she talks about God being the Master Artist. It was very helpful to me at the time. Teach your children about the things you love. The Canadian artist Emily Carr, tells this little story, She was living in a rooming house in Paris, France and her landlady was always complaining that she always wanted to be an artist, but she had kids to raise and she saw them as detrimental to her dream. Emily, said, it was a great pity, because the woman did not realize that to teach her children proper values and life style was in and of itself, a great work of art.
Whatever, gifts you have it is important to pass them along. My aunt taught me the family history along with the acts of God in her family and family life, she taught me the importance of spiritual and Biblical history and she taught and exposed me to the world of the arts. And it meant alot to pass it on to the next generation. The gifts God gives you are not just for you and you alone.
Post new comment