Karen,
I appreciate your email. I also respect your opinion. There are a few things I'd like to respond to if you don't mind.
YOU SAID
For example, how can you say men and women are different and then tell women not to what you call "gossip" about their husbands? Does talking about your husband to your mother, sister, or best friend automatically make you a gossip? Perhaps in excess but certainly not by just consulting someone in conversation over a matter. What you said sounded very manipulative and controlling. I agree, spouses need to speak to each other about their problems. However, I see no problem in a woman taking care of her needs, especially the needs a husband cannot provide. That is why fellowsip is so important among Christian women.
Sin is sin. Gossip is sin clearly spoken of in scripture as such. It is not just a problem with women ONLY, but Proverbs indicates that it can be a common problem among women. By the same token, I speak with men about the sin of lust much more than with women. Everything you said about women needing the fellowship and friendship of other women is, of course, true... and I completely agree. I would never suggest to anyone, man or woman, that he or she should not have friendships of accountability and people to speak with about their problems. But there is a line that can be crossed where it can easily become gossip if we are not disciplined with our tongues.
YOU SAID
Why do you "blame" men for the feminist movement? Do you think it was just a movement that happened as a direct result of too much violent male dominance? Has there not been violence and oppression against women in other civilizations? Further, why would you blame yourself for a good thing? The "feminism" of the society was an issue of equality. Do you feel that women should not have the same equal rights as men?
I blame men for much of it because it would not have been necessary if women were given proper EQUAL treatment to begin with. I'm not sure I would agree that all aspects of the "feminist movement" are a good thing. I believe many women have been tricked by feminism which supposedly 'freed" them from the tyranny of men only to realize they are trapped in this new paradigm to compete with men. As a result, men are being confronted with the 'new woman" who is told they must pursue status, wealth and power. Women have fought for a certain respect that now means they have to fend for themselves. As a result, men have learned that they are able to pursue and seduce these women with no apparent responsibility or consequence. Instead of women being cherished, men are free from any commitment to the woman because women need to be able to take care of themselves. Therefore, I do not see all aspects of feminism to be a good thing. Hopefully you will see by the end of this email, however, that I fully agree in the EQUALITY aspects.
YOU SAID
...I do not see a problem with a husband seeing his wife as a partner and not a helper. Dominance is not equality.
I agree, dominance is not equality. And I have never suggested "dominance" in anything I have said. My guess is that your interpretation of words like "headship" and "helper" is one of dominance (meaning you see them in a negative light). I do not see it that way. And I do not think God intended these words to be negative when He used them in His Word. I have no problem with a husband seeing his wife as a partner AND a helper. Especially if those are the roles God gave her. God exists in three parts... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All are equal parts of the Trinity, yet play very distinct roles. It is interesting to me that the same word Jesus used to describe the Holy Spirit as "helper" is what is used by God to describe the wife of Adam. In the New Testament Paul continues this thread by exhorting husbands to imitate in their marriage Jesus' relationship to the church, his bride. If husbands are to treat wives like Jesus treats the church, and wives are to help their husbands like the Holy Spirit helps the church, then this is the most beautiful picture of equality you will ever see. Who would dare suggest that the Holy Spirit's role is "lesser" or "weaker" than the role of Jesus? Of course not. One is not "dominant" over the other. They are equally God, yet distinct in their roles.
YOU SAID
I can see why men think woman are complimentary. For women as their "helpers" is quite favorable for them. We are however compliments of each other.
Again, it is obvious your interpretation of "helper" is a negative one. Therefore you are assuming men interpret the complimentary relationship of "head" and "helper" as one of dominance and power. It just isn't so. Granted, there are some who unfortunately do interpret it this way. As a result, women revolt. And rightly so. But rather than continuing to react to bad teaching, I'd rather go back and try to see it properly, the way a loving God intended it to be seen. I don't suggest that I have perfect interpretation. But I do know that I don't interpret "complimentary" as a one-way street. I agree, we are compliments of each other.
"Complimentary" (IMO) means that men and women were both created in God's image and neither is better or worse. In God's design he created men and women to complement each other and as such created differing roles for men and women.
The tendency in many Christian circles today is to stress the equality of men and women by minimizing the uniqueness of manhood and womanhood. Part of the reason is because of the abuse and failure men have had in their role. As I have already suggested, as men failed, feminism took over. When truth is abused, a rival position (in this case, feminism) that lacks logically compelling power can take on psychological compelling power. It is this reason so many people choose to believe in their viewpoint but do so based on feelings not on what is communicated in scripture. Certainly you would not suggest that all aspects of the feminist movement are rooted in scripture?
YOU SAID
"Adam" was an "earthing being" until the sexes were made. There was no such thing as a woman or a man! Do you think when God said "It is not good for man to be alone" Genesis 2:18.. that He meant loneliness? Or perhaps God wanted "Adam" the sexless earthing to have reproductive capabilies? So the creation He made (humans) would be able to "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill and subdue the earth...Genesis 1:28?
This I will have to completely disagree with. I would like to see what Biblical hermeneutic you have used to try and suggest that Adam was not created as a man, but as some other earthly being with no sex characteristics. Even Paul says that "man was created first, then woman." No, I do not think that what God meant when he said "it is not good for man to be alone" was loneliness. Are you suggesting that the only reason God created woman (after creating the "sexless" Adam) was because he wanted him to have reproductive capabilities? That is not my understanding at all. I go back to the very nature in which God was creating man to begin with.
Are you married? If so, this passage should have great significance for you. Let me explain. When God said, "it is not good for man to be alone" perhaps it had to do with the whole nature and intention of how God created man in the first place. In Genesis 1:26 God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." The image of God is a community. We know Him as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. He is ONE God, but exists in the plural... thus the phrase "our image."
So it wasn't good enough for man alone to bear the full image of God. God knew this. By ourselves we cannot reflect His image. He is every perfect characteristic of a man, and every perfect characteristic of a woman. So he put man to sleep, and created his partner... woman. Now, God says, when these two are joined together as "one" (like God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit), you now have a better picture and understanding of the image of God.
What is marriage? IMO, in it's purest form it is to be the IMAGE OF GOD. As you know, the scriptures are filled with specific instruction for husbands and wives, and we most often are told to look to the example of the relationship between Jesus and the church to better understand how our marriages are supposed to look. But at one point in the book of Ephesians chapter 5, Paul says this after discussing husband and wife roles in a marriage, "This is a profound mystery -- but I am talking about Christ and the church." (verse 32). All along he been using marriage to illustrate Jesus' relationship to the church. He was saying that at any point in time and space a person ought to be able to look at a Christian marriage and SEE the GOSPEL. We are a walking, talking, living illustration of the great mystery of the Bible... the Gospel story... the story of God and His people.
So when a wedding ceremony takes place, there is really no greater human illustration for the work God has done through Jesus in His creation. I used to hate wedding ceremonies. I used to discourage couples from putting much into their wedding day ceremony. But now I have a different perspective. Now I understand that the wedding ceremony is perhaps the greatest opportunity for people to see Jesus, and to see what God has done for them. It's no wonder it was a week-long party in Jesus' day (he attended a wedding ceremony at the beginning of his ministry in John 2).
So what we celebrate together is something greater than a wedding of two people. Yes, it is that, and more. It is one more illustration of the love of God for humanity. The married couple is intended to be that illustration. Together, the biblically married coupleis the complete image of God.
Knowing that I interpret the marriage relationship this way, I am not sure how you can honestly believe that I view women in a lesser role than man. Different? Yes, in many ways. Also the same in many ways. But less equal? Of course not.
You have not offended me. I am not offended by people who find disagreement with me. I was a little taken back, perhaps, at the fact that a complete stranger had drawn a pretty serious conclusion about me. However, I am confident that if you lived near me and fellowshipped with us you would feel much differently. Relationship always has a way of helping you interpret a person's heart much easier. In fact, you might even be a little surprised to find that women have roles of leadership, teaching, etc... in our fellowship. There is nothing that a woman can't do.... except be a man. Likewise, the one thing that a man cannot do is be a woman. That's why they are so beautiful when they work together.
Your email has been stimulating. Feel free to pass along additional thoughts if you wish.
Chris
Chris,
What do you think man (ad'uhm) in our image, after our likeness... So God created man (ad'uhm) in his own image... means?
KJV - 26 And God said, Let us make man {Hebrew adam} in our image, after our likeness:... 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
NRSV - 26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind {Hebrew adam} in our image, according to our likeness;... " 27 So God created humankind {Hebrew adam} in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
NRSV - 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground 7 then the Lord God formed man {Hebrew adam} from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man {Hebrew adam} became a living being...
I find it interesting you have not replied to this statement. "...what about the people who are left handed? Did God not make them left handed? Are they less functional because they happen to write with their left hand? That is the problem with strict gender roles. There are many people who do not fall into your 'either role' distinctively?"
Karen
KAren
I'm not sure why you find that "interesting". Unless you are actively looking for things to indict me on. You had many questions, most of which I gave very lengthy explanations. To the question you asked below, I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with gender roles. I'm not understanding what you are trying to say. I do see that you continue to use the words "less functional" which continually indicates to me that you assume anyone who celebrates the "differences and distinctions" in gender roles must be looking at one as greater and the other as lesser. Of course a left-handed person is equally as gifted and functional as a right-handed person. That is a characteristic that helps make them uniquely who they are. Same is true for men and women. We both have characteristics that make us uniquely who we are.
I see that as GOOD. Not negative.
I was not dodging the question. I was just confused by it. The only thing I can figure out that you were trying to say is this... I have created a box for women (called right-handedness), but what about women who are born "left-handed"? The women who do not necessarily fit into the gender roles I have suggested God has given them.
If this is what you were saying, maybe you can give me some examples of what you are talking about that are specific to gender. Left-handedness and right-handedness are not gender-specific. But, for instance, some behaviors and emotions could be considered gender specific. Are you concerned that I have painted a broad-sweeping generalization and included all women in that, when some may not fit into it???
Please read this with all respect. I am not patronizing you. I am really trying to understand what you are thinking.
I think I see where you are coming from. I don't agree, but I see your point of view. I can respectfully agree to disagree.
Now, here is what I see in the Genesis account. In the description of the creation account in chapter 1 we find God's first word on the subject of men and women (verse 27)... they were both equally created in the image of God. Neither received more of the image of God than the other. So the Bible begins with the equality of the sexes. As persons, as human beings, as spiritual beings, standing before God, men and women are absolutely equal. I see a general description of the creation account, then a more specific one in chapter 2. This interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 is consistent with the author's description of all the other pieces of God's creation. First he tells us when God created what he created in chapter 1. Then in chapter 2, verse 4 says, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth as they were created." Now he gets more specific.
Despite the complete equality, the more detailed account of the creation of the two humans written in Genesis 2 shows some differences in their God-given responsibilities (the gender-specific roles). God did not create the man and woman spontaneously at the same time, but rather He created Adam first and Eve later for the specific purpose of being a helper to Adam. Though Eve was Adam's equal, she was given a role to fulfill in submitting to him. While the word "helper" carries very positive connotations, even being used of God Himself as the "helper" of Israel (Deut. 33:7, Ps. 33:20), it is still taken as an offensive word by many who are proponents of the feminist movement. Obviously you, yourself, have taken offense at the word, seeing it to mean "lesser significance". If you refuse to see that even God himself used this word to describe his character and role, then I don't know what will appease you.
Karen, I want to say something pretty pointed here. But please hear my heart. It has become obvious to me that you have bought into the feminist movement hook, line, and sinker and have come out on the other side thinking that unless a man says "you are equal" in every way they are trying to control you, put you down, etc. You have not been able to see (or at least have been unwilling to see) that I am placing women in a more esteemed role than even you are!!! GOD certainly places women in a more esteemed role than the feminist movement does. It is very possible that I may have more respect for you as a woman than you have for yourself. Otherwise you would not feel compelled to pick a fight with a complete stranger on the internet who actually goes out of his way to explain how wonderful women are in their distinctive nature from men.
One more thing. In a previous email I asked if you were married. If you are, you will certainly understand what I am about to say.
There are traits my wife has that are distinctly feminine that I wish I had. But I don't. So I am glad I have her. Likewise, my wife recognized traits in me, things that are clearly masculine that she does not have, and she is glad she has me.
Why is that have to be a negative thing?
Chris
Chris,
I am sorry you feel that way. Did I not say that I saw no point in arguing with you about this? I still view your comments as misogynistic.
Do you believe feminists are God's enemy? Perhaps it's some insecurity you have that makes you lash out at people with different points of views? I have gained so much freedom from my mother's generation and am very greatful and proud of their accomplishments thus far. Do you really know what feminism is? Have you looked into why they believe what they believe? Your responses show complete ignorance. I am not talking about radical feminists here.
Yes, you are right Chris I do take offense to the idea of a woman's role as a "helper". There is nothing honorable about having yourself controlled by someone else who is superior to you. Is a woman not her own person? What you say with the "helper" idea is that women were made by God for man and not for God. Why then should women pray to God? Shouldn't they not be praying to their man? Since he is the Christ of their life as you say?
And no, I am not married. I am in college.
Karen
Karen,
You have missed nearly everything I have said. I have had to repeat many of the same answers a number of times. Never have I "lashed" out at you because your point of view is different. I have actually done quite the opposite.
When you say you take offense at the use of the word "helper" you are not taking offense at me. You have told me much about your view of God. You are offended more by God than by me. Therefore I can no longer have this conversation with you because your issue is not primarily with me. I have been open-minded about your perspective. Openly telling you that I respectfully disagree. Your continually accusatory tone with me is evidence that you have become blinded by your convictions and have no ability to open your mind to something that could possibly be better. Which I do believe that my understanding of women is much better (FOR women's sake, not for my own) than the one you have chosen. You could poll any number of ladies in our fellowship who would undoubtedly agree. There is fear, combativeness, hardness, resistance, competitiveness, defensiveness, in your understanding. God did not create us to compete with one another. Women should not have to resort to that. I happen to believe he has much MORE for you. But as long as you refuse to trust Him and instead make your own way you will never experience that.
One thing I try to live by is the understanding that I have not arrived in anything, especially in doctrine and theology. I want to always remain teachable and open to new insights. But not ones that have to twist Scripture in such ways as you have in order to support a particular view.
I'm sorry, but this conversation appears to be over. You can have the last word if you'd like. But I will not respond. I will only pray. No, I will not be praying that you "see things my way". That has not been my goal in this conversation. As I said earlier, this has been a stimulating discussion. I do respect you. It isn't important that you agree with me or even believe that I respect you. But it is important for me to end this email by reminding you that I have spoken with you very respectfully and graciously.
Best wishes,
Chris
Well, that's where it ended. I know it was long, but if you have thoughts (especially you ladies) I'd love to see them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recent Comments