This is the final chapter of the book. The opening paragraph is essentially the same as the opening paragraph in the previous chapter. It uses the same flowering language to describe a woman; however, this account of Cinderella waiting for the invitation is given to us as an example to follow. The authors explain, “As a woman you don’t need to strive or arrange, you don’t need to make it happen. You only need to respond.” (202) How do they figure this? In what case does a mother (which they say is the highest calling of a woman) NOT arrange? They attempt to “prove” their point by giving the example of some women in the Bible who were asked to do things, such as Mary the mother of Jesus. But they conveniently managed to forget the women who took the initiative, such as Ruth who they put up on a pedestal a few chapters ago, to just name one.
“History is still unfolding, and your existence on this earth as a woman is proof that you have an irreplaceable role to play. You are a woman, are you not? An ezer kenegdo to your core.” (205) First of all, where is the “proof” in that statement?? Just because EVE was created to be an ezer kenegdo does NOT mean that is the role of every single woman since then. Eve was created in a world without sin; we are born into a world in which sin exists. The story of Eve was written in Genesis, in a world that lived under the old law, while today we live free from the law. The authors insist that ezer kenegdo is at the core of a woman’s existence and purpose…so why is that phrase used just once talking about women in the entire Bible? If it is so important and crucial, why does it not show up again in directions to women? Why are women told to submit to their husbands rather than to help? Do the authors really think God could have such a monumental overlook?
“You feminine heart is an invitation by your Creator. To what? To play an irreplaceable role in his Story.” (205) I don’t even understand this statement.
The authors spend several pages writing about women who play an “irreplaceable role”. They start with a woman who “hopes and desires to pursue a high education. There is so much that she wants to do, to learn, to experience. She has given up so much of her own life in order to bring life to her little boy…God called Carol to the high position of mother…Carol chose to say “yes” to God and follow his lead into the hidden life of a stay-at-home mom. God is meeting her there. In the hiddenness, she is discovering the holy. And she is playing the most irreplaceable, essential, powerful, life-impacting role imaginable” (207) The authors speak throughout the book about how our desires and longings are so important, so why do they commend this woman for ignoring hers and giving up what she desires? I’m not saying it’s wrong to be a stay-at-home mom, but I am saying it’s not for everyone, motherhood isn’t for everyone and that’s okay.
Next they write about a girl who races sled dogs, “She is willing to take enormous risks to become the woman she is meant to be…Her grandmother runs marathons and her mother guides backcountry skiing in Alaska. Women of adventure, each of them!” (208) First of all, how is it that the “woman she is meant to be” is a sled racer...doesn’t seem very feminine or needing of men to me. Secondly, those examples of the adventures her mother and grandmother participate in are not “sharing an adventure [with a man]” as the authors insist is the desire of a woman’s heart, but they’re independent and self-reliant adventures. How does that fit with the authors world view?
Then the authors make a ridiculous statement in saying, “Eve is God’s relational specialist given to the world to keep relationships a priority. Men have a way of letting thing slip..Our enemy despises relationship, hates love in any form, fears its redemptive power. That is why God sent Eve. Women are needed to protect relationships, bring them back to center stage where they belong…But as women we must hang onto this – that because of the Trinity, relationship is the most important thing in the universe.” (209) I don’t even know where to start on this one. Where do they get their belief that “Eve is God’s relational specialist”? There is no Biblical evidence for this. They insult men and feed into the self-fulfilling prophecy and mistaken belief that men are not relational. They think that God sent even to protect relationship...there was not a relationship before Eve, for she was the first woman! True, Adam had a relationship with God, but that is not the relationship they are writing about. How can they insist that women’s role since the beginning was the protect relationships when there were no relationships when woman was first created? And, isn’t it the man’s role to “protect”?
“There are many things God calls us to do, but loving well always comes first.” (210) They’re talking about relationships with others, but God first calls us to love HIM not others.
“Satan knew that to take out Adam, all he had to do was take out Eve- his ezer kenegdo…Your place in the world as God’s heart for relationship is vital.” (210) How do the authors know Satan’s thoughts? Kinda creepy...
“Have you noticed in Paul’s letters to the young church how often he has to intervene in relationships? “I plead with Eudoia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord” (Phil. 4:2). He’s addressing two women there, by the way.” (210) This is a ridiculous example, the authors are clearly ignoring the abundance of contrary evidence, the numerous examples in scripture in which reference to friendship or relationships are gender neutral or referring to men:
“Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy…” Hebrews 12:14
"Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters.” Hebrews 13:1
“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.” 1 John 4:7
"A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for a time of adversity.” Proverbs 17:17
"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you." - John 15:13-15,“After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.” - 1 Samuel 18:1
The authors take on a dangerous topic when they write, “Many of the Scriptures on the Role of woman in the church are a reflection of God’s concern for a woman’s protection and spiritual covering. We live in a dangerous world. Satan’s opposition of the church is vicious. He bears a special hatred for Eve. It follows that God would want to ensure that a woman helping to advance his Kingdom would be offered the covering and protection of good men. Issues of headship and authority are intended for the benefit of women, not their suppression…God desires that wherever and however you offer yourself to the Body of Christ, you’ll have the protection of good men over you. Not to hold you back, but to set you free as a woman. Christ has made man as his warrior, to offer his strength on behalf of Eve so that she might flourish.” (211) First of all, this statement is largely relying upon the blatantly unsupportable belief the authors hold that Satan has a “special hatred” of women. The “roles” of women in the church were written in a culture that was drowning in oppression of women. Women had no rights, they had no value, they were property. A man could have his wife killed if he was not pleased with her in the Roman culture. I am not trying to say the Bible is not relevant today, however, it is absolutely crucial that we keep in mind the fact the Bible was written to a specific people during a specific time which we have little understanding of. Combine that with biased translations of the Bible throughout the years (those who say a translation of the Bible is infallible and inspired, how do you explain the profound differences between the translations?) I believe the original text of the Bible was as God intended, however, it has been handled and translated and re-translated and translated some more by sinful people living in specific culture which affected their translation) .
There are countless examples of women being oppressed in the church today, which is the logical conclusion of people who do not consider the cultural influences of scriptures instructing men to be leaders and women to submit. Why is it that almost no churches today follow the command that women are to remain silent in church, but are okay with not allowing women to be pastors? Why do people say women are not to teach men, but mixed-gender groups flock to hear Joyce Meyer speak and everyone is okay with that? There are churches in which women, in practice, lead groups such as the youth ministry, but there must be a man who “acts” like the leader and “gives his blessing” while in practicality he has no connection to the group other than to dominate over the woman who he and his church believes is incapable and weak.
People turn to the instructions for selecting elders in places like 1 Timothy 3:1-5 where it says. "Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)" as evidence that only men can serve in the role of elders (never mind all the places were “elder/leader/prophet” was translated to be only masculine when the original text was gender neutral) They say “Oh, it says he, so it must be a man!” Never mind the fact that it says “faithful to his wife” and many allow leaders who are unmarried, and leaders whose children do not obey them. That’s dissecting and picking and choosing. If you’re going to follow part of it literally, follow all of it, including the instructions for marriage and children for elders/pastors/leaders/etc.
The church I am currently attending we picked largely for the reason they do not hold to the oppressive views of women most churches do. There are no restrictions for women, for they are permitted to speak and pray in public, a woman can hold any leadership role that a man can. That was the case with my previous church as well.
The authors thoroughly insult and neglect the great leader Deborah by writing, “Deborah was an advisor to Israel on matters of justice, economics, and warfare.” (212) Okay, that statement is okay if you would call the President of the United States + Chief Justice of the Supreme Court an “advisor”. Deborah WAS THE LEADER! She was IN CHARGE! She wasn’t just an advisor, she was the presiding judge, she was the “general” of the army, she was plain and simple in charge of the country of Israel. In a book in which the authors claim women are the “crown of creation” why would they degrade a fabulous example of a woman who is powerful and important?
On pages 213 the authors write “So let’s come back to what Peter said when he urged women to offer their beauty to others. This is the secret of femininity unleased: Do not give way to fear. (1 Peter 3:6)” First of all, that is NOT what Peter is writing about! The authors spend the next page horribly disfiguring the text and while I generally agree with their conclusion, how they distorted and took things out of context to get there was frightening. Take for example their quoting of the verse in the passage I just referenced. They give no indication they have chosen just part of the verse, they make it appear that they are including the whole verse and it is a complete sentence. However, when you look at the real verse, it reads as follows: "like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.” Not quite the same simple and straightforward statement they lead us to believe. The authors make the claim that the key to being beautiful is to not give way to fear. There is little logic or flow in their argument; it is a manipulation of scripture.
Stasi writes about her experience of not giving way to fear by saying, “It was very hard and immensely risky for me to begin to speak and offer from my heart at our women’s retreats. Terrifying, really. You see, when I first began to speak, I was severely overweight. My sin, my addiction, was plain for all to see. To stand in front of a group of women and be clearly failing in the outward beauty department was humbling and hard.” (214 emphasis mine) The authors at various times have insisted that every woman is beautiful just as they are, yet here Stasi is agreeing with the concept of beauty which the media pushes on us by believing that being overweight meant she was not beautiful.
0 comments:
Post a Comment