-----------
Chapter two is called “What Eve Alone Can Tell” and begins by Stasi telling about her desire to be a princess, a hidden princess as in movies such as Pretty Woman, Ever After, A Cinderella Story and Maid in Manhattan. She then begins to speak about the shame that women feel due to the distance between “the desire of a woman’s heart and the realities of a woman’s life” (21) and states about a woman’s struggle with self-worth, “now this is not to say that men don’t also struggle with their sense of self worth. But there is something deeper to this struggle for women, and far more universal.” (21) First of all, I find this statement very ironic in that the authors believe that women struggle with their sense of self-worth more deeply than men do, considering that the “companion book” Wild at Heart states a man’s deepest question is “Do I have what it takes?” If “do I have what it takes” isn’t about self-worth, than what is it about? Aside from the authors inconsistency regarding this topic, I find it just plain wrong. How do they know it is universal? Have the authors visited every corner of our universe through all of time to discuss this issue with every woman? Also, that is a selfish statement and condemning statement to put on men. Men have struggles, too. Men struggle with shame and self-worth, too…they just are not permitted to disclose this as it would be “weak and unmanly." If by “self-worth” the authors are referring to the woman’s perception of her physical appearance, well, in that case I’ll agree that as a whole, women in our culture struggle more deeply with that (although that is not to say that men don’t struggle with self-worth regarding their physical appearance!).
The Crown of Creation
(I am using the chapter subtitles the authors use) Next the authors spend several pages artistically recounting the story of creation from Genesis 1 and 2. After they quote Genesis 2:21-23 regarding the creation of woman, the authors proclaim, “She is the crescendo, the final, astonishing work of God…She is the Master’s finishing touch…given the way that creation unfolds, how it builds to ever high and higher works of art, can there be any doubt that Eve is the crown of creation?” (25) Now…I must have missed something, or maybe my Bible “forgot” to add some of those details, because the way I read it is this: “So the Lord caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:21-23, TNIV). I’ve read those verses many times, and I’m just not seeing where God says “Ah-ha! There she is my finishing touch, the crown of creation!” I really don’t see woman to be the final, astonishing work of God…I believe that something that took place many years later could qualify as the final astonishing work of God, that being the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. An account of this crucial event is found in the Gospel, and includes finality words that are not found in Genesis “When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30, emphasis mine) So, where in the account of creation does God say “It is finished.” Nowhere. Not once. No, it says “By the sixth day God has finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.” (Genesis 2:2 , emphasis mine). Notice it says the work he had been doing rather than that he had finished everything. At the end of the work day I finish the work I’m currently working on, file my papers, straighten up my desk before I leave my office – but that doesn’t mean that the last paper I put away is done forever, or that the last thing I work on is so greatly more important than anything else.
Additionally, the story of creation is just that – a story. It isn’t a sermon, it isn’t commandments, it is a narrative. The authors repeatedly fail to take account of this fact, often acting as if the creation narrative is meant to be literal instructions to us today. The Bible was not written to us directly, and therefore will not always be directly applicable to us today in our world. It was written by people in a drastically different time and culture and in a vast array of literary styles including poetry, narratives, epistles, parables, law, prophets and more. Failure to understand the genres of the Bible is a huge and dangerous interpretive mistake that is made by many, and specifically, a mistake that is made repeatedly by the authors of this book.
Romance and Relationships: The Answer to Loneliness
In this section the authors put forth that women “are relationship creatures to their cores” (27). They attempt to support this claim by observing their own differences in that if you want to know how other people are doing you should call Stasi, not John. They claim that “this is so second nature, so assumed among women, that it goes unnoticed by them” (27). I must have missed that memo, because I don’t fit the bill. As I said before, I’m not an exceptionally outgoing or extroverted person, I tend to stick to myself and have very few deep friendships. The authors talk about at their Christmas party the men talk about concrete and the women talk about sex after menopause, noting the gender division. If you were to attend a family gathering (or any gathering, really) with me and Ryan, you would notice that he goes against the flow of the typical gender segregation and is involved in conversation with others, usually to a greater extent than I am. I can even think of times that I’ve left conversations to go watch football because I find being social to be too exhausting. I know that I’m not the only exception to the authors statements about how all things are, but even if it was just me who was different, when statements such as “all women” and “every woman” are being made, that does not leave any room for exceptions.
The authors continue on about relationships and states that woman “bears the image of God, but in a way that only the feminine can speak. What can we learn from her? God wanted to reveal something about himself, so he gave us Eve.” (28). Ok, a couple questions I would like to ask the authors. First of all, where is the list God made of his own qualities and characteristics in which he sorted them into columns of “masculine” and “feminine”? Second of all, the authors believe that the fact that it was “not good” for man to be alone and so God created woman means that woman is relational in nature….how do they overlook the fact that it was MAN who was in need of relationship? MAN was the one not good alone, the one that needed companionship, so MAN must therefore be the relational one. I believe that all humans have a relationship side to them, to varying degrees obviously, but the desire for friendship and relationship is not unique to woman alone.
On page 29 John Eldredge actually quotes Wild at Heart to explain some of the points he was attempting to make in Captivating. I know this isn’t a research paper, and clearly the authors do not feel a need to use legitimate evidence to back up their bold statements that are supposed to apply to every human that has ever lived, but really, the best they can do is reuse their previous attempts to prove their point? In his own quotation, John talks about God’s desire to be loved and wanted by us, and that he came to that conclusion by “hearing the heart-cry of women” (29). This is again separating the characteristics of God into lists of feminine and masculine without any Biblical reference or support.
At the beginning of the book the authors tell us “This book is not about what you ought to do or who you ought to be. It's about discovering who you already are, as a woman" (19). Yet, by reading on you will find several lists of “what you ought to do or who you ought to be such as “She is inviting. She is vulnerable. She is tender. She embodies mercy. She is also fierce and fiercely devoted….Tender and inviting, intimate and alluring, fiercely devoted.” (30). And then just a few pages later, another to-do list, “…women are endowed with fierce devotion, an ability to suffer great hardships, a vision to make the world a better place” (33). These are just two examples of where the authors tell us what a woman is like, while in their introduction they claim they want to “recover essential femininity without falling into stereotypes, or worse, ushering more pressure and shame upon our readers” (x). How can they reconcile these lists of qualities that their readers are now reading and trying to become as anything other their stereotypes, pressure and shame?
An Adventure to Share
This section begins by discussing the translation of ezer kenego (helper) that is found in Genesis 2:18 “The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”” I think the authors do a better job than most at their interpretation. They point out the other instances in the Bible in which that phrase is used, and they are all referring to times in which God is that helper…for example “I lift my eyes up to the hills-where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth” (Psalm 121:1-2). This proper interpretation is necessary to fight against the oppression of women who feel that their job in life is to be the “helper” of their husband, to be his servant and spend her days attending to his every need. No, woman is so much more than that. She is necessary and she is equal.
The authors quote a scene from The Lord of the Rings in which the female character has an important role in the adventure. They then say “The longing in the heart of a woman to share life together as a great adventure- that comes straight from the heart of God, who also longs for this” (33). Yet, the authors are unable to provide a scriptural basis for this statement about something that is coming from the heart of God. I am uncomfortable reading a statement about what God has done for me and what he wants for himself without having any evidence to stand on.
Beauty to Unveil
The remainder of the chapter discusses beauty, as the authors believe that every woman desires to have a beauty to unveil. They write “Beauty is the essence of God. The first way we know this is through nature, the world God has given us. Scripture says that the created world is filled with the glory of God (Isa. 6:3). In what way? Primarily through its beauty” (34). I looked up Isaiah 6:3 that the authors reference as their first proof that beauty is the essence of God. "And they were calling to one another: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory." (Isaiah 6:3). Interesting. The verse doesn’t mention beauty. Not once. It says the earth is full of God’s glory, but the authors make a huge jump to ascertain that glory = beauty. The authors believe that nature is primarily beautiful because beauty is the essence of God and he believes that beauty is the essence of God because he believes that nature is primarily beautiful. It made me dizzy to write that last sentence for it is a textbook example of circular logic.
On pages 36-37 the authors devoted much time to discussing the presence of women in artwork versus men in artwork. They say the reason men are not painted at rest is that “Adam is captured best in motion, doing something. His essence is strength in action. This is what he speaks to the world. He bears the image of God, who is a warrior” (36). I’ll stop there for a second to point out this is another time in which God must have his secret list of qualities, and one of them under the masculine column is “warrior”, for men and women BOTH bear the image of God, and it is the SAME GOD for both…the authors are just choosing to assign separate qualities to each gender. They continue on by saying “On behalf of God, Adam says, “God will come through. God is on the move.” That is why a passive man is so disturbing. His passivity defies his very essence. It violates the way he bears God’s image. A passive man says, “God will not come through. He is not acting on your behalf.” (37) Sooo… men, you’ve got to spend the rest of your life on the go because if you rest, because if you sit for a moment, I will worry that God isn’t going to come through to me (this is highly sarcastic…but taken to it's logical progression, that is in fact what the authors believe).
The authors then describe that a woman would not look right to be artistically captured in any situation other than at rest, and they say “There is no agenda here, no social stigmatizing or cultural pressure. This is true across cultures and down through time. What have artists seen that we have not? Eve speaks something differently to the world than Adam does. Through her beauty” (37). Yes, there is agenda and stigma here! Just because these roles were necessary in the more violent and less developed times in our history does not mean they are still relevant – or that they are SUPPOSED to be there. A woman is expected to be beautiful; a man is expected to be strong. Both genders are capable of both traits when permitted to express it. On the following page it says of a woman who is not at rest says to the world “All is not well. Things are not going to turn out all right” (38). In these statements they essentially say that woman must never work, because a woman who is not as rest says "all is not well" and they also say a man must never stop working because a passive man says "God will not come through" Also, what does this say for a woman who is "moving and active" in an adventure? She is not at rest and therefore cannot be beautiful.
Why Beauty Matters
The authors give an excellent example of how culturally exclusive their viewpoint is in writing “A woman's breast is among the loveliest of all God's works" (39). Yes, in our culture that is true, but what about in Africa where women do not wear shirts and that it is commonplace and the breast is just the same as any other part of the body? Would those individuals agree with the author’s statement? If the authors would acknowledge that they are writing within the confines of our culture I would not be bothered by their assumptions, but they have explicitly said that their beliefs are cross-cultural and throughout time.
I will briefly respond to one final passage from this chapter, one of the passages that I find the most disturbing…“Beauty is, without question, the most essential and the most misunderstood of all God’s qualities.” (40) Seriously? You’re telling me that God somehow managed to forget to mention this great truth in the Bible? All his talk about grace and love and forgiveness, how did he pass over the fact that his most essential quality was beauty? Why did he wait until 2005 to allow John Eldredge to reveal this great truth to the world? Did I miss the place in the Bible that says “But the greatest of these is beauty”? I find it quite concerning that the authors, building upon their own beliefs about who God is can make such a bold statement to say that the most important thing about God is beauty. I do not believe that to be so. I believe God has many essential qualities that are described in the Bible such as “God is love” (1 John 4:8), “God is faithful” (1 Corinthians 10:13), “God is not unjust” (Hebrews 6:10). While we can never fully know or understand the depth of God’s character and his mysterious ways, it is important that we remain within the text of the Bible to learn what he has said about himself rather than ascribing our own wants and desires to who we think he should be.
0 comments:
Post a Comment