Is Dinner Served? Part 3 of 4

Please see previous post(s) for context.  (Otherwise, you’re coming late to the party.)

 

Virtue.  Valor.  Strength.  Might.  Courage.  Bravery in battle.  Anyway you slice it, them’s fightin’ words.  Which begs another question: What are women battling for?  Where is our strength, might and power to be focused?  Righteous, moral, worthy, upright and of noble character, you betcha.  But…. what else?

 

Do you see?  Do you get it?  Does God want his Daughters of Eve to battle, fight, exhibit bravery, valor, and might so we can attain the lofty goal of becoming… “nice”?  Good cooks?  Laundry experts?  Housekeeping divas?

 

Look at it another way.  If we’re not neck-deep in battle, just drowsing, or sudsing, whiter-than-white-ing, casserole-ing, choir singing, Sunday school-ing or____________-ing (fill in the blank) our way through life, what need of valor?  Or courage?  Or bravery in battle? 

If you’re not in the midst of a war, why need a seasoned Commander?  If you’re not prone to get lost, why need a Guide?  Sheep who can fend for themselves, protect themselves from predators and find their own grazing grounds – what do they need with a Shepherd?  Ladies, what do we need with Valor if there’s no menace, no stalking evil, no imminent threat?  No unforeseen twists and turns?

 

  If you’re living as though this is a fairly neutral world, just gliding along on that smooth sail, trying to avoid ruffling too many feathers with that “quiet and gentle spirit,” then some tips and techniques are great.  Ditto To Do lists.  Stir in a few programs, add some Bible studies, throw in a few more principles and voila!  Dinner is served. 

 

Or is it?

 

-  To be continued –

“Proverbs 31″: A Closer Look – Part 2 of 4

- According to Aggadic Midrashim (interpretation of the non-legal portions of the Hebrew Bible), this concluding portion of Proverbs 31 was originally composed by Abraham as a eulogy for his wife Sarah. 

 

- According to Jewish mystics, Kabbalah, the poem is a reference to the Shabbat Queen, the spiritual soul-mate of the Jewish nation. 

 

- According to commentators, the poem is allegorical.  A Woman of Valor has been interpreted as a reference to the Shechinah (Divine presence), the Shabbat, the Torah, wisdom, and the soul.  Using Jewish woman as the vehicle through which to describe these spiritual manifestations is a tribute to her.  Commentaries indicate that the verses of Aishet Chayil are descriptions of Torah, Shabbat, and the soul. 

 

- The Midrash teaches that the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai was a marriage.  The Jewish nation was married to God, with the Torah serving as the ketubah (marriage contract).  This section of Proverbs 31 can also be read as a description of the ideal Jewish nation, which is generous, beautiful, loyal and happily laboring for the fruits of the Torah.

 

Is any wonder that so many Christian women are bored with “Proverbs 31 woman” Bible studies and ministry themes?  The sad part is that there’s a whole lot more to “the Proverbs 31 woman” than what shows up in the average ladies’ Bible study, which invariably focuses on Suzy Homemaker, June Cleaver and Martha Stewart.  What are we missing?

- To be continued -

“Woman of… What?” Part 1 of 4

You’ve probably always heard Proverbs 31:10 translated as “the virtuous woman” or “the virtuous wife.” (Me, too.)But when we delve into the Hebrew words and the Jewish culture and tradition surrounding this passage, it means so much more.

Connected with the Hebrew word chayil (khah’-yil) used to describe the woman in verse 10 are the concepts of valor, probably a force, whether of men, means or other resources; an army, wealth, virtue, valor, strength, might, efficiency, bravery –esp. in battle.This word is often translated “army” (56 times) or “valiant” or “man of valour” (50 times) describing men.Chayil also carries the idea of excellency in all of every moral attribute.In the Jewish tradition, Proverbs 31:10-31 is the Eshet Chayil: A Woman of Valor.

The Eshet Chayil concludes the Book of Proverbs.It’s speculated that King Solomon wrote these verses either as a listing of the ideal qualities of a wife, or as a tribute to his mother, Batsheva (Bathsheba – who was an adulteress, if you recall.If the latter is the case, she has clearly come a long way since her illicit liaison with King David.)The poem has an acrostic arrangement in which the verses begin with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet in regular order.Its 22 verses correspond to the 22 letters of the Hebrew Aleph-Bet.The poem describes the woman of valor as who is righteous, energetic, and capable.

The Woman of Valor (strength, might, efficiency, moral excellence, bravery in battle) in Proverbs 31 is King Solomon’s song of praise to the Jewish woman.He extols her virtues as the foundation of the Jewish home.The “Woman of Valor hymn” is customarily sung or read on Friday nights at Shabbat tables:

“Eshet chayil mi yimtza v’rachok mip’ninim michrah”

An accomplished woman, who can find?Her value is far beyond pearls.

Ladies, this just the tip of the iceberg.  When the Jewish culture and traditions surrounding  “Proverbs 31″ are understood, this passage – and the concepts it embodies – are so much more than what most women’s Bible studies or women’s ministries offer.  Stay tuned.

For more, check out:

http://judaism.about.com/od/shabbatprayersblessings/f/eshetchayil.htm

http://www.womanofvalor.org/home.aspx

http://www.inner.org/HEBLETER/Zayin.htm

http://www.hillel.org/jewish/textstudies/special/eshet_chayil.htm

This series originally appeared in 2008.

“Biblical Feminist”: Oxy-Moron or Real Deal?

One of the most eloquent and biblically sound responses to this question has been penned by J. Lee Grady in his fine work, 10 Lies the Church Tells Women.  It is beyond the scope of this blog to offer a comprehensive treatment of the questions at hand.  However, we contend that gender prejudice and stereotypes have been taught by too many for too long and presented as “biblical womanhood.”  Gifted, capable Christian women are being stifled and sidelined as a result.  So let’s ask:

What’s a “Biblical Feminist”?

Please don’t misunderstand the question. By “feminist” – a highly charged, emotionally loaded word for many – we are NOT talking about:

- A “counterfeit solution to the real issue of the inequality of women in a sinful society.”

- Arrogant, selfish, self-centered demands for selfish, self-centered “rights.”

- Modern, militant feminism of the N.O.W. stripe.

- Disrespect toward men or a rabid, combative anti-male worldview.

- Humanistic “feminism” whose marching orders are in direct opposition to the Word of God.

There are many, many “brands” of “feminism.”  Let’s not jump the tracks here.   By “biblical feminist”  we mean the following.  (Note the difference.)

“The secular feminist says: `I want my rights.  I want to be able to compete on an equal basis with men.’  The biblical feminist says: ‘I want to be free to be the person God created me to be and to have the privilege of following Christ as He calls me to do.’

Feminism (or any other ism) without Christ is just another power struggle.  But adding the word ‘biblical’ to feminism indicates that these feminists want to explore their conviction about equality of women in a biblical way and implement their findings according to biblical guidelines.”

-         Gretchen Baebelein Hull, Equal to Serve, p. 56.

How many Christians do you know who’d launch into orbit at the mere notion of “biblical feminism”?  We can count at least a couple hundred without breaking a sweat.    The question for these folks is: Why?

***

Hallelujah!

An Easter classic from the 2nd Chapter of Acts:

The angel up on the tomb stone said, “”He is risen, just as He said… no longer dead!!!”

TWM: An Addendum

Our mini-series on the True Woman Manifesto has engendered quite a few of the inevitable “which-side-are-you-on?” types of responses.

Here’s the short answer: We don’t fit neatly into any particular “camp”  of the comp/egal/feminist/patriarchal/hierachical (chose your description) debate.  (“Recovering comps” is in the ball park.)  In the words of author and speaker Frank Viola:

“May extremists on both sides prepare to descend into grunts.”

As Molly writes at Adventures in Mercy (Used by permission.  See the full text here)

I’ve always had a heart for women, and believe that God does too (just as He has a heart for men).  I used to think that meant encouraging women to accept their part in a top-down hierarchy that had women strictly placed under men.  I now believe that I, with primarily God-desiring intentions, appropriated misogynistic OT and NT culture into Scripture (combined with a strong desire to flee the excesses of our current culture), as well as profoundly misunderstood God’s view of authority and submission.

So I’d like to rescue the title, feminist, one I affectionately call the “Conservative Christian F-Word”—maybe at least rinse off a little of the mud it’s been dragged through.  One way to start is to admit that I am one.

Yes, there are some radical secular feminists who think the solution to world problems is the castration of all men.  So what?  There are some wacko Christians, too, but that doesn’t make the rest of us quit following Christ—or quit appropriating the label Christian, for that matter.   In the same way, working towards a world that respects women as much as it respects men (ie, feminism) is not only a good thing, but is part of what following Christ means.

Bottom line: it’s not about labels or boxes or “camps” or sides.  It’s about following Christ.  And in the process, as Martin Luther (or Augustine, or Melancthon, or…) said:

“In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.”

A couple related posts you may want to take a gander at while we’re in the neighborhood:

- Reimagining a Woman’s Role in the Church: An Open Letter, by Frank Viola.

Women’s ‘Liberation’ Through Submission: An Evangelical Anti-Feminism is Born, by Kathryn Joyce

Singing Adam’s Song: Marriage at the Dawn of Time, by Christiane Carlson-Thies

Don’t forget to check out related posts in this discussion from earlier this month.

“True Woman Manifesto”: A Response (Part 3 of 3)

From egalitarian to complementarian to patriarchal to feminist, there are many different gender paradigms within Christendom as well as several sub-categories within each position.  All put forth their version of “God’s design” and “holy pattern” for womanhood and manhood as well as various “God-ordained” gender roles, callings and functions.  Like the True Woman Manifesto, all claim to be biblical. And biblical.

Another Question

As far as the TWM goes, conspicuous by its absence in the document is any firm language related to partnership, collaboration, cooperation, communion, joint-heirness, sharing, mutuality, and similar scriptural concepts.  Given this absence, how “magnificent” and “true” can this document be, and is it a sound representation of “God’s design” for “biblical womanhood”?

Detractors may argue that the Manifesto is little more than a thinly veneered apologetic for male supremacy and female subordination cloaked in biblical garb and selected or questionable texts. Some may see it as purely reactionary or defensive, an attempt to shadow-box sixties-style feminism. Others will say this Manifesto evinces a banality that rings hollow rather than hallowed.  Still others will exuberantly embrace the document whole-heartedly and unreservedly.

Our chief concern – and the main impetus for this series – is that many well-meaning Christian women may “join the movement” or sign the Manifesto lemming-like, without giving  either any “true” scrutiny.

A Final Note

Whatever else may be said about what does or doesn’t constitute a “true woman,” “biblical womanhood” or similar concepts, one thing is certain: this is a battleground.  The most obvious – perhaps the bigger – question is: Why?

***

Here’s Part 1.

Here’s Part 2.

Please join us next time for a brief addendum.

All comments welcome, provided they comply with our Comment Policy.

“True Woman Manifesto”: A Response (Part 2 of 3)

Continuing where we left off last time per the True Woman Manifesto:

Is a statement intrinsically or automatically “true” or “biblical” because it has Bible verses attached to it?  Does having a “big name” associated with a particular model or worldview make it “biblically sound”?  Is there a difference between thinking “Bible versely” and thinking biblically?  With this in mind, let’s take a look at the following affirmations and declarations from the TWM (not exhaustive):

Affirmation ten: says children are “a blessing from God, and women are uniquely designed to be bearers and nurturers of life,…”

- The “supporting Scripture” for this affirmation includes Genesis 1:28, 9:1; Psalm 127 and Titus 2:4-5.  A few pennies to toss out:

- Genesis 1:28: Discussed in part one.   Question: can a woman’s design be gleaned from this text? Read it yourself.  A good argument can be made that this divine charge and benediction isn’t gender-specific, but inclusive of both male and female. Note God blessed them (plural pronoun)… fill… subdue… rule. Doesn’t the text focus on how humankind goes forth from the hands of the Creator under his divine benediction – flourishing, filling the earth with their kind, and exercising dominion over other earthly creatures – rather than a woman’s design?  Again, note the plurals.

- Genesis 9:1: Post-flood, God blesses Noah and his sons and renews  his original benediction from Genesis 1.  The thought continues into verse 7.  Verse eight begins the Noahic Covenant. An odd choice to “support” this affirmation?

Psalm 127: Does this partially support a portion of this affirmation?  Verses 1 and 2 indicate it is the Lord who provides shelter, security and sustenance.  Verses 3 and 4 indicate that children are God’s gift and a sign of his favor.

- Titus 2:4-5: Also referenced in affirmation two.  There it includes verse 3.  This passage is discussed in part one.

A few more cents related to affirmation ten:

- Men are only around to help initiate life, whereas the vital process of “nurturing” – developing, cultivating, promoting, fostering, encouraging – is left to women? Isn’t this a disdainful, demeaning view of men?

- We know many fine Christian men who are outstanding nurturers. Does that make them “true women”?

- Following the logic of affirmation ten, “unique” means “one only; single; solo; different from all others; having no like or equal.”  But aren’t all Christians called to be “nurturers of life,” women and men?

- Doesn’t the spiritual gift of pastor/shepherd (I Cor. 12:7-11, Eph. 4:11-13) include nurturing?  The word “pastor” translates from the Greek word poimen, which comes from a root word meaning “to protect.”  Without getting too technical, it basically means “shepherd,” which includes feeding, tending, and nurturing.  Question: If nurturing is a design, function, or role “unique” to women – apparently exclusive of men – then shouldn’t pastor/shepherds be female?

- In the list of those whom women are “uniquely designed” to nurture, notice who’s missing: adult males.  (Need we say more?)

Affirmation eleven: “God’s plan for gender is wider than marriage; all women, whether married or single, are to model femininity in their various relationships, by exhibiting a distinctive modesty, responsiveness, and gentleness of spirit.”

There’s a lot here, but we’ll confine our remarks to three:

-  “Femininity” is used more than once in this document, unhappily bereft of a definition. In affirmation thirteen for example, what exactly constitutes “fruitful femininity” – as opposed to “unfruitful femininity”?  (That imprecise language again.  For an excellent discussion on this topic, check out Ruby Slippers: How the Soul of a Woman Brings Her Home, by Jonalyn Grace Fincher. Zondervan, 2007.)

- Besides “modesty” and “gentleness of spirit,”  God’s plan for women according to this manifesto is responsiveness. Period?  Is it outside “God’s plan for gender” for a woman to lead, initiate, be decisive, make the tough calls, etc.? If that’s the case, kindly explain: Margaret Thatcher, Cory Aquino, Sally Ride, Sandra Day O’Connor, Sarah Palin, Harriet Tubman, Queen Elizabeth I, Emmeline Pankhurst, Gladys Alyward, Golda Meir, Deborah, Huldah, Ruth, Lydia, Priscilla, Chloe and Nympha. And so on.

Question: If women are fully competent and capable to lead entire countries, early house churches (Rom.16:3-5, 1 Cor.1:11, and Col.4:15.) or missions, why must they remain subordinate in our homes and churches?  (Check out Are the Sisters Free to Function?)

IN THE DECLARATIONS:

With the possible exception of three declarations – three, five, and twelve – shouldn’t the fifteen statements here apply to every believer, male and female? So why does TWM make these “callings” and “purposes” gender specific?

Beyond this, let’s focus on a few of the more salient points, such as Declaration 5, where “true women… by His grace and in humble dependence on His power, … will… Embrace and express our unique design and calling as women with humility, gratitude, faith, and joy.”

Translation (based on Affirmation 5): “Woman, thy name is Suzy Homemaker”?

Declaration six: TW “Seek to glorify God by cultivating such virtues as purity, modesty, submission, meekness, and love.”

- Again, shouldn’t these virtues be “cultivated” by all Christians, both male and female?  See Colossians 3:12-17 and Galatians 5:22,23 for starters.

Declaration twelve relates to suffering as “an inevitable reality in a fallen world; at times we will be called to suffer for doing what is good…”

This declaration is tied with affirmation five for having the most “supporting Scripture” attached to it with six references/passages each.  Here’s the bigger question: Why is this declaration here? It’s inclusion in a manifesto targeting women is troubling.  Is this, in the observation of Words of a Fether:

A veiled reference to domestic violence, perhaps? A backhanded endorsement to the barbaric practice of sending abused women back to their abusers and calling it “suffering for Christ”?

Another observation:

Pastorally, it’s dangerous to give men and pastors in the Christian community one more plank to abuse women with by providing them with a signed copy of a manifesto that could easily be interpreted and used in ways it was perhaps not originally intended.

- “Prophezei”

WORDS MEAN THINGS. IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

Let’s look at the True Woman Manifesto a little closer. What do the words mean?  Again, is a statement intrinsically or automatically “true” because it ‘s connected to Bible verses?  Is there a difference between thinking “Bible versely” and thinking biblically?

Looking at the words in this document’s title:

In its basic sense, something or someone that’s “true” is:

1) Consistent with fact or reality; 2) Not false or erroneous; 3) Exactly conforming to a rule, standard or pattern; 4) Reliable, accurate; 5) Real, genuine; 6) Faithful, as to a friend, vow, or cause; 7) Honorable, upright, 8. Sincerely felt or expressed, unfeigned; 9) Fundamental, essential; 10) Rightful, legitimate; 11) Accurately shaped or fitted, placed or delivered; 12) Quick and exact in sensing and responding; 13) Conforming to the definitive criteria of the designation.

With this in mind, some readers may argue that the TWM falls short on ten of thirteen points: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,9,10, 11, and 13. Maybe more.

Second, a “manifesto” is “a public declaration of principles or intentions, especially of a political nature.”

Finally a “woman” is…? Aye, there’s the rub. Or the hub?

While we’re on the subject…

Notice the recurrence of the word “distinct” (or derivatives) in the TWM.  Also this quote :

“True womanhood is a distinctive calling of God to display the glory of his Son in ways that would not be displayed if there was no womanhood.”++

- John Piper

Question: How are TW distinct, and what/who are they distinct from?

From the overall tone and emphasis of this Manifesto, is a TW’s “distinction” based on “discovering and experiencing” hierarchical complementarianism**, or something else?  What makes Christian women or men “distinct” or “counter-cultural”… or “true”?  (See Ephesians 2, I Corinthians 15, 12:12-13, and most of Romans and Galatians.  That’s the short list.)

Mistitled?

The True Woman Manifesto may be both mistitled and misleading.  It relies heavily on I Corinthians 11 (see TWM footnotes), a passage that is the subject of much debate. (Note that the opening address at the first TW Conference, The Ultimate Meaning of True Womanhood, was delivered John Piper. There may be much in Piper’s address that’s laudable, but we’re reserving comment in order to focus on the Manifesto.)

A more accurate manifesto title might be: A Primer on Patriarchy or A Petrified Woman’s Manifesto. (By “petrified,” we mean “to convert into a stony replica, to cause to become still or stone like, deaden.”) Check out A True Christian Manifesto as an alternative.  Also see Mystery of Submission, a sixteen-part series focusing on Ephesians 5.

Hmmm…

Some will see the Manifesto and the paradigm it sets forth as a one-size-fits-all approach that may give cause for pause. Coupled with the not-so-subtle implication that the only “true women” in Christendom are those who embrace the “design, function, order” and “roles” outlined in this document, this raises some questions:

- On the “Join the Movement” page of the True Woman site – a “ministry of Revive Our Hearts” – we find this statement:

If you see biblical womanhood as a gift from God, and agree with the True Woman Manifesto, sign it by filling out the form below. We are believing God for 100,000 people like you to join this movement!

QUESTION: WHY?  Do numbers mean or prove something?  Such as…?  When/if this Manifesto garners 100,000 signatures, then what?  This effort clearly as a way to go. More than 6,000 women reportedly gathered in Chicago, Illinois, for Revive Our Hearts’ first national women’s conference in October 2008.  The Manifesto had barely creased 3,000 signatures on-line as of January 2, 2009.  Nearly a full year later -  December 2009 – this “faithful, clear, true, wise” and “magnificent” manifesto has reportedly garnered just 10,789 signatures.

- What about those with qualms or questions about the TWM? What about those who “see biblical womanhood as a gift from God” but disagree with the views and tenets put forth in the TWM?  Are they “UNtrue women”?  False women?  Are they “less Christian” or otherwise unbiblical in their views, values, perspectives and models? (A brief sampling. Oh, wait. There’s more.)

- Where is the male counterpart, as in, “True Man Manifesto”? Curious, isn’t it, that with all the male leadership talk in this model, they first publish a true woman manifesto? To be consistent with their own views, shouldn’t a True Man Manifesto lead the way?

- Can those who’ve signed the TWM articulate a clear, succinct, biblically sound reason(s) for so doing?

- Can those who haven’t or won’t sign the Manifesto do likewise?

-  Finally, how many sincere, well-meaning Christian women will jump on the TW band wagon, embracing the TWM as “faithful, clear, true, wise” and “magnificent” and sign it sans second thought – or because someone else said so?

Here’s Part One.  STAY TUNED FOR PART 3.

++What does this mean?

** “Complementarian” describes advocates of female subordination to male authority, not because it most accurately reflects their position, but because it seems to be their preferred label. The complementarian position is presented most comprehensively in the book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991)

All comments welcome provided they comply with our Comment Policy.

“True Woman Manifesto:” A Response (Part 1 of 3)

 

The True Woman Movement is a multi-faceted package.  If you haven’t yet seen, heard, or read about it, chances are you will.  Soon.

Self-described as a movement “calling women back to biblical standards of womanhood,” TW includes a conference##, books, co-sponsors, numerous articles and other resource material, a 30-day True Woman Make-Over“to discover and experience God’s design for your life!” as well as a manifesto.  Joining the movement is a “sign, start, and share” process: 1) Sign the True Woman Manifesto (TWM); 2) Start the 30-Day TW Make-over, and 3) Share the message.  Unveiled at the first “True Woman” conference in Chicago in October 2008, the TW Manifesto is the primary focus of this three-part mini-series.

“I believe the time is ripe for a new movement – a seismic holy quake of counter cultural men and women who dare to take God at His Word and who have the courage to believe and delight in God’s plan for male and female.”

- Mary Kassian

Directed at Christian women and reportedly written by Nancy Leigh DeMoss, the True Woman Manifesto (TWM) was drafted to help women “discover and embrace God’s design for your life.” The TWM has been called everything from “magnificent” and “faithful, clear, true and wise” to “a male supremacy-endorsing document” that’s “rash, hastily put together” and “poorly written.”

In our opinion the TWM is a sincere, well-intentioned but ultimately disappointing, imprecise document based on a pseudo-biblical paradigm. Its tri-part structure opens with a Preamble of five statements prefaced with the words “We Believe” or “We Realize.” This is followed by thirteen Affirmations. The TWM concludes with fifteen Declarations based on these affirmations. Some observations in each section include (not exhaustive):

IN THE PREAMBLE:

Paragraph two states that “… men and women were designed to reflect the image of God in complementary and distinct ways.” The “supporting Scripture” referenced in the footnotes includes Genesis 1:26-27, 2:18, and I Corinthians 11:8.  Curious “support” here, to cite just one example.  Consider:

- Read Genesis 1:26-27. Are “complementary” and “distinct” or similar concepts in the text, or something else?  Good arguments can be made for the latter.

- Astonishingly, this “plan and design” paragraph omits Genesis 1:28, in which man and woman are both given the responsibility and authority to be fruitful, fill the earth, and to have dominion, or rule. (Note the word “them” rather than “he” or “him.”) Together, male and female can reflect the Imago Dei more fully and completely than either of them does separately.

- If TWM writers can read Genesis 1 as far as verse 27, we assume they can also find verse 28. Its omission here, in the second paragraph of the preamble, cannot be unintentional or an oversight. This should tell us something.

- Note that Genesis 1:28 doesn’t debut until Affirmation 4, some seven paragraphs later, referencing the creation of men and women who “… are equal in value and dignity, but… have distinct roles and functions in the home and in the church.” Hmmmm….

- The TWM perpetuates the anemic rendering of Genesis 2:18. The Hebrew word ezer in Genesis 2 is usually translated “helper,” sometimes “companion” or “partner,” which comes a little closer to the full meaning of the word.  But it means so much more.

- I Corinthians 11 doesn’t begin or end at verse 8. The capstone of this oft-debated passage is found in verses 11 and 12. Here Paul indicates that the man and the woman are necessary for each other in the Lord (vs. 11). In fact, the man must always remember that he exists by the woman (vs. 12). And both are of God (vs. 12). This isn’t an either/or gender proposition. It’s a “both.”

Again, we assume that if the drafter(s) of the TWM can read I Corinthians to verse eight, they can also find verses 11 and 12. The fact that these verses aren’t mentioned in this affirmation leads us to again ask, Why?

I regard the True Woman Manifesto as a faithful, clear, true, wise—indeed—magnificent document. What an amazing thing it would be if hundreds of thousands of women signed on with their heart to the True Woman Manifesto.

—Pastor John Piper

IN THE AFFIRMATIONS:

Affirmation two says that we (‘true women”) “glorify God and experience his blessing when we accept and joyfully embrace His created design, function, and order in our lives.” The “supporting Scriptures” cited are I Timothy 2:9, Titus 2:3-5, I Peter 3:3-6. Alright, but consider that:

- I Timothy 2:9 is a fragment within a passage on instruction in worship.

- Titus 2:3-5: Be careful with this one.  As is always the case in interpreting Scripture, it behooves us to look not only at the commands but at the reason(s) behind the commands.  Here women are to be “busy at home” (NIV) “so that no  one will malign the word of God.”  Some have argued that this passage isn’t essentially focused on a woman’s design or function, claiming that Paul’s chief concern is for the reputation of the Christian community in first century Crete.  (In Paul’s time it was considered immoral and wicked for a married woman to take on any other role within the community other than being busy at home.)

Also notice verses one and two.  In context, the thoughts in the passage continue into verse ten.  Note that the overall emphasis is that sound doctrine demands right conduct of all believers, regardless of age, position, or gender.

- I Peter 3:3-6 concerns instructions to wives. This leads us to ask if “a true woman” or “biblical womanhood” as set forth in the TWM is limited solely to wives? What about single women, divorcees, widows? Are they “Untrue women”?  (This affirmation seems to conflict with Affirmation 11.)

Affirmation five indicates that the “calling” of women is “to affirm and encourage men as they seek to express godly masculinity, and to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church.”

- What exactly constitutes “godly” expression?  Or godliness?  And why not affirm and encourage godliness, period?

- Why isn’t there a corresponding affirmation that women receive honor and support in whatever venue?

- Curious how the writers left Ephesians 5:21 out of the “supporting Scripture” mix, which teaches mutual submission in the husband/wife relationship.  Also see Mystery of Submission, a thoughtful sixteen-part series focusing on Ephesians 5.

Additionally, one could argue that placing one gender over the other in any context places an undue burden on one while diluting or disregarding the other. The church benefits from strong, vibrant, balanced leadership from men and women, working together, in tandem, “to the end that Christ may be exalted and the glory and redeeming love of God may be displayed throughout the whole earth.” (We are NOT – repeat, NOT - arguing against male leadership in the church or anywhere else, nor do we advocate disrespecting, demeaning or disregarding male leadership. We are advocating a more biblically balanced, shoulder-to-shoulder, hand-in-hand, mutual approach rather than a culturally-imposed and/or patriarchal hierarchy.)

-The phrase “God-ordained male leadership” may give some cause for pause,especially in light of Genesis 1 and 2. Also see A Christian Understanding of Submission by Alan Johnson.

There’s also some curious “supporting Scriptures” for this point.

Mark 9:35: Has nothing to do with “God-ordained male leadership.” It’s about the first shall be last, etc. – which rather stands this affirmation on its ear, doesn’t it?

Mark 10:42-45: Huh? Teaching the crowds in Judea and then en route to Jerusalem, Jesus is teaching his disciples about servanthood.

Genesis 2:18 – The famous “suitable helper” passage – which many credible Bible scholars regard as an anemic, incomplete rendering as well as a “translation fossil.”

I Peter 5:1-4: Instructions to elders and young men.

I Corinthians 14:34: is the “… women should remain silent in the churches” passage. Even though this verse may be misapplied in this affirmation, its inclusion here is telling. It shows alert readers exactly what a “true women” is and does according to this document. (As in, “Sit down and shut up”?)

I Timothy 2:12-3:7: Another passage that shows us what a “true woman” is? Note the context.

oDuring his fourth missionary journey, Paul instructs Timothy to care for the church at Ephesus while he went on to Macedonia. When Paul realized that he might not return to Ephesus soon, he wrote this letter to Timothy to: 1) Develop the charge he had given his young assistant (1:3,18), 2) To refute false teachings (1:3-7, 4:1-8, 6:3-5, 20, 21), and 3) To supervise the affairs of the growing Ephesian church which includes church worship and qualifications for church officers.

oIn brief: Some believe that Paul here prohibited teaching only by women not properly instructed – e.g. teaching by untrained and aggressive Ephesian women engaged in false teaching. If so, the prohibition is not universal nor permanent but restricted to the church situation at Ephesus – and much of Affirmation five falls apart.

Affirmation seven: “… respond(ing) humbly to male leadership in our homes and churches” demonstrates “a noble submission to authority that reflects Christ’s submission to God his Father.” Really?

- In tandem with affirmations four and five, this affirmation seems to propagate the teaching that marriage symbolizes/reflects a sort of parent/child or master/servant hierarchical relationship.  Based on Ephesians 5:25, 31 and 32, doesn’t it seem  more likely that marriage symbolizes the relationship between Christ and his Church?  For more, see a masterful post on this by Dale Fincher.

Affirmation eight: Who defines what constitutes “selfish insistence on personal rights”? Which rights? “Insistence” how? When? Where? Does that include masculine “insistence” on the “right” to lead?

Affirmation nine:Human life is precious to God and is to be valued and protected, from the point of conception until rightful death.

A case of imprecise language? What exactly is “rightful death?” Who decides? When?  How?  Based on what? This affirmation carefully avoids the term “natural death,” leaving us to ask, why? (This rhetoric may have been adopted to leave the door open for capital punishment, but since this isn’t spelled out – or even hinted at – this statement leaves readers guessing.)

- In the footnotes, the “supporting Scripture” for this affirmation is Psalm 139:13-16. A great choice for the first portion of this affirmation, but there’s nothing in this passage related to “rightful death” – whatever that is.

JOIN US NEXT TIME FOR PART 2.

***

NOTE: We aren’t going to reproduce the entire Manifesto in this response.  Please check the links provided to refer to the original document and full text.

Comments welcome, provided they comply with our Comment Policy.

This post originally appeared in January 2009.  Reposted by request.

Recharging & Reconnecting…

Please note: We’lll be taking the rest of the year as well as January off from blogging.  Want to spend more time with the fam and recharge the ‘ole batteries.  Meanwhile, we’re always open to ideas and feedback, hearing what your interests are.  So feel free to comment.

Thanks for reading.  We’ll look forward to reconnecting in February, 2012!