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.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Filed under: Gender Issues, True Woman | Tagged: biblical womanhood, John Piper, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Revive Our Hearts, True Woman, true woman conference, True Woman Manifesto, True woman movement, True Women, True Women Manifesto | 29 Comments »