Culture Check: Then and Now

The image above was tweeted by the group Let Toys Be Toys, which lobbies retailers to stop seling toys by gender and instead sell them by category. On the left, it shows items from the retailer Argo's 1970's catalog of toys; on the right, current equivalents from their website.

Aside from the obviously much poorer construction, design and materials used, what immediately strikes is the barrage of pink. It is unrealistic (do you know anybody with a pink house?) but, more troublingly, it fosters what I consider an extremely negative and unbiblical gender stereotype.

See, it totally excludes little boys from two fundamental parts of life: having and caring for a house, and having and caring for a child. By drenching all the household items and childcare toys in pink, which in our society is strongly coded "female", it is telling little boys that this isn't for them.

Believe me, this is not innate. My one-year-old loves balls and tools and cars, and I have had people say to me many times something along the lines of "He's a real little boy, isn't he?" because of this. And yes, absolutely he is. A real little boy who runs to get his little broom when Mummy's sweeping and his little vacuum cleaner when Mummy's vacuuming. A real little boy who loves feeding his Ernie doll tea and snacks, or rocking the weird little androgynous baby doll his great-grandma gave him and "singing" to it (think tuneless "la, la, la" noises). A real little boy who is just as fascinated by a bunny as by a motorcycle, who loves reading as much as running around outside, in short, who is fascinated and attracted everything in his world, not just the things that are typically considered "boy things".

And I want it to stay that way. I wish I could protect him from finding out as he got older that pink toy kitchens are where the girls play, from his little boy friends telling him something he likes and is interested in is "girly". Because if I could protect him from that, maybe I could protect him from the larger implications of it as he got older. From well-meaning adults asking him how many girlfriends he has as if it is somehow manly to be two-timing a woman. From the beer commercials portraying a man with a bevy of pretty girls around him as the kind of guy my son should want to be like. From the jokes in movies about girls desperately pushing for commitment while guys are just looking to "play the field" and have fun. Basically, from the larger cultural message that tells boys that they don't want commitment and family leadership and responsibilities-- they want meaningless sex with as many girls as possible, and to not get "caught" by any of them.

How does this little pink buggy play into that? It subtly, insidiously starts teaching boys that home life, parenthood, domestic bliss- those are "girly". Little kids don't have the insight to look at a commercial or advertisement for a toy directed at them and to see the way the marketer has figured out what makes them tick to push them towards a certain product. They don't know that toy marketers use a "divide and conquer" strategy: if you can convince little boys and little girls that they shouldn't like the same kinds of toys, you can sell twice as many toys. They don't know that the world and the devil want them to be anything but committed, engaged husbands and fathers. But they do feel the peer pressure and their instinct to be accepted by their gender telling them to stay away from the "wrong" toys. Oh, how I wish I could protect my son from that!

Instead, son, I pray you grow up to be like your Daddy. He is a tender and caring father and a wise and responsible caretaker of his home, and those are two ways that he shows the kind of manliness the Bible praises and that points to God: not swagger and infidelity and carelessness, but deep commitment to His bride and tender and compassionate Fatherhood.

"Ladies..."

Actually, this post is not addressed to ladies. I'm looking at you, gentlemen. Have you ever walked into a roomful of your buddies and teasingly referred to them this way: "Hello, ladies..."? Have you ever, prior perhaps to showing off your skills at some sport or other manly achievement before your male friends, announced that you'd "Show you women how it's done?" Ever told a little boy not to cry or be afraid of something because that's "girly"?

I'm going to assume that most of my readers are not the kind of people who would use vile language like this (I'm leaving it to your discretion whether you follow that link because there is some very offensive language in it but I think it's worth reading to see that what I'm talking about here can be taken a lot farther.) But have you ever thought about the implications of calling other men "women" as an insult?

Yes, God created us differently. We are physically different, we are emotionally different, we are mentally different, we have different roles. But God calls you, gentlemen, to honour women for their differences. And even lightheartedly, when you use 'girly' or 'women' or 'ladies' as an insult, you are saying that it is shameful to be a women. There is no corresponding set of insults that women use on your gender. I urge you to do us the same courtesy and not use our gender as a way of putting people down.

At any rate, I'm not sure God wants you to use your physical strength as a means of putting down other men. Sure, enjoy the physical strength God gave you. But God is far more concerned with your manly character-- your moral courage, your care for those weaker than you, your loving leadership-- than your manly ability to excel your peers on the soccer field. So why not start using the language of character instead of the language of gender to distinguish between the praiseworthy and the dishonourable? And if you're going to teach a little boy to display courage and self-control, could you perhaps use those words (and their counterparts, fear/cowardice and self-indulgence), rather than my gender?

Showing Honour

I was over at my in-laws last night and it often strikes me when I am with them what godly, lovely people they both are. One way I see this is the way my father-in-law will often disappear quietly into the kitchen after a busy meal. See, my in-laws are known for their hospitality, so their family of six (still at home) is often supplemented with lots of company. After a long day where both of them are tired, I suppose it would be easy for my in-laws to argue about who should wash dishes. My father-in-law's work involves lots of mental and physical exertion. My mother-in-law keeps a big family going with all the countless jobs that entails. But I've never seen them have that argument, while I have so often seen my father-in-law off in the kitchen, rallying the kids to come dry dishes.

It strikes me as such a fine example of the servant-leadership Christ wants the men of his Church to exhibit. No "I'm the man, I work hard all day and deserve a rest," no "I'm the man so I'm the breadwinner and you do the housework." Nothing like that. Instead, it's "I'm the man, and we're both tired but God gave me a stronger body and I will take care of you by doing these dishes at the end of a hard day." So wonderful.

And I'm the indirect beneficiary because my husband does the same. I know he hates washing dishes, but now that I'm pregnant and thus bone-weary for most of the day, he rises to the occasion, using his strength to serve. It is such a blessing to me, and perfectly pictures the selfless way Christ serves his bride the Church.

"Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." 1 Peter 3:7, ESV

You Don't Have To Be Pretty

I came across this rather appalling link via Princess-Free Zone: a pastor of a North Carolina church tirading about gender stereotypes. I wanted to address a specific quote, "And when your daughter starts acting too butch, you reign her in. And you say, ‘Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.’" (Emphasis mine.)

News flash! God does not say women have to be beautiful to please Him. God does not say it is women's job to dress up, woman's job to be "attractive". It is just not present in the Bible. Of the famous women of God in the Bible, do you know how many have their appearance mentioned? Five. Of these five, two are only mentioned because it's significant to a plot point (Esther and Sarah both attract the attention of pagan kings, but their faith is the point of the story. The other three are Rebekah, Abigail, and the Shulamite of Song of Solomon, all Old Testament women and part of a culture where a woman's economic value came from her appearance.) Do you know how many of the famous women of God in the Bible have no record of their appearance one way or the other? In the Old Testament, we have Eve, Ruth and Naomi, Hannah, Deborah, Tamar, Jochebed, Miriam, and Rahab. Among the women in Jesus' life, Anna, Elizabeth, Mary, Mary and Martha, Mary Magdalene, and among the women of the early church, Dorcas, Lois and Eunice, Junia, Phoebe, Priscilla, Lydia... indeed, nowhere in the New Testament is any woman praised or singled out for her beauty or lack thereof-- it's simply not present.

Now, all humans have a responsibility to steward the bodies God gave them. We are to avoid the sins of gluttony and laziness, and to treat others with respect, which easily translates into dressing appropriately for our culture and occasions, not eating to excess or only to satisfy our appetites, and to practice healthy exercise. I don't want you to hear me saying, "God says it's ok for you to be a couch-bound slob who lives in ratty sweatpants." But I do want you to hear this: all humans have these responsibilities. No, Pastor Harris, women don't have to smell nicer, dress up more, or spend more time cultivating their physical attractiveness than the men around them do. God never gave us that command. That's coming from the world.

Christian woman, God did give you a command about your appearance, though: to focus on inner beauty. To cultivate good works, a quiet and gentle spirit before the Lord, faith, not living in fear, to imitate Christ. But if anybody, within the church or without, tells you you have any kind of obligation to be beautiful, hold that up to the Scripture and I think you will find that it holds no water at all.

Thoughts On "A (Somewhat) Scholarly Analysis of Genesis 3:16"

I recently purchased Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology as a little gift for myself. Because it's been on my mind a lot lately, one of the first parts I dipped into was Chapter 22: Man As Male and Female. This is basically Grudem's overview of complementarianism and many parts of it were very good. A quote I especially loved was, "In practical terms, we must never think that there are any second-class citizens in the church. Whether someone is a man or woman, employer or employee, Jew or Gentile, black or white, rich or poor, healthy or ill, strong or weak, attractive or unattractive, extremely intelligent or slow to learn, all are equally valuable to God and should be equally valuable to one another as well. This equality is an amazing and wonderful element of the Christian faith and sets Christianity apart from almost all religions and societies and cultures." Praise God!

However. In the course of his breakdown of how pre-Fall Scripture already teaches different roles for men and women, Grudem footnotes Susan T. Foh's article in the Westminster Theological Journal in 1975, which argues that Genesis 3:16 should be re-examined in light of feminism (meaning second-wave feminism) and that "her desire shall be for her husband" should be interpreted that the woman's desire will be to conquer her husband. This is quite a leap from the ordinary meaning of desire, and a new idea theologically-- I would like to refer you to this article by Wendy Horger Alsup on Practical Theology for Women which breaks down this argument hermeneutically and discusses what Reformed theologians have historically thought on the subject, and, I think, makes a good case that what is actually meant here is a straightforward reading of "desire" as we usually read it: longing or craving.

Wendy writes: "What if we read Genesis 3:16 in the straightforward way translators write it—her desire (strong craving/longing) will be for her husband—a way that was among the common views of it, according to Foh, before she put out her new view in reaction to the 2nd wave of feminism?... A straightforward reading such as Vos', Keil's, and Delitzsch's, requires no theological backflips. The woman's root problem is that, even though child birth is painful and the man rules her, she still has a morbid craving for him, looking to him in completely unhealthy ways that do not reflect her status as image bearer of God." 

I do strongly encourage you to read the whole article; it's really fabulous. In closing, one more quote which uses this straightforward reading of the Genesis 3:16 curse to draw some conclusions about the current state of gender relationships: "No, feminism isn't the ultimate problem. The problem didn't start as women wanting control over the men in their lives. Women set up men as idols and looked to them to provide emotionally, spiritually, physically what only God can provide. Apart from Christ, men oppressed them in return, hence the modern coping mechanisms of independence, self-sufficiency, and control (often ineffective) for dealing with that oppression. The curse read at face value reflects the real issue, and the gospel is the clear answer."

John Calvin on 1 Timothy 2:9-10

"9 In like manner also women As he enjoined men to lift up pure hands, so he now prescribes the manner in which women ought to prepare for praying aright. And there appears to be an implied contrast between those virtues which he recommends and the outward sanctification of the Jews; for he intimates that there is no profane place, nor any from which both men and women may not draw near to God, provided they are not excluded by their vices.

He intended to embrace the opportunity of correcting a vice to which women are almost always prone, and which perhaps at Ephesus, being a city of vast wealth and extensive merchandise, especially abounded. That vice is — excessive eagerness and desire to be richly dressed. He wishes therefore that their dress should be regulated by modesty and sobriety; for luxury and immoderate expense arise from a desire to make a display either for the sake of pride or of departure from chastity. And hence we ought to derive the rule of moderation; for, since dress is an indifferent matter, (as all outward matters are,) it is difficult to assign a fixed limit, how far we ought to go. Magistrates may indeed make laws, by means of which a rage for superfluous expenditure shall be in some measure restrained; but godly teachers, whose business it is to guide the consciences, ought always to keep in view the end of lawful use. This at least will be settled beyond all controversy, that every thing in dress which is not in accordance with modesty and sobriety must be disapproved.

Yet we must always begin with the dispositions; for where debauchery reigns within, there will be no chastity; and where ambition reigns within, there will be no modesty in the outward dress. But because hypocrites commonly avail themselves of all the pretexts that they can find for concealing their wicked dispositions, we are under the necessity of pointing out what meets the eye. It would be great baseness to deny the appropriateness of modesty as the peculiar and constant ornament of virtuous and chaste women, or the duty of all to observe moderation. Whatever is opposed to these virtues it will be in vain to excuse. He expressly censures certain kinds of superfluity, such as curled hair, jewels, and golden rings; not that the use of gold or of jewels is expressly forbidden, but that, wherever they are prominently displayed, these things commonly draw along with them the other evils which I have mentioned, and arise from ambition or from want of chastity as their source."*

A lot of old-fashioned talk to sift through, but I what I want to highlight here is the emphasis of Calvin (and, I believe, the passage itself) on "modesty" as a counterpoint to "excessive eagerness and desire to be richly dressed". Calvin uses the word "chastity" to talk about what we often refer to as modesty: not dressing to be sexually alluring. "Modesty", in his vocabulary, is is about not dressing to highlight one's wealth, to achieve one's ambitions (whether for attention, a sense of superiority, or some other worldly advantage), or to display oneself (he does mention "either for the sake of pride or of departure from chastity", as both are certainly temptations). 

We often hear in the church of the need to be modest in the modern sense I mentioned. Depending on how conservative your church is, that could be anything from only wearing floor-length dresses to covering your chest to a certain height. These are what Calvin refers to as "a fixed limit" and says that a godly teacher will seek to guide the conscience and address the disposition rather than making rules. Not that choosing not to dress in a provocative way is wrong-- far from it!-- but rules prescribing exactly what is and is not appropriately chaste tend to miss that the emphasis in Scripture is on a more subtle heart issue.**

Calvin speaks of "Ephesus, being a city of vast wealth and extensive merchandise." What could be more descriptive of us in the affluent West? I believe we could do well to take to heart Calvin's charge to begin with "the dispositions; for where debauchery reigns within, there will be no chastity; and where ambition reigns within, there will be no modesty in the outward dress." I believe I spent the majority of the last ten years dressing, in some sense or another, to impress. Whether this took the form of dressing like a punk to show people I was above all their petty consumerist attitudes, or trying to emulate the women I saw on The Sartorialist to display my superior fashion sense, it certainly came from a disposition of ambition, not of Christlike humility.

When I look at my Saviour who "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped", I am ashamed of myself for trying to use clothing as a way to make myself look better than others. My prayer and hope going forward is that I can devote less time and energy to attempting to raise my status through clothing, and more time and energy to what God calls "proper" for the women who serve him-- good works. Meditating on the glorious truth that my status before God is already secure in Christ should serve to fight my fleshly desire towards self-promotion.

Is it wrong to dress in a way that is fun, fashion-forward, unusual, or high-end? I don't think that can be Scripturally argued. The issue of how to dress in a God-honouring way is deeply nuanced and must encompass, for starters, the topics of respectability, creativity, and Christian liberty, as well as what I've begun discussing here. However, I think it can be Scripturally argued that modern Christian women could benefit from a swing more in the other direction-- away from telling each other that it's okay to enjoy dressing up and fashion, and towards what Calvin calls "the duty of all to observe moderation." We must strive for wisdom and balance in every issue not specifically prescribed in Scripture, and I believe in the present-day, we need to move towards moderation to achieve balance.

I want to end, then, with a challenge to my sisters in the church: Calvin says, "This at least will be settled beyond all controversy, that every thing in dress which is not in accordance with modesty and sobriety must be disapproved." Do you think you could describe how everything about how you dress as "in accordance with modesty*** and sobriety"? Will you pray and ask the Spirit to reveal to you if your clothing choices are driven by ambition instead of godly character?

*Quote sourced from Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

**And vilify the female body over the human heart, but that's a topic for another post...

***In Calvin's "not putting on a display" sense.

Introduction

For some time, I've needed a better place than Facebook notes to share some musings on complementarianism, feminism, women's rights, and Biblical womanhood. I have been thinking a lot about the tension between my complementarian views and women's rights issues including (but not limited to) oppression, oversexualization, and media portrayals of women. I do not believe there should be a tension between the two, but since I haven't come across much conversation between complementarianism and the women's rights issues normally championed by feminists, I think there is room in the blog-world for this little space.

My intention is to address Christians; my posts will assume a Reformed worldview and will be from a complementarian perspective. Hopefully I can approach the issues in a way that is Biblical, honest, and encouraging, and share the good news as well as the problems.

I am always happy to be directed to news articles, resources, and any media that touches on the topics I discuss here, so do feel free to point them out to me. I also welcome debate and correction-- you'll notice me saying "I think" a lot, and Scriptural truth and concrete facts brought to bear on what I think are most welcome. And with that-- forward ho!