The Hyphen House

People often comment on how clever and thoughtful we are when it comes to our celebrations and gifts. Perhaps we can take a bit of credit for creativity, but the truth is that it's all planned. Every bit of it.

Some of the best advice we got in premarital counseling was to clearly communicate our expectations to each other. If I had secretly always wanted my husband to give my flowers on my birthday but never actually told him that's what I desired, then I had no right to get upset about it.

So early on, we set out plans for how we would like to celebrate holidays, birthdays and other occasions. That's not to say there's no room for spontaneity or change, but it does alleviate potential hurt feelings and provide something to look forward to.

Image via Flickr

Here are some examples:

*Valentine's Day - we do a chocolate exchange (yum!)

*Birthdays - we do surprise gifts (I know, we plan to surprise)

*Christmas - we request gifts (there are too many other gifts to think of for other people) within a budget

*Anniversaries - traditional gifts within a budget (so fun to come up with gifts to meet the year)

On top of our customary gifts, we might request something. This year on my birthday I asked Eric to plan a day trip getaway and keep the location a surprise. This is a major gift because I am a natural planner and therefore organise most of our travel. It doesn't come as organically to him but he does it well, so it's a nice break for me and a big effort on him part.

These planned traditions do not take away from the romance but add to it, because we trust the other's intentions and don't try to outdo each other. It works well.

Does my child come first? My husband? Myself? Yes.

I often hear conflicting advice about care:

"Put on your own oxygen mask first."

"Your child is only young once - pour all your energy into her."

"If your husband doesn't come first, the romance will dwindle and your marriage will decline."

I actually agree with each of these statements. I just happen to think you can do it all. I prefer to think that my family comes first - all three of us at once.

Societally, we are so bad at living holistically. We compartmentalise everything. So it can be a challenge to live this way.

Photo credit: Graham Detonator on flickr

It's really just an extension of our egalitarian relationship. We attempt to operate based on needs and gifts/skills/likes versus role functions. In practical terms, that means that if one of us is working more, the other does more housework. On an emotional level, that means that if one of us is having a particularly difficult time, the other provides more support.

In our family, I constantly adjust the rhythm of who needs what and when. Obviously, Dash is tiny and cannot meet her own needs. But that doesn't mean I have to meet all those needs. She has her dad and a host of loving family and friends. Some days she needs me more than others - during a developmental leap or during illness, for example. Sometimes Eric needs my undivided attention and that means assuring that Dash will be cared for either with good sleep or someone else. And sometimes I need serious self care, which means I need to trust them both in order to give myself some freedom.

Each day is give and take. I have time set aside for just me, just me and Dash, just me and Eric and all three of us. But sometimes the days look much different and we all adjust. Open communication (even Dash has her way of communicating needs!) assures we all get what we need and that everyone comes first.

He looked at me with a raised eyebrow that conveyed confusion. "So they didn't let women be pastors or elders? That doesn't make any sense!"

I love that I'm in a church now where it's not even a question whether or not women can be formal leaders in the church. As I recounted some of my past experiences in churches, it just sounded more and more ridiculous.

We're in the process of hiring a pastoral assistant/intern at my current church, and the issue of gender never even came up. Members of the search committee just said he/she as though it was obvious it could be either.

It's just nice to be in a place where this isn't an issue.

I don't know how I missed this great book idea/experiment by Rachel Held Evans, but it's fascinating. She's taking a year to live the "10 Commandments of Biblical Womanhood" literally... not cutting her hair, keeping her home, etc. I'll be following the Womanhood Project closely now! As an egalitarian, I'm quite interested to see what she finds through this journey.

One thing she's exploring is domesticity. I want to capitalize on this aspect because there seems to be an assumption that feminist/egalitarian women don't know how to cook, have perpetually messy houses (or spotless ones that other people clean), and turn their noses up at crafts and household projects. That, or they have "un-manly" husbands who just do all the housework.

I'll admit, I gave myself the moniker "domestically challenged" throughout much of my teenage and college years. On the rare occasion I attempted cooking, there were mishaps (in case you are wondering, you cannot substitute water for oil in a cake). I started and abandoned many crafting projects. And I certainly did not volunteer for kitchen work at church events (do you boys need a hand carrying those chairs?).

Much of this was self-imposed. Did I know how to cook? Yes, and I made more meals than most of my college friends, experimenting with recipes on my roommates. Was I capable of crafting? I've got 15 years of scrapbooks to verify that yes I was. Did I do housework? I could sure tidy up quickly, and do mountains of laundry at once.

But somehow that domestic stuff felt weak to me. Like I couldn't be good at it and also pursue a career. Or I couldn't broadcast it because it would look like I was husband-hunting for the kind of guy who wanted a stay-at-home wife/mom.

When I finally decided that cooking, cleaning, and crafting could actually be acts of independence, and I didn't have to do them b/c of cultural expectations but because I wanted to, my outlook changed quite a bit. And when Eric and I got married and moved in together, dividing chores, learning to cook challenging things together, and using crafts as a way to pursue creativity in my own space felt really empowering.

Sometimes when I talk about doing Eric's laundry, or when I clear the dishes after hosting dinner, or when I mention my love of scrapbooking and making things out of found objects, people raise their eyebrows at me. As if any domestic act interferes with my empowered, egalitarian persona. At this point it's all part and parcel. I'm just a woman taking care of myself and my home. When I was single, this was important. And in marriage, having a partner to help makes it no less important.

How about I cook you dinner, serve it to you at a table I've dressed, and we can talk about men, women, and domesticity? Don't worry, dessert will be pre-made.

Mark Driscoll is pastor of a big church, famous for saying things like Jesus wasn't wimpy, it's only worth serving a God who can kick some ass, and men should just be men and fight each other in cages. I'm paraphrasing (although not much), but he's said lots of things that get my blood boiling and make me want to scream. How do I react?

The trouble with statements like those Driscoll makes are that they are meant to get people riled up. They are meant to make people write angry comments on his articles or make people chant "hell yeah!" in favor of machismo ruling in God's name.

I have been challenged of late to reach out to brothers and sisters in an effort to understand views that are different than mine. If I stumble on a blog or run into someone from my past who believes very differently than I do about gender, equality, and the Bible's teachings on each, I want to see why they believe what they do rather than engage a heated argument. Usually that involves taking several deep breaths, some prayer, and some reminders from my husband that God defines us--not Christian fads that are simply reinventions of patriarchal dominance in a hip, trendy package--before I can proceed.

As one friend, from whom I hold diametrically opposing views on women and submission, put it, "It is not for us to convince each other; that is the Spirit's work." I can spout off Scripture and science and behavioral studies and cultural critiques all day long, but I have to trust the Spirit to work for the liberation of His people first and foremost.

Don't get me wrong, I do think there is a time and place to channel righteous anger into articulating a heartfelt response to such assaults on women and men as posed by Driscoll. But my struggle right now is to pursue peace, and I believe part of pursuing peace is pursuing understanding, even when I can't for the life of me understand why someone could say "fat lazy men" (read: not athletic or violent) are the root cause of all the problems in the world.

But then I start to understand. I read this interview on Relevant Magazine a few months ago with Mark Driscoll, in which he was asked if he regretted any of his statements. He responded:

If I could hit control-alt-delete and go back and do like they used to in Men in Black and just hit a button to make certain people forget certain things, that would be awesome. My hope, my prayer, my goal is to do better, by God’s grace, to learn, to grow, to be sanctified and mature—to be less shock-jock and more Jesus-centered. I’m turning 40 this fall, so I can’t get away with, “Oh, he’s young.” I’ve got five kids, I’m not young anymore, I’m a tired old man. But I’m hoping God gives me enough years, maybe 30, 40 more years of service, that when it’s all said and done, I will have had enough time to correct some mistakes I’ve made and learn how to more clearly articulate some things I believe. So I’m trying to learn as I go.

The bottom line is, I generally conclude that people like Driscoll are deeply hurting. That does not explain away his statements or his approaches. But enforcement of this sort of hyper-masculinity often covers up severe struggle with gender identity. (I would argue gender identity is a struggle for all, but that's another post.) I would also assume, given some of what I've read by him, that he has a heart for female abuse victims and in an effort to curb domestic violence and protect women, he has a scarily reactionary approach. 

So right now I pray for peace, pray that God would soften Driscoll's heart and use his pastoral position to truly minister to people he wants to help. And I pray that our lives are examples of how men and women following God instead of trying to be cage fighters and protected creatures can be an answer to all the things he's afraid of.

"I can't tell him that or he'll think I'm this."

"I can't just say that to her, she'll take it the wrong way."

These are oft-used lines in TV shows and movies that really bug me. I get so frustrated that an entire 30 minute sitcom can be filled with people talking to everyone except the person they need to talk to. Portrayals of married couples are the worst. I guess I've been watching too much hulu.com, b/c this has been on my mind lately.

It took us probably 8 months into our dating relationship before we were completely comfortable telling each other everything. I've mentioned before how we try to talk through every issue, large and small. But it took us a while to get into that rhythm. Once we had painful conflict that stemmed from withholding information and feelings, to the point we almost ended our relationship. From then on we got a lot better at sharing everything.

I tell Eric the most banal details of my day, and he recounts the smallest anecdotes of his routine. That leads to talking about people and life and ideals and deep things that don't seem connected to any of it. I share what I'm frustrated about, what I'm afraid of, what I don't understand about him or our marriage. He asks questions and asks for assurance and indicates disappointment. Often, whatever it is that feels so big in my head feels a lot smaller when I talk to him about it.

It's a tricky balance. I want to own my feelings, which sometimes means I have to process them internally first, and that can be frustrating for my partner. Sometimes I just want to be quiet. We're still developing a way to effectively non-verbally communicate: "I love you but I need to be silent and figure this out. It's not about you. And if it is I still love you." A wink doesn't quite do the trick. And then there's pushing through the selfish temptation to assume I get to keep things to myself and not let him in.

What frees us to share everything, I guess, is a basis of trust and unconditional love. Even the times we can't stand how the other isn't meeting our expectations or we grapple with what it means to really be one, we know our love is bigger than it. That's why we can dig through it. Even when doubt the other's trustworthiness (or our own), we cling to the foundation of trust.

So a Friends episode might be 5 minutes long if Monica and Chandler went straight to each other and actually communicated their issues and feelings, but boy would their marriage be more healthy!

You've heard us sing the praises of Christians for Biblical Equality before. They are an amazing organization spreading the good news of the "biblical foundation for gift-based rather than gender-based ministry and service." We are members of CBE and have derived so much encouragement from their resources.

The latest issue of their magazine Mutuality is all about dating. Primarily it deconstructs the cultural traditions (both Christian and secular) surrounding dating and unpacks them. I recommend getting the issue (or borrowing it from me), but they have some good posts and discussion on the subject on their blog right now.

I'm bringing this up because so much of it resonated with Eric and I. When we first started dating, we knew we wanted an egalitarian relationship, but we had no idea what that looked like. It served us well to throw everything out and start from scratch. We read books, talked to people, got counsel, read the Bible, and went through a lot of trial and error. And we had an extremely romantic, inspiring dating relationship.

I wrote the following responses to questions posed by a very good post entitled "Biblical Principles for a Cultural Practice":


* Who initiates/how should a person initiate if it is not automatically assumed that the man will?
I think waiting on the other to initiate is problematic, but waiting for a sense the other is interested could be good. Also, initiating spending time with a person of the opposite sex doesn’t have to be such a big deal. When I first met my husband, I asked if he wanted to carpool to where we both attended grad school. It gave us the chance to get to know each other better without pressure, and six weeks later we went on our first official date.

* Who—the man or the woman—should plan and pay for dates?
This varies for every couple but I think should be discussed early on. My now husband joked on our 3rd date that if we wanted an egalitarian relationship we should trade off planning for dates. I thought it was a great idea and that’s what we still do, 3 1/2 years later. While we were dating we decided he would pay for our date night and I would pay for other activities (spontaneous lunches, etc.)

* Isn’t it simply a desire to be lazy and passive when men want women to initiate?
Maybe a way to look at this is that men and women are both capable of initiating, so if either refuses to do anything before the other, that’s the bigger problem.

* How can relationship conflicts be resolved when there is no designated head?
Discussing conflict resolution before any major conflict came up helped us to determine how to go about this. No one is "in charge" and therefore we have to turn to each other to peacefully and respectfully deal with the issue.

* Doesn’t every man want to rescue a beauty and every woman want to be a beauty to be rescued?
I think more people want a warrior king or queen to fight alongside! Giving up the rescuer/rescued dynamic has freed a lot of my friends and us to embrace healthy and fulfilling relationships.

Last month, Eric and I were invited to speak with a small group of high school girls at their Peace Camp. It was an overnight workshop of sorts wherein they discussed peace in themselves, peace in their relationships, and peace in their world. They also drew a picture of a peaceful world as they brainstormed what that would look like.

Their world included "loving lingo," a peace army that would give hugs, universal healthcare and citizenship, food distribution centers, lifelong learning that would entail studying and teaching what you truly loved, conflict resolution teams, renewable energy, nuclear disarmament, and all kinds of green initiatives. It was inspiring to hear their vision.

We spoke with them about what it means to us to have a peaceful marriage. We shared with them how we learned peaceful conflict resolution, how we pursue equality, how we remove un-peaceful distractions, how we navigate challenges, how we make no assumptions about "roles" but base the rhythm of our relationship on who we are, how we strive to respect and love each other unconditionally, how we are continually learning, etc. The answer to most of their questions was "Well, we talk about it. A lot." They wanted to know if our throats ever got dry from talking so much. Of course, they do. :)

Overall it was a great experience, and it made me thankful for peace on all scales. In other words, being truly at peace with your spouse is perhaps as important as nations being at peace with each other. A young woman who is inspired to make affordable solar panels so thin that you can roll out on the roof (and after meeting this girl, I'm sure she will invent such a thing) will be a part of creating peace on multiple levels. I believe in a deep and abiding peace found in Christ, therefore I believe "world peace" is not a trite concept. And it starts with letting the peace of Christ which transcends all understanding transform my understanding.

I hear constantly that men should be the provider. What people usually mean by that is they expect men to work hard at their jobs to make enough money so the rest of the family is fed, clothed, and happy.

When Eric and I decided to get married, out of respect he spoke to both my parents before the proposal. They asked him how he planned to provide for me and eventually for children. At the time, I was struggling with serious health issues, so part of their question was a sincere inquiry into his willingness to be the sole income-earner in the case that my health prevented me from working. He, of course, was and would be willing to do that if the need arose.

But I loved his answer. He told them that we would provide for each other. Provision would extend beyond financial concerns. He committed to providing inspiration and care and support to me, just as I would provide that to him.


He has said several times since we got married that he is glad he doesn't have the burden of "provider" in the traditional sense. He is glad he didn't sacrifice a job he loves and is gifted at in order to make more money. He is glad he isn't the spiritual provider in the sense that all spiritual decisions and knowledge are left to him. He is glad that he is connected to me (and later to our children) emotionally, not in a distant provider/protector sense.


Our commitment to provide for each other allows us to trust God to be our ultimate provider of Life and guidance. Christ is the head of our marriage, not one of us.

I'm trying to reserve some judgment on this until I see the updated NIV, but right now I'm heartbroken. Zondervan just announced that they will scrap the Today's New International Version (TNIV) of the Bible and undergo a major revision of the NIV due out 2011.

The TNIV is a gender inclusive translation of the Bible that very responsibly uses references to "men and women" and "humankind" and "brothers and sisters" in its text. Any time the original language used inclusive references, they are stated as such. It keeps the male pronoun for God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The translation was very liberating for Eric and I. It is such a relief to be directly spoken to as a "sister" in the Bible, as it should be, rather than told "Oh, mankind means everybody. You're overreacting."

I'm not overreacting. Language is powerful, so when I get picky about semantics, it's because they carry meaning far beyond the words themselves. If there is "neither male nor female" then we need to be vigilant about making sure our language reflects that equality.

Several years ago I read a book by a woman who was severely abused by her father, and underwent all sorts of victimization from men. She struggled often with the male-dominance of churches. A gender-inclusive Bible was a big step in her restoration. She cried when she read it.

So I pray that the next version of the NIV will seek God on how to lift up our brothers and sisters through this translation. I don't want to have to fight to be included in a Bible that was written for me, too.

by Jonathan Brink
re-posted from Missio Dei

--

I am making a call to men to step up to a level of fierce, sacrificial love for women.

Recently I’ve been listening to the great chasm between men and women that exists in culture. It’s not new but I have been exploring this divide in a deeper way in my own heart. And I now believe it is time to respond in a tangible way. In some ways, I fell like this is one of the most important posts I have or will write because it’s a call out of oppression.

My exploration essentially began in response to Julie Clawson’s article regarding women in leadership in Christianity Today’s blog. Julies voice eloquently expressed the tension and divide that exists in both women and men. It was both her courage and honesty that caught my attention.

And then my journey took me to New Mexico for the Emerging Church conference. It was at this conference that I got to experience over and over the amazing voices that are women, and the profound balance they provide to the conversation. It was in no way new, but it was fresh. I would offer that the best voices at the conference were women. But is was on woman in particular who sat next to me that I must mention. During the after conference she chose to reveal to the room what reconciliation not only sounded like but looked like. I wrote about that experience here, but I think Jeromy capture it much better in his post, “wounded image of God.”

And then Jeff McQuilkin stepped up and owned it too. He followed in Jeromy’s footsteps and sought out the forgiveness of the lost and broken female voice that we men have oppressed. It was both insightful, profound, and needed, especially because Jeff serves as a pastor. And unfortunately the church leads the way in oppressing women.

And then a friend of mine hit me with A Question of Fidelity. It was an exploration into the tension that is marriage. But it was the comment of a female friend that literally stopped me dead in my tracks. Peggy said,

I flinched a bit when you said: “The role of mother is virtually untouchable in our society, especially in a Christian context.” For so many Christian women, being a mother is the only thing that they are really empowered — overtly and covertly — to do. While that may not be the whole (actually, I’m confident it is not!) issue here, it is a part of it. If it is untouchable, the brother have to bear some of the responsibility for that, IMO.

Peggy had in no uncertain terms nailed it on the head. In subjugating and oppressing women, in limiting them to certain exclusive roles, MEN have in essence driven women to a place of defending these territories, at the expense of relationship. We are in essence creating a culture that deeply effects our own marriages, families, and social structures.

And the final straw came in Scripture. I was updated the workbooks for Thrive and was working through Genesis again. The creation account is interesting in that there is a moment when God allows Adam to first see life without the presence of Eve. And the point is to call out what was MISSING. “It is not good for man to be alone.” And then God reveals that Eve is within Adam. The whole of humanity is found in the both/and. And it hit me in a very deep way. The whole of humanity is only found in both expressions of God’s image, in the male and the female.

And when we oppress women by cutting out their voices, their participation, and their calling to leadership we have in essence cut ourselves off from the whole picture of our own humanity. We have oppressed ourselves. We are missing the half that is part of us. And again, none of this is new, but what these events did was unveil my eyes to the path to restoration and wholeness.

So today I want to call men out of their own oppression by refusing to oppress the other half of themselves: women. And I’m talking flat out refuse. This is not a call to think about it. This is a call to step up and own it as a completely different way of living, one defined by grace, invitation, and permission, not shame, rejection, and fear. The truth is we’re not even giving women permission. We’re validating the permission that God has already given to them. And this will mean owning our own history as the male half, even if we didn’t participate. It will mean seeking forgiveness with the women around us, reminding them that it is our part to redeem the oppression we have created. And in some cases, it will also mean taking on the responsibility for our neighbor, who has not yet discovered his own courage.

For those in leadership of businesses, families and churches, and especially pastors, it means taking the risk and elevating women to leadership. It means restoring the other half of not only our own image but God’s voice in our midst. And for some this is going to be a sacrificial move. You might be putting your job at risk. But I would offer you if you do it will become one of the most defining acts of your life. It will be, as a friend says, “Your William Wallace moment.” It will be the moment you stood up against oppression and said, “No more to oppression or tyranny.” I love Wallace’s own words from the movie Braveheart:

“Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you’ll live… at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin’ to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take… OUR FREEDOM!”

Our freedom only comes when we first stop participating in the oppression of women. It is time to remove our shame. It is time to step into our own calling as men and be love in the fiercest way possible, and against the most oppressive of enemies. And our enemy is not our neighbor standing near or afar, but the lie that lures us to oppress each other. For all of us, it is time to end this oppression against women so restore not for their sake but for ours as well. And when we do we can rediscover the whole image of humanity and of God in our midst.

When we began our church tour, we wanted to be sure to include congregations that were a) not predominantly white and b) include women on the pastoral staff. The experiences have made us more sure that we want to make a home in such a church.

Sunday, we visited a Methodist church pastored by an African American woman. More on our visit later; for now I want to talk about our specific experience in this service in reference to the pastor.

The church is small, so the pastor greeted us at the door when we arrived. She's a gentle, dynamic woman who extended a very warm welcome and even chatted with us for a few minutes. I loved her sermon so much, both the content and the delivery. It moved me to tears. She preached the truth of God's provision and the reality of miracles, both large and small.

It made me grieve for women with pastoral gifts who have been excluded from church leadership simply because of their gender. This pastor does an amazing job and is clearly following God's calling as she shepherds and inspires her congregation.

In the words of Janet George in Still Side by Side: A Concise Explanation of Biblical Equality, "If we are to err, let us not err on the side of restricting the work of God. Let us encourage the entire body of Christ to exercise all the gifts, for the whole world. The needs are great, and God knows…everyone is needed!"