RSS

Homemaking and Housekeeping

"Your dad does dishes?" my friends would often ask when they came to my house and saw my dad at work in the kitchen.

"Your dad doesn't?" I would reply with surpise.

I'm grateful that growing up I learned that homemaking and housekeeping are collective efforts. They aren't meant to be relegated to the girls or left to the mother to control. My only sibling is a younger sister, so I don't know how things would have been different if there were sons. Perhaps the chores would have been divided differently or something, but I know everyone would have been expected to contribute.

There are no innate female superpowers that make all women instantly amazing at these things. As with most skills, they have to be learned, taught, and cultivated. There were certain aspects I grabbed onto quickly and easily, but others took a lot of patience.

Cooking is something I had to really work at it. I didn't have much interest in it for a long time. Somehow I got cultural messages that women were "supposed to" cook and make meals for their family and that was their primary purpose in life. It wasn't 'til I lived on my own and realized that in fact cooking was a way to provide for myself, an art form to creatively practice, and a great thing to share with people I loved, that I took to it. It's somewhat true that third wave feminists have been too reactionary in the area of homemaking - going from doing everything to nothing. I'm happy to see more women reclaiming that space and men picking it up because they want to, not because they are supposed to (or supposed to not).

My now husband had a similar awakening when we were dating, and we have been learning and mastering cooking together since. It has been wonderful for our relationship, particularly when we get to host others. Even now, when new friends see us working together in the kitchen, they're like "I like the team effort. Is this normal?" Honestly we can barely make a meal without each other!

I must confess I agreed to go on a blind date once simply because the guy had been to "chef school." His mother had sent him and his brothers to cooking classes as teenagers. She wanted to be sure they would be husbands who cooked for their wives. That idea was quite attractive.

When I was single I enjoyed making meals with friends, preparing for parties with roommates, etc. It doesn't have to be a solitary investment until you find a partner.


I've never understood the whole "men watch sports while women cook" at family gatherings. It bugs me to no end. My favorite part of family holidays is that my whole family - mom, dad, my sister and our husbands, all get in the kitchen together. The preparation is so fun and bonds us together. Too often, men "helping around the house" is about men assisting women in their "role" as the keeper of the domestic sphere. It's so much more enjoyable when it's a truly people working together.
 
It's also important to remember to be flexible with these things. Different points in life will require that one partner do more housework than the other. The idea is not to be perfectly equal - please don't ever make a chore chart for your spouse! - but to communicate and help each other. Just recently I realized that I had almost unconsciously picked up a majority of the housework, primarily b/c we weren't communicating. There were deeper reasons for this, that required some long conversations and changes on both of our parts. At least temporarily, it means we've restructured our budget to allow someone to clean our house every 2 weeks. I put dinner in the crock pot one day a week and he makes breakfast (and brings it to me in bed!) every Saturday. The rest of the time it's a shared effort. We feel much more in sync when we are both tending to our home life.

All this to say, homemaking and housekeeping are collective efforts whether you are single or married - and they are not a "woman's job". They are skills that can enhance your life if you let them, instead of considering them a burden.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

"Updated" NIV

When the TNIV (Today's New International Version) of the Bible first came out, I bought it upon the recommendation of a friend. He chose the translation for its readability, translation, and gender neutral language. I can't tell you how beautiful and freeing it was to read "brothers AND sisters"; "humankind" instead of "mankind." Finally, here was a good translation that included women and brought everyone together. (More on the TNIV at CBE.)

I was very disappointed when they pulled the TNIV out of print. The Committee on Bible Translation announced they would be retooling the NIV. My first thought was skepticism about the decision. I figured, as some reports suggested, that the CBT were caving to critics who didn't like the gender neutral language. But I was cautioned to reserve judgment until it came out.

The latest NIV was released recently and I am saddened by it. While it does, on occasion, still employ the terms "brothers and sisters", it also says "mankind". It's actually quite confusing. Turn to Genesis, and God says, "let us make mankind in our image." Turn to Acts and Paul says, "There we found some brothers and sisters." (The entire updated NIV is available and searchable on Bible Gateway.)

According to the CBT website, the committee itself is supposed to be comprised "of leading evangelical Bible scholars drawn from various denominations and from some of the finest academic institutions in the world." It is not, by any means, a diverse committee. There are 12 white men, one Indian man, and two white women (one of whom is the secretary). Out of the entire English-speaking world, the CBT is comprised of mostly Americans, a few British men, and one from India.  

The translator notes do not adequately explain their decision to change gender neutral language. Their first aim is to reflect "changes in English." Which, obviously, referring to humanity as "mankind" does not. According to my husband the English teacher, the Modern Language Association says "mankind" is no longer grammatically correct. Using "he" as a stand alone pronoun (instead of he/she or them) is also unacceptable. If anything, this goes backwards as far as the MLA is concerned.


The translator notes also state:

For this revision to the NIV, particular attention has been paid to external feedback in the area of gender language. As stated in the September 1, 2009, announcement regarding the planned update, every single change introduced into the committee’s last major revision (the TNIV) relating to inclusive language for humanity was reconsidered. Some were preserved, some were abolished in favor of the 1984 rendering and many were reworded in a third, still different way.
 In some cases, one could argue, the translation seems to favor more egalitarian understandings. In a recent USA Today article about the new NIV, the author quotes a complementarian seminary professor:


Denny Burk, a professor of New Testament at Boyce College, a Southern Baptist school in Louisville, has complained about one change in 1 Timothy 2:12. That verse from a New Testament letter from the Apostle Paul, used to read, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." Now it says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man."
The change from "have authority" to "assume authority" is huge, Burk argues. He believes that God gave men and women different jobs — and that women can't be pastors. Burk says the new Bible sides with his opponents.
 So I'm confused overall and a little dismayed. I'm glad to have the TNIV and that a few other reliable gender-neutral translations exist. Above all, I know God's Word speaks above human voices. So where people try to subjugate or leave out, God will include with love and justice.

See other articles from various perspectives on the issue of gender neutral language in Bible translations at Bible Researcher.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

I Don't Understand

Our pastor is a kind man who grew up in Sierra Leone. Tonight he recounted with grief the reaction of the Anglican church in England to women bishops. "Women bishops? They have a problem with this? With women preaching the Word of God? I just don't understand. I don't understand."

Well, I don't understand either why so many people oppose women preachers. Of all the things to be concerned about in the Church, why is it such a big issue?

In our small group tonight we discussed the broader meanings of the phrase "Thy will be done" in the Lord's Prayer. I noted that sometimes God's will can seem counter-cultural, even in your own church.

I gave the example of one church I attended, in which I discovered I had pastoral gifts. The trouble was, there were no female ministers in my church and the majority of the leadership believed women should not be on pastoral staff. I did not particularly feel called into the ministry, but I did want to nurture these gifts and see where they would lead. But if I had been called to be a pastor, I would have had to leave the church in order to lead.

The host tonight asked me how this felt. I said it was confusing. And after further reflection, I feel a bit betrayed. It was like some of the staff were patting me on the head, saying good for you, just don't get out of line. The host added that if in a similar situation he would feel oppressed. And I did.

It's hard to be honest about the deep ramifications of something like this, particularly when I have fond memories of this church and mean no ill will toward the staff. But I have to be honest in order to continue to heal.

I wanted to cry almost tonight, being in a room full of people who truly believe all people are capable and made in God's image. And when called, people should do God's will as preachers/pastors/bishops. Men and women.

So much energy the Church wastes on keeping people in their "proper" place! If all the sermons I've heard about what it means to be a "godly" (read: submissive, teach only other women, primarily wife/mother) woman had been spent on love and grace and justice, we'd be in a much better situation as a Church.

One woman tonight suggested that perhaps we had an impact at that church that we don't even know about. Maybe we were a pebble that created a ripple. And I believe we might have been. I'd rather be a boulder that smashes hierarchy. But I'll settle for the pebble, gently spurring a collective examination.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

On Mark Driscoll

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.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Ephesians and Egalitarianism

While we talk openly on this blog about our egalitarian views, after reading the question posed on Lauran's last post, I realized we may not yet have articulated the Biblical basis for our belief that men and women are equal partners in God's kingdom. I thought it might be useful to spell it out a little more clearly in case anyone was curious.

Let me make some disclaimers. First, I am not a Bible scholar. I don't speak Greek or Hebrew, nor do I think it is necessary to be a Biblical scholar in order to intelligently engage with Scripture. If you would like more scholarly approaches to Biblical egalitarianism, you should check out Christians for Biblical Equality. They have many sources, ranging from scholarly to more ordinary commentaries about what the Bible says about equality between men and women. Second, I am not interested in portraying the views of those who disagree with me as non-Biblical, rather they just do not fit with my interpretation of Scripture. I am sure if you are reading this and find yourself disagreeing with what I say that you feel just as strongly that God has revealed truth to you as I feel God has revealed it to me. I am open to your viewpoints as long as they are expressed in a respectful way, which leads me to Ephesians.

Most of the big arguments against egalitarianism draw heavily from Ephesians 5:23-24: "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." This verse on its own, out of context, seems to deny emphatically the idea that men and women (specifically husbands and wives) are equals, but the book of Ephesians is actually one of my favorite books when it comes to discussions about Biblical equality.

God has gifted me as a teacher, specifically an English teacher, so one of the talents I bring to the table here is my ability to read and analyze a text carefully (in English). Unfortunately, when it comes to studying the Bible, we treat it unlike just about every other text we read for what seem to me like some fairly arbitrary reasons, like limiting our study to a specific verse or chapter or section of a chapter. All of these are late additions to the Bible, which in my opinion have done great damage to our interpretation of it. Now instead of approaching Ephesians 5:23-24 in an isolated context, I would rather speak to the book as a whole first because I believe it sheds important light on specific passages. These are not isolated verses, rather they are part of a greater context.

If I could summarize the entire book of Ephesians in brief, I would say that Paul is trying to tell the mostly Greek church at Ephesus not to think of themselves as different or inferior to Jewish believers because of their Gentile heritage. Christ is the Head of us all, and we are all equal inheritors of his grace and authority. Because of this amazing privilege, we should act accordingly, not living according to the ways of the world or falling prey to sin. Furthermore, we are to treat each other with respect, love, and mutual submission. In Chapter 5, Paul examines three important traditionally power-based relationships and applies this teaching to these specific contexts. He finally ends with some words of encouragement, urging us to fight lies and evil with truth, faith, and Scripture. I know this is a very rough synopsis, but I think it is a fair one for capturing the overall message of the book in a short amount of space.

I think it is worth noting how often Paul notes that Christ is Head. Even a cursory reading of the first few chapters will highlight this aspect of the text. As I would tell my English classes, if it keeps being repeated, he must want us to remember it. It is also worth noting that as always, Paul's focus seems to be on the grace of Christ which allows all of us, Greek or Jew, male or female, slave or free, sinner or saint, to be one in Christ. Notice also the strong emphasis on unity within the body, another of Paul's favorite themes in the Epistles. By the time we get to chapter 5, one thing is abundantly clear: Christ is our Head. We are his body. Together we are one, regardless of our statuses in society or our personal histories.

Many people when focusing on the end of chapter 5, verse 22 and following, forget about 5:21 just before it, where Paul urges all believers: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." This is a general instruction to all believers, meaning no one is exempt. We are all to practice mutual submission, which seems a logical idea given all that Paul has previously stated about Christ being our Head and we being equals in the body of Christ. As equals, it only makes sense that we treat each other with respect and submit to each other in love. I trust I have not said anything controversial here.

The rest of the passage seems to apply this idea of mutual submission to three very specific relationships that would have been of great importance to Paul and his contemporaries and functioned in the society of his day as basic power-based relationships, where one person has authority over the other. The three relationships he focuses on are the husband-wife, parent-child, and master-servant (or slave) dynamics. In his time, the first person listed in these relationships would have been seen as the authority in the relationship. Therefore, he is not rattling any feathers when he tells wives, children, and slaves to obey their husbands, parents, and masters. It is only in a modern context that these verses might be seen as controversial or problematic.

That being said, where Paul does seem to challenge the status quo is in his instructions to husbands, parents, and masters. I won't worry about the latter two although the instructions are similar in spirit to those he gives husbands: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her [...]" (5:25). He goes on to elaborate telling husbands twice to love their wives as much as they love themselves... in other words, as equals. I think the logic I am following here is clear. If a husband loves his wife like himself, he loves equally to himself. This is one of the most controversial instructions Paul gives in the entire letter. He is basically telling husbands that even though in their worldly cultures (which he has already should not supersede our Christian lives) they are seen as superior to women, that they should treat their wives as equals.

Furthermore, he tells us to love our wives sacrificially, as Christ loved the church. Christ paints a perfect picture of submission, one Paul refers to quite beautifully in Philippians 2, written about the same time as Ephesians: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." Paul clearly states here that Christ's love is submissive. Christ had all the authority of God, but out of love, he gave up claim to all his power and authority, which is infinitely more than my cultural power as a white male. He submitted to the authority of earthly rulers like Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate. He served those who were considered to be the lowest of the low, the poorest of the poor, and the worst of sinners. Paul says that is how husbands are to love their wives. This is the most controversial thing he says in the entire book.

To wrap it up and put it into a more contemporary context, I, as a husband, have been granted a position of power and authority in my marriage because of the patriarchal culture I live in, not as much power as the patriarchal Ephesian culture, but power nonetheless. My position of power is constantly reinforced by sexist stereotypes that infiltrate every aspect of society, even (perhaps especially) the church, which takes the whole "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" things to whole new heights as though the Bible invented this absurd concept. My society seeks to divide me from others by my gender, class, race, and a whole number of other factors. God gives me two very clear instructions in Ephesians that contradict this worldly teaching. First, we are all one in Christ, and he is our head. (In Galatians, another letter Paul wrote while in prison, he says, "There is no Jew nor Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free.") I must resist the forces that seek to divide me by emphasizing how different I am from everyone else, like perhaps that I am from a different planet, say Mars for example. Second, I must submit out of love to everyone, this is especially true for me given my cultural privilege as a male. Like Jesus, I must make myself nothing, denying my power and privilege out of love for others, especially my wife, who in a patriarchal culture is not treated equally to me. In other words, I must treat her as more worthy than me by loving her sacrificially as Christ loved the church.

Nothing about this implies to me that I am supposed to be in charge of my wife, but because God has commanded her to submit to me also, neither one of us should become a tyrant. Both of us are to love, respect, and submit to each other as we are to love, respect, and submit to all of those united in Christ's love. This seems fairly straightforward to me. What does not make sense to me is how this endorses traditional patriarchy. Rather, it recognizes its existence and proposes a radical alternative, a society based on unity and mutually submissive love, regardless or class, race, age, or gender. That is why I love Ephesians. It is one of the most radically counter-cultural statements of equality and unity in the Bible.

While we often fail, my wife and I try to center our marriage around Christ, around love, around unity, and around mutual submission. If I am to be a leader in any way, it is simply this. I should be the first to sacrifice myself -- my agenda, my will, my prejudices -- because I am the one most in danger of becoming a tyrant, self-centered and authoritative, simply because my culture says I should be. Thank God for continuing to liberate me from myself and empowering me to love my wife like God loves me.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Why I'm a Ms.

Sometime during undergrad I got really turned off to being identified as Miss and decided to go by Ms. Particularly when I started teaching Ms. was more amenable. Now I'm married and technically a Mrs., but I still go by Ms.

Why?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, because I've been filling out tons of forms. They all request you to tick "Miss", "Ms." or "Mrs." as a female. Men tick "Mr." and are done with it. When I can, of course, I tick "Dr." I choose "Ms." but in some cases that still implies I am divorced, which is not the case.

So I could quote Gloria Steinem or give an etymology lesson (btw, "Mrs." comes from a word that denoted ownership of the woman by her husband... gross), but that's not really what this is about.

I'm married. I made the choice to take the legal step(s) involved (even though it is primarily a spiritual covenant). I don't have a reason to hide my marital status, nor do I ever want to. And I'll admit that when we first got married I was excited to be called "Mrs."

But my name is so important to me. That's why we both hyphenated. I didn't have to drop my name to show I was married, and neither did he. One brand new, awesome name, combining the two. So why wouldn't I obsess over my title?

There are so many things that reflect the inequity of the choices men and women have. So when I have this great choice to adopt a title simply identifying me as a woman (not a married vs. single woman) I'll take it. The world is not set up to openly assist women and men in declaring themselves as they sit fit, so in this instance it's really important to me.

As an aside, though my husband has been "Mr." the whole time (single and married), you know the trials we went through trying to change his name. And now, many forms ask for a maiden name, suggesting only women change theirs. He crosses it out and puts "former" or "other" names.

Being called Ms. doesn't make me less married. It simply reflects my desire for equality in the world, a desire to identify as a partner not as one belonging to someone else. It's not a statement of independence, but of interdependence.

So it all means something. Every little bit.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Last Trip to Bay City

We have been all over this summer since moving out of our house: Vancouver, Portland, various parts of Arizona, Vegas, and Pensacola. We decided to spend our last two weeks in the country with family, so this week we went down to Bay City to see my family.


Bay City is a classic small town that really meets most of the assumptions people have of small town life. You always run into someone you know. There is never anything to do. Everyone knows the latest gossip. Mole hills qualify as mountains. Everyone seems to think it is a great place to grow up, but no one wants to stay after they graduate. Then mysteriously half of us end up living there again as adults.

I loved seeing my family this week. My parents are so great, and I love spending time with them even if I have to go to Bay City to do it. We also got to see my sister for a few days, and my brother and his girlfriend came down yesterday. On Saturday, my parents hosted a barbecue and invited some of our close family friends to see us off before we leave for London.

Bay City was my home for about 20 years, so the strangest part of visiting there is how foreign it feels to me. In many ways it triggers happy childhood memories, but mostly it just reminds me of how different I am now and how Bay City hasn't changed (despite the new Chili's and Super Wal-Mart). It is so odd to know that in all our travels, I felt more comfortable in Vancouver than anywhere we went in the US. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoyed seeing our friends and family, but culturally, I felt like I had more in common with Canadians than with the people I grew up with. I better shut up now before my Texas citizenship gets revoked, but Texas does have one really good thing going for it... there are a lot of people here that we really love, and we are going to miss you all so much.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS