Gender, Bible and General Revelation

[JOS3]

p.s. A help-meet is not merely a help (ezer) but is a help [EZER] meet [k’enegdo] for Adam. While the Lord is called an ezer to his people, the full word ezer kenegdo doesn’t show up anywhere else in scripture but in Eve’s creation (twice in Genesis chapter 2). She was made a fitting complement to him, in order to aid him, but also made as a "helper" to him.

I am not making a claim of the actual roles of men and women, just what I believe can be extrapolated from the words used in Genesis.

So when I am chided for stressing that the woman was made to help the man and the man wasn't made to help the woman and you are mad at me, I'd like to ask you if you are similarly mad at the Apostle Paul for saying the exact same thing?

I can't speak for Tim, but I am neither mad at you nor am I chiding you. I am truly sorry if you have encountered such reactions to your views elsewhere, but that is not occurring here. We obviously differ on a few points and perspectives, but I mean no affront to you, personally.

 

[Pergamum]

p.s. A help-meet is not merely a help (ezer) but is a help [EZER] meet [k’enegdo] for Adam. While the Lord is called an ezer to his people, the full word ezer kenegdo doesn’t show up anywhere else in scripture but in Eve’s creation (twice in Genesis chapter 2). She was made a fitting complement to him, in order to aid him, but also made as a "helper" to him.

I am not making a claim of the actual roles of men and women, just what I believe can be extrapolated from the words used in Genesis.

So when I am chided for stressing that the woman was made to help the man and the man wasn't made to help the woman and you are mad at me, I'd like to ask you if you are similarly mad at the Apostle Paul for saying the exact same thing?

I can't speak for Tim, but I am neither mad at you nor am I chiding you. I am truly sorry if you have encountered such reactions to your views elsewhere, but that is not occurring here. We obviously differ on a few points and perspectives, but I mean no affront to you, personally.

No problem. I am not mad either. Just trying to make a better case. I can go back and tone down the rhetoric if it is unhelpful. Trying to (poorly) drive home a point perhaps. Do you agree with the essence of my argument? If so, maybe you can help me with my presentation and style. Thanks brother. Sorry if I came on strong. Heard a lady in the city this week on her cell phone talking to a girlfriend and saying, "Girlfriend! I gotta tell my man what he can...and what he can't do!" I think I was traumitized by overhearing this and now I need a safe-space. No doubt, I am probably being reactionary a bit. I'll be more irenic instead of polemical from here on it!

 

[JOS3]

p.s. A help-meet is not merely a help (ezer) but is a help [EZER] meet [k’enegdo] for Adam. While the Lord is called an ezer to his people, the full word ezer kenegdo doesn’t show up anywhere else in scripture but in Eve’s creation (twice in Genesis chapter 2). She was made a fitting complement to him, in order to aid him, but also made as a "helper" to him.

I am not making a claim of the actual roles of men and women, just what I believe can be extrapolated from the words used in Genesis.

So when I am chided for stressing that the woman was made to help the man and the man wasn't made to help the woman and you are mad at me, I'd like to ask you if you are similarly mad at the Apostle Paul for saying the exact same thing?

I can't speak for Tim, but I am neither mad at you nor am I chiding you. I am truly sorry if you have encountered such reactions to your views elsewhere, but that is not occurring here. We obviously differ on a few points and perspectives, but I mean no affront to you, personally.

No problem. I am not mad either. Just trying to make a better case. I can go back and tone down the rhetoric if it is unhelpful. Trying to (poorly) drive home a point perhaps. Do you agree with the essence of my argument? If so, maybe you can help me with my presentation and style. Thanks brother. Sorry if I came on strong. Heard a lady in the city this week on her cell phone talking to a girlfriend and saying, "Girlfriend! I gotta tell my man what he can...and what he can't do!" I think I was traumitized by overhearing this and now I need a safe-space. No doubt, I am probably being reactionary a bit. I'll be more irenic instead of polemical from here on it!

Not a problem! I was not offended in the least; I was making sure I was not speaking in a way that conveyed anger or contempt!

 

[Pergamum]

Thank you for bearing with me. God bless.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I think that note should add "expectations by wives of their husbands destroy marriages", if it wants to be honest. Clearly the husband cannot have too many expectations of his wife.

That note is stupid and just makes the whole debate ridiculous. When we have elevated the mundane discussion of who does the chores to the level of theology then the discussion has veered markedly off course. This is cultural tradition masquerading as Biblical teaching. A truly godly, Biblical marriage is not obsessed with things like who does the chores, or what is the appropriate relationship between a housewife and her postman, about are there any bubbles left on a glass after washing the dishes (get a dishwasher- it's 2016!!). I mean, does this not embarrass married Christians?! It embarrasses me and I'm not even married.

A wife shouldn't nag her husband to help around the house; a husband shouldn't let things get to the stage where that might happen: he should be offering to help. Both husband and wife should be endeavouring to make each other's lives as easy and as happy as possible. And if a daughter of mine were shown that note by her prospective husband's family I can assure you that, indeed, that marriage would not be going ahead.

 

[ZackF]

I think that note should add "expectations by wives of their husbands destroy marriages", if it wants to be honest. Clearly the husband cannot have too many expectations of his wife.

That note is stupid and just makes the whole debate ridiculous. When we have elevated the mundane discussion of who does the chores to the level of theology then the discussion has veered markedly off course. This is cultural tradition masquerading as Biblical teaching. A truly godly, Biblical marriage is not obsessed with things like who does the chores, or what is the appropriate relationship between a housewife and her postman, about are there any bubbles left on a glass after washing the dishes (get a dishwasher- it's 2016!!). I mean, does this not embarrass married Christians?! It embarrasses me and I'm not even married.

A wife shouldn't nag her husband to help around the house; a husband shouldn't let things get to the stage where that might happen: he should be offering to help. Both husband and wife should be endeavouring to make each other's lives as easy and as happy as possible. And if a daughter of mine were shown that note by her prospective husband's family I can assure you that, indeed, that marriage would not be going ahead.

Mostly agreed. I will laugh, if someday a young man gave a letter like this to my daughter. She will too if her five year old self is any indication of things to come. Where the letter is correct is the idea that expectations need to be reviewed as they can be toxic to a marriage.

 

[ZackF]

Cultures have particular expressions of this basic distinction but the basic distinction itself is created by God and is unalterable. The present experiment towards an unisex culture is ultimately self-destructive.

So, I guess this would be the answer? Cultural expressions?
And I agree unisex is bad but, presently, say the jobs market for women and even men doing be self destructive even though both are expressing their respective distinctions?
I also do realize there is still a glass ceiling for women, which I would attribute God's design where they take less chances in order to be more family oriented.

What do you mean there is still a glass ceiling for women? If they check out of their career for 12-18 months at a time with each kid several times a decade, of course they won't rise as high as men in their professions, nor should they. Experience and reliability matter.

Precisely. It's not about discrimination (though I don't think that should be illegal anyway) but about experience and consistency. Most women that I've come across first hand in recent years take off about one to two months per child. The effects are always jarring to her job performance and career. It has absolutely nothing to with "discrimination" as they still have the job. Rather the responsibilities of nursing, childcare, needs of other children are juxtaposed with the fact that she is behind at work. This scenario takes a toll on anyone. Men go through things like this though less frequently such as in the illness and death of a parent. Men also undergo career stalls to an extent when children come along even with a homemaking wife. These situations actually play themselves out predictably in compensation rates. Most, for various reasons, ignore that data and repeat the standard, yet misleading refrain about women making 77% of what men do for the same work. Other examples can be given about lending practices. Politicians and SJWs scream about the percentage of loans to applicants in one social group vs another and how unequal it is. They NEVER mention the default rates which are nearly identical. Ergo, they don't care about justice nor economic activity but instead remain fixed on a political agenda.

 

[Pergamum]

I think that note should add "expectations by wives of their husbands destroy marriages", if it wants to be honest. Clearly the husband cannot have too many expectations of his wife.

That note is stupid and just makes the whole debate ridiculous. When we have elevated the mundane discussion of who does the chores to the level of theology then the discussion has veered markedly off course. This is cultural tradition masquerading as Biblical teaching. A truly godly, Biblical marriage is not obsessed with things like who does the chores, or what is the appropriate relationship between a housewife and her postman, about are there any bubbles left on a glass after washing the dishes (get a dishwasher- it's 2016!!). I mean, does this not embarrass married Christians?! It embarrasses me and I'm not even married.

A wife shouldn't nag her husband to help around the house; a husband shouldn't let things get to the stage where that might happen: he should be offering to help. Both husband and wife should be endeavouring to make each other's lives as easy and as happy as possible. And if a daughter of mine were shown that note by her prospective husband's family I can assure you that, indeed, that marriage would not be going ahead.

Expectations either way help destroy a marriage. But the debate is not merely over who does the dishes. Is a wife called to be a keeper of the home or not? Will this impact the things they do? Yes, of course it will.

The OP asks whether gender roles are from the bible and general revelation or are just merely cultural. I am attempting to answer the OP. My answer is that women doing most of the housework is not merely a cultural artifact from days of male oppression. Their domestic focus is rooted in the bible (women being called keepers of the home). Their roles are also rooted in general revelation as well (most human societies, even without the bible, have norms of domestical duties where the woman is keeper of the home and the man is the hunter/worker focused outside the home).

That is my answer to the OP. Do you agree with these general biblical norms (without bringing up all the qualifications and the exceptions)?

You think this is silly...but after 4-5 decades of breaking all of the traditional gender norms and traditional marriage roles, is our society the better or the worse?

 

[Pergamum]

I think that note should add "expectations by wives of their husbands destroy marriages", if it wants to be honest. Clearly the husband cannot have too many expectations of his wife.

That note is stupid and just makes the whole debate ridiculous. When we have elevated the mundane discussion of who does the chores to the level of theology then the discussion has veered markedly off course. This is cultural tradition masquerading as Biblical teaching. A truly godly, Biblical marriage is not obsessed with things like who does the chores, or what is the appropriate relationship between a housewife and her postman, about are there any bubbles left on a glass after washing the dishes (get a dishwasher- it's 2016!!). I mean, does this not embarrass married Christians?! It embarrasses me and I'm not even married.

A wife shouldn't nag her husband to help around the house; a husband shouldn't let things get to the stage where that might happen: he should be offering to help. Both husband and wife should be endeavouring to make each other's lives as easy and as happy as possible. And if a daughter of mine were shown that note by her prospective husband's family I can assure you that, indeed, that marriage would not be going ahead.

Rather than being hung-up on the imperfect note. Do you agree with my main conclusions?

---(1) gender roles are not culturally determined, but are biblically given. God gives the ideal of the man as provider/protector (focused outside the home) and the woman as mother/nurturer of the children (focused on the home, as a home-keeper). These roles will create a division of labor in the home.

---(2) The husband is head of his home and the wife is to obey him and he to sacrifice for her.

---(4) Egalitarianism is wrong.

Alexander, yes or no?

 

[Pergamum]

Back to the OP on gender distinctives, here is the latest news from the Marines: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2016/06/27/marines-remove-word-man-these-19-job-titles/86438594/

Thousands of Marines serving throughout the infantry and in other key positions are about to get new gender-neutral job titles...

In all, the Marine Corps plans to rename 19 of its military occupational specialties, or MOSs, as the result of a months-long review mandated by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.

I would argue that both the Bible and general revelation scream, "NO!" at this and other "blurrings" of traditional gender roles. What began in the home has now infected all of Western society.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Pergamum,

1)Firstly, I think talking about "gender" is itself problematic and gives too much ground before we even start the discussion. Gender is a sociological, not a biological term. What we are talking about is the sexes, of which there are only two: male and female. I affirm that the Bible lays down specific rules and roles for men and women within the church and within the home, i.e. in the former it is men who lead and teach and women are to be silent and in the latter the wife submits to the husband. I also happily affirm that the ideal Biblical model is for the man to work and provide for his family and for the woman to focus her attentions on looking after the home and caring for the children. What I object to is the bringing in of "gendered norms" (as the lefties say) into the debate. I do not accept that washing the dishes is the woman's job, just as I do not accept that mowing the lawn is the man's job. These are cultural norms. They may reflect a truth (i.e. that as the home is the woman's realm, she will be the one most likely to do the bulk of the chores) but I have no time for ridiculous articles which seek to lay down rules about how each chore should be done and that the husband should be grading his wife's work to make sure it's up to scratch.

And I'll add that the reason I've focused on chores is because there seems to be the view in the more extreme parts of complementarian/patriarchal circles- just as there was in society generally in times past- that the man shouldn't need to worry about doing the chores because he's been at work all day. As if looking after their children wasn't work for the woman. When actually having to look after even one child all day, every day, can be exhausting just in terms of the manual labour involved, not to mention the isolation (physical and mental) that results from being alone with a very young child all the time. Fathers often find going to work an escape and a chance to spend time in adult company again.

2) I agree with this.

3) Yes, egalitarianism is wrong, as far as it goes. Is equality wrong? Is women working wrong? Is women being the boss of men in the workplace, or running for elected office wrong? Is women in the armed forces, the police wrong? I don't think the answer is the same to all those questions, but I also don't think the Bible gives the answer for all those questions.

What I object to about the complementarian position as articulated a lot these days- and this talk about patriarchy specifically- is how legalistic it is; how rules-based it is. I know I keep harping on about these articles being distributed by the CBMW and others, but these are the mainstream organisations articulating these positions, and what they are distributing is just law law law. It's so contractual, so cold. The husband is saying: "I love you when you fulfil article 3, sub section 2, paragraph i) of our marriage contract in respect to dusting the shelves." My church firmly holds to exclusive male leadership in the church (women don't even pray out loud in our prayer meetings or family worship) and male headship in the home, but I don't recognise in any marriage I know the legalism I'm seeing in complementarian literature.

The Christian faith is a relationship with a living saviour: we obey out of love. Rules-keeping is not saving faith. I would apply the same principle to marriage: rules do not make a marriage, love makes a marriage and if you have to result to rules then something's wrong. I'm not saying that's your marriage pergamum, but it's what I'm seeing in a lot of the talk coming from the complementarians.

 

[Afterthought]

What I object to is the bringing in of "gendered norms" (as the lefties say) into the debate. I do not accept that washing the dishes is the woman's job, just as I do not accept that mowing the lawn is the man's job. These are cultural norms. They may reflect a truth (i.e. that as the home is the woman's realm, she will be the one most likely to do the bulk of the chores) but I have no time for ridiculous articles which seek to lay down rules about how each chore should be done and that the husband should be grading his wife's work to make sure it's up to scratch.

Just dropping in... I agree with this, but I am wondering: If what constitutes men's and women's clothing are cultural norms and ought to be respected, why are these things not the "man's" or "woman's" job in our culture and ought to be respected? There seems to be a difference between these; just wondering how you might distinguish them.

 

[alexandermsmith]

What I object to is the bringing in of "gendered norms" (as the lefties say) into the debate. I do not accept that washing the dishes is the woman's job, just as I do not accept that mowing the lawn is the man's job. These are cultural norms. They may reflect a truth (i.e. that as the home is the woman's realm, she will be the one most likely to do the bulk of the chores) but I have no time for ridiculous articles which seek to lay down rules about how each chore should be done and that the husband should be grading his wife's work to make sure it's up to scratch.

Just dropping in... I agree with this, but I am wondering: If what constitutes men's and women's clothing are cultural norms and ought to be respected, why are these things not the "man's" or "woman's" job in our culture and ought to be respected? There seems to be a difference between these; just wondering how you might distinguish them.

A fair question. I would say that the Bible is clear that clothing is and should be used as a means of distinguishing between the sexes and that men should not wear clothing which particularly appertains to women and vice versa (clearly there are types of clothing which are unisex, e.g. coats). How this difference manifests does have some cultural component, to be sure. But I would argue that today, world-wide, but especially in the West, the most fundamental distinction in clothing is that men wear trousers and women wear skirts/dresses. This distinction is engrained in popular consciousness.

When it comes to chores I just don't see a Biblical precept or pattern for distinguishing between men's and women's chores. I suppose mowing the lawn became associated with men because it was a more physically demanding job, but then in those communities which required it, women have routinely engaged in very physically demanding labour on a daily basis. Again, I don't think we should be laying down strict rules about these things. Let the wife do it all! I'm happy to say that looking after the home is one of her duties. But if she's been busy all day with the kids and other tasks I don't see why the husband can't come home and put on the dinner, you know?

Let's not forget that the children should also be being put to work as soon as they are able!

 

[Pergamum]

Pergamum,

1)Firstly, I think talking about "gender" is itself problematic and gives too much ground before we even start the discussion. Gender is a sociological, not a biological term. What we are talking about is the sexes, of which there are only two: male and female. I affirm that the Bible lays down specific rules and roles for men and women within the church and within the home, i.e. in the former it is men who lead and teach and women are to be silent and in the latter the wife submits to the husband. I also happily affirm that the ideal Biblical model is for the man to work and provide for his family and for the woman to focus her attentions on looking after the home and caring for the children. What I object to is the bringing in of "gendered norms" (as the lefties say) into the debate. I do not accept that washing the dishes is the woman's job, just as I do not accept that mowing the lawn is the man's job. These are cultural norms. They may reflect a truth (i.e. that as the home is the woman's realm, she will be the one most likely to do the bulk of the chores) but I have no time for ridiculous articles which seek to lay down rules about how each chore should be done and that the husband should be grading his wife's work to make sure it's up to scratch.

And I'll add that the reason I've focused on chores is because there seems to be the view in the more extreme parts of complementarian/patriarchal circles- just as there was in society generally in times past- that the man shouldn't need to worry about doing the chores because he's been at work all day. As if looking after their children wasn't work for the woman. When actually having to look after even one child all day, every day, can be exhausting just in terms of the manual labour involved, not to mention the isolation (physical and mental) that results from being alone with a very young child all the time. Fathers often find going to work an escape and a chance to spend time in adult company again.

2) I agree with this.

3) Yes, egalitarianism is wrong, as far as it goes. Is equality wrong? Is women working wrong? Is women being the boss of men in the workplace, or running for elected office wrong? Is women in the armed forces, the police wrong? I don't think the answer is the same to all those questions, but I also don't think the Bible gives the answer for all those questions.

What I object to about the complementarian position as articulated a lot these days- and this talk about patriarchy specifically- is how legalistic it is; how rules-based it is. I know I keep harping on about these articles being distributed by the CBMW and others, but these are the mainstream organisations articulating these positions, and what they are distributing is just law law law. It's so contractual, so cold. The husband is saying: "I love you when you fulfil article 3, sub section 2, paragraph i) of our marriage contract in respect to dusting the shelves." My church firmly holds to exclusive male leadership in the church (women don't even pray out loud in our prayer meetings or family worship) and male headship in the home, but I don't recognise in any marriage I know the legalism I'm seeing in complementarian literature.

The Christian faith is a relationship with a living saviour: we obey out of love. Rules-keeping is not saving faith. I would apply the same principle to marriage: rules do not make a marriage, love makes a marriage and if you have to result to rules then something's wrong. I'm not saying that's your marriage pergamum, but it's what I'm seeing in a lot of the talk coming from the complementarians.

So it sounds like you are agreed with me mostly. I don't read much of anything from CBMW, so I can't affirm or deny the "legalism" of those articles. It seems my use of the word patriarchy is objectionable to you and you think of rule-keeping when you hear that word. I could use the phrase "headship of the husband" perhaps to avoid the baggage of the term, but it seems a perfectly okay term to me.

 

[Pergamum]

What I object to is the bringing in of "gendered norms" (as the lefties say) into the debate. I do not accept that washing the dishes is the woman's job, just as I do not accept that mowing the lawn is the man's job. These are cultural norms. They may reflect a truth (i.e. that as the home is the woman's realm, she will be the one most likely to do the bulk of the chores) but I have no time for ridiculous articles which seek to lay down rules about how each chore should be done and that the husband should be grading his wife's work to make sure it's up to scratch.

Just dropping in... I agree with this, but I am wondering: If what constitutes men's and women's clothing are cultural norms and ought to be respected, why are these things not the "man's" or "woman's" job in our culture and ought to be respected? There seems to be a difference between these; just wondering how you might distinguish them.

Ramon,

I think women have traditionally washed the dishes because they also traditionally cooked (and family meals were a lot bigger deal than they are now, practically a nightly family ritual). Some writers have written books about the importance of the family meal. And I think men have mowed the lawn for the same reason they fixed things and tinkered in the garage, it is outside work that requires more strength (at least with a push-mower) and involves motors.

There is nothing legalistic about stating that these things are the usual norms. It is just common sense.

A couple that flip-flops these chores are not sinning.... though a society that demands such flip-flops as the norm, or decries the traditional breakdown as sexist, shows itself to be in sin by rebelling against nature.

Somebody can argue that it is no big deal if either spouse does these things interchangeably, but I think in a society that is not distorted by feminist notions, that the traditional breakdown of labors will mostly see the wife in the kitchen and the man in the yard or garage (Yes, I think that a wife in the kitchen is the norm...and I am sure I'll get replies about how good some husbands are at cooking now, just to contradict me since society has conditioned you to react to such things with charges of "sexism" or "chauvinism"...yet such male cooking is not usually casseroles but involves cooking meat outdoors on the grill).

Nobody has ever said, "Let the wife do it all!" In fact, under the traditionalist breakdown of chores, the husband does far more of the heavy lifting. Feminists complain because now they want to work 40-50 hours a week and then come home and have the house already clean. And they'll even pressure their husbands (who have lower standards of cleanliness than wives usually) to do their "fair share". In other words, she complains because she is not given the role of the man. (Genesis 3:16, "And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.").

If a wife were to complain to her husband, "You mowed the lawn for 2 hours....but I'v had this baby on my breast for 3 hours today! Inequality!" I certainly would not want such a woman as my wife if she does not see her motherly roles as privileges instead of dour duties. Or if she resents keeping her kids fed through kitchen work or takes no effort to try to learn how to cook. It is normal today for women to brag about their lack of kitchen skills and their inability to cook a meal for their family. That would be like a man bragging about his own impotence.

Just as some clothes are male-specific and female-specific, if we do an anthropological study on hunting versus hearth-work, we will see predictable results in some chores and tasks being male-specific and female-specific. And the Biblical data as well sets forth the differing foci of husband/wife.

I will no doubt get angry replies over this, too, but there is something wrong with a man who can easily become a Mr. Mom and take over baby duties or changing and bathing the kids, etc. Sure, if the wife is sick the husband must fill in and sacrificially help. But as a lifestyle choice when sickness is not a factor....this is abnormal to have the wife working outside the home and the husband playing Mommy while she earns the paycheck. We hear of men all the time forgetting their kids and leaving them in hot cars until they die while they go into a store, etc, and though this happens to some women, the majority of these cases are men who are watching the kids yet don't have a "motherly instinct" and so easily forget even that the kids are with them and not the mom.

Some arrangements just work better. God made it that way.

 

[iainduguid]

What I object to is the bringing in of "gendered norms" (as the lefties say) into the debate. I do not accept that washing the dishes is the woman's job, just as I do not accept that mowing the lawn is the man's job. These are cultural norms. They may reflect a truth (i.e. that as the home is the woman's realm, she will be the one most likely to do the bulk of the chores) but I have no time for ridiculous articles which seek to lay down rules about how each chore should be done and that the husband should be grading his wife's work to make sure it's up to scratch.

Just dropping in... I agree with this, but I am wondering: If what constitutes men's and women's clothing are cultural norms and ought to be respected, why are these things not the "man's" or "woman's" job in our culture and ought to be respected? There seems to be a difference between these; just wondering how you might distinguish them.

A fair question. I would say that the Bible is clear that clothing is and should be used as a means of distinguishing between the sexes and that men should not wear clothing which particularly appertains to women and vice versa (clearly there are types of clothing which are unisex, e.g. coats). How this difference manifests does have some cultural component, to be sure. But I would argue that today, world-wide, but especially in the West, the most fundamental distinction in clothing is that men wear trousers and women wear skirts/dresses. This distinction is engrained in popular consciousness.

When it comes to chores I just don't see a Biblical precept or pattern for distinguishing between men's and women's chores. I suppose mowing the lawn became associated with men because it was a more physically demanding job, but then in those communities which required it, women have routinely engaged in very physically demanding labour on a daily basis. Again, I don't think we should be laying down strict rules about these things. Let the wife do it all! I'm happy to say that looking after the home is one of her duties. But if she's been busy all day with the kids and other tasks I don't see why the husband can't come home and put on the dinner, you know?

Let's not forget that the children should also be being put to work as soon as they are able!

Surely as a Scot, you of all people should see the problem with saying "today, world-wide, but especially in the West, the most fundamental distinction in clothing is that men wear trousers and women wear skirts/dresses. This distinction is engrained in popular consciousness." I wear a kilt, but I don't think that makes me effeminate. Likewise in Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries, men wear sarongs. Not to mention the fact that in Bible times men didn't wear trousers but robes, and many of our Puritan forefathers could have starred in commercials for women's shampoo, given their fine hair. Clearly there is a strong cultural component in how we identify "masculine" and "feminine" behaviour, dress and hairstyles. That doesn't mean that clothing is entirely neutral or that the Bible has nothing to say on the subject, but it does mean that we have to be very careful that we are not baptizing our own cultural perspectives (real men grill while women make casseroles and bake cakes) as if there is something intrinsically masculine or feminine about these roles.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Gender is a sociological, not a biological term.

I thought it was a grammatical term.

As a friend once noted to me, words have gender; people have sex.

 

[alexandermsmith]

What I object to is the bringing in of "gendered norms" (as the lefties say) into the debate. I do not accept that washing the dishes is the woman's job, just as I do not accept that mowing the lawn is the man's job. These are cultural norms. They may reflect a truth (i.e. that as the home is the woman's realm, she will be the one most likely to do the bulk of the chores) but I have no time for ridiculous articles which seek to lay down rules about how each chore should be done and that the husband should be grading his wife's work to make sure it's up to scratch.

Just dropping in... I agree with this, but I am wondering: If what constitutes men's and women's clothing are cultural norms and ought to be respected, why are these things not the "man's" or "woman's" job in our culture and ought to be respected? There seems to be a difference between these; just wondering how you might distinguish them.

A fair question. I would say that the Bible is clear that clothing is and should be used as a means of distinguishing between the sexes and that men should not wear clothing which particularly appertains to women and vice versa (clearly there are types of clothing which are unisex, e.g. coats). How this difference manifests does have some cultural component, to be sure. But I would argue that today, world-wide, but especially in the West, the most fundamental distinction in clothing is that men wear trousers and women wear skirts/dresses. This distinction is engrained in popular consciousness.

When it comes to chores I just don't see a Biblical precept or pattern for distinguishing between men's and women's chores. I suppose mowing the lawn became associated with men because it was a more physically demanding job, but then in those communities which required it, women have routinely engaged in very physically demanding labour on a daily basis. Again, I don't think we should be laying down strict rules about these things. Let the wife do it all! I'm happy to say that looking after the home is one of her duties. But if she's been busy all day with the kids and other tasks I don't see why the husband can't come home and put on the dinner, you know?

Let's not forget that the children should also be being put to work as soon as they are able!

Surely as a Scot, you of all people should see the problem with saying "today, world-wide, but especially in the West, the most fundamental distinction in clothing is that men wear trousers and women wear skirts/dresses. This distinction is engrained in popular consciousness." I wear a kilt, but I don't think that makes me effeminate. Likewise in Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries, men wear sarongs. Not to mention the fact that in Bible times men didn't wear trousers but robes, and many of our Puritan forefathers could have starred in commercials for women's shampoo, given their fine hair. Clearly there is a strong cultural component in how we identify "masculine" and "feminine" behaviour, dress and hairstyles. That doesn't mean that clothing is entirely neutral or that the Bible has nothing to say on the subject, but it does mean that we have to be very careful that we are not baptizing our own cultural perspectives (real men grill while women make casseroles and bake cakes) as if there is something intrinsically masculine or feminine about these roles.

If you're assuming because I'm Scottish (British first) that I am in favour of wearing kilts, you are mitaken. For a start, the wearing of kilts is not as "true Scottish" as it is made out. And the modern day kilt- the short kilt- was invented by an Englishman in the 18th century! It is not the kilt that was worn by William Wallace- if he ever wore a kilt. Rather it is a part of the "tartan and shortbread" fantasy Scotland that became a money-making enterprise during Victorian times to entice English people with the mists and myths of Scotland. It's all fake. Secondly, at a basic level, kilts are skirts. Men should not wear skirts. And the way the kilt is "meant" to be worn to be a "true Scotsman" is deeply immoral and shameful. Kilts are worldly; their connotations are worldly. No Christian should wear one.

You will notice that I said there was a cultural component in dress. But the fact is the trouser/dress distinction is fundamental. How are toilets distinguished? What is the short hand for men and women? Trousers for men; dresses for women.

 

[Miss Marple]

As someone who has reared five and worked all my life (usually from home ) out of necessity I'd like to say that the glass ceiling as perpetuated is a myth. I don't have the earning power of most men because I FOCUSED on my kids and home. A career demands FOCUS. I did not get the valuable degree, I virtually never worked full time, and I did not invest effort into building a career. My children were my career. Work was income and that is all. No regrets here and no complaints either. Had I put the energy effort and skill into a career that I put into my kids I sincerely believe I'd be worth over a million. I truly don't care.

 

[timfost]

Tim,


Sorry I have disappointed you.

If we may fully develop the analogy: Christ dies for the Church. And the Church obeys Christ as lord. Are you ready to vouch for both truths in the marriage relationship?

Sorry for the delay in replying. I've been very busy this week.

Concerning both truths-- yes, I agree with analogy. However, such truths have been perverted by many religious folk. So I'll define what I believe is implied by your analogy.

Gen. 3:16:

To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

I think it is possible that what is implied in this verse is the abuse of a husband's authority. In other words, the sinful desire of the wife is to rule over her husband and his sinful desire is to abuse his authority. What was once gentle, willing obedience and submission is now contention and abuse. However, this is the product of the curse, not a description of what the family structure is supposed to be.

As believers, we are called to fight against the effects of the curse, not succumb to them.

So as we see the husband/wife relationship in terms of the analogy with Christ and the church, we should first look at the example of how Christ exercised authority over the church.

I would suggest John 13 (quoted in my previous post) is a good place to start. But how is it that husbands lay down their lives for their wives? Obviously none of us in this conversation have physically died for our wives. So are we off the hook until we have to take a bullet for her? Of course not. Laying down our lives means that we consider her life as more valuable/important than our own. So as those in authority over our households, we are firstly to lead by example as Christ did. We are to serve as Christ did.

With this in mind, consider how the authority structure looks like in the confines of the church. 1 Pet. 5:2-3:

Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers... nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock...

In other words, the way a Christian man is designed to be in authority is not in such a way that makes those under him into servants. Rather, he teaches them to serve by serving them.

In this vein, a wife being the "help-mate" is not because the husband was given a servant as a spouse, but because he was supplied by God what was lacking in himself. His being in authority is not comprehensive. 1 Cor. 7:4:

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Also, in Peter's exhortation to elders and the submission due to them, he notes that "all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility..." (1 Pet. 5:5b)

Therefore, the headship and authority that a husband has over a wife realizes that 1) his first duty is to serve, not be served, 2) he acknowledges that though he is the head, the wife completes him, and 3) that His authority, in part, is not absolute as he is a) subject to God's Word, b) subject to Christ's example and c) subject to the authority his wife has over his own body.

I believe that your analogy is biblical, but I'm not persuaded that your descriptions fall within the biblical examples of your analogy. I think you also have applied the effects of the curse to the model of a Christian household. Needless to say this is problematic.

Since this portion of the conversation is more of an aside from the OP, I'll refrain from saying much more. I'd be happy to talk about it more in a new thread or PM if you'd like.

 

[Pergamum]

As someone who has reared five and worked all my life (usually from home ) out of necessity I'd like to say that the glass ceiling as perpetuated is a myth. I don't have the earning power of most men because I FOCUSED on my kids and home. A career demands FOCUS. I did not get the valuable degree, I virtually never worked full time, and I did not invest effort into building a career. My children were my career. Work was income and that is all. No regrets here and no complaints either. Had I put the energy effort and skill into a career that I put into my kids I sincerely believe I'd be worth over a million. I truly don't care.

Thank you for that reply, and thank you for your life choices.

"The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world."

 

[Pergamum]

Tim,


Sorry I have disappointed you.

If we may fully develop the analogy: Christ dies for the Church. And the Church obeys Christ as lord. Are you ready to vouch for both truths in the marriage relationship?

Sorry for the delay in replying. I've been very busy this week.

Concerning both truths-- yes, I agree with analogy. However, such truths have been perverted by many religious folk. So I'll define what I believe is implied by your analogy.

Gen. 3:16:

To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

I think it is possible that what is implied in this verse is the abuse of a husband's authority. In other words, the sinful desire of the wife is to rule over her husband and his sinful desire is to abuse his authority. What was once gentle, willing obedience and submission is now contention and abuse. However, this is the product of the curse, not a description of what the family structure is supposed to be.

As believers, we are called to fight against the effects of the curse, not succumb to them.

So as we see the husband/wife relationship in terms of the analogy with Christ and the church, we should first look at the example of how Christ exercised authority over the church.

I would suggest John 13 (quoted in my previous post) is a good place to start. But how is it that husbands lay down their lives for their wives? Obviously none of us in this conversation have physically died for our wives. So are we off the hook until we have to take a bullet for her? Of course not. Laying down our lives means that we consider her life as more valuable/important than our own. So as those in authority over our households, we are firstly to lead by example as Christ did. We are to serve as Christ did.

With this in mind, consider how the authority structure looks like in the confines of the church. 1 Pet. 5:2-3:

Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers... nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock...

In other words, the way a Christian man is designed to be in authority is not in such a way that makes those under him into servants. Rather, he teaches them to serve by serving them.

In this vein, a wife being the "help-mate" is not because the husband was given a servant as a spouse, but because he was supplied by God what was lacking in himself. His being in authority is not comprehensive. 1 Cor. 7:4:

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Also, in Peter's exhortation to elders and the submission due to them, he notes that "all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility..." (1 Pet. 5:5b)

Therefore, the headship and authority that a husband has over a wife realizes that 1) his first duty is to serve, not be served, 2) he acknowledges that though he is the head, the wife completes him, and 3) that His authority, in part, is not absolute as he is a) subject to God's Word, b) subject to Christ's example and c) subject to the authority his wife has over his own body.

I believe that your analogy is biblical, but I'm not persuaded that your descriptions fall within the biblical examples of your analogy. I think you also have applied the effects of the curse to the model of a Christian household. Needless to say this is problematic.

Since this portion of the conversation is more of an aside from the OP, I'll refrain from saying much more. I'd be happy to talk about it more in a new thread or PM if you'd like.

So you concede that my biblical analogy is correct (that the man has authority in his home and that the wife is to obey the husband).

But...you state that my application is off....But, you've given me no examples how I do this, but only state as a bare fact that I've applied the effects of the curse to the model of the Christian home. How so? Give me specific examples?

It seems to me that the mere observation that the husband is to be the head of the home must sound like an over-domineering attitude to many modern ears. If he is described as anything but a mere figure-head with no real power, then he must be a bully. That is the false conclusion I keep hearing.

The curse of Genesis 3 is that the woman will desire to rule over her husband (meaning that such usurpation of her subordinate role is part of the curse) and that the man, in turn will respond by dominating the wife sinfully.... not merely leading her or being in charge (which is biblical) but doing so sinfully (i.e. abuse).

Why was it that Sarah called Abraham Lord? And how is it that the desire not to lord it over others, but to serve them, somehow erases this truth in your mind? The Bible includes both things (Sarah reverenced her husband, and elders in the church are not to lord it over others) both to teach a real headship and a real submission as well as to prevent abuses.

I've merely stated that roles and tasks fall out into a fairly consistent division of labor between husband and wife. I've already stated that husbands must be willing to die for their wives and must sacrifice.

But...if I state that the wife is to submit to the husband, many modern church-goers cannot simply bear this but MUST (MUST) get in the reply that...But...but..."Paul also talks about mutual submission" as if this cancels out the general headship of the husband. Or, if I state that men and women are different and so their clothes will be generally gender-specific, I'll invariably get reminded...but...but...but...the Scots wear kilts.

Why the need to mention all the qualifications and caveats? Because the church has been infected with feminism and many pander to these notions.

We are now ashamed with merely stating that truth of male headship without spending at least equal or greater time in stressing all the ways that a man is NOT in charge of his home. Just state the ideal. The Apostle Paul spoke many things uncomfortable to modern ears... do you believe he was in favor of "oppressing" women? Then why do you conclude that I am?

The definition of help-meet, does, in fact, include the concept of a complementary helper...not just an opposite or complement. The blogosphere is full of mommy bloggers trying to re-translate help-meet merely as ezer instead of exer-kenegdo, so that they can deny that the wife is a helper to the husband (but rather, in the new feminized version of Christianity, we must now state that each was created to serve the other, despite Paul's commentary on this verse), but I've already stated the difference on page 1 of this thread:

ABOUT THE PHRASE "HELP-MEET":

p.s. A help-meet is not merely a help (ezer) but is a help [EZER] meet [k’enegdo] for Adam. While the Lord is called an ezer to his people, the full word ezer kenegdo doesn’t show up anywhere else in scripture but in Eve’s creation (twice in Genesis chapter 2). She was made a fitting complement to him, in order to aid him, but also made as a "helper" to him.

Though newer translations in this modern age have tried to only focus on the complementary or opposite nature denoted by the original, and attempt to strip Eve of her helper qualities, the King James gets it right and accords with the Apostle Paul's commentary on this verse in 1 Corinthians 11:9, "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." Let me repeat Paul again: "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

Thus, a wife is a helper to the husband in a way that is not totally the same as a husband is a helper to the wife. But of course, I cannot say this alone...and so my caveat and qualification is that the man must serve the family and sacrifice for them and die for them if need be.

 

[Pilgrim]

It would be cumbersome at this point to quote multiple posts. So I'll simply offer some observations that came to mind as I was reading the thread just now.

With regard to the pay gap, etc, in general, would women have the opportunities in the workforce today were it not for legalized abortion and the birth control pill?

While I think I would generally take "their" side in the recent Trinity debate, one of the other differences between Carl Trueman and Aimee Byrd on one side and the CBMW types on the other (Piper, Burk, etc.) is that the former don't seem to see much if any distinction between what men and women can and should do besides women being barred from church office. (I don't know what Trueman's position is on the military.) Of course, the main reason why so much pressure is put on the church and religious organizations to conform to the culture on having women pastors, soldiers, etc. is precisely because the traditional understanding of what kind of jobs women can do has been almost entirely been abandoned.

While I don't think CBMW and its fellow travelers have been all that clear on this, (perhaps because they can't agree among themselves) in my opinion, a problem with Dr. Trueman and R2k types in general (admittedly I'm painting with somewhat of a broad brush) is that it seems that they don't think that the Bible has much to tell us on this subject (and maybe some others) outside of the realms of church and home. But church and home are not impregnable islands or fortresses, especially if Christians aim to be present in all sectors of society rather than withdraw into some kind of quasi-Amish isolation where they aren't subject to sensitivity training and the like. The type of school that children are sent to makes a difference as well. (Widespread self-employment among Christians helps with regard to political correctness, but as we've seen over the past few years, it has run afoul of the push for erotic liberty, which is trumping religious liberty, as many foresaw would be the case years ago.) I have more to say on this, but I run the risk of running too far afield here so I'll stop other than to add that in threads related to the controversial PCA Study Committee on ordination and women in ministry, I've seen a good many PCA women on FB complain that the meanies won't let them teach adult men in Sunday School.

I think that CBMW wouldn't dare to put some things in as stark of terms as Pergamum has here. It would cause them to lose some of their base of support among both men and women. That's because it takes a more head on approach to the changes in culture vis a vis the roles of men and women in society over the last 100 years or so. It is sort of the difference in tone (and in some cases substance) between CBMW and the Bayly Blog, with the latter not shying away from patriarchy and other things that are unpalatable today, even amongst people who identify as conservatives. CBMW rarely speaks of patriarchy. But Russell Moore, who as we all know, Pergamum greatly admires, said at least once that the term ought to be embraced! I don't think that what he means by it is quite what someone like Tim Bayly means by it however.

 

[py3ak]

Why the need to mention all the qualifications and caveats? Because the church has been infected with feminism and many pander to these notions.

We are now ashamed with merely stating that truth of male headship without spending at least equal or greater time in stressing all the ways that a man is NOT in charge of his home. Just state the ideal. The Apostle Paul spoke many things uncomfortable to modern ears... do you believe he was in favor of "oppressing" women? Then why do you conclude that I am?

Just to comment briefly on this, one further question is: Why has the church been infected with feminism to the degree that merely repeating Scripture makes it seem like one has a hankering to oppress? I suspect that part of the reason was many men being "machistas" rather than men of God in their interactions with ladies at home and abroad. Many forms of feminism were the wrong reaction to that; but a reaction against that was not intrinsically wrong.

Whenever there is an appeal made to "the good old days" it is important to clarify what one does not wish to return to. I might wish that schoolboys would once again be taught Latin as used to be the case, without wishing for a return to the institutionalized brutality of the English public schools.

 

[Pilgrim]

For a start, the wearing of kilts is not as "true Scottish" as it is made out. And the modern day kilt- the short kilt- was invented by an Englishman in the 18th century! It is not the kilt that was worn by William Wallace- if he ever wore a kilt. Rather it is a part of the "tartan and shortbread" fantasy Scotland that became a money-making enterprise during Victorian times to entice English people with the mists and myths of Scotland. It's all fake

Where can one learn more about this?

 

[Pilgrim]

In light of ESS discussions and seeing in complementarian circles, the micro managing of maleness and femaleness, I am growing increasingly concerned that it is veering toward patriarchy.
So I am curious as to whether the fact that all these gender roles themselves (outside the church and home) is something to be drawn out from the Bible or just from general revelation and the culture of the time. I am no egalitarian I am just wondering.

Some complementarians don't seem to think that "gender roles" (I totally agree with Rev. Winzer on the sex vs gender distinction/difference) have any import other than who can bear children, who is technically in charge at home and in the church and maybe who can participate in the battlefield and the (American) football field. If we can't come up with anything other than the church, home and maybe the military and sports, any kind of "complementarianism" will not hold. It will continue to become more and more marginal. Given the history of the subject, it is about like the people in the PCUSA who kept drawing lines after the liberals kept crossing the old ones they had drawn.

Back in the day when the idea of a woman's place being in the home (however defined) was more widely seen as noncontroversial, the idea that a woman could be a CEO or the President of the United States but not be a pastor, elder or deacon would have been seen as absurd. And it is seen as absurd today by feminists of various stripes. Who is being consistent and coherent? The ones who see it as all being connected, (whether the chauvinistic bigots of the past or modern feminists) or the ones who point to a couple of NT texts in order to keep women out of the pulpit? I suspect some complementarians must choke on Isa. 3:12.

I don't think I disagree with Ruben on men lacking love, insisting on things for perhaps the wrong reasons, etc. But were the standards of the past entirely wrong? We shouldn't go back to the "Good old days" just for the sake of doing so, but we ought to closely examine whether or not there was good reason for some of the things they were so sure about.

The ahistorical nature of the views of at least some complementarian advocates, (or rather the novel nature of them when taking history into account) and the extent to which some of them are influenced by second wave feminism was driven home for me by an exchange several years ago between Rachel Held Evans and Mary Kassian. (Read the short article first or what comes next will be out of context.) As much as it pains me to type the next three words, Evans is right that Edith Schaeffer and Elisabeth Eliot were key authors in an evangelical reaction against second wave feminism in the 70s. (Within the past decade, my former OPC pastor assigned Eliot's books on manhood and womanhood to my wife and me during pre-marriage counseling. He came of age in the 70s, had spent the 80s and early 90s ministering out of the country and may not have been familiar with later CBMW(TM) writers, For what it's worth. But I don't know that there would be much difference, which proves the point.) The CBMW (and the term complementarianism) were the culmination of this reaction, but Kassian would apparently have us believe that there is little connection between the two. Why harp on when the term complementarianism was coined if it wasn't something new? Is it just the old patriarchy with a different name, or is it something new, even if some of its proponents don't quite recognize that?

Yes, Mrs. Kassian, (or is it Ms?--see her reference to Mrs. Patterson and the apparent disdain for those titles), a good many evangelicals (right or wrong) really do think a woman's place is in the home. Despite the ridiculous and incompetent nature of much of her output, Evans wouldn't have the audience she has if her caricatures didn't have some truth in them and if it didn't resonate with the experience of some of her devoted fans. Although some of them did indeed come out of extreme backgrounds, the percentage of them that come from a "fringe" group as opposed to some kind of more or less mainstream evangelical background is probably lower than the likes of Kassian hope or believe. Either that, or Kassian redefines mainstream evangelicalism to where it only includes people like her and those who read her writing and those of her friends (i.e. mostly relatively wealthy and relatively highly educated people) relegating others to the "fringe."

 

[timfost]

But...you state that my application is off....But, you've given me no examples how I do this, but only state as a bare fact that I've applied the effects of the curse to the model of the Christian home. How so? Give me specific examples?

Dear brother,

Here are some of the things that you said that concern me. I’ve commented underneath.

In Proverbs 31 the man sits as the gate while the wife is busy focused on her family.

This is so unqualified that it is meaningless. When a man is busy working is he not focused on his family? Unless the Proverbs 31 woman was working from her computer, she was not likely primarily working out of the home. Yes, she is busy providing for her family, but one is hard pressed to contrast this example to the normal occupation of a man. Yes, I think it is better for a women to be the primary caregiver in the home, but scripture does not restrict her work there.

Keeping the home (the home being the sphere and focus of the wife), and women guiding the home, are all biblical commands and not merely a changing cultural standard. The Proverbs 31 woman is busy, but busy on behalf of the home and mostly working at home while the husband is with the elders at the gate of the city.

Again, buying and selling real estate is likely out of the home.

But I think this note would make a wonderful screening tool. A great simple assessment to help find my son a spouse when he gets older. We could simply show this note to the potential wife and if her lip curls up in disgust, or if she says anything about what "her man" is gonna do or not do, then we can quickly cross her off the list and avoid much trouble in the future.

The note says:

Do you “expect” your husband to help w/ household chores? If you do, you won’t have a happy marriage b/c expectations destroy relationships. If he helps, great and if not, do your housework cheerfully as unto the Lord. Remember, you didn’t marry your husband to help w/ the household chores. You married him to be your protector and provider. You should also have married him b/c you deply loved him, wanted to be a great help meet to him, and to make his life better, not worse and put more burdens upon his shoulders that he already has to carry in providing for his family. Make his life as easy and as happy as you can!

This letter certainly is a demonstration of a wife who is ready to serve her husband. This is a biblical concept. But regardless of good intentions, this kind of submission is submission to abuse and is an example of applying the curse to a Christian marriage. 1) The presupposition is that household chores are for women. If the husband is truly the head of the household, chores are first and foremost his responsibility. The general delegation of these chores to his wife does not mean they are no longer his responsibility. 2) To spell out a dichotomy between a) “household chores” and b) “protector and provider” is false. Part of providing is helping in chores. 3) Is providing for a family really more burdensome than the work of a wife/mother in caring for house and children? I’ve cared for my young children and kept the house for some time when my wife spent time with her sister-in-law when she was having a baby. Her work is far more stressful than mine! I can’t help but to think that a man wrote the note above, or at least a woman saying what she thought she should say. 4) A wife is not a commodity that is supposed to make your life easier. A wife makes you complete. A good wife should challenge her husband to make himself useful when he gets home from work so that he is the leader serving as he is supposed to. She should help to sanctify her husband by pushing him to be more like Christ, who served His people in everything. The note above paints the picture of a wife that every man wants, not the wife that every man needs. 5) Expectations do not destroy relationships. They establish a covenant relationship.

The general tenor of the note is that many women want to control the relationship and put the husband to work when he comes home in ways that make him her help-meet instead of her being his. It is assumed that the note was written by a woman to other women. But, let me ask: Is the wife the help-meet of the husband, or is the husband the help-meet of the wife?

This is not the tone of a husband who serves his family. This seems like the voice of a husband that views his wife as his servant rather than a husband who loves his wife as Christ loved the church. How did Christ love the church? Look at His example. Yes, a woman is the help-mate to the husband. This does not mean that she was put there to make his life easier. She was put there to challenge him to be more like Christ.

These expectations listed in the note are poison, and many people bring these expectations into marriage. If a wife nags the husband to do chores and she is unhappy all the time because he is not meeting her demands, the husband doesn't doom her to an unhappy existence, she is dooming them both. That is the point of the note.

No, the husband that does not serve his wife as Christ served the church has already doomed the marriage. Husbands, please don’t put this pressure on your wives!

Now for some slight hyperbole (but not really): I've seen some men with their long "honey-do"lists and all their free Saturdays scheduled-up by the Missus and, while they claim they "go-along" because they love their wives, the look in their eyes is reminiscent of a hostage victim with Stockholm Syndrome. The wife is keen to reward him for behaviors to her liking. She may make little comments about how attractive a man becomes when he mows the lawn or how her libido works better when he takes "his fair share" of the dishes...but these stratagems are really just a kinder way that a dominant woman allows "her man" to think he is in charge, when she is really pulling the strings behind the scenes, and she may even submit to him (when it is convenient to her)...yet the roles are still subverted and the husband's authority usurped.

Again, this seems abusive. A husband that is leading and serving as Christ did should be very attractive to his wife. And she should certainly tell him that.

Christ washed his disciples' feet, yes, but the disciples also obeyed him and called him Lord. When we serve our families - and we SHOULD serve our families - we serve them as lords. We don't abdicate our authority by our service, but we sacrifice despite our headship.

I’m fine with the statement as long as we define “Lord” according to Christ’s example. The definitions and examples quoted above seem to be redefining biblical terms according to the curse.

Brother, I am willing to be wrong, but I fear that you have defined the role of a husband according to the curse, not according to Christ’s example. Please let me know if I've mis-understood or mis-interpreted.

Please prayerfully consider...

 

[Pergamum]

But...you state that my application is off....But, you've given me no examples how I do this, but only state as a bare fact that I've applied the effects of the curse to the model of the Christian home. How so? Give me specific examples?

Dear brother,

Here are some of the things that you said that concern me. I’ve commented underneath.

In Proverbs 31 the man sits as the gate while the wife is busy focused on her family.

This is so unqualified that it is meaningless. When a man is busy working is he not focused on his family? Unless the Proverbs 31 woman was working from her computer, she was not likely primarily working out of the home. Yes, she is busy providing for her family, but one is hard pressed to contrast this example to the normal occupation of a man. Yes, I think it is better for a women to be the primary caregiver in the home, but scripture does not restrict her work there.

Keeping the home (the home being the sphere and focus of the wife), and women guiding the home, are all biblical commands and not merely a changing cultural standard. The Proverbs 31 woman is busy, but busy on behalf of the home and mostly working at home while the husband is with the elders at the gate of the city.

Again, buying and selling real estate is likely out of the home.

But I think this note would make a wonderful screening tool. A great simple assessment to help find my son a spouse when he gets older. We could simply show this note to the potential wife and if her lip curls up in disgust, or if she says anything about what "her man" is gonna do or not do, then we can quickly cross her off the list and avoid much trouble in the future.

The note says:

Do you “expect” your husband to help w/ household chores? If you do, you won’t have a happy marriage b/c expectations destroy relationships. If he helps, great and if not, do your housework cheerfully as unto the Lord. Remember, you didn’t marry your husband to help w/ the household chores. You married him to be your protector and provider. You should also have married him b/c you deply loved him, wanted to be a great help meet to him, and to make his life better, not worse and put more burdens upon his shoulders that he already has to carry in providing for his family. Make his life as easy and as happy as you can!

This letter certainly is a demonstration of a wife who is ready to serve her husband. This is a biblical concept. But regardless of good intentions, this kind of submission is submission to abuse and is an example of applying the curse to a Christian marriage. 1) The presupposition is that household chores are for women. If the husband is truly the head of the household, chores are first and foremost his responsibility. The general delegation of these chores to his wife does not mean they are no longer his responsibility. 2) To spell out a dichotomy between a) “household chores” and b) “protector and provider” is false. Part of providing is helping in chores. 3) Is providing for a family really more burdensome than the work of a wife/mother in caring for house and children? I’ve cared for my young children and kept the house for some time when my wife spent time with her sister-in-law when she was having a baby. Her work is far more stressful than mine! I can’t help but to think that a man wrote the note above, or at least a woman saying what she thought she should say. 4) A wife is not a commodity that is supposed to make your life easier. A wife makes you complete. A good wife should challenge her husband to make himself useful when he gets home from work so that he is the leader serving as he is supposed to. She should help to sanctify her husband by pushing him to be more like Christ, who served His people in everything. The note above paints the picture of a wife that every man wants, not the wife that every man needs. 5) Expectations do not destroy relationships. They establish a covenant relationship.

The general tenor of the note is that many women want to control the relationship and put the husband to work when he comes home in ways that make him her help-meet instead of her being his. It is assumed that the note was written by a woman to other women. But, let me ask: Is the wife the help-meet of the husband, or is the husband the help-meet of the wife?

This is not the tone of a husband who serves his family. This seems like the voice of a husband that views his wife as his servant rather than a husband who loves his wife as Christ loved the church. How did Christ love the church? Look at His example. Yes, a woman is the help-mate to the husband. This does not mean that she was put there to make his life easier. She was put there to challenge him to be more like Christ.

These expectations listed in the note are poison, and many people bring these expectations into marriage. If a wife nags the husband to do chores and she is unhappy all the time because he is not meeting her demands, the husband doesn't doom her to an unhappy existence, she is dooming them both. That is the point of the note.

No, the husband that does not serve his wife as Christ served the church has already doomed the marriage. Husbands, please don’t put this pressure on your wives!

Now for some slight hyperbole (but not really): I've seen some men with their long "honey-do"lists and all their free Saturdays scheduled-up by the Missus and, while they claim they "go-along" because they love their wives, the look in their eyes is reminiscent of a hostage victim with Stockholm Syndrome. The wife is keen to reward him for behaviors to her liking. She may make little comments about how attractive a man becomes when he mows the lawn or how her libido works better when he takes "his fair share" of the dishes...but these stratagems are really just a kinder way that a dominant woman allows "her man" to think he is in charge, when she is really pulling the strings behind the scenes, and she may even submit to him (when it is convenient to her)...yet the roles are still subverted and the husband's authority usurped.

Again, this seems abusive. A husband that is leading and serving as Christ did should be very attractive to his wife. And she should certainly tell him that.

Christ washed his disciples' feet, yes, but the disciples also obeyed him and called him Lord. When we serve our families - and we SHOULD serve our families - we serve them as lords. We don't abdicate our authority by our service, but we sacrifice despite our headship.

I’m fine with the statement as long as we define “Lord” according to Christ’s example. The definitions and examples quoted above seem to be redefining biblical terms according to the curse.

Brother, I am willing to be wrong, but I fear that you have defined the role of a husband according to the curse, not according to Christ’s example. Please let me know if I've mis-understood or mis-interpreted.

Please prayerfully consider...

Tim,

About Proverbs 31 and the man sitting at the gate while the wife focuses on the home:

My interpretation is not novel. I am merely repeating what so many past commentators have said. We don't read of the wife sitting at the gate. We read of her industrious domesticity which allows him the freedom to sit at the gate and to advance in civil matters. She keeps the home in good order so that he can focus outside the home.

https://bible.org/seriespage/13-model-marriage

8. THE IDEAL WIFE PROMOTES HER HUSBAND’S STANDING AND LEADERSHIP IN THE COMMUNITY.

Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land (v. 23).

https://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-168/The-Proverbs-31-Woman

And thus this woman advances her husband's respect. Go down to verse 23, "Her husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land." The point is, he is known as her husband and his reputation is known far and wide. He is known by everybody. What happened was, inside the gates of ancient cities there would be sort of a platform area, or a patio area, where the elders of the city would gather every day and they would adjudicate the matters that came up in the city, disputes...it was like sort of an open court where hearings were made with regard to the issues of the time in where business was carried out. And the elders of the city, the mature men of the city, sat in that place and rendered judgment.

The point being that this man has a great reputation among the leaders of the city. It is a reputation basically built by his wife. She is so faithful to the duties of her love to him, he is free to be every bit the man he can be and so he develops a tremendous reputation. That reputation is undergirded by her because she's doing everything to make him everything he ought to be. She's contributing to his spiritual development. She's contributing to the clarity with which he sees the issues of life. She's granting him the wisdom that she gains from the knowledge of God and the knowledge of God's Word. She serves him. She cares for the things behind the scenes so he's free to be everything that God would want him to be and everything that the community would benefit from. And so he is known as a man of great nobility and great respect because of the contributions that she has made selflessly to him. And also, you can be sure that she has done everything she can as well verbally to build his reputation and never do anything to tear it down. She gains nothing by tearing down her husband's reputation, absolutely nothing. If people have diminished respect for him, then they have diminished respect for her, first of all because she speaks evil of her husband and secondly because he chose someone inadequate to help him to become all he could be.

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/proverbs/commentaries/31_23.php

One measure of a wife is the reputation of her husband. When she fulfills her role well, all know he has a charming wife, delightful children, a wonderful home, and a growing estate. He will have the confidence and freedom to engage in higher callings among men.

Her faithfulness and productivity provide the help that make ordinary men great and great men greater. Others will respect him for his blessing and wisdom in marrying such a woman. As God intended in Eden, a woman can help a man in most every area of his life.

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/proverbs/31-23.html

[Adam Clarke] She is a loving wife, and feels for the respectability and honor of her husband. He is an elder among his people, and he sits as a magistrate in the gate. He is respected not only on account of the neatness and cleanliness of his person and dress, but because he is the husband of a woman who is justly held in universal esteem. And her complete management of household affairs gives him full leisure to devote himself to the civil interests of the community.

[Albert Barnes] The industry of the wife leaves the husband free to take his place among the elders that sit in councils.

in the gates — (compare Proverbs 22:22). His domestic comfort promotes his advancement in public dignity.

[Matthew Poole] Known; observed and respected, not only for his own worth, but for his wife’s sake; not only for those rich ornaments which by her care and diligence she provides for him, which others of his brethren, by reason of their wives’ sloth or luxury, are not able to procure, but also for his wisdom in choosing, and his happiness in enjoying, so excellent a wife, by whose prudent care, in the management of his domestic concerns, he hath perfect freedom wholly to attend upon public affairs.

[Whedon's Commentary] When he sitteth among the elders — The senators or magistrates, who sit by the gates to decide cases and to transact public business. He is eminent among the public men. It is intimated that something of this is due to his wife’s thrift and good management. She conducts the domestic affairs so well and so profitably as to allow him time and means to devote to the public service. His genteel deportment and becoming attire indicate the wife of good taste and rare accomplishments. Blessed is the man that has a wife capable of correcting his foibles, smoothing down his rough points, and teaching him becoming deportment. Many a man is more indebted to his wife than he is aware of for his advancement in the world.

[Ellicott's Commentary] Her influence for good extends to him also. Having no domestic anxieties, he is set free to do his part in public life.

 

[Pergamum]

Tim,

Furthermore you seemed to note that (with regards to an expectation that a future wife will be domestic and do household chores)

this kind of submission is submission to abuse

. It most certainly is not. A future husband has every right to expect that his wife will be domestic to some degree and able to care for the home and the children. If not, she would certainly be a poor choice as a spouse. And a future wife has every right to expect that the husband will sacrificially provide and protect the household.

Also,

You then seem bothered that I generally expect that the wife will focus more on “household chores” and the husband will focus on being the “protector and provider.” I cannot fathom what is controversial about this statement. It seems biblical to expect that the wife will take the role of a keeper at home and the husband will be the provider and protector. What are your objections to this exactly? Do you reject male headship?

You then state that

Yes, a woman is the help-mate to the husband. This does not mean that she was put there to make his life easier.

But if you look at the commentators I have already quoted with reference to verse 23 of Proverbs 31, this is precisely what many of the Reformed commentators say. He is able to focus on civil matters at the gate of the city because she has well-cared for their home (i.e. has made his life easier so that he is not constantly having to focus on the home but can sit with the elders at the gate).

Again, I say nothing new or novel here that the commentators do not also say.

 

[Pergamum]

In light of ESS discussions and seeing in complementarian circles, the micro managing of maleness and femaleness, I am growing increasingly concerned that it is veering toward patriarchy.
So I am curious as to whether the fact that all these gender roles themselves (outside the church and home) is something to be drawn out from the Bible or just from general revelation and the culture of the time. I am no egalitarian I am just wondering.

Some complementarians don't seem to think that "gender roles" (I totally agree with Rev. Winzer on the sex vs gender distinction/difference) have any import other than who can bear children, who is technically in charge at home and in the church and maybe who can participate in the battlefield and the (American) football field. If we can't come up with anything other than the church, home and maybe the military and sports, any kind of "complementarianism" will not hold. It will continue to become more and more marginal. Given the history of the subject, it is about like the people in the PCUSA who kept drawing lines after the liberals kept crossing the old ones they had drawn.

Back in the day when the idea of a woman's place being in the home (however defined) was more widely seen as noncontroversial, the idea that a woman could be a CEO or the President of the United States but not be a pastor, elder or deacon would have been seen as absurd. And it is seen as absurd today by feminists of various stripes. Who is being consistent and coherent? The ones who see it as all being connected, (whether the chauvinistic bigots of the past or modern feminists) or the ones who point to a couple of NT texts in order to keep women out of the pulpit? I suspect some complementarians must choke on Isa. 3:12.

I don't think I disagree with Ruben on men lacking love, insisting on things for perhaps the wrong reasons, etc. But were the standards of the past entirely wrong? We shouldn't go back to the "Good old days" just for the sake of doing so, but we ought to closely examine whether or not there was good reason for some of the things they were so sure about.

The ahistorical nature of the views of at least some complementarian advocates, (or rather the novel nature of them when taking history into account) and the extent to which some of them are influenced by second wave feminism was driven home for me by an exchange several years ago between Rachel Held Evans and Mary Kassian. (Read the short article first or what comes next will be out of context.) As much as it pains me to type the next three words, Evans is right that Edith Schaeffer and Elisabeth Eliot were key authors in an evangelical reaction against second wave feminism in the 70s. (Within the past decade, my former OPC pastor assigned Eliot's books on manhood and womanhood to my wife and me during pre-marriage counseling. He came of age in the 70s, had spent the 80s and early 90s ministering out of the country and may not have been familiar with later CBMW(TM) writers, For what it's worth. But I don't know that there would be much difference, which proves the point.) The CBMW (and the term complementarianism) were the culmination of this reaction, but Kassian would apparently have us believe that there is little connection between the two. Why harp on when the term complementarianism was coined if it wasn't something new? Is it just the old patriarchy with a different name, or is it something new, even if some of its proponents don't quite recognize that?

Yes, Mrs. Kassian, (or is it Ms?--see her reference to Mrs. Patterson and the apparent disdain for those titles), a good many evangelicals (right or wrong) really do think a woman's place is in the home. Despite the ridiculous and incompetent nature of much of her output, Evans wouldn't have the audience she has if her caricatures didn't have some truth in them and if it didn't resonate with the experience of some of her devoted fans. Although some of them did indeed come out of extreme backgrounds, the percentage of them that come from a "fringe" group as opposed to some kind of more or less mainstream evangelical background is probably lower than the likes of Kassian hope or believe. Either that, or Kassian redefines mainstream evangelicalism to where it only includes people like her and those who read her writing and those of her friends (i.e. mostly relatively wealthy and relatively highly educated people) relegating others to the "fringe."

Chris says:

But were the standards of the past entirely wrong? We shouldn't go back to the "Good old days" just for the sake of doing so, but we ought to closely examine whether or not there was good reason for some of the things they were so sure about.

Exactly!

In the past, men did certain things and women did certain things. And these were Christians who tried to order their societies biblically.

When it comes to gender roles, I am a lot more likely to trust their past example than I am of trusting some of the goofy things that have been said in the last 40 years about how husbands and wives ought to deal with one another.

I am not ready to condemn our past fore-fathers as un-enlightened Neanderthals...

I believe their cultural patterns are closer to the New Testament than our present day thoughts on gender and marriage and child-rearing.

As we have seen within the PCA this week, even those claiming to be perfectly biblical and confessional are blinded by the spirit of the age when it comes to the gender roles and the proper duties and tasks of men and women.