My thoughts on:
A Year of Biblical Womanhood
How a liberated woman found
herself sitting on her roof, covering her head, and calling her husband
‘Master’
For a couple of years I had
been quite confused and concerned about the idea of Biblical Womanhood. I’d
never really come across it until a year or so earlier, and here I was being a
woman, and a person who believed in the bible.
Was I a biblical woman?
What did it take to be
classified a biblical woman?
When I heard that Rachel Held
Evans was doing this project and writing the book, I was intrigued, and excited
that someone was thinking along these lines.
Some people thought it would
be making a mockery of the Bible, other people thought, like me I guess, it was
a fascinating idea, and were waiting to hear about how it went.
For my birthday I got an iPad
and as soon as I had my kindle app ready to go, I bought the book!
To be honest, from start to
finish I laughed, I cried, I cried out YES, and I found myself finally
identifying with what being a woman, and one who believed in God, meant.
The confusion I have felt
regarding biblical womanhood was addressed quite early on,
“After all, technically
speaking, it is biblical for a woman
to be sold by her father (Exodus 21:7), biblical
for her to be forced to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), biblical for her to remain silent in
church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), biblical
for her to cover her head (1 Corinthians 11:6), and biblical for her to be one of multiple wives (Exodus 21:10).
This is why the notion
of “biblical womanhood” so intrigued me.
Could an ancient collection
of sacred texts, spanning multiple genres and assembled over thousands of years
in cultures very different than our own, really offer a single cohesive formula
for how to be a woman? And do all the women of Scripture fit into this same mould?
Must I?
I’m the sort of person who
likes to identify the things that most terrify and intrigue me in this world
and plunge headlong into them… it’s the reason I woke up one morning with a
crazy idea lighting up every corner of my brain.
What if I tried it all? What
if I took “biblical womanhood” literally?”
For Rachel, this would mean
for the next year, her “Biblical Woman’s Ten Commandments” would serve as a
guide for daily living…
Involving activities such as:
Submitting to her husband’s
will, devoting herself to duties of the home, dressing modestly, covering her
head when in prayer, not cutting her hair, not teaching in church, remaining
ceremonially impure for her period, learning how to cook, calling her husband
“Master”, and more.
Each month Rachel focused on
a different virtue – gentleness, domesticity, obedience, valour, beauty,
modesty, purity, fertility, submission, justice, silence and grace.
Rather than mocking the bible
or criticising women who are homemakers, Rachel celebrates all women.
Those who work outside the
home, those who work inside the home, those who are married, those who are
single.
Because being a woman is not
about being tied to a certain role or task. It is not being limited to a realm
of service.
“Knowing that God both
inhabits and transcends our daily vocations, no matter how glorious or mundane,
should be enough to unite all women of faith and end that nasty cycle of
judgement we get caught in these days.”
There seems to be a lot of
this around.
The should and shouldn’t, can
and cant, right and wrong in regards to being a Christian woman.
Confusion and debate can end
up defining how we relate to each other. Through reading Rachel’s book, I
learnt what we should be saying to each other instead.
Eshet Chayil!!
Proverbs 31 is a passage of
scripture that “many Christians
interpret prescriptively, as a command to women rather than an ode to women,
with the home-based endeavours of the Proverbs 31 women cast as the ideal
lifestyle for all women of faith.”
“In Jewish culture it is not
the women who memorise Proverbs 31, but the men. Husbands commit each line to
memory, so they can recite it to their wives at the Sabbath meal…”
So, not a list of rules, but
a blessing, to celebrate women. Not because of what they do, but because of who
they are!
Women of valour (Eshet
Chayil)!
“Eshet Chayil at its core is
a blessing – one that was never meant to be earned, but to be given,
unconditionally.”
Rachel’s journey of A Year of
Biblical Womanhood led her to an “unconventional conclusion…there is no such
thing”
“Among the women praised in
scripture are warriors, widows, slaves, sister wives, apostles, teachers,
concubines, queens, foreigners, prostitutes, prophets, mothers, and martyrs…”
“As much as we may long for
the simplicity of a single definition of ‘biblical womanhood’, there is no one
right way to be a woman, no mould into which we must each cram ourselves…”
Personally, when I read these
words I was able to breathe a sigh of relief. I’ve tried to fit into the mould,
tried to be a ‘biblical woman’, tried to follow dos’ and don’t’s and it doesn’t
work.
God created us all
differently. Giftings, passions, personalities, quirks, desires, etc…
We are unique. We are woman made
by a creative God, who has a different work for each of us to do.
We have a common goal and
calling though, and Rachel touches on this beautifully…
“… I believe that my calling
as a Christian, is the same as that as any follower of Jesus. My calling is to
love the Lord with all my heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love my
neighbour as myself. Jesus himself said that the rest of scripture can be rendered
down into these two commands. If love was Jesus’ definition of ‘biblical’, then
perhaps it should be mine.”
Amen! Eshet Chayil!!
"This is why the notion of “biblical womanhood” so intrigued me.Could an ancient collection of sacred texts, spanning multiple genres and assembled over thousands of years in cultures very different than our own, really offer a single cohesive formula for how to be a woman? And do all the women of Scripture fit into this same mould? Must I?"
ReplyDeleteIt is a good question to ask Jenna, but what I fail to see Rachel doing in her own seeking of answers, is to hold to the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture (sola scriptura), and that's across all of her writings that I've seen so far, not just this book. If we as God's children don't do that, then we open ourselves right up to the deception of our own flesh and heart "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).
With the question about whether God is actually letting us know what he requires of us as women in His Kingdom, there is this: As Christians we're all under the new covenant that God created through Jesus. As far as I know, He hasn't sent out amendments, or initiated a 3rd covenant. So if it's in the New Covenant recordings (New Testament), it's given for our instruction for sure. And all that whilst we love and serve that same God of the Old Testament, and His wisdom and instruction for whoever His people were. Our God, our history. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Tim 3:16
If scripture addresses how to be a godly (biblical) husband, master (or boss), child, church, elder; if it addresses what it looks like to minister to others (in prison, who are hungry, etc, all counter culture in that time); if God speaks such clear instruction about what is sin and what is not in scripture; then what is the problem with accepting that He gives clear directives about what it is to be a godly (biblical) wife? It seems illogical to me to pick and choose from God's written word according to preferences, which is what Rachel consistently does throughout her various writings. To me, I could only see it as logical, if one were surrendering to the battle against flesh. (and my flesh certainly wars!) I just can't see another answer for her conclusions that actually makes sense.
Given that her book is written through a grid that doesn't include a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith (sola scriptura), that would mean that her conclusions are shaped through that "lens" (lacking in the discernment and accountability that that particular doctrine brings to our reading of scripture). I can only then reach the conclusion that her "teaching/discoveries" isn't/arent't based on sound doctrine, and therefore, is unlikely to be very sound.
On a pure point of logic, as an aside, Rachel and you comment about the blessing of Proverbs 31 being spoken by husbands over their wives. It's a lovely picture isn't it :) But let's not stop there, lets take that to the next logical step. They would be doing that, because, that is what their wives were either living or seeking to live out. And the wives would have been doing these things, and the husbands blessing them in that, because of God's instructions in the first place. And further, God clearly ordained it to be included in His recorded word, *as a blessing*, very clearly being for those doing something that he found to be pleasing. Can you see where the evidence trail is leading? Would you agree that it sounds like a reasonable proposition?
It is obvious to me Marion, that you and I disagree on this. I see that Rachel has drawn her conclusions from scripture, you say she does not hold to the doctrine of sufficiency of scripture.
ReplyDeleteI see Proverbs 31 as a celebration of the many roles a women may have in her life: keeper of home, business woman, wife, mother, friend, social justice campaigner, etc... I can't speak for you as to what you see.
What is more important to me than any of these things though, is Rachel's conclusion about the calling we all share. To love the Lord with all our hearts, to love our neighbour as ourselves.
This speaks to me about Rachel's faith, her love of Jesus, her commitment to Him as His follower.
In her book, she frees women from the confusion and pain many have gone through because they felt they were't right or enough, because they didn't fit into the role of housewife, or because they couldn't have children. Or because they were gifted to teach and had a message, but were told they couldn't preach in front of men (but it would be okay if they got up and did it as a testimony in the relaxed night service).
Throughout scripture, there are women who lead, women who are led. Women who stood up for their people as a leader (Esther), women who were stood up for.
I see a story of a God who gifts His people and calls them for a purpose, not because of their gender, but because of who He has made them uniquely to be.
I have heard it said in a sermon not too long ago, scripture without context is pretext.
What we read in the bible must be put in its original context, not so we can discount it, but so that we can understand the true implications it holds for our lives. Many of the verses quoted about the roles of women need to be put in context. I am reading a book about this at the moment, and have found it to be very interesting. "How I Changed My Mind About Women In Leadership." by Alan F. Johnson.
To conclude though, I'm not here for a debate. I understand I put my opinions and ideas out in the public, so they will be commented on, and not everyone will agree with me. That's ok with me. So thanks for commenting.
Jenna, does this mean that you won't be responding to the questions I asked (regarding reasoning "in context") at the end of my comment?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure which question you mean?
ReplyDelete"On a pure point of logic, as an aside, Rachel and you comment about the blessing of Proverbs 31 being spoken by husbands over their wives. It's a lovely picture isn't it :) But let's not stop there, lets take that to the next logical step. They would be doing that, because, that is what their wives were either living or seeking to live out. And the wives would have been doing these things, and the husbands blessing them in that, because of God's instructions in the first place. And further, God clearly ordained it to be included in His recorded word, *as a blessing*, very clearly being for those doing something that he found to be pleasing. Can you see where the evidence trail is leading? Would you agree that it sounds like a reasonable proposition?"
ReplyDelete