To the Divine blessing the work is again commended, in the hope that its perusal will stimulate many to aspire after “true womanhood.”

The above book dedication sounds like it was written for True Woman 101 — the book Nancy and I just finished writing (available in Spring 2012). You’ve heard of the True Woman Movement, haven’t you? It launched in Chicago in 2008 with the first True Woman conference, and to date has resulted in almost 25,000 women signing the “True Woman Manifesto.”

The Great Awakening and True Womanhood

But the aforementioned book dedication isn’t for our book. Nor is it for any resource associated with the current True Woman movement. It was written in 1829, for a biography entitled, “True Womanhood: Memorials of Eliza Hessel.” I’ve been digging my way through several books written in and about the 1800s, and was surprised to discover that a “true woman” movement isn’t unique to this generation. It appears that such a movement occurred on the heels of the First Great Awakening, and contributed to the Second and Third Great Awakenings—which were heightened periods of religious revival in American history.

Along with “True Womanhood” (1829), I’m also reading “The Mirror of True Womanhood: A Book of Instruction for Women in the World” (1883), “True Men As We Need Them: A Book of Instruction for Men in the World” (1888), “Noble Womanhood: A Series of Biographical Sketches” (1894), “Womanhood: Lectures on Woman’s Work in the World” (1880), “The New Womanhood” (1904). These are just a few of what feminist historian, Nancy Cott, calls the “efflorescence of didactic writings about womanhood” that sprung up in the early 1800s. I’m also reading Cott’s book, “The Bonds of Womanhood:  ‘Woman’s Sphere’ in New England, 1780-1835,” (written in 1977) in which she quotes from the journals and diaries of women of that era.

The “Cult” of True Womanhood

Hessel’s 1859 biography “True Woman” quickly sold out and went into a second printing. Apparently, womanhood was a popular topic amongst the women of that day. The True Woman Movement of the late 1700s and early 1800s was so strong and prevalent, that feminist historian Barbara Welter dubbed it a “cult.”  (Barbara Welter, “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820 to 1860.” American Quarterly 18, Summer 1966. pp. 151—174.) Another feminist historian, Aileen S. Kaditor, called it the true woman movement of the 1800s the “Cult of Domesticity.” (I had to smile, since I suspect that feminist historians will undoubtedly also call the modern-day True Woman Movement a “cult.”)

Becoming a True Woman

It’s fascinating to dig into these old books to get an idea of what concepts and ideas motivated the True Womanhood Movement of the 1800s. At this point, I can’t say that I understand enough about it to discern its points of commonality and/or departure from the True Woman Movement of today, or whether or not I would agree with the doctrine and ideology. But I am intrigued to discover that this is not the first time in history that there has been a ground-swell of Christian women who have sought to determine—from a biblical perspective—what God’s design for male and female is all about, and to become God’s true woman.

As the True Woman biographer noted about Eliza Hessel in 1829:

“Soliciting divine assistance, she resolutely determined to attain the nobility of a true woman, and she succeeded.”

Related posts:

1. The True Woman ‘CLICK’
2. True Woman 08 – SOLD OUT
3. True Woman

This morning I had an interesting conversation with Rachel Held Evans, who is writing a book on “A Year of Biblical Womanhood.” Though Rachel and I would likely disagree on several points regarding the Bible’s teaching on womanhood, I deeply appreciate the opportunity for us to dialogue and engage on the topic. Rachel asked me to answer three questions about submission:

• What are some common misconceptions about what it means to be a “submissive wife.”
• Why might some (think secular audience) be surprised to learn that you submit to your husband. In other words, how do you yourself defy the stereotype?
• How long have you been married, and how has submission worked out practically in your marriage? (In other words, what does it look like when you submit to your husband?)

Those are excellent questions!  Here’s how I answered her first question, “What are some common misconceptions about what it means to be a “submissive wife?”

Seven Misconceptions about Submission:

Misconception #1: Submission is universal—the directive applies to all women, even those outside of the faith community.

The biblical directive to submit applies specifically to Christians—it cannot be upheld as a necessity for those outside the faith community. People without the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit have neither the discernment nor the power to live out submission and authority in a godly manner.

Misconception #2: Submission is gender-exclusive—it’s just for women.

Men have a responsibility to submit too—it’s not just something that’s required of women. EVERY Christian, female or male, has the responsibility to submit to the Lord, and also to the authorities the Lord has placed in his or her life. What’s more, the biblical concepts of submission and authority cannot be disassociated. The two are indivisibly connected. A biblical definition of submission cannot be understood apart from a biblical definition of authority.

Misconception #3: Submission is generic—every woman submits to every man.

The Bible instructs a wife to submit herself to her own husband; not to men in general.

Misconception #4: Submission is a right—a husband has the right to demand his wife’s submission.

A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to “submit herself”— deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church—not to make his wife submit.

Misconception #5: Submission is indiscriminate—it means mindless acquiescence.

A Christian’s first responsibility is to submit to the Lord and His standard of righteousness. A wife is not called to submit to sin, mistreatment, or abuse. The Lord does not want “weak-willed” women—women who lack the discernment and strength to respond to the right things and in the right way. Godly women do not submit to sin. They carefully and intentionally weigh and discern how to submit to sinful human authority in light of their primary responsibility to submit to the ways of the Lord. No brain-dead doormats or spineless bowls of Jello here! Submission is neither mindless nor formulaic nor simplistic. Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins. Submission is an attitude of the heart. A woman can have a submissive spirit even when saying “no” and refusing to go along with sin.

Misconception #6: Submission precludes mutuality—it creates lopsided, one-way relationships.

Submission and authority function hand-in-hand with all the other biblical directives about how Christians ought to interact with one another. Along with submitting to her husband, a Christian wife also has the responsibility to be transparent, speak truth, confront sin, and challenge her husband to ever increasing levels of holiness. As heirs together of the grace of life, both husband and wife have the responsibility to love, encourage, and build one another up; and to interact with forbearance, kindness and humility. Biblical authority and submission contribute to mutuality, and do not diminish or detract from it. (It’s “both-and” not “either-or.”)

Misconception #7: Submission promotes abuse—it encourages husbands to be domineering, self-centered boors.

When properly understood and enacted, the framework of hierarchical relationships within the Christian community serves a protective function, because every authority is accountable to a higher authority. This community structure encourages husbands to fulfill their responsibility to love as Christ loves, and holds them to account when they don’t. It fosters Christlikeness and prevents abuse. A wife whose husband is abusive can appeal to higher authorities for intervention and protection. It is the responsibility of the authorities to protect and seek the good of all those under their care.

Defying the Stereotype

Rachel’s second question was “Why might some (think secular audience) be surprised to learn that you submit to your husband. In other words, how do you yourself defy the stereotype?

My answer:

My husband takes his responsibility to love me as Christ loves the Church seriously. I take my responsibility to submit to him seriously. That means that I am cherished and have a voice. That means that he is respected and supported. I work with him, and pull in the same direction. Some might be surprised that I believe in submission because my marriage displays a unity, intimacy, and mutuality that is deep, profound and enviable. I am flourishing. I have what most women want. And it is a great paradox how it is has been achieved. The way of faith is the way of paradox: lose your life to live it, give to receive. It is also a great paradox that honoring God’s pattern for authority and submission in marriage fosters unity and mutuality.

What Does Submission Look Like?

Rachel’s third question was “How long have you been married, and how has submission worked out practically in your marriage? (In other words, what does it look like when you submit to your husband?)

My answer:

I’ve been married for 29 years—“just getting going” says my mom, who’s been married for 62.

“What it looks like” is a difficult question, since submission is not something foreign—not something “other”—to the character of a redeemed woman. Submission is not as much an “action” as it is an “attitude.” So it can’t be dictated by behavioral prescriptives. Submission boils down to a having spirit of amenability. It means being soft, receptive, responsive, and agreeable. Because of the misconceptions surrounding the definition of submission, I actually prefer to use the term “amenability.” Amenability comes from the French amener (to lead). An amenable woman is “leadable” as opposed to “ungovernable” She’s responsive to input and likely to cooperate. Amenability is part of the three-fold womanly disposition of 1 Peter 3:4-5, which includes gentleness, calmness, and amenability—which works itself out in a married woman’s life in submission to her husband.

So “what it looks like” on an on-going basis, is that I am soft, receptive, and agreeable toward my husband. I love responding to his lead. I respect who God created him to be as a man—and support his efforts to provide godly oversight for our family. I respect the position of responsibility that goes along with being a husband and father. “Respect” is probably the best word to describe what submission looks like in my marriage.

For me, submission is one of those things that is far more easily identified by its absence rather than its presence. I know that I am struggling with it when I am critical, impatient, defiant, and “snarky” toward my husband—when I refuse to cooperate and am unresponsive to input, when I rush in and take control, when I fail to “provide space” to allow my husband the opportunity to be a man and provide godly oversight for our family. In other words, it’s not readily apparent to me when I’m submitting, but it’s painfully obvious to me when I am not. I sense that I am disrespecting/ disregarding my husband, taking control, and pulling against him rather than for and with him.

So what do you think?  Is there anything I missed?  Which misconception do you encounter the most? How would you answer Rachel’s three questions? Or do you have any other questions or comments about submission?

Related posts:

1. Mary’s CliffNotes on Authority & Submission (Part 2)
2. Mary’s CliffNotes on Authority & Submission (Part 1)

For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 says,

“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. ” (1 Timothy 2:11–15, ESV)

Now that’s definitely not the passage you want to be teaching on if you’re trying to win a popularity contest! It sounds extremely sexist and abrasive to the modern ear. And the phrase “she will be saved through childbearing” seems non-sensical, if not downright outrageous. But I concur with Challies that “there is truth and freedom here if we are willing to go looking for it.”

An Epiphany

Reading Challies’ attempts to come to grip with verse 15 reminded me of my own attempts to wrestle with this passage over the years. The last time I studied the passage in-depth was a couple of years ago, while working on writing Girls Gone Wise. It’s interesting how we can read a passage a hundred times, and still notice something new when we return to it again. I had been studying Genesis, and was immersed in the concept of the typological symbolism of Adam and Eve. (Adam is type of Christ, Eve is type of the Church), when I turned my attention to 1 Timothy 2.

It was then that I had an epiphany that seemed to resolve many of the interpretive difficulties with the text. It struck me that approaching the passage typologically harmonized many of the issues that arose from approaching it from a merely ontological standpoint – which has been the normative way of viewing this text.  I was so excited about the idea that I called up Wayne Grudem, to pick his brain about the veracity of my thoughts. He encouraged me to write them up and present a paper at ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) or to publish an article in their academic Journal (JETS). I haven’t got around to doing that yet, but since Challies brought up the question, I’m itching to weigh in on the discussion.

So, for all you theological tall foreheads, here’s something for you to chew on. (Remember, you heard it here first!) For those who aren’t familiar with the theological terminology, don’t bail out. Bear with me… and keep reading. Theology is fun!

A Typological Approach to 1 Timothy 2:11-15

To begin, let me explain what the theological term “type” means. A “type” is person, thing, or event that foreshadows or points to something or someone else (the antitype). The type has a layer of intended meaning that is revealed by the antitype.  For example, Jesus told Nicodemus, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness” (the type), “so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (the anti-type) (Jn 3:14; cf. Nm 21:9). The Passover Lamb and the rock from which Israel drank in the wilderness were also types of Christ (Ex 12:1–13, 49; 17:6; 1 Cor 5:7; 10:3, 4) Types most frequently point to Jesus and the story of the gospel.

Paul was a big typological type of thinker. He taught, for instance, that Adam was type of Christ, and that marriage was type of the relationship between Christ and the Church.  He would have agreed with the writer of Hebrews that earthly, physical realities are but shadows—types—of true and heavenly realities (the antitypes) (Heb. 8:5; 9:24-25). The physical and temporal exist to point us to the spiritual and eternal.

Now before we go on, I’m going to teach you another big, daunting word: “ontology” (Just think how your opponent’s eyebrows will rise when you use up three o’s playing it in scrabble!) Ontology means “related to being or existence.” It has to do with the essence of who we are.

Woman is Type of Church

As I said before, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 makes a whole lot more sense when we understand it typologically rather than merely ontologically. That is, from the perspective of what woman represents (typology) rather than just who woman is (ontology). And it may be that this is just what Paul had in mind.

We know for sure that Paul viewed Adam as a type of Christ. We also know for sure that he viewed marriage as type of the relationship between Christ and the church — in which the role of husband is a type of Christ and the role of the wife is a type of the Church. Thus, we can justifiably extrapolate that Paul also viewed Eve as a type of the Church.

Assuming that Paul has typology in mind, let’s have a look at the passage again. First, Paul talks about how women and men are to conduct themselves in church: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”  Don’t get caught up in what this means and how we apply it today. That’s a discussion for another time. For now, I just want you to consider how a typological approach helps explain this and the next few verses, and how it solves some interpretive conundrums.

If Paul was indeed thinking typologically (and I believe a good case can be made for it), that puts an entirely different spin on the following verses. Paul isn’t arguing that women are more gullible or that women need to bear children in order to be saved. No. He’s trying to point out that male female roles in the church exist to bear typological witness to the gospel.

For Adam (type of Christ) was formed first, then Eve (type of Church) – and Adam (type of Christ) was not deceived, but the woman (type of Church) was deceived and became a transgressor.

Yet she (the Church) will be saved through childbearing (bearing fruit in Christ)—if they (man and woman) continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Voila. This solves the conundrum of thinking that Paul is saying that women are saved by giving birth to biological children. If Paul is indeed thinking typologically, he’s not saying anything of the sort. Instead, he’s saying that woman’s ontology (her capacity to bear children) relates to her typology (the Church’s ability to be fruitful in Jesus). She (the Church) is saved through childbearing. Paul reinforces the profound mutuality of men and women here. Both are church. Both are saved by the type of union that results in spiritual children—the union with our husband, Christ. Both must continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

It’s not about us

Yes, Paul gives some pretty tough instruction about male and female roles in the Church. But then he elevates the discussion to an entirely different level. In his rationale, he mingles the imagery of Adam and Eve and woman and man together to make the point that in the end, how we conduct ourselves in church has much more to do with what we (typologically) represent than who we (ontologically) are. And that makes his directives on male/female roles in the church much easier to understand and swallow.

Ultimately, this is not about us. It’s not about man. It’s not about woman. It’s about displaying the glory of Christ’s story.

A typological approach to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 makes a lot of sense to me, and I’d like to throw it on the table for my fellow theologians to consider and discuss. We can’t say with absolute certainty what Paul had in mind in verse 15, but we can be absolutely certain that there is indeed truth and freedom here if we are willing to go looking for it.

————————

A further note of clarification:

If Paul is thinking typologically, he is saying that “she” (the church, as typologized by woman and represented by Eve – I think all three are in view) will be saved through childbearing (a characteristic womanly function which typologizes the church bearing spiritual children in union with Christ– the child that was promised to Eve) if they (the church – man and woman) continue in faith, love and holiness. His argument brilliantly interweaves all the correlating pieces.

This interpretation supports Thomas Schreiner’s thesis that childbearing (childbearing capacity) is upheld as that which is distinct to womanhood, and that woman ought to embrace her God-given role. It merely suggests that there is yet another, deeper layer of meaning here – in fact, the typological approach allows for several layers of meaning:

• Eve will be saved through the birth of THE Child that God promised to her
• Woman will show that she is truly saved when she embraces, rather than rejects God’s created design for her.  AND…
• The Church will be saved through union with Christ (bearing spiritual fruit/children)

Paul  is providing the ultimate reason along with the behavioral directive. He is saying that woman ought not to teach men in the church because our roles reflect the fact that Christ leads/instructs the church, and not the other way around.  And that is a reason that makes sense. This explanation logically answers the “why” question, makes the roles of men and women in the church defensible, and coherently/comprehensively harmonizes it with Scripture’s vision of the meaning of gender. It’s a brilliant and complex, yet profoundly simple explanation that connects all the dots for us.

No related posts.

I admit it. The topic of woman’s appearance is trivial compared to the war on the other side of the world – but given the reality of our culture, it’s a battle that hits much closer to home.

The Debate about Female Beauty

Tim Challies, a popular Christian blogger, published his thoughts on women “letting themselves go.” While he was careful to stress that “the beauty the Bible commends is the beauty of character more than a beauty of appearance,” he suggested that inner and outer beauty are actually inexorably connected, and concluded that women need to make the effort to remain beautiful to their husbands.

Another blogger, Rachel Held Evans, was disappointed by Challies’ refrain that “outer beauty reflects inner beauty” and that “a good wife will keep up appearances for her husband choosing an attractive sweater instead of the stained Mickey Mouse t-shirt.” She argued that

The Bible never demands that women be beautiful nor does it justify a man’s infidelity because his wife “let herself go.” If anything, it presents a fairly consistent picture of beauty as a passing pleasure. Challies and company are free to teach that women should stay beautiful for their husbands, but I wish they would stop referring to this teaching as “biblical” when it is not.

The discussion surrounding this issue was intense. Challies’ and Evans’ posts attracted several hundred comments. When Mark Driscoll mentioned my “What Not to Wear” post on twitter, Girls Gone Wise got flooded with so many visits that it temporarily downed the site. Incidentally, Driscoll took a whole lot of flak, a few years ago, when he offered to take one for the guys, by decrying pastor’s wives for “letting themselves go.”

A Sensitive Issue for both Sexes

Woman’s appearance is a sensitive issue, because from a man’s perspective, a wife’s effort to be beautiful for her husband speaks of her care and respect for him, and communicates her desire to be sexually attractive and available for him. Making a reasonable effort to care for and beautify herself is a demonstration of her devotion. In his view, a lack of effort in this regard demonstrates a lack of concern for him. Bottom line – whether we like it our not, it’s important to our guys. Challies points out:

In all of these things, a woman ought to understand (and believe) that what a man finds (or ought to find) beautiful in his wife is more about care and respect and effort and availability than it is about figure and proportion. In too many cases a woman who lets herself go is simply symbolizing that she has let her marriage go. Conversely, care for herself shows her care for her husband, respect for him, love for him.

It’s even a touchier subject for women, because as Evans points out, “many are so burdened by the impossible standards imposed by our culture that they feel as though their efforts will never be enough.” Like Evans, I have never in my life met a woman who did not want to be beautiful for her husband.

When it comes to beauty, women react against the burden of expectation, the fear that they will fall short of the desired standard, the inevitability of decay, and the resentment that the script is different for men than women. A woman wants to be loved and accepted as she is. From a wife’s perspective, a husband’s attraction to/desire for beauty can magnify her feelings of personal inadequacy and insecurity, and she may fear that his love/acceptance depends on her ability to measure up.

Approaching the Discussion from a Different Angle

So who is right—Challies or Evans? Was Driscoll entirely off base in suggesting that it might negatively affect a pastor if his wife lets herself go? Or were his critics misguided in insisting that a woman’s lack of attention to her appearance should in no way impact her husband’s propensity to stray?

The stalemate in the discussion often boils down to the fact that women resent the fact that men are so attracted to beauty, while men resent the fact that women don’t make the effort to properly attend to it. So how do we resolve the impasse? In my opinion, we can’t hope to make sense of the question until we view woman’s beauty and beautification through the lens of the biblical typology of gender, and the eternal, cosmic meaning of sexuality.

Beauty has a Cosmic Meaning

Psalm 45 is a song celebrating the marriage of a Hebrew king to a foreign princess. But it’s also a messianic prophecy pointing to the relationship between Christ the King and His Church-Bride. The Psalmist notes that the king “desires her beauty”, and that the princess, in turn, makes herself beautiful—“all-glorious”— for him.

Scripture uses this imagery to illustrate how we are to make ourselves beautiful for our King. The Lord wants us to clothe ourselves in fine, spotless garments of righteousness—in holy character and holy deeds. (Rev. 19:7—8) He wants us to be beautiful, and through Jesus, we are!  The great story of the gospel is that God gives us the opportunity to clothe ourselves in the beauty of Christ. He provides the beauty- and we don’t need to work or strive to measure up, nor do we need fear that we will fail to meet the standard.

So what does all this have to do with our discussion about female appearance? It has a great deal to do with it. We live—as C.S. Lewis coined it—in the “shadow lands.” The earthly, physical realities of our lives are but shadows—copies—of true and heavenly realities (e.g. Heb. 8:5; 9:24-25). The physical and temporal exist to point us to the spiritual and eternal. And nowhere is this more the case than in the relationship between male and female.

Human sexuality is a parable —a testimony to the character of God and to His spectacular plan of redemption through Jesus. This spiritual truth is so magnificent that God chose to put it on display permanently. Everywhere. Men were created to reflect the strength, love and self-sacrifice of Christ. Women were created to reflect the grace and beauty of the Bride He redeemed.

I believe that men are “wired” to be attracted to beauty in women because our Heavenly Bridegroom desires the beauty of His Bride. And I believe that deep down, every woman wants to feel beautiful and desired. This is the way that God has created us as male and female—and the illustration points to something far bigger than ourselves.

Beauty is More Than a Passing Pleasure

Many scorn beauty as “a passing pleasure.” They think that the illusive, fragile, fading, temporary, and wrinkle-and-stretch-mark-prone nature of female beauty indicates that men (and women) should just “get over it” and focus on more important things.

Beauty is indeed a passing pleasure. But I think there’s a deeper meaning here that we dare not trivialize. The symbolic importance of beauty/beautification is not unlike the symbolic importance of marriage. Woman’s beauty, and all the broken, distorted ideas about it, will not so much pass, as give way—in the end—to that to which beauty points. There will be no marriage in heaven because the shadow will give way to the reality. Likewise, the illusive, fading, temporary beauty of women will one day give way to the breathtaking, spectacular, eternal beauty of the Bride of Christ.

The gospel doesn’t negate man’s desire to enjoy beauty and woman’s desire to be beautiful, but it does shift the focus of our attention beyond the symbol to that to which it points. When we consider the jaw-dropping picture painted by Scripture, it would seem that our Lord finds our desire for beauty not too strong, but too weak. We get all wrapped up with the earthly and the superficial and temporal, while the supernatural and eternal is offered us. Like an ignorant tourist who spreads out his towel under the picture of the umbrella on the sign, because he does not know that the sign points to the beach. We are far too easily pleased. (Again, a favorite C. S. Lewis thought)

Embracing Beauty

Followers of Christ know that the symbol is not even fractionally as important as the reality. But they understand that it is not totally unimportant either.

So girls, let’s give the guys a break. Let’s stop condemning them for feeling attracted to beauty and wanting us to make a reasonable and sustained effort in that department. And guys… give us a break. Please understand how very personal and painful this issue can be for women. It’s very difficult to stay engaged in fighting a battle we know we are destined to lose. The beauty of our youth will inevitably fade. And most of us don’t have a hope of even remotely resembling the airbrushed model on the cover of the magazine.

And let’s always remember that the whole issue of female beauty is merely a signpost. It’s reminder to all of us—male and female—that the King desires our beauty, and that we ought to carefully attend to our character, and to making ourselves spiritually beautiful for that great destination wedding on the other shore.

In my opinion, the answer to the conundrum surrounding the discussion about female beauty is not to diminish or deny its importance, but to exalt and embrace the all-surpassing beauty to which it points.

Related posts:

1. Beauty at Any Cost
2. True Feminine Beauty
3. Drunk – The New Female Tenderness?

The Historic Christian Position on Gender

Since New Testament times, Christians believed that the Bible taught that God created male and female with complementary differences and roles. There was no word to describe this position, since no one had ever questioned it. But about 50 years ago, feminism changed all that. And by the mid-eighties, when Egalitarians and Evangelical Feminists eagerly jumped on the feminist ideological bandwagon, it was necessary to come up with a label to identify this traditional, orthodox, historic belief. That’s when we came up with the term “complementarian.” It simply means someone who believes that the Bible teaches that God created men and women with equal, yet distinct roles. We are equal, but different.

Straw Women

And that’s when I started to be called a gender traitor. And misrepresented by scary straw women. A straw woman is the female version of a straw man. A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position, knocks that position down, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. It’s a common, but faulty way to argue against an idea. Anyway, since the term “complementarian” now conjures up such scary stereotypes, I thought it would be fun to parade some of the most popular straw women out across the stage so they could take a bow—and hopefully bow out. Here they are:

(Strike up the scary organ music please!) . . .

Dora the Doormat

Dora the Doormat wears a “step on me please” sign around her neck. She’s a passive, quivering, opinion-less servant who can’t and won’t do anything without being told what to do. Dora can’t even get dressed in the morning without finding out which dress her husband wants her to wear. And she likes it when her husband acts like a domineering boor. Dora has absolutely no goal in life except to serve her man. She invites him to wipe his dirty, grimy, patriarchal feet all over her, so that she can happily clean up the mess. Dora’s sister, Co-dependent Clara, goes as far as to say that complementarians endorse abuse.

Since when does telling men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church support or promote women being docile doormats? Since when does the Bible’s view on unity, partnership, indivisibility, co-dominion and the dignity of male and female as complementary reflections of the image of God even remotely lend itself to this straw woman stereotype? Even the unbelieving, soon-to-be-married young lady working out with me at the gym exclaimed, “Wow, that’s incredible!” when I told her what God expects of Christian husbands. Complementarians do NOT invite, advocate, or endorse that men treat women in a sinful fashion! Complementarians instruct husbands to push for ever-increasing levels of holiness/Christ-likeness. And in my experience, they are the first to step in to protect women from harm. The claim that complementarity breeds doormats and encourages abuse is both false and reprehensible.

Dipstick Danielle

Dipstick Danielle doesn’t have a brain. She threw it in the trashcan when she embraced complementarity. Obviously, only women who have experienced the proverbial feminist “click” and had their consciousness so “raised” have the capacity to think. The rest of us are mindless minions of patriarchy–unenlightened to our repressed condition, party to our own servitude. Dipstick Danielle is close friends with Bobblehead Betty – the straw woman who doesn’t have any thoughts, ideas, or opinions of her own, but mutely nods “yes” to everything her husband says. Scary indeed!

Scripture doesn’t like the idea of “weak-willed” women, and neither do we. Complementarians encourage women to study the Word of God, THINK HARD about how to apply it to their lives, rely on the counsel of the Holy Spirit, seek the input of godly female mentors, examine cultural influences, carefully separate right from wrong, and make wise, informed decisions about how to behave. This is definitely not a brainless process. Complementarity does not support simplistic, mindless, acquiescence. It breeds strong women who can swim against the cultural tide and think for themselves. Thinking through how to apply God’s eternal principles requires brains, backbone, and courage. Complementarians don’t like wimpy women!

Kitchen-Trapped Kathy

Kathy lives in the kitchen. Oh, sometimes she’ll go into the laundry room too, but cooking, cleaning, doing laundry and other menial household chores pretty much defines her existence. This straw woman stays in the house, has no interests outside of the house, and never, ever has a career or employment outside of the house. Her over-riding, life-long aspiration is to bake cookies and keep her toilet sparkling clean. Her friends, Dipstick Dana and Bobble-head Betty, are eager to share tips with Kathy on cleaning techniques, home décor, and where to clip out the best grocery coupons.

Complementarians do believe that God gave women a unique responsibility to create and maintain a welcoming, nurturing home environment. But that doesn’t mean that women do all the housework, nor that homemaking is the sum total of all they ever do (The Proverbs 31 woman looked well to the ways of her household and also ran a business). Nor do Complementarians idolize the home and value it above that to which it points.

A woman who creates a home does on a personal level what the Church does for Christ on a corporate level; and also what Christ does in His Father’s House on an eternal, heavenly level—She creates an environment that’s welcoming, nourishing, healing, and conducive to life and growth.

Baby popping Bertha

Bertha aims to have twenty-six kids and counting. Popping out babies is her only goal and purpose in life. The more kids she has, the more spiritual she is, so the more the better! Bertha doesn’t use contraceptives or family planning . . . her plan is to have as many as she can, as quickly as she can. Bertha is best friends with Megan the Marriage-Monger. Megan’s only goal in life is to be married. She’s pushing 50, and has done absolutely nothing meaningful in her life except wait for “Mr. Right” to come along.

One of the great meanings of marriage is to bear and raise children for the glory of God. Complementarians welcome children as a wonderful and precious blessing from God. But they understand that bearing biological children is not the be-all and end-all of womanhood. While womanhood normally includes getting married and giving birth to biological children, this is not its ultimate aim. Woman’s ultimate aim is to be spiritually fruitful—to bear and raise spiritual kids. The unmarried Paul said that singleness was a precious gift from God, and that “each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.”(1 Corinthians 7:7) God gives us different gifts and callings. Marriage is not absolute and neither is conceiving children. It is not absolute that every woman will marry, nor is it absolute that every married woman will bear children, nor is it true that every woman ought to bear as many biological children as she possibly can. What IS absolute is that all women are called to be spiritually fruitful. The Lord wants all women—including single and childless women and women past child-bearing age—to spiritually and metaphorically have a “household” and be the “joyful mother of children.” (Psalm 113:9)

Repressed Rita

Poor Rita. She has gifts and nowhere to use them. Since her church won’t let her preach on Sunday mornings, her gifts of leadership and teaching are squelched. She is forever destined to sit on her hands on the back pew doing nothing. Silent. Frustrated. Repressed. She’s not into teaching Sunday School, or leading a woman’s Bible Study, or ministering to the homeless, or alleviating the pain of those in crisis, or reaching out to those in prison, or spiritually mothering anybody. She wants to do something really important—not something as menial as ministering to children and women. In Rita’s mind, the only person in the whole church who really gets to minister is the senior pastor—and if she can’t be THAT, then she won’t reach her full ministry potential. Poor Rita. Poor Church. Sniff. Pass the tissue box please.

Hmmm . . . Really? Last I checked, I have leadership and teaching gifts . . . and I am a woman . . . and I am exercising my gifts within a complementarian framework . . . AND there is far more to do for the Kingdom than I, and the myriads of other women I see exercising their gifts, have the time or energy to do. Complementarians believe in the priesthood of believers. Rita, and every other woman, has a responsibility to develop and exercise her spiritual gifts. Complementarians believe that the local church is to corporately reflect the dynamics of a healthy marriage relationship. The two sexes ought to work together in unity, mutuality, and cooperation to further the Kingdom of God under the loving, self-sacrificing guidance of male headship. There is no shortage of work to do. The gospel is too glorious. The needs are too great.

So there you have it! The worst of the illustrious straw woman parade!—There are more, but I’ve identified the ones who most commonly appear centerstage to give dire warnings about what will happen to women who embrace historic, orthodox, biblical views on gender.

Fighting on Two Fronts

A caveat: Standing for truth rarely affords us the luxury of fighting on only one front. Satan will warp truth by bending it to the left and the right. Are there, in fact, “uber-complimentarian” people who promote a biblical application that is narrow, rigid, and legalistic? Are there people who would like nothing better than to turn Dora into a doormat, Danielle into a dipstick, trap Kathy in the kitchen, insist that Bertha pop out more babies, and repress Rita? Yes, sadly there are. And I am the first in line to call them to account. But to say that these caricatures accurately represent the views of complementarians is like saying the Unabomber accurately represents the views of environmentalists. So please stop doing it!

If you want to talk ideas, let’s talk ideas. Let’s talk hermeneutics. Let’s talk presuppositions. Let’s talk biblical exegesis. Let’s talk principles of interpretation and application. But stop misrepresenting the complementarian position. Stop using syllogistic fallacies, non sequiturs, disambiguations and fallacies of propositional logic. But most of all, please stop parading out those silly straw women!

No related posts.