I should probably have a category for people I disagree with that I read all the time/find mildly annoying/capable of sending me into a sputtering rage without the love of Christ guiding me. Rachel Held Evans is joining that informal list, where she joins such luminaries as Dr. Anthony Bradley, Geraldine Ferraro (RIP), Robert Wright, Al Gore, and others. Her blog is nearly always interesting and provocative, and I have enjoyed many recent posts. I have always liked how she skewers/critiques/snipes at evangelical culture. I can appreciate the discovery that evangelicalism has a lot of holes and blind-spots; I sympathize, because it does. Heck, it's a word no one can define, anyway. It's like trying to hug fog, or hit The Greatest when he was young. You can't use words you can't define, or at least you ought not.
Anyway, is she anywhere close to sure that she knows the definitions of the words she uses in the linked post? I'm not. If she wanted to probe my attitudes toward how to understand the biblical passages related to submission, or if it were possible to peer through the windows of my future marriage (God-willing), she may well find (surprise, surprise) that I love my future spouse, whoever she is, I trust her, I value her opinion, and I believe she is more than a sexual ornament in my life. Duh. But first off, I'm not afraid of the word 'patriarchy,' anyway. It has a negative connotation it doesn't deserve. It's very possible that complementarity is really patriarchy, and I don't have a problem with that. If you associate love and respect and listening and discussion and cooperation and female dignity and deference in certain situations with egalitarianism, then I suggest you need to re-define all these words. I don't believe in a strict equality of the sexes. I don't believe feminism--with a guarded qualification for 'ifeminists', who are putting the focus of dignity and power back on the individual--has anything good to teach us except what not to do.
I can't tell you which tasks or roles women should not have, because I don't know. I could recklessly opine, but I won't. OK, fine. We know--or we ought to know--that they are not Christ's ordained clergy. Whether biblical or ecclesiastical, a contrary opinion is flat wrong. Sorry. In the world outside the Church, (or those doing their Christ-loving best to imitate her as a church) how should I know? Sky's the limit. But for a few qualifications: Women can't be fathers, uncles, brothers, or any such thing whose definition depends on being male. You can't be a male nurse if you're not male. You get the point.
And this is where it gets hard: if you are a mother of children, your primary vocation is mother. (And fathers is likewise.) You might need to work outside the home for a third party, in which case, choose something that doesn't interfere with that as far as possible. If you feel the hackles rising here, it's only because feminists have shamed us all into believing that marriage and family is somehow less than being "independent." (Even when they say women should be respected in any choice, they're lying.) Bull****. Being an uncle kills me, because any good I can do or any wisdom I could impart is limited by the fact that I'm not 'Dad' in a direct sense. I desire it passionately, even if I don't know what I'm asking. I want to go on; I want someone to say, "He loved me; he poured himself into me; I love him." This is also why we Catholics call our priests "Father". Paternity and maternity can't be denied or ignored; they just might be expressed differently in any one case. (Maybe it won't even be expressed fully and properly in this life for some unfortunate people, but it WILL be, I have no doubt.)
I don't give a rat's posterior what you "enjoy" doing; God didn't ask you when he made you a mom or dad. I say if our daughters and sons want to be moms and dads,--and almost exclusively that--good for them! Don't ask me again. [Nobody asked you in the first place.--ed.] Yes, she did.
Anyway, is she anywhere close to sure that she knows the definitions of the words she uses in the linked post? I'm not. If she wanted to probe my attitudes toward how to understand the biblical passages related to submission, or if it were possible to peer through the windows of my future marriage (God-willing), she may well find (surprise, surprise) that I love my future spouse, whoever she is, I trust her, I value her opinion, and I believe she is more than a sexual ornament in my life. Duh. But first off, I'm not afraid of the word 'patriarchy,' anyway. It has a negative connotation it doesn't deserve. It's very possible that complementarity is really patriarchy, and I don't have a problem with that. If you associate love and respect and listening and discussion and cooperation and female dignity and deference in certain situations with egalitarianism, then I suggest you need to re-define all these words. I don't believe in a strict equality of the sexes. I don't believe feminism--with a guarded qualification for 'ifeminists', who are putting the focus of dignity and power back on the individual--has anything good to teach us except what not to do.
I can't tell you which tasks or roles women should not have, because I don't know. I could recklessly opine, but I won't. OK, fine. We know--or we ought to know--that they are not Christ's ordained clergy. Whether biblical or ecclesiastical, a contrary opinion is flat wrong. Sorry. In the world outside the Church, (or those doing their Christ-loving best to imitate her as a church) how should I know? Sky's the limit. But for a few qualifications: Women can't be fathers, uncles, brothers, or any such thing whose definition depends on being male. You can't be a male nurse if you're not male. You get the point.
And this is where it gets hard: if you are a mother of children, your primary vocation is mother. (And fathers is likewise.) You might need to work outside the home for a third party, in which case, choose something that doesn't interfere with that as far as possible. If you feel the hackles rising here, it's only because feminists have shamed us all into believing that marriage and family is somehow less than being "independent." (Even when they say women should be respected in any choice, they're lying.) Bull****. Being an uncle kills me, because any good I can do or any wisdom I could impart is limited by the fact that I'm not 'Dad' in a direct sense. I desire it passionately, even if I don't know what I'm asking. I want to go on; I want someone to say, "He loved me; he poured himself into me; I love him." This is also why we Catholics call our priests "Father". Paternity and maternity can't be denied or ignored; they just might be expressed differently in any one case. (Maybe it won't even be expressed fully and properly in this life for some unfortunate people, but it WILL be, I have no doubt.)
I don't give a rat's posterior what you "enjoy" doing; God didn't ask you when he made you a mom or dad. I say if our daughters and sons want to be moms and dads,--and almost exclusively that--good for them! Don't ask me again. [Nobody asked you in the first place.--ed.] Yes, she did.
Comments