A friend of mine forwarded to me a link to a blog post that stunned me. The author of the blog received an email from one of her readers. Here is a portion of the email:
“… you know God calls women to take care of the home. Proverbs 31 says: She watches over the affairs of her household.….You always seem to be on the computer or reading or studying … Maybe … God’s…telling you to give it all up and be a stay at home wife. As a stay at home wife myself I know the rewards of making dinner for my husband every night and having a clean house…I see Mr. Newlywed does the cooking. That isn’t really his job. ….Corinthians tells us we are not to be concerned with the matters of the world and just with our husband. You seem to concern yourself with many things outside of your marriage.…You are obviously concerned with things other than your husband….Do you even think about what he wants for the two of you?
“…sometimes what we love doesn’t matter. God doesn’t want women to work outside the home. Women just do it to prove themselves and show they can be like men. Why do so many women feel they need to be masculine?…I think you need to step back and think.…Don’t you want to be home and watch your children grow up?…
“I’m just asking you to pray on it. You seem sensible and a good Christian. This is just my chance to preach the Word to you. Maybe even help you understand your calling. You can always email me with questions…I can help you fill your idle time with chores, volunteering, and cooking.”
There are two issues that come to the surface with this email: 1. “helpful advice” is a form of judgment; and, 2. there is a pre-determined ethic of “womanhood” being assumed. I’ll briefly address both issues.
1. While I can give the author of the email the benefit of the doubt and say, “Sure; I’m sure you meant this in love”; I cannot agree that this is what the author did in the end. Rather, an email like this cannot come across as loving because it is heavily drenched in judgment. The gist of the email: “You are not doing this…You are failing that…You are missing the mark” and, my personal favorite, “You should be godlier…more like me”. Judgment and accusation cloaked as love. “Preaching the Word” as pointing out shortcomings. Self-promotion and pride disguised as “I’m here to help.” Advice, specifically unsolicited advice such as this email, will have the opposite effect intended by the advice giver. While the giver will claim, “I did it in love, to correct your path, to set you straight”, the receiver will feel that biting wound of judgment, failure, and shame. The giver feels better, and the receiver feels worse (props to A. Zimmerman for his awesome sermon on Sunday).
2. The author of the email has a pre-determined ethic of womanhood; it is clear that there are certain characteristics that comprise what a Christian woman is: she is a stay-at-home-wife/mom, she does the cooking/cleaning, her primary 
concern is her husband and home, and she volunteers. Anything that strays from this “norm” is “masculine”, selfish, inconsiderate, misguided (meaning, not guided by the Holy Spirit through prayer), and insensible to the point of being a “bad” Christian.
This type of ethic isn’t limited to the “Christian sphere; it’s a universal experience that imposes itself on all women. I’m left asking: where is this ethic of womanhood coming from? Was woman created for the previously mentioned assumptions? Or, is there more to her creation? Is submission, in Christ, just a reiteration of the curse Genesis 3:16? Or, is submission something else completely, resembling Genesis 2:18-24? Does Jesus affirm this archaic, assumed ethic of womanhood? Or, does He do something radical by means of restoration? Is Paul promoting a stringent boundary on what a woman can do? Or, is he more progressive—though not a feminist—in his understanding of woman and woman in Christ? It is these questions that I would like to discuss in a four part series: “Are you there Jesus? It’s Me, Woman.”
COMMENTS
18 responses to “Judgment and the Ethic of Womanhood”
Leave a Reply
“Why is it always Grace for men, and Law for women?”
Wow, as a "man" I just totally missed that one. I guess I am just "insensitive" to all that grace that is always out there for me.
Fair enough, Michael!
I realize that, outside the context of my immediate conversation with Lauren, it looks as though I could be saying that men are ALWAYS given Grace and women ALWAYS given Law. Honestly, everybody seems to get only a heavy dose of the Law wherever we look.
However, the Law given to women touches on our very femininity itself – our roles as wives and mothers. The blog post that Lauren has discovered contains advice that is all too common coming from Christians, and as you can see it most often comes from other women. I would be interested to know how the Law affects men as men.
Deborah, That is my point–that men and women are in exactly the same boat when it comes to this problem. There is plenty of "Christian" stuff out there that is designed to turn men into "real" Christian men. That usually means turn them into real jerks. And there is plenty of stuff, as you point out, that targets women, as women. This stuff usually turns Christian women into jerks as well, but passive-aggressive jerks. But, in my view, we can all come together under the unisex banner of jerks saved by grace.
Lauren, this is a stellar post. Stellar, I tell you.
in my view, we can all come together under the unisex banner of jerks saved by grace.
awesome!
Michael:
Deborah explained it well.
To extract that quote from the post makes the quote sound ridiculous. There was no implication that "men" are "insensitive" to Grace or that the law does not hinder them in some way. Rather, the quote demonstrated that there is a functioning, current trend toward "law" in re: domestic affairs; women are still operating under an assumed ethic that is Law …. Since the post focused on Women, I didn't see the necessity to expound too much; but, your comment makes me think otherwise.
Think of it this way by comparison of you (a man) and me (a woman): you (a man) decide to be a lawyer. Okay. There are some things you have to think of–finances, welfare of the family if there is one, relocation if needed…etc. But, in general, no one is really going to come-out against your desire to be a lawyer. In fact, your career (as a man)is encouraged, applauded, cheered on. Professionally do what you want, great.
Now, let's take me: a woman, wife, mother of two. Now, as a single woman, I might be able to do what I want professionally (I was able to go to seminary without TOO MANY comments about being married, though I did have one woman say, "You better get married before you get the collar if you want a man"). So, single women fair better but aren't left unscathed. What about a married woman (like the blogger referenced) and me (a married woman with children): there's judgment and shame if we dare look to fields outside of our domestic realm…tsk, tsk, tsk…don't we know that our hearts desire has been fulfilled by getting married and having kids? Don't we realize that our primary purpose is to get married and have kids and keep our house clean and dinner cooked? Thus, there appears to be more "grace" for men and more "law" for women.
The point of the post was to demonstrate that this judgment and shame that women experience is not, by any means, a dead and gone thing; it's live and well (email was written this year), and it's "law"…for women…and, subsequently (as I'll address in other installments with in the series), it's law for men. If woman is under this certain assumed ethic of womanhood, than (as you are implying in your comment) man is under a different yet similar assumed ethic of manhood? Both experience "law" (as Deborah pointed out). I was purely focusing on "women".
I hope I haven't lost you, Michael. Please know that I intend to fully develop the ramifications of the curse of Gen. 3:16 and the restoration of woman in Jesus for the relationship between man and woman. I am concerned that there might have been a defensive tone in your comment; that i was "attacking" men. Please know this, too: my sole desire is to put forth words that only build up the relationship between man and woman and not tear it down. Nothing of the series will be condescending toward men.
David:
Thanks, man.
I concur with Jady, that quote, Michael, is "awesome".
Hey Lauren,
Great post!
You wrote:
If woman is under this certain assumed ethic of womanhood, than (as you are implying in your comment) man is under a different yet similar assumed ethic of manhood?
That is exactly what not only is implied, but I think a fundamental assertion of not only Michael's but of the blog itself. Your post is interesting in the fact that it is addressing a specific manifestation of the Law–femininity–but I would argue that the overarching concept is one that is gender neutral, as I'm sure you would agree.
I think that it is true that many of the non-traditional paths for women are seen as aberrations to the "Law of Womanhood"; nevertheless, (and also something that I'm sure you'd agree with) the Laws of identity which are wrapped up in a concept of masculinity can and have been equally as deadening.
Anyway, can't wait to see the whole series!
Lauren, I really enjoyed your post, by the way. I do think it is human nature (as well as cow and horse nature) to think that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, and your post and follow-up comment reflects that common perception in your observation that "there appears to be more grace for men and more law from women." In this world, there is NO grace for men or women, period.
Your give the example of a man being encouraged to be a lawyer and a woman discouraged from that role as, I presume, an example to illustrate your point that men experience more "grace." Even assuming that example of stereotyping to be true, which I have found it to be very rare these days (I believe there are more women in law school than men, and this has been the case for several years I think), it is not "grace" for someone to encourage you to be a lawyer. That is just "reward" that is always tied to performance, which is the other side of the "law" coin from "condemnation", and that coin is always flipping. And, by the way, I was actually discouraged in my family from going to law school. And I have been told by an illustrious reader of this blog that a Christian, male or female, should not even be a lawyer. That is probably true, but I like being in a profession that is inherently unholy.
I came over from Imonk's referral – this post is going to bring be back by it's own merits.
Michael (and Jady):
Oh you guys just keep me on my toes!
Okay, maybe the example of being a lawyer failed. I'll accept that, thanks for pointing it out. I, by no means, meant to equate "grace" with "encouragement"; but, rather, tried to illustrate the lack of "shame". While you were discouraged, Michael, it may have been on the grounds of the profession, and not on you, let's say, anatomy. Yes, more women may be in law school, but that doesn't mean that they aren't also experiencing some form of what is being addressed by this post. There is a certain ethic of womanhood that is demanding and deadening. As there is also an ethic of Manhood that is also just as deadening (thanks, Jady).
I fully realize that both genders receive "law" and "condemnation" no matter what; and that rarely is Grace received or given. I haven't, intentionally, argued to the contrary. Rather, I'm addressing a particular issue that happens to relate specifically to women. While I do agree with Jady that the overarching concept is one that affects both men and women, I am specifically talking about woman here because I believe that the "concept" manifests itself differently to woman as it does to man. I am specifically not being "gender neutral" here; gender isn't erased in Cross but restored. So, I'm attempting to look at who woman was created to be as woman…in relation to man–not separate from him and not as an interchangeable identity with man. While in Christ we are not judged on our man-ness or woman-ness (nor do these aspects affect how we approach God through Jesus…Gal. 3:28); we are still, here and now men and women–under the same judgment and condemnation but with different manifestations.
I really feel that the line, originally referenced by Michael, has dramatically taken away from the main message of the post. So, I've taken it out. I feel that it's led some to think that my message is that I don't have any clue that men are under their own ethic of manhood/personhood that is condemning and full of judgment. Or, that I'm a man-hatting woman who is out to place the blame for my "plight" on men (at least this is what I'm hearing in the subtext of some of the comments). I'm neither of those things. The post (and the subsequent series) was (is) a means to address women, in the context of womanhood, and share the gospel; and, I hope that the awesome men who read this blog will continue to read along and see how their life benefits from woman restored (the goal of the series).
Great post Lauren! This type of topic tends to make me think of Galatians 3:28 –>
"28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, _male nor female_, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
I can also hear my father, echoing in my head: "Men and women both need the same amount of love from God."
:), JZ
Lauren, I didn't mean to imply or suggest that you are a man-hating woman, but even if you were, who could blame you? I do look forward to your perspective and thoughts on how women are affected in unique ways by what we loosely refer to as "the law". There is a lot of goofy "Christian" material out there on this topic to work with.
I am not too hopeful about "restoring" anything, though. Understanding and forgiving, yes, but changing or "restoring" much of anything, I'm not so sure. But then, I am just an old, Calvinist lawyer. Not a personal recipe for much optimism, at least in this world.
Welcome, David (aka Dac)! So glad you are here.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts, buddy.
Michael: thanks. it'll be interesting to dialogue with you through it.
JAZ: thanks. and, true. i did reference Gal. in one of my comments. We do all need the same love and grace of God through the Cross.
My first reaction when reading this post was to wonder if the email was joke! But then I thought about it and I've heard people actually say things like that "in love"…and, if I'm honest with myself, I sometimes think them too (lucky for everyone, I have MBird to keep me in line!). This is great post, Lauren, thanks. I think my favorite part is the first cartoon "Oh no! I forgot to feel guilty!" Brilliant.
Lauren, the whole issue of gender is one that I've been turning over in my mind for a few weeks now. I specifically ask the question- are biological "givens" determinative for human identity? My inclination is to say no, but this can seem to run counter to both biology and Paul's gender-specific imperatives. So I look forward to your series!
where did you get those hilarious illustrations? they are PERFECT!