cg: About godly women in the 21st Century
An old post on CindyGees blog caught my eye, What Godliness Does NOT Look Like. Dated 2007, the post refers to a an article by Karen at True Womanhood in the New Millenium, What does Godly womanhood look like in the 21st Century?. vision of godly women, Christian, that is, in the 21st Century. Written by Scott Brown of the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches, the list looks a bit like an honored Amish woman – plain dress, withdrawn from worldly (non-worshipful) influences, protected from undue influence by loving father and family, and desiring most of all a godly husband.
Karen’s post on True Womanhood copies the Scott Brown list, pointing to ScottBrownOnline.com. That site no longer exists, and apparently neither does Scott Brown’s article. The domain redirects to ncfic.org/blog, which begins August 2008 – more than a year after Karen’s blog. Karen concludes her inclusion of the list with a question – an uninflected, “what do you think?”
CindyGee objects to an assumption of affluence.
Godly womanhood is a fine thing, but godliness which is dependent upon privilege and wealth is merely hypocrisy, all gussied up in a modest, tasteful, expensive Edwardian gown.
Scott’s thoughts are quite Biblically oriented, as he sees the Bible.
Here are some of their distinctives:
1. They saw the bitter fruit of feminism and began to understand it’s bankruptcy and destructiveness.
2. They “kissed dating goodbye” and decided in their youth that they would abstain from the modern dating debacle.
3. They trusted their fathers encouragement toward them to fulfill the biblical and normative pattern of scripture regarding the roles of women and began to prepare themselves to be wives, helpers and home makers as a life strategy – in contrast to the feminist vision of independent workers outside the home.
4. They rejected the immodest, worldly but common clothing options of their culture and the Lord put it in their hearts to be faithful to God’s commands regarding feminine dress and modesty.
5. They are striving to preserve themselves sexually for their future husbands, instead of test driving numerous partners before marriage.
6. They are spending their time serving the enterprise of the home as assistants in their fathers businesses and assisting their mothers in the teaching and raising of the children in the home.
7. They were told by their parents that if they were faithful and obeyed, they would be blessed.
8. One of the blessings they are anticipating is godly husbands.
I will not speak to the relationship of Christianity to women, to families, or churches. My take isn’t about faith.
The Home as Culture
I think that there is merit in some of what Scott lauds, quite aside from faith.
- Don’t confuse fertility rites with other social and family virtues. Sex is everywhere, from advertising to common dress. The assumption that hints of breast and leg and sexual availability are related to “pretty” or beauty is decadent. The assumption that sex is another name for love is derogatory. And looking for a sex partner instead of a mate and co-parent is distracting from self-respect and responsibility.
- The home as culture. A house is a building. A home is an assemblage of traditions, rituals, and values that define a culture. The home is defined by those that dwell there, and how the home and those that live there interact with extended family, with community and nation.
- There is a reason to make babies. Most of us were raised in a community and family heritage that sees children as the continuation of their parent cultures. The intent is to teach the child the values, the traditions and rituals that enrich and empower the lives of parents and community. By raising the child, the culture of parents and community are preserved into the future.
- We each choose to honor the culture that formed who we are, or to amend or abandon it. Much of the turmoil and the un-familied people and children is because decadent forces in the United States sought to diminish the effect of home on children, to form a society of uniformly un-familied (lost and rebellious) souls.
- There is a difference between sex and making babies. Those that intend to make babies must choose a partner and co-parent to be, that will fill domestic, economic, and genetic role expectation. Matters of discipline (will to complete a task), honor, respect, and competence are much more important than physical condition. Socially, I contend that the better partner will not be particularly skilled at winning bed partners. Making a baby is an act of cultural continuity. Making a baby affirms belief and acceptance of parent and community culture, and defines the role of the family within extended family, community, and nation. Sex is a hormone event, part recreation, part exploration of emotional bonding, part affirmation of partnership in the home.
- Looking for a sex partner is an act of disrespect to self, family, and community. If you don’t depend on someone to help raise your child – how can you afford to spend intimate time with them? Conscious intentions aside, the body is a hormone-driven mechanism. Train it to respond to sexual signals, and it will. Choose to define those signals with respect to home and partner(s) helping to form that home, and you get the hormones, the emotional involvement, and physical adaption of the body all centered on enriching ties. Choose to train the body to attract available prospects, and you encumber the body’s ability to later live a chaste life. Experience many partners, and you train the body to react to . . . many partners. Sex is a life skill, and developing that skill to share with one or many is a life choice, difficult to change once acted on. Besides, like riding a bicycle, anyone interested can learn to be a better intimate partner.
Roles of women within the home, or men, or in whatever combination, are quite rigidly defined for most Christians. My own feeling is that roles within the home and community are matters of the home. I think communities are enriched that admit and support whatever homes may form, that nurture and respect themselves and others.
And I don’t think I much care whether this is the 21st century or the 20th. Culture of home, community, and extended family and nation, and honor and respect, are just what they have been, and still worthy goals.
Recent Comments