I don't know of a more hot-button topic for both the churched and unchurched than this one. For that reason, we should probably try to take a fresh new look at threading out the various views on just what a woman's place in society consists of.
It seems as if there are more presumptions on what the Christian scriptures say than there are authoritative doctrines. And of the authoritative doctrines, few are widely agreed upon as to how they work in the modern world. I'd like to look at that. In fact, I'd like to look at that with one of the more curious variations of recent memory: that blogging is a questionably womanly pursuit.
But first, what are some of the controversies? Women themselves are not agreed on what woman's freedom, rights, and dignities are or ought to be. And this has lead to some confusion about what the reaction of re-instituting traditional roles should look like. An example: Feminists of today would eschew the mid-twentieth century persona of "June Cleaver", TV mother. Neo-traditionalists seem to view those scenes with scentimental nostalgia. But what are we really looking at when we review mid-twentieth century female roles and lifestyle? Aren't we seeing the Feminine Mystique generation? The women who oftentimes threw off the homemaker's mantle and went into the workplace in hordes, who sometimes left home to " find themselves"? Or had to make new lives for themselves as divorce rates skyrocketed? I know my mother had 'Feminine Mystique' on her bookshelf, had to become a breadwinner, and lived a very different life from the Donna Reed Show, et al. This is why I don't think it is in looking backward culturally that we may find the defining roles of women.
And where has the Church been in all this? Pretty much where the rest of the culture has been: experimenting and floundering around to define women and understand how society should work. The Church hasn't had a voice of consensus. And I think it is out of laziness and self-protection that it hasn't yet produced clarity for even women in the Church, let alone a view of women in the Culture.
Further, the responsibility for this has lain with the Protestants. The ones who lay claim to Sola Scriptura, and studying to show oneself approved. But instead we are tangled up with reiterations of traditions and slipshod adoption of the culture's lead on this. The Worldly culture. We are the ones who ought to be able to work at rightly applying how the Bible's directives appear in our culture.
The Churches View
So first, what do the scriptures teach? Undoubtedly, the Bible gives a view of order and hierarchy. This is underlined in nature, but doesn't have to be to give it moral force. The hierarchy of the Bible is: God, the man, the woman. Before I lose you modern souls, here, I ask the question: does this mean in all ways and at all times? If it did, there would not be so many permutations of leadership roles, and the reason I would give for this is contained in the word,"delegate". Hierarchy is only the basic structure and not the immutable law of how all the players interact. But it is how responsibility is divvied up, and it is also the authority structure. Everything in life operates with authority structure of some sort:"You Gotta Serve Somebody" as Bob Dylan put it.
I heard a teaching long ago that made alot of sense to me. It was this: that in the Genesis curse the paths of success and downfall for men and women, respectively, was stated. Men would gladly give up the mantle of authority if they could also divest themselves the burden of responsibility, women will gladly shoulder the most onerus amounts of responsibility if they can only be in charge. That was the reasoning given on how the famous curse helped outline where people go awry in their gender roles.
To move on to a specific instance of scripture, let's look at one chosen by so many raise controversy:
That seems quite clearcut until you add Paul's epistle to Titus:
Titus 2:3-4: 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children...
Apparently, there is a place where women can teach.Then you have examples such as Priscilla, in the company of Aquilla:"when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately" -Acts 18:26
John MacArthur points out:"In Romans 16:1, Paul indicates that women possibly serve or minister as Deacons (Diakonon) in the church. Then in I Timothy he sets forth the qualifications for a Deaconess."
If we understood that there are times when women are delegated place in the Church to minister in such ways we wouldn't have foolish contentions about whether women may say things of substance in blogging, etc. If it were sin to blog it would be sin to write, and all women-authored books should be rejected on that basis. That is how I see the logical progression of such thinking. Yet, I don't believe we see any such idea like that from the scriptures. I do think that the final authority in spiritual matters is given to men, but not just any men. Again, the hierarchy is that God calls and ordains who He wills, and this is the outline given for the Church.
Is it an abrogation of hierarchy for women to produce something intellectual just because some man somewhere might view it and thus "be taught"? In the light of day that sounds a bit silly, but when a respected teacher throws out such an idea it stirs up doubts and confusion. I call it as I see it: such are irresponsible teachers who are sloppy when they ought to take the admonition of James,
This sloppiness gives occasion for misunderstanding to a listening world. More circumspection and less retraction in important doctrines and controversial views becomes the more necessary when hostility and high rhetoric are rampant on a topic.
But the counterbalance for women who minister through preaching and teaching should be:"What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" Our Churches and society as a whole welcomes and gives a place to women, but in the economy of God the truth is not in any one persons personal possession. If there is not a position given to a woman within a Church that does not mean that there is no avenue for teaching, simply that there is no officially ordained position within that group. No Christian ought to strive for pride of position, and it is disappointing to see so many women disdain opportunity unless it comes with a full set of perks and prestige.
I think the example of Deborah in the Old Testament is one of the most telling on this subject.
The Christian Opportunity
Should the Church abide by these standards enough to have a body of evidence for the culture to view, I think the high esteem for women, and their opportunities for fulfilling their potential could be seen plainly. In fact, I think this is what we see in the the way Western culture has grown to give Women the place they enjoy today. Unfortunately, the extrapolations of those high views under the secular watch seems to be leaving women highly vulnerable to harm. This is seen in too many ways to go into with proper depth here. Everything from increased vulnerability from easy divorce to the emerging picture of exploitation due to ideas of "sexual freedom". This is all hotly debated even within the feminist camp. Not just between Christian traditionalists and Feminists.
Some of the examples are enumerated by Melanie Phillips, arguing in books such as "The Sex-Change Society Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male" that "feminism has distorted its own agenda of equality by replacing it with sameness", "women are being encouraged to work at all times, whether they want to or not" . (I cite this book because it articulates some of the conflicts and issues. It makes some accusations that I am not prepared to defend. )
Is this the pattern the Church wants to emulate? One which has not and will not work? Or ought we return to looking at what our own guidelines and mandates say? And figure out which is which?
I'm not sure we can do that if we forget Christ's example of Lordship was also one of humility and service, and think that men in authority means that women's voices are silenced. In all cases, if God gives us words to speak, how can we not speak them?
When qualms such as these are brought up, I ask myself, what is the actual articulated fear here? Is it blogging and accidental teaching?
Is it the idea that women must have a restricted place in the church ministry? I do not think this is what is actually being verbalized. I think the actual fear is the breakdown of accountability, and that is something that doesn't get addressed in the calls to shut women away from the internet or to stop blogging or writing books. It is a different problem that has symptoms and poor outcomes in some of these areas. Putting a band-aid on the gushing hemorrhage, or cutting the rest of the hand off, isn't the solution. The solution is to strengthen the Churches structure to function properly. And just as there are times a husband should listen to his wife, there are times when men in the church should give ear to women. Not in exchanging authority roles but in the mutual respect and honor that Christ teaches and Paul explained.
If we restored such accountability in the essence of Christian brotherhood, we would make inroads against other problems such as pornography use, that is eating many men alive. Men in the Church. Accountability would strengthen them and help them to grow into the husbands and fathers that watch over the welfare of those in their care. I think this is the needed emphasis and that the squabbling over women somehow wandering into conflict with biblical wisdom is a red herring. The reason Deborah was called to lead, (Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time.) may well have been due to a dearth of men vigorous enough in the service of God. But perhaps I am wrong about that, perhaps there are times that God shows His sovereignty in working through those whom He chooses.
Please do not take this as a doctrinal statement on the idea of women leading the Church, the only expression given us is that women have callings and gifts, and that these should be used. I have no ambitions for women in specific roles, and I think there are many ways to serve God, some of the best without titles. Best because they are the more free, and I would conclude my thoughts here with the idea that our expression, as Christians, about the place of women in society is that they should be free to fulfill their potentials, and that we all appear before our maker without designations of gender or nationality or prestige. We ought to value that freedom and use it to its fullest in the service of God and mankind. It isn't the licentiousness of the worlds version of women, it isn't the subdued version of domination from the power hungry, either. What it is, is a respectful and responsible form of what best expresses woman in the full version of her humanity, and spiritual heritage.
"What of the future? We live in a day that is fast-moving. The United States is moving at great speed toward totally humanistic orientation in society and state. Do you think this will leave our own little projects, our own church, and our own lives untouched? Don't be silly. The warnings are on every side. "
-Francis Schaeffer.
A Woman's Place, in the Culture, what might that look like? What does it look like now? Who's going to draw the template?
Posted by Ilona at March 21, 2006 10:09 AM Culture
Comments
Whew! Good to have you, Ilona, and glad to see you aren't pulling any punches with your first post. There is much to respond to in what you have written.
First, I have had (and still have) a massive problem with the role of women as articulated by many (certainly not all) conservative evangelicals. Many men seem to articulate the role of women purely in terms of power. We all know that power struggles exist, but I believe that the roles of men and women are not essentially about power struggles or battles for supremacy. See this excellent article. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/011/30.59.html
There is no way to correct understand the roles of men or women without constantly awareness that the ultimate power is God. And neither men nor women are to seek personal power or attempt to wrest power from others.
I am in no way nostalgic for the past roles of women. The examples that come from the 1950's, such as June Cleaver, are examples of a society that placed the nuclear family and materialism in the driver's seat. I believe that putting one's family first and leaving out God or relegating Him to Sunday only is just as evil as putting one's own career first or radical feminism. To put it another way, the primary role of men and women both is to be a servant of God. Any culture that neglects to place God first is simply wrong, no matter how "nice" or "moral" it may appear to be. We cannot look back at the 50's or 30's or whenever and long for a return to that time, just because they seem to have fewer family problems.
(Gotta go make lunch for Hubby, Ilona, but I'll be back!)
"putting one's family first and leaving out God or relegating Him to Sunday only is just as evil as putting one's own career first or radical feminism."
I've never thought of it that way. That would give a new equation in the discussion. There is usually the tension of man/woman, but this adds in the the factor of whether there is the proper honor of God. The one thing I would be careful about in making such conclusions is in this:
Do God's principles have power in themselves? In other words, if you place a high priority on family, even though you haven't come to a place of faith ("leave out God"), does this have positives? See, I think God's principles work regardless.
But the idea you have that man/woman roles won't ultimately be understood without that awareness of God's Lordship is one I agree with. That is why I think it is important that the Christian produce a tangible example in the world.
Thanks for the article, it emphasizes looking at marriage as a unity. I really think that much of the teaching on submission in the gospel is one of creating flow. If you have two people locked in a power struggle it bottlenecks everything. There are workarounds obviously, but you have snags related to that unresolved knot of tension. It will ultimately end up testing your faith in the power of God vs. your reliance upon your own.
This is why I think mutual accountability in the idea of each having their "submission to one another" is important. That article highlighted the two expressions, "sacrifice of the husband","submission of the wife". These dovetail with that idea that bearing responsibility is burdensome to men. In sacrifice they are submitting themselves in a way harmonious to their roles. That isn't spoken of in those terms very much, it is in the form of mutuality rather than power.
Perhaps it trips us up because we didn't get the lessons on leadership from Christ to begin with. We dismiss the whole "the greatest among you is the servant of all" with "yeahyeah that's nice" and get on with our program and our plans for control.
Another thing the article brought up is "The mystery of one flesh is exchanged for a business model in which the husband is the boss and the wife his assistant." -I read a blogger, RevEd who commented on hearing complaints about the church being run on the business model. Again, these things are indicative of the Church adopting the worldly models. Does this cloud our understanding of the scriptural model? I'm saying that in the interpretation of womens roles it does. We are using worldly tradition or substitution rather than digging out the full expression of the covenantal relationship in Christ.
"Do God's principles have power in themselves? In other words, if you place a high priority on family, even though you haven't come to a place of faith ("leave out God"), does this have positives? See, I think God's principles work regardless."
In a way, I can agree with you. There are certain things that "work" regardless of whever one knows God or not. But I think that they only work partially. I'm not implying that you disagree with this, either.
It seems that there is always a gap, so to speak, a hole. I was taught that American society is going downhill, getting more sinful, forsaking it's Christian heritage, and so on. But the more I study history (and that's not a lot) the more I doubt that interpretation. That is, I might grant that it is possible for an unbelieving individual to in a way follow God's principles in marriage and be blessed, but I haven't seen evidence that any society as a whole has been able to really follow God's principles in marriage, even if that society regards family and very important, forbids divorce, etc. Living in Korea has convinced me that conservative principles are not all they're cracked up to be.
But that's another topic. Hope I wasn't rambling too much :)
Okay, back to some of the points you made in your post.
"I have no ambitions for women in specific roles, and I think there are many ways to serve God, some of the best without titles. Best because they are the more free, and I would conclude my thoughts here with the idea that our expression, as Christians, about the place of women in society is that they should be free to fulfill their potentials, and that we all appear before our maker without designations of gender or nationality or prestige. We ought to value that freedom and use it to its fullest in the service of God and mankind."
Amen! One of the positives about living in Korea is that I am more free here to serve God and less bound by society's expectations of me as a women. That is not because Korea is less restrictive of women--it is still quite restrictive--but because I am a foreigner and am considered to be entirely outside of the social structure. I find that can be quite freeing. And I want to use that freedom to serve God, just as you said.
You mentioned that you have 10 children, so you clearly know about motherhood and you haven't shirked your duties as a women, so to speak. My state legislator from Eastern Washington is also a women with 10 children and a Christian. Though I haven't met her personally, I think she is a women who is working to fulfill her potential to serve God and not limiting it purely to the sphere of home. Because (I presume) that is what she believes God has called her to do. I think that is great. It does seem that some churches have overreacted against feminism and try to limit the women to involvement only at home, all the time.
Gotta go now! Interested to her what you and others have to say.
You are right that there isn't anything in the temporal realm that is able to really follow God's principles in such a way as to produce a utopian society.
I think that what you are observing is a time gap, the cumulative force of persistant action. If a society adheres to those things that are healthy for it, it gathers strength in a momentum sort of way through time, if it is declining...that may not be apparent as it rots at its supports and core, but eventually that society will fall.
I think that people using a principle of God's will reap the outcome. ie faithful monogamous marriage has many benefits, but not everyone who is faithfully monogamous is a believer in God. But it works for them to reap the benefits of their behavior.
I think the Christians who don't recognize this are the ones that stand sceptical of the idea that atheists can have morals or good marriages.
But if you want to make distinctions here about outcomes of worldviews, I've said things, and Rusty[New Covenant blog] has had whole posts on the fact that those without God have no moral basis for doing the right things. They borrow from the theist for that.
So without God the outcomes will inexorably go into decline and eventual disintegration. That is an argument to cover when talking about the Culture, which is secular and under the 'worldly' designation.
if God gives us words to speak, how can we not speak them?
I see it that way too, Ilona. I don’t think the issue is so much that women must keep silent, but that we must be discerning and judicious about when, where, to whom, and in what context we speak. We should also be careful not to try to do a man’s job for him, as you also stated.
In Romans 12, is Paul speaking only to men and not women, or is he speaking to all believers? He says that “we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us,” and that we ought “exercize them accordingly.” Exhortation is one of those gifts.
It’s my understanding that when we exhort, we don’t preach our own words; we merely repeat scriptural truth for the benefit of our brothers and sisters in Christ. We aim to point one another to scriptural truth, first and last, and not to our own opinions unless they are clearly stated as such. In Hebrews 10:25 it speaks of “...encouraging one another...”; some translations use the word “exhorting” in place of “encouraging.” I think that exhortation and encouragement are vital components of one other and, as actions, belong together.
Even Paul makes a distinction between what he speaks that is from the Lord and what is his well-educated opinion. The difference between opinion and scriptural truth, obviously, is that one flows from the mind of man and the other from the mind of God. Opinion of man (or woman) may be useful as guidance in right living, but also may be revelatory of the person who holds the opinion, just as Truth is revelatory of the One who holds it and gives it.
If truth comes from God, and both women and men may learn it and use it to encourage one another, then certainly a woman may be a mouthpiece as well as a man, as long as proper roles and authority are respected. And, in many cases, role and authority are not gender-related.
Why do people, liberals and conservatives, tend to present the fictitous TV characters of June and Donna as examples of times that never were? This is something that has intrigued me (and, I admit, it's off topic) for some time. If fiction is our guide, then why not present, say, Ginger and Mary Ann?
Hannah, keep reading about U.S. history and I think you'll see just what effect the Christian influence was. I've always liked this excerpt from Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Ethics, "The American democracy is not founded upon the emancipated man but, quite on the contrary, upon the kingdom of God and the limitation of all earthly powers by the sovereignty of God. It is indeed significant when, in contrast to the Declaration of the Rights of Man, American historians can say that the federal constitution was written by men who were conscious of original sin and of the wickedness of the human heart."
I agree with you that, as Christians, we need to put God first. My concern, with the legislator example you provide, is that such endeavors tend to be lopsided. In other words, is it really possible for such a woman to nurture her chidren to the same degree as if she did not have her job as legislator? Would her children be better cared for, or less? Would her performance as a legislator be better, or less? While it may be phsyically possible to perform such duties, do one or more of her responsibilities end up suffering? I don't know for sure, of course, but I'd venture to guess that caring for 10 children should take up a good bit of time in one's day.
Maybe she can accomplish such a set of tasks... or maybe she's just a flipside version of June Cleaver?
...the only expression given us is that women have callings and gifts, and that these should be used.
Rusty, She's a woman of a certain age :) so I am rather sure that all her children are grown and gone. Not that her duties as a mother are over, but it's quite possible she does have the free time.
My grandmother, a mother of five, started a career at the age of 65, when most people were retiring. God gives all of us different gifts and abilities and opportunities.
Seriously, thanks for the clarification. IMO, problems occur when an attempt is made to balance the responsibilities of family and career. One or the other, or both, end up suffering. Careers, for the most part, can be put on hold or started at any time - whereas the nurturing of a child's life, cannot.
wow:) This is something to love: enriched content from the comment input.
Bonnie, as always, you add layers of understanding and clarity. When you said "role and authority are not gender-related" it touched on something I am still weighing out. I don't think, at this time, I would quite say it that way. I just don't think it is as rigidly expressed as we see in many Churches. I try to be extra careful in how I word things for this reason. If there is hierarchy, then gender is still a basis for certain roles and specific authority.
-but what you have said is going to influence my next post on the topic because -while I had intended to go on into the "culture" part of the discussion- I see we could explore things in the Church a little more.
and delve into a little known tidbit in Catholic history ( not the rmor of a woman pope if that is what anyon is thinking...something else)
Rusty, June Cleaver... Donna Reed
I wonder if it isn't a case of these ficticious characters becoming iconic of the women's roles and standards of their time. They become discussed in context of ideals and criticised cultural assumptions, and voila -icons. Then later generations use them as templates, without thinking that these weren't flesh and blood women. Altho' there is a reality behind them. Could we see Mona Lisa that way? She becomes representative of something feminine, and conjecture is made about the the background of that enigmatical smile. Now not just a picture, or a woman, she is a cultural icon.
"is it really possible for such a woman to nurture her chidren to the same degree as if she did not have her job as legislator? "
As someone who has struggled on the much smaller scale and done side comparisons I would say this:
Women have highly different circumstances, which make it almost impossible to answer that question. I think it becomes a false question , although one we are all tempted to ask, after we weigh in things like differences in energy, support systems, demands on the family, relationship within the marriage, etc.
That it is so demanding upon all involved leads me to think that we should be careful in our eagerness to catapault such as role models in the sense that "we can all do this". Lots of us just aren't given as much resource to accomplish on that scale, which ought in no way diminish our ideas of an accomplished woman making full use of her potential.
There are full-time mothers who have failures in their mothering outcomes.( because this is the unspoken part of the question) ..and that is not to blame them either. People are people, and children don't always become the people they are solely based on their parental background.
Sometimes we know this, but in formulating the questions we don't slot in all the data...maybe we don't have access to all the data.
But that is what I think whenever I am tempted to look at another woman through my filter of believing that women ought to be home and raise their children.
And I chose that for myself because of that belief, but found that there are women who are blessed with circumstances which grant them a wider venue of life and healthy families, as well.
This long-winded, unformed way of saying that we have to be careful how we judge this and not make the conclusion to fit the premise we want to support.
Sorry to be unclear- perhaps you could think out this and comment. It is something I've had to change in my thinking over time, and is in the open door stage.
What I said was that in many cases, role and authority are not gender-related. I wasn't saying that they never are, because of course they often are (as in marriage, for example). It's just that sometimes, authority relates to role, and some roles can be filled by a person of either sex. A teacher, for example.
Lots of us just aren't given as much resource to accomplish on that scale, which ought in no way diminish our ideas of an accomplished woman making full use of her potential. ...This long-winded, unformed way of saying that we have to be careful how we judge this and not make the conclusion to fit the premise we want to support.
Yes, I agree. The issue is complicated and one cannot simply make a blanket statement about how all women should act. At the same time, I believe that the best of intentions are still ultimately bounded by the laws of physics. I cannot speak from the context of a woman attempting to raise a family and have a career (among other things), but I can speak from the context of a man working in a professional capacity. For my position I must work full time (i.e., 40 hours minimum per week). Adding in commuting, lunch, etc., and you've got at least 50 hours M-F that I am away from the house. Now, there is NO WAY that I could raise a family on that schedule. No way, that is, unless I utilized infant care, preschools, day care, etc. Hardly, imo, the best method to raise my children. But how about if I could work out a deal with my employer whereby I only work 20-30 hours a week, allowing me more time with my children? Well, that's better for them, but hardly the best environment to nurture a career. Keep in mind that I'm not even talking about aspirations of upper management... if that were the case then add at least 50% more time (on top of the 40 hrs/wk) that I would have to be at the office. The results are that my children would end up being raised by someone else.
Of course my example is specific, and there can be countless variations on it - some of which would result in a woman being able to both raise a family and have a career. I just think that, in all probability, such instances would be rare.
Rusty said, "I just think that, in all probability, such instances would be rare."
Well, Rusty, I don't want to get into a debate about how "rare" rare is, but I'm not sure that I can agree with you. In an industrial society with large distances between home and work and a very strict distinction between family and work, you might be right. And if you are only focusing on a business career, maybe you are right. But the whole world isn't America, and there are careers outside of the corporate machine even in America.
There are female doctors who wear their babies in slings while they attend to their patients. There are writers who write while their children are sleeping or while they attended. There are even homeschooling mothers, like Nancy Pearcy, who write while they homeschool. There are lawyers who practice while nurturing their children etc.
Unfortunately, American culture has been structured in such as way that women and men do have a much more difficult time balancing work and family. But I don't think it should be that way, nor is it that way everywhere in this world.
Certainly I'm writing from an American perspective, and there are commutes and family / work distinctions to be made. I do not discount that there are other and better ways of doing things in this world, but my realm of influence is here in the States, and so that's my reference point.
I've no doubt that there are those who perform their work while tending to their children... my contention is that either one or both (children and career) suffer from it. Not in 100% of the cases, of course, but for a significant portion to be sure. I guess we'll just have to leave it that we disagree on that point.
Here's an excerpt from a post I wrote, back in 2003, in which I state (rather strongly, now that I re-read it) my point of view:
My wife told me recently, of an incident that occurred between her and our 8 year old daughter. In a discussion they were having during school, the subject came up of mothers that go to work (i.e., are employed). Upon seeing our daughter's confused reaction my wife realized that, without necessarily planning it this way, we have pretty much hung out with other homeschooling families and / or stay-at-home mothers. As such, our daughter was completely unprepared for the idea that some mothers actually went to work out of their own free will! My wife explained that some mothers had to go to work so that their family would have enough money to buy food, clothing, etc. But she also said that some mothers wanted to go to work and that they either left their kids at daycare or with another family member, such as the kid's grandparents. My daughter pondered this new thought for a few moments, and then looked at my wife and asked, "Then why did they have kids?"
There, in the innocent question of an 8 year old, is the crux of the matter. She's figured it out. She understands the sacrifice that my wife has made for her and her 3 year old sister. She is now fully aware of what my wife considers to be of utmost importance.
"in which I state (rather strongly, now that I re-read it)"
LOL! I get that same experience when I reread what I say on many matters:)
It's like you get this revelation light bulb that goes off and you bring it straight to the table. Undiluted light packets speeding into the atmosphere.
Speaking of children's reactions... they have an uncanny way of discerning when a parent does something for their benefit and when it is self-indulged. That is why so many adjust well to Moms who have to work.
I think it comes down to how love is the difference.
But this is about standards, not exceptions. What is the standard which produces the outcome that is best for people in society over time?
Does Christianity provide that? Can we make the case?
This is about women expressing themselves and what sort of parameters apply. Not so much the details of working mothers which have a broad range of circumstance. BTW, I found a controversial quote on policy advocated by a politician in the NL. I'll try to write the addendum post over this weekend before too many thoughts get away from me.... because it is digressing into specific issues - all worthy ones!
Ilona, I love the balanced way you presented this topic and I look forward to your next post on the subject. I'm even feeling tempted to use my guest blogging privileges to bring up a related issue, but I'm still doing my homework so I'll test the waters through you :)
Rusty, I really appreciate your input. I've been wrestling with this issue and the bottom line Holy Spirit conviction I'm getting is exactly what you're saying. Since becoming a stay-at-home mom 4 years ago when my first child was born, I haven't worked, but I've found that even non-paying intellectual pursuits can detract from my primary role as a mother of young children. The Christian life is supposed to be one of sacrifice and yet the culture teaches that women can have it all. I'm learning that I don't even like having it all! And that there are seasons for which we are called to certain things, during which times we even have to put our gifts on hold, so that we can give (and receive) the greater gifts, as unnatural or foreign in some ways as they may seem at the time. I intend to blog more about this but thanks for the confirmation.
"guest blogging privileges to bring up a related issue"
I really wish you would! I would see other perspectives explored and discussed on this. We can build a body of insight here, and yours would be so welcome.
If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.
