Update: I want to personally thank Carolyn for publishing this and subsequent comments. The comments are now closed but she has posted comments which question the teaching of authority and submission, so hats off to her for this. I will continue to read her blog.
As I have mentioned, I read Carolyn McCulley's blog with pleasure. She brings attention to the plight of families in Africa. I have commented there, but comments are moderated on her blog, and I know that Carolyn is very busy right now. So, I am posting a comment which I made there, here on my blog. Its an ad hoc comment protesting the teaching of authority and submission as a paradigm for marriage in Africa, - and anywhere in the world, for that matter. Deprivation of personal human rights is a cruel and unusual punishment. I wrote,
Jessalyn,
Thank you for responding. I have a somewhat different viewpoint.
As I see it, one cannot forcibly convert husbands. Another sad statistic is that domestic violence is not lower in church attending families than non-church attending families in North America. I think it is evident that women are not sheltered from violence by the church.
You may say that they would be sheltered by the husband living out the gospel. But in the meantime what? In fact, among abused wives I know are a very good number of minister's and missionary wives. Many Christian husbands in our churches here do not live out the gospel. Can we guarantee that they will in Africa?
In view of the fact that the gospel cannot guarantee a reduction of violence, there should be some way to enable women to have freedom from violence and to feed their children in the meantime.
If the authority and submission gospel is preached in Africa, then women will not be able to get loans, or employment since their money would be under their husbands control. This is enough of a difficulty here in NA for a woman who lives in submission. How does she save money, plan a pension, further her education, if her husband sees her as uniquely occupied within the house and under his "final say"?
I cannot agree with your recounting of the side effects [of women's liberation] either. Oddly, in industrialized societies, in western Europe, the birth rate is higher in countries with less rigid gender roles. Italy, for example, has by far the lowest birth rate but reinforces gender roles.
It is important also to realize that abortion rates in the US are several times higher than anywhere in Europe, where abortion is more available. Statistics on abortion are not availble pre-women's lib, as far as I know, but abortion was a major issue in patriarchal Greece, where men wanted to limit family size.
I cannot agree that the higher incidence of divorce is necessarily a negative, since in the 19th century, there was an enormous number of families living without enough food, children in orphanages, street children dying in all the major cities of North America. In some countries without easy access to divorce, many couples simply live with new partners outside of marriage and families are not cemented by marriage at all.
I believe that women being able to work, and being able to divorce, although not ideal, has made a huge improvement in the living conditions of children.
The statistics of street children and orphans in North America is often forgotten and we pretend that the masses lived in a middle class family environment. This is not the case. Many died in extreme poverty.
Women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton fought hard to enable women to have rights in order to feed their children. They were not anti marriage, but promoted the interests of women who needed to escape from physically violent situations, also lacking in basic needs for the children.
If the women of North America do not support equal participation in decision-making for women worldwide, then a very basic means of survival is being withheld, (one which we benefit from in civil law, even if it is muted by the church.) I do not think that authority and submission in marriage can be presented to the women of Africa as the "Gospel."
Surely our love of children should make us want to help women to participate fully in decision-making.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"I do not think that authority and submission in marriage can be presented to the women of Africa as the "Gospel."
That is rather a phenomenal concept. Didn't know that was happening. The Gospel is about Jesus's acts of sacrificial laying down His life for the sake of all who would believe, delivering us from the power of sin, in order to bring us back into an active close relationship with God. It's not about humans.
The Gospel, the Good News of Jesus our Messiah, should not be tainted with discussion about the subordination of women. That's a great way to turn people away from Jesus.
Many Christian husbands in our churches here do not live out the gospel. Can we guarantee that they will in Africa?
Nope...
The ESV study Bible has some good advice in it, but it also prescribes marriage as an authority and submission relationship. I don't really think it is appropriate for us to export this notion to the third world. Last time I checked women were not in need of further subordination.
As far as Carolyn McCulley is concerned, I don't think she has articulated her own position clearly.
I would like to see her do so, but will give her the benefit of the doubt for now.
PS Please read her post which I linked to in order to see her position.
I agree with believer333. One reason is because I am quite familiar with what SGM churches teach. They do see authority/submission between men and women as a primary salvic issue. To them, it is a large part of the Gospel.
It doesn't surprise me that Carolyn agrees with spreading the teaching of "authority and submission as a paradigm for marriage in Africa", as I've read her bio before. The troubles in Africa (within Kenya, at least) are a mix of polygamy and patriarchal rule, yet the men are immature and women actually have some kind of matriarchal land rights, though they end up impoverished and overburdened, as well as abused. I know people personally who come from that situation. Adding these burdensome teachings can only add to the misery and burden for women trapped in such arrangements. The man I knew from Kenya could not function as a responsible man when he immigrated to the U.S. and returned to the way he was raised.
Lin is right. Those ideas and teachings from SGM are being exported at an amazing rate through the teaming up of many of those SGM and other ministries. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Mark Driscoll (and the Acts29 network) and Mike Seaver, Josh Harris and Family and CJ Mahaney all march to the same authoritarian/submission drum. There are others that they also glean from and use to support their arguments. They team together in conferences and support each other's ministries.
So, these teachings are being spread exponentially. I can't even do a google search in my progressive city of Portland, Oregon to find an egalitarian-themed church, for example. Even some of the more "emergent" types hold to some sort of male-rule authority structure in their leadership.
This is pretty sad. I have to agree that SGM promotes full submission of women. However, I read Carolyn's blog as more conflicted on this issue.
I do think she has a wrong notion of feminism, however, since she wrote,
"Yes, we want to empower women. Yes, we want women to be educated. Yes, we want families to be healthier and more prosperous. But we don't want to do this by lifting up one person in the family at the expense of another."
But I think she hasn't quite worked it all out as to the effects of submission in a country which does not support equality in civil life as we have here.
"Yes, we want to empower women. Yes, we want women to be educated. Yes, we want families to be healthier and more prosperous. But we don't want to do this by lifting up one person in the family at the expense of another."
I am not sure where she sees a danger in elevating the wife at the expense of the husband in this scenerio?
And we know the husband/man is already elevated in that society.
This is part of the confusion that comes from their teaching that women are equal to men but unequal in 'role'.
Post a Comment