From Shieldmaiden to Healer: Eowyn’s Character Arc

A year and a half ago, I started putting stickers on my water bottle. Most have to do with things that are dear to me: Dubai, theology, oboe. Amidst those is a metallic golden horse head for Rohan. I wanted something more specifically Éowyn, but all I could find in that realm were stickers that said “Shieldmaiden” and “I am no man.” While these are true of Éowyn, they also leave off where Tolkien ends her character arc, an arc that is powerful to me.

When we first meet Éowyn, Tolkien describes her as “fair and cold, like a morning of pale spring that is not yet come to womanhood.” Her lot, as a young, strong, daughter of kings, has been to wait on a feeble, fading king. No wonder Aragorn perceived her unhappiness when he first saw her. Gandalf later tells Eomer,

“She, being born in the body of a maid, had a spirit and courage at least the match of yours. Yet she was doomed to wait upon an old man, whom she loved as a father, and watch him falling into a mean dishonored dotage; and her part seemed to her more ignoble than that of the staff he leaned on.”

It isn’t surprising that she’s discontent and looking for a way out of what is essentially the cage she fears the most (we’ll come back to the cage). She falls in love with Aragorn, which, of course, only increases her distress, as he’s long promised to Arwen.[1] Distress becomes despair, and as she rides to battle with the Rohirrhim, she’s no longer after glory, but death. Even as she approaches the Witch-King, death and defending Theoden are on her mind, not great deeds.

            Nevertheless, she receives honor for her heroism. But the glory of it does not satisfy her: she lives while the world is ending and while the man she loves doesn’t return her love. The Shadow of the Nazgul and the black breath lies heavy on her. She waits, caged, in the Houses of Healing.

            This is what she feared the most. Earlier, she had told Aragorn “I fear neither death nor pain.” When he then asked her “What do you fear, my lady?” her response was this: “A cage… to stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.” Naturally, she balks at being restrained to the Houses of Healing, even blatantly saying she’s caged, lying idle as she heals.

            This is how she then meets Faramir, begging him to release her. Instead, they begin to walk together in the gardens, though she reminds him not to look to her for healing, as she is a shieldmaiden with an ungentle hand. At this point, she has come again to health, though not yet to hope, wishing she had died in battle. Faramir patiently and gently speaks truth to her about who she is, reason for hope, and even her love for Aragorn. Although she improves some, she relapses when word of victory comes, because Aragorn does not send for her. And then, one day, as Faramir continues to do what he has always done for her, the Shadow departs.

“I stand in Minas Anor, the Tower of the Sun; and behold! the Shadow has departed! I will be a Shieldmaiden no longer, nor vie with the great Riders, nor take joy only in the songs of slaying. I will be a healer, and love all things that grow and are not barren.” 

            The place that was to her a cage became the place of her own healing, the place she now willingly chooses to stay as “of all dwellings the most blessed.” The ungentle hand that vied with warriors has turned to healing.[2] In The Two Towers, Éowyn understood the alternative to battle as wasting away, caged and useless, “to be burned in the house [when the men have died in battle and honor] for the men will need it no more.” But by the end of The Return of the King, she sees that it can mean to love all things that grow and are not barren, to be a healer, and that such a role is not second-class by any means, nor does it diminish who she is.[3]

            As a young teen reading Lord of the Rings, the shieldmaiden part of her story was my favorite part and what I identified with most, though I liked her whole arc. But reading the books again after postpartum depression, her arc is so much clearer to me, and to have made the journey from shieldmaiden to healer and in and out of the Shadow myself has made it all the more powerful—and all the more frustrating when her whole arc isn’t told.

To fear a cage and disuse is not bad. Slaying the Witch King is a worthy, necessary, honorable deed. Aragorn and Faramir’s comments to Éowyn about not going to battle do not mean that women are restricted to the home. But we must also ask how we define a “cage” and “great deeds” and “honor.”[4] Éowyn at one point essentially defines a cage as not being able to do what she wills—but as Aragorn rightly points out “few may do that with honor” especially when there is a question of duty and faithfulness. And he continues to say, “Deeds will not be less valiant because they are unpraised” whether they be unseen deeds of healing, or of slaying inner dragons, or cultivating the hearts of others in our children, churches, and other communities. All of these unseen deeds are what prepares us for whatever greater burden might be thrust upon us (Sam’s loyalty to Frodo and Éowyn’s loyalty to Theoden grew in mundane moments, but led to their great deeds).

            To summarize it all in Tolkien’s own words from one of my favorite passages in the whole of Lord of the Rings:

            “You do not go, because only your brother called for you, and to look on the Lord Aragorn, Elendil’s heir, in his triumph would now bring you no joy. Or because I do not go, and you desire still to be near me. And maybe for both these reasons, and you yourself cannot choose between them. Éowyn, do you not love me, or will you not?’
            ‘I wished to be loved by another,’ she answered, ‘But I desire no man’s pity.’
            ‘That I know,’ he said. ‘You desired to have the love of the Lord Aragorn. Because he was high and puissant, and you wished to have renown and glory and to be lifted far above the mean things that crawl on the earth. And as a great captain may to a young soldier he seemed to you admirable. For so he is, a lord among men, the greatest that now is. But when he gave you only understanding and pity, then you desired to have nothing, unless a brave death in battle. Look at me, Éowyn!’
            And Éowyn looked at Faramir long and steadily; and Faramir said: ‘Do not scorn pity that is the gift of a gentle heart, Éowyn! But I do not offer you my pity, For you are a lady high and valiant and have yourself won renown that shall not be forgotten; and you are a lady beautiful, I deem, beyond even the words of the Elven-tongue to tell. And I love you. Once I pitied your sorrow. But now, were you sorrowless, without fear or any lack, were you the blissful Queen of Gondor, still I would love you. Éowyn do you not love me?’
            Then the heart of Éowyn changed, or else at last she understood it. And suddenly her winter passed, and the sun shone on her.
            ‘I stand in Minas Anor, the Tower of the Sun,’ she said; ‘and behold! the Shadow has departed! I will be a shieldmaiden no longer, nor vie with the great Riders, nor take joy only in the songs of slaying. I will be a healer, and love all things that grow and are not barren.’ And again she looked at Faramir. ‘No longer do I desire to be a queen,’ she said.
            Then Faramir laughed merrily. ‘That is well,’ he said; ‘for I am not a king. Yet I will wed with the White Lady of Rohan, if it be her will. And if she will, then let us cross the River and in happier days let us dwell in fair Ithilien and there make a garden. All things will grow with joy there, if the White Lady comes.”

---

[1] As much as I love Tolkien and he can do very little wrong in my eyes, I’m annoyed by the love triangle.

[2] Though as the hands of the King are the hands of the healer, in Tolkien’s mind, to be a healer and a warrior are not opposed to one another.

[3] I’m pretty sure Tolkien is saying something about manhood and womanhood with Éowyn’s complete character arc and the conversations with and about her. But I still have a lot to think out and research in that realm before I can say for sure if/what commentary on gender Tolkien is giving here or elsewhere. I also know he did not intentionally make many points (see page 211 of his letters), so anything that can be said likely needs to be drawn from other comments and understanding his broader worldview, of which he’s said very little specifically on this topic (letter 43 in his letters is as much as I’ve yet seen). He does say this explicitly about her, but I do believe he elsewhere does refer to her as Amazonian. “She was not herself ambitious in the true political sense. Though not a ‘dry nurse’ in temper, she was also not really a soldier or ‘amazon’, but like many brave women was capable of great military gallantry at a crisis.” (Letters, page 323, written in 1963).

[4] In The Tolkien Reader, Tolkien has some comments that are well worth reading in this vein in conjunction with his poem, The Homecoming of Beorthnoth.

Does God Hate Women? – Part 2

{continued from Part 1}

The second question which must be asked is, am I guilty of cultural or chronological snobbery?  These laws were given within a specific cultural context, wherein certain customs that are repulsive to many in the West were normative, and are still today in other parts of the world. Some of these customs were improved by the moral restraint of Mosaic Law, but not to a degree that modern sensibilities can accept them.  Accusers who point out laws we find abusive may feel they are superior to ancient Israel. However, this assumes the “unexamined superiority” of their current culture.[1] Addressing whether or not the Bible is “backwards and regressive,” Timothy Keller asks “why should your cultural sensibilities trump everyone else’s?” He goes on to say that if the Bible is God’s revelation, then it would at some point contradict every culture. Dismissing the Bible because it offends modern Western culture on certain points assumes that current morals and customs are morally superior. However, this is the same culture that also looks back only fifty years and regrets segregation.

The first two questions serve to eliminate some of the accusations that God is chauvinistic. However, many passages remain wherein it appears God encourages unjust and immoral behavior. The third question, then, deals with the nature of the Mosaic Law: what is its purpose? Does it legislate what God condones? Or is the law there to curb immoral behavior (Gal. 3:19)? Two things should be made clear about Mosaic Law.

First, it is casuistic law, which uses clear-cut cases to apply general principles that can then be analogously applied to more difficult cases.[2] This differs from apodictic laws such as the Ten Commandments and most Western Law, which give clear principles that apply to many situations. [3] Thus, the lack of certain laws, such as prohibition on father-daughter sexual relations, does not mean that God approves of those things.

Second, the purpose of Mosaic Law is unique. It is given as an “interim ethic in the context of horrific evils” to restrain sinful practices.[4] The treatment of female captives (Deut. 21:10-14) serves as a case study. “God is not endorsing the taking of women captive; the context here is descriptive, not prescriptive. The capturing of women in war or in any context is sin, dreadful sin. Case laws speak into a desperately fallen world, restraining sin and protecting people in the midst of it.”[5] They presuppose, rather than condone, sin.

At first glance, this may seem like a way to excuse the difficult passages in Mosaic Law. However, Jesus’ teaching confirms this view. He “does not add laws, or even deepen them, but recovers what God has always required in the law from of old,”[6] responding to distortions of what people thought the Torah taught.[7] This is clearest in his discussion of Mosaic divorce laws (Matthew 19:3-9). Rather than holding up Mosaic Law as the ideal or a trajectory towards something more perfect, Jesus goes back to God’s original design, a design that preceded sin in the world. “God’s original intention is grasped in Genesis. This law should not have been used to justify divorce; rather, it is a concession due to the hardness of human hearts… The certificate has become a license for liberty rather than a concession for a sinful, broken world.”[8]

Thus, rather than being permission for these actions, Mosaic Law is meant to restrain sin within a certain cultural era. Laws such as the aforementioned treatment of captive women seem harsh to modern Western ears. However, in the cultural context of the day the restraint of Mosaic Law improved their circumstances when compared with treatment by other nations, by protecting these women from being trafficked, and giving her time to grieve and learn a new culture before marriage.

Should the Mosaic Law be completely disdained, then? It must be understood in its cultural and redemptive contexts. Through that lens, one can begin to see God’s moral intent behind these laws, an intent that transcends culture. For the captive women, mercy is shown for both the woman and her captor. “These safeguards acknowledge and respect the grief of this woman’s situation; the law calls all those involved to see her as a human being who has not been well-treated up to now, and who from this point onwards must be compassionately treated.”[9] Yes, it is God’s desire that no woman be forced into marriage in this way, but He is also merciful towards the captor by restraining sin where He cannot abolish it without destroying the captor. For modern readers, then, the point is not that this should continue today or was God’s ideal then, but that He desires to restrain evil and promote compassion.

Many other examples can be explained, but that is beyond the scope of this paper (blog readers, please contact me if there’s one you want addressed!). Yet the same method can be used in other difficult cases. First, determine if the passage even says what it is accused of. Second, examine one’s self for cultural snobbery. Finally, seek for God’s moral intent behind the law, understanding parts of the Mosaic Law as a temporary ethic with the purpose of restraining sin in a unique cultural context very different from modern Western society. These laws, and the whole Bible, “asks us to open our eyes and see the world not as we imagine it to be, but as it is: fallen, full of sin, desperately in need of rescue”[10] – rescue that comes through the One who fulfills the ultimate purpose of the Law and frees us from its custody by faith.[11]

[1] Keller, Timothy. “Literalism: Isn’t the Bible Historically Unreliable and Regressive?” Sermon at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, November 11, 2006. Accessed September 2019.

[2] Schmidt, David P., “Casuistry,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed 10/2019.  https://www.britannica.com/topic/casuistry

[3] Bible.org, “Can You Can you describe apodictic law as it applies to the OT law?” Bible.org, accessed 10/2019. https://bible.org/question/can-you-describe-apodictic-law-it-applies-ot-law

[4] Breshears, Gerry, PhD. “Is God a Moral Monster?” ML507: Gospel Responses to Contemporary Challenges. Online Lecture at Western Seminary. Accessed September 17, 2019.

[5] Nielson, Kathleen, Women and God: Hard Questions, Beautiful Truth. The Good Book Company. 2018. Page 66.

[6] Schreiner, Patrick. Matthew, Disciple and Scribe: The First Gospel and its Portrait of Jesus. 2019. Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, page 142

[7] Ibid, 144

[8] Ibid, 143

[9] Nielson, 68

[10] Nielson, 74

[11] Galatians 3:19-25

Does God Hate Women? – Part 1

Throughout the Bible, laws and teachings regarding women lead to the accusation that God is chauvinistic. To many modern Western readers, Mosaic Law poses a particularly difficult problem in this area. Why would anyone, especially women, want to follow a religion that appears to rank women as second-class?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 has a rapist marrying his victim if she was previously unspoken for. Leviticus 19:20 “says that if a man has sex with a slave or betrothed woman, he must then ‘scourge’ her.”[1] There are laws about how to sell daughters into slavery-marriage (Exodus 21:7-11) and laws commanding the marrying of women taken captive after their families are slaughtered in war (Deut. 21:11-14). Other texts make women seem dirty: a woman is unclean for twice as long after birthing a female (Lev. 12:1-8). The valuation for women is also less than that of men (Lev. 27:3-7), they are not counted in censuses (Num. 1:2), and their fathers or husbands can retract any vow they make (Num. 30:3-15).

Such a culture is repulsive, and yet in Mosaic Law, God seems to allow, even desire, this kind of behavior. Skeptics take this information and decide that God is not worthy of worship. Many Christians on the other hand, ignore or brush off these passages instead of interacting with them. But both the skeptic and the believer need to fully consider the accusation and seek an answer to the problems posed by Mosaic Law. How can a good God who made both men and women in His image allow such behavior?

Specific answers for each passage cited above and others in the Pentateuch are beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, three questions will be given to help skeptics and Christians alike engage with troubling texts to understand their meaning more clearly.

First, is the accusation true? The statement from Evilbible.com regarding Leviticus 19:20 is that certain rape victims should be scourged.[2] However, it is not even clear if this situation is rape or consensual fornication. Either way, this terminology is only used in the KJV and NKJV. Other translations more correctly say that in cases where a slave or betrothed woman is raped, “there should be inquiry” or “due punishment.” Only the man must bring compensation to the Lord (v. 21), and only his sin is referenced – her innocence appears to be assumed.

            A second example is laws regarding bodily discharges. Women are unclean while menstruating (Lev. 15:19-30), even to the point where what they touch becomes unclean. However, reading the whole chapter of Leviticus 15 shows that God is not anti-woman here: the times of uncleanness are the same for men with a discharge (v. 1-15, 32-33).[3], [4]

[1]  Evil Bible.org, “Sexism in the Torah,” Evilbible.org, accessed 10/2019.  http://www.evilbible.com/do-not-ignore-the-old-testament/sexism-in-the-torah/

[2] Ibid

[3] There is one difference: after an emission of semen, a man is only unclean until evening, versus a whole week as after menstruation or other bodily discharges. There is no reason given, but it may have to do with the menstrual discharge being blood. “Discharges of blood and semen in themselves are not evil. These discharges were symbols of uncleanness. Blood in itself represents life (Lev. 17:14)… so the loss of blood, as in a woman’s bleeding, was directly associated with death—death that came on the human race as God’s judgment for sin. These Old Testament rituals point backwards to the fall and point forward to the Lord Jesus, who shed his blood to cleanse us from our sin and give us eternal life.” Kathleen Nielson, Women and God, 2018, The Good Book Company, page 71.

[4] These questions of validity of the question and context of the passage come from Breshears, Gerry, PhD. “Is God a Moral Monster?” ML507: Gospel Responses to Contemporary Challenges. Online Lecture at Western Seminary. Accessed September 17, 2019.

 

Raising Women: Quotes for Thought

Here are some others’ thoughts on womanhood and what it means to be a woman. I post these as food for thought. I don’t agree completely with all of them, but have found them all helpful in thinking through what it means and looks like to be a Christian woman.

“Because a good God made the woman, being a woman was a good thing.” – Jackie Hill Perry, Gay Girl Good God, pg. 116

 “A Christian woman’s true freedom lies on the other side of a very small gate-humble obedience-but that gate leads out into a largeness of life undreamed of by the liberators of the world, to a place where the God-given differentiation between the sexes is not obfuscated but celebrated, where our inequalities are seen as essential to the image of God, for it is in male and female, in male as male and female as female, not as two identical and interchangeable halves, that the image is manifested. To gloss over these profundities is to deprive women of the central answer to the cry of their hearts, “Who am I?” No one but the Author of the Story can answer that cry.” – Elisabeth Elliot

“It is a naive sort of feminism that insists that women prove their ability to do all the things that men do. This is a distortion and a travesty. Men have never sought to prove that they can do all the things women do. Why subject women to purely masculine criteria? Women can and ought to be judged by the criteria of femininity, for it is in their femininity that they participate in the human race. And femininity has its limitations. So has masculinity.” – Elisabeth Elliot, Let Me Be a Woman.

Womanhood is “something core in how God has made a person to reflect Himself more fully in another person’s life.  I can only reach certain women because I am a woman; and I can only reach certain men as well because I am a woman.  God fulfills certain purposes in me because I am a woman.  He had reasons for making Eve that Adam could fulfill.  In another sense, I take the essence of womanhood to be someone who reflects the bride of Christ in a way that a man cannot.”  (My friend Anna D.)

“The Lord God made Eve as a woman before He brought her to Adam. It bears repeating. Eve was fully feminine before Adam laid claim to her as bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. It is immensely important that we single women acknowledge that our femininity is God’s initiative and creation. We aren’t feminine because a man is pursuing us. We aren’t less feminine because no man is pursuing us. Our femininity is not dependent on marriage or motherhood to be fully expressed. We are feminine from the moment we are conceived because that is God’s design, and He has a purpose for our femininity throughout various seasons of our lives.” -Carolyn McCulley, Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye: Trusting God With a Hope Deferred (p.51).

“It has only been within the last 200 years that we have separated other forms of productivity and industry away from the household and its child-rearing activities. For most of history, women worked very hard at two important tasks in addition to bearing children: providing food and textiles.” – Carolyn McCulley

 The void of singleness to be filled with disciple-making.

“When someone asks if women are weaker than men, or smarter than men, or more easily frightened than men, or something like that, perhaps the best way to answer is this: women are weaker in some ways and men are weaker in some ways; women are smarter in some ways and men are smarter in some ways; women are more easily frightened in some circumstances and men are more easily frightened in others. It is dangerous to put negative values on the so-called weaknesses that each of us has. God intends for all the “weaknesses” that characteristically belong to man to call forth and highlight woman’s strengths. And God intends for all the “weaknesses” that characteristically belong to woman to call forth and highlight man’s strengths.

“Even if 1 Timothy 2:14 meant that in some circumstances women are characteristically more vulnerable to deception, that would not settle anything about the equality or worth of manhood and womanhood. Boasting in either sex as superior to the other is folly. Men and women, as God created us, are different in hundreds of ways. Being created equally in the image of God means at least this: that when the so-called weakness and strength columns for manhood and for womanhood are added up, the value at the bottom is going to be the same for each. And when you take those two columns and put them on top of each other, God intends them to be the perfect complement to each other.” – Question 29, Fifty Crucial Questions

 Women in the Early Church

“The ultimate meaning of true womanhood is this: it is a distinctive calling of God to display the glory of his Son in ways that would not be displayed if there were no womanhood. If there were only generic persons and not male and female, the glory of Christ would be diminished in the world. When God described the glorious work of his Son as the sacrifice of a husband for his bride, he was telling us why he made us male and female. He made us this way so that our maleness and femaleness would display more fully the glory of his Son in relation to his blood-bought bride.

“This means that if you try to reduce womanhood to physical features and biological functions, and then determine your role in the world merely on the basis of competencies, you don’t just miss the point of womanhood, you diminish the glory of Christ in your own life. True womanhood is indispensable in God’s purpose to display the fullness of the glory of his Son. Your distinctive female personhood is not incidental.” – Piper, “The Ultimate Meaning of True Womanhood.”

“Both male and female are essential to the full revelation of God’s glory”

“She has unique, special capacities both physically, mentally, and emotionally that are different from men. And we should celebrate the differences between manhood and womanhood and stress that those differences mean that when we are together — and I would include singles here, because there are cultural dynamics for people who are not married, and there are cultural dynamics for people who are married — when we are together, more of God’s glory shows than if we were all in our little silos of individuality. ” – Piper, “Biblical Womanhood in Five Minutes.”

More from “Let Me Be a Woman,” Elisabeth Elliot:

“You are not only a woman in relation to [your husband]. If this were so, single women would be deprived of the meaning of their sexuality. Their happiness and fulfillment would lie in sublimation to the point of denial of that which distinguishes them from men… scripture teaches that the distinctions established by creation are each a part of the Design, each necessary and irreplaceable… a call comes to us as women, but it comes to us as individual women.”

144 “Roles are not assigned on the basis of capability. They were determined at the beginning of Creation to be a man’s role and a woman’s role and again, we are not free to experiment, tamper with, or exchange them.”

151 “To subject femininity to the criteria of masculinity is as foolish as it would be to judge meat by the standards of potatoes.”

175 “Hear the call of God to be a woman. Obey that call. Turn your energies to service. Whether your service is to be to a husband and through him and the family and home God gives you to serve the world, or whether you should remain, in the providence of God, single in order to serve the world without the solace of husband, home, and family, you will know fullness of life, fullness of liberty, and (I know whereof I speak) fullness of joy.”

 

 

Raising Women, Part 2

In my previous post, I argued that our understanding of what it means and looks like to be a woman needs to come not from cultural or religious stereotypes, but from Scripture. With that in mind, here is a brief overview of women across Scripture:

• Men and women are of equal worth before God, yet are different and have different roles, just like the members of the Trinity. God made humans in His image (Gen. 1:27). He also said “it is not good for man to be alone,” and so made woman to be his helper. This does not mean we have to be married to be complete, but that God’s design for the world includes both male and female, and having both male and female helps us to understand, know, and reflect God more fully. Even more, both being made in His image shows that worth is not in being male or being female, but in being human.
• As we see in the Trinity, “equal” does not mean “same.” The difference is seen in God creating Eve to be a “helper suitable for Adam,” someone like him to be a companion and co-worker in filling AND subduing the earth. Eve is not a woman because she feels like one, but because God has made her one. Adam needed a helper in order to fulfill the cultural mandate (be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it – Gen. 1:28). This “helper” is not like a toddler helping his mother in the kitchen, but a reflection of the Trinity in co-laboring together in loving, relational community, and it happens in more ways than just giving birth to children.[1]
• In the Fall, the woman’s pain focuses on childbearing and her relationship with Adam, while for Adam the difficulty comes in toil working the ground (Gen. 3).
• Throughout the Old Testament, we see that children are a blessing that women long for, sometimes more than life (Gen. 30). We also see that God’s primary way of moving redemption forward is through woman having children. Being the one to be the kids’ primary caregiver is not a lesser thing, it’s a very important role (to see this fleshed out more, check out my series on the womb and childbearing). In the Old Covenant, God’s people did primarily grow through children being born. Thus, the barren womb was especially shameful and there weren’t as many ways for women to be engaged in the cultural mandate outside of that. (For the hard questions about treatment of women in the Old Testament, read Kathleen Nielson’s book “Women and God.”)
• We also see women do other very important things, as women – not trying to be the same as the men around them, but using their place in society for God’s glory. I’m thinking of the Hebrew Midwives, Naomi, Abigail, Esther, and Deborah (we can argue about her being a leader, but she does draw the line and we see what happens for Barak being a wimp – a woman, Jael, wins the day, again, by from being in her “womanly place” in her tent). They were able to do what they did because, not in spite of, their being women.
• In the New Testament, we see that the role of women in the church is different from that of men as there are restrictions on them teaching men (1 Timothy 2:9-15) in the congregation. But at the same time, we are given a glimpse into how women were greatly involved in the church and in Jesus’ ministry, from hospitality, financing, discipleship (even of men at times, at least alongside their husbands – Priscilla, Aquila, and Apollos), and ministry to the poor to name a few. The early church would not have been able to function as it did without its women. The restriction on teaching did not make them unimportant in the life of the church: it simply meant that their avenues of service were different, and for a woman with a teaching gift, it wouldn’t be neglected, but wouldn’t be used to teach the whole congregation (and I get that there is disagreement here among believers).
• In contrast to the Old Testament, in the New Covenant, God’s people do still grow through the nuclear family, but outreach and spiritual children play a much bigger part. Thus, while there is much grief in infertility, there is a wealth of important, fulfilling ministry by which childless or single women can bless the church and further God’s Kingdom, though that may not take away their desire for marriage and/or children.

So what, then, does it mean to be a woman, according to the Bible? It doesn’t mean trying to be better than or the same as a man, or trying to find some psychological way in which all women are different from all men, or having the same desires and interests as most other women. It does mean looking at the design and the commands the Bible gives to women – which will vary based on season of life – and the character qualities demonstrated and praised by godly women in Scripture, and then seeking to emulate that. It means the basis for who we are as women isn’t cultural but Biblical. What does God say is true for the life of every believer? What does He say about women specifically? And finally, what will that look life for me as an individual with unique giftings?

To answer those questions requires deep study of scripture, and much of it needs to be personal. I will close this post with a few to get you started, and the next post will have a variety of quotes for further thought (but remember, Scripture trumps all). Whatever is true in one of these categories of Scripture will not contradict what is true in another. We must be careful here not to let our experiences, opinions, or the opinions of others shape our view of what the Bible says. “But God has gifted me to preach,” a woman might say, and that may be true, but if that gift is truly from God, it must be exercised according to His boundaries.

Life as a Christian:

• Ephesians 1, 2:1-10 (what it means to be a believer)
• Colossians 3:1-17, Romans 12, Ephesians 4-5 (the way believers should live, not to earn salvation, but in response to His great gift of salvation).

Life as a Christian Woman:

• 1 Timothy 5:3-16 (these verses are about widows; however, she would have had to have been doing these things before becoming a widow).
• Titus 2:3-5 (take special note of the reason Paul gives for living this way).
• 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (note the context here. For more on the “she will be saved through childbearing,” view my post here).
• Proverbs 31 (I know, I know. The main reason I include it is to note that Lemuel’s mother was telling him what to look for in a wife, so this is not just about married women!).
• 1 Corinthians 7 (to consider the role of singleness in the church. You are not more or less of a woman depending on your marital status).
• Ephesians 5:22-24 (note that this is written to wives with regard to their husbands, not all women to all men).
• 1 Peter 3:1-6 (again, the submission part of this is with reference to wives, but I keep this verse in mind often with regard to my fancy children).
• I’m aware there are other verses in the New Testament (especially 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 and 14:34) not in this list, that is mostly because they are much more complex. But in both cases, considering the context is key to understanding the verses, and because Paul in 1 Cor 11 expects women to pray and prophesy in church, his comment in 1 Cor 14 may thus not mean women must not speak at all in church, though 1 Tim. 2:9-15 must be kept in mind as well!).

Life as a Christian woman individual:

• 1 Peter 4:10-11
• 1 Corinthians 12 (these two passages are about using your gifts to build up the body of Christ. The ways we are unique are not for our pride but to help and serve others, but they do mean that the life of one woman will look very different from the life of another, based on gifts, season of life, etc.).

These verses provide some framework for “God’s will” for women, but they also leave much open depending on individual circumstance and gifting. There may be certain things that are true of most women, but those generalizations are not what makes someone a woman, nor do they make someone more of a woman if she matches them.

So what will it look like for me to raise my girls to be women? It is my prayer that it will mean explaining to them God’s design for male and female while at the same time setting before them diverse examples of women who have honored/are honoring Him with their lives, and inspiring them to do the same, no matter how they fit the cultural mold of womanhood. They are never more or less of a woman because of anything they do or don’t do or feel. They (and I) are women because God has made us female, and our being so will influence how we live.

“If you try to reduce womanhood to physical features and biological functions, and then determine your role in the world merely on the basis of competencies, you don’t just miss the point of womanhood, you diminish the glory of Christ in your own life. True womanhood is indispensable in God’s purpose to display the fullness of the glory of his Son.” (John Piper)

So, my sisters – and daughters – let us display the glory of God in our lives as women.

[1] “Since there were no dishes to wash, no clothes to launder, no house to vacuum, no groceries to buy… God’s original intent for the woman must have been broader than those services. We observe, instead, that both male and female were created in God’s image, with shared tasks of ruling over creation and reproducing. God communicated those tasks to both the man and the woman in the same hearing. Both needed each other to accomplish God’s grand purposes for them on earth.” Hislop, Beverly, Shepherding a Woman’s Heart, page 38

Raising Women, Part 1

I was convinced I should have boys. I always identified more with Laura Ingalls, Caddie Woodlawn, and Jo March than with queens and princesses (especially Disney ones!). Skirts cloaked capris on Sundays and were cast off as soon as church was over. Dirt and bugs – roaches aside – stirred up no fear. I did readily embrace some female stereotypes, such as ballet, sewing, and babysitting, but I still often felt like I didn’t really fit the mold.[1]
When S was born, I was nervous about having a girl because I didn’t want to deal with pink and bows. Maybe she won’t like pink, I thought.
But she does (though purple is better), and fancy frills are her style. E’s tastes are still developing, but so far she loves whatever S loves (though when she’s honest, blue is best). This has led to a lot of thought on what it means to be a woman. How can I raise daughters to womanhood if I don’t know what that means? What vision of womanhood do I want to put before them as the goal? What things are merely cultural stereotypes and what does the Bible actually say?

The more I read and studied and tried to figure it out, the more I concluded that what it means to be female does not seem to be as specific as we want to make it. Not every woman fits every trait, and certainly not every stereotype. Many definitions are not things that belong exclusively to females. There are traits that have been noticed as being more common in, though not exclusively belonging to, females. Among these are things like life-giver (whether physically or emotionally), nurturer, and a greater orientation towards relationships than to tasks. Meanwhile, the model of womanhood put forward in some conservative Christian circles focuses primarily on externals like hobbies and clothing, based on picking a few scripture passages and nostalgia for the past, without much room for individual gifting or single women.

There is much more to being a woman than this. But it is also much simpler than generalizations and stereotypes. What defines womanhood or makes someone a woman is not certain cultural, emotional, or psychological stereotypes. Instead, the body God gave you determines you as male or female, and that means you live a certain way according to the Bible. In her book, Love Thy Body, Nancy Pearcey writes that “gender theology begins with creation theology.” If we don’t believe that God made us or that He made us with purpose, then it really doesn’t matter what our bodies indicate or what we do with them. But God did create mankind, and He did create us with a certain design in mind.[2] To be male or female is not a social construction. A woman being different than a man is not a yoke imposed by chauvinism or patriarchy (though those things would twist it into a yoke). It is a calling from God to live in a certain way. Being a woman (or man) made in the image of God reveals worth that calls for dignity and respect and a responsibility to treat others that way.

What, then, are some of the ways women are unique? There are stereotypes of women being only in the home and generalizations about women being more relational[3] than men and being more natural nurturers.

While we have to be careful about them and test them against Scripture, we can’t ignore these stereotypes and generalizations completely, because while they may not be strict definitions of womanhood, they do tell us something of how many women might reflect attributes of God in ways that many men don’t, and how rather than always trying to be better than each other we can put our strengths and weaknesses together and further the gospel as we do so. If God is a sovereign creator, we can’t make up our own ideas of what it means to be male and female, but have to look at the patterns shown in scripture – without making narrative law and distinguishing between what is cultural, civil, or ceremonial and what is moral or design.

One can argue about stereotypes and generalizations for a long time, but in the end they are just that. Instead, our focus in the church should be what we DO see clearly in Scripture. Scripture, not religious or cultural stereotypes, should bring us our definitions and ideals of womanhood. In my next post we will look at some of these.

 

[1] Side note: In Nancy Pearcey’s book “Love Thy Body,” she argues that one of the most common factors in homosexuality and gender dysphoria is not fitting into gender stereotypes, so we must be extra careful that our understanding of what it means to be male and female is based on what scripture actually says and not on culture or nostalgia. I think I personally would have struggled had I not had a solid foundation in understanding God’s sovereignty in creation, His unique gifting of each individual, and the diversity and unity within “woman.”

[2] For more on this, read Pearcey’s book and seek resources from places like Answers in Genesis.

[3] I think it is generally true that women are more relational and put more of their self-esteem into relationships while men tend to be more goal-oriented and put more self-esteem into their position. Post-fall sin makes marriage and child-raising (in infertility, pain in childbirth, PMS, difficulty raising children, etc) hard for Eve; Adam’s work is harder because the ground is cursed. Eve was also in relationship with humans from day 1, Adam wasn’t. However, in many cultures this may be very different than it is in America!

Thoughts on Convictions – 2

In the first post in this series I explained that while the Bible speaks clearly about how we should live, there is often freedom to apply its commands in various ways. In these second two posts I hope to give some examples of how this works. These ideas can be applied to many different biblical commands, but my intent here is to examine some of the bigger issues in conservative Christianity.

Education
                There is a clear command in Ephesians 6 for parents to raise their children in the Lord. Many take this to mean that the only form of education is homeschooling. This is supported by Deuteronomy 6, where parents are told to speak to their children of God’s laws when you rise up, when you lie down, when you walk by the way, etc.  Homeschooling certainly makes obeying those commands easier, especially with younger children who don’t yet have the discernment to sort right from wrong in a secular teaching environment.[1]
But I have seen families who homeschool neglect the spiritual teaching and even more, spiritual care of their children, and I have seen families who do not homeschool excel in raising their children in the Lord. Those families had to work extra-hard to disciple their children, but they most certainly did not neglect God’s commands in sending their children to private or public schools. Successes and failures aside, what really matters is not what worked for someone but what God says.
My understanding of those two commands (Deuteronomy 6 and Ephesians 6) is that the place of education isn’t as important as the interaction between parents and children at home. Discipling your children and homeschooling are not synonymous. Neither is simply doing family worship at the end of a school day, whether that day was at or away from home. It is teaching your children when you rise up (but you can be getting ready for school or studies at home), when you lie down, and when you walk by the way (whether that’s the car to and from school or up and down the stairs of your house).
We see homeschooling as the easiest and most practical way of doing that and so have chosen to homeschool, but believe making that the only valid option for Christians is beyond the teaching of scripture.

                Post-high school education is often hotly debated. This is an area that I don’t believe there are commands in the Bible that directly apply. However, there is teaching on the company you keep, making wise choices, and the calling of God.

We don’t see college as the only or even best route, but one of many. What is most important is receiving what you need to fulfill any calling or passion God has given you – that might mean internship, trade school, online courses, college, or simply reading and studying this and that on your own. This goes for daughters AND sons. The aforementioned callings and passions should be shaped and checked by scripture (for example, only men are to be leaders in the church, so if a daughter aspires to that she must re-think her desires). First, one must study the Bible to determine what a Christian is to do and be, and then what a man or a woman is to do and be, and finally what they personally should do and be with the giftings God has given them. From there one can determine what the wisest route is – and that is never sitting idly at home!
Because of the above, I don’t believe a daughter must stay at home, but I do believe that after careful study of biblical commands to women, it would likely be the wisest route in order to prepare for the future. I do not see a career as being the norm for a woman; see “women working” below.

 

Youth group
                As with education, the clear command of scripture is for parents to raise their children in the Lord.
Does this mean others can’t be involved? No. But others should not take the place of parents in any way. There are definitely times when peers can gather and do peer stuff. Is it always wise? No. But should it be banned across the board or generalized as dividing the church into age-based factions? I don’t think so.

 

Women Working

“Older women… are to train the younger women to be… working at home.” Titus 2:3-5. (Other translations say “keepers of the home.” Strong’s concordance suggests that the Greek best translates into the idea of housekeeper.)
The understanding of this command does depend some on the variance in translations, as noted above. Because of that, some read this passage and believe that women may only work in and from the home. Others apply that only to a wife. And still others see the application as the keeping of the home being the woman’s first and primary duty, but once that is done she is free to work outside the home. Because of Proverbs 31, there is rarely any dispute over whether or not a woman may work from the home. The issue is not a woman generating income.

I tend to side with the latter two opinions, thus concluding that daughters have more freedom in this area (though living at home would perhaps be wisest, and if at home, any family duties must be fulfilled), and that there are times it is permissible for a wife to work outside the home.
Our view is that if a woman can still manage the home (which pre-baby could easily have been as little as 15 minutes of chores and an hour of cooking a day), working is not an issue (it should also be noted, however, that working from home can cause as much if not more of a distraction from wifely duties than working outside!). This means that it would most likely only be part time and not full-time or a long-term career. However, that doesn’t mean it’s the wisest use of her time.

Before we got married, Ezra and I decided that we were okay with me working part-time pre-kids if I wanted to. But his job is plenty to support us and we decided my time would be better used in other ways – like volunteering at the pregnancy center, writing, visiting people from church, etc. Not that it was wrong for me to work, but we saw that the better use of my time would be in these other ways that were more along the lines of how the women who were applauded in scripture spent their time. Also, just because you “can” do both on paper doesn’t mean it will play out that way. As a couple, you must consider what it really means to be a keeper at home, versus simply making dinner at the end of a long day.
I wrote about this more in 2012, and you can read that here.
I understand and have respect for more conservative views, especially considering the variance in the translation of the passage, but do not see it as an across-the-board rule.

Birth Control
                 The Bible does not say anything about birth control specifically, however, it does speak about how we should view children, the sovereignty of God, the sanctity of life, and also to issues of sin in our hearts. Some look at these teachings and conclude that using birth control is always sin, implying that if you don’t take “as many as God gives you,” then you’re not really seeing children as a blessing. Others believe we have freedom to use whatever birth control we choose as long as we still view children as a blessing. In the middle are people who would use only some forms of birth control, or only at certain times.
This is a complex issue that is often emotionally charged, personal, and has many facets.
                First, there is our mindset towards children. The Bible is clear that children are a blessing, can bring their parents great joy, and are like arrows in the hand of a warrior – “tools” for engaging our culture.
                Second, there is the sovereignty of God. God is in control of every area of our lives – which combined with point one say to me that the number and timing of children isn’t something for me to regulate. This is even more clear to me as I think about the timing of S’s conception and birth – with circumstances that were better than we would have chosen, but also ones we would not have chosen – yet still showing how God’s way is so much better than ours. To say “it’s just science” is to deny God’s hand in every day details of our lives, including the science of things like the rising and setting of the sun. It does not feel right to me to try to take control of that, nor does it ever seem to me like there is a “good time” to have a baby – babies are always work and life is always kind of crazy.
                Third, there is the sanctity of life. This applies to specific forms of birth control that can be considered abortifacients, and that therefore I believe are wrong for Christians to use. If after points 1, 2, and 4 are prayerfully considered a couple still chooses to delay or prevent children, there are other options to choose from that do not compromise life, some that could even be considered God’s design (ecological breastfeeding, Hosea 1:8). However, I think in most circumstances, after said prayerful consideration, the use of birth control will be excluded.
And fourth, there is sin in our own hearts. Ask yourself: why do I want to use birth control? It’s easy to want to wait for a better time, or a longer gap (side note: I do believe God can and does give us more than we can handle – but never more than HE can handle!), or to want to be done so you can focus on other things. Those are often complex and deep concerns that often belong to the couple (and sometimes their mentors) alone, but whenever steps are taken to prevent children we must check our hearts for sin, particularly selfishness. Selfishness can also show up in our ideals for what we want our children to have. Love is not measured by what things we can give them or activities they can do.

Within that framework, I know people who have chosen to use legitimate forms of birth control, particularly for health reasons (and I know people who have chosen to still forgo any birth control despite health risks – and both decisions were reached with much prayer), or in seasons of particular trial. Whatever the reasons, though, we must always check ourselves to make sure it’s not simply selfishness that leads our decision.

Whichever side we fall on, the decision seems to come from more general texts (Children are a blessing and God is sovereign) that combined with wisdom are lived out a certain way (If the above statements are true, are we really in a place to seek to prevent kids?).

On the other side of things, I don’t think it’s right for us to pry into others’ plans for children. I always felt that if people weren’t divulging that information, then that was their choice to keep it a private matter and that was completely fine. I think that someone in a mentorship position can and even should ask about that at times, especially if the couple is waiting to have children, to help check their motives.

I’ve also often found that behind the asking and/or the way it’s responded to, there’s usually an unspoken implication that they’re hoping you take the same position as them, which in our circumstances has been the mindset of leaving it up to God and it makes it awkward if that’s not what you’re doing.

But what clicked the other day was also that the way some people reply to pregnancy announcements (or ask if you are pregnant yet), implies that we really hope you are because it’s the best thing that can happen in/because of your marriage. I don’t mean by being annoyed at this that children aren’t a great blessing or that having them isn’t good for your marriage (the past months have been very good for our marriage, especially communication, and I think a fair amount of that is due ways we’ve grown because of S). But marriage is about WAY more than having children, and there are other blessings God gives as well.

 

[1] Unless a child has a clear profession of faith and fruit to match, we cannot claim they are a necessary “salt and light” in the secular schools.