Friday, October 7, 2011

Tenet 14: Single women and their role

14. While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)
Gen. 2:18 – And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him…”
This passage was already commented on in previous parts.
Josh. 1:14 – Your wives, your little ones, and your livestock shall remain in the land which Moses gave you on this side of the Jordan. But you shall pass before your brethren armed, all your mighty men of valor, and help them,
This is a Bible story, not a teaching on right behavior.
Judg. 4 – the story of Deborah
Like Joshua 1:14 is a Bible story. The difference, though, is that patriarchists get an example from the former of what women should be/do, but not from this one. Why? Because they say Deborah is not normative.
(Normative should not count so much. The world of old Israel were sinful, with most leaders being reported as doing what is wrong in the eyes of God. Yes, those sinful leaders were men as a norm, but we should not be conformed to this sinful world. (Rom. 12:1-2) "Normative" in Bible times should not be our standard. (In the first century Greek/ Roman world of the New Testament, for example, homosexual relations between men and boys were the norm, and that should not be our standard either.)
Anyway, Deborah does not belong in this tenet on single women, as she had a husband. (Judg. 4:4)
Acts 16:14 – Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
Once again, this is a story and not a teaching. We don't know if Lydia the saleswoman was single or married. She had a family. Her family seemingly followed her lead in spiritual matters, as she was the first convert and then her family was baptized. (Acts 16:15)
(Other topic, did you notice :13? Paul and his co-worker went to the river and spoke to the women there about God. What? No mention of their husbands or fathers? It seems Paul did not believe that teaching should encompass the whole family at the same time, or that men have to give permission for their women to be taught.)

14a) While unmarried women may have more flexibility
It is logical that they have more flexibility, but no text teach it.
b) in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling,
The case for women being created for (mostly/ only) a domestic calling, was not biblically defended yet. Think, for example, of the Proverbs woman and all her business enterprises, prophetesses like Miriam and Hulda, Paul’s female co-workers, and Mary who did better by sitting at the feet of Jesus than Martha with all her domestic work.
If women were made for (only/mostly) a domestic calling, why would Paul say the woman without a husband can serve Him better? (1 Cor. 7:34)
c) it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.).

 Translation: “Men and women are created equal (Tenet 2 say “They share an equal worth as persons before God in creation”), but that equality should never let men and women act as equals.” What kind of equality never allows people to act as functional equals? If there is no way in which the genders should function as equals, any equality talk in the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy is hypocrisy.
Except for created-equal-but-should-never-function-as-equals being irrational, this point was not defended from the Bible. The "ordinary role" of women begs the question: Ordinary in which society? Among patriarchists, it is not ordinary for them to work as equals of men. Among average Americans, it is. A "fitting role' was not defended Biblically either.
d) The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created.
As a general rule, the exceptional should not redefine the ordinary. But then, singleness is not exceptional in American society. About half of all Americans are single. And in most eras throughout most of the world, women staying at home, and not generating an income, were exceptional. As such, the exceptional circumstances of middle class families in the ‘50s and 60’s should not redefine women's ordinary income-generating role.
As for the part after the comma, TBP still have not made a solid Biblical case for the things they regard as "God ordained social roles."
Other ways Christians understand this:
Some focus on 1 Cor. 7:34 - There is difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. To them, it means that single women (and men!) are not temporary failures treading water until God’s will of marriage comes along, but valuable assets in God’s work. Far from them having to be defined by the married crowd (and practicing to be a helpmeet to daddy!), they can live out Christianity in a way that married people simply cannot do as single-mindedly. A Christianity in which the unmarried is merely bad copycats of the actions of the married, is not the Christianity of Paul.
Summing it up
How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:
      The color code:
      This is not Biblically defended
      This was not defended from the Bible, but I’ll concede it for rational reasons.

14. While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created.

No comments:

Post a Comment