A friend recently turned my attention to the books written by main stream protestants about women, femininity, what is sometimes referred to as "biblical womanhood." So I picked up a few books from the seminary library and have been picking through them in my spare time.
The one book, "Fearlessly Feminine" by Jani Ortlund, starts off by asking "What does it mean to be a woman and not a man?" She then quotes John Piper's definition of femininity:
"At the heart of femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, recieve, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman's differing relationships."
I don't want to think about it, but it seems as though Ortlund is making the mistake many women make, Christian or otherwise, by seeing femaleness as opposed to maleness; to conceive of gender as though maleness defines what gender is and femaleness is some distortion of it. And for Piper to say that the heart of femininity is to exhort men in their roles as leaders... well I think that makes women out to be receptacles of maleness rather than having a gender all our own.
Defining ourselves in the negative is degrading. I am much more than "not a man," as were my foremothers in the faith (my spell checker won't even recognize the word "foremother"-- even the computer's sexist!) Women and men together reflect the very person of God, so much so that when we get close enough we make a new life. Rather than seeing femininity as only a contrast to what is masculine, a receiver of what is masculine, I wish women in the Church would start to embrace being female as being a person that reflects the image of God. Ms. Ortlund, if you're out there in blog land: we are more than "not men," we are women.
More to come as I read further.
"The basic discovery about any people is the discovery of the relationship between its men and its women." -Pearl Buck
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
just a quick question...is it degrading to define God by negation? Seems to be a classic stance...this certainly doesn't mean that woman should only be defined as 'not men' but that certainly is an attribute just as men are 'not women'. I think that you are right though in asserting that it is a much better way to define women as 'bearers of the image of God'. Of course this attribute can be assigned to men as well...ummm...ok, I give up...good luck with all that
God cannot be defined by negation. You can say "God is not evil" but evil, as Alan would say, is only a privation of the Good.
Men and women both bear the image of God. I think gender is defined by those characteristics God has particularly endowed to men and women... but I can't agree with those who think reason is a male attribute, or weakness is embodied in femaleness! I think I need to write another post now... thanks for your comment Adam!
Post a Comment