True Woman Manifesto | Boundless Line

True Woman Manifesto
by Motte Brown on 10/14/2008 at 3:10 PM

John Piper calls the True Woman Manifesto a "faithful, clear, true, wise—indeed—magnificent document." What is it? It's a collection of beliefs, affirmations, and intentions for women desiring to live godly lives in a culture that "does not accept Scripture as the pattern for life."

The manifesto was put out by Nancy Leigh DeMoss's Revive Our Hearts ministry and their goal is to garner 100,000 signatures or more. So if you affirm beliefs like the following, here's where you can sign up:

Men and women are both created in the image of God and are equal in value and dignity, but they have distinct roles and functions in the home and in the church.

We are called as women to affirm and encourage men as they seek to express godly masculinity, and to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church.

Marriage, as created by God, is a sacred, binding, lifelong covenant between one man and one woman.

When we respond humbly to male leadership in our homes and churches, we demonstrate a noble submission to authority that reflects Christ's submission to God His Father.

Selfish insistence on personal rights is contrary to the spirit of Christ who humbled Himself, took on the form of a servant, and laid down His life for us.

Human life is precious to God and is to be valued and protected, from the point of conception until rightful death.

You may also want to check out their True Woman Make-Over, which is "a 30-day email journey that will make you over from the inside out."

Faith | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. The G said the following at 6:16 PM on Oct 14:

What is meant by "rightful" death? Does it differ from "natural death"?

2. Cari-Denise said the following at 9:08 PM on Oct 14:

I'm wondering what the author of this statement defines as "selfish insistence on personal rights." If that were a little more clear, I might consider signing this.

3. Lucie said the following at 6:50 AM on Oct 15:

Worthy goals, but...

I'm a bit put off by the "True Woman" title. Some might say I'm being too literal, but I can't help wondering what the Manifesto writers would call the millions of women around the world who are Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, etc. - not to mention the perhaps thousands of Christian women who may not agree with all of the Manifesto's exact wording. Are they "fake" women? "Untrue" women?

Okay, you might have a chuckle at that, but I'm actually serious. To me, a true woman is simply one who is biologically female. I don't believe for a minute that the "true woman" moniker was simply pulled out of a hat because it sounded good. Plus, the people behind the Manifesto have declared it a "movement." But will it alienate many women (non-Christian in particular) who see it as just another insular Christian clique?

I'm also somewhat curious as to the purpose of gaining 100,000 or more signatures. What do the Manifesto designers intend to do with them? Yes, they're a visible sign of support - but why is that necessary? Couldn't we already have guessed that there are hundreds of thousands of women around the globe who feel this way?

In other words, I could understand the purpose of gaining all these signatures if they would be used to support a new law for passage, or something similar....

4. e. said the following at 8:54 AM on Oct 15:

I would be wary of 'signing' anything containing such nebulous terminology.

5. Laura_MH said the following at 9:05 AM on Oct 15:

Of course guys are going to like this - they get to be in charge of everything and we have to follow what they say - even if they make bad decisions.

Where's the "True Man Manifesto," where men are called to be good leaders, and where they need to understand the difference between effective ledership and being a control freak?

6. H.A.P said the following at 10:11 AM on Oct 15:

Beautifully written! Sign me up!

7. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:50 AM on Oct 15:

I read over the manifesto in its entirety and overall agree with it and also believe it be a noble cause.

In response to G's question, "rightful death" probably implies a rejection of things such as euthanasia and suicide.

What interests me though are those parts of the manifesto which would be distinctly feminine (i.e. something that would apply specifically to women and not just apply to all Believers in general). Sometimes it seems that there are "code words" applying to certain behaviors. I wonder if this is intentional or not.

For example, "Receive children as a blessing from the Lord..." and "Selfish insistence on personal rights is contrary to the spirit of Christ..."
Translation: Do not support abortion (as it assumes life begins at conception)

"Children are a blessing from God, and women are uniquely designed to be bearers and nurturers of life..."
Translation: Try and be a stay at home mom

"...and to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church."
Translation: Obey your husband

I'm not saying that this is the main intent of the manifesto nor are the translations "bad doctrine" per se. But I'm sure I'm not the first to wonder if this is in part what it is trying to get at.

8. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:01 AM on Oct 15:

I think "rightful" death is a little more encompassing than "natural" death.

Deaths that aren't natural, but deaths that we can't really do much about would be plane crashes, car accidents, and stuff like that =p

9. Anastasia said the following at 11:34 AM on Oct 15:

So if a woman believes that a "true woman" remains faithful to the talents, abilities and gifts that God has placed in her life that don't necessarily equate staying at home full time with children, we're not true women?

I have to admit having a very hard time with this "true woman" thing. Why can't we just be what we have been made to be and support each other in our choices and necessities instead of these silly rules about what constitutes "true womanhood"?

And if your marriage is a partnership rather than a military organization with ranks, are we less than true women? If we insist that discussion about decisions, etc., be carried out and a consensus reached in the spirit of Love, is that a bad marriage?

Nope. Not signing this.

10. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:52 AM on Oct 15:

faithful to the talents, abilities and gifts that God has placed in her life that don't necessarily equate staying at home full time with children, we're not true women?

Yet one example of selfish insistence to personal rights.

You ever think its possible to dedicate your time and energies to your children and household in such a way that you use your talents and abilities in a way similar to Proverbs 31 without signing your life away to some other master of your time?

11. IMO said the following at 12:23 PM on Oct 15:

Where do you think this the concepts behind the Manifesto originated from?

THE BIBLE.

If you actually take the second to click on the Manifesto..you can see the long list of Scripture associated with it.

If you have a problem, take it up with Scripture.

If you are reading more into things and making snap assumptions, its your own issue to deal with.

"And if your marriage is a partnership rather than a military organization with ranks, are we less than true women? "

There is no such idea in the bible!

12. DannieA said the following at 12:52 PM on Oct 15:

To Christina in Green...

uh well let's see, it wouldn't be a selfish insistence on personal rights if God called you to pursue something in particular. And yes if you and your husband make arrangements for how best to rear children....a mother can do multiple things in God's glory.

Please refrain from attacking women on motherhood as this is a personal area in her life where she will raise her children as she is guided by the LORD and that can be met in a variety of ways!

This sounds so much like the stupid debate of bottles vs. breast feeding and which is the better mother....

I get turned off by people attacking women on motherhood. Leave it be! With God's help everyone does the best they can and NO one/or way is perfect.

13. Laura said the following at 1:10 PM on Oct 15:

Anastasia -- is that what you think a complementarian marriage is? A military organization where the husband gets to make unilateral decisions without input from his wife? That's definitely not the picture in the Scriptures of equality of personhood but difference of roles.

The picture we see is of a husband willing to sacrifice himself as Christ did for the sake of his wife and her holiness, and of a wife whose godly influence is so great that it can even lead an unbelieving husband to faith. That's a beautiful partnership of equals in a TRUE sense, and it's what the Bible teaches.

14. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:11 PM on Oct 15:

Mike,

The ones you have questions about, specifically the children are blessings, the selfish insistence to personal rights, and the uniquely designed by God to be bearers and nurturers of life fall to this:

That a mother be willing to set aside her own personal ambition, personal rights, and personal "gifts" (if she thinks they can only be used in specific circumstances) if they interfere with her God given responsibility of children (which is a god-given responsibility when you conceive one).

This does NOT translate into a strict SAHM. This does, however, translate into someone setting aside their own dreams if it jeopardizes or causes conflict with the responsiblity of raising her children.

And the reason this specific admonition is given to women and not to men is because of her unique design as bearer and nurturer of life.

15. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:14 PM on Oct 15:

Lucie (#3)

What's so interesting about your insistence that this include other faiths is that other faiths (minus the references to God) would embrace this fully as correct and true.

Except, maybe, fully americanized adherents of those faiths.

Where exactly is your hesitancy?

16. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:18 PM on Oct 15:

Of course guys are going to like this - they get to be in charge of everything and we have to follow what they say - even if they make bad decisions.

Laura (#5),

Our responsibilities as women are independent of men's responsibilities as men.

if you have an issue with the biblical command for wives to submit to their husbands, than take it up there.

This is not the time for you to squabble with dad about what your other sibling isn't doing to get the focus off you.

17. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:22 PM on Oct 15:

uh well let's see, it wouldn't be a selfish insistence on personal rights if God called you to pursue something in particular.

Uh like raising a child?

Here's a little tidbit of information for you, DannieA, that no one knows about me. Its a bit of a wake up call to both sides of the fence - those who want to work regardless of their motherhood status and those that think staying at home is the all glorifying way of pursuing motherhood.

I over romanticized to a great extent motherhood. Yeah, I dream of being a SAHM - there are things I plan on doing as a SAHM that aren't as restrictive as many people seem to think.

I've been wanting marriage and children since I was 5 years old. When I was 23, I had a conversation with my mother and she told me that I need to be patient...but not simply in a "content with singleness" speech that you usually get.

She told me that right now, I have the freedom to pursue the things that God has called me to do, to use my gifts in any way I see fit.

When I have children, all that changes. My life, in that season, is no longer my own (as if it ever was). In that time, God has given me a very SPECIFIC task and for once has made it abundantly clear - that my job is raise this child THAT HE GAVE ME in such a way honoring to God.

How that happens varies from person to person - I'm not questioning that. I AM questioning your INSISTENCE that some "Gift" or "calling" that "God gives" is somehow going to supercede the gift and calling to raise your children. That is a SELFISH INSISTENCE and is WRONG.

This is what happens when you have a child - your life is no longer your own. And as someone else once said, it kinda helps if you see your life as never having been yours to begin with.

My mother was 20 years old when she had her first child. She was 29 when she had her 5th. In the most critical years of my mother's life and her marriage, her life and her "gifts" and "callings" were put on hold to raise us. And she DID. She did what had to be done - sometimes she worked, sometimes she didn't. Sometimes she could afford us, sometimes she couldn't. She's over 40 years old now. She loves her life. Though she's not the great pianist she could've been and she never finished college for music education, she is finally doing things that she feels "called" to do. And God was loving enough to not require her to wait til now - she taught me, my sister, and our peers Hand Bells and we had a hand-bell choir. While my brothers were babies, it was held in our garage. As they got older, she did it at church while they were in the nursery or with my dad. She played the piano for competitions where I had to sing in front of judges. She used her talents and gifts in a way that didn't make me an obstacle in her life.

And God help me, I was more of one than you could ever possibly realize - but she set aside her dreams and needs to be my mother - because that's what GOD required of her...for now.

Raising us always came FIRST. YOU seem to think that the gifts given prior to children are your PRIMARY responsibility. I think you need to re-evaluate that stance.

Its like the most direct order that anyone can have on what to do with themselves - raise your kids.

18. a sassy sister said the following at 5:02 PM on Oct 15:

Christina (in green):

while the wife is to submit to her husband in marriage, does that mean she is to submit to him even when he is CLEARLY going against the Word of God? A person can kindly and lovingly refuse requests to do wrong.

while I am called to submit to my husband in marriage AS TO THE LORD, I seriously doubt God would want me to obey my husband in decisions that go against Scripture. Have we forgotten that our responsibility to obey God trumps the opinions of others?

19. Samantha said the following at 6:44 PM on Oct 15:

Well said, Christina.

20. Elusive Wapiti said the following at 6:48 PM on Oct 15:

Laura #5 wrote:

"Of course guys are going to like this - they get to be in charge of everything and we have to follow what they say - even if they make bad decisions....where they need to understand the difference between effective ledership and being a control freak?"

I have one comment and two questions for Laura_MH after reading ths comment:

Comment: Your "of course guys are going to like this" comment suggests to me that you wish to be in control, to wear the pants, as they say. I submit that that desire will be a source of trouble for you in a marriage to a Believing man.

Question 1) So what will you do when you and hubby can't reach a consensus on a contentious issue that you feel strongly about?

Question 2) By what standard do you discriminate between effective leadership and control freakness? By whether or not you agree with the decision?

21. Craig M. said the following at 12:52 AM on Oct 16:

This may be a good time to acknowledge that Christianity demands of all of us a great many things that we're never going to like that much. I don't expect women--or at least not ALL women--to "appreciate" or "relish" the idea of obeying their husband. Recognizing authority tends not to be a thrill ride, even if it brings satisfaction in the long run. But the same principle applies to many other things, and I suspect that many women who are angered by the moral rules of Christianity with respect to authority in marriage are big, big fans of the same set of moral rules as they apply to men. Ladies, do you really think that all, or even most, men are absolutely enthralled with the idea of having sex with only one woman for the rest of life? Scientists and historians alike will tell you that such self-denial is not the norm for men--that most women are naturally monogamous, while most men are decidedly not. But Christianity is clear on the topic, and so we work to bring our desires in line--to the great benefit of women, I would think. No point really, except that personal distaste at a moral rule is no grounds for opposing it--keep in mind that other Christians are struggling with their distaste for the Christian moral rules that you savor and rely on.

22. Laura said the following at 7:11 AM on Oct 16:

Thanks for blogging about this, Motte! I was at the conference, and it was a special time to get to sign this document with thousands of other women affirming the same beliefs. I trust, by God's grace, that our lives will be a reflection of His glory as these truths bear good fruit in the years to come.

23. Shannon said the following at 8:11 AM on Oct 16:

Christina (in green) said:

"You ever think its possible to dedicate your time and energies to your children and household in such a way that you use your talents and abilities in a way similar to Proverbs 31 without signing your life away to some other master of your time?"

Not all of us have a choice. People who espouse this kind of teaching have neither compassion nor practical solutions for women who are forced to be breadwinners. They'd rather just preach to the choir and leave the rest of us out in the cold. You can talk all you want about all the permissible exceptions and extreme circumstances, but no one ever considers the effect of such exclusive and narrow-minded teaching on those of us who, through no fault of our own, can't measure up.

24. Christina said the following at 11:54 AM on Oct 16:

Shannon,

I have one question for you.

Do you work as the breadwinner because you can? Or do you work as the breadwinner because it is the only option available to you currently and it is your responsibility?

25. Christina said the following at 12:01 PM on Oct 16:

Sassy Sister,

Your argument is exactly like the one about "Honoring your mother and father".

I don't think an answer has ever been given. I don't know the answer to that and I'm not certain what I would do in that case.

Except I do know this - where I have absolutely no control over who my parents will be, I do have control over who my husband will be...and part of my choosing a man to marry is finding someone I can trust to make GOOD decisions - even if I don't agree with him on it.

BECAUSE God says that I must submit, its incredibly important that the man I place at my head is a man I can submit to. Even when I disagree.

26. DannieA said the following at 12:22 PM on Oct 16:

Christina in Green:

You can have your opinion, but as I stated, please refrain from telling people what to do. That's only reserved for God. And you know what, you can have dual priorities sent from God....remember the story of the 10 talents? The one with ten multiplied his using all 10 of them...

And you know what? sharing responsibilites with your husband in child rearing is a great way to keep communication lines open with your husband...which in fact helps strengthen your marriage...

lots of sahm and primary mommy people without the shared responsibility that I know, have divorced when the kids when off to college and empty nest syndrome happened because they grew apart while keeping their man/woman roles separate.

27. Shannon said the following at 1:33 PM on Oct 16:

Christina #24: The latter. My husband lost two jobs several years back due to a medical condition and had to quit a third for the same reason. He's been a SAHD ever since. He's now trying to find work to help ease the earning burden, but even if/when he gets a job, it will be for significantly less than what I make, which alone will not cover the bills.

I think we qualify as a legitimate exception to the SAHM rule, but that doesn't make it hurt any less that I can't be with my kids, nor does it help me feel less marginalized in terms of traditional church teaching on this subject. For years I've battled with how God could forgive me for the ongoing sin of being a working mom. It very recently occurred to me that since my husband couldn't work, I had to. I didn't have a choice, so I'm not under judgment...I think. I haven't been able to discern much further than that; this is a very emotional issue for me. I guess that's why I have such a knee-jerk reaction to blanket statements on this topic. I don't hear the church saying that sometimes it's OK not to fit into one of their predefined gender boxes. I just hear, well, blanket statements.

28. Christina said the following at 3:32 PM on Oct 16:

Shannon,

You aren't one who holds to your rights with selfish insistence and not who I'd think ANY of this Manifest would find issue with.

Your doing what is necessary to care for your family.

This IS just my opinion, DannieA (and Shannon), but I don't think I'm being unreasonable here - as tempered as it is with what I know of scripture and what I've learned from my own parents and others.

There seems to be this thoroughly ridiculous view in today's society (that many Christians seem to accept without question) that God has very little to say about conception and having children. Even if they have never thought about it that way, their actions and their choices show some kind of distrust towards God on his placing children in people's lives.

29. Fairly Traditional Gal said the following at 4:34 PM on Oct 16:

Re: Craig M's comment --

If monogamy is *that* distasteful to a guy, remind me not to marry him in the first place.

That is CERTAINLY a guy I don't want in any form of authority over me. (And where's the "scary question" to smoke those dudes out?)

Biblical submission is a big deal; I do not plan to enter the covenant lightly, and I plan to follow my husband's lead. And yet, inherent in the concept of Biblical submission and headship is an attitude of protection for the woman. As a woman, how would I feel protected by a guy who wishes he could do as he pleased? And why would I even want to defer to someone who constantly had his own interests in mind? How could I trust that?

I anticipate the next question -- I understand that men struggle in ways that (most) women do not. And yet, I think this struggle is a far cry from a dude whose attitude is, "I wish I could get it from whomever I wanted, but I'm stuck with this one woman."

Bleh.

Let's also remember that what (many) scientists and historians have deemed "natural," God has called sin. Christian men and women both have a call -- and hopefully a desire -- to move away from our hearts' fallen instincts, into a vision in line with Christ's.

30. Ruth W said the following at 5:42 PM on Oct 16:

I really appreciated reading the manifesto! This has been something the Lord has been confirming in me over the last few years as I study God's word and as my church denomination is blending, more and more, the roles of men and women (other than the obvious: child bearing).

Historical creeds and confessions of the Christian church have been written to combat the lies of the devil and the manipulation of Scripture. The True Woman Manifesto is a timely response to the influence the "world" has had in conforming Christians to the "pattern of the world" (Romans 12:1).

I believe that Focus on the Family, Boundless.org, and truewoman.com are all ministries that are made up of people that fear God, seek to humbly submit to His written word, and graciously and lovingly proclaim God's turth in this dark world.

To God be the glory now and forever, Amen!

31. Leah said the following at 6:20 PM on Oct 16:

Shannon, if you're hearing blanket statements on boundless, you're not reading closely.

I've never come across the attitude that you MUST be a stay at home mum NO MATTER WHAT. What I HAVE come across is the attitude that you should try your hardest and manage your finances as best possible for you to be a stay at home mum. When that fails, I'm sure you'd find very few people (if any) on Boundless blaming you for that.

DannieA- I believe a couple can engage in the roles Christina suggested without (growing) apart while keeping their man/woman roles separate. Pretty much every family in my church follows roughly the same family structure: Dad works fulltime, Mum stays at home with kids til they're school-aged, then works part-time/ full-time during school hours. Sure, there are exceptions, but I think it's a pretty accurate generalisation. And now we have second-generation kids in our church- where the first generation has grown, gotten married, and has kids of their own- following the same structure, and it all works fine.
These parents who might supposedly "grow apart" while keeping their male/female roles "separate" still go out together, perhaps share some of the chores at home... it just baffles me that because Dad works while Mum is at home would cause them to some how drift any more than two parents who work, or perhaps Dad staying at home and Mum working.

I also don't think Christina was telling anyone what to do. She wasn't saying we have to follow her mother's example. The only thing she appeared to be saying in no uncertain terms was where our priority should be. And I think the bible is pretty clear on that: #1 is God, #2 is spouse, #3 is kids, #4 is whatever forms of serving God you have that fit in with the previous 3! (Keeping in mind that be serving spouse and kids you're serving God).

32. Louise, 43 said the following at 5:40 AM on Oct 17:

There is a saying "life is what happens when you are busy making plans."

And it has been mentioned before on this blog, one can make all the "right" decisions and still not have things turn out "right."

Not that one cannot manage different circumstances than one had planned for...just keep in mind your future situation might not be exactly what you are currently envisioning.

And the above applies to those with both a secular and biblical worldview, ie I know enough stay-at-home parents who definitely did not plan on the SAH life, but their current circumstances were different than what they had planned.

Re comment 25, I would like to point out that throughout history, women often were not permitted to choose their own husbands.

33. Rachael said the following at 11:21 AM on Oct 17:

Christina wrote:

"I don't think an answer has ever been given. I don't know the answer to that and I'm not certain what I would do in that case."

-->Is this in reference to the idea of submitting to a husband even if what he wants goes against Scripture?

God should be submitted to over the husband. But you also said "and part of my choosing a man to marry is finding someone I can trust to make GOOD decisions " If that's done, probably in marriage the husband won't be promoting horrible anti-Scripture decisions anyway....

Yet...even though I said God should be submitted to over the husband...

There may come times when the wife thinks ill of the husband's behavior with regard to gray areas and different consciences (like other Christians may participate in the behavior with a clean conscience). Maybe she would think SHE is the one who is 'right' while the husband is 'wrong'...some grace should be extended in these types of situations.

But if a husband were to tell his wife to do something that is blatantly Scripturally wrong, of course she should not submit.

34. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:27 AM on Oct 17:

Well Lousie (#32),

Good thing I prefaced that the way I did. I don't know what the right answer is.

35. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:28 AM on Oct 17:

Although, Abigail's example may be a good place to start in understanding that...

36. DannieA said the following at 12:17 PM on Oct 17:

Leah,

I wasn't pulling that growing apart statement from the air...that has been my visual experience. So it CAN happen and it also MAY NOT happen.

Christian (in green),

I don't think your views are unreasonable, I think the tone of the comment is what is unreasonable. There is a difference. That is why I made my comments.

I personally feel that family members rather than all day day care is a much better option....I don't think it HAS to always be the mother 100% of the time at home. I think now due to people being able to work at home, both mom and dad can have the luxury of staying home with the kids and work if they wanted to and were able. This is a great thing.

If you do any sociology studies you'll find that kids nowadays are closer to their families because both parents are now taking responsibility for parenting and focusing on the kids. (you do run into some problems such as helicopter parents and prolonged adolescence, but the feeling towards mom and dad have gotton stronger)

37. Craig M. said the following at 2:17 PM on Oct 17:

Fairly Traditional Gal--I think you're being just a bit unfair. First, something can be BOTH natural AND a sin. In fact, I'd say that's the normal state of affairs--conquering sin is the process of overcoming one's natural inclinations. Our natural flesh is twisted and corrupt. Second, I think your focus on the sexual desires of men, rather than on their choices and actions, is wildly unfair. I'm not suggesting that most men dislike the idea of a monogamy or are unwilling to commit themselves to it. I'm simply saying that their allegiance to that idea and committment is contrary to the natural desires of their flesh. Your response seems to indicate that regardless of a man's committments and choice, you would reject him if he were TEMPTED by sin. You will have a very, very short list of suitors to choose from if that's the case.

38. Fairly Traditional Gal said the following at 3:02 PM on Oct 17:

Not so, Craig M. I stated that I understand the difference between temptation and struggle against lust, and "distaste" (your word) for monogamy.

And your message did indeed make it sound like you believe most men dislike the idea of monogamy. How else am I to take a statement like: "Ladies, do you really think that all, or even most, men are absolutely enthralled with the idea of having sex with only one woman for the rest of life?"

And I would not reject someone based on temptation. Else I would have to reject myself. Again, there is a difference between being tempted and struggling against it, and wishing one could indulge in the temptation but for a binding agreement.

I do not "savor and rely on" God's call to monogamy to somehow keep a man bonded to me, any more than I relish the vision of myself ever being a shrew to the man I love! However, I *do not* see the point in marrying a guy who ultimately wished he didn't have to be monogamous. Why on earth would I want to commit to someone who actively wished he didn't have to commit?

39. Louise, 43 said the following at 7:41 PM on Oct 17:

What is the example of Abigail?

I recognize her name from the Bible but that is it.

Re submission and being asked to do something wrong, I thought the concept was to follow one's conscience first.

As far as I understand the concept, one should not submit to ANY AUTHORITY when you are convinced that said authority is requesting that you do something you KNOW to be wrong!

40. Mike said the following at 4:34 PM on Oct 18:

On the subject of what to do when the husband isn't exactly living up to Biblical standards:

"Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives." (1 Peter 3:1-2)

I just recently finished reading "Lies Women Believe" by Ms. DeMoss. Great read; I recommend it for the ladies. Doesn't let us men off the hook, but she does point out that being contentious if you don't agree with us will undermine our confidence and deprive us of the ability to give you what you need - good leadership.

She tells the story of a woman who was married for 40 years to a "wicked man" until, after patient perseverance on the wife's part, he accepted Christ and was won over. It DOES work.

None of us is perfect - male or female - and we men need to know you have our backs in the same way you need to know you're loved even when you're not particularly lovable. Scripture is always right.

41. Autumn said the following at 9:06 PM on Oct 18:

@Craig M. (#21 & 37):
The belief that "most women are naturally monogamous" is outdated. It makes no more sense, from an evolutionary standpoint, for a woman to put all her eggs in one basket (biologically speaking) than for a man to do the same. Also, women's rate of infidelity may be lower than men's, but it is hardly negligible, which does not support the idea that women have a natural tendency toward monogamy.

Second, monogamy is a system created by men for the benefit of men. In a polygynous system, the dominant male takes several of the best females, the second most dominant male takes several more, and so on, and ultimately most males wind up with only one wife or none at all. I realize that most men's eyes light up at the word "polygyny," but most men, by definition, are not the dominant males in their groups and would therefore have less desirable spouses than they can get under monogamy. Yet men persist in the belief that they'd have many more mates under a polygamous system; I can only assume, therefore, that "big ego" is also an evolved trait (kidding, kind of).

Finally, trying to remain faithful to your spouse is not vying at self-denial, and I find framing the issue in those terms highly problematic. Not only are you setting yourself up for failure (how long can a man be expected to deny who he really is after all?), but you are also devaluing your spouse and the other needs you have that she is meeting (e.g. men have emotional needs too). Plus you are hiding behind that nebulous concept of society and blaming it for having unrealistic expectations, thereby absolving yourself of responsibility for your infidelity. Deciding whether to cheat on your spouse involves weighing the options: "Having sex with someone who is not my spouse gives me X benefits (novelty, passion, lust, etc.), but staying faithful to my spouse gives me Y benefits (friendship and emotional intimacy with my spouse, the respect and admiration of my spouse/kids/friends, etc.)." Then it becomes a mathematical decision; is X > Y or Y > X? Either choice is self-serving and either choice brings both costs and benefits, but both choices reflect you and your values.

42. Leah said the following at 8:21 PM on Oct 19:

DannieA - I haven't done any sociology studies, so what I'm about to say is based only on my observations and the observations of many of my friends, all of whom work with kids in some way, whether through church youth groups or as a chaplain in state schools.

You made the suggestion that kids these days are closer to their parents than in the past. I'd say it's true that they're closer than kids back in the early 1900s who were raised by nannies or something, but I don't think they're closer to their parents than kids raised in the 80s or 90s. Some are- possibly moreso within the church- but outside of the church, so many parent/child relationships are completely dysfunctional. Kids who show their parents complete disrespect. Parents who swear at their kids. Kids who do what they want (eat what they want, go where they want) no matter what their parents say. Parents who have to beg and coerce their children to obey. And this isn't the exception. This is becoming the norm.

I honestly don't think children are any closer to their parents than they were 10, 15, 20 years ago. Not in mainstream society, at any rate.

43. Craig M. said the following at 10:20 AM on Oct 20:

Fairly Traditional Gal--I suppose that's fair, and I may have overstated my point. By "distaste", I didn't mean to suggest that men have NO affinity or desire for monogamy. Rather, I'm simply pointing out that men have a sex drive that differs naturally from that of women, and that given its way this drive would not result in monogamous behavior. The practice of monogamy--like the practice of many Christian virtues--will make it sweeter to a man over time. But choosing to deny the initial impulse of the male sex drive is an act of will and faith, in defiance of nature. Likewise, the results of submission to a loving husband may be sweet to a woman in the long run, but the initial decision to submit to him is in most cases against her nature. The point is that in many cases we are called to act in faith against our natural impulses. Over time, right action in faith can have an impact on our desires.

44. BDB said the following at 10:32 AM on Oct 20:

Louise (#39) wrote:

>>As far as I understand the concept, one should not submit to ANY AUTHORITY when you are convinced that said authority is requesting that you do something you KNOW to be wrong!<<

No - only when that authority tells you to do something contrary to scripture.

The government has all sorts of rules and restrictions that I know to be the wrong way to approach things. Nevertheless, I have to put up with them and/or work through the system to change them.

But even if a government is doing something wrong, it doesn't mean you ignore everything. For example, several people in California have been sued for refusing to do things like photograph a gay wedding, or provide fertility treatments for a gay couple. You need to show up in court even though what the government is trying to force you to do is wrong. Just like Paul or Peter or any of those hauled before the "authorities," they respected the tribunal while still speaking truth to tha tribunal.

45. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:19 AM on Oct 20:

Louise, her story is in 1 Kings *I think*.

She was married to an evil man (given to him in the traditional arranged marriage).

While David was on the run from King Saul, he saved Nabor's flock (the guy abby was married to) from bandits I think.

Instead of thanking David and his men for their protection of his wealth, he insulted them. In turn, David was going to kill off his flock or steal it himself (don't remember which).

In the meantime, Nabor's household had been instructed to not give any assistance to David and his men. Knowing how detrimental such a thing would be for Nabor's holdings, she got him drunk and took an entourage to David with gifts of thanks for his help.

When Nabor found out what she did, he died from a heart attack and when David found out what happened, sent messengers to ask Abigail to be his wife.

She was his 2nd wife (Michal, daughter of saul, being the first whom was taken away from David when he lost the King's approval).

I might have messed up on some details, but that's the story in general. Take from it what you will =p

46. Craig M. said the following at 2:25 PM on Oct 20:

Again, I believe in monogamy--for moral, religious and civilizational reasons. And of course there are adulterous women. But I do think that women are more naturally inclined towards monogamy than are men, and that denying this is politically correct scientific revisionism, akin to the very cute modern myth of the "woman warrior." Autumn is ignoring the differing incentives of men and women in primitive societies. It does, in fact, make sense for a woman to "put all her eggs in one basket," because in traditional societies most women were in dire need of provision and protection. A man deeply invested in her and her children was an incredibly valuable asset. Men, on the other hand, were more able to provide for and protect themselves--plus they could "maximize" their genetic "success" by practicing polygamy or simple licentiousness. A woman who did the same would be endangering the support and protection she desperately needed. It's true that monogamy increased the odds that less successful men would find mates, but most women did not necessarily benefit from being the third, fourth or fifth wife of a successful man. Leaving aside the inherent lack of equality in such a situation, the simple truth is that those wives low on the totem pole were unlikely to get ideal protection and provision. Chattel has a poor bargaining position.

It seems like what really lies behind these objections is a determination not to acknowledge that there are differences in nature between men and women. Once again, the fact that something is "natural" does not make it moral--remember the Fall. But men need civilizing more than women do for a reason--which is one reason that the civilizing effect of Christian morals and ethics has been a great liberator for women.

The main point is that we are all called to act contrary to our nature in many instances. Men should not presume that women are "naturally" submissive--that's often not true, and many Christian women have to struggle with Christian teaching on the subject. Likewise, many men are not naturally inclined to Christian hearth and home. But we are all called to obedience. We all benefit, I think, when we try to understand that the right behavior of our brothers and sisters in many cases comes only as the result of real effort.

47. a sassy sister said the following at 2:32 PM on Oct 20:

mike:

You are absolutely right. Neither men or women are right, perfect, and act lovable all the time---these are givens regardless of whether or not you're married.

But I must remind you of Ephesians 5:21, which talks about where MUTUAL submission must flow from---a reverence for God. As a single person, I don't see much of that on both sides. I also believe that a big problem is that as men and women we allow other things to define our value and worth instead of what Scripture says. Unfortunately, this is even true in the church, where our definition of success has been warped by culture and tradition instead of Scripture.

You are right about a woman being contentious. But I also believe that a big reason why this debate rages on is because it is driven by unexpressed fears---the wife fearing the husband's devaluation by not expressing disagreement, and the husband fearing total disrespect and emasculation by letting his wife argue with him about everything and still undermining his authority by doing whatever she wants anyway.

48. Kellie said the following at 4:41 PM on Oct 20:

Leah wrote: "I've never come across the attitude that you MUST be a stay at home mum NO MATTER WHAT. What I HAVE come across is the attitude that you should try your hardest and manage your finances as best possible for you to be a stay at home mum."

Except that everyone has thier own opinion of how those finances should be managed.

My husband and I both work...we've made decisions that make that necessary (and it doesn't include a lavish lifestyle that some think those on two incomes enjoy...we still drive used cars, clip coupons, etc). It's hard enough to be a working mom...the last thing I need is other Christians to condemn me for it.

49. Mike said the following at 6:10 PM on Oct 20:

sassy sister (#47) wrote:

But I also believe that a big reason why this debate rages on is because it is driven by unexpressed fears---the wife fearing the husband's devaluation by not expressing disagreement, and the husband fearing total disrespect and emasculation by letting his wife argue with him about everything and still undermining his authority by doing whatever she wants anyway.

I think you're quite right. With regard to the "mutual submission" concept, Emerson Eggerichs writes in "Love and Respect":

"What, then, did Paul mean when he said Christians should submit to one another? For husbands and wives, I believe the answer is found in Love and Respect. If husband and wife have a conflict over how to spend money, for example, the husband 'submits' to his wife by meeting her need to feel that he loves her in spite of the conflict. He submits to her need for love (see Ephesians 5:21, 25). On the other side, the wife 'submits' to her husband during a conflict by meeting her husband's need to feel that she respects him in spite of the unresolved issue. She submits to his need for respect (see Ephesians 5:21-22, 33).

"Note that Paul and Peter both begin their discussions of marriage by speaking of submission (see Ephesians 5:22 and 1 Peter 3:1), but they end their discussion by speaking of respect (see Ephesians 5:33 and 1 Peter 3:7). The bottom line is that if husband and wife approach each other with the Love and Respect Connection in mind, all will be well in the marriage, even if a decision appears to be stalemated." (p. 218)

However, in this case, the "submit" we're talking about is slightly different from the "submit" in the case of authority. Lie #24 in "Lies Women Believe" is "If I Submit to My Husband, I'll Be Miserable". And, Ms. DeMoss covers some of the lies that cause women to resist the concept of submission:

1) "The wife is inferior to her husband." LIE. (Genesis 1:27, Galatians 3:28, 1 Peter 3:7)

2) "As head of his wife, the husband is permitted to be harsh or dictatorial with his wife." LIE. (Ephesians 5:25-29)

3) "The wife is not to provide input or express her opinions to her husband." LIE. "God created the woman to be a 'helper suitable' for her husband. That means he needs her help. He needs the help and insight she is able to bring to various situations. It also means that once a wife has graciously and humbly expressed her heart on a matter, if her husband chooses to act contrary to her counsel, she must be willing to back off and trust God with the consequences of her husband's decision."

4) "The husband is always right." LIE. (1 Peter 3:1-2)

(This is all covered on pp. 147-148 of "Lies Women Believe".)

The husband's job is to lead the household. Every leader needs wise advisors to provide counsel. Only a fool would think he knows everything and can make every decision without the input of those around him. Nevertheless, once the leader has listened to the input and has made a decision, he's going to need for the rest of the team to get behind it; otherwise, the entire game starts unraveling.

Submission is a difficult concept, especially in America, where our ethic is so egalitarian. Nevertheless, it's a Biblical call for us all to submit to authority.

50. IMO said the following at 8:15 AM on Oct 21:

Ladies, don't worry...

It has been confirmed through and through, and just yesterday on Revive Our Hearts,

"Men need respect and affirmation and praise more than they need sex."

Worry about how to revere your husband (once you get married) and how to affirm and adore him and uphold his reputation...

For some strange sinful reason, this can be a challenge, even with the most amazing man.

51. Rachael said the following at 10:47 AM on Oct 21:

A commenter above wrote:

"Ladies, do you really think that all, or even most, men are absolutely enthralled with the idea of having sex with only one woman for the rest of life?"

Wow...

52. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:38 PM on Oct 21:

Autumn (and Craig M)

Polygamy is actually a construct that finds its benefit in societies with few men and mostly women.

Monogamy becomes the norm as the #'s become more balanced.

Why? Because the lack of men is usually a result of a large decline in population...and women can only have 1 child/year...whereas a man can father countless children, limited only by how many women are available.

So, polygamy would be the norm under such circumstances.

And yeah, women are more monogamous by nature because they need to garner support for their offspring...and have you noticed that men are not nearly so supportive of their children if there is that chance the child is not his own?

53. Sara said the following at 1:39 PM on Oct 21:

About the people quoting Proverbs 31 as an affirmation of a modern SAHM role, I think you're projecting something into the text that isn't there: the Proverbs 31 woman works outside of the home, "brings food from afar", goes out to look at real estate, buys farm land, farms it herself, and makes flax into clothes that she *delivers* to the merchant. This is far from the picture of a SAHM selling little crafts from a roadside stand: this is a woman who is a full-on farmer and wholesaler, and she must have babysitters--probably those maidens who she feeds in v.15.

If you want a surprise, read a standard translation of Proverbs 31 in whatever Bible you have, then look at Eugene Peterson's The Message (it's available online): his paraphrase incorporates outright into the text what so many modern Christians have oddly come to read into it: that it isn't a 'field' she plants, but a 'garden', and that she doesn't feed her 'household and her maidens' but just her 'family', and so on.

54. Louise, 43 said the following at 6:28 PM on Oct 21:

Comment 45, thank you for the explanation.

Comment 44, I have a secular worldview so as a general rule I do not look at scripture to determine right from wrong.

But...I do understand and respect that most of the people on this blog have a biblical worldview.

So...I would like to ask the people on here...everyone (secular and biblical) is called upon to submit to authority, but can anyone think of an instance is which an authority figure has asked you to do something which you personally consider to be wrong, but is not against scripture (perhaps the situation in question isn't directly addressed by scripture).

What would you do in such an instance?

Louise

55. IMO said the following at 1:26 PM on Oct 22:

"but can anyone think of an instance is which an authority figure has asked you to do something which you personally consider to be wrong, but is not against scripture (perhaps the situation in question isn't directly addressed by scripture)."

Hmm not in my case..but I think I can think of something. For example, if I had to postpone my engagement to my fiance at my parents' request because he didn't make $100,000 a year, thereby I would be marrying "beneath me". I would think it was wrong. But I would have to honor my parents and would want their blessing on my union. So it would be a tug between honoring my parents and going through with the engagement (without the fiance meeting the $100,000 criteria).

Obviously this is just a general example (which you can probably make holes in)...but you get the drift...

56. Craig M. said the following at 10:58 PM on Oct 22:

IMO--I can't believe you think that "$100,000" situation is a close call. Your parents would be profoundly out of line if they "forbade" you to marry a man on the sole ground that he was not yet wealthy. You should tell them that in your judgment they've exceeded any authority or influence they might still have, and that they need to either articulate a legitimate problem with the fiancee or fall in line with your marriage plans. Unbelievable.

57. IMO said the following at 8:50 AM on Oct 23:

Hi Craig,

Thank you for your response.
However, I am already wonderfully married and this is/and never was my situation. I was just replying to Louise regarding a hypothetic (sp? situation in which you know what is the right thing to do but you have to "submit" to authority. I should have maybe clarified my comment with a disclaimer.

Unfortuntely I did get the idea for the situation from a close friend who had to meet certain requirements before her fiance's family approved. In the meantime her family and all her friends loved her fiance and were completely supportive of her. His parents were the issue. I of course was outraged because there request was not on any sort of biblical grounds...and they were just being controlling...

58. Leah said the following at 12:17 AM on Oct 24:

IMO - I don't believe you would be obliged to follow your parents' rule that your husband be earning $100,000 before you marry him. God told us to honour our parents, not obey them word for word. I realise that for the vast majority of our childhood, "honouring" = "obeying". But when we reach a certain age (whether it be 18, 21, whatever), we should begin to take on our own responsibilities. And parents will sometimes try to be controlling and refuse you those rights and responsibilities. I agree that there is some credibility to the rule "while you live under our roof, you live by our rules". But when it comes to marriage, you are leaving their house (so will no longer be under their roof).

Parents are good to look to for marriage advice - if your fiance was only earning $25,000 and wasn't really trying to look for a promotion or a better-paying job, then I agree there'd be a valid concern from your parents there. But that wouldn't be simply coz he's not rich- it'd be that he obviously has no concept of how to provide for a wife and family, something that will become one of his obligations.

If a fiance is, by all biblical standards, a good potential husband and your parents disapprove over such a trivial, non-biblical issue, I believe you have honoured them as much as you are obliged to by this point.

PS - I realise this is not your situation, I'm simply giving my opinion of the hypothetical situation.

59. em said the following at 1:54 PM on Oct 25:

Anastasia (#9) articulated my sentiments.

DannieA (#26) - great points. "primary responsibility" language is fine on its own but it too often becomes an excuse to judge people who fail to use their gifts the way some gender-role legalists think they ought.

I appreciate much of the intent behind this statement but I couldn't sign anything w/ such a great amount of undefined and loaded terminology.

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post