Better to remain offline and be thought a fool than to tweet and remove all doubt. A lesson learned too late by the official England Football Twitter Team during the celebrations following the 2015 Women's World Cup, in which England placed third:
Let's take the song 'I Won' by Future feat. Kanye West. Didn't especially 'win' in the charts, but I hear it at the gym a lot. "Girl when I'm with you, feel like a champion. Ever since I got with you I feel like I done won me a trophy. A trophy, I won me a trophy. I won, I won, I won. A trophy." One of the most famous, wealthy and influential men in the celebrity world, and his then-soon-to-be brother-in-law who actually I've not heard of but then I am completely out of touch, done won themselves trophies. Congratulations, fellers.
OMI has no trophies to boast of yet but he's sure in the game and he has, at least, found himself a Cheerleader. "She is always right there when I need her... She walks like a model. She grants my wishes. Like a genie in a bottle. Yeah, yeah. 'Cause I'm the wizard of love. And I got the magic wand." I'm sure she led the international crowds in wild applause when the musical tribute to her services placed number one just about everywhere.
Ironic, no? Coin a catchy enough tune and we'll happily sing along in affirmation of the honorable female roles of 'trophy' and 'cheerleader' ... but dare to call us 'mothers'! ... 'partners'? ... 'daughters'!? and you'll never be trusted behind the keyboard of an organisational media account again. (Not that the tweet in question wasn't troubling and indicative -- one seldom sees men defined by their relational roles. But I'm at least as offended by what it, and some of the angry comments, imply about our (also sexist) disregard for and devaluation of the ('traditionally' female) work of care. I am, for example, in awe of the parents I know -- especially the 'full-time' ones; if I have any heroes, they're right up there with them).
Sometimes I wonder what it would've been like to be trophy material. I'm glad I was spared any temptations towards such a purpose. My husband may deserve a medal for his gracious bearing with me, but that's another matter. Neither am I his cheerleader -- I've plenty to enthuse about, but I'd rather say it when we're together out there on the field than shout it from the distant sidelines. Now, I'm not gonna pretend that there's never any infighting, or one-upmanship, or disputes about which direction the goal is in ... but we do seem to have been in firm agreement from the kick-off of our marriage that we would 'do' life together as a team and, as game plans go, it's served us well thus far.
On that note, let's explore some particularly uncomfortable, nowadays cold-shouldered verses from the New Testament about spousal relationships ...
At first glance it may indeed appear that Peter's priority is to affirm and protect the existing (patriarchal?) value of female subordination in marriage. But this is to ignore the previous section (1 Peter 2:13-25), where he urges all people to subject themselves to all existing authority structures -- even unjust ones! -- not for the sake of the structures themselves but "for the Lord's sake" (1 Peter 2:13), following the example given by Jesus:
Jesus' submission (see Part 2) is not a submission of feebleness or defeat, but of humble willingness, loving self-sacrifice, strength of character, hope of vindication -- all underpinned by utter confidence in God. So for a wife to submit within marriage "for the Lord's sake" and in imitation of Jesus is not bland deference; it involves disregarding worldly expectations, being freed from fear and obligation (cf. 3:6, 2:16), and embracing that freedom as an opportunity to act for good even when it is difficult. [2] "Good?!" you splutter -- "how can any action which fails to actively challenge a patriarchal hierarchy be good?" OK, so this bit's tricky -- not because my answer's complicated, but because it only really makes sense in the context of the faith that I hold to. So for starters I'll just try to walk you through my reasoning; if you follow and still plain don't like it, I'll come back to that.
In Part 1 I made the case that, just as male ascendency appears to be a product of sin rather than a part of God's good creation, so too does the perpetual struggle to overthrow that ascendancy (cf. Genesis 3:16). And this, I believe, is why it is powerful and healing when we refuse to engage in that struggle on its inherently broken, worldly terms. Patriarchy has denied women the honour that they are entitled to as equal creations (cf. Genesis 1:27) and joint heirs (cf. 1 Peter 3:7) alongside men, but in Christ -- by his strength and according to his example -- we can choose to break the cycle by responding with gentleness and inner strength instead of resentment and rivalry.
Men, of course, can choose to break the cycle too. Peter encourages them to do this by affording women that very honour they have been striving and failing to seize for themselves (cf. 3:7). Women are weaker -- how could patriarchy have happened otherwise? (Statements like the one in 3:7 are only 'value judgements' if you buy into the whole 'might is right' thing to begin with, which I certainly don't and which doesn't seem at all consistent with what I understand about Jesus). Men have far and away more power ... and consequently the opportunity, especially in collusion, to claim and hold all the honour for themselves with little real threat from even the most sustained and determined female challenge. But those who are following Jesus 'know better', as it were -- the phrase "live with your wives in an understanding way" translates more directly as "live with your wives according to knowledge [gnōsin]". They can, and should, choose to respond to their excess of power in a way which restores something of God's intended pattern for male/female partnership -- i.e., by relinquishing it (just like Jesus) and giving honour instead of taking it.
In affirming the 'joint-heir' partnership of men and women, Peter reminds both (by implication of his comparative wording) that they are vessels -- a common New Testament image used as a reminder towards humility and dependence on God. Not empty, showy trophies; rather (according to Paul): "we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us" (2 Corinthians 4:7). The 'grace of life' which Peter's male and female readers are inheriting together is like Paul's 'treasure' -- not something that either of them are entitled to or which can or need be seized by competitive force, neither something to boast about, but something which God delights to bestow on them as His loved children.
If we all really did this -- men and women in partnership together, both following the example of Jesus, surrendering all claims to power, honouring the other above themselves, joyfully and humbly and jointly receiving God's good gifts -- it would be the death-blow to patriarchy, surely? Trouble is, a life of true submission is necessarily, by its very nature, unconditional -- it doesn't wait until other people in general or one's spouse in particular start keeping their side of the bargain. And for as long as the majority are forging ahead with power-oriented conflict-driven agendas, it will be extremely costly for the individuals who resist engaging on those terms. In the world's eyes, they will look like losers. Whenever those losers are women, it will look like defeats for feminism. This, then (as hinted towards earlier), is where faith comes in: faith that there is more at stake than worldly indicators of success; that Jesus' death and resurrection makes and is making a concrete, lasting difference in the prospects for humanity and new creation; that God supplies His strength when (specifically when) we are weak (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:9-10, 1 Corinthians 1:27-19); that a life and character of submission 'means' something even if, on its own, it doesn't seem to change the world -- i.e., that it really is "a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly" (1 Peter 2:19).
I do have this faith, albeit sometimes in wavering degrees. And one of the reasons underpinning my faith is how consistently I find the Bible to be spot on in its explanation for and analysis of our human muddle (cf. Part 1). Another is that the answers Jesus gives and the example that he models are so much more convincing than any solution the world has yet offered me, all of which seem fatally rooted in the very power dynamics they are seeking to dismantle (cf. Part 2). So, let others fight for pride of place upon the mantlepiece of life; I'll be content to be a jar of clay, and hope to be a full one ...
[1] I'm not unaware of the debates around whether it really was Peter who wrote 1 Peter but that's way off topic for now so I'm going to call 'the writer of 1 Peter' simply Peter because this is looking to turn into a lengthy one as it is ...
[2] I am 100% not talking about relationships with abusive partners here; I don't know much about such matters but a consistent message from those who do seems to be that the starting point for healing and freedom (for all persons involved) is ideally a decisive removal of any opportunity for the wrong to continue. (What does Christ-like submission look like in such a scenario? My tentative suggestion: having the strength and peace to walk away without fear of the future, with confidence in God and hope in His healing power and love; and seeking to allow that love, rather than the abuse or subsequent bitterness, to shape one's character and self-perception).
[Thumbnail image cc from Valtech Sweden on Flickr].
"Our #Lionesses go back to being mothers, partners and daughters today, but they have taken on another title -- heroes."*Sigh*. England Football have 1.2 million followers; you'd think they'd run you through some basic information superhighway safety checks before handing you the keys to their authorised social media machine. The pile-up behind this particular remark was ... unsurprising. "Patronising" ... "demeaning" ... "backwards" ... "inaccurate." Sexism in the world of sport is rife, it seems, but generally reviled -- it tends to get 'called out' at least. Sexism in the world of music, on the other hand, is apparently not just tolerated but rewarded, which never ceases to bewilder me.
Let's take the song 'I Won' by Future feat. Kanye West. Didn't especially 'win' in the charts, but I hear it at the gym a lot. "Girl when I'm with you, feel like a champion. Ever since I got with you I feel like I done won me a trophy. A trophy, I won me a trophy. I won, I won, I won. A trophy." One of the most famous, wealthy and influential men in the celebrity world, and his then-soon-to-be brother-in-law who actually I've not heard of but then I am completely out of touch, done won themselves trophies. Congratulations, fellers.
OMI has no trophies to boast of yet but he's sure in the game and he has, at least, found himself a Cheerleader. "She is always right there when I need her... She walks like a model. She grants my wishes. Like a genie in a bottle. Yeah, yeah. 'Cause I'm the wizard of love. And I got the magic wand." I'm sure she led the international crowds in wild applause when the musical tribute to her services placed number one just about everywhere.
Ironic, no? Coin a catchy enough tune and we'll happily sing along in affirmation of the honorable female roles of 'trophy' and 'cheerleader' ... but dare to call us 'mothers'! ... 'partners'? ... 'daughters'!? and you'll never be trusted behind the keyboard of an organisational media account again. (Not that the tweet in question wasn't troubling and indicative -- one seldom sees men defined by their relational roles. But I'm at least as offended by what it, and some of the angry comments, imply about our (also sexist) disregard for and devaluation of the ('traditionally' female) work of care. I am, for example, in awe of the parents I know -- especially the 'full-time' ones; if I have any heroes, they're right up there with them).
Sometimes I wonder what it would've been like to be trophy material. I'm glad I was spared any temptations towards such a purpose. My husband may deserve a medal for his gracious bearing with me, but that's another matter. Neither am I his cheerleader -- I've plenty to enthuse about, but I'd rather say it when we're together out there on the field than shout it from the distant sidelines. Now, I'm not gonna pretend that there's never any infighting, or one-upmanship, or disputes about which direction the goal is in ... but we do seem to have been in firm agreement from the kick-off of our marriage that we would 'do' life together as a team and, as game plans go, it's served us well thus far.
On that note, let's explore some particularly uncomfortable, nowadays cold-shouldered verses from the New Testament about spousal relationships ...
Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:1-7)I was reading and re-reading 1 Peter a few months back and finding it opening up in all sorts of new and exciting ways like the Bible sometimes does and this bit in particular struck me as a very (very) different 'thing' to what it looks like if (as is too often done) you take it out of context from the rest of the letter and the Bible in general and what it means to follow Jesus in particular ... And I wanted to show other people what I saw but when I tried to write it all down it got very (very) complicated and elongated and I realised there was a lot of background thinking I'd have to get across before these particular thoughts would stand a hope of making sense to anyone else ... so I wrote some precursor posts. Part 1 (Reigning Men) is about patriarchy and waking up to it and the associated power struggle and what Genesis 1-3 has to say. Part 2 (Masters of the Universe) is about Jesus as (among other things) the model of perfect non-patriarchal masculinity. And now here I am in Part 3, presenting you with an 'offensive' and 'outdated' two-millenia-old letter which would have many Christians even, if questioned, blushing, squirming, and mumbling some vague half-remembered excuse they once heard in a sermon. And I'm gonna put it to you that Peter's message [1] is not something to be discarded or even apologised for, but a radical, contemporarily-relevant, Jesus-centered challenge to the destructive, oppressive, dominator-model-based societal order that continues to hold most of humankind in its thrall to this day.
At first glance it may indeed appear that Peter's priority is to affirm and protect the existing (patriarchal?) value of female subordination in marriage. But this is to ignore the previous section (1 Peter 2:13-25), where he urges all people to subject themselves to all existing authority structures -- even unjust ones! -- not for the sake of the structures themselves but "for the Lord's sake" (1 Peter 2:13), following the example given by Jesus:
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. (1 Peter 2:21-23)Jesus is to be our model for all of life and relationships. Peter's point is not in the slightest that all frameworks of rule, at the time of his writing, in marriage and elsewhere, are just and good in themselves; these are side questions, on which he barely touches. (In particular, though many do read this passage as an endorsement for headship in marriage, to me that seems less and less of an 'obvious' inference the more I study it and its context). What he seems pre-occupied with is the desire for his readers, whatever the circumstance, to take every opportunity to be as much like Jesus as possible.
Jesus' submission (see Part 2) is not a submission of feebleness or defeat, but of humble willingness, loving self-sacrifice, strength of character, hope of vindication -- all underpinned by utter confidence in God. So for a wife to submit within marriage "for the Lord's sake" and in imitation of Jesus is not bland deference; it involves disregarding worldly expectations, being freed from fear and obligation (cf. 3:6, 2:16), and embracing that freedom as an opportunity to act for good even when it is difficult. [2] "Good?!" you splutter -- "how can any action which fails to actively challenge a patriarchal hierarchy be good?" OK, so this bit's tricky -- not because my answer's complicated, but because it only really makes sense in the context of the faith that I hold to. So for starters I'll just try to walk you through my reasoning; if you follow and still plain don't like it, I'll come back to that.
In Part 1 I made the case that, just as male ascendency appears to be a product of sin rather than a part of God's good creation, so too does the perpetual struggle to overthrow that ascendancy (cf. Genesis 3:16). And this, I believe, is why it is powerful and healing when we refuse to engage in that struggle on its inherently broken, worldly terms. Patriarchy has denied women the honour that they are entitled to as equal creations (cf. Genesis 1:27) and joint heirs (cf. 1 Peter 3:7) alongside men, but in Christ -- by his strength and according to his example -- we can choose to break the cycle by responding with gentleness and inner strength instead of resentment and rivalry.
Men, of course, can choose to break the cycle too. Peter encourages them to do this by affording women that very honour they have been striving and failing to seize for themselves (cf. 3:7). Women are weaker -- how could patriarchy have happened otherwise? (Statements like the one in 3:7 are only 'value judgements' if you buy into the whole 'might is right' thing to begin with, which I certainly don't and which doesn't seem at all consistent with what I understand about Jesus). Men have far and away more power ... and consequently the opportunity, especially in collusion, to claim and hold all the honour for themselves with little real threat from even the most sustained and determined female challenge. But those who are following Jesus 'know better', as it were -- the phrase "live with your wives in an understanding way" translates more directly as "live with your wives according to knowledge [gnōsin]". They can, and should, choose to respond to their excess of power in a way which restores something of God's intended pattern for male/female partnership -- i.e., by relinquishing it (just like Jesus) and giving honour instead of taking it.
In affirming the 'joint-heir' partnership of men and women, Peter reminds both (by implication of his comparative wording) that they are vessels -- a common New Testament image used as a reminder towards humility and dependence on God. Not empty, showy trophies; rather (according to Paul): "we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us" (2 Corinthians 4:7). The 'grace of life' which Peter's male and female readers are inheriting together is like Paul's 'treasure' -- not something that either of them are entitled to or which can or need be seized by competitive force, neither something to boast about, but something which God delights to bestow on them as His loved children.
If we all really did this -- men and women in partnership together, both following the example of Jesus, surrendering all claims to power, honouring the other above themselves, joyfully and humbly and jointly receiving God's good gifts -- it would be the death-blow to patriarchy, surely? Trouble is, a life of true submission is necessarily, by its very nature, unconditional -- it doesn't wait until other people in general or one's spouse in particular start keeping their side of the bargain. And for as long as the majority are forging ahead with power-oriented conflict-driven agendas, it will be extremely costly for the individuals who resist engaging on those terms. In the world's eyes, they will look like losers. Whenever those losers are women, it will look like defeats for feminism. This, then (as hinted towards earlier), is where faith comes in: faith that there is more at stake than worldly indicators of success; that Jesus' death and resurrection makes and is making a concrete, lasting difference in the prospects for humanity and new creation; that God supplies His strength when (specifically when) we are weak (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:9-10, 1 Corinthians 1:27-19); that a life and character of submission 'means' something even if, on its own, it doesn't seem to change the world -- i.e., that it really is "a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly" (1 Peter 2:19).
I do have this faith, albeit sometimes in wavering degrees. And one of the reasons underpinning my faith is how consistently I find the Bible to be spot on in its explanation for and analysis of our human muddle (cf. Part 1). Another is that the answers Jesus gives and the example that he models are so much more convincing than any solution the world has yet offered me, all of which seem fatally rooted in the very power dynamics they are seeking to dismantle (cf. Part 2). So, let others fight for pride of place upon the mantlepiece of life; I'll be content to be a jar of clay, and hope to be a full one ...
[1] I'm not unaware of the debates around whether it really was Peter who wrote 1 Peter but that's way off topic for now so I'm going to call 'the writer of 1 Peter' simply Peter because this is looking to turn into a lengthy one as it is ...
[2] I am 100% not talking about relationships with abusive partners here; I don't know much about such matters but a consistent message from those who do seems to be that the starting point for healing and freedom (for all persons involved) is ideally a decisive removal of any opportunity for the wrong to continue. (What does Christ-like submission look like in such a scenario? My tentative suggestion: having the strength and peace to walk away without fear of the future, with confidence in God and hope in His healing power and love; and seeking to allow that love, rather than the abuse or subsequent bitterness, to shape one's character and self-perception).
[Thumbnail image cc from Valtech Sweden on Flickr].
Comments