Wives, Obey Your Husbands...?

In Bible Study on Friday I found myself in an all-female group, looking at 1 Peter 3:1-7. Well, actually it was next to the passage we were going to read, and I decided we'd read this one instead. This passage is part of one of the household codes in the New Testament.

As we were reading, Megan G. flipped back a page and said, "I wanted to see what they were talking about before... and they were talking about slaves." Yes, first they tell slaves that they should accept the authority of their masters and that if they are punished unjustly - lucky them - they get to suffer like Christ! Then they tell wives to submit to their husbands even if the husbands don't obey the word. Needless to say we read this passage with mixed feelings. As often happens, everyone looked at me with expressions that said "why are you making us read this???"

We shared some reactions to the passage... will a husband's prayers really be hindered if they do not honor their wives? Why does it talk about Sarah calling Abraham lord? It would kind of such to be Sarah at times. What do we do with these instructions?

We happen to be studying these codes in my New Testament class right now (which is partly why I wanted to hear what my friends' insights were). Today we looked at three different Biblical household codes. As it happens, the message of Christianity was liberating to women, slaves, widows, the poor, etc early on. Women held leadership and teaching roles in the church. Paul said there was neither slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile, woman nor man in Christ.

This message of liberation had the potential to upset the social system of the day, though, so eventually they started to use writings like these codes to show people outside the church that Christians were keeping the social customs. This was not just a PR move. Although these codes undermined the freedom that people were granted in Christ, they added expectations for husbands and masters. This was fairly counter-cultural. Men were told that while they had authority over their wives, children and slaves, they also had obligations to treat them as Christ would.

It seems to me these codes are a great example of what happens when something that is progressive for its time becomes an unchanging standard. So much harm has been done this way; these passages are still used to justify domestic violence and oppression of women. The New Testament is a conversation between different voices who were praying and writing about what it means to live as a Christian. The speak to us from a time before there were set standards and doctrines. The husband-wife relationship prescribed in these codes is liberating in its context; when we bring it into today's world it is oppressive. If we do not continue to push the limits of our understanding of scripture to be more inclusive and liberating, we risk robbing the Gospel of its power.

© 2008 Megan Shitama

Gloria Steinem Agrees with Me

Like Hillary or not, here are some questions:

Why is Hillary the only woman running?

Is she really the only woman in the last decade with the drive and ability to get this far in the presidential candidacy process?

Gloria Steinem shared some thoughts on Hillary in an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times.

So often you hear Americans getting up on their social high-horses and talking about freedom and such, but as far as gender (and even race in some cases) goes, we are behind the times. Here's a depressing time-line for your... enjoyment:

1558 Elizabeth I becomes Queen of England and never marries (!)
1893 New Zealand is the first independent country to grant voting rights to women
1917 Jeannette Rankin elected to US Congress
1920 19th Amendment grants suffrage to woman in US
1956 Golda Meir becomes Prime Minister of Israel
1966 Indira Gandhi becomes Prime Minister of India
1970 Margaret Thatcher becomes Prime Minister of the UK
2007 Nancy Pelosi becomes the first female Speaker of the House

* info on the timeline is from Wikipedia, so feel free to fact check.

Big Girls in Leadership Don't Cry

What woman who is in a leadership role hasn't come close to tears when she desperately needs to keep her cool? I know I have choked up while preaching, while attempting to discipline someone, while arguing with someone, etc. Most women know and understand that tears are seen as weak. Emotion is often seen as a liability in a leader. "She's too emotional." "Women are always crying." "What if she gets PMS and starts a war?" (All arguments I've heard men make against women in leadership).

Today I just saw a video of Hillary Clinton, choking up when answering a question on how she stays upbeat on the trail. Although I understand why so many people dislike and distrust Hillary, I feel for her. Any woman in leadership knows that it is very difficult to get ahead in a man's world. And it is still a man's world. I was in fourth grade when the Clintons entered the White House, so I grew up watching Hillary Clinton. I heard the jokes and criticisms about her hair and her wardrobe and her influence on her husband. It was funny and entertaining, but it showed me how uncomfortable our country still is with people who step outside of traditional gender roles. The First Lady is in charge of things like the Easter Egg Hunt, not health care (notice that people are so amused by the idea of the "First Gentleman" running such events).



We may have come a long way, but women are still faced with a difficult dilemma: if you are nice people will like you but won't take you seriously; if you are tough, people might take you seriously but they won't like you. This is obviously an over-simplification, but how many warm and fuzzy women do we see in government offices (think Condoleezza Rice or Nancy Pelosi)? Hillary Clinton has spent her adult life trying to live out the promises that people have made to my generation since kindergarten: You can be president if you want; You can raises kids and have a job; You can do anything you set your mind to; You can be a wife and pursue your dreams. Would things be the same if she hadn't put her husband's presidency first? Would she still be in this position? Maybe she's only getting this attention because she was First Lady, but then that's depressing if it that's what it takes to be a female presidential candidate.

I am by no means saying that she is a victim. People are also uncomfortable at what we perceive as lack of sincerity. Politically she isn't far left enough for some Democrats. Republicans just plain hate her. But my suggestion is that she is a product of a society that makes it very difficult to be a woman and a leader, and of a political culture that is dependent on grooming and opinion polls. It is disconcerting to see someone who seems to be saying whatever it takes to get ahead politically. Still, I wonder what it would look like to have a president who had the abilities and the savvy to work within the current system and stay alive politically -- despite being a woman.