Musings....
Okay. *deep sigh*
Do you remember the bubbs thread/discussion we had going a while back on what it means to "be a lady?"
Well, this question/concept has been constantly in the back of my mind this past semseter, not only because of various discussions on the topic, but because it is intensely personal and it is sadly hard to come up with substantial answers.
I started reading Captivating today in earnest, and have been enjoying it. It's been surprisingly illuminating...about things I always knew and felt but never could quite express adequately. It has also been somewhat difficult to read, as the forthrightness of the authors pricks at tender spots.
Anyway, the book revived my thoughts about "ladyship," and this thought struck me: that a "gentleman" might be more easily defined by his actions whereas a "lady" might be defined by her being. I wonder if this makes sense. A man defines himself by outward actions or a sense of proving, whereas a woman's womanliness is more of an internal thing. A gentleman's role seems to be more active, while the lady's role is (surprisingly enough ;) "passive" in the sense that a true lady lets and wants men to be gentlemanly. I think there's more to it that that, but those are the thoughts that penetrated my mind this evening. What do you think? (Please, someone tell me if I'm completely off-base. :)
(I thought I'd write this on the Ignaut blog rather than on BUBBs, because it seemed like a more "bloggish" thing to do, for some reason.)
Do you remember the bubbs thread/discussion we had going a while back on what it means to "be a lady?"
Well, this question/concept has been constantly in the back of my mind this past semseter, not only because of various discussions on the topic, but because it is intensely personal and it is sadly hard to come up with substantial answers.
I started reading Captivating today in earnest, and have been enjoying it. It's been surprisingly illuminating...about things I always knew and felt but never could quite express adequately. It has also been somewhat difficult to read, as the forthrightness of the authors pricks at tender spots.
Anyway, the book revived my thoughts about "ladyship," and this thought struck me: that a "gentleman" might be more easily defined by his actions whereas a "lady" might be defined by her being. I wonder if this makes sense. A man defines himself by outward actions or a sense of proving, whereas a woman's womanliness is more of an internal thing. A gentleman's role seems to be more active, while the lady's role is (surprisingly enough ;) "passive" in the sense that a true lady lets and wants men to be gentlemanly. I think there's more to it that that, but those are the thoughts that penetrated my mind this evening. What do you think? (Please, someone tell me if I'm completely off-base. :)
(I thought I'd write this on the Ignaut blog rather than on BUBBs, because it seemed like a more "bloggish" thing to do, for some reason.)
posted by Lauren | 8:52 PM
46 Comments:
GASP!!! Actually, the thing about a ldy's role as more of "being" is something I wass thinking about the other day. I on the other hand was reading C.S. Lewis' book on the four loves.
I was thinking in general about men and women and about how we are made. I thought about lover/beloved. Lover pursues, and beloved is pursued. IT seems to me that it is fitting with the rest of creation that what you've said should be so.
To make a romantic application (since it is easier): the role of the amourous gentleman is to pursue rpopperly, while the beloved lady is to be fitting of pursiut. Her role is to be the thing of beauty.
Non-romantic aplication may not be so obvious. But as far as manners go, they should reflect the appropriate male and female roles.
To respond shortly (because this has become long) I agree.
I have suddenly, and painfully realized that I will never make it in the real world w/o a spell checker.
Well, sometimes the idea itself is more important than the execution of it.
Hmm. You said, "her role is to be the thing of beauty." Can you explain this further?
Well, Lauren I personally did not find much if any Biblical support for the way that Eldridge divided the gender roles in Wild at Heart. I don't know what he and his wife's new book has to offer in the way of Biblical support, but I would weigh carefully any argument made strictly from pop-culture. In addition, if he uses the same idea that there are three desires fundamental to men and three to women he'd better show someplace in Scripture that says that the fundamental desires of men and women are essentially different. Personally I think that men have some of the desires that he considers "womanly" and women have some of the desires he considers "manly." As far as a lady being more "passive", there might be something to that, but I don't know if that is the best way to look at it. Obviously I'm no expert on this issue, but I just thought I'd caution you against arguments from pop culture.
She is to be the beauty pursued. It was meant in the same way you (wren) said that she is likely defined by her being and not her doing? How then does she have any value, aside from what she has inherently?
See Song of Solomon. How do the lover and beloved talk about each other? I'm going purely from a poor memory, but I don't think the lover says one thing about how well the beloved cooks. Inversely, the greatness of the lover is show in his actions Example: His gentle retiring and leaving of the liquid myrr ( which ammounts to a valentine) after her curt refusal.
I think the idea I am getting at is that pursuit must have an object. The lover must have his beloved. (Obviusly I do not mean "object" as in "objectification" which is the vulgar opposite of what I am trying to say). If the man's role is "go-getter" then it makes sence for the woman's role to be the "gotten".
I find hints of this being hard wired into uss all over the place. It is exciting for a gentleman to have to "win" his lady, while, (i belive, thought I can't know for sure) that it is exciting for a lady to be pursued. (yes, no?).
Does this count as enough clarification? ;)
I think jason makes a good point that we should not base our opinions on this subject on pop culture (it is obviously twisted enough on the topic), but if what we find there is congruent with what we find in the word of God, and in His creation. This should be ok.
p.s. how's my spelling?
Well, first, my thoughts weren't taken from the Elderedges' book; rather, they stemmed from the subject matter. And as the title of this thread states...I'm not trying to make an argument (at least yet;). I'm just trying to get ideas out there to "bounce off" you guys, so to speak.
I haven't read "Wild at Heart," but I've been reading some reviews of the book that state that Elderedge's ideas aren't theologically sound.
Also, "arguments from pop culture" seems a little vague. Can you explain this a little more? (As I haven't read the book.) What arguments does the author make that are merely based in pop culture? Is he forming arguments from stories?
What are the desires that he assigns to men and women, respectively?
As for "passive," I agree that there might be more to it than that, but I think a "gentleman" seems to have more of an initiatory role whereas a "lady" is more of a responder. Does that make sense?
Also, as I've been reading "Captivating," I've noticed that several of the authors' points ring TRUE, though it may be hard to support them with scripture. I know as I write this I'm treading on dangerous ground, but bear with me. The idea that most little girls like to "play princess" is not in the Bible, but I've seen many examples of this. The idea that women have desires to be pursued may not have a Biblical reference, per se, but I'd say that that is also true. Many of the ideas resonate with me. (Though I'm not blindly soaking it all in. ;)
I'm wary of the authors' presentation of God as this passionate Lover, because I'm concerned that it might be taking the imagery of Christ as the Church's Bridegroom out of context (the book isn't very good on Biblical contextualization, I'll grant you). I'm still trying to figure out my ideas about the "God is my Boyfriend" and "Dating God" ideas circulating Evangelical circles....but that's another topic . :)
(My apologies to those who haven't read the books. :S) Ugh. And to you, Jason. I fear I've asked you a lot of questions. :)
Clarification....yes, to an extent. :)
I think I understand the "go-getter" and "gotten aspect." Pursuit must have an object.
I'm more curious about the "fitting of pursuit-ness," and what it essentially MEANS to be "the thing of beauty."
What could this look like in practice and not merely theory?
How is this mysterious beauty to be cultivated?
:)
Myrrh is spelled with an "h."
just something about the "god is my boyfriend" and "dating God" ideas....I object to them (I appreciate the sentiment but..ah..no). God is NOT my boyfriend! I do not have a boyfriend! The only way to have this relate to me would be to say that I too was Christ's Girlfriend. Or am I just his buddy? What would it look like if I walked around with a t-shirt that said "Jesus is my Girlfriend"? The premise is flawed I think.
He made us to desire Him, but not to satisfy all of the other desires he planted in us. I decide that I'm going to abstain from eating: "Jesus is my cheeseburger". This would be ok if I mean that "Jesus sustains me in a way analogus to food" but this is not what is meant by "dating God". It means that jesus fills the hole that a bofriend would. But the desire for God and the desire for a relationship with a man are not the same, they are different. (Again, would jesus fill the need that a realationship with a female would fill in my life?) God created us to thrive in close male/female realtionships and this desire is tailor made to fill certain needs Because of this "I don't need a man because I have Jesus" doesn't hold up.
(This does not meant that if God calls you to a life w/o a spouse that he will not sustain you, be he will not do so by becoming your spouse.)
It also isn't the same as being the bride of Christ. Greg Myracle is not the bride of Christ, but I am part of the Church which is the bride of Christ.
I hadn't really thougt about why I disliked the "dating God" idea untill now.
Right. "The Bride of Christ" is a collective thing, not individual. And I don't like attaching romantic terms to God. He isn't my boyfriend, he isn't my husband. In the Bible, (in places like the Song of Solomon) "romantic" representations of Christ seem to paint pictures more than facts. It's imagery. I do not love Christ in the same way that I will love my husband.
It's funny...this concept has been widely accepted by young Christian women...and the guys hate it. I'm beginning to think that it's a way for girls to "hide their hearts," so that they won't be broken. It's kind of a protective thing, a safe thing. And it sounds so spiritual. :)But it's definately not a Biblical concept. Devoting one's life and time to Christ is, but looking at one's relationship with Christ as romantic...I don't see that in the Bible. God may speak very tenderly to Israel in Isaiah...but that's a completely different thing. To be fair, I think most of the problem is the terminology. From what I understand, girls who claim to "date" God really mean that they're going to stop dating for a certain amount of time, and use the time that they'd normally spend with a guy, and spend time with God instead. That in itself doesn't seem like a bad thing...we all need times to spiritually re-focus and get our priorities right. But I think when girls go around talking about it...therein lies the problem.
OK, to answer Laurens questions
1. The arguments from pop culture came from the idea that he put forth that men and women had different desires. He said that men and women were made in God's image but in different parts of that image. From pop culture (by looking at what movies men and women enjoy, how they relate to the characters in the movies) he deduced that men have certain desires and women have other ones.
2. The desires that Eldredge assigns to men are
Having a battle to fight.
Wanting an adventure.
Wanting a beauty to fight for.
Women are given the desires of:
Wanting to be fought for
Wanting an adventure to share in.
Having a beauty to be beheld
My problem with this is that I know that I have wanted to know that people care about me. I think that when we don't feel like we are cared for we call that feeling loneliness and we don't ascribe lonelieness only to women. I think we all want to share our adventure at least with Jesus. I think everyone wants to know that something in them is beautiful, something makes them special though it may be different between men and women. Basically I feel like I have had all the "femine" desires that Eldredge outlines, admitably maybe in not the exact way that he means them or seems to state them, but I remain unconvinced by his division of these desires according to gender.
As far as being "passive" or being more in a role to wait, I think that you might be right there. I guess I think that there might be more to the way a woman relates to a man than being passive though. I think that it involves response, but I think there might be more to it than responding. I think a woman can encourage a relationship, but I would agree that there is a limit to what lengths are appropriate to starting a relationship.
Hmm. Though fallen and imperfect, I think pop culture has the potential to portray what desires men and women have. It seems plausible, at least.
I think what Elderedge is essentially getting at with the desires of both sexes is that A) women want to be "rescued" and B) men want to be a woman's "rescuer."
Also, from what I've seen and understand, a woman's desire to be beautiful is much different than a man's. It strikes very close to the core of a woman's soul. It goes deeper than being "merely decorative."
Thank you for taking the time to clarify, Jason. :)I appreciate it.
It seems like these discussion on what makes a manly man and a lady is centered around how the sexes respond to each other in romantic relationships.
I know I've said this before, but what makes a lady a lady outside of her relationships with other people? Theres got to be some internal quality that tranlates into different situations that makes her a lady. I'm guessing the same goes for guys... What are everyone else's thoughts on this?
I don't know if wanting to be rescued and wanting someone to care about you are the same thing.
All human beings want people to care for them, but I think this in a general category into which "being rescued" falls.
wouldn't it be beauty (in a very general sense...so I can escape possibly having to explain, because I don't really understand).
Wait...too many posts! :)
Sarah...yes. I want to know that, too.
Wanting love and wanting to be "rescued"....probably not the same thing, no. (Though I don't quite grasp the distinction.)
And...wouldn't what be beauty?
Oh. Never mind. The "internal quality would be beauty."
And we don't really know what that would mean either. Should we dare to try and figure it out?
yes. Go ahead
Now if indeed this internal quality is "beauty", how does it show in lets say.....you're standing waste-deep in muddy water digging out debris with a pitchfork? How does it work in situations beyond the realm of polite society?
Well...
I think that situation actully IS beautiful. A beautiful woman (Sarah) working hard to help her family is a beautiful picture of womanly strength. (If my mom were home, she'd ask if you come from pioneer stock. :)
And if I'm right, beauty should be an inner quality that transcends your physical location or situation. Sarah, if we put you in a pigpen, you'd still be lovely.
Wow, what a great conversation to join the blog with! So many great points! It makes me happy. haha. I don't know why.
Anyway, I think I'll add my few thoughts since I'm here.
On the risks of pop culture:
I completely agree, we need to be particularly careful to ground our ideas in Scripture. At the same time, I think it can also be good to put things in terms that our "pop culture" can understand. References to Song of Solomon (though definitely helpful and applicable) may not be the best way of explaining the roles of men/women simply because they require so much contextual knowledge. Ignoring, for a moment, the validity of any of the Eldridges' claims, I really appreciate their effort at least to simplify the idea in (possibly over-simplified) terms that make sense.
On the difference between man/woman desires:
This has already sort of been said but I think it's worth reiterating. While it's true that I think both genders experience the desires attributed to each, (men wanting to be loved or thought "beautiful" or women desiring adventure and challenge) I think we often don't recognize how those desires affect, like wren said, the core of one's soul. I know I never could have fathomed how much a guy NEEDS to be the pursuer and the leader until I started dating and saw it firsthand. It's more than just fulfilling a duty; it's an integral part of his nature. Similarly I don't think guys realize how much a girl desperately needs to feel desirable and loved. Not just feeling that people care about her and think she's pretty, but wanting, so deeply she can't even explain it, a kind of earth-shattering, "princess" kind of beauty that will stop a guy in his tracks.
On "dating God":
I think the idea, as it started (so far as I can tell), was a good one, but it's been blown WAY out of proportion. The way I always perceived it was not so much as a way of saying "I'm going to relate to God like I would relate to a boyfriend" as it is a way of deciding "I don't need to have a boyfriend because a good relationship with God will fulfill me more." Unfortunately, in today's society, influenced by the sex-crazed, lust-infected media, girls often do feel inadequate if they're not dating someone, often whether or not they even like the guy. However, when "dating God" becomes a way of hiding from romantic relationships or trying to get the emotional high from prayer and bible study that one gets from falling in love, it completely misses the point. As far as I can tell, God isn't supposed to fulfill our romantic desires (and that's not as blasphemous as it sounds, really :p). After all, God created woman because "it is not good for man to be alone." Man had a perfect relationship with God at that point, but apparently there was another part of his nature that needed to be fulfilled by the presence of a woman.
And finally,
On Sarah's questions about the "internal quality" and beauty:
First, I actually think the qualities mentioned don't just apply in romantic relationships. And I think Ignatius illustrates this really well. I guess I can't speak for all the girls, but when the guys "pursue" us in the sense of going out of their way to make us feel special, keep us safe, or respect us uniquely as women, I don't feel like their making romantic advances or trying to initiate any kind of romantic relationship. Likewise, when we dress up for them or desire to be worthy of their attention or let them be the leaders and gentlemen, I don't think we're trying to relate to them romantically either. It's not a relationship of lovers and beloved but of Christian men and women with a mutual respect, admiration, and understanding of one another.
Secondly, I think it's funny how much we (and I don't mean this as a criticism of anyone so much as myself) equate beauty with the superficial quality of attraction. Can a person be waist-deep in mud with a pitchfork and still be beautiful? Why not? In fact, I would argue that a girl who will get sweaty and dirty working for the good of something and/or someone is infinitely more beautiful that then girl who spends all day at the spa trying to make herself beautiful. Yes, there is definitely something to be said for outward beauty (which is the aspect of beauty I often try to forget), but it also seems almost sacriligious to me to take something as pure as the Form of Beauty, if you will, that is in God and apply it to something so temporal as looking attractive.
Sorry that was so long. This is a really exhaustive topic. Plus, after three weeks of no term papers, notes, or pull questions I've been missing my argumentative writing outlets. ;)
Sorry, I have one last thing to throw out there that's been on my mind while reading this. I wonder how much of this conversation comes more from a desire for self-validation rather than a real pursuit of what it means to be beautiful or womanly. I hope this doesn't sound arrogant because I don't mean it that way at all, but I truly wonder what makes us girls think we're not already fulfilling our roles as ladies. It seems like we're trying really hard to figure out what else we should be doing and I can't figure out why. Especially if womanliness is more a state of being, it seems like we need to STOP trying to BE something and simply live pursuing God like I think we all are; we certainly can't force ourselves to BE more of something unless God makes us so. I have no problem with seeking to understand more what our role IS and what it means to simply be an object of beauty worth pursuing; I think that's a big part of getting closer to Goodness, Truth, and Beauty. I just think we also should be careful as we ask these questions to make sure we're not just trying to draw attention to the fact (even just to ourselves) that we're doing what we should be, or worse, abandoning our role of BEING beautiful for the action of discovering beauty.
Alicia, do you remember at Disneyland when I said I appreciated your tenacity to not let thing slide, or to honestly speak your mind? Well, I still truly think that. :)You give me no quarter. (To speaketh Brithishly)
When I read your last post right now, I was like "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!" I started squirming in my chair. And I thought about what you said.
Honestly, my original thoughts were not looking for self-validation. I just had this lightning-bolt thought, and was like, "I need to tell this to someone! NOW!"
And truly, the definition/role of Christian ladyship still puzzles me.
But as I look back now, I see that you caught something I missed. Maybe that's just it...the mystery of it. Maybe it's something that you can't put your finger on. Maybe no woman can "be a lady" by "striving. "
Ach, your words. Ouch. And thank God for them.
well now I feel I should add a little bit of a disclaimer.
I didn't intend to make it sound like I disaprove of the topic at hand. (On the contrary, if you remember, I said at the beginning of my first post that just reading it made me happy :))
And I DEFINITELY was not trying to pinpoint any one person, particularly you, Wren, as one to "blame" for asking ill-motivated questions. I really appreciated your original post, and all the comments since, and I never meant to sound like you shouldn't have raised the subject as you did.
If anything, it was more something I saw in myself as the conversation (not just here but on previous occasions as well) has progressed. Perhaps it's my vanity in wanting to feel I'm doing well, or perhaps it's my impatience in merely wanting to DO something, but when you drew my attention (thankfully) to the idea that the role of a woman is to be and not to do it made me realize how much of my desire to learn the role of a woman was more to be able to gauge myself on the "perfect woman" scale rather than to discover the truth about what God has already implanted in me--in us.
So just for the record, I did not mean to be condemning. I just wanted to point out what seemed to be an easy (at least for me) trap to fall into.
I was preparing something to post based off stuff I copied out of an IM conversation with Lauren. Writing it, I had to stop at one point, and it is even in my draft, to say that what I had just written were my personal fears and questions, not really the questions that lead to an answer in a discussion on womanhood. My realization was followed by reading Alicia’s post, and I further realized how I need to separate the debate about Karissa and the debate about womanhood. I think now that I have kind of spat out my big questions and fears and recognized them for what they were, I can start actually thinking about what being a lady is.
So, I understand and agree that girls are “wired” to be the pursued and the male is also, to be the pursuer, but my question is, to what extent, and, is that only in romance?
It doesn’t seem to me that all of a girl’s life revolves around this, but what else is there to define the gender? I know beauty has been mentioned, but that is so frustrating because I can’t even begin to understand what real beauty is. There is physical beauty, which boggles my mind, and then an inner beauty that is so hard to put your finger on. Anyway, I think one aspect we still have not touched on is the nurturing side of women. Girls are more inclined to be encouragers and be supportive of others, and that is tied in very closely with the woman’s role as mother. I think that’s important to remember also.
Man, once I start thinking and writing I just don’t stop! Okay. . .
One of my underlying questions in being unsatisfied with the emphasis on being the “pursued”, was that if that is true, what is there for the girl to do, it’s passive, as has been stated before, I mean, there must be something for the girl to do, to give. I think this is somewhat answered by acknowledging that girls can offer encouragement and support to those around them, that is a very active role of a lady.
I think there is also a lot in that being pursued and such may be part of being a woman, but to be a good person is also to be a woman. Probably why there is so little in the Bible about “gender roles” or whatever, is because it is all about the “God role” and the “Person role”. Maybe being a lady or a gentlemen is to understand these things first, and then the natures of their gender, and then of themselves as an individual.
A quick thought and then I'm going to finally be quiet and go to bed.
Regarding what Karissa said about women having nothing to do if we're just the pursued, I was thinking about how being pursued can be sort of an active role too. sort of.
for example, i think patience is a remarkable quality of a real woman of God. But patience doesn't require any real DOing. Still, it's one of the most difficult attributes to attain and I would hardly describe having patience in a challenging situation as sitting around and doing nothing. It's active but only as a state of being, if that makes any sense.
Or what about things like understanding and sympathy. or wisdom. or beauty for that matter (although beauty remains vaguely defined so I almost hate to use it in explaination). I think all these are uniquely womanly qualities (in the sense that they are inherent in the core of a woman's nature, more so than in man's) and all of them are things that are done or made manifest yet reflect more of a state of being.
Am I crazy or does that make any sense? (or both? ;))
Yes. ;)
Ok- I have a few random question/comments.
First of all, Alicia-- I really don't understand what you were saying in your second post. Did you actually think we were being self-validating or that we might fall prey to the temptation? If you could put that in layman's terms that would be cool. (I'm pretty much tired in every way possible so I'm not functioning at my normal level)
Secondly, I get the whole thing about women just being ladies, and not being defined by actions. But frankly-- our lives are lived out by action. Are there any 'actions' that might define a woman?
Why are men to be more defined by their actions than by their 'being'? Is this really a fundamental, universal truth or is it something that our cultural context has caused us to accept?
I kind of regret using the example in my question that was from every day life. It kind of seems like a 'self validating' thing but it really wasn't meant that way, it just popped in my head. I wasn't just talking about physical beauty, but inwardly, outwardly, everything. "Beauty" seems like a handy, esoteric word to use but I don't know how much farther we've gotten in figuring out what the internal qualities of a woman really are.
Before we go on...
More clarification.
Originally, I meant to talk about "what makes a lady."
It seems like we've moved from ladies and gentlemen to women and men. Is that right?
Because there are men and women, and then there are ladies and gentlemen. I don't think the terms are interchangable. The distinction might be helpful?
Two comments:
First in answer to Wren's question about the discussion moving from ladies and gentlemen to women and men, I think that did not really change the way the conversation was going because it was understood that women should be ladies and men should be gentlemen. So what it takes to be a lady is what a woman should be and the same thing for men and gentlemen. Is that fair?
Second, regarding Alicia's characterization of the Eldredge's use of pop-culture as a valid way to explain the roles of men and women. I think that if they only used pop-culture to explain what the Biblical view would look like in the context of the modern world that would be great. However, they seek to understand the roles of men and women using pop-culture rather than the Bible-at least from what I could tell.
I think we run a risk when we try to assign certain abilities to particular abilities to a certain gender. For example I think it was suggested that women may be supposed to encourage. I think that the Bible is clear that men are also to encourage, so to divide a command or say it applies more to one gender than another would require a lot of support. Perhaps it is a problem with men in our society if we don't really encourage each other.
Wow, so much to say so little time.
First, to answer Sarah's question: "Did you actually think we were being self-validating or that we might fall prey to the temptation?" The simple answer would be yes, I think it's a temptation we MIGHT fall into and I know it's one I have fallen into, so in that sense I was posting it as something of a warning. But more than trying to question anybody's motives I was really just trying to get people to ask themselves WHY we're even discussing this. #1 I think it is easier to answer a question when you do so in light of why the question is being asked and #2 I kind of feel like some of the things we're asking looking for a certain answer. For example (and please, don't take it as an attack or a critique, it's just an example), this conversation began with Wren's observation that perhaps being a lady has more to do with being than doing. Now, the latter half of the conversation has been spent trying to figure out what a lady ought to DO.
I'm not saying that's not a valid question or that we shouldn't be trying to answer it. I'm just observing that it sometimes seems like we might be more interested in fitting our conclusion of what a lady is into our box of what we expect a women's role should consist of (like being determined to find out what women should DO rather than spending any time determining what a woman should BE). Does that help clarify at all? I'm the worst at explaining things so if anything I say doesn't make sense, please don't hesitate to question me about it.
Secondly, I agree with Jason in his explaination of a lady being what a woman should be. I also think being a lady is so closely connected to the unique qualities we, as women, have, it's hard to separate the two. We are ladies by properly using our uniquely womanly capabilities. It's all very interconnected.
Thirdly, regarding Jason's pop culture comments, I must first confess that I'm not entirely qualified to critique the Eldridge's approach because I've not read Wild at Heart and I've only read about half of Captivating. Also, I'm not entirely clear now if by "pop culture" you mean like media sources or merely modern ideas not necessarily linked to the Bible. All I really can say is first that I don't think there's anything wrong with putting the truth into the context of modern-day society in order to make it more availible or understandable. Also what I observed of the approach of Captivating was not, as you are desiring, taking Biblical ideas and translating them into modern day applications but rather taking commonly accepted truths (like the fact that girls want to be desired and guys like a challenge) and explaining them in the context of a Christian worldview. I don't think at least most of what they say opposes the Bible and I don't think everything has to be quoted from Scripture in order to be Biblically sound.
And lastly, Jason, I have a couple questions for you. First, what risk specifically do you think we run in assigning certain characteristic to the genders? And second, do you agree that men and women do have different roles or do you think we ought to relate to one another in exactly the same way? I don't think any of us would argue that men don't or shouldn't possess the same characteristics we are describing, for the sake of the present discussion, as "womanly," only that girls don't have them in the same way guys do. For example, I think girls should be strong leaders (see Biblical examples like Esther or Deborah) but I think the ability to lead is more of a defining quality of a man/gentleman than it is for a girl. It's present and important in both genders but it is deeper and more definitive for guys.
Jason, I totally agree with you that we can't make hard and fast judgments on what is uniquely "womanly" and what is uniquely "manly". These things are often culturally based, and we need to separate what we usually define as truth based on our cultural experience and what is, in fact universal truth.
Obviously the sexes have many differences. Its also clear that many of the common behavioral differences between males and females are inherent, and not pushed on by our upbrining as many believe. Still, in many cases, typical "male" traits may be found in girls, and vice versa.
Are all of these differences we have listed true inherent, universal differences or are they really due to our cultural context? I think we need to be very careful in our assessment of the differences in the fundamental characters and desires of men and women, and understand why we believe what we believe about them. Does each gender really have different ways they should behave?
Alicia I'll attempt to answer the questions that you have posed, beginning by saying that I'm not an expert on this.
Anyway, my point about Eldredge's use of pop-culture is about how he attempts to say what men and women are by what resonates with them in movies that we watch. From there he universalizes how he and the people he talks to respond to the characters in the movies. That determines what it means to be a man and a woman. I think that if you want to do a character study to see what it means to be a man and a woman then the Bible might be a better place to start.
The danger that I suggested in assigning abilities (I used abilities rather than characteristics originally) to a particular gender is that I'm not convinced that there is a difference in the Bible except in the particular case of church leadership. The Bible does make it clear that men are to be the leaders in church. However, my reaction was (perhaps) more specific to the idea that encouragement was reserved for women when Barnabus was called the Son of Encouragement. I don't think that we should reserve certain abilities for a gender when it's not in the Bible. When the Bible speaks of spiritual gifts it never says these are the gifts to men and these are the gifts to women. The same is true of fruits of the Spirit. And the beattitudes. My concern would be that we're limiting ourself to a portion of what it means to be human when we try to divide up gender roles and begin to say that only one gender has to have a particular gift or ability.
I don't think that men and women are to relate to each other in the same way, but I'm more reluctant to generalize that it is a certain case all the time. I think that there are different roles but that our role as a human is generally more important that our role as a man or woman, lady or gentleman. (Why does it seem natural to say lady before gentleman, but not woman before man?) Obviously, men are to be leaders of the church and the household, but as far as having different abilities I think that might be a stretch. That characteristics could be different I'd be more willing to agree. But even then I would be hesitant to generalize it too broadly.
Jason, you have some real good points. I don't think we can completely dismiss the instinctive different reactions to movies and stuff, but really, how much of what I see a woman is, is from years and years of history that lead to the culture that I live in today? In a fallen world like ours, can I trust my subconcious yearnings to be how God created them to be, or to be the result of being in this world?
But I think if we go to the Bible as an encylcopedia and look up, gender, we're not going to find much of anything. There are some obvious things to remember that will keep us from extreme views outside of what God created, such as the separate creations in the garden and the first marriage, and church leadership stuff as you mentioned. But in between things like that, I think there is a lot to figure out and talk about.
I think it's important to try to find as much of we can out about what God really created us to be, people to love him and love others, and find out how men and women may differently love, that we may by God's grace, strive to be better people, as man or woman as God created us to be.
...and there dies the conversation. At least for the past few weeks... :)
It's not dead, look. . .life!
. . .and more life!
you can't call this dead when it is obviously BURSTING WITH LIFE!!!
Ugh. You're trying too hard. :)
Way too hard.
them's fightin words guys. . .*sniff*
There has to be a better way of doing this...
There is. In person.
And that's the best thing about my dear vacation being taken from me...
And this comment-thread is ridiculously long.
Post a Comment
<< Home