October 31, 2005
Never thought I'd say this, but...
...Maureen Dowd actually has a point about something. The link goes to a fascinating article in which Dowd discusses the abject failure of the feminist movement as today's women, especially younger ones, seem to strive for exactly the things their feminist forebears tried to destroy.
All I'd say is that the assumption that equality is always a virtue is flawed, and needs to be reexamined.
The article was disheartening, to say the least. Maybe the 'cycling feminism' issue is related to Eve's curse. The article said something about feminism promising women that eventually, there would be some spheres of women's lives that weren't all about men, yet that hasn't happened yet, and (according to women's magazines), that hasn't happened yet. It's Eve's curse: we hate it, but men rule us, yet we want to 'rule/manage/devour' them.
Let me restate that: God told Eve she'd want to rule Adam (just like sin stalks and rules us), but that he would rule over her. It's a paradox, and it's a trap. I'm thinking that's the curse: that we want to get 'out from under' the leadership of men, but we never will...and way deep down, we want it anyway.
Anyway, if you base your perception of feminism and The Woman's Lot in Life on what the women's mags report, you'll get a one-sided life. How many women have already seen through the women's mags by now, anyway? I have. I'll base my perception of my life and my role on people I trust, people who know me, thank you very much! I'll pay attention to what my mom and grandma taught me, what older women at my church seem to think of men after 30+ years of living with one.
Which leads me to another thought: at least I don't have to worry about the one-night stand, about running into a former lover/boyfriend while I'm out on the town, because I'm stuck at home figuring out my relationship to one man, my husband. We've got the old-fashioned, unequal marriage. I promised to submit to him and his decisions in everything as to Christ, and he promised to love me in everything, as much as Jesus loves him and me and all of us. So there, feminists! It's a scary thing, dangerous (or so pop culture says), possibly even stupid, but here I am, and Ian loves me, and he's not out to exploit me.
Whew. I hope you, Ryan, can make sense of this stream-of-consciousness comment. I'd stay home and figure it out, but I've got to go to the bank, grocery shopping, and I've got to clean the home and get dinner ready. For The Man. Poor me.
Posted by: Krista at October 31, 2005 01:00 PMNope, equality is not the antidote for oppression.
Posted by: Tuggy at October 31, 2005 02:53 PMA nice aphorism, but absent an argument it floats around like a nice fluffy cloud with nowhere to land.
If you've got some kind of argument, I'd love to hear it.
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2005 05:31 PMUm - I simply meant that as a nod of the head to you.
You wanted us to reexamine whether equality is always a virtue - I was agreeing with you, not arguing. It makes sense to me that there would be major problems right about now if you're still hanging on to the idea that women should be equal with men, IF equality is meant in the popular sense of "no difference" in treatment.
At the risk of over-generalizing, it seems obvious that we as a culture have begun to embrace the idea that women and men are in fact different, and tend toward different areas of strengths. Saying that doesn't have to pigeonhole anyone.
But in much the same way that we're moving from the melting-pot idea with race toward a celebratory use of diversity (except that I haven't seen more than a couple of cases where that's worked yet), I would hope that instead of giving up on the idea of "equality" with men and moving into some sort of empowered sexuality (what a great thing to live for), women would pursue making the need felt for full use of their strengths.
I don't deny that different races, women, and other groups of people have been oppressed. But being equally valued is not identical to being treated as no-different. We're not all just human. Some of us are male, some are female, and that's not incidental. If we were oppressed for being women, we should be valuable for being women.
And I think we're on the road to that. We had a very encouraging chapel the other day when a woman...Angel somebody-or-other...gave us an update on the way the church she attends is beginning to form ministry teams (for specific tasks) that are balanced with members of both sexes to help the particular team be more effective. And they're PCA, and they affirm male headship, and their attention to the matter seems to be bearing fruit.
Posted by: Tuggy at October 31, 2005 06:19 PMBy the way, I'm still wondering about your post on Chris Tomlin. I'm sorry if I stepped over the line in yelling at you about that, but I want to see good, solid, constructive criticism of popular Christian music (not to mention RUF stuff), and it's hard to pay attention to your argument when your main case-in-point wasn't written by the guy you were talking about.
Posted by: Tuggy at October 31, 2005 06:28 PMAh. I wondered about that. I parsed your negative incorrectly. Sorry.
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2005 06:30 PMRe: Tomlin. I think the crux of the argument is unaffected by the authorship of the songs I referenced. I was glad for your factual corrections, but I really don't care who writes something, e.g. just because something has been written by Wesley doesn't automatically make it good.
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2005 06:34 PMYeah, you're right about Wesley! lol
I would just hope that if you cared enough on a topic to write about it in a heated manner, you'd not injure your credibility by poor journalism. Oh well, we all have something that sets us off - you have a hard time putting up with offensively poor poetry, I have a hard time thinking a person can be at all intelligent if they can't spell (knowing Hope has partially trained me out of that one.)
So here's something that bothers me about church music in the PCA. Why are they so afraid of lines in hymns that could possibly be taken as slightly Arminian? Changing "And bled for Adam's helpless race" to "And bled for all God's chosen race" (in And Can It Be)? The original line is not anti-Biblical. It even calls us helpless, which is an affirmation of our spiritually dead state pre-Christ. It's just not as strictly Calvinistic as they want it to be, so they change it. Argh. Many other examples, but I'm heading to bed.
Posted by: Tuggy at November 1, 2005 02:01 AMTuggy: that's only a small reason why I no longer consider myself PCA. The really ironic thing is that their publishing house makes these changes 1) without the knowledge of most of the denomination, 2) over things the majority of the denomination wouldn't get if they did know, and 3) about things that, if you stop to think about it for a minute, are actually a heck of a lot more Reformed than the newer phrases. "Adam's helpless race" certainly hits on total depravity, and is significantly covenantal. Jesus traced his line to Adam, as do we, etc., and those not in the church are considered illegitimate sons of Adam, not part of the true Family. So not only are they making changes that damage the verse, but they're being ignorant about it.
Posted by: ryan at November 1, 2005 07:27 AMNo joke. I can maybe understand the change in the previous line a little better - "emptied himself of all but love" to "humbled himself, so great his love," - although I still don't think it necessary. Sure, "emptied himself of all but love" is perhaps hyperbole, but if it is, so is "and made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant." "All but love" is only objectionable if you don't see Christ's love as including his wisdom, justice, etc.
It reminds me of when my mother used to have us sing the line in "Father Abraham" as "Jesus was one of them, he died for you," instead of "I am one of them, and so are you." After I graduated high school at some point I pointed out to her that the church has been grafted in to Israel, and she had a good aha moment.
Posted by: Tuggy at November 1, 2005 01:37 PMAlthough there are some hymns that do have some legitimately questionable stuff taken out.
Oh, and here's an interesting case. "O Come and Mourn With Me Awhile" was written by an Anglican turned Catholic, as follows.
O come and mourn with me awhile;
And tarry here the cross beside;
O come, together let us mourn;
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.
Have we no tears to shed for Him,
While soldiers scoff and foes deride?
Ah! look how patiently He hangs;
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.
How fast His hands and feet are nailed;
His blessed tongue with thirst is tied,
His failing eyes are blind with blood:
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.
His mother cannot reach His face;
She stands in helplessness beside;
Her heart is martyred with her Son’s:
Jesus, our Lord, is Crucified.
Seven times He spoke, seven words of love;
And all three hours His silence cried
For mercy on the souls of men;
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.
Come, let us stand beneath the cross;
So may the blood from out His side
Fall gently on us drop by drop;
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.
O break, O break, hard heart of mine!
Thy weak self-love and guilty pride
His Pilate and His Judas were:
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.
A broken heart, a fount of tears,
Ask, and they will not be denied;
A broken heart love’s cradle is:
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.
O love of God! O sin of man!
In this dread act Your strength is tried;
And victory remains with love;
For Thou our Lord, art crucified!
And here's the modern Catholic version:
O come and mourn with me awhile;
See Mary calls us to her side;
O come and let us mourn with her.
Jesus, our Love, is crucified.
Have we no tears to shed for Him,
While soldiers scoff and Jews deride?
Ah, look how patiently He hangs.
Jesus, our Love, is crucified.
How fast His feet and hands are nailed;
His blessed tongue with thirst is tied;
His failing eyes are blind with blood.
Jesus, our Love, is crucified.
O love of God! O sin of man!
In this dread act your strength is tried;
And victory remains with love,
For He, our Love, is crucified.
The modern PCA version changes the original 1st verse to this
O come and mourn with me awhile,
O come ye to the Savior’s side
O come, together let us mourn,
Jesus our Lord is crucified.
and then follows it only with verses 5, 7, 8, and 9 of the original.
Posted by: Tuggy at November 1, 2005 01:43 PMoops - screwed up the italics there. Was supposed to be more readable.
Posted by: Tuggy at November 1, 2005 01:45 PMWhen I was young there was a big issue in our church about "Jesus loves the little children - all the children of the world." Because of course, said the elders, he doesn't love all of the little children. "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated" etc. What was funny was that only the kids liked the song, and the whole debate flew over their heads.
Posted by: Mello at November 2, 2005 12:29 PMWhich reminds me of my favorite hymn, "Jesus Loves Only a Few of the Children; the Rest Can Take a Long Walk off a Short Pier."
Not in good meter, obviously, but one must make allowences.
Posted by: mesh at November 3, 2005 12:51 PMMesh, the version we sang went like this. You must have sung an alternate version in the Presbyterian hymnal -
"Jesus loves a few children,
but most likely he hates you,
there is nothing you can do
and you're probably screwed
Jesus loves a few children
but not you"