alexis in the city

a good wife isn’t necessarily a housewife (II)

i’m sure you all have been waiting with baited breath to hear my next batch of opinions and insight on “the excellent wife,” so i’ll get right to it :-).

the second verse the author uses is titus 2:3-5:

Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. ⁴ Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, ⁵ to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

seems to make good sense. the author of TEW mentions that in the greek, the phrase “busy at home” means “worker at home,” someone that is the “keeper of the household.” this stands to reason for many people, as it may be the best arrangement for them, but even in this passage i don’t see grounds for the idea that that’s ALL a woman would do. i don’t agree with the author’s statement that “common sense would dictate that the younger women … would have to be at home to accomplish this objective well.” and here’s why:

1. 2000-plus years on, things are vastly different. the goal of reading and interpreting the bible is not to look at it and immediately say, “what is this saying to me?” but to ask what we can learn from what’s been written, who it’s written to, what their circumstances were, and what the passage, verse or chapter says about god (if applicable). (for really good reading on this subject i recommend “playing with fire,” written by a theology professor at my alma mater.) to think that every single piece of the bible can be applied literally and directly to us is narrow-minded and somewhat self-centered. (for example, a subsequent verse in this chapter admonishes slaves to be subject to their masters. i’m pretty sure NO ONE would argue that we should therefore still have slaves.)

2. it just doesn’t make sense for everyone. this is why i disagree with the author when she says that, “a wife should make it her business to find out how to keep an orderly and clean home and stay organized with her grocery shopping and meals.” i’ll go more in depth into this idea in my next post (oh yes, there’s more!), but i see no reason - in most cases - why certain things HAVE to be the responsibility of one person or the other. if you’re doing things you’re not good at, that you don’t enjoy, that you feel obligated to do, how is that beneficial to a marriage?

going back to the idea that a wife and mother should only - unless under extreme circumstances - work within the home, i’ll say this one last thing. not only have i been wholly unconvinced by this passage and the last one she used, but there’s no reason nowadays why a woman can’t have it all. maybe back in titus’ time that would’ve been next-to-impossible or there just wasn’t the infrastructure set up for it, but that’s just not the case now.

3. just because a woman has a career doesn’t mean her family and kids can’t come first. we can make compromises with our spouses, coordinate things in ways that work for us and our needs, and we can place a high level of importance on our top priorities. i’m not sure a clean house or grocery shopping should be so high up the list.

the author of TEW would probably argue that i need to change my outlook and acknowledge my rightful place as a wife, but i disagree. marriage is a partnership in which each person should be valued for their talents and gifts that help make the relationship unique. i can hire a housekeeper or have someone make my meals (and honestly, any potential family i might have some day would probably be stoked, given my level of skill in these areas), but no one can be ME. to deny that in favor of trying to teach myself to like stuff i hate seems unreasonable and counter-intuitive.

a good wife isn’t necessarily a housewife (I)

i have this book, “the excellent wife” that i got as a wedding gift. it was from a dear family friend, so i’ve hung onto it. ryan recently pulled it off the shelf and began flipping through it, and came to a chapter called “home: the wife’s domain” in which the author teaches that a wife and mother should - above all - stay home with her family and tend to the home. she suggests that even if the family is struggling financially or in debt, it would likely be better for the husband to get a second, part-time job rather than take the woman away from the home.

obviously, this makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, and riles my liberated, feminist sensibilities. (i can’t decide if the fact that a woman wronte this makes it better or worse in my mind.) but i’ll admit that sometimes the right thing isn’t always the thing that sounds like the most fun, so let me debunk this idea using the author’s own biblical references.

she, of course, hinges much of her admonition on the fabled “proverbs 31 woman.” for anyone that’s not familiar, this woman, among other things:

“She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.

¹⁵ She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her women servants.

¹⁶ She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

¹⁹ In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.

²⁴ She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.

²⁷ She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.

i’m going to gloss over the fact that the passage makes it clear that this woman is industriously bringing in money to the household - likely as a result of owning her own business - and buying property of her own accord when it seems prudent. the author of TEW points out that “out of 22 verses, nine refer directly to her work in the home. her world revolved around her home … [her] home based ministry does not apply just to king soloman’s day but to our day as well.” let’s dissect:

1. nine verses out of 22 is only 40%. hardly an overwhelming majority, or enough to make it seem like her world “revolved” around her home. even if this were true, there are further points of contention:

2. these verses do refer to things this woman has done which will benefit her family (and possibly as a result of something she enjoys?!), but how do we know this is either home-based or a ministry? she’s out buying land, selling clothes, supplying tradesmen. and her family isn’t left wanting - they’re clothed in scarlet. seems like a pretty fruitful business, and not just something done as a ministry!

3. proverbs are not promises or specific instructions and rules for how we should live our lives. this chapter is a perfect example of needing to take something in context. when was the last time you went out and planted a vineyard, or worked on a spindle or selected wool or flax? (i don’t even know what flax IS.) i’m not saying there’s nothing we can learn from this woman. on the contrary - i think we can take her industrious example to heart, but - as i’ve pointed out - not necessarily in the ways that the author of TEW instructs.

there are several other passages the author uses to illustrate her points that i will get to in later posts. but for now i want to close by saying i don’t think people who choose to make the home their “domain” have made the wrong decision. my mom stayed home with my sister and me, and i admire her and am thankful for this, even if it’s something i never think i could do.  i have friends who have chosen that road as well. what i have a problem with is thinking that this is the only correct, righteous decision a woman and her family can make. coming to the conclusion that you don’t want to work outside the home is one thing, but weilding the bible inaccurately and out of context to make this an ultimate issue of black and white, right and wrong is quite another thing altogether.

XKCD goodness

what’s not to love about a comic that covers “romance, sarcasm, math and language”? here are a few of my favorite recent ones - including a logic joke, of course :-)

for anyone not familiar with XKCD, sometimes the really funny stuff is included in the comments of the box you get when you hover your mouse over a certain panel, which you have to go to his site to see. the “pirate bay” comic is a good example.

parking wars and the space stalker

we recently got a car. bah. well, i should say, we were recently given a car by my parents. they got a new volvo, and we got one of the old ones (i swear, i’m living my sophomore year of high school all over again!). not that i don’t appreciate the gift, but having a car again drives me nuts. and i’m not going to lie - it takes away a little bit of my environmental superiority. we were car-less for over two years, and i would have happily continued on if it weren’t for the fact that my parents are now within driving distance, and having a car of our own makes seeing them so much easier and - hopefully - cheaper. so anyway.

fortunately our neighborhood has a somewhat decent amount of free street parking, but i have an insane neighbor that sometimes makes parking here a cross between all-out war, and an art form. first, i should say that when we moved to this apartment, i thought his house was condemned. some of the windows are boarded up, the drapes are all yellow and torn. it seriously looks like it could fall down. if it was in the country and not the city i’d be scared to walk by it alone.

the guy that owns it lives there with - from what i can tell - his 20-something daughter and his wife, and they each have a car. he must be retired because he doesn’t go to work. oh no. he’s around ALL. DAY. moving his cars around like he’s part of a crazed jigsaw puzzle. this behavior is obviously strange but his cars are also an enigma. his daughter has a brand new lexus (hello?! why buy a new car?! fix up the frikkin house!), and his other two cars are total junkers: one’s a rusted out, dilapidated toyota and the other one is an even more dilapidated honda (everything fits together here, if it weren’t for the lexus…).

since i mostly work from home, i’m around a lot, take the dogs out a lot, go in and out a lot, and i really think his main purpose in life is to navigate parking spots and get all three cars in the spots in front of his house. actually, i’m not SURE what the end goal is, because the cars don’t always end up in the same places. but the “game” he plays with them, without ceasing, all hours of the day, every day of the week is what’s so fascinating.

he will stalk out a spot like you wouldn’t believe. he usually manages to have two of his cars parked out front, and when he does, he’ll pull the third car up onto the driveway and just sit in it. i kid you not. sometimes the radio is on, sometimes he’s reading, sometimes he’s just sitting there - and sometimes he scares the bejeezus out of me when i walk by, see a parked car, and realize there’s someone IN it. though i’m starting to get used to it.

on the occasions when he’s managed to get a couple spots close to the house, but has to park the third car around the block or down the street (hey, we all have to sleep SOMETIME, i guess), you better believe when a spot opens up he goes running to wherever his car is, in an attempt to beat anyone to the spot. this is why it gives ryan and i great sadistic happiness when we’re able to co-opt one of his spots. and the consequences for him are great because street sweeping is only every other week and we NEVER (ok, rarely) drive the car. so you can kiss that spot goodbye for two weeks, sucker!

i also have a gypsy caravan that lives down the street, but that’s another post for another time. (anyone ever see the riches? yah, i imagine them to be kind of like that …)

everything must change

for anyone that’s talked to me for, like, five minutes, you probably know i’m slightly obsessed with brian mclaren. his books revolutionized the way i thought about faith and religion back when i was in college, and continue to do so. as one of the “spokespeople” for the emergent church and postmodern christianity, his books and ideas give me a renewed hope for change in our world and, yes, even within something so seemingly fatally flawed as religion. i often say that if my heart could write books, they’d write the books mclaren writes.

i’m currently reading “everything must change,” where he tackles issues of social activism. a big point of the book so far is a call to change what has so long been the focus of modern-day faith - saving people from hell - and put it onto something that’s more practical in the here-and-now - saving people from the heartbreaking circumstances they find themselves in in this world. because for so long so many churches, parishes and denominations have refused to do this in practical ways, people on all sides of this issue have become disillusioned with the ideas of faith, religion and christianity. mclaren writes:

eventually some leaders begin to realize that many young and alienated ex-churched people originally dropped out of their churches after attending college … and learning about the dark side of the christian religion’s track record: the crusades, witch burnings, colonialism, slavery, the holocaust, apartheid, environmental irresponsibility, mistreatment of women.

these young people started caring about these issues, but they didn’t find their fellow adherents to religion very concerned … and even when christians in recent decades concerned themselves with contemporary issues, they focused primarily on personal and sexual matters, simultaneously neglecting larger societal and systemic injustices that caused unimagined suffering.

and even in regard to their narrow range of “moral issues,” they were consistently effective in generating heat and conflict but consistently less effective in making a lasting, constructive difference.

mclaren has been criticized by fundamentalists for being a heretic, and i’ve been cautioned against his “fringe” teachings. but if the above statement isn’t absolutely true, and doesn’t completely hit the nail on the head, i don’t know what does. the book in its entirety deserves to be quoted - and i’m sure i’ll bring up more points i find particularly pertinent as i continue to read it - but this section in particular cuts to the quick of exactly my disillusionment with the church. i continue on as a part of it because i believe change IS possible, and i hope to help facilitate it. i continue on in spite of the fundamentalists and the sensationalists and those touting a “narrow range of moral issues.”

i continue on because i have big questions that require big answers and i believe, in my heart, that i’m a part of something big enough to accommodate these doubts and disillusionments and questions. and if i can come alongside and learn from someone like brian mclaren, so much the better. if i’m wrong, i guess the road to hell will be paved with his books … ;-)