When my pastor was preaching on Revelation 9, he mentioned that a popular Christian author interpreted the locusts in this passage as modern-day helicopters. Hmmmm. He then went on to say that if this indeed was correct, how would it have been possible for the historical church to accurately interpret this passage prior to the invention of the helicopter?
Bingo!
Why would the Apostle John write a portion of Scripture to local churches in Asia minor that would be next to impossible for the original recipients to understand correctly let alone the rest of the church prior to the 20th century? It makes no sense at all, but this is what happens when we ignore the historical context and read our current situation into the text. Unlike the song, we are not the world.
Then what about this?
In Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey has documented that the 1950's concept of womanhood has its roots in the Victorian era. This was a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution when men began to "go to" work, resulting in the creation of the separate spheres of home and vocation. Prior to this, home and work were integrated and a joint family effort.1 This has been verified by other historians. Yet you can pull any number of Christian women's books off the shelf, and they will argue that this relatively modern concept of womanhood was what Paul was describing, more prescribing, in Titus 2:4-5.
So borrowing my pastor's reasoning, if Titus 2:4-5 is proof for the Victorian stereotype, how would it have been possible for the historical church to interpret this passage correctly prior to the 19th century? If you have a current culture that was not shaped by the Industrial Revolution, are those Christians doing it wrong too? And please note, the benefits and advancement brought about by the Industrial Revolution were not across the board.
And one more thing. Many posts have been written regarding the pressure on younger women to conform to this stereotype. I agree with that assessment. However, there is an additional pressure for us older women. We are pressured to not only have lived this but to teach it as well. This creates quite a quandary when your cultural background was nothing like that ideal. Believe me, the Asian-American immigrant experience doesn't fit the bill, but why should it? The only way I could promote this paradigm would be to pretend to be something I am not. Does that make me a failure as a "Titus 2 older woman" then? Only if the Victorian ideal is the only option. If it is, then Christians outside of this bubble, who are probably the majority, are doing it wrong. However, I don't believe we are limited to a single choice that only came into existence in the 19th century and is only viable for a subset of believers. History shows us otherwise, but don't take my word for it. Do the research and see for yourself.
Of note: For a different and very important perspective on the narrow scope of the Victorian model, please read this post by Jasmine Holmes - Growing up Black in the Purity Movement
1. "You Have Stept Out of Your Place": A History of Women and Religion in America, Susan Hill Lindley, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996, pp. 56.
2. Total Truth, Chapter 12 - How Women Started the Culture War, Nancy Pearcey, Crossway, 2008.
Bingo!
Why would the Apostle John write a portion of Scripture to local churches in Asia minor that would be next to impossible for the original recipients to understand correctly let alone the rest of the church prior to the 20th century? It makes no sense at all, but this is what happens when we ignore the historical context and read our current situation into the text. Unlike the song, we are not the world.
Then what about this?
In Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey has documented that the 1950's concept of womanhood has its roots in the Victorian era. This was a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution when men began to "go to" work, resulting in the creation of the separate spheres of home and vocation. Prior to this, home and work were integrated and a joint family effort.1 This has been verified by other historians. Yet you can pull any number of Christian women's books off the shelf, and they will argue that this relatively modern concept of womanhood was what Paul was describing, more prescribing, in Titus 2:4-5.
So borrowing my pastor's reasoning, if Titus 2:4-5 is proof for the Victorian stereotype, how would it have been possible for the historical church to interpret this passage correctly prior to the 19th century? If you have a current culture that was not shaped by the Industrial Revolution, are those Christians doing it wrong too? And please note, the benefits and advancement brought about by the Industrial Revolution were not across the board.
[T]he cult of domesticity was simply not feasible for many poor women, especially immigrants and women of color, who had few opportunities to enjoy the private sphere and relative leisure assumed to be available for the True Woman for domestic duties. Significant numbers of American women had to enter the public sphere of employment as factory workers or domestics. Black women slaves had still less control over their own personal lives, let alone economic security... Many American women faced practical social and economic barriers that precluded their achievement of True Womanhood. Many did not share its assumptions and values or the ways those values were presumed to be manifested in women's lives.2It may not be the intent, but this is the vibe I get from the books that promote the Victorian model as synonymous with biblical: "You need to be like me and make the same lifestyle, financial, and educational choices in order to obey the Scriptures properly." If you can show me how your concept can be applied to all women across culture and time, then I will concede, but I don't think it's possible because this ideal is bound to a culture and a period of time. Would anyone dare go to sisters-in-Christ across the globe whom God has kept through circumstances and trials that would undo us and tell them they are not really following God unless they emulate something that is foreign to them? I would hope not. However, you are still completely free to pursue the way God has led you and your family, but please don't take your practice and make it a binding principle for the rest of the church worldwide.
And one more thing. Many posts have been written regarding the pressure on younger women to conform to this stereotype. I agree with that assessment. However, there is an additional pressure for us older women. We are pressured to not only have lived this but to teach it as well. This creates quite a quandary when your cultural background was nothing like that ideal. Believe me, the Asian-American immigrant experience doesn't fit the bill, but why should it? The only way I could promote this paradigm would be to pretend to be something I am not. Does that make me a failure as a "Titus 2 older woman" then? Only if the Victorian ideal is the only option. If it is, then Christians outside of this bubble, who are probably the majority, are doing it wrong. However, I don't believe we are limited to a single choice that only came into existence in the 19th century and is only viable for a subset of believers. History shows us otherwise, but don't take my word for it. Do the research and see for yourself.
Of note: For a different and very important perspective on the narrow scope of the Victorian model, please read this post by Jasmine Holmes - Growing up Black in the Purity Movement
1. "You Have Stept Out of Your Place": A History of Women and Religion in America, Susan Hill Lindley, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996, pp. 56.
2. Total Truth, Chapter 12 - How Women Started the Culture War, Nancy Pearcey, Crossway, 2008.
Comments
Post a Comment
Civil and pertinent comments are appreciated. Trolling will be deleted. Thanks.