The Godly Woman 101

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,290
Location
Edge's beanie closet
At Texas theological school: The role of the godly woman 101
Baptist seminary espouses oldtime gender inequality

By Stephanie Simon, Los Angeles Times | October 21, 2007

FORT WORTH, Texas - Equal but different.

You hear that a lot on the lush green campus of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

God values men and women equally, any student here will tell you. It's just that he's given them different responsibilities: Men make decisions; women make dinner.

This fall, the internationally known seminary - a century-old training ground for Southern Baptists - began reinforcing those traditional gender roles with college classes in homemaking. The academic program, open only to women, includes lectures on laundering stubborn stains and a lab in baking chocolate-chip cookies.

Philosophical courses such as "Biblical Model for the Home and Family" teach that God expects wives to submit graciously to their husbands' leadership. A model house, to be completed by next fall, will allow women to get credit toward bachelor's degrees by learning how to set tables, sew buttons, and sustain lively dinner-time conversation.

It all sounds wonderful to sophomore Emily Felts, 19, who signed up as soon as she arrived on campus this fall.

Several relatives have told Felts that she's selling herself short. They want her to become a lawyer, and she agrees she would make a good one. But that's not what she wants to do with her life.

More to the point, it's not what she believes God wants of her.

"My created purpose as a woman is to be a helper," Felts said firmly. "This is a college education that I can use."

Seminary President Paige Patterson and his wife, Dorothy - who goes by Mrs. Paige Patterson - view the homemaking curriculum as a way to spread the Christian faith.

In their vision, graduates will create such gracious homes that strangers will take note. Their marriages will be so harmonious, other women will ask how they manage. By modeling traditional values, they will inspire friends and neighbors to read the Bible and then, perhaps, to follow the Lord.

"I'm personally going to teach the course in table manners," Paige Patterson said, moments after sneaking scraps of poached chicken off his lunch plate for his black Labrador, Noche.

So far, just eight of the 300 students in the seminary's undergraduate program are enrolled in the homemaking concentration, which is similar to a major and counts toward a bachelor of arts in humanities. Many more women, including graduate students and wives of seminarians, study traditional gender roles in courses such as "Wife of the Equipping Minister." On a recent evening, more than 50 women - some in sloppy sweats, others in prim sweater sets - pulled out notebooks as class opened with student presentations. One woman talked about her hobby of cross-stitching. Another showed how she uses the Internet to track grocery coupons.

Laney Homan, 30, drew excited murmurs with her talk on meal planning, featuring a recipe for a sure-fire "freezer pleaser" - a triple batch of meatloaf (secret ingredient: oatmeal). Thanks to a computerized system for generating grocery lists, Homan said, "I've actually trained my husband to shop for me."

Laughing, she threw her palms toward the heavens and added: "Praise Jesus!"

For the rest of the nearly three-hour class, guest lecturer Ashley Smith, the wife of a theology professor, laid out the biblical basis for what she calls "the glorious inequalities of life."

Smith, 30, confided that she sometimes resents her husband for advancing his career "while I'm changing diapers and getting poop all over me." But then she quoted from Ephesians: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord." And from Genesis: God created Eve to be a "suitable helper" for Adam.

"If we love the Scripture, we must do it," said Smith, who gave up her dreams of a career when her husband said it was time to have children. "We must fit into this role. It's so much more important than our own personal happiness."

More moderate Southern Baptists disagree, and they counter with their own biblical references. When Jesus dined at the home of two sisters, he praised Mary, who spent the evening studying his teachings, above Martha, who did chores. Elsewhere in the New Testament, the apostle Paul writes that "there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ."

"We're confusing 1950s culture with the teaching of Scripture," said Wade Burleson, a Southern Baptist pastor in Oklahoma. "I nowhere see where the Lord Jesus places limitations on the role of women in our culture."

Homemaking classes went out of style at most secular colleges a half-century ago, but undergraduate Quincy A. Jones said he considers them essential in a world where too many families are fractured and unhappy. Jones, who is married and has five children, said he would encourage his teenage daughter to study homemaking.
 
While I think homemaking is an undervalued set of skills, and that should women choose this path for themselves, they should be supported, it saddens me that this
"We must fit into this role. It's so much more important than our own personal happiness."
is happening. It should be a joyful choice, not a duty owed to men.
 
martha said:
While I think homemaking is an undervalued set of skills, and that should women choose this path for themselves, they should be supported, it saddens me that this is happening. It should be a joyful choice, not a duty owed to men.

Yeah, what *she* said! :huh:
 
This saddens me.:sad: I have no qualms with women (or men) choosing to stay home with their children and being a homemaker. I've often thought that I might do the same when I eventually have children, but I also don't want to give up being able to use my future degree. These women, though, seem to be the docile, conventional 1950s housewife. Don't think, don't talk, just bake an apple pie and let your big, strong man bring home the bacon. I don't like all this focus on submission either. I believe that the husband and wife should be equal partners. Now, in the truest sense, I do believe the husband is the "head" of the home, as The Bible says: That verse, though, has been used far too long to intimidate and control women; to prevent them from speaking up and having a role as a decision-maker and leader in the home. That's what these women seem to want, and it frusturates me to no end.
 
that ephesians verse so often gets misinterpreted. it perplexes me how far people take this misinterpretation. do the men in this school take a concentration on surrendering to their wives?
 
unico said:
do the men in this school take a concentration on surrendering to their wives?

Agree with this. Or on sacrificing themselves for their wives the way Christ sacrificed himself for the church?

Originally posted by U2isthebest

I don't like all this focus on submission either. I believe that the husband and wife should be equal partners. Now, in the truest sense, I do believe the husband is the "head" of the home, as The Bible says: That verse, though, has been used far too long to intimidate and control women; to prevent them from speaking up and having a role as a decision-maker and leader in the home. That's what these women seem to want, and it frusturates me to no end.

Everyone seems to miss that just before Paul gets into husband/wife roles, he uses the phrase "submitting one to another as unto the Lord," which implies that each is submissive to the other's needs, albeit in different ways. When we got married, my wife had grown up quiet, docile, the responsible one in her family. It was like pulling teeth to get her to share her thoughts and feelings with me, but if I'm taking my responsibility as a husband seriously, it's vital that I know what she is thinking and feeling, what wisdom she has, what her take on a situation is. She has saved me from many mistakes!

Originally posted by martha

It should be a joyful choice, not a duty owed to men.

I do think there is a virtue in serving for a purpose greater than my own. There are times when husbands and wives have to suck it up and take it -- times when the work of being a husband or a wife isn't fun, times when we do stuff not out of joy but out of obligation. (Same as parenting, same as a full-time job.) At the same time, I don't think God dreamed up marriage as a weight for us to bear, but as a calling for us to joyfully live out. So I do agree with you Martha in that there must be joy in it -- it's just that sometimes the joy comes in the sacrifice of future good over present desire.
 
nathan1977 said:

Everyone seems to miss that just before Paul gets into husband/wife roles, he uses the phrase "submitting one to another as unto the Lord," which implies that each is submissive to the other's needs, albeit in different ways.

:hi5: that's exactly what I'm sayin! I've seen many focus on one element of this whole passage.
 
According to their website, this is a 21-hour concentration within a 129-hour Humanities BA program (Southwestern is, of course, a seminary school, not a regular college or university, so it only offers BAs in Humanities and Music to begin with--you don't go there to study math, political science, electrical engineering, pre-law etc.).

While I don't really see the point in having credit-carrying college courses in home meal preparation, home clothesmaking, and home design (the courses in child development, nutrition and Biblical models of family make more sense), it's not like women students are required to take these courses, or for that matter to attend this particular school at all. :shrug: Frankly, the article seems more mean-spirited than anything else to me.
 
nathan1977 said:

So I do agree with you Martha in that there must be joy in it -- it's just that sometimes the joy comes in the sacrifice of future good over present desire.

I think you kind of missed Martha's point. She wasn't saying that there shouldn't be sacrifice over desire, but that your role as a human being shouldn't be assigned to you due to your sexual organs, color of skin, sexuality, etc...

Why is it that religious people need such rigid boxes to place people in. Love isn't rigid boxes and hard lines.
 
nathan1977 said:
Everyone seems to miss that just before Paul gets into husband/wife roles, he uses the phrase "submitting one to another as unto the Lord," which implies that each is submissive to the other's needs, albeit in different ways. When we got married, my wife had grown up quiet, docile, the responsible one in her family. It was like pulling teeth to get her to share her thoughts and feelings with me, but if I'm taking my responsibility as a husband seriously, it's vital that I know what she is thinking and feeling, what wisdom she has, what her take on a situation is. She has saved me from many mistakes!



all this seems well and good to me -- however, i wonder to what extent people conform traditional gender-roles into this relationship, i.e., the male as the decider and the female as the supporter. people can study what they want and live how they please, i guess i'm just wondering about the potential for exploitation on the basis of gender and expectations.

i think Martha got it right -- so long as it's "joyfully" chosen, all should be well and good.
 
martha said:
While I think homemaking is an undervalued set of skills, and that should women choose this path for themselves, they should be supported, it saddens me that this is happening. It should be a joyful choice, not a duty owed to men.

Agreed. And there has to be some sacrifice of personal happiness as well and I don't mean hair-shirt donning kind of sacrifices. I mean like NOT going on a vacation so you can buy braces for your little darling with the overbite like Bugs Bunny or owning a mini van instead of a sports car. We all sacrifice our personal happiness every day in lots of ways.(Like getting up and going to work or school) I think thats one way to see it and not just the "subjugating myself to my lord and master" way.

If the choice is to raise children and keep a home then we should support these women the same way we would support them going into medicine or engineering. Is their work less valuable to society?

To go along with that, it may not be worth $100,000 but in my opinion, lots of other disciplines are a waste of money too.
 
nathan1977 said:


I thought we're all here to serve each other. But that's just me.

I agree that we are-but each other equally and starting from the viewpoint that we are equals. And I don't really know why you have to say "that's just me". Where in that article does it mention anything about serving each other?

I don't mean this to be mean spirited or attacking their religious beliefs, and my religion certainly has many sexist thoughts and behaviors as well. But God created us all as equals, and the fact that women don't have to go to this school or believe what they believe doesn't make it any less relevant to me. I too see nothing at all wrong with homemaking and it is hard work-but it is work that both men and women can do and the whole thing just seems so Stepford to me. They do seem to be coming from a definite viewpoint, and it's not that women are equals under God.
 
I fully agree with martha. If that's what a girl truly wants to do with her life, great, have at it, I don't care. But it shouldn't be forced upon anybody-just because some religion says this is how things should be doesn't automatically mean that it's true. The "Stepford" comparison is spot on-the way this is being handled just seems sorta...creepy to me, in a way. Like that girl who automatically gave up her career when her husband said it was time to have kids. The way that sentence was written just struck me as sounding rather controlling. It may very well have not been like that, but...yeah.

Angela
 
^ That was the reporter's phrasing; we don't know how the woman herself put it. But as far as it goes, I agree that if that's how she experienced it, it seems like a rather deflating message for a teacher of one of these classes to be sending. Then again, I imagine anyone who's signed up for this concentration has already made a decision that naturally, as a married woman, she'd expect to stay at home once children start arriving (since the very design of the program appears to presume that).

I'm certainly not an advocate of people being forced into household models they don't believe in or want. But I also think this idea of 'it should always be a joyous choice' is unrealistically romantic. In many cases, the decision for one spouse or the other to become a homemaker stems primarily from shared strong belief in the value of having one parent always around while the children are young, not just to change diapers and scrub dirty hands but also to provide the kinds of intellectual, social and moral development foundations a good nursery school might otherwise. And when you sit down to compare career progress, salaries and personal lifetime priorities before you start to have kids, it may become mutually apparent that it makes much more logical sense for one spouse to step into that homemaker role than the other. In my experience, this is just as likely to be true of families with a homemaker dad. Often it isn't so much a question of 'Yes! This is what I've always dreamed of doing and I've never seriously considered anything else!' as agreement on mutual priorities. Again--I am NOT advocating that anyone, male or female, with a passionate, overriding desire for professional achievement let themselves be guilted or badgered into giving up their career to stay at home...those forms of contribution to society can be tremendously valuable too, and there is nothing to celebrate in the person of a deeply dissatisfied, resentful and unhappy parent and spouse who feels like s/he was humiliatingly 'demoted' to a role they didn't want, any more than there is in someone who never wanted kids reluctantly agreeing to have them to please their spouse, even though s/he resents the responsibilities it's going to add, the toll it will take on their bank account and career flexibility, etc.
 
The issue for me is the notion that women subjugating themselves to men in this way, or any way, is somehow ordered by God. I think that's a completely different issue than life choices made for other reasons, and not from any viewpoint that women are inferior beings.
 
yolland said:
While I don't really see the point in having credit-carrying college courses in home meal preparation, home clothesmaking, and home design (the courses in child development, nutrition and Biblical models of family make more sense), it's not like women students are required to take these courses, or for that matter to attend this particular school at all. :shrug: Frankly, the article seems more mean-spirited than anything else to me.

It may technically be true that the students have a choice, but my guess is their parents have taught them from the moment they were old enough to understand anything that God has ordained that a woman is supposed to stay home and be submissive to her husband. I know, plenty of Christian parents don't teach that - my own mom's a conservative Catholic stay-at-home mom, but I always got the message I could do anything I wanted with my life career-wise - but unfortunately there are parents out there who do believe this twisted intepretation of the Bible, and homeschool their kids and otherwise limit their contact with the outside world so they don't get any conflicting messages. I know there really isn't anything you can do about it because it's a free country and parents can teach their kids anything they want about religion, but I still find it incredibly sad.
 
yolland said:
^ That was the reporter's phrasing; we don't know how the woman herself put it. But as far as it goes, I agree that if that's how she experienced it, it seems like a rather deflating message for a teacher of one of these classes to be sending.

Oh, yeah, I know that's the fault of the reporter. You (and MrsSpringsteen with her last post) just worded the concern that I was trying to get at better than I did :).

yolland said:
Then again, I imagine anyone who's signed up for this concentration has already made a decision that naturally, as a married woman, she'd expect to stay at home once children start arriving (since the very design of the program appears to presume that).

This is true. Good point.

Angela
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
The issue for me is the notion that women subjugating themselves to men in this way, or any way, is somehow ordered by God. I think that's a completely different issue than life choices made for other reasons, and not from any viewpoint that women are inferior beings.
Where does it say they're teaching that women are "inferior"? I don't really think it's warranted to assume that holding a religious belief that "God ordained" men and women to "naturally" fill different roles means one role is understood to be more glorious or "superior" than the other. These are adult women, it's not a theocratic country, and they can through their own thought processes arrive at a different set of beliefs on such matters than the one their parents held. Or not. I just don't feel any pity for them or see reason to...
 
Last edited:
yolland said:
In many cases, the decision for one spouse or the other to become a homemaker stems primarily from shared strong belief in the value of having one parent always around while the children are young,

Yes, a choice made to benefit the family; a choice made together, a choice that makes you happy.

That's what I meant. :)
 
Where does it say they're teaching that women are "inferior"? I don't really think it's warranted to assume that holding a religious belief that "God ordained" men and women to "naturally" fill different roles means one role is understood to be more glorious or "superior" than the other. These are adult women, it's not a theocratic country, and they can through their own thought processes arrive at a different set of beliefs on such matters than the one their parents held. Or not. I just don't feel any pity for them or see reason to...

hmmmm I know plenty of SUPERIOR women who chose to stay home and run the house...

At least we have Martha (the other Martha) to demonstrate that you can make the BIG BUCKS being a kick-ass homemaker.
 
Back
Top Bottom