I think it's probably time to pull some thoughts together. I talk about the RPCNA being narcissistic and authoritarian. Those are loaded terms, so let me abandon them for this post. Instead, let's go back to Genesis and understand two cultures.
God's "curse" of Eve was that she would desire her husband and he would rule over her. I don't think it's a curse, unlike God explicitly cursing the ground. Instead, I think it is a sad proclamation of what would happen after the fall. I think the conservative church has butchered this because they want to claim that women desire to take the position and authority of their husbands, and the response (some churches say deserved response...) is putting her in her place, i.e. domineering.
I think the core word to describe this is objectification it's the root of many of the ills that have come to the forefront in the church today, although I believe only because God has given a voice to the oppressed. The two lines of light and dark are figured in Cain's line vs. Seth's line. We see Cain's line focus on accomplishments and evil, while Seth's line, less accomplished, but more focused on God.
I'd like to focus on Lamech, not the father of Noah, but the other one. Lamech is notable, Biblically, for inventing polygamy. I wonder if the Bible preserves his wives' names to give them more value than Lamech did. In a good RPCNA sermon I heard, the pastor focused on the word took, in describing Cain's descendants. The point being that those women didn't necessarily have full consent in sharing one man. According to the pastor, took is used again to talk about mighty men (sons of God) taking daughters of men - not some weird angel/human hybrids, but world leaders and authorities amassing women for their own benefit.
This is a vague picture of objectification. These women are not seen. They are merely objects for the enjoyment of men, to be ruled over. I think polygamy is demonstrable evidence of objectification, which is why the church forbids elders from having multiple concurrent wives.
Objectification is primarily the ruling over part, and it's not coupled to authority, but aided by it. So, let's say I look at a rich guy. I think, if I can be this guy's friend, I'll get to live like he does. That's objectification. I don't want to be his friend for companionship, but for what I get. In the same way, I look at a woman, not for companionship, but for what I can get (lust). That's objectification.
What I learned growing up in the RP church was objectifying in that sense. For example, my Sabbath School teacher asked us to write down invitations for five people that we would bring to church. It wasn't about the love we could show, about their value and importance, but essentially, wouldn't it feel good if they came to church?
But, there is another, deeper sense of objectification. This is the desire. I think cheerleading is a challenging sport, but I can't get over the system. The most popular, most talented girls in school are convinced that the most worthy and valuable thing they can do is dance and cheer on the sidelines between football plays. The system works. Scores of girls show up the first day of camp and are whittled down through a grueling process until the squad is set. So, here society objectifies women, and ironically, these women fight over each other to be objectified.
Objectification is the root of worm theology, and we lay Evangelicals are the cheerleaders. See, the church builds up and raises the Lamechs to positions of church authority: those who are noteworthy and strong and accomplished. The rest are told that their calling is to stand on the sidelines and cheer. In fact, we're told that this is representative of our relationship with God - we stand on the sidelines and cheer God's work. So, to a great extent, objectification is not so much a result of the Fall, but something inherent to the structure of Creation. You can find complementarians hedging on this, for example, the CBMW:
As most complementarians understand it, informs us that the male/female relationship would now, because of sin, be affected by mutual enmity. In particular, the woman would have a desire to usurp the authority given to man in creation, leading to man, for his part, ruling over woman in what can be either rightfully-corrective or wrongfully-abusive ways.
So, the Fall did not cause objectification and domineering but the inferior trying to supplant the superior. It's therefore okay for the superior (husband, church) to "rightfully correct" the usurpation. And that's why we see women in control of everything by their brilliant manipulation (sigh).
No, what we see is women subjecting themselves continually to the abuse of men and society, and even falling all over themselves to be objects for men - celebrated as SI swimsuit models, or Victoria's Secret underwear models. We see the Hollywood culture of women having sex with powerful men in the hopes of landing a role in a movie. We see corporate culture where women slept with men for promotions. Is this what CBMW means by "usurping"?
No, CBMW, and the broad Evangelical church is furthering the objectification of women and the least in the church through their evil caricatures.
No comments:
Post a Comment