You Don't Have To Be Pretty

I came across this rather appalling link via Princess-Free Zone: a pastor of a North Carolina church tirading about gender stereotypes. I wanted to address a specific quote, "And when your daughter starts acting too butch, you reign her in. And you say, ‘Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.’" (Emphasis mine.)

News flash! God does not say women have to be beautiful to please Him. God does not say it is women's job to dress up, woman's job to be "attractive". It is just not present in the Bible. Of the famous women of God in the Bible, do you know how many have their appearance mentioned? Five. Of these five, two are only mentioned because it's significant to a plot point (Esther and Sarah both attract the attention of pagan kings, but their faith is the point of the story. The other three are Rebekah, Abigail, and the Shulamite of Song of Solomon, all Old Testament women and part of a culture where a woman's economic value came from her appearance.) Do you know how many of the famous women of God in the Bible have no record of their appearance one way or the other? In the Old Testament, we have Eve, Ruth and Naomi, Hannah, Deborah, Tamar, Jochebed, Miriam, and Rahab. Among the women in Jesus' life, Anna, Elizabeth, Mary, Mary and Martha, Mary Magdalene, and among the women of the early church, Dorcas, Lois and Eunice, Junia, Phoebe, Priscilla, Lydia... indeed, nowhere in the New Testament is any woman praised or singled out for her beauty or lack thereof-- it's simply not present.

Now, all humans have a responsibility to steward the bodies God gave them. We are to avoid the sins of gluttony and laziness, and to treat others with respect, which easily translates into dressing appropriately for our culture and occasions, not eating to excess or only to satisfy our appetites, and to practice healthy exercise. I don't want you to hear me saying, "God says it's ok for you to be a couch-bound slob who lives in ratty sweatpants." But I do want you to hear this: all humans have these responsibilities. No, Pastor Harris, women don't have to smell nicer, dress up more, or spend more time cultivating their physical attractiveness than the men around them do. God never gave us that command. That's coming from the world.

Christian woman, God did give you a command about your appearance, though: to focus on inner beauty. To cultivate good works, a quiet and gentle spirit before the Lord, faith, not living in fear, to imitate Christ. But if anybody, within the church or without, tells you you have any kind of obligation to be beautiful, hold that up to the Scripture and I think you will find that it holds no water at all.

Thoughts On "A (Somewhat) Scholarly Analysis of Genesis 3:16"

I recently purchased Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology as a little gift for myself. Because it's been on my mind a lot lately, one of the first parts I dipped into was Chapter 22: Man As Male and Female. This is basically Grudem's overview of complementarianism and many parts of it were very good. A quote I especially loved was, "In practical terms, we must never think that there are any second-class citizens in the church. Whether someone is a man or woman, employer or employee, Jew or Gentile, black or white, rich or poor, healthy or ill, strong or weak, attractive or unattractive, extremely intelligent or slow to learn, all are equally valuable to God and should be equally valuable to one another as well. This equality is an amazing and wonderful element of the Christian faith and sets Christianity apart from almost all religions and societies and cultures." Praise God!

However. In the course of his breakdown of how pre-Fall Scripture already teaches different roles for men and women, Grudem footnotes Susan T. Foh's article in the Westminster Theological Journal in 1975, which argues that Genesis 3:16 should be re-examined in light of feminism (meaning second-wave feminism) and that "her desire shall be for her husband" should be interpreted that the woman's desire will be to conquer her husband. This is quite a leap from the ordinary meaning of desire, and a new idea theologically-- I would like to refer you to this article by Wendy Horger Alsup on Practical Theology for Women which breaks down this argument hermeneutically and discusses what Reformed theologians have historically thought on the subject, and, I think, makes a good case that what is actually meant here is a straightforward reading of "desire" as we usually read it: longing or craving.

Wendy writes: "What if we read Genesis 3:16 in the straightforward way translators write it—her desire (strong craving/longing) will be for her husband—a way that was among the common views of it, according to Foh, before she put out her new view in reaction to the 2nd wave of feminism?... A straightforward reading such as Vos', Keil's, and Delitzsch's, requires no theological backflips. The woman's root problem is that, even though child birth is painful and the man rules her, she still has a morbid craving for him, looking to him in completely unhealthy ways that do not reflect her status as image bearer of God." 

I do strongly encourage you to read the whole article; it's really fabulous. In closing, one more quote which uses this straightforward reading of the Genesis 3:16 curse to draw some conclusions about the current state of gender relationships: "No, feminism isn't the ultimate problem. The problem didn't start as women wanting control over the men in their lives. Women set up men as idols and looked to them to provide emotionally, spiritually, physically what only God can provide. Apart from Christ, men oppressed them in return, hence the modern coping mechanisms of independence, self-sufficiency, and control (often ineffective) for dealing with that oppression. The curse read at face value reflects the real issue, and the gospel is the clear answer."

John Calvin on 1 Timothy 2:9-10

"9 In like manner also women As he enjoined men to lift up pure hands, so he now prescribes the manner in which women ought to prepare for praying aright. And there appears to be an implied contrast between those virtues which he recommends and the outward sanctification of the Jews; for he intimates that there is no profane place, nor any from which both men and women may not draw near to God, provided they are not excluded by their vices.

He intended to embrace the opportunity of correcting a vice to which women are almost always prone, and which perhaps at Ephesus, being a city of vast wealth and extensive merchandise, especially abounded. That vice is — excessive eagerness and desire to be richly dressed. He wishes therefore that their dress should be regulated by modesty and sobriety; for luxury and immoderate expense arise from a desire to make a display either for the sake of pride or of departure from chastity. And hence we ought to derive the rule of moderation; for, since dress is an indifferent matter, (as all outward matters are,) it is difficult to assign a fixed limit, how far we ought to go. Magistrates may indeed make laws, by means of which a rage for superfluous expenditure shall be in some measure restrained; but godly teachers, whose business it is to guide the consciences, ought always to keep in view the end of lawful use. This at least will be settled beyond all controversy, that every thing in dress which is not in accordance with modesty and sobriety must be disapproved.

Yet we must always begin with the dispositions; for where debauchery reigns within, there will be no chastity; and where ambition reigns within, there will be no modesty in the outward dress. But because hypocrites commonly avail themselves of all the pretexts that they can find for concealing their wicked dispositions, we are under the necessity of pointing out what meets the eye. It would be great baseness to deny the appropriateness of modesty as the peculiar and constant ornament of virtuous and chaste women, or the duty of all to observe moderation. Whatever is opposed to these virtues it will be in vain to excuse. He expressly censures certain kinds of superfluity, such as curled hair, jewels, and golden rings; not that the use of gold or of jewels is expressly forbidden, but that, wherever they are prominently displayed, these things commonly draw along with them the other evils which I have mentioned, and arise from ambition or from want of chastity as their source."*

A lot of old-fashioned talk to sift through, but I what I want to highlight here is the emphasis of Calvin (and, I believe, the passage itself) on "modesty" as a counterpoint to "excessive eagerness and desire to be richly dressed". Calvin uses the word "chastity" to talk about what we often refer to as modesty: not dressing to be sexually alluring. "Modesty", in his vocabulary, is is about not dressing to highlight one's wealth, to achieve one's ambitions (whether for attention, a sense of superiority, or some other worldly advantage), or to display oneself (he does mention "either for the sake of pride or of departure from chastity", as both are certainly temptations). 

We often hear in the church of the need to be modest in the modern sense I mentioned. Depending on how conservative your church is, that could be anything from only wearing floor-length dresses to covering your chest to a certain height. These are what Calvin refers to as "a fixed limit" and says that a godly teacher will seek to guide the conscience and address the disposition rather than making rules. Not that choosing not to dress in a provocative way is wrong-- far from it!-- but rules prescribing exactly what is and is not appropriately chaste tend to miss that the emphasis in Scripture is on a more subtle heart issue.**

Calvin speaks of "Ephesus, being a city of vast wealth and extensive merchandise." What could be more descriptive of us in the affluent West? I believe we could do well to take to heart Calvin's charge to begin with "the dispositions; for where debauchery reigns within, there will be no chastity; and where ambition reigns within, there will be no modesty in the outward dress." I believe I spent the majority of the last ten years dressing, in some sense or another, to impress. Whether this took the form of dressing like a punk to show people I was above all their petty consumerist attitudes, or trying to emulate the women I saw on The Sartorialist to display my superior fashion sense, it certainly came from a disposition of ambition, not of Christlike humility.

When I look at my Saviour who "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped", I am ashamed of myself for trying to use clothing as a way to make myself look better than others. My prayer and hope going forward is that I can devote less time and energy to attempting to raise my status through clothing, and more time and energy to what God calls "proper" for the women who serve him-- good works. Meditating on the glorious truth that my status before God is already secure in Christ should serve to fight my fleshly desire towards self-promotion.

Is it wrong to dress in a way that is fun, fashion-forward, unusual, or high-end? I don't think that can be Scripturally argued. The issue of how to dress in a God-honouring way is deeply nuanced and must encompass, for starters, the topics of respectability, creativity, and Christian liberty, as well as what I've begun discussing here. However, I think it can be Scripturally argued that modern Christian women could benefit from a swing more in the other direction-- away from telling each other that it's okay to enjoy dressing up and fashion, and towards what Calvin calls "the duty of all to observe moderation." We must strive for wisdom and balance in every issue not specifically prescribed in Scripture, and I believe in the present-day, we need to move towards moderation to achieve balance.

I want to end, then, with a challenge to my sisters in the church: Calvin says, "This at least will be settled beyond all controversy, that every thing in dress which is not in accordance with modesty and sobriety must be disapproved." Do you think you could describe how everything about how you dress as "in accordance with modesty*** and sobriety"? Will you pray and ask the Spirit to reveal to you if your clothing choices are driven by ambition instead of godly character?

*Quote sourced from Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

**And vilify the female body over the human heart, but that's a topic for another post...

***In Calvin's "not putting on a display" sense.

Introduction

For some time, I've needed a better place than Facebook notes to share some musings on complementarianism, feminism, women's rights, and Biblical womanhood. I have been thinking a lot about the tension between my complementarian views and women's rights issues including (but not limited to) oppression, oversexualization, and media portrayals of women. I do not believe there should be a tension between the two, but since I haven't come across much conversation between complementarianism and the women's rights issues normally championed by feminists, I think there is room in the blog-world for this little space.

My intention is to address Christians; my posts will assume a Reformed worldview and will be from a complementarian perspective. Hopefully I can approach the issues in a way that is Biblical, honest, and encouraging, and share the good news as well as the problems.

I am always happy to be directed to news articles, resources, and any media that touches on the topics I discuss here, so do feel free to point them out to me. I also welcome debate and correction-- you'll notice me saying "I think" a lot, and Scriptural truth and concrete facts brought to bear on what I think are most welcome. And with that-- forward ho!