Dale Fincher - Latest Comments in When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Esther — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:53:32 -0000

Jonalyn,

I did not mean to offend you or anyone else in sharing my pastors' story. I know that you wrote you were not offended, but I am not sure if anyone else was.

I do agree that we should all be allowed to grieve, and I hope what I shared did not come across as insensitive to that fact. But I truly believe that this story can give hope to many who are struggling; that is why it was broadcasted.

The truth is that Jesus said many times to people "You're faith has healed you". The bottom line is to trust God on His promises. Trusting God and having faith is always the path to take.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Jonalyn Fincher — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:17:11 -0000

p.s. I forgot to mention that I think this story of the couple at your church is a beautiful example of God's love and delight in answering prayer. How wonderful that God has given them their desire!

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Jonalyn Fincher — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:12:49 -0000

Hi Esther,

Yes, I think I understand you better now. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm glad you spoke about freedom for each person to listen to God's voice about children. I think that it's possible that God directs some couples to raise up a new generation to love God in other ways than bearing your own children. Here's where I think we'll disagree: even if they can have children of their own.

I know the adoption idea is very tempting, too. It's a great idea, but important for both hus and wife to be on same page, I think.

I have to say that I'm not a fan of using the arrows in the way you're using the metaphor and applying it today. Psalm 127 is all about the provisions of the Lord, building the house, watching over the city and then watching over the family. Then Solomon writes that children are "like" arrows in the hands of a warrior. I think you've assumed this means children are like weapons in a culture. But perhaps the simile means something else.

What?

I think the following verse explains, "Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them, They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court's"

I don't think God is keen on us thinking of our children in 21st century America as arrows to shoot into something. I think the metaphor is meant to explain that children provided and protected their parents in ancient Israel, much like a full bank account, good friends and children help protect their parents from the evils of this earth today.

I think the point of this entire Psalm is God's provision and protection. One way he does this is through giving children to couples. But this is not the only way, nor does it say that God cannot protect a couple if children never come.

I would also be concerned that we don't turn a poetry of praise to God into a prescription or mandate. The facts still stand that children can provide and protect their parents and that children are proof that God is rewarding a couple. But there are many ways God rewards those he loves--sleep for instance is one cited in this Psalm.

Thank you for mentioning this story of this couple who felt it was God's will for them to conceive.

For others, I want to share a follow-up word of advice.

When someone suffers a loss, particularly of children, it is best to let them grieve without sharing stories of hope that children will come. Too often and too easily these stories can too easily feel like
1- I need more faith and THEN I will have children
2- God wants me to pray more fervently THEN kids will come
3- Unless I'm doing battle like this couple did, I will not be blessed.

Esther, please know I took this story with all the best intention from you. I did not take offense. My faith is firm in God's delight in where I am and what we are doing. And we're really not sure if it's God's will for us to have children.

However, others could easily see this story as proof that if you ONLY do the right things, you'll get kids.

And I, for one, do not believe God works this way. Unless the Lord build the house and all that :)

I also believe it is vital for us to let others sit in the sadness or loss of not having what we desire. That is the greatest gift you can give to those who suffer.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Esther — Tue, 12 May 2009 15:02:49 -0000

Oh, I also wanted to say that I am sorry for the struggle you had with your first baby. I will not pretend to know what you went through, but I hope you are comforted in the fact that you will see your child one day and he/she was not an accident and is not "lost". God knew your baby even before putting it in your womb:)

I wanted to link you to my church's website. If you go here, you can click in the middle where it says "click here to view" and you can watch a Mother's Day broadcast in which my pastors spoke of their struggle to conceive. They believed that it was God's will for them to conceive and every time the enemy put doubt in their minds, they spoke the Word of God! Specifically two scriptures: "He settles the barren woman in her home as a happy mother of children. Praise the Lord." (Ps 113:9) and "1 A Song of Ascents. Blessed is every one who fears the Lord, Who walks in His ways. 2 When you eat the labor of your hands, You shall be happy, and it shall be well with you. 3 Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine In the very heart of your house, Your children like olive plants All around your table. 4 Behold, thus shall the man be blessed Who fears the Lord." (Ps 128)

Well, they fought with these scriptures, truly using the Word in their battle against the enemy, and their faith "healed" them. God has now given them three arrows. Watch here: http://www.westcoastword.com/

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Esther — Tue, 12 May 2009 14:40:37 -0000

Hi Jonalyn!

I do not think a woman should put her children before her husband or necessarily before all other people. (Although I am inclined to believe that husband and children both come before one's mother, brother, etc...since when we marry we leave and cleave. I think cleaving puts the new priority on our husbands and children). What I referred to in my comment was specifically if a woman has to choose between what she believes is best for her child and what her desires/dreams, etc. are. If it comes between her or the child, I believe she should sacrifice herself for the child. But this is the case with anyone...if it comes between my desires and *what is best* for my husband, I should sacrifice myself for his best. Likewise he should sacrifice himself for my best. But a child should not lose out on God's best so that mother OR father could meet their own desires. Does that make sense?

I am homeschooling right now. I must admit that when I sit down to do reading with my daughter, that is a sacrifice for me because she is whiny and complaining about it. This is something I am working on with her. But this year has been difficult with the reading; the sole reason being her attitude, which I dread dealing with every day (although God is teaching me how to better parent her through this.) So, this part of her homeschooling is a huge sacrifice for me every day. I'd much rather have someone else do it. But, I realize that the reading is only a small part of the whole homeschooling picture...and for so many reasons I believe it is best to homeschool my children. So I sacrifice my desires daily for the best of my children. Does that help to explain what I meant?

I agree with the quote from that Parenting book. Yes, so many mothers today do not set up boundaries with their children. And we must. I'll give you an example of a way I set up boundaries. I am in introvert, meaning that I need time to reflect and think each day. This quiet time re-charges my battery. So, every day the children are required to play quietly in their bedroom. We call this quiet time. And after working for the morning- homeschooling, exercising, housework...with a couple short breaks for me- I insist on my time alone in the afternoon. This is when I read and write and plan. Then, after quiet time I read to them some more during teatime and the day goes back to "normal". But during our quiet time, the rule is no coming out of your room and talking to mama.

Now, to the scriptures. Thank you for your thoughts! They were insightful:) Now, you see, I don't think the earth is filled...as people die, if equal people are not born, there will be less and less on earth. Even if the earth is filled now, the only way to keep it that way is to continue to bring children into the world. And I think it is even more important for Christians to realize this, because it is the godly seed that is so needed. We need to get a revelation of the scripture that says our children are arrows. What does one do with arrows? They are shot out to fight in a battle. I think of woman being called Ezer...here as a warrior to battle alongside man and our children are our arrows...not our ONLY arrows, but important ones nonetheless!

I do not think God plans for ALL couples to have children though. I mean, obviously He does not give all couples children. I have wondered, though, in those circumstances if God would have those couples adopt. They would still be raising and shooting off arrows through adopting. But, again, I would not say that all couples without children should adopt. I believe that sometimes God wants to use couples for other purposes, and we all are accountable to seek God for ourselves and follow His lead.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Jonalyn Fincher — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:36:41 -0000

Esther,

I appreciate you taking time to process and share with us all. I agree that a mother (and I think we'd both add father) ought to love their children sacrificially. Your comment about putting your child first is a commonly held dogma of our culture. I wonder about it... not because I find it to be untrue, but because I don't find it necessarily true. I was hoping you could justify it with Scripture or show why a woman should put her children ahead of her love for anyone else, husband, mother, (I know you didn't mean love for God).

An interesting point from psychologist and child rearing expert John Rosemond (author of Parenting by the Book) is how as women we've fought so hard to set boundaries in our life in every area from work, to friendships to even in our own marriages. Yet, it's looked down on to set up boundaries with our own children. He said in a recent interview with ACSI, "Women have fought for equality and yet their children are growing up disrespecting women" because of the way that they are being raised.

I'd love to hear mother's responses to this.

I enjoyed your line, "It is not all about making money…it is about bringing our unique contribution to those around us." I could not agree more! I love the way you've structured your life to allow for you to pursue your talents writing and researching and I appreciate your thoughts as another Christian feminist who wants to make a way for women to be valued in our various seasons.

Here's to more vision casting!

Another perspective on your apologetic for having children. From this woman who does desire to have children let me put a few comments about these verses

Gen 1: 28- Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule...."
1- Often we take one of God's commands and not the second because we have found one part to be specifically applicable and the other to be universally applicable. We do this in 1 Tim 2 when we ourselves braid our hair and wear pearls but do not instruct men (though I will have much more to say about that later ;). Our task whenever approaching Scripture is to ask 4 questions: what is the genre (history, poetry, gospel, epistle, prophecy, etc)? What is the context? What did the original audience hear? and What is the universal principle/truth that God would mean me to apply? For more on this process see the Soulation "How to Read the Bible Series.
2- What if God meant us to be fruitful and multiply in order that we might (as he said) FILL the earth? If so, when do we know if the earth is filled? I'd say some would argue it's already filled. If so, perhaps the mandate to multiply while to the first man and woman meant to have lots of kids, the universal application could be that God designed us to enjoy this earth with other people. This might mean freedom in the child-bearing decision

Malachi 2:14-15- This was originally written to the prophet Malachi and it originally mean that he and his wife were bound together for the purpose of having children. There is no clear universal command that God joins all men and women together to produce children. In fact, we can be certain he does not as many couples are childless. The universal principle of this passage seems to me that God has a unique purpose for every couple. While I do believe God wants to see the world full of those who love him, my current belief is that there are so many unloved children, so many teens growing up in inattentive homes that I have more than my share of child-rearing I get to do (even if "only" through the vehicle of Soulation).

Finally, an important, but often unpopular point is how we cannot guarantee that training up a child to love the Lord will produce a child who will "rock the world for God" Many, many do not want God's life....regardless of how godly their parents were.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Esther — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:53:00 -0000

Hello Jonalyn! I know that you recently shared with me of your planned vacation, and so I do not expect a response to this comment for a bit. I also realize that this blog post has been inactive for many months, but I just read it today and would like to respond.

First, some important things to know about me: I am a mother of four and I am currently homeschooling my oldest, who is six.

When I was a naive teenager, I wrote in my journal that my dreams were to find a godly husband, have children, and have a career. For the longest time I wanted to be a writer. I wrote growing up, and my teachers praised my writing.

I ended up studying early childhood education, a decision I made partly because I was not confident that I could get a job as a writer. Although I did also enjoy studying education...I used to "teach" my disabled sister at home when we were both teenagers.

While in college, I came across many "biblical womanhood" sites...and because I wanted so bad to honor God, obey Him, and be a real "biblical feminine" woman, my views on having any sort of career changed. I believe that is part of the reason I did not pursue more than two years of training, for at that time I was planning my marriage and knew I'd want children...so what would have been the point of pursuing higher education? I thought.

I worked at early childhood centers, as either a teacher or TA, and, though I enjoyed "nurturing" the children (just lovin on them) and teaching, it was not exactly my ideal job. While working, I got married and was pregnant about 1.5 months into the marriage. I do not regret this, although I was of the persuasion (from these biblical womanhood sites) that if you did not let God plan when and how many children you'd have, you were not trusting Him.

Now, here I am with four children. (Three pregnancies...I had twins) I love my children dearly. I love to cuddle them...love, love, love to read to them...and I like to teach them:) But we are not homeschooling because I gain incredible fulfillment from it (although many aspects do fulfill me, while others are very challenging), rather because my husband and I truly believe it is best for our children. I would never say it is best for all families though.

A while back, I began re-thinking my "beliefs". I kept pondering the truth that we can say to our sons "you can be anything you want to be when you grow up" but to our daughters "unless you do not have children, your calling is limited to whatever you can do in your home." How is this right? As was previously said, it is putting more responsibility to sacrifice on a mother than a father:) Do not girls have passions, talents, and gifts just as boys do? And how about me and my teenage dreams for motherhood and a career? How can it be right that in order for a woman to be a mother, she has to forsake her other passions and gifts?

So, in this case, I understand how Christian feminism is looking out for the welfare of children. I want my daughters to have full lives when they grow up. I want them to value children deeply and honor motherhood, but I also want them to be able to realize that it is okay to pursue their *other* dreams and gifts, as long as it does not hurt the children.

And, in regards to that, I DO believe a mother should put her child's welfare before her own. It is godly (like God) for the stronger to sacrifice for the weaker. It is honorable. I think of the Titanic, when men gave up their places for the women (not that all wanted to). With only a certain number of boats, not all on the Titanic could be saved. So the stronger, the men, gave up their "rights" to protect the weaker- the women and children. It is just as honorable for us to put our child's needs before our own. This is not saying that we don't have needs, but that if one of us-mom or child- has to sacrifice, it should be mom.

I read through all these comments and took fervent notes, studied and thought much about this topic. I truly dislike when people ask me how I have time to read and write with four children, as if I should never pursue my hobbies and passions? I do not work outside the home, I bring in no income whatsoever (although if I could I would, but I cannot think of a way to...I'd only want to do it if it was through my passions and gifts, as I do not need to add another "responsibility" to my long list...) but I do not neglect my mind and giftings. That is the key. It is not all about making money...it is about bringing our unique contribution to those around us. And, right now, for me that means researching and sharing with others what I am learning. I have a dream/goal to write a book one day. My children have daily "quiet time" in their bedrooms...and that is my time to pursue my interests. I do believe that the research I am doing now, while my little ones are all with me, may one day result in open doors to bring my giftings into a broader sphere of influence.

I have also struggled with the idea that the only way a woman can "reach the world" and make a difference is THROUGH her children. It is true, that I may now be raising a future doctor, pastor, lawyer, etc. (although since I have 3 girls and 1 boy, I guess according to that theory I'd be raising three mothers who in turn may raise boys that will make an impact on our world)...and that is truly GLORIOUS to think about...but that does not mean I cannot reach outside my home and make the same difference myself that my children may one day make.

I believe much of it also has to do with "seasons" in a woman's life. I recently read the book "The New Eve", of which really did help me to see the big picture of the seasons in my life, although I am not claiming I agree with everything in that book.

I guess the problem, as has been mentioned previously, is that our society is not set up to accomodate women in their various seasons...but I do believe these things can be changed, and as a Christian feminist (who is a devoted stay at home mother currently, but desires to make a path for equality for women), I would love to be used of God to help bring those changes about:)

A few things I also wanted to comment on:

1) Ariana...I'd love to have hot meals provided by someone other than me! I do not like to cook at all and if I had the money, I'd hire someone to take that over in a heartbeat. For those who may wonder about my husband, he says he would love to cook but he physically cannot. He had an accident as a teen and lost both his arms as a result. So all housework falls on my shoulders. But I continually remind myself of how difficult women had it long ago in regards to cooking and laundry, etc. I have many servants- my washing machine, my dishwasher, my crockpot. We women do not have to spend as much time on the basics of housework as in ages past...if I did not have my "servants" I would not have the time to homeschool my children and sit here now writing this.

2) As far as choosing not to have children all together, I believe all couples should really consider what the Bible *may* say regarding that. I would never accuse a couple of sinning if they chose not to have children, but I must admit, it does seem to be God's heart for us to have them. Look at Genesis, when God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply" and after that He told them to "subdue and rule". How can we say we are still to rule the earth together, but say that we are no longer supposed to be fruitful together? One can say Adam and Eve only received that command because the earth needed more people and we have enough now...but then I can say that perhaps we also are no longer commanded to subdue and rule? One is right there with the other.

Also, Malachi 2:14-15 asks the question why did God make man and wife one? The answer: He seeks godly offspring. If I am misunderstanding please inform me. But it seems God desires for all couples to have children, although we cannot say when or how many. Notice that I said "seems"; I am not trying to create a legalistic belief here and I'd not judge others but I am leaning toward that opinion. And, of course, we all know the scriptures that speak of children being blessings...and one reason is because they are like arrows. Happy is the man whose quiver is full of them. We are here, on earth, to battle- both men and women...and our children are the ones we shoot forth down generations to impact the earth. Think about this also: one man and one woman can make a huge difference in the world...and they should! But if that one man and one woman multiply with children and those children grow up and are used by God...WOW! Talk about impacting the world...each life is unique and needed:)

I want to write more, but my time is up for now. I will write more later tonight or tomorrow, so if anyone happens to read this and would like to hear the rest of my thoughts, please check back:)

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Jonalyn Grace Fincher — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:17:00 -0000

Hi Rebecca,

I do not mean to make this an issue "all about us" I'm concerned that you have gathered such a selfish tone from my post. Could you help me see what made you think that I was arguing that the only item of importance was women? How have I indicated that children are not important?

I know that raising children now is different from raising children 150 years ago, however, my example still stands to show that intensive mothering is not necessarily better simply because it's the New Way of doing things. Also, the fact that child abuse did (and does) exist is not a good way to judge ANY parenting style. Abuse happens today from stay-at-home mothers, but we do not judge a thing by it's abuse. I would ask for the same courtesy in judging an ancient or older parenting style as well. Let's judge a thing by it's ideal implementation, not by it's abuse.

By the way, I'm not meaning to compare a woman from 2000 with a woman from the 1500's. Women as recently as 100 years ago were raising their children in agrarian cultures, where children were cared for by other caretakers and it was not considered (nor was it to my mind) abusive, harmful nor did it render the child stunted or embittered.

You bring up a good point about the many women who are unhappy as you put it "dumping their kids at daycare" (by the way I'd caution you to not use such an emotionally charged way of speaking about their decision). I've met these women and I"m afraid the current Christian church is very responsible for making them feel even MORE guilty for their decision because we couple good godly mothering with staying at home. God never does that, but we do.

Also, I'm curious, how many friends in your acquaintance are very excited about working full-time and are also (in your mind) excellent mothers? I'm wondering what you make of these mothers. If you do not know of any I'd like to introduce you to a few of my friends who are. Their testimonies have been key to helping me realize the freedom to love your children in a variety of ways.

I think many women feel it is "their place" to be the number one caretakers. And this is what I'm trying to question. Whether women feel they should be home or not is not as interesting to me as the question, "Why do women feel they should be full-time mothers?" What would be your answer?

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Rebecca Trotter — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:15:00 -0000

I'm way late to this and I'm afraid I don't have time to read through all of the comments right now. However, I just wanted to throw in a note of caution about how this issue is discussed. I think we need to consider that when we discuss this issue as if it were about women, mothers, father and men we are in serious danger of forgetting that it's really an issue about children and how to do right by them in our culture. IOW, it's not really all about us.

In particular, I think we need to be very careful in holding up pre-industrial families as comparisons. First of all, the history of childrearing is probably even more fraught with demeaning violence, disregard, neglect and abuse than the history of women. While it may be right to reject a rigid set of sex roles which only trace back to the industrial revolution, I don't think any one would argue that a look even further back in history would be real enlightening in showing us examples of other ways to treat women. Let's not do that to the kids either.

The other issue with using pre-industrial revolution families to raise questions about our current model is that there are very real reasons which go far beyond male patriarchy and the church for how we ended up where we are today. Raising a child to survive in our complex world is a much more intense and laborious job than raising a child to be a substinance farmer. Heck, even our life spans have affected how we raise children. Back on the farm, even if the mother was not providing care full time, it was usually the family and the mother wasn't leaving her children to work - they usually tagged along when they weren't out playing with almost no supervision. The comparisons between a working woman of 1500 and a working women of 2000 are simply not valid at all. The circumstances, resources and goals are radically different.

Finally, the woman who worked in 1500 didn't do it because she chose to. She didn't generally seek to find a job where she could serve God or others, develop her abilities, etc, etc. Women work for all sorts of reasons today. What is amazing is that if you look at polls of mothers, only a very small percentage of them say that they want to work full time outside of the home (I think the last poll I saw was in the range of 20%). So framing this issue as a matter of respecting choices while ignoring the fact that left to their own druthers, very few women would be working full time out of the home seems a bit paradoxical. Every one is so worried about stay at home moms who may be feeling "godly dissatisfaction" or whatever sort of discontent about staying home and whether the church is pushing women into roles they are not called to. What about the large numbers of working women who are not very happy with dumping the kids at daycare (unfortunately, the industrial revolution destroyed the extended family network that your parents and those who lived before the industrial revolution depended on)? It seems to me that there's a lot of discontent to go around. Focusing on the stay at home moms who may feel pressure to be there without also looking at the large numbers of women who would rather be home and what forces are preventing them from "choosing" their path seems off to me.

Anyhow, I hope that makes sense. Gotta go.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Shelly O — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:18:00 -0000

Sorry I'm so delinquent-I've been sewing prairie skirts and defending my sister wives (Humor meant to induce fun). Seriously, apologies for being less than timely with blogging invitations, as well as VERY delinquent with even my own deadlines. I'm a dabbler, hardly a in league with such a heavyweight...okay, I'll give this some thought, Jonalyn and be in touch! In His Love, S.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Kimberly — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:33:00 -0000

Shelly:
It was so cool to see your comment here. I admire how you brought your perspective– with such graciousness and courage. I already feel like I have much to learn from you...I hope you take Jonalyn up on her idea. I for one would LOVE to see Christian women (with various perspectives) dialogue together across some of these differences. Thank you again for joining the conversation!

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Jonalyn Grace Fincher — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:13:00 -0000

Shelly,

I'm thankful you took the time to read my post and write. I've been thinking and praying how best to answer you. I think I'd like to take you up on that theological discussion. I'll miss the Chardonnay :) and interacting with you in person, but perhaps we can sharpen one another regardless.

My primary thought is that we would do well to listen and learn from each other. I already respect you for writing!

Would you be willing to engage in a discussion over some of the key words and ideas we both care about? (words like "Helpmate" and "godly femininity") I thought we might be able to email one another with some of our thoughts and differences on these ideas and then I could post them on my blog. I know my readers would enjoy hearing 2 women who respect each other dialog about femininity, godliness and even Scripture.

Please let me know your thoughts. And feel free to email me back at jonalyn@soulation.org

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Shelly Ossinger — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:15:00 -0000

I like your ideas, because you're different. I get the sense that mainstream annoys you as much as it does me! We could probably have a great theological conversation over a glass of Chardonnay (my treat). Although I admit I bristle at the idea of promoting Mars Hill's theology and Christian doctrine akin to the distorted unbiblical doctrines of the Yearning For Zion cult, on the other hand, its not our first rodeo to controvery and criticism.

God is hardly conventional. And so, as a sort of update on the Shelly Ossinger comment you quoted, as a working mother due to the housing crisis, I am embracing the new season God has given me, though its not without its trials (but neither is full time motherhood), enjoying my gifts whether God chooses to use them in or out of the catholic Church, content with where God sovereignly leads me to glorify His Name, whether that's building Legos this minute, or changing diapers, or making shrimp pasta for my husband, or writing, or (currently) drafting legal documents in the professional world. As I said in the portion that you neglected to reprint, "seasons change, my friend." There will always be Christian dichotomies (parallel truths that run the same way), and depending on which way "we're running", we tend to lean towards that bent. I'm hardly perfect, less than humble, and have a long way to go to being truly like Jesus. But I love Jesus, and have found He girds up my love for being a woman, loving my family, loving my Church, and loving my job. I agree with you, that's not popular to print in Western Christianity! (I was also geared up to have the James Dobson daughter, but got a different "model", check it out on my post "How To Love Your Daughter's Sugar Skull Tattoo"). Things may look a lot different this side of heaven, but God reigns. May we all, wherever God chooses to use us, glorify God, and enjoy Him forever (borrowed from the Westminster Catechism). May it be so for all of us, Jonalyn. Thanks for your ideas, and I invite you to read the full scope of our blog. God bless~

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Jonalyn Grace Fincher — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:07:00 -0000

Hi "Madame"

I think you'd benefit and enjoy reading all the comments. Let me know what you think when you do.

I agree, we cannot just disregard or claim "they're all just cultural" for those verses on male headship and women preaching/teaching. My husband and I wrote an article about these ideas available on our webpage. See it in our library "Unmuted: The Welcome Colors of Woman's Voice"

I have seen the Titus 2 verse, however, (and I think we agree) I don't think that means a woman should be the only, primary or exclusive keeper of the home. I think the point of this passage is that the gospel and Jesus to be honored in all things. The way some women stay home and keep house (unwilling to cultivate their minds) and the way some women work outside the home (unwilling to sacrifice money for family) both dishonor God, just in different ways.

Thanks for blogrolling me!

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

madame — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:12:00 -0000

Hi Jonalyn,
I just found you on the web ;-) (Molly, from Adventures in mercy linked to you).

I like this entry and I love your style!

I haven't gone through all the comments, so I hope I'm not echoing someone else.

I see leadership the way you do. I'm still "complementarian" to an extent, I still struggle with the meaning of some passages regarding women in pulpits and male headship and such. I can't just disregard them, but I struggle even more with the doctrine that has been made of it. "If you are a woman and you preach, you are against God's will" or "Women were made to be in subjection to men..."

The Bible does teach that women are to be "keepers of the home". I believe a mother should keep her home, guard it, protect her children, nurture them.. There is an argument for that. (Titus 2), BUT I don't believe that a woman can ONLY do that.

As a mother, my primary job is caring for my children. If I'm at home, I believe it's right for me to look after the home and cook meals. Would it be wrong for my husband to stay home and me to go to work? NO!

So that's where I stand. I just wanted to point out Titus 2 as the main passage for "women stay at home" teachings. (you probably knew about it anyway!)

I've added you to my blogroll.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Jonalyn Grace Fincher — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:00:00 -0000

Thanks Martin. I'm going to add to this already vast comment section the link to this article that will give readers a picture of the academic debate. Notice how Gilbert 3/4 way down the article makes the comment that no one should use the current full-time male model of work where one works from high school until retirement. I found this refreshing as I see men often sacrificing too much of themselves because they bear the full brunt of "bringing home the bacon" Read "A Mother's Work"

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Martin — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:49:00 -0000

Nice Work! :)

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Jonalyn Grace Fincher — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:33:00 -0000

From some comments from Jodi H and some stimulating, helping conversations, I'd like to make a few clarifying comments for those who have had the endurance and kindness to read thus far
1- I'm defining a nanny as someone who is a nurse for a child. And as the dictionary defines a child's nurse as a woman employed to take care of a child; a nursemaid or a person who serves as a nurturing or fostering influence or means. I do not have a problem with parents choosing another person to help them parent their children as long as their decision stems from using their gifts and enriching their child's life with another mentor.

2- Because of Disney and other's negative portrayal of the families that hire nannies (Mary Poppins and The Nanny's Diaries) I feel it is necessary to state that nannies are not are terrible ideas. They do not always prove that parents are "farming out" their children. I do not believe that nannies are ungodly choices as they often can enrich an entire family's life (given their hiring is done with wisdom and care). Nannies, or au pairs or family members as caretakers are more evidence of how the body of Christ can use and lean on one another in a very important job: raising children.

3- I don't endorse parents sacrificing their children's needs (as they best understand them) for the sake of a ministry, mission field or calling. As I stand at the moment, I believe it would be best for these couples to abstain from having children and operate as husband-wife teams instead. And though I do not support sacrificing children upon the altar of Christian ministry, I believe we must have grace and humility as we define what "sacrificing our children" means. We must be eager to ask these missionaries or ministry workers if they feel they children are being abused, neglected, harmed by their absence, etc, rather than assuming a wayward child is proof of the parent's neglect.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Jodi H. — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:50:00 -0000

Joni,

Thanks for the open discussion. I've thought so much about what you and all the other commenters have said about this issue. I am such a ferocious advocate for children (and what I think is best for children), that I think sometimes my emotions get in the way of hearing GOD! While I still disagree on some points, I think the main point you're trying to make (and I'm finally getting it) is that each woman must first faithfully and urgently seek God's will for her life and the life of her family and not worry about social expectations (am I right?). I struggle so much with the idea that missionaries may put their children in danger, or that they may have to have other people raise them for periods while God calls them somewhere else. Looking at that purely from a mother's perspective it makes me feel ill and sad and a little bit angry at those parents, but then looking at it from a heavenly perspective, I get it, even though it's still hard for me to digest. God calls us as individuals to serve his purpose and we must individually seek His plan.

My ending thought is that I think universally both parents are called to care for their children and should urgently seek God's will in deciding how exactly to go about that, especially if they are deviating from one or both parents as being the primary care-giver. God has a way of working things out in ways we could never expect or changing the desires of our heart to achieve His purpose, whatever that may be for each of us.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Kimberly — Sun, 11 May 2008 18:31:00 -0000

Ariana,
I just wanted to leave a quick note that your story keeps reverberating in me; I appreciate your courage to speak so honestly. I think you have so much to say, and I hope many others get to hear the voice you bring to these things.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Jonalyn Grace Fincher — Sat, 10 May 2008 15:36:00 -0000

Kimberly- yes, we do need one another as we work to explore, as we long to participate and share in the home and the world at large. Thank you for broadening the discussion

Ariana- what a gift you've given to us. I really valued your story as I've only heard bits and pieces and you seemed so "on top of things" in the way you and your daughter interact... your honest frustrations and deep disappointments were not what I had assumed. Thank you for sharing openly.

You've given me a template into the many ways I might be rocked as I struggle with what makes a mother a "good" mother.

It makes sense that you are grieving that 1st year.... with your expectations to have a baby without surgery, to feed without complications. I relate to these expectations! You've opened my eyes to the variety of mothering experiences, and the ways we can adapt to the hand we've been dealt. You're an example to me of both vulnerability and creativity in your response! Thank you for forging new trails as you seek God's ideas about authenticity and motherhood.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Ariana — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:55:00 -0000

Hi Jonalyn, Heidi linked to this post,and I have enjoyed the discussion. I just wanted to weigh in and share my experience as a mother, and as someone who grew up in a subculture that dictated that the most godly vocation for a woman is to stay at home with her children, taking care of her husband and family. I really enjoyed growing up in a "traditional" family. For most of my growing up years, both of my parents were in the ministry, and not having ordinary work schedules, we actually ate three hot meals a day at the table together. So I have strong nostalgic ideologies about food and family and domestic roles (however, I do have to note that those hot meals were prepared by household help, not my mother!)

By nature, I love to cook, I love to nurture, and I love order and having an attractive lving environment-- all traits that would make me the ideal housewife, right? I also LOVE TO WORK-- and always loved my job and experienced a lot of success and fulfillment in the workplace. Until I got married, I threw myself into work and school, so much so that I completely burned out by age 25, around the time I got married. I gradually stopped working, but it was an extremely painful process for me, and I really had many feelings of worthlessness. But I had a new career in mind, so that helped.

I have always wanted a family, and couldn't wait to start one. I had difficulty conceiving, and questioned my merit as a female. After a while, we did become pregnant, and although I'd always fantasized about pregnancy as such a wonderful, joyful female experience, it was frankly awful (although I never would have admitted that to anyone, since I was so aware that I was getting what I wanted, while others out there are unable to conceive.) The birth was extremely difficult, and 40 hours of vomiting and hard labor later, I had a c-section birth. I am about the last person in the world I would have expected to not be able to have a vaginal delivery, and it wreaked havoc on my spirit. I felt like such a failure, and was ashamed that I couldn't perform the basic female functions of giving birth. Two years later, this is something I am still grieving, even knowing that I am not being judged by others for it.

My baby had colic, for 9 months. If she was awake, she was crying. She didn't sleep through the night until she was 1 1/2 years old, and I was constantly in tears from exhaustion, unable to function socially. She wasn't gaining weight after 4 months, and was diagnosed as undernourished by her pediatrician. I started making formula for her every day at home from scratch to supplement breast milk, and she weaned herself within a week! I was devastated that she didn't want to nurse from me, and in came more feelings of inadequacy. In the meantime, I was sleep- deprived, caring for a constantly crying baby, making formula, washing cloth diapers and cooking everything for my family from scratch. The perfect picture of domestic bliss, right? I was so depressed, so beyond my own resources, incredibly let down by family and community (I had almost no help at all, people didn't even want to HOLD my crying baby,) and wondering if they would take me if I tried to check into a mental facility. And yet I still felt all of this pressure to enjoy motherhood and make sure I did a really good job. And try to believe that this was what I was created for. And not complain. And be able to handle it all. And, the hardest part, to be NICE to people!

I muddled through. About a year or so into it, I had a revelation about the breastfeeding. If I had been able to nurse her all through her first year, I would have been bound to her constantly. Instead, I was able to give her a bottle and send her off for a couple of hours with my husband-- once, it was for two whole days! What a gift from God! There is no way that I would have opted to give her formula if I was physically capable of feeding her from my own body, but that limitation, which felt like such a shame and and an insult for me ended up giving me FREEDOM. I wish I'd been able to appreciate that sooner. I still don't like to think about our first year together, and have to fend off guilt for even feeling that way. I am really thankful to have the luxury of not having to work outside of the home, but down the road the plan is for my husband to reduce his hours so that I can also invest in myself and the outside world. I have learned so much in the last two years about the level of expectation that is placed on mothers, and they way we judge peoples' spiritual merit based on how they parent-- but there is an incredible double standard! I would love for my husband and I to share the burdens of parenting more equally. This is something that he was so happy to be able to do once bottle feeding was an option.

My intention here is not to make one big important point, but to share a bit of my experience as a new mom within the conservative Christian subculture. So much of the difficulty of my experience had to do with what I had been told made me a valid woman and Christian, and dealing with reality, along with those beliefs. I would love to say that I have been emancipated for those ideologies and no longer struggle with feeling inadequate, but it is a process for me to identify what I was told about my value and what is actually biblical, and how I can please God authentically.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Kimberly — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:21:00 -0000

Jonalyn,
I am really intrigued by the last paragraph you just posted, because I have been thinking (and writing) quite a bit this week about what it means for women's voices and gifts to be supported both in the home and in society. We need women's voices in the home and we need women's voices in our society: women bring unique perspectives and concerns to parenting, to politics, to the study of law, to the love of theology, etc. The fullness of God's kingdom requires the gifts of women to be used and valued in so many spheres.

Like Jonalyn alluded to, there are women who work outside the home not because they are selfish, but because they feel called to offer certain gifts to the world. (Certainly, there are many reasons women work outside the home. For instance, many women out of necessity need to help provide monetarily for their families. I concede that some might indeed be selfish in their career pursuits- like wanting excess income merely to feed materialism- but many moms work outside the home for very legitimate reasons.)

I know that I want to be a mother one day, and I also want to continue in my career as a writer and a teacher, because like Jonalyn mentioned, I consider that my career is connected to making the world a better place for my children and other people's children, too (I do think it is important that we consider our sense of family beyond the nuclear family as we have this conversation). I know I will need to marry someone who is excited to find better ways for fathers to be involved in child raising. But, I believe our culture is now longing for fathers to be more connected to their children's development, so I am eager to think about how men and women can better share parenting responsibilities.

What I am becoming more aware of as I read these blog postings is that each of us "see in part." We all have something so important to offer this conversation, especially as we speak out of different life experiences and callings. I appreciate the mothers who have shared about having young kids in the home, and the importance of children having

secure attachments at an early age, and what it means to sacrifice on behalf of our kids. I also appreciate those who have spoken up to encourage us to see that different parents can legitimately choose different ways to co-parent, without being unbiblical.

Jodi: One more thought in response to your post! I think your critique of aspects of the modern feminist movement totally makes sense. In fact, non-white and non-Western feminists often have offered the very same critique as you. They want their often privileged Western sisters to understand the importance of family and they will critique some of the individualism that can be too dominant in Western, white feminism, which is usually the kind of feminism we see depicted in the mainstream media (which doesn't depict diversity very well.)

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Jonalyn Grace Fincher — Sun, 04 May 2008 12:01:00 -0000

Jod,

Glad you wrote. I love your commendation for women to be creative if they choose to stay home with their children and your reference to Prov 31. She's come up quite a bit in this discussion. I'm glad for that.

We agree that the body of a woman should inform what we do as we mother. The fact that we can bear a child and produce nourishment is a great indicator of what we can do for the child.

However, I don't want to overstate this ability. Sure if a woman can birth a baby and produce milk, it seems that she should share this with her baby. But this doesn't mean that a woman should be the primary caretaker. It merely means that she is a key source of the baby's food.

Caretaking (I'm assuming this means everything from burping to feeding t changing to cuddling) is something men can share in almost all ways (even feeding, most babies begin eating solids as early as the 1st year and dad's can be a key part of that, not to speak of pumping and letting dad feed with bottle).

When you wrote: "I don't think God could have made it any clearer physically or psychologically as to who is the absolute best caregiver for the child" I have to disagree.

God could have been much clearer that the mother was the absolute best caretaker. He could have addressed all parenting commands to females.I think because all Scriptures that deal with parenting address both parents, not just the mom, we should assume that God is pretty excited about co-parenting and not overstate that a woman's physical body requires her to be the primary caretaker.

Of course women can and often do the most caretaking, but this would not have been traditional, natural or normal 300 years ago when all Christian parenting guides addressed the fathers or parents, never mothers because and here I quote women were susceptible to "passions and affections" and given to "indulgence" and "excessive fondness." Wives were valued for their fertility, not their child-rearing abilities (for more see Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's "Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England 1650-1750, Oxford University Press).

So the very arguments that you've given as proof that women are the absolute best caregiver are the very same arguments Puritans argued made women unfit to be primary caregivers... a woman was too close to the child to be firm, stern, responsible. I'm not saying I agree with these arguments, I'm simply pointing out that what seems very natural to us has not always been the case and this makes me pause.

I wouldn't want to come across saying that either is more Biblical nor more natural. What I do think is natural is for a woman to bear a child and for a woman to nurse her baby. Beyond that should be decided upon by each family as giftings, time, family culture, jobs differ and all without the fear of being called unnatural or ungodly or "not best."

Of course, there are ways of parenting that are not natural, not godly and not best. But perhaps we've drawn the lines too tightly, like another corset for women.

As far as the protective (mamma bear) instinct, that is also not unique to women. Most dads I know get awfully protective of their children as well, something is awakened when that child is born. This might manifest itself in different ways, but both parents feel protectiveness.

Your 2nd comment did give me pause. I certainly would be embarrased to know that you think I'm trying to advocate a "me centered" approach to parenting. I agree we should never be selfishly concerned with what only pleases us. You've said this is the main problem with the feminist movement (I'd add this may be true of the secular feminist movement, but not the Christian feminist movement). You've also said that you are far less concerned with "freedom for women and far more concerned with protection and consideration given to the needs of babies and children."

Jodi, I beg you to rethink that statement. It is short-sighted at best and destructive at worst. In raising babies and children we want to provide them with a worldview that values women, so that as they grow up they can have a life that values and recognizes women’s uniqueness and dignity? What are we protecting children for? What if you had a young girl and you said that to her? Can you imagine protecting her and then when she reached her teen years she began to believe she could not use her gift of music or composition or art and got involved with the FLDS wanting only to find a husband to have his kids and be one of his wives? What if she felt stilted for the rest of her life because protection ended up created a cage for her? What do we want the world to look like for your children, for you? What do you want the future wives of Linus and Sebastian to offer them? Don't we want to provide more freedom and less abuse to women for the multitude of blessings that this provides (because Jesus treated women this way, because women offer a picture of God’s image on earth, because mothers who are free to choose how to use their gifts offer more to their children, because healthy mothers mean healthier children, because Jesus died to set women free, not just children and babies).

I love that you are a stay-at-home mother. But you are making it sound like those who are not concerned with protecting children and babies in the way you have chosen are modern feminists, self-indulgent, and selfish. I think you should be careful here. There are many ways to protect children, staying home with them is just one of them. And from my experience and reading, the Christians who are feminists are not like this. They know plenty about midnight feedings and giving up their own rights. They do what they do because they’re concerned about their children when they grow up, they do what they do because they’re concerned about being faithful to the gifts God’s given them.

Re: When Religion Hurts Women- Yearning for Zion Ranch and Mars Hill Church

Jodi H. — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:36:00 -0000

Sorry...! One last thing I wanted to mention. This may sound cold, so forgive me if it does, but I have to say that I am far less interested in freedom for women and far more concerned with protection and consideration given to the needs of babies and children. I think that is the main problem with the modern feminist movement; it is exceedingly self-indulgent and self-focused. It's all about what "I want". But truly, once you become a mother life simply doesn't revolve around you and your desires anymore. Everyday you make choices that are not convenient for you but best for your child (like getting up and tending to the baby at 3:00 a.m.). And that is the way it should be. Mothers and fathers are adults and can handle making adult decisions that aren't always fun or easy and 100% fulfilling. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.