This was sent to me from my friend Kevin. He’s a great guy and you can read more of his thoughts on his blog.
Preparing My Daughters For A Sexually Healthy Marriage
I was reading the New York Times article on Women’s Halloween Costumes today and was VERY impressed with the counter cultural discernment the author demonstrated.
As a father of two girls I tend to be a true feminist. To clarify I don’t mean to have being a feminist confused with being a fem-nazi. Fem-Nazis are plagued with a reactionary philosophy that thinks women should abhor children, be compelled to work, and other misguided conceptions like that. As a feminist instead, I think that women should be valued, no treasured, as the Jewel of their people.
We live in a culture that does not endorse that perception at all. My daughters will grow up being told by the media industry, and their peers, that they are objects of sensuality; that their value is in beauty and their duty is in satisfaction. That idea sickens me, and so I therefore work very hard at showing my daughters another value system.
Jesus was radically counter-cultural to his time because of his feminist views. Last night my oldest daughter and I read John 11. As you read his interactions with Martha and Mary at the death of their brother look at how Jesus values their femininity. Jesus knows what miracle he is about to perform, but he values these sisters as women enough to participate in their mourning, to empathize and share the compassion they were created to desire.
As a father I want to celebrate my daughter’s God given femininity, and part of the way I try to do this is in my relationship to their mother. My nature as a man is not to be empathetic or compassionate. I tend to be selfish and unconcerned with others, however when I practice the discipline of compassion I know that demonstrates to my wife the value she has to me. In the same way when I demonstrate my wife’s value to me to her through acts of service and compassion, I am demonstrating to my daughters their value as women.
It is very important to never view my wife as a sexual being. What I mean is, to never view her as existing for my sexual pleasure. My wife and I share sexuality because we are deeply emotionally connected. I love talking to my wife. I know that is not true of a lot of men, and I think this stems from their views of their wife as a sexual being. These men loving having sex and see conversation as a necessary component of “foreplay.” This is simply not the case with me. This isn’t something I have need to work hard at, it is just the reality. I deeply treasure conversation with my wife.
I want my daughter’s to have this kind of relationship. I believe the only way to ensure they choose men who will value them and celebrate their femininity is to start now by celebrating my wife’s femininity in front of them. I need to deprogram the media-centric idea that a girl needs to wear a size two, look good in a slutty nurse costume, and be available for her mates pleasure. I need to be more of a servant, more compassionate, and more participatory in the household management. To put it concisely, I need to value my wife more.
I have more to say about this… But I am pausing for now.
October 20, 2006 at 12:32 pm |
Kevin was really right on about the NY Times article. It was pretty well balanced. Not only that, the journalist who wrote it did a very good job of reporting facts, being balanced and keeping opinion out of the piece, something you don’t really see in journalism anymore. Kudos for the link and the reference.
I don’t disagree with what was said, but I feel Kevin stopped when he should have kept going. Women are sexual beings. So are men. That isn’t the sum of our parts, but we are sexual beings. We live in a culture that devalues genuine sexuality, and it isn’t sufficient to merely say that women aren’t sexual beings.
That said, it was a beautiful article, and several wonderful points were made. Like I began saying, I only fault Kevin for stopping where I feel it would have been more appropriate to continue. Maybe he will treat us to that in the near future.
Also, if you read the Greek, Jesus wasn’t grieving in John 11. He was extremely angry, frustrated and upset, which would explain why he was crying. I’d be happy to expound on that, but I do understand that this is the Sex, Love, and Marriage blog, not the Biblical Languages Expository blog. I’ll just say, read the Greek, and I mean that as genuinely and unpretentiously as possible. Studying the biblical languages changed my life and my perception of God’s Holy Scriptures for the better.
October 22, 2006 at 2:09 pm |
Hear, hear Kevin.
I agree with JAred on the article – very well written and balanced!
As for Kevin’s piece – I would like you to elaborate more about Christian sexuality – particularly your observations of feminine sexuality. I agree with your clarification, though would point out that as Jared said, men and women are indeed sexual beings. What we are not, are sexual objects – which is exactly what I think you meant with your clarification.
As a Christian woman, I’d say I’m very much a sexual being. I love to be intimate with my husband, as much or perhaps even more than he does. But, the reasons and needs behind that are very, very different.
Women are physically designed such that sex is “taking someone into themselves.” Men, obviously, are designed to go in. Think about that in an emotional/spiritual sense, and it’s amazing that it often is the same way. Men go outward and pursue the courting relationship (generally speaking), and women bring the men into their psyches….interesting, huh?
Alright, that was a tangent – but like I said earlier, KEvin, I’d love to hear more about your take on Christian sexuality.
October 23, 2006 at 6:51 am |
Jared –
Thank you. I do think that you are right and wrong on the issue Jesus’ emotion at the tomb. He is “participating in the mourning” with these sisters. This would be equivalent to the Romans 12 instruction to “mourn with those who mourn.” The beauty of Christ’s response is that he is not grieving like the sisters and the crowd are in verse 33 (klaio) instead he is entering their pain (dakruo).
This pattern of Jesus’ behavior is very un-masculine. I would rather work to FIX the problem my daughters or wife are emotionally tied up over. Jesus however first enters their sadness to demonstrate his concern, and then fixes the issue.
I personally need to respond that way more to my wife. Probably giving TMI, but I want to illustrate an example of this from last week at our house.
My 2 year old was being a hellian and my wife had enough so she yelled at me. I exited the room, grabbed the two year old. Spanked her twice and closed her into her room. I was quite proud that I had fixed the problem of the trouble making two year old. Until about 1.5 seconds later when I received more wrath from my wife.
“You were mad at me and took it out on her.” she yelled.
I could make excuses but she was right. I did not want to be inconvenienced by listening to her stress about 24/7 life with our little monster. Since I could not tell her (my wife) to shut up, I punished the child. The correct course of action would have been just to listen to everything that had led up to that point in the 9 hours I had been away at work. My wife wanted compassion after an entire day with the kids.
Jesus could have been like, “Martha this is stupid. Stop your crying and watch this. Lazarus get up here!” But he was not. He celebrated the way he created her and entered her pain.
—-Wow That was Like Forever—
As far as the part of your comment goes, I do want to continue on looking at how my wife’s sexuality and my participation in my wife’s sexuality affects my daughter’s future sexuality. I am hoping to get to that post this week.
October 23, 2006 at 2:00 pm |
“dakruo” is from verse 35. And to say that is proof of his mourning is to completely ignore the context of the verbs pertaining to Him in verse 33. The Greek word “enebrimesato” means to snort like a horse with suppressed rage or indignation (it is also used in its participle form referring to Jesus in v.38). Added to “to pneumati” meaning that he let out a snort (or groan) of indignation and/or rage from His innermost being.” The voice, tense, mood, and context of the verb all testify to this. The translators emasculate the text by rendering it incorrectly here, much like they do to Elijah in the confrontation of the prophets of baal on Mt. Carmel. He never suggests their god is “busy.” He is suggesting that he is off “pooping” somewhere.
To say He is mourning wouldn’t be true to what he was talking about verses earlier. He was weeping in v. 35 because he was incredibly frustrated at what the situation was turning out to be. There is intended irony in what was said about Him in v. 36. John is an excellent user of language and thematic elements, as I am sure you know, and he intended this.
Look at the context of the situation and it is obvious why He is upset. Look back at the last few verses before He got there. Obviously, He is trying to remain low-key and out of public view. All of a sudden, all these people come following Mary. Add to that, what was supposed to be a quiet moment turns into an unavoidable public spectacle. As soon as everyone gets there, He cuts it all short and says show me the tomb. He didn’t even bother talking to Mary. Add to this, He had been trying to get Martha to understand “Hey, I’m going to raise your brother from the dead right now.” Martha being the assumer that she is, is doing just that thinking that He is speaking of the final resurrection, rather than saying, “What do you mean, Lord.” So, He’d been standing there for a while trying to get her to listen to Him when the massive crowd comes rushing toward Him, and He is forced to cut it all short and just do it. His words in v. 40 don’t sound very sympathetic. They sound frustrated, like “Hey, didn’t you hear me/believe me the first time?”
So, when “enebrimesato” is rendered correctly in vs. 33 and 38, you can see what is truly going on here. But, if you just see the sissified version that the translators put in and go with their very inaccurate rendering of it, it makes it much more cloudy. I studied under two extremely highly regarded and well educated Greek scholars and I heard them lecture on these issues. I say this not because I think I am something, but I learned these things from them. I know this could come off as if I am a very little person with too much head knowledge and nothing better to do, but I’m not. I’m zealous that the glory of God be accurately revealed through understanding of the Scriptures, as were Martin Luther and John Calvin. Let us see Jesus for what He is, not for what translators make Him out to be.
Also, I would disagree that Jesus ever did anything “unmasculine.” I believe that He was the true definition of masculinity, and that only by emulating His behavior we also acheive the peak of masculine potential.
October 24, 2006 at 10:00 am |
Hi Kevin,
You seem to be advocating being a role model for your daughters. While I wholeheartedly endorse such a position, I hardly see the notion as revolutionary! Most of the girls that I’ve dated – especially the Christian ones – have tended to identify me with their father… both as similar in key respects, and different in other respects. That’s just what girls do.
I commend your efforts to build an outstanding relationship with your wife – for the sake of your daughters, the sake of your wife, and for more selfish motivations! Still, be aware that they’ll probably still mess up, and date the wrong kinda guys and get hurt. But that’s how they’ll grow.
Your daughters will attract the men into their lives who will help them grow… they will send out the signals and be drawn to those who fulfill their needs.
When the hyperbole is set aside, growing up with a loving father like you should give them the strength and confidence to attract a better quality of man than they might otherwise, but it’s still their journey.
… looking forward to your followup!