The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings
❗ (Note: Remember, the author of what you see below (me), is NOT a left winger, atheist, Democrat, or secular feminist.
I am right wing, a Republican [update: as of 2017, I am unaffiliated with any political party], social conservative, but this does not mean I always agree with those groups on every topic,
or,
I may agree with them in principle but disagree in how to carry out a goal, or with how much emphasis to put on a topic.
I am only partially Christian now but am more of an agnostic but remain sympathetic to Judeo Christian views and morality.
Again, I am not an atheistic, secular feminist, Christian-hating left winger.) ❗
The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings
Consumed as they are by marriage and motherhood (or fatherhood), Biblical Gender Complementarians have nothing to say for and about never married, divorced, widowed, or childless or childfree adult Christians.
Those who teach gender complementarianism also divest some time into explaining why they believe women cannot preach or teach, but a lot of their commentary focuses almost extensively about motherhood and marriage.
Gender complementarians are fixated on delineating exactly what they believe the Bible says a wife can and cannot do, or should or should not do.
The fact that gender complementarianism cannot be, or is not, equally applicable to single women (or single males) and to the childless or childfree is, I think, one indication that it is not biblical.
That those who believe in it do not usually bother to talk about those who do not fall into the roles of spouse or parent, nor do they explain how the unmarried or the childless or child-free may live up to supposed “biblical gender roles,” speaks volumes about how weak a doctrine it is, and how there is an agenda going on behind it.
It seems to me that the real motives of gender complementarians is not to truly serve or help men and women find out what their unique calling or purpose is in life, but that “biblical womanhood and manhood” teachings function largely to
1. foster the propaganda that a woman’s only or greatest calling in life is to marry and produce children (concepts which are not taught in the Bible);
2. to use as a tool against the perceived threats of secular feminism, homosexuality, liberalism, trans-genderism, and abortion and whatever other issues or political groups and causes that conservative Christians are opposed to.
I suspect that many gender complementarians hold to the position not so much because they are truly concerned with women (or men), but out of loathing or hatred for liberalism, secular feminism, and homosexuality.
You can read more about how gender complementarianism is non-applicable to all women (e.g., women who are unmarried or childless) here:
(Link): The Incomplete Gospel of Biblical Womanhood
Here are a few excerpts:
- [The blogger was having a conversation with a male gender complementarian]:
“I have a question for you,” I said honestly. “This idea of ‘biblical womanhood’ seems to apply only to married women with children, who have the financial ability to stay home with their kids. I am a single Christian woman who is working to support myself. What does the biblical womanhood message say to someone like me?”
Now this was a question I had been wondering about for a long time, so I was actually very excited to be able to hear an honest answer. He thought about it for a little while and replied, “Well, it says that the best plan for your life is to find a good Christian man who will lead your family and provide enough that you can stay home.”
So the “biblical womanhood” message says that a single woman is not living the best Christian life because she is not married.
… I pushed a little farther. “And what about married women who cannot have children?” [she asked the male gender complementarian]
This thought caught him a bit off guard. “I’m not sure,” he said, “I guess they don’t really fit the mold.”
So, the “biblical womanhood” message tells women who are not able to have children, that they do not fully fit into what it means to be a Christian woman.
… Being single in the Church is hard enough.
Many in the Church have elevated the nuclear family so much that singles hardly have a space in Christian community anymore. Add on the fact that, if you are a single woman you aren’t considered to be a true “biblical woman,” and walking into a church without a husband feels like walking into a country club wearing jeans:
You shouldn’t be here looking like that.
… “Gospel” or “American Dream” ?
As I learn more and more about the “biblical manhood and womanhood” movement, I can’t help but think that it sounds more like the American dream than the upside-down Kingdom that Jesus taught about.
Please (link): click here to read the rest of the blog page from the Junia Project Blog.
Related posts this blog:
(Link): The Nuclear Family Was A Mistake – by David Brooks – and Related Links
(Link): Young Single Women Try to Appear Less Ambitious To Attract A Mate – via WSJ
(Link): Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann
(Link): Seven Truths About Marriage You Won’t Hear in Church by F. Powell
(Link): The Rise of the Lone She-Wolf by Charlotte Alter
(Link): Facebook’s motherhood challenge makes me want to punch my computer screen by F. Everett
(Link): Interesting Links Re Christianity and Gender Roles (A.K.A. Church and Christian Approved Sexism)
(Link): How Christians Keep Christians Single (part 3) – Restrictive Gender Roles Taught as Biblical
Related material on other sites:
Christian Pundit 