Vocational Housekeeping for Wives: Are They Serious?
Rationale #4 of the Danvers Statement
Rational number four makes three points as follows: The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) is deeply concerned about 1.) the widespread ambivalence regarding the values of motherhood 2.) vocational homemaking 3.) and the many ministries historically performed by women.
You know they make this stuff up, don’t you?
It’s cut from whole cloth. Conjured out of thin air. Abra Cadabra, and POOF! another strawman argument created. Another rabbit trail to waste time running down. More slogans and mantras to put the skids to critical thinking and intelligent conversation.
They are concerned about the ambivalence about the values of motherhood. I know what the value of motherhood is, but what are the values of motherhood? What the heck does that mean?
Complementarians are known for using obscure language that sounds like it might be reasonable if only we knew what it meant. Ambivalence about the values of motherhood? Seriously?
Assuming the values of motherhood have to do with only two things, 1.) how many children one chooses to have and 2.) how much those children are loved and cherished by their mothers, right out the gate, aspersions are cast on the love and commitment of mothers who adore their families but choose to have smaller ones and/or pursue careers.
And what about women who choose not to have children? Is rationale number four a subliminal message to all wives to stay home and get pregnant? If some complementarian leaders had their way, we’d all be the Duggars.
On that note, I find it more than interesting that Al Mohler and his wife raised only two children (birth control? Who knows.). And after comfortably (likely very comfortably) raising a very small family, Mohler is suddenly not so sure Christians should use birth control.
Convenient timing considering the child-bearing part of his marriage is over. Where were the values of motherhood for the Mohler’s when they chose to have such a small family (my apologies if infertility was the cause—which it probably wasn’t as they do have two children)?
I’m not advocating for or against birth control, I’m just noting Al Mohler’s hypocrisy and saying that whether or not a couple chooses to limit the “values” of motherhood via birth control is none of his business.
Ambivalence about Vocational Homemaking. Vocational homemaking? Vocational homemaking?? Are you kidding?
Synonyms for homemaking: Chores, housekeeping, housework, housecraft, cleaning.
Synonyms for vocational homemaking: occupational cleaning, industrial cleaning, work chores, cleaning as a job, assignment cleaning, employment cleaning, housekeeping for hire, professional cleaning, skilled or expert cleaning.
If housekeeping is indeed an expert skill, which I don’t dispute that it certainly can be, then why is it demeaned by complementarian leaders in forbidding male students to take the college-level homemaking course at Southeastern College? Even if complementarians frown on married men doing housework (which they do), what about single men and single fathers? Don’t they need and deserve to learn these expert skills as well as women?
Complementarians often refer to marriage in vocational terms. It undergirds their unbiblical hierarchy when Christians allow them to get away with comparing marriage to a corporation with a CEO and subordinates, so why are we surprised when they cast motherhood and homemaking in the same light, and then debase them by referring to them as jobs?
I was a stay-at-home-mom. I made a home for my children. And I’m sure I could have used more skill and expertise in the housekeeping department. The homemaking skills complementarians refer to are no more than housekeeping skills. Skilled housekeepers can be hired. Does skilled housekeeping contribute to a happy home? Absolutely! But skilled housekeepers are not what produce emotionally healthy children or adults. Loving parents do that. There are plenty of warped human beings who were raised in immaculately kept homes. And there are plenty of amazing human beings who were raised in cluttered homes.
As for my own experience, despite any faults I may have had in the housekeeping department, and I had plenty, I can guarantee my children always knew their mother loved them. And I am proud of the men my sons have grown into. They are good citizens and hands-on, engaged, family men, who, among all the other things they do—teach college, referee ball games, run electrical wire, trap shoot, and run with special forces units as a combat medic)—cook, vacuum floors, do laundry, wash dishes, chauffer, and when their children were small, changed plenty of diapers.
Their wives adore them.
Ambivalence about the Many Ministries Historically Performed by Women … Keep the nursery? Teach children? Clean the church? Fundraising? Church secretary (watch out, that’s a woman working outside the home!)? Compassion ministries?
All of the above are good and worthy endeavors that, though there are many good and gifted men and women who love participating in these activities, are generally considered to be beneath men.
Let’s focus on fundraising. This is an activity that complementarians approve for women, and which is generally left to the women. In light of this, why did the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) seize the largest fundraiser in the organization, the Lottie Moon offering, from the women of the WMU (Women’s Missionary Union) and place it under the purview of men?
They literally staged a coup to take control of the Lottie Moon offering, and then placed the entire WMU under the governance of men.
The Lottie Moon offering was created by the women of the WMU in 1918, and throughout the years, the women have done a stellar job of building it into the financial heavyweight of mission’s offerings. No small feat. This was a good thing for missions but not so good for male governance, as it gave the women too much clout within the SBC.
The same thing happened in England with the women’s anti-slavery societies (women getting clout that is). The history books give William Wilberforce all the credit for freeing the slaves in the British Empire, but it’s not completely deserved. He could have done much more much sooner, but he was a long-time proponent of gradual emancipation—a fairly safe middle-of-the-road position for a politician. He likely never would have freed the slaves in the British colonies without pressure from the women, who were funding the men’s anti-slavery societies. And this is the point, like the women of the WMU, the women of the British anti-slavery societies had a great deal of clout because of their enormous fundraising success.
Elizabeth Heyrick, an influential proponent of immediate emancipation and, more importantly, head of the women’s anti-slavery societies, threatened to withdraw funding from the *men’s anti-slavery societies if Wilberforce didn’t change his position and begin supporting immediate emancipation. He promptly changed his mind about gradual emancipation and in short order freed the slaves. Such is the impact of women’s compassion ministries.
*The anti-slavery societies, like the SBC, did not allow women to actually participate in the direction of the movement, other than to raise funds (menial but necessary) and in other non-authoritative ways.
Back to the Lottie Moon offering. It was the behemoth of fundraisers in the SBC and unacceptable to complementarian men for women to hold such financial power. After all, look how those ambitious women manipulated Wilberforce. But complementarianism had the perfect solution to that sticky little problem. They simply hijacked control of the offering.
Today, the women of the SBC remain the workhorses in virtually all fundraisers within the organization, including the titan of all fundraisers, the Lottie Moon offering, while the men put bits in their mouths and control the reins of everything the WMU does.
Affirmation number four of the Danvers Statement is a jumble of vague and unscriptural gobbledygook. It is restrictive, burdensome, and demeaning. The men of CBMW are deeply concerned for their own welfare and power … and for keeping women in their place.
In Christ, there are no gender-restrictions on compassion ministries or any other kind of ministry, task, or job. Just because some things have historically been done by one sex or the other, does not mean the calling or activity is restricted to that sex. Men assign and restrict according to sex. God calls and equips according to his will.
Eclectic, edgy, and enlivening, Jocelyn Andersen is the author of several non-fiction books and is currently working on her first novel. She writes and speaks about a variety of topics with an emphasis on the subject of God and Women. Her work in that respect has been featured in magazines, newspapers, radio, and television.
When Jocelyn speaks at your church or event, toss political correctness and stuffy tradition out the window, and prepare be challenged and motivated. Whether she is speaking to writers, teaching a Bible study, talking about the gender-based Christian caste system, or Christian response to domestic violence, her talks and interviews are always compelling, informative, empowering, and inspiring.