Carolyn Custis James is "not a kitchen wife"...

Would it be completely politically incorrect to quote a verse from Titus at this point??? Qualities of a Sound Church (Titus 2:3-5): the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things-- that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. Do as I say, not as I do..... I guess God's Word is not applicable to her though, since she has such a much needed ministry in the church. She is excused and can abandon God's designed role for her just as many men and women do in the church. God just did not know what He was doing when He designed specific roles within the family and the church I guess. ~pw

Dear Karen, No argument here with what you've written, but this final post is best read in the context of all the posts that preceded it. Those earlier posts and the thousands of words by Carolyn Custis James to which they refer are the backdrop for understanding what Ms. James says here about herself on her own blog bio. For what it's worth, my wife helped start and served as the head administrator/principal of a Christian school here in Bloomington for many years, all the while being dedicated to the body of believers known as Church of the Good Shepherd, to her husband, and to her children. Now we have only two children left at home, but my ninety year old Aunt Elaine who has lived with us the past four years is unable to stand or walk. Mary Lee does everything for her. In a few weeks, Mary Lee will go to speak at another church's women's retreat. Yes, there are "seasons of life." But when a woman advises college men not to look for a submissive wife, and when she sells herself to her audience by writing that she "is not a kitchen wife," that "she does not keep house, cook, clean or sew, but ... reads an awful lot and often talks to women (and sometimes men) from all over the world about women's struggles within the evangelical church," one would have to be sinfully naive to miss her message, and sinfully fearful not to rebuke her for the errors of that message. Warmly in Christ, Tim Bayly

Thoughts from another "repentant feminist": At my church's fellowship occasions, the men all tend to end up in one room, and the ladies in another. I used to want to be in the other room where the men were discussing interesting theological matters while the women were discussing wife-and-mom topics. (Of course these are broad generalizations...other topics did come up on both sides.) But I think I'm learning that one of the disciplines of the mind is to pursue that which is perhaps less intrinsically interesting, but more intrinsically important. If I insisted on pursuing the more theological conversation just to suit myself, I would be treating it as entertainment -- which would have the effect not of giving it more weight, but of trivializing it. Please note that I am not saying that women should never discuss theological matters or pursue theological understanding! But all of us should do the hard work of pursuing that knowledge that best befits our roles and callings. I've absorbed a lot from these ladies over the last couple years. Even if I never have children of my own, I am better equipped to love *their* children, in keeping with the vow I make at each baptism. And the Lord is chipping away at my character flaws as I soak in their superior attitudes toward things such as housework. In short, I'm now wanting less to be like the men and more to be like the women. It doesn't bother me so much that Mrs. James pursues theological interests. It doesn't bother me so much that she's not a domestic goddess. What bothers me is that she appears to be disdainful of home-centeredness as a lesser thing than theology-centeredness. If that is indeed her attitude (and I could be wrong...we have had a rather small sampling of writing from which to draw conclusions), then she's missed the point that these are both ways to pursue Christ-centeredness, which is about love, faith and obedience, not merely about intellectual understanding. She's falling into the besetting sin of Reformedom at large -- the belief that our rightness always equals righteousness. I'll end this already too-long comment with a quote from Nancy Wilson's "The Fruit of Her Hands" (http://www.canonpress.org/shop/item.asp?itemid=402, p.75): "One night as I was washing the dishes (which was the last hurdle before tucking in the little ones), my mind wandered off in that direction. Shouldn't I be leading Bible studies? Shouldn't I be involved in more active evangelism? Couldn't I 'disciple' someone? Didn't God want me to do something for Him? "Immediately I realized what He wanted me to do. He wanted me to do the *dishes*. But I still wondered if there was something *else* He wanted me to do. And I realized that, yes, there was something else. He wanted me to do them *cheerfully*. "As I reflected on this, I realized what I had known all along. God had called me to be a wife, mother, and homemaker. Because of all this, all the mundane things I did were sanctified, holy, purposeful, and honoring to God...."

Ok, I went back and reread all the entries and the links, not wishing, in anyway, to be sinfully nave. I have just finished reading the PCA magazine article written by Carolyn Custis and am left wondering what the flap is all about. Taken in the context of her entire article, even the "warrior" comment makes sense. Indeed, it brought to my mind Ephesians 6 where the whole church is told to put on the whole armor of God. Men and women alike are in a spiritual battle and are admonished to be prepared. It also brought to mind a study I once did on the Proverbs 31 woman. In doing a study of the word "virtuous", I found that it is the same as the word "valor", as in "David's mighty men of valor." There is the command that we, men and women alike, must be strong and courageous and dominion takers. I saw no gender confusion in her comment. Here is a quote from her article: "Likewise, when the apostle Paul arrived in the Greek city of Philippi and found a group of praying Gentile women (Acts 16:6-40), he didn't despair and begin looking for men. He simply sat down and began speaking to the women about Jesus as though teaching theology to women was an everyday occurrence. The consequences were significant, for these women figured prominently in the founding of the first church in Europe. The crucial nature of woman's theology comes to the fore when God halts the whole creation narrative to say: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper [ezer] suitable for him" (Genesis 2:18). The Hebrew word ezer, we have since learned, is a military word used most often for God as Israel's strong helper in time of dire need. God applied a military label to women, for the ezer is a warrior, man's strong ally in the battle for God's kingdom. The possibilities before us are extraordinary, and everyone stands to benefit. The wife of a leading PCA pastor told me, "PCA men need to unleash our gifts." If they do, they are doing as much for themselves as they are for the church. One of the serious side-effects of roping off women's gifts within the confines of women's or children's ministries, is that men have effectively cut themselves off from vital ministry that they need and God intended for them to receive. It is still "not good for the man to be alone."" In this particular article, I believe Custis is really only saying what Susan Hunt (whose books have long inspired me and where I first read an exegesis on "ezer") and others have said before her...women have spiritual gifts, women have ministry gifts and the body of Christ needs those gifts. How those are to be used is the point of discussion and is becoming more a point of contention all the time as women are being educated in seminaries. It seems there are two ends of this spectrum and I am uncomfortable with both ends. At one end are those who would not want women to attend seminary and if they did they would use their "theological" training only in teaching children and younger women. They would not be employed outside the home, particularly in a church other than as a secretary or janitor and certainly would never be given any position in a church where they had any men who were under their authority. (I am not talking about being elders; in my mind, scripturally that is non-negotiable and I believe Custis is acknowledging that fact, as well, especially within the PCA.) At the other end are those who would open up all areas of ministry to both men and women in denominations such as the PCUSA, American Baptist, etc. Again, I would find myself in disagreement with those groups. And then you would have those, like myself, who are comfortable with the vision Custis is painting in that article. As a 31-year homemaker, homeschooling mother, grandmother, 12 year plus caregiver of my mother in my home, and all around cookie baker, I have embraced the domestic aspect of my Creator's design. I have loved being a wife and mother. I have loved nursing little ones, teaching them to read, challenging them to grow in the Lord, participating as they met their mates, thrilled at seeing 6 precious grandchildren. And I have been blessed to encourage many, many other women in their pursuit of this high calling. But I also think that the church is missing out on many other gifts that women have to offer because there are too many heavy-handed, authoritarian men who believe men are best qualified to minister outside the church kitchen and nursery because they are men. Take for example the ever-growing what I call "hyper-partiarchial" movement that is warning young women that they are never to go to college. As my own husband has long wondered, why would men want wives and daughters who are only interested in domestic skills when that is only a part of their lives just like lawn maintenance in only a part of his life? I think it is to the position of these men that Custis is speaking. I also think that feminism, itself, was more of a reaction to this mentality than anything else. It was a wrong reaction, but a reaction nonetheless. It reminds me of the people who scream "children obey your parents" which is a Biblical command, and then ignore "provoke not your children to wrath" which is an equally, and perhaps more important, command, given the responsiblity of those in authority to those under their authority. The discussion of women's roles within the body of Christ is one that needs to continue. Personally, I was quite blessed by Wayne Grudem's article at the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website that can be found here: http://www.cbmw.org/journal/editions/1-2.pdf This article centers around all the things a woman CAN do biblically and says that those things ought to be the focus rather than all the things they CANNOT do and stresses that the "can do" list ought to be much longer than the "can't do" one. In my experience, this is rarely the case. Oh, and I am disappointed that we have much less information about Carolyn Custis and her views than we have about R.C. Sproul's presbytery ruling and yet the grace afforded to her has been in very short supply in comparison. What gives?

Elizabeth, you've really, profoundly misread my comment on the other thread. I didn't say housewives are mousy and weak (or, heaven forbid, that I "despise" women like my homemaking wife). I said, trying to think through what Mrs. James said, that what I think she was saying is that men shouldn't be *primarily* looking for a woman who is submissive *in a general sense*. I didn't even say I *agreed* with that, but I was trying to be somewhat gracious in my reading of what she was saying, as opposed to calling down fire. My thoughts on this subject are far from set in stone, but I would appreciate it if thinking out loud wasn't punished with reckless name-calling and condemnation. Geez.

Thanks, Elizabeth, and I agree with most of your post. But, it is a fact, I have known several women who are very meek, quiet, and introverted, who have lived through hell because of the pastoral work their husbands do. But, I think you're right, that their suffering could very well be a failing of their husbands to protect them. And, also, I didn't say that weak women are not as worthwhile as strong women. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact that you interpreted it that way is evidence that you've misjudged the effect of feminist rhetoric on me. I imagine Mrs. James has probably been misjudged in the same way by many on this site.

Folks... I see the word "meek" used many times in the previous posts, and usually in a derogatory manner. As the father of daughters, we were discussing what Peter means when he said women are to have a "meek and gentle spirit" (or sometimes translated "quiet and gentle spirit"). In our world, "meek" generally means "weak, wimpy, introverted"...in general, not a complement, and certainly NOT a characteristic you would want in anyone. However, upon further investigation, I found the same word is used in describing Jesus. And I found that the word has a much deeper meaning than we subscribe to "meek". A word picture does it best: To be "meek" is to have a countenance similar to that of a very large body of water on a calm day...perfectly smooth. When a stone is thrown into that water, it will ripple...but the ripples will be small, and will soon be absorbed, again leaving the calm. This is to be the countenance of a "meek" person...calm, and able to absorb the trials and tribulations of the world without a second thought. THAT is a meekneess I would want for all my precious girls...daughters and wife! And quite frankly, I'd like to have that temperment as well!!! Meekly, Chuck