What Women Deserve

Charlotte Bronte’s novel, Jane Eyre, is one of my all time favorite stories. It is about an orphan’s metamorphosis into a lady of conviction and strength. Bronte’s ability to delve so deeply into the soul’s of her characters, giving her readers such a brilliant study of human nature, makes this book a masterpiece.

It is difficult for the modern reader to comprehend that this novel caused such a considerable amount of pandemonium when it was first published. It was not a particular aspect of the story that caused the brouhaha. No, the mayhem erupted because the author was a woman! In the 1800’s a woman’s place was hardly next to a Thackery or a Macaulay. Now if she had simply written a delicate little book of Christian devotion all would have been fine, but to pen a book full of romance and intrigue was out of the question.

Understanding the times in which she lived, Charlotte published the book under the pseudonym, Currance Bell. It didn’t take long, however, before the world discovered exactly who had defied the winds of public opinion and political correctness. Some of the critics were brutal. Even her Uncle Hugh ran to his minister for advice on how to weather the family’s certain storm of public scandal. Gratefully, his minister—along with many other literary critics—thought the novel was an excellent work.

We laugh now at such narrow-mindedness. Our times are so different from Charlotte’s that we can barely fathom the battle she and her female peers faced. We are so accustomed to reading Dorothy Sayers, Annie Dillard or J.R. Rowling that we tend to think female writers have been with us since Gutenberg’s press.

Without understanding the circumstances surrounding a certain novel, its significance can be obscured. In Charlotte’s case, we appreciate her book more fully, knowing the battle she had to fight as a female artist. Now, when we read the following passage the words make more sense to us:

"It is vain to say human beings ought to be satisfied with tranquility. They must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it. Millions are condemned to stiller doom than mine, and millions are in silent revolt against their lot. Nobody knows how many rebellions besides political rebellions ferment in the masses of life which people the earth. Women are supposed to be very calm generally; but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute stagnation suffer precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow minded in their more privileged fellow creatures to say they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex."

Knowing the author’s circumstances, we read this passionate outburst and realize that we are hearing the heart of the author. I gained even more respect for Miss Bronte when I realized the courage she was displaying in writing a passage that many men would read as only so much arrogant drivel.

Historical Context
Knowing the historical setting of a particular author and book makes all the difference in the world in how we evaluate the author, her life and her art. Which brings me to how we read the scriptures.

How often have we passed right over the lives of Rahab, Mary or Phoebe because we failed to understand the significance of who they were or what they did? How many people ever stop to think about how radical it was to even mention their names in the first century?

Consider Rahab, the friendly little lady with a red light over her door. Her only claim to fame was hiding a couple of Jewish spies form the bad guys. And where does her name pop up again? In Hebrews 11: The Fall of Fame for People of Faith. Imagine the spasms her name—along with those of Ruth, Tamar and Mary—caused the average male reader.

For the typical male of the First Century, women were nothing more than ornaments or tools to be used as men saw fit. Why in the world would the New Testament make a big deal about some frilly little ladies? And what’s the deal with Jesus allowing women to be some of his closest friends and supporters? This is revolutionary stuff. While most of the male population saw women as not much more than instruments with which to produce more males, Christ made them an integral part of his ministry!

I think that one of the things that made the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel so significant for the men of his day was the mentioning of women. (“Argh! Who cares who the Messiah’s grandmother was!”) By doing this, however, Matthew, along with his fellow Apostles, were declaring that Jesus, and thus Christianity, had a different take on women than other religions had.

In most every one of his letters, Paul commends specific women for their contribution to the cause of The Faith. What strange new practice is this? Why in the world would he mention the names of Phoebe and Mary along side those of Timothy and Titus? What had they accomplished? Had they prepared a particularly delicious meal? Had they produced ten sons? Perhaps they had sewn Paul a spiffy looking robe? Let’s take a look at one of the ladies to see what the hubbub was about.

When Paul applauds Phoebe for her valuable service, many historians believe it was because she had brought his letter to the church in Rome. Think about that. Saint Paul’s theological masterpiece entrusted to a woman. She traveled mile after mile across roads filled with thieves and murderers, carrying the heart of Paul’s theology—all by herself.

Consider the loss to Christianity had she lost the parchments. Certainly such a task should have been given to a man. Paul, however, saw Phoebe’s value and trusted her.

Wherever consistent Christianity has been established, women have been elevated. From the very beginning, the Church saw women as fellow-heirs and co-workers with their brothers in Christ. Even women outside the faith were not looked down upon but, rather, were seen as creations of God worthy of respect and endowed with significant gifts and talents for the good of others.

One of the world’s most respected sociologists of religion, Rodney Stark (not a Christian), had this to say about Christian women in the first century.

"Christian women had tremendous advantages compared to the woman next door, who was like them in every way except that she was a pagan. First, when did you get married? Most pagan girls were married at 11, before the age of puberty, and they had nothing to say about it, and they got married to some 35-year old guy. Christian women had plenty of say in the matter and tended to marry around 18."

"Abortion was a huge killer of women in this period, but Christian women were spared that. And infanticide—pagans killed little girls left and right. We’ve unearthed sewers clogged with the bones of newborn girls. But Christians prohibited this. Consequently, the sex ratio changed and Christians didn’t have the enormous shortage of women that plagued the rest of the empire." (Interview in Touchstone Magazine, January-February 2000, pp. 44-47.)

And Christianity’s liberation of women continued century after century. Did you know, for example, that battered, abused and abandoned women fled from across Europe to Calvin’s Geneva?

On The Other Hand
None of this is to say, however, that their brothers have always and everywhere treated Christian women with the respect and dignity due them. Sadly, if Charlotte Bronte were a member of a fundamentalist or hardcore conservative church today, the odds are that she just may have to revert to a pseudonym.

Part of this, I think, is due to the overreaction of such Christians and churches to the radically feminist message that there are absolutely no differences between the sexes. Seeing the devastation this brought to the lives and families of women and men who fell for this weirdness, these Christians reacted in the extreme. Rather than simply holding to the biblical message regarding women, these well-meaning people took the position that if the Feminists are For It, then they were Against It. For example, when the feminist were asserting that women could and should enter the market place and compete on an equal footing with men, the fundamentalists and conservatives, with no biblical warrant for their position, said, No Way. This Is Evil. Women Must Stay Home.

It is appalling to see Christian men treat women as lower class citizens whose existence is defined solely in terms of marriage and family, denying that along with their brothers women too “must have action.” And what do you say about churches who relegate women to a handful of places where they can serve (nursery, kitchen, music and floral arrangements) other than, What Utter Nonsense?!?

Do women not have callings, brains, wisdom, talents, gifts, visions, dreams, and aspirations? Are they only to act as cheerleaders for the men in their lives? Are they not permitted independent thought or are they merely a conduit for the thoughts of their dads, brothers, or husbands? Can they differ with their brothers without being told they are in rebellion?

By the way, the next time you hear some husband refer to his spouse as The Wife or The Little Lady what you are more than likely hearing and seeing is a man who treats his wife as an object for his own personal use. Go ahead: smack him in the back of the head and tell him that slavery was outlawed years ago.

No human should ever be treated as an object: it is demeaning, undignified and a sin against a fellow creation of God. Or so I believe.

copyright Monte E Wilson, 2007