A few more comments; a genuine potpourri of thoughts is forthcoming about glory and all. But first, a word of thanks to all the questions raised publicly and privately. I have never desired this space to be a monologue but a happy exchange of ideas. I can’t answer each one, and in fact, I purposefully limit my responses, but I can take them and put them in my soup. I just wanted to let you know that this is my intention here.
Of course, my opinions are rooted in distinct theological concerns and biblical presuppositions. I also understand that the new readers here may need to understand that my meals are full of spices, which are sometimes too hard to consume for some, a pleasing appetizer for others, and an acquired taste for the rest.
So, I take my chances every day, knowing that to some, I will be a bumbling fundamentalist and, to others, something of a tolerable curmudgeon. In a previous post, I warned you that the older I get, the crankier of a Protestant I become. So, there’s that.
On the topic of glory and womanhood, I would like to talk about a few quick rounds of leftovers from curious souls. The first stemmed from two or three folks who wanted me to follow up on the nature of female glory. Here is my unsystematic attempt at coherence.
Paul calls the woman the glory of man because it is the order of creation. The woman is the last thing God makes. She is made to complete man and finish what man starts. And in life, this reflects that men are leaders and women are completers (see a previous post on this topic below). God designed us that way. Women glorify things. This was articulated by Solomon in Proverbs 12 who stated that an excellent wife is the crown of her husband. Glory is a crown. A king views his crown as his glory because it gives him honor. Proverbs 31 says that the virtuous woman is more valuable than rubies. The wife is to the man what the Shekinah glory is to the tabernacle. Israel protected the glory of the tabernacle. Israel cared and elevated the reputation of that glory. Man is to guard what Adam failed to guard. When men don’t do that, not only are they imbeciles, but they are neglecting the care of their masculine soul.
The implication for some unfamiliar with the luggage of my language is that, therefore, I do not believe a woman should pursue this or that. They may think that I am saying that a woman is to be so concerned with her home that she ought to leave her intellect on the tiles near the kitchen sink. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am a Calvinist with Luther-syndrome. I think Katie Von Bora had every right to tell Luther when he was an ass, and she also had every right to be a glorious theological voice in the household.
I also affirm that young ladies should seek to educate their glories. We do not want fading glories, but bright glories–a glory-cloud of glory. If college seems a fitting place, then pursue it wholeheartedly and do it for the glory of God and for the sake of the glory given to you as a woman. Be brilliant like Marva Dawn, make beer like Katie Luther, and be co-heir of the family business (Prov. 31:10-31).
We used to attend a congregation with several women with PhD’s who decided to be homeschooling moms after their doctorates were completed. In an age of weak and abdicating men, there are plenty of cases for women to guide their boys and girls to church on Sunday and lead them in happy habits of grace. Women ought to be happy generalists just as men.
But what I am fighting against is the professionalization of womanhood. I am fighting against fathers who are training their daughters to be kings rather than queens. I am arguing against the idea that women should pursue independence rather than dependence on their head (I Cor. 11; I Tim. 5:8). Now, egalitarians are gonna do their thing with their abysmal tendencies to locate the fault in the patriarchy. As you may know, care doth I not have. But for all the others seeking willingly to follow the mandates of St. Paul, who said that young women should be “busy at the home” or, better, “homemakers” (Titus 2:4-5), we have ourselves a truly domestic definition.
Women ought to be beautifiers. It doesn’t mean they can’t work, but it does mean that the home must be their headquarters of rest and true labor and not just an overly decorated hotel suite for evening sabbaths. No, the home must be the central economy of the woman.
And while I am at it, let me take a baseball bat to the American tendency of the two-income household. I come from a country where most men and women work to satisfy their cravings for financial security, to secure their beach vacation home, and to fancy the newest sports car. Yes, I find it deplorable, and the fruits are households of one or two children. They have chosen the pursuit of favor outside the home because let’s be honest, Mr. Poopy Pants is not gifted in the art of gratitude at the age of two. So, yes, I understand that a woman may feel as if glory is better at the workplace, but she must realize that true glory is domestic glory. The local palace is the training ground to glorify church/community life.
If I told you that there are households where a couple will pay outrageous money for their infant to stay in a daycare just so mom can fulfill her dreams of being an engineer, what would you say? If such a family came to me and asked what they should do and whether one is better than the other, I’d encourage them to go on a retreat with all expenses paid by grandpa and reconsider the question. Then, when they return, they should ask the question again, which is, “What steps can we take so that mommy can stay home with the covenant child that God gave us?” At that point, I will pull out the three secret champagne glasses in the office and offer a toast in the name of glory. Yes, yes, there are exceptions, but wokeness was created because we valued the exceptions far more than the biblical rule.
Christian ladies, you are the glory of man–the doxology of gratitude. Do not let others devalue your worth or lead you to pursue worth in false places. You are the completer of agendas and symphonies and homes.
Pastor Brito, could you clarify something? I noticed you touched on this very briefly, but I had a question.
The woman who is able to stay at home and raise her kid will probably need to go the gynecologist, or have a midwife. The covenant children will have to go to the pediatrician or a speech pathologist or a dentist. If they’re in private school they’ll need teachers. If she’s in a hospital she might have to have a nurse who attends her, who helps her dress or bathe. She may have to go to a police station and be interviewed or searched by a police officer. She’ll have to go to a hairdresser to get her hair cut. She’ll have to buy clothes that fit her, and all of these institutions will need to be staffed by some kind of administrative assistants.
Those jobs are not optional, but are in fact necessary for the functioning of any society. Wouldn’t you say that in many of these cases it’s preferable for those roles to be filled by women? I’m curious how your counsel for single-income homes applies here. These doesn’t appear to be exceptions that shouldn’t define the rule, as you said, but rather very real and necessary callings that someone must fill. Not from a love of independence, but because they are good jobs that need to be done, and need to be done by women.
I know you briefly mentioned this re: Katie Luther making beer, but I would appreciate if you could speak a little more to necessary jobs that a woman must do outside of the home, and how to think about that in a Christian society.