letting herself go

[Tooktheredpill]

Quote:It's so sad that Christians can't learn to regard one another with love, assuming the best. The lady with "loose" clothing may not be careless about her appearance; she may be accomodating a skin disorder. The sullen child in your classroom may not be rebellious but abused. The person who ignored your greeting may be hearing impaired. The scowling person on the subway may be consumed with pain because of family problems. It is so easy to jump to conclusions based on appearances, but those conclusions are often so, so wrong.

SO true, PW

[Darrell]

I think Challies is attacking a symptom instead of standing back and asking "why does this happen?"

I've known a few women over the years in various roles and I haven't known too many who just completely decided to stop caring about their appearance when they got married. It's the natural inclination of people to care for themselves so if this problem of "unattractiveness" is rife in Challies' realm of Christianity then it demands that we ask the reason.

Is it that the wife's only self-worth and self-esteem are tied to strongly to her identity as "wife" that she has no motivation to continue trying to look her best once she's reached the goal of getting a husband?

Is it a defense mechanism for a woman to make herself unattractive in the face of being married to a person that she can't physically stand and therefore subconsciously hopes to discourage?

Is it that the standard for perfection is set impossibly high so that women who have born children and suffered the ravages of time simply cannot reach the imaginary goal?

I don't know. But whatever it is, it's not the normal state of affairs for a person to abandon their own care and grooming unless there is some other factor at work.

My grandma runs a community care home and she has told me that one of the major signs that a person is no longer functioning mentally is that they stop bathing and grooming themselves. They cease to care for their own appearance because they've disassociated from reality. It's a red flag there and I think it's probably a good indicator of some other mental or emotional distress here as well.

As usual, however, Challies & co. are more than happy to simply label the symptom as "sin" and look no further as to why it's occurring.

[Darrell]

Rachel Held Evans' response, part 1:

This morning, pastor and blogger Tim Challies responded to a post I wrote a few months ago entitled “Thou Shalt Not Let Thyself Go?” The original post, which I wrote as part of my year-long experiment in biblical womanhood, evoked more than 250 comments and remains one of our most-read posts of all time.

It examined a popular teaching among some Christians that women should maintain a certain standard of beauty throughout all seasons of life, and that a woman who “lets herself go” may be indirectly responsible for her husband’s infidelity. I noted the fact that no such teaching is found in the Bible and that women face enough pressure as it is in this department without added expectations from their religious community. The impassioned responses that followed the post revealed that many women have indeed suffered under the weight of these expectations and struggled at times with guilt whenever pregnancy, sickness, or a major life change alters their appearance.

While Challies took great care to broach the subject with caution, I was disappointed to see him return to the familiar refrain that “outer beauty reflects inner beauty” and that a good wife will keep up appearances for her husband, “choosing an attractive sweater instead of the stained Mickey Mouse t-shirt.” He refers to 1 Corinthians 6, a passage in which the apostle Paul admonishes couples in the Corinthian church not to deny intimacy to one another, but which says nothing about women maintaining a certain level of beauty in order to please their husbands.

I think my case is as strong now as it was then. The Bible never demands that women be beautiful nor does it justify a man’s infidelity because his wife “let herself go.” If anything, it presents a fairly consistent picture of beauty as a passing pleasure. Challies and company are free to teach that women should stay beautiful for their husbands, but I wish they would stop referring to this teaching as “biblical” when it is not.

[ I am of course not saying that I think women should forgo basic hygiene in a deliberate effort to spite their husbands. The suggestion that this is what I was implying is simply ridiculous. I have never in my life met a woman who did not want to be beautiful for her husband. But I have met many who are so burdened by the impossible standards imposed by our culture that they feel as though their efforts will never be enough.]

This most recent turn of events has reminded me of why I took on this crazy project. It seems to me that this whole notion of “biblical womanhood” has become so distorted among its evangelical advocates that no one knows what it means anymore. We’ve gotten caught up in the details—is it “biblical” for a woman to wear a stained Mickey Mouse T-shirt?—and we’ve failed to ask the more important question—wait; what do we mean by “biblical”?

And yet “biblical womanhood” hangs so heavy over the heads of Christian women that many live in nearly constant fear of disappointing their husbands, their children, or their God.

At the root of the problem is the fact that we have grown accustomed to using the word “biblical” prescriptively (to mean, “what God wants”) rather than descriptively (to mean, “that which is found in the Bible”). We have forgotten that behind every claim to a biblical lifestyle or ideology lies a complex set of assumptions regarding interpretation and application.

When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick in front of another loaded word (like “womanhood,” “politics,” “economics,” and “marriage”) more often than not, we end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says.

...More on this to come!

http://rachelheldevans.com/biblical-woma...nversation

[Darrell]

Quote:At the root of the problem is the fact that we have grown accustomed to using the word “biblical” prescriptively (to mean, “what God wants”) rather than descriptively (to mean, “that which is found in the Bible”). We have forgotten that behind every claim to a biblical lifestyle or ideology lies a complex set of assumptions regarding interpretation and application.

When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick in front of another loaded word (like “womanhood,” “politics,” “economics,” and “marriage”) more often than not, we end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says.

Preach it, sister!!

[pastor's wife]

That was a really good reply by Rachel Held Evans. This really makes sense:

Quote:And yet “biblical womanhood” hangs so heavy over the heads of Christian women that many live in nearly constant fear of disappointing their husbands, their children, or their God.

And definitely her warning about using "biblical" as an adjective causing people to "end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says" is very apropos! It always reminded me of C. S. Lewis's warning about using "Christian" as an adjective and turning Christ into nothing more than a way to further your own agenda.

[Darrell]

Also, every time I see this thread title I think of this song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODHCwsJkElo

[captain_solo]

Quote:This article is indicative of the direction the NeoReformed movement is heading, IMO. Fundyism version 2.0.

yeah, he's a Calvinist so he hates women...very objective viewpoint you have there

[captain_solo]

(05-27-2011 07:20 AM)pastors wife Wrote:  That was a really good reply by Rachel Held Evans. This really makes sense:

Quote:And yet “biblical womanhood” hangs so heavy over the heads of Christian women that many live in nearly constant fear of disappointing their husbands, their children, or their God.

And definitely her warning about using "biblical" as an adjective causing people to "end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says" is very apropos! It always reminded me of C. S. Lewis's warning about using "Christian" as an adjective and turning Christ into nothing more than a way to further your own agenda.

This is a great point. When "biblical" or "Christian" are used as an adjective they basically lose their meaning. I can just make stuff up and use that label and get people to buy my book. Not only that but a good percentage will agree and defend it as "biblical" or "Christian"

[captain_solo]

(05-27-2011 05:32 AM)Darrell Wrote:  I think Challies is attacking a symptom instead of standing back and asking "why does this happen?"

I've known a few women over the years in various roles and I haven't known too many who just completely decided to stop caring about their appearance when they got married. It's the natural inclination of people to care for themselves so if this problem of "unattractiveness" is rife in Challies' realm of Christianity then it demands that we ask the reason.

Is it that the wife's only self-worth and self-esteem are tied to strongly to her identity as "wife" that she has no motivation to continue trying to look her best once she's reached the goal of getting a husband?

Is it a defense mechanism for a woman to make herself unattractive in the face of being married to a person that she can't physically stand and therefore subconsciously hopes to discourage?

Is it that the standard for perfection is set impossibly high so that women who have born children and suffered the ravages of time simply cannot reach the imaginary goal?

I don't know. But whatever it is, it's not the normal state of affairs for a person to abandon their own care and grooming unless there is some other factor at work.

My grandma runs a community care home and she has told me that one of the major signs that a person is no longer functioning mentally is that they stop bathing and grooming themselves. They cease to care for their own appearance because they've disassociated from reality. It's a red flag there and I think it's probably a good indicator of some other mental or emotional distress here as well.

As usual, however, Challies & co. are more than happy to simply label the symptom as "sin" and look no further as to why it's occurring.

If you read his comments in the replies it might help understand his approach a little better. I think he is reacting against the false dichotomy of inner vs. outer - no matter what subject matter. I think he is right that the inner does impact the outer, but I also don't think it can be consistently interpreted and there is literally no way for me to know why someone has put on weight or any other outward sign that some think is evidence they are "letting themselves go" He agrees that more middle aged men let themselves go than women, and he is not excusing men who are unfaithful.

As to the axiom that "real beauty is on the inside" - thats just something ugly people say

[elfdream]

I think some of this is the flip side of women trying to change a man after marriage. It can't be done. There are men out there who want the girl they marry to never change. They want her to stay 25 and a size seven forever and not to change her hairstyle or to grow emotionally. Guess what? She is going to change. She will get older, maybe gain weight or change her views on certain issues. A man can learn to dea with it or rage against the machine.