Kitchen by Banana Yoshimoto

Source of book: Borrowed from the library

I’m not even sure exactly how this one got on my list. But I guess that is what happens when you have something like 300 books on your list that have accumulated over the course of nearly ten years from a variety of sources.

Kitchen is the first novel by Japanese author Banana Yoshimoto (pen name for Mahoko Yoshimoto), written in 1988. It is a fairly short novella, delightfully compact, and achingly bittersweet. Paired with this, in the English translation from 1993, is Yoshimoto’s debut short story, “Moonlight Shadow,” which is also lovely. 

Both the novel and the short story are about grief, loss, and love. In each case, the narrator, a young woman starting out in the world, loses a person close to her, and then must navigate both the trauma of the loss and complicated feelings of love. 

In Kitchen, Mikage Sakurai already lost both parents when she was very young. She was raised by her grandmother, who dies early in the story. She is essentially taken in by a friend and his mother. Except that this is no ordinary family. Yuichi Tanabe is a pretty normal young man, but his situation is unusual. His mother died of cancer a number of years back. After that, his father came to terms with his gender identity, and now lives as a woman. (Sorry about the pronouns, I couldn’t make it make sense otherwise.) So, as Yuichi says, “I’d never lived with anyone but Eriko, she was my mother, my father. Because she was always just Eriko.” 

Eriko is a kind person, with a sense of humor, and takes in Mikage as part of the family. Eventually, Mikage gets a job as a chef (hence the name), and moves out. It is devastating when she learns that Eriko has been murdered by someone who resents his attraction to a transgender woman. 

Both Mikage and Yuichi are devastated, but unsure how to grieve, how to process things. And, to top it off, they are in love with each other, but can’t even admit it to themselves. 

The high point of the novel is a midnight delivery of katsudon as a declaration of love. It’s a fantastic scene, deliciously written. 

The book is so self-contained, so delicately written, it’s a polished gem. It feels very Japanese to me, although I’m probably not much of an expert on that. The emotions are handled with care, with perception, and with grace. It really is a lovely read. 

I want to mention a couple more lines. After Eriko’s death, Mikage comes over to Yuichi’s house, and sends him out with a shopping list so she can cook for him. (That’s both her coping mechanism and part of her bond with Eriko.) 

I heard the door close, and when I was alone I realized I was dead tired. The room was so unearthly quiet, I lost all sense of time being divided into seconds. I felt that I was the only person alive and moving in a world brought to a stop. 

Houses always feel like that after someone has died. 

 And then this one, a reflection by Mikage about her co-workers and their lives. 

Those women lived their lives happily. They had been taught, probably by caring parents, not to exceed the boundaries of their happiness regardless of what they were doing. But therefore they could never know real joy. Which is better? Who can say? Everyone lives the way she knows best. What I mean by “their happiness” is living a life untouched as much as possible by the knowledge that we are really, all of us, alone. That’s not a bad thing. Dressed in their aprons, their smiling faces like flowers, learning to cook, absorbed in their little troubles and perplexities, they fall in love and marry. I think that’s great. I wouldn’t mind that kind of life. Me, when I’m utterly exhausted by it all, when my skin breaks out, on those lonely evenings when I call my friends again and again and nobody’s home, then I despise my own life -- my birth, my upbringing, everything. I feel only regret for the whole thing. 

The catharsis of the ending feels so gratifying because of these earlier moments of raw grief and existential despair. 

“Moonlight Shadow” is a bit different, although it starts with a loss. Satsuki is reeling from the death of her long-time boyfriend. He died in a car crash along with his brother’s girlfriend. (Nothing scandalous about it - he was just giving her a ride.) Satsuki and the brother, Hiiragi, deal with their grief in different ways. Hiiragi wears his girlfriend’s school uniform everywhere. Satsuki takes up running (and probably anorexia as well.) Things change when Satsuki meets a mysterious woman, Urara, at the bridge where she and her boyfriend used to meet. Urara brings her to the bridge again at a certain time where they see a mystical phenomenon, and Urara, Hiiragi, and Satsuki are able to say goodbye to their beloveds. It isn’t as deep (or nearly as long) as Kitchen, but it shares the polished, bittersweet loveliness. It is possible, perhaps, to see “Moonlight Shadow” as a first draft of the themes which Kitchen would explore in more detail. 

I very much enjoyed this book, and can definitely recommend it as worth the time. Only a handful of Banana Yoshimoto’s books have been translated into English, but I may have to seek them out. 

John Ortberg and the ongoing inability of Evangelicals to think ethically about sex

First, the story itself: 

Evangelical megachurch pastor John Ortberg has been placed on administrative leave after it came out that he allowed a man who confessed to having sexual attraction to children (aka a pedophile) to continue to work with children at the church unsupervised - including overnight events. Apparently, Ortberg also did not even bother to inform the elder board of either the decision or the man’s pedophilia. 

Um, that’s pretty bad. That’s intentionally putting children at risk of abuse. 

In my book, that should be an automatic and permanent disqualification for ministry. 

But it gets even more interesting because of how it went down, and who blew the whistle on this. 

Ortberg has a transgender son, Daniel Lavery (formerly Mallory Ortberg) and it is he who, after confronting his father, went to the elder board - which is when this all blew up. 

Apparently, Daniel decided to elevate the issue after his dad basically said “you’re a pervert too, so you have nothing useful to say on how I should handle this.” I think it is safe to say that relationship is now over. (Daniel called it a breach of trust - and I very much agree.) 

I have some thoughts on this whole thing because of my own experience within Evangelicalism. Specifically, this was both thoroughly predictable, and also symptomatic of a deep sickness within Evangelicalism that makes it impossible for Evangelicals to think or act ethically when it comes to sexual issues. 

So here goes:

1. Evangelicalism protects predators

In the ongoing meltdown of Evangelicalism over the last decade or so, this has been a recurring problem. It is, indeed, endemic to the system. From C. J. Mahaney to Bill Gothard to Doug Wilson to Josh Duggar - I could name probably two dozen more prominent cases where church leaders have chosen to cover up child abuse and protect the perpetrators over the victims. 

There are three factors that I believe dictate this pattern:

a. Evangelical beliefs about gender essentialism include the belief that men cannot control their sexual urges, which are not really their fault anyway. Thus, women need to be controlled so men don’t lust, and women are expected to “fix” broken men by catering to their every sexual demand. This in turn leads to a culture in which predatory men are protected from justice. They get the benefit of the doubt in a way that women do not.

b. Evangelicals think about sex in terms of “forbidden” or “not forbidden” rather than in terms of ethics. Thus, there is no difference in their minds between raping children and having consentual premarital sex - it’s all forbidden sex. This means that they treat pedophile predators with the same “grace” that they do couples who get ahead of things, so to speak. This prevents them from seeing sexual predators as just that: predators. If they were recognized as predators, then leaders would focus on protecting their prey from predation. 

c. Evangelicals (just like Catholics and other religious groups) tend to believe that sexual predation is a “sin” problem, not a criminal problem or psychological problem. Thus, a pedophile can “repent” and then is not considered a problem. This is at the root of why churches cover up abuse rather than immediately report it to law enforcement. And it is also why they allow known pedophiles to have access to children. They genuinely believe that it is just another sin that can be repented from and then it will just go away. (Hint: it doesn’t.)

This is one reason why I don’t have our kids involved with church activities. The trust is broken. I have zero confidence that my kids’ safety will be protected. It is more likely that the hurt feelings of a predator will matter more to church leadership. 

This seems like it really should be a no-brainer: err on the side of protecting kids. Hey, didn’t a famous person once say something like that? 

2. Evangelicalism does not actually understand pedophilia

See above for part of this. By treating pedophilia as just another sin - something very much like making out with your girlfriend before marriage - they miss pretty much everything important about it. And that includes the information needed to help those pedophiles who can be helped (and are willing to be treated.) For more on the psychological diagnosis and treatment, this Psychology Today article is helpful. 

For what it is worth, Daniel is the one who seems to understand this - he is compassionate, and expresses his admiration for anyone who seeks to get help for sexual compulsion. (You can read his twitter thread about the incident here - I recommend it.) He also referred the pedophile to an appropriate counsellor. 

Here’s the thing: on the one hand, not all pedophiles are predators. And the recidivism rate is actually fairly low - most people do the right thing. But on the other, there are the predators, who generally share common traits, such as narcissism, charm, and the ability to avoid detection. These predators generally have dozens of victims before they are caught. 

This suggests something pretty damn obvious: a decent human being who finds himself (it’s mostly men) sexually attracted to children would decide to never work with children. It’s no different than a person with uncontrolled epilepsy: that person has no business driving a car, and a decent human being with that problem would never get behind the wheel knowing the damage he or she could cause. This isn’t rocket science. 

So, a person who expresses sexual attraction to children should not work with children. Period. If they are not a predator (and there is no indication at this time that this man ever acted on his urges), then I have no problem with them serving in other capacities or being treated with decency. But they shouldn’t be around children. And if they wanted to be around children knowing their urges, that in itself is a pretty good indication that they are in fact a predator. 

In light of this, just how horrifying is Ortberg’s decision? He literally encouraged a pedophile to continue to work unsupervised with children! What the actual fuck?!! Of all the things to do, that was literally the worst possible choice. 

And he couldn’t have asked for advice from his elder board? That’s problematic. (And also pretty much par for the course with Evangelical pastors in my experience.) Better yet, he might have asked advice from the mothers of small children in his congregation. But, well, women don’t really matter in Evangelical culture - they believe God wants only men to lead. 

3. Ortberg’s treatment of his son is thoroughly sickening

When I read Daniel’s thread, my jaw hit the floor and I felt nauseated. Because what Ortberg said was thoroughly sickening and disgusting. 

Let me be blunt:

Ortberg repeated the LGBTQ version of the “blood libel.” 

Let me explain that one. During most of the Middle Ages, one of the nastiest antisemitic belief was the “blood libel.” The church, sadly, encouraged a belief that an important Jewish ritual was murdering and draining the blood of Christian children to use in making matzah. 

Evangelicals have their own version of this, which is that LGBTQ people are all sexual predators who want to rape and molest children and turn them gay. (And, of course, the related idea that transgender people only do what they do so they can get into the “wrong” bathroom and rape innocent women.) Just as in the case of antisemitism, this gross slander of LGBTQ people is used as justification to persecute and perpetrate violence against them. And to legislate their rights out of existence.

So look at that again: Ortberg told Daniel that because he was a “pervert” too that he had no standing to suggest an alternative. Oh, and also said that homosexuality and pedophilia are similar. Yep, “you’re transgender which is similar to pedophilia so you are just as much of a threat as the pedophile is.”

Seriously sickening.

Daniel’s statement that this breaks the trust he once had with his family is an understatement. This is more like using a thermonuclear weapon to burn a bridge. If my parents ever did that, I would never be in their presence again - and they would not be around my children. 

This also illustrates the reasons that Evangelicalism finds itself completely unable to discuss sex in an ethical way. 

When you conflate the sexual assault and abuse of children with a loving and consensual same-sex relationship, you have already failed to make the most important ethical distinction. Consensual sex is NOT the same thing as rape and predation. It is not. And Evangelicals wonder why nobody gives a fuck about what they say about sex? Maybe because they show more sympathy for predators than for victims? Maybe because they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that consent matters? 

And maybe because they insist on slandering LGBTQ people, who are no more likely to be predators than cishet people. 

Side note: I cannot help but feel that there is also an element of misogyny at work here too. I’ve spent enough time in Evangelicalism (4 decades!) to have seen time and time again a woman’s legitimate concerns pushed aside by a man who knows better. Women are (in practice and sometimes in theory too) expected to sit down, shut up, and know their place. 

So in this case, “You are really a woman, no matter what you say, and God speaks to me as a leader, not to people like you.” One of my theories about why Evangelicalism has gone so far off the moral rails is that they have systematically excluded women from decision-making at the higher levels. I cannot imagine that an elder board with equal representation for women would have supported Ortberg’s decision. 

4. Daniel Lavery deserves nothing but praise for his actions in this matter.

Seriously. At the cost of his relationship with his parents, he did the right thing. Multiple right things. 

First, he gave outstanding advice to the pedophile (who seems to have wanted to do the right thing himself): get treatment, get out of situations where you might be a risk to children. 

Second, he gave his father the chance to do the right thing. 

Third, when that didn’t work, he elevated the issue. Fortunately that worked. I hope Menlo Church does the right thing and permanently removes Ortberg from ministry - he is clearly unfit for leadership. [Note: I’m not holding my breath.]

Fourth, his statement on twitter is outstanding. He was clear about the situation, but without hyperbole. 

I don’t know if he will run across this blog, but if he does: Daniel, I admire you and support you one hundred percent. The world is a better place because of what you did. 

Having had a difficult relationship with my own parents over religious and political differences, I feel the pain too, although obviously not to that extent. It hurts when those you love choose toxic religious dogma over relationship and understanding. 

***

Note on Daniel Lavery:

Daniel Lavery has written for Slate.com, first as Mallory Ortberg, then Daniel Mallory Ortberg, and now Danny M. Lavery. I first ran across him there. 

In addition, he has written a few books, including The Merry Spinster, which I read last year. It is an enjoyable and bizarre mashup of fairy tales and other stories, with a decidedly gender-bending flavor. If you want to support him, why not buy one of his books?

Update: The Washington Post did a piece on Lavery recently. 

UPDATE JULY 2020:

Well, it turns out to be even worse. The pedophile in questions is....wait for it.....another of John Ortberg's sons.
So this isn't just bad judgment, it is nepotism and hypocrisy. One set of rules for the leaders, another for everyone else. And a bit of sibling favoritism in the bargain. Color me unsurprised. My own experience in my family is that theological and gender orthodoxy are valued above any virtues, and that following those rules entitles certain family members to a pass for psychopathic and abusive behavior.

Note on the use of the “Dead Name”:

It has been brought to my attention that it is problematic to refer to the former name of a transgender person - the old name is their “dead name.” In this particular case, I am uncertain how to handle things, because Daniel Lavery is a very new name for someone who has written a lot under both the actual dead name, and under his “maiden” name (for lack of a better term - I propose the use of “swain name” for those men who buck tradition and take their wives’ surname). In fact, his latest book, Something That May Shock and Discredit You, which comes out later this year, is published under “Daniel Mallory Ortberg.” Lavery does not have an official author website, alas, or I would just link to that. 

Anyway, this is an uncomfortable compromise no matter what, and I would prefer that readers be able to locate Lavery’s writing under all pen names, past and present. 

As is always the case, to the extent that I can, I try to accommodate the wishes of the author as to names and pronouns. Daniel, if you run across this post, feel free to contact me and help me out here.  

The Merry Spinster by [Daniel] Mallory Ortberg

Source of book: Borrowed from the library

Just a note: this book is by Daniel Mallory Ortberg, but is under the name of Mallory Ortberg. (See below for more about the author.) 

The Merry Spinster is a collection of modern takes on classic fairy tales and other stories. That is probably the easiest way to describe it. The stories aren’t straight up retellings, though, as they are often mashups of different tales. For example, “The Thankless Child” combines elements of Cinderella, King Lear, three Medieval prayers, and Psalm 139. Also, there are riffs on modern stories like The Velveteen Rabbit - and that one is particularly dark. In general, these are not “nice” stories, although the same could be said about the originals in their pre-Disney forms. 

Ortberg does some interesting things with the stories. While some are pretty dark, all of them have an underlying wit and sense of humor. They are also more feminist than the originals - the women and girls are hardly passive sorts, waiting for a prince. Ortberg also bends genders in many of the stories. Kings will be female, queens male. A youngest daughter will be referred to as “he.” In the context of the stories, this will flip stereotypes, so that a male daughter will be renowned for beauty, a female son for her bravery, and so on. It makes for a disconcerting experience in some ways, because our language itself is based on a gender binary and assumes particular gendered traits. 

In some of the stories, there is pointed social commentary. In others, the point seems to be to imagine different points of view, as in “Fear Not: An Incident Log,” which retells portions of the book of Genesis from the viewpoint of the Angel of the Lord, filling out an incident report for every interaction with humans. Divine miracles as bureaucratic incidents, so to speak. 

Ortberg writes well. The twists and turns are carefully plotted, and spring on the reader unexpectedly. The language is matched to the stories, so they are to a degree “in the style of” the originals. For obvious reasons (see below), Ortberg is thoroughly fluent in the Bible, as well as “christianese” of the Evangelical variety. He brings out sly references to verses that are fairly obscure, and nods in the direction of tropes within the Evangelical subculture. Some of these might be unnoticed by those who didn’t grow up in that subculture, but they hit home for those of us who did. 

Here are a few lines which stood out. 

In “The Daughter Cells,” an underwater mermaid kingdom is described. The daughters get to do whatever they want with their little patch of, well, not land exactly, but area, I guess. 

At any rate, these girls didn’t own their patches of land, but they had the use of them, which made for good practice. They might ornament their allotted land with flowers, they might grow crops, or they might stuff it with old sea glass and bits of shipwrecked kettles, as they saw fit. The only way to teach the value of something is to give someone the chance to waste it - or at least that was how the thinking went under that particular administration.

That last line in particular struck me as interesting. I think it is more broadly true about humanity. 

How about this one, from the Genesis story?

They live all alone in their own heads, and shudder reflexively at the prospect of God’s imminence. I’ve seen it. I’ve seen a man spend all his life praying for union with the divine, only to shrink back and scrabble to return to his own skin once he realizes that the presence of the divine is coming for him...

Finally, there is an exchange in “The Frog’s Princess” that is true and disconcerting for that reason. 

“Beauty does not belong exclusively to you,” the man told his daughters. “Beauty is a public good, and you are responsible for it.”

“What does that mean, exactly?” the youngest daughter asked. The sun burned hot on his forehead. 

“It means - in a sense - that according to a certain understanding you belong to everyone,” the man said.

“By that reasoning,” his daughter said, “I belong at least partly to myself. Certainly at least as much as I belong to anybody else.”

“Don’t be clever,” his father said. “Go and play outside, where people can see you.”

This leads into some pointed, though oblique, comments on sexual harassment of young women. The whole story, actually, is a satire on male sexual entitlement and the expectation that women, by virtue of existing, exist to please men. 

The book is a pretty quick read, but it packs a lot of interesting ideas into its small size. If you like remixes of classic stories, you will definitely enjoy it. If you find gender bending and swapping intriguing, you will also like it. It’s worth a read. 

***

Note on Daniel Mallory Ortberg:

I first discovered Ortberg when he took over the Dear Prudence column at Slate Magazine from Emily Yoffe. Back then, he was Mallory Ortberg, fresh off co-founding the much-lamented late website, The Toast. (At least the old stuff is still online. So there’s that.) For a while thereafter, I didn’t think much about it. 

Later, though, I made the connection: he is the child of Evangelical pastor and author, John Ortberg. In fact, back when I was part of organized religion and identified as Evangelical, our former pastor used to quote John Ortberg a lot. And actually, as far as Evangelical author sorts go, his stuff was...pretty good. I don’t agree with all of the theology, but it was kindhearted and humble stuff, not the macho posturing and dogmatic assertion of so many others. 

However, Ortberg’s church is officially non-affirming of LGBTQ people. 

When Mallory announced that she was transitioning to Daniel, I was rather curious as to what his family made of it. Apparently, they are accepting of Daniel. I really wonder now how John Ortberg squares all of this. Does he just accept the cognitive dissonance? Or is he, like I suspect many Evangelicals, trapped between affirming personal beliefs, and the reality that he would lose his ministry if he came out as affirming? It’s an interesting question. 

It is easy to see some autobiographical stuff in The Merry Spinster; not details, but emotions. It is particularly fascinating since Daniel didn’t come out as transgender until the book was finished. This background explains why Daniel is so fluent in the language and subculture of Evangelicalism, and why he knows his Bible rather well. I am curious to read his next book, which is a collection of essays on, among other things, religion and gender identity.  

***

Just for fun, I have read and reviewed one other book written by a transgender person:

All the Birds in the Sky by Charlie Jane Anders

Wisdom Versus Theonomy: An Example From My Experience

I have written over the last couple of years several posts on the topics of the Culture Wars™ and the interpretation of scripture. You can even go back to a post I consider one of my best: What I Mean By “Fundamentalism.” From Domestic Violence to human sexuality, I believe there is a foundational problem at the heart: American Evangelicals and Fundamentalists (increasingly indistinguishable) have a toxic and harmful approach to the bible.

Theonomy. Which in essence is treating the bible like an infallible rule book - a Torah for our times.

With the theonomic approach, the bible is weaponized - used to harm people. It is wielded primarily against modern ideas and discoveries, whether in science or in human rights. And it is wielded consistently against certain types of people: the most vulnerable. It is used to keep women and minorities “in their place.” It is used by powerful (usually white) men to exert control. It is used to keep cultural change of all kinds, but particularly the egalitarian view of human rights, at bay. (I’d love to write a whole post about this.) Not only does the theonomic approach result in this sort of weaponization, the more committed a group or denomination is to theonomy, the more retrograde and abusive it will be. (See, for example, the cultic groups my wife and I were raised in.)

In contrast, I believe that the bible is a deeply human book, rooted in the times in which its books were written, expressing multiple (and conflicting) viewpoints, messy and beautiful at the same time, and absolutely terrible as a rule book. Peter Enns (who deserves tremendous credit for essentially “saving” the bible for me) suggests an alternative: The bible is a book of wisdom.

In this post, I want to explore an example of the difference between treating the bible as a rulebook, and treating it as a book of wisdom.

Let’s talk about Titus 2 and gender roles.

***

One of my least favorite “proof texts” is the following (KJV, because that is the one that is preferred by most Theonomists):

But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Much, much hay has been made of “keepers at home,” and what it means. You have whole organizations centered on being “Titus 2 Women,” and a movement (in which my wife and I spent time in our teens) focused on keeping women out of the workforce and in the home as full time wives and mothers. (More about this later.)

The reason for this, in my opinion, is a misuse of scripture - an approach which is guaranteed to result in imposing the culture of the past on people in the present.

***

The Theonomic Approach

Here is how the Theonomist looks at the question:

In the nearly 70 years since the 1950s, there has been a significant shift in culture. Previously (in their view), women - at least white, middle class women - did not work outside the home. Rather, the husband was the sole breadwinner, and the wife devoted herself to domestic duties: childcare, housework, entertaining, and so on.

A variety of things led to a change. Feminism insisted that men and women were equal, and that women were thus entitled to political, social, and economic equality. It was thus unjust to relegate women to unpaid (and often undesirable) domestic duties, making them dependent on males for their very survival.

Economic changes returned our society to how it has been for most of human existence: both spouses need to work in order to provide sufficient income in most cases. Only the select men with above-average income plus benefits can afford to have a wife out of the workforce. (This has, of course, been the state of affairs for low income women throughout history. And particularly for non-white women in the United States.)

In any case, the Theonomist sees change, and decides to look at the bible to arbitrate between the past and the present.

The Theonomist then examines the bible looking for a rule. What is God’s will for women? Is it to work outside the home or not? VOILA! Titus 2 and a wonderful catchphrase: “Keepers at Home.” This has the wonderful advantage of requiring no historical context, and can be wielded as a weapon against modernity and cultural change. As a bonus, it reinforces their view of middle class (and white) people as more godly.  It’s perfect!

Problems with the Theonomic approach

Right at the outset, a problem appears: the rule only “works” for a very limited class of people. Namely, those with enough money to survive on one income.

The Theonomist cares not. Reality, and whether something “works” is irrelevant. We obey God rather than culture, and if the bible says it, then it is truth, reality be damned.

Therefore, those who follow the “rule” - families who live on one income while the wife stays home full time - are now “godly” or living the “biblical” lifestyle. And those who don’t are “evil” and “godless” and “giving in to culture.”

How big of a problem is this? Well, it pretty much excludes low income people from “godliness.” It also excludes, for example, African American slaves, who had no choice to even set up households, let alone one where the man earns the bread and the woman stays at home. (I believe this is a feature, not a bug, by the way. One of the reasons why “traditional” gender roles are popular is that they make wealthier whites the “godly” people, while relegating the poor, and brown-skinned people to a subhuman, “ungodly” status.)

This also defines “godliness” as something that is unavailable to most people worldwide - a non-working wife is a luxury that most people around the world do not have, and most people in history have not had. It has historically been available only to the rich and privileged. Thus, the great colonial powers get to feel more “godly” than everyone else.

In a nutshell, the Theonomic approach fails the test of universality. It can only be considered normative if you equate wealth and privilege with “godliness.” 

 This is a significant part of what the Culture Wars(TM) are about...

The Wisdom Approach

Here is how I believe the Book of Wisdom approach would look at Titus 2. First, you have to read the entire book. (It’s short - it will take you only a few minutes.) The author (whether you believe it was St. Paul or not) is addressing a specific problem, in a specific place, at a specific time in history. If you don’t take that into account, you miss the point.

Clearly, the Cretans were behaving badly. Getting into pointless arguments, forcing purity rules on others, getting drunk, and making a bad name for themselves among the non-Christians of their society. Hmm, that actually sounds pretty relevant today. But not the way Theonomists think.

The author therefore has some instructions about how to fix the problem. Focus on good doctrine, stop arguing about rules, but focus on living upright and kind lives. Do good things, stop quarreling and - I think this is the most important part: behave in a way that gives Christians a good, rather than bad, reputation.

All those admonitions as to how to behave are connected to that central idea. Don’t get a reputation for having out-of-control, drunken, disruptive members. Don’t get a reputation for quarreling with the authorities and your neighbors. (Wow, modern Evangelicals don’t believe that one anymore. At all.) Young women should not stand out for the wrong reasons, but should be doing good works within the cultural framework they are in.

Now, just a word here: “keepers at home” is a terrible translation, and like most terrible translations, politically motivated. Better ones I have seen are more along the lines of “managing their own households” - something implying not a withdrawal from earning income, but one of minding their own business and finding productive work.

I am reminded of II Thessalonians 3:11-12, where busybodies are urged to mind their own business...and get a job. I think the two passages relate to each other - there is the common theme of staying out of other people’s business, not being disruptive, and finding whatever good work is available in your situation and doing it.

So, Theonomic Approach: Q. “Should women work outside the home?” A. [usually] “No.”

Wisdom Approach: Q. “What wisdom about how we should live in our culture can we find in this passage?” A. “Don’t cause trouble, quarrel, force rules on others, fight with your neighbors, and bring disrepute to Christ. Instead, find good things to do and do them.”

Huge difference.

***

How this might apply to our own times

I have thought about this quite a bit, because of how my wife and I have experienced this. You can read a bit about Amanda’s miserable experience in Jonathan Lindvall’s cultic home group if you like. Unfortunately, that was not the end of her difficulties regarding her career. Certain extended family has never been okay with her decision to work outside the home, and she has taken a lot of disdain and shaming for doing so. Never mind that the two of us determined that splitting the breadwinning and household/childcare duties was better for us and our family - God clearly said that women were to be “keepers at home,” and anything less than that was sinning. The bible was weaponized against us.

I believe this was totally a unnecessary conclusion to draw from scripture - but it is the most likely result from the Theonomic approach. Alas, this wasn’t just an academic theological argument. It involved our real lives, and the unnecessary tension caused by it irreparably damaged relationships.

So I want to look at this in light of our own culture and times. Rather than looking to Titus 2 for a weapon to use against Feminism and women who work outside the home, what if we instead looked at the bigger, wisdom-based picture?

Let me say at the outset that I am NOT saying that there is anything wrong with stay-at-home moms. We all make choices for our families based on our individual circumstances, and I have no interest in getting all judgy about your particular choices. I assume that you made them for good reasons personal to you. (My one pushback here is that I wish stay-at-home moms were more honest about the fact that this option is only available to them because of their privilege.)

But.

I think one of the more poisonous things about Evangelical/Fundamentalist subculture is an idol-worship of stay-at-home moms - and by implication, idol-worship of men with wealth. A woman’s “godliness” - indeed her worth - is dependent upon her husband’s income. It ties one’s spiritual status to one’s ability (and willingness in some cases) to comply with 1950s white middle-class cultural preferences. This is, I believe, wrong. And also, I believe it violates the spirit of Titus 2.

After years of having stay-at-home moms look down their noses at Amanda for having a career, say snarky and passive-aggressive things to her whenever her job comes up, and living with damaged family relationships because of this issue - I have the following to say:

Many (not all) stay-at-home moms would be better following the wisdom of Titus 2 if they were to stop meddling in other people’s families, get off their butts, and go get a job. Then they wouldn’t have time to bother people who do things differently.

I firmly believe that, if the author of Titus were to walk into our modern Evangelical subculture, that would be the advice. Stop quarrelling with those outside your subculture, stop this Culture War™ nonsense, stop fighting about purity rules and gender roles and otherwise disgracing our faith. Instead, go get a job. Find something useful and good to do that will take all that extra time off your hands. Something that will cause those outside your tribe to see your good works and praise God.

That is how the Wisdom Approach might look at Titus.

***

This is just one example, from a limited area. However, I can think of a number of other areas in which the Theonomic Approach is leading to terrible and cruel results. I already mentioned the question of divorce. Rather than trying to compile comprehensive rules about when one can and cannot divorce, the wisdom approach would take into account our modern realization that women aren’t congenitally inferior, and are not the chattel of men. Then we can discuss how to protect the abused, not send them back for more abuse.

Instead of trying to squeeze a literalist interpretation of Genesis into our public schools, perhaps we might embrace the insights of science as part of God’s wisdom - and take seriously the spiritual truths from the creation story instead. Rather than spending endless time and effort trying to decide exactly what we can and cannot do with our genitals, we might acknowledge the role of misogyny in sexual taboos, and look for wisdom for how to use our bodies in loving, not violent or hurtful ways. Instead of arguing about exactly what women should be “permitted” by men to do in the church, family, and society, we might each of us focus on how we can use our gifts for the benefit of all - and encourage others to do so. Instead of picking fights with our neighbors about why we can’t serve them, or which holidays matter most, maybe we could spend our time in loving our neighbors and bringing honor to our faith through our good deeds.

***

Oh, and one more since I wrote most of this: Jefferson Beauregard Sessions weaponizing Romans 13 to justify separating children from their families, criminalizing those who seek asylum in our country, and forcing them to choose between losing their children, and withdrawing their request for refuge.

Hey, notice that it isn’t the wealthy whites this is directed against? Of course not. The Theonomists always weaponize scripture against the vulnerable. That’s the whole point. To quote The Bard:

But then I sigh and, with a piece of scripture,

Tell them that God bids us do good for evil;

And thus I clothe my naked villainy

With odd old ends stolen out of Holy Writ,

And seem a saint when most I play the devil.

(Richard III - as he commissions a pair of murders to slaughter children…)