Women Who Drive and the Men Who Let Them

If the practical Christian life is primarily concerned with obedience to delegated authorities, power structures, and “roles,” then it really makes perfect sense to train one’s children up to think the same way.  If obedience to the rules is of the highest good, and those rules are a complication of various outward structures (”thou shalt’s,” and “thou shalt not’s”), then starting from day one, our children should be taught the rules and made to obey them.  Obedience to authority would become more than a good thing–it would become the main thing.  (Can you tell I’m gearing up to talk about a few things related to parenting)?

If we all0w our children to think independantly, then we are teaching them to do what we ourselves are not allowed to do, right?  So independant thought would only be acceptable within the proper boundaries, and even then, questionable. 

For example, if a wife is required to submit to her husband’s will in all things (excluding murder, etc), then why would we teach our daughters to think for themselves?  They should only be allowed to think within the bounds of their own father’s will.  And even then, we need to be careful, because their father’s will may be more liberal then their future husband’s, at which point we are raising daughter’s who may not be content with their future husband.  No wonder the hard-core patriarchalists are generally against daughters going to college!  

This is one of the reasons why leader, Jonathan Lindvall, decided that his daughter’s would not get a driver’s license until they were married, that way allowing their future husband’s the ability to choose whether or not he wanted his wife to drive.  Lindvall, of Bold Christian Living, was once much more popular in homeschool circles and frequent speaker at homeschooling conferences, but as his beliefs began to move to the more extreme, has seen his mass popularity decline.  Still a leader in the more extreme camps, though, Lindvall tells his readers,

“ Several generations ago, a father’s responsibility (and right) to
protect his wife and daughters was generally assumed and acknowledged in
our legal system. It would have been unthinkable for a woman to be
compelled to participate in legal proceedings, without her father’s (or
in the case of a married woman, husband’s) involvement. I understand in
many situations women could not even be directly arrested, until
permission of their father or husband was acquired. True, a husband or
father then became liable for his wife’s/daughter’s actions. But the
principle of Numbers 30 (male protection over women) was honored.

Today, because of our radical embrace of individualism (which leads to
feminism), our culture has undercut our ability to protect family
members. In my estimation, Christian families who see this, need to
rethink our participation in many of society’s typical structures in
order to maintain (and reclaim) scriptural family corporate identity.” 

(Full article here). 

But, if I may interject, the truth is that women were not being “protected,” but were considered inferior—of inferior brain power to be able to handle such proceedings like sitting on a jury and being called upon to make rational decisions.

So many in the ultra-conservative camp, like Lindvall, wish we could go back to those good ol’ days, but the more history books I read, the more I think we have rose-colored glasses on if we look back longingly.  The Victorian era was brutal.  Stop looking at the pretty pictures and try reading about what it was like to live in it. 

Upon marriage, Victorian brides relinquished all rights to property and personal wealth to their husbands. Women were, under the law, “legally incompetent and irresponsible.” A married woman was entitled to no legal recourse in any matter, unless it was sponsored and endorsed by her husband.

Helpless in the eyes of civil authority, the married woman was in the same category with “criminals, lunatics, and minors” (Vicinus 7).

Eighteenth-century, English jurist, William Blackstone curtly described her legal status, “in law a husband and wife are one person, and the husband is that person.” (Jones 402).

The Victorian woman was her husband’s chattel. She was completely dependent upon him and subject to him. She had no right to sue for divorce or to the custody of her children should the couple separate. She could not make a will or keep her earnings. Her area of expertise, her sphere, was in the home as mother, homemaker and devoted domestic. Clear and distinct gender boundaries were drawn…

Full article here

Many of the stronger patriarchy supporters wish we could go back to these days, to the days when (they say) men and women knew their roles and society supported them as such.  I’m personally all for society viewing the homefront as a valuable contribution to the world, and for not denigrating women (or men) who choose to serve there by staying home to raise the children, etc.  But do we have to become chattel again in order to make that happen?  Do we have to strip women of the vote (I mean, “protect” them from it) in order to have the home respected? 

We’ve talked before about the assumption that women were made to be ruled, because I believe it is the basic underlying premise for all hard-core patriarchalists (Christian and non) and, though certainly to a much lesser degree, many softer complimentarians like CBMW and such like (see here and here for past posts…and here for way more than you ever wanted). 

Lindvall (obviously not of the softer variety, but with what I believe to be God-honoring intentions) believes the Scriptures teach us that women were designed to be ruled by men, and teaches his followers,

I believe Numbers 30 indicates that daughters are to be more protected
than sons. When Bethany approached the age when many young people
acquire permits to learn to drive, I began hinting that she would soon
be driving. She wasn’t particularly excited, but was prepared to follow
my leadership. My wife appealed to me, however. She questioned whether
it is truly healthy for young ladies to drive. She noted that when she
“got wheels” she began displaying much more of an independent spirit
from her parents. She questioned whether this was healthy.

While I was initially skeptical, I began pondering and praying about
this issue. I recalled an aunt who never has driven in her life.
Although she is quite capable, no doubt, she and my uncle apparently
believe it is his place to drive and hers to ride. This is the
traditional pattern from before cars were even invented. Even today, in
most families the husband does the majority of the driving when the
family travels together.

At about this time, the Lord was clarifying my own thinking regarding
young people’s independence and our assumptions regarding individualism.
Ultimately I evaluated this decision in light of a more scriptural
paradigm, and concluded that we would at least delay Bethany’s getting a
driver’s license. We anticipate leaving this decision to her husband,
whoever (and whenever) the Lord has her for.

This flies in the face of most contemporary notions. When Bethany flies
with me, she doesn’t have a “government issued” picture ID. We must
bring her birth certificate for her to be allowed on the plane.

It would certainly be more convenient to have another driver (and we are
delighted to have our 16-year-old son helping with the driving, now) but
I am committed to protecting my children, but especially my daughter,
from unnecessary vulnerabilities the world’s ways impose.

I’m thankful my daughter will not likely be called for any jury duty.
It’s possible Bethany could still be visible and identified in some
government computer (she has a birth certificate) but I am doing my best
to help her “fall between the cracks” of the world’s systems for as long
as we can keep it that way.  (full article here)

If you are looking for a happy ending, you’re at the wrong blog today.  The last time I read Lindvall, Bethany was in her young twenties and still not driving.  But before you get angry, please note that under the, “women were made to be ruled,” way of looking at gender,  it doesn’t really matter if you agree or disagree with the above.  Women were made to be ruled, and men to rule, therefore if the ruler declares that men decide if women drive, and your job as his woman is to submit (and your job as an onlooker is to support his rule).  What right do you have to argue?  What sin is being comitted here?  I see nothing in Colossians about driving lessons being required, do you? 

If a husband decides that he doesn’t feel his wife should drive, then she needs to cheerfully obey and cut up her driver’s license.  (Most books along these lines say that a wife has the right to make a kind and gentle appeal, carefully and at the appropriate time, but only once, upon which she needs to shut her lips and joyfully submit).   

I guess I am trying to say that there is no choice for a woman in a situation like this.  What choice does she have, under the “male-rule” paradigm?  As her sister, I may not agree with her husband, but she is mandated under God to submit to his will (as long as he is not asking her to sin, such as murder, etc).  

She is hardly different from a child, with the patriarchy sites reminding men that wives need ruled firmly.  Everything’s there but disciplining her, and, the really really weird part (wanting to say this carefully so I don’t get a bunch of weirdo’s coming to my blog via google)—all these hard-core patriarchal teachings are  surprisingly similar to the sexually perverse groups where the male rules and the wife is submissive, only they spank them.  In the “godly homes,” men don’t spank (but if they wanted to, I would add, the wife would need to submit under the more hard-core patriarchy, because there she has no recourse against physical abuse) but it’s still all revolving around power.  These counselors admit the wife has some recourse…I guess (note the emphasis on rank):

In contrast, a woman author who is naturally assertive, verbal, and “take charge” in her flesh, will be tempted to paint a picture of the wife’s role that falls short of the hard sayings commanded in Scripture. She might fail to emphasize the often repeated, central biblical characteristic for a godly wife to have a genuinely “submissive, “gentle and quiet spirit”.  Similarly, she might tend to view Bible passages, that actually refer to confrontation between believers of equal rank, as applicable to conflict between believers of unequal rank. Such an error fails to take into account the various passages that clearly modify when, if, and how a person under authority should respond to a sinful person over her or him. 

W hen it comes to a Christian wife with a Christian husband, we are convinced by the biblical evidence that such a wife is never to personally rebuke her sinful husband.  For a wife to do so is to step out of rank, and try to replace the Holy Spirit, the other men in her husband’s church, and the church elders as his source of accountability  Instead, she is to appeal, first directly to her husband, then if he continues in serious sin she can appeal to the men above him (pastoral elders and/or government officials, Titus1-3).    Please note that many minor issues should be overlooked (”love covers”), and do not even warrant an appeal.  [here for full article]

And then there’s me, fuzzy-headed (growing out my hair-urgh) and perplexed over here at my desk in Alaska, wondering why we’ve made the “Biblical Christian Family” into something strikingly similar to the patriarchal homes of the Greek/Roman/Jewish world.  Yeah, well, we might use a dishwasher and they didn’t, but in our relationships we are assuming that they are primarily based on heirarchy—that power structures form the blueprint, form the definitions of personhood.  Which is exactly how the marriage relationship was looked at during the time period of the Bible.  I mean, anyone ever wonder why the men were always way older than their wives? 

And does anyone think that Paul was maybe dealing with what marriage was like then, and giving the Church a clue about how it could look like in Christ?  Anyone think maybe Paul wasn’t trying to advocate for patriarchy or for the Roman view of a strictly heirarchal world, but simply dealing with the way life was then?  Not setting down rules for all time, but giving the people an (unheard of!) picture of relationships that could be based on love and honor and the respect of all people, regardless of gender?  Giving people a different way to look at the power structure that characterized relationships then? 

I don’t know.  I have more questions than I have answers, obviously.  When I get like that, which is more often than not, I shut my eyes and take that Hand that is always outstretched, and I remember that He is leading me, He is patiently walking with me, whether through wide open places or terrifying chasms.  He turns everything upside down.  He did.  He does.  And I have to admit, I was made to be ruled.  Not by a human lord, perhaps, but certainly by This One.