I wanted to expand on Donal’s post Tissue Paper Walls.
“Much of this insecurity comes from the gap in physical prowess between men and women. We men are much more capable of defending ourselves and imposing our will on our environment than women are- at least at the individual level. But whatever its source, it has a profound effect on female behavior. Women are constantly, and often at an unconscious or subconscious level, trying to alter their environment to make it feel more secure.”
Having thought about it more, I can think of additional reasons for female insecurity. One of them is that women know (mostly at an unconscious level) how vulnerable pregnancy and child-raising makes them. Another is that women, again unconsciously, realize how limited their peak fertility and SMV window is. They worry about optimizing that time, and covering for when they are no longer at their peak. There is plenty of room for speculation there, and my commenters can feel free to contribute.
However, I want talk about how the insecurity should be handled. One of the problems with that insecurity is that ill-intentioned men can exploit it. Often times quite easily. And course, it usually isn’t entirely unwillingly. But exploitable it still remains.
At the same time, I think that this insecurity is something that good men can relieve or buttress. They can, in the right scenario, build up women’s confidence in a positive way. This can help women resist that lure of exploitation or build up a wall against it. Men can supplement the tissue paper or paper mache walls that women may have with walls of stone and gates of iron.
There has been many a pastor nowadays who say that “insecurity is a sin” or in other words “a lack of self esteem is a woman’s greatest sin.” After all, insecurity supposedly leads to low self worth. Men, of course, are parroted with the typical sins of pride, lust, greed, and so on. However, the source of womens’ greatest sin issue is a lack of self esteem generated from insecurity.
Of course, all this is bunk.
Insecurity is simply a source of temptation.
God created man to dwell with Him in the garden:
Genesis 3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
God also created man with the ability to be tempted, and to make free will choices regarding temptation:
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
The reality is that temptation has always existed, and men and women are given the choice to fall into temptation or not. Insecurity is simply one form of temptation.
You could argue that Eve was “insecure” in herself and thus desired to be like God to feel un-insecure. You could also argue that Adam was “insecure” without Eve and thus followed her into temptation rather than trusting in God. Both of these are the Truth.
Distinguishing what occurred “before the fall” and “after the fall” is important because it leads to numerous conclusions we can draw on in pursuit of Jesus. For example, unlike the egalitarian argument on marriage, there is ample evidence to suggest that headship existed prior to the fall. Indeed, there was a structure of authority prior to the fall with the husband as the head of the wife. This completely destroys the egalitarian argument that men and women were somehow “equal” prior to the fall, which, according to them, nullifies the statements of headship-submission between the husband and wife in the NT.
Given how Genesis 3 plays out, insecurity existed well before the fall. God created such an attribute within man as an interaction with free will. Since God was dwelling with men, the righteous action in the garden would have been to flee from temptation to the Creator. This “insecurity” was meant to be a free will choice between “sin” and “relationship with God.” We should should seek refuge in the Lord in our insecurity.
1 Peter 5:6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7 Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. 8 Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
It is no mistake that it was this way in the beginning, and that it is the same way after Jesus has redeemed us.
Insecurity reveals our need for a Savior.
In regard to Donal’s post, Christians are to build up other Christian’s faith and also act as earthly models of Christ. It is not so much that we should focus building up security out of insecurity, but that we should focus on kingdom principles and covenants. Marriage is one of those. Seeking God in insecurity is another. A husband modeling Christ-Church relationship when his wife or kids are insecure is another.