Top 10 Reasons why I’m a Feminist
10. It’s in my genes and upbringing from my mother and grandmother—both nature and nurture; I couldn’t be otherwise.
9. Woman was created equal with man in Genesis 1; only the Fall put her under the rule and dominance of the man.
8. The devil made me do it.
7. It’s how I position myself far opposite on the issue from Wayne Grudem, John Piper, James Dobson, Beverly LaHaye, and Rush Limbaugh.
6. Common sense; I look around me and cannot find a man with whom I am not equal.
5. Queen Vashti needs my support.
4. I’m proud to be numbered with some very great ladies now in the grave: Abigail Adams, Jane Addams, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Sarah Grimke.
3. Jesus and Paul, if around today, would be standing with me.
2. Feminist and Feminine are like well-designed coordinates in fashion.
1. It’s a turn-on for husband John.
Quote: Does feminist mean “large unpleasant person who’ll shout at you†or “someone who believes women are human beingsâ€? To me it’s the latter, so I sign up. —Margaret Atwood
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Top 10 Reasons why I’m a Feminist
- Top Ten Reasons I am a Chauvinist
- Feminists and Traditionalists in the Real World
- Male/Female Equality: A Plea for Honesty
- 12 Days of Christm(C)a(lvini)s(m)
C Michael Patton on 03 Jan 2008 at 11:36 pm #
That was good. Now I have to come up with something good to respond!
Truth Unites... and Divides on 04 Jan 2008 at 12:46 am #
It’s how I position myself far opposite on the issue from Wayne Grudem, John Piper, James Dobson, Beverly LaHaye, and Rush Limbaugh.
More important than stating who you’re positioned far away from, is the more relevant question of how does your position, attitude, and behavior align itself with the whole counsel and teaching of Scripture regarding God’s Divine Design for men and women at home and at church?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 04 Jan 2008 at 1:22 am #
only the Fall put her under the rule and dominance of the man.
o “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Tim. 2: 13-14)
Paul harkens back to the divinely inspired Scripture found in the first three chapters of Genesis. He appeals to the pre-Fall order and manner of creation as the basis for the biblical submission of woman to the leadership of man, both in marriage and in the church.
Paul bases his divinely inspired teaching concerning the role of women in the church not on the consequences of the Fall described in Genesis 3, but on the pre-Fall order of creation presented in Genesis 1 and 2.
C Michael Patton on 04 Jan 2008 at 1:26 am #
I think that this should be taken in a spirit of humor, not necessarily trying to instigate debate.
Rev. Ryan M. on 04 Jan 2008 at 1:48 am #
[NOTE: Ruth stated this in a humorous fashion, to be sure, but I believe she means what she wrote, based on my exposure to her other writings. Furthermore, her comments do deserve an answer. So then, consider the following.]
Women are clearly equal in worth to men, being similarly made in God’s image. That said, your definition of ‘equality’ in this post and in your other writings sounds an awful lot like female chauvinism to me. You see, equality in value does not imply equality or interchangeability in role or position in life.
God designed men and women for different purposes in life: this is clear from even our physical makeup. There is, after all, a good reason why women compete separately from men in sporting events like track: highly trained men would ALL cross the line before the highly trained women (just look at the finish times of identical races at the Olympics). To suggest that men are God-designed to use their bodies to defend a country or hunt for food is not absurd. On the female side, there is also a good reason why women have breasts: to nurture the babies born to them. To suggest that ladies are God-designed to uniquely care for boys and girls is not absurd.
Ruth Tucker on 04 Jan 2008 at 8:09 am #
Can I take #2 back, Michael? Can you reverse the clock? I got up this morning listening to the election results in Iowa and thought to myself, I’d better delete Hillary and company (thinking my material had not yet been posted). Alas, what’s done is done. But if I were posting it this morning I would exchange #2 for something like: Feminist and Feminine are like well-designed coordinates in fashion.
If you are able to go back and reverse the clock, Michael, can you change the second word in #10 from “an” to “a.” That was an editing error.
JohnT3 on 04 Jan 2008 at 9:42 am #
I do believe that there are some people out there Michael that are in desperate need of either a humor pill or to loosen their collars.
And if the Lady’s humor bothers some of my fellow men out their then I would remind you of this fact. If man had taken care of his responsibilities in the role that God had given him there would have be no need for humor like this.
I recommend that guys read Gary Smalley’s book “If He Only Knew What No Women Could Refuse”.
I have a question why do women get such a cool sounding term like “feminist”? The opposite term for men would be I guess male-ist and that sounds like list of addresses pronounced with a lisp.
Ruth you are women and I hear you roar! You roar girl
Truth Unites... and Divides on 04 Jan 2008 at 11:04 am #
Let’s humorously adapt CMP’s post on Primer on Evangelizing Postmoderns to a Primer on Evangelizing Egalitarians:
Erickson uses the illustration of leading a horse to water. It is very helpful. I will continue to use this illustration, but adapt them for my post. Please take note that in this illustration, the horse is the egalitarian and the water is the Gospel.
Option 1: Deny the horse is really egalitarian.
Option 2: Convert the horse from being egalitarian.
Option 3: Change the rope.
Option 4: Change the water.
————–
What option or combination of options will be effective and humorous when leading the laughing and joking egalitarian horse to the Living Water?
Kaye Jeltema on 04 Jan 2008 at 12:05 pm #
JohnT3–I think the corresponding term for ‘feminist’ would be ‘masculist’, since ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ are corresponding terms. But, I agree, it doesn’t roll off the tongue quite like the very familiar ‘feminist’.
Ruth wrote, “If man had taken care of his responsibilities in the role that God had given him there would have be no need for humor like this.” Actually, we each need to do our own part in obeying God’s commands, and then no one has to create “humor like this”, which I (a lady) along with some of the men reading along find not really so funny.
I was really shocked to learn that Ruth traces the source of her feminist thinking to–as she put it–her upbringing and “genetics.” Her genetics, after all, are tainted by her sin nature and God’s curse on women because of Eve’s direct disobedience.
I believe it is my biblical duty before God (and that it can be truly my joy) to obey Him by fighting against my desire to not be “ruled over” by my husband. That rebellious desire is sometimes strong but it is not admirable, and I sadly have not seen biblical femininity modeled by my mother, grandmothers, mother-in-law, or any other woman in close relationship with me.
There is so much more I could say, but I’ll end now, and refer you to http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Confessions-of-a-Recovering-Feminist
and say that it IS possible to change even when you’ve been steeped in feminism!
Truth Unites... and Divides on 04 Jan 2008 at 12:20 pm #
Amen Kaye amen! Kaye you are woman and I hear you roar! You go girl!
Thomas Twitchell on 04 Jan 2008 at 12:42 pm #
Feminist disqualifiers:
“It’s a turn-on for husband John.”
Feminists do not have husbands which is why they prefer Ms. and not Mrs. or Miss. The latter two are Western oppressives. Ms. is a mstery. It could mean mserable or msanthope, msuperioryounot, mst selfish, mst seperate, man stabber, mstaken, but definitely, not Mother Superior.
“Woman was created equal with man”
Spells woman, woman, and not womyn.
” Common sense; I look around me and cannot find a man with whom I am not equal.”
Feminists plus commonsense used in the same sentence = oxymoron. Feminists do not consider themselves morons though they do watch Oxygen which makes no sense. Feminists do not look for men and never consider men as eqauls but lacking the complete genetic make-up. Feminist know X marks the spot, and think men do not know Y.
“I’m proud to be numbered with some very great ladies now in the grave: Abigail Adams, Jane Addams, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Sarah Grimke.”
True Feminists know the difference between suffragettes and feminists.
“Feminist and Feminine are like well-designed coordinates in fashion.”
Fashion is unicode dress for feminists. Any clothing that enunciates womanhood and suppresses womyn of da hood, is out of uniform.
“Jesus and Paul, if around today, would be standing with me.”
Only if you can find in Scripture, “YOU GO GIRL!”
Cory on 04 Jan 2008 at 4:29 pm #
I’m preparing a podcast on this very topic, and my introductory comments mirror Rev. Ryan’s: women are certainly ontologically equal with men, but there is nothing inherently evil with a functional inferiority. We see this model all of the time and don’t think anything of it. Managers over employees, older siblings over younger–why is it suddenly evil when a husband is functionally superior to his wife?
If the husband is following the Biblical model of loving his wife as Christ loves the church, then he is never going to ask anything humiliating or degrading of her. He will never force her to do anything against her will or morals. In fact, everything he asks of her would be in God’s will if the husband is doing his job according to Scripture.
On the flip side of the coin, I’m not a misogynist as I’ve been called on other message boards for holding this view. I think that there are things that women can do far better than men. Multitasking for one, running restaurants for another. As a 12 year veteran of fast food management, I can speak with authority on the latter.
One last note: it appears that Ruth is still doing her job to submit to her husband as Scripture orders: her number one reason for being a feminist is to turn her husband on!
Doyle on 04 Jan 2008 at 7:20 pm #
I say forget about feminism, racism, deism, and a lot of other ism’s except theism. But that’s just me. There’s no room for opinion in the Christian world, except that of yourself.
shanemagee on 05 Jan 2008 at 9:00 am #
wow! the lack of grace in the comments section here and the general misogynistic tone is utterly depressing! is this really the state of christendom today? i fear it is. next, someone’s going to quote “slaves obey your masters” and argue for a return to the “good ol days” when the whites could treat their ‘property’ as they wanted to.
scripture does not have to be read as oppressing women at all. in fact, i would argue, it never should. i know, i know, you’re all going to argue how “liberating” it is for a woman to clean toilets, while the men hog the limelight teaching the masses; how they are genetically programmed to make tray bakes, while the men do the (no more important) work of running the church and the world (the differential in pay obviously being no reflection on the relevant importance we place on the “equally important” contribution of men and women, blah, blah, blah); and how it frees a woman to be all she was made to be when she submits to her husband - read the passage! the writer urges all of us to “submit to one another out of reverence to christ”, wives and husbands, slaves andand parents - and, in doing this we will be “imitators of god” (vs 1): a community characterised by mutual submission; by putting the other’s needs before ours; where the weak have as much power as the strong. thank god for pioneers like mary daly, elaine storkey and elisabeth schussler fiorenza as well as many many others, who have led the way in revealing the glory of the word of god through scripture.
when we move from description to prescription we’re in dangerous territory. sure, physiologically speaking, women are weaker, and tend to be more empathetic, but to then prescribe that they are not allowed to do physically demanding tasks, cannot be ceo’s but must stay at home and raise children, is anathema. it is exactly like saying because black people tend to be better at track and field than their white counterparts, all they are allowd to do in our ideal society is physical labour.
do you see how utterly abhorrent this line of reasoning is?
if any of you are interested, i’ve written a minor piece on this issue here http://tinyurl.com/28qcsh. i’d welcome your comments.
shanemagee on 05 Jan 2008 at 9:20 am #
i should clarify: i have much respect for mary daly’s philosophy and the stance she has taken over the years for women and against the establishment, but i don’t fully embrace her ‘theology’. nevertheless, she is definitely worth reading and her critique of the institutional church is stinging and hard to easily dismiss.
o, and btw, i thought ruth’s initial post was tongue-in-cheek and supposed to be funny. the tone of the comments which followed show that the stereotype of the “feminist with no sense of humour” is completely wrong-footed - it’s often the detractors who have no sense, or sense of humour at all.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 05 Jan 2008 at 11:14 am #
What’s truly sad is that going to the Bible and showing how the Bible clearly teaches that there is a complementary Divine Design for men and women in the home and church is then reactively, knee-jerkishly smeared and falsely caricatured as being “misogynist”.
Once the label of “misogynist” is unthinkingly whipped out, you then realize that simply expressing disagreeing with an egalitarian causes them to lose their “humor”. More importantly, they substitute name-calling as a replacement for theological argument. As if that will suffice. I do find that humorous.
Compounding the depressing and miserable state of affairs is that by having little-to-no biblical support for their egalitarian argument, they then latch onto the “tone” of the discussion as a method to try and impose and push their unbiblical and aberrant teaching.
Lighten up. I found Thomas Twitchell’s comment just as funny as Ruth Tucker’s. Humor is subjective.
Jason on 05 Jan 2008 at 3:38 pm #
I vote for reason 8.
For myself I don’t buy egalitarianism because even though human beings may be ontologically equal, they are most certainly not equal in capability.
I think it was Chesterton that said that humans are either created equal, or evolved unequal.
I do have to acknowledge that my girlfriend has various abilities that I don’t have. She’s very shrewd with money for example.
JoanieD on 05 Jan 2008 at 9:34 pm #
To shanemagee in #14 above: I did go to your blog and particularly liked: “of course jesus did not chose any women to be among the twelve, but neither did he chose any gentiles, does that mean that they too are unsuitable for leadership?” and also:
“hermeneutical skill is needed to show how the establishment readily protects itself from the sharp end of the sword of the spirit, while unhesitatingly stabbing at others with glib proof texts, which can be quickly shown to be arbitrarily chosen. it strains at the gnat while swallowing the camel!”
By the way, for anyone who clicked on the link to that page and didn’t have success, take out the period at the end of the URL. The actual URL that the tiny URL page is taking you to is: http://fakerepublic.typepad.com/fake/2006/10/were_you_callin.html
I do like the section in the Gospel where Jesus is at Mary, Martha and Lazarus’ house and Martha is all bent out of shape because she is busy making the meal while Mary is listening to Jesus. Jesus tells Martha not to be so upset and that Mary has chosen the “better part.” To be totally honest though, I bet Jesus liked eating that meal that Martha made and I hope he complimented her well on it! I think Jesus would be aghast at what some folks tell women they have to be. Jesus would likely say that women should be what God created them to be. He created them to know and honor God and to love others as themselves. The same as he did for males. A woman’s personality and temperament would determine how she expresses that love. I can’t imagine that God wants us all to be alike. He wouldn’t have made us so different if he wanted us all alike!
Joanie D.
Thomas Twitchell on 05 Jan 2008 at 10:43 pm #
You mean this better part:
38 Now as they went on their way, Jesus [4] entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.†41 But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, 42 but one thing is necessary. [5] Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.â€
Compared with this better part:
When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.†4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.†5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.â€
Seems to me that sitting at ones feet is a sign of abject humiliation and subjugation. And that Martha was giving commands to her Lord as opposed to Mary sweet and not contrary. The same thing happens with his mother, and in both cases it is the matter of a woman usurping authority over the Lord of all people. In both cases the women commanding the Lord’s obedience were soundly rebuked and told to get back to work.
Jesus did not chose gentiles, but not because of anything inherent in them, it was to fulfill prophecy. It still does nothing to further the issue of women in positions of authority over men. As was mentioned, the natural order is established by Paul, and at the same time, the reason is revelation of the fall, for it was a woman who decieved a man: “And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife…
There are two things out of order here. She was instructing Adam, and she was in transgession deceiving him so: “she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.” He did not reach out and take from the tree, she did, and fed it to him.
In each case it is a violation of prescriptive order, to further that: Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
The word submitting is to be in subjugation. When was the last time you obeyed out of abject humiliation before your Lord to the duly ordained authority in your life? If you are married when was the last time you called your husband lord, or master? Now you are daughters of faith if you do. Ephesians uses the word phobos, for reverence, or honor, or respect. It it the word fear as a rabbit cornered. Beside that it likens the husband to the Lord himself over the body and a woman is to obey her husband as lord as if he were the Lord. Beyond that Paul instructs that this is the mystery of the revelation of the Church, he’s the head, were the Bride, his body, and we are to be in subjugation to him in fear. To destroy the revelation by usurping the natural order is to dishonor Christ.
And, you have not arguement in the case of the man being disobedient, for throughout Paul’s teachings it does not matter if masters are obedient to the word or not, harsh or not, just as Peter says.
I would not say that femies have thin skin, they have none at all. If they can’t stand the heat, they shoul get out of the kitchen, and sit, silently at the feet of the Man, learning like a child.
JoanieD on 05 Jan 2008 at 11:01 pm #
Thomas, you said, “In both cases the women commanding the Lord’s obedience were soundly rebuked and told to get back to work.” No, Jesus DID do what his mother asked of him. He may have questioned her to begin with, but he DID do as she asked. And Jesus did not tell Martha to get back to work, from my reading of the passage. He just told her “you are anxious and troubled about many things.” Chances are good that if she, too, had decided she was going to listen to Jesus’ teachings instead of cooking the meal, he would have said, “OK, the more the merrier.” Someone would have come up with the meal sooner or later. Maybe Lazarus! Or maybe they would have all done it together when Jesus finished his teaching. Who knows. But the important thing to take away from that passage is that he was OK with Mary learning from him. He didn’t say, “You are a woman. This is for men’s ears. Go wash the dishes.”
Joanie D.
Thomas Twitchell on 05 Jan 2008 at 11:24 pm #
Read more slowly with out the feminist glasses. This was not the only time Jesus rebuked his mother. When he was twelve, remember? The fact is she was out of line. Woman- not mother, and his retort was correction of her misunderstanding of her role, it was not his time. Yes, he accomodates, he does not facilitate her stepping in front of her Lord.
The case with Martha is no different essentially. The picture is plain. It is Martha who thinks she knows the proper order, and is telling Jesus what should be. He simply rebukes her anxiety and compulsion to usurp control. He is Lord, and knew the proper place for each, which is why I say that couched in the rebuke was “Get back to work.” He did the same to Peter at the end of John when he rebuke him for wondering about the Lord’s Sovereignty in the life of another disciple. It is not a woman versus man thing, it is a mankind versus their Lord thing. For his mother, it may well have been that she was a matriarch of the feast. I do not know, still the fact remains that he orders her after telling her that she is outside her authority and did not rightly discern the times. No leadership there, only mistakes and bad ones too. Not only does she step in front of the Lord, he was a guest and not the Master of the Feast, and by turning to him, she double steps around authority. The end of the case was that it brought embarrassing conditions to the feast. Thanks be to Mary, being out of authoritative order, the whole thing is out of order. Get it?
The important thing to take away from the passages is that Jesus is Lord, and that we need to get our eyes off people. The order in the church is intended to do that very thing. Destroy the order, and you’ve destroyed the Revelation of Jesus Christ and are subject to the penalties described at the end of the Book.
JoanieD on 05 Jan 2008 at 11:38 pm #
Thomas, this will be the last post I will make in response to your posts about this, because I can see it can quickly go downhill. But…you have no idea how subjugated I have had to be under my husband and anyone who was aware of it would likely say I am the antithesis of a feminist. Nonetheless, feminist or not, you also have no idea just how thick my skin is. I could likely give an elephant a run for the money in the skin-thickness competition.
I do agree with one of your statements: “The important thing to take away from the passages is that Jesus is Lord, and that we need to get our eyes off people.” If my eyes were not on Jesus, I could not survive.
Joanie D.
Reclaiming the Mind Ministries » Top Ten Reasons I am a Chauvinist on 06 Jan 2008 at 12:29 am #
[...] response to Ruth’s “Top Ten Reasons I am a feminist,” I thought that I would have some fun with one of my [...]
Emma G on 06 Jan 2008 at 12:40 am #
Regarding Mary and Martha, what would be most noticable for a patriarchal first century Jew is that
Mary is in the same room, with a rabbi (teacher) which is quite contrary to Jewish culture. Hense Mary has chosen what is better, to be a student of Jesus according to N.T. Wright. An equally terrific read is Discovering Biblical Equality:Complementary Without Hierarcy, by Pierce, Goothuis & Fee.
Face-Off: Feminist vs. Chauvinist « Gegraptai on 06 Jan 2008 at 1:00 am #
[...] Over at Parchment and Pen, Michael Patton responds to his colleague’s post entitled “Top Ten Reasons Why I am a Feminist” with his “Top Ten Reasons I am a Chauvinist.” I thought they were pretty funny, [...]
Thomas Twitchell on 06 Jan 2008 at 1:25 am #
Yeah that would not be kosher. And that is not what I was referring to. The customs really have nothing to do with the conditions, so that is a good observation. It was not traditions that Jesus was speaking to, but the right order, that is the proper place according to God’s will. Mary was in her place, and Martha in hers. Being in submission to the teaching of the Lord is always a gooder thing, but that is by the Spirit and not the letter. I would think though, N.T. needs to look at what Martha does repeatedly as in when she trys Jesus’ patience at the Tomb. It is in this seen that she shows forth at the end of the conversation her humility and submission and returns to her rightful place at Mary’s side having chosen the better part, submission. It also should be noted here that neither of them is believing in him as is demonstrated by their lack of faith, but they are both now submitted to his teaching as he prays for the mutual edification of all. Still, the picture is submission to the teaching of Christ, that they should look to him and not to themselves, nor the circumstances, as Martha was doing when fixing the meal.
Sorry Joannie D., but let me ask this: do you subjugate yourself out of love, or by the law. No one should be forced, nor should anyone force themselves. The way of love is out of a willing heart, a servants heart as Isaiah said, not for reward. Please accept my aplogies for being ignorant.
Make Money Repository » Blog Archive » Top 10 Reasons why I’m a Feminist by JoanieD on 06 Jan 2008 at 1:52 am #
[...] Comments for Reclaiming the Mind Ministries wrote an interesting post today on Top 10 Reasons why I’m a Feminist by JoanieDHere’s a quick excerptThomas, this will be the last post I will make in response to your posts about this, because I can see it can quickly go downhill. But you have no idea how subjugated I have had to be under my husband and anyone who was aware of it would likely say I am the antithesis of a feminist. Nonetheless, feminist or not, you also have no idea just how thick my skin is. I could likely give an elephant a run for the money in the skin-thickness competition. I do agree with one of your statements You can find the rest of this great post here [...]
shanemagee on 06 Jan 2008 at 7:58 am #
no no no. thomas you miss the drama of the two events you cite. it was radical for mary to be in the same room as the rabbi. martha is offended by that. surely mary should be doing the ‘woman’ thing?! tell her to come and do the cooking, instead of trying to occupy the ‘man’s’ place as a disciple. but jesus refuses to take this route, thus actually welcoming women into active discipleship.
also, remember why john writes his gospel: “that you might believe that (1) jesus is the messiah, (2) the son of god and (3) that by believing you might have life in his name.” (john 20:30-31) jesus does not rebuke martha for her questioning even as he does not rebuke mary for her grief. rather, to the one with questions he answers the questions, with the one who is simply distraught, he weeps.
in addition, john shows that martha (a woman remember) is the ideal disciple - not peter or even the beloved disciple. right in the middle of his gospel she is the one who confesses everything john says he wants in an ideal disciple. she says, “(3) Yes lord; i believe that (1) you are the messiah, (2) the son of god,” in response to the question: “i am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. do you believe this?” (i wrote a bit about this in a more personal context here: http://tinyurl.com/2dd4le).
amazing reversal of the expected sexual norms. also, when jesus calls his mother “woman” in john 2, some seem to think it is a slur, yet in john 4 when jesus uses the same appellation with the samaritan woman, or, even moreso, in john 8 when jesus uses this word to address the woman caught in adultery, we read no insult. remember jesus calls his mother “woman” when he is on the cross (john 19:26). surely, that verse can’t be read as a put down. (additionally, it is possible that john wants us to think of mary as the second eve - generic “woman”, in the same way as the samaritan woman may be generic representation of samaria, with the “five husbands” being the pentateuch rather than literal marriages).
lastly, in john 2 mary does not ask jesus to do anything. her words may simply be a statement, rather than a request to act. she is not necessarily rebuked at all. jesus may simply be asking an honest question. and her faith in her son is the thing john wants to draw attention to, in underlining her instructions to the servants.
and joanie, god never wants you to simply be a doormat for others to wipe their feet on. you are made in the image of god, not just your male counterparts.
Thomas Twitchell on 06 Jan 2008 at 10:06 am #
Lots of mays, and if sos.
The point still remains in he created order, with Jesus as the Son of Man and Head of his Church, is He declaring egalitarian principles-
You have brought the door mat idea to the for and it is a straw man. Hierarchical order is presented as the fact of creation and its revelation is of God who is Lord. Simply put, the place that God has granted to each of us is no high or lower relative to one another, the relationship is to him. The creation is meant to teach us that order. Women are help meet for that task, namely the Glorification of God, and in Peters example, the example of a faith-filled woman, it is the subjugation of the woman in her proper role, that is glorifying. Parity does not glorify God, his creation is not his equal. Men and women, are in Christ, but in the order of creation they have positional authority to exalt the Creator.
It is a strange view that says the best way to live the Word is to eliminate references to hierarchical relationships, when in doing so erases the revelation of Christ himself. Jesus was Mary and Martha’s, and his mother’s Lord, not just their good bubba.
John most definitely wrote these things so that we would know, and John also exalts the Headship of Christ, reinterating it in relational, hierarchical forms in 1 John. And there, the focus is men without reference to women. Even among men there is not parity, no egalitarianism.
To me it is fantastic that anyone misses the point.
john 2 mary does not ask jesus to do anything-
“They have no wine.†4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me?
Strange reply if the intent of request was not understood by Jesus, eh?
JoanieD on 06 Jan 2008 at 10:08 am #
Thanks, Shane. You make very good points in your above #28 post above. And yes, I am aware that God does not want me or anyone to be a doormat. My husband has a lot of problems and I am attempting to help him. He cannot believe that there is a “personal” God and surely not a God who loves him or anyone. There is only so much help I can give him and he refuses other kinds of help that may be available to him. So it’s very tough going.
I don’t know WHAT that post #27 is about! It seems odd that some blog about making money would put part of my post from here on that blog!
Joanie D.
Sue on 06 Jan 2008 at 7:12 pm #
I am extremely disturbed by the tension between two directives in the comments. First, #5 writes,
Women are clearly equal in worth to men, being similarly made in God’s image. That said, your definition of ‘equality’ in this post and in your other writings sounds an awful lot like female chauvinism to me. You see, equality in value does not imply equality or interchangeability in role or position in life.
The clear implication is that women are not equal in position, but are lower in position.
But later #26 says,
but let me ask this: do you subjugate yourself out of love, or by the law. No one should be forced, nor should anyone force themselves.
However, if women are taught that God wants them in subjugation, this is a form of forcing, it is an attempt to use scripture to place someone in an inferior position to oneself. This is a form of subjugating someone to yourself through misused spiritual influence and a form of force.
As a Christian, you should not go around teaching other people that they are inferior to you in position. In fact, we have clear directives from Christ, to put the towel around our own waist and pick up the basin and bend over and serve.
We are told to esteem others as better than ourselves. It doesn’t say “men only”. So, it is contradictory to the teaching of Christ for men to deliberately put women in the lower position. Especially, let me add, women that you don’t even know.
Let me say that one of the reasons for my feminism is Catherine Booth, who took herself to Exeter Hall in 1884 to harangue men for wanting girls as young as 12 to be of the age of consent so they could continue in prostitution without the client being charged. That is one of her reasons for being a preacher. Who says that she should have kept silent on this topic? Who wants their little girl to go unprotected by the age of consent laws.
The reason for feminism is so that one woman can help another woman or any person at all who is being subjugated in some way or other.
Thomas Twitchell on 06 Jan 2008 at 8:32 pm #
“However, if women are taught that God wants them in subjugation, this is a form of forcing, it is an attempt to use scripture to place someone in an inferior position to oneself. This is a form of subjugating someone to yourself through misused spiritual influence and a form of force…”
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father…Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God…Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience…When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all… By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict. By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them…By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies…And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated— of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth…And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect…He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth…
The reason for the existence of feminism is they have never learned, or have been take captive by the Devil to do his will. They are full of hatred and bitterness: Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?†Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven…And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.â€
They have not seen: to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness†springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled…but have instead forgotten the Lord who bought them and: It is for discipline that you have to endure…
It is interesting to see how the feminist paradigm exalts women to a superior position to all others who suffer with Him, as if they have right not to be in subjugation under the disciplining hand of the Lord. But, it was for this very purpose that Christ came and died. It is the rejection of Christ and his willing subjugation to the will of his Father: For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.†But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,†it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all…Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone…For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, “I will tell of your name to my brothers;
in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.†And again, “I will put my trust in him.†And again, “Behold, I and the children God has given me.†Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted…For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake…If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer…that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death…Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus…Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly…heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Feminism destroys the message of the Gospel and the Christ likeness that we are being transformed into. What arrogance, what pride, when the Priestesses of Feminism claim that they are above all others past present and future and were not redeemed to suffer with their Lord. It is a different Gospel.
Strawman after straw man and clear self-centered interpretation meant to satisfy vengence for wrongs that are not worthy to be compared to the shedding of Christ’s blood on our behalf.
“In fact, we have clear directives from Christ, to put the towel around our own waist and pick up the basin and bend over and serve.”
Yes, that is right. Jesus taught us that we are created in the image of Christ to be put into subjugation willingly. It was for this purpose Christ came, under subjugation, begotten as the Son of Man to that very thing.
Read the book, take off the bitter glasses of self-love, learn not to consider yourself first, but truly gird yourself about, and wash the feet of your brethren, like Christ did, in silence, lovingly doing the will of the Father.
shanemagee on 06 Jan 2008 at 8:40 pm #
holy smoke! by quoting half of the bible are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the way men have treated women over the centuries is the way the father treated jesus christ and so women should simply suck it up because that’s what being a female servant of christ is all about? or that in treating women in the appauling fashion in which they have, men are somehow simply discipling women by allowing them to share in the suffering of jesus?
O MY WORD!
i need lithium.
going to lie down.
need to think calming thoughts.
breathing deeply now.
it’s getting better.
thanks sue for the wisdom and insight. couldn’t agree more - though, if you knew anything about the kind of heretic i am, that may cause you some worry! ;o)
C Michael Patton on 06 Jan 2008 at 8:40 pm #
Thomas: “The reason for the existence of feminism is they have never learned, or have been take captive by the Devil to do his will.”
Please try to be more irenic in your posts. You will never gain an audience with this type of over-the-top language.
Sue on 06 Jan 2008 at 10:38 pm #
feminist movement: the movement aimed at equal rights for women
This is the definition that I go by. It does not mean that women are superior but that men and women are equal both in value and in function. I do not mean that women are the same but that they function as equals.
The woman bears children and respects the father as having equal parenting rights to her.
I understand both the grief of a man whose wife has left and taken the children with her and the grief of a woman who is kept in subservience to care for the children without having an equal voice in making decisions for their welfare.
We must come together, men and women, as those who function as equals and treat each other with reciprocity and kindness and tenderness.
Yes, we who are redeemed do suffer, but I do not believe that God ordained women to suffer under man as a part of his intended plan for humanity.
Remember always that in the reading audience there are those who are victims of rape and assault. I keep in mind that there are also those who are victims of abandonment and neglect.
May Christian men remember Paul’s words,
For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed.
Those, men or women who have authority, have it for the edification of others, not to put others in subjugation.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 07 Jan 2008 at 4:34 am #
feminist movement: the movement aimed at equal rights for women
This is the definition that I go by.
—————————————————–
Is it a definition that can be derived from the whole counsel of Scripture with regards to marriage and to specific offices in the Church?
Here’s a quote from Aaron Ronetski on the “Evangelizing Postmoderns” thread that IMHO is applicable to the “feminist” discussion here:
o There are aspects of our culture that need to be rejected upon conversion.
o When a sinner is converted, he inherently rejects certain aspects of his culture.
o Culture will be no barrier to the heart that is drawn to Jesus.
o I am thankful God saved me out of the cultural context that I was lost in…
————–
These are all applicable to the secular feminism culture that’s being wrongfully promoted by some within the Church.
God’s Divine Design for men and women as expressed clearly in Scripture is incompatible with the philosophy and culturally aggressive practice of secular feminism.
Sue on 07 Jan 2008 at 10:42 am #
Patriarchy is an aspect of our culture also. It was the Greek philosophers who taught in so many words that woman is without authority and lacks the courage of command. That is not in the scriptures.
19th century Christian feminism was a part of my heritage. It was something I rejected until recently.
Patriarchy was the culture that I was lost in and I am grateful to God for saving me from it. Believe me, I was lost in a sinful “Christian” patriarchy.
There was no subordination of woman before the fall. It is only a very recent and novel interpretation of Gen;3:16 which says that woman’s curse is that she resists proper male authority in Gen.3:16. That is not present in the Hebrew.
Adam was the first born and woman comes from man as in birth man comes from woman. God establishes our equality.
There is no rule of the first born in scriptures.
Helper refers to the gracious way that a woman represents God in her role towards man. And man, what is the gracious way that he represents God to woman? By domination or by recognizing her and calling her the name that God has already given her - the woman who is of the same humanity as man, his equal.
Let men and women enter into friendship and not hierarchy. Woman is man’s neighbour, the one who is next to him.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 07 Jan 2008 at 12:19 pm #
See comment #3. Which is very brief.
Jesus is the Lord of culture. The Word of God reigns over culture. The Living Word and Written Word could have EASILY overturned biblical patriarchy if it was sinful and outside of the Triune God’s design.
Jesus and the Holy Scriptures did not. ‘Nuff said.
Josh on 07 Jan 2008 at 12:55 pm #
Lol how did this post become what it is? I sincerely hope the people commenting have read both sides of the “argument†and not simply relying on their “proof textsâ€.
Within a Christian context the term feminist has such negative connotations (in my opinion) due to the fact that most people draw a connection/similarity to it and the path of some of the more “liberal†Christians who see no problem with homosexuality.
It seems like the real question the Christian has to answer in regard to “gender roles†is: what was God’s view of man (I use the term man to mean humankind of course) pre-fall, was there or wasn’t there a hierarchy or head-ship structure. Whatever conclusion you come to will depict which camp you will fall into.
A good read for understanding the Egalitarian perspective can be found in the book, “Why not Womenâ€. There are a bunch of others, but this is a quick one that is well written that will allow you to get your feet wet with the subject matter. From the Complementarian side “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood†is a solid source. The later is a bit heavier reading, but it is probably the best culmination of information for the Complementarian side.
Hope this is useful in amplifying light not heat and grace not pride.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Truth Unites... and Divides on 07 Jan 2008 at 1:10 pm #
I sincerely hope the people commenting have read both sides of the “argument†and not simply relying on their “proof textsâ€.
I have.
May I also suggest that folks inquiring into the matter take a look at the websites of “Christians for Biblical Equality” (CBE) and “Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” (CBMW) as additional resources?
Charles on 07 Jan 2008 at 1:37 pm #
Sue:
You are correct in some aspects of your argumentation, but there are several points to keep in mind.
First, I am not sure that you can validate that origins of patriarchialism by limiting it the Greek philosophers. I suspect that it goes a lot farther back then that.
Second, your assertion that, “There was no subordination of woman before the fall,” is very debatable. Perhaps the issue might be related to how you are defining subordination.
Third, I would suggest that your use of the phrase “sinful “Christian†patriarchy” might need to be unpacked, unless you believe that patriarchialsim is inherently sinful or that all who hold to patriarchialism are sinful. If you do believe this, them I would suggest that at the very least you are guilty of sinful feminism.
Fourth, your statement of what is present or not in the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:16 is not particularly persuasive one way or the other. The phrase in 3:16 could be literally translated something like “. . . to your husband–your desire . . .” While you are correct about what is (or perhaps more accurately) what is not in the Hebrew, the statement in 3:16 must not merely be translated, but ithen t must be interpreted. I do not think that you can prove from the Hebrew text that the interpretation that you categorically reject is not possible or plausible. At this point it may be you who have misunderstood the nature of the Hebrew text.
Fifth, you assertion that, “There is no rule of the first born in scriptures,” needs some explanation or nuancing. For one thing, the concept of first born runs throughout the Scripture culminating in Jesus Himself (Col 1:15).
Finally, your call to “Let men and women enter into friendship and not hierarchy,” seems to be predicated on the faulty assumption that there must be an either/or here. That is there can be friendship OR there can be hierarchy. But can you not have both? Surely, there are many marriages that built on patriarchy and friendship. Three times in John 15, the Lord uses the word friend in relation to his disciples. Does Jesus mean that the disciples are now His equal? I think not.
Sue on 07 Jan 2008 at 3:19 pm #
1. Suppose patriarchy goes back to the fall.
There is pagan patriarchy and Christian patriarchy.
There is pagan feminism and Christian feminism. (We know this because evangelical feminists have done the work of God.)
2. Debatable
3. If I had intended to say patriarchy was inherently sinful I would have said that. I meant that the patriarchal situation I was in was sinful in the most obvious ways.
4. For Gen. 3:16, I am commenting on what is not in the Hebrew.
5. The concept of firstborn as representative is apparent in understanding that “in Adam” we all sin. However, Adam does not have authority over the human race. Firstborn is not ruler. Most, if not all, leaders in the scriptures were not firstborn sons. Even Christ was second to Adam.
Christ calls us his brothers and sisters, not his underlings. As human he is our brother, as God he is our Lord. Woman is sister to man.
Sue on 07 Jan 2008 at 3:48 pm #
A couple of clarifications.
Even if we don’t suppose patriarchy comes from the fall, we can all still recognize that there is pagan patriarchy, just as there is pagan feminism.
If patriarchy is not inherently sinful, neither is feminism, (defined as “equal rights” for women).
Christ was not second TO Adam, but was the second Adam.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 07 Jan 2008 at 4:16 pm #
If patriarchy is not inherently sinful, neither is feminism, (defined as “equal rights†for women).
(Let me continue the circle.)
Is it a definition that can be derived from the whole counsel of Scripture with regards to marriage and to specific offices in the Church?
Here’s a quote from Aaron Ronetski on the “Evangelizing Postmoderns†thread that IMHO is applicable to the “feminist†discussion here:
o There are aspects of our culture that need to be rejected upon conversion.
o When a sinner is converted, he inherently rejects certain aspects of his culture.
o Culture will be no barrier to the heart that is drawn to Jesus.
o I am thankful God saved me out of the cultural context that I was lost in…
————–
These are all applicable to the secular feminism culture that’s being wrongfully promoted by some within the Church.
God’s Divine Design for men and women as expressed clearly in Scripture is incompatible with the definition, philosophy and culturally aggressive practice of secular feminism.
Sue on 07 Jan 2008 at 4:28 pm #
That’s why Christian women take Christian feminists as their role model, women like Lucretia Mott, Catherine Booth, Katherine Zell, Elizabeth Fry and Mary Fisher. Christian women understand that equal rights are for the building up of the church and the expression of nurturing care and provision for others.
Charles on 07 Jan 2008 at 4:46 pm #
Concerning #1, I am mot sure what your point is. The way your initial statement was worded it seems that you were talking about cultural patriarchialism which could be related to either Christian or pagan influence.
Concerning point #2, are you agreeing with me? In your first statement you seemed to be asserting as fact that, “There was no subordination of woman before the fall.” Are you now saying that this may be a debatable point?
Concerning point #3, I would be interested in what ways that you thought the patriarchal situation you were in was sinful. Although, you suggest that it was “in the most obvious ways,” it is not altogether obvious to me.
Concerning point #4, I am not sure if you really understand the point. Interpetations by their very nature, are often not (if ever) “in” the text, Hebrew or otherwise. Interpretations arise when we try to understand a text by looking at it in its context. To say that a particular interpretation is not “in” the text is not to say that a particular interpretation cannot legitimately derive from a text. If all you are saying is that a particular interpretation is not “in” the text, then I would say “so what?” The real issue relates to what Genesis 3:16 means in its context.
Concerning point #5, I appreciate the clarification, but your conclusions appear to exceed the evidence in a number of ways. Notice that the concept of firstborn is a lot bigger biblically and theologically than your explanation seems to indicate. For example, while you are correct that “Most, if not all, leaders in the scriptures were not firstborn sons,” please note that the significance of this is due to the fact that the opposite was expected. The first born WAS expected to rule as it were. I would argue that these examples are more evidence of God’s grace than evidence that there there is “no rule of the first born in the scriptures.” I also wonder what you mean by your clarification that Christ was the second Adam” (in your follow up post). How does this statement support or push forward your argument? On the other hand, the fact that Christ is called the second Adam and not the second Eve might be a thread worth pursuing!
Concerning your statement that, “Christ calls us his brothers and sisters, not his underlings. As human he is our brother, as God he is our Lord. Woman is sister to man,” please note that you are stepping into a theological minefield. I’m not sure that your Christological conclusions are valid and might prove to be unorthodox. I would argue that Christ is fully God and fully man and our relationship to him cannot be bifurcated as you seem to suggest.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 07 Jan 2008 at 5:02 pm #
o That’s why Christian women take Christian feminists as their role model, women like Lucretia Mott, Catherine Booth, Katherine Zell, Elizabeth Fry and Mary Fisher.
No. True Christian women take Jesus and the Spirit-breathed Word of God which attests to Jesus for instruction on how to model and live their lives in the home and the Church.
o Christian women understand that equal rights are for the building up of the church and the expression of nurturing care and provision for others.
No. True Christian women understand that Scripture and the submission to the Authority of Scripture which expresses the divine will of the Triune God is for the building up of His Bride, the Church, and the true expression of nurturing care and provision for others.
For “equal rights” feminists, the question must be sadly asked: Do you wish to worship the true God of the Bible or do you wish to worship a God of your own making and of your own desires?
Jugulum on 07 Jan 2008 at 5:30 pm #
“o That’s why Christian women take Christian feminists as their role model, women like Lucretia Mott, Catherine Booth, Katherine Zell, Elizabeth Fry and Mary Fisher.
No. True Christian women take Jesus and the Spirit-breathed Word of God which attests to Jesus for instruction on how to model and live their lives in the home and the Church.”
I’ll just interject: I bet Sue was not suggesting Christian women should take any of those women as role models in a way that disagrees with Jesus & the Scriptures.
That is, in her mind, it was like saying that John Piper is a role model for preaching. It would be a bit silly for you to say, “No, real Christian men take Jesus as their role model for preaching.” Sure… But that doesn’t mean Piper can’t be a subordinate role model. (Though if he does anything to violate Scriptural commands for preaching, we should reject that.)
Specifically, she was responding to your reference to “secular feminism”. She was contending that “secular feminism” is a strawman–that there is Christian feminism, consistent with Scripture.
If y’all just go back and forth saying “It is consistent” and “No it isn’t,” the conversation won’t be particularly profitable.
Emma G on 07 Jan 2008 at 5:31 pm #
Animals were created before humans, does that mean we submit to them, Absolutely not! As Karl Barth said Adam is simply the “A” before the “B.” Creation order should not promote “headship”
Regarding culture, the church needs to illiminate unwanted culture. However, just because the language of the bible is communicated by a patriarcal culture does not mean it is prescriptive, but rather descriptive, just as today’s postmodern culture is descriptive and not perscriptive.
Please do not confuse the egalitarian position with secular feminism, they are completely separate. Also I would like ask, what has Christ not accomplished on the cross that requires a man to “rule” over them?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 07 Jan 2008 at 5:39 pm #
o Animals were created before humans, does that mean we submit to them
Speaking of strawman, this is an example of one. Does the Bible say to submit to animals? If it wasn’t for your strawman, you wouldn’t ask such a silly, so easy-to-refute question.
o Please do not confuse the egalitarian position with secular feminism, they are completely separate.
No. Not completely separate. Not at all. The “equal rights” mantra has forcibly intruded into the spheres of home and Church where God has a Divine Design expressed in Scripture about the roles of men and women.
Emma G on 07 Jan 2008 at 6:01 pm #
I dont ask silly questions thank you very much!
Does anyone see the danger here? I recently left a “purpose driven church” full of “quality” members, but they introduced John McCarther’s complementary design. Does anybody see the danger, that while we are catering to a seeker sensitive culture, we are imposing a Headship culture on unreedemed men. Its bad enough in our conservative churches and although I disagree with headship, many of these men I highly esteem and want a greater freedom for them in their marriages. However, when a unredeemed male is taught this and thinks he is being a Christian just because he is excercises what he belives is Christianity, really unnerves me.
Charles on 07 Jan 2008 at 6:04 pm #
While the argument concerning creation order, i.e. animals before humans might seem appropriate at first, it has at least two problems. First, it seems quite clear that Genesis draws a distinction between humanity and the rest of creation. For example, humanity is called “very good” whereas the rest of creation which God calls “good.” Also the description of creation appears to indicate that created world was created for man. Note that man is later given dominion over creation, including the naming of animals. (By the way, it is worth observing that it is Adam who names Eve, but not vise versa.) Second, there is also an ontological difference between comparing humanity and creation and man and woman. The former is a comparison of unlike things whereas men and women are alike as far as species. So your argument appears to be predicated on an apples and oranges comparison and not an apples and apples comparison. At this level I woul;d suggest it fails.
As far as your assertion that the “Creation order should not promote ‘headship,’” I would note that someone forgot to tell the apostle Paul this fact (e.g., 1 Cor 11:8-9).
I would also take some issue with your understanding of the Bible. While the Bible was clearly written in the context of a culture and to a people in a culture that is not to say that language of the Bible is culturally relative. This is particularly true if one believes in the doctrine of inspiration and thus the divine superintendence of the writing of Scripture. I would also suggest that your understanding of prescriptive and descriptive is a bit simplistic here.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 07 Jan 2008 at 6:11 pm #
All,
If Egalitarians desire to have the last word on this thread, that’s fine with me. Just know that Complementarians such as myself can easily show how flawed the Egalitarian argument is by the standard of Scripture. If Egalitarians want to go outside of Scripture to make their case, then go ahead and just say so. And to be very clear, with utterly no ambiguity, “equal rights” egalitarianism is an aberrant doctrine.
Furthermore, on this particular issue, I’ll humbly stand under God’s judgment for firmly adopting the biblical complementarian position. I invite staunch egalitarians to stand under God’s judgement for adopting and propagating the “equal rights” egalitarian position. Let Ruth Tucker, Sue, Emma, Shane Magee, et al also stand in judgment.
If anyone wants to honestly explore the complementarian position further, please e-mail me at truthunites@hotmail.com. I shall leave it to Thomas Twitchell and Charles and anyone else to challenge and refute the assertions, arguments, and presuppositions of the Egalitarians on this thread.
Charles on 07 Jan 2008 at 6:19 pm #
Emma:
I hear your concern and I do not doubt your sincerity, but frankly you sound quite confused by a number of issues. In responding I am not even sure I can even untangle your thoughts. That being said, I would encourage you to consider the Complementarian View for a moment apart from the culture today. Does Complementarianism best reflect the teaching of Scripture? If it does, then you can ask, how do we best communicate this truth to this culture. If it does not reflect the teaching of Scripture then we should not teach it to the saved or the lost. We should not teach it in any church purpose driven or otherwise. I would also encourage you to avoid exaggerating the issue. For example when you write, “. . . when a unredeemed male is taught this and thinks he is being a Christian just because he is excercises what he belives is Christianity, really unnerves me,” it is hard to take your point seriously. Are you really suggesting that an unredeemed man is going to think that he is a Christian simply because he is taught or believes in headship?
Sue on 07 Jan 2008 at 6:44 pm #
Charles,
#1 Patriarchy can be either pagan or Christian.
#2 I was trying to be gracious.
#3 Patriarchy can also be sinful. I am sure that we can both agree on examples of sinful patriarchy. It is a situation in which the patriarch, through his own sin, causes those under his power to suffer. This might be through gambling or addiction or violence. But because he has the decision-making power, he keeps others within this situation of sin and suffering.
Everyone is sinful, I am not trying to single out patriarchs, and agree that feminists, too, are sinful.
But there also is a Christian feminism. So we must compare Christian feminism with Christian patriarchy.
#4 Both feminists and patriarchs can equally derive their beliefs from a legitimate interpretation of Gen. 3:16. For example, in the Vulgate and the Olivetan transalation, (Calvin’s French Bible) the curse was that woman “will be under the power of man” and that she “will submit to man.” Therefore, using Calvin’s Bible, I can understand that the submission of women is from the fall. It is a consequence of the transgression of Eve as Paul says.
But I understand that Christ redeems women from submission to man’s harsh rule, but she continues to bear children in pain, however, with the assurance that God saves her.
# 5 The Bible does not support the rule of the firstborn - for whatever reason.
(In correcting my statement regarding Christ, I was not furthering my argument, it was just a correction.)
I do not believe there is a point of comparison between the relationship of a husband and a wife, and that of an individual and Christ. The metaphor is of the relationship between Christ and the church.
I believe in headship as the recognition of full fatherhood rights, equal to the rights of the mother. I believe that the husband has equal reproductive rights as the wife. Not greater, but equal. The father is equally the parent of the children.
This obviously has huge implications and corrects any misunderstanding about abortion or divorce. However, I do not believe that the husband has MORE rights over the children than the wife has. I believe the rights are equal and must be upheld as equal.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 07 Jan 2008 at 6:58 pm #
I just saw this at Justin Taylor’s blog. It pertains so I’ll copy and paste:
Preconference on Gender
Prior to the Desiring God Pastors Conference on February 4, there will be a preconference on gender, featuring two outstanding thinkers on the topic: Ligon Duncan and Susan Hunt, coauthor of the book, Women’s Ministry in the Local Church.
John Piper described the Desiring God conference as “a way of building into their manhood a sense of what a great calling it is to be a man, a father, and a leader of the church.” David Kotter, executive director for CBMW, agrees and adds, “The preconference also enables them to catch a vision for one of the greatest challenges facing pastors today: the debate over biblical manhood and womanhood.”
Each attendee will receive a free copy of the book.
Online registration for the half-day Conference is $20.
(Audio files from “Different by Design 2007″ are available here.)
From: http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/01/preconference-on-gender.html
Charles on 07 Jan 2008 at 7:10 pm #
Sue:
1. Okay but this was not the point of the dispute, the origin of patriarchialism was.
2. While I appreciate your graciousness, I would more appreciate a straightforward answer. Either the issue is debatable in your opinion or not. If you say that it is not then I suggest you might want to investigate the pertinent literature a bit more.
3. I am, not sure that you are staying on the point here. You raised the point that you were “lost in a sinful “Christian†patriarchy.” So I asked about your experience. But instead of sharing your experience, you practically raise a straw man. Most Christian patriarchialists that I am aware of do not advocate “gambling or addiction or violence.” Of course we should reject those. But I might add patriarchialsim and “gambling or addiction or violence” are not inherently linked. I can think of no complimentarian who advocates such behavior within the context of the marriage relationship.
4. Again you are not staying on point. The discussion was on Gen 3:16 and not Galatians 3:28. While our understanding of Galatians 3:28 may ultimately affect how we relate Genesis 3:16 to our lives, the text of Genesis should be read and interpreted in its own right.
5. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. I do not think that you can sustain your assertions biblically. Ephesians 5 simply does not support the view(s) that you are advocating.
Jugulum on 07 Jan 2008 at 7:14 pm #
Sue,
Two things.
“Therefore, using Calvin’s Bible, I can understand that the submission of women is from the fall.”
Since this is a discussion at Reclaiming the Mind, I thought I would point out something from The Theology Program’s session on Egalitarianism & Complementarianism. In the Genesis account, complementarians point to Gen. 2:23 as an indication of headship before the Fall–Adam names Eve, which is supposed to be significant. (I don’t know enough about the cultural background to know how significant. If it’s not too culturally significant, this would be a poor argument.)
“It is a consequence of the transgression of Eve as Paul says.”
So, 2 Tim. 3:13-14 says, “13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”
It sounds like you’re emphasizing v. 14 to the exclusion of 13. Paul doesn’t just say it’s a consequence of her transgression, he also says it’s related to Adam being formed first. If your reading of Paul is correct, why did he bring up their order of creation at all? It seems to be laying out there without a prupose.
Sue on 07 Jan 2008 at 8:03 pm #
#1 Some argue that patriarchy is found in creation, others argue that functional equality of woman is found in creation. In my view they are on an equal footing as interpretive options. Both are found in paganism, although I think patriarchy has the edge on this point in terms of being found in paganism.
#2 I think this is too big an issue and too general for this venue. If you want to ask me a question on one particular point, I could respond to that. I have read a fair bit of literature already.
#3 I am not saying that patriarchy and sin are inherently linked, but they can be linked. Sinfulness is not inherently linked to feminism either. Catherine Booth was the mother of many children, a godly woman, who was committed to the purity movement. She was a supportive wife. She preached when her husband was ill. She continued to preach at his invitation and that of the churches she visited. She campaigned for the just and equal rights of women.
#4 I do read Gen. 3:16 in its own right. I understand that it says a woman will be under her husband.
But I also read the curse on man. Would you say that no man may use any labour saving devise because he absolutely must experience the curse? Must all men work on the land? Must women experience the curse of man’s domination?
Is this the will of God for women in creation? Or can a man treat his wife as an equal and not sin? - just as a woman could alleviate the toil of her aging husband and not sin. In the years after 50, there are many men with health issues. Many of them appreciate that their wife also works and some support their husbands. Wouldn’t a man rejoice to think that he had treated his wife as an equal all his life, not just when he needed her to provide for him?
#5 When I was very little I heard a sermon on how Christ was like Solomon. Just as Solomon had a special night with each of his wives and concubines, so Christ with us, we each have our special time with him as his bride. I am not sure what the point of this is, but it was an interesting sermon and I thought I would share it for your interest.
I think it is better to narrow the discussion rather than broaden it, so I am not giving answers which are as detailed as I could. If there is some aspect of the creation story that spells out for you male authority over the female, I would be interested in hearing it. However, I don’t see it there myself.
Jugulum.
1. Adam calls Eve by the name issah. But issah is not a cognate of ish. It is a name for woman in the Hebrew language. So we have no reason to believe that Adam gave Eve a name other than the name which woman already has. Adam called woman by her name. Adam recognized woman.
Hagar also called God by his name. She named God, in fact. But Hagar had no authority over God. I am not convinced that naming and authority are necessarily linked.
2. The huge significance in man being created first is that demonstrates that the motherhood of woman does not give her power over man. Man is first. He is head of the line, head of the class. This does not mean “Man is the boss.” Some men have misunderstood this. They think that being the head means that God gives them all the “tasks” in life and women are submissive assistants. But God also gives women “tasks” in life. So this cannot be the correct interpretation.
Men and women are equally given tasks. They are equally parents. Man is the head, he is first, he really is the father and coparent with the mother, who really is the mother.
Woman is also the “helper” because man has a real thing about being alone.
It isn’t a subservient position. I like to think of it as a mutual one, that we respond to each other’s need. In any case, God is our helper, and woman is the special helper for man.
Men and women really are equal and it is best when this is acknowledged. Then they can get along in mutual fellowship, getting on with all the mutual commands, among them to submit to each other.
In fact, the Greek word “submit” does not necessarily mean to submit to an authority - it can be mutual. Here are two quotes,
1 Clement 38.1:
“So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (ὑποτασσÎσθω) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,â€
2 Macc 13.23,
â€[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded (ὑπετάγη) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.â€
However, Grudem writes,
But in spite of all these different forms of submission, one thing remains constant in every use of the word: it is never “mutual” in its force; it is always one-directional in its reference to submission to an authority.
With exegesis like this, we are moving backwards at the speed of light.
This was one special insight that supported me on my walk out of patriarchy. Most of Grudem’s books have been an enormous assistance and are very special to me because I saw all the arguments of patriarchy in their most fallible form. I saw that they were based on false assumptions about the original languages.
Jugulum on 07 Jan 2008 at 8:39 pm #
“They think that being the head means that God gives them the tasks in life and women are submissive assistants. But God also gives women tasks in life.”
Correct me if I’m wrong: You have the idea that complementarians believe (1) that women haven’t been given tasks, or perhaps (2) that male headship (whatever that entails) is based on the idea that God gave “them the tasks in life” and that a woman is only ever the assistant for a man’s tasks. If that is your perception, I have no idea who you have been reading; it does not seem like any complementarian position I’ve seen.
“1. Adam calls Eve by the name issah. But issah is not a cognate of ish. It is a name for women in the Hebrew language. So we have no reason to believe that Adam gave Eve a name other than the name which woman already has. Adam called woman by her name. Adam recognized woman.
Hagar also called God by his name. She named God. Hagar had no authority over God.”
It’s an interesting suggestion, but I can’t make out how to reconcile it with what Adam actually said, or how to make heads or tails of the logic of your vision of the passage.
1.) What Adam said (ESV): “she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
In your view, the two clauses have the same logical connection as “My son shall be called Frank, because he was fathered by Jonathan.” Or perhaps, “This wooden thing shall be called ‘boat’, because it was built by my friend Jeffrey.”
i.e. If you say that “she shall be called Woman” was just Adam calling woman by the word that already existed for female humans, you must provide a plausible explanation for what the “because” means.
2.) When you say that ishah and ish are not “cognates”, you’re a bit ambiguous. Do you mean that they’re not etymologically related? If so, fine. You agree with the NET Bible (see note 4):
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=23
They are not related the way that “woman” is etymologically derived from “man”. They are similar, giving rise to the word-play. The conclusion you form–making the similarity meaningless–and making Adam’s use of the two words meaningless–is rather strange.
3.) What on earth is going on with Adam’s command of language? You say that he was just using “the name which woman already has”. How on earth did he know that word? He’s seeing one for the first time! You’re suggesting that before God put him to sleep–when he was naming the animals and all that–he knew this word “woman”. What did he think it meant? Was the word just sitting there in his mind without a referent? (Did he know a word for “hammer” before one ever existed?) Or was he anticipating the creation of Eve? Can you really get that from the text?
(Note: We’re assuming that Adam was speaking Hebrew, which seems doubtful. I don’t know what actual words he spoke, but the Hebrew would presumably be translations–so your saying that the Hebrew word already existed is…doubtful.)
Jugulum on 07 Jan 2008 at 8:58 pm #
Sue wrote,
“In fact, the Greek word “submit†does not necessarily mean to submit to an authority - it can be mutual.”
Hmm, interesting case. I’ll have to look into it; Grudem may have gotten something wrong. (It’s not clear. Neither the Clement passage nor the Maccabees passage seems to portray a perfectly symmetrical relationship, which is what you need.) But I assume you don’t just care about casting doubt on Grudem; I assume you care about discerning the meaning of the text.
I question the significance of the “mutual” usage in Clement’s letter. If you’re trying to make Eph. 5 into a perfectly symmetrical relationship between husband and wife, then pointing out that possible meaning of “submit” isn’t enough. Paul simply doesn’t describe the relationship of wife-to-husband and husband-to-wife in the same way; husbands are never told to submit to their wives in all things.
Yes, 5:21 says we should be “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ”. There is some sense of mutual submission here. But if you try to make that verse do the work for you, then you have to explain 6:1-4. Is the Father-child relationship perfectly symmetrical? In 6:5-9, was the master/bondservant relationship symmetrical?
Sue on 07 Jan 2008 at 9:01 pm #
Jugulum,
That’s a good point, that Adam wasn’t speaking Hebrew. I never understood that before but it makes sense now.
In any case, naming doesn’t mean you have authority over, because Hagar did not have authority over God.
And about tasks. Hmm.
Carolyn Mahaney (page 25 in Biblical Womanhood in the home, ed. DeMoss,)
“She was created to be a helper suitable to him, … to complement him to help him in the task that God had given him. ”
She then quotes Doug Wilson,
“She is called to work through ministering to him. He is oriented to the task, and she is oriented to him.”
Bruce Ware. CBMW website,
“the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man.”
But, in fact, the word helper does not mean submissive assistance, it is the word which is used of God.
Sue on 07 Jan 2008 at 9:08 pm #
A few thoughts on unilateral submission.
First, we are over and over asked to enter into mutuality with each other as Christians.
But there is also a progression towards this. With Luther, authority bearers in the church had authority on behalf of the congregation, not over the congregation. He was explicit on that.
With the execution of Charles 1, citizens declared that they would not accept absolute monarchy.
With the abolition of slavery we reject the power of one human over another, except husband over wife.
I don’t see it as a cultural argument, but as a progressive one. The command to love your neighbour as yourself and to treat others as you would be treated yourself, has been leveling hierarchies of privilege for centuries. But now that we have representative government and voluntary church attendance and labour laws and unions, collective rights, still some men want to have the authority over their wives.
But we should be lead from the concept of mutual submission and equality into the practice of it.
There are also times when we suffer great physical pain because we are subordinated to a power over us. Does this justify that power. No, I don’t think so. But in time of suffering we have to do the right thing, whatever that is.
All in all, I think that men who live in a country with responsible government should offer their wives equality. What good is 49% of the vote? Wives should respect their husbands but wives should have equal input.
Jugulum on 07 Jan 2008 at 9:51 pm #
“In any case, naming doesn’t mean you have authority over, because Hagar did not have authority over God.”
Gen 16:13-14: “13 So she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, “You are a God of seeing,†for she said, “Truly here I have seen him who looks after me.†14 Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi [the well of the Living One who sees me]; it lies between Kadesh and Bered.”
OK…She gave God a name. She didn’t name him in the sense that my parents named me, or that Adam named the animals. Hagar called God by a new name; she did not name him Yahweh.
If Adam simply said, “She shall be called the delight of my eyes, for she has filled my heart with joy,” that would be like Hagar naming God. What Adam did–coming up with the word for “woman” the way he had just finished naming the animals, and the way my parents named me–is different.
Now, I really don’t know if that means he had authority. I don’t know how significant that kind of naming is. I’ve heard people claim that “naming” really meant something; I haven’t looked into that claim.
I would want to encourage you to do a couple things: One, try not to dismiss this idea out-of-hand. Until you can check into it and find out whether naming does imply headship–check into it by finding out what credible historical sources say about it–you shouldn’t dismiss it.
Two, it would be good to listen to Michael & Rhome’s mp3s on the subject:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/ttp/courses/HS/09
They talk about the two positions (complementarian and egalitarian) and discuss the arguments for both. (That includes what I was saying about naming.)
Sue on 07 Jan 2008 at 10:09 pm #
That’s the thing, Jugulum, every point in Genesis can be presented as promoting male authority - or maybe not. The only one that is for sure is the curse.
And what if the human race is named after Adam? We are all mud. Is that news? And if Adam were the head of the human race, when was the last time you bowed to Adam’s authority?
Complementarians have created a collage of interpretations, none of which stands alone.
…
I guess I would have to have someone preview the mp3 for me. I don’t want to have happen what sometimes happens,
- my teenage daughter overhears Driscoll on sex,
- or Ligon Duncan on the difference between men and women, men’s vulnerablity to sexual temptation.
Nor would I listen to something that mentioned biblical gynecology, or how sexually unattractive and horsey egalitarian women are.
I really have no intention of exposing myself to that kind of rhetoric. Sure I dish it out, but only with regard to published books. That is, I feel free to express my displeasure with a book that misrepresents facts, but I don’t want to listen to someone who says that a woman who thinks of herself as functioning equally to man is just downright unattractive. How does he know?
I don’t actually call complementarian men themselves unsavoury names or epithets, so I don’t like literature which just dishes out the epithets to egalitarian women.
You sound really civil though. I don’t want to tar every complementarian with the same brush.
Daniel Eaton on 07 Jan 2008 at 10:29 pm #
I believe the comments on this have run their course. Please post any future discussion on this piece on the forum (the link is at the top of this page). If you have issues in getting into the forums, please email me at daniele at reclaimingthemind dot org.
Daniel