is feminism at odds with Christianity?

[sandra]

here's one analysis:

It is part of God's order that women are submissive to their husbands, not because men are better, but because the voluntary submission is an example of the humility and worship He expects from us. God expects us to submit to our husbands, but He expects us to willingly do this our of obedience to Him. It is clear that we are to submit freely, by our personal choice, not because our husbands have somehow forced us to do so.

1Peter3 commands us that "Wives in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe in the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes, Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear."

While women are expected to be submissive to their husbands, it is not as part of an authoritarian order. A proper woman is capable of being independent when needed, she simply defers when their interests conflict out of her love for God and her husband.

The open and often tyrannical domination of a marriage by the husband is not a relationship functioning as the Lord intended. God expects the husband to love and cherish his wife. The man is expected to love and care for his wife - not to dominate, humiliate or abuse her as an exension of his wife's submission (which he has twisted into his domination of the marriage). Men are commanded to love their wives as Christ loves his bride (the church). Christ led the church through "servant leadership". He led by example and was more than willing to make large sacrifices of himeself for the good of the church. Men should lead their wives in the same way.

1Peter3 continues: "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker parter and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

Biblically, there is no basis for a woman serving as a pastor over men. The languages used for the writing of the New Testament (Greek and Aramaic) are very accurate and specific. There is nothing debatable about "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1Timothy 2:12-13)

The presence of women in prominent roles where men refused to obey God is not license for women today to usurp men's positions within the body. As a specific example, the main point of the Song of Deborah is not "that she was a woman who was a Judge therefore God calls women just like men". The point of the Song of Deborah is that Barak refused to obey God when he was commanded to lead the people into victory over the enemy and God chose to use women to humiliate him.(Read ALL of Judges 4-5)

Women are expected to respect God's order by remaining silent in service (if she receives a word, it should be initially run past her husband and then on to a pastor, rather than going directly to the pastor). For it is commanded in 1Corinthians34-35 "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

There is no basis for the belief that the above points mean that women are expected by God to be trembling little mice, or that they should play no role in church other than as Sunday School teachers and jello mold makers. God grants all of His gifts to women just as He does to men.

Women like men are expected to fulfill the roles God assigns to them (including visible roles within the church, such as prophesy, evangelism and other ministries). Women are often called to ministry. To deny them the right to operate as God called, is to deny the deity of God Himself. We all are aware that women can pray as well as men. That women can, and do, prophesy, speak in tongues and evangelize.

It is part of God's desire that women devote themselves primarily to their role as wife and mother and that outside activities are secondary to this.
The sexual revolution, abortion and birth control have combined to reduce the sanctity and importance of the role of women as mothers and also to reduce the importance of the role of the father beyond conception.
God expects us to live by His standards and not those of the world around us.

The writings of Paul while written to specific churches are meant to serve as guidelines for all churches to protect against spreading heresies and to emphasize the importance of Christians distinguishing their behavior from that of the world around them.

You cannot remove the writings of Paul from the Bible.

You can not write off the restriction of women within the church as the rantings of Paul. That women are submissive is throughout the Bible, beginning in Genesis (where Eve was created to complete Adam and serve as his helpmeet). Even in the New Testament, Paul is not the only author that require women to be submissive. Peter actually wrote the strictist requirements for women's behaviour.

God has not changed. He does not change. We are the ones that change. What God expected of us when the Bible was written is what he expects of us today and what he will expect of our great great grandchildren two hundred years in the future.

Because God does not change, it is impossible to "grow" or "evolve" to a point where we are exempt from the commands of the New Testament.
Men are expected to love their wives, not to submit to them.

That men have chosen to abdicate their leadership roles within the church is as much a sin as women's chosing without the Lord's guidance to usurp men's roles. God from the beginning told men that they were supposed to lead the family and that they were supposed to hold the authority roles in the church. I firmly believe that if men were to realize their sin and begin to lovingly take their proper place again, there would be less room for the sins of "religious feminism".

There is a particular scripture frequently quoted by feminists as backing their position: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

(Galatians 3:28). This use of this scripture points out the dangers of quoting scriptures out of context. Even a cursory, superficial reading of the full chapter reveals that what is being discussed is access to salvation, not the right to hold office in the church or the status of particular groups within church, family or society.

[sdcheung]

Nod.
as an Orthodox Christian. I will not listen to a Priestess give the Liturgy.
Unheard of. Unnatural.

[AngryABCGirl]

Yes it is, most people just choose to ignore that little detail now though.

[sandra]

Originally Posted by AzNBuffGrL

Yes it is, most people just choose to ignore that little detail now though.

so is it your position that one cannot be both?

and...if our goal is eventual gender equality, does that mean that we need to either modify or eradicate the religion?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I will respond more to this later because I'm eating out with my friends at one of the many forsaken Chinese restaurants in this tiny college town, but anyways...my initial response from a Christian standpoint is...

The essential purpose of feminism is to make it so that women are no longer marginalized, and the vast majority of active feminists try to accomplish this via the seeking of equal socio-economic opportunity for both men and women.

Marginalization and the need for feminism is due to men oppressing and treating women unfairly, which is human sin. Without sin, there would be no oppression, without oppression, there would be no need for feminism.

Therefore I think some of the advocated values or actions of feminism may be at odds with Christianity, but certainly not the overall goals of both feminism and Christianity. It may be just a matter of how to integrate feminist values with Christian values. Feminism strives for a world free of oppression (of not just sexes but all peoples, since in order to fight oppression towards one group, you need to fight oppression towards all to be effective). Christianity strives for a world free of sin (unattainable on earth but nevertheless a goal or benchmark to aim for). Once again, I need to go now but this is just my initial brainstorm. I will respond later if needed.

Although eradication or modification of religions has undoubtedly occurred in the past, in my point of view this is not an option. My interpretations of the rules of my faith are not up for compromise. ^^

[coagulated fat]

Originally Posted by Gumby

Marginalization and the need for feminism is due to men oppressing and treating women unfairly, which is human sin. Without sin, there would be no oppression, without oppression, there would be no need for feminism.

I think this marginalization is an inherent and inseperable part of christianity. Feminists may protest because of the oppression of women, but they are not *only* protesting that -- they are also protesting the treatment of women as it differs from the treatment of men. To use a racial example, the stereotype of Asians as intelligent is probably beneficial, if anything, to Asians as a whole, yet it is still understandable why a person of Asian descent would want to fight over such simplified views of his race or in this case, gender. I believe that feminism fights for gender equality, not the end of gender oppression. The end of oppression, I would argue, is not possible without the achievement of gender equality or the equality of any other groups. The group deemed superior would always marginalize the other group or groups. The verse "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1Timothy 2:12-13) seems to me specifically harsh, and I cannot imagine a world, even an utopian world, in which this statement alone would be considered unoppressive.

I have special interest in this topic because as a Christian I tried to reconcile christianity with feminism, and they were so obviously incompatible that I had to give up one or the other or just delude myself. So I guess it's obvious what I picked.

[sandra]

Originally Posted by coagulated fat

I have special interest in this topic because as a Christian I tried to reconcile christianity with feminism, and they were so obviously incompatible that I had to give up one or the other or just delude myself. So I guess it's obvious what I picked.

with respect to your entire post above - very well said. i am curious as to how you tried to reconcile Christianity with feminism. your thought process, basically. can you share?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally Posted by coagulated fat

I think this marginalization is an inherent and inseperable part of christianity. Feminists may protest because of the oppression of women, but they are not *only* protesting that -- they are also protesting the treatment of women as it differs from the treatment of men

I would have to disagree. As a Christian I have no problem accepting much of feminism's core beliefs (basically the halting of marginalization and oppression or unfair/discriminating treatment of women), although perhaps it is definitely dependent upon the individual feminist (or feminist supporter) as to what beliefs constitute the core. Additionally, there is much variation and disagreement among feminists themselves as to the definition and significance of 'equal treatment' towards men and women. Many avid feminists (including my women's studies teacher) have no problem acknowledging that there are indeed inherent inborn differences between men and women which may lead to necessary institutionalized differences and inequalities in treatment.

Additionally, the Bible places ultimate value and priority on a relationship with the Lord and Jesus Christ, not on money, not on physical or emotional or mental prowess, not on number of wives, not on number of achievements, and other earthly socially created values. Such earthly values such as financial power and wealth have admittedly been created and perpetuated by men, much of it parallel to the formation of the organized church. No doubt Christianity has been used as a tool to suppress, kill, dehumanize, and marginalize for the benefit of a certain select group during many instances of our earth's history. Clearly however, one who is familiar with the Gospel and the life of Jesus as a historical figure (the label which most historians can agree upon at the very least) can see how Christ in no way treated women as inferior and in fact in many instances it was through women that he accomplished his ends. The Bible stresses no greater honor than to be used as an instrument of God to achieve his will. Examples can be presented if needed, but I don't wanna make this post too long. I believe that a religion that would be created, organized, and modified with blatant sexist undertones in mind (especially at the time and age the Bible was written) would no doubt have eliminated such 'events' of Christ's life long ago.

I believe that feminism fights for gender equality, not the end of gender oppression. The end of oppression, I would argue, is not possible without the achievement of gender equality or the equality of any other groups. The group deemed superior would always marginalize the other group or groups.

Again, I think this is largely dependent upon what you mean by 'gender equality'. To me, essentially the end of 'gender oppression' is desirable over 'gender equality', if equality is meant by total and equal treatment. I do believe that men and women are inherently different in some ways and therefore variations in treatment are acceptable. I feel that men and women can be treated differently without either side being marginalized or seen as 'inferior'. Unfortunately our society, built upon the values and interpretations of males, has created a world which treats men and women differently while viewing women as inferior. I still consider myself a supporter of feminist values, at least in the fact that I am opposed to giving women the short end of the stick. However, the problem is that we live in a world where what is valued is, as mentioned above, what a man can achieve, and not what a woman can achieve. Our man-made societies value physical strength, machoness, dominance, aggressiveness, traits that have been genetically proven to be more of a male-tendency, as far as I know. We also value the income as a result of the hours that a man puts in at the office each day at work, but we constantly neglect the hours and time devoted to child-rearing that women contribute (even those women who work full time often take up such duties). Our society does not 'value' this, because there is no type of figure or measure of money or revenue to attach to this, yet all societies in the world depend largely on this type of labor, and entire apparatuses (apparati?) would collapse without it. The Bible clearly values all that men and women are capable of doing on an equal scale, as long as it is done to serve God, and does not place the actions of men as more significant and important (as noted in the life of Jesus) nor deems women as more guilty of sin than men.

The verse "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1Timothy 2:12-13) seems to me specifically harsh, and I cannot imagine a world, even an utopian world, in which this statement alone would be considered unoppressive.

I admit that this verse is a bit harsh. I will have to struggle with this for a while, just as I have struggled with the heated debate surrounding masturbation since the Bible does not mention it specifically (yet warns against bestiality). But that's another topic. Regarding this verse, once again I am inclined to believe that this is reinforcing God's intended order for the family, yet does not insinuate that women are 'inferior', 'less worthy of God's grace and gifts/blessings', or less intelligent or strong. Any type of superiority complex or actions based on interpretations of such a complex imposed by men are due to sin, the sin of the male in this case.

I have special interest in this topic because as a Christian I tried to reconcile christianity with feminism, and they were so obviously incompatible that I had to give up one or the other or just delude myself. So I guess it's obvious what I picked.

Once again, I don't think that Christianity is 'obviously incompatible' with feminism but that is just according to the feminist values I hold. However, once again due to the differing perspectives and variations in attitude and stance of many feminists of different backgrounds, religion/creed, ethnicity, etc., Christianity is definitely incompatible with their view of how to go about promoting feminist-related goals, although their own view and understanding of Christianity also will present itself as an undeniable factor. I have my own reasons for why I believe what I believe, and so do you ^^ It's just that we picked differently. Although I am curious as to perhaps why you chose one over the other. I can totally understand why you would pick feminism obviously, but then again, for me (or anyone else) to have chosen Christianity would mean to admit one's shortcomings and unworthiness as a sinning creation of God and in essence choose an action leading to repentance, capitulation, and humble surrender. It would be a step back at least in the eyes with those of earthly values (values which we all have before converting to Christianity and perhaps other religions).

More on this later if necessary ^^

[nola]

You can not write off the restriction of women within the church as the rantings of Paul. That women are submissive is throughout the Bible, beginning in Genesis (where Eve was created to complete Adam and serve as his helpmeet). Even in the New Testament, Paul is not the only author that require women to be submissive. Peter actually wrote the strictist requirements for women's behaviour.



They are incompatible because the Bible enforces gender roles. In Genesis, men are told to hold dominion over nature and women. Feminism is about having choices. I've found that it's usually men defending Christianity, pro-life views and maintaining Asian cultural heritage.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally Posted by nola

They are incompatible because the Bible enforces gender roles. In Genesis, men are told to hold dominion over nature and women. Feminism is about having choices. I've found that it's usually men defending Christianity, pro-life views and maintaining Asian cultural heritage.

What if I were to tell you that gender roles can and should exist whereas marginalization and unfair treatment should not? Depends on your definition of 'unfair' then I guess. Feminism to me is about the elimination of oppression. This oppression is the fault of man. One could argue then that men suffer from a lack of choice just as women do, in that both men and women are confined to their box and the 'gender roles' prescribed from them in society. The difference is, the things and accomplishments we value in society are much more accessible for men because the values were created by men and tailored to the male gender role as prescribed by the Bible. Our society values money and monetary gain, both much easier for men to attain, as cited by the 75 cents to the dollar wage disparity in the workplace. Christianity at its purest and most basic level looks down upon monetary gain and values spiritual gain above all else. Arguably, if we are looking at what our societies of today see men and women as capable of providing, Christianity may even value the contributions made my women (as prescribed in the gender roles) over the contributions made by men, in that today men are expected to contribute the financial portion whereas women are expected to contribute more to child-rearing and the stability of the family structure. The values upon which our capitalist society is based are clearly in stark contrast with the values of the Bible, yet much of our society is justified with Biblical values due to the ulterior and personal motives of a patriarchal entity. Once again, I do believe that men and women are inherently different and therefore, absolute equal treatment is not a must. However, negative treatment or oppression towards any group or sex is unacceptable because the Bible says it is, according to my beliefs.

More on this if necessary ^^

[nola]

Feminism brings choice to both men and women and liberates men from needing to prove their masculinity all the time. It is not just about eliminating oppression but about opportunity. It would be all good if men didn't sin and oppress women but men and women do not fit into these gender roles, not by a long shot.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally Posted by nola

It would be all good if men didn't sin and oppress women but men and women do not fit into the gender roles prescribed by a long shot.

Men and women as they stand also do not fit into the ideal God-devoted servant role by a long shot either, yet some people still choose to strive for such an ideal.

On a side note but perhaps irrelevant to conversation, I have met plenty (well not plenty) of feminists who are also Christian. Just depends on the individual feminist, as noted earlier. Also depends on the individual Christian and his/her understanding.

[nola]

So we should strive for the ideal of Christian-prescribed gender roles?

More power to these women but it can be tricky.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally Posted by nola

So we should strive for the ideal of Christian-prescribed gender roles?

As a Christian, I have no choice. I agree, it is tricky. No, seemingly near impossible, looking back at the shit we've dug ourselves into. Although the Bible does not measure or compare the sins of one individual against another (because a single act of sin makes anyone unworthy without God's grace, whether it be a thought of contempt, jealousy, or murder), the earthly tangible effects and negative ripples present on earth today are largely the result of sin committed by the male sex (I understand that sex and gender have different meanings among those educated in the feminist movement), but only because in the past it has been the actions of men that have potentially the most effect upon the masses, true to the patriarchal structure.

[nola]

True Christians are great. I've met some.

I heard that Bush invoked God in his last state of the union address. God has been used to commit too many atrocities.