Author: Joseph Ginder (Page 19 of 23)

Feminism is not a movement well-regarded by many evangelical Christians today. Most feminist writers today portray religion in general and Christianity in particular as inherently patriarchal and unfair to women. Often Christianity is cast in the role of serving in the past and the present as a tool for the subjugation of women. This is, in my view, a great and grave misinterpretation of Christian teaching and thought.

The early pioneers to advocate for equal rights for women were nearly all Christian women (or men), in recent centuries often influenced by Quakerism. They sought political equality for women to vote and hold public office, the right for women to own property, and for the end of “chattel marriage” – all on Christian grounds. In the late 19th and 20th century, most were also ardent prohibitionists who saw alcohol abuse as a great social evil that primarily served to undermine the responsibility of men toward their families. They did not advocate for some of the issues associated with feminism today. Susan B. Anthony for example, an early feminist Christian, even referred to abortion as “child murder” and as a “noxious weed.”

John G. Stackhouse, Jr., a Christian writer and professor of theology formerly at Regent College and now at Crandall University, defines himself as a feminist today. Of course, he has his own definition of “feminist” that he uses to clarify what he means by the label. His definition of a feminist is this: Someone who champions the dignity, rights, responsibilities, and glories of women as equal to in importance to those of men and who therefore refuses discrimination against women.

Of course, we are still strapped with the baggage of meaning attached to the word “feminism” by the wider society. Whether or not it is helpful for a Christian to refer to himself or herself as a feminist will have to remain a discussion for another day. However, giving Stackhouse a chance to explain his perspective is useful:

Yes, women and men are biologically different, and so some sex-specific zones are real and therefore not arbitrary. I expect that the folk wisdom is true that men and women differ also in other essential ways, although there is currently nothing approaching a cultural consensus as to what those ways are. Feminists, therefore, do not have to be blind to real differences and their implications. In fact, many feminists emphasize that women and men are indeed different and that a large part of the feminist concern is that those differences be acknowledged and incorporated into our life together. Feminists of the sort I represent are those who resist what they judge to be arbitrary, ungrounded distinctions between men and women and the discrimination that attends such distinctions.

Interestingly, given Stackhouse’s definition and perspective, many Christians might consider themselves feminists, even (with qualification) some complementarians! I expect many egalitarians agree with his perspective, if not Stackhouse’s terminology.

Next: 6. Cultural and Social Norms and Scripture

Oppression (according to Dictionary.com):

1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
2. an act or instance of oppressing.
3. the state of being oppressed.
4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.

For our purposes, definitions one and four are helpful to consider. The first definition assumes some standard by which to define what is burdensome, cruel, or unjust. This definition is particularly relevant for a follower of Christ. The standard by which we evaluate what ought to be in the life of one created by God is God. That is, what ought to be is what God intends. Anything or anyone who restricts a human being from fulfilling the purpose intended for that person by God is oppressing that human being. The normal result of this sort of oppression is a feeling of being burdened by troubles and adverse conditions, bringing us to the fourth definition.

Of course, one must start with the first definition and a reliable standard in order to accurately assess oppression. It is possible for human beings to feel oppression when there is none, or otherwise be incorrect in assessing oppression according to feelings. In a fallen world, humans often have inappropriate expectations that, when unfulfilled, lead to a feeling of oppression. While such feelings are worthy of concern, they are not the definition of oppression that we will use here.

But what about suffering under oppression? Is it right to dismiss the suffering that comes from oppression and consider only oppression in the abstract? Of course, Jesus cares not only about actual oppression, but also about suffering under oppression – and so should his followers. Any proper consideration of oppression will consider the suffering that occurs in those oppressed. The point is that we must begin with a standard of life by which oppression can be noted and defined rather than with feelings of oppression. So, to repeat, anything or anyone who restricts a human being from fulfilling the purpose intended by God for that person is oppressing that person.

Next: 5. Christian Feminism?

There are a number of observations that are important in setting a context for considering the matter of women’s leadership in the church.

Let’s begin with one of the most striking. The observation is this: both today’s complementarians and today’s egalitarians are radical reformers compared to nearly every traditional position in the history of the church on the nature and role of women. Church tradition has been nearly uniform in affirming patriarchy as the God-ordained order of things in all areas of life, including home, society and the church. (While Quakers, among others, have been a notable exception, one can observe areas of Quaker practice that differ substantially today from practice in centuries past.)

Complementarians are careful today to argue that women are of equal value before God – a proposition that directly contradicts teaching in church tradition. Egalitarians tend to focus on the idea that women should be eligible to minister in official capacities in a manner equal to how men are eligible for those same ministries. This idea also contradicts nearly all teaching in church tradition. No matter which position one holds, it is surely an innovation compared to the traditional patriarchal practice of the church through most of the course of Christian history. The writings of the church fathers and other leading figures in the history of the church are often so biased in favor of men and against women that they are embarrassing to read today.

Consider Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 92, Article 1, Reply to Objection 1:

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes.”

Or, read Tertullian’s “On the Apparel of Women”. (This is the writing in which he infamously refers to women as “the devil’s gateway”.) There are, in addition to these, many unsubstantiated quotations of Christian leaders on websites intending to decry the attitude of the church or Christians toward women. It is unsafe to trust in the truth of quotes for which no primary source attribution is given; some seem to be fabricated and repeated for shock value. (That is, if the site does not tell you how to find the quote in the original writing of the author who is quoted, don’t trust it.) And yet the attitude of historical leaders of the church toward women is easily shown to be compatible with neither complementarian nor egalitarian positions of today. Rather, a rather condescending patriarchy was the norm; women have generally been considered inferior to men even in the church.

I do not write to denigrate those who have held such opinions in the past, but rather to show that deeply significant and beneficial change has occurred. The prevailing attitudes of the past have not always been biblical. The attitudes of great leaders in the Christian tradition were bound up in their time and culture.

We must consider that all are bound in some ways as prisoners of culture and society, accepting with little question attitudes and opinions that will someday prove to us that God’s ways and thoughts are indeed higher than our own. In fact, we must be grateful that God does us the grace of not revealing to us all at once the full extent of our entanglement with sin and ignorance that give rise to thoughts, habits, and attitudes that make us (to be diplomatic) not as good as God designed us to be. A bruised reed he will not break, indeed – and let us give praise for God’s love and mercy that it is so!

In addition, I would argue, that in spite of embarrassing attitudes expressed at times by many of our Christian forefathers, that the place Christians have played in improving the lot of women in the world has been of vital and central importance, leading societies and cultures toward what Helen Barrett Montgomery termed “the emancipation of women through the gospel of Jesus Christ”. Christians have led in changing society toward attitudes and opportunities that more fully honor the image of God in women. Today, both egalitarians and complementarians take for granted attitudes toward women and opportunities for women that were nearly unthinkable merely a few short generations ago – except in the mind of God and those whom his Spirit had guided toward his more perfect will and ways. Those who have led the way to improving the treatment and attitudes around the world toward women have come primarily from among God’s people. They have acted to bring about positive change precisely because they believed that God called them to this work in faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Both complementarians and egalitarians argue today that women are not inherently inferior to men – that men and women are equally valued by God. Women are no longer seen as lacking sense and judgment, as being a sinfully seductive distraction to men, or as essentially inferior and incapable. The surprising thing to us these days is that so many church leaders in the past argued for restricting various types of ministry to men because they viewed women as inherently inferior. We find this surprising and distasteful because the general attitude of Christians toward women has improved. As a consequence, following upon God’s work among and through his people, the attitude of our society has changed, too. Praise God!

However, the attitudes of people in our society and others have not changed enough. Official policies are often good, but practice lags behind. Unfair and demeaning treatment of women remains common, both in the church and in wider society. The incidence of tragically poor treatment of women by powerful men remains so prevalent that it seems to warrant recognition as a system of oppression that remains in existence, in spite of much progress. It is a fundamental calling of Jesus’ followers to stand against oppression and injustice. Such patterns of sin directly oppose Jesus’ mission to bring fullness of life to God’s children.

Jesus, in his first reported sermon after a 40-day time of tempting in the desert, quoted Isaiah to define his ministry:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
(Luke 4:18-19 NIV)

Upon considering the place of women in family and church, there is work to be done in the name of Jesus. There is past oppression to be lifted and there are prisoners to be freed. There is blindness to be healed. There is good news for those who are prisoners of unjust patterns in this fallen world. Jesus’ people must lead the way in releasing the oppressed into the fullness of life to which our Lord beckons.

Next: 4. Oppression

I’d like to consider the Christian question of women in leadership, particularly as it pertains to leadership in the church, but also briefly touch on the relationship between husbands and wives in a Christian marriage.

Much has been written on this topic, so why should I write? Well, there are two specific reasons for these articles. One is to stake out a place in the territory of Christian opinion on this matter. Careful, intelligent Christians dedicated to following Christ under the authority of scripture differ on the topic of women in leadership in the church and in how Christian marriages should be ordered. This is a matter with practical implications for church and family. Even when one is charitable towards those of differing opinion, there is the issue of how a particular local church will order its affairs and teach. Thus, there is need to explain a position for the sake of clarity in practical application.

Secondly, there remains a need for more general discussion and consideration of this topic. The last word has not been written, and many of the key ideas that one should consider are scattered across a broad range of reading material. Since this is a matter of practical importance and of more than passing interest to many, it is worthwhile to summarize some of the ideas relevant to the matter at hand and share references that interested readers might like to pursue.

Next: 2. There are two major positions on women in the church and family