Feminism: The Other F-Word

I’m a Christian. And I’m a feminist. For lots of folks, those two identifiers seem incompatible, antithetical, an oxymoron.

Are those things supposed to go together?

A few years ago, I gave a presentation at an academic conference at my alma mater, a Christian university. As a part of my lecture, I used a research-based creative piece I wrote that engages with Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene by recasting its only female knight while striving to stay true to Spenser's original art as much as possible. My rewrite was feminist. The room was mostly occupied by people who know me well, friends and former professors, so I found myself throwing out the F-word rather casually and without caveat throughout my presentation.

Somewhere along the way, I noticed a few of the folks in the room looking concerned, possibly even a little upset, and it dawned on me that I needed to stop and make a caveat or two: I just realized I've been casually throwing around the F-word [insert shocked faces here], you know, feminism… the other F-word, and that’s because most of you know me well enough to know the kind of feminism I mean. But that’s a bit unfair to the rest of you in here because of the bad rap feminism gets in Christian circles. 

We don't use words like that around here, young lady!

I went on to explain myself: I like men [insert comic relief]. I don't think men are evil or the source of all the world’s problems. I don't think all men are raving, sexist morons. Quite the opposite. I get just as upset about commercials and sitcoms and throw-away comments from women that make men out to be helpless idiots and blundering cavemen as I do with ideology that makes women out to be, for example, either perfect angels or whorish devils with no room for messy, muddling humanity, as is the case with our text today. I’m an egalitarian, which sometimes requires feminist efforts to raise women up from the dehumanizing social scripts proliferated by men and women alike, and sometimes requires masculinist efforts to do the same for men.

I hope that was helpful in assuaging the furrowed brows in the room. I couldn’t quite tell. I had a time limit and had to move on. If I’d had all day, I would have challenged them not to shy away from feminist scholarship just because there are some toxic versions of feminism out there. In fact, good feminism must exist, if for no other reason, because bad feminism needs to be answered. [Golly that’s good! Oh right, that’s because I didn’t come up with it; CS Lewis did (read “philosophy” where I wrote “feminism”).]

You can read more about Mr Clive Staples in Aaron's lovely piece, Surprised by Failure.

I think it’s important that as Christians we develop habits of thinking that are nuanced, particularly in regard to those ideas that stir up our most vehement reactions, the ideas we like the least and the ones we feel most threatened by. I think this is happening more and more; nuance is often one of the good results of Postmodernism. (What!!? Isn’t “good Postmodernism” incompatible, antithetical, and an oxymoron? Case in point. But that’s another post for another day, and one that can probably be done better by some of my fellow TTC writers. Cough-cough, hint-hint…)

Feminism in it’s extreme forms is ugly and certainly incompatible with Christianity because it dehumanizes men (and women). Any sort of approach that seeks to, for example, oppress the oppressors is the product of our fallen nature (even if it’s understandable); it is the epitome of hypocrisy to say: It’s wrong to oppress us, so we’re gonna oppress you as punishment. However, I would encourage those who, for example, believe the Bible speaks conclusively about gender roles (and therefore consider feminism antithetical to Christianity) to consider the ways in which their feminist, or egalitarian, brothers and sisters are challenging that position. A helpful article in this vein called, “Gender Difference: Lose the Boxes,” appears on Sandra Ghland’s blog Aspire 2 Thinking that Transforms. Do I think this essay or a hundred like it are going to change anyone’s position? Not necessarily. But I’m less concerned with that than I am with the need for us as Christ-followers to discipline ourselves to think outside our boxes, whatever they may be, so that, among other things, we can be unified in our differences through Christ rather than divided by them, a division that thrills our Enemy and those most hostile to our faith. [I could just as easily make the same exhortation to egalitarians, but this is a feminist post after all. ;) ]

For a good starter on thinking through a middle way between extreme feminism and complete rejection of feminist efforts, I recommend Dorothy L. Sayers’s Are Women Human? It’s a little book comprised of two short, very readable (and rather witty) essays: one critiques Feminism, the other, the Church.

Let’s work together to de-vilify feminism. There really should be only one F-word… Foucault! [insert winking emoticon here]

In Favor of Complementarianism

The posts on the egalitarianism vs. complementarianism issue have been very good. The most important thing I can add to the discussion has already been added.

I'm a complementarian, but I won't attempt a thoroughgoing defense of it here. A very good defense of what I would call a very soft complementarianism has already been made at TTC. Instead, I'm just going to make a few useful points which, as it happens, tend towards supporting the complementarian view.

First, we should remember that, given the authority of Scripture, it only takes one biblical passage to guarantee that a position is correct.

Now I'm not aware of a lot of passages that can plausibly be interpreted as supporting egalitaranism. (Several of the more plausible candidates, such as Galatians 3:28, have already been ably addressed at TTC.) But quite a few passages can plausibly be interpreted as supporting complementarianism.

So here is the second consideration: It seems that the burden of proof is on the egalitarian to show that Scripture does not support complementarianism.

Third consideration: Egalitarians should be very careful trying to read Ephesians 5 as promoting their view. Paul says in verse 21, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" (NIV 1984). Many assume this command is both universal and symmetrical: Every Christian X must submit to every Christian Y, and vice versa. This is a lovely reading, and something very like it is a correct reading of Philippians 2.

But I don't see how this could be a correct reading of Ephesians 5. Does it even make sense for masters to submit to servants, and how could Paul, who knew the Torah so well, command parents to submit to their children?

Fourth, don't confuse a refutation of the "doormat theory" for a promotion of egalitarianism. Preferring and laying down one's life for another is not the same thing as submitting to that person. Christ does this for the Church (Philippians 2), but this doesn't mean He submits to her; it only means he loves her.

Saying that sacrificial giving equals submission is at best a confusion of categories. At worst, it borders on blasphemy because it suggests that God submits to us created beings.

Fifth, let's remember that all Christians are under the authority of God and Scripture. If women are to submit to their husbands, it is for the sake of Christ, for whose sake also husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. That is no easy job, for the Cross is no picnic. The Bible tells us all to submit to God in some way that makes us uncomfortable.

Albert, Beth, and Chris: A Tale of Three Christians

A Tale of Three Christians

Albert gets up on a soapbox and says, "A woman can't be the head pastor of a church because Paul says she can't. If she says she's called to be a pastor, then she must be confused about her call!"

Albert steps down. Beth steps onto the soapbox and says, "A woman can be the head pastor of a church! If Scripture said otherwise, then of course I would change my thinking. But what Paul says in those passages isn't entirely clear, and I don't really understand it. But he is quite clear about loving one another. And loving one another means welcoming all women who are called to be pastors."

Beth steps down. Now Chris gets up on the soapbox. He says, "A woman can be the head pastor of a church! Paul says they can't, but he was wrong."

The Obvious Agreement

These are generic figures. They stand for countless individuals and churches and a number of denominations.

These days Beth and Chris typically get along, sometimes forming their own churches or denominational affiliations. It's easy for them to work together because they share an obvious agreement: They both agree that a woman can be the head pastor of a church.

The Obvious Disagreement

Beth and Albert often don't get along. Sometimes they just split and go their separate ways. A degree of separation between them is understandable, and may be necessary; if they worship together week by week, eventually Beth is probably going to want to preach, and Albert will have a crisis of conscience when she does.

But sometimes they go further than just not worshiping together. Sometimes they fight. Sometimes they call each other names; Beth might call Albert a narrow-minded fundamentalist; Albert might call Beth a liberal heretic.

It is easy for them to disagree because they have an obvious disagreement: They disagree on the rightness of a woman as the head pastor of a church.

The Underrated Disagreement

Beth and Chris disagree on the authority of Scripture. Beth submits to the authority of Scripture, and Chris does not. This disagreement concerns the importance of the very book on which their religion is based, the Bible. This disagreement is about what a Christian takes to be authoritative. Beth believes Scripture is a sovereign authority. Chris does not.

The Underrated Agreements

Albert and Chris actually agree on what Paul says. If they were all performing a disinterested analysis of the biblical text, Albert and Chris might well get together to convince Beth that her exegesis of Paul is poor!

But here is the really important point: Albert and Beth agree on the fundamental issue, the authority of Scripture, and they should treat each other accordingly: with love and respect.

Albert should try to explain to Beth what he thinks he (and Chris) can see in Scripture that she can't. And Beth should try to explain to Albert why she thinks he's not seeing so clearly, or what she thinks she can see in Scripture that he can't.

In a word, Beth's agreement with Chris runs shallow, but her agreement with Albert runs deep.