Thursday, March 16, 2006

The Good and Bad Effects of Social Feminism

An (unfortunately) anonymous commenter states:

Wow, your understanding of feminism is juvenile at best. Your example above doesn’t have anything to do with feminism in the slightest. Let me help you with a more realistic example. Jill and Tommy both help clean the gutters on the roof. Jill does the front gutters and Tommy does the back gutters. After they are done, Dad gives Jill one dollar and Tommy five dollars.

Here is another example. Dad won’t let Jill clean the gutters on the roof. He tells Jill she can do the dishes instead. Unfortunately, doing the dishes is only worth 50 cents while cleaning the gutters is worth five dollars.

Now Jill and Tommy are in high school. Tommy wants to go out with the prettiest girl in school. Dad gives him the keys to the car, a few extra bucks, a wink and a nod and tells him to not stay out too late. Jill wants to go out with the hunky quarterback. Dad insists that he give the boy the once-over before she can date him, that she can only go out with him on a group date and that she be home by midnight.

As a Christian, my commitment is to Biblical standards. When society makes a movement towards Biblical truth, I applaud that. And there are some effects of the feminist movement that have certainly brought us closer to Biblical truth. I would certainly oppose a situation which represents (in terms of gender) any of the above scenarios.

But this is the problem with egalitarianism; it represents only part of the Biblical truth. Egalitarianism, therefore, is seductive because it builds upon something which is close to Biblical truth but then distorts that truth to further an agenda which the Bible opposes. According the Bible, mankind is made in the image of God. All men and women have been created equal by God. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), yet all who are justified are done so freely by the grace of God (Romans 3:24). Therefore, all who have been justified enjoy equal access to God, regardless of race, gender, etc. This the Bible makes clear.

So, Biblically speaking, we don’t have a situation where God gives one thing to one person but something else to someone else merely because of race or gender. The Apostle Paul wrote extensively to oppose such a concept, telling us that the cross of Christ eliminates the Jew/Gentile distinction in the people of God. Furthermore, grace is sovereign, elective grace, and the basis of election is unconditional. Both Jill and Tommy are sinners before God, deserving wrath and punishment. Neither can demand grace from God, yet God gives grace to both based upon no merit in them but upon his pleasure alone. Clearly, therefore, these scenarios that our anonymous commenter presents are merely strawmen, for none of them are ones which I would endorse.

But our anonymous commenter fails to address for us those components of egalitarianism which I oppose, which I consider to be unbiblical thinking. And that is the egalitarian agenda as applied to the church and to the family unit. To say that Jill is a mother and Tommy is a father, and that being a mother and being a father are two different roles is not something which somehow fails to reward one or the other for his or her deeds. The same is true in the church; the Bible makes clear that the roles of Pastor and Teacher are roles which are to be held by men alone (1 Tim 2). This is no more degrading to a woman than it is to the Son who, though equal with the Father, took on a role of functional subordination in the plan of redemption. The problem, however, is that (for wrong reasons), certain things get applauded. Being a Pastor gets more applause in the church than the person who holds the door open. On a Biblical basis, this should not be the case (Rom 12, 1 Cor 12). Biblically speaking, greatness is measured in humble service, and unseen, unapplauded service is the greatest of them all, the service which will receive the most applause in heaven. But the problem is that everyone wants to be applauded, here, now, on this earth. So now what? Everyone wants to be a pastor, and to say that the Bible does not allow for women to have the role of pastor is to somehow undermine equality. Does it undermine equality to say that men cannot be moms? Does it undermine equality to say that a man is simply not biological fit to embrace the role of a “mother”? Does it undermine equality to recognize that God has gifted his church of people, all equal before him on the basis of grace alone, with different gifts and different roles?

Radical egalitarianism opposes any differences. In effect, no one can be governed because no one can submit to government. But the Bible, while upholding our equality, recognizes the differences which God ordains for certain people. The members of the body of Christ are different from one another. The Bible sets the metaphor of a body with many parts in 1 Corinthians 12. The role of government God has given to some, not all (Rom 13). God created men and women equally, but differently, not identically (Gen 2). In fact, it is simply the case that God distributes gifts unequally: “Who made man’s mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I the LORD?” (Exodus 4:11). We cannot object to this because no one deserves to receive any gifts at all. No one deserves to be living. Grace cannot be demanded.

Our anonymous commenter continues:

You see, all of my examples highlight real world problems addressed by feminism.

Then it’s great that God, in his grace, has brought goodness from a movement which has sought to distort Biblical truth.

Your example provides nothing other than pointing out the obvious that two kids will fight over a perceived injustice where none really exists.

The objection to the concept that God has given different roles to different genders is merely a perceived injustice, not an actual one. Your scenarios did not represent my objections to egalitarianism. They merely represented strawmen statements which I would oppose. If the feminist movement has corrected such injustice, then glory be to God for his providence.

Oh, wait a minute, now I get it. You don’t think that unequal pay for equal work is an injustice.

1. What work has man done that he deserves any gifting from God? Can grace be demanded?

2. How is the complementarian view of Biblical manhood and womanhood result in “unequal pay.” Sure, your scenarios you posited result in unequal pay, but I reject your scenarios.

You don’t think that everyone should be given an equal opportunity to compete for meaningful employment.

Perhaps I was unclear in my original article. But I do believe men and women should have equal opportunities to compete for meaningful employment. Again, these are the good effects of social feminism.

The bad effects, however, are when the role of Father is no different than the role of Mother, or when the church begins to adopt the mentality that unless women are pastors and teachers, they are somehow unequal.

And I guess it goes without saying that you don’t think a woman can be allowed to control her own sexuality. Silly me, it is so obvious now. That’s why you’re not a feminist.

Huh? What does this have to do with anything?

Evan May.

7 comments:

  1. Radical egalitarianism opposes any differences.

    Wrong again. Didn't you read what I said last time. Everyone realizes that people have different abilities and thus, not everyone will be 'equal'. Humanists embrace differences in people and encourage people to give the most of what they have. But what we don't do is pigeon hole certain people into a subordinate position because they happen to be born a certain sex or color or because some imaginary supernatural being says so.

    To say that Jill is a mother and Tommy is a father, and that being a mother and being a father are two different roles is not something which somehow fails to reward one or the other for his or her deeds.

    You keep alluding to the roles of the mother and the father. Other than giving birth and breast feeding, just what specifically are these differences between the two that are so earth shattering if violated? You do know that there are many men who stay at home with the kids while the wife goes out to work? Do they need to hire a female nanny to help them take care of the kids because there are some things only women can do?

    the Bible makes clear that the roles of Pastor and Teacher are roles which are to be held by men alone (1 Tim 2). This is no more degrading to a woman than it is to the Son

    How convenient for men? I guess women just got the short end of the straw? Another good example is where the bible condones slavery. If those slaves don't understand how they are fullfilling their God given roles as subordinates then it is they who have the problem.

    Listen, I have no problem with you rambling on with your religious nonsense. In fact, I prefer religious people who are honest with their discrimination and bigotry instead of trying to hide behind the veil of religious correctness. So I applaud you for your efforts and appreciate your honesty.

    But it is clear that you understand very little, if nothing about feminism or humanism. I don't necessarily blame you. I know that religion doesn't exactly encourage critical thinking outside the box. But save yourself some embarrassment and restrict your posts to your areas of expertise (e.g. gay agenda, the rapture, atheists are immoral).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wrong again.

    My statement had the phrase radical egalitarianism.

    You keep alluding to the roles of the mother and the father. Other than giving birth and breast feeding, just what specifically are these differences between the two that are so earth shattering if violated?

    Check this out:

    http://cbmw.org/

    How convenient for men?

    Why is this "convenient"? Do you want to pastor a church?

    It is only the wordly, unbiblical mentality that says that one method of service is to be applauded but another is not that drives your statements. The Bible does not view it in this manner.

    the rapture

    That's simply insulting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My statement had the phrase radical egalitarianism.

    Well, I'm assuming by radical egalitarianism you are referring to feminism and secular humanism in general. If you aren't, then why either bother posting since the number of radical egalitarianists by your definition is going to be very small.

    Check this out: http://cbmw.org/

    Hey thanks for the link, I enjoy a good laugh. I think Orwell could learn a thing or two:

    Submission refers to a wife's divine calling to honor and affirm her husband's leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts. It is not an absolute surrender of her will. Rather, we speak of her disposition to yield to her husband's guidance and her inclination to follow his leadership.

    Submission is not really submission, it is a "disposition to yield" and an "inclination to follow". These are just sugarcoated terms in an attempt to make the concept appear less sexist than it really is. If it is not really submission, then why use that word in the first place?

    Why is this "convenient"? Do you want to pastor a church?

    Are you purposely being obtuse? Men don't receive advantages from being the "head" of the family? Pastors at the church? If there are no advantages, then why not let the ladies try it for a while? Oh yeah, I forgot. Fortunately for men, God willed it that way.

    After all those other insults I heaped on you and you only complained about my rapture remark? So you don't think Jesus is coming back to save the faithful and let the heathens get what they deserve? My bad.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Are you purposely being obtuse? Men don't receive advantages from being the "head" of the family? Pastors at the church? If there are no advantages, then why not let the ladies try it for a while? Oh yeah, I forgot. Fortunately for men, God willed it that way.

    Sure, they receive blessings from the joy it brings. You're basically calling male pastors selfish liars. Since you reject Biblical authority, this coversation is pointless. This and my last article were Christian articles for Christian readers who accept Biblical authority. Since you reject this, rather than calling Pastors lying hypocrites, the conversation should concern the Bible and the Christian God as first principles in general. Otherwise, this discussion is pointless.

    After all those other insults I heaped on you and you only complained about my rapture remark? So you don't think Jesus is coming back to save the faithful and let the heathens get what they deserve? My bad.

    My comment was sarcastic. I thought you understood sarcasm, but apparently I was mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Submission is not really submission, it is a "disposition to yield" and an "inclination to follow". These are just sugarcoated terms in an attempt to make the concept appear less sexist than it really is. If it is not really submission, then why use that word in the first place?

    Because "submission" as a word and a concept are two different things. Apparently, you don't understand the concept except by your own definitions.

    The example from which Christians draw here is between God the Father and God the Son. The Son and the Father are of one essence yet the Son submits to the will of the Father. The Father acts only to elevate and glorify the Son; the Son acts only to elevate and glorify the Father. The Spirit has a covenant with both, and elevates them both, and they elevate Him. This all takes place in the context of a covenant in which each has differing obligations but the obligations are designed to elevate the other party to their benefit.

    The same is said of the relationship between Christ and the church. Christ is the head of the church, as the husband is head of the home. The church does not rule Christ. At the same time, Christ only acts for the good of the church. The church only acts for the good of Christ. This too takes place within a covenant that mirrors that of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

    Before you criticize this, why not take time to understand it? The model of submission upon which Evan is drawing is actually a two way street in which each party elevates the other. God forbid you actually try to address a position on its own terms, though, right?

    As to your reference to the rapture. That may sound cute to you, but to quite honest, it only shows how hopelessly ignorant you must be of those to whom you are writing. The folks here are a bunch of Calvinists from Reformed churches. As a rule, with rare exception, we affirm amillenialism or historic premillenialism, so, no, in point of fact, we don't affirm some sort of pretribulational "rapture" of the church which is associated with the "expertise" of most fundamentalists. Thank you, however, for displaying your ignorance of theology for all to see at the end of your attempt to criticize it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wrong again. Didn't you read what I said last time. Everyone realizes that people have different abilities and thus, not everyone will be 'equal'. Humanists embrace differences in people and encourage people to give the most of what they have. But what we don't do is pigeon hole certain people into a subordinate position because they happen to be born a certain sex or color or because some imaginary supernatural being says so.

    Correct, you do it as if this is an objectively universal rule while rejecting moral universals, so you really do this based on nothing more than an arbitrary set of standards.

    To be consistent as a relativist, if you are one, you could only say these things are bad for yourself. How is it not arbitrary to adopt such an ethic? Why does consensus make it any more valid than an individual or any other religious view? Either you are claiming it is true that these things are bad, or you are merely telling me your preference derived from a self-appointed authoritative source. And if it is merely your preference then you have no right to impose your personal ethic on society. This is an appeal to absolutes or you would not have such strong feelings toward it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Perhaps I was unclear in my original article."

    Hi Evan,

    Can you provide a link to your original article?

    Also, a most excellent rebuttal to strawman constructions.

    ReplyDelete