Is There Such a Thing as a Biblical Feminist?

[Paidiske]

Can I suggest that conspiracy theories about George Soros and the like are really off topic to any discussion of feminism.

 

[AlexDTX]

Feminism is a secular political movement and has nothing to do with biblical philosophy. Christian belief from what I can tell is that all people are equally worthy and no one should be concerned with the secular status of another believer nor give any special regard to one person over another. Just as Humanism proposes that the secular concerns of humans are of the foremost importance, Feminism proposes that the secular concerns of women take precedence over other concerns.

The secular part is more subversive than you think. We are at war right now with the Deep State. The Deep State is the intelligence agencies who are trying to subvert Constitution so we can be merged with a global government. The main actors of the Deep State are the leaders of the CIA and the FBI. The feminist movement has been used instrumentally by the CIA to further that agenda. Listen to an old video of Gloria Steinham speak of part in being a CIA operative.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Paidiske]

Some of us aren't even in America...

 

[grasping the after wind]

The secular part is more subversive than you think. We are at war right now with the Deep State. The Deep State is the intelligence agencies who are trying to subvert Constitution so we can be merged with a global government. The main actors of the Deep State are the leaders of the CIA and the FBI. The feminist movement has been used instrumentally by the CIA to further that agenda. Listen to an old video of Gloria Steinham speak of part in being a CIA operative.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I am not at war with any factions. None of this deep state etc. stuff really matters in the big picture. God still is sovereign after all. I think it is wisest to concentrate on one's own place in the scheme of things and not become overly concerned with the plans and desires for power that may become the center of the universe for other people. As long as I remain steadfast in refusing to declare Caesar as Lord and instead insist upon declaring Christ is Lord, I am doing what I should be doing.

 

[AlexDTX]

I would say I'm a feminist but not in the way that society defines a feminist.
Society would have us believe there are no differences between men and women. I believe men and women ARE different but complementary to each other as God made us to be.

I agree. Equality does not mean "same".

As for things like marriage, modern feminism would say that marriage is a sham and that men are dictators over their wives. I believe the husband to be the head of the family and the wife to be his helper, meaning that the husband has the final say so at the end of the day but his decisions should always be for the best interest of his family and his wife, not just himself. Marriage is not a dictatorship, it's a partnership. Abuse of the headship position makes a man unfit to be a husband.

Again, I agree. Headship does not mean Lord. When Paul said to the Corinthians:

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

I don't believe he means rule, but source. God is the source of Christ since Christ came from God, Christ is the source of Man since Christ created Man, Man is the source of Woman since Christ made the Woman from the Man, and (though not added in the Scripture) Woman is the source of Children since Children come from the Woman.

In the spiritual sense, then, a man should be the head of the woman in that he should hear the Lord and act upon Him first. But chapter 11, in my opinion states that if the man does not hear, then the woman should act. I see the passage as speaking of prayer and prophecy (v. 4) and interpret "head covering" as hindering communication with God.

I always keep in mind that in a day and age where unmarried (and even married) women were not normally allowed to converse with men who were not their husbands or family, Jesus kept company with many such women and they followed him. He treated women with kindness, with compassion, and with the highest respect.

Agreed again. Jesus did more to liberate women than anyone in the world. I believe Christianity has been too heavily influenced by Judaism. In Judaism women are not allowed to meet with the men in the synagogue (this may have changed), and were only allowed to ask their husbands about biblical matters. The Law of the Old Testament did nothing to regenerate the Jews, therefore they remained carnal and worldly in their thinking.

I believe that women are, in some areas of modern society, treated unfairly. There is such thing as culture telling men that they cannot cry or that they have a right to women's bodies that makes them cruel and violent and commit atrocities like rape. I also believe that women should be encouraged to pursue careers in medicine and engineering and sports if they feel inclined to do so. A woman's worth is not defined by her ability to have children. I also believe that God does not view women as inferior to men.

Agreed again with one caveat. First, this is what the #MeToo is about. Women are not objects, yet men see them as such. That is no way to treat another human being, and it never was the will of God for men to view them as such.

However, regarding work, I have seen too many women miss out on child bearing and raising families because they put careers first, and that is part of the globalist agenda. I am not against working women. Lydia was a seller of purple in the book of Acts. Evidently, however, she was a single woman somehow. Likewise, if a woman marries young and raises a family she can still have a career afterwards for 30 years if she began her family at 20.

 

[Tree of Life]

In the #MeToo thread it became apparent that several of our believing sisters regard themselves as feminists. I am curious to other sisters, and brothers in the lord, what you all think that means. Secular feminists, in my understanding, is contrary to Biblical femininity. Yet, I can see, however, that there can be some overlap. So I would like to tease out those parts of the feminist movement that are contrary to biblical femininity, and discover those parts that line up. So all comments are welcomed. My only desire is that I do not want anyone to dismiss out of hand what a contrary point of view might be. Thank you for your help.

To belong to Christ and be called a Christian should be enough for anyone. No need to qualify it with the term "feminism". This would only add something to the pure and holy name of Christ and ultimately corrupt and distort what it means to belong to Jesus Christ.

Another question - "Is feminism compatible with Christianity?" From all I've seen from feminist philosophy I would have to answer an emphatic NO. Is it possible to be a feminist and a Christian? Yes. But this person is probably deeply conflicted and very inconsistent in both their feminism and their Christianity.

 

[AlexDTX]

I'd ask the OP to define feminism for the purposes of the thread, that would be easier to answer.

I am the OP. I did not define it because of the women in this forum who ID themselves as feminists in another thread. The purpose of this thread is find two definitions: the secular political definition versus the biblical definition.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

To belong to Christ and be called a Christian should be enough for anyone. No need to qualify it with the term "feminism". This would only add something to the pure and holy name of Christ and ultimately corrupt and distort what it means to belong to Jesus Christ.

Another question - "Is feminism compatible with Christianity?" From all I've seen from feminist philosophy I would have to answer an emphatic NO. Is it possible to be a feminist and a Christian? Yes. But this person is probably deeply conflicted and very inconsistent in both their feminism and their Christianity.

Just as a republican or democrat or free mason or anyone else with political leanings.

 

[AlexDTX]

My feminism is based largely on 1) the principle that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28); 2) the command to love one's neighbor as one's self (Matthew 22:39 and elsewhere) and to treat others as you want to be treated (Matthew 7:12); 3) the principle that both men and women are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-31); and 4) the principle that God hears the cries of those who are oppressed by the powerful, a theme found in many places in the Old Testament prophets, in the Magnificat, and in several of Jesus' stories and sermons.

Very well said. Christ is the great equalizer. But as said before, equal does not mean same. For example there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28) simply means in our relationship with God and others. Of course there are differences between men and women. We don't even think alike, which is part of the problem Most men are clueless as to how women think, and most women are extremely naive in their understanding how men think. One of my all time favorite movies is a film by Nancy Meyers starring Mel Gibson, "What Women Want". If you haven't seen it, Mel Gibson gets and electric shock in his bathtub that enables him to hear the thoughts of all the women around him. Our challenge is to truly understand the differences between the genders as well as the similarities.

Television and movies usually lie to us. They are always showing women as leaders who can beat up other men. This is pure baloney. There is a reason Peter tells husbands to treat their wives as "weaker vessels" (1 Pet 3:7). They are not just physically weaker, they are much more emotional than men, yet so many shows portray women as cold calculating women as though they are men.

 

[Paidiske]

However, regarding work, I have seen too many women miss out on child bearing and raising families because they put careers first, and that is part of the globalist agenda. I am not against working women. Lydia was a seller of purple in the book of Acts. Evidently, however, she was a single woman somehow. Likewise, if a woman marries young and raises a family she can still have a career afterwards for 30 years if she began her family at 20.

You can have a career and children. I was back at work 12 weeks post birth. Entirely possible. No need to try to put women off careers if that's what suits their household, or try to suggest it has to be one or the other.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I am the OP. I did not define it because of the women in this forum who ID themselves as feminists in another thread. The purpose of this thread is find two definitions: the secular political definition versus the biblical definition.

The purpose of this thread is to out feminists in Christianity. LOL what is the point of that? You are actually going for the pure bitterness of feminists that you think I admitted to when I agreed that bitter roots should be dug up. But the bitter water your projecting can be cured with a wee bit of salt. smh

 

[grasping the after wind]

People do attempt to make feminism mean whatever they prefer it to mean at the moment. If we are to rationally discuss a thing we must have a reasonable agreed upon definition of what that thing actually is. More and more I notice people not wishing to do that with more and more things so that they can then claim that whatever objection one has to their POV on the subject is wrong because the thing they are discussing actually means something else. So, for instance, love in one case might be said to mean sexual attraction if that suits the person advancing the argument even though the person proposing the opposition argument and the traditional definition of those two things has never once considered the two ideas to be equivalent . With Feminism, I have been told that it means believing that the sexes should be treated equally when I do not seem to see that definition as a valid one as A) the very name implies something very different than that and B) Those that are active in the movement rarely, if ever, show any concern for problems arising from unequal treatment of males.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

...and B) Those that are active in the movement rarely, if ever, show any concern for problems arising from unequal treatment of males.

But that is what the op is concerned with. That he will be put in a position like females have been in taking on sins in the unbelieving world onto himself. Unsubscribe

 

[AlexDTX]

Feminism has developed in its purpose from the time of its beginning. It used to be about getting the right to vote and to run for office, and to make the same wage as men who do the same job. Obviously now it is also about shielding women from predatory men and women.

I wonder about that. Was suffrage a good thing? Historically the only people who were allowed to vote were property owners. The logic behind this is that property owners remain in the community, whereas those who don't own property will not stick around to suffer the consequence of their votes.

There have been very few true grass roots movements. The wealthy aristocracy have the money to support those grass roots movements that further their agenda. The globalists are the wealthy aristocracy of the world. I see suffrage being used by them the same way illegal immigrants have been used to vote to further globalist agendas. Many women vote by emotions or superficially.

I don't mean all women. Consider Candice Owens. Here is a young black woman who has broken free from the globalist spell.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nor am I against suffrage. Since they managed to change voting from property owners to any male citizen, the women should be able to vote, too.

 

[Paidiske]

Really, if this is going to descend to flaming women as emotional or superficial (more so than men?), it's not going to be very productive. Can we at least try to post as if we respect one another?

 

[Halbhh]

In the #MeToo thread it became apparent that several of our believing sisters regard themselves as feminists. I am curious to other sisters, and brothers in the lord, what you all think that means. Secular feminists, in my understanding, is contrary to Biblical femininity. Yet, I can see, however, that there can be some overlap. So I would like to tease out those parts of the feminist movement that are contrary to biblical femininity, and discover those parts that line up. So all comments are welcomed. My only desire is that I do not want anyone to dismiss out of hand what a contrary point of view might be. Thank you for your help.

Isn't it better for all of us to follow Paul's instruction about whether we can assess each other --

Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Really, if this is going to descend to flaming women as emotional or superficial (more so than men?), it's not going to be very productive. Can we at least try to post as if we respect one another?

I would be fine with simple politeness and common decency. I don't require respect.

 

[AlexDTX]

The sort of blue-haired lesbian feminism we see today I find hard to square with any particular passage that the bible has concerning relations between the sexes. Genesis lays out the punishments of both sexes in the beginning, men are to work all their lives and women are to have pain in childbirth and that is reinforced in the New Testament where Paul tells us that the woman will be saved through childbearing and that if a man does not work he shall not eat.

If I may say, I don't see "work by the sweat of the brow" and "pain in childbirth" as punishment. I see it as consequences. They brought death into the world so fighting death to grow things or fighting death to bring new life in the world is the consequence. Nor do I understand spiritual salvation for women being dependent on childbearing. I understand Paul to mean that mothers who submit to Christ will not die in child bearing since death of the mother was common back then.

Yet Christianity was never into the idea of women having absolutely no say in things or no power. Women have authority over sexual rights to their husband (something I do not believe existed in the ancient world) and they also had the choice to forgo marriage in favour of a celibate life dedicated to God.

I think this needs clarification. Paul said:

1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

In other words, our lives belong to God and each other, not our selves. Because of the strong sex drive in men, Paul encourages women to not deprive them from sexual release unless they are in a time of fasting and prayer. But verse 4 implies that the husband does not have the right to impose himself on his wife unless she is consenting.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In the #MeToo thread it became apparent that several of our believing sisters regard themselves as feminists. I am curious to other sisters, and brothers in the lord, what you all think that means. Secular feminists, in my understanding, is contrary to Biblical femininity. Yet, I can see, however, that there can be some overlap. So I would like to tease out those parts of the feminist movement that are contrary to biblical femininity, and discover those parts that line up. So all comments are welcomed. My only desire is that I do not want anyone to dismiss out of hand what a contrary point of view might be. Thank you for your help.

Title: "Is There Such a Thing as a Biblical Feminist? "
Of course there is. There might be found several in the Bible,
the first thought being of Jezebel, then Saphira perhaps (Ananias' wife in Acts).
Others might be found by searching, I don't remember off hand....

 

[AlexDTX]

I'm sure you meant Feminism, not Femininity.

For the same reason you state, I used the term "femininity" because I believe there is still some overlap between feminine rights from God and some that are demanded in the secular arena, hence the reason I posted this thread. I am looking for those overlaps by discussion.