Is There Such a Thing as a Biblical Feminist?

[AlexDTX]

Only God is Gender blind as He created both.

Because He created both genders, He alone fully understands the differences in genders. He is not gender blind.

 

[Strong in Him]

Regarding menstrual embarrassment, I speak from experience. I have taught girls' gymnastics for 40 years, and it is embarrassing to them.

It might be embarrassing getting changed, wearing little clothing and/or the prospect of having a shower afterwards.
A period is embarrassing if it is unexpected/you are unprepared for it, there is any chance of someone noticing, or you are so unwell that you have to tell someone what is going on. In itself, it is a pain rather than an embarrassment - imo.

 

[AlexDTX]

Actually, (and I thought you yourself noted this earlier),
it has resulted only in more wickedness (as written "the wicked will become more wicked") , more confusion, and more loss of dignity and more loss of respect ,
not
only for women, but for men also, in most places.
This is not unique nor isolated to this movement , but is a result and consequence of all social movements, according to Scripture and Prophecy of these last days (things are continually getting worse, more and more rapidly each year).

Hence my saying "hopefully".

 

[AlexDTX]

But as it turned out, Deborah was the best person for the job.

True.

 

[AlexDTX]

*Head* = authority and *power* = the symbol of authority (the head covering)

Head also means "source" as the head of the river is the source of the river's flow.

 

[Strong in Him]

You missed my point. I am not saying gifts are gender related only that differences is what makes up the body of Christ.

I realised as I was replying that that might have been the case, which is why I acknowledged that there are differences between people; we are not all identical.

 

[AlexDTX]

I started this thread, I am way behind in reading, too.

I disagree: I don't think things have to be this hopeless. Of course it's human nature for those in power to cling to their power. But I'm not ready to give up. Sinful cultural systems don't have to be permanent. God can work in people's lives for the good.

Sinful cultural systems exist because all people are sinful until they are regenerated in Christ. And eve we who are the regenerate are still surrounded by the degenerate and have to resist the temptations of the flesh, too. No. Sinful cultural systems will only go away when Jesus returns and rules the world with a rod of iron for a thousands. Even then He will allow sin to be chosen at the end, then all sin will be vanquished. Your hope is better placed in evangelism than in feminism.

No, I do not agree that secular feminism is contrary to biblical feminism. (I'm nervous about what you might mean by "biblical femininity", because I've heard the word "feminine" used in sinister ways in churches. I'm going to stick with "feminism" for now.)

I am nervous about your saying secular feminism is not contrary to biblical feminism. Biblical femininity in church is not sinister, but secular feminism is - especially as men hear the term, which is why I chose the word "femininity" instead "feminism".

So, I'm not going to affirm everything that every feminist has ever said; of course not. But I don't think secular feminism is as different from Christian feminism as you suppose. We have different metaphysics, but similar moral values.

Well, Plover, that is what I am asking. Please state what those similar moral values are that you see.

 

[Abaxvahl]

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.

I don't really think that with issues like feminism (against the oppression of women) a Christian can really be identified by it (at least alone), since we are simply anti-oppression in general, of all types (except justly against Satan). A better thing in my opinion is to be focused on the oppression of whoever is the worst-off locally (as in who you can help immediately), and that changes and isn't always women as a class (and in my opinion is not even them most or near most often). Even the Lord Himself went to those on the bottom first. Obviously doing that would include some parts of feminism (all those parts that are compatible with Christianity, and depending on your definition "biblical femininity"), but it wouldn't be identified by it exclusively (or maybe not even at all).

 

[Micah888]

So having the right to vote isn’t Biblical? Having the right to own property isn’t Biblical? Earning the same pay for comparable work isn’t Biblical?

Actually it is not biblical and neither is it Feminism. All of these rights were established before Feminism came on the scene. And the right to have abortions is not even a human right (although the so-called pro-choice people will tell you otherwise).

 

[AlexDTX]

Even though there are several things I disagree with you about, I want you to know that I do believe that there is some common ground between secular feminism and biblical femininity. I also think that you are one of the best example of a Christian woman who knows where to draw the lines. I only began this thread because of your suggestion. I knew there would be men that were hostile and even women who are more secular than Christian in this conversation, but I think you bring a godly balance and I thank you.

I don't actually believe that. We have, on average, some differences (the average man has better spatial awareness, the average woman better language skills) but those averages don't represent the breadth of both genders and are meaningless when applied to individuals.

I respectfully disagree. If men and women thought alike there would be no sexual abuse. Women assume men think like them and we do not which is why so many silly women get seduced. A Christian man, however, should not think like a pagan. We are all (men and women Christians) called to be transformed by the renewing of our minds.

I don't think so. That's the whole point of feminism; the world can change, the world has changed, the world will continue to change, and we can influence that change in positive ways.

The only way the world can be changed is by the new birth of Christ brought into the hearts of unregenerate people. This is why the Great Commission is the only task Christ gave the Church. Political activism is only a temporary change, and will always fall back when despotic leaders resume power. The only hope that is a sure hope is Christ returning and transforming the world. All else is vanity.

Sure; but defining contemporary feminism by some comments made in the 70s is just as silly as defining contemporary Christianity by, say, comments made by Luther and Calvin. They're part of how we got here, but they don't define where we are now.

"Contemporary" has a implication of temporary and superficial. Contemporary is meaningless. Christianity at its core does not change, for the core of Christianity is Christ and His Holy Spirit. Likewise, the core of feminism has not changed. The core I am thinking of is the good part, not bad. The right for women to be respected and not abused.

Yeah, back to conspiracy theories... I believe in grassroots movements, the church is, in its way, a grassroots movement which got successful.

Grassroot movements, like actual grass, can not grow without being watered. Every movement that began as a "grassroots" had someone finance and support it. Even your example of Christianity being a grass root movement would not have grown and prospered if someone did not support it. That someone is God. If Christ were not God and just another human leader, it would have fallen away.

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of here, making mention of a broken home and Satan and all the rest of it, but you're way out of line. If you can't converse with some basic courtesy and respect, I'll consider the conversation over.

I am sorry for the confusion of my last statement. I knew when I was writing it that I was not clear. I once said to my wife that all people out of Christ were Satanists. She rebuked me and said she knew what I meant, but such wording would cause confusion. I meant that all people who have not accepted the gift of life in Christ through the new birth retain the fallen nature, which is Satanic. Satanism implies a conscious worship of Satan, which most people do not do.

All children are born with the knowledge of right and wrong. That knowledge is given by God and is in their conscience. As we grow older our conscience can be seared and hardened so we stop knowing right and wrong consciously. All children know that they should have a father and a mother. All children know that the mother is the primary caregiver of children. That is God given and God ordained. Feminists want to reject that truth. When parents divorce, children know that it is wrong which is why they always hope their parents will get back together. You may say that the job of the breadwinner is culturally defined, but it is not. Am I saying that woman can't be a breadwinner? No. I am not. However, that is not the order of creation, and children know this in their hearts. So when I used the term "broken" this is what I mean. The children see it as broken. Can the children overcome? Of course, they can. Every family is dysfunctional is some way so all children have to overcome something when they grow up.

While I want to look at the upside of feminism, I will not close my eyes to the downside, either. Secular feminism has been a stepping stone to accepting blended families, for example. Blended families always fail, because the children know that the step siblings are not actually their siblings. Secular feminism has been a stepping stone to redefine marriages into all kinds of bizarre arrangements, and they are all detrimental. Children adopted into homosexual marriages become more dysfunctional with more emotional problems. I have read a study on the matter, but I don't need a study to know what common sense says.

 

[mkgal1]

Thank you, that is a good example. But I don't think she was by choice. Judges 4:6 state that the Lord wanted Barak to kill Sisera to deliver Israel, but he delayed until Deborah agreed to go with him.

I've not finished reading through this thread, but stopped here to share a blog post relevant to this comment (I apologize if it's already been said).

--------->Deborah, the prophet, was a judge of Israel.

That sentence needs to stand alone, because it seems we’re unable to take the Bible at its word on Deborah’s position as judge.

Christians who struggle to believe that God would intentionally appoint a woman to lead often argue that Deborah was chosen because no man stepped up to fill the role of judge. But the text does not support this. Some suggest that God appointed Deborah to shame the men of Israel. The text does not support this claim either.

Deborah, the prophet, was a judge of Israel. Let’s allow that to sink in.

She held court under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramal and Bethel in Mount Ephraim. Israelites came from all over the country so she could rule on their cases. Deborah was also given the title of prophet, an acknowledgement that God directly inspired her just ruling in the Israelite community.

Barak was a general in the Hebrew army, and notably, Deborah’s subordinate. Deborah sent word to Barak that he was to lead 10,000 men from the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali toward Mount Tabor. God promised victory over Sisera and yet, Barak hesitated. He would only go into battle with Deborah by his side.

Deborah agreed to go with him but informed Barak that his military prowess would not deliver the ultimate victory—Sisera would be delivered into the hands of a woman.

The text does not say that Barak would have earned glory for the battle if he hadn’t insisted Deborah go with him. The text does not say that Deborah didn’t want to go into battle with Barak. The text also does not indicate that Deborah would be given the honor of taking down Sisera. Another woman, Jael, had that honor.~Deborah the Judge and Jael the Just

 

[mkgal1]

The Holy Spirit is not limited by culture and time. For The Lord is The Author of time. This is why Paul thought The Lord's return was imminent. Much time and many cultures have passed, but yet The Lord's Words will remain the same. For The Word of The Lord endures forever.

What Paul and Jesus were speaking of was "the coming of the Son of Man" which isn't the same as His second coming ("His return"). There is a lot of mystery unfolded pertaining to time. To dismiss that, IMO, is to miss a lot of truth (and hope) shown in Scripture. But that's probably a whole other topic.

 

[mkgal1]

Double post.

 

[AlexDTX]

Motherhood and Fatherhood are both careers. Yet some write as if it is acceptable for the father to go off to work while the mother is to stay home and care for the children. Yet in Old Testament times both parents worked out of the home, both were there to care for the children.

I agree with you. Very few have their own businesses anymore so they could work out of the home. This is not a natural change, though. Our industrial and corporate world exists because of people who became powerful and worked to increase the number of workers for them and to diminish the number of entrepreneurs against them.

But even in an agricultural society where all the family lived and worked on a farm, the men had the task of very heavy labor and the women the light labor. This is a practical arrangement. The children had to work, too. The sons worked and learned from their fathers, and the daughters learned and worked with their mothers.

The story of the prodigal son illustrates this point. While no mention of daughters is in the story, the inheritance, i.e., the wealth of the family business, was divided while the father was still alive. Why? Because the sons would take over the business and care for the father in his retirement. This is why the older son was angry. The younger son squandered his part of the family wealth leaving the older son the responsibility to care for his father's retirement.

As for my comment that motherhood is a full time career, my point is that children know that the mother is responsible for them. When the mother is only partly responsible, they see themselves as being cheated.

 

[mkgal1]

But you did not post the Scriptures which show the different ROLES of men and women in the home and in the local church. That would balance everything out nicely.

That's not possible, because there aren't any.

 

[AlexDTX]

Seeing God as male is an inappropriate anthropomorphism (projection of human characteristics back onto the divine). God is spirit, and spirit has no sex or gender.

(Clearly Jesus incarnated as a male, but God in Godself is not male).

There is not a single instance of God being referred to in the feminine. Some argue that the Holy Spirit is feminine in the Greek, but just because God is a Spirit does not preclude Him having a gender. I would argue that our human spirit is what determines our gender and the soul and body are expressions of that masculine or feminine spirit.

This is the marvel of God, to me. We can only imagine and create within the confines of our existence, but God has no boundary in his imagination. God has no beginning nor end, yet he created life with a beginning and end. God neither slumbers nor sleep yet he created us with the need to sleep. God has no need of food. Yet He created life with the need of food. We can not imagine anything outside our own boundaries of life. Yet God can imagine all things outside His own existence.

Because we see ourselves as being male and female we assume God must also be male and female. That is true anthropomorphism and projection on our part. God identifies Himself in the masculine, not the feminine. Yet He was able to conceive the idea of a feminine. If God were feminine don't you think he would call himself a she? Yet He never does anywhere in Scripture, with the exception of simile. Jesus said to Jerusalem he wished he could like a mother hen scoop them up in his wings.

 

[SolomonVII]

When you look at the reality of how privileged women are in the Western world, Feminism is simply another phony manifestation of "victimhood". Everyone is a victim in the West (or so we are told), even the criminals and the perpetrators. So there is really nothing to embrace.

What should be embraced by Christian women everywhere is Bible truth and its application. Which does not mean that men are exempt. In fact there is a bigger onus on men to do what they are called to do -- be Christian men.

The victim game has become a real competition, with hierarchies of victimhood
The problem is that other than inflicting harm on certain members of the class deemed 'oppressor class', the victim game does not bestow any net gain in power to the victim classes.
It is basically a post-modern Marxist structure, and the resentments engendered by the power pursuits only harm, and never benefit.

The worse possible thing that you can do to somebody struggling is to tell her that her problems are as a result of her being victimized. If the cause of her problems are outside of herself, so are the solutions.

Marxist conflict models when enacted in society have never, ever benefited the victim classes.

 

[AlexDTX]

Agreed. One of the key problems with all secular movements, is that they never go away.

Once you get a movement going, and you have people who are professional activists, when the movement achieves their goals, they never stop going.

And if you think about it, this is expected, after all it's no longer a movement, but a career.

So once these people accomplish what they set out to do, they don't stop, they simply find something else to accomplish, even if it is ridiculous or immoral.

I remember watching a documentary about one of the founding members of Greenpeace. By the 1980s, this member of the executive counsel said that all of the reasonable policy and environmental ideals had been met. When he left, they were start a push to ban Chlorine, and he was saying to the leadership, this isn't a toxic creation of industry. This is an element on the periodic table, and you want to ban something that naturally happens in nature?

The same is true of all groups, including Feminism. All of the reasonable and moral issues surrounding women have been dealt with.

As such, they have move on to new issues that are immoral and unjust. Like murdering a baby is the right of a women. Like women should be paid exactly the same as men, even if they work differently. Like that women should be able to live without men, and have society pay for it, through food stamps, children health care, subsidized housing, and so on.

Very well said. Once people start making money off it, they seek new ways to perpetuate a problem so they can keep making their living off the cause. This is why I oppose professional clergy. Once you see your revenue coming from the people you are to care for, then you are more inclined to protect your revenue than the people. Psychiatrists drag on sessions for years because it is their livelihood. Paul established congregations, but he left them to walk with God on their own. The pulpit condemns you if you are not participating in their franchise system. But this is another topic apart from this thread ....

 

[mkgal1]

No they don't.
As you have correctly said, the church is not the building; the church is the people. How can a woman "shut up" in a church when she is part of that church?

Paul allowed women to pray and prophesy in church - how do you do that without speaking?

Exactly. And if it weren't for women.....we may not even have Jesus followers (they may have given up on Jesus when He'd died on the cross). I'm glad that Mary didn't follow the advice to "shut up":

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.~John 20​

​

 

[SkyWriting]

Because He created both genders, He alone fully understands the differences in genders. He is not gender blind.

You might draw up a list of gender differences, but a single exception
to your list would prove that they are not universal and defined by God.
Gender is considered pure human choice.