Feminism is not compatible with Christianity?

All4Christ · Feb 6, 2016

staff edit

Consider this early church father's reflection on the disobedience of Eve and the redemption through Christ's birth:

"The knot of Eve's disobedience was loosened by Mary's obedience. The bonds fastened by the virgin Eve through disbelief were untied by the virgin Mary through faith." (St Ireneous, Against heresies,3:22)

The men here who seem to think that women are beneath men due to their disobedience/ unfaithfulness should take a look at the many women in the Bible who stood up for Christ when all the men left Him, who showed strength in their faith, and were devoted to Christ. The disobedience found in the Old Testament has a strong opposition in the testament of the women in the New Testament. Also, there are just as many godly women in the OT as disobedient ones. There is neither male not female, or Jew or Gentile in Christ Jesus. Christ blessed many women, and many of them followed Christ when the men abandoned Him.

ImaginaryDay · Feb 6, 2016

ValleyGal said:
Gotquestions looked at the Greek for the term "marital unfaithfulness" but did not look at the Hebrew (and later Greek, when Jesus quoted the passage) for "divorce" in Malachi. The actual word is "shalach" and the translation is to send away without the benefit of the divorce certificate (which allowed the person sent away the right to marry someone else). So the Gotquestions blog is an opinion, not a thorough study of the subject. A more thorough study is at www.divorcehope.com.

Absolutely right. I failed to mention this. I was addressing his point about divorce and re-marriage not being permitted. But I've looked at (read "actually studied") the Hebrew/Greek here as well, and you are correct. The translation is "sending away", not "divorce"

mkgal1 · Feb 6, 2016

All4Christ said:
Consider this early church father's reflection on the disobedience of Eve and the redemption through Christ's birth:

"The knot of Eve's disobedience was loosened by Mary's obedience. The bonds fastened by the virgin Eve through disbelief were untied by the virgin Mary through faith." (St Ireneous, Against heresies,3:22)

The men here who seem to think that women are beneath men due to their disobedience/ unfaithfulness should take a look at the many women in the Bible who stood up for Christ when all the men left Him, who showed strength in their faith, and were devoted to Christ. The disobedience found in the Old Testament has a strong opposition in the testament of the women in the New Testament. Also, there are just as many godly women in the OT as disobedient ones. There is neither male not female, or Jew or Gentile in Christ Jesus. Christ blessed many women, and many of them followed Christ when the men abandoned Him.

Beautifully said.

Have you seen the icon--I assume you have-- that depicts the sentiment of St Ireneous? Agh...it was huge.

**I couldn't figure out how to get rid of the huge file

ImaginaryDay · Feb 6, 2016

ValleyGal said:
Okay. Here it is. If we should go back to a time when women were not responsible for themselves, but were under their husband's or father's covering, that could be fun! Oh BOY! I could sleep in till noon, bathe all afternoon, not bother with making meals, watch tv all day, bring home as many lost kittens and puppies as I wanted...

mkgal1 · Feb 6, 2016

Now you know what her secret desires are, ID (look out once the strays start being brought home)

ValleyGal · Feb 6, 2016

Young dogs more thank kittens.

ImaginaryDay · Feb 6, 2016

mkgal1 said:
I thought we've made it clear "what type of feminism" we're speaking about (the kind that BlondePudding posted the definition of). The kind where women aren't blamed for their own abuse ("she shouldn't have been there alone at night"..."she should have married a 'more godly man' .....etc)....the variety that allows women's voices to be heard (including from the pulpits).....the kind that does away with stereotypes and biases (and, instead, gets to know people on an individual and intimate level)......the kind of feminism that honors and respects all people and doesn't perceive them with a specific label over their head. That kind. To me.....that all runs nicely in line with the Gospel.

Here's a question I have - and I really do want to be civil about this point - if we are talking about "feminism that honors and respects all people, and doesn't perceive them with a specific label over their head", doesn't any term of "feminist" do just that? My point is that can we support the rights of women (as we should), without making it a feminist discussion? This is one of the reasons that I don't consider myself a feminist, however I do consider myself a supporter of equality for women in every sense that's been discussed in this thread.

mkgal1 · Feb 6, 2016

Well.....what prompted the whole thread was that statement I'd quoted, and I couldn't really make the point w/o the word "feminism"....YKWIM? I don't believe we need to shy away from using the word (is that what you're meaning?). Christianity has also been hijacked as well, but I don't try to avoid the label of "Christian".

What I mean by "labeling" is to see someone as only a set list of characteristics that are all about our pre-conceived notions (and to believe you know them based on JUST that label).

For example (since kitties are on my mind)....if someone has a neighbor that lives alone and has cats: I think it's shallow and superficial to know them as merely, "the crazy cat lady across the street". Certainly she'd have more about her to get to know. She may be completely a different person that your "crazy Aunt Mabel" that also had cats and lived alone and was rude to children (hypothetically).

ImaginaryDay · Feb 6, 2016

mkgal1 said:
Well.....what prompted the whole thread was that statement I'd quoted, and I couldn't really make the point w/o the word "feminism"....YKWIM? I don't believe we need to shy away from using the word (is that what you're meaning?). Christianity has also been hijacked as well, but I don't try to avoid the label of "Christian".

What I mean by "labeling" is to see someone as only a set list of characteristics that are all about our pre-conceived notions (and to believe you know them based on JUST that label).

For example (since kitties are on my mind)....if someone has a neighbor that lives alone and has cats: I think it's shallow and superficial to know them as merely, "the crazy cat lady across the street". Certainly she'd have more about her to get to know. She may be completely a different person that your "crazy Aunt Mabel" that also had cats and lived alone and was rude to children (hypothetically).

Thanks for clarifying. You make good points. I think the reason I shy away is because of the tendency of some (demonstrated in this thread) to jump to the conclusion that feminism=radical, which I don't associate with. You made the point of defining what type of feminism the thread is dealing with, and that helps for those capable of discussing it; however, there are those not capable of discerning the different types. So my post was to lay some groundwork for where I stand within the discussion, but also to distance myself from the radical end of things.

ValleyGal · Feb 6, 2016

I've been itching to post this for a long time, and this seems like a good time to do so.
https://sojo.net/articles/10-reasons-why-men-should-not-be-ordained-ministry

ImaginaryDay · Feb 6, 2016

Sorry, I tried to quote with the pic of the puppy. Didn't work.

mkgal1 · Feb 6, 2016

ImaginaryDay said:
Here's a question I have - and I really do want to be civil about this point - if we are talking about "feminism that honors and respects all people, and doesn't perceive them with a specific label over their head", doesn't any term of "feminist" do just that? My point is that can we support the rights of women (as we should), without making it a feminist discussion? This is one of the reasons that I don't consider myself a feminist, however I do consider myself a supporter of equality for women in every sense that's been discussed in this thread.

I see your point (and I've heard this from many people) but I'm not so sure that I feel comfortable completely distancing myself from the word just b/c some people can't distinguish between a radical and a "typical" (?) feminist. To me...that's allowing the ones that don't want to see the distinction to influence my decisions (and allowing them to claim the word). Then.....all that's left in that group are the radicals (and their perception is then proven for them). Do you see what I mean? Would we do that with the term "Christian"? Would we stop using it b/c of groups like WBC and then allow groups like them to retain the term for themselves (tarnishing and distorting it)?

ValleyGal · Feb 6, 2016

mkgal1 said:
I see your point (and I've heard this from many people) but I'm not so sure that I feel comfortable completely distancing myself from the word just b/c some people can't distinguish between a radical and a "typical" (?) feminist. To me...that's allowing the one's that don't want to see the distinction to influence my decisions (and allowing them to claim the word). Then.....all that's left in that group are the radicals (and their perception is then proven for them). Do you see what I mean?

This is exactly what we discussed. It's like distancing yourself from the term "Christian" just because you don't want to be associated with the far right wing radicals who blow up abortion clinics and cloister themselves away from the real world. I would rather mine be the face of feminism that is presented to both women and men alike, because it is the more biblical approach to gender issues rather than the radicals who claim female superiority. We also discussed how it's okay for someone to not claim the title "feminist" and still fight for women's equality - as long as they know that it, too, will become part of feminist discourse.

mkgal1 · Feb 6, 2016

Edmond Smith said:
i

I agree that the entry of sin into the world changed many things about the people. But not God's plan. His plan isn't contingent upon sin. His plan is the same then as it is now. Having a Relationship with mankind. God's plan works whether the be sin or no sin.

3. Here's where we differ. Adam and Eve knew of God, they didn't have a personal relationship with him. Their relationship was more like a son and daughter to a father, than a man and wife as a married couple. Adam and Eve didn't have a personal relationship with God as we do now. Then they were with God and He was with Him. Now, Christ is in us, God righteousness is in us, part of us, It goes about changing us thru the Holy Spirit and His Word.
If Eve got her information from God, it would have been the same thing He told Adam. He's pretty clear when it comes to His commands and He doesn't hold one person above another.
Your right though, it doesn't say in the bible that Adam told her anything. Common sense does though, they were the only ones there at that time and it doesn't mean He didn't. Plus, knowing God's character, helps a lot in knowing if he would have told Eve something completely different than He did Adam, which is highly unlikely. And God can't lie so he wouldn't have told eve to lie. Because she embellished on what was said even if it came from Adam or God. They would have told her the same thing as from the beginning.

I'm not suggesting that sin changed God's plan. Of course He knew from the beginning how things were going to play out, and we're told that His plan for redemption was made in the beginning (prior to sin). That's not what my point was. I brought up the fact that we don't have much in the Bible of an illustration of what life "looked like" without sin to point out how much of our interpretation is clouded by sin. IOW....there is a lot of "man" and his faults mixed in with God's goodness, and a lot of the times it's difficult to see what's God's goodness and His "plan" if there weren't sin and just bad character in the way.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about making a distinction between Adam & Eve and their connection with God? Yes.....we have God *in* us now----but we also have SIN (something they didn't have). IMO.....they were in unity with God and were totally unable to sin at that point (just as Jesus was when He walked on this earth). It took eating the fruit to "open their eyes" to break away from their complete union with God (in my view).

I think you're inferring a lot when you suggest that since Eve had added to what God commanded (and, who knows, maybe one day it was HE that added to His original instruction? Not everything is written in the text). Have you never been told one thing and recalled something that wasn't exactly as you were told? Either way----nothing suggests that Adam was "responsible" for Eve. In Genesis 1 the text is referring to both Adam and Eve:

"So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so."

From that, we can presume that God was more specific in His instruction to BOTH of them. It doesn't make sense that He'd leave incomplete instruction for them to get confused over.

ImaginaryDay · Feb 6, 2016

ValleyGal said:
We also discussed how it's okay for someone to not claim the title "feminist" and still fight for women's equality - as long as they know that it, too, will become part of feminist discourse.

^^^This.

Hetta · Feb 6, 2016

mkgal1 said:
This has been mentioned quite a bit recently and I'd love to discuss.

Thoughts?

I just watched "Suffragette" MKGal. I wish I could repeat the saying that it ends with, but I'd like to leave others to watch it for themselves. It was very positive. And I also liked that the movie referenced "deeds not words" because anyone can talk the talk, but walking it is so different.

I always embraced my feminism as I was growing up, but in Christianity I find that it is a dirty word. I see so many women saying "they (=the suffragettes I guess) got women the vote, but now they want too much." I'm surprised. Women still earn less than men for doing the same job, and it has nothing to do with seniority, training or anything else. Women who have the same credentials as a male counterpart and have never taken time off to have kids, and are willing to work 80 hours a week still get paid less. Period. And that's wrong. So, there is still something to fight for, and something to speak out about, and I will continue to be a feminist until I die.

p.s. My husband said it would be okay for me to make this post.

Hetta · Feb 6, 2016

Job8 said:
Here is a summary to show why Feminism is incompatible with Bible Christianity:

LIBERAL FEMINISM
Humanistic
Scripture: Divine

Gender prejudice responsible for inequality
Scripture: All human beings are sinners

Legislation can change inequality
Scripture: The New Birth changes people from within

SOCIALIST FEMINISM
Humanistic
Scripture: Divine

Economic dependency responsible for inequality
Scripture: Woman created for man

Mother, home maker, child rearer = ideological myths
Scripture: God-given roles of women are not myths

Reform rather than revolution
Scripture: Spiritual transformation is a necessity

MARXIST FEMINISM
Demonic
Scripture: Divine

Capitalism = exploitation, oppression, discrimination
Scripture: Human sinfulness produces exploitation

Patriarchy is evil
Scripture: Patriarchy is according to Divine order

Family system is evil
Scripture: Families are according to Divine order

Revolution is necessary
Scripture: Spiritual transformation and submission essential

RADICAL FEMINISM
Demonic
Scripture: Divine

Men are enemies of women
Scripture: Men and women are complementary

Patriarchy is evil
Scripture: Patriarchy is according to Divine order

Marriage is exploitation, and sexual relations are politics
Scripture: Marriage was instituted by God

Lesbianism supports equality of women
Scripture: Homosexuality is perversion

Rebellion is necessary
Scripture: Submission is necessary

All of which means pretty much - tough if you don't have the right to vote or work, never mind if you're abused, or if you don't get an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, but never mind, it will all work out in heaven.

mkgal1 · Feb 6, 2016

p.s. My husband said it would be okay for me to make this post.

LOL.

Job8 · Feb 6, 2016

Hetta said:
All of which means pretty much - tough if you don't have the right to vote or work, never mind if you're abused, or if you don't get an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, but never mind, it will all work out in heaven.

Not at all. Both men and women can work together so that anyone -- regardless of sex -- has the right to vote, or work, and not be abused or exploited. Biblical principles do not condone evil practices at all. Indeed, they forbid exploitation in any way, shape or form.

You will note that all the most vocal and radical feminists are women who are actually very privileged, just as Marx was a very privileged individual, born into a wealthy middle-class family

Hetta · Feb 6, 2016

Job8 said:
Not at all. Both men and women can work together so that anyone -- regardless of sex -- has the right to vote, or work, and not be abused or exploited. Biblical principles do not condone evil practices at all. Indeed, they forbid exploitation in any way, shape or form.

You will note that all the most vocal and radical feminists are women who are actually very privileged, just as Marx was a very privileged individual, born into a wealthy middle-class family

Men weren't willing to work with women until women became very, very vocal and took direct action to force men to grant them equality. Read a history book sometime. The reason that the leaders tended to be privileged women was because they had the education and the money to front up such a rebellion. Poor women wanted it, they just didn't know how to do it. And I know many, many vocal and radical feminists who are middle-class and not at all privileged.

Feminism is not compatible with Christianity?

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

We Live Here

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

We Live Here

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Well-Known Member

We Live Here

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

We Live Here

Well-Known Member

We Live Here

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

We Live Here

I'll find my way home

I'll find my way home

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Senior Member

I'll find my way home

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency