Is this kind of "Christian" feminism ok or am i in error?

[Junia]

You’re struggling because you entertain personal opinions that raise questions and doubts in your heart. You are drawn to (or attract) people who think along these lines. Consider your previous thread. Its the same thing. it is a sin to add to your natural appearance? really? where did God say so?

I think you would be better served with a book or bible study that includes thought provoking questions which allow you to consider the topic without condemnation. Elizabeth George has several for women. Cynthia Heald has a positive demeanor you may appreciate.

As for the site, I’m familiar with it and understand their ethos. There are others of the same stripe I frequented in the past. I mentored women with a similar disposition. I know their mindset.

However, their makeup has many elements which contributes to their surrender and enables them to live out a form of headship that would be less appealing or appropriate for others. If you’ve been blessed with positive examples of masculinity and femininity in your home and observed mutual respect between the sexes. The idea of replicating the same isn’t difficult. If you married someone whose leadership you hold in high regard. It isn’t hard to follow him.

In most cases, women with that background exude qualities very appealing to their complement. They attract men who desire to be caretakers and head of household. Oftentimes, they influence one another. The nuances of her personality may reflect elements he prefers or emphasizes. Pliability is a mainstay of these connections. Pleasing him brings them joy.

Most Christian women aren’t wired that way. There’s nothing wrong with you. Some women thrive in service-driven relationships and the rest need a different flavor. Its fine to read different viewpoints. But if the message isn’t edifying or challenging you positively. You may want to rethink it and focus on more profitable pursuits.

~Bella

The reason i hold these views is becaus emy christian minister father started abusing me as a baby, and was also violent towards my mum and my sister. i was seuxally assaulted by several different people at different stages of my childhood. my church was very Fundamentalist and their view was women cannot leave an abusive man.

so to me my views are that headship is protection for a woman because when i see a man lording it over a woman to me that reminds me what my father did- mum not allowed her own money, everythign acconted for, physicaly punished, verbally and mentally abused. i have CPTSD that will take years maybe decades to work through and i only just started, so i am not ready for marriage yet. and children have never been an interest of mine. i am not nurturing at all......i am introverted and and like my own time and company. so a loving God would never reject me for things that are not my fault or choice...

so yeah i get what you mean, and i dont have naything agianst Lori Alexander per se , i believe she sincere and loves Jesus. but i do think her way is not to be imposed on all women.....for a start, if you look for a verse in scriptures which mandates that ALL women must marry and bear children...you won't find one. you wont find a verse which says salvation is through those things either. try it. you wont find it. and i mean the Bible, not any othe ropinion becaus ei only really trust the bible....so many people "Prophesy" tehse days and it 90% of the time just opinions.

i wil check out the authors you mentioned- a friend of mine suggested Rachel Held-Evans and am thinking maybe Beth Moore as well- don't know if you ehard of her? i have read Elisabeth Elliot on womanhood (Let me be a woman) and i like her because she traditional but not extreme either... she just shares what worked for her as a wife. also she was straight and wanted . i am near the asexual end of the spectrum- men dont interest me much at all.....)

 

[Junia]

My therapist is treating me using trauma therapy, mindfulness, and Dialectical Behaviour Therapy and he is an High Anglican priest. He tells me to be careful of those authors who impose guilt on me through legalistic teachings, says that pharisees are not the best people to take advice from.....i am still evry much a child of God, i have not left the faith but am going through de-constructing myself from "religion." just goign back to the Word and leaving behind some of the man made bits thta no longer work for me.... saying mixed bathing and swimsuits are a sin ar eman made teachings, saying you cannot leave an abuser are man made teachings etc.....they are based on what people think the Bible means, usually they have read it wthout reading th ehistorical context- Paul's instructions to women were vey much in context of their day...well meaning believers have tried to see the Bible through a modern western view, which does not help. the new testament was written in biblical (Koine) Greek and when you read it through that lens, it is very different how the church in the UK and the US interprets it today.

I believe in beign tolerant of those who are "traditional" in their faith, sure, and bear them no ill will. but am almost in my 40s and i think t is time i strated to build a faith of my own based on what works for me rather than what works for normal heterosexual women.

 

[Junia]

I believe should be the case. It used to be, but no longer is. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul specifically wrote that his basis for requiring head coverings is the order of creation which is timeless and universal in scope. The head of the man who is praying/prophesying requires that it be uncovered since his head reflects the image/glory of God (v.7). Therefore to cover his head would be to cover up the image and glory of God - which should always be paramount and made manifest. God's glory is never to be put under a cover. However, women are to cover their heads since the woman is the glory of man. When the church composed of men and women gather to pray and prophesy, God's glory is made manifest when the men leave their heads uncovered while the women do the opposite and cover their head since the woman reflects the glory of man (v.7). In the hierarchical scheme of creation, man's glory is always subordinate to God's glory when the church gathers to pray and prophesy. This also serves as a witness and reminder to the angels (v.10). For the woman however, her long hair is her glory (v.15). That is why she is to wear a head covering since her glory must be covered up. V.15 is a contentious verse as some interpret this verse as the basis for claiming that a woman's long hair is her covering. The verse reads:

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering."

The word "for" in this verse is from the Greek "anti' which means in exchange for or instead of, in place of. Thus I believe the verse should read:

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her instead of a covering."

Again, since long hair is a woman's glory, she is to wear a head covering to cover up her glory while praying/prophesying in the congregation. The man on the other hand, his head remains uncovered while praying/prophesying in the congregation since his head reflects the glory of God.

true but i believe it applicable for wives only. as a single woman am not under a man's covering. but i get your point.

 

[bèlla]

The reason i hold these views

I’m not questioning your views. But it appears your background is influencing the things you read to some degree.

but i do think her way is not to be imposed on all women.

Most women couldn’t live that way. Nor do they want to. If it doesn’t speak to your heart that’s fine. You don’t have to justify your difference.

i wil check out the authors you mentioned- a friend of mine suggested Rachel Held-Evans and am thinking maybe Beth Moore as well- don't know if you ehard of her?

I’m familiar with all three. The two I suggested are very affirming. I sensed that would be a better fit.

~Bella

 

[Junia]

I suspect the most likely explanation for Paul's strange statement here is that it's an allusion to the story of the angels falling in the books of Enoch. If one were to take the statement at completely face value and a proscription for how women should wear their hair, it would appear St. Paul is saying women should cover their hair so as to not distract and attract the attention of the angels. I'm inclined to think that while this is Paul's allusion, this isn't Paul's point.

-CryptoLutheran

yes- that is a good point- hadn't ocnsidered that. Enoch was part of the Jewish canon, so Paul and many early church believers who were Jewish would have known what he was referring to. as Christians, the reference is lost on many of us, as is not part of our folklore or religion.

 

[Junia]

I’m not questioning your views. But it appears your background is influencing the things you read to some degree.



Most women couldn’t live that way. Nor do they want to. If it doesn’t speak to your heart that’s fine. You don’t have to justify your difference.



I’m familiar with all three. The two I suggested are very affirming. I sensed that would be a better fit.

~Bella

Thanks. that is good. am not justifying myself at all though- this is fact. my therapist explains why abused women are not to be pushed into traditional Evangelical teachings on womanhood. especially if they are close to asexual and find the thought of children unbearable.....

as you pointed out, Lori and others like ther have not been in my shoes but God has. H ehas walked with me and His son Jesus was abused most horribly by the authorities of

 

[Refirened]

i admit i have never liked the term feminist. i am against abortion on demand, and i do believe christian wives and mothers have a certain role to fulfil which is different from a man's role, that of bringing up their children, being under her husband's protection (some say authority, but i think that may be what it means) but i am leaning towards feminism in these ways:


- a single woman can have a career or do anything she pleases as long as it is God's will. marriage and children are for some, not others, same as with men.

- i have no issue with women being allowed to leave an abusive husband. (i think men should be able to do that too if their wife is abusive) As far as i understand, it is remarriage after divorcing for reasons other than adultery which the Word does not approve of.


- i support women's rights in regard to protecting victims of doemstic abuse, sexual abuse, rape etc i see no issue in supporting an awareness campaign or charity to help women in these situations even if feminism was the movement which started many of them

- women can vote. nothing in Word seems to forbid it- i have checked!

- women can work. be keepers at home is Paul's advice for the wives and mothers and most women were wives and mothers then, hence that is why there is little mention of women as single or career women. but nothing forbids a woman being a career woman if she has no children

-whether a wife has her own bank account or money is surely between her and her husband- i see no rules in the Bible forbidding it though i think most couples share what they have whcih is fine.

- a husband's authority is protecting the wife- submission isnt about husband dominating, but husbands and wives working together as a team

- a wife can refuse her husband sex if she is feeling unwell or in pain or exhausted. obviously not good to use witholding sex selfishly or because angry at husband.

- how many children a couple have is between them and the Lord. same with how they plan their family, space it etc. only abortion seems to be forbidden in the Word maybe that includes some abortificent birth control pills, but i see nothing about natural fmaily planning, sterilisation etc.... so these must be personal things for each couple to put before God

- head covering is optional as the context in which it was given is not applicable today again, if the Lord wants a woman to cover when praying or prophesyng in church or for modesty reasons, up to her and the Lord. i dont feel i need to, but others may feel different.

- bathing costumes and mixed bathing are ok as long as costume doesnt show too much. if it does, put t shirt on, no issue



Now i was on a page on FB about gender roles and biblical womanhood and was told i was being a feminist and in rebellion towards God for holdig some of these views? particularly on the issue of marriage or childbearing as they are mandatory, i was told. re; divorce she says emotional abuse doesnt count, only severe beatings. she also says singleness is wrong for women. i told her what f we asexual/ have low sex drive? just not interested in males? not ready? she has blocked me.

a friend of mine, also on FB (facebook, sorry) says mixed bathing is a sin. she also says being a keeper at home means a woman cannot have hobbies outside home or work unless she single. she says you cannot divorce your husband if he harms you, because then he may remarry and be found guilty of adultery


I just struggle to believe the loving Jesus i have come to know would have such narrow views. if these things are true, i cannot find the verses to support them? what do other people think?

(disclaimer, i am not married and have no intention of looking for anyone at moment. children not an option so this is academic debate, not seeking advice. just curious)

Jesus does say it is a straight and narrow way to heaven but again that way is the righteous way.

Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV)

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Its dangerous to follow peoples opinions rather than following the Word of God because many who profess Christ believe differing things. Jesus said we will be judged by his which he has spoken which is why we should know what the word of God says personally in regards to how to live.

John 12:48 (KJV)

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 

[Junia]

I’m not questioning your views. But it appears your background is influencing the things you read to some degree.



Most women couldn’t live that way. Nor do they want to. If it doesn’t speak to your heart that’s fine. You don’t have to justify your difference.



I’m familiar with all three. The two I suggested are very affirming. I sensed that would be a better fit.

~Bella

Sure. but i think my background SHOULD influence my views. i think i should be making allowances for myself in light of them rather than being like ordinary christina ladies who havent had these experiences. in the past tried to be this good christian girl who did everything the perfect Evangelical christian way and it destroyed me.... God wanted me to find myself and base my faith around the fact He has redeemd me and he understand my lifestyle choices and doesn' condemn me for them. i think fo rme to go back living with my abuser dad until i get a husband who wil then want me to pop out kids for him would be very unwise for me....God wants me to honour MYSELF and care for MYSLEF. What about ME???? His concern is ME, not whether i tick some church list of good behaviour.

am not slagging off Lori Alexander but she does add to the Bile. she says vaccines are evil, medication is evil, women are ofrbidden by God to vote.....i have read Bible more thna once and none of these are mentioned in the Bible...please believe me on this....

 

[bèlla]

Thanks. that is good. am not justifying myself at all though

What I meant is not agreeing is fine. And given your background some teachings aren’t helpful.

~Bella

 

[Junia]

Jesus does say it is a straight and narrow way to heaven but again that way is the righteous way.

Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV)

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Its dangerous to follow peoples opinions rather than following the Word of God because many who profess Christ believe differing things. Jesus said we will be judged by his which he has spoken which is why we should know what the word of God says personally in regards to how to live.

John 12:48 (KJV)

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

exactly. i follow the Word. and the word never says women cant vote, that thwy have to live with their dads until they marry, that they cant work, or that they have to have children. none of these are mentioned in the Word.... i feel no guilt at not folwoing these "commands" since they are not int he Bible and even if they were, none of them affect my standing with God.

also the bbible neve mentions contraception is a sin, childfree is a sin, celibacy is as isn. it mentions nothing baout vaccines or medication. these things are personal betweena believer and God. they are secondary issues.

Jesus blood saves....nothing else is as important as that. we are ot obey the commands of Jesus and the New Testament. we are not under law. if we love Jesus, love others we have fulfilled the law and prophets.......so yeah, none of this stuff on marriage is a big deal..........i dont want kids and am satisfied with my single life which gives me plenty of time to serve God and help the needy. this discussion is purely academic for me.

 

[Junia]

What I meant is not agreeing is fine. And given your background some teachings aren’t helpful.

~Bella

yes. my church told me to find some teachers who focus on our identity in Christ and on the cross. i bee reading Graham Cooke, Roger Price (long dead but very helpful), Neil T Anderson etc a lot of grace based teaching very helpful to me.

bless you sister, and again, thanks for the recommnedation

 

[Junia]

Jesus does say it is a straight and narrow way to heaven but again that way is the righteous way.

Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV)

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Its dangerous to follow peoples opinions rather than following the Word of God because many who profess Christ believe differing things. Jesus said we will be judged by his which he has spoken which is why we should know what the word of God says personally in regards to how to live.

John 12:48 (KJV)

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

My interpretation of this scripture about the way being narrow is this:

we humans are wired to believe we must earn grace by our works. we are hard on ourselves by nature and feel we never good enough. which is true- we aren't good enough foe heaven.. but few of us can accept that we will neevr be able to get there by keeping the law. which is hwy Jesus came to fulfil it for us, and when we receive Him as savour and Lord, He gives us His righteousness. but very few of us humans get there. very few of us are born again because relying on another person's sacrifice for us being enough to be redeemed is anathema to us. we are by nature, prideful. pride means we think we can do it oursleves, don't need God.

so if i were to follow all the teachings about womanhood in the Bible it would not save me nor damn me....but i do believe the Bible gives us guidelines as to how we live as Christians.....i just think that most of the biblical womanhood teachings that ARE Biblical are for wives and how wives need ot behave. keepers at home, heads covered, raise up children (if you decide to have any) in the Lord. nowhere does the bible say all women must marry and bear children n order to be approved by God... marriage and children are wonderful vocatiosn and high callings for many women, probably most women. bt i am a bit of an oddball and just dont have those natural urges to find a man and procreate. the world calls it asexuality, the Bible calls it celibacy. same thing.

 

[Junia]

well this thread has been very interesting and comforting to me, affirming am on the right path in my walk with God. thank you all very much for contributing. <3

 

[Oldmantook]

true but i believe it applicable for wives only. as a single woman am not under a man's covering. but i get your point.

Paul does not refer to wives nor husbands. He refers to the order of creation which encompasses ALL men and ALL women.

 

[Junia]

Paul does not refer to wives nor husbands. He refers to the order of creation which encompasses ALL men and ALL women.

ah, ok, see. thanks for that. i hadn;t realised, this thread HAS been interesting. i will wear a hat to church next time i go. i have a beanie woollen one somewhere i think!

 

[friend of]

I remember reading in Romans 16:1-2 recently that there was a female decon in their assembly. So there was, in fact, a woman in a position of leadership back then. Hope this helps.

 

[Junia]

I remember reading in Romans 16:1-2 recently that there was a female decon in their assembly. So there was, in fact, a woman in a position of leadership back then. Hope this helps.

it does, thank you

 

[JackRT]

I remember reading in Romans 16:1-2 recently that there was a female decon in their assembly. So there was, in fact, a woman in a position of leadership back then. Hope this helps.

Actually there were quite a few.
The issue of womens' role in the church is not as clear cut as somany people would think. The letters of Paul, which date to the middle of the first century AD, provide some clues. For example, Paul greets Prisca, Junia, Julia, and Nereus' sister, who worked and traveled as missionaries in pairs with their husbands or brothers (Romans 16:3, 7, 15) as equals and co-workers. Junia is praised as a prominent apostle, imprisoned for her faith. Mary and Persis are commended for their hard work (Romans 16:6, 12). Euodia and Syntyche are called his fellow-workers in the gospel (Philippians 4:2-3). Women were the leaders of house churches (Apphia in Philemon 2; Prisca in I Corinthians 16:19), Lydia of Thyatira (Acts 16:15) and Nympha of Laodicea (Colossians 4:15). Women held offices and played significant roles in group worship, such as the deacon Phoebe (Romans 16:1) and women were certainly praying and prophesying during worship (I Corinthians 11). An order of widows served formal roles of ministry (I Timothy 5:9-10). Women prophets included Mary Magdalene, the Corinthian women, Philip's daughters, Ammia of Philadelphia, Philumene, the visionary martyr Perpetua, Maximilla, Priscilla (Prisca), and Quintilla. Leaving the Bible, there is a strong tradition in southern France that Mary Magdalene was the first missionary to the region. In fact there is a stained glass window in the Cathedral of Marseilles depicting her consecrating the first bishop of the city.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, I'm a Christian, and a feminist (without apology, although of course feminism is also a broad church and that doesn't mean I agree with everything every feminist says).

And the only thing in your OP I would query is the idea that a wife should have sex even if she's angry. I'd suggest that if there are unresolved conflicts in the marriage, perhaps working on resolving them before expecting intimacy might be more appropriate.

 

[Junia]

Well, I'm a Christian, and a feminist (without apology, although of course feminism is also a broad church and that doesn't mean I agree with everything every feminist says).

And the only thing in your OP I would query is the idea that a wife should have sex even if she's angry. I'd suggest that if there are unresolved conflicts in the marriage, perhaps working on resolving them before expecting intimacy might be more appropriate.

oh, i didnt say a wife should have sex when angry what i meant was there are wives who withold sex as a form of punishment, a form of tantrum. that is abuse and very evil. my issue is with people like The tRansformed Wife and her ilk who say that a wife should NEVER refuse sex even if she unwell tired in pain etc... they claim rape in marriage does not exist because husband owns the wife's body.... thgat is why i hate "Biblical Womanhood" teachings. my mum was made to have sex when unwell and punished by my father if didn't comply on more thna one occasion. it is rape.