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

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
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.

There wasn't a Jewish Canon so much to speak of, and as far as I'm aware the only Jewish sect which did seem to at least favor the work was the Qumran community, which were possibly Essenes. But it would have been well known.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,369
7,745
Canada
✟722,927.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
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)
I am reminded of when Martha asked Jesus to tell Mary to get back in the kitchen.

Mary was kneeling at His feet learning as a disciple (which was a male role, that meant the student would become a teacher)

Jesus replied that Mary has chosen the better thing and it would not be taken away from her.

I would amend feminist statements of "women can" to "women are" and express that instead - this is if I knew what that was like.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Junia
Upvote 0

Salvadore

Active Member
Feb 2, 2020
359
255
72
Nashville
✟40,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Emotional abuse is a massive gray area. It usually will not put your life in danger. When your life and safety becomes endangered, I can see divorce as justifiable. "Husband is being a jerk" isn't.

Husband who puts his fists in your face because you have trouble reading directions, threatens to kill your dog by bashing his head between two bricks is justifiable divorce imo.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Junia
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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

On Junia, the grammatical form of the Greek (Ἰουνιαν) makes it unclear as to whether (s)he was a woman called Junia or a man called Junias. Nor does it say that (s)he was a "prominent apostle," because ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις can certainly be read as "well known to the apostles" (ESV, NET) or "highly respected by the apostles" (CEV).

such as the deacon Phoebe (Romans 16:1)

Phoebe is referred to as a διάκονον (diakonon), a servant. That does not necessarily imply any particular liturgical role, which the modern word "deacon" might suggest.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,227
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,854.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
And yet the church has an unbroken recognition of St. Junia the apostle.

And it's amazing how nobody ever questions whether those men referred to in Scripture were really deacons... especially given that the development of particular liturgical roles post-dates the era in which the Scriptures were written. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And yet the church has an unbroken recognition of St. Junia the apostle.

The majority of early references do indeed identify Junia as female. Whether also as an apostle, I have my doubts.

And it's amazing how nobody ever questions whether those men referred to in Scripture were really deacons...

Well, I don't think that the church has "an unbroken recognition" of female deacons.

the development of particular liturgical roles post-dates the era in which the Scriptures were written.

Exactly. Being a Continental Reformed Protestant, I would also deny that the men mentioned were deacons in the Catholic or Anglican sense.
 
Upvote 0

Senior Pastor

Servant of the Lord
Site Supporter
Dec 19, 2019
95
50
Texas
✟66,998.00
Country
United States
Faith
Wesleyan
Marital Status
Married
That is interesting. so wives should cover their heads today in church when they pray or prophesy? i must admit i have wondered about that. 40 years ago hats on married ladies used to be popular in British churches- i rarely see them now except at weddings
I would advise covering when praying and let the Lord lead your heart. We die to self daily and give ourselves to Christ. That is the definition of spiritual growth. May the Blessings of the Lord be upon you.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Junia
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,227
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,854.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The majority of early references do indeed identify Junia as female. Whether also as an apostle, I have my doubts.

The Orthodox have always recognised her as such.

Exactly. Being a Continental Reformed Protestant, I would also deny that the men mentioned were deacons in the Catholic or Anglican sense.

I agree. But they were deacons.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I agree. But they were deacons.

The NIV and the NRSV indeed call Phoebe a deacon.

Personally, I think that's a bad translation, because the idea that she was a deacon in the sense that you, as an Anglican, use that word is something that you bring to the text. All that the text itself tells us is that she was a "servant" of the church in Cenchreae in some way.

I would say the same about most of the men described as διάκονοι (diakanoi), except in those verses where an office of deacon is clearly being established.

And I think that it's fairly obvious that the διάκονοι (diakanoi = servants) in John 2:9 were not, in fact, deacons.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,227
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,854.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I would say that of course she wasn't a deacon in the modern sense, because the modern sense hadn't developed yet. But I would say she was a deacon in the same way that many men of that era were deacons. We have no reason to assume that in her case the word must be taken to mean something else (except bias against women as deacons).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
But I would say she was a deacon in the same way that many men of that era were deacons.

And I would also argue that not all the men of that era described as διάκονοι (diakanoi = servants) were deacons in the same sense.

I think that it's screamingly obvious that the διάκονοι (diakanoi = servants) in John 2:9 and 1 Timothy 3:12 were not the same thing.

It also seems clear that 1 Timothy 3:12, at least, is talking specifically about men (who 1 Timothy 3:11 is talking about is another debatable issue).
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,227
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,854.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
And I would also argue that not all the men of that era described as διάκονοι (diakanoi = servants) were deacons in the same sense.

We know that a settled sense of orders hadn't developed yet. But that's not a reason to insist that Phoebe couldn't have been a "real" deacon in the sense that applied in her time.

I think that it's screamingly obvious that the διάκονοι (diakanoi = servants) in John 2:9 and 1 Timothy 3:12 were not the same thing.

But when we're talking about deacons in the church, it's not so screamingly obvious that some were one thing and some another.

It also seems clear that 1 Timothy 3:12, at least, is talking specifically about men (who 1 Timothy 3:11 is talking about is another debatable issue).

It's been common for millennia to default to masculine language for groups that include women. But if, for example, the head of the household were a woman (a widow, perhaps), the same advice could be taken to apply to her without distorting the essential concern of that passage.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
We know that a settled sense of orders hadn't developed yet. But that's not a reason to insist that Phoebe couldn't have been a "real" deacon in the sense that applied in her time.

Since the word διάκονος has a very wide range of meanings, I don't believe that there is a single "sense that applied in her time."

It's been common for millennia to default to masculine language for groups that include women.

No, 1 Timothy 3:12 is definitely talking about men.

If you wish to argue that 1 Timothy 3:11 is talking about female deacons, I won't debate that at this point, but verse 12 is definitely talking about men.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,227
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,854.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Since the word διάκονος has a very wide range of meanings, I don't believe that there is a single "sense that applied in her time."

But there were clearly the beginnings of a church office for which that term was used. And since Phoebe was a deacon "of the church" it makes sense to consider that that's the context for the use of the term in her case.

No, 1 Timothy 3:12 is definitely talking about men.

If you wish to argue that 1 Timothy 3:11 is talking about female deacons, I won't debate that at this point, but verse 12 is definitely talking about men.

I don't think the author of 1 Timothy was focussed on gender-role distinctions at that point (as opposed to church-role distinctions), and I don't think we should take that as important to the sense of the passage either.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I don't think the author of 1 Timothy was focussed on gender-role distinctions at that point

The fact that Paul is using ἀνήρ (anēr = man) rather than ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos = human being) certainly suggests that he is.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,227
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,854.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The fact that Paul is using ἀνήρ (anēr = man) rather than ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos = human being) certainly suggests that he is.

Like I said, defaulting to the masculine in language is common even when the intent isn't to exclude women. And in this case, when it's talking about the need for monogamy, anthropos wouldn't work because that's not a term used of a spouse. (I can read the Koine, by the way; you don't need to transliterate or translate for me, although if you're doing it for others I understand).
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Like I said, defaulting to the masculine in language is common even when the intent isn't to exclude women. And in this case, when it's talking about the need for monogamy, anthropos wouldn't work because that's not a term used of a spouse.

There is a Greek word for spouse, iirc, although I've forgotten it.

I can read the Koine, by the way; you don't need to transliterate or translate for me, although if you're doing it for others I understand.

Of course you can. I'm fully aware of that; I know of your extensive theological education. I was indeed doing it for the peanut gallery.
 
Upvote 0

Thir7ySev3n

Psalm 139
Sep 13, 2009
672
417
32
✟58,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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

I generally admire your posts, as they are often wise and feminine and you seem to be a very humble and beautiful soul. I will, however, contend with one of your statements in this otherwise appreciable response: There is something wrong with her, and other women who think like this.

There is one fundamental truth that is almost always missed or ignored (willingly or otherwise) when approaching biblical gender roles that instigates the arrogance of women and diminishes the resolve of men. That fundamental truth is why God created them male and female, i.e. the symbolic language communicated in the genders. The Bible is unequivocally clear that man images the glory of God, and woman the glory of man, and for that reason man was not made for woman but woman for man (1 Corinthians 11:3-9).

We are designed as actors in the theatre of the world, proclaiming the greatest story in heaven on earth until Christ comes, being a display before the world and the angels (Ephesians 3:9-11). Thus, women who are obsessed with striving for equality with the man deny themselves, and cast off the distinct glory and beauty for which God created them. Being a representative of the church, they are as disgraced as a rebellious people to God, having the same inclinations and pretended glory as Satan, who could not bear subordination. I am not saying women who struggle with this are unsaved. Rather, their struggle is one of seeing the beauty and honour in surrender, and if lost will produce for them a real dishonour in Christ's Kingdom that they feared in ignorance now. They will be disgraced when, having chosen the higher seat for themselves, Christ will move them down to the end of the table because a more distinguished woman has arrived (Luke 14:8-11).

Who are they that are distinguished in God's Kingdom? "And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all." (Mark 9:35)

And what does the Scripture say is the mind of Christ? Striving for equality, as is the carnal and childish ambition of feminism? Conversely, it says: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:5-8)

To see a woman grasping at every possible opportunity for pretentious equality when God in the flesh Himself wouldn't do this, and thinking it to be a godly pursuit, is incommensurate arrogance. For those who represent the church, it is comparable in spirit to that of a cult, where the actual (i.e. not symbolic) church begins to exalt its own religion and raising its philosophies to being equal to doctrines of God. It is as a man who thinks it disgrace to be in submission to God. Yet the glory of a man is found in surrender to God, as a woman's is found in subordination to man. A perfect example of the beauty of God's people who appreciate this truth in the presence of Christ is found in Revelation 4:10-11:

"The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

I long for the day when I can kneel at the feet of Christ, lay down my crown and acknowledge His greatness in absolute surrender to it. I live every day now trying to cast off all pride in His presence, because I know the utter ugliness and putridness of it and reject it as a cancer of the spirit that is only fit to be burned away. That there would be more women who would cast down their crowns and so illustrate something so lovely. But "Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies." (Proverbs 31:10)
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,227
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,854.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Striving for equality, as is the carnal and childish ambition of feminism?

It's not carnal and childish ambition to proclaim the dignity and worth of women, or to refuse the oppression of those who would exploit us. Nowhere does Scripture condemn striving for justice, or for the will of God, which is what feminism is for Christians.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums