Needed: A coalition of feminists and conservative Christians

[Hazelelponi]

Feminists want to see the reign of God in our churches; including in the way women are encouraged, enabled and equipped to participate in accordance with our gifts and callings. That is God's purpose for humankind.

It's not about seeking power through faith. It's about seeking the full flourishing of every child of God.

You don't set policy for God. God does...

what feminists want in the churches is but an extension of the political, something even you have before indicated.

I would actually pray that conservative Christian's wouldn't make a coalition with the feminists. Feminism has no place in God's church. It's a political movement. Church isn't.

 

[Paidiske]

You don't set policy for God. God does...

I agree. But I find it quite possible to summarise part of God's policy under the heading of feminism. Feminism believes in the full equality of men and women; the Bible articulates the same thing.

what feminists want in the churches is but an extension of the political, something even you have before indicated.

I'm not sure what you mean here. First, not all feminists - not even all the ones who are Christian - would have the same agenda for feminism in the Church. Second, to the extent that feminism is an outworking of Scriptural principles, it has a political dimension but cannot be reduced to the purely political. There is a profoundly spiritual element to it as well.

Feminism has no place in God's church. It's a political movement. Church isn't.

There are politics in the Church, and Church has a political dimension. This is inevitable if the Church is to have any governance structure, and is to have any impact on wider society (which is part of our mission).

Church shouldn't be purely about politics, and to the extent that it is political it should be about the reign of God, but politics can't and shouldn't be excluded from the life of the Church.

 

[DennisTate]

Note: this is in the Egalitarian forum.

This is not a new article, but I only came across it today, and I think what it's saying has some merit: Needed: A coalition of feminists and conservative Christians - Religion News Service

But my questions are, is it possible? And if possible, is it something people actually want to work together on?

You might find this statement useful:

Rick Joyner, The Final Quest:
...I looked at the thrones. I looked at those who were now seated. I could recognize some of the great heroes of the faith, but most of those seated I knew had not even been well known on earth. Many I knew had been missionaries who had expended their lives in obscurity. They had never cared to be remember on earth, but only to Him. I was a bit surprised to see some who had been wealthy, or rulers who had been faithful with what they had been given. However, it seemed that faithful, praying women and mothers occupied more thrones than any other single group." (Rick Joyner)

His book The Torch and the Sword could also be useful in this regard?

 

[archer75]

In response to the OP:

If Aimee Stephens wins, women lose

(Radical feminists overlap with Christians by being against the new trans-orthodoxy)

 

[jahel]

In response to the OP:

If Aimee Stephens wins, women lose

(Radical feminists overlap with Christians by being against the new trans-orthodoxy)

Transgender and feminism (the right to be feminine whatever that means to a female person) is a contradiction of terms. The disentanglement from the queer people and the peculiar people (in Christianity) is a non sequential.

 

[PloverWing]

The conversation between transgender rights advocates and feminists is an important and complicated one. My daughter's alma mater, Smith College -- a fiercely feminist women's college -- has been going through this conversation as they've been deciding whether to admit trans women to Smith. On the one hand, feminists, of all people, should be supportive of people who do not fit the cis-male mold. On the other hand, people who were socialized female have had a different life experience from people who were not socialized female, and maybe that's important.

The resolution of these two groups of values, which sometimes coincide and sometimes conflict, is not simple. The inside of my own head is often conflicted, since I myself am in the intersection of these two advocacy groups. I'm at least glad to be having conversations and explorations of gender that go beyond the "conform and shut up" attitude of my childhood culture. I expect that our culture and our church will be working out the complicated issues of gender for some decades to come.

 

[Paidiske]

feminism (the right to be feminine whatever that means to a female person)

Feminism isn't "the right to be feminine." It's about equality of men and women.

 

[jahel]

Feminism isn't "the right to be feminine." It's about equality of men and women.

The church has been too long the definer of what a women is, her place, her position when a person is only who they are then a demand for equality is a huge issue. Transgender is not about femininity or masculinity (feminist or masculist aside)
Either a person is carrying the flag for the rainbow or not that still does not come under the umbrella of feminism. Its an individual thought that is trying to transcend over female thought.

I highly resent that being included in any fight for something that is hanging on for a free ride.

 

[Paidiske]

The church has been too long the definer of what a women is, her place, her position when a person is only who they are then a demand for equality is a huge issue. Transgender is not about femininity or masculinity (feminist or masculist aside)
Either a person is carrying the flag for the rainbow or not that still does not come under the umbrella of feminism. Its an individual thought that is trying to transcend over female thought.

I highly resent that being included in any fight for something that is hanging on for a free ride.

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

 

[jahel]

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

I know women are a part of the new creation. If that is the fight that women are fighting for (since this a Christian forum and from the statement of purpose this is what is believed here) and if feminism means equality in that biblical sense that we have one Father, one Spirit and one mind of Christ, then why is defence of such a debatable topic now again scooped into the mire of uncertainty when there are unbelievers of the feminine fact still debating in this same thread? Iow, why start from such an uncertain victory to defend one that isn’t.

 

[PloverWing]

unbelievers of the feminine fact

Sorry, I'm confused too. What is the "feminine fact"?

 

[jahel]

Sorry, I'm confused too. What is the "feminine fact"?

I was just going to say that would be better directed at you [QUOTE="PloverWing, post: 74479320, member: 307356”]..[/QUOTE]

The fact that women can be what they want. That may go for others too but don’t hide under feminists skirts.

 

[Paidiske]

I know women are a part of the new creation. If that is the fight that women are fighting for (since this a Christian forum and from the statement of purpose this is what is believed here) and if feminism means equality in that biblical sense that we have one Father, one Spirit and one mind of Christ, then why is defence of such a debatable topic now again scooped into the mire of uncertainty when there are unbelievers of the feminine fact still debating in this same thread? Iow, why start from such an uncertain victory to defend one that isn’t.

Ah, I think I understand a bit better now.

It might help you to understand that this forum was first suggested and created because - in much of the rest of the forums on CF - there is a wide range of views of women, feminism and so forth that are held; and often those of us who believe in and practice equality were being attacked as Jezebels, rebellious, and so on.

So this forum was intended to be the one space where we could have conversations and not face those accusations. From time to time we need to remind people that in this forum, complementarianism or headship teaching or the like to do not belong. There are other forums for those points of view.

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON
Some important points from Egalitarian Christians Statement of Purpose:

The Egalitarian Christians forum is a forum for discussion and fellowship for members who believe in Biblical equality between men and women. Some things about Egalitarians include:

• Belief that the Bible teaches the full equality of men and women in Creation and in Redemption
• Belief that both woman and man were created for full and equal partnership.
• Belief that man and woman were co-participants in the Fall
• Belief that husbands and wives are joint heirs together of the grace of life and that they are bound together in a relationship of mutual submission and responsibility
• Belief that both mothers and fathers are to exercise leadership in the nurture, training, discipline and teaching of their children

Ordained women and their ministries are to be respected in this forum.
House Rules:
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against its theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.
ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[bekkilyn]

I just think it's sad (and anti-Christ) that women even have to fight (still!) to be viewed as human beings created in the image of God along with men, and who are in equal partnership with men, vs. being sub-human and subordinate. Christians who actually follow Christ and wish to be conformed to him should be at the forefront of opposing discrimination. Unfortunately, Christians are instead leading the way to discriminate along with other fundamentalist, extremist groups.

"There is no male or female in Christ Jesus" should not even be remotely controversial.

 

[Silmarien]

The conversation between transgender rights advocates and feminists is an important and complicated one. My daughter's alma mater, Smith College -- a fiercely feminist women's college -- has been going through this conversation as they've been deciding whether to admit trans women to Smith. On the one hand, feminists, of all people, should be supportive of people who do not fit the cis-male mold. On the other hand, people who were socialized female have had a different life experience from people who were not socialized female, and maybe that's important.

This is interesting. I hadn't realized Smith was more conservative on this issue. My alta mater is Mount Holyoke, which does accept transwomen. (Though this actually looks like a more recent development--I remember at least one student who had or was in the process of transitioning to male when I attended a bit more than a decade ago, but I think at the time the rule might have been that you needed to be a woman when you applied.) It's a tricky question, but my feeling is that women's colleges are such unique, rarified gender studies environments that they may well be the best place for anyone who is transgendered.

Regarding the original post, I rather liked the article from the Daily Beast that was referenced (this one). I think it's true that genuine conservatives and feminists have a common cause when it comes to combatting male sexual predation, but at the same time I think the onus is on conservatives to get other people who identify as conservative to care about male sexual morality. I'm not sure what feminists can do if one of the things that many conservatives seem to be trying to conserve right now actually is male entitlement to treat women like sex objects. Though perhaps a discussion on whether concepts like chivalry are male chauvinism or a necessary aspect of a greater culture of respect towards women is well overdue.

 

[WolfGate]

Regarding the original post, I rather liked the article from the Daily Beast that was referenced (this one). I think it's true that genuine conservatives and feminists have a common cause when it comes to combatting male sexual predation, but at the same time I think the onus is on conservatives to get other people who identify as conservative to care about male sexual morality. I'm not sure what feminists can do if one of the things that many conservatives seem to be trying to conserve right now actually is male entitlement to treat women like sex objects. Though perhaps a discussion on whether concepts like chivalry are male chauvinism or a necessary aspect of a greater culture of respect towards women is well overdue.

Thinking out loud a bit here, so I'll acknowledge these comments have not been fully fleshed out in my mind much less challenged by anyone else to sharpen them.

I think "social" conservatives may have a common cause in this area but not necessarily political conservatives. In the current climate there are two things I think may be influencing this. First, it seems to me that there is the majority of social conservatives are aligned with political conservatism right now, and the same holds for social and political progressives. Second, the feminism in general seems to have also aligned with political progressives - and the majority of women currently rising up the political ranks are also on the left half of the political spectrum. So, as often seems to happen, political victory wins out over social/principle ideals - resulting in political conservatives actually taking a stance that seems contrary to morality.

 

[Paidiske]

@WolfGate , would you be willing to flesh out a bit what differences you see between social and political conservatism?

 

[WolfGate]

was

@WolfGate , would you be willing to flesh out a bit what differences you see between social and political conservatism?

Gosh Paidiske, now you're making me think. LOL!!

Here is the highest level thought I've got:
Social conservatives are most concerned socially - tending to advocate for issues that they believe will make society a better place specifically centered around things like traditional family values. Often the basis for what they believe does have a level of "comfort in the same" to it, but there is also often a moral or religious idealism that can actually result in them wanting significant change - back to the way some things were before the sexual revolution, for example.

Political conservatives are concerned with keeping structures in place economically, hierarchically, and socially - with the added political component of wanting to keep power. There is less idealism here IMO, because in the end issues get attention that will get votes, or get ignored if they will lose too many votes.

JMHO, but recent decades in the US have seen social conservatives well aligned with political conservatives. My comment above was focused on the reality that, here in the US at least, my perspective is that political conservatives would prefer the whole issue of powerful men behaving badly would just go away since the issue has much greater potential to benefit the political left. On the other hand, social conservatives who are in that camp from a religious ideology background should welcome the push to bring back a more old fashioned views on morality and decorum.

Maybe I'm dead wrong in all that thought process. Personally, I do not align with either the political left or right. I am concerned about issues, and I tend to base my views on issues based on what I understand from scripture (which I do believe to be infallible). Neither camp in the political spectrum aligns anywhere close to perfect with scripture, so I end up being apolitical. I think this whole thread resonated with me because in the theological spectrum I guess I do end up being considered a conservative, but I also was totally behind the women who spoke up when the MeToo movement started.

 

[Paidiske]

Thanks, that's helpful.

So is it a fair summary of your thought, that social conservatives are values-driven, but political conservatives are driven by the desire to preserve social and economic power and privilege?

It strikes me that in so many of the particularly bruising issues of the day - abortion, for example - the concerns of these two groups align very neatly.