About the articles to translate

Ten Lies of Feminism

Article contributed by Probe Ministries

Visit Probe's website
Feminism made promises it couldn't keep. Probe's Sue Bohlin examines ten lines of
feminism identified by Dr. Toni Grant from a Christian perspective.

This essay examines the ten lies of feminism that Dr. Toni Grant suggests in her
book Being a Woman.{1}
At its inception, the feminist movement, accompanied by the sexual revolution, made a
series of enticing, exciting promises to women. These promises sounded good, so good
that many women deserted their men and their children or rejected the entire notion of
marriage and family, in pursuit of "themselves" and a career. These pursuits, which
emphasized self-sufficiency and individualism, were supposed to enhance a woman's
quality of life and improve her options, as well as her relations with men. Now, a
decade or so later, women have had to face the fact that, in many ways, feminism and
liberation made promises that could not be delivered.{2}

Lie #1: Women Can Have It All

The first lie is that women can have it all. We were fed an illusion that women, being
the superior sex, have an inexhaustible supply of physical and emotional energy that
enable us to juggle a career, family, friendships and volunteer service. Proponents of
feminism declared that not only can women do what men do, but we ought to do what
men do. Since men can't do what women can do--have babies--this put a double burden
on women. It wasn't enough that women were already exhausted from the never-ending
tasks of child-rearing and homemaking; we were told that women needed to be in the
work force as well, contributing to the family financially.
Scripture presents a different picture for men and women. The Bible appears to make a
distinction between each gender's primary energies. The commands to women are
generally in the realm of our relationships, which is consistent with the way God made
women to be primarily relational, being naturally sensitive to others and usually valuing
people above things. Scripture never forbids women to be gainfully employed; in fact,
the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 is engaged in several part-time business ventures, in
real estate and manufacturing. Nonetheless, it is the excellent care of her husband, her
children, her home and her community that inspires the praise she is due. Titus
2 instructs older women to mentor younger women, and teach them to care for their
husbands and children and homemaking responsibilities. The God-given strengths of a
woman were given to bring glory to God through her womanly differences
Lie #2: Men and Women are Fundamentally the Same

Apart from some minor biological differences, feminism strongly suggested that males
and females are fundamentally the same. Culture, it announced, was responsible for
turning human blank slates into truck-wielding boys and doll-toting girls. This lie has
been very effective at changing the culture. My husband Ray and I offer a seminar at
Probe's Mind Games conferences called "Guys Are From Mars, Girls Are From Venus,"
where we go over the major differences between the sexes. Men, for instance, tend to be
more goal-oriented and competitive, where women are more relational and cooperative.
Men are active; women are verbal. This is intuitively obvious to the adults in our
audience, but it is often new news to high school and college students. We find adults
nodding with smiles of recognition, some of them nudging each other in the ribs. In the
younger members of the audience, though, we see "the lights come on" in their eyes as
they are exposed to something that is obvious and they probably already knew was true,
but feminism's worldview had been feeding them a lie. They have been so immersed in
this cultural myth that they had accepted it without question. One young man came up
to me after a session and said he totally disagreed with me, that there are no real
differences between males and females. I asked him if he treated his guy friends the
same way he treated his girl friends, and he said, "Of course!" I asked, "And this doesn't
cause you any problems?" He said no. With a smile, I suggested he come talk to me in
ten years after he'd had a chance to experience real life!
The truth is that God created significant differences between males and females. We can
see evidence of this in the fact that Scripture gives different commands for husbands
and wives, which are rooted in the differing needs and divinely-appointed roles of men
and women.

Lie #3: Desirability is Enhanced by Achievement

The third lie of feminism is that the more a woman achieves, the more attractive and
desirable she becomes to men. The importance of achievement to a man's sense of self--
an element of masculinity that is, we believe, God-given--was projected onto women.
Feminism declared that achieving something, making a mark in the world, was the only
measure of success that merited the respect of others. Women who believed this myth
found themselves competing with men. Now, competition is appropriate in the business
and professional world, but it's disastrous in relationships.

Men do respect and admire accomplished women, just as they do men, but personal
relationships operate under a different set of standards. Men most appreciate a woman's
unique feminine attributes: love, sensitivity, her abilities to relate. Women have been
shocked to discover that their hard-won accomplishments haven't resulted in great
relationships with men. Sometimes, being overeducated hampers a woman's ability to
relate to men. Men's egos are notoriously fragile, and they are by nature competitive. It's
threatening to many men when a woman achieves more, or accomplishes more, or
knows more than they do. Feminism didn't warn women of the double standard in
relationships: that achievement can and does reap benefits in our careers, but be a
stumbling block in our relationships.

The question naturally arises, then, Is it bad for a woman to have a higher degree of
education than the man in a relationship? Is it troublesome when a woman is smarter
than the man? Should a woman "dumb down" in order to get or keep her man? In the
words of the apostle Paul, "May it never be!" A woman living up to the potential of her
God-given gifts brings glory to God; it would be an insult to our gracious God to
pretend those gifts aren't there. The answer is for women to understand that many men
feel threatened and insecure about this area of potential competition, and maintain an
attitude of humility and sensitivity about one's strengths; as Romans exhorts us,
"Honor[ing] one another above yourselves" (12:10).

Not surprisingly, God already knew about the disparity between the sexes on the issue
of achievement. Throughout the Bible, men are called to trust God as they achieve
whatever God has called them to do. It's important for men to experience personal
significance by making a mark on the world. But God calls women to trust Him in a
different area: in our relationships. A woman's value is usually not in providing history-
changing leadership and making great, bold moves, but in loving and supporting those
around us, changing the world by touching hearts. Once in a while, a woman does make
her mark on a national or global scale: consider the biblical judge Deborah, Golda Meir,
Margaret Thatcher, and Indira Ghandi. But women like these are the exception, not the
rule. And we don't have to feel guilty for not being "exceptional."

Lie #4: The Myth of One's "Unrealized Potential"

Lie number four says that all of us--but especially women--have tremendous potential
that simply must be realized. To feminism's way of thinking, just being average isn't
acceptable: you must be great.
This causes two problems. First, women are deceived into thinking they are one of the
elite, the few, the special. Reality, though, is that most women are ordinary, one of the
many. All of us are uniquely gifted by God, but few women are given visible, high-
profile leadership roles, which tend to be the only ones that feminism deems valuable.
We run into trouble when we're operating under a set of beliefs that don't coincide with
reality!

Consequently, many women are operating under unrealistically high expectations of

themselves. When life doesn't deliver on their hopes, whether they be making class
valedictorian, beauty pageant winner, company president, or neurosurgeon, women are
set up for major disappointment. Just being a cog in the wheel of your own small world
isn't enough.

This brings us to the second problem. A lot of women beat themselves up for not
accomplishing greatness. Instead of investing their life's energies in doing well those
things they can do, they grieve what and who they are not. Just being good, or being
good at what they do, isn't enough if they're not the best.
Romans 12:3 tells us, "Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought." Rather
than worrying about our unrealized potential for some sort of nebulous greatness, we
ought to be concerned about being faithful and obedient in the things God has given us
to do, trusting Him for the ultimate results. And we ought to not worry about being
ordinary as if there were some stigma to it. Scripture says that God is pleased to use
ordinary people, because that's how He gets the most glory. (See 1 Corinthians 1:26-
31.) There is honor in being an ordinary person in the hand of an extraordinary God.
Lie #5: Sexual Sameness

The fifth lie of feminism is that men and women are the same sexually. This lie comes
to us courtesy of the same evil source that brought us the lies of the sexual revolution.

The truth is that women can't separate sex from love as easily as men can. For women,
sex needs to be an expression of love and commitment. Without these qualities, sex is
demeaning, nothing more than hormones going crazy.

The cost of sex is far greater for women than for men. Sex outside of a committed,
loving relationship--I'm talking about marriage here--often results in unplanned
pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and profound heartbreak. Every time a woman
gives her body away to a man, she gives a part of her heart as well. Sexual "freedom"
has brought new degrees of heartache to millions of women. The lie of sexual equality
has produced widespread promiscuity and epidemic disease. No wonder so many
women are struggling with self-esteem!

God's commands concerning sex take into account the fact that men and women are not
the same sexually or any other way. He tells us to exercise self-control before marriage,
saving all sexual expression for the constraints of a marriage relationship, and then to
keep the marriage bed pure once we are married. When we follow these guidelines, we
discover that God's laws provide protection for women: the security of a committed
relationship, freedom from sexual health worries, and a stable environment for any
children produced in the union. This high standard also protects men by providing a safe
channel for their sexual energies. Both chaste single men, and faithful husbands, are
kept safe from sexual diseases, unwanted pregnancies with women other than their
wives, and the guilt of sexual sin.

Lie #6: The Denial of Maternity

Many women postponed marriage and childbearing to pursue their own personal
development and career goals. This perspective denies the reality of a woman's
reproductive system and the limitations of time. Childbearing is easier in a woman's 20s
and 30s than in her 40s. Plus, there is a physical cost; science has borne out the
liabilities that older women incur for themselves and their babies. Midlife women are
more prone to have problems getting pregnant, staying pregnant, and then experiencing
difficult deliveries. The risk of conceiving a child with Down's Syndrome is
considerably higher in older mothers.{3} Fertility treatment doesn't work as well for
women over 40.{4}
There is also a spiritual dimension to denying maternity. When women refuse their
God-ordained roles and responsibilities, they open themselves to spiritual deception and
temptations. 1 Timothy 2:15 is an intriguing verse: "But women will be saved through
childbearing." One compelling translation for this verse is, "Women will be kept
safe through childbearing," where Paul uses the word for childbearing as a sort of
shorthand for the woman's involvement in the domestic sphere--having her "focus on
the family," so to speak.(5) When a married woman's priorities are marriage, family and
the home, she is kept safe--protected--from the consequences of delaying motherhood
and the temptations that beleaguer a woman trying to fill a man's role. For example, I
know one married woman who chose to pursue a full-time career in commercial real
estate, to the detriment of her family. She confessed that she found herself constantly
battling the temptation to lust on two fronts: sexual lust for the men in her office and her
clients, and lust for the recognition and material things that marked success in that field.
Another friend chose her career over having any children at all, and discovered that like
the men in her field, she could not separate her sense of self from her job, and it
ultimately cost her her marriage and her life as she knew it. The problem isn't having a
career: the problem is when a woman gets her priorities out of balance.
Lie #7: To Be Feminine Is To Be Weak

In the attempt to blur gender distinctions, feminists declared war on the concept of
gender-related characteristics. The qualities that marked feminine women--softness,
sweetness, kindness, the ability to relate well--were judged as silly, stupid and weak.
Only what characterized men--characteristics like firmness, aggressiveness,
competitiveness--were deemed valuable.

But when women try to take on male qualities, the end result is a distortion that is
neither feminine nor masculine. A woman is perceived as shrill, not spirited. What is
expected and acceptable aggression in a man is perceived as unwelcome brashness in a
woman. When women try to be tough, it is often taken as unpleasantness.
Unfortunately, there really is a strong stereotype about "what women should be like"
that merits being torn down. A lot of men are threatened by strong women with
opinions and agendas of their own, and treat them with undeserved disrespect. But it is
not true that traditionally masculine characteristics are the only ones that count.

There really is a double standard operating, because the characteristics that constitute
masculinity and femininity are separate and different, and they are not interchangeable.
To be feminine is a special kind of strength. It's a different, appealing kind of power that
allows a woman to influence her world in a way quite distinct from the way a man
influences the world. It pleased the Lord to create woman to complement man, not to
compete with him or be a more rounded copy of him. 1 Corinthians 11:7 says that man
is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. Femininity isn't
weakness; it's the glorious, splendid crown on humanity.
Lie #8: Doing is Better Than Being

In his book Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus{6}, John Gray pointed out
that men get their sense of self from achievement, and women get their sense of self
from relationships. Feminism declared that the male orientation of what you do was the
only one that mattered; who you are, and how important you are to the people in your
world, didn't count for as much.
This lie said that active is good, passive is bad. Traditional feminine behaviors of being
passive and receptive were denounced as demeaning to women and ineffective in the
world. Only being the initiator counted, not being the responder. "To listen, to be there,
to receive the other with an open heart and mind--this has always been one of the most
vital roles of woman. Most women do this quite naturally, but many have come to feel
uneasy in this role. Instead, they work frantically on assertiveness, aggression, personal
expression, and power, madly suppressing their feminine instincts of love and
relatedness."{7}
Women's roles in the family, the church, and the world are a combination of being a
responder and an initiator. As a responder, a wife honors her husband through loving
submission, and a woman serves the church through the exercise of her spiritual gifts.
As an initiator and leader, a woman teaches her children and uses her abilities in the
world, such as the woman of Proverbs 31. God's plan is for us to live a balanced life--
sometimes active, sometimes passive; sometimes the initiator, sometimes the responder;
at all times, submitting both who we are and what we do to the Lordship of Christ.
Lie #9: The Myth of Self-Sufficiency

The ninth lie is the myth of self-sufficiency. Remember the famous feminist slogan that
appeared on everything from bumper stickers to t-shirts to notepads? "A woman without
a man is like a fish without a bicycle." The message was clear: women don't need men,
who are inferior anyway. The world would be a better place if women ran it: no wars,
no greed, no power plays, just glorious cooperation and peace.

The next step after "women don't need men" was logical: women don't need anybody.
We can take care of ourselves. Helen Reddy's hit song "I Am Woman" became
feminism's theme song, with the memorable chorus, "If I have to, I can do anything / I
am strong / I am invincible / I am woman!"

Of course, if women don't need anybody except themselves, they certainly don't need
God. Particularly a masculine, patriarchal God who makes rules they don't like and
insists that He alone is God. But the need to worship is deeply ingrained in us, so
feminist thought gave rise to goddess worship. The goddess was just a female image to
focus on; in actuality, goddess worship is worship of oneself.{8}
The lie of self-sufficiency is the same lie that Satan has been deceiving us with since the
Garden of Eden: What do you need God for? We grieve the Lord's heart when we
believe this lie. Jeremiah 2:13 says, "My people have committed two sins: they have
forsaken Me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns
that cannot hold water." God made us for Himself; believing the lie of self-sufficiency
isn't only futile, it's a slap in God's face.
Lie #10: Women Would Enjoy the Feminization of Men
The tenth lie of feminism is that women would enjoy the feminization of men.
Feminists believed that the only way to achieve equality of the sexes was to do away
with roledistinctions. Then they decided that that wasn't enough: society had to do away
with genderdistinctions, or at the very least blur the lines. Women embraced more
masculine values, and men were encouraged to embrace more feminine characteristics.
That was supposed to fix the problem. It didn't.
As men tried to be "good guys" and accommodate feminists' demands, the culture saw a
new type of man emerge: sensitive, nurturing, warmly compassionate, yielding. The
only problem was that this "soft man" wasn't what women wanted. Women pushed men
to be like women, and when they complied, nobody respected them. Women, it turns
out, want to be the soft ones--and we want men to be strong and firm and courageous;
we want a manly man. When men start taking on feminine characteristics, they're just
wimpy and unmasculine, not pleasing themselves or the women who demanded the
change. There is a good reason that books and movies with strong, masculine heroes
continue to appeal to such a large audience. Both men and women respond to men who
fulfill God's design for male leadership, protection, and strength.

Underlying the women's liberation movement is an angry, unsubmissive attitude that is

fueled by the lies of deception. It's good to know what the lies are, but it's also
important to know what God's word says, so we can combat the lies with the power of
His truth.

Notes
1. Toni Grant, Being a Woman: Fulfilling Your Femininity and Finding Love. New
York: Random House, 1988.
2. Ibid, 3.
3. March of Dimes, "Pregnancy After
35," www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1155.asp.
4. Jodi Panayotov, "IVF & Older Women - How Successful is IVF After
40?" ezinearticles.com/?IVF-and-Older-Women---How-Successful-is-IVF-After-
40?&id=636335.
5. Andreas Kostenberger, "Saved Through Childbearing?" (CBMW [The Council on
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood] News, Sept. 1997), p. 3.
6. John Gray, Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. New York:
HarperCollins, 1992.
7. Grant, 9.
8. Mary Kassian, The Feminist Gospel (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1992), p. 159.
©1998 Probe Ministries.
The original version of this article is found at https://www.probe.org/ten-lies-of-
feminism/. Articles and answers on lots of topics at Probe.org.

What is Feminism?

“Every
wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.” ~
Proverbs 14:1
Pinning feminism down to a single definition is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
There are almost as many definitions for feminism today as there are feminists, since
many of the men and women involved in feminist issues disagree philosophically,
theologically, and over the application of their beliefs.
Webster’s dictionary defines feminism thus:
fem·i·nism Function: noun Date: 1895 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and
social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and
interests
But many feminists disagree even over this fairly simplistic definition. As the Oxford
Companion to Philosophy notes, “The strands of feminist thinking in relation to
philosophy have been and continue to be diverse and do not necessarily present a
unified point of view.” [1] Even trying to break down these “diverse strands” can be
dangerous, since this almost inevitably leads to stereotyping or rubber-stamping. But for
the sake of clarity and brevity, I will make an attempt to categorize the various “brands”
of feminism in this article and present the most prominent viewpoints of each
philosophy and its major subsets. Then I will give Beautiful Womanhood’s (LAF) own
definition of feminism and explain why we do not and cannot support any of the
forms of feminism that exist today.
The so-called “women’s movement” had its roots in the late 18th century and picked up
speed in the 1840s, particularly in New England. By the 1910s, it had become organized
and more or less unified around a few key issues, bringing together women of diverse
backgrounds and beliefs. These groups fought mainly for prohibition and the 19th-
amendment (women’s suffrage), although fringe elements (like those headed by
Margaret Sanger) advocated “free love,” forced sterilization of the poor and “unfit,” and
the elimination of marriage and the traditional family. Later, these more extremist
groups would come to dominate feminism in the 1960s during the sexual revolution.
Today’s “Third-Wave” feminists (equity feminists rather than gender feminists) have
worked hard to distance themselves from the radical feminists of that time and have
disavowed much of their foremothers’ philosophy. But there is still a shared foundation
between the radical feminists and their “kinder, gentler” sisters of the 21st century.
Today we have essentially four different strands of feministic thought.
First there are the “equity feminists” who do believe there are inherent differences
between the sexes but seek to promote specific reforms to address what they perceive as
unequal treatment in society (“equal pay for equal work,” etc.). Equity feminists relate
most closely to the “first-wave” feminists of the 1840s-1920s who fought for woman’s
suffrage, prohibition, and the end of the “living wage” law for men (in order to get more
women into the workforce for more pay). Feminists in this camp prefer to distance
themselves from the sexual revolutionaries of the 1960s and tend to be more
conservative in their application of feminism to society.
Next there are the “gender feminists,” who wish to remove any lines of distinction
between men and women in all areas of life. As Thomas Gramstad writes, “There are no
virtues or psychological characteristics belonging exclusively to males, or to females.”
[2] Many of the adherents of gender feminism believe that any psychological or social
differences between men and women are rooted in the oppression of a patriarchal
structure that seeks to make women lesser persons than men. They seek to end
patriarchy and maintain complete egalitarianism between the sexes. One such feminist
goes so far as to say, “True equality of the sexes will come when God is universally
perceived as androgynous. Then, and only then, will there be true equality of the sexes.”
[3] She admits this view is “dangerously blasphemous” and places her beyond the pale
of many mainstream feminists, but she proposes a new definition of “feminist” all the
same, to wit: “A person who supports the theory that God the Mother is equal to God
the Father.” [4] While most gender feminists do not go to this theological extreme, you
do find many within this camp who promote the idea of the “goddess within,” advocate
gender-neutral translations of the Bible, etc. Gender feminists tend to align themselves
with the so-called “second-wave” feminists of the 1960s who are perceived as more
“radical” and activist in their pursuits.
Then you have the “third-wave” feminists of today (mainly Generation Xers and
younger). They have toned down the more radical tenets of the 1960s women’s
movement, but they are generally not as conservative as the equity feminists and tend to
advocate liberal causes such as abortion on demand. One third-wave feminist is Amy
Richards of feminist.com, who writes,
There are many definitions of what a feminist is–the simplest and probably the best is
what is listed in most dictionaries–“a person who believes in the full equality of women
and men.” This means anyone–male or female–who supports this idea can be a
feminist. As for [the] goal of feminism, [it] is equality–and that means both that women
do what men have done (be fire fighters and corporate executives) and that men do
what women have done (be stay-at-home fathers and secretaries). [5]
Finally, there’s the new “fourth wave” of feminism, which is the most confused and
disjointed of all. It includes women who embrace “raunch culture,” where pole-dancing
and stripping are considered just as empowering as voting or serving in high elected
office, but it also includes women who reject the “porn-as-empowerment” movement
and decry female exploitation. In this last wave, feminism has come to the logical end
of its earliest conclusions, when feminists like Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Gove
Nichols decried marriage and advocated so-called “free love.” With respect for female
virtue and freedom from exploitation essentially erased from modern culture by the
feminist movement, it is more than a little mind-boggling to read modern feminists
who can’t figure out how we got to a point where women willingly strip for strangers,
but now want to revolt against what their own hands have wrought. That schizophrenia
characterizes the fourth wave of feminism. [6]
There are, of course, feminists of all stripes among these philosophical camps. To
further complicate matters, feminists within each camp often differ drastically over the
application and practice of their philosophy. The “fringe” elements on both sides have
alienated many women, who seek to distance themselves from the more radical
elements of feminism. Steve Roby writes about the frustrating difficulty of trying to
find a united feminist “voice”:
Maybe it’s time for some organization to claim feminism as its own intellectual
property. Patent it, trademark it, license it, but most importantly, clearly define what
feminism actually is today. Then we could just look for a feminist seal of approval on
any new book about feminism. Unfortunately, there’s no licensing body, no Institute of
Professional Feminists. There’s no one true definition of feminism. Does it focus on
individual or collective rights? Does it seek a common ground or does it foster
division? Does it oppose pornography or does it oppose censorship? Depends who you
ask. Put Andrea Dworkin, Nadine Strossen, Susan Faludi, and Christina Hoff Sommers
in one room, and wait for a feminist consensus to develop. You may have to wait until
two or three of them have died of old age before reaching that consensus. [7]
Radical, liberal feminism is primarily what we address here at Beautiful
Womanhood/LAF — feminism which cries out against a perceived “oppressive
patriarchy” and insists men and women are the same in all areas of life, including (as
one feminist has noted) in their physical abilities. [7] However, we also oppose any
other forms of feminism that seek to redefine womanhood apart from the Word of God.
We realize this may immediately cause many readers to dismiss us as “right-wing
fundamentalists” or “victims of the patriarchy,” but we ask those readers to extend the
same courtesy to us that they demand for their own viewpoints. Believing in the
coherence, infallibility, inspiration, and applicability of the Scriptures does not
make us women who turn off their brains or blindly follow religious
dogmas. Rather, we believe that, without an unchanging Standard of Truth, there can be
no consistent logic, coherent thought, or reasoned debate in the first place.
If truth is whatever you make it, then it is pointless to argue at all. Each individual can
live in her own little cosmos of self-created logic and must therefore allow all other
“truths” to co-exist peacefully. This is a logical and moral impossibility, of course.
There is no such thing as a universally “tolerant” individual or society. If we have to
tolerate all forms of behavior, then we must welcome the lawbreaker and treat him with
the same respect and courtesy we do the law-keeper. After all, law cannot be absolute if
we all get to define truth for ourselves. Germaine Greer writes that the “women’s
libbers” of the 1970s “sought the world over for clues to what women’s lives could be
like if they were free to define their own values, order their own priorities and decide
their own fate.” [9] The simple answer is that women’s lives (and men’s!) would be
chaotic if each individual were “free” to define her own values. An individual can no
more peacefully exist in a self-created law-order than a society can adequately restrain
crime when all laws and values are up to individual choice and interpretation. [For more
on this topic, please see the articles we have referenced in our Foundations section.] But
if there is one unchanging Standard for Truth, Logic, and Reason, we have a moral
obligation to study that Standard and conform ourselves to it. Instead of defining
ourselves, we can confidently allow the Standard to define us. We here at Beautiful
Womanhood/LAF believe this defining process is lifelong and challenging, but it is also
beautiful and ennobling.
With this understanding, Beautiful Womanhood/LAF defines feminism as any
philosophy, teaching, or practice that seeks to conform womanhood to its own (human
and therefore fallible) standard. We believe there is one Definer of maleness and
femaleness and that His definition (as Creator of the human race) is perfect. Feminism
began in the Garden of Eden–not in 18th-century France or 19th-century New
England. The tempter invited our first mother to question God’s ability to define
her–“Hath God said…?” (Genesis 3:1). This is the heart of feminism today–a
constant questioning of anyone else’s ability or right to tell us who we are as
women. But with constantly shifting definitions, we do not find happiness, peace, or
fulfillment; we find only Eve’s bitterness and the chaos of a fallen world. Beautiful
Womanhood/LAF believes that the more we seek to conform ourselves to God’s will
for women–to His unchanging definition–the happier and more at peace we will be as
individuals and within the societies we help to build.
This immediately raises questions, of course. “Okay, so we’ll grant that this Standard
for womanhood is correct. But how do you know you are correctly interpreting this
standard? You’re a fallible human just like the rest of us.” And this is quite true.
Christians differ widely over their interpretations of Scripture (thus all the various
denominations in existence). There are probably just as many “brands” of Christians as
there are strands of feminism. So how do we know we are embracing the right
interpretation of the Standard?
Here at Beautiful Womanhood /LAF, we hold to the orthodox, historical view that we
cannot “interpret” God’s Word at all; rather, it must interpret itself. We cannot
select favorite passages or commands and pull those out of context to force meanings
out of the Word for our own convenience. The Word must be taken as it has been
delivered to us–as a complete whole and from cover to cover. Obscure or difficult
passages must be interpreted by comparison with other sections of the Bible. We cannot
impose our own feelings or even our current social constructs upon God’s Word; it must
impose its universal truths and definitions upon us. (For an excellent explanation of
contextual interpretation, see “Never Read a Bible Verse” by Gregory Koukl.) Through
the help of the Holy Spirit, the believer must approach Scripture with humility, not
seeking to “define her own values,” but seeking to be defined by values that reach
beyond our times, current trends, popular opinion and fad theology. Is this a difficult
task? Yes, of course. As fallen human beings, we do not have the benefit of completely
clear minds and unobstructed reason. We are tainted by sin. Even on our best days, we
cannot claim perfect understanding of the Scriptures. But we have hope. Our hope is in
Jesus Christ, Who has redeemed us from sin and promises to fill us with His own Spirit,
Who will “bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you”
(John 14:26). We also have the promise of sanctification–the ongoing, progressive work
of Christ in our lives over time, drawing us closer to His beauties and helping us to
throw off the “old man” of sin.
Those of us who run Beautiful Womanhood /LAF do not in any way believe that we
have achieved perfection. We do not believe that we are living examples of the
excellencies of God-defined womanhood. We are sinners in need of grace. We fail at
the very things we strive to uphold through this website. In short, we are human. But
our failures do not negate the Standard that calls us to be women according to God’s
plan. Part of the Christian walk is getting up again and “pressing on” after a fall,
running the race with diligence in spite of setbacks (Hebrews 12:1,2). When we point
out the fallacies and foibles of feminism, we do so first by looking in the mirror. There
is feminism, staring back at us. Feminism is nothing less than rebellion against God’s
created order, and all of us are guilty of that rebellion in some degree. So, does that
make us hypocrites? How can we criticize the feminist movement if we are guilty of its
errors? The short answer is that we are commanded to do so.
St. Paul tells us that we are to bring “into captivity every thought to the obedience of
Christ” (II Corinthians 10:5). In every single area of life, we are to strive to capture all
thoughts and bring them under the subjection of Christ’s law-word. We must seek to
root out the remnants of the sin nature which is “crucified with Christ” (Galatians 2:20)
and “die daily” (I Corinthians 15:31) to our own selfish desires. As we strive in our own
lives (through the help of the Holy Spirit–never in our own strength) to conquer sin and
obey God’s Word, we are also to admonish others to do the same. St. Paul called
himself the “chiefest of sinners” (I Timothy 1:15), yet he rebuked, corrected and
exhorted his fellow sinners by the authority and power of God’s Word (not his own
authority). God calls older women (sinners all) to “teach the young women to be sober,
to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home,
good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Titus
2:4-5). And He calls all of us as Christians to “[cast] down imaginations, and every high
thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (II Cor. 10:5).* Christ exhorts
us to “first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast
out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). So we are here first to stand
against the feminism that looks back at us from the mirror. We are here to humble
ourselves and come into greater conformity with God’s Word. Then, being fully
confident in the ability of Scripture to change lives, we are here to proclaim that God’s
Standard for womanhood is rich, it is beautiful, it is life-affirming, and it is excellent.
Feminism cannot hope to make whole women out of us. In trying to make women into
all things (into its own image), it makes them into caricatures of women. C.S. Lewis,
writing about the medieval view of Nature, made this brilliant observation: “There were
things above [Nature] and things below. It is precisely this limitation and subordination
of Nature which sets her free for her triumphant poetical career. By surrendering the
dull claim to be everything, she becomes somebody.” [10]
“By surrendering the dull claim to be everything, she becomes somebody.” What a
beautiful, profound statement! When I no longer have to be everything in order to feel
“equal,” I am free to be someone–a unique individual with her own sphere in life to
make meaningful and lovely. My realm of influence suddenly becomes clear and well-
defined, and my authority over that realm becomes something tangible and feasible.
A tee-shirt sold by feminist.org declares, “Feminism is the radical notion that women
are people.” But this is no “radical notion” at all, and it is certainly not the brilliant
deduction of feministic thinking. Patriarchy does not deny the personhood of women.
Adhering to a Biblical vision of womanhood does not make a woman a non-person.
Rather, a full-orbed understanding of womanhood as God defines it affirms the
uniqueness of the woman and her place as co-regent of the human race. Feminists (in
the broadest sense) have claimed for years that they are the sole champions of women’s
rights, health, safety, and mental well being. This is simply not true. Look into any area
of life, and you will find that God’s Law was already there and already extending
protection to women–married, single, widowed, destitute. Property rights? Numbers
27:7 & 8 has that covered, along with Proverbs 31:14 & 16 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17.
Inheritance rights for daughters? See Numbers 27:7 & 8 and 36:8, along with Genesis
48:5 & 6. Education for women? The foolish (unwise) woman in Scripture is roundly
condemned from cover to cover. The ideal woman is wise (Prov. 31:26), clever (Esther
4:16 & 17), prudent (Prov. 19:14), diplomatic (I Samuel 25), able to make serious
decisions capably (Prov. 31:16), able to manage all that is entrusted to her (Prov. 31:15,
27), and able to teach others (Titus 2:4,5). You just don’t find brainless women upheld
as models in the Bible. What about protection from bodily harm? Just read all of the
legal punishments in Exodus 21 for the abuse of a subordinate, then turn over to
Ephesians 5:28 & 29, where husbands are commanded to love their wives exactly as
Christ loved the Church. There is no room for abuse (mental or physical) in that picture,
and the Church is to serve as a refuge for those fleeing evil. (For more examples of how
Scripture protects and exalts women, see our FAQs.)
Women who are against feminism are not against property, inheritance, or educational
“rights” for women, nor are we in favor of spousal abuse and “doormat-ism.” We
believe that all of the “rights” and privileges we enjoy come straight from the hand of
God. Feminism didn’t give them to us, and feminism certainly cannot guarantee them.
Only the God Who created us and gave us the laws that make society possible can
guarantee justice and peace. Has the Church always perfectly upheld this Standard? By
no means. We do not make that claim at all. The Church has failed in times past and
will fail again. Where the Church has departed from the Word of God, it has fallen on
its face in many areas. Whenever we seek to define ourselves apart from the only
unchanging Standard, we will fail. Within ourselves, we do not possess a flawless
“moral compass,” nor can we create our own values and truths and hope to live in
peaceful coexistence with others.
Beautiful Womanhood /LAF stands against “every high thing that exalteth itself against
the knowledge of God” (II Cor. 10:5). We stand against the rebellion that confronts us
in our own mirrors first, then we seek to refute the rebellion that exalts itself elsewhere
over God’s created order. Specifically, we want to strip away the mask from that ancient
“father of lies,” who seeks to convince us that we must make ourselves in our own
image and disbelieve what the Creator has called “good.” Instead of the insidious “Hath
God said?” of the tempter, we invite you to consider the “And God said!” of the Biblical
worldview. True freedom and true contentment abide in the unchanging Definer of
humanity. Created in His image, our hearts find rest (as Augustine so aptly noted) when
they rest in Him.
Coram Deo, Jennie Chancey
NOTES:
[1] The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press 1995. Link
[2] Gramstad, Thomas. “What Is Feminism?” Link
[3] Webster, Genie. “A New Definition of Feminist.” Link
[4] Ibid.
[5] Richards, Amy. “Ask Amy.” Link
[6] Please note that I am not saying feminists in particular are schizophrenic; only that
this fourth-wave movement is. Two opposing worldviews (pro-raunch and anti-raunch)
now coexist rather confusedly together in this latest version of the “pro-woman”
movement.
[7] Roby, Steve. “Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women, by
Christina Hoff Sommers” (book review), 1995 (Revised May 1996). Link
[8] According to Colette Dowling, “Differences in athletic performance are purely a
result of the patriarchy’s ‘hidden agenda of keeping women in their place by keeping
them believing in their weakness.’ She insists that ‘studies show gender to be barely
relevant as a predictor, or limiter, of athletic performance. What really counts are
acquired skills, trained muscles, and movement efficiency that comes from refined
technique.’” Quoted in “Why Feminists Aren’t Funny” by Jonah Goldberg. National
Review Online, June 12, 2002 Link .
[9] Greer,Germaine. The Whole Woman. Link
[10] Lewis, Clive Staples, The Discarded Image. Cambridge University Press: 1964,
page 39. * LAF has been labeled “scary” and “dangerous” by detractors. Some folks
apparently believe that we are going to encourage women to go on some kind of
political campaign to yank working women out of offices by force and burn down
daycare centers. This is so ludicrous it is almost amusing. As we note in our FAQs, any
“movement” promoting Biblical womanhood cannot be carried off from the top down.
That is called tyranny and is not countenanced by Scripture. God’s method of
“revolution” is really reformation and always begins in the heart of the individual–not in
the courtrooms or on the Senate floor. Only Christ can change hearts, and one of the
ways He does this is through the proclamation of His Word (“Faith comes by hearing
and hearing by the Word of God” ~ Romans 10:17). We are here simply to affirm what
the Bible teaches about God’s role for women and to invite others to submit themselves
to that beautiful design. We aren’t doing it at gunpoint or by marching on the halls of
Congress. Unfortunately, the radical feminists do not share this understanding. They
have been lobbying on behalf of “all women” for years and have done quite a lot of
damage with their top-down legislation that forces our families to give our tax dollars to
things we cannot in good conscience support (abortion, government education,
international sterilization programs, etc.). Why do those wielding such power find
women who stay at home with their children and serve their husbands “scary” and
“dangerous?” They’ll have to explain their logic themselves. We cannot comprehend it.
Recommended Resources
The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say
Passionate Housewives Desperate for God
She Shall Be Called Woman: Victoria Botkin’s Study of Practical Wisdom From
Scripture for the 21st Century Woman
Let Me Be a Woman

What does the Bible say about feminism? Should a Christian be a feminist?

Subscribe to our Question of the Week:

Submit

Question: "What does the Bible say about feminism? Should a Christian be a
feminist?"

Answer: This question is especially important to Christian women. Does the Word of
God address feminism? The modern concept of feminism was not present during the
time that the Bible was written, but that does not mean the Bible has nothing to say on
the basic issues of feminism. Even when the Scriptures seem to be silent on something
that affects us today, there are eternal principles that speak to the underlying issue.

First, we should define feminism, since the term can have different meanings for
different people. Basically, feminism is a philosophy that advocates equal rights for
women and men—socially, politically, economically, and in other ways. Early feminists
fought for and won suffrage for women. Today’s feminism goes further than demanding
equal treatment of men and women, however. Modern feminists fight for language
equality (saying “chairperson” instead of “chairman,” even if the person in question is
male) and gender equality (redefining femininity and masculinity). The more radical
feminists actively seek to overthrow any vestige of male dominance in society, to the
point of opposing the biblical roles of husbands and wives, defending abortion on
demand, and promoting lesbianism. Radical feminists deny there is any difference
between men and women, teaching that any perceived differences between the sexes are
due solely to social conditioning.
Modern feminism is a counterfeit solution to the real issue of the inequality of women
in a sinful society. Feminism arrogates to itself the right to demand respect and equality
in every aspect of life. Feminism is based in arrogance, and it is the opposite of the call
to the born-again believer to be a servant. The modern, militant feminists call women to
rise up and rebel against the order that God has given to mankind. That brand of
feminism seeks to impose humanistic values in direct opposition to the Word of God.
Feminism was originally a positive movement, focused on giving women the basic
rights God intends for every human being to have. Tragically, feminism now focuses on
destroying all distinctions in the roles of men and women.

What then should be a Christian’s view of feminism? A believing woman, who is

seeking to obey God and walk in peace and grace, should remember that she has equal
access to all spiritual blessings in Christ. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor
free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). A believing
woman should not allow herself to be used as a pawn in the worldly agenda of the
feminist movement. Men and women have a God-given privilege to fulfill the plan He
has set for us. Rebellion against that plan and the arrogance that seeks to put self above
God’s Word bring difficult consequences. We see those consequences in the destruction
of the relationship between husbands and wives, the destruction of the family, and the
loss of respect for human life.

“For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the
boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world” (1
John 2:16). The principles of the fall are present in this verse. Eve believed the lie that
eating the fruit would bring her wisdom. She lusted, and she took something that was
forbidden. This is the basis for the modern feminist movement. Women have bought
into the lie that feminism will bring them the power and freedom they think they want
and deserve. However, the promise is empty, for the premise is rooted in pride—and
pride goes before a fall (Proverbs 16:18).

The last decades have seen the rise of a society that is so concerned with political
correctness and so sensitive to being “offended” that civility has lost its way. However,
this is really nothing new, for there has always been inequality in the world. It is sad but
true that artificial barriers have always divided humanity—barriers that have no basis in
God’s Word. It is sin in the heart that causes inequality. It is sin that causes men to treat
women in ways that are meant to demean or objectify them. And it is sin that seeks
counterfeit solutions to counteract these inequalities. The only true cure for inequality is
obedience to God’s Word. If men and women would walk in obedience to God’s Word,
radical feminism would be seen for what it is, and the harmony that God has ordained
between men and women would result.

Recommended Resource: A Woman After God's Own Heart by Elizabeth George

Question: "Is feminist theology biblical?"

Answer: The term feminism itself is subject to many different interpretations, with
varying levels of biblical support. “Feminist theology,” however, presents a number of
major problems. Please note, there are themes within feminism that the Bible strongly
endorses. The point here is not that all feminist or pro-female ideas are inherently
unbiblical—some are extremely biblical. The point is that re-interpreting the Bible for
the sake of female empowerment or a feminist-political agenda is a flawed and
unsupportable exercise.

First of all, adding any philosophical descriptor to theology is automatically suspect. It

implies the theology is being interpreted with the deliberate intent of supporting an
ideology; that the ideology comes first. This is backwards, since we ought to adjust our
philosophy to match God’s words, not the other way around. When someone touts “X
theology,” he is skewing theological interpretation in order to support “X.” This is the
case with so-called feminist theology, a term used to describe several different attempts
to alter the Bible toward a preferred conclusion.

Feminist theology comes at different levels and in different areas. Four topics are most
frequently challenged for the sake of female empowerment. These are the use of
masculine language for God, female submission in marriage, the ordination of women,
and reproductive rights. Advocates of feminist theology can point to legitimate support
for at least some part of their ideas. The problem occurs when what the Bible says is
stretched, taken out of context, or even ignored for the sake of the feminist
interpretation.

Feminist theology often criticizes the use of male pronouns for God. According to this
position, referring to God as “He,” “Him,” or “Father” degrades the status of women.
As some advocates would say, “If God is a man, then men are gods.” The alternative is
to refer to God only using gender-neutral terms such as the Divine or to balance the
offending terms with female equivalents such as She, Her, and Mother.

In this matter, however, feminist theology is opposing something that the Bible itself
does not say. The Bible does not present God as literally, biologically male. Nor does it
indicate that women are morally or spiritually inferior. God’s choice to refer to Himself
using masculine words in no way implies that men are superior to women. Further, the
Bible does not “balance” male and female terminology with respect to God. God is
sometimes described using female illustrations (Psalm 57:1; Isaiah 42:14; 66:13), but
He is never referred to using female gender words. When God refers to Himself, He
always does so using masculine terms. The better interpretation is that there is
something particular to the role of “Father” that better describes God’s intended
relationship with us, more so than the role of “Mother.” Changing the words of God
merely to satisfy a gender-neutral preference is a dangerous form of biblical editing.

The submission of wives to husbands is also a target of feminist theology. Given that
the Bible admonishes Christians to “submit to each other” (Ephesians 5:21) and
indicates that men and women are spiritually equal (Galatians 3:28), feminist theology
claims that women ought not actually “submit” to their husbands. Some go so far as to
claim that marital submission makes women inferior to men.

Once again, this aspect of feminist theology not only defies what the Bible itself says,
but it also creates theological contradictions. If the command to submit “to each other”
is taken to the absolute, as feminist theology suggests, then children ought to expect
submission from their parents. Likewise, if a person cannot be subordinate to another
without being inferior, it would mean Jesus Christ is not actually God, nor equal to God,
since He submitted to the Father’s will (Luke 22:42). There is a biblical mandate for
wives to submit to husbands. Of course, the Bible also says that husbands are to love
their wives “as Christ loved the church” (Ephesians 5:25–26), which means to love
them humbly (Philippians 2:8), sacrificially (Galatians 2:20), and with a servant’s heart
(John 13:4–5, 14–15). The Bible does not give men license to be tyrants over their
wives, but it does prescribe unique and important roles for men and women.

The ordination of women as pastors or priests is another area where feminist theology
conflicts with sound biblical teachings. Using the same general arguments as above,
feminist theology claims women should take on the same positions of spiritual
leadership as men, with no distinction of roles. Of course, this claim relies less on
interpretation of the Bible than on blatant rejection of its teaching as outdated or invalid.
The role of women in the church and in the home is not inferior to that of men in any
sense, but that role does not include headship (1 Timothy 2:12). The Bible does not
imply that men can never learn from a woman or be guided by one, but it does indicate
that titles such as “priest” and “pastor” cannot be legitimately claimed by women.

Perhaps the least biblically based attack from feminist theology involves the concept of
“reproductive rights,” a common but extremely misleading term. In principle,
“reproductive rights” would mean a woman has the right to choose whether or not to
have children and with whom. Stated that way, it is a biblically sound concept.
However, in practice, the term reproductive rights is almost always a euphemism for the
right to abortion-on-demand. Once again, in order to support this branch of feminist
theology, much of what the Bible says has to be abandoned outright. The killing of
unborn children under the guise of “reproductive rights” is patently anti-biblical.

Some aspects of feminist theology are re-interpretations or misinterpretations of biblical

ideas. Gender-inclusive language and the exact meaning of marital “submission” are
contentious and sometimes cloudy topics. However, the ordination of women requires
an almost complete rejection of biblical authority. And abortion-on-demand, without
question, is totally incompatible with any honest approach to Scripture.
The Bible values, protects, and supports women. Aspects of feminism that empower
women can easily find support in God’s Word. Feminist theology, which seeks to re-
shape the Bible according to a political agenda or a personal preference, cannot.

Recommended Resource: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A

Response to Evangelical Feminism by Piper & Grudem

Does a wife have to submit to her husband?

Subscribe to our Question of the Week:

Submit

Question: "Does a wife have to submit to her husband?"

Answer: Submission is an important issue in relation to marriage. Here is the plain

biblical command: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the
Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his
body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives
should submit to their husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:22–24).

Even before sin entered the world, there was still the principle of the headship of the
husband (1 Timothy 2:13). Adam was created first, and Eve was created to be a "helper"
for Adam (Genesis 2:18–20). God has established several types of authority in the
world: governments to enforce justice in society and provide protection; pastors to lead
and feed the sheep of God; husbands to love and nurture their wives; and fathers to
admonish their children. In each case, submission is required: citizen to government,
flock to shepherd, wife to husband, child to father.

The Greek word translated “submit,” hupotasso, is the continuing form of the verb. This
means that submitting to God, the government, a pastor, or a husband is not a one-time
act. It is a continual attitude, which becomes a pattern of behavior.

First, of course, we are responsible to submit to God, which is the only way we can
truly obey Him (James 1:21; 4:7). And each Christian should live in humble, ready
submission to others (Ephesians 5:21). In regards to submission within the family
unit, 1 Corinthians 11:2–3, says that the husband is to submit to Christ (as Christ did to
God the Father) and the wife is to submit to her husband.

There is much misunderstanding in our world today about the roles of husband and wife
within a marriage. Even when the biblical roles are properly understood, many choose
to reject them in favor of a supposed “emancipation” of women, with the result that the
family unit is torn apart. It’s no surprise that the world rejects God’s design, but God’s
people should be joyfully celebrating that design.

Submit is not a bad word. Submission is not a reflection of inferiority or lesser worth.
Christ constantly submitted Himself to the will of the Father (Luke 22:42; John 5:30),
without giving up an iota of His worth.

To counter the world’s misinformation concerning a wife’s submission to her husband,

we should carefully note the following in Ephesians 5:22–24: 1) A wife is to submit to
one man (her husband), not to every man. The rule to submit does not extend to a
woman’s place in society at large. 2) A wife is to willingly submit to her husband in
personal obedience to the Lord Jesus. She submits to her husband because she loves
Jesus. 3) The example of a wife’s submission is that of the church to Christ. 4) There is
nothing said of the wife’s abilities, talents, or worth; the fact that she submits to her own
husband does not imply that she is inferior or less worthy in any way. Also notice that
there are no qualifiers to the command to submit, except “in everything.” So, the
husband does not have to pass an aptitude test or an intelligence test before his wife
submits. It may be a fact that she is better qualified than he to lead in many ways, but
she chooses to follow the Lord’s instruction by submitting to her husband’s leadership.
In so doing, a godly wife can even win her unbelieving husband to the Lord “without
words” simply by her holy behavior (1 Peter 3:1).

Submission should be a natural response to loving leadership. When a husband loves his
wife as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25—33), then submission is a natural
response from a wife to her husband. But, regardless of the husband’s love or lack
thereof, the wife is commanded to submit “as to the Lord” (verse 22). This means that
her obedience to God—her acceptance of His plan—will result in her submission to her
husband. The “as to the Lord” comparison also reminds the wife that there is a higher
authority to whom she is responsible. Thus, she is under no obligation to disobey civil
law or God’s law in the name of “submission” to her husband. She submits in things
that are right and lawful and God-honoring. Of course, she does not “submit” to
abuse—that is not right or lawful or God-honoring. To try to use the principle of
“submission” to justify abuse is to twist Scripture and promote evil.

The submission of the wife to the husband in Ephesians 5 does not allow the husband to
be selfish or domineering. His command is to love (verse 25), and he is responsible
before God to fulfill that command. The husband must exercise his authority wisely,
graciously, and in the fear of the God to whom he must give an account.

When a wife is loved by her husband as the church is loved by Christ, submission is not
difficult. Ephesians 5:24 says, “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives
should submit to their husbands in everything.” In a marriage, submission is a position
of giving honor and respect to the husband (see Ephesians 5:33) and completing what
he is lacking in. It is God’s wise plan for how the family should function.

Commentator Matthew Henry wrote, “The woman was made out of Adam’s side. She
was not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon
by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near
his heart to be loved.” The immediate context of the commands to the husband and wife
in Ephesians 5:19–33 involves the filling of the Spirit. Spirit-filled believers are to be
worshipful (5:19), thankful (5:20), and submissive (5:21). Paul then follows this line of
thought on Spirit-filled living and applies it to wives in verses 22–24. A wife should
submit to her husband, not because women are inferior (the Bible never teaches that),
but because that is how God designed the marital relationship to function.

Recommended Resource: A Woman After God's Own Heart by Elizabeth George

Why Feminism and Christianity Can’t Mix

By: Kristen Clark

Let’s play a quick game. It’s called “What comes to mind when you hear the
word?” Here we go.

First word: Men.

What came to mind? Be honest.

Next word. Marriage.

What popped into your head?

Next word: Equality

Hmmm…that’ll get a variety of thoughts. What’d you think of?

Last word: Feminism

Oh yeah. Now we’re getting controversial.

What was the first thing that popped into your head when you read that word?
 Great job! You successfully played your first game of “What comes to mind when you
hear the word?”

If I played that game in a large auditorium with 50,000 women from all walks of life,
the answers would be shockingly diverse. Especially when it comes to the word
feminism. This word is controversial to say the least.

Feminism is an interesting topic though because nobody can quite seem to nail
down its definition.

You know why? Because it has dozens and dozens of definitions. It wears a lot of hats.

A woman who claims to be a feminist could affiliate with one or more of the following
camps:

 Liberal Feminism
 Radical Feminism
 Marxist and Socialist Feminism
 Moderate Feminism
 Postmodern Feminism
 Separatist Feminism
 Cultural Feminism
 Eco-Feminism

And many, many others. They keep evolving as time goes on. All of these titles mean
something a little different too. It’s hard to keep up.

There’s one common camp I haven’t mentioned yet. It’s the most widely advertised
camp and seems to be the one Christian women tend to join.

It’s called equality feminism.

After blogging on a topic about feminism we (GirlDefined) usually receive one or two
emails from girls saying things like, “Feminism is a great thing! It fights for equality
between men and women.” Or, “You are harming women by opposing feminism!”

In fact, one girl recently wrote us a long comment explaining why feminism is so great.
She said, “Feminism is essentially about creating more opportunities for women than
previous generations had.”

She obviously aligns with the camp of “equality feminism.” And I can see why.
Equality feminism sounds good. Really good.
So is there anything wrong with being a Christian woman and labeling yourself as
a feminist?

Well, let’s check out the definition of equality feminism. Read it slowly. “equality
feminism focuses on gaining equality between men and women in all domains (work,
home, sexuality, law).”

Sounds good.

But did you catch that? Equality feminism focuses on gaining equality in all domains.
In a nutshell it means this: Equality for women won’t happen until all traditional
gender roles in all domains are equal…as in the same. We’re not equal with men
until women can freely swap lifestyles and roles with them.

In most feminists’ eyes, equality means women must have the same jobs as men. Same
life plans as men. Same roles in marriage as men. Same roles in parenting as men.

Am I wrong?

Ask any woman who claims to be a feminist if she is in favor of a wife submitting to her
husband in marriage. She will rarely say yes. Why? Because she believes equality with
men means sameness.

Equality feminism clothes herself in a charming outfit with a warm smile and says,
“We’re just innocent, harmless women…all we really desire is to be viewed as equally
valuable as men.”

If that’s truly all feminism was concerned about, this post could end in the next
paragraph. But it’s not. Not even close. Feminism always puts the “equality” front
towards the camera because it’s the most attractive side.

And that’s exactly why we receive emails from Christian girls asking why we’re
against feminism.

They see the enchanting tip of the feminist iceberg and wonder, “Why is a Christian
website like GirlDefinedagainst women having equal value as men?”

If these girls took a quick second to poke their heads underwater, they would quickly
see the gigantic mass hiding underneath.

The fact is, GirlDefined is 100% in favor of equality between men and women. That
should be obvious. We even wrote an article on it (here). And you know what? We
didn’t think of it first and neither did feminism.

God did.

From the beginning of time God clearly stated that “God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).
 Equally valuable humans.

BUT…

It doesn’t end there.

The man and the woman were created by God to be equal in value but different in
roles. God didn’t design us to be the same. He didn’t design us to do all the same
things. He created one male and one female with differing roles and jobs.

He created two different genders on purpose and for a purpose.

Most feminists aren’t too fond of God’s design for gender.

They don’t like the idea of the man being dubbed as the primary leader, initiator, and
provider. They don’t like the idea of Eve being created as a helper to Adam. They just
don’t like these things.

Feminism has rejected God as the ultimate authority for life and instead placed herself
on the throne. The god of feminism pridefully says, “I know better than God and will
live out my womanhood how I think is best.”

In addition to not liking God’s design for gender, equality feminism stands for far more
than it’s friendly name suggests. If you do a little homework you’ll quickly discover
how many other “women’s rights” issues equality feminism promotes. Let’s dive
beneath the surface to see how big and narley this iceberg really is.

Right NOW (today) almost all feminist groups strongly stand for the following:

 A woman’s right to abort (murder) her unborn baby.

 Lesbianism and the right for women to marry women.
 Complete liberation from sexual boundaries and morals.
 Freedom from traditional gender roles in marriage.
 Rejection of God as the ultimate authority in life.

The average American would agree that most feminists strongly stand for the above
causes. I don’t know about you, but those are some serious anti-biblical “rights.” Right?

If you currently claim to be a feminist, I hope you will carefully consider what that
word means and what it’s largely associated with.

Here’s the hard to swallow truth: As a Christian woman, you can’t agree 100% with
God’s Word and agree 100% with feminism at the same time. They just don’t mix in
most areas. In fact, if we threw all of the feminist ideologies into the same pot, the Bible
would strongly oppose 99% of it.
 At its root, feminism is built upon a foundation completely devoid of God. The feminist
movement is woven with the same sin Satan committed in the beginning. A rebellious
heart that pridefully says, “I don’t need you, God. Thanks, but I’ll do things my way.”

When we reject God’s created order and purposes for our lives as women, we will
not find lasting happiness.

We will not find lasting fulfillment. We will not find lasting peace. Why? Because as
C.S. Lewis says, “God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself,
because it is not there. There is no such thing.”

A secular study published in the UK Daily Mail confirmed this fact as well, “Women
are less happy nowadays despite 40 years of feminism, a new study claims. Despite
having more opportunities than ever before, they have a lower sense of well-being and
life satisfaction.”

We don’t need feminism to inform us of our worth and value.

God already says we’re equally valuable. We don’t need to become feminists to
promote this area of biblical teaching. What we do need is to lovingly show all women
how valuable and precious they are to God. We need to re-embrace God’s design for
marriage, family, dignity of life, and sexuality. We need to repent of our pride and
accept God’s Word as the authority in our lives.

Feminism has never offered a solution that the Bible hasn’t already taken care of.

God’s Word has all the answers we need. In Christ, we (men and women) will find all
the fulfillment, worth, value and purpose this life has to offer.

How about you? Where do you stand?

 In what ways has the ideology of feminism seeped into your worldview? Do you need
to repent of having a heart of pride before God?
 Do you look to feminism to answer your questions about womanhood? If so, have their
answers satisfied you?
 What mindset changes do you need to make so God’s Word becomes the authority in
your life?
 Will you take a step of obedience by trusting your Creator’s design for your
womanhood?

I’d love to chat about this topic with you below! Feel free to share what’s on your
mind.
Quiz: Are you a socialist feminist?
(Feminist Theories and Feminist Psychotherapies by Carolyn Enns)

Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Authored by Edna Rawlings and Diane Carter in 1977)

Indicate your level of agreement for each item by using the following scale:

Don't agree 1
Slightly agree 2
Moderately Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Completely Agree 5

1) Women must gain full economic rights and independence in order to be guaranteed
the freedom and civil liberties they are entitled to.

2) Women will only gain full equality with men when institutions and social
relationships are changed.

3) Financial resources should be redistributed so that adequate education, child-care,

and work are available to all.

4) Education, work, parenting practices, and sexuality (reproductive freedom) must be

restructured in order to eliminate male domination and other oppressions.

5) Some of the most significant issues facing women include comparative worth issues,
guaranteed maternity and paternity leave, and the feminization of poverty.

6) Oppression has multiple causes based on gender, class, and race distinctions.

7) Economic institutions are the source of some of the most virulent forms of
oppression.

WHY FEMINISM IS WRONG/

why feminisms are wrong
There are many different kinds of feminism. Some feminists prefer to use the word in
the plural: feminisms. Nevertheless this site attempts to reject all of them. Some of
them, such as libertarian feminism, are even difficult to distinguish as a feminism - it
seems to be 100% libertarianism, without any specifically feminist component. But that
does not mean that the category 'feminist' can be expanded to include anything and
everything. It is more likely to indicate, that libertarianism and feminism share a
political-philosophical core.

Feminism argues, from gender, for the existing world

Post-structuralism is a classic syncretist ideology. If the post-structuralist sees a

boundary, she demands at once that it should be "overcome" or "crossed" or
"transgressed". Post-structuralist feminism, which is often called post-feminism, is full
of this syncretist rhetoric.

It has a great emotional appeal, but syncretism is ultimately conservative. The

normative statements of syncretists are based on what could be called the "syncretist
fallacy". That has several forms: that fused entities are superior to non-fused entities,
that any fusion is preferable to any non-fusion, that an ideal universe should contain
only fused entities. None of these propositions are inherently true, and no obligation to
fuse derives logically from the existence of separate entities.

In social-political terms: a world containing unfused entities does not become good as
these entities fuse. Yet this is the core belief of political syncretism: the moral
equivalence of "syncretic" with "good", and the political equivalence of "fusion" with
"innovation". Most explicit are cultural syncretists, especially the pan-syncretists - who
see a global syncretic culture as the ultimate political goal. A global fusion of 1000
ancient cultures would not create an innovative culture: it would create a global
museum. But for the syncretist, it is an exciting future. In other words, the syncretist
prefers the fusion of existing entities to their destruction and replacement by new
(unfused) entities. And once the pan-syncretist nirvana of total fusion is reached, the
syncretists would reject any further innovation.

This conservative aspect of political syncretism is also a feature of post-structuralist

feminism. All the boundaries which must be 'transgressed' are the boundaries of existing
entities. To deliberately create new separate entities, is to create new boundaries, new
separations, new dualisms. Innovation itself is the creation of a new border, a new
dualism - between old and new. The post-structuralist feminist would logically reject
any of these innovations. However, I never saw this issue discussed in this abstract way.
The hostility of post-structuralists to non-syncretic innovation must be inferred, from
their general hostility to separation and boundary.

Their underlying formal claim, for the preservation of the existing, might look like this.

 the world contains x and y

 x and y are divided, separate, unfused, and bounded entities
 division, separation, and boundary are wrong: they should be overcome or
ended
 the world should contain no divided, separate, unfused, and bounded entities -
neither existing, nor new
  action to fuse x and y is morally preferable, to any innovation producing a new
unfused entity z

For an example of how this works, see Are cars cyborgs? Cyborgs, transsexuals, and
transgendered people, fascinate syncretist feminists, who have adopted them as a sort of
mascot. Syncretist feminists also share the interest of cultural syncretists, in cross-
border cultures.

United Genders of Earth

The ideology "genderism" is to gender, as nationalism is to nation. Nationalists have a

normative, positive attitude to nations. A "genderist" feminist is one who sees gender
differences as positive, and believes they should exist. The genderist rejects the post-
structuralist emphasis on the dissolution of difference. Most genderism is in the forms
of womens identity feminism, but its mirror image in the men's movement is equally
genderist. Hypothetically, it is possible to be a genderist and deny that women constitute
a gender. (Nationalists often do this. They may insist that a nation is the only legitimate
unit of state formation, but deny that their own secessionist minorities constitute a
legitimate nation).

The term genderism is not widely used. Nevertheless, some feminisms have such clear
structural parallels with nationalism, that they can be considered a neo-nationalism.
(The American author bell hooks is a good example of borrowing from 19th-century
European nationalisms). The only thing that is missing is a a specific territory. No
evidence exists for a historical women-only territory, a homeland: in fact I never saw
any such claim.

The world order of nation states is an "order of coterminous states covering the entire
land surface, formed by transgenerational identity communities, claiming a monopoly
of state formation, and eternal legitimacy." A world order of genders is not spatially
coterminous in this way, but it is inclusive: no person may be 'genderless'. No inhabited
part of the world is gender-free.

The main parallel is that both a gender and a nation are transgenerational, identity-based
communities. There is no such thing as a 5-minute nation, and no 5-minute gender
either. Nationalism theory can indicate collectivities which are clearly not a nation, such
as a sports club. So could gender theory, if it was a major issue. (It is an issue in
nationalism theory, because it defines who has the right to legitimate secession, to a
separate state). So although there are many disagreements on the essence or
construction of nations and genders, that does not mean the terms are meaningless. It is
possible to be anti-genderist, just as it is possible to be anti-nationalist: to say no to the
entire world order.

In the academic world, the parallel with nationalism is evident in the institution of
Women's Studies. Women's Studies are to women, what Slovak Studies are to Slovaks.
These academic departments are consciously modelled on the departments of national
history / national literature, established in 19th-century Europe. More recently, there are
departments of Gender Studies, which are modelled on Ethnic Studies departments, but
also parallel nationalism research. Just as research into Slovak history implies that the
Slovak nation has value, Women's Studies imply that the female gender has value. It is
possible to destroy the collective memory of a nation, for instance by burning its
archives, and in theory it would be possible to destroy the collective memory of women
in this way also. However nationalists rigorously oppose such a break with the past.
And logically, gender feminists would oppose it also. The world of nations is oriented
to the past because of their transgenerational nature: that applies to the world of genders
as well.

The feminist orientation towards the transgenerational community of women was often
called "identity feminism". It was often labelled "separatist", and some feminists used
that name to describe themselves. But just as with nationalism, separatism does not
imply disagreement on gender itself. Some nationalists believe that Slovaks should have
a separate nation state from Czechs. Some nationalists believe they should live together
in a Czecho-Slovak federal state. Some people once believed in a single Czechoslovak
nation. Some nationalists believe that "Czech" is a colonialist construct, concealing
historical oppression of Moravia by Bohemia. All of these are still nationalists. It is
largely a historical accident, that some are separatists, and others the anti-separatists. In
a similar way, some gender feminists want more separation of the genders than others:
but that does not invalidate the categorisation as "genderist".

The ethics issue is not whether gender exists, but whether it should exist. What if aliens
land on earth, and genetically convert all humans into physically identical clones,
speaking the same language, and with identification numbers instead of names. Is that a
loss? It is for the nationalist - and it would be, for most gender feminists. The
oppression and discrimination would be gone, but also centuries-old cultures. Yet in an
ethic of innovation, the aliens would be welcome to do this. By destroying identity and
culture, they would innovate, and facilitate further innovation. A feminism that
constitutes a movement for the preservation of gender is conservative, and therefore
wrong.

Feminism as political connectionism, a contra-separative ideology

Connectionism is originally a philosophical term, but it is also useful to describe a

political and moral preference among feminists. Many feminists promote care,
interaction, and discourse. For some, separation is a male principle. A few feminists
promoted a sex-specific ethic of binding, using the umbilical cord as a metaphor for
women-specific connectionism. The most important connectionist feminism is
cyberfeminism, which had great hopes about the Internet. The rise of e-commerce has
tarnished this ideal, somewhat.

Metaphors of 'web' or 'weaving' were used by feminists, before they were applied to
electronic communication. In fact the weaving metaphor (for society) dates back to
classical antiquity, but the new interactivist or connectionist ideology is a development
of the European liberal tradition. In the free market models of society, the participants
are linked by a web of transactions. This aspect of liberalism is ignored by the
communitarian critique of "individualised' liberal societies. Like, the market,
connectionism is an imposition on its opponents, and often justified by historicist
arguments about its inevitability. It is also inherently wrong, in its fundamental rejection
of all separative innovation. Cyberfeminism is a small movement, largely of feminist
artists and philosophers, but is potentially a legitimising ideology for a global free-
market economy with a large ICT sector. The cyberfeminist Sadie Plant once defined
cyberfeminism as "an insurrection on the part of the goods and materials of the
patriarchal world, a dispersed, distributed emergence composed of links between
women, women and computers, computers and communications links, connections and
connectionist nets". An explicit connectionist ethic would probably include:

 a 'duty to connect', to create and maintain networks of connections

 a corresponding prohibition of isolation
 a model of society as a network
 a rejection of non-networked societies, and probably a belief in increasing
connectedness, as central historical process

All of these can certainly be found in the early propaganda of cyberspace - "Everyone
online!". But apart from this now-outdated cyberfeminism, connectionism is not a core
doctrine of feminism.

Why human rights are wrong

Why democracy is wrong
Why is NATO wrong?

My 2 Cents: Feminism, Stereotypes, and Experiences

It's not experiences or stereotypes that should guide our decisions
Written by Rachel Miller | Monday, March 30, 2015

When we move past experience and stereotypes to biblical truth, we find that there are
some things that are absolutes on which we should not budge. And there are other
things that are matters of discernment and liberty. We should be kind but firm on the
one, and gracious and flexible on the other.
Last week, I read a post “If I Had a Million Dollars (Why I’m Not a Feminist)” by
Shannon Popkin. It’s an article written in response to another post, “If I Had a Dollar
(Why I Am a Feminist)” by Anna Fonte. Both women wrote about their experiences:
growing up, fathers, mothers, daughters, families, men, fulfillment as a woman.
Both articles make some interesting points, but each falls short of getting to the heart of
what feminism is and why it should be embraced or rejected.

The terms “feminist” and “feminism” are used often but the meaning is variable. Most
historians consider there to have been three waves of feminism. First wave feminism
took place in the late 1800s to early 1900s. It was mainly concerned with legal rights.
Most people are familiar with the suffrage movement to give women the right to vote.
But there were other legal rights that the first wave feminists sought. These include: the
right to inherit property, shared ownership of their children, the right to own property,
the ability to execute wills and make legal decisions for their children, and the ability to
be a legal witness in a court case. The first wave feminists also wanted to improve
opportunities for women in education and in the workplace.

While some may argue with me about this, these goals were admirable ones. Before this
time women were truly at the mercy of others and often unprotected. A woman whose
husband died or left her might find herself with no money, no shelter, and very few
good options for employment.

In the 1960s, a second wave of feminism began. While these feminists were also
concerned about inequalities in the workplace and in the laws, many were pushing for
what would be called “reproductive rights.” Abortion, contraception, and less
restrictions on sexuality were part of what this wave is known for. Not all women
agreed, however. Many women who were for “equal pay for equal work” were not in
favor of abortion. There is still a significant group of feminists who are pro-life.

Other goals from the 1960s-1980s include ending discrimination in the workplace and
courts, awareness of domestic violence, and confronting the objectification and
exploitation of women through prostitution and pornography.

Second wave feminism is more of a mixed bag when considering the good and bad of
the movement’s goals. Abortion and “casual sex” have, and continue to, hurt many
women. No fault divorce, along with these, has allowed many men to abandon women
and children with little responsibility for their welfare.

Interestingly enough, it was a disagreement among some feminists over issues such as
prostitution and pornography that lead to a distinct third wave. The third wave of
feminism began in the 1990s and has been well-known for it’s focus on gender and
sexuality. Many third wave feminists embrace a very fluid definition of gender and an
unrestrained and open sexuality. There is nothing that I can commend in these goals.
Considering the three waves of feminism, there are some good things that have come
from the first and second waves. If you are a single woman who lives on her own, owns
her own home, and has a good job you have these women to thank for much of that. If
you have never been asked in a job interview when your last period was (they wanted to
know if you might be pregnant and likely to leave the job) you owe that to these
women. If you are a woman who has an education and job opportunities for decent
employment, you are benefiting from the work of these women.

But it isn’t all good. As I pointed out above, there are some really awful things that have
been brought about by the various waves of feminism. Abortion, casual sex, open
sexuality, fluid gender: these are wrong and have brought about nothing but hurt.

There is also a very ugly side to the modern feminist movement: the demeaning and
devaluing of men. It is very common today to hear women say that men are worthless,
that women don’t need men, that women are better than men. Men are often the butt of
jokes as clueless or useless. This is very ugly and completely wrong.

Back to the two articles I mentioned at the start. I believe that both articles are weak
because they focus mainly on experiences and on stereotypes. Anna (why I am a
feminist) explains how men have hurt her and her mother. She chooses abortion because
of what was happening in her life at the time. She uses her life history to show that she
doesn’t need a man because from her history men are not to be trusted.

Shannon (why I am not a feminist) explains from her own history how her dad and her
husband have cared and provided for her and her family. She and her mother embraced
traditional roles as homemakers and mothers. She feels happy and fulfilled because
being a mother and homemaker is better and more fulfilling than any career or other
way of life. She sees feminists as angry and less happy. She uses her life history to show
what it means to be “not a feminist.”

Anna’s piece is very sad to me. She has been hurt by men and lied to by those who told
her abortion was the answer. She has scars from her childhood and needs desperately to
be loved and forgiven as only Christ can. She’s wrong about men. Some men are
wicked and untrustworthy. But that’s not the way it should be.

Shannon’s article is frustrating to me. She’s had a good life. She has a husband and
children. Her husband has been able to provide in such a way that she is able to be at
home and care for her family. But I’m concerned that her emphasis on fulfillment
through husband and children will hurt women who do not have the same experiences.

Is this the only way or even the best way for Christian women to find fulfillment? There
are many single women around, godly women who would love to be married and have a
family. But God has not provided that for them. Are they less fulfilled? Do they have
less value if they serve God through their career and friendships? What about women
who help to provide for their families through their work? Are they less worthy of
praise? Are they “feminists” because they work outside their homes? And what about
the barren women? Are they less fulfilled because God hasn’t filled their arms with
children?
While I think it’s very important to stand for good things life family, homes, marriages,
and child-rearing, we should not created a checklist of what it means to be a good
woman beyond what Scripture teaches. The Proverbs 31 woman, among other
examples, was a woman of many talents who was busy providing for her home as well
as caring for her household.

So as far as feminism goes, I’m thankful for the good, and I reject the bad. Would I
call myself a feminist? No, especially not given the modern feminist movement. My life
experiences, both good and bad, are not the reason I’m “not a feminist.” My reasons are
based not on stereotypes, but on objective truth.

My own list would look like this:

 Men and women are both created in the image of God and equal in Christ
 Husbands and wives are different and need each other
 Husbands are called to be the spiritual leaders of their homes and wives are called to
submit to that leadership
 Ordained leaders in the church should be men
 Men and Women are fulfilled by glorifying God in all they do through the callings
and gifts that God has given them individually
 What that looks like will be different for each man and woman
 Abortion is always to be rejected.
 Sexuality is to be expressed in marriage.
 Marriage is between one man and one woman.
 Divorce should only be the result of adultery, abandonment, or abuse.
When we move past experience and stereotypes to biblical truth, we find that there are
some things that are absolutes on which we should not budge. And there are other
things that are matters of discernment and liberty. We should be kind but firm on the
one, and gracious and flexible on the other. May we build each other up in Christ.

Rachel Miller is News Editor for the Aquila Report. She is also a homeschooling mother
of 3 boys and member of a PCA church in Spring, Texas. This article first appeared on
her blog, A Daughter of the Reformation, and is used with permission.

Related Posts:

Can We Be Christian Feminists?

Katie McCoy November 19, 2015 Feminism, Theology 9 Comments

2

Feminism has been getting a facelift lately. From Beyonce’s 2014 VMA performance,
to Emma Watson’s U.N. “He for She” campaign, women are identifying themselves as
feminists to champion a broad umbrella of issues. Essentially, being pro-women is
considered synonymous with feminism.

It’s occurring among evangelical Christians, too. Earlier this year, the millennial-
oriented, faith-and-culture publication, Relevant Magazine, featured an article entitled,
“5 Ways the Bible Supports Feminism” on its website, making points like, “God intends
male and female to contribute their unique strengths to benefit each other and the
world,” and “Humans are sinful and Christians are called to fight injustices.”[1] Who
could disagree with that? So, the article reasons, Scripture must agree with feminist
beliefs. In her 2013 book, Jesus Feminist, Sarah Bessey said Jesus made a feminist out
of her, calling women to explore “God’s radical notion that women are people,
too.”[2] She also stated that, “until being a Christian is synonymous with doing
something about these [injustices against women], you can also call me a
feminist.”[3] For the globally minded woman compelled to speak out for the silenced,
Bessey hits a nerve.

On the academic front, consider the 2011 work, Tamar’s Tears: Evangelical
Engagements with Feminist Old Testament Hermeneutics, which claimed, “[I]t is
possible to be an evangelical feminist biblical scholar.”[4] In the chapter, “Can our
Hermeneutics[5] Be Both Evangelical and Feminist?” Todd Pokrifka stated that a
feminist approach to Scripture is not only congruent with evangelical Christianity, it is
also the morally highest expression of evangelical Christianity. In his own words:
“[M]any of the hallmarks of feminist hermeneutical approaches to the Bible should be
embraced by evangelicals precisely because they are a natural outflow of biblically-
based evangelical theological convictions about God (especially God’s justice), and
humans (sinfulness and fallibility as writers and reader) and about God’s work
(redemption). That is, an evangelical hermeneutic not only is compatible with much of
feminist hermeneutics, but it may spur one to adopt feminist hermeneutical convictions
and approaches.”[6] For Pokrifka, feminist theology and evangelical theology work
together.
In a nutshell, since feminism advocates that women are equal in value and dignity,
and the Bible also proclaims women have equal value and dignity, then many
conclude that feminism and the Bible must agree. But can we mix feminist and
evangelical approaches to the Bible? Will the basic ingredients of feminist ideology
work with the basic ingredients of evangelicalism? To answer this, we have to look at
the foundations upon which both of these views are built.

The Foundation of Feminist Theology: Women’s Experience Determines Truth

Within a feminist approach to theology, women’s experience both interprets Scripture

and determines whether or not Scripture is true. The feminist reader filters the biblical
text through her personal awareness of women’s collective experiences (most often
experiences of oppression). These experiences determine what in the Bible is valid.

According to Pamela Young, discovering women’s feminist experience is a process of

self-realization.[7] This self-realization involves seeing how women have been
conditioned or socialized into being controlled and dominated by other men. Instead of
defining themselves, women have conformed to men’s expectations.[8] For example,
behaving in stereotypically “feminine” ways (i.e. like a “lady”) and fulfilling
stereotypically feminine roles (i.e. being a nurturer) are examples of women’s socialized
experience. The whole goal of this process of self-realization is for women to stop
defining themselves on male terms, and to define themselves on their own terms.

And the conclusions of this process are nonnegotiable. Women’s experience is plaintiff,
judge, and jury in deciding what the Bible really means, and how it applies to us today.
For feminist theologians like Katherine Greene-McCreight, women’s experience is
superior to biblical revelation. As she says in Feminist Reconstructions of Christian
Doctrine, “[th]e Bible is authoritative but carries no ultimate or overriding
authority.”[9] For Greene-McCreight, women’s experience is placed over and against
Scripture.

So how does a feminist interpreter determine whether or not a biblical text is valid?
Rosemary Radford Ruether, one of the most notable theologians in feminist history,
suggested this: “The critical principle of feminist theology is the promotion of the full
humanity of women.”[10] So far, so good…But that’s not the whole story. Ruether also
claimed, “[W]hatever diminishes or denies the full humanity of women must be
presumed not to reflect the divine or an authentic relation to the divine”[11] This means
the individual woman’s perspective is the deciding factor in determining what it true
(i.e., promoting the full humanity of women) and is false (i.e., denies the full humanity
of women). For instance, if an individual woman determines that the boundary in 1 Tim
2:11-15 or the account of woman’s creation in Gen 2:18-25 diminish her full humanity,
she must dismiss them as concepts that don’t completely reflect God’s character or
intention.

Ultimately, within a feminist approach to the Bible, the reader judges Scripture to
determine what is true, and what is false.
The Foundation of Evangelical Theology: Scripture is God’s Self-Revelation.

Within an evangelical approach to theology, Scripture is the highest authority. This is so

foundational that if you changed it, you’d no longer be talking about
evangelicalism. The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology defines an
evangelical as an orthodox Protestant, “[w]ho has a preeminent place for the Bible in
her or his Christian life as the divinely inspired, final authority in matters of faith and
practice.”[12] That would include the final authority over experience. For an approach
to be considered truly evangelical, Scripture can have no rival.

Consider the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), written and affirmed by
evangelicals and often considered a theological benchmark.[13] According to the
Statement, “Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is
essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.”[14] Among its
affirmations, the Statement claims, “that the written Word in its entirety is revelation
given by God;” “that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of
the original, were given by divine inspiration;” “[and] that Scripture in its entirety is
inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.”[15]

This approach to Scripture is incongruent with the feminist conviction that we can (and
must) determine whether or not a biblical text is true.

Can We Be Both Feminist and Evangelical?

In their purest forms, feminism and evangelical are incompatible. It is simply

impossible to maintain two different theologies that have two different (and competing)
sources of ultimate truth. The conviction that Scripture is the highest authority is
incongruent with the belief that women’s experience is the highest authority.

Despite how popular it’s becoming to identify evangelical Christianity with theological
feminism, these two worldviews have clashing claims. And, eventually, one of them
will give way to the other. In trying to make one perspective sound like the other, we
end up distorting them both.

While modern feminism may advocate for some worthy causes – such as issues of
women’s dignity that we, as the Church, are also responsible for – we don’t need to
borrow from feminist ideology to make our Christianity relevant. The belief that women
have equal value is a biblical concept, not a feminist one (Gen 1:27-29). Just look at
Jesus treated women to realize that women’s dignity is a biblical value, one that the
Church does not owe to a secular, social movement.

No, we cannot really be both feminists and evangelicals. But, in our conviction that the
Bible is pro-women, we don’t have to be.
[1]Amy Buckley, “5 Ways the Bible Supports Feminism,” RELEVANT Magazine [on-
line], 29 April 2015; accessed 27 July 2015; available
from http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/worldview/5-ways-bible-supports-
feminism; Internet.

[2]Sarah Bessey, Jesus Feminist (Brentwood: Howard Books, 2013).

[3]Ibid., 172.

[4]Todd Pokrifka, “Can our Hermeneutics Be Both Evangelical and Feminist? Insights
from the Theory of Practice of Theological Interpretation,” ed. Andrew Sloane, Tamar’s
Tears: Evangelical Engagements with Feminist Old Testament Hermeneutics (Eugene:
Pickwick Publications, 2012), xii.

[5]Hermeneutics means the process of interpreting the Bible.

[6]Pokrifka, “Can our Hermeneutics Be Both Evangelical and Feminist?,” 327

[7]Young, Feminist Theology/Christian Theology, 55.

[8]Ibid., 55.

[9]Greene-McCreight, Feminist Reconstructions of Christian Doctrine, 48.

[10]Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk, 18.

[11]Ibid., 19.

[12]Timothy Larson, “Defining and Locating Evangelicalism,” in The Cambridge

Companion to Evangelical Theology, eds. Timothy Larsen and Daniel J. Treier,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1.

[13]While not every evangelical considers herself an “inerrantist,” The Chicago

Statementdemonstrates the widespread belief among evangelicals that Scripture is
entirely true, trustworthy, and accurate in all it affirms.

[14]“Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” Preface.

[15]Ibid., Articles 3,6, and 12, respectively.

Retha
November 21, 2015 at 7:38 am
Katie McCoy, I see you did some homework: You can gives multiple sources for
believers who call themselves feminists. That is good! But you do not give evidence
for “The feminist reader filters the biblical text through her personal awareness of
women’s collective experiences (most often experiences of oppression). These
experiences determine what in the Bible is valid.”

That is firstly a redefinition of femism, and secondly a statement of which, between

feminism and the Bible, is most important to the Christian feminist. Both allegations are
baseless.

1) Redefining feminism:
Feminism, according to the dictionary, is believing in equal social, economical, etc.
opportunities for men and women, and working to achieve such equality for
women.
Others would rather define feminism as freeing women from oppression. One of the
reasons is that “freedom from oppression” makes it easier to see why feminists concern
themselves with things like rape laws.
Feminism is does not mean reading everything in the light of female experiences. When
feminism argues for thinking from a female experience, it is in opposition to always
thinking from only the male experience. It is not about women replacing God, but about
women adding the other part of the truth in a world that speak mostly from the male
perspective. Of course, in a world where God calls believers not to lord it over others, to
love others as ourselves, where Jesus can be seen in the least, God calls us to see the
perspective of those who are undervalued as much as the perspective of the top dogs.
Ultimately, a Christian follows God and not human perspective. But caring about the
perspective of women (too), and not just men, is good.

2) Telling us which will be the highest priority of the Christian feminist:

If a Christian is into helping the poor/ freeing people from opression/ encouraging
people to love one another/ making peace, does that mean the highest priority of such a
believer is helping the poor/ freeing people from oppression/ encouraging people to love
one another/ making peace, as opposed to following God?

Many believers testify to having a high view of scripture and God and Jesus – and that
causing them to believe feminist (equality as in Genesis 1 and 2, justice and freedom
from oppression as in multiple sayings of Jesus and others) ideas.

In short, you redefined feminism to call it fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

If you want to make a real case for this incompatibility, you need to compare
evangelical Christianity to the real definitions (equality, justice, freedom from
oppression) of feminism.
The Real War on Women

Katie McCoy June 7, 2012 Culture, Feminism 0 Comments

If this year’s debate about mandated contraception coverage rocked the boat on
women’s reproductive issues, last week’s debate on the legality of gender-selective
abortions officially tipped it over. The debut of two incriminating Planned Parenthood
interviews, staged by the pro-life activist organization Live Action, jolted a nation’s
moral sensibilities to question whether a woman can have an abortion just because she
prefers a baby of the opposite gender. The videos (here and here) revealed a Planned
Parenthood staff member discussing a contingency plan with a patient to terminate her
pregnancy after the baby’s gender had been confirmed. An interview transcript revealed
some of the organization’s other persuasion techniques, including sidestepping post-
abortive side effects, claiming the fetus doesn’t actually have a heartbeat until 17 weeks
(up until then, the sound is called a heart “tone”) and a physician stating, “This is very
safe…Much safer than having a baby. You know, women die having babies.”

Following the release of Live Action’s recordings, the U.S. House of Representative
voted whether to make sex-selective abortions illegal. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination
Act (PRENDA) proposed fines and jail time for, “anyone who performs or attempts to
perform an abortion knowing that the abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color
or race of the child, or the race of a parent.” The legislation failed with a 246-168 vote
against the ban.

But interestingly, the Planned Parenthood sting and PRENDA Bill shut down
appear to be as polarizing as they are provocative. After the kicked-up dust of covert
interviews and congressional debates has settled, the ideological lines in the sand
haven’t moved. Both pro-life and pro-choice groups agree that gender-selective
abortions are a morally repugnant indication of a cultural problem. They just can’t seem
to agree on what that problem is.

Pro-life Americans became incensed at the women’s health organization. The gender-
selective counsel became evidence of an abortion-pushing organization that will stop at
nothing short of a practice resembling communist China in order to carry out a social
goal that didn’t depend on a woman carrying to term. One
Congresswoman called gender-selective abortion, “The ultimate war on women.”

Those holding to a woman’s right to choose agree that gender-selective abortions are
appalling, particularly since they almost invariably favor the male population. Yet, the
sex-selective abortion itself is not considered the source of social sin. Instead, the real
problem is a society enslaved to its own gender discrimination. “(Sex-selective
abortion) happens because boys and men have, on the whole, better lives – more rights,
more opportunities, more freedom – than girls and women. Men are not subject to the
very restrictions on reproductive freedom that Lila Rose and Live Action are
demanding. And that is why some parents want to have boys rather than girls.”[1] The
Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health agree. Doctors say it’s wrong because it
promotes gender bias, claiming the PRENDA bill, “would do nothing to address the
underlying issue of gender inequality, showing that the sponsors’ true purpose is to pass
yet another piece of legislation attacking safe and legal abortion in the United
States.” Thus, the key to ending gender-selective abortions, which would almost
certainly be to the advantage of women and girls, isn’t to end abortions, but instead to
end the gender stereotyping and discrimination that produces the preference for giving
birth to a boy rather than a girl.

And, truth be told, they have a point. Our culture isn’t naturally inclined to value
women.

Feminism tried to fix that. And, at least in appearance, it achieved its goals. No
educational opportunity is denied us. No occupation is out of reach. No lifestyle
preference is off-limits. Women no longer need men to support and provide for them. In
fact, beyond the role of a sperm donor, they no longer even need men in order to
reproduce. In the effort to be free from the control of men, women are now free to talk
like men, act like men, look like men and be sexually aggressive like men. Women are
now so free that they can choose whether they want to give birth to the next generation
of women. Which begs the question, despite this complete social turnaround, why does
gender discrimination still exist? In such a culturally progressive, woman-empowered
world, why would gender-selective abortions still be a threat to women?

We value women’s rights, but we do not value the right to be a woman.

The book of Judges is a sobering picture of some of the same cultural trends we see
today. Throughout the book, women progressively appear in more dominant, even
militant roles. Deborah had to stir a military leader to get up and take action (ch. 4-5),
Jael becomes an unlikely warrior when she assassinated Israel’s enemy (ch. 4). Chapter
nine records a woman who killed a military commander when she dropped a stone on
his head. And finally the unnamed concubine of Judges 19 is the sickening story of an
unprotected women, whose weak-willed husband (a Levite no less) abandoned her to be
repeatedly raped, tortured, and left to die. It’s one of the most blood-boiling accounts in
scripture and it stuns us into realizing just how depraved a once God-fearing nation can
become.

But these women’s stories also tell us something about our own culture: A measure of
a society’s spiritual temperature is how it treats its women. In Whispering the Word:
Hearing Women’s Stories in the Old Testament, Jacqueline E. Lapsley said it this way:
“The state and treatment of women in Judges indexes the health of Israel’s social and
religious life in the same book.” When sacrificial male leadership is absent, women are
mistreated. When the roles are reversed from what God designed them to be, women
are left unprotected (Gen. 2, Eph. 5).

The real war on women happens when it isn’t safe, respectable, or even valuable to
be a woman.

But could it be that the same indications of spiritual and social upheaval in the book of
Judges are the very things we exalt? With the new cultural norms of aggressive women
and passive men, are we fueling and even celebrating the very trends that indicate our
mistreatment? Could it be that as we champion the results of the feminist movement,
which appear to have liberated women, we are actually embracing the unbiblical
patterns that lead to our being valued even less?

The secular rhetoric of cultural feminists and pro-choice organization is accurate:

gender discrimination does still exist. But they’ve misdiagnosed the problem – it’s not
about reversing the roles, but about recovering the God-ordained ones. And their
solution to do away with the distinction between male and female will only take us
further off course. We’ve tried fighting for more .com/2012/05/29/latest-live-action-
video-black-and-white-and-wrong-all-over/

Katie McCoy is pursuing a Doctorate in Systematic Theology at Southwestern

Seminary. When she’s not studying for her classes (a rare occasion!), she loves
hanging out with friends, eating sushi, learning new words and is currently a political
news junkie. Connectwith Katie on Facebook or Follow her Twitter!

First Wave Feminism in America

Candi Finch October 15, 2015 Feminism 3 Comments

Later this month, the movie Suffragette will release in American theaters. I am
eagerly awaiting opening weekend to see how the filmmakers portray the early
movement of feminism in Great Britain as women fought for the right to vote there. In
anticipation of that movie, readers may be interested in learning a bit more about how
the early movement of feminism developed in our own country.[1]

Feminism as a historical movement is usually broken up into three periods of time often
classified as “waves” in order to simplify what is actually a complicated and multi-
faceted movement. Just as a physical wave has a building up of momentum, a crest, and
then a waning of motion, each historical wave of feminism has a buildup, a crest, and a
diminishing of activity. The first wave of feminism in America dates from around 1840
to 1925.

While the key concern of the first wave of feminism was women’s suffrage (from a
French word that means “a vote”), women and men in this movement fought to overturn
many social injustices. Some of the other causes championed by these early feminist
pioneers include:

 abolition (ending of slavery)

 temperance
 child labor reform
 education for women
 marriage laws that gave protection to women

The women (and some men) in this movement responded to specific injustices they had
experienced and fought to bring about change in society. Let’s be honest—these causes
are not bad; in fact, I have often wished the church had been a more vocal champion of
some of these very same issues. However, at the same time that I am grateful for many
of the advances of the first wave of feminism, the underlying message behind this early
movement of feminism often attacked the Bible.

In order to understand any movement, it is important to get to the heart of the message
behind the movement.

One of the best ways to get a grasp on the first wave of feminism is by looking at a few
of its more recognizable proponents:

 Lucretia Mott (1793-1880): a married Quaker minister. She sheltered runaway slaves
and formed the Female Antislavery Society.
 Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902): a staunch abolitionist who was married for
over 50 years and had seven children. In 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention, she
delivered the keynote address “A Declaration of Sentiments,” which was a
declaration of independence for women. She viewed the Bible as a tool used to
oppress women.
 Sojourner Truth (1797-1883): an African American evangelist and reformer who
applied her energies to the abolitionist and women’s rights movements. As the
daughter of slaves, she spent her childhood being abused by several masters.
 Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906): a single woman who began to campaign with
Stanton in 1851 for women’s education, women’s property rights, careers for
women, and the right to vote. She became one of DC’s first major lobbyists.
 Margaret Sanger (1879-1966): one of 11 children born into a Roman Catholic
working-class Irish American family. She fought for birth control, contraception, and
abortion availability for women.

Women like the ones listed above played pivotal roles within the formation or
development of this first wave. Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s bond
formed over their ban from participating in the World Anti-Slavery Convention in
London in 1840, an event that they had been invited to attend. Their friendship sparked
the movement for women to gain the right to vote in America. Stanton later wrote
speeches for Susan B. Anthony who gained more notoriety in the movement because of
her public persona.

Sojourner Truth, an African American women, gave a speech in Akron, Ohio, entitled
“Ain’t I a Woman” in 1851 that highlighted the double oppression that black women
faced. Her famous speech illustrated the fact that, even at its earliest stages, there was
no such thing as a singular feminist movement—it is always best to speak of
“feminisms” and the many facets of the feminist movement since each woman’s
experience was different. A white woman from a middle class neighborhood (as many
of the feminist leaders were at that time) had a different “reality” or “experience” than
an African American woman whose parents had been slaves. They had different
concerns and battles to fight.
Margaret Sanger came on the scene towards the end of the first wave, but it is her
impact that is most forcefully felt today. As a nurse working in a poor immigrant
neighborhood, she treated women who had undergone back-alley abortions. These
experiences galvanized her to fight to make birth control and contraceptives available,
and early in the 1900s, she began to dream of a “magic pill” that could control
pregnancy. She said, “No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously
whether she will or will not be mother,”[2] and she argued that every child should be a
wanted child.[3] She also said, “the most merciful thing that a large family does to one
of its infant members is to kill it.”[4]

Sanger’s work initiated the idea within the popular American consciousness that
children became a burden and not a blessing if a woman could not control her own
fertility. Sanger went on to found the American Birth Control League in 1921, which
later changed its name to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. in 1942.

The key advancements of the first wave were the opening of higher education for
women, reform of girls’ secondary-school systems, the widening of access to
professions like medicine and law, married women’s property rights, some
improvement in women’s child custody rights, and winning the right to vote for women
with the passing of the 19th amendment in 1920.

Despite some noble causes, at the heart of this movement, the Bible was being attacked.
Feminists, even those who claimed some fidelity to Scripture, placed themselves as
authorities over Scripture and viewed God’s Word as an instrument of oppression.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton in her work The Woman’s Bible argued that “all religions on the
face of the earth degrade women; and so long as woman accepts the position that they
assign her, her emancipation is impossible.”[5] Further she said the Bible “does not
exalt and dignify women.”[6]

The message at the heart of the first wave of this movement was that women needed
freedom from oppression. Many of the women in this movement felt that a source of
this oppression was the church, the institution of marriage, and the role of mother.
Exemplified through the efforts of Margaret Sanger, motherhood began to be viewed as
holding women back.

The message of this first wave was that women—not God and certainly not the
Bible—should control and determine their own destiny.

This is a message that shuns God and exalts humanity, specifically women.
Unfortunately, it is a message that American culture has embraced, and to some extent,
the church has allowed to creep within its doors. The essential problem for any
Christian with feminism is that this ideology exalts women and their experience as a
source of truth, and in turn women’s experience becomes more authoritative than
Scripture.

Carolyn McCulley in speaking of the feminist movement in her book Radical

Womanhoodstates, “Right observation does not always lead to right
interpretation.”[7] In my own journey of understanding this historical movement, I have
come to realize that, while the feminist movement had observed correctly some
injustices against women, their “interpretation” of how to solve these problems was
incorrect because they largely abandoned God, His Word, and His plan for humanity.
The only lasting answer to the abuse of women or men is the transformative power of
the gospel. Unlike the message of the feminist movement which points to humanity for
hope, true hope is found only in Christ.

First-wave feminists fought for several worthy causes and fought against real social
injustices. But they also remind us that spiritual transformation doesn’t happen through
social change, but rather the transforming power of God.

[1]This blog is adapted from my chapter, “Impact of Feminism on the Home and
Family” in The Christian Homemaker’s Handbook edited by Dorothy Kelley Patterson
and Pat Ennis (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 37-54.

[2]Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race (New York: Truth Publishing Company,
1920), 94.

[3]Ibid., 74.

[4]Ibid., 63.

[5]Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman’s Bible: A Classic Feminist

Perspective (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, 2002 [1895, 1998]), I:12.

[6]Ibid.

[7]Carolyn McCulley, Radical Womanhood: Feminine Faith in a Feminist

World (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008), 131.

His Wisdom for Her World

 RSS Feed
 Facebook
 Twitter
 Pinterest
Debunking The Purity Myth

Katie McCoy May 14, 2015 Culture, Feminism, Sexuality 5 Comments

“There is a moral panic in America over young women’s sexuality and it’s been
breathing new life into a very old idea,” claims Jessica Valenti, founder of
Feministing.com and author of The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with
Virginity is Hurting Young Women. Dubbed the “poster-girl for third-wave
feminism,” Valenti claims that today’s abstinence-only movement tells a woman that
her value is based solely on what she does (or doesn’t do) with her sexuality – to the
point of ignoring her character, intelligence, and integrity. As a result, the so-called
“purity-pushers” are actually harming a generation of young women, making them even
more sexualized due to the emphasis on virginity/abstinence as “the measure of a
woman’s character.”

While Valenti’s views may seem like the kind of rhetoric you’d hear in hyper-
political arenas, the message may be coming to a high school or college campus
near you. The Purity Myth was recently adapted to a 45-minute documentary by
the Media Education Foundation, a company that “produces and distributes
documentary films and other educational resources to inspire critical thinking about the
social, political, and cultural impact of American mass media,” and specifically targeted
to students in the classroom. The Purity Myth is being marketed to educational
institutions, both secular and religious, with screenings and discussions about “the
virginity movement’s war against women” taking place nationwide.

The Purity Myth claims that the abstinence-only movement, within both government-
funded education and Christian-based organizations, is actually a grand conspiracy – a
programmatic means to a social end. According to Valenti, upholding virginity isn’t
about women’s health or well-being. Instead, it’s about a regressive, socio-political
agenda from conservatives and evangelicals to restore “traditional” gender stereotypes
(with all of the pejorative implications associated with terms like “submission in
marriage” outside a biblical context). “What the virginity movement really wants from
women is submissiveness. There’s a reason why their goal for women is only marriage
and motherhood. The movement believes that that’s the only thing women are meant
for.”

So, according to the Myth, the message of “saving yourself for marriage” that a
young woman heard in her student ministry, youth camp and Christian church
was more about her subjection than her sacredness.

The philosophy has a direct effect on the current birth control debate. Valenti claims
that conservatives and evangelicals have impeded the use emergency contraception
like Plan B or the HPV vaccine for fear that birth control will “promote promiscuity,”
causing women to throw off the conventions of “the purity police,” and society losing
control of women’s roles.

But underneath all of Valenti’s observations and opinions is the belief that one’s
sexuality is separate from one’s morality. Featured on the fourth-hour, “estrogen-
fest” of The Today Show with Hoda Kotb and Kathie Lee Gifford, Valenti defined The
Purity Myth as, “the lie that women’s sexuality has some bearing on who we are and
how good we are, because…we all know that young women are so much more than
whether or not they have sex.” In a recent episode of Anderson Cooper’s daytime talk
show, Valenti stated, “My worry is that by having virginity pledges and Purity Balls,
you’re focusing so much on a girls’ virginity that you’re still sexualizing them. I think if
we want to teach our daughters to be good people, let’s teach them to be good people.
Their sexuality has nothing to do with that.”

But is purity about being “a good person?” Is personal purity even rightly equated
with virginity? Surprisingly, both Valenti and the secular abstinence movement share a
common, foundational paradigm: Sexuality exists for sake of the individual. If a
woman’s sexuality is primarily about her happiness and well-being, then the decision of
whether to wait will be a constant tug-of-war between her cultural influences and the
potential consequences. But God’s Word paints a very different picture of His purpose
for creating sexuality and marriage, and thus, the purpose for personal purity: Sexuality
exists for the sake of knowing the Creator.

In the book Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, John Piper sums up this perspective.
“Sexuality is designed by God as a way to know God in Christ more fully. Knowing
God in Christ more fully is designed as a way of guarding and guiding our sexuality.
God created us with sexual passion so that there would be language to describe what it
means to cleave to him in love and what it means to turn away from him to others.” (26)
Ultimately, His purpose for sexual purity is as foundational as His purpose for creating
us – to know, love, glorify and worship God.

Purity isn’t about conforming to social standards, pleasing parents, avoiding

adverse physical consequences or the risk of unplanned pregnancies. Purity isn’t
even primarily about our own emotional wholeness and psychological well-being.

Purity is about worship.

Conversely, any time we express our sexuality , whether in heart, mind, or body, apart
from its prescribed, created design (Gen. 2:18-25, Eph. 5:22-33), we hijack its purpose
and present it to another. We worship a different god. “All misuses of our sexuality
distort the true knowledge of Christ.” The reason God takes impurity so seriously is that
it so deeply and destructively distorts what He, the Creator, gave to communicate
Himself to us, His creation.

So how might we within the Church be influenced by the concerns raised in

projects such as The Purity Myth?

– Have we presented a woman’s virginity as an indispensable aspect of her

worth?Sadly, Valenti’s observations on this point are often quite accurate. While many
have rightly taught that one’s virginity is a gift to their spouse, the reverse message of a
girl being “damaged goods” who no one worthy would want to be with often
accompanies it, a message that denies the power of God’s grace to heal, forgive and
transform. To the young woman reading this with a past she wishes she could forget,
please know that every person on the planet is “damaged goods” needing God’s
forgiveness. You were worth so much to the God who created you that He came to buy
you back by paying the price for your sin on the cross. (2 Cor 5: 21, Col 1:14) Your
purity, your wholeness, and your identity can be restored in the redemption of Jesus
Christ.

– Have we bought into the lie that “Purity is the new sexy?” In an effort to make
God’s way popular, attractive or cool, have we sacrificed the sacredness, as though
attempting to somehow out-allure the secular? (Hence, broadcasting a discussion of sex
in marriage from a bed on top of your church or touting the sensuality-charged phrase,
“Modest is Hottest.”)

– Have we equated virginity with purity? Do we mistakenly emphasize refraining

from sexual activity at the expense of communicating a lifestyle of purity that is created,
guarded and decided in the heart? Do our high school and college students know that,
while they may be abstinent virgins, they may not be pure? (Matt. 5:27-28)

– Have we established our perspective of sexuality in the gospel? Is the gospel

our foundation for understanding the purpose of sexuality, for having the power to live
out its purpose as God designed it, and for walking in the peace of a redeemed past?

Debunking The Purity Myth and countering the countless other messages of our hyper-
sexualized, “hook-up” culture likely won’t happen with trendier marketing of
abstinence, greater government funding for abstinence education, or more alarming
accounts of the dangers of pre-marital sex. Only when we see and deeply know the
Christ for whom every aspect of our lives – especially our sexuality – was designed to
worship will the myth of moralistic virginity be replaced by the truth of Christ-exalting
purity.
The Puzzling Case of Maternal Feminism

Candi Finch March 1, 2016 Feminism 2 Comments

Have you ever had one of those moments that left you utterly speechless?

Rarely has that ever happened to me. That’s not surprising since my childhood
nickname was “mouth” (I had many thoughts and opinions to offer my parents from an
early age; I am not sure they thought I was as brilliant as I thought I was!). I have to tell
you that the experience of being shocked into silence is quite unnerving.

In the fall of 2015, I spoke at the World Congress of Families meeting in Salt Lake City,
Utah. One afternoon of the conference, I swung by the exhibit area and came across an
organization called Big Ocean. The tagline on the banner behind the booth read
“Women for Faith, Family, Motherhood.” My interest was immediately sparked.

When I picked up one of the promotional flyers, the mission statement of the
organization caught my eye:

“Our mission is to unite and empower women throughout the world to stand for faith,
family, and motherhood. We call the movement Maternal Feminism.”

Women that are supportive of faith, families, and motherhood. Check, sign me up! But,
whoa, wait a minute!?? Did you say maternal feminism?? When that phrase registered
in my mind, that is when I was rendered speechless.

A polite, college-age, young woman who was manning the booth walked over to tell me
about Big Ocean, and I am afraid I scared her a bit. I was still reeling from the idea of
“maternal feminism” and had trouble responding to her questions.
Once I recovered, I asked, “Why call your movement maternal feminism?” She said
something along the lines of being for women and for motherhood.

Hmm… “Yes, but why call it feminism?” I pressed.

She said because they are pro-women.

In this young women’s mind, being for women meant being a feminist. I stayed and
spoke with her and another lady at the booth for a few more minutes trying to
understand their perspective, but it was clear we had very different understandings of
the word “feminist” and “feminism.”

Since returning from the conference, I did a little more digging into Big Ocean. It is an
interfaith organization that was founded in 2014 by Carolina Allen, a member of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, in order to give a voice to the power of
mothers. Members of the group attended the United Nations in New York to defend
motherhood and promote the importance of families. In an interview Allen stated, “I
consider myself a maternal feminist, and that means I am expanding my sphere of
influence starting from myself to my home, my community and then reaching the
world.”[1]

Everything these ladies were saying about the importance of mothers was music to my
ears. In our day and age, families are under attack. Motherhood is disparaged. We need
more people advocating the importance of mothers and families. However, to do so
under the banner of feminism is simply foolish.

Feminism is not pro-motherhood. Now, I am sure there are feminists who are pro-
motherhood, but the second wave of this movement was sparked by anti-
motherhood and anti-marriage rhetoric. The message at the heart of this
movement was that marriages and families held women back.

In the early 1960s, the journalist Betty Friedan became convinced that women were
frustrated and unfulfilled in their roles as wives and mothers. In fact, these roles were
likened to prisons. In her 1963 book The Feminine Mystique (a book that essentially
launched the second wave of feminism in America), Friedan proclaimed, “We can no
longer ignore that voice within women that says: ‘I want something more than my
husband and my children and my home.’”[2]

Later in the book, Friedan claimed that being a stay-at-home mother is eventually
dehumanizing and likened it to a German concentration camp:

“All this seems terribly remote from the easy life of the American suburban housewife.
But is her house in reality a comfortable concentration camp? Have not women who live
in the image of the feminine mystique trapped themselves within the narrow walls of
their homes? They have learned to ‘adjust’ to their biological role. They have become
dependent, passive, childlike; they have given up their adult frame of reference to live at
the lower human level of food and things. The work they do does not require adult
capabilities; it is endless, monotonous, unrewarding. American women are not, of
course, being readied for mass extermination, but they are suffering a slow death of
mind and spirit.”[3]

In 1969 a leaflet titled “Do You Know the Facts about Marriage?” was produced by
second wave feminists to hand out at a protest at the New York Marriage License
Bureau. It ended with this statement: “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and
women until we destroy marriage. We must free ourselves. And marriage is the place to
begin.”[4]

Feminism cannot be divorced from the sentiments above. Betty Friedan’s worldview is
intrinsically linked to the feminist movement. And this is why the idea of “maternal
feminism” is so puzzling to me. At the heart of the feminist movement is a decidedly
anti-motherhood message.

We must reject the notion that to be “pro-women” means you are a feminist. I am pro-
women, pro-families, and pro-motherhood because the Bible is all of these things. And,
despite what some people like the organizers of Big Ocean may believe, the feminist
movement has advocated things that have actually harmed women. My friends, you can
be for women and motherhood without linking yourself to the feminist movement that
has a long history of demeaning motherhood.

[1] See http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865624948/Maternal-feminists-defend-

motherhood-at-United-Nations.html?pg=all

[2] Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
2001), 78.

[3] Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 425.

[4] “Do You Know the Facts about Marriage?” in We Are the People: Voices from the
Other Side of American History, ed. Nathaniel May, Clint Willis, and James W. Loewen
(New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2003), 185.

minists & Rebellious