what is the deal
One issue that has become very clear to me, in reading through material related to Biblical Egalitarianism, is the hostility that some authors seem to feel toward "Secular Feminism." Many authors and speakers (and a few who do both) seem irritated and threatened by a feminism in manners that I cannot understand.
Consider this...
Emerson Eggerichs blames secular feminism with the rise in divorce rates. The reason that many marriages (if not all marriages) in the US are currently in jeopardy is because feminism has obscured traditional gender roles.
Grudem and others blames "secular feminism" with increasing homosexuality, marital instability, depression, and (most amazingly) indicates that it has the power to destabilize the faith. From this perspective "secular feminism" becomes one of the most immanent threats that the church currently faces. It seems that "traditional marriage" is *the* picture of Christ's relationship with the church and as that is destabilized then the faith will follow.
Frankly, I just don't get that...
Their arguments are based on the position that God created this order in nature (man is inherently more fit to lead then is woman). If this is true then what do you have to worry about? The poor leadership provided by women will enact its own critique over time. The stronger being should not be, reasonably, threatened by the weaker being seeking autonomy. The movement itself will fail in time because it lacks the natural resources to sustain it's own argument. Feminism will simply be called "a failed experiment."
Seriously! a 2,000 year old religion that claims adherents in the billions is not rationally threatened by a social movement (particularly an irrational social movement that defies nature) that is only in its 5th decade. The "its the end of the world as we know it" warcry seems completely out of scale... particularly for a counter position that argues that its opposition is attempting to undo its own nature. If men are stronger than time will dictate our mistake.
I cannot believe that the true issue her is the salvation of the faith from Sirens calling us toward the rocks, but rather about threats to a power structure that has bolstered male egos for FAR too long. There is something terribly empowering about a message that says "God has made you special" and part of how Christianity has constructed the "Specialness" of manhood has been by imbuing it with power that is excluded from the other sex... because woman is "weaker." It gives a superior construction of manhood and places him, because of his sex, at the center of all of creation. Even woman was created to help him, bolster him, and affirm him.
Biblical egalitarianism threatens this at its core. In spite of rhetorical claims to the contrary, there is no way that females can be understood as male equals if the above is true. However, if it is the case that God never intended for one sex to assume the center while the other acts as a supporter, then maleness *is* diminished from its exalted state.
A close reading of many arguments presented by those favoring traditional gender roles acknowledges that this lowering of maleness is exactly the problem. They feel that this reconceptualization fundamentally threatens and alters the face of the religion, even to the point of obscuring how God reveals himself to humanity. That leads to dangerous instabilities that may one day destroy the faith.
I disagree that wifely submission marriage is the primary image for how God reveals his nature to humanity. Christ was the image to which we are supposed to adhere. He is the center of the faith, not a reification of hierarchy as many proponents have stated. And Christ was not opposed to interacting with women, taking critiques from women, and even following women during his time on earth.
If we alter our view toward a more egalitarian position (allowing women to assume leadership) it does destabilize the status quo and the exaltation of maleness in the faith. However, it may lead to greater resources for leadership (there are old testament and new testament examples of superior female leadership) and a greater ability for our communities to relate to our surrounding environments. This increase in resources and accessibility does not seem particularly destabilizing to me, but rather an opportunity to become stronger.
So, again, I find myself confused concerning why Biblical Egalitarism is cast as a danger to the future of the faith. It does threaten some traditionally held beliefs but it is not necessarily obscuring God or changing the message of Jesus Christ. Thus, perhaps we should allow for time to critique our idealism. If we are wrong, then history will judge us to be naive. However, if it is true that the Church has wrongly excluded women from leadership we commit a far more serious mistake by barring capable leaders from their legitimate callings.
Buggs
Consider this...
Emerson Eggerichs blames secular feminism with the rise in divorce rates. The reason that many marriages (if not all marriages) in the US are currently in jeopardy is because feminism has obscured traditional gender roles.
Grudem and others blames "secular feminism" with increasing homosexuality, marital instability, depression, and (most amazingly) indicates that it has the power to destabilize the faith. From this perspective "secular feminism" becomes one of the most immanent threats that the church currently faces. It seems that "traditional marriage" is *the* picture of Christ's relationship with the church and as that is destabilized then the faith will follow.
Frankly, I just don't get that...
Their arguments are based on the position that God created this order in nature (man is inherently more fit to lead then is woman). If this is true then what do you have to worry about? The poor leadership provided by women will enact its own critique over time. The stronger being should not be, reasonably, threatened by the weaker being seeking autonomy. The movement itself will fail in time because it lacks the natural resources to sustain it's own argument. Feminism will simply be called "a failed experiment."
Seriously! a 2,000 year old religion that claims adherents in the billions is not rationally threatened by a social movement (particularly an irrational social movement that defies nature) that is only in its 5th decade. The "its the end of the world as we know it" warcry seems completely out of scale... particularly for a counter position that argues that its opposition is attempting to undo its own nature. If men are stronger than time will dictate our mistake.
I cannot believe that the true issue her is the salvation of the faith from Sirens calling us toward the rocks, but rather about threats to a power structure that has bolstered male egos for FAR too long. There is something terribly empowering about a message that says "God has made you special" and part of how Christianity has constructed the "Specialness" of manhood has been by imbuing it with power that is excluded from the other sex... because woman is "weaker." It gives a superior construction of manhood and places him, because of his sex, at the center of all of creation. Even woman was created to help him, bolster him, and affirm him.
Biblical egalitarianism threatens this at its core. In spite of rhetorical claims to the contrary, there is no way that females can be understood as male equals if the above is true. However, if it is the case that God never intended for one sex to assume the center while the other acts as a supporter, then maleness *is* diminished from its exalted state.
A close reading of many arguments presented by those favoring traditional gender roles acknowledges that this lowering of maleness is exactly the problem. They feel that this reconceptualization fundamentally threatens and alters the face of the religion, even to the point of obscuring how God reveals himself to humanity. That leads to dangerous instabilities that may one day destroy the faith.
I disagree that wifely submission marriage is the primary image for how God reveals his nature to humanity. Christ was the image to which we are supposed to adhere. He is the center of the faith, not a reification of hierarchy as many proponents have stated. And Christ was not opposed to interacting with women, taking critiques from women, and even following women during his time on earth.
If we alter our view toward a more egalitarian position (allowing women to assume leadership) it does destabilize the status quo and the exaltation of maleness in the faith. However, it may lead to greater resources for leadership (there are old testament and new testament examples of superior female leadership) and a greater ability for our communities to relate to our surrounding environments. This increase in resources and accessibility does not seem particularly destabilizing to me, but rather an opportunity to become stronger.
So, again, I find myself confused concerning why Biblical Egalitarism is cast as a danger to the future of the faith. It does threaten some traditionally held beliefs but it is not necessarily obscuring God or changing the message of Jesus Christ. Thus, perhaps we should allow for time to critique our idealism. If we are wrong, then history will judge us to be naive. However, if it is true that the Church has wrongly excluded women from leadership we commit a far more serious mistake by barring capable leaders from their legitimate callings.
Buggs