There has been a great deal of interest in the feminist movement in America ever since the rise of the movement began almost a century ago. There has been no less interest in feminism seen in the Evangelical church. This is quite unnerving. I know of no conservative evangelical Christian who believes, in thought or in practice, that women are inferior to men. Their stance, rather, is the opposite. Nevertheless, that is the charge given.
I understand the major concerns of historical feminism. I know that men have, both in the past and in the present, used scripture to oppress women. I know that historically women have been looked down upon if they ventured outside the home. There have been serious injustices. Moreover, men have dropped the ball. For the past two generations, men have really messed things up, and we men should take full responsibility for the mess that we are in. But, the answer to the problem is not to suggest that men are unnecessary, or to attempt to live in society free of men, or even for women to take on the male roles, or to de-masculinize men, or to masculinize women, or to deny any differences between men and women, or to suggest that the only difference between men and women is the plumbing. That is not sufficient. The answer is to make men be men and let women be women. And that is not what the feminist movement suggests.
Furthermore, because one has misused scripture for evil does not mean that we should misuse scripture in attempts to balance the scales. It is true that the Bible has been used to oppress women. But a feminist understanding of scripture is just as harmful and biblically unwarranted as a male chauvanist who attempts to use scripture to have some oppresive dominion over women. The biblical formula given is for a man to love his wife self-sacrificially and for a woman, in response to his love, to submit willingly and respectfully to him as he is the head of the home. And no matter what reason a feminist may give, the instruction Paul gave in 1 Timothy 2 was not written because the women were uneducated, or because of gnostic heresies, but because of the role and order in which God created man and woman. Paul says that is his reason in the very next verse.
I came across something disturbing yesterday. I was given by one of my professors a copy of a liturgy which was recited at a chapel service here at Southeastern some 22 years ago. Of course, this was long after Southeastern had left it's conservative roots and almost a decade before the Conservative Resurgence of the SBC had been able to have any affect on the six SBC seminaries. Southeastern was at the pennacle of liberalism; it was the most liberal of all the SBC seminaries in America. I will not hesitate to say that this liturgy has a few hints of truth amidst a mass of biblical eisegesis. If ever there was an attempt to reconstruct the understanding of man and woman as being androgenous, this is it. It is disgusting.
"Celebration of the New Humanity"
Recited March 17, 1983
Binkley Chapel, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Female Liturgist: We as women are strong. We as women are powerful. We as women can do things.
Women: Liberation is ours for the claiming.
Female Liturgist: We need to be more in touch with our strength, our power, and our capabilities. We need to be free to be ourselves. We need not stifle our God-given talents.
Women: The gospel is liberation.
Female Liturgist: We don't have to stay in our place!
Women: The gospel frees us from the law.
Female Liturgist: Jesus broke law and tradition in his treatment of women.
Women: Jesus was a feminist!
Male Liturgist: When you are free, then we are freer. We don't have to prove our manliness. We don't have to prove our "natural superiority." We don't have to claim anything.
Men: Liberation is ours for the claiming.
Male Liturgist: We need to be more in touch with our tears. We need to be free to be ourselves. We need to discard our "masculine role" and discover who we really are.
Men: The gospel is liberation.
Male Liturgist: We are free to share our responsibilities.
Men: The gospel is liberation.
Male Liturgist: We are free to share our responsibilities.
Men: The gospel frees us from the law.
Male Liturgist: Jesus challenged the status quo.
Men: Jesus calls us to full humanity.
All: We reject the notion that one sex should build bridges and the other keep the home. We reject the idea of "proper roles," for roles belong to the realm of the law, and freedom belongs to the Gospel. We believe the words of the New Testament that in God's time and place there is no male and female, no mankind and womankind, no manhood and womanhood, but simply humanhood, simply God's people. We can and will be more human. We will find ways of being men and women together.
There are a few points from the liturgy I'd like to address as far as the Church and a biblical understanding of the roles of men and women are concerned.
First of all, the liturgy opens up by declaring that women are strong, powerful, and can "do things." I would ask for any feminist to cite a conservative evangelical who claims that scripture declares anything less than the full capabilities of women to do great things. This is a straw man. The implication is that women have been declared weak and incapable. Those who have made such a stance does so apart from the authority of scripture.
Secondly, the liturgy takes a completely true statement (i.e. "The gospel is liberation.") and applies it incorrectly in a way which can not be supported scripturally. It is true that the Gospel is liberation. But, the vital question is; "Liberation from what?" From everything? No. The Gospel is liberation from sin. Romans 6:18 says, "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." It continues in verse 22 by saying, "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." The Gospel does not "free" us from everything. The Christian slaves in the New Testament were told to obey their masters. The Gospel did not free them from that worldly system. The Gospel never promises us earthly freedom from the structures of culture and government and society. However, what the Gospel does promise is freedom from our inner bondage of sin. That is the power of God.
That brings me to another point. Though we are free'd from sin, we are to "become slaves to god." That means, in the most simplest of terms, we do what he says. After all, that is what a servant does for his or her master. To claim to be a follower of God, and to claim to be his servant (which would include obeying his commands), and then to say "we don't have to stay in our place!" is contradictory. That is outright rebellion against the master and His plan. Either you are a servant of the master or else you are your own master. It can't be both.
Was Jesus a feminist? If by Jesus being a feminist you mean that he treated women with the utmost respect and dignity in a society that did not and that he saw them to have equal value and worth as men, then Jesus was a feminist. Those ideas are not contrary to a conservative and complimentarian view of scripture. However, if by feminist you mean that Jesus sought to toss out of the window any gender or role distinctions that exist, then he was by all means no feminist.
Furthermore, it is true that "Jesus . . . broke tradition in his treatment of women." However, He never broke or contradicted the commandments of scripture regarding the roles and gender distinctions of men and women. Of course he broke tradition; the tradition totally degraded women even to the point of dogs. A conservative complimentarian view of scripture only seeks to uplift and honor women. The jump that the feminist movement has made has been from breaking tradition to breaking the scripture. Jesus never broke the scripture.
One question. What the heck does "Jesus calls us to full humanity." mean? What the heck is full humanity? Am I any less human than I could be?
.....more coming soon. | 
