Feminist Fright
An excerpt from, Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, and the Evangelical Caste System
Chapter five
Feminist Fright
Christian author, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, believes that women are in trouble. We agree. In 2001, she wrote that women were confused, miserable, frustrated, and in bondage.[1] DeMoss has not been the first to reach this conclusion, nor is the concern limited to the Christian camp. In 1963, Secular author Betty Friedan wrote the same thing in her book, The Feminine Mystique. During the course of her research, Friedan was surprised to find that women were frustrated, unfulfilled, and in general suffering from an identity crisis.
DeMoss and Friedan, decades apart in years, worlds apart in worldview, reached many of the same conclusions concerning the unhappy state of women. But the parallels end there as Friedan and DeMoss part ways considerably when it comes to offering solutions. Although they agree that women, on the main, are unhappy, unfulfilled, and suffer from an identity crisis, they disagree on what women can do to reverse the situation.
They are in perfect harmony and emphatically declare that the way women perceive their roles as women and attempt to live out those perceptions are major causes of their unhappiness, but they offer conflicting advice regarding how they believe women can achieve freedom and fulfillment. [2]
Friedan placed a high premium on economic independence for helping women find freedom and fulfillment, and she urged women to break free from stereotypical roles forced upon them by society. DeMoss advises just the opposite. Absolute dependence, she claims, is the road to personal freedom and fulfillment.
The roles Friedan denounced as being major causes of frustration and unhappiness in women are the very roles DeMoss, and a host of other Christian leaders, claim will bring peace, fulfillment, and freedom to women who will joyfully embrace them.
So, which is it? Are women miserable because they lead independent, “selfish,” lives, or is it dependency and “selflessness” that are making women miserable? Have DeMoss and Freidan correctly diagnosed the reasons behind female misery, but both prescribed the wrong cure?
The writings of these two women typify the conflict between secular and Christian approaches to the issue of female happiness. Complementarian Christians insist that women cannot be truly happy unless they accept subordinate roles within their homes and place themselves not only willingly but joyfully in subjection to their husband’s authority. This is directly opposite to the secular feminist insistence that the road to happiness and fulfillment lies in breaking the shackles of subordination and severing dependence on men by establishing careers and financial independence for themselves.
It is interesting to note that while women have not always agreed among themselves as to what their roles should be, historically, there has been consistent agreement among men. Males in every age and every culture have agreed that females should hold subordinate positions in the home and society. In contemporary times, where the sentiment cannot be displayed overtly, it is often manifested in more subtle but definitely tangible ways. For instance, studies reveal that, in the workplace, men who hold traditional views concerning male/female roles fare better when it comes to job promotions and pay raises than egalitarian men. [3]
Christian women are frequently warned that desiring practical equality and functional autonomy with men is tantamount to rebelling against God Himself. [4] They are conditioned by respected leaders to believe that it is selfish and sinful for them to consider the idea that they have a divinely mandated right to enjoy equality and comparable levels of autonomy with men. [5]
Many who are not convinced, are shamed into keeping their opinions to themselves for fear of becoming recipients of the most dreaded label among Christians, that of, “FEMINIST!” Kathryn Joyce observed that, “Feminism—that is, sworn enmity to it—has become a rallying point for conservative and orthodox believers….” [6]
Even the word, “rights,” frequently framed in quotes and almost always preceded by the word selfish, has become anathema in many Christian circles.
DeMoss warns her readers not to listen to anyone who refutes complementarian teaching. Although she words her warning as referring to the “scriptures,” a careful reading of her text reveals that she is, in reality, referring to complementarian doctrine. [7] DeMoss obviously agrees with Grudem in viewing all non-complementarian interpretations of scripture as “feminist” interpretations, and are therefore to be rejected outright. [8] In this respect, complementarianism appears suspiciously cultish. [9]
To a complementarian, egalitarian equals heretic. How could it mean otherwise when it is taught that practical equality and autonomy between the sexes will destroy the church, the home, and most especially, according to Grudem . . . the men. [10]
In her book, Out of the Cults and into the Church, Janis Hutchinson quoted Hoffer when she wrote, “Mass movements can rise and succeed without a belief in God...but never without a belief in a devil. This is because the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil. When Hitler was asked whether he thought the Jew should be completely destroyed, he answered, ‘No...We have then to reinvent him.’ Hitler further explained that ‘It is essential to have a tangible enemy, not merely an abstract one.’” [11]
The devil of the complementarian movement is the feminist.
Fear, shame, and dire warnings of disaster [12] are potent weapons which are w expertly by complementarian leaders in keeping men and women in line regarding gender roles. Where ridicule and derogatory labeling are not effective, extravagant promises of power, happiness, and freedom are made. All this bears a strong similarity to methods used by religious cults where the loyalties of autonomous adults are held in check through fearmongering, promises of bliss/misery, disaster, or utopia.
Ridicule and shame tactics, along with mob violence, were primary weapons employed by proponents of slavery against those who opposed the practice. Abolitionists were viewed as members of a radical sub-culture and were cruelly persecuted (by Christian and non-Christian alike) in both North and South. [13]
Abolitionists swam against a strong tide of public opinion in two areas: 1.) They raised awareness of the fact that slavery was wrong, and 2.) many of them, both men and women, advocated for “Woman’s Rights.” [14]
Before the civil war, being an abolitionist placed one decidedly outside the cultural norm and incurred serious social liabilities. [15] Angelina Grimké, because she could no longer endure Christian-condoned slavery, voluntarily left the South at the age of twenty-five. But because of her public stance against slavery, she soon found herself involuntarily exiled, forbidden, under pain of arrest or death, to return to her Southern home. [16]
Even in the North, “abolitionist!” was a label that subjected its bearers to frightful persecution. More than one abolitionist died at the hands of pro-slavery mobs.
Theodore Weld, husband of Angelina Grimké and advocate of women’s equality, braved fearful mob violence because of his abolitionist activities. He eventually became known as the most mobbed man in America, but none dared to label Weld as passive or wimp because he believed and practiced equality of the sexes both before and after his marriage. His courage was remarkable and widely acclaimed. [17]
An eerie parallel to the nineteenth century slaveholder’s cry of “abolitionist!” is the twenty-first century Christian cry of “feminist!” But in view of its historical context, should Christian women and men cower in fear of the label?
In 1931, the word “Feminism” was defined as; “The cult of advocating for women full equality with men in regard to political rights, working conditions, social standing, etc., propaganda on behalf of “woman’s rights.” [18] Women had no say in what was published, and the first definition of feminism reflected the attitude of the men who edited the dictionaries.
The publishers of the Webster’s dictionaries were not unprejudiced when it came to women and their “place,” and through the language itself, managed to insert an enduring legacy of contempt with anything associated with feminism.
The word “feminist” did not begin to appear in American dictionaries until the 1940’s. Although, by that time, the definition of “feminism” had been slightly upgraded from cult and propaganda to “doctrine,” anything associated with the word was still tainted by the stigma of the earlier definition. The stigma remains strong among Christians today, who label almost any social issue they disagree with on moral grounds as a “feminist” issue. [19]
It is true that during the course of the movements for women’s rights, as with all movements, there have been those who took positions that violated the consciences of many people, not just Bible believing Christians. The modern movement for gender equality for Christian women is no different, but does that make the movement itself wrong? Even anti-feminist author, Mary Kassian, admits that the modern evangelical feminist movement did not grow out of the secular feminist movement but rather concurrently with it. [20]
Biblical feminism cannot be historically linked with any secular feminist movement. But it is a singular fact that no secular feminist can trace the history of women’s rights without lauding the efforts of many biblical feminists—both men and women—beginning as early as the 1600’s. [21] Secular historians are more than willing to admit this and frequently honor the accomplishments of Christians in the long struggle for women’s rights.
The historic need for women’s rights was acknowledged by Christians and non-Christians alike, and, in consequence of this, conventions were formed which dealt with the issue according to the convictions and consciences of the memberships. It was only natural that groups should diverge on moral issues. The first women’s rights organization experienced a split, caused by, among other things, moral issues. [22] This has been used by anti-feminists to denounce the entire concept of women’s rights. But the truth is, the earliest “feminists” (there was no such word in those days) were Christians, and the disparaging associations connected with the word are the result of centuries of tradition and legislation based on false notions of women’s inferiority to men.
In times past, those who dared to question the status quo concerning gender roles were subjected to fearful social consequences.[23]
This has been an excerpt from, Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, and the Evangelical Caste System.
[1]Lies Women Believe: And the Truth That Sets Them Free, Moody Press, 2001
[2] Over 150 years ago, Elizabeth Wilson identified the frustration and confusion of women in the 19th century and wrote that no one could agree as to what woman’s proper sphere was, so how could the women themselves know? Elizabeth Wilson, A Scriptural View of Women’s Rights and Duties in all the Important Relations of Life, Pennsylvania, 1849
[3] Is the Gap More Than Gender? A Longitudinal Analysis of Gender, Gender Role Orientation, and Earnings. -- Timothy A. Judge and Beth A. Livingston, University of Florida, Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association, 2008, Vol. 93, No. 5, 994–1012
[4] “There is a biblical division of responsibilities in both the family and the church. To question these is not a revolt against unwarranted prejudice but a revolt against the order of the universe itself.” Unnamed religious leader quoted by Joseph Chambers, A Palace for the AntiChrist, New Leaf Press, Green Forest, AR., 1996
[5] “The modern day feminist movement was birthed and has been sustained by persuading women to march and clamor for “rights”: the right to vote; …the right to equal employment opportunities; the right to equal wages; …the right to be free from a husband’s name….”Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Lies Women Believe: And the Truth That Sets Them Free, Moody Press, Chicago, Illinois, 2001
[6] Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement, Beacon Press, 2009
[7] Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Lies Women Believe: And the Truth That Sets Them Free, Moody Press, Chicago, Illinois, 2001
[8] “I use the word egalitarian to refer to those within the evangelical world who say that no differences in the roles of men and women should be based on their gender alone. In particular, egalitarians deny that there is any unique male leadership role in marriage or in the church. Sometimes I use the phrase evangelical feminists to mean the same thing as egalitarians.” Wayne Grudem, editor, Biblical Foundations For Manhood And Womanhood, Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL, 2002
[9] When discussing their views with those believed to be “feminist” (or otherwise), rather than depending on scripture to defend their doctrine, complementarians tend to be overly dependent on the views of complementarian authors and resources. According to Wayne Grudem, the complementarian definition of “feminist” is anyone who believes in practical gender equality. That means complementarians consider everyone but themselves to be “feminists.”
[10] “…the No Differences error…most significantly results in the destruction of men.” (emphasis added) Biblical Foundations For Manhood And Womanhood, Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL, 2002
[11] Janis Hutchinson, Out of the Cults and Into the Church, Understanding & Encouraging Ex-Cultists, Kregel Resources, Grand Rapids, MI, 1994
[12] Kassian’s Tsunami theory is an example of this, and in her book, Me? Obey Him?, Elizabeth Rice Handford warned wives that that they might become infertile or that God might kill their children if they did not obey their husbands. Handford wrote this in 1972, but the book is still recommended reading for complementarians with Nancy Leigh DeMoss (as of the writing of the first edition of this book) serving on the board of reference of Handford’s ministry to women, Joyful Ministries (now Joyful Christian Ministries). Popular complementarian Elisabeth Elliot continues giving the book extensive publicity on her now retired, Gateway to Joy, radio broadcast (her shows are still archived and available). Handford wrote: “Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death” (2 Samuel 6:23). But God’s punishment was not ended. She adopted the five sons of a kinsman. All five of them were slain to atone for King Saul’s breaking an oath…(2 Samuel 21:8). God does not lightly regard a woman’s rebellion against her husband.” (Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1972) Over a half-million copies of this book are in circulation. Complementarians are currently buying, reading, and recommending this book.
http://www.johnrrice.com/Me_Obey_Him.html [4/23/2010]
http://www.backtothebible.org/index.php/Gateway-to-Joy/Me-Obey-Him.html [4/23/2010]
http://ccostello.blogspot.com/2008/02/me-obey-him-giveaway.html (14 of 14) [4/23/2010 1:01:24 PM]
[13] “Every little while I could hear something about the abolitionists…If a slave ran away and succeeded in getting clear, or if a slave killed his master, set fire to a barn, or did anything very wrong in the mind of a slave-holder, it was spoken of as the fruit of abolition.” Fredrick Douglass, A Narrative on the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, 1845
[14] Although abolition was Theodore Weld’s top priority, he supported “Woman’s Rights” by opening his classrooms to women and training them to advocate publicly and equally alongside men.
[15] “The slightest manifestation of humanity toward a colored person was denounced as abolitionism, and that name subjected its bearer to frightful liabilities.” Fredrick Douglass, A Narrative on the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave
[16] “I stand before you as a Southerner, exiled from the land of my birth, by the sound of the lash, and piteous cry of the slave. I stand before you as a repentant slaveholder. I stand before you as a moral being, endowed with precious and inalienable rights, which are correlative with solemn duties and high responsibilities:…” –Angelina Grimke, Speech before the Legislative Committee of the Massachusetts State Legislature, February 21, 1838, Printed in THE LIBERATOR, March 2, 1838
[17] “Weld found that his greatest danger came when he emerged from the meetinghouse and had to confront the mob. Sometimes, as was the case at Circleville, his sympathizers formed a bodyguard to see him to his lodgings; but more often Weld simply drew himself up to his full height, folded his arms, and stood surveying his tormentors. He had learned that such is the psychology of mobs that they were reluctant to assault a man with folded arms.” --Thomas, Benjamin P., Theodore Weld: Crusader for Freedom, 1950
[18] The New Universities Webster Dictionary, Edited by Joseph Devlin, M. A., The World Syndicate Publishing Co., New York, NY, 1931
[19] “I believe one of the greatest dangers facing the Christian church today is women who advocate feminist viewpoints…Feminists should not be allowed to infect Christian women with their alien ideologies.” Beverly LaHaye, The Restless Woman, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1984
[20] “…readers should understand that religious feminist theology did not develop as a result of secular feminist philosophy, but rather emerged and developed concurrent to it (emphasis added).” -- Mary Kassian, The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture, Wheaton, Ill, 2005
[21] 17th century Quaker, Margaret Fell, is credited by some historians with being the first feminist. This is perfectly logical as Quakers were the first people to acknowledge equality of the sexes. That makes The Society of Friends the first Christian denomination to acknowledge equality of the sexes. “Perhaps the best known of Margaret Fell's pamphlets is, Women's Speaking Justified…published in 1666 during her four-year imprisonment. Feminist historians have recognized it as a key document, one of the first by a woman, in the evolution of woman's vision as an equal partner with man.”
http://www2.gol.com/users/quakers/margaret_fell.htm
[22] “Although disagreement over the Fifteenth Amendment was the major issue that split the woman's movement, the issue of a "free platform" and the raising of controversial issues like divorce also contributed. Stanton and Anthony continued to fight for women’s suffrage but maintained an interest in other aspects of women's rights. The more conservative AWSA leaders chose to limit their strategy primarily to suffrage, which ironically had been the most controversial of the women's issues when it was first raised at Seneca Falls. NWSA’s policy of a free platform, accepting speakers on a variety of woman's issues, created more problems between the two associations when a sensational new personality allied herself in 1871 with the NWSA - Victoria Woodhull.” (Sherry H. Penney and James D. Livingston, 2003)
[23] Elizabeth Cady Stanton said the social backlash against the women who led the conference at Seneca Falls was so severe, she doubted she would have had the courage to go through with it had she known beforehand what she would have to endure.
This has been an excerpt from, Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, and the Evangelical Caste System.
Jocelyn Andersen is author of, Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System.