God & Women: Chapter Five

Deconstructing the Christian Caste System

Read the 2nd Edition from the beginning on Substack

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.

These two 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 churches and place themselves not only willingly but joyfully in subjection to male leadership, and most especially to their husband’s authority. This is the antithesis to 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, there has always been consistent agreement among men.

Males in virtually every age and culture have agreed that females should hold subordinate positions in the home and society. In contemporary situations, where the sentiment cannot be displayed overtly, it is often manifested in 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 equity and 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 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 agrees with Grudem in viewing all non-complementarian interpretations of scripture as “feminist” interpretations and are 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 even-handed 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 expertly wielded by complementarian leaders in keeping women and men 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 Christians and non-Christians 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, a Christian man and husband of Angelina Grimké, advocated for women’s equality and 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 during his marriage. His courage was remarkable and widely acclaimed [17].