Feminism is Religion

After empath mentioned Eve Ensler’s “One Billion Rising”, and we talked about that a bit, I had brought up the fact that Feminism has become a religion. Watch this for a glimpse of this religion in action. Watch this clip please.

What is being shown here is a religious moment. The way we are opposing Feminism within the MRM is essentially a philosophical/ethical approach to dealing with it, often with legal or political measures undertaken, but that is essentially what is being done. If you think about it, the MRM could generally be summed up as saying this:

“If men and women are equals, then we equally have a responsibility to work on creating a society that is good to both genders. There are times when men have superior advantages and times when women have superior advantages.” However this is the result of rational arguments generally within Western Civilization by people who propose the idea that civilization involves developing useful compromises.

Now, Feminism has not really had this position in living memory. Watching that video, you may notice that someone left this comment: “Until we can end violence against the most vulnerable, women and children, there is no reason to even think of or even be concerned about violence against men. Men are most likely to be victims of violence from other men. And so are women and children. Enough said.”

Friends, this is the kind of thing you expect from a religious faith. Catchphrases and pat responses that essentially mean nothing, but that invoke a brilliant future when the faith is fulfilled.

Not trying to mock anyone here, because most of us are people of faith, but how often have we almost grimaced, turned away from the unauthentic church experience, because it had no real substance? But let’s face it, authentic faith is rare, as Jesus said it was of those who would follow him. It’s the same here. If you examine Feminist thought, you find that it has little to do with biology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy–in a sense even politics is rather a means to an end for Feminists, which is why for example Margaret Thatcher, Hilary Clinton, Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Golda Meir, Sara Palin, Condoleeza Rice are not ‘real’ women leaders. This is why it is almost impossible to get just about any feminist you know to admit that there are flaws within the movement–because only in religions, or at least belief systems people swear homage to religiously–do people refuse to consider such flaws.

Think about this a moment. Someone who loves a football team will often quite willingly examine the pros and cons of the team’s chances at the Superbowl; someone who supports a political party will often gladly shake their head at the stance the party is making about a policy. We have all rolled our eyes I’m sure at a favourite author writing a book we didn’t like.

However when people are utterly devoted to a religion, they almost never, ever, accept even the notion of criticism against it, because for most people who don’t like to think about their faith, doing that would somehow make it untrue.
This is something they’d probably never say, but it’s how they react.

Now this brings me to my real point. When people are opposing Feminism because they see that it is leading to injustice, cruelty or wrongdoing of some kind, they often oppose it as though it can be reasoned with. But you see Feminism is a religion that is as accepted now as mainstream values as Christianity was sixty years ago–it’s NORMAL. Because of this, people don’t even realize they’re supporting it.

Now something else: most religions on an official basis rarely support the causes they supposedly espouse. For example Christians are often (as a mass group) more concerned about same sex marriage than poverty or helping the sick, even though Jesus specifically mentions care of the poor and sick as being virtues by which Christians can be recognized. So it should not surprise us that typically Feminism is a hypocritical religion that makes a lot of talk about concern about equality but in fact does little about it.

So how do you deal with a religion when it is unjust?

Historically speaking, the only things that work are the following:

1. Demonstrating its irrelevance. When a religion can provide little to nothing and is proven to do so, because another force does the work it purports to do, it becomes irrelevant and people stop taking it very seriously. This is how Elijah defeated the Prophets of Baal.

2. Exposing its scandals, crimes and corruption. Note: this does not include philosophical debates and arguments. This is by the way how Daniel defeated the priests of Dagon.

3. Willingness to risk standing out, martyrdom, defeat because it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. This is what the good men and women throughout the Bible did. . For us this may mean being shunned in our churches, risking having people horrified by things we say because they have been taught that lies were truth.

Friends, what we are facing is a false faith. I know others have said this, but this is principally what it is. It appeals to people like that video–it SEEMS good. It SOUNDS just and right. We barely need any further analysis; we know what it says, we’ve read the works of their own authors and their own blogs and seen their films, and we know the lies for what they are.

36 thoughts on “Feminism is Religion

  1. This is something that was made obvious by really scratching into feminism. It really is a replacement of the true God with the god of woman. Of course, that gets into the prototypical worship which Jezebel herself would have been completely comfortable joining in on as these women seek towards things greater than themselves that affirm them and not affirm God. And the wickedness…let’s just say it’s nasty stuff. Make no mistake that the similar things have made it into the churches, albeit cloaked in language that the casual observer will think nothing of.

  2. I need to take the time to find some videos of women’s conferences, Beth Moore, etc. More, the videos that are shown at the leading women’s conferences. Of course the video in McScribes post here would go over extremely well at a churchian women’s conference for the simple reason he laid out. Its normal. Its the fish in the water not realizing it is wet because wet is everywhere and all it knows. Conventional wisdom. Its why the guys around my table at the 33 group made no reaction whatsoever to my mention of divorce.

    Conventional wisdom (things everyone just knows) and solipsism are twin sisters of the feminist apocalypse, in church and out

  3. I need to take the time to find some videos of women’s conferences, Beth Moore, etc. More, the videos that are shown at the leading women’s conferences.

    This is a good start…I wouldn’t be surprised, given the personalities involved, that most of the women’s conferences are of this mold and worse, even floating into some feminist mystic goddess worship or the like.

  4. I remember that post. I have watched a number of these things, Ive just not bookmarked them for use subsequently.
    The church where I am in this group has one coming up called SHE, I visited that groups website and the site is not comprehensive, but is suggestive of……you guessed it. No vids there though, but all this princess language junk. I note the ubiquitous phrase “be all she can be in God”…or similar as the uber theme, “be the woman God called you to be” (implied “and don’t be lettin’ no man get in the way”) Boils to the same reduction….men admonished, women encouraged.

    I may purchase the materials for the SHE conference, for the wife…..of course.

    There is a book banging around my house that someone gave my wife years ago, and any time I see it (it may be on the bottom of an end table) I bluster, Its called “How to be a princess in a not so princess world”. Ive read sections while in repose in the reading quarter. That is a convenient place to be when reading such as that.

  5. It’s been several years since I’ve seen or read anything from Beth Moore, as I have shunned Christian celebrity. However if I recall correctly, she gets a few things right. The first is that she has no interest or desire in teaching men, unlike Joyce Meyer, etc.

    She does (or did) teach wifely submission. Yes, there was talk of “being the woman God called you to be”, which ultimately comes down to whether or not the specifics line up with Scripture. And yes, there was talk of being princess-like and what have you. I think most women are princess enough and don’t need to be taught that, LOL.

    That said, there are degrees of horrendousness and from what I recall, Beth Moore is far less insidious than the Joyce Meyers, Paul Whites, etc.

  6. However if I recall correctly, she gets a few things right. The first is that she has no interest or desire in teaching men, unlike Joyce Meyer, etc.

    This one:

    Moore, a well-known SBC Bible teacher, is the founder of Living Proof Ministries. While her Bible studies typically are aimed at women, it seems that her audience at Passion City Church was a mixed one.

    The sermon is available on Passion City Church’s website here, and Moore can be heard addressing the men in the audience within the first ten minutes of the message. One blogger who attended Passion City that day reports that approximately 700 people were in line for the 4:00 pm service, the second service of the day.

    And this:

    The following is a description of Beth Moore’s Sunday School class that she teaches every Sunday morning at her home church–it was copied from the Houston’s First Baptist Church web page:

    “Beth Moore has been a Sunday School teacher at Houston’s First Baptist Church since 1984. She began teaching an aerobics class/bible study combo to a small group of fortunate women. Now her class, minus aerobic activity, includes men and women, at all walks and stages of their lives.”

    [Note: this webpage has been removed after a number of complaints had been sent concerning Beth Moore’s teaching of men. Currently it says that it “is being revised.”]:

    I’ve seen this in enough places that the fact she teaches men in church settings can be considered to be “beyond all doubt”. As far as what I’ve seen of some of her other stuff, she pretty well falls on the “loon” side of the scale.

  7. I have a blog post somewhere way back in my list (which I badly need to categorize) , here it is


    but it doesn’t touch what I’m talking about. In fact its a pretty lame post. It was my first month on the job. (hold your tongue ye who would say “has something changed?”) overtly seem to teach submission, as using a form of loss leader. Im gonna talk about submission, so…see…its all good per scripture, but then Im gonna lay it out so its really ok to take on board, risk free, no problem.

    Its not unlike the male leaders do, they state something in such a way that the message that gets into the heads of the female listener is what she may want it to be, nothing unequivocal, always an escape hatch, a blessed hatch usually.

    [taking out references to her divorce until I figure out what I was on about, maybe it was another similar female leader, but I cannot think of who, I add I also dislike Moores tendency to mysticistic (coined that word) blather]

  8. I think I got a couple of tags wrong in that post above (which went into moderation) about Beth Moore…anyway…

    I’ve been working on the “Defining God” part of Mary Kassian’s book “The Feminist Gospel” lately to take notes and finish posting that series to my blog. The challenge in that section, as much of it is really unknown, yet germane to the expression of feminist worship, is separating out the secular and religious expressions of it. This is true because the gods (or more proper goddesses) are the same in both, yet the “religious” types have to cloak that form of worship into Scriptural archetypes in order to pass before the casual observer as being Christ-followers. Of course, they do well with those (in the form of the expressions related to the Personal Jesus).

    The other challenge being how ridiculous sounding it all is at first blush. But it’s somehow believable, too.

    As a side note, Elspeth: If you remember your recent encounter with “Ronnie” on Dalrock, that’s what a fully actualized feminist theologian (in other words, one who buys into ALL of feminism) looks like. So yes, she’s deadly serious.

  9. Oh, wow. I didn’t even know she WAS divorced. Like I said, I turned away from Christian celebrities years ago: about 10 years in fact, and it has done wonders for my ability to grow in the faith. She’s divorced, huh? That’s really all I needed to know to dismiss her, unless her husband left the marriage against her objections.

    I’ll read you post real quick empath.

  10. Are you sure Beth Moore is divorced? I can’t find anything to confirm that, everything implies that she is still married to the man she married in 1978.

  11. I’ll ask too, I’m not seeing anything mentioning her divorce. Now she could be confused with Pink, whose real name is Alecia Beth Moore. Now she in fact has divorced.

  12. Sojourner:
    Interesting article. One aspect though that should be included is the idea of Female Supremacy. In a religious sense, that could be understood as feminism preaching the female gender as a ‘Chosen People’ (and notice how many women embrace the idea of the ‘goddess within’; or the notion that women are iherently more ‘spiritual’.)

    But the bottom line is that gender supremacy underlies the entire philosophic infrastructure, whether feminists claim themselves religious, pro-male, or otherwise.

  13. Feminism is a secular religion. But also a religion that is quite natural for many women (remember the whole ‘new age goddess within’ stuff).

    [welcome here, glad my joke about your name at Cane’s didn’t offend]

  14. I am going to temporarily delete my reference to her divorce and dig through my stuff looking for where I got the notion. My memory had stored an interview where she told of calling her staff together to talk about her divorce.

    Uh, no, its not Pink….

    One thing Id add is that she has claimed abuse during childhood, and she has been challenged by many on this because she has offered only very vague info. I understand not telling exact details, or names, but there is suspicion (I share it) that she is claiming it as a mantel, a cost of entry. Its not to suggest nothing happened, but I have all this anecdotal experience with women in my life over the last 20 years since Ive been a Christian, and then tons of women on Christian forums, not just CF but others, who seemed that well 2/3 or more were “abused sexually as a child”…to the point where I grow doubtful and I see how that is used as a badge of something and its disturbing.

    Interestingly that dynamic about abuse plays right beck into the topic of this post by Mcscribe and how the empathy proliferates from vaginal mutilation victims to middle class women in America. Its disturbing.

  15. I’ve been thinking a lot about how to be more effective in the face of this kind of thing. Because of course the video is actually a brilliant piece of marketing. The problems it illustrates are genuine problems, after all, and how can anyone say that they are NOT against violence against women? But you can be in favour of recognizing and wanting to solve a problem and not be in favour of the offered solution, of course, and you can moreover be suspicious of the person talking about it and suspect their motives.

    I think as men, and with women who are actually supportive of men, we need to go our own way in a new way. We need to start focusing almost entirely on changing the lives of men for the better, in the sense of making sure that there is funding for men’s shelters and counseling centers; we need to start discouraging men from chasing just any woman who happens to be attractive and start teaching them to build good relationships with good women; we need to start focusing on fatherhood of children in a positive way–even when we don’t have biological children we need to find ways of fathering as teachers, coaches, leaders. Even if it is only for a day, a good fathering moment can make all the difference. We need to do this assuming that most women will neither respect it nor understand it, and that there will be men who jeer to try to gain women’s approval.

    I believe, in other words, that we need to stop fighting Feminism. We have to recognize that it is a religion. Remember, Feminism presents itself as all encompassing; it is the main religion precisely because it proposes that oppression of WOMEN is the root of all evil, and it is twisted precisely because its leaders and teachers almost never suggest that women need to develop greater integrity, wisdom, or compassion, but rather proposes that women are essentially perfect and merely need to rise up. People who believe this cannot be reasoned with.

    What we need to focus on is that there are men who are suicidal, boys who are falling behind, people living in the wake of wrecked relationships wondering what the purpose of life is, and we need to help them. I honestly believe that if we switch our focus so that that is 90% of the struggle. I don’t mean we shouldn’t point out the flaws in Feminism, but I’m thinking of how we can model this ministry on Christ’s life, and what you see is that most of what he did was teaching the truth of God’s offering of redemption for us, how to be free of sin, how to be healed and how to understand God’s provision–and how his followers had to be the way that the unsaved received the goodness of God. And when the Pharisees or others tried to swerve him or trick him, he confronted them on their hypocrisies and foolishness directly. We need to start really taking that as our model.

    When I think about it, people like Dr. Warren Farrell while well intended, well informed and intelligent, are presenting them with a target. What we should do is make no reference to Feminism whatsoever when we are presenting the positive things we intend to do. We simply say, for example “There is a need for men’s shelters in this Province/State; here are the statistics, we invite you to join in this important cause. The purpose of this is to help men get back on their feet and able to earn a living and have a decent life.”

    Then as we start standing up in our righteous authority–bear in mind, as Elijah did without an army or state to back him–we will find that the issues in the video can be addressed as well. The followers of the Lord, the true followers, have always wanted to restore righteousness.

    We shouldn’t be surprised by what happened with Feminism taking so much power, you see. That happened consistently in the history of Israel where when the worship of the Lord became corrupt the pagans would take the place of it. Why? Because the ONLY thing that is attractive about Judeo-Christian beliefs is whether or not they are held to be true. Let’s face it, it’s not inherently sexy, fun, weird or exciting on its own. Paganism is often able to offer naked people dancing, orgies, wild sacrifices, and feel good pats on the head of one kind or another. If you don’t really act like Christianity is real, if you don’t deep down believe it–why bother?

    The way of truth is clear in the Bible, and we need to follow it to a greater extent; let them shout and dance. Let’s do the good work. The Bible says that faith without works is dead. There is a lot that needs to be done. And when the hypocrites cry foul, let’s confront them with their own unrighteousness. It will then be easy to say “If you really stand for equality, you’d agree with me.” If will be easy to say “If you deny what is said in Ephesians 5, then it should surely be that there would be more marriages that are healthy and happy. But there are fewer. If women of the Church do not want to follow this teaching, let them not marry, or let them leave the Church.” It will be easy to deny charges that we are against women, because we will be demonstrating our following of the teachings of Jesus who protected and encouraged women, yet also pointed out their sins as he did with all humanity. The teachings of Christ are for everyone.

  16. Question McScribe….and I have my answer but I want yours. You know me well enough to even have predicted it, most likely.

    This thing i am attending, 33, and pretty much ALL similar men’s outreach would doggedly bill itself as doing precisely what you are saying. Not shelters and funding and such, but outreach to men sans even a mention of women, all that “accept responsibility” stuff. Its the church’s way to interpret what you wrote…..bar (almost) none.

    So, lets take a scenario. A group starts a shelter, they seek funding, they advocate FOR men and not a mention of being against women. For men. Period. Groups like this 33 crowd and the others, PK et al, they would see dovetail potential, and they would be gathering men to go and minister to the men in the shelter, or to men in general. The 33’s etc share one thing with what you said, they are not about to blame feminism or women, no way.

    But they minister poison with their male advocacy. And it is not even a question of IF groups like that would meld into groups or men like you suggest, its WHEN they would. They would overwhelm any church or Christian group with the language of these ministries. It would truly be unavoidable, Im open to hearing that claim refuted, but I’m not very doubtful that I am incorrect.

    So, doesn’t it put any comprehensive shift in approach at risk of planned failure or obsolescence?

    Can i agree and disagree at the same time?

    We’ve had these dialogs now, you and I, for years, and I feel like the poo poo guy. I admit I tend to cynicism. But these are innocent questions, not flip cynical reactions. And they are important because I can see the imminent danger of even these efforts being co-opted by, yes, feminism, from men. Maybe their is a better word for being anti feminist men, than simply anti-feminism, especially in the church. But framing the matter for the men like the guys in 33 necessarily must include juxtaposing what IS with the women against what SHOULD be with the women, and the carnage that has resulted.

    This doesnt bring us back to a point where is like no change was made in focus. But it takes us somewhere more complicated than just dropping any focus on feminism (and I speak only of church feminism, not the over all societal feminism Ensler operates in)

  17. You cannot repair the damage done to the Church, and especially men the Church, without confronting Feminism. Whatever else you do will not avail you until Feminism is expelled from the Church.Think of it a tumor in the body of the Church, a cancer eating away at the Church. Cancer creates all kinds of symptoms and problems aside from those directly involving the tumor. When you propose to ignore Feminism, you propose to try and heal the rest of the body, to fix all the symptoms, but leave the tumor intact. Which accomplishes nothing in the end but the death of the patient.

  18. This is a reply for both donal and empath.

    I did not say that we need to drop all focus on feminism or ignore it, nor do I mean that we should not be prepared to confront it; I said shift our main focus to healing and helping men. I believe I said that we need to be ready for the attacks from feminism. I use the biblical model because the predominant thing that God’s prophets and apostles always did was remind people who was Lord, what was truth, but they also had to deal, always, with detractors, enemies within, religious hypocrites and so on. We absolutely need to be prepared for this and trained for this. I do not in any way discount the work the MRM has done in building up information and networks. That’s invaluable.

    I don’t have some perfect formula, I’m sorry to say. I simply feel a compassionate call to encourage men, to help raise and protect children, and I honestly don’t see anything godly in feminism; I don’t see it as genuinely empowering. I see it as encouraging women to keep privilege while claiming equality. But you see I can’t do much about that. I’ve found that at best a few people swallow the red pill, most are indifferent and dazed, and there are a bunch who demonize those who speak the truth. I see that the issues they illustrate are real–and taken out of context so that women are ONLY seen as victims, never as agents. Yet throughout the Book of Isaiah I see the answers to the things they shout about made manifest in the prophecies of the coming of Jesus Christ.

    At bottom line though, we’ll have to take the risk of speaking the truth even if it splits congregations or gets us kicked out. But it is VITAL that we do it while visibly doing good. It is absolutely essential that as we are going Christ’s work on Earth that we do it as his emissaries, while helping the sick, feeding and clothing the poor and naked, encouraging people to be free of sin and live according to righteousness.

  19. At bottom line though, we’ll have to take the risk of speaking the truth even if it splits congregations or gets us kicked out. But it is VITAL that we do it while visibly doing good

    That was my answer to my question, essentially, like when I agree and disagree so, do both, or all….make yourself less impeachable by the fruit of the good you do.
    I have as you know Mcscribe spent more than some, less than a lot, of time wrangling specific churches. I’m about to do so again. And even in that setting, Ive decided to adjust me approach, for the men I’m with. They have to HEAR me.

  20. But it is VITAL that we do it while visibly doing good

    I hope you understand that your good deeds will not really help sway any hearts and minds. Look what Jesus did in his short time teaching: He cured the sick, gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the mute, mobility to the lame, fed the hungry and even raised the dead. But all of that meant nothing to the crowds who later cheered when he was put to death. Why? Because he failed to act according to their desires, their wishes, by leading a revolt against the hated Romans.

    If you seek to do good works, do them because they are pleasing to God. Not to please men; because your detractors will give them little credence.

  21. If you read my remarks you will find that I am in fact quite aware of that and that it is a regular thing I say myself, and is a reason why I dislike the feminist approach within the church that suggests that if men were good, women would love them, and that if couples pray and get spiritual together they will be happy.

  22. I must have misread what you wrote then. I just don’t understand your emphasis on visibly doing good while preaching the truth. Why must it be visible then?

  23. McScribe, he may not have read more than what appears on this page from you. I know you say that same thing frequently, but he may not. We’ve talked about the lack of response to Jesus Himself many times as a lesson to build into the rest of this.

  24. I can give my answer to the visible, I mentioned in my other reply. It makes the doer less impeachable. Doing and being seen, i understand, is in one sense like praying on the street instead of in the closet….kind of what you are getting at, but this is not Pharisaical, not porn of credit or pride or self edification, but as something to overcome the mewing from the Pulpit and murmur from the pews about men and their nasty porn habits and the rest. The way men seek to mitigate that sort of gender branding in the church now is to attend these self effacement seminars like I am attending,-how to supplicate till you’re not a reprobate-. Doing good overtly, for men, is better, and invites the outing of those women who would scorn you for doing good, because it isn’t under their tutelage.

    These are concepts anyway, and you can assume proper motives from the men who share them for the most part

  25. “Doing good overtly, for men, is better, and invites the outing of those women who would scorn you for doing good, because it isn’t under their tutelage.”

    Perhaps it will have that effect, but I think you overestimate its value. I am not making a Pharisee comparison here. Merely pointing out that people, if they object to something about you or something you are doing, will forget, ignore or downplay all of your good works. You should help others anyway, because it is a Christian duty; just don’t think that it will count for much in the eyes of feminists and white knights.

  26. Your focus, though you are saying its not about Pharisee, seems to be overly on the motive for doing good works and allowing only two choices, one, for the virtue of its honor to god as you describe, and the other for what effect it may or may not have on others.

    Both of those things as emphasis really miss McScribe’s point(s), kind of a tangent. Saying “do it anyway” is unnecessary. I will be straight, there are plenty of people on these forums who need that kind of basic reminder, but they usually don’t post here. Not intended to be snark.

    Besides, I stated it invites the outing of those who would persecute, not the transformation of those who persecute, in the comment you pasted. Big difference.

  27. So the goal, or one goal, anyways, is to help identity the most vocal of the Churchians? Or to help you point out to those receptive to the message just who they need to watch out for?

    I feel like I’m missing something here, and based on your previous comments its clear that this is an old and lasting conversation. This isn’t meant to be an inquisition, I’m merely curious.

  28. No. The goal is to do the work of the Lord. I believe that Feminism is one of those issues that distracts us, draws us into the enemy’s ambushes, and I want to see Christians re-focusing on doing what Christ urges us to do. I see the MRM spending more time vocally calling out Feminism than it does demonstrating the good it’s trying to do. I think that as Christians within the MRM we need to do more of that, not for the sake of Feminists and white knights but so that we can help more people, make more people aware of the help we offer, and thereby remind people of the salvation offered by Christ.

  29. Yes its a bot of an old conversation between he and I, and its a little bit of a waste of time, not because he or I are intractable, but because we really agree on most things but get into these things about the way stuff is stated/worded. You donal are falling into my side of that artificial chasm that is in reality less than a hairline crack.

    I do want to add that (and McScribe may not know the magnitude of, or maybe he does) that there are things happening among some MRA’s that are well more than just the crowing we do on the usual sites.

  30. “I see the MRM spending more time vocally calling out Feminism than it does demonstrating the good it’s trying to do. “,sojournerscribe on April 7, 2013 at 9:00 pm said.

    I agree, but baby steps are needed. First the avarage MRA needs to become a functioning mature adult. As a man that means finding and developing Integrity and Authenticity, keystones to a healthy soul. Seek ‘Truth’, not simply show where feminists are wrong (that’s relatively easy !). One has to acknowledge that a generation of young men have been educated within a wholly feministised system of agitprop, demeaning, and crudity, and many have become the very thing that feminists tell us man are. Abusive. A self-fulfilling prophesy.

    Before the MRM goes out showing Christ to the world, many have to shake off their feminist-bred atheism and discover the Man in Christ for themselves.

    [good words]

  31. Amfortas:
    I’ll go along with that; but it can’t be overlooked that feminism is primarily about gender supremacy: and they don’t care if the vehicles they use to those ends are religious or not. There are PLENTY of man-hating Christian women and a swarm of white-knights (think Rev. Mark Driscoll) who preach misandry under the guise of ‘Christian Duty.’

    That’s what needs to change: the church needs to stop tolerating anti-male and anti-sex biases if it is to survive as anything but a slightly socially conservative version of radical feminism.

  32. Just so we’re clear: I absolutely believe that we need real information about the corrupting influence of Feminism, and I absolutely agree that the damage it has done needs to be examined. If you consider the examples I used from the Bible, truth was like a sword for the people of God that they were always ready to draw in the face of the Enemy. Absolutely. But their chief effort was about restoring righteousness in all its aspects, and I’d simply like to see more of that.

    And yeah I fully expect it to be rejected often. Holding women accountable is simply not allowed anymore–there’s this curious facade that they are held accountable, but a lot of that is to be blunt in the women’s own minds. And I do know that there are some churches out there trying to backpedal, trying to invoke some imaginary idea of radical conservatism from another time that never existed, but to be really blunt, they’re idiots. Most people have a somewhat basic sense of reality. Why else are there so many protestant churches with female leadership out there?

    I liken this fight though to being like say a struggle to win a customer base. It isn’t enough to just criticize someone’s products–it’s far better to suggest something else, to demonstrate the greater worth of something else. Sure you need all that information about why the other product is inferior, but it’s far better if you can demonstrate the good that your own product will achieve, right?

  33. Sojourner:
    True, although many churches today are unaware that they are this badly corrupted. I don’t know how many ‘trad’ women I’ve met who’ve reflexively spouted feminist dogmas as though they were simply given realities!

    As for the theology of the churches themselves; I read a theologian recently who pointed out that Christianity has always had two dangerous tendencies. The New Testament contains elements of both Judaism and Platonism (it was meant to supersede both), but there always been tendencies, when the church is in decline, to revert back either to its Judaistic or Hellenistic roots. The first is a Pharisacal legalism, the second is Gnosticism; and we see both today with the ‘conservative’ churches in the first camp and the ‘liberal’ churches in the second.

    How that plays out for gender relations is this way: Judaism never held women accountable for their actions and Gnosticism holds that women are inherently more spiritual. Neither holds to the gender polarity or spiritual equality actually preached by Christ and the early saints. So without that fundamental understanding, the churches are doomed to embrace female gender supremacy almost by instinct.

  34. Another element of that is that many ignorant people simply see feminism as egalitarianism, are unaware of any other forms of egalitarianism and don’t even know they are indoctrinated with feminism. They have no idea of what the actual practices of feminism are or any of the teachings. But then the same is true of their knowledge of the Bible.

  35. There is certainly a lot of finger-pointing going on in that video, and all of it outward, none inward; very telling, is it not?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s