Silence them...

The Apostle Paul is not postmodern. He doesn't preen himself publicly over his meekness and humility. Being fully aware he speaks for God, he's not so arrogant as to refuse to defend his leadership, teaching, and doctrine. He doesn't shrug off his responsibilities, nor is he coy about his authority. When sweet-talking guys invaded the churches of his time spreading their false doctrines and schism, he took a stick to them and beat them about the head until they were driven away from the flock.

God and His truth were The Thing with the Apostle Paul—not himself.

Dear pastor, elder, or Titus 2 woman, how is it with you? When you face a feminist, do you flinch? Do you fear how you'll play in Peoria? Do you say things like...

I wish God allowed women elders because I think women would do a better job at eldering than men, but the Bible is clear and we have to submit to it.

Or worse,

The Church has a great debt to feminists for pointing out the misogyny that has characterized Her communal and family life for many centuries, now.

Or worst,

I appreciate the insights of my esteemed colleague and appreciate this chance to dialog.

The Church today has many men who won't fight. Why not?

Because they aren't humble. Proud of their equanimity in the face of heretics, they don't guard their sheep, but leave them confused and milling about as the rapacious wolves devour them at will. The shepherds live as their sheep die.

Fr. Bill Mouser explains it this way:

* * *

Back in the mid-1990s, I was watching (from the inside) ostensibly "conservative" Episcopalians as they seriously organized themselves around the question "What do we do NOW?" They had their social networks, forums, and bloggers (they still do!). Every once in a while you'd see some form of the following float by in the forums or blogs:

Two aged orthodox Episcopal priests knelt side-by-side in the trendy new diocesan cathedral, waiting for their bishop's Easter service to begin. It commenced with a lonely, eerie wisp of Tibetan bells wafting through the rafters. Then a chorus of plucked hand-harps took up the icy harmonies, and with a rattling slap of feet from the Puppets of Doom (these Episcopals were conceding nothing to the Romans) the procession down the central aisle began.

After the bell ringers and harpists came a dancing troop of near naked young men in red speedos, streamers flying from their wrists. Then something new—six women in purple robes shouldering a litter which bore a larger-than-life-sized Buddha. The bishop brought up the rear, her tresses plaited with white and red ribbons hanging from the edges of her mitre, her brocaded cassock matching the thurible in her hand.

One aged priest turned to the other and said, "Just one more thing, and I'm outta here!"

Like these aged priests, evangelical complementarians never seem to find that one more thing which impels them to inaugurate and maintain a rupture in the conversation. They strenuously keep the conversation going with the wolves in their seminaries, publishing houses, and mission boards, thereby facilitating and validating the right of religious feminists to pursue their obviously lupine (wolfish) agendas.

* * *

These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.

But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.

But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:16-25)

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

Well, there has been misogyny in the world. And feminists have pointed it out. 

I imagine that feminists have also observed that the sun rises in the east.  That doesn't begin to justify the oceans of innocent blood that has been shed because of them.

You're right that misogyny is as old as the hills. But feminism has actually bred some of the most appalling misogyny that the world has ever seen. What could possibly be more misogynistic than to create a society where a woman is not free to be a woman, but must join man's rough-and-tumble rat race, and compete with the boys? Where even many of the best men will expect her to be willing to have casual sex outside of marriage? Where her desire for children is systematically stamped out beginning in elementary school, and once she reaches adulthood is only permitted to her at the cost of farming out the rearing of those children to so-called "professionals"? And if she happens to conceive a child at an inconvenient time, she is expected to kill him so he won't interfere with her other plans? That is some of the misogyny that feminism has wrought, and it effectively requires a woman to become a man. That's not liberating, it's androgynizing. It's male worship.

Thank you for this encouragement!

When a "Complementarian" leader thanks a feminist for her complimentary words about his kinder, gentler tone ...

When another tells an f-bomb dropping, off-color joke telling feminist, "anything to keep the conversation going" and says her off-color jokes are funny ...

i won't go on.  It just has me wondering why they bother? Is it job security? Is that what motivates them? It certainly isn't courage.

I guess misogyny doesn't matter if you hate feminism so  much.

Karin,

Can you define misogyny for us?

No idea of what Mary Karin's definition of misogyny is.  Without comment, here are definitions from four dictionaries: three online and one hard-copy, along with links (online) and bibliographic reference (hard-copy): 

Merriam-Webster Online

  • noun. a hatred of women.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny?show=0&t=1382915524

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

  • n. Hatred of women.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/misogyny

Oxford Dictionaries (U.S. English)

  • noun. dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women (ex: she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny).

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/misogyny?q=misogyny

The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus (American Edition)

  • n. The hatred of women.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Well, if it was dictionary definitions I was looking for, I could have looked it up myself.

Abram,

I know many women who buck the trend you describe. I wouldn't call them feminists, using your definition. In my humble opinion they show that women can be full-time moms for a season and then return to a career (if they choose to do so) or combine part-time work with motherhood. Many are women from my current (Anglican) parish. In this parish (with ~ 300 members and weekly attendance of about 200), there is 1 family with six children, 2 with 5 children, and 2 with 4 children. There are several more with 3 children. Most of the moms with young children or the largest families either stay at home full-time or have jobs with flexible hours. 

Many friends of my age (I'm in the middle of the baby boom generation) stayed home with their children until they were in school full-time and then had neighbors to take care of their children after work and/or took jobs with flexible schedules, as did one of my sisters (she worked part-time until the youngest of their 6 children was 10 years old). Nearly all these women had bachelor's degrees (a few had master's degrees); all had some post-high school education. 

Our attorney left her position in corporate law when she and her husband started their family. Why? To practice law part-time on her own terms. (She is a Gen X'er). Even with children in high school, she still doesn't practice full-time. She drives her children to/from school, volunteers in their school, and attends all their sporting events. 

Same with my primary care physician. For years, she has job-shared a full-time position with another female physician. (Grandma and Grandpa take care of the children when she's not home.) She and her husband recently had their 3rd child about 6 months ago. (She is a Millennial.)

Kamilla,

I didn't mean to offend. Mary Karin wasn't forthcoming with her definition of misogyny. I thought someone out there might want to know how misogyny was defined and I figured it couldn't hurt to provide some definitions.

Sue

P.S. It's time for Sunday night football. If anyone wants to discuss my comments, I won't be online for several hours or maybe until Monday morning.

Sue, I wasn't offended. Just amused she hasn't been back.

I think a more helpful query would be for a definition of "feminism." For whatever it may have meant to past generations, here's the definition of "feminism" that my generation (young adults in their 20's) has received:

Feminism: the dogma that men and women are identical for any and all purposes, excepting a few minor differences in plumbing and hormones (but don't worry about those, we've got some great pills that will make them entirely unnoticeable and inconsequential).

This is the feminism that I encounter among my peers on a daily basis, and why I wrote what I wrote about the pervasive misogyny, male-worship, and androgynization of feminism. But perhaps Karin has something else in mind when she writes about "feminism."

Abram,

I concur that this is the actual definition of feminism that energized the rise of the feminist hegemony in the Seventies and Eighties. I would only add one thing which your definition omits -- the political dimension to this meaning of feminism.

For, if the sense of feminism you've offered is correct (and it is!), then in the interests of justice and equity, all spheres of human activity, productivity, and political power must stringently avoid any discrimination that arises from any notion of sex -- whether it is biological sex (male or female) or socially constructed sexual identity (gay, bixsexual, heterosexual, transexual, and whatsoever else thou listeth).

It is this political dimension of feminism which has transformed Western culture from its patriarchal cast (whether based in natural law or in the Christian faith) and recast it in the image of feminism. And, as with the doctrine of affirmative action in the area of race relations in America, so also with feminism -- where in order to redress the injustices of centuries of patriarchy, women are granted preference over men, particularly in the job market. 

A misogynist is someone who hates women. Often you see them ignoring or de-valuing Bible verses that empower women. At the same time, they happily recite Scripture that disempowers them. This happens because of their misogyny.

They are afraid of competition from women, so can't bear to see them in the workforce or the military.

"Can't bear to see them in the workforce or the military"

How does this play out? Personally, I find it hard to fathom men fearing competition from women in military combat roles since very, very few women can fulfill the same physical requirements. 

Dear Ms. Karin,

Your criteria are either twisted or just confused.

1. You speak of Bible verses that "empower women". These days, "empower women" is generally code for "empower women to not need no man". But this is against God's good creation order, when He made Adam first, then Eve, and brought the woman to the man as his helper. Can it be possible that you meant "ignoring or de-valuing Bible verses that empower women to be the helpers God calls them to be"? That man would truly be a misogynist.

2. "At the same time, they happily recite Scripture that disempowers them". Scripture that disempowers women? This must be a misstatement. Surely you are not attacking the Word of Life, are you?

3. "They are afraid of competition from women..." A man who fears women is not a misogynist but a coward. But you have a strange proof of his cowardice: "...so can't bear to see them in the workforce or the military." But the man who loves his wife desires to provide for her rather than forcing her out into the workforce; and he honors how she risks her life to bear children to him for the Lord and would not think of sending her out to risk her life in the military. Is this the man you call a misogynist?

Love,

Daniel

They are afraid of competition from women, so can't bear to see them in the workforce or the military.

I don't like seeing them in the military because they get good men killed. For some feminists that is probably a bonus feature.

"Personally, I find it hard to fathom men fearing competition from women in military combat roles since very, very few women can fulfill the same physical requirements. "

I know many young athletic women who are stronger and faster than the middle-aged men who complain about them.  Are any of the men on this blog in the military, or do they just sit in their homes and complain about the women defending this country?

Are any of the men on this blog in the military, or do they just sit in their homes and complain about the women defending this country?

I spent 20 years in the armed forces but you don't have to have done that to understand the damage that women in the armed forces do, particularly in more combat oriented roles.

If we were depending on middle-aged men to defend this couyou might might have a point. 

As we're not? You don't. 

More to the point of the post, my wife and I are reading through Randy Alcorn's Why Pro-Life? book. Amid the helpful teaching there are several painful examples where he tips his hat to the errors of feminism. Here are a few:

"Men decided women had fewer rights." (49)

"There can be no equal rights for all women until there are equal rights for unborn women." (60)

"A woman's worth was once judged by whether or not a man wanted her. A child's worth is now judged by whether or not her mother wants her. Both of these are tragic injustices." (89)

It's painful because in an effort to make his points he's willing to throw godly men of the past under the bus.

"... willing to throw godly men of the past under the bus."

The other side of this coin amounts to embracing the feminist' premises. After that, there's no hope that "complementarians" will ever be able to maintain their own practical convictions. They simply have no credible reasons to do so.

Yes. Like Israel.

I was responding to this comment, "I spent 20 years in the armed forces but you don't have to have done that to understand the damage that women in the armed forces do, particularly in more combat oriented roles."

Yes. Like Israel.

Israel has seriously backed away from the idea, just as the Soviet Union did.  Only superpowers who limit themselves to fighting third rate powers can manage to get away with it to a degree.  But you never know who you'll fight next.  Who wants women at Bataan?

Dear David (Gray),

You and Ms. Karin will continue to talk past each other unless you address her claim that there might be at least one treacle-well---a woman strong enough physically. I don't know if you are saying there has never been, could never be such a woman---but suppose there were such a creature. It would still be man's duty to protect her, and her husband's duty to provide for her. It would still be wrong to send her out into battle.

Making this argument would be edifying to many---maybe even Ms. Karin.

Love,

Daniel

unless you address her claim that there might be at least one treacle-well---a woman strong enough physically

Physical strength isn't the biggest issue even from a utilitarian standpoint.  In one sense it isn't even any aspect of any given woman.  No matter what her personal characteristics are she will still be a woman which is the most significant factors in how she will relate and be understood by the men around her.  A woman, simply by existing in a unit, changes the unit and the changes are almost entirely in ways which render the unit less combat effective.  It is poison to unit cohesion, particularly in the field.  And ultimately the armed forces will alter its culture based on the presence of women.  And those changes will pretty much invariably degrade its combat capability and effectiveness.

"And ultimately the armed forces will alter its culture based on the presence of women. "

That is already happening, as off-the-record reports of those in the ranks will tell you (they don't dare speak openly, of course; it results in punishment). And, such changes will be reversed eventually, through the "stimulus" of a great many deaths and many military defeats.

Israel has had men and women serving side by side for years, even in combat. And quite successfully. What is wrong with your sons that they cannot do the same?  (I am assuming your sons have been encouraged to enlist).

Add new comment