Her.meneutics: Bachmann, Palin, and the Trouble with 'Evangelical Feminism'

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« A Daughter's Grief Observed | Main | Would Jesus Walk Away from a Mortgage? »

July 8, 2011

Bachmann, Palin, and the Trouble with 'Evangelical Feminism'

Feminists say Bachmann and other conservative women can't join their club. I say the club needs some new ground rules.

Caryn Rivadeneira

When I heard rumblings about Michele Bachmann’s run for the presidency, I got nervous — though not the reasons you might think.

I’m not nervous about the political leanings of the Minnesota congresswoman and conservative Lutheran mother of five. In fact, I often agree with the way she votes. Instead, I’m nervous about ensuing conversations in my circles of feminist friends. As a fish-out-of-water, conservative feminist, I know what awaits the presidential hopeful.

Feminists don’t exactly have the best history of supporting politically conservative women. Even as Elizabeth Dole, Arizona governor Jan Brewer, and Sarah Palin sought to shatter some of the last panes of the American Glass Ceiling, they were derided among secular feminists, and others, for supporting traditional moral and economic values. Essentially, they belonged to the wrong party. And women who charge Democratic men with criminal actions certainly get a different response from those who charge Republicans: think Paula Jones’s reception versus Anita Hill’s.

Feminists of the Jesus-loving persuasion aren’t always much different from their secular sisters, if a recent Washington Post guest column by Rachel Held Evans says anything. The author of Evolving in Monkey Town writes, “As a Democrat, an evangelical, and a strong supporter of women’s equality, I can’t bring myself to call Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin ‘evangelical feminists.’ ”

I want to give the witty and wise Evans the benefit of the doubt, especially since in the paragraph before this, she calls evangelical feminism — the new media moniker for us conservative feminists — “meaningless.” But her “as a Democrat” affiliation seems to support the notion that feminism is a Democrats-only club.

In fact, Evans left me scratching my head even harder when she states, “If [Bachmann’s and Palin’s] ambitions force the evangelical community to confront the mixed messages being sent to young women in churches across this country, then I think their presence in this election is a good thing.”

Evans is right that exposing hypocrisy or mixed messages in our churches is good. But she misses something huge: the opportunity for the feminist community to face its own hypocrisy and mixed messages. Frankly, there’s so much of it, it’s no wonder Bachmann herself has rejected the feminist label.

While Evans may even be right about the meaninglessness of the term evangelical feminist, she’s wrong about why. What might make evangelical feminist meaningless isn’t the evangelical part. Some of us were actually raised evangelical Christians and feminists right in the same buildings: in our churches, our Christian schools, and our Christian homes.

Rather, if evangelical feminism lacks meaning, it’s because feminism today lacks meaning, drifting far from its original goals and tone.

When I was little, my teachers, pastors and Sunday school teachers, mom, mom’s friends, and friends’ moms told me that I could freely use my God-given gifts, form my own thoughts, and create my own stories. These early “feminist” influencers broadened my horizons. They opened up words and worlds for me. They offered huge vistas of what it meant to be a woman, and a Christian. I didn’t have to think or feel or worship or vote a certain way to be both.

Now, instead of being liberating and expansive, feminism offers women something quite narrow, at least politically. Contemporary feminism assumes all women must support and strive for unlimited access to abortion and birth control. Large chunks of today's feminism also support the idea that women should use their sexuality — not their gifts and intellect — to gain power in the corporate and political arenas. Any deviations have to be carefully constructed. Where feminists once fought to fling open doors and even escape hatches, it now busies itself putting women back into tidy boxes.

Whether it’s a conservative evangelical box telling us what or where a real Christian woman is, or whether it’s Rachel Held Evans’s box telling us how a real feminist votes, Christian women — whether or not we call ourselves feminists— must resist attempts to exclude women from full participation in public life. Instead, we must encourage one another in sisterly Christian love. Which, getting back to topic, is what evangelical feminism should mean.

In her Washington Post article “A privilege to be an ‘evangelical feminist,’ ” Anne Graham Lotz writes that while the term evangelical feminist is new to her, Lotz identifies with it, “if it describes women who are strong, bold, free-spirited leaders inside and outside of their homes, unashamed of their faith in God, his Word, his Son, and his Gospel . . . .”

I concur, but would take it few steps further.

As Christians we are called to lift each other up in the loving and dignifying spirit of Christ, calling out each other's God-given gifts. Combine this with the sort of old school, bare-bones feminism that believes that women are made in the full image of God, therefore deserving to be treated with dignity and equality, and you have the potential to change the world.

In the political realm, evangelical feminists can change the world by encouraging and supporting other women, even when our opinions differ. They can engage in civil discourse and debates, assuming the good about one another even as we disagree. But maybe most importantly, evangelical feminists can change the world by offering the very thing God created us to offer: telling women across the globe that God loves them no matter what, that Jesus' cross frees us from shame and degradation, and that the Holy Spirit transcends restrictions and equips all of us with fearlessness and power, even those among us who have much to fear and little power.

Women reaching women with the Good News of a God who loves them — no matter what they think or how they vote — is the feminism Jesus modeled for us.

Comments

Isn't it a sign of the maturity of the feminist movement that politics matter? Conservative Feminists didn't support Clinton in large numbers. More liberal feminists probably won't support any conservative in large numbers. I think it is a lack of understanding of the goals of feminism to support a candidate that is you disagree with their politics, just because they are woman.

Caryn, I understand your argument of this post. Today's feminism needs to acknowledge that it's not universally supportive of all women, and perhaps feminism in and of itself claims to do that. If it's claiming to do so and then doesn't, that is hypocritical. Still, I find it more helpful to find where Christians are being hypocritical than secular political movements. Christians take funny stands on things and we shouldn't be surprised when everyone isn't "accepting" (even when a core value of our society is 'acceptance.').

You write, "Even as Phyllis Schlafly, Elizabeth Dole, Arizona governor Jan Brewer, and Sarah Palin sought to shatter some of the last panes of the American Glass Ceiling, they were derided among secular feminists, and others, for supporting traditional moral and economic values."

I have to say that I am quite surprised you listed Phyllis Schlafly there--who campaigned AGAINST instituting the Equal Rights Amendment which would finally say in the constitution that men and women are citizen equals.

And I think your listing Phyllis Schlafly proves the point why many feminists reject certain "evangelical" feminist politicians. To many feminists conservative evangelical female politicians don't appear to support forms of government that are in the best interest of a lot of women--especially those who are poor and at the margins of society. To read more on the subject check out Elizabeth Fox Genovese's book "Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life": How Today's Feminist Elite Has Lost Touch with the Real Concerns of Women.

Finally, I think the issue here as Christians is not to become frustrated when secular feminists don't approve of the stances we're taking. We need to be more concerned about whether or not WE are becoming imitators of Christ--something evangelical feminists--conservative political candidates included--all need to desperately pursue more than ever.

Wow, what a firestarter! Thank you, Caryn, for starting this conversation. Thinking about the person of Jesus, I have the hard time equating him with "feminism." As author Dorothy Sayers has said, being a Christian means we are "humanists." Not in the sense that we are sovereign or in control of the universe, but in the sense that EVERY person, male and female, is made in the image of God. That is, we resemble and represent God. Yes, women should be afforded equality and opportunity because they are made in God's own image. But seeking equality should not trump our truest and main purpose: participating in the work Jesus has given us to do, wherever we can and in whatever ways He equips and calls us to do so.

As one woman said, "Jesus has already set women free."

I hate labels because their definitions are extremely narrow. Whenever my ideas come across feministic to friends they label me as someone who hates men and marriage. Then when I come across too conservative for feminist friends I am labeled something else. It's just ridiculous to me to put these labels on people when who really care? One label is not going to adequately define a person so why do it?

Politically, early "feminism" came from the conservative arena that was inclusive of all women and not just "their" party. The latter movement during the sexual revolution came from the more liberal movement and the line of feminism has just stayed there. From the suffrage movement it took a turn in the 70's to women's complete and total rights over their bodies. (Compare statements about abortion during the Suffragist movement and the Feminist movement...extremely polar opposites.) The contrasts between the two are so fascinating and now we see a new wave of feminism approaching.

Also, I think support for all women (democrat, republican, libertarian, independent, etc.) can be given by other women without agreeing with their ideas. Although I do not agree with the majority of Hillary Clinton's policies I appreciate what she has done for women. Although I do not agree with Laura Bush about some things, I appreciate her strides for women's rights and caring for others. If we can look past a party label and look at what females have done for women I think we would be in a better place.

In my opinion, instead of focusing on the wrongs of each other, we should focus on the wrongs females face in the world -- sex trafficking, rape, abuse, etc. In doing that I think we will find unity and support as women.

Thanks for the dialog.

Just to be clear: I never meant to convey in the article that one cannot be a Republican and a feminist. It's my fault that I didn't clarify that better.

The piece was meant to explore the conflicting feelings I have about the phrase "evangelical feminist" when it was made clear in my corner of the evangelical culture that 1) "feminism" is a dirty word, and 2) only liberals are feminists. I continue to hear that more from the evangelical side of the conversation than from anywhere else...though you are right, liberals are guilty of perpetrating the idea as well.

Which of course is why the media loves the phrase "evangelical feminist." It's bound to make somebody mad. :-)

Thanks for commenting, Rachel. I was hoping you would! Glad you defended yourself. : ) I know from experience it can be so annoying when people do what I just did to you--use one comment to launch into a personal diatribe. But since this "evangelical feminist" thing doesn't seem to be going away, I think it's important to keep fleshing it out.

@Emily: I actually didn't include Phyllis Schlafly in my post. My editor and I had talked about her early on--but I didn't include her for the reasons you mention. Anyway, my editor put her in--and has just notified me that she's taking PS back out. : )

Caryn, I love your call here to take this "opportunity for the feminist community to face its own hypocrisy and mixed messages.

I love irony, and one of the riches ironies of my life is that the people who identified, cultivated, and launched my own leadership abilities were a group of conservative male pastors. They made me the "feminist" I am today--and would gladly claim so.

The fundamental problem with the term "evangelical feminist" is the meaning of the word evangelical. Persons often touted as "evangelical feminists", especially of the political variety, make a mockery of the word evangelical every time they publicly embrace and vote for legislation that contradicts the gospel imperative to care for the poor, the widows, the orphans, the weak, the rejected; that provides benefits for the haves while depriving the have nots of what little they have; that calls social darwinism fiscal conservatism. I'm surprised the term isn't applied to people like Dorothy Day, a radical feminist who condemned abortion, refused to cooperate with an economy built on preparing for warfare, took care of the really "down and out" and embraced her Christian faith considerately more passionately than the congresswoman from Minnesota and the former governor of Alaska. If the word "evangelical" were used in its most literal sense, it couldn't possibly be applied to some, if not many, "conservative" "evangelical feminists".

Excellent piece, Caryn!

I appreciate the sentiments of the article. However, I feel Rachel Held Evans was a bit "used" and her position distorted. Having followed her blog over 2 to 3 years, I feel the author has created a "straw woman" of Rachel's position to have a target to knock down.... I haven't checked yet if Rachel has responded, but I expect she will have some interesting and insightful thoughts.

Excellent, as ever. Such an important conversation to be having. Thank you Caryn!

I'm amused at all the jostling around the terms "feminist" and "evangelical." "I do not think it means what you think it means . . ." Some of this has to do with the need to label, to categorize--even demonize--and an equal fear of being stereotyped in one way or another.

Lost in this discussion, too, is the irony that in the olden times--mid-1970s--"evangelical feminist" referred to women who were waaay out on the left as far as most evangelicals were concerned.

Caryn, Your observations are in agreement with my own. As the father of three daughters, I don't want them to be taken advantage of by either side of the political arena. In my view, it seems that feminism has been perverted into a political tool by one side and no longer serves its original intent. An example is that "feminists" adore president Clinton in spite of his treatment of women while in positions of power. It's not about protecting the rights and opportunities of women, it's all about using feminism as a tool to gain political power.

Great post, Caryn. I'm not any more fond of labels than the next woman, but like most of my friends I vote Republican and am a pro-life feminist in the truest sense of the term. This is a worthwhile discussion to have.And as for the reader who thinks that evangelical women overlook Sharia law, think again. Thousands of women of faith are working actively to see women freed from oppression.

Caryn, Great piece, a conversation more church families should be bold enough to have. I am a member of a church I love where people really love Jesus, but the denomination it is part of limits women's roles in the church because of tradition. I don't agree but it is where God has me for now. Sometimes we need to work within the system but when we can speak out and be who God has called us to, it is a great thing. Thank you Caryn for speaking out.

"There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

"Now, instead of being liberating and expansive, feminism offers women something quite narrow, at least politically. Contemporary feminism assumes all women must support and strive for unlimited access to abortion and birth control. Large chunks of today's feminism also support the idea that women should use their sexuality — not their gifts and intellect — to gain power in the corporate and political arenas. Any deviations have to be carefully constructed. Where feminists once fought to fling open doors and even escape hatches, it now busies itself putting women back into tidy boxes."

Wow, just wow. Do you have any idea that feminism is much broader then what is going on in politics and religion in the United States? Talk about boxes!

The unrecognized position of privledge from which you speak blows my mind.

@Kristen: Indeed I do realize feminism is broader than politics. But we're talking about politics here. I've only got 1,000 words. But I'm curious why you think I don't recognize my privileged position. I have freedom, a voice and a decent platform to express it. How could I fail to recognize that?

@Dan: That's a bit of a tired argument, I think: that only Democrats care about the poor. There are different ways to care for the poor. Different beliefs on what is actually most effective. No party is the "Christian" one.

@Howard: Sure. I suppose I "used" Rachel's comment. But all writers or anyone who puts themselves out in the public gets "used" that way. In fact, I think it's a good thing to write something that spawns other posts. It means you're SOMEBODY worth debating. Plus, I tried to handle this gracefully--I like Rachel!

@All: Also noticed that we put Bachmann down as a Senator. She's a Congressperson. : )

I like how Anne Graham Lotz concluded her article in The Washington Post. It is worth observing: "So if “evangelical feminism” means women who know what they believe, who are strong in their convictions, who are bold in their actions, who are courageous to stand up and speak out for Jesus Christ, while being godly wives and mothers, then I would count it a privilege to be called one."

A few years ago, when it looked like Hillary Clinton might become a Presidential candidate, an evangelical group released an anti-feminist DVD called 'First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women', based on the infamous tract by John Knox, which supported the view that no woman should ever be allowed to lead a country.
If by some miracle (curse?), Bachmann or Palin ever do become Presidential contenders, I'll be curious to hear the producers response to that. My guess is, in typical evangelical fashion, it will be another case of 'our rules apply to everyone else; they don't apply to us'.

Your definition of feminism - the one I quoted above - is misleading. Feminism is a very, very broad ideology.

Your privledge is apparent in that definition as well. Access to abortion and birth control might be the big issues for a certain group of feminists in the U.S. but, again, there are much broader - and more basic - issues that feminists are working to improve around the world. Equality in education, health, economics and security just to name a few.

You can have your discussion around politics, but the way you characterize contemporary feminism requires some research.

But Kristen, I say right before those sentences that it offers something quite narrow "at least politically" and then describe what I mean--in politics. It wasn't an expansive definition of feminism. I believe I did try to offer something more broad and global later in the post.

I agree that you should take out Phyllis Schlafley because she was more about keeping women restricted.

As for the rest of the article, spot on! The liberal feminist movement (and yes, they have done some positive things for women) wants to do the very same thing that the far right, non-feminists want to do: tell women what to do. Well, we women have brains and decide for ourselves what we belive in politically and religiously, and that drives people on the left and the right crazy.

I am in agreement with Mike. Caryn, I think you are trying to make a good argument, but you need a little more historical background here. Read Ruth Rosen's The World Split Wide Open. Feminism was, first and foremost, about equality. And as Mike pointed out, contemporary feminist look to bring about equality for woman accross the board, from education to health care. Does the evangelical church truly support equality for women? I don't know the answer, because I am not part of the church, but the few friends I do have as well the brief exposure I have had, I get the impression that is not the main message or goal. To be able to call oneself a feminist, there has to be a fundemental belief that all women are equal and that they cannot be denied access to health care, education, jobs, etc. (there is a long history as to why this important) Can female republicans be feminists? No, I'm sorry. Based on the knowledge of the history of feminism, not they cannot, because the social conservatives is the directly opposite of feminist goals and objectives. (and it I not about using sexuality to make it in corporate America. Feminist use there minds, not their bodies to succeed) Read The World Spilt Open and you will see why. There are a lot of other books, but this is one of the most readable on the history.

Such a good article. This topic frustrates me to no end. I also was disappointed with Evens's Evangelical Feminism post. It was unfortunate that she didn't do a little more research before writing on such an important subject. I absolutely claim the labels Christian (of the Gospel believing sort aka: Evangelical), Feminist, and Republican. I believe in complete equality in the home, church and society for men and women. I also happen to be pretty strongly pro-life, I think our constitution is an amazing document, and I don't believe high taxes are ultimately going to help anyone. And I'm so tired of being told by both liberals and conservatives that I'm not really a Christian! If I was truly a Christian I would be a democrat because they are the party that helps the poor and believes in equality. Or, on the other hand, if I was truly a Christian I would believe in male headship. Can we please give each other permission to think for ourselves? Can we please try to respect each other's opinions, even when our opinions differ?
Thanks again for the post. Oh, and Rachel, check out http://www.cbeinternational.org/

@Cheryl: I'll happily check out that book. But are you serious? Republicans can't be feminists because they aren't about equality? Wow. So if I identify myself as Republican you think that I automatically believe women are worth less than men? And conversely, all Democrats believe in absolute equality? I'm laughing, but it's not funny.... It's a horrible--and wrong-headed--assumption. On both parts.

And "the evangelical church" is far too broad a thing to definitely say how they collectively feel. As I said in the post, many support total equality. Some do not.

But let's not tell each other what we can or can not be. I am a feminist. And a Libertarian. And a Christian. And it's all okay.

When Protestant leaders capitulated at the start to the birth control-powered sex-soaked culture (Circa 1960), weren't "conservative" female candidates inevitable? However, can one be both conservative (or even Christian) and contraceptive-using simultaneously? Isn't this akin to a co-ed announcing at a frat party that her tubes are tied, while maintaining that she's a Christian who "would never do that kind of thing"? Who will end this Protestant orgy?

For one thing, birth control pills are not just used for birth control, you can easily check this out for yourself. For another thing, they are widely used by married people of all faiths. The Catholic church may teach that it's wrong to limit your family, but the Catholic church doesn't pay the bills for the many millions of people who are impoverished because of the number of children that they have. Birth control pills mainly work by inhibiting ovulation, so an embryo is not even formed or killed. Women are born with about 2 million eggs, God has never meant for women to have 2 million children.

Does it matter that Michele Bachmann does not want to be a feminist and doesn't see herself as one, evangelical or otherwise?

"Bachmann told me [Kirsten Powers] in an interview Tuesday that she wouldn’t call herself a feminist—instead, she simply described herself as 'pro-woman and pro-man.'"

While I agree with your refusal to surrender feminism to Democrats only--and would urge you to even further consider the extent to which it is impossible to even treat feminism merely in its manifestation as a "political" movement, since politics necessarily cartoonizes every idea or tradition it touches (feminism, evangelicalism, etc)--I think a deeper issue has gone unaddressed in this response to Evans' post. Evangelicalism as a theological discourse has overwhelmingly propagated the idea that women are designed by God to have a specified "role," defined fundamentally in relation to a man (father/husband) who is their "head." If feminism is concerned not with an idea as flimsy as "women's worth" (after all, who would openly claim that women aren't worth as much as men?) or even an ill-defined term such as "equality," but rather with understanding women in their own right and affirming their personhood on its own terms--unrelated to an essential and definitional relation/submission to men--then there is a tension in the evangelical discourse that must be worked out.

Other Christian theological traditions use the idea of "roles" and "designs" differently than evangelicalism traditionally has, dissociating it from biology. Until evangelicalism faces this tension, and re-thinks what it means by "roles" and "designs" and whether or not these are compatible with the force of the feminist critique, much of the onus will indeed remain on the *evangelical* side of the category "evangelical feminism" to defend its coherence.

"Bachmann is seldom described in those terms; the conservative Minnesota congresswoman and Tea Party darling might cringe at the feminist label," reports Dan Gilgoff.

And he goes on to point out the difficulty, the irony, of purported "evangelical feminism" in politics (even if some like Bachmann are rejecting that identity); the irony and difficulty is that the political, evangelical woman's leadership has little impact on evangelical Christianity itself:

"Even as more evangelical women pursue top jobs in politics, there is little sign that they will be invited into similar roles in evangelical churches, which continue to be led by men, with some exceptions."

Caryn, your comment surprises me since I mentioned neither Republican nor Democrat. Nor did I suggest that there is only one way to show compassion for the poor. What I did say was that the policies of "evangelical feminists" need to be examined in relationship to the Gospel values of love, compassion, and the preservation of human dignity. You will note that I cited Dorothy Day who had little regard for any political party, but who lived her life in full assurance that her Messiah had already come, that human schemes, especially those devised to protect the rich and powerful, fell far short of Gospel requirements, and who lived her life dedicated to those like the farm workers and skid-row alcoholics, New York cemetary workers, laborers, and migrants whom many of our politicians have little or no use or concern for. I'm looking for evidence that "evangelical feminists" are evangelical.

Separate womanhood (or manhood) from biology? Whatever happened to "Our Bodies, Ourselves"? Doesn't sound possible or desirable ...

I am so glad you are revisiting this. I have seen a lot of comments on very conservative sites lately stated in a way that it is understood men and women are NOT equal and we shouldn't strive to be. I am not sure whether they were claiming the evangelical feminist take or not, but they did state that the bible supports their views. This topic is of great concern to me because as a daughter of a feminist mother of the 60s I feel that we got so hung up on being equal that folks thought we strived to be men and that women and men are created inherently different each adding uniquely to society. On the other hand, those that do see this think that what we have to offer is inferior, and that is where the equality, meaning that our uniqueness is just as valued, comes to play. Why can't we have both?

I have to second Dan Crawford here. I simply don't see any evidence that Bachmann and especially Palin are walking their talk. "By their fruit you will know them" (Matt. 7:16). Where's the fruit? I can't in good conscience encourage and support a woman whose actions I can't agree with just because she's a woman.

I'm at a lost where evangelical feminist and Christians are Democrats come from. Christians are for life not abortion, we help the poor more than the gov't does, it's always been the Christian mission as Jesus said, not used to get the vote of the poor. Christianity liberated women from being less than equal. The early church outside of the 12 apostles was run by women on an all created equal basis, a new idea from Jesus, gee, not from other religions and cultures. Laws passed by men restricted women as time went by in Christian areas. Slavery was never condoned by Christianity but by men who weren't true Christians. It took time to move men to delete slavery, voting for women etc. but the church as a whole finally got it done a heck of a lot better than other non Christian nations and religions have done. True Christian men and women have brought women to where they are in the West today. I don't think women in non Christian areas will ever be free because the second women stand up they are just as fast put down through killings, laws, etc. Only Christian countries have allowed feminism to even exist. Today's feminism is not Cristianity,it came from Christianity and morphed into politics not the other way around. And I would say Christians are more Republican than Democrats when the Republicans don't vote for abortion, homosexual rights and non favoring religion laws, you know, like no prayers in school, etc. Nowadays, unfortunately, Republicans are voting like Democrats against Christian values built into our Constitution, just like the feminists now do.

Caryn,

Thank you for the reply, but again this is where you need to look more at the history of feminism and even the history of the right and republican party. I have a question for you and asking because I have had evangelical and Christain students in my class and one
in particular stood out because she definitely saw herself as a feminist. We had some great conversations and she struggled with her faith because she recognized that at its foundation Christainity and the Evangelical Church (she is one) did not believe in true equality for women. From what I gather women cannot lead their own congregations, am I right? (I think only in the Episopal church they can) Social conservatism, at its core, is not about true equality for women. It is about following very traditional roles for both men and women. If you are truly about equality for women, then can you support women's right to choose their path in life, whatever it may be? Can you say without a doubt that women should have complete control over their bodies, minds, and lives? We are all the beneficaries of second wave feminism. You're a writer, wife and a mother. I am a professor, wife, and a mother. Both of us have had opportunites that women prior to the 1960s could not have imagined. But at the same time race plays a factor in that, a criticism charged against second wave feminists. But if I had to choose the one fundamental difference that separates us Caryn, is that for me true equality for women come
from making their own decisions, sans religion. When religion dictates that women can control their bodies and lives, can lead large congregations, and that EVERYONE is equal in God's eyes, then we will be in full agreement about the meaning of feminism.

Hey Cheryl:

Honestly, your comment broke my heart a little bit. While I absolutely disagree that at its core Social Conservative is not about true equality for women (I mean, really, how is it not?), I'm more concerned about your view of Christianity in general and evangelicalism in specific. Though ADMITTEDLY, the Old Testament is full of some crazy, hard-to-understand stuff about women being quite chattle-like, God created men and women to be equal. They were both made in his image. Equally. They were to work together in the Garden of Eden. Equally.

Christianity believes "the fall"--sin entering in to the world--changed all that (and presumably brought about the weird OT stuff).

But then came Jesus....Oh, Jesus! He revolutionized the world for women. Where his counterparts excluded women, he included them. Where women were ignored, Jesus engaged them. Seriously, he was a WAY radical with women (for his time--in the context of today, it doesn't seem so big so read with historic eyes). Even Paul--who takes a big misunderstood beating--celebrates women leaders.

Maybe the most famous verse on Christianity's view of equality is Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Christianity believes we are all equally sinful, we are all equally offered the gift of Grace, and we are all (ALL!!!) equally loved by our God.

Regarding women in church leadership: I belong to the Christian Reformed Church of North America: women are "allowed" in all positions (though some churches to object individually). Same with the Reformed Church, the Presbyterian USA (and probably some others), many non-denominationals, Anglicans, and a ton more.

There are plenty of Evangelical Churches, of course, that bar women. I think they are wrong. I also think the entire Catholic Church is misguided in this....

Real quick on women's "bodies": I do happen to be against abortion. One, because I do believe life begins at conception. But also (and this is a big also) because I'm a feminist. I believe abortion helps men and men alone. Women have abortions because this is still a man's world, baby. So we (Christians, women) need to support women in difficult pregnancies....

Okay, so long. But please do realize that Christianity is not about oppressing women. Some "religion" is. But Jesus was not. And I believe God made me feminist. Can we agree now? : )

I get so sick of the liberal bias. Let's not forget that it was a Republican, Ronald Reagan, who nominated the first woman Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor. Condoleezza Rice was the first woman African American to be Secretary of State, nominated by a Republican. And Colin Powell was the first African American to hold that position, also nominated by a Republican. Republicans are a lot more ready to put words into action than the Democrats, who keep nominating the good ol' boys.

And for the professor who wanted equal rights for ALL, that should include the baby shouldn't it? That baby is an innocent one, but allowed to live only by the whim of a woman who can decide 9 months into the pregnancy that she really doesn't want it, and can easily put the baby up for adoption, which has long waiting lists.

Contrary to the author's statement that it's the "feminism" of "evangelical feminism" that makes the phrase meanngless, the comments here demonstrate that the muddied understanding of evangelicalism also contributes to the inability to talk about such a concept. There seems to be a huge gap between commenters who understand evangelicalism in its historical, political, and even popular sense, and those, like the author, who self-identify as evangelical and seem free to apply that adjective to all their religious beliefs as a result, even if they aren't normally classified as traditionally "evangelical" beliefs.

This discussion has become quite muddy, due to lack of agreement regarding the meaning of both "evangelical" and "feminist." Historically, evangelicals are those who believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, and there are many consequences that flow from that. The principal distinction among evangelicals over the role of women is whether the Bible permits women to serve in certain authoritative leadership positions in the local church. However, in the past year, because of the potential candidacies of Gov. Palin and Rep. Bachmann, the debate seems to have expanded to whether a woman may serve as the head of state. That's an oddly American debate, since I've not read of evangelicals questioning the reign of Queen Elizabeth II or Margaret Thatcher. Moreover, if we respect the traditional Protestant realms of family, church, and government, then service as head of state (or head of government) shouldn't be a problem, even for those (including me)who believe that the Bible teaches that men exclusively are to be "heads" in marriage and teaching and ruling elders (yes, I am presbyterian (PCA))in the church.

The other issue is what is "feminism." I've not seen as clear a definition of this term. If it means autonomy for women, then it is clearly opposed to the Bible, which teaches that all women, and all men, are subject to the Sovereign Lord and King of both all creation and his church. On the other hand, if "feminism" means encouraging women to use the gifts God as given them to be best of their ability and in the forums and positions to which he has called them, then I am whole-heartedly in agreement. That definition, and its corollary for men (masculinism?), of course, presupposes submission by both men and women to the teaching of the Bible about the normative roles of both men and women. To define these terms apart from God's sovereignty is to subject the church to the norms of non-Christian society, and lose our evangelicalism.

Although the Bible certainly speaks of equality of status before God, "equality" is not apt to describe roles of two such different creatures. Apples and oranges. Automobiles and airplanes. Neither of these pairs can be described, in general terms, as "equal." They are different, and perform different functions, and neither is necessarily inferior or superior to the other, except in reference to specific functions. So with men and women.

The sin that separates us is pride. When men believe that they are superior to women because (as many believe)God has given them, in certain forums, exclusive authority (to be exercised for the blessing of all in the family or church), that pride needs to be repented of. Likewise, when women believe that they are superior to men, that pride needs to be repented of.

The application of these principles to particular issues is necessarily complex. But, e.g., opposition to abortion is neither "masculinist" nor "feminist." In nearly all cases, abortion is murder. (The exception to save the life of the mother is rooted in the Biblical principle of self-defense, but given today's medical practice in America and Europe, and most other non-Third World countries, the need for abortion to save the life of the mother(as opposed to attempting to save both lives by an early surgical delivery is practically non-existent.)

We could go on, but unless "evangelical" and "feminism" are clearly understood in the context of God's sovereignty, we'll be talking past each other.

I agree with Sydney and Chip that there are too many definitions of not only "feminism" but "evangelicalism" floating around in this discussion.

At some level everybody is a feminist today (nobody believes - or nobody worth involving in such a discussion believes, anyway - women shouldn't have legal equality) and at some level all Christians are evangelical (every Christian refers to the scriptures as an authority to some degree). But from there everything gets complicated. Feminists disagree amongst themselves about what feminist beliefs entail political and socially. Christians disagree amongst themselves about how to interpret the scriptures. Put "evangelical" and "feminist" together and you have an even bigger mess.

This is not to degrade either group. I myself call myself both "evangelical" and "feminist." But I do it hesitantly, because I am still trying to figure out the mess myself.

Feminism is not a scriptural teaching and any christian who says they follow God needs to stop following that false idea. Just because women have a supportive role does not mean that they are subservient or second class.

The Bible is very clear on this issue and christians need to stop following secular culture and teachings and get back to being the light to the world and show the unbelievers the correct way.

They should not be following the world for the Bible tells us that the unbelieving world is deceived and deceiving. Think about it people, God's kingdom God's rules and secular culture does not change those rules.

It is a puzzle as to why any whole individual would want to, or feel the need to, stifle her/his unique personhood within the stuffy, controlling mantle of feminism.

I think the discussion of definitions has become a distraction. I suppose we could complicate the meaning of "evangelical" but I imagine everyone on this forum knows whether or not they are one without having it defined for them.

As for "feminist", let's take it in its broadest sense of promoting women's equality and well-being. And contrary to what some men posting seem to think, that is not always served by the exclusive leadership of men. Prior to the 20th century women were NOT equal under the law and plenty of men used Scripture to justify the inequities. By all means, let us uphold the authority of Scripture, but I am astounded at how some interpret Scripture in light of the traditions of men without any apparent awareness that they are doing so. Whether it is tradition or modernity, it is still human opinion.

My concern with having our brothers assert an equality of value without an equality of station is that so few of them really believe it. They try to justify God's decrees by explaining why women are unfit for leadership roles, and the result is always some ridiculous and demeaning stereotype of women. I grew up among fundamentalists, and I saw how sexist comments by boys were tolerated with a wink and a grin while girls walked away feeling hurt and belittled. Surely, when God made Eve in His image, He gave her more dignity than that.

Anne - Definitions are not a distraction. You define "feminism" as "promoting women's equality and well-being," but the people who posted right above you define it as the opposite: the first calls it anti-Christian and the second anti-individual.

I agree with the rest of your post though.

John - Swap the word "patriarchy" for "feminism" in your statement and you'll understand what feminism is all about.

Adam Shields, if you think that the defeat of the ERA was about the equality between men and women you just missed it all. It was the wording of the amendment that would have radically changed many laws that are only now starting to fail. Namely opening the door for no gender definitions for marriage. Used to be, we thought (we being people of the 60s and 70s) men and women are equal, its patently obvious, but we also know where gender matters. It doesn't belong in formulaic quotas forced onto groups that will evolve very well without government mandates, but it matters that women are represented in all institutions; most specifically in marriage. Where men and women should be represented in each one of them.

K, you said the reason republicans can't be feminists was "because the social conservatives is the directly opposite of feminist goals and objectives".
Really? Seriously? You have to wanna murder babies in the womb to be a feminist? I'm pretty sure there are feminists who are democrats who are anti-abortion. So what else? I'm trying to think of another social conservative idea that precludes republican women from being feminists. Can't come up with ANY.

Then there's the idea that feminism is about equality across the board having something to do with the church not allowing it. The problem is K (do you work for a secret gov't organisation tracking extra-terrestrials?) Leadership in the church is not man's or woman's to 'give.' The church is God's possession and he makes the rules. Yes, some have decided that He is OK with it. But for those of us who have ample evidence to question that finding and still believe we would be DISOBEDIENT to GOD to "set in" women pastors, we have no choice but to obey God rather than MEN.

Now there are many feminist and female pastors in churches, but even many of them would agree they wouldn't have done this contrary to GOd's desired plan. THey just believe they have found loopholes or a better translation of God's desires.

Oh and Cheryl, love your passion for Christ!

Nadine - How long often should one try to swap words, as you suggested, before recognizing that it makes no difference in the outcome? How does exchanging one form of misdirected authoritarianism for another help fix a broken system?

Why is there a widespread rejection of feminism by many, many, many of today's young women, both Christian and secular? Do they perhaps also understand what feminism is all about?

Misogyny, misandry - both are pretty ugly and are, thankfully, cast out when Christ illuminates our minds and ways of being in life. It is only when we recognize the uniqueness of each person that we can honor each other as intended by our Creator Redeemer.

John - but what do you mean when you say many young women have rejected "feminism"? They don't believe women have the right to vote and work? Become president? Or they don't believe in the feminism that strives to make social progress, now that legal progress has been made? What kind of feminism do you mean?

Furthermore, you define feminism as a "misdirected authoritarianism," but I don't. Ideal feminism, in my point of view, is the direct opposite; it attempts to liberate people. Certainly it fails in many cases. So do Christians, but I'm not about to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Certainly only Christ can truly liberate and illuminate people, as you say. In that way, feminism (again, depending on how you define it) is not incompatible with Christianity. In fact I believe the Bible espouses feminism, and by "feminism" I mean equality between the sexes. Feminism has expanded over the decades to not just protecting and championing women, but minorities in general (if it didn't it would be hypocritical). And that is one of Christ's commands, to protect the poor and victimized. Of course secular feminists will never acknowledge that such a call is ultimately Biblical.

Evangelical Feminism has led to the breakdown of the family and is one reason why Homosexuals are demanding place in the pulpit. They have claimed since we ignore the bibles prohibition of woman Pastors and roles int he home it is ok to fudge on the issue of homosexuals in the pulpit.
Isaiah stated that when God judged Israel He would remove the wise, and the mighty man of valor. Women and children would rule over them. Having a woman as leading the nation was a sign of God's judgement upon Israel rather than His blessing. We need to return to the integrity of the bible. Because, on the altar of materialism women have forged there path in the workplace, and the older women are not teaching the younger women to be keepers at home we have destroyed the younger generation who were forced to be raised by an atheist state. The day a woman becomes president, then surely our fate is sealed as a nation toward destruction. Not because A woman is not capable of being a good leader, but we have denied God's word for political correctness.

Caryn,

I am SO THANKFUL that you were encouraged and nurtured as a child in your church to develop and use your gifts freely. I am sad to tell you that I was not. I was greatly discouraged as not the right kind of girl--not quiet, not "submissive" to the opinions and commands of men, joyfully assertive and wanting to serve in capacities in which I was gifted, but barred from doing so because I lacked a penis.

Largely because of these experiences in the church, I proudly call myself a Feminist.

This is why I reject "evangelical feminism." The implication of "traditional family values" has historically meant an imperative to women that their "place" is exclusively at home--that they are unfit to participate in the world of business, politics, and church leadership. How is this empowering or equality-inducing? Many, many "conservative" churches are basions of sexism. I cannot accept that there is any trace of feminism in those environments.

I reject the abortion issue as a litmus test of feminism. Most basic definition of feminism I understand: the belief in women's full economic, social, political and personal equality. Anyone who accepts that premise, I consider to be a feminist.

If by "evangelical feminism" one means to fulfill that definition, but rejects a stance for unobstructed abortion, I can wholeheartedly accept that. If it means that women are "equal in value, but unequal in roles", if it means that women are "separate but equal" as much of "conservative evangelicalism" preaches, then I adamantly reject their inclusion in "feminism." Those people are unabashed patriarchalists, and at least should be honest about it. (There are many who are.)

THAT is what I believe hurts women and hurts the functioning of the Body of Christ. THAT is what should be confronted.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Bachmann, Palin, and the Trouble with 'Evangelical Feminism'

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Bachmann, Palin, and the Trouble with 'Evangelical Feminism'

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives