Feminism And Biblical Roles
The following article was originally written for a philosophy class back in 2004. It is not without error, though we believe it communicates the thrust of our position on the nature of equality between men and women.
Feminist beliefs have existed throughout history, but feminism itself did not become widespread until the mid-1800’s. At that time many people regarded women as inferior or less valuable than men and both the law and social customs reflected this opinion. Women were barred from voting in elections, from most professional careers, and were unable to own property.
Feminism was born then in the belief that women should have economic, political, and social equality with men. Despite strong opposition, this belief gained strength during the 1800’s, winning a number of new rights for women.
In 1833 the Oberlin Collegiate Institute (now Oberlin College) became the first co-educational college in United States history, and increased education among women led to increased demands for equal employment, land ownership, and suffrage—all of which were eventually granted. In the 1900’s women gained what they called “reproductive freedom” as laws and customs became increasingly sensitive to the feminist position.
Feminism: A Predictable Movement
From a Christian perspective, the development of such a movement is entirely predictable. In the book of Genesis, chapter 3, verse 16, after sin enters the world for the first time, God says to the guilty Eve: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
This word “desire” is properly translated as, “a desire to conquer”, and implies that Eve would have a wrongful desire to usurp authority over her husband. Furthermore, the word “rule” as used in the phrase, “he shall rule over you,” is a strong term usually used to refer to monarchical governments and containing nuances of dictatorial or absolute, uncaring use of authority.
The feminist movement understandably responded to this type of male dominance, but with an unwavering tendency towards female usurpation—a Biblically predictable scenario. At its core, however, feminism seeks to promote equality and combat harsh male dominance, two necessary and worthy goals.
Biblical Roles: Equal But Different
On the other side of the fence you have biblical teaching regarding man and woman. When God created mankind, He create both “male and female” in His image (Genesis 1:27).
As Dr. Wayne Grudem says, in his book Systematic Theology: “We are equally in God’s image, [therefore] men and women are equally important to God and equally valuable to him. [This] excludes all feelings of pride or inferiority and any idea that one sex is ‘better’ than the other.” This equality is both amazing and wonderful in that it sets Christianity apart from almost all religions, societies, and cultures.
However, the Bible clearly teaches fundamental differences in roles and authority. This is based on the parallels the Bible draws between the Divine Trinity and husband and wife. The Bible teaches that the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) share equal importance, personhood, and deity—and that they have distinct roles and functions which make them necessary, valuable, and complementary.
Similarly, the Bible teaches that man and woman are equal in importance, but have different responsibilities. Coming from a biblical perspective, equality finds its base in male and female, created in the image of God, who both fulfill necessary and complementary roles.
Comparison: Feminism vs. The Bible
So which is better: feminism or the Bible? They are both concerned with equality between men and women, as well as with preventing harsh male dominance, yet both have chosen different means to reach those goals, which have led to very different results.
Especially today, feminism attempts to reach equality by abolishing all distinctions between man and woman, based on the assumption that to be equal is to be identical. The Bible, on the other hand, assumes equality from the very beginning and uses that equality as a guard against abuse either in the form of male dominance or female usurpation.
According to the Bible equality is inherent in our very nature as distinct male and female and each gender’s value is highlighted by the way their different, necessary, and complementary roles interact and overlap. However, the ultimate consequence of core feminist theory is a complete lack of distinction between genders, which, according to the economic rule of supply-and-demand does not increase the value of woman but rather decreases the value of both male and female.
Closing Thoughts
The Bible predicts that if the feminist movement reaches equality, it will not stop there. Instead, woman will replace men as the dominators—and perhaps that is their true goal. But the feminist who is truly concerned about equality would do well to consider the biblical argument, which, when fully embraced, sidesteps both male dominance and female usurpation by emphasizing distinct roles—recognizing that both men and women are irreplaceable due to the parts they play.
It is much like a high school football team, in which both offense and defense are important and irreplaceable components for success. There is nothing more beautiful to watch than a team that has both functioning and flourishing in their roles. Roles, I might add, that are consistent yet flexible (i.e. the defense can score off an intercepted pass).
The key difference between feminism and the Bible is that feminism sees any such distinctions as negative whereas the Bible holds that true equality and joy in being male or female require these distinctions.
The Bible teaches that female usurpation and male dominance are the result of mankind’s fall into sin, but biblical manhood and womanhood are God’s cure for both evils. On the road of history mankind has fallen into both ditches, as predicted by Genesis 3:16, but true equality will only be found in the Bible’s teaching that man and woman are necessary because they’re complementary and equal because they’re different.
For additional reading on this topic we would recommend
“What’s The Difference?” by John Piper.
January 25th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Very good essay. I agree that men and women are equal but different. But what are their roles? You didn’t answer that question.
January 25th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Very good thoughts in all. The Bible is clear on the subject of authority and men and women, I’m glad someone finally posted something to explain the whole outlook on the Modesty Survey too.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Thank you for these views. As a married woman (of 10 years) I have found that our relationship successes have been through adopting complementary, not competing, roles. I am not the boss of him; he is not the boss of me. We each complete the other, not compete with one another and that “l” makes all the difference in the world.
January 26th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I would like to point out that it is the fault of the men for this femininst movement. They have not been leaders and so many women take the places of leadership outside of the home, yes, because they are desirable, but also because nobody else has.
January 27th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Sorry, guys, the bible quote you bring doesn’t work that way. In the original Hebrew it says ‘Ve’el ishech tshukatech,’ which literaly translates as “and to you man your passion/desire.” The construction of the sentence can only mean “your man will be your desire.’ There is no way to read the original Hebrew in the way you propose….
January 27th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
sorry. this was not a very well-researched piece, from a biblical-studies stand-point.
the words in Gen 3:16 “your desire” (or translated as “your urge” by the NJPS) is found in the Hebrew original as “Teshukateikh.” this word has explicit connotations of sexual desire, not of political overthrow. Song of Songs (Canticle) 7:11 has “Ani L’Dodi V’Eilai TESHUKATO” (”I am for my beloved, and my DESIRED one is for me,” tran. my own).
please do the philological reserch before you claim to know what the Bible is saying. I am a bible major, and it’s just insulting, especially when you use God’s word to do this.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Tefnut and Invisible_Hand: Our interpretation of the Hebrew word desire (Heb. “teshuqah”) is taken from Dr. Wayne Grudem’s, Systematic Theology and also from Susan T. Foh’s effective argument in “What Is Woman’s Desire?” This article, though far from perfect, does not reflect carelessness on our part. While I am not aware of Susan Foh’s credentials off the top of my head, Dr. Wayne Grudem has his B.A. from Harvard, his M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. from Cambridge. It is his interpretation and his credentials that you take issue with.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Whoa. In what world is there even such a thing as “core feminist theory?” We’re not exactly of one mind here. There’s liberal feminist theory, sure, but also the theories of: radical-cultural feminism, radical-libertarian feminism, lesbian feminism, postmodern feminism, psychoanalytic feminism, Marxist feminism, eco-feminism, socialist feminism, Black feminism, Chicana feminism, Native American feminism, Asian feminism, womanism, post-colonial feminism, multicultural feminism, global feminism, gynocentric feminism, matriarchal feminism, cultural feminism, humanist feminism, evolutionary feminism, riotgrrl feminism, girlie feminism, lipstick feminism, stiletto feminism…and this doesn’t even begin to account for schools of thought concerned with issues aren’t traditionally viewed as “feminist” issues.
Just because you looked up “feminism” in the dictionary doesn’t mean you understand the theories.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Our interpretation of the Hebrew word desire (Heb. “teshuqah”) is taken from Dr. Wayne Grudem’s
Interesting…so when you are confronted with a FACT, you say, “But Dr. Grudem said so!”
Don’t cite Grudem’s education as evidence that he is right. Cite facts.
And it is not like Grudem is not biased on the issue or anything.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Dave: In context our reference to Dr. Wayne Grudem was in response to the implication that this article is nothing more than our own careless research. It is, in fact, a position held by many eminent scholars, including Dr. Grudem. The only “fact” which is evident from this discussion is that different people have different interpretations of this text, in which case, credentials become highly relevant.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Thanks! I appreciate your article and it makes sense to me. I like your analogy to the football field.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:25 am
I’ve heard this position before, and I think it is a fair interpretation and I don’t find it to be that biased either, I have seen through my parents relationship how they both treat each other like equals and have complimentary qualities and yet, I would definitelly say that in my mom’s actions, she diverts/submits/gives my dad the authority to lead. Often I think of it like my relationship to Christ… I have the choice to do my own thing, I don’t HAVE to obey Christ or submit to what I feel he is leading me too… just like my mom doesn’t have to submit, there’s nothing saying my dad is better or worth submitting to (though with Christ, obviously it goes without saying that He is better and worth submitting to) but that she CHOOSES to submit regardless…and it’s amazing how well they function together through simple acts of service and submitance….
Secondly, I just wondered why so many get so angry when they don’t agree with someone? It seems that you guys came under some confrontation on these issues, and I was impressed by your responses and the tone of them. I was glad to see that there is an air of respect given by the people responding and by your responses…you don’t see that on many boards (which will go nameless) in which Christians debate and comment…it was nice so thanks.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Note: the comment:
“though with Christ, obviously it goes without saying that He is better and worth submitting to)” was about Christ’s worthiness to be submitted to and His ultimate good (not about my dad’s)
March 27th, 2007 at 3:18 am
\”is that different people have different interpretations of this text, in which case, credentials become highly relevant.\”
the interpretation is laughable. Any hebrew speaker or person who reads the bible in hebrew can tell you that.
Many folks with credentials are unqualified in linguistics. You can have a B.A. from Harvard, M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary, and Ph.D. from Cambridge and not speak proper Hebrew.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Separate but equal? What is this, Plessy vs. Ferguson?
April 4th, 2007 at 7:31 am
bibi: You’re absolutely right that a B.A. from Harvard, an M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D from Cambridge does not guarantee 100% that Dr. Wayne Grudem speaks proper Hebrew. But I hope you wouldn’t be so blindly biased as to deny that those credentials make it much more likely that he, in fact, does. While it is possible that someone could study for over 10 years and still be unqualified in linguistics, it is almost certain that individuals with no training, or perhaps just enough to make them think they know what they’re talking about, to be unqualified in linguistics. As it is, I would rather trust the combined credibility of Harvard, Westminster, and Cambridge over all the anonymous and pseudonymed commenters on the world wide web.
June 11th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Excellent article. I especially like this paragraph:
“According to the Bible equality is inherent in our very nature as distinct male and female and each gender’s value is highlighted by the way their different, necessary, and complementary roles interact and overlap. However, the ultimate consequence of core feminist theory is a complete lack of distinction between genders, which, according to the economic rule of supply-and-demand does not increase the value of woman but rather decreases the value of both male and female.”
June 11th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
But Brett, with respect, why don’t you yourself try to look into the question of what the Hebrew means, rather than debating defensively over something you only have someone else’s word for?
Unfortunately you will find that Dr Grudem has let you down in this instance.
Jenny
June 11th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Jenny, the pursuit of knowledge is an exercise in identifying who to trust as accurate in your area of study and then “taking their word for it.” I believe your real concern is not with the fact that we’ve “taken someone’s word for it,” but that the conclusion we and others have reached is one contrary to your own.
July 7th, 2007 at 9:07 am
I believe in the egalitarian (rather than complementarian) interpretation of scripture. Furthermore, I have done firsthand research in the Hebrew and Greek, and believe that the original language supports the egalitarian position. Therefore I disagree with Dr. Grudem, as well as other complementarians such as John Piper and Albert Mohler. They are trying to fit the Bible to traditions. We should try to have Biblical values, not necessarily traditional values.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
@Jeffery Goss
Are you saying that men are women are identical every step of the way? I mean, if I had the same life experiences all over again but the main difference is that I’m a male, I wouldn’t be the exact same person at all. I know what egalitarian mean but don’t try to use the word to support the idea that men and women are identical. That’s not what it means connotatively or even denotatively. It’s insulting.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I am currently grooming for a career in academia, and it is widely known that all scholars come with pre-set biases. Although I know very little about the debated scholarship, I have studied Hebrew and can tell you that the translation with which you’re working is incorrect.
Additionally, you imply throughout but fail to specify that you are discussing the American feminist movement, nor do you note that the feminist movement — known by that name — is largely modern; the campaign to gain women property and voting rights (et al) is generally regarded as suffragism. I would posit that it ended with the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment. However, some of its causes, including reproductive rights, have carried over to the present. You gloss over the impact of the movement, both in its earlier and later incarnations, attributing a “core… theory” to it. This is clearly a fallible proposition because of the argument that the feminists of the 1960s were ultimately unable to attain equality due to factions with disparate goals.
In failing to address the complexities of modern feminism, in reducing it to the successor to suffragism, you do it a great disservice.
I also wonder how you can advocate a Biblical approach to gender equity while lamenting the number of unbelievers in the world. In a modern and secular society, it is impossible to hope that everyone will lead a sufficiently pious life; ergo, in light of the glass ceiling’s continued existence (et cetera), feminism — in any of its forms — trumps a Biblical approach (especially one based on a flawed reading).
August 7th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
M: I certainly agree that I failed to address the complexities of feminism in my 939-word article, yet I doubt you could argue that I addressed the complexities of biblical manhood and womanhood either. On the other hand your reduction of Christianity to merely living “a sufficiently pious life” is at least equally simplistic. I wrote my article at the age of 15. I doubt you have the same excuse.
Nevertheless, I very much respect you (and envy you) for your obvious intellectual prowess and your knowledge of the feminist movement. My prayer is that you would come to know the God who made you and that your gifting will be used for His glory — whether or not we ever agree on this issue. May God bless you.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Very good. However, I don’t think you’ve mentioned that in some instances feminism contradicts Biblical teachings. You never mentioned that the man is supposed to be the leader of the house, loving his wife as Christ loves the church. I have always struggled with that verse, thinking it elevated men to a higher standing than women, but it is true that Christ died for the church and God is essentially commanding the male to go to those extremes for his family. The Bible does say though, that men are supposed to be the head of the household and whenever that happens, the result is generally better than when the husband and wife try to be head. I know my mother holds that belief. Many broken marriages could have been prevented by a loving husband being able to take the burden off of the wife’s shoulders and the wife respecting the husband’s decision and allowing him to take the responsibilities of the decisions. You might call me a male chauvanist but look in the Bible. God Bless and great overall post.
October 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
It’s very interesting that I stumbled across this at the time I did. I literally JUST came downstairs after reading a section of the Bible in 1 Peter 3. In that sectioin, Peter was telling a church in Asia Minor about how wives are to submit to their husbands IN THE WAY THAT (if I could use italics for that phrase, I would) husbands, in response to the submitting, are to treat their wives with understanding, honor, and respect. After searching and searching, I have ALSO come to the conclusion that although their value is equal(why else would Jesus die for men AND women if it were any different?), men and women are to play different roles in the household.
I feel like I’m forgetting something, but I can’t seem to remeber what it is. Well, if I am forgetting something, someone can feel free to complete my thought pattern if they wish. This was a wonderful post, and thank you very much for posting it.
In His Service,
~Kirsten A. Gruber
October 8th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Hey Alex & Brett-
I really appreciate this article. It is obviously well thought out and put forth in a simple, clear and understandable way. It is a beautiful thing when men and women work alongside each other with joy, each working in the roles they were created for. Once you can learn to live in the natural gifting of your gender, you can really flourish in all areas of your life, bringing glory to God and blessing those around you.
Thanks!
~Bess B.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Great article.
Thought I’d respond to this one since I have been thinking/pondering/contemplating the subject a lot lately in order to come up with my own personal view on the subject. I read the all of the responses on the “Teens define a real woman” blog, and I have decided that my view on fe/male roles to be the biblical approach found in this article. Again, great article.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Before you all go off formulating your theories maybe you should try reading the rest of the Bible, and even then, read it again. I would encourage you all to not try to make your own doctrine out of what you want the Bible to say. Before you make up your mind (which may already be too late) you should consider the rest of the Bible, and not some theory written by some philosopher.
Try considering 1 Corinthians 11:3 which says, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Then read the rest of the chapter (you know what, you should probably try reading the entire book in one sitting) about the covering the women is to have on her head, and how a man is to have no covering on his head.
Then you should read 1 Timothy 2, specifically 11-15, which states, “11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” Are women equal to their husband’s or are they under them?
Next you can read 1 Peter. Here is a bit from 1 Peter 3:6-7, it states, “6Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 7Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.” Why would Sarah call him Lord if she was his equal?
This list could go on into eternity, but without the Holy Spirit living inside of you, explaining this to you, you may never understand. But that is another teaching. I would encourage you to keep searching the scriptures and pursing the things of the kingdom; but don’t try to make God line up with your doctrine.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
a
December 7th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Alex & Brett,
Thank you so much for this article. I agree whole heartedly with your synopsis on feminism, I would personally take it a step further and say that feminism hasn’t really done us any good, Scripture has given us freedom and spiritual equality in our role as women. As a woman, I can honestly say that I have to battle my ‘internal feminism’ daily, but by God’s grace I am learning to love and embrace the calling God has for me. My father, mother, six brothers and one sister are such an incredible encouragement to perservere. May God continue to call girls back to a biblical view of their role, that we may glorify Him in it.
God Bless.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Great article! Well written! I am very proud of you.
Kenny Lewis, D.D.
March 1st, 2008 at 8:35 am
Awesome article!
Re: Jason November 19th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Did God initially intend human kind to get the curses? So did He initially, when He was creating human, intend what He said to Eve ‘Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”’? Note the word ’shall’. That means it wasn’t like that before! What was before, then? Before was no sin and perfection.
I truely agree that we shouldn’t just take anything in from any philosophers, but this I take in that the Bible is true and living. Reading the Bible (logos or the text itself) we see the applications but by the Holy Spirit, we are given the Rima - the timeless principles. Translating the Bible we should look at the whole context. Esp, if it’s a letter, we should consider, who is it from? who is it to? what’s the writter’s intention? what’s the culture? …etc.
At that time, women were dominating men. This relates very much to the greatest god of that time, ‘Diana’ or Dianne’ who’s a goddess. Yes, biblically men are to lead the family, but in this extreme case of women leading, an extreme solution/application was needed. It was their cultures since before that women must wear head coverings. In fact, only prostitudes don’t. When the church was started and the teaching of being free from the law and saving by grace not by work was taken (there’s nothing wrong with that in itself) but it was stumbling non/weak believers. I could just imagine the purely-women-dominated church at that time. Paul needed to do/say something for this to change! If women were given a chance to speak at church then, they would have argue and not accept even a bit of having to submit at all.
Yes, wives are to submit to their husbands, but hey, husbands are to love their wives and be ready to die for them, let alone not oppressing them! Talking about equality here… This sounds like a happy and biblical family to me, if both do their roles and not keep emphasising what the other has to do. -_-”
August 1st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I dont feel that the “core feminist theory” is to “abolish distinctions between man and woman.” I mean, yes, when applying for a job, internship, loan, leadership position, or for a college, male or female should not make a difference. A woman should make the same salary as a man in the same job with the same credentials. Sadly, in many cases, women do not earn the same wages. Women should not be barred from certain occupations, and men shouldn’t either. So in a sense, I guess you are right, as a feminist i believe that there should not be distinctions between man and women when it comes to the work force as well as social issues. I belive that the main point of Feminism, at least, how I see it, is to end discrimination against women. Just as there should not be discrimination against people of minority races, ther should not be discrimination against women.
“The Bible predicts that if the feminist movement reaches equality, it will not stop there. Instead, woman will replace men as the dominators—and perhaps that is their true goal.” Do you really believe that if a woman is treated equally, she will try to dominate you? I really dont understand where this argument comes from. In fact, you specifically say “replace men as the dominators” Why are men the dominators in the first place. Why can’t men and women work together equally, instead of one dominating the other?
Are you afraid of woman leaders? We could have had a woman president. Is that an example of feminists trying to dominate men? You say that to avoid having women “replacing men as dominators” they must not reach equality. I thought you said that women and men were created equally in Gods image. With respect, you are conradicting yourself here. If man and woman are equally in Gods image, then should they not also be treated equally. You do not believe that women should reach social equality, even though you believe that they are equal in gods mind. Please correct me if im wrong, this is just how i interpreted your essay.
You say that women and men should have seperate roles. You didnt say what those roles are. What type of roles were you reffering to? Were they career related roles? Please tell me that you arent saying the role is to stay at home. Please tell me that you arent saying women should have leadership roles. Women are just as equally qualified for any position as men. If a woman decides to be president, and is fairly elected, then she is equally qualified. If she decides to be a doctor, she is just as qualified as a man. If she decides to become a teacher, an engineer, a lawyer, an astronaut a construction worker, or a stay at home parent, she is just as equally qualified for the job as a man. A woman should be allowed to make her own choices for her life and career and shouldnt be forces to stay within certain roles. Just as a man should not either. If a man wants to be a stay at home dad, why can’t he? Your argument of equality bith with distinct roles reminded me automatically of “seperate but equal.” In Brown v. Board of Education, the supreme court declared that seperate can never be equal. Just as it was unfair to discriminate against blacks, it is unfair to discriminate against whites. Feminists simply want equal rights for men and women, and there is nothing biblically wrong with equality.
I hope my argument isn’t disrespectful, I respect you for your beliefs, i simply wanted to state mine.