Topical Studies
What the Bible says about
Radical Feminism
(From Forerunner Commentary)
|
Genesis 2:21-24
The warmth and beauty of this creation is fitting, a crown on all that God had created for the man and woman to prepare them for life in the world. Adam's response shows his pleasurable agreement with this added gift. Feminists take issue with Scripture's reference to Eve as a “helper” (Genesis 2:18, 20), but there is nothing demeaning in the term. It simply means “one who helps.” God Himself is referred to as our “help” several times (see Psalm 115:10-11). Remember, Genesis 1:27 asserts, “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” With both sexes created in God's image, neither can claim superiority. With our knowledge of DNA, it makes perfect sense for God to have built Eve from a small portion of Adam's body because his body already had within it every means for Eve to be his perfect female match. Adam did not know this technical, biological reality, but he was still in naming-mode after his experience with the animals. So, when he saw her he said, in effect, “She is me!” meaning she is like him, not like an animal, naming her “woman.” (In Hebrew, “man” is ish and “woman” is isha.) Each was made to be the perfect companion for the other. The concluding comment in Genesis 2:24—that a man and his wife are to become one flesh—reinforces this. Today, marriage is not at its most stable state in our Western cultures. Yet, God's intention is plain. When asked about divorce and remarriage, Jesus declares God's original intent in Matthew 19:8-9. Mankind's marriage problems do not stem from God's creation of the institution. They lie in the hardness of heart of both men and women. Jesus' clear statement is the reality that the modern demand for “equality”—especially from feminists—opposes, and such opposition affects the stability of marriages to such an extent that more than a third of all marriages end in divorce. Some remarry and divorce several times, throwing both family life and society into turmoil. The entire culture is badly fractured. Feminist anger over God's making Eve for Adam reveals that they are anti-God in their outlook on marriage. They forget, or conveniently overlook, that Adam was made for Eve too, and in addition, that she was made from man, meaning that she was part of him. Genesis does not suggest in any way that she was created as man's servant. Adam himself perceived her as a delightful companion. Are men and woman equal? The answer depends on the particular context. Generally, they are not equal in physical feats of strength, for instance, but they are equal in many ways, especially in mental and spiritual terms. Both are created in the image of God, which starts them on the path to being fit companions for each other. Both are under moral responsibility to God. No place in Scripture states either a man's or a woman's sins are the worse. Both men and women are recipients of God's grace and can be forgiven by the blood of Jesus Christ. Both are equal in terms of being offered salvation and receiving eternal life and reward in God's Kingdom. The true cause of marital problems lies in the ignorance of both men and women of their responsibilities within a marriage. Compounding this is another reality: the self-centered, carnal character of each personality involved. These two factors—ignorance of responsibility and selfish carnality—result in multitudes of mistakes and misapplications in many areas of the relationship, creating discouragement and anguish rather than satisfaction and joy, as God intended.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Leadership and Covenants (Part Five)
|
|
Psalm 14:1
Liberals, says James Hitchcock in "The Enemies of Religious Liberty" (First Things, February 2004, pp. 26-30), especially those infesting America's universities, have come to detest religion—any religion, anywhere. To these secularists, faith in the unseen God is incomprehensible and irrational. They view it as divisive to the coherence of society, as well as destructive. Stanford University professor and philosopher Richard Rorty believes that "the 'highest achievements of humanity' are incompatible with religion" (Truth and Progress, 1991). It may be instructive to see what Rorty's peers in liberal academia have to say about our religious freedoms. Since they see religion as at odds with freedom, academic liberals are increasingly coming to believe that the state has the right—indeed the obligation—to "damage-control" religion. So, New York University Law Professor David A.J. Richards claims that it is necessary for the state to foster its own religion, "a religion and an ethics that validate the highest order moral powers of rationality and reasonableness of a free people" (Toleration and the Constitution, 1986). Chicago University Professor of Jurisprudence Cass Sunstein advocates using "the liberal state to force the intolerant to be tolerant" (The Partial Constitution, 1999). Intolerant here means espousing strong religious beliefs, beliefs by which one lives. European University Institute Professor of Legal Theory and Legal Philosophy Wojciech Sadurski argues that no state can permit religious groups that have not transformed themselves into bodies both "rational" and self-critical" (Moral Pluralism, 1990). The state, therefore, becomes mentor, teacher, and priest. Princeton University's Steven Macedo in his book, The New Right Versus the Constitution, sees the state as "a permanently educative order," allowing the legitimate authority to use its coercive powers (read, police powers) against "illiberal churches" in order to promote greater freedom. He has no problem at all with excluding religious people from public office, such as judgeships. The government's new "educative" power sets it in opposition to parents' rights to raise their children in their own religion. Politics professors Amy Gutmann of Princeton and Dennis Thompson of Harvard "explicitly hold that the state need not be concerned that its educational system might violate the rights of religious believers" (Democracy and Disagreement, 1996). William and Mary School of Law professor James Dwyer holds that "religious education inculcates 'reactionary and repressive' values in children, and for the good of the child, the state is not only obligated to prohibit such schools completely or monitor them closely but also to monitor closely how parents educate their children at home" (Religious Schools vs. Children's Rights, 1998). He goes on to state that "parental choice in education might be 'inconsistent with the state's aims.'" Under the banner of children's rights, parental rights are wiped away! Not unpredictably, Dwyer demands that "all education inculcate feminism and permissive attitudes toward sexual behavior, and that religions which fail to do so be made subject to state regulation." He believes that the government does not violate the First Amendment restriction against the establishment of religion "so long as its actions are intended to inhibit religion rather than to favor it." Kathleen M. Sullivan of Stanford University Law School claims that "religion must be treated 'asymmetrically' from other freedoms, with 'entanglement' between government and religion a good thing for the purpose of restraining religion." These haters of God would commit mayhem against the United States Constitution (and against Americans) in order to build their utopian society of sterile rationality and unfettered choice. While we are unable to stop them, we can be thankful that we side with the One who can—and will. In the utopia He builds, religion will have a paramount place.
Charles Whitaker (1944-2021)
Liberal Haters of God
|
|
Isaiah 3:16-26
Isaiah 3:16—4:1 and Amos 4:1-3 paint rather uncomplimentary pictures of women in our time. Both predict captivity and great humiliation to the women who oppress the poor and needy, satiate their desires, and proudly vaunt their power. We need not be terribly observant to recognize that we have reached such a state in our society. It will not be long before God acts to correct it. The genie is out of the bottle. Radical feminism will not go away until Christ returns to usher in true cooperation and proper balance between men and women. When He sets up His government, "the times of restoration of all things" will begin (Acts 3:21), and He will declare the eternal end of the battle of the sexes. Then it will not be a woman's world—or a man's world—but God's world!
Richard T. Ritenbaugh
A Woman's World
|
|
Jeremiah 32:35
Over the course of just a few decades, this nation has allowed tens of millions of little lives to be snuffed out. Will it ever end? There are indicators that momentum is gaining against abortion. Recently, even the Washington Post—not exactly the embodiment of pro-life discourse—admitted as much in its coverage of the annual March for Life in Washington, DC. "Protestors See Mood Shift Against 'Roe'," the headline said. While the newspaper still couched its reporting in slanted language, the essence was plain enough: The next generation is more pro-life than the preceding ones, and is quite willing to make itself heard. Ryan McAlpin, a nineteen-year-old from Chicago who participated with his friends, declared, "This is the beginning of the end. We'll look back at some point soon and won't believe that people were ever killing babies like it was nothing." Joe Giganti, a spokesman for the National Pro-Life Action Center, commented, "I'd say the mood has changed significantly just in the past year. We're going to see the overturning of Roe." A Family Research Council vice president, Charmaine Yoest, told a morning gathering, "Consensus is building that we are moving into a post-Roe future, and we need to be ready." Of course, the streets of Washington were not exclusively filled with the defenders of the unborn. The usual counter-demonstrators were ready with their famous mantra: "Keep your hands off my body!" This slogan would be most effective when used before conception is even a possibility. In fact, a great many scourges of modern life would be eradicated if boys and girls—and men and women—would keep their respective hands off the bodies of any and all members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. It would certainly preclude having a masked-murderer in a lab coat put his hands on the body of a pregnant woman. Yes, it is a fine thing to chant, but the timing makes all the difference between a moribund motto and a strategy that will actually improve life for this generation and the next. Ever so slowly, it is dawning on the collective consciousness that perhaps it is time to rethink this newfound "right." The law of unintended consequences is beginning to exact its fee, and the resulting charge is often not in line with what abortionists are willing to pay. For example, abortion in developing nations such as India and China has taken a decidedly unequal tack. Sex-selective abortions are becoming the choice that really rankles the pro-choice crowd. Much to the dismay of feminists, when given the choice these societies are predominately aborting females. On the other hand, one of the achievements the abortion crusade is sure to take pride in is the "affirmative action" aspect. That is, minority women are vastly overrepresented in abortion clinics, so much so that it makes one seriously consider whether abortion may actually be a tool of racism and genocide being disguised as a "right." In this nation, the abortion movement is declining because of what has been named the "Roe Effect." This proposes that since children tend to absorb the values, political views, and lifestyle of their parents, abortionists are actually damaging their cause through its very practice. They are destroying the individuals in the next generation who would be most likely to support abortion. It does appear that the tide is turning in this country, but the battle is far from won. Even if Roe were to be overturned tomorrow, and each of the states found enough vigor to ban this grisly practice, and perhaps even a Constitutional amendment was thrown in for good measure—all monumental undertakings—the real battle would just be starting. As with ancient Israel in the wilderness, the problem is not with the laws, but with the heart. What is in the heart of a people that has killed tens of millions of its own? How many tens of millions of men and women will have Roe defiling their consciences even in a post-Roe world? What percentage of the populace has come to the sick conclusion that an unborn child should be punished for the mistakes of its parents? Laws can only do so much; such malignant selfishness is sure to manifest itself in other ways. While the momentum against abortion is encouraging, it is still essentially carnal. It does not solve the problem of the human heart (Jeremiah 17:9). The real difference will come when the modern nations of Israel are reminded of who they are, the remnant of Israel and Judah are re-united after the second Exodus, and God gives them a new heart.
David C. Grabbe
Is the Tide Turning?
|
|
 |
The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment
Sign up for the Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 155,000 subscribers are already receiving each day.
Email Address:
|
We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time. |
|
|
