[Biblemat] Article - How is Unity Possible? - Number 10

[GLClair at aol.com]

HOW IS UNITY POSSIBLE? – Number 10 

FEMINISM AND RELIGIOUS UNITY 
{The concept of the female liberal and/or modern woman as   
they relate to religious unity} 
At least four kinds of feminism are discernible on the American scene  [2007 
CE]. Secular feminism refers to those who completely reject  religion and the 
Bible. Any attention to the Bible would be for the purpose of  attacking it as 
a primary cause of the "oppression" of women in American  culture. A second 
brand of feminism is goddess feminism which parallels  secular feminism closely 
but varies in its attempt to center itself in a  religious and / or spiritual 
context. The religion of the Bible is rejected in  exchange for pagan goddess 
worship. 

A third type of feminism is associated with liberal theology. The  attempt is 
made to retain commitment to the Bible and the Christian framework  while 
sharing essentially the same goals of secular and goddess feminism. This  brand 
of feminism shares in common with liberal theology a devalued view of the  
inspiration and authority of the Bible. The bulk of the Bible is considered to  be 
"andocentric" (i.e., male-centered), "patriarchal" (i.e., representing  
society as properly ruled by men), and "hierarchical" (i.e., supportive of role  
distinctions and relationships which imply authority and  submission). 

The liberal feminist believes that despite these distortions, the Bible  
still contains some indication of egalitarianism (i.e., total equality between  
the sexes with no role distinctions based on gender). The feminist considers her 
task to be to rescue Scripture from being a male-oriented tool  of female 
oppression. She must instigate a new paradigm--a feminist  hermeneutic--that 
sidesteps the sexist nature of the Bible and allows God to  speak to women. 

The liberal feminist's treatment of the Bible is predicated upon three  
trends currently operative within the modern approach to hermeneutics. First,  
greater emphasis is placed upon the plenary sense of Scripture, i.e.,  what a 
passage means to the reader, rather than the primary sense of what  the inspired 
author intended to convey. Second, textual meaning is perceived to  be relative 
in that both the original writer as well as the interpreter  are limited by 
their own peculiar perspective. Third, interpretation is  inevitably biased by 
the interpreter's own presuppositions and  experience. 

These three directions in the field of hermeneutics which under-gird  liberal 
theology also give liberal feminism the platform from which to launch  its 
uniquely feminist hermeneutic. This platform enables feminist interpreters  to 
treat the Bible as a flexible recipient of the feminist's own experience.  
"Exegesis" is approached in terms of the feminist's individual view of reality.  
As victims of male domination, the feminist interpreter is uniquely qualified 
to  extract insights from the biblical texts that are seen to be supportive of 
this  worldview. In other words, Scripture is shaped, "creatively and 
imaginatively  reinterpreted," to conform to the feminist experience. In this way, 
Scripture is  believed to be rescued from the misinterpretations of  patriarchy. 
SOURCE ---  “FEMINIST ATTITUDES TOWARD THE BIBLE - by Dave  Miller” 
This four-part delineation  is taken from Jack Cottrell, Feminism and the 
Bible (Joplin, MO: College  Press Publishing Co., 1992). One might also wish to 
compare David J. Ayers' "The  Inevitability of Failure: The Assumptions and 
Implementations of Modern  Feminism" in John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., 
Recovering Biblical Manhood  and Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991), pp.  
312-331.  
See the charge leveled  against biblical feminists to the effect that they 
actually abandon the  authority of Scripture and opt for the final authority of 
human reason in Susan  T. Foh, Women and the Word of God: A Response to 
Biblical Feminism, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), pp. 6-7. 
Within  churches of Christ, the liberal element pushing for change---including 
change  regarding female leadership in worship--have been vehemently critical of 
the  "traditional" emphasis of churches of Christ upon logic and correct 
reasoning.  Ironically, in reality, it is these liberals who, in their rejection 
of Bible  authority, are relying upon their own human reasoning for their 
views, though  they mask their intricate, convoluted meanderings in a sophisticated 
aura of  "scholarship" and "rigorous exegesis."
See Cottrell's discussion,  pp. 248ff.
These terms are used by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart in How To  Read the 
Bible For All It's Worth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing  House, 
1982), p. 65. Notice their application to women's ministries on pp.  65-69. Fee and 
Stuart's views on women appear to have exerted a considerable  influence on 
key voices among churches of Christ.
Note Thomas C. Geer's "Admonitions to Women in 1 Tim. 2:8-15" in Carroll  D. 
Osburn, ed., Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity (Joplin, MO:  College 
Press Publishing Co., 1993), p. 296. Also, Osburn's own treatment of I  Timothy 
2 in his Women in the Church (Abilene, TX: Restoration  Perspectives, 1994), 
p. 115, in which he insists, "it is not necessary or  advisable to take it as a 
general directive to all women everywhere. The letter  was directed to a 
specific group of troublesome women in a particular place in  the early church." 
Such reconstructions of imaginary circumstances certainly  merit the 
description given by Osburn on p. 55--"The reality of false  objectivity emerges here."
Notice Geer's shocking conclusion to his analysis of 1 Timothy 2 in  Essays, 
p. 301--"While Paul certainly recognized freedom for women in  Christ, he was 
as much a child of his own time as we all are..."Allan Bloom,  The Closing of 
the American Mind (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster,  1987), pp. 97ff.    Bloom, 
p. -The Spiritual Sword, Vol.  27, No. 2, pp. 3-6, Memphis 
CONSIDER THIS: 
There can  be no possibility of unity between men and women on a religious 
unity platform  when these [i.e. current article] ingrained philosophies 
regarding the roles of  men and women and their place in God’s scheme of human 
redemption is considered.  Division is the result of efforts by liberal and 
modernist minded women in  recent years [i.e. beginning in the 20th Century and 
continuing into  the 21st Century]. The woman’s role in God’s scheme of human  
redemption is revealed clearly by God in His Book [i.e. the Bible]; See References 
at appendix 1. Whenever anyone seeks  unity of religious faith and practice 
these matters that separate men and women  must be addressed --- How Is Unity 
Possible under such  circumstance?



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.biblematters.net/pipermail/biblemat/attachments/20071009/f45ee07a/attachment-0001.html