Feminism Opinion

Was Feminism A Christian Idea?

"...social justice is a redefinition of justice. Justice needs no qualifier, only application."
  • 56

So far in our Satanic Feminism series, we have looked at how the wicked wanted the West to change, and in part, the history of how they initiated this change. In doing so we took a brief look at the philosophical roots of the feminist movement, and where its inspiration about equality came from. I think from what we have established so far, you have to conclude that feminism was not inspired by Christianity, or by a faithful reading of the Scriptures. There is simply no scriptural grounds for such an ideology suggested by any of the history we have examined so far.

However, this needs to be argued more explicitly because one mistake a lot of modern conservatives or Christians make is seeing equality, and even early feminism, as an intrinsically Christian or biblical idea. This is exemplified in many arguments I have heard about feminism from conservative commentators all the way down to random conservatives on social media. It is one of those arguments that is parroted often without being examined. You may have even heard this kind of argument before: first-wave feminism is good, second-wave feminism is less reasonable, and third-wave feminism, or intersectional feminism, has just gone beyond the pale. Here[1] is one version of this argument, and here[2] is another.

The justification for this line of reasoning is the argument that the first wave of feminism was just seeking to right a societal wrong, and successive forms of feminism took the ideas further, to the point of absurdity in its most recent forms. The underlying basis for this argument is that most people assume that equality is a good idea and because first wave feminism has famously been associated with egalitarian impulses, like suffrage, many people are keen to affirm it, even if they realize it has gone too far in the end. Indeed, someone made this point to me on the day I originally began to write this piece, and I have heard it many times before and since.

To support this position, a lot of conservatives like to note not just that first-wave feminism was connected to suffrage, but also that it had a large evangelical presence in its ranks. It is important to recognize that we have grown up in the culture that was created by that movement. Most people, even most Christians, just assume that feminism was a noble cause at the start, focused on a so-called benign force like equality, and it has just been hijacked by a world that has gone crazy. But there are some really big problems with this position.

First, this position assumes the Bible is concerned with advocating for equality. But it is not, as has been established in previous articles. Second, it assumes the move for equality has been good for the West, when it has not, it has slowly eroded every single one of the most important aspects of our society, the nation (people), the Church, and the family. Third, it ignores all of the evidence that there were Satanic influences, indeed a Satanic foundation, behind the feminist movement from the beginning. This is not just my conclusion as a Baptist preacher, this has been historically documented by Per Faxneld in his work Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as the Liberator of Women in Nineteenth-Century Culture.[3]  We discussed this in-depth in parts one and two of this series.  

My contention in this series is very simple: feminism is not Christian, it is intrinsically anti-Christian and has been Satanic from the beginning. This is certain both in a theological and a historical sense, and we are seeing the fruits of its aims bearing themselves out in our society today, especially in the effect feminism has had on the family. In this article, I want to address the first assumption in some detail, leaving numbers two and three for later pieces which will expand on the details and evidence of the first two articles in this Satanic Feminism series.  

While I have written about what the Bible says about equality in more detail elsewhere, let me give a simple example here from Jesus’ teaching, from the gospel of Matthew;  

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’

5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’

8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’

13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first last”.

Matthew 20:1-16

Now some might see this and right away think: well bad choice of passage to make your point, look what the workers say in verse 12, “These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.” Ha! See, Jesus has made them equal, and yes they are complaining about that, but the passage definitely teaches equality, sir! But does it really? What is the point of the passage?

Jesus is talking about who gets access to the kingdom. The Jewish leaders that Jesus is speaking to think they and the Jews they lead are God’s only people because they have followed him from time immemorial, but here comes these new disciples and all these other people, and Jesus appears to be favouring them. Indeed, Jesus gives the workers who came in the last hour the same pay as those who had been there all day. This is not equality, because they are being paid the same sum for different amounts of work. These workers are annoyed because they have been treated unequally and felt that their work is being undervalued. Being made equal in pay to someone who had done less work is not equality. It is the master doing as he sees fit.

In other words, the early workers are complaining that Jesus does not treat people equally. Jesus, in return, challenges them about his grace: “15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?” Jesus is saying what many Bible passages say; that God gives as he sees fit, and the conclusion of the parable seals the point: “So the last will be first, and the first last.” Jesus is not saying that all will be equal, but the exact opposite, some will be treated better than others, and many of those who are last will be shocked that they are.

The main point of this parable is quite simple: Jesus, who is God, does as he sees fit. It is not our place to question the Master. 

The Bible is filled with many examples of how spiritual equality does not exist. There are sheep and goats, wolves and shepherds, snakes, foxes and doves, and even among the unsaved, some will be beaten with few blows and some with many when they face judgement (Luke 12:41-49). David may consider his friend his equal, but by stating this he is admitting that he does not consider others to be (Ps. 55:12-15). Material equality does not exist, because we will always have the poor. Equality amongst people is simply not a biblical idea. As with this parable, there are many other passages that rebuke the idea. You must twist these words, “the last will be first, and the first last” violently to make them about equality. They are referring to a reversal, not an equalization. And if equality does not even apply to the final perfect state, how can it apply now, when we see all around us it does not exist?

When you recognize that equality is not a biblical position you recognize that the scriptures cannot have been the driving force for feminism. Feminism is, in reality, inherently about power and domination, not equality. But it frames itself as a quest for equality, and is understood by many, whether progressive or conservative, to be as such. But even if it were truly about equality the Scriptures cannot be the impetus for this movement, because the scriptures are not concerned with equality. This becomes especially clear when you look at the explicit teaching on this issue from the Bible.

Feminism says women should lead society. The Bible says a society led by women is cursed. “My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths.” (Isaiah 3:12)

Feminism says the home should not have a head, and if it does, it need not be the man. The Bible says, “And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'” (Genesis 2:22-23). In the ancient world, where this was written, naming is a sign of authority and pre-eminence. The one who leads, the one who has authority, is the one who can name. But if that is not clear enough, then the Bible also says is, “For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord” (1 Peter 3:5-6).

Feminism says women should teach and assume authority over men. The Bible says, “11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Or Paul’s last work, “You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:1-2).  

Feminism says that gender is a construct and that men and women are interchangeable, and some say that marriage is an oppressive institution. Jesus tells us, “He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5). The Bible not only affirms the goodness of marriage, and the reality of the male and female genders, it also highlights gender differences. For example, 1 Corinthians 16:13, which says, “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.” And, Jeremiah 48:41, “…The cities shall be taken and the strongholds seized. The heart of the warriors of Moab shall be in that day like the heart of a woman in her birth pains…”

So, not only is the Bible not concerned with equality it also rejects the pillars of feminism at every point. Someone might respond and say, but feminism is about justice, is the Bible against justice? No, the Bible taught the West to defend the weak, and to do what is right, the Bible defined what justice meant in the West for centuries, and still affects our understanding of fairness, openness, and equity today. Feminism undermines those Scriptures and therefore is a force for wickedness because it redefines justice. Indeed, that is what all social justice is, a redefinition of justice. Justice needs no qualifier, only application.  

That someone can read these passages we have looked at and say that the Bible is consistent with feminism is completely against reason. In fact, even some of the first wave, or so-called evangelical, feminists saw how these passages conflicted with their ideology. This is embarrassing because modern “evangelical” feminists say the Bible is consistent with their ideology, whereas the original “evangelical” feminists confidently said that it was not. Rather than face this, and conform their version of Christianity to the Bible’s teachings, they simply decided to brush this teaching aside,

While woman’s subordination is taught as a Scriptural doctrine, the most devout and learned biblical scholars of the present day admit that the Bible has suffered many interpolations in the course of the centuries. Some of these have doubtless occurred through efforts to render certain passages clearer, while others have been forged with direct intention to deceive. Disraeli says that the early English editions contain 6,000 errors, which were constantly introduced, and passages interpolated for sectarian purposes, or to sustain new creeds. Sometimes, indeed, they were added for the purpose of destroying all Scriptural authority by the suppression of texts. The Church Union says of the present translation, that there are more than 7,000 variations from the received Hebrew text, and more than 150,000 from the received Greek text…

…Amid this vast discrepancy in regard to the truth of the Scriptures themselves; with no Hebrew manuscript older than the twelfth century; with no Greek one older than the fourth; with the acknowledgment by scholars of 7,000 errors in the Old Testament, and 150,000 in the New; with assurance that these interpolations and changes have been made by men in the interest of creeds, we may well believe that the portions of the Bible quoted against woman’s equality are but interpolations of an unscrupulous priesthood, for the purpose of holding her in subjection to man.[4]

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady (et. al.) 2017, The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement – All 6 Books in One Edition) The Battle for the Equal Rights: 1848-1922, Musaicum Books. Kindle Edition. Chapter 15.

The source of this quote is The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other famous feminists. There are several false assumptions and leaps of logic in these two paragraphs, which we may deal with in another article. But for today’s purpose, I just want you to observe that this early feminist is outright rejecting the Bible’s teaching on male and female distinctiveness. They are not seeking to uphold it in any way, and therefore one should ask: Was this really a movement that was precipitated by Christianity?

Remember this comes from the period of feminism sometimes referred to as evangelical feminism, but the spirit of this argument is very much this: “Did God really say?” Sound familiar? This is not an argument seeking to uphold the Christian faith, but rather undermine and subvert it. So is another tactic that is often used to navigate around these passages.

Some, who would say they are for the maintenance of Christian truth, have offered a different argument to passages such as those above. This argument is that these passages simply reflect the culture of their day, and we have grown beyond them. After all this is true of other cultural aspects of scripture is it not? We don’t all greet each other with a kiss when we enter into church do we, so why could this not be the case on this issue regarding gender roles? But to say Paul did not allow women to teach because it reflected the culture of his day is demonstrably incorrect, as feminists themselves declare. Again, we read in The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement:

“In Rome she had not only secured remarkable personal and property rights, but she officiated as priestess in the most holy offices of religion. Not only as Vestal Virgin did she guard the Sacred Fire, upon whose preservation the welfare of Rome was held to depend, but at the end of every consular period women officiated in private worship and sacrifice to the Bono Dea, with mystic ceremonies which no man’s presence was suffered to profane… All Pagandom recognized a female priesthood, some making their national safety to depend upon them, like Rome; sybils wrote the Books of Fate, and oracles where women presided were consulted by many nations”[5] (emphasis mine).

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady (et. al.) 2017, The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement – All 6 Books in One Edition) The Battle for the Equal Rights: 1848-1922, Musaicum Books. Kindle Edition. Chapter 15.

This quote makes an embarrassment of the idea that female religious leaders were not allowed to teach in the New Testament era, or even the ancient era. This is patently absurd, ahistorical, and even the Bible itself flatly contradicts this idea.

We’ll examine why this is contradictory to history and the Bible in the next installment.

[1] McEnany, Kayleigh 2013, “21st Century Feminism: An Embarrassment to My Gender”, Blaze Media, accessed 8/07/2021, https://www.theblaze.com/contributions/21st-century-feminism-an-embarrassment-to-my-gender.

[2] Blaze TV Staff 2017, “Allie: I’m not a feminist, and here’s why”, Blaze Media, accessed 8/07/2021,  https://www.theblaze.com/video/allie-im-not-a-feminist-and-heres-why.

[3] Faxneld, Per 2017, Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as the Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture, Oxford University Press, New York.

[4] Stanton, Elizabeth Cady (et. al.) 2017, The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement – All 6 Books in One Edition) The Battle for the Equal Rights: 1848-1922, Musaicum Books. Kindle Edition. Chapter 15.

[5] Ibid, chapter 15.

  • 56