Why I’m Glad I’m Not a Christian Feminist

[rug]

August 18, 2012
By Libby Anne

As I follow the blogs of women like Rachel Held Evans, Sarah Moon, Dianna Anderson, and Danielle Vermeer, I can’t help but admire their desire to fight for gender equality within the church. I didn’t stay to fight that fight. I left. But because I see religion as something that will always be with us, or at least for the foreseeable future, I applaud efforts to make religion less patriarchal and more egalitarian.

And really, what I find especially impressive is their ability to take a deep breath and explain, for the millionth time, the problem with complementarian ideas. And they do this over and over and over again. Do you have any idea how hard it is to explain, again, something you think should be completely obvious – and something that is extremely important to you – to someone who just doesn’t get it no matter how many times you explain it? Hard. VERY HARD.

At some point I think I just got to angry to do it. Maybe I was just burned that badly, but when I hear someone arguing for complementarianism, I feel like I’m going to explode.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/08/why-im-glad-im-not-a-christian-feminist.html

[Skittles]

1. yes

"No, I don’t have to believe your book, no, I don’t have to listen to the dictates of your god, and no, I don’t have to put up with your attempts to control my choices! Just, no."

JUST SAY NO TO IT ALL!!!!!!!! CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kalidurga]

2. LOL

A what???

[cbayer]

4. Are you asking whether there are christian feminists?

Because there are many, many, many.

[Kalidurga]

5. Have they read the bible? NT

[cbayer]

7. What does that have to do with it?

Do you assume all christians are literalists?

Because that would not be correct.

[Kalidurga]

9. It has everything to do with it...

How could Christianity possibly exist without the bible? I don't assume all Christians are literalists, because when I was a Christian I was definitely not a literalist. It is impossible to reconcile what is in the bible with what reality is. The only way to do that rationally is to say it's all allegory or some such thing. However, after my church was taken over by literalist and I moved shortly thereafter (not because of the church thing) and I never found a non-fundy church, I just lost interest in finding a church. Long story short it was because of reading the bible and actually thinking about what it is saying that I decided it wasn't for me.

[cbayer]

11. If you are not a literalist, then you can understand that the bible was written

by men during a time when the culture was very different.

There are lots of non-fundy churches and lots of churches that embrace feminism. There are whole libraries and groups dedicated to promoting equality within their religious institutions - for women, GLBT people, etc.

Your decisions are reasonable and based on your own experiences, but they don't apply to everyone.

[Kalidurga]

12. Then what is the point of using the bible at all?

It is open to any interpretation and very few of the ideas actually work in the real world. It was a book supposedly written by god with the hands of men. Yet, god for some reason didn't know pi.

[cbayer]

13. Because some of the stories are good.

Some of the stories provide insights, direction, comfort or hope.

Some of the stories ask hard questions, which make people think about how they are living their lives or treating others.

You don't even have to be a theist to get some of that stuff from the bible.

If there is a god, I would feel pretty certain that anything he sent through mortals got distorted, was written in light of the current political/social climate and is very faulty, lol.

A literalist would argue that that can't be the case, but most people don't see it literally at all.

And even the literalist would be extremely hard pressed to make sense out of some parts - see the infamous letter to Dr. Laura for hilarious examples - http://www.yuricareport.com/Parody%20and%20Humor/OpenLetterToDrLaura.html

[Kalidurga]

14. Perhaps some of the stories are good...

it is still not a good basis for a religion.

[cbayer]

15. On that, you are probably right.

Too many contradictions and outdated dicta.

Hope you enjoyed the Dr. Laura letter.

It's been a pleasure talking to you, Kalidurga. Hope to see you around these parts more often.

[PassingFair]

19. Because some of the stories are good? Should we WORSHIP W. Somerset Maugham?

Because his stories kick ass!

[cbayer]

3. I've not heard this complementarianism argument before.

Is it unique to certain christian denominations?

All relationships have a degree of this going on, but I take it it's the forced description of roles that she objects to, and rightfully so.

[rug]

8. I think it has something to do with complementary gender roles in the family,

as opposed to flat out equality. It is also distinguished from unequal subservience.

Beyond that, I'm not too familiar with it.

[meow2u3]

6. The last paragraph is the most telling

I probably look like the exact stereotype of the “angry feminist,” but you know what? I am angry. And I think I have a right to be.

Wouldn't you be angry if you were forced into a subservient role against your will, without your consent, and in the name of some twisted concept of God? I know I would, and I'd have every right to be mad as hell.

[dimbear]

10. Don't be a defeatist and just assume religion is eternal. Only fifty years ago,

people thought cigarettes would always be with us. A program of regulations, taxes, and most importantly education made that a relic of the past, at least in the advanced parts of the world.

[rug]

16. I assume you're directing that to Libby Anne.

She has her own interesting religious history.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2011/07/searching-for-the-baby-in-the-bathwater.html

[dimbear]

17. Certainly, to Libby Anne and people of good will everywhere. Keep hope alive.

These things can be kicked.

[rug]

18. If you feel a need to kick it you can.

Others pick it up and look at it.