 |
|
|
It is my well-researched opinion that the Mark of the Beast, as related in scripture, is absolutely literal. Soon, all people on earth will be coerced into accepting a Mark in their right hand or forehead. I am convinced that it will be an injectable passive RFID transponder with a computer chip — a literal injection with a literal electronic biochip 'mark'. . .I believe that such an implanted identification mark literally will become Satn's Mark of the Beast, as we will discuss further in this chapter."
-- Terry Cook
|
|
| |
Feminism: 2. Feminism's false gospel
Posted on Monday, November 20 @ 08:09:17 PST by Chris Charles |
|
mick submitted: "by Laura Nelson
We saw last month that men and women, both made in the image of God, are ‘equal but different’ because of who God is. Thus the model for human relationships is not interchangeable egalitarianism, as feminism supposes, but God’s Trinitarian inter-relationship — involving a complex pattern of initiation and response, of dependence and obedience.
In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul demonstrates this link between the divine and human inter-relationships. Discussing how men and women should conduct themselves in church, he writes, ‘I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God’.
In verses 11–12 Paul reminds them that this does not mean that man is independent of woman — there is deep mutuality in the way the sexes relate. But the pattern reflects the way God is.
It is, therefore, a false assumption to say that ‘equal’ must mean ‘identical’. Some differences between men and women are created — essential to what we are. To express these differences in different roles has nothing to do with who is more gifted or valued. It has everything to do with who God is and reflecting his image.
Biblical Christianity teaches what feminists find impossibly contradictory — that, because of what God is in himself, it is both possible and necessary to be equal and different.
Experience is authority?
Having identified their problem and their goal (freedom, as they define it), feminists applied this principle to theology. The dogmatic way they went about it might shock many but they believed deeply in their right to do so.
But feminism is incompatible with Christianity. Why? Because feminism is anti-authority. No one can question the feminist perspective because, according to this perspective, experience is everything.
Letty Russell wrote a book entitled Household of freedom[1] — a sort of feminist vision for the church. In it she argues that the only possible authority is experience, and any other authority is necessarily about domination rather than ‘empowerment’. One is left wondering how such a viewpoint can be reconciled with a Christian submission to God.
This probably explains why feminist theology books are full of hyphens — invented words that make them very hard to read! For example Mary Grey’s book Redeeming the dream uses ‘co-redeeming’, ‘co-creating’ and ‘mutuality-in- relation’ to express the idea that God is just as dependent on us as we are on him. A feminist cannot permit herself to be subject to anyone, not even God.
Sin and salvation
Daphne Hampson, a prominent feminist theologian, has rejected Christianity on just these grounds. She sees that feminism is founded on autonomy whereas Christianity is based on heteronomy — the two are incompatible. If only others could be as honest!
So, in naming the problem as ‘male oppression’ and the solution as ‘being liberated to attain equality with men’ (that is, having the freedom to do and be all the same things), feminist theologians rewrote the central Christian doctrines of sin and salvation.
If women’s basic problem is male oppression then their sin cannot be pride — that’s a male sin! Women’s sin is passivity or (according to Valerie Goldstein) ‘the underdevelopment or negation of the self ’.[2]
Salvation then becomes liberation from such oppression and lack of self-worth, to reach a ‘wholeness’ or ‘integrated personhood’.
Letty Russell gives a typical feminist definition of salvation as ‘the realisation of personal power and corporate responsibility to change the world for the better’.[3] Rosemary Radford Ruether uses the language of conversion to refer to a conversion from sexism.
Branch of another tree
This is superficial and completely unbiblical. It confuses the essence of sin with the effects of sin. Whatever symptoms might arise as sinful people interact with one another — arrogance, denial of self-worth and so on — the root cause is the same. We are out of a right relationship with God, being self-oriented rather than God-oriented.
Although some people (and indeed groups of people) do suffer terribly as human beings conflict with one another, no one is merely a victim. We are all part of the problem. And it is from this estrangement from God, and the punishment for our rebellion, that we need saving. The Bible makes it clear that that is why Jesus died.
Feminist theology is in many ways a branch of another tree — liberation theology. It labels sexism as the ultimate ‘ism’ (over against capitalism and nationalism, for example) from which we need to be liberated.
According to feminists they have identified the root oppression from which all other ills flow. Maybe if we renamed sin ‘selfism’ we might get further with persuading them that something very different is at the root of it all!
It is easy to think that liberation theology is ‘Christian’ because it talks about helping the poor and the oppressed. However it is a false gospel because it is all about ‘now’ and about ‘us’. It denies any concept of eternity or a personal relationship with God restored through Jesus Christ.
Next month we shall consider the final two ‘phases’ of feminism. These are much shorter, but show how extreme and unbiblical feminist theology became once it had gone wrong on defining equality and on the core gospel doctrines of sin and salvation.
http://www.evangelical-times.org/Articles/Sep05/Sep05a13.htm
References
1. Russell, L., Household of freedom: Authority in feminist theology (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1987).
2. Goldstein, V., ‘The human situation: A feminine viewpoint’, Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 17 (1996), 38.
3. Russell, L., Human liberation in a feminist perspective: A theology (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1974).
"
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Who's false gospel? (Score: 1)
 by Virgil on Monday, November 20 @ 10:39:18 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | It is easy to think that liberation theology is ‘Christian’ because it talks about helping the poor and the oppressed. However it is a false gospel because it is all about ‘now’ and about ‘us’. It denies any concept of eternity or a personal relationship with God restored through Jesus Christ.
The "false gospel" accusations are really getting old in my opinion - it seems like everything we disagree can carry the "false gospel" qualifier, so I think we need to be careful with how we use the term and who we attach it to.
Davo has made an excellent case in my opinion for the "false gospel" terminology used by Paul to mean that there was only ONE false gospel, and that was the gospel of the Judaizers in the first century. Let's not forget that feminism in itself doesn't even pretend to be a gospel - those feminists who are honest recognize that their movement is a movement of "liberation of the impoverished woman" not "liberation theology" specifically. There is little or no religiosity attached to the movement itself, so it is not only misleading, but borderline dishonest to label feminism as "the false gospel" from both a hermeneutical/historical perspective of the New Testament and from the sociological aspects of the movement itself.
Furthermore, I want to point out how the feminist movement brought to light a few issues regarding the role of women in church, issues largely ignored by the men in power until just a few years ago. Is it not sad that it took something like feminism to prompt Christians to seriously reconsider the roles of women in ministry?
Also, I thought that Postmodernism or Emergent were THE false gospels. How many false gospels are there? And who gets to define what the false gospel is? :) According to a couple of people we are teaching "the false gospel" here on Planet Preterist, with myself being seated on Satan's very throne, leading people away from Christ, straight into the pit of Hell.
Do we actually think that calling something "the false gospel" will really win us the argument? |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Feminism: 2. Feminism's false gospel (Score: 1)
 by chrisliv on Monday, November 20 @ 11:59:04 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Yeah,
This gal is just using the topic of feminism as an avenue for propaganda against "equality" and "liberation". I wish she'd just be honest as she promotes a low-grade form of tyranny and bondage.
The cheap tactic of calling feminist ideology, "feminist theology", continues in this second portion.
A quick strawman she posits, "It is, therefore, a false assumption to say that ‘equal’ must mean ‘identical,’" is very feeble as well as false. Not even the most militant, atheist, lesbian feminists have ever argued that men and women are identical.
Her attempt to try to compare human personality, gender relations, and similar topics to Trinitarian concepts might be worth doing if there weren't so many dirty tricks to deal with. Of course, her "eternal Son" concept is flawed, and seems to be one of her main pillars.
Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Paige on Monday, November 20 @ 12:20:37 PST
- by chrisliv on Monday, November 20 @ 12:41:22 PST
- by Virgil on Monday, November 20 @ 13:04:59 PST
Re: Feminism: 2. Feminism's false gospel (Score: 1)
by chrisliv on Friday, November 24 @ 21:18:59 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Gee,
Maybe there are a few "feminist theologians" out there.
I just stumbled onto an eBay book sellor that has one or more books that contain a few authors on the subject. I'll provide the URL and overview below.
Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone
----------------------------------------------------
http://cgi.ebay.com/Horizons-in-Feminist-Theology-Chopp-Davaney_W0QQitemZ180053601271QQihZ008QQcategoryZ378QQcmdZViewItem
DESCRIPTION:
Paper, Fortress, 1997. By all accounts, feminist theology is at a crossroads. Even as long-standing consensus wanes that women's experience is the source and norm of feminist theology, the specific and often contradictory experience of different groups are now highlighted, and new theoretical frameworks are emerging.
This landmark volume explores central issues of female subjectivity and feminist identity, gender and embodiment, tradition and norms, and their impact on theology. Leading thinkers in this new generation of feminist theologians rethink the central claims of feminist theology and offer proposals for the future.
Contents
Introduction (Sheila Greeve Davaney)
Identity, Feminist Theory, and Theology (Linell Elizabeth Cady)
Women's Experience between a Rock and a Hard Place: Feminist, Womanist, and Mujerista Theologies in North America (Serene Jones)
Seeking and Sucking: On Relation and Essence in Feminist Theology (Catherine Keller)
The Self between Feminist Theory and Theology (Thandeka)
Contesting the Gendered Subject: A Feminist Account of the Imago Dei (Mary McClintock Fulkerson)
The Body Politic vs. Lesbian Bodies: Publics, Counterpublics, and the Uses of Norms (Janet R. Jakobsen)
Bad Women: The Limits of Theory and Theology (Paula M. Cooey)
Becoming an American Jewish Feminist (Laura Levitt)
A History of Our Own: What Would a Feminist History of Theology Look Like? (Sheila Briggs)
Social Theory Concerning the "New Social Movements" and the Practice of Feminist Theology (Kathryn Tanner)
Continuing the Story but Departing the Text: A Historicist Interpretation of Feminist Norms in Theology (Sheila Greeve Davaney)
Theorizing Feminist Theology (Rebecca S. Chopp) |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
| 
|
