#christian feminism

[fierysword]

What many people who oppose worshiping the Christian God as a Mother or Goddess (simply a female term for God) fail to realize is that terminology for God is not limited to those found in scripture. The word Trinity is never used in scripture yet it is considered an integral part of mainstream Christianity. Moreover, if God can be three persons and still be worshiped from a monotheistic lens, the same is true for describing a monotheistic God - who is inclusive and transcendent of gender - with both male and female names/titles.

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

what do you think of the argument that 1 Corinthians 14:34 wasn’t written by Paul, but inserted later? supporters of the idea argue that it doesn’t fit at all with the rest of 1 Cor 14, which is all about prophesy etc, with just this one verse flung in, then carrying on about prophesy. also, that it doesn’t fit with Paul’s writings on women covering their heads in church (1 Cor 11:5), where he expects them to pray and prophesy (as long as their heads are covered). this isn’t a loaded question at all, i’m interested in your interpretation with your love of Paul and much more knowledge of him than i have!

Grace!!! I love your questions. And I do love Paul lol. So, despite being aware of this argument I’ve never actually looked into it before today so we’re getting some off the cuff interpretation from me lolll

So the structure of 1 Corinthians is

1-4: Unity in the Diversity

5-7: Sexual Ethic in the Kingdom

8-10: Food and Idols

11-14: Unity in Worship

15-16: The Resurrection

So the weird issue in chapter 14 comes right after (1) Paul’s famous essay on love as the meaning of the universe which should then motivate you to focus on loving others rather than elevating yourself, and (2) Paul shaming the Corinthians for using the assembly as a talent show and not a common union based on love. 

Paul says (I don’t have a great translation on hand so bear with me lol)

All people must speak one at a time

Speaking in tongues must have an interpreter (and not just Dionysian madness). 

Prophets need to comport themselves  and not monopolize the assembly and go one by one. 

Women be silent and, if you’re confused, ask your husbands questions at home. It is shameful for a woman to speak. (Also it is the word “silent” and not “quiet”)

You should listen to me, Paul, because I gives the commandments of the Lord

So the obvious issue in the verse (aside from the rather misogynistic vibes) is that it is in direct contradiction with the rest of scripture which places great emphasis on the (ideal) inherent equality of women (again. Ideally) and also Paul’s own writing in this very letter where he gives details on how women in the Assembly of God are to pray, speak in tongues (which Paul describes in the letter as the language of spiritual beings), and prophesy (that is, preach a direct word from God). It is also inconsistent with Paul's dealings with his co-workers in that women such as Prisca, Phoebe and Junia could not have functioned as Church leaders and apostles if they were not allowed to speak in public.

So as such there are (per usual) a myriad of differing interpretations that fall under these camps. A reading of 

Subservience

Culture

Interpolation 

Disagreement 

I will not be nice nor gentle: if you hold the first view you are a misogynist with a poor exegesis of scripture. The fact that some Christian traditions have taken to literally silencing women in the church and refusing that they speak. Quite frankly I do not care if Paul WAS saying that no woman should ever speak in church ever — if he was, his words should be rejected as the ravings of a man who had no connection to Jesus of Nazareth, the Anointed One. Why? Not just because I personally find it disgusting (which. Clearly I do. I cannot be subtle I hate misogyny) but because it is inconsistent with the biblical narrative as a whole from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. If we claim that the Holy Scriptures are a unified story that leads to Jesus then we have no choice but to interpret scripture in a way that is consistent as a whole. And this one does not cut it. Also it’s misogynist. Get rekt by the image of God poem. 

Next is the idea that this is a culturally contextual commandment. As such they would argue this doesn’t apply to all believers in all churches — either in 2025 or back in 56 when Paul write this letter. Some married women who sat together were being rude — talking and arguing during the sermon instead of listening to the singing, praying, and prophesying. They need to be quiet and ask their husbands whatever questions they have at home.

Slight problem imo: the idea that married women sat separately than the unmarried. I haven’t seen or found anything that would lead me to believe that there was a separation of the married and the unmarried, or any sex based separation. In fact, men and women of varying careers and ethnicities and socioeconomic statuses sitting together at one table to take the bread and the cup was a big deal and very controversial to many. That said, this is Corinth, the church infamous for being a problem basically all day and all the time. Also there was an almost schism that went down regarding sex and marriage vs consecrated virginity. Amongst other things (again Corinth had lots of problems). So it is possible that there was a division in seating between married and unmarried men and women.

Edit: interjecting here after having read N.T. Wright’s paper on the biblical basis for women’s service in the church. I’ll just quote the whole thing, “I have always been attracted, ever since I heard it, to the explanation offered once more by Ken Bailey. In the Middle East, he says, it was taken for granted that men and women would sit apart in church, as still happens today in some circles. Equally important, the service would be held (in Lebanon, say, or Syria, or Egypt), in formal or classical Arabic, which the men would all know but which many of the women would not, since the women would only speak a local dialect or patois. Again, we may disapprove of such an arrangement, but one of the things you learn in real pastoral work as opposed to ivory-tower academic theorizing is that you simply can’t take a community all the way from where it currently is to where you would ideally like it to be in a single flying leap. Anyway, the result would be that during the sermon in particular, the women, not understanding what was going on, would begin to get bored and talk among themselves. As Bailey describes the scene in such a church, the level of talking from the women’s side would steadily rise in volume, until the minister would have to say loudly, ‘Will the women please be quiet!’, whereupon the talking would die down, but only for a few minutes. Then, at some point, the minister would again have to ask the women to be quiet; and he would often add that if they wanted to know what was being said, they should ask their husbands to explain it to them when they got home.” With this new context I now find this to be a much stronger argument. And if it weren’t for the next problem I’d embrace it with open arms. But, alas, earwax 

Bigger problem: the Greek. Unlike in 1 Timothy where it says “Let women learn in quietness” this says very strongly in Greek that the women must be “silent”, as if required so by law, and that is “disgraceful/shameful” (another very strong word in Greek ) if they do not. This is an honor-shame culture so for something to be shameful is really, really bad. The Greek seems much too strong and intense for the cultural argument to be the case. 

Next is the interpolation interpretation: this is actually very popular among scholars. The reasons being

the passage interrupts the flow of Paul's argument

it follows language from the First Epistle to Timothy, which was probably not written by Paul

it contradicts Paul's neutral or positive mention of women prophesying, praying, and taking other speaking and leadership roles in the church

the passage is alternatively found at different locations in some manuscripts, which may indicate it was originally inserted as a marginal note and then unstably inserted into the text itself

some manuscripts give evidence of a prior record of its absence from the text.

And honestly? I find those to be really convincing arguments! I actually was unaware of all of this before today. 

Interestingly Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, when arguing for this position says, “1 Corinthians 14:34–35 are not a Corinthian slogan, as some have argued…, but a post-Pauline interpolation. ... Not only is the appeal to the law (possibly Genesis 3:16) un-Pauline, but the verses contradict 1 Corinthians 11:5. The injunctions reflect the misogyny of 1 Timothy 2:11–14 and probably stem from the same circle. Some mss. place these verses after 40.” Ignoring the jab at 1 Timothy (on which i find the Cult of Diana theory to be most convincing), I am intrigued at his words about a possible appeal to the Torah. 

The verse is: “Women should be silent in the assemblies. For they are not allowed to speak but are to subject themselves, just as the Torah also says.” 

Genesis 3:16 says: “Your desire shall be toward your husband, and he shall tyrant over you.” Which if you are a longtime follower of this blog (so like one of you lolll) you might know I take this to mean “You will have a tendency to dominate your husband, and he will have a tendency to act as a tyrant over you.” For why desire means dominate read the next chapter.

(Sidenote: both the woman being subjugated and the man eating the herb of the field are both forms of humanity becoming beasts. Meditate on Genesis 1 and 3.)

Where was I? Right, the interloper theory. Murphy-O'Connor says that the hyperlink is not Pauline but I’m not sure about that. An appeal to Genesis 1-3 to make a theological argument is very Pauline to me. Actually it’s just very biblical. All biblical theology throughout the prophets comes out of Genesis 1-3. It’s the same in the apostles. When Paul wants to talk about gender equality he turns to Genesis 1! Anyway. I don’t believe Paul wrote that line or made that allusion but I do think it’s inaccurate to say that the hyperlink is un-Pauline. 

Finally there is the disagreement interpretation, which I think is the most recent theory. Basically, in the same way earlier in the letter Paul will quote a letter from the Corinthians — “It is good for a man to not touch a woman” and “We know that we all have knowledge” — and then disagree with it — “Nevertheless because of sexual immorality” and “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” — he is doing the same thing here. Quoting a letter from the Corinthians and then following up with a disagreement. 

And with the way that our modern bibles have the text, this too is a compelling argument. The injunction against women speaking is immediately followed with with a negative statement: “[ē] did the word of God originate with you?” And then the controversy has to do with that ē (‘eh’). It can mean “or/than/either” or it can mean “hey/now” but either way it’s about contesting and contrast. 

Now here is where we begin to get into nerdy stuff about language which uh is not my wheelhouse. I love biblical studies and if I ever went into academic study of theology, that is where I would focus. But the second you want me to open a Hebrew/Greek dictionary I’m running away. Just know, there are a lot of smart people who believe it is a quotation that begins with “As in all the assemblies of the saints” and ends with “shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly”, and then is contested by Paul “What! Did the word of God originate with y’all, or are y’all the only ones it has reached?" 

The thing that bothers me about this interpretation: the manuscript variations. However, David Odell-Scott argues that those western manuscripts that moved 34-35 to a different position (after verse 40) are the work of a patriarchal redactor seeking to "shelter" and protect the Corinthian slogan from Paul's emphatic critique in verse 36. By associating these verses with the "decency and order" of verse 40, the redactor undermined the egalitarian interpretation of the canonical version, and incorrectly presented the Corinthian voice as the voice of Paul. (Sidenote: Odell-Scott seems to also dislike 1 Timothy. Interesting)

In summary because Kyrie Eleison that was a lot! So ranked —

Subordination: misogynist, anti biblical, anti Christian, anti Pauline. Should be rejected and burned with Gehenna fire

Cultural: a pretty good interpretation of it wasn’t for the intense harshness of the Greek

Interpolation and Disagreement: both are tied for me. Both have really good points that take both the textual and cultural history into view. Also both work structurally imo. Whether you have the injunction or not, the essay still flows perfectly.

I: Don’t be a showboat who creates disorder -> What!? Did the word of God come to y’all alone!?!

D: Don’t be a showboat who creates disorder -> “Something something misogynist trad” -> What!? Did the word of God come to y’all alone!?!

So… yeah. Love God. Love your neighbor. May whoever the misogynist was who wrote that have his bones ground to dust. And may the favor of our God and Lord Jesus be with you, and may the God of Peace crush the adversary underneath your feet. 

[cath-lic]

the funniest thing about harrison butker’s speech is seeing every christian i follow come out of the woodwork and absolutely own this dude for not knowing shit about the bible or women

[progressofthepilgrim]

How many times are we gonna see casual hatred for and dehumanization of women like this expressed by men with a cross emoji in their name or "Christ is King" in their bio, before we acknowledge that religious men have a very real problem and the ones who are not radicalized by misogyny are doing nothing to stop it?

[apostle-therock-peter]

this was a difficult part in wisdom's daughters that i'm reading as i'm starting to read it because i had that angry urge to go "PETER DIDN'T DESERT JESUS!" but like...the three times peter betrayed jesus before he died and his insane guilt around it. and i remembered. oh. nobody but one of the john's and the women around him stayed consistently with jesus. the WOMEN were consistently with jesus. women, especially to us fgc quakers, are an important vessel of christ's message and spirituality, and that's why i'm so drawn to quaker interpretations of christianity in the first place, because the marginalized (in gender, in race, in class, in sexuality, in disability), they are CONSISTENTLY centered as a GIFT that god has given and not a defect that god will fix once we are in heaven or an inherent sin against god's creation.

to god, we are all sinners, yes, but none of us are sinning by being alive, by being ourselves.

and that's the beauty of the friends.

[lasangeline]

Hot take: Christianity and radical feminism are compatible. ''Christian radical feminism'' is not an oxymoron.

“How ? Numerous passages in the bible clearly prescribe patriarchy, like Ephesians 5 !”

Firstly, compiling passages from the Bible to take a stance on a certain issue is a wrong approach. We need a model of interpretation (hermeneutics) based on its fundamental, guiding principles to understand these passages' meaning.

So while it's true that the Bible contains patterns of male supremacist prescriptions, Christian patriarchy was not intended as a permanent and universal rule but as a temporary cultural accommodation to facilitate the spread of the gospel (God's priority) and avoid scandal and repression of Christianity in societies that tolerated only patriarchy:

Source

Radical feminism can therefore be used as a tool to reinterpret and reform the Christian faith to align it with the principle of anti-male supremacy. However an important distinction should be made: "Christian radical feminism" is not the same as "radical feminist Christianity". The former, as the words sequence suggests, begins with Christianity and then incorporates radfem ideas to transform church structures and teachings, while the latter takes radical feminism as its starting point and uses Christian beliefs and symbols to primarily promote radical feminism.

To resume what Christian radical feminism is: it's a perspective within Christianity that recognizes and critiques the male supremacist structures within both society and the church. It seeks to eradicate male dominance in all contexts, advocating for the liberation of women based on a Christian framework.

[lambofthelost]

I wish my version of the bible included more about Anna the prophet because honestly her story is important and should be shared more to self proclaimed Christian men who see women as being less than or incapable of independence. I don't think they realize that the whole "women came from the rib of man so women submit to men" is a law regarding married women as Adam and Eve were wed with laws that unfortunately had to surround her choice of sin when he should have protected her. They were equal, but her choice was a risk that Adam, who didn't sin first, should have helped prevent. I don't think they realize that when it says "man is the image of God and woman is the image of man" it's referring to the order in which a married couple behaves. I'm worried women are being scared away from God because of the way humans are communicating bible passages.

Anna was an elderly prophet who was married for 7 years until her husband passed and she remained a widow until her eighties. She completely devoted herself to the Lord after her loss. She spent all of her days sitting in a temple, never leaving it, fasting and praying. Anna foretold the birth of Christ and once he was born, she finally left her reclusive state and communicated with the world around her.

It seems that information about her is fewer and farther between, sort of like a minor character/side character that more than likely didn't have enough documentation because of her reclusive state. It's easy to assume she was devoting herself full time to communication with the Lord but it's also important to note that prophets of the Lord were usually...well... Tragically tortured, deemed insane, unal!ved and held hostage. She successfully stayed remote until she felt it was safe to communicate that she had predicted correctly. She is extremely important, there is mystery surrounding her life and choices and her example is useful and inspiring. She actually survived, made conscious decisions regarding her ability to prophesy for the Lord and showed immense and loyal devotion while recognizing the blessings the Lord bestowed upon her.

[beautyinsteadofashes]

If they're are other Christians around in Fandom on Tumblr I'd love to chat about how you navigate it e.g. idolatry and sexuality.

[animentality]

[samanthatrans999]

This is how I go to work now. cute panties 👙,tank tops and womens shapewear, under pathetic male cloths.

[fierysword]

Most of the 'I am' sayings of the Fourth Gospel are Wisdom imagery: the Bread of Life (John 6.35); the Light of the World, which, given the temple context of the saying, must have meant the menorah (John 8.12); the Resurrection and the Life (John 11.25); the Way (cf. Prov. 8.22), the Truth and the Life (John 14.6); and the Vine, bearing in mind that the tree of life was said to have fruit like grapes, and that the kings, the divine sons, had been branches of the tree (John 15.5).

Wisdom: The Queen of Heaven by Margaret Barker

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Types of egalitarian anthropology 

Eschatological: The original human, Adam, is an androgynous hermaphrodite until the fall, after which gender was created. According to this view’s interpretation of Galatians 3:28, baptism (the introduction into new creation) returns humans to that pre-fallen state of androgyny. Sexuality, the main division between genders, is said to be the root of female subordination. Relationships that are typically rooted in sexuality (marriage and motherhood) place women in roles that are subordinate in accordance with society's patriarchal norms. The path to equality is believed to be found when women transcend these roles —traditionally through celibacy (as seen in the life of Paul). Transcending worldly norms, which the Bible instructs Christians to do, brings men and women to the state of androgyny that eliminates gender subordination; thus, Christianity is intended to manifest gender equality. Transcendence is the core of eschatological feminism; women reach equality with men by separating from the world, rather than changing it. 

Liberal: Rejects the notion that patriarchy is intrinsic to creation, asserting rather that gender equality originally existed, but was distorted by historical injustices against women. In this view gender equality is something restored rather than introduced. This restoration will be accomplished by economic, political, social, and systemic reformation, and the church (which has historically had a role in the subordination of women) has to take an active part of this social reform. "The Church as a bearer of redeemed humanity ought especially to represent this equality of men and women in its institutional life. But it does so as a paradigm of what all social institutions should become, not as a representative of an eschatological humanity outside of and beyond history." (Ruether, Rosemary Radford (1986). Sexism and God-Talk) Calls for liberation within society rather than removal from it. 

Romantic: The distinction between genders is found primarily in "spiritual" traits. Women are perceived to be innately altruistic, sensitive, and pure (due to their affinity with divine Wisdom that gives them moral and spiritual superiority) — traits that are considered morally superior compared to "male traits". men and women are both inherently capable of goodness, but because of the patriarchy placing men into positions of power, more negative character traits are manifested (pride, aggression, dominance, etc.). Since women are not allowed into positions of power they retain humanity's natural goodness.

Conservative: If a woman leaves the home to take up a traditional male occupation, she will straightaway lose this good femininity and become a she-male, a monstrous virago, or will become debased to carnal femaleness, fallen woman. Opposes gender equality in the work force in order to better preserve traditional roles in the home. Women's innate goodness makes her the ideal candidate to raise children and to support the husband. In turn, this spousal support allows the husband to perform better in the workforce; this trickle effect of women sending good husbands and sons into the world is how conservative romantics suppose women make an impact. Reformist: Aligns with conservative romanticism except in the reformist belief that the inherent goodness of women cannot be lost by equality in society. Women are to morally reform men and male-centric institutions, but to do so they require education, voting rights, and political power. The innate goodness of women is needed in leadership positions to improve the nature of the world. It is also believed that the nature of women is incompatible with war and that under female leadership, the world would be at peace.  Radical: Rejects the entirety of male culture and debates whether males can be redeemed at all. Desire a utopian society completely independent from males in which women's inherent goodness is unimpeded by male inferiority.

My thoughts - escatological is theological but gnostic. Liberal is practical but untheological. Romantic is also practical but stupid essentialist.

[progressofthepilgrim]

I'm a huge fan of CBE International and I seriously love that they give women a voice in the Church. So you can imagine how disappointed I was to see them speak poorly of two films that have had huge impact on my formative years and influenced my love of storytelling and the animated medium in general. I couldn't resist emailing the writer to explain what I thought she got wrong, and I'll post it here if anyone is curious.

I greatly admire this blog and all the good it's done. I get excited to read every new Thread and just discovered the blog by Kelly. However, I was sorely disappointed to read the article about Desiring God's writer Greg Morse and Kelly's response to it. I politely suggest that Kelly gets as much wrong about the heroines from Sleeping Beauty and Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs as Desiring God did about Captain Marvel.

Aurora LITERALLY has a magical voice. She is not voiceless [as the article states]. It was one of her magical gifts at birth and what connects her initially to the prince who ends up helping to save the kingdom along with the fairies. Having little screentime is an odd reason to dismiss her as a character (Jasmine and Elsa barely have more minutes on screen in Aladdin and Frozen, by the way, and nobody is condemning them as "voiceless"). The writer also seems to have never actually seen the film considering the three good fairies are the heroes- the film starts with them offering their gifts to the baby, continues with them figuring out a way to protect their foster daughter, and ends with them helping Prince Phillip (as remarkable a man as could be found in animation who both risks his life to save Aurora and shows kindness and consideration for her when she sings earlier on).

Phillip is not the main character. If anything, HE is the voiceless one. Once "Once Upon a Dream" ends he literally talks no more; he exists for the women of the film, not the other way around. The point of the film is that true love can defeat any evil, and we don't only see this in Phillip's selfless actions, but in the fairies' entire story. They are driven by their love for their adopted daughter, and go to great lengths to protect her. They grieve having to let her return to the castle. The entire film is inherently female-driven, much more so than almost any animated film that came after it, making it quite ahead of its time. I respectfully have to say that I find ignoring this aspect of it to be grossly inappropriate for a feminist writer. Pop culture matters. Representation matters.

Snow White is a more active heroine, too. This is a teenage girl who's never known love, only neglect and abuse. She still manages to refrain from succumbing to the same level of bitterness and resentment that so obviously drives Queen Grimhilde. She is forced to flee through the terrifying forest to make a new life for herself, which she happily does until she's able to be safe with the prince. But let's back up. After a frightening night in the woods, she finds comfort with the animals, scolds herself for making a fuss, and picks herself right back up. She finds a cottage that she believes houses orphans, and decides to clean up the place and cook a hot meal for the poor "children" in exchange for shelter. She's proactively trying to make a place for herself when she has every reason to sit, cry, and feel sorry for herself. When she realized it's actually the dwarfs' home, she quickly offers her skills as a former scullery maid so as to not just take free shelter because Snow White is a hardworking person with a good heart who doesn't believe in taking without giving. Even though as princess of the land, she could easily invoke her royal status to demand protection and a roof. She works hard to be useful and makes herself a new family, showing that family comes in many forms and your abusers do not define you. The dwarfs stop the Queen because Snow White has earned their loyalty and love, the same way she's earned it from the Prince and the animals. Snow White is a good person who inspires goodness in others; it's why the huntsman cannot bear to kill her and puts his own life on the line by letting her go. This says volumes about Snow as a person and a role model.

The Prince has very little to do with her.

By the way, ignoring that women can hurt other women is NOT helping the cause. Women regularly suffer from internalized misogyny, as Snow White's mother clearly did. Cinderella's stepmother abused her too. Women hurt women sometimes. It's a fact. Walt did not have some evil misogynistic agenda either, this is just what happens in the fairy tales these films are based on.

Women should be allowed to come in all forms. It is deeply misogynistic to strip away women's worth and dismiss them as role models simply because they don't carry weapons. I'm curious how Kelly just feel about Biblical women like Esther, Ruth, Rahab, and both Mary's, since they're ordinary women who never fight. Ruth especially reminds me of the old Disney Princesses, who went through trials with dignity and inner strength, allowing themselves to feel sorrow or anger at times but never letting it break them down into something they're not.

I do not write this to offend or even condemn. These films have a special place with me, and as someone who relates to the women in these films both in personality and as a fellow abuse survivor, it pains me to see these iconic women brushed off as anti feminist, especially from a Christian writer I deeply admire. I would ask that you consider that Aurora and Snow can't read your blog and have their feelings hurt, but real women just like them can. Is it feminist to uphold only a certain type of womanhood? I don't believe so. It's why I abandoned my Complementarian beliefs. I think putting down traditionally feminine women is one side of the coin, and putting down warrior women is on the other. We don't need to pit women against each other.

[idreamiteverynight]

[audreyrose7]

I think about this all the time.

[ffcrazy15]

There's this way of doing female-ness in Christianity that I call "pastel flower journal Christianity." I've got nothing against pastel flower journals per se, but for some reason people believe it's the end all and be all of female spirituality, and I think it's a real disservice towards young Christian women.

One of these days I'd like to start a prayer-and-reading group or something for young women, but there would be no floral themes or over-focus on how "God thinks you're beautiful even if the world doesn't" (a true statement, but it's wayyyyy too often the focus in women's spiritual reading). Instead we would be reading:

Seneca's Letters from a Stoic

Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning

Sheed's A Map of Life

Portions of Pieper's book on leisure

Kreeft's Three Philosophies of Life

Guardini's The Lord (or something similar)

Therese's Story of a Soul

and some select portions of the Nicomachean Ethics.

(Also they're all getting the porn talk. I don't know why we give the porn talk to young men but not young women. There's this idea that women don't use porn and they only need the talk about "guarding their heart." Bullshit. There's porn on the YA shelves of Barnes and Nobles and before that there were bodice rippers. Young women need the porn talk too.)

Every young woman needs to be getting a basic grounding in virtue ethics, logic, natural law, scholastic philosophy and Biblical hermeneutics if they're going to get by in today's spiritual landscape. Enough faffery and emotionalism in young women's spiritual education! Give them real food to chew on, not pasty sentimentalism!