Christianity and Women

Feminism. What is Feminism exactly? I'm pretty sure it is the belief that women should receive equal rights with those of a man. There may be other things associated with it, like pro-abortion ("a women should be able to control her own body," people claim), but I'm only going to focus here on what the Bible has to say about the equality of a women to that of a man.

As I said in my last post, I don't know much about politics, at all. Apparently there is a Left and a Right (liberal or conservative), Donald Trump is the president (at least for a little while longer), and Feminism is a political movement somewhere somehow.

Or something.

Look, the most educated political opinion I have ever had is that Donald Trump should marry Hillary Clinton because they have similar hair colors, are similar ages, and argued a lot. Now you ask, why don't I bother? All joking aside (both of them are already married and so that would be adultery), it is because I believe as I have presented in previous posts (see here, the part where it talks about "the emotional problem of pain") that objective human rights -- objective morals -- cannot come from the human race, they can only come from God. That's why my areas of interest and study are evidence for the truth of Jesus Christ as presented in the Bible.

While I can't think of a time I heard someone in my life condemn Christianity for suppressing women (but I have read stuff like arguments from Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster? Understanding the God of the Old Testament), I personally do feel that Feminism is not equated with God and religion is commonly viewed for being sexist. I mean, come on, Christianity does say for husbands to rule over their wives who should submit to them.

But that's not all the Bible teaches. Not by a long shot. Just what does God have to tell us about the way men should treat and respect women? The New Testament is clear.

Jesus and Women

If you haven't learned about him before, Ravi Zacharias is a world leading Christian apologist. I fairly recently was blessed enough to fall upon two videos where he talks about how Jesus treated women. You can see them here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD3CsFfLxlo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpmu42g6mDs

I do unpack some arguments he gives from the Gospels below though, and add some more thoughts. Who knows, Jesus's example might surprise you.

1. The Woman at the Well

In John 4, Jesus was in Samaria sitting at a well while His Disciples were getting food. There, a women was filling her water jar by herself. This was a very dangerous situation for the reputation of a Jewish Rabbi. Jews were prejudiced against Samaritans and went out of their way to avoid Samaria, and women were low on the totem poled. Furthermore, the fact that she was alone, instead of with other women at the proper time to collect water, indicated that she was looked down upon for some sin. So a Jewish Rabbi was starting a conversation with a Samaritan women of ill-repute (not something you would invent but that is besides the point).

"Will you give me a drink?" He asked to initiate their conversation. She surely was surprised and responded,  "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?"

But Jesus explained to her that He cared about her, even to the point of being her Messiah. "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Then, something spectacular and amazing happened. She went back to her home and led people to Jesus, both physically and spiritually. Verse 39 explains: Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of the woman's testimony. "He told me everything I ever did."

Ravi Zacharias put it this way: "He made her the first evangelist to the Samaritans."

2. The Woman with the Alabaster Oil

In Mark 14, Jesus was approached by a woman with very expansive ointment and pored it on his head. Many people complained, but Jesus wouldn't have it. He said, "Leave her alone. Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

3. Women at the Crucifixion

Mark 15:40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.

John 19:25-27 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to her, "Woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. 

Jesus had women followers who supported His ministry. Specifically with entrusting His mother to John, Zacharias said in one of his videos that "a sword was piercing through her heart." He has quite the parable shared in his books regarding the love of a mother for her child. 

A man had fallen in love with a women from another party. She did not love him back but instead sadistically found his attempts to woo her amusing. So one day, she promised herself if he would carve the heart out of his mother and bring it to her. The man was tormented by this conflict, and finally one day was driven to commit murder. He took her heart and ran through the forest toward his soon-to-be fiancee's home, but along the way tripped, fell, and the heart bounced away into shrubbery. He frantically searched for it, and upon uncovering it, heard a voice: "Son, are you hurt? ... Son, are you hurt?"

Such is the way Jesus created mothers to love their children. 

3. The Resurrection Appearances to Women

Interestingly enough, Jesus chose to appear in His resurrected, glorified form to women twice before the men. Peter didn't make it until the third time.

In John 20, Mary Magdalene goes to His tomb, which was empty. "They have taken my Lord away," she wept to Jesus, whom she thought was the gardener, "and I don't know where they have put Him."

But in one word He revealed Himself: "Mary."

She cried out to Him, "Rabboni!" (which means teacher)

Then Jesus sent her ahead to give the message of the resurrection to His male Disciples. "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

The other time is from the book of Matthew:

Matthew 28:9-10 "Greetings," he said. They came to Him, clasped His feet and worshiped Him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see Me."

Again: He appears to women, they approach Him, He sends them to inform the men.


Jesus's example is this: He treated women with the utmost respect. He cared for their inner-most needs. They longed to touch Him. He valued their testimony and care.

Paul and Women

One time in college I was shown a paper about how more females were taking classes in this STEM building then before. I think this can be viewed as anti-Christian, because Christian ethics about women's work can be stereotyped as to be stay-at-home moms and Sunday School teachers. 

While those rolls are very honorable and women were made to be cut out for them (I was raised by a stay-at-home mom), the New Testament is supportive of the strength women have, specifically represented in their affirmed roles as leaders in the church.  This is why I don't think all women need to be stay-at-home moms. Let them use their talents for scientific research and invention (as long as it doesn't get in the way of caring for their children, though).    

1. Paul's Female Associates

Bart Ehrman has explained: "The best evidence comes in Paul's letter to the Romans. Here Paul greets a number of members of the congregation by name, and it is striking that women feature prominently in these greetings. Although Paul names more men than women, the women in the church appear to be in no way inferior to their male counterparts. Paul names Phoebe, a deacon (or minister) in the church of Cenchreae and Paul's own patron, to whom he entrusted the delivery of the letter to the Romans (16:1-2). He mentions Prisca, who along with her husband, Aquila, is largely responsible for the Gentile mission and who supports a congregation in her home (vv. 3-4; notice that she is named ahead of her husband). He greets Mary, his colleague who works among the Romans (v. 6). He names Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis, women whom Paul calls his 'co-workers' for the gospel (vv. 6, 12). And he speaks of Julia and the mother of Rufus and the sister of Nereus, all of whom appear to have a high profile in this community (vv. 13, 15). Most impressively of all, he mentions Junia, whom he calls 'foremost among the apostles' (v. 7). The apostolic band was evidently larger and more inclusive than the list of twelve men most people know about." (1)

Paul  had all sorts of spiritually strong female colleagues. And I'm not even presenting all of them!

Philippians 4:2-3 I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

2. Counter-Argument: Ephesus and Corinth

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

These verses seem to be very suppressing, and worse, appear contradictory with Paul's already presented relationships with women. As a matter of fact, it is argued that these verses came from some "pseudo-Paul."

Some churches do abide by those verses today, but most commonly, they are explained away as contextual(3). Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell cite about Ephesus, where Timothy was:

"...there were also hundreds of hetaerae, the most educated of Greek women who were the regular companions and often the extramarital sexual partners of upper-class Greek men. Possibly some of these women had been converted and were wearing their suggestive and expensive clothing to church. Since hetaerae were often respected teachers of men in Greece (many are named in Greek literature), they would be more likely to become teachers after they became part of the church." (3)

Furthermore, the Corinthian churches also seem to be subject to such problems. Ravi Zacharias paints this picture:

"Historians tell us that Corinth was a city destined for greatness. ... Riches came her way from many directions: balsam from Arabia, carpets from Babylon, slaves from Phrygia, and dates from Phoenicia. However, it was not so much her material wealth that made her a byword among the nations as it was her impoverished spirit. If you had wanted to defame someone as profligate and unfaithful, you would call him or her a 'Corinthian.' What was it that spoke of her immorality? That story is visible today even in her rubble.  

"Atop a hill just on Corinth's outskirts sit the remains of the temple of Aphrodite. Aphrodite was thought to be a goddess who, living in continual infidelity to her husband, symbolized promiscuity. Finally he was able to set a trap for her that revealed her wretchedness to all. In Greek mythology we are told that when she was thus exposed, she fled, covering her face in shame. But out of her illicit relationships were born two children, Eros and Phobos, from which we derive the words eroticism and fear -- one an insatiable appetite, the other a paralyzing emotions. How articulate is the past, once again, in its stones and in its lessons.

"The temple of Aphrodite housed a thousand prostitutes who descended into the streets of Corinth at night to market themselves to the Corinthian passions. This was Corinth. This was her lewd workship." (4)

When I asked my Awana leader about these verses, he talked about how Corinth and Ephesus both were centers of sexually immoral goddesses, where women would try to be "priestesses" and act like the evil they followed. So, even after they converted to Christianity, their mindset of influence and power, and questions, would be apparent in the churches. Eventually Paul finally said, "Beeeeee quieeeeet!" And the evidence seems to weigh in favor of his conclusion. 

Because of this reasonable context, outweighed by Paul listing women as prominent members of many churches, the evidence is compelling to limit submissive commands specifically to churches of Corinth and Ephesus. 

Gender Complementarity and Marriage 

Matthew 19:4-6 "Haven't you read," He replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh?' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

God made male and female differently. Yet as Jesus affirmed, both male and female were made in the image of God. Both male and female have the same intristic worth. They are equal under the law, equal under salvation, and so equal under the way God looks at them. 

Therefore, the differences start to come in extrinsically. The best example I can think of from the Bible is the famous passage on marriage, where women are supposed to "submit" to their husbands. But I wouldn't be surprised if common knowledge stops there. Pay attention to the rest of the passage:

Ephesians 5:22-27 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which He is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 

My mother says that if a husband lives that way -- always looking out for her best interest, being accommodating to her regarding un-important issues such as date night (decisions about important issues are to be discussed in the husband-wife partnership with him listening and getting the last word) -- the wife shouldn't have a hard time submitting to him. 

Another example I can think of is the physical differences between males and females. I believe that males are naturally stronger than females. That's the way it is, how Jesus made it to be. Upon adolescence, they start getting way more testosterone than girls. Give an able-bodied man and able-bodied woman the same diet and exercise, and he will come out stronger then her.

This isn't to say that women can't get strong. They can. Women in the military I'm sure are very strong, at least the ones who aren't nurses and cooks. I have a friend whose mom was in the military, and can beat him at arm wrestling in an instant.

If you didn't know it already, I'm a guy. I haven't named my gender yet in this blog as far as I know. I'm always speaking in first-person. Anyway, one thing I believe in about masculinity is holding the door for girls. You don't hold the door for them to say they should submit to you (that would be psycho: are you a polygamist?) or to say that they are physically weak and can't do it themselves. You do it to show them that they are worthy of such respect, and to honor how Jesus made you naturally better at holding doors (even though only a heavy door could have a noticeable difference). I believe Jesus would do that.

(P.S. For those who know me and would feel uncomfortable with this knowledge if I held the door for them, I also believe in holding the door for all my friends. It's just that girls specifically should be honored in such a way.)

Is Christianity the Most Attractive?

In one of the videos I shared above, Ravi Zacharias said that someone might find "no other worldview that gives the respect to womanhood that Jesus does." This is a remarkable statement, and one where he is in a great place of authority. Having grown up in India of the east, he knows lots about Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and specifically Hinduism, which was dominant where he grew up. 

Unfortunately for me and you (so I'm sorry), I do not have nearly enough information to make a critique of them all and elevate Jesus's ethics as the best. That's why I titled this section with a question. I'll let you decide based on whatever you want to consider if Christianity has the most attractive value of women. This is no test for truth of course, but only a motive for considering a belief system. 

The only other religion I know a lot of stuff about by far is Islam. Mark A. Gabriel is an ex-Muslim who got his doctorate in Islamic studies and taught at the most prestigious Islamic university in the world, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt. He wrote quite an impressive work which compares the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad side-by-side. He supplies an entire chapter about women(5).

• The Prophet said, "I looked into Paradise and found that the majority of its dwellers were the poor people, and I looked into the (Hell) Fire and found that the majority of its dwellers were women."
• The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."
• Surah 4:34-35 Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means.  ... Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and gaurd ... (e.g., their chastity, their husband's property). ... As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance).

Now, Judaism makes me curious. This is because Christianity was born out of Judaism. As a matter of fact, further defense of the strength of women in the Christian worldview can come from the Old Testament! It is in the law of Moses where mankind is first seen as being made in the image of God! However, the Jewish Talmud, a collection of rabbinical teachings from the first millennium, has some very poor views about them. 

• Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a women. (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)
• Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women. (Talmud, Sotah 19a)
• The world cannot exist without males and without females - happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females. (Talmud, Kiddushin 82b) (6)

You might know already that a piece of evidence for the empty tomb is how the testimony of a woman wasn't nearly as reliable as that of a man's in that day. For a while, I had read such evidence in multiple places but didn't have specific examples for it. But I thought, Is it so hard to believe that people in the first century would look down on women? I didn't think so. 

As for Buddhism, Zacharias wrote an imagined conversation between the Buddha and Jesus Christ. They were talking to a woman about the value of the soul:

Jesus: Priya, why don't you invite that monk to join us for lunch?
Priya: But it's past twelve o'clock, Sir! These monks don't eat after the noon hour. He'll be violating his code of discipline. Besides, I'm a woman. I cannot place food directly into his hands.
Jesus: What do you think would happen to you, Priya, if you hugged that monk or even put your hand on his shoulder?
Priya: Oh my! That would be the end of me...and, for that matter, of him!
(Jesus: I told the woman that her pouring the alabaster ointment on me was an expression of worship, and I received it. I fill the heart of everyone who comes to me. Her heart was full of the joy of communing with God.) (7)

I don't know what the reasoning is behind women not being able to touch monks, but there it is.

Finally, I have Hinduism. The only thing I can think of regarding ethical treatment toward women is presented by Zacharias (again, surprise) here:

"Hinduism is not exempt from this scrutiny [sinless leaders like Jesus]. The playfulness of Krishna and his exploits with the milkmaids in the Bhagavad-Gita is frankly an embarrassment to many Hindu scholars."

Krishna is viewed as the eighth or ninth incarnation of Vishnu the preserver, the second god of the Hindu trinity. I did a little Google research and found out that what the famous Hindu god (they have, like, three million or three hundred million and can always add more or something) did with the milk maids was cavort with them for his enjoyment. He wasn't making a commitment of giving himself fully to his wife, as Christians are supposed to. 

I can't think of any scenario (at least off the top of my head) today where women have been suppressed because of belief in one of these religions, or at least belief about one of these religions. Hindus not only have gods, they also have goddesses. I once saw a paper at school which was about an "openly queer muslim women." Probability says that some  places where these religions are believed have to have a lower moral view toward women than men (I think this because of what I just presented and how religion is commonly associated with imperializing men), but that doesn't mean all places are. 

So that's my little take on religious views toward women.

However, what I do know enough about to critique is atheism. If you read my last post, you have already seen what I say are moral implications of evolution (Darwinism). If you are going to consider my writings here, please do read it because it is much more detailed.

Of course, I also believe that objective morality can only come from God (so by "moral implications of evolution" I mean logical outworks that if someone does they can feel they did right). That means that atheists have all the freedom in the world (I write that a little tongue-in-cheek because they really aren't "free" at all) to make any claim about how women should be treated. But therein lies the problem. Objectively, in Darwinism, women and men are just biologically determined neo-apeish creatures.

G.K. Chesterton, a Christian writer often cited by Ravi Zacharias, exposes how ludicrous Darwinists often have to be (unfortunately for them; I'm not trying to demonize Darwinists, it's not their fault).

"For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus, he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book, a novel, in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then as a philosopher that all life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts. Then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mind. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality, and in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything." (9)

Yikes!

But fortunately for us, God has spoken. He has confirmed His word with evidence that women aren't lesser then men and that they aren't animals subject to non-immoral mal-treatment from their male animal counterparts.

No. He confirms the opposite.

Citations:
1. Bart Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 2004), 167.
2. See Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses: A complete Guide to Answering the Tough Questions (Harvest House: Eugene, OR. 2013), 270-273. See also Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI. 1992), 497-499.
3. As quoted by Stanley J. Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 1995), 126.
4. Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil: Restoring the Soul in a Disintegrating Culture (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 1997), 161.
5. Mark A. Gabriel, Jesus and Muhammad: Profound Differences and Surprising Similarities (FrontLine: Lake Mary, FL. 2004), 167-186.
6.  All four citations come from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, copyright 2004 by Kregel Publications in Grand Rapid's, Michigan. See Page 72.
7. Ravi Zacharias, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha (Multnomah: 2001), 68, 79.
8. Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 2000), 41.
9. G.K Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Doubleday: Garden City, NY. 1959), 41.