Basic HTML Version
Their objections begin with
the Genesis account of Eve fall–
ing to Satan's temptation and
then tempting Adam to sin. The
many kings and prophets, the
most prominent characters and
personalities in the Old Testa–
ment-they were all men! Oh,
there were exceptions like Sarah,
Esther, Ruth. But even they, so
it is proposed, were for the most
part made to play an inferior
role. And what benefit their sto–
ríes have is nullified, they say,
by calling attention to Delilah
and Jezebel. Or Saloman being
led astray by bis thousand
women.
Many feminists aren't happy
about the New Testament either.
While Jesus' mother Mary does
play an important part, she
actually reinforces, as they see it,
the tendency of the Bible to only
portray women favorably in a
female role-as virgins, widows
or wives. (What many are really
saying is that they want the Bible
to acknowledge and justify the
existence of another category of
women: those who are free to be
sexually active outside the bonds
of marriage!)
And then there is the apostle
Paul. Commanding women to
submit to their husbands, forbid–
ding women to speak in church–
well that is regarded as absolute
male chauvinism!
All in all, Judaism and Chris–
tianity are considered to be
patriarchical religions. As oné
woman minister expressed it, lib–
erated women "see religion as the
thing that makes people more
sexist than anything else."
Sorne women reformers insist
that established religions, as well
as the Bible, are hopeless and
not worth reworking. A lady
professor of religion suggested
adopting sorne form of poly–
theism. "A lot of people like
myself are saying that mono–
theism itself is one of the per–
spectives that we might have to
get beyond- to a more poly–
theistic, more pagan theology."
She explained that she prefers to
work with myth and the insights
16
of psychology rather than from a
position of faith in the Judea–
Christian tradition.
More specific on the concept of
polytheism was a female voice
shouting from the audience of a
religious discussion sponsored by
the National Organization for
Women: "Two Gods- one for
him and one for her!" (Female
deities were prominent in ancient
religions, and are so even today in
sorne parts of the world.)
Less radical feminists feel that
traditional religion and the Bible
should not be rejected. But the
words used should be changed,
leaving out all, or many (depend–
ing on whose view you hear)
"sexist" expressions.
When more than single words
~~
The Bible is not
antiwoman. Nor is the
God of the Bible,
nor the true religion
of the Bible.
' '
are in question, sucb as whole
biblical verses and narratives that
seem to perpetuate the traditional
male role, suggestions run from
leaving out the offending portions
of Scripture to "reinterpreting"
them. An example of reinterpre–
tation was given by a woman min–
ister at Harvard Divinity School:
"Eve's eating of the apple [it
wasn't an apple] in the Garden of
Eden was the first free act of the
human race," she explained.
Rather than to continue seeing
Eve as a culprit in sorne evi l act,
"we ought to celebrate Eve. She
began the process of freedom. "
Freedom?
Freedom from what?
Why, freedom from the true
God and bis rule, of course! Free–
doro to rebel. Freedom to sin. But
that is not freedom.
It
is license.
Let's understand!
Central to the whole foolish
discussion is the very nature of
God.
"God has become regarded as
masculine, but 1 think this is
going to change," stated a recent–
ly ordained female Episcopal
priest. "In a sense it is idolatry to
say God is male," said a woman
theology professor at Yale Divini–
ty School.
God, according to sorne, is not
male, nor female. "He" is both.
Others assert that he is neither.
However, on this they agree: the
concept of a male Father-God
must go; for, they claim, it serves
as the foundation of oppressive,
"patriarchical" religion.
Unfortunately, sorne of the
complaints of the feminists con–
cerning established religions of
the world are right! Religion has
been used down through the cen–
turies to oppress women, justas it
has been used to oppress other
segments of human society.
Wamen have often been relegated
to the status of sex objectjbaby
machinejhouse slave- all based
on religious doctrine. Women
have been denied sorne of their
rights because of various inter–
pretations of the Bible and ideas
about God.
But these have been
wrong
interpretations, erroneous ideas!
The Bible is not antiwoman. Nor
is the God of the Bible, nor the
true religion of the Bible. What
needs changing are the false con–
cepts and doctrines that human
beings have invented by mis–
applying and misinterpreting the
Scriptures.
When the Bible is correctly
understood it protects the rights
of both men and women. The
laws of God as recorded in the
Scriptures . are for everyone's
good. What is wrong with "Hon–
or thy father and thy moth–
er .. . "? God's law was set into
motion by the one who created us
all--created us maJe and female.
ls God Masculina?
"The Bible is clear on one thing,"
insisted a woman professor of bib–
lical studies, "God is not mascu–
line, not feminine."
The
PLAIN TRUTH