I’m not a feminist because, before, over, and above anything else I could ever be, I’m a Christian. And that is more than enough for a woman like me. In fact, that is everything.
The current book I'm writing is on the women who get dropped between 19th c Christian feminism and the second wave which skews further from Christianity. I'm grateful for your thoughts here as I didn't realize how negative the air around this word in the church had darkened.
As I learned from many, many years of trying to avoid the tripwires -- and as both you and J. have implied, whether intentionally or not -- the issue for these people isn't being a feminist. The issue is being a woman.
Beautifully said. It takes effort to parse out the real meanings of words, to make applications to these situations in thoughtful ways. Thank you for doing that. Unfortunately, people are drawn to quips and insults, not careful conversations. I'm re-reading James 3 today.
I think the trickiest thing about navigating feminism for thoughtful Christian women is that they can empathise (ha) with plenty. It's hard not to find common ground with feminists who care about the education of girls, or defending the biological definition of 'woman' (a recent development) - I'm sure even Rigney and Basham could find something to track with in the work of Louise Perry or Mary Harrington. The trouble is - certain evangelicals become, well, ideological in their approach to feminism and cannot accept that *anything* within it might be true, they cannot accept that feminists may be able to make true observations about the world and the way that women suffer because of men. Feminists don't have the fundamental diagnosis or solution, but insofar as they can describe the sin of men against women, it has something that Christian women can track with and we don't have to feel *guilty* or *conflicted* about that. Suggesting we can't learn *anything* at all from feminism is ideological. Furthermore, if it is possible to support a corrupt adulterer as President and endorse him despite his serious moral failures, then evangelicals have already made that move to show that it is possible to learn or endorse a *part* of something without approving of the whole. Or perhaps, there are still evangelicals who think that Trump is entirely without blemish while demonising feminism. This too strikes me as ideological.
Can I also say - I think feminism gets such a strong reaction because conservatives across the board really can't bring themselves to critique the economic reasons why both men and women make the choices they do. Often, women who don't consider themselves feminists at all go to work for economic necessity, or because *they want to make money*. We need to do business with the temptation to greed that is so prevalent in our society, and impacts the care both mothers and fathers are able to give but if you do that, especially in the states - you're a socialist and that is basically evil. So feminism takes the whole brunt but I suspect that the pursuit of money and prosperity is what really drives people. Feminism is related to that but I really don't think it's the whole ball game.
This: "the primary reason I don’t align myself with or borrow from a secular or ideological feminist framework to determine and describe what it means to live, love and relate as a woman of God is because I have a far more eternal and reliable framework for doing precisely that. It’s a Jesus-shaped one."
It's precisely this insight that describes how American Christianity has become so divided, because too many have made themselves more loyal to left or right secular political ideologies than to Christ. And by labeling ourselves in such a way that we are seen as allies of whichever group we tend towards, we are painted (Jesus is painted) with all the anti-Christian graffiti that those labels endorse. I always enjoy reading your clear, well-reasoned, and Christ-centered thoughts about culture and faith. Thank you, and keep it up.
I have been eagerly awaiting this post, and was not disappointed, though I was surprised to be quoted directly! As a point of clarity for readers who might not have seen my previous comment in its entirety, I concluded by noting that I was *not* advocating embracing being called "a feminist"; rather, I was wondering if defending so vigorously against the term meant we were playing the game set up by its weaponizers.
Dani, you've articulated wonderfully the reasons (and then some) that I, too, would not use the term "feminist" for myself -- especially the lack of clarity around it, and my overriding commitment to look to the Word of God for my ideas about men and women. Your post will help me better explain my position to others, because some people who are pro-feminism *have* asked me why I don't identify as one, and I often have difficulty breaking it down clearly for them.
Thanks J. And especially for your clarification of your position. I originally included more from your comment in the post, but I could already see it was going to be a long one!
There seems to be an insane overreaction against feminism on the right now. Just like the overreaction against sexual harassment in Me Too and racism in the Summer of "Luv."
Just because a movement does not have a good philosophy underlying it, doesn't mean the actors are intrinsically bad people. Nor does it justify attacking others to destroy their livelihoods and reputations because they seem to fall into "enemy category" or fail the purity spiral according to some arbitrary standards of perfection.
This is why people are talking about the "woke" right. There is nothing godly about this madness nor is it compatible with the Golden Rule Christ urges us to follow.
As usual, I appreciate your incisive thinking and writing.
There's one thing I've observed that might inform you: although my wife and I are both Christians, we routinely disagree on what's most important. And ironically, these are the exact same issues I disagreed with my believing mom on 45 years ago, the same ones my adult girls disagree with me on.
But here's my question: Adam and Eve were given different jobs, and, one would assume, different aptitudes too. But I don't think that's all, they also have a different level of satisfaction at accomplishing a given thing. Now, I'm not say women should never lead: I'm suggesting when men lead, they experience a greater level of satisfaction than a woman would. And we can't know this for sure, because no man never been a woman and vice versa.
Here's a question: if God created Adam, then Eve, but stated he'd be the head, doesn't it imply they'll disagree at times? And they don't disagree because they consults different textbooks: they have the same textbook, but simply disagree about what's most important. I suggest things are bad because the world's fallen, not because the wrong gender's leading.
Really, all this is academic. If I happen to be wrong, or someone else is, it's Christ that gets us to heaven anyway, not perfect theology. Interesting to explore, though.
I have a couple of further questions based on this, that I am hoping you will indulge – please understand I am genuinely curious and trying to organise my thoughts on this.
It’s true that feminism means different things to different people, within and without the movement. It’s an ideology with a huge range of positions and stances within it, where lots of feminists disagree on many issues while holding to the core value. Because feminism does have an actual definition that you didn’t mention in your post - the belief in full social, economic, and political equality for women.
I think it’s important to note this as when most non-Christians say they are feminists, this is what they are saying they believe. So, if we say we aren’t feminists, this is what they think we are saying we do not believe in or affirm.
The question of not associating with a term because of perception or the definitions applied by outsiders is very interesting when you consider the same process in relation to the idea of ‘Christian’ (or even ‘complementarian’). These terms mean different things to different people, and can be expressed in a variety of ways, but have a core belief at the heart of it all. I have heard people make extremely similar arguments about the term ‘Christian’ to the ones you have made about not associating with feminism. These are people who are Jesus followers, church goers, but are afraid the word Christian now means or signals something that does not align with their values and sends an unhelpful message to those they are interacting with. Would you encourage them to stand by and reclaim the word, or accept the associations other people have made with that word?
I believe feminism is still relevant because women worldwide do not have social, economic and political equality. The work of first wave feminists is not complete, despite how far some places in the world have come. The bible is clear on the rightful equality of women and men, but that is not reflected in the world around us – or even the church around us. So yes, I think historical feminism still has helpful work to do in this world. I would even go so far as to say it is one of the ways we fulfil the call of Jesus to love, dignify and value his female disciples.
I do think there is room in feminism for nuance and diversity and disagreement, just as there is between Christians. If people don’t know what you mean by feminism, define it and explain it.
Do you think being a Christian and a feminist are compatible, while acknowledging one term has eternal significance and one doesn’t?
The hysteria around this word in (some) evangelical circles feels like more of a reason to use it and use it rightly, than to hide from it. If the word feminist is being used as a weapon against women, take the power out of it. The power is in the vagueness and implied consequences – don’t let it stay vague. Be explicit in what you mean by the word equality and suck the sting from the bite.
Do you think you will be more effective at helping to create better spaces for women in the church because you stay away from the word some conservative Christians are afraid of? When people use feminist as an insult, what they really intend to insult is womanhood.
Well said, Dani, but it is perhaps worth reflecting that complementarianism reaps what it has sown. The title of Wayne Grudem’s big book ‘Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth’ demonised as feminists many who did not regard themselves as feminists but were determined to follow Scripture and for that reason disagreed with his interpretations. Joe Rigney and Megan Basham are simply following that example, as many others have done over the years.
I'm not a complementarian, but I think the argument of complementarians like Dani would be that complementarians are not one thing, and so they type of complementarianism she believes in is not the same as the sort that, say, Wayne Grudem, Joe Rigney or Megan Basham would espouse, that her complementarianism doesn't require her to create a bogeywoman out of feminism or to see all aspects of feminism as bad etc. I think that's an intellectually honest position to take, even if it's right to say that it's potentially easier for complementarianism to turn into the sort of thing we see in the likes of Wayne Grudem, Joe Rigney or Megan Basham.
The current book I'm writing is on the women who get dropped between 19th c Christian feminism and the second wave which skews further from Christianity. I'm grateful for your thoughts here as I didn't realize how negative the air around this word in the church had darkened.
Fascinating! I'll look forward to reading more in due course :)
As I learned from many, many years of trying to avoid the tripwires -- and as both you and J. have implied, whether intentionally or not -- the issue for these people isn't being a feminist. The issue is being a woman.
Unless you are a particular woman with a particular platform who is seen to be particularly useful. At least for a time.
Yes, that's true ... but the underlying attitude is always there. It's just hidden for a while.
Beautifully said. It takes effort to parse out the real meanings of words, to make applications to these situations in thoughtful ways. Thank you for doing that. Unfortunately, people are drawn to quips and insults, not careful conversations. I'm re-reading James 3 today.
I think the trickiest thing about navigating feminism for thoughtful Christian women is that they can empathise (ha) with plenty. It's hard not to find common ground with feminists who care about the education of girls, or defending the biological definition of 'woman' (a recent development) - I'm sure even Rigney and Basham could find something to track with in the work of Louise Perry or Mary Harrington. The trouble is - certain evangelicals become, well, ideological in their approach to feminism and cannot accept that *anything* within it might be true, they cannot accept that feminists may be able to make true observations about the world and the way that women suffer because of men. Feminists don't have the fundamental diagnosis or solution, but insofar as they can describe the sin of men against women, it has something that Christian women can track with and we don't have to feel *guilty* or *conflicted* about that. Suggesting we can't learn *anything* at all from feminism is ideological. Furthermore, if it is possible to support a corrupt adulterer as President and endorse him despite his serious moral failures, then evangelicals have already made that move to show that it is possible to learn or endorse a *part* of something without approving of the whole. Or perhaps, there are still evangelicals who think that Trump is entirely without blemish while demonising feminism. This too strikes me as ideological.
Can I also say - I think feminism gets such a strong reaction because conservatives across the board really can't bring themselves to critique the economic reasons why both men and women make the choices they do. Often, women who don't consider themselves feminists at all go to work for economic necessity, or because *they want to make money*. We need to do business with the temptation to greed that is so prevalent in our society, and impacts the care both mothers and fathers are able to give but if you do that, especially in the states - you're a socialist and that is basically evil. So feminism takes the whole brunt but I suspect that the pursuit of money and prosperity is what really drives people. Feminism is related to that but I really don't think it's the whole ball game.
Well said Dani 👍🥳
This: "the primary reason I don’t align myself with or borrow from a secular or ideological feminist framework to determine and describe what it means to live, love and relate as a woman of God is because I have a far more eternal and reliable framework for doing precisely that. It’s a Jesus-shaped one."
It's precisely this insight that describes how American Christianity has become so divided, because too many have made themselves more loyal to left or right secular political ideologies than to Christ. And by labeling ourselves in such a way that we are seen as allies of whichever group we tend towards, we are painted (Jesus is painted) with all the anti-Christian graffiti that those labels endorse. I always enjoy reading your clear, well-reasoned, and Christ-centered thoughts about culture and faith. Thank you, and keep it up.
I have been eagerly awaiting this post, and was not disappointed, though I was surprised to be quoted directly! As a point of clarity for readers who might not have seen my previous comment in its entirety, I concluded by noting that I was *not* advocating embracing being called "a feminist"; rather, I was wondering if defending so vigorously against the term meant we were playing the game set up by its weaponizers.
Dani, you've articulated wonderfully the reasons (and then some) that I, too, would not use the term "feminist" for myself -- especially the lack of clarity around it, and my overriding commitment to look to the Word of God for my ideas about men and women. Your post will help me better explain my position to others, because some people who are pro-feminism *have* asked me why I don't identify as one, and I often have difficulty breaking it down clearly for them.
Thanks J. And especially for your clarification of your position. I originally included more from your comment in the post, but I could already see it was going to be a long one!
There seems to be an insane overreaction against feminism on the right now. Just like the overreaction against sexual harassment in Me Too and racism in the Summer of "Luv."
Just because a movement does not have a good philosophy underlying it, doesn't mean the actors are intrinsically bad people. Nor does it justify attacking others to destroy their livelihoods and reputations because they seem to fall into "enemy category" or fail the purity spiral according to some arbitrary standards of perfection.
This is why people are talking about the "woke" right. There is nothing godly about this madness nor is it compatible with the Golden Rule Christ urges us to follow.
As usual, I appreciate your incisive thinking and writing.
There's one thing I've observed that might inform you: although my wife and I are both Christians, we routinely disagree on what's most important. And ironically, these are the exact same issues I disagreed with my believing mom on 45 years ago, the same ones my adult girls disagree with me on.
But here's my question: Adam and Eve were given different jobs, and, one would assume, different aptitudes too. But I don't think that's all, they also have a different level of satisfaction at accomplishing a given thing. Now, I'm not say women should never lead: I'm suggesting when men lead, they experience a greater level of satisfaction than a woman would. And we can't know this for sure, because no man never been a woman and vice versa.
Here's a question: if God created Adam, then Eve, but stated he'd be the head, doesn't it imply they'll disagree at times? And they don't disagree because they consults different textbooks: they have the same textbook, but simply disagree about what's most important. I suggest things are bad because the world's fallen, not because the wrong gender's leading.
Really, all this is academic. If I happen to be wrong, or someone else is, it's Christ that gets us to heaven anyway, not perfect theology. Interesting to explore, though.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this Dani.
I have a couple of further questions based on this, that I am hoping you will indulge – please understand I am genuinely curious and trying to organise my thoughts on this.
It’s true that feminism means different things to different people, within and without the movement. It’s an ideology with a huge range of positions and stances within it, where lots of feminists disagree on many issues while holding to the core value. Because feminism does have an actual definition that you didn’t mention in your post - the belief in full social, economic, and political equality for women.
I think it’s important to note this as when most non-Christians say they are feminists, this is what they are saying they believe. So, if we say we aren’t feminists, this is what they think we are saying we do not believe in or affirm.
The question of not associating with a term because of perception or the definitions applied by outsiders is very interesting when you consider the same process in relation to the idea of ‘Christian’ (or even ‘complementarian’). These terms mean different things to different people, and can be expressed in a variety of ways, but have a core belief at the heart of it all. I have heard people make extremely similar arguments about the term ‘Christian’ to the ones you have made about not associating with feminism. These are people who are Jesus followers, church goers, but are afraid the word Christian now means or signals something that does not align with their values and sends an unhelpful message to those they are interacting with. Would you encourage them to stand by and reclaim the word, or accept the associations other people have made with that word?
I believe feminism is still relevant because women worldwide do not have social, economic and political equality. The work of first wave feminists is not complete, despite how far some places in the world have come. The bible is clear on the rightful equality of women and men, but that is not reflected in the world around us – or even the church around us. So yes, I think historical feminism still has helpful work to do in this world. I would even go so far as to say it is one of the ways we fulfil the call of Jesus to love, dignify and value his female disciples.
I do think there is room in feminism for nuance and diversity and disagreement, just as there is between Christians. If people don’t know what you mean by feminism, define it and explain it.
Do you think being a Christian and a feminist are compatible, while acknowledging one term has eternal significance and one doesn’t?
The hysteria around this word in (some) evangelical circles feels like more of a reason to use it and use it rightly, than to hide from it. If the word feminist is being used as a weapon against women, take the power out of it. The power is in the vagueness and implied consequences – don’t let it stay vague. Be explicit in what you mean by the word equality and suck the sting from the bite.
Do you think you will be more effective at helping to create better spaces for women in the church because you stay away from the word some conservative Christians are afraid of? When people use feminist as an insult, what they really intend to insult is womanhood.
Well said, Dani, but it is perhaps worth reflecting that complementarianism reaps what it has sown. The title of Wayne Grudem’s big book ‘Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth’ demonised as feminists many who did not regard themselves as feminists but were determined to follow Scripture and for that reason disagreed with his interpretations. Joe Rigney and Megan Basham are simply following that example, as many others have done over the years.
I'm not a complementarian, but I think the argument of complementarians like Dani would be that complementarians are not one thing, and so they type of complementarianism she believes in is not the same as the sort that, say, Wayne Grudem, Joe Rigney or Megan Basham would espouse, that her complementarianism doesn't require her to create a bogeywoman out of feminism or to see all aspects of feminism as bad etc. I think that's an intellectually honest position to take, even if it's right to say that it's potentially easier for complementarianism to turn into the sort of thing we see in the likes of Wayne Grudem, Joe Rigney or Megan Basham.
I agree with you that Dani's position is intellectually honest.