What is a White Washed Feminist, Pt. 1
Stacy McDonald, in her book Passionate Housewives, Desperate for God, divides feminism into two camps: secular feminism and evangelical feminism.
Secular feminists “are women who reject Christianity outright and deny the authority of Scripture. Self-proclaimed feminists who fall into this category tend to be stridently pro-abortion and militantly demand equal status with men in the workplace, and beyond.” (pg. 121)
Evangelical or Christian feminists “claim to hold Scripture in high regard, yet they do not accept the biblically defined role distinctions between men and women, and they reject male authority to varying degrees. While some ‘evangelical feminists’ admit to their belief in the limited authority of the Scriptures regarding their role (Cally here- I’ve never run across anyone who believes this way), others simply try to twist the Bible’s meaning to fit their lifestye. This more subtle version of feminism is particularly dangerous due to its beguiling cloak of Christianity, because, at its core, it is no different than its ‘secular’ counterpart. While its face may be more polished and its manifestation less extreme, in essence, it is nothing more than whitewashed feminism.” (pg. 121)
Mrs. McDonald teaches that “Christian feminism,” at its core, is no different then secular feminism. I’m not exactly sure what she means by that because she doesn’t elaborate in the book. I can only assume she means that Christian feminists are the same as secular feminists, but claim to be Christian. It seems that one cannot be a feminist and a Christian within McDonald’s economy, but that’s a whole other blog post entirely. Whitewashed feminists are a rebellious lot because, whether they realize it or not, they are denying the authority of Scripture. I know plenty of EF’s who would vehemently disagree with her and then go into Scriptural reasoning as to why she is incorrect about them and about her definition of evangelical feminism.
“Many whitewashed feminists, consistent with their egalitarian beliefs, advocate the ordination of women in the church. Others, no doubt weakened in their feminist resolve by unyielding truth of Scripture, rightly agree that women should not be ordained in the church. Yet somehow they still insist on reinterpreting the passages that teach differing roles for men and women in the family. Ultimately, they reject the wife’s biblical mandate to submit to her husband as her head.”
Here we are getting to a more meaty issue. One of the big questions I want answered is whether or not God ordains men and women to fulfill certain roles based entirely on gender. I am a woman so my default position is to be a submissive helper to my husband (which I LOVE to be- he works HARD!!). My husband is the head of our home. Why? Because he is a man and for no other reason. Its not because he is a better leader (he is) or because he is bigger and stronger than me (he is)… but because he is male. It seems rather arbitrary to me. I think it does go deeper than this and it has to do with the nature of the Trinity and how the members of the Trinity relate to each other.
Now, if I find Scripture DOES teach male hierarchy instead of complentarianism without hierarchy, then I’ll conform my thinking and move on. I haven’t made up my mind either way. Where it stands now, I think its pretty clear that there is a hierarchy within marriage (between husband and wife alone) and that men are to be pastors and elders (but bring on the female deaconesses baby!). However, because I’ve been challenged to really think about this and search the Scriptures and because I am SO TURNED OFF by patriocentrism, I’m digging deep. So, I might actually be one of those “whitewashed feminists” she describes above- the one that doesn’t think women should be ordained but also is unsure about hierarchy within marriage.
But I digress…
McDonald continues:
“Consequently, the biblical directives given to women to be wives, mothers, and keepers of the home are mnimized or set aside as quaint but unnecessary options. Although they still view homemaking as a legitimate life choice, in their opinion it certainly shouldn’t be viewed as enough and definitely not the best…” (pg. 122)
I have yet to meet an evangelical feminist who thinks this way: “[Homemaking] certainly shouldn’t be viewed as enough and definitely not the best,” but I have seen PLENTY who say that homemaking should not be viewed as the only choice or the only calling for women. With that, I am in total agreement.
“While the whitewashed feminist may claim Christ, she does not fully embrace the Scriptures- she picks and chooses which of Christ’s teachings she feels like following. This is dangerous indeed.” (pg. 122).
Oh no she didn’t! This assertion is downright insulting to the many prominent theologians (male and female) who consider themselves evangelical feminists and who would be the first in line to prove their case from Scripture. On top of that, I certainly get the impression that Mrs. McDonald does not believe that you can be a Christian and a feminist and that is dangerous ground on which she is treading. I’m sure she thinks its because in order to actually be a feminist, you have to deny the authority of Scripture and, if you do that, then you can’t be a Christian. Fortunately, she is mistaken. I think its very possible to get the incorrect interpretation of Scripture, but I think its important to take the confession of whatever evangelical feminist you are talking to at face value- if they confess that they are sola scriptura and that they affirm the authority of Scripture, then you must believe them. Show them their error, but believe them.
Anyway, all of this is to say that I’m still not sure what a whitewashed feminist is and I’m not sure that I am one. That’s the point of this blog- to figure it out and to address the issues surrounding all sides of the debate. Its not just about patriarchy vs. feminism. If it were that simple, we’d all be wearing skirts right now or attending the local PCUSA church with a female minister. Its deep. Its theological. Its practical. It affects everything because the debate gets down to the very nature of God Himself, down to the authority of His Word, down to the way we love each other as Christians.
And so, I’m ready to get down and dirty. I’ve played about in the muddy waters for far too long. Its time to come back to the streams of Living Water, flowing from God’s Word. Wherever that leads, I will be faithful to Him.
What really “sets my hair on fire” is the idea that whitewashed feminists (aka evangelical feminists) are DANGEROUS. Come on. Let’s be real.
Why is it so “dangerous?”
For a long time I would not call myself a feminist because Doug and the like would twist it and turn it and make you into a baby-hating, abortion loving, bra burning fool if you claimed to be a feminist of any kind.
But now, I am very glad and proud to say that WHY YES, Mrs. McDonald, I am an evangelical feminist. I care about the ethical treatment of women in the world. And that doesn’t mean just third world poverty-stricken countries. I care about the equality and treatment of women IN THE AMERICAN CHURCH, by golly. I promote idea of the theologically educated, thinking woman in the church. I desire to see women everywhere treated equally and fairly. For the life of me, I see no harm in making sure women are given fair wages (because guess what—a good portion of women HAVE to work to afford your expensive books and we all don’t get the priveledged lifestyle you lead!).
If you want to persue and take on a truly dangerous cause, try fighting something like poverty or racism. Try getting your dress dirty by feeding the poor and hugging the unloved. Quit writing about being a Christian. Start BEING one for heavens sakes.
The only thing dangerous is your venom, wrapped up in paper and bows and pouring forth with narcissitic so called “biblical” womanhood.
And I forgot to add, that YES, you can be a feminist and still be 100% pro-life.
It isn’t a requirement, though Doug and Stacy would have you believe differently.
(and I also wear a bra)
But evangelical feminism IS dangerous…to the worldly traditions of patriarchy, including those “whitewashed” as “christian” and practiced by Christians because, why, well, erm…just BECAUSE THAT’S THE WAY IT’S ALWAYS BEEN, THAT’S why, and how dare we whitewashed feminists endanger “biblical” patriarchy with our dangerous biblical equality?
Because equality IS biblical, that’s why. The only people who have anything to fear from biblical equality are those who would lose their worldly status (as either a patriarch or a so-righteous submissive subordinate to a patriarch) if they dared believe the Scriptures’ teachings that we are all equal in Christ.
Personally, I’m rather glad to be considered dangerous to the patriarchal traditions that make a mockery of our precious, blood-bought freedom in Jesus Christ. I’m living proof that God is no respecter of persons; after all, if I could be redeemed, ANYone can be! Anyone willing to deny him- or herself, that is, and take up the cross and follow Jesus.
Oh, forgot to mention it: I, too, wear a bra, though I’m careful to keep my straps covered by my modest attire. Yes, my dear Mrs. McDonald, we evangelical feminists take the Holy Scriptures every bit as seriously as you do–quite possibly a lot more seriously–including the mandate to be modest in our dress.
Sorry (not) to knock down another of your silly strawmen.
Can someone please show me where in scripture is the word ‘role’ for either men or women? Isn’t a ‘role’ something you ‘pretend to be’. Where are these specific ‘roles’ implied? I mean we all see the obvious physical distinctions…most do not deny that…but where are the specific roles in scripture commanded? (Oh, and no proof texting allowed!)
(Actually, ROLE it is a french word that comes from the role of paper that was the script for plays…amazing how it has become the most used word to describe scripture teaching!!!)
The doctrine of ‘roles’
It is truly absurd.
Lin, I’ve been listening to Thatmom’s podcasts again on the difference between a woman’s role, purpose, and calling. I plan on writing a post on it. Karen does a great job at clarifying it all.
“While its face may be more polished and its manifestation less extreme, in essence, it is nothing more than whitewashed feminism.”
Stacy MacDonald is saying that feminism is feminism is feminism. And we apparently are in the “more polished and less extreme” camp. And yes, the dangerous thing would be that you are therefore not a Christian. My oh my what a big fat brush she has whitewashed us with.
What exactly makes us “more polished” as opposed to less polished? Legalist that she is, this is where she drops the ball (and chain.) Maybe, she should have included a Feminist Checklist so the reader could determine which camp they are, or, are not in, (like all those other self-help books do) and God help me, ultimately determine if I’m a Christian or not.
What exactly am I that makes me “more polished?” Is it our christianity ? Is it maybe we are more conservative? Is it maybe we are more mannerly than the clearly reprobate? Is it that we might come from a better off socio-economic background? Is my stuff nicer…sorry, prettier, than your stuff? Sounds a little elitist, n’est pas?
What exactly defines “less extreme manifestations?”
Well, to figure that out let’s guess what might be “extreme manifestations”. Perhaps that would be abortion, fornication, civil or marital insubordination (which would need it’s own list of qualifiers and definition.) Now how about some possible less extreme stuff? Wearing pants? Getting an education? Buying a house? Working? I don’t know, how about mud-wrestling? jay-walking? short hair? dyed hair? no hair? What else is there? Chewing gum, for Pete’s sake?! WHERE DO you, Stacy, draw the line? Playing sports? Playing sports on Sunday? Playing sports, while wearing shorts, on Sunday?
Mrs. MacDonald needs to go home and stay in her own backyard…sorry, kitchen, and bedroom, and not meddle in other peoples lives. How my christian husband and I decide to divide the work of our life is not for her to denigrate, judge and throw away. The only thing God determined different in our roles in this marriage is the obvious. Men don’t give birth.
http://whitewashedfeminist.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/purpose-calling-and-role/
Lin asked: “Can someone please show me where in scripture is the word ‘role’ for either men or women?”
Dontcha know, Lin, that it’s a plain teaching in the “grand sweep of biblical revelation.” In other words, the female subordinationists decide what women’s role should be, cherry pick women in the Bible who exemplify that so-called “role” and declare all other women in the Bible “non-normative.”
Mrs. McDonald teaches that “Christian feminism,” at its core, is no different then secular feminism. I’m not exactly sure what she means by that because she doesn’t elaborate in the book.
What she means by this is that these are evil people who you would do well to dislike (maybe even hate). If Stacy McDonald can pin the hated “feminism” label on solid Christian women who disagree with her, she can marginalize them in the minds of other women who have not caught onto her strongly unbliblical stance.
Mrs. McDonald said: Others, no doubt weakened in their feminist resolve by unyielding truth of Scripture
It seems that every time I read something by this woman I want to backhand her. I don’t condone violence perpetrated by men against women, but in her case I would absolutely make an exception. Her assumption that she knows the intentions of other women (whom she has already mischaracterized by her “feminism” label) is highly offensive and is reason enough to reject everything that comes out of her mouth. Reading her blog is like fingernails scraping across a blackboard for me – except it makes me madder than the fingernails would.
My one personal communication with her (via email, she can’t abide actual public debate as she would ALWAYS lose) was an major excercise in self-control for me. Jenny Chancey would do well to advise James McDonald to fulfill his role as a husband and shut this woman up instead of condemning the husbands of women who must find secular employment in order to help pay the bills.
Lin asked: Can someone please show me where in scripture is the word ‘role’ for either men or women?
Gal 3:27-28 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Nope – the word “role” isn’t there, but the fact that we are complete equals in Christ is. That’s why Stacy and her ilk don’t allow dissenting comments on their blogs. They can’t actually argue their point scripturally. If a dissenter relies on scripture, their arguments are destroyed.