Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool (pt 16)

Is Christianity Misogynistic?

I continue once again examining the screed written by the blues guitar playing, anti-Christian, Chaz Bufe, entitled 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity.

In his 16th point, Chaz claims Christianity is misogynistic. "Misogynistic" is a fancy word meaning "woman hater." This particular entry is a bit long, so I refer the reader here to read it in its entirety.

Chaz writes in his opening sentence, "Misogyny is fundamental to the basic writings of Christianity." Really? Any person who genuinely believes this is either,

a) cherry picking selective citations from the Bible without any thought of context within a Christian worldview or,

b) has a limited view of world history and,

c) certainly has not traveled anywhere beyond the immediate confines of his or her hometown, let alone anywhere in the world.

I would venture a wild guess and say all of these apply to Chaz, at least the first two.

In order to "prove" his thesis, Chaz moves on to quote out-of-context Paul's words to wives in Ephesians 5, a few OT passages that speak to the "uncleanness" of women, and then lists other similar passages from the Bible like Timothy 2:11,12, and 1 Corinthians 11:3. Chaz insists these passages and other like them are responsible for the oppression of women through out world history down to our current day where women are not allowed to pastor churches. He also presents some citations from the sermons of church fathers like Tertullian, who railed against the disobedience of Eve in the garden of Eden. These sermons are proclaimed to be filled with venomous misogyny.

The amusing part of Chaz's point is how he buys into the inflated number of "millions "of witches being burned during the Inquisition and the myth about the English common law allowing husbands to beat their wives.

As to the witches being burned, the number of young women burned at the stake is certainly exaggerated, more like in the tens of thousands rather than millions, and that is over a course of 300 plus years; and I would add, the witch hunting was stopped by Christians, not "intellectual" anarchist atheists, as Chaz would have us believe.

The idea about English law allowing husbands to beat their wives is also another urban legend created by feminist. Sort of like the claim more women are abused on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day. Christiana Hoff Sommers has done a fine job of debunking this myth in her book Who Stole Feminism?, and showing how it is the invention of fevered feministic anti-traditionalism. Read the section here. Certainly there have been individual cases in history past where judges favored an abusive husband over his wife, but the true "rule of thumb" among law courts both in England and America was to punish abusive husbands who battered their wives. This protection of women is a product of Christianity elevating the place of women in God's kingdom, and it has been Christians who have advocated against domestic violence toward women.

What's more is how Chaz ends this point by listing a group of women instrumental in the establishment of feminist ideology. Two are worth noting. First is Mary Wollstonecraft who was an 18th century atheistic feminist. She is lauded as a pioneering intellectual of feminism who argued for educational opportunities for women and advocated other equal rights in her writings. As enlightened as she supposedly was, however, her choice of men for her relationships displays the mentality of a Hollywood bimbo.

She had affairs with two notorious misogynists, one with artist Henry Fuseli, an emotionally troubled painter who had severe hang-ups and hatred toward women, and Gilbert Imlay who got her pregnant and left her for another affair with an actress. Her daughter, Mary, who wrote the Frankenstein novel, didn't fair too well with men either. She married the womanizing Percy Shelley who left his pregnant wife to marry her and who eventually left her as well. These may be women liberated from the "tyranny" of traditional Christianity, only to trade it for the piggish behavior of narcissistic chauvinists.

Then Chaz lists Margaret Sanger. He even quotes favorably one her key slogans of life, "no God, no master," and says it is still relevant today. That is a frightening thought, because Sanger was a pro-eugenics racist who promoted birth-control for the purposes of maintaining a fit nation free of unevolved ethnic groups who would hold our society back. She created the American Birth Control League, what was to become Planned Parenthood, for just such a purpose. Her group specifically targeted low-income ethnic and minority neighborhoods because the people there were considered more feeble-minded than the rest of our society.

In reality, it is Chaz's view of liberated women that is a disgusting form of selfish sexism. This is typical of anti-Christian intellectuals through out history. Chaz is for sure a supporter of Darwinianism, but Charles Darwin himself was a sexist. Writing in his second major book of biological evolution, Descent of Man, he presented women as being less evolved than men and the reason why they need to stay home under the protection of men. Many of his immediate supporters also held to the notion that men were more evolved than women.

In all honesty, Chaz's concern for the rights of women in Christianity is phony. Sure Chaz decries the mistreatment of women by the hands of Christian officials over the centuries, pointing out how they have been oppressed and are not allowed to participate in church leadership and are basically told by the Bible to stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. But it is all a ruse to cover up his true motive which is to have free, limitless sex with any girl of any age with impunity.

You see, biblical theology, as taught throughout the entire length of scripture, has a profound respect for women. That profound respect is demonstrated in the fact the scriptural ethics do not allow men to use women as sexual chattel. Are there examples of men abusing women in the Bible? Sure. Is this an operating moral principle taught in the Bible for a Christian world view? No. One truly important illustration of genuine love and respect for women means a man does not use women solely for his own sexual gratification. A biblical morality teaches men are to take responsibility for the women they involve themselves with sexually including committing to them in marriage first, and taking care of the children who will be the product of that sexual marriage.

Chaz, on the other hand, promotes a playboy mentality under the guise of helping to liberate women that doesn't want the hassle of the responsibility stuff. Thus, in his mind, women "set free" from the stifling life as a Christian and cut loose from the shackles of traditional Christian morality don't have those annoying sexual mores in tow.

Next up: Is Christianity homophobic?



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home