What would you say to someone who views feminism as the typical caricature … you know, of…
John Stackhouse: An angry lesbian woman who hates men? Well that’s what keeps most of my students from identifying themselves as feminists. Feminism should mean, simply, advocacy on behalf of women because they are being mistreated because they are women. So whenever women are being mistreated because of their sex, a feminist says, “No, that’s not right.” And if you say, “I’m not a feminist, I’m just in favour of justice,” well, you are a feminist if you’re concerned about gender. Just the way you’re anti-racist if you’re concerned about racism.
What about those who think feminism is the female version of chauvinism?
There is one stream of feminist thought that suggests that women and men are different and women are better. Originally, the concern for women’s rights tended to be packaged in terms of men and women are basically the same. More recently … the trend was to say they are different, but complementary — that women have distinct ways of doing things. The third form of this is to say women and men are different, and women are better. Women are the civilized ones, men are the brutes; women care for other people, men are selfish pigs. Women are intuitive and organic and open to the world, and men are cold and objectifying and logo-centric. So there are female chauvinists, but it’s not the mainstream of women or feminism.
Should men be feminists?
Yes. Otherwise you’d be saying women should be mistreated just because they’re women.
Was Jesus a feminist?
Of course — He’s in favour of treating women properly. And I’m a feminist, I like to think, like Jesus, that is, in a particular way. That is to say, I’m a Christian first. And I’m trying to follow the call of Jesus to work for shalom, moment by moment. In the midst of the world in which we live, you can’t improve everything at the same time in every respect. Some students of mine from Regent are now missionaries in Muslim countries, and while there the women wear veils, sit in the back seat of the car, and have their husbands escort them everywhere. Not because they or their husbands are patriarchalists, or agree with the ways of that society, but like Paul and the apostolic church, they’re called to sacrifice secondary values for primary ones.
What would you say to John Piper, who said that women should not be in leadership in the church?
Well he’s wrong. And I think he’s not only wrong, he’s giving a lazy interpretation of scripture. I think that Piper has interpreted Scripture in the way that we always have, and he’s not troubled by the clearly deleterious effects of this teaching in our society, he’s not troubled by the fact that this seems weird, scandalous, and irrational to teach this. And for a guy who values rationality as much as John Piper does, for him to then teach what seems like a manifestly irrational teaching, I think is irresponsible. I would say instead, if you can’t think of a way for the Bible to justify women preachers, okay, but others of us have, and we’ll help you with that. But for you to dogmatically insist that this is what the scripture requires of us, I just think for a guy who’s as smart as he is, I think it’s lazy.
In what ways are women being persecuted in the church, other than leadership, that a feminist may notice happening under the surface?
I know lots of women who say, “We don’t care who preaches, but how come the other jobs in the church are allocated the way they are? How come the voices that seem to matter when church decisions are being made tend to be the men’s? Why is there a sexual double standard … where a young man who has premarital sex has made a mistake, has but a women who’s had sex is a tramp, is spoiled, and is supposed to feel degraded and horrible?” This is supposed to be Christian thinking in the 21st century, not Semitic thinking in the year 1000.
What is the biggest lesson you learned from writing Finally Feminist?
The main problem with the book is the terrible title, and that’s my fault. Finally Feminist does convey the argument of the book in a short phrase, but the f-word in the title does turn off some prospective readers. Some people say, “I can’t give this to my dad, my pastor, or the elders, because of this f-word.” The irony is that my book is more respectful of traditional arguments, more respectful of patriarchalist interpretation, than any book that argues the feminist side, and I’m in talks with a publisher to do a new edition with a different title.
What about what Paul says regarding women in leadership?
I would say that in the right circumstances, yes women should teach and pastor alongside men. But in societies that are strongly patriarchal, which is every society we know of up ‘til ours, the social scandal of women in leadership, coupled with a second point which is that the patriarchy in these situations meant that women were not equipped for certain kinds of leadership. They were not educated. Not only not formally educated but also in the lore and the manner of leading. Nor were people educated in society at large to receive a women’s leadership without freaking out. Those, and a combination of social factors meant that women could not have led without there being serious disruption. It would have been all about the women leading and not about the actual message. And that was too great a trade-off.
But now, the fact that the scandal is the other way, why wouldn’t you have a women teach if she is the better teacher? Why wouldn’t you have women in your leadership team, so that the insights of women and men can be brought to bear on the situation?
In our society, for the first time in history, the scandal goes the other way. That’s one of the elements that some of my feminist Christian friends haven’t really recognized. It’s how do we properly explain why this generation of Christians should be feminists when all 19 plus centuries of Christians haven’t been? I don’t think it’s because we’re better Christians, it’s because our situation has changed, and God is saying “change with it” in light of the Gospel.
