Sermon(1 Pet 3:1, 2): Preaching for the feminist theologians -< Para-feminism >-

The original Korean text: https://blog.naver.com/stevision/50025220513

 

 

 

* Para-feminism *

) --> 

Scripture reading:

Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior. (1 Pet 3:1, 2)

Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered. (1 Pet 3:7)

) --> 

I attended a lecture of feminist theology in addition to other lectures of theology that were designated by Methodist Church when I took the course of Methodist theology. I learned a lot of new facts from the feminist theology then, and felt sorry as a man. Feminist theology is an attempt to see the Bible in the eyes of women. Surely the Bible was written by men in the male sight, and there are several verses that are very disadvantageous to women. These days, female theologians are prophetesses, I think. I can't deny that the Holy Spirit has been with them and given them inspiration and wisdom to establish a new relationship between man and woman at home and in church. They raised the issue of the ordination of female ministers and made it. However, I'm sorry that female theologians are still a relatively weaker party and have many restrictions in their activities in the denomination. Nevertheless, their arguments are not 100% correct although most of them are right. So I will raise some objections to their arguments from man's (male) point of view here. I hope that my opinion will become a bit a constructive and contributive criticism to the feminist theology.

) --> 

The title is para-feminism. The title is decided so, because the traditional feminist theology argues from so feminine a point of view that it is too woman-centered. Another feminist theology from a masculine point of view is needed. There must be two feminist theologies. one is a feminist theology from women's point of view, the other, from men's point of view. The former is the traditional feminist theology while the latter is the para-feminist theology that criticizes the former and suggests alternatives. We can obtain a theology helpful to the church when we use these two feminist theologies to theologize the gender-issue in the form of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

) --> 

God the Father? God the Mother?

) --> 

Some feminist theologians like calling the God the Goddess. They say that the male God such as >God the Father< is a God written in the Bible that was written by men who had experienced and confessed God, but not a God confessed by women who, therefore, is familiar to women. They say there is not such distinction as man and woman in God originally, so it's not wrong to call him Goddess. They asserted that confessing God as the Father served as an ideology that justified man's authority and oppressed women in churches and homes. But there are problems here. First, let's think about the image of father and mother. Father has the image of strength, ability, power, mercy, justice, and distance, while mother has the image of love, intimacy, and closeness. In relation to children, father is the cause of their existence, while mother is the acceptant of the cause of their birth and the provider of the substance of their bodies. In this sense, father is the more suitable symbol for the God who created the world out of nothing and reigns over all creatures with unlimited power and mercy. Because of this image of God, Bible says that man is the image of God. Man is God's image from the point of view of reign, for not women but men are actually governing the world. But who knows that more than half of presidents and prime ministers in the world will be women in the future? Then we’ll have another story. Politically and socially, a man is the image of God. If you call God Mother, you will inevitably think that the world has come from the being of God. But God is the cause of the existence of this world, not the matter of this world (the constituent material of this world). And from a missionary point of view, God the Mother is not appropriate. What will those who worship male gods think of the Goddess of Christianity? Will they not think that Christianity is inferior to or less powerful than their religion? Will wicked men who are in power in the world fear God the Mother and repent and convert to Christianity? It is true that some of the feminine images of God appear in the Bible, but there will be much confusion if God, who has been recognized as the Father for thousands of years, is suddenly called the Mother.

) --> 

Man and woman

) --> 

Most feminist theologians unconditionally regard all the male-centered authoritarian systems as patriarchal system to be overthrown. They say that a husband should not be a master of a house. But we can solve this problem when we think of the original purpose of the family. Why do we need a family, and why does God set a strong boundary of a family, so that no one dare transgress the boundary? God established the family system to get pure and holy children. If you don't mind if you will get unclean children, you don't need a boundary of a family. But God set up the strong fence of home. Then what is the standard of a pure and holy child? The standard lies not in father but in mother because a clean child comes from a clean body. What is the standard of whether a mother is pure or not? It is to have relationship only with one man. A lot of women might protest against this. But it's God's point of view! If any woman here, saying that the Bible was written by men, rejects this standard, she is not a Christian any more. Jacob had two wives and two concubines, and twelve sons, but his family was clean. The permission of concubines in the Old Testament may be due to frequent wars by which so many men died that many women could have died without being married. Of course, I am not advocating a concubine system now. A woman's child by a spotless father is the most holy one. But even if, unfortunately, a woman marries an unholy man and forms a family, she and her children are holy in God's sight although the husband is not holy.

) --> 

Chastity is a very heavy burden for women. But the purity (the virginity before marriage and the fidelity after the marriage) of women is what God wants, and what all men want. A man, intrinsically, does not want to marry a woman who has had sex with another man. All of men think that a spotless wife is the reward for all the works he has done in the sweat of his brow on earth. So, when a man finds that his wife was not a virgin when married, he will be sad over his whole life, thinking he is living a vain life. God gave impartial responsibilities and duties to man and woman. To follow this law is consistent with human nature. It is a very common truth. If, however, a woman considers the chastity of women as nothing, saying that the chastity is an ideology that men have devised to oppress women, she first is sinning to God and is sinning to men. Of course, feminist theology does not make such claims today. But some feminists tend to despise the chastity of a woman. I do not agree with them.

) --> 

Seeing Eve, Adam said, "This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." Human blood and body cells are constantly replaced with new ones. The food that Adam earned by the strength of his life turns into Eve's flesh and blood. The literal meaning is valid here. A woman's blood is 100% replaced with new blood several times by a year after marriage. I'm sorry, but the flesh, blood and bones of a woman who has lived on her husband's salary for 50 years are entirely his. How can she take her husband's authority lightly, claiming that she is her own? Many men meet death at the workplaces today. Men have a rather shorter life expectancy than women. Women, what do you say about that? A woman is traveling by highway in a nice car. Who constructed the highway? In whose sweat was the car made? And who built this woman's house? Didn't men produce them all? Look around at the whole world! Don't women still live happily thanks to men's sacrifice and sweat? I'm sorry, but it's true. Above all, a woman can be happiest when her husband is lowest. God made us so. Therefore, a woman receiving a devoted love from her husband should not ignore him. Otherwise, the husband, a son of God, will become the lowest person (in the family). Why should a man who works hard and suffers much for his family become a vulgar person? It is fair for a woman to respect her devoted husband.

) --> 

There are so many evil forces in the world that good things are too easily polluted and destroyed by them. Especially when the good is weak, it often becomes a victim of the evil and strong. First of all, the main causes of the destruction of a family are adultery and rape. The Bible tells us to kill both adulterer and adulteress. The Bible is fair in this respect. Sometimes a man's wife is raped by another man against her will. In this case, the Bible says that only the man who raped her should be killed. And nothing is added to that. Doesn't this perhaps mean that the husband may live with her if he can stand her impurity, or can get her to live alone if he can't? Of course, the husband should comfort his wife and live with her. The commandment of the Bible that only the man who raped her should be killed seems to mean that the woman's rights should never be infringed. However, what punishment can you inflict on the man who refuses to live with a woman who has been defiled already by the rape? There is, in the Bible, not a law that such a man should be punished. So, how can God help her who, ignoring threats of the world, got raped and defiled? In particular, a grave sinner is she who has several times ignored her husband's serious warning not to go out rashly and been raped. You, wives, do not go looking for a job recklessly to earn money for educational expenses if you are not so poor as to starve. Such a behavior breaks the peace of your family. In the New Testament, Jesus says that nothing but adultery is the reason for divorce. Rape is different from adultery, so Jesus is saying that you can't divorce your wife even if she is raped.

) --> 

So it is not ignoring woman's ability that we confine the role of a married woman to housewife. It is to keep the home. No matter how godly a woman is, there are too many factors that threaten her when she works outside. There are lots of dangers that could ruin her whole life here and there. once you have been defiled, neither God nor your husband who loves you can restore your purity. Who can restore the spilled water? For a woman to defile herself by careless behavior gives, if not intentionally, a great deal of heartache to her husband. In fact, is this not a sin? It seems to be a fragmentary view indeed that women, thinking it to be a legacy of the patriarchal system of the past that men prefer their wife to do only housework at home, reject the so-called legacy. A competitive group or a competitive country fights, concealing its weaknesses, making good use of its strengths. No matter how woman's right is extended and how the gender equality in society is legally guaranteed, that kind of danger does not decrease but increase. A more competitive and holy family is a family where man works hard outside, and woman, inside. Especially, a woman has the talents to bring up the children with tender love and the word of God. A man can never feed a baby with his milk. Every infant has the right to eat warm fresh milk of its mom.

) --> 

The reason why the Bible tells a wife to obey her husband and tells him to love her is not that the woman has a lower intellectual ability than the man, but that God made man's muscles stronger than woman's muscles. It was primarily for labor, not for the means of power and coercion. So men are stronger than women. As a result, a woman is physically tormented if she does not obey her husband in a home, and she is physically and mentally tortured if the husband does not love her. Of course some women would condemn these words as a primitive muscle ideology. But this is the actual situation. If a wife does not obey her husband and her husband does not love her, the home will surely be unhappy or destroyed. Who takes the responsibility? Who can restore the family? There are many people in the world who are smarter than the king, but they obey him, for they can be not unhappy but happy by behaving themselves so. It is unwise to reject the wise word of God that is given to women to make them happy. Especially, applying the arguments of foreign feminist theologians to Korean society uncritically can cause side effects. Would the gospel be accepted easily by those people who live in Confucian ethics if the gospel teaches the female people not to regard their husbands as the master of home? The Bible says that man is the image of God. This means that man wants to love his wife and to be respected by her, just as God loves the weak and incompetent human beings and instead wants to be respected by them. A man, by nature, chooses a woman weaker than himself as his wife. This is the image of God. A man naturally suffers when his wife wants to rule him.

) --> 

So, a man chooses as his wife a woman who is younger than he and whom he can lead, so that he may be happier. Marriage is a holy covenant. Taking an oath of marriage, the groom swears to love the bride, and the bride swears to obey and honor the groom. A woman married under this oath must obey her husband. Of course, they should respect each other. But the woman should not break the vow when two opinions are in conflict. (She must give up her will then.) Let's say that a rich, intelligent woman abhorred this marriage culture so much that she chooses as her husband a man who is younger than she and is incompetent, in order that she might control her husband. What would people say about this couple? Wouldn't the man be accused of selling his youth, and wouldn't the woman be accused of buying him for money? on the contrary, let's say a capable, intelligent man married a poor, incompetent woman. Most people will immediately praise it as a Cinderella marriage. What percentage of women in the world would, in Christ, truly love, marry and support a man lower than themselves? How many women would marry a man with no money and job? At least since the beginning of the human history, men have chosen women who were economically incompetent, and married, protected and supported them. Men worked hard only for the family, sometimes sacrificing their lives and pride. Therefore, I think it's too hasty to argue for a full equality of man and woman in the home. No, rather they are equal in terms of duties and rights. It seems that some women underestimate their duties and overestimate their rights. That's the problem, I think.

) --> 

God made the woman weak, and instead he made the man love a weak woman. God created woman humble and advised her to live humbly, because a woman will be unhappy if she acts haughtily in weak body. This does not apply only to women themselves. That's how all the structures of the world work. The lower people can survive only when they are humble to their superiors. Men must do death-like obedience in society while wives are advised to do (relatively light) obedience to their husband at home. Why do not women recognize this? Perhaps because they haven't experienced the death-like commands of the superiors in the society. (Even our Lord Jesus, one of men, obeyed the death-command of the Father.)

) --> 

Religion and rituals

) --> 

Some feminist theologians complain that there are many religious laws against women in the Old Testament. For example, the law regards women as religiously unclean, according to them. A woman, who has given birth to a child or who is in her monthly period, is unclean and is not allowed to enter the temple for a while. God did not treated women differently from men because he discriminated against women. He prescribed so not because he regarded women as unclean but because he wanted to protect the uncomfortable women. It is God's warm consideration for the women, weak creatures. That is God's grace to exempt women in such situations from religious duties. If it is applied to today, a woman in menstruation may not attend the worship service, and it is not a sin. And a woman who bore a son may not go to church for a month, taking care of herself at home, or for two months if she bore a daughter. However, it is not a sin. But you should not neglect the worship of God under the pretext of menstruation today when there are nice menstrual goods and medicines. Why did God give her who bore a daughter another month to take a rest? In my opinion, God took into account the circumstances that the woman was distressed because she received some blame from her husband's family for she bore a daughter. Women will suffer a serious damage on their health if the same religious obligations are laid upon them when they have had a baby or are in menstruation. Therefore God showed favor to such women with such absurd(!) pretext as impurity. (Oh, that women understood this paradox!) And God set the period of such impurity to prevent a man to approach his wife during that period for fear that she be infected. God's ulterior purpose of those regulations is to protect women, the weaker sex, more carefully, and to make men more faithful to religious duties by giving them religious privilege as a man. Women have acted well if they were grateful to the secret intention of God and said to men, "We envy you." Then men will do their best to bear their and even your (women's) religious burdens, not knowing the behind story. Men do all works hard without complaint, not knowing that in fact women rest well (thanks to their impurity). In a sense, men are a bit pitiable ones. In this connection, women need to know men are rather simple. So women had better just praise them once in a while, and say to them twice a year, "You are a capable person. I really respect you," even though they are not such good men. And the women will live a comfortable life and be loved all your life. Of course, such women are recognized as good wives by God. (Can a woman taste true happiness without respecting her husband? Satan told Jesus to change a stone into bread. Today, the same Satan seduces women, saying, "You can be happy without honoring your husband.")

) --> 

Feminist theologians' misunderstanding of the Bible

) --> 

When the feminist theologians, interpreting the Bible from their own perspective, find some verses having meanings unfavorable to themselves, assert that God loved only men but treated women contemptuously. The typical example is the story of Aaron and Miriam. Aaron was Moses' elder brother, and Miriam was his elder sister. Aaron and Miriam stood up against Moses, but God punished only Miriam with a shameful disease, not striking Aaron. on this, female theologians say that God disregarded women and punished only Miriam, a woman. It's not true! Had Miriam been the high priest instead of Aaron then, God would have spared Miriam and punished only Aaron. In other words, God forgave Aaron because Aaron wouldn't have carried out the priesthood normally if he had been punished publicly before all the people of Israel. Aaron must bear the duty of the high priest for the people of Israel. However, if he suffers such shameful punishment, he will lose his authority as the high priest, which is a loss to God. Aaron, the high priest, is stressed out with his job as a priest. He must die if he even makes a petty mistake while worshipping God. He does such hard works of God. So God overlooked his petty sins for the sake of his priestly dignity in Israel.

) --> 

Feminist theologians make a problem of this also: >God didn't receive Abraham's son Isaac as a sacrifice while he accepted Jephthah's daughter as a burnt offering, as a result, he got a woman killed while got a man spared.< That's right, but these two incidents are not the same kind. As for Isaac, God ordered Abraham to offer up his son, and later God revoked his order when Abraham really intended to obey him. on the other hand, Jephthah rashly promised God, "I'll burn to you the one who will come first out of my house to receive me," however, God didn't want a guiltless member of other family killed, so he caused Jephthah's only daughter to come out first. To warn those who proudly like showing off their religious fidelity before God, God let Jephthah's daughter die. What's wrong? (Of course his daughter had the right to disobey him in order to live. But she died for her father's sake.)

) --> 

Feminist theologians have a big antipathy to Paul's remark that women should not teach others but be quiet in church. The church is noisy even when there are only men. How much noisier would it be if women are added? And if the model woman of that time was in accord with the one that Paul suggested, the church ought to make an atmosphere consistent with the conventional thought of society, so that the new-converted might have an open heart for the gospel when they first came to the church. Therefore Paul said like that. (In relation to the above verses, I can a little admit the discontentment of female theologians who served the church hard as teachers in Sunday School. But I can't understand some women who have never taught children in church, who, nevertheless, are not satisfied with above Paul's exhortation for women not to teach in church. I've said this just for fun!) Today, doors of teaching in the church are widely open to all women, so they need not hesitate to teach and can zealously serve in church. Now that today's society prefers capable women, Paul's remarks, which he said because of the social custom, need not be interpreted literally. What Paul really wanted was the harmonious atmosphere of the church, so women, you need not worry about being excluded from the work of the church now. (You may do it as you want!)

) --> 

The problem is that some feminist theologians misunderstood the original intention of the Bible and made anti-Christian claims. They want to make the liberation of women, and further the liberation of those who they think are weak a standard of interpretation of the Bible. Thus they try to ignore the authority of the husband in home, which God established, in order that they might liberate wives from the (jail-like) home. They do not hesitate to speak of the human rights of prostitutes and homosexuals. But they are anti-Christian arguments. Feminist theologians even join hands with Buddhist nuns in the human rights campaign for the weak. Some feminist theologians, saying that the God of Christianity too favored men, left Christianity and made a new Goddess Religion. They shouldn't have done so. They did it because they misunderstood God. And because they were a bit haughty. (Of course, women might absolutely hate male authority because they have suffered under male violent authority for the past thousands of years. Maybe women have the gene of male authority phobia in their DNA. Oh, pitiful women! I'm very sorry, but ...)

) --> 

Conclusion

) --> 

I think God loves more women than men, because he made women weaker than men. Because of the responsibility for that, God was considerate to women, protected them from the disadvantage of the weakness, and gave them more benefits. However, God does not want women to be haughty. Denying the order and authority that God has established results in the spirituality of community destruction. God gave due honor to men who are burdened with heavy duties. Some feminist theologians should call Jehovah not Goddess but God the Father who loves the women more. Feminist theology must say that women should obey their husband in home in the Lord. It can be an excessive demand for women to claim bigger leadership in church on the grounds that they are the majority in church, because men have decreased in the church thanks to today's social environment that tends to constrain men's religious life, while the same environment gives more time for religious life to urban women than rural women of the past. (The position of the leader of the church depends on the role, not on the number.) I think that it is a good feminist theology suitable for Korean situation 1) to find the privilege and happiness of women and give thanks to God, 2) to find the obligations of women and try hard to fulfill them, 3) to find men's pain, and to comfort and encourage them, 4) to make home, society and church a community of love and harmony. If a feminist theology does not thank God, but discourages men, it is nothing but a useless sophistry.

) --> 

Chong Tack Kim

) --> 

                                   - Dongtoma Sunshine Church -