Sexual Equality?

I recently read an article: “Why has it become OK to attack men?”. In that article the author states:

Created equal

I recount this history of the vote in my book The Toxic War on Masculinity, and some readers have mistakenly concluded that I oppose women’s suffrage. On the contrary, I support it.

From the beginning of the debate, there were Christians who argued in favor based on women’s spiritual and moral equality as beings made in God’s image. Suffragist Sarah Grimke declared, “Men and Women are CREATED EQUAL.” The proceedings of a Woman’s Rights Convention in 1850 spoke of “the work of Creation, when it was so gloriously finished in the garden of Eden, by placing there, in equal companionship, man and woman, made in the image of God.”

An article subtitled “What Textbooks Don’t Say about Women’s Suffrage” reports that there were “hundreds of ministers who made their churches available for suffragists to deliver their lectures, and who preached in favor of it.”

Jenna Gray-Hildenbrand of Middle Tennessee State University concludes, “It would be difficult to think of women achieving the right to vote in this country … without religious people coming together and seeing this as a religious value.”

The article is just another recent example of how time and time again when reading “Christian” articles regarding the conflict between the sexes, the “Christian” authors dutifully pledge their allegiance to “sexual equality” claiming that men and women were essentially created equal, not because God ever said that, but because they believe both men and women are equally images of God our Father and Jesus Christ His Son. And that one claim really is the only “unquestionable” basis that sexual equality has ever had. Any other basis for sexual equality based upon biology or ability leaves the sexes unequal. It has been known from ancient times that men are generally stronger physically, rationally, emotionally, and have more robustness in enduring harsh environments. Only a fool would try to dispute the truth of that generalization.

So how can the sex that is generally physically weaker, more irrational, more emotionally unstable, and generally has a weaker constitution, plausibly claim to be equal to men? Well, unless you’re ready to rashly be led by your sex-cravings straight into fertility goddess worship, you’d have to have the masculine God of the Bible somehow state that He established a basis whereby the sexes become equalized despite their obvious differences.

But what does the Bible say?

Genesis 2:18(YLT) And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper — as his counterpart.’

God said the woman was made to be the man’s (‘ê·zer) help, helper (kə·neḡ·dōw.) in front of, in sight of, opposite to him. God said that the woman was created to be the man’s help.

I could go on with many verses: – weaker vessel — subject to your own husbands as it is fit — in subjection — as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything — in silence with all subjection — obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed., and Etc.

The Bible is very clear that — the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. The relationship is not an equal one, but a hierarchy with the woman under the man. (1 Corinthians 11:3) So what does the Bible actually say about the image of God?

1 Corinthians 11:6(RSV) For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)

1 Corinthians 11:7(CEV) Men were created to be like God and to bring honor to God. This means a man should not wear anything on his head. Women were created to bring honor to men.

So where do people find this supposed “sexual equality” in the Bible? Well, they have been trained to infer it from just a few passages which don’t actually say men and women are equal.

Firstly, they wrongly interpret Genesis 1:27 as including the female as being the image of God, when God was quite meticulous to never ever say that in the Bible. Yet that is almost their entire argument for sexual equality. However, they will also twist a few other scriptures as backups to that one main misinterpreted verse.

The next verse they’ll most popularly use is Galatians 3:28.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But is that verse really saying that there is zero difference between men and women? That same-sex marriage is OK, that women can do anything a man can do in the church? Of course not. The verse is speaking of faith in Jesus Christ resulting in salvation and identification with Christ through baptism. And stating that everyone’s salvation works the same. Another verse they may also use (1 Peter 3:7) states that we are offered the same grace unto salvation:

1 Peter 3:5 For in this way the holy women of former times, who hoped in God, also used to adorn themselves, being subject to their own husbands, 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; and you have proved to be her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear. 7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your[plural] prayers will not be hindered.

But of course, the verse only says that the woman is to be honored as an heir together of the same grace unto salvation, not that she is equal to her husband. The beginning of 1 Peter 3 makes clear she is to rightly be subject to her husband even if he himself is disobedient to the word of God.

Bnonn & Foster tried to use a phrase from 2 Corinthians 3:18 as a “gotcha” proof-text, which I have shown was only referring to males. (the leadership of the church)

So, why do I continuously harp, like a broken record, about 1 Corinthians 11:7 and men (not women) being the image of God? Because the image of God is the Bible’s and the Western world’s only possible absolute justification for categorical sexual ranking. Either the image of God is hermaphroditic and is the unquestionable foundation for categorical sexual equality and undergirds Feminism, or else the image of God is solely masculine, and it instills categorical superiority onto all men over all women and it therefore vindicates God’s holy order of patriarchy as the righteous hierarchy of an infinitely wise and loving God.

4 thoughts on “Sexual Equality?

  1. Will the church see that poll result and double down and try to be softer and more open to ways and women pastors? Gotta chase that relevance after all, and above all.

  2. Will the church see that poll result and double down and try to be softer and more open to ways and women pastors?

    That’s a given.

    Gotta chase that relevance after all, and above all.

    I, along with others in these parts, have searched the New Testament in vain for any instances of the phrase “relevant to the current culture,” or a phrase with the same meaning meaning. 

    One would think that it would have long ago dawned on church “leadership” that there is direct correlation between a church congregation’s striving to be “relevant” and the rate at which said congregation loses members. Thank God that First Century Christians didn’t strive to be “relevant” to the prevailing culture in the Mediterranean at the time (although I’m sure that many of the turkey brains occupying seminary chairs today wonder why they didn’t). 

    How much clearer must it be made that the “current culture,” in any century or location, is the problem? If all the church has to offer is a mirror of the culture, then the church’s existence is pointless. The culture itself will ALWAYS be better than the church’s pale, inept imitation of it. No wonder modern churchians are mocked as delusional retards for not grasping something so obvious. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *