christian feminism

Recently an article has been going around by Dr. Stephen Kim about how a true Christian man wouldn't marry certain types of women. First of all, this article is downright offensive to just about any woman ever. In fact, the article, in short, states if you're a good Christian man you won't marry a woman if she is anyway sure of herself. Only marry a woman if the only two things she worships are God and yourself. How about no?

The part of this article I took the most offense to was the feminist section. Which is as follows: 

I don't know about you but this sounds a lot like "don't marry a woman if she has opinions or a sense of her own worth." The first error in this argument is how it is stated that "women and men have equal value in the eyes of God." True. But the author then follows it up by saying that your wife should not be "your equal in terms of authority" and that you should "look for a woman who agrees with you in this very vital God-ordained relational dynamic." Sorry fellas, but that is not me or any decent woman, to be honest. First of all, saying that men and women are equal in God's eyes and then saying that women are not equal to men from your own perspective is putting yourself above God. The author is saying that even though God's opinion is one way, his opinion is more correct. And worse, he is telling Christian men that they should trust his opinion over God's. But all hypocrisy and blasphemy aside, his argument is still damaging to the institution of marriage. Marriage isn't about making sure your wife agrees with you. There's this really cool thing called cooperation, in which you try to see each other's perspective and find a way to compromise and find agreement. I've never been married, but I'm pretty sure this will make everyone happier in the end. 

But, guess what Dr. Stephen Kim, there is definitely room within Christendom for the "Christian feminist." Let's take a look.

Christianity as a whole doesn't insinuate misogyny. Christ while He was on the earth paid special attention to the women in His life. He was actually quite advanced in His treatment of women for the time. He was kind and welcoming to them. For example, His interaction with the woman at the well was uncommon of the men of the time. Most men would have entirely ignored her presence, while Jesus sought a conversation with her. Another example is the adulterous woman. All of the men present were ready to stone her to death, but Christ was ready to forgive her and let her return to her life to sin no more. Christ also had very strong relationships with women in his life, including His mother and Mary Magdalene. Women are even at the center of several Christian pillars of belief.

First is the Creation. Women were created after men because Adam, by himself, could not have fulfilled God's plan. He need an "help meet." But just because women were created after Adam, or from his rib, or as an "help meet" does not mean that women are lesser than men. In fact, that's terrible reasoning. Adam was created after all of the animals; does this mean men are less than animals? According to some, maybe... but essentially, no. The order of creation is not significant in the terms of equality. Women were the final creation. Once women were created, it was finally enough to fulfill God's plan. But that doesn't make us any more or less, it just makes us essential.

Women also played a vital role in the fall. Eve gets a bad rep for her part in the fall of herself and Adam. Yet people forget how essential the fall was to our own lives. If Adam and Eve would never have fallen, they would still be living in a state of innocence in the Garden of Eden, meaning they would never have had children and started the earth's population. God gave them conflicting commandments. They weren't supposed to eat of the fruit of the tree, but they were also supposed to multiply and replenish the earth. By following one, they were unable to follow the other. Eating the fruit was essential to life and the Plan. Through this transgression, Eve was the mother of all living. Without her, and without women all over the world, human life would not be possible. 

The third pillar of Christianity women play a large role in is the Atonement. First, when Christ was upon the cross he showed that one of His last worldly cares was that His mother was taken care of. He called upon one of His disciples to care for her. Even in a time of utmost pain, Christ showed care for a woman. Second, the first person Christ appeared to after His resurrection was a woman. He appeared to Mary and she was called upon to bring the news to the apostles. Christ trusted a woman with this infinitely important news. She was necessary to make sure the apostles knew Christ had risen and believed in Him. Both before His death and after He was risen, women were there and were vital. 

Throughout gospel history, women have been entrusted with important roles. Without these women, the Plan of Salvation could not have been started or implemented. We are equal to men, whether or not we have the same roles. Equal doesn't mean the same. It just means equal.

So to all the Christian fellas out there, don't marry someone who views herself as less than you or someone who is only here to meet your needs. Marry a girl who knows who she is and knows her role in this life. Marry a girl who views herself as your equal and whom you view as equal to you. Work together towards the same goals, equally yoked and equally strong. 

fearing fear

Yesterday I was sitting in my Sunday school class whispering to my roommate, Megan, about how several of the things being taught by the teacher and by the members of the class I really didn't agree with. Throughout nearly the entire class period I was doing this and I never once spoke up for the entire class to hear. Why? Because I'm terrified.

I started thinking about the way I behave and act in my everyday life, and there is so much that I don't do because I'm completely and foolishly afraid. I put on a rather impressive façade of strength and independence because I'm petrified by the idea of being vulnerable. I don't actively pursue friendships because I'm scared of being seen as too attached or desperate for human interaction. I don't tell the people I care about that I love them because I fear rejection. I don't introduce myself to new people because I'm scared I'll do something embarrassing or offensive. I don't go to lectures on topics I'm interested in because I don't want to go alone or show up late or end up bored. Essentially, I don't act because I'm afraid of the possible negative consequences even though they are clearly outweighed by the benefits in each situation.

And for pretty much all of my life I've been content with this. My excuse is that I'm just a little shy or lazy or that I'm above whatever it is for some reason, but never scared. My front of strength has been enough for me to get by without people knowing that I'm constantly comparing myself to them, scared that I will be viewed as less because I'm a girl, Mormon, less attractive, less intelligent, etc. Not only am I lying outwardly, but also to myself. I actually thought and still think that I don't care what other people think. And sometimes I really don't, but a good portion of the time I just want people think that I don't care because that will in turn affect what they think of me. Which is pretty twisted really. But this got me thinking about all the happiness, friendships, knowledge, and adventure that I've probably missed out on because of the anxiety I felt towards leaving my ever-familiar comfort zone.

In his inaugural speech, Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," which he continues to define as "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." I always looked at the first part of this quote as a way to encourage bravery. I thought FDR was saying that we shouldn't have fear because we need to be brave and courageous; that fear will debilitate our lives, while bravery will cause us to flourish. This is only one interpretation, and recently I developed a different view that resonates a lot better with me and my current circumstances. I think FDR is not trying to tell us to eliminate fear. Fear is one of the strongest emotions we feel and we should use it to our advantage. I believe he is saying that we should concentrate our fear on our fears. We should be afraid of being afraid. We should fear the fact that our fears could be getting in the way of joy and success. Once we develop a fear of fear itself, we will be able to act because we'll be afraid of what will happen if we don't.

#jesuisdéçu

My personal opinion is that violence should be a last resort. I see the need for military and forceful actions in certain circumstances, but I value human life much more. Therefore, I believe violence should be used when it preserves more life than if action was not to be taken.

Accordingly, I don't agree with the way the situation with Charlie Hebdo was handled. The magazine was not presently threatening the lives of anyone and they have their right of press. The lives lost in the attack are tragic. However, what they were publishing was offensive to Islamic religion and culture and I recognize the frustration that it must have caused in the Muslim community. Charlie Hebdo poorly represented Islamic beliefs. Yes, there are sects of Islam that are extreme in their actions and what they believe to be manifesting love and support for Allah, the god of Islam. But Charlie Hebdo's use of satire is entirely focused on these extremist groups and generalizes these views to all of Islam with the usage of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, often considered by non-Muslims to be the founder of Islam. 

Examples:

(With my lack of knowledge and my understanding of the faults in google translate, I have determined that "100 coups de fouet, si vous n'êtes pas morts de rire" and "l'amour plus fort que la haine" essentially mean "100 lashes if you aren't dying of laughter" and "love is stronger than hate" respectively.)

This is entirely unfair. From my knowledge of Islamic views (which is limited of course), I understand that Islam is one of the most peaceful belief systems at its core. Muslims have a strong focus on personal religious devotion and support of the needy. The views of extremists groups don't align well with Islamic beliefs. To generalize the views of these groups on the entire population promotes prejudice based in ignorance. I am so grateful that I do not have to answer for the horrible things that Christians have done in the past due to my personal belief in Christ. So who am I to require all members of the Islamic community to answer for the actions of extremists? The actions of one are almost never representative of the whole.

The ignorance and slander being presented by Charlie Hebdo does not, however, justify the violence against the magazine (it's important to note that this was carried out by extremists). This attack, unfortunately, sparked violence across both Europe and the Middle East, on both sides of the issue causing even more loss and pain. Which leads me to the point of this very scattered article. Both sides are in the wrong. Claiming satire does not justify prejudice against any group of people (though no matter what, the right of press allows its publication). But offensive articles and cartoons do not justify the use of violence either. 

I think what irritates me the most about this issue and other recent issues involving racial and religious discrimination is the blatant disregard for human life. In the issues in Ferguson, New York, Boko Haram, etc. we consistently see a person or group dismissing the fact that the person or group they are targeting are no different than themselves. It's not just an issue of black lives, Islamic lives, Hispanic lives, white lives or any other specificity. It is an issue of human lives. And before you close out of this window because you no longer think this issue is important to you on a personal level, I'd like to point out that disregard for human life is not solely murder or violence. Dismissing the rights of a group of people based on their looks or beliefs is also included. As soon as you discriminate against another person, you are disregarding their life because you are claiming that somehow you are more than that person. Thus you are rejecting the idea that their life is worth just as much as yours. And guess what, it is. All of us, depsite of what gender, race, or religion we might be, deserve to be recognized as human beings equal to one another. As a human race, their will always be inequality of wealth, health, and other circumstances. But we can reach the point at which there is not inequality based solely on skin color, gender, belief system, etc. And that's what we should be moving towards.

Life is incredibly beautiful. Each day we are allowed to interact with other amazing beings and witness the wonders of nature. We are able to experience happiness, sadness, heartache, love, and fear. There is very little reason for you or I to come between a person and their right to this life and all the joys and trials that come with it.