While women in many countries legitimately constitute an oppressed group that is consistently subjected to cruel and unjust treatment, this is not the case in most of the Western world. Affirming the proposition that “women in America are oppressed” requires us to redefine “oppression” not in terms of concrete unjust treatment, but in terms of more shadowy and contested social norms. The most relevant examples are male eldership within the church and male headship within marriage. Historically, feminists have seen such rules as a few of the many ways women are oppressed by “the Patriarchy.” To reach this conclusion prior to any analysis of what the Bible says on this subject is to shut the door to biblical correction.

Editor’s Note: The following article appears in the Spring 2024 issue of Eikon.
1. Introduction
With cultural conversations increasingly centered on the radical proposals of critical race theory and queer theory, discussions of gender and feminism seem almost obsolete. However, a deeper analysis reveals that contemporary feminism is a critical social theory which shares the same basic framework as its more extreme ideological cousins.
In this article, we provide a very brief historical overview of feminism, an explanation of how it falls under the umbrella of critical theory, a discussion of the overlap between contemporary feminism and evangelical egalitarianism, and a biblical response to both feminism and anti-feminist “red-pill” movements.[1]
2. The History of Feminism
Many feminists and historians analyze modern feminism in terms of three waves: the first began with the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, the second arrived in the 1960s around the time of the Equal Rights Amendment, and the third began in the 1990s.[2] We recognize that wave distinctions in feminism can be overstated and too neatly defined; nevertheless the prevalence of their usage compels us to employ them and give some brief explanation.
First-wave feminism centered on issues like women’s voting rights, property rights, the abolition of slavery, and the temperance movement. It culminated in the ratification of the 19th amendment to the US Constitution in 1920, which granted universal female suffrage. Leaders within first-wave feminism included Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in the United States and Emmeline Parkhurst in the United Kingdom.
Second-wave feminism was motivated by concerns around female economic, educational, and social empowerment. French Philosopher Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex and Betty Freidan’s The Feminine Mystique were both seminal texts of the second wave. Figures like Gloria Steinem galvanized and popularized the movement. Its legislative centerpiece was the Equal Rights Amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1971 but did not secure sufficient state support to amend the US Constitution.
Third-wave feminism, which began in the 1990s, embraced the critiques of womanist (black feminist) activists like bell hooks[3] and Audre Lorde, who argued that second-wave feminism had centered the concerns of middle-class white women. Highly relevant to third-wave feminism was the concept of “intersectionality,” a term coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989.[4] Intersectionality argues that our identities are complex and that race, class, and gender interact to produce unique forms of oppression.
Conventional wisdom among most conservative evangelicals today is that first-wave feminism was unequivocally good and foundationally Christian, while second- and third-wave feminism were more secular and problematic. The actual history, however, is more complicated (and uncomfortable). For example, in 1895, first-wave pioneer Elizabeth Cady Stanton published The Woman’s Bible, which, on its very first page, made statements like “instead of three male personages [within the Godhead], as generally represented, a Heavenly Father, Mother, and Son would seem more rational;” and “The first step in the elevation of woman to her true position [is] the recognition by the rising generation of an ideal Heavenly Mother, to whom their prayers should be addressed, as well as to a Father.”[5] Other prominent first-wave feminists embraced free love, female superiority, and various heterodox doctrinal positions.
We raise this issue not to poison the well against feminism, but to emphasize that Christians should be careful to distinguish between their support for particular goals within a movement and their support for the ideology or theology of said movement, a crucial point that we will return to later.
3. Critical Theory and Contemporary Feminism
The critical tradition began with Karl Marx and expanded through the work of prominent intellectuals like Antonio Gramsci, Max Horkheimer, Pierre Bourdieu, Paulo Freire, Michel Foucault, and Kimberlé Crenshaw.[6] Critical theory today is a broad category that encompasses many different critical social theories: critical race theory, critical pedagogy, postcolonial theory, queer theory, etc. At its root, contemporary critical theory can be described in terms of four central ideas: the social binary, hegemonic power, lived experience, and social justice.[7]
The social binary divides society into oppressed groups and oppressor groups along lines of race, class, gender, sexuality, physical ability, and other identity markers. Oppressor groups are identified by their hegemonic power, that is, their ability to impose their values and norms on culture in a way that makes them seem “natural” and “objective.” These values then justify the dominance of the ruling class (men, whites, heterosexuals, Christians, the able-bodied, etc.). However, through their lived experience of injustice, oppressed people (people of color, women, LGBTQ people, non-Christians, the disabled, etc.) can recognize these hegemonic norms as arbitrary and oppressive and can work for social justice, the dismantling of systems and structures (e.g. white supremacy, patriarchy, heteronormativity, Christian hegemony, ableism, etc.) which perpetuate the social binary.
Scholars recognize that contemporary feminism is a critical social theory because it applies these specific ideas to the subject of sex and gender.
First, feminism has always understood women as a collectively subordinated group in need of liberation. Feminist scholar Deborah Cameron writes that despite the historical and geographical diversity of feminist movements, they all share two minimal feminist ideas: “1. That women occupy a subordinate position in society” and “2. That the subordination of women . . . can and should be changed through political action.”[8]
Second, feminism in all its iterations has believed that female emancipation doesn’t merely require legal equality, but also necessitates a change in social norms and commonly accepted views of gender. This emphasis grew in importance during feminism’s second wave but, as we saw in the Stanton quote above, was present even in first-wave feminism.
Third, consciousness-raising and the importance of “embodied knowledges” became increasingly central during second-wave feminism. Influenced by New Left thought, feminists turned to Marxist theories of “false consciousness” to explain the resistance they encountered not just from men, but from many women as well. They argued that men who rejected feminism were trying to protect their patriarchal power and privilege, while women who rejected feminism were suffering from internalized misogyny.
Finally, the importance of intersectionality to contemporary feminism cannot be overstated. In fact, according to feminist scholar Kathy Davis, “‘intersectionality’ — the interaction of multiple identities and experiences of exclusion and subordination — has been heralded as one of the most important contributions to feminist scholarship.”[9] Intersectionality does not merely suggest but requires that feminists work for the liberation of all marginalized groups, whether people of color, or the poor, or the disabled, or the LGBTQ community. This insistence is part and parcel to feminist theory. As bell hooks asserts, “eradicating the cultural basis of group oppression would mean that race and class oppression would be recognized as feminist issues with as much relevance as sexism.”[10] Such solidarity is especially noticeable in feminist support for the demands of transgender women (i.e., biological men who identify as women) even when they conflict with women’s interests (e.g., sex-segregated prisons or locker rooms or sports).
4. Critical Theory and Egalitarianism
The relationship between contemporary feminism and egalitarianism (the belief that there are no God-ordained gender roles in either the church or the family) is complex. While non-evangelical egalitarians are more likely to explicitly claim the label of “feminist,” evangelical egalitarians often resist it.
In recent years, however, evangelical egalitarians have increasingly adopted a feminist ideological framework regardless of their attitude towards the label.
One case in point is Beth Allison Barr’s The Making of Biblical Womanhood, which includes numerous statements that show strong affinity with critical ideas.[11] For instance, she repeatedly appeals to the idea that sexism is one of many interlocking systems of oppression. She writes “patriarchy walks with structural racism and systemic oppression” (33), that “patriarchy is part of an interwoven system of oppression that includes racism” (34), that “[p]atriarchy and racism are ‘interlocking systems of oppression’” (208), and that misogyny “especially hurts those already marginalized by economics, education, race, and even religion” (212). Note that “patriarchy” here means “complementarianism” because Barr explicitly equates the two: “Complementarianism is patriarchy” (13).
Read More
Related Posts:

The film’s introduction to Eastwood — bent and slow — is jolting, even though he’s been aging before our eyes for six decades. But that actually works as his character, Mike Milo, starts to rediscover his self-worth to become gradually stouter and tougher. Milo only agrees to bring back the 13-year-old son of his rancher ex-boss, Polk (Dwight Yoakam), after Polk invokes the ultimate western code to both him and the audience battered by “toxic” male bashing: “You gave me your word, and that used to mean something.”

Only one man in Hollywoke today could make a movie as old-fashioned, straightforward, and ultimately uplifting as Cry Macho, and trigger half a dozen progressive landmines in 104 minutes. On the surface it’s the simple tale of a broken-down old Texas cowboy who goes to Mexico City to half-rescue, half-kidnap a rich rancher’s troubled son from his nefarious ex-wife. But deep down, it’s an elegiac cinematic poem about manhood old and young, womanhood, regret, loneliness, and second chances. Clint Eastwood corrals all those wild horses on both sides of the fence, as a marvelous director and an onscreen icon — sadly the last of the latter — while bucking the politically correct wallow of his Industry peers.
For Cry Macho is a western, despite the modern trappings of cars and phones. That is a forbidden genre to Hollywoke because men are men and women are women, hard as it has  tried to inject feminism into it with pathetic results (The Quick and the Dead, Bad Girls, Godless). And if there’s any genre Clint Eastwood is a master of, it’s the western. He’s been making them off and on for 65 years. Now he’s added a fine contemporary one to his legacy.
Cry Macho presents classic elements of the form, like the hero’s odyssey through a savage land where life is cheap and law unreliable to re-civilize a youth gone native. Modern Mexico, alas, supplies this aspect, which Eastwood unflinchingly captures. Any similarity to The Searchers is not coincidental. Some 20 years ago, Ridley Scott wanted Clint to star in a remake of the John Ford classic which Scott would direct. Tempted, Eastwood pondered six months of horse riding like he could once do in his sleep, and gave Scott a typical short answer. “Can’t do it, Ridley.” Although his Cry Macho character does ride a horse, at age 91 Eastwood wisely let his stuntman take the saddle.
Other liberal-exploding western tropes prominent in the new picture include male bonding, the man-boy tutor dynamic, hostile natives, religious respect, and the duality of women between either the carnal saloon girl or the nurturing matriarch.

Read More

We were told to pursue excellence in all things according to the gifts that we were given for the glory of God.  Leaders today in the church should be identifying such men with unique gifts and encourage them to become leaders not only in the church, but in the world in which we live. Our history is full of great leaders who helped create this blessed nation from which we have benefited so much.  I’m afraid, in a day when we need them most, such men, especially Presbyterians, are missing in action.

The history of Presbyterians who have served in leadership positions in America is rich and ubiquitous; but sadly, it appears now that Presbyterians have left the public square and are missing in action (MIA).
History is replete with examples of the importance of Presbyterians. Rev. John Witherspoon, President of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence over many of those at the Constitutional Convention cannot be underestimated. One of his students was James Madison. Horace Walpole, a member of the British Parliament, said of Witherspoon, that America “had run away with a Presbyterian parson.” It is claimed that King George III called the American Revolution “a Presbyterian rebellion.”
At the Battle of Yorktown where General George Washington defeated Cornwallis, it has been noted that all of Washington’s colonels but one were Presbyterian elders.
Whether all of this is true or not, I cannot be sure, but there is no doubt that Presbyterians had a major impact on the Revolutionary War.  Historian Paul R. Carson has estimated that when the number of soldiers in the Revolutionary War included not only Presbyterians, but Puritan English, Dutch and German Reformed, that “two-thirds of our Revolutionary forefathers were trained in the school of Calvin.”
J. Gresham Machen was respected so much as a leading clergyman in the United States that in the early 20th century he was asked to give testimony before a U.S, House and Senate Committee on a proposed Department of Education. John C. Breckinridge, a Presbyterian from Kentucky, who was the uncle of the Princeton scholar Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, was also Vice-President of the United States under President James Buchanan.
Maybe, the most well-respected Presbyterian in American history was the great Confederate General Stonewall Jackson, who was born in the mountains of what is now West Virginia, my place of birth and childhood home.  His courage and piety in war are unparalleled.
I have not even taken time to speak of the Puritans who settled New England prior to the American Revolution.  Although they were mostly Congregationalists, their theology also reflected the Calvinistic heritage.
Indeed today, I am sure that there are many conservative Presbyterians in leadership positions in every sphere of life in America.  I have known a few of them myself including many in the military, in business, and in the civil government.
However, I am beginning to notice a trend. Presbyterians in such leadership positions are disappearing from public life.  They are becoming very rare.  For example, the United States Supreme Court contains no Presbyterians.  Only 24 members of the United States Congress are listed as Presbyterians, and I doubt that any of them are conservative. You have to go back to Ronald Reagan to find a President who identified as a Presbyterian, at least later in life.
Yes, the capture of the Presbyterian Church by liberalism is part of the problem. Conservative Presbyterians and others from Reformed backgrounds are a small percentage of the American religious scene.
However, we should ask ourselves what has happened in the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian world that changed the landscape of Presbyterians participating in leadership roles outside of the church?
We may not need look any further than our young men in the church. Many of them seem to be confused, aimless, and lacking direction in life.  I hear constant complaints about young Christian men in Presbyterian and Reformed churches who seem to have very little drive to excel. They seem unwilling to work hard.  They often take what I call the easy road to avoid the sweat and tears it takes to succeed and rise to high levels of responsibility in accordance with their abilities.  When they do choose a pathway or calling, they often do not persevere.
God gives different gifts to different men.  For a man in a lawncare business, that is an honorable calling.  For those who drive trucks, that also is an honorable calling.  But for those with skills and gifts which could put them in leadership positions in their communities and even at higher levels, many of our young men, especially Presbyterians, are absent.
What has then happened? Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) theology has fenced up our young men into monastic cells inside the church walls. Pietism has chased away our young men from interacting with the world. Amillennialism has no victorious view of the future here on earth before Christ returns. So, many of our young men think, “What’s the use of fighting?”  That’s what our theology is teaching our young men. In my own experience, I went through a period of despair, and came to believe that Amillennialism is incompatible with a robust Covenantalism which is future-oriented.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution acted to secure the blessings of liberty not only for themselves but for their posterity.  Posterity was an important covenantal word among our early forefathers.  They had a long-term view of their work, knowing they would have an impact on many generations not yet born.
The highest position for young men today seems to be reaching the office of an elder in the church, rather than a mayor in the town or even the Governor of a State.
We don’t look generations ahead and believe that we are responsible for the quality of life for those yet to be born. We have become less than conquers, and this attitude of ordained defeatism has been transmitted to our young men.  Our anticipation of heaven has nullified our responsibility to future generations here on earth.
So, a listless floating and a dreamy drifting attitude without purpose has captured many of our young men. I’m glad I was raised in the previous generation where we knew what real manhood was in that we were expected to use our talents and gifts to the upmost. To fail to do this was shameful and dishonorable.
We were told to pursue excellence in all things according to the gifts that we were given for the glory of God.  Leaders today in the church should be identifying such men with unique gifts and encourage them to become leaders not only in the church, but in the world in which we live. Our history is full of great leaders who helped create this blessed nation from which we have benefited so much.  I’m afraid, in a day when we need them most, such men, especially Presbyterians, are missing in action.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.