Christianity - Is the Church Misogynistic?

Christianity - Is the Church Misogynistic?

For those unacquainted with the term, it means, “…characterized by a dislike, hatred, mistrust, and disgust of women.” 

Adapted from definition found at dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogynist

To suggest then that Christianity is misogynistic is to ignore the sheer weight of evidence to the contrary.  The facts are quite different in that at it inception and growth Christianity provided a refreshing alternative to the mistreatment of women in the Greco-Roman and other similar cultures of the day.

One of the basic tenants of the Judeo-Christian Faith is found in the Genesis record.  It was and is imago dei - that man was created in the image of God.  The implication of this truth is much greater than is understood by most.  Such a belief had great importance for all levels of Christianity to include the family in general and in particular the treatment of women and children.

If anything it was the Greco-Roman culture in which the early church was located that was misogynistic relegating women to their role, their lot in life and seldom if ever allowing one to rise far from that role and social strata.  This was especially so for the lower classes of Roman.  

Environment for Change

Just as in the matter of slavery, the Church was birthed and then thrust into a Greco-Roman culture that was not necessarily kind to both slaves and women by today’s standards.  For that matter it was not kind to slaves and women by the standards of Christianity. That is what was found to be attractive by those who were largely dismissed by culture for it was in the local congregation that there could be acceptance and equality.

The Matter of Excesses

To be sure in Christian History, there have been excesses in the treatment of women.  However, for the critics of Christianity to cite such as the norm is as erroneous and therefore discounting Christianity is neither logical nor is it a fair treatment of the matter.   Such illogical thinking is tantamount to suggesting that all of anything is erroneous because of a particular failing of a part.

Context of the Writing

Error ahead:  It is well and good to attempt to understand the writing of “then” from the cultural perspective of today.  The problem is that such an attempt yields a flawed understanding of the situation then and then leads to wrong applications in today’s culture, congregation and otherwise.

Historical context:  Consider the following quote,

“Christianity’s claim that all were equal before God and all equally precious to him ran through class-conscious, minority-despising, weakness-ridiculing Greco-Roman society like a charged current.  It is no wonder, really, that the primitive church seemed an almost fairyland harbor to women, who had always been kept in the shadows, and to slaves, who had never before been awarded a soupcon of social dignity or political importance.” 

Thomas Cahill, Mysteries of the Middle Ages

The church viewed women as equal partners in the congregation and so it was that he wrote to the Christians in Galatia the following.

“For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:27-28

Women in Church Leadership:  It was much more than a ink on paper conjecture but reality since women rose to places of prominence in the early church congregations.  For example there was Junias who the Apostle Paul referred to as his kinsman and who was outstanding among the apostles (Romans 16:7). 

Another is Priscilla who is listed as a faithful co-laborer of Paul and essential in serving local congregations.  Certainly a position which would not have been open to her in Greco-Roman culture.  There are others to which one might point.  

Both of these women along with others were key in the establishment of the young church. 

Organizational Scriptures

Another example used in the attempt to disparage and discredit Christianity are the organizational Scriptures of the Bible.  Of course any system without roles, structure, and responsibility descends into social chaos. 

The Bible being all about decency and order speaks to the organization of the home in Ephesians 5.  The assumption which is thought to discredit the place of women is directly related to the matter of  

“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.”

Ephesians 5:22-23, NASU

“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”

Colossians 3:18, NASU

The problem with citing these two verses is an assumption that to submit is to demean.  In reality the woman who submits to the husband, and as well the slave that submits to the master, has great power.  In fact much more power than the one who demands their equality. 

Additionally such submission properly understood and exercised places the submitted one under the protection of the one to whom they submit.  As well, also notice that in the second instance there is a caveat.  “As is fitting in the Lord.”

Commands always carry conditions and the condition here is that the Lord had established guidance which the churches critics conveniently forget about.  It is found in companion verses where we read the following.

“And be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”

“Husbands love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,”

“So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies…”

Ephesians 5:21, 25, 28a, NASU

The Apostle Peter in his first general letter to the Church at large explains the importance of proper husband-wife relationships when he writes,

“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 prayers will not be hindered.”

1 Peter 3:7, NASU

Carefully note the verbiage in the command.  It in no way suggests that the woman is weaker!  It merely points out and cautions the husband to treat the wife properly.  Notice as well such a person as decides to violate the command faces the consequence that his prayers will not be heard.

The simple fact is that the husband who submits himself to being a follower of Christ Jesus and in doing so submits himself to the congregation and his fellow Christians will never be in a position to use and abuse his wife, nor his children.  However, to hear the critics of Christianity one would assume that quite the opposite is the case and that the Christian husband was an overbearing ogre.  Such as it turns out is the exception not the rule. 

I think it is obvious to those with hearts open to the truth, that God has special concerns for those who were disadvantages and vulnerable in the cultures of the day and provided the Christian congregation as a place of safety, refuge, and as previously noted, a “fairyland.”

Honest Debate Lacking

Once again the problem with this and other arguments against Christianity is that it fails to properly represent the position to be disproved.  It is as if one describes a non-existent god and then sets about to disprove such a god does not exist.  What has been proven?  Nothing!

The second lack in this discussion is that anecdotal evidence is tendered and then generalized to suggest that it was the predominant trend in Christianity.  The point is that whether it is Christianity or any other truth system, it is illogical to make assumptions about the whole from the actions of a specific here and there.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear? http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/11/christianity-is-it-faith-driven-by-fear.html).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.