A favourite saying among modern conservatives when someone says, “What is a woman” is that “a woman is an adult human female”. Now I understand why this needs to be said. It needs to be said because we live in a society where people are increasingly seeking to satanically reinterpret the definition of woman to: “anyone who identifies as a woman.” When juxtaposed with this evil definition, then it is reasonable, good and sensible to point out the obvious, that a woman is a biological adult female.
But I can’t
help but observe that conservatives who assert this have again fallen for a
progressive trap. Perhaps I am over thinking it, but bear with me as I explain.
A woman is not just an adult human female. This, in and of itself, is a
reductionist redefinition of woman. In fact, you could argue that this is
almost exactly a modern and even second wave feminist definition of a woman.
Because this definition speaks only to the biological and not the
ontological realities of what a woman is.
Many
conservatives have basically accepted the progressive lie of past eras that
while men and women are clearly biologically different, they are essentially
equal or the same in every other way. In the classical leftist or progressive
understanding, women need to smash the glass ceiling in every field to prove
that an adult human female can and should do everything that an adult human
male should do. This kind of propaganda is pushed in all sorts of ways in our
society from the very clever example of Ripley in Aliens, who is as
tough if not tougher, than all the marines sent to protect her[i]
yet still fallible through to the silly caricature examples in modern T.V.
shows where the women are shown to get it over the men around them in multiple
ways often. The basic understanding of feminism is that a woman is
just a biological female, and this should not hold her back from doing anything a
man can do. “I am woman, hear me roar” is the catch cry of this understanding
of woman.
But Christians
should know better than this, that we should define woman, and man, as the
Bible does. And the Bible does not just define woman as a biological human
female. It goes much further than that. A woman is man’s helper, and is the
best helper fit for him of all the other creatures on this planet (Gen. 2:18). She
sits under the man who has authority to name her (Gen. 2:19-23, Gen. 3:16). She
is created for the marriage relationship with a man (Gen. 2:24-25), where she
is the bearer of man’s children (Gen.3:16). This is the highest form of relationship
that a man can enter into.
Man is also defined in relation to woman scripturally. It is not good for man
to be alone, therefore God must make for him a helper, woman (Gen. 2:18). Man must provide
for his woman (Gen. 3:17-18; 1 Tim. 5:8). And he must care for her in a
considerate way and not treat her poorly (1 Tim. 3:7).
Men and
women are not stand alone biological units in the Christian worldview, this is
a modernistic, feministic, and individualistic reinterpretation of what a man
or woman is. And it is precisely this sort interpretation that was utilized by
progressives from as far back as even the first wave feminist movement to dismantle the Biblical
worldview of what a man and woman are.
To prove
this, note what Paul says on this issue,
“8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9
Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife
ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11
Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12
for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are
from God” (1 Cor. 11:8-12).
Men and women, scripturally, are defined in relation to each other from the very beginning, and exist to multiply on this earth and spread the image of God through God’s creation (Gen. 1:26-28). They are not just interchangeable but slightly different biological entities. Men and women have different but intertwined ontological purposes.
A woman is more than a biological female. A man is more than a biological male. To not see this, is to fall into a progressive reductionist understanding of man and woman, and to, intentionally or not, aid the redefinition of manhood and womanhood towards unbiblical purposes.
Something to think about.
[i] I
am not against this movie, it is a favourite of mine, but let’s be honest, it
was very clever and subtle feminist propaganda, and the clear statements of the
James Cameron across his career in support of feminism make this very apparent.
She was also a compelling and interesting character and is clearly a better
example of how to push such a message, if that is what you so choose to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment