I'm not here to talk about feminism.
Frankly, I've never been one for labels, especially those with causes attached to them, and most especially for one that's been steeped in political sniping for the better part of a century. It's not that I don't care about how society treats women, or that I don't recognize the problem. It's not even that it's associated with a political orientation with which I generally find myself in disagreement. As with most things in life, there is much more nuance to the matter.
I once told a friend that I don't consider myself a feminist because I'm not active enough or passionate enough about the cause to do more than raise occasional awareness about it - thus, if I accepted the label of "feminist," I'd be a bad one. My witness would then reflect negatively upon the "good feminists" and provide a distraction to the real issue: generating a culture of equality and mutual respect between the sexes.
So, no, I'm not a feminist. But it's even more nuanced than that.
I'm not a feminist because the cause is too narrow.
#HeForShe
Recently, actress Emma Watson (of Harry Potter fame) was named a U.N. Goodwill Ambassador whose charge is to promote the cause of global women's rights. She launched a campaign called He For She, which recognizes that feminism has been focusing the activism on primarily female audiences and seeks to bring men into the fight - as fellow champions, rather than targets of blame. In a speech, she recognized that feminism has come to be associated with "man-hating," which is not the goal of the social movement. To change this public conception and give due respect and credit, she extended the "formal invitation" to men to join the fight for equality - not just in the Western world, where most women enjoy most of the freedoms men do, but in the entire world, where this is absolutely not the case.
My favorite part about her speech were the comments she made about how equality wasn't just a woman's need, but also a man's:
"Gender equality is your issue, too. Because, to date, I've seen my father's role as parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence, as a child, as much as my mother's. I've seen young men suffering from mental illness unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a man. In fact, in the U.K., suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I've seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don't have the benefits of equality, either."
Indeed, men don't have equality. And that's ultimately why I'm never going to be comfortable calling myself a feminist.
#WeForUs
I'm not interested in a fight to win rights for women that are on par with those of men. I'm interested in a movement that inspires human beings to respect, love, champion, and honor each other. Calling it feminism is only describing half the battle, albeit a half that is further behind the other. What He For She stands for is really egalitarianism - the belief that humans have equal value and deserve equal rights and treatment. Forget race, forget class, forget sexual orientation and nationality - people are people, so we fight for them.
This is all well and good, but what does that look like, practically? He For She is new, and the website seems more interested in promotion of the cause, at this point in time. Time will show what "tangible" results (sic) Ms. Watson hopes to accomplish through this campaign. But for those of us who aren't the male targets of the campaign and/or don't feel like clicking a link to post it on Facebook, what does true egalitarianism look like in real life? Are there examples of this? I would say yes, although it hasn't existed in perfect form since being human became a condition.
I contend that Christianity is the only model that demonstrates both how humans are equal and why they should have value at all.
I've said on this blog that my view of Creation is the lens through which I view existence. It comes into play yet again. Humans have inherent worth because we bear the image of God as regents, because we are the pinnacle of creation, and because He chose to make us in the first place. (Why would God create something worthless? Think about it.) Because we have unique value, we are to treat each other with the respect and honor we treat other precious things.
But wait, there's more.
Just as we are equally precious due to our purpose, we are equal under God due to our human condition. (Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.") We're all equally messed up, even if that messiness manifests in different ways. It all adds up to not perfect, AKA not up to God's standards, AKA in need of saving. Hence, following Jesus.
But wait, there's more.
The difference between Christian and non-Christian isn't the difference between ranks of sinners, but rather the difference between sin debt paid and sin debt unpaid. The "saved" aren't inherently any better than the "unsaved" because none of us did the saving. That's the point. If we could save ourselves, we'd have reason to brag about it, and that might indicate some superiority over those who can't save themselves. However, as the apostle Paul phrases it, we were all equally dead in our sins (Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:1), and were equally brought to life through Christ's sacrifice (Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.") Thus, the only difference between Christian and non-Christian is one of condition, not value. Status: Dead v. Status: Alive. Your relative doesn't lose value as a person after he passes away, and you didn't receive value as a person after you were born (the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban underscored that). So too is it with spiritual death and birth. Are you a human being? You're precious. Are you a human being? You're sinful. Are you a human being? God can save you. Everybody's equal.
But wait, there's more.
The Bible tells us to take care of each other (Philippians 2:4, Ephesians 4:32), and Jesus even made a point to say that loving other people unconditionally, as he did, would be a hallmark of his followers (John 13:34-35). Moreover, he told us to love the people that hate and persecute us - thus, show love toward everyone, regardless of whether you like them or if they even deserve it. How's that for egalitarianism?
But wait, there's less.
I can feel your question, already: If Christianity is supposedly perfectly egalitarian, why are Christians so divisive and hateful, and why is He For She even necessary? Shouldn't Jesus' followers be living this stuff out and changing the world?
Answer: Oh. The humanity.
More complete answer:
God is perfect, humans are not. Jesus was perfect, his followers are not. One of the goals of the Christian life is to replace "me" with Jesus - by having a relationship with him, we learn more about how he'd act and what's on his heart, and because we like him better than we like ourselves (since we didn't do anything but bring about our own destruction), we start to adopt his lifestyle and character. Notice I said "start." It's a process theologians call "sanctification," and it only reaches completion after Jesus comes back and fixes the universe for good (1 Corinthians 13:12).
The issue, then, goes back to the egalitarianism thing: Christians are just as fallible as non-Christians, so we continue to suck at life and goodness even after we're "saved." It's the nature of being human, unfortunately. Our humanity continues to plague us our whole lives (Romans 7:15), but since we know Jesus, we are and should be held to a higher standard of behavior because (thanks to the Holy Spirit, see Romans 7) we have the capacity to ignore our sinful urges. Again, it's not because we're stronger or better, but that we have a different spiritual condition.
So, yes, all Christians should be living out egalitarianism because it's kind of a huge tenet of our faith. We don't because we're imperfect and we sometimes lose perspective.
But wait, there's grace.
Fortunately, there is grace enough from God to cover our continued failures, and there's grace in the form of people like Emma Watson taking a public stand for the human race. There's grace in those who care for the oppressed and grace for those who suffer at the hands of selfishness to persevere. There's grace even for people who choose to act in ways that hurt others, because grace is egalitarian. Anyone can receive it, as long as they ask in faith. And, of course, there was Grace who lived among us for a time, who felt our wrongs and suffered our punishment on the cross, and who offers himself freely to anyone and everyone interested in what it's like to be Alive.
I'm not here to talk about feminism. I'm here to talk about God. I'm an egalitarian because God loved me - sinful, dirty, dead me - as much as he loved his Son. I'm an egalitarian because God made me - imperfect, vacillating, helpless me - co-heir with the King of Kings who created the world.
I'm an egalitarian because of Jesus. And when I don't act like it, there's grace enough for that, too.
Frankly, I've never been one for labels, especially those with causes attached to them, and most especially for one that's been steeped in political sniping for the better part of a century. It's not that I don't care about how society treats women, or that I don't recognize the problem. It's not even that it's associated with a political orientation with which I generally find myself in disagreement. As with most things in life, there is much more nuance to the matter.
I once told a friend that I don't consider myself a feminist because I'm not active enough or passionate enough about the cause to do more than raise occasional awareness about it - thus, if I accepted the label of "feminist," I'd be a bad one. My witness would then reflect negatively upon the "good feminists" and provide a distraction to the real issue: generating a culture of equality and mutual respect between the sexes.
So, no, I'm not a feminist. But it's even more nuanced than that.
I'm not a feminist because the cause is too narrow.
#HeForShe
Recently, actress Emma Watson (of Harry Potter fame) was named a U.N. Goodwill Ambassador whose charge is to promote the cause of global women's rights. She launched a campaign called He For She, which recognizes that feminism has been focusing the activism on primarily female audiences and seeks to bring men into the fight - as fellow champions, rather than targets of blame. In a speech, she recognized that feminism has come to be associated with "man-hating," which is not the goal of the social movement. To change this public conception and give due respect and credit, she extended the "formal invitation" to men to join the fight for equality - not just in the Western world, where most women enjoy most of the freedoms men do, but in the entire world, where this is absolutely not the case.
My favorite part about her speech were the comments she made about how equality wasn't just a woman's need, but also a man's:
"Gender equality is your issue, too. Because, to date, I've seen my father's role as parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence, as a child, as much as my mother's. I've seen young men suffering from mental illness unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a man. In fact, in the U.K., suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I've seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don't have the benefits of equality, either."
Indeed, men don't have equality. And that's ultimately why I'm never going to be comfortable calling myself a feminist.
#WeForUs
I'm not interested in a fight to win rights for women that are on par with those of men. I'm interested in a movement that inspires human beings to respect, love, champion, and honor each other. Calling it feminism is only describing half the battle, albeit a half that is further behind the other. What He For She stands for is really egalitarianism - the belief that humans have equal value and deserve equal rights and treatment. Forget race, forget class, forget sexual orientation and nationality - people are people, so we fight for them.
This is all well and good, but what does that look like, practically? He For She is new, and the website seems more interested in promotion of the cause, at this point in time. Time will show what "tangible" results (sic) Ms. Watson hopes to accomplish through this campaign. But for those of us who aren't the male targets of the campaign and/or don't feel like clicking a link to post it on Facebook, what does true egalitarianism look like in real life? Are there examples of this? I would say yes, although it hasn't existed in perfect form since being human became a condition.
I contend that Christianity is the only model that demonstrates both how humans are equal and why they should have value at all.
I've said on this blog that my view of Creation is the lens through which I view existence. It comes into play yet again. Humans have inherent worth because we bear the image of God as regents, because we are the pinnacle of creation, and because He chose to make us in the first place. (Why would God create something worthless? Think about it.) Because we have unique value, we are to treat each other with the respect and honor we treat other precious things.
But wait, there's more.
Just as we are equally precious due to our purpose, we are equal under God due to our human condition. (Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.") We're all equally messed up, even if that messiness manifests in different ways. It all adds up to not perfect, AKA not up to God's standards, AKA in need of saving. Hence, following Jesus.
But wait, there's more.
The difference between Christian and non-Christian isn't the difference between ranks of sinners, but rather the difference between sin debt paid and sin debt unpaid. The "saved" aren't inherently any better than the "unsaved" because none of us did the saving. That's the point. If we could save ourselves, we'd have reason to brag about it, and that might indicate some superiority over those who can't save themselves. However, as the apostle Paul phrases it, we were all equally dead in our sins (Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:1), and were equally brought to life through Christ's sacrifice (Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.") Thus, the only difference between Christian and non-Christian is one of condition, not value. Status: Dead v. Status: Alive. Your relative doesn't lose value as a person after he passes away, and you didn't receive value as a person after you were born (the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban underscored that). So too is it with spiritual death and birth. Are you a human being? You're precious. Are you a human being? You're sinful. Are you a human being? God can save you. Everybody's equal.
But wait, there's more.
The Bible tells us to take care of each other (Philippians 2:4, Ephesians 4:32), and Jesus even made a point to say that loving other people unconditionally, as he did, would be a hallmark of his followers (John 13:34-35). Moreover, he told us to love the people that hate and persecute us - thus, show love toward everyone, regardless of whether you like them or if they even deserve it. How's that for egalitarianism?
But wait, there's less.
I can feel your question, already: If Christianity is supposedly perfectly egalitarian, why are Christians so divisive and hateful, and why is He For She even necessary? Shouldn't Jesus' followers be living this stuff out and changing the world?
Answer: Oh. The humanity.
More complete answer:
God is perfect, humans are not. Jesus was perfect, his followers are not. One of the goals of the Christian life is to replace "me" with Jesus - by having a relationship with him, we learn more about how he'd act and what's on his heart, and because we like him better than we like ourselves (since we didn't do anything but bring about our own destruction), we start to adopt his lifestyle and character. Notice I said "start." It's a process theologians call "sanctification," and it only reaches completion after Jesus comes back and fixes the universe for good (1 Corinthians 13:12).
The issue, then, goes back to the egalitarianism thing: Christians are just as fallible as non-Christians, so we continue to suck at life and goodness even after we're "saved." It's the nature of being human, unfortunately. Our humanity continues to plague us our whole lives (Romans 7:15), but since we know Jesus, we are and should be held to a higher standard of behavior because (thanks to the Holy Spirit, see Romans 7) we have the capacity to ignore our sinful urges. Again, it's not because we're stronger or better, but that we have a different spiritual condition.
So, yes, all Christians should be living out egalitarianism because it's kind of a huge tenet of our faith. We don't because we're imperfect and we sometimes lose perspective.
But wait, there's grace.
Fortunately, there is grace enough from God to cover our continued failures, and there's grace in the form of people like Emma Watson taking a public stand for the human race. There's grace in those who care for the oppressed and grace for those who suffer at the hands of selfishness to persevere. There's grace even for people who choose to act in ways that hurt others, because grace is egalitarian. Anyone can receive it, as long as they ask in faith. And, of course, there was Grace who lived among us for a time, who felt our wrongs and suffered our punishment on the cross, and who offers himself freely to anyone and everyone interested in what it's like to be Alive.
I'm not here to talk about feminism. I'm here to talk about God. I'm an egalitarian because God loved me - sinful, dirty, dead me - as much as he loved his Son. I'm an egalitarian because God made me - imperfect, vacillating, helpless me - co-heir with the King of Kings who created the world.
I'm an egalitarian because of Jesus. And when I don't act like it, there's grace enough for that, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment