The Feminisation of the Church (I)

Introduction:                                                                                                                             

In the Church, few things happen in a hurry. They can take decades, even centuries to come to fruition. And in this case, the feminisation of the Church has been going on for many hundreds of years.

Where did it all begin? In the garden, when the serpent said to Eve, “…you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen.3:5). Because the devil is a liar, he doesn’t always confront head-on with temptation. Rather, one common tactic is to question, confuse or compromise. He said to Eve, “has God said?” (Gen.3:1). This question launched the original, failed search for self-identification and spirituality apart from God and His Word: a disaster.

In making man, God also defined him. Gen.1:26-28 (which applies to both men and women) shows this for us. And when He made woman, she also was defined by God, for God said of the man, “…I will make him a helper suitable for him” (Gen.2:18). Significantly, one of the foundations of modern feminism is the rejection of this ideal.

A number of things have led to the feminisation of the Church in the modern era. Here are some of them:

1) A re-appraisal of the role of women in the church, which is heavily influenced by feminism and political correctness in the broader society.

2) A belief that females may be somehow more spiritual than males, and can be independent of them.

3) A blurring in the church of the Biblical roles of men and women, so that male leadership in the church is being significantly compromised.

3)  The failure of men to accept leadership within the church, reflected in such areas as the enforcement of church discipline.

5) An unwillingness or reluctance to openly declare theological doctrines that are known to offend some people, such as: a) The six-day creation, b) God’s law, justice and judgment, c) God’s pre-destination, election to salvation and damnation.

6) A turning away from the historical theological fundamentals, in pursuit of some current fad.

7) A deliberate attempt in the Church to cultivate the interest and support of women, beyond the point of sound theology and practice.

8) The selection of hymns and other music within the Church written by women, reflecting a romantic rather than a Biblical view of godliness. Some of these are “Tis so Sweet to Trust in Jesus,” “Sweet Holy Spirit” and much more. (Have you ever found a verse in the Bible, referring to Jesus or the Holy Spirit as “sweet?”)

I am indebted to Leon Podles for much of the background for this work. (See http://www.podles.org/churchimpotent.htm. Individual quotes will be noted below).

If you want to open the door to theological heresy and doctrinal confusion, a good place to start is by elevating one sex above the other. Women are not innately better than men, or vice versa. We are all fallen people, and fallenness affects the sexes differently, because the sexes were different in the first place.

But consider this:

Why are women more religious than men? Alberione has the answer: “She is more understanding in things of the heart, she is more spiritual than man. More humble, more tender, and consequently, more religious than man, she is more inclined to prayer, to charity, and to hope. More than man, woman feels the need for pure love; her love, less egoistic, is unselfish and prone to sacrifice.” Religion is, in Alberione’s estimation, primarily an affair of the heart. Hence, to be religious, one has to be feminine.[1]

This is nothing else but pious sounding religious deception. If “to be religious, one has to be feminine,” what is to be said to the 50% of the population that are not female? In the nineteenth century, Sarah J. Hale went so far as to claim that women are not as fallen as men:

He is naturally selfish in his affections; and selfishness is the sin of depravity. But woman was not thus cast down.”Women preserve an unselfish affection and love which men have lost. They are therefore God’s chosen instruments. For Hale, “the Christian and the feminine are one.” Men are wicked, women are good, and that is why “more than three-fourths of the professed followers of Christ are women.” Christians are followers of a male, but one who had no earthly father, and got his human nature entirely from a woman. Therefore, Jesus’ “human soul, derived from a woman, trained by a woman, was most truly womanly in its char­acteristics.” His closest disciples were either women or like women, such as “the faithful, gentle, loving, womanlike John” (for so the image of the Son of Thunder has become in the Church).[2]

You don’t have to be a theologian to figure out that Hale’s message is a load of nonsense. How anybody can really believe that Jesus’ human soul was “truly womanly,” or that John was “womanlike” is beyond me. But that is what parts of the church have tacitly accepted now for hundreds of years, and it’s not improving.

All this will have to change. The Church will have to abandon the false doctrines of feminism and embrace the truth in all areas. It will mean repentance, and a turning to Biblical truth. And not just women. Men will have to turn to the Lord too, accepting the responsibilities of leadership and government in the family and church we have ignored, which have contributed to this mess.

Are you ready?

 


[1] Leon Podles, “The Church Impotent: The Feminisation of the Church,” 1999, p.32.

[2]Podles, p.33.