Is there no distinction between male and female?

Is there no distinction between male and female?

Q: Some feminists say that there is no distinction to be made between male and female. Is this what you believe?

A: One of the biggest deceptions that Satan has brought into the women’s issue is that equality = sameness. That is not what we believe or teach. You may have noticed in the last section of WIM that I say that equality does not mean unisex. Women are different than men and that is the way that God planned it. Woman was created to meet a man’s need. Men need women because women are different than men and were made to complement him and to complete him. A man and a woman together in marriage are a union of two equals but not a union of two of the exact same things. Women think differently, react differently and have different emotional needs. Satan has confused matters by bringing ungodly women into the secular women’s movement who not only have hijacked that movement and taken it onto a pathway of evil but who usurp God’s authority in creation and teach that men and women are the same. By their ungodly and unnatural teaching they uphold the sinful position of those who want to propagate same sex unions. Again the lie of the devil is that equality = sameness.

14 thoughts on “Is there no distinction between male and female?

  1. You may have noticed in the last section of WIM that I say that equality does not mean unisex. Women are different than men and that is the way that God planned it. Woman was created to meet a man’s need.

    What a Great point to bring out Cherly! Woman means man with a womb. So a women form would be geared for that and the soft voice and frame go with that, they complete one another. There would be a different but in noway that means one would have rule over the other instead they would rule equally together as a team! Both need each other to be complete and whole!

  2. This is a Great Article by The Berean Call! The article goes well with your quote Cheryl!

    Quote: Satan has confused matters by bringing ungodly women into the secular women’s movement who not only have hijacked that movement and taken it onto a pathway of evil but who usurp God’s authority in creation and teach that men and women are the same. By their ungodly and unnatural teaching they uphold the sinful position of those who want to propagate same sex unions. Again the lie of the devil is that equality = sameness. End Quote

    The Berean Call

    1. The Goddess and the Liberal Church
    [ http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6109 ]

    The Goddess and the Liberal Church

    The message of the goddess has gained a hearing in the church as well.
    The philosophy of the goddess is currently being taught in the
    classrooms of some of our seminaries. In a growing number of seminaries
    the student population is becoming increasingly female, and many of
    these women have a feminist outlook on life. Mary Daly, who considers
    herself to be a Christian feminist, says this about traditional
    Christianity: “To put it bluntly, I propose that Christianity itself
    should be castrated.” The primary focus of the “Christian” feminist is
    to bring an end to what they perceive as male-dominated religion by
    “castrating” the male influence from religion. Daly continued by
    saying,

    “I am suggesting that the idea of salvation uniquely by a male savior
    perpetuates the problem of patriarchal oppression.”(Alice Hageman,
    Theology After the Demise of God the Father: A Call for the Castration
    of Sexist Religion, New York: Association Press, 1974, 132.)

    Reverend Susan Cady, co-author of Sophia: The Future of Feminist
    Spirituality and pastor of Emmanuel United Methodist Church in
    Philadelphia, is one example of the direction that Daly and others are
    taking the church. The authors of Sophia state that, “Sophia is a
    female, goddess-like figure appearing clearly in the Scriptures of the
    Hebrew tradition.”

    Wisdom Feast, the authors’ latest book, clearly identifies Jesus with
    Sophia. Sophialogy presents Sophia as a separate goddess and Jesus as
    her prophet. The book takes liberty with Jesus by replacing the
    masculine deity with the feminine deity Sophia. Another example of how
    goddess “thealogy” (note feminist spelling for theology) is making its
    way into the liberal church is through seminars held on seminary
    campuses.

    One such seminar was held at the Perkins School of Theology at Southern
    Methodist University. “Wisdomweaving: Woman Embodied in Faiths” was
    held
    at the school in February of 1990. If one looks at the schedule of the
    seminar, it is obvious that the emphasis was not on orthodoxy. Linda
    Finnell, a follower of Wicca and one of the speakers, spoke on the
    subject of “Returning to the Goddess Through Dianic Witchcraft.” Two of
    the keynote speakers were of a New Age persuasion. In fact, one, Sr.
    Jose Hobday, works with Matthew Fox and Starhawk at the Institute for
    Creation Spirituality.

    http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/the-goddess-and-the-church.html
    [335]

    [335]
    http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/the-goddess-and-the-church.html

  3. Michael, you must be on the TBC mailing list too!

    This only shows once again how patriarchy drives people to error, on both sides of the issue. Had male supremacy not been taught in the churches for so long, women would not have something to rebel against. Neither extreme is right. God is neither male nor female, but in declaring him male, comps have caused some women to declare a female deity too. But a female deity is no worse than a male one, since in several places God says plainly, “I am not a man”. Here again, the assumption that grammatical gender = biological gender (which is pretty much only true of English) leads to belief that God must be either male or female, when in fact he is neither.

    In fact, if God must be male, then he must have a female counterpart. One necessitates the other!

    I’m sure the comps would come back with, “We don’t say God is male, but masculine.” And I would respond, “What is the practical difference? Can masculinity be separated from maleness? If a woman acts in a way you declare to be “masculine”, is she more like God? And where are these lines drawn in the scriptures? Does not God have ‘feminine’ qualities too, like compassion, nurturing spiritual children, protecting his people as a mother hen, etc.?”

  4. What great questions! Yes I’m on the TBC mailing list as well.

    you said “Neither extreme is right.”

    Your right on that one. I said this before, I think God uses male terms like ,He, Father,Him etc so noone can say God birth the creation/world from within, alot of Goddess cults & newagers teach stranges things like that more or less. Men don’t have wombs and just shows us humans that God created everything from Nothing, he spoke it and it was so! Also the trinity is 3 persons Yet there is only ONE God. Using male terms within the Trinity shows that they did not birth one another but that ALL 3 are Co-equal/No beginning and No end etc. So using male terms is wisdom on God’s part to make those issue clear to us. Also we know Jesus had to be male because of Adams sin Not Eves (woman)! That clears up that issue as well!

    Yet wisdom is refurred to in a Female term…She!

    God did say in the endtimes people would go from bad to worse, one extreme too the other! An don’t we see that today!!!!!! LOL

    God Bless You In Understanding The Deeper Things Of God!

  5. God is neither male nor female, But He uses BOTH terms (Male & Female) More or Less to tells us more about himself so that we don’t going off into error on our part of understanding!

    I totally agree with you teknomom!

    In the book of Kings God called out two “SHE BEARS” and killed 40 kids/people for making fun of his prophet! We all know you don’t mess with mom let alone momma bear! Christians…men…over look those little things in scripture. He didn’t use two male bears, No, But two “SHE”/FEMALE bears! Just when they All think they have God figured out….Boom…then we open up scripture and say to our selfs wait just a minute! Thank You Holy Spirit! LOL (Smile)

  6. post #2 nails it squarely – it could be argued that the recent trend of femaile ordination is an extension of the feminist movement of the late 20th century –

    Ive said it before – there needs to be a distinction between female teaching and ordination in this discussion as a whole – Too often the line is blurred.

    I see a call to teaching and leadership – I am ambivalent on ordination because it isnt Scripturally clear.

  7. Seasonedgrace,

    As far as ordination, I do believe that it is good to have a body confirm the maturity that they see in us but it isn’t necessary. A pastor is a pastor not because he/she has been ordained but because she/he has been gifted as pastor to the church (Eph 4:11). When the disciples tried to ordain the 12th apostle after Judas died, they fell short. Since an apostle is a gift to the church (Eph 4:11), it cannot be a matter of man’s vote. Paul makes it clear that he is the chosen apostle, chosen by Jesus Christ and not by man’s ordination.

    Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),

  8. Not that I entirely disagree – you make several finepoints (refreshing here) I would only disagree on the insertion of mans “necessity” from the standpoint of doctrinal accountability

    There are as you know – many protestant denominations, Many holding ordained elders credentials who have neither been educated, vetted, or schooled in traditional Christian doctrine, relying instead upon a prayer voice they presume to be that of the Holy Spirit. Now it may or may not be…but man does hold a position as stewards of Christs bride, and in those situations would ensure the narrowness of the path for sleepy sheep.

    my two cents – LOL – that and 50 cents will get you coffee

  9. If man was created for God and women was created for man, what was created for women? And if we ALL have a purpose, why was only men created for God?

  10. Jewel,
    It is mankind that is created in the image of God and for His glory. Mankind is all of us – male and female. The earth and the animals were created for our benefit and for male and female to rule over the earth. Once again it is both male and female, not just the male.

    I hope this helps!

  11. If man was created for God and women was created for man, what was created for women? And if we ALL have a purpose, why was only men created for God?

    Jewel,

    Hi! I don’t/can’t read anywhere in the bible that “man was created for God”. Though it is true that woman (not women) was created for man (not men) – Genesis. And there’s no reason from the scriptures themselves to believe that men were created “for God” no matter how special to god they sound within the comp framework. Scripture is a marker for determining for us what is and what is not.

  12. Hi, new here. [though I have read off and on]

    I come from that Radical Feminist camp [years of study/and I still advocate on women’s rights issues] so I’d like to address some things here. Because there is some error. First of all, feminism has so many different schools and waves that is it really an overstatement to suggest that feminism means unisex. There are segments that are more of the ‘degender’ or unisex however, they are I would say, more the minority than the mainstream. You have to also take into consideration the huge disparity between class and race and how all those factor into feminist thought.

    The issue with the whole ‘unisex’ argument, I would say has more to do with the Debate within feminism of just HOW much gender is a learned construct opposed to biological determinism. And the fact is, they have some valid and Proven points because many differences [and this applies to males too] are in fact, Learned behaviors, they are NOT biological. The problem with the over dependence of the biological argument, i.e. that women are emotionally different and so forth is that it gives more weight to the comp justifications.
    There has been too many studies proving that differences are in fact, learned by how children observe the world around them. Now, does that mean that there isn’t any biological differences?
    No, I don’t believe it does [though many feminists would not concur] however, here’s another problem with the whole biological determinism.

    And its not in addressing patriarchy but addressing the truth that women can be abusers. There ARE women who abuse including sexually their children, there ARE women who do NOT bond with their children and who are more masculine in that they tend to be more masculine in their thinking. One of the issues I had with the whole biological determinism while Working among feminists was over this very issue because Radical Feminists [of the more goddess mother] absolutely Refuse to see that there are yes, women who are just as evil and who are not maternal by Nature. This causes a lot of problems for women [and men] who are survivors of female violence including sexual and not only that, we are seeing this issue cropping up a lot in domestic violence in lesbian relationships. Many who are biological determinists will claim that their violence is only a ‘transfer’ of patriarchal mores,
    I strongly disagree. Being a survivor my self of female abuse [mother] and my brother is also a survivor I can Assure you, this fantasy of the biological ‘nurture’ weak woman Madonna image is complete bull.

    Not every woman is that way, just as not ever man is born a rapist and a blood thirsty machismo killer. The problem with the biological ‘differences’ argument is that it reinforces patriarchal ideas.

    On the other hand, yes, you are correct, the whole insistence that we are all neutral and gender is ONLY a construct leads to in fact, I would insist, to a more sinister misogyny because it appears to me that the ‘unisex’ that is more desired is in fact, the male sex. We have seen this in forced de-gender policies in communism and other eugenics/fascist porgrams.

    Forgive my poor writing on this issue, its been a LONG time since I’ve written on it and my use of terminology is rather poor, that and its late, but when I was working on research for a thesis on this, I noticed a couple of flaws within both arguments. I tend to be of the both nurture and environment school rather than an either or. Also I think, that the gender tends to be more in ‘stages’ rather than preset from birth, allow me to clarify.
    We know that childbirth, for the most part, but NOT always, does change women’s emotional state. They yes, are more vulnerable, etc., this is nature’s way of assuring protection for the child, etc. But a woman is not this way prior to birth, and even prior to puberty we see that boys and girls really do not differ that much Unless there are strict gender roles being taught/or are in the culture. After children are grown women tend to tap more into the neutral side again [my observation] and in older age, more like to the way they were as children, where gender is concerned. I have seen this in men as well, again, I believe a lot of it does have to do with mores and gender constructs here.
    While I do not agree with the whole anti-biological and therefore we should deconstruct all roles [which is by far usually anything to do with feminine and is another form of misogyny–and I have a theory on this in regards to the whole GLBT lifestyle, that it really is the final completion of misogyny and that patriarchy/comps have really more in common with the misogyny ‘male favored’ traits/norms within the GLBT community.]

    Anyway while I strongly disagree with the whole deconstruct gender ideologies I do have to say we shouldn’t dismiss either the role that constructs do play in gender.
    To do so is to actually reinforce the justifications used to perpetuate female inferiority and male dominance.

    In my studies on violence, male violence included to mob violence I have noticed that those traits are learned, that the whole argument of males having more testerone (sic) therefore they are just by nature prone to violence to be false. I believe that has more to do with culture than anything. Boys Learn violence and male power [where many feminists disagree with me] and girls learn passivity. One evidence of this is that we are seeing far more youth crime among females. Or is it, that we are paying more notice to it?
    There has always been female madames and females who abuse so this rise of female violence can’t be something new, due to culture. I believe its always been there, just like in men,

    but that gender constructs have made it possible for those facts to be hidden or dismissed as mere anamolies. (sic) The Bible too goes into this in the curses for disobedience in the OT where it says that with the fruition of iniquity men will abuse their women and women will eat their young. Is it that environment causes this or is it that those traits are Already there and as sin is passed down and laws eroded [lawlessness] the true nature of humans comes out, and that nature is more surely, not gender specific or biologically different because of gender.
    And I believe we really should look further into this because the fact is many women are violent, there were women in Israel who were trafficking other women and having them gang raped/and used in sex slavery; there are women who pay to rape via prostitution [fact]; there are women who abuse and rape children, including their own [fact]; there are women who are just as violent and heartless as many men [fact],

    and there are men who are very sensitive and nurturing [fact]; there are many men who are passive and who do not like violence nor war [fact] but they are not efeminate. (sic) There are men who are better mothers than women [fact].

    BY nature, not because they learn to be. So my point is that there are some truths to the arguments that the way we Define gender can be bias based on preconceived gender mores or roles. In many countries men cry and are not in any way hesitant to show it. In many countries women do all the work and are stronger physically.

    While I do not believe that humanity and most surely government should dictate gender or degender by force, etc., that doesn’t mean that we should continue to perpetuate these beliefs that put gender into a box.

    As for God, I have questioned Him a lot on this matter, and the OT does say, He is not a man. However, I believe that in both scripture and in Nature, His creation, does reflect a lot of who He is, and I do see both male and female traits, and in nature the females often defy our so called biological gender roles and males too. The seahorse, males give birth, the females in many animal kingdoms are the matriarchs and the strongest, and the dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit, it is the male, who bows to the female. I know, I have six of them and I hear/watch them all the time.

    In the parrot kingdom the females are the more aggressive and they literally rule the roost, in most of the parrot kingdoms except for a few. In other words, in nature there isn’t any ‘gender box’ or biological box, in fact, many plants and one animal [a lizard] that I know of, create offspring by Themselves, they are some that are genderless.

    So I think we overstate when we say that we are biologically different emotionally and so forth when we may not be as different as we think. We may have different functions, but those too vary according to the age/phase in our lives. And those vary according to the Individual.
    One good thing [well several good things I took] from the schools of feminism [and other ideologies and yes, I am Christian] is that maybe its not so important as to sameness and difference and equality, in putting genders into boxes of us and them or classes of people, etc. Because those tend to make us a bit narrow and it opens the door to all kinds of superiority beliefs and oppression and prejudices.

    Maybe, its more about the Individual and where androgenous (sic) is concerned, I think we can be more androgenous that we think…maybe not all the time but at times in our lives. And if we can understand that we can work to bridge those differences that are learned and work yes, to an equality based on individual differences based on gifts and talents rather than gender, skin color and class.

    Sorry for all the typos and I could have written this so much better but I’ve not written in a formal way in some time, skills a bit lazy there. But I hope, I have at least, encouraged some thinking on this.
    Jane

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: