Consistent radical feminism

June 10, 2013

red pill society

Every time I read Slate or The Atlantic, I get more conservative.

The following is not exactly surprising, given the trajectory of our cultural revolt against creation:

A Truly Inclusive Way to Answer the Question ‘Where Do Babies Come From?’

On a related note, I commend Wesley Hill’s recent review of Bible, Gender, Sexuality – a revisionist account of marriage by James V. Brownson at Western Seminary.

 

Never Forget

 

Ok, folks, I’m not entirely serious with the images. Not yet!

About these ads

9 Responses to “Consistent radical feminism”

  1. james said

    I agree with your overall take but still sympathize with feminists. Don’t we live in tight categories of male and female that are often highly codified? I saw an interesting Ted Talk the other day, with a description of the “man box”. Have you seen it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td1PbsV6B80

    • Kevin Davis said

      Yes, I would be weary of pushing an overly “natural law” approach to the gender binary of male and female. Yet, there is such a thing as natural law within the economy of God’s revelation. I discuss this in my Gender and Theology series, especially part 3 on Karl Barth. Thus, we can speak of a “revolt against creation” and the like.

      I haven’t seen the Ted Talk…I’ll check it out.

  2. Cal said

    I understand. I don’t know what’s worse: this or Mark Driscoll’s monster truck MMA madness.

    I think talk of natural law in the discussion of marriage warps the Pauline argument. He talks about it being man and woman because of its reflecting Christ and his church, not because of body parts. Whether that’s otherness as the article states, or something else, is not fully known to me. I’m not completely convinced by the otherness argument, but it’s a good start.

    • I understand. I don’t know what’s worse: this or Mark Driscoll’s monster truck MMA madness.

      Exactly! And, yes, the otherness argument is a good start. There is more to it, so I’m glad to see Wesley say that he is doing more work on it, presumably in dialogue with Barth.

  3. Joel said

    I remember when Natalie Portman said becoming a mother was the most important thing she would ever do, and some of Slate’s writers went ballistic saying that winning an Oscar had to be more important and she was setting women’s rights back. And she wasn’t even trying to speak for women in general, just herself.

    Anyway, while this is Slate’s thing, I’m a little surprised to see it from the Atlantic. Maybe I just hadn’t read it enough before.

  4. Joel said

    The author of the book you mentioned seems to say gender in Genesis is about sameness, not difference or complementarity. Isn’t this a really obvious case of both-and?

    • Yes, indeed.

      Brownson is picking up on a standard line of attack — our unity in the image of God. Of course, this is so obvious and nowhere denied by orthodox accounts of marriage and gender relations. I suspect that Brownson takes his argument in the direction of a highly dubious “apocalyptic” reading of Paul, which makes Paul strangely comfortable among late-modern “radical equality” ideologues. I’m suspicious, to say the least.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers

%d bloggers like this: