Consistent radical feminism

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!



    • 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s