Cover photo © LDS Church
Recently I realized that I am a feminist. I want to see men and women treating each other as equals and seeing each other with equal value and potential. This newfound identity as a feminist came as a surprise to me, because all my life I have been bombarded with so many conflicting stereotypes about feminism. For years, I thought feminists were radical men-haters. With the rise of the Ordain Women movement, feminism has also been cast in a negative light within the Church. But I learned that feminism, like all ideologies, has a spectrum of belief that can’t be defined by its outliers. When I looked into both sides of the feminist spectrum, I found a middle ground that I totally identified with: men and women on equal playing fields, working together toward common goals. What a beautiful concept! What I’ve realized, however, is that we aren’t there yet. In my exploration of feminism, I’ve also realized that we have a perfect example to look to to get there, and that example is the Savior himself, Jesus Christ. Jesus was one of the only prominent men in written history that was recorded as treating women as equals, and a lot can be learned from his example.
Throughout history, women have been treated as unimportant or corrupt. One example of someone who gets a bad rap is Mother Eve. Christian and Jewish commentators alike have viewed her succumbing to the temptation of the serpent and partaking of the fruit as the cause of all the sin and evil in the world. Many believe that if it wasn’t for Eve, we’d all be living in some fantastic paradise without sin or worry. They subsequently extended that blame onto all women, and we quickly became viewed as unholy and inferior to men. Ancient Jewish tradition also cast women in a negative light. As seen in the Mosaic Law, women were deemed as ritually impure after giving birth. While they had some responsibility over household religious rituals, they were largely excluded from religious activity, which was handled by men. An early Christian philosopher, St. Augustine (354-430 a.d.), argued that only men were created in the image of God, and women were intellectually, physically, and morally inferior. St. Jerome (347-419 a.d.) said that if women choose a life of virginity, they could become more spiritual: “As long as woman is for birth and children, she is as different from man as body is from soul. But when she wishes to serve Christ more than the world, then she will cease to be a woman and will be called man.” Woah. These are Christian thinkers, the men who founded modern religious thought. Talk about a bad influence.
Views on women got really interesting with the Greeks. Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato saw women as mere casualties of a birth defect. Women were simply imperfect men whose primary purpose was to procreate rather than companionship. The relationship that existed between men and women paled in comparison to the relationships between men and men. These prominent thinkers and philosophers have peppered history with ideas of women’s subordination and inferiority. Keep in mind, these commentaries and ideas were all written by men because females were not given voice in ancient times. Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks in her book Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe quoted a verse taken from Canterbury Tales (1483) where the Wife of Bath said:
My God, had women written histories
Like cloistered scholars in oratories
They’d have set down more of men’s wickedness
Than all the sons of Adam could redress.
How would history change if there were more female voices? What if male historians painted females in a more positive light? Unfortunately we will never know. Modern feminist initiatives have led to a huge shift in the ancient views on women and gender roles. But due to the intense repression of women throughout history, this paradigm shift was never made earlier, except with one distinct exception: Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ contradicted the traditional stereotypes held against women. Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks pointed out this contradiction to the male perspective on women when she said,
“Jesus himself spoke frequently to women and included them in his followers, sometimes to the embarrassment of his male associates. He preached that men and women were equally capable of achieving life after death and that women as well as men should not let their domestic responsibilities come before their spiritual well-being. Many of his parables use women as positive examples or relate things that would have more meaning for women, leading some contemporary scholars to view Jesus as a feminist” (Wiesner-Hanks, 20).
Jesus came into a heavily patriarchal setting and treated men and women as equals and preached that both were equal in the eyes of God. There are three examples in the scriptures that really demonstrate Christ’s love and compassion towards women.
The first example comes from John 4, where Christ stops at a well while traveling through Samaria (a place Jews normally avoided). At this well, he meets a Samaritan woman who has been put away by five husbands who all left her for one reason or another (perhaps due to a lack of fertility). She was not married to the man she was with at the time of meeting Christ. Christ discerned all of this about her without having to hear her story, yet with her less than desirable status as a Samaritan woman living outside of the law, Christ spoke to her with all the respect and understanding He gave to His own disciples. Here was a man who didn’t give a thought to any societal constructs, but loved the individual.
Next we have a very tender scene where a woman was caught in adultery. This was one of the most severe accusations that could be placed on a woman at the time, punishable by stoning or even death. Instead of taking care of the problem themselves according to the law, the men who accused the woman wanted to humiliate her further by taking her to be judged by Jesus. They saw this as an opportunity to catch Christ contradicting himself, and they gave no thought to the woman they were making a public example. The first thing Christ did when they asked what should be done with such a woman was point out the weakness of everyone present in keeping the Law of God. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7). He made sure everyone understood their equal status as sinners in the eyes of God. Once the accusers had left, He then tenderly turned towards the woman and made sure she understood that everyone, her and her accusers, would have an equal opportunity to become reconciled with God and forgiven of all their trespasses. He admonished her as he would admonish his male disciples: “go, and sin no more” (John 8:11).
Finally, we have a beautiful example of the woman who bathed Christ’s feet with her tears. He went to dinner at the home of a Pharisee named Simon. A woman who was a notorious sinner heard he would be there and went to meet this Great Rabbi. She brought with her an alabaster box full of ointment and washed the Savior’s feet with her tears, anointed them, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. First off, the feet were considered unclean and unholy in the Jewish tradition — the most humble gesture a person could make was to wash the feet of another. Not only did this woman kneel before her master and wash his feet, she wiped them with her hair which was considered to be the glory of the woman (1 Corinthians 11:15). Thus, this woman put forth the greatest demonstration of love and humility a person could exhibit. She didn’t do it to show weakness. She wasn’t forced to do it because of her station. She simply wanted to do it. The Pharisees were shocked that Jesus was letting this sinner touch him. Christ gently reminded the man that this woman was showing the kind of courtesy that His guest had denied Him and told him that she is free to love much because she was forgiven much. Christ taught us not to be afraid to express the love that he gives to us.
Christ loves women, He always has and He trusts them with His work and He wants us to come back to Him. Thanks to His Atonement, Eternal Life is available to all men and women and if we are willing we all can participate in His great work and glory.
Comments
20 responses to “Was Jesus Christ a Feminist?”
It may not be the best thing to ‘label’ the Son of God with a politically charged word as feminist, He needs no such worldly label. However, that being said, Jesus knew the true doctrine of the Fall and of the Atonement that he would offer to all of mankind-men and women included equally-and he was full of love, justice and mercy for all. The so-called Christian teachers were apostates and the philosophers were uninspired men in regards to the origin of women and the plan of happiness. No wonder so many false concepts and so much pain has been heaped upon women unjustly throughout the history of this world. We should strive to be like Him in fair and equally loving treatment of all people.
I…really have to agree with Vance’s comment above.
It would be like saying that because the Sadducees stood for the temple and its prescribed ordinances, then Jesus was therefore a Sadducee. And we know He was not. Also, the Pharisees stood for the synagog and its rabbinical teachings. But Jesus was not a Pharisee.
Quote: “Pharisees and Sadducees differed on many important if not fundamental matters of belief and practice, including the preexistence of spirits, the reality of a future state involving reward and punishment, the necessity for individual self-denial, the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection from the dead; in each of which the Pharisees stood for the affirmative while the Sadducees denied.” Jesus The Christ Chapter 6: The Meridian of Time.
We see that that there is more than ONE definition of these labels.
There is also more than one definition of the word “feminist.”
Stephanie, as you stated in your article feminism is an “ideology” which means it is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
So like Vance stated, Jesus needs no such worldly label as feminist. It is indeed politically charged and easily co-opted for potentially unrighteous purposes.
It may be nit-picking, but under Roman law, only a Roman judge could condemn someone to death, and stoning (with BIG stones!) was a Jewish method of execution, called for by Jewish (but not by Roman) law. The men who brought the woman taken in adultery to Jesus were tempting him with a dilemma: if he advised them to follow Jewish law and execute her, he would be guilty of breaking the Roman law, and would be subject to execution. If he didn’t condemn her, he would be condoning a mortal sin. Either way, they thought, Jesus would be signing his own death warrant. His answer showed that they had no true understanding of either law, and put the onus on them!
Thank you for your comments! They were all very insightful. I wanted to simply point out the fact that Jesus was a unique proponent of women in his day and for centuries after. But I have to agree that ‘feminist’ could have worldly connotation. Thanks for pointing that out and making that clear, Vance. Feminism indeed has a wide spectrum of belief as Darwin touched on, but compared to the other male thinkers is the day, Christs view on women was completely unique. Just another testament to Christs divinity and his super ceding Worldly philosophies with eternal truths.
I love that Stephanie…
“Just another testament to Christs divinity and his super ceding Worldly philosophies with eternal truths.”
Thank-you for re-emphasizing that.
Why don’t feminist end child support if you all want to be equal to us dads that have to pay child extortion money to someone our…”equal”
I sense a lot of anger here; Jeremy.. Most states now recognize that both parents have equal responsibility for child rearing and support, but where one has sole custody, the other should have greater responsibility for financial support. Calling this “extortion” shows a serious lack of understanding. Having been a single dad with sole custody, I know that raising AND supporting a child is at least three times harder than just paying child support.
Donald…perhaps you don”t quite understand the frustration Jeremy is dealing with in regards to so-called “No-fault” divorce and the systemic bias many judges admit to in regards to giving mother’s soul custody.
In CRABTREE V. CRABTREE Opinion delivered June 6th, 1922: DIVORCE – CRUELTY.– Where a wife, without warning, attempted to cut her husbands throat, and did cut a gash five inches long, and, on his running away from her, followed him and cut his hand severely while he was trying to hold a door between them, his injuries confining him to the hospital for ten days, he was entitled to a divorce on the ground of cruelty.
DIVORCE – CUSTODY OF CHILDREN.– In a husband’s action for divorce in which he established the ground of cruelty, it was not error to give the mother custody of two children, one nine and the other six years old, where they were being properly cared for by her.
This woman almost succeeded in MURDERING her husband…but…attempted homicidal acts which mimic a modern day slasher flick somehow do not make her a bad mother. Or, presumably, if one follows the line of thinking…a bad role model.
Really?
This is an acceptable style of interpersonal problem solving to pass on to the next generation?
Really?
And this was in an APPEAL court no less. In Arkansas. 1922.
The appeal court explained it this way: “It does not follow that because the wife tried to kill him in a fit of anger, she did not have any parental affection for the children.” – (The entire of CRABTREE v. CRABTREE can be found in Paula S. Fass, Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood: In History and Society, New York: MacMillan Reference U.S.A. 2004. And in Arkansas court records.)
I think perhaps they forgot to consider that the wife ALSO had affection for her husband at some point in time, and yet she still tried to slice his throat and cut off his fingers and stab him in the back.
Things like this are the rule rather than the exception in regards to systemic bias.
Because of “no-fault” a woman can carry on multiple affairs and threaten he spouse with financial ruin if he divorces her. AND then take his children to be raised by her illicit lover and have her ex-husband pay for it.
I am glad this did not happen to you Donald, but you may want to be more sensitive to those it did happen to.
And I understand that Peter is upset. Probably the anger was more focused on the word “feminist” which carries such negative connotations and in the church is often accurately equated with “pharisee”….and people who do not support the prophet and apostles.
Actually, it DID happen to me– not the slasher part, which was in 1922, long before “no fault” divorce was heard of outside of Utah. But I lived the rest of it. I did all my own legal work, with zero legal training, because I could not afford a lawyer, and won custody of our my young daughters, in a rural county where no father had EVER been awarded custody of his children. My ex-wife ran off with her 17 year old boyfriend while I was laid up with a broken leg, then stole food stamps from me, with which she used to bought candy bars costing less than a dollar, so she could use the change to buy beer. She also ran up bills in the local stores, which I had to pay to preserve my credit, even though the divorce decree specifically said she was responsible for all her own debts. Been there. Bought the tee shirt. And I can well understand Jeremy’s anger. Doesn’t make it right though.
Okay…now picture that without getting the kids and having the psychological torture of your ex turning them against you.
I applaud whatever judge saw her as she really is, and gave you your kids. Have consideration for those who didn’t get theirs.
If you’ll read my original comment, you’ll see that I commented on his hostility, which though understandable, is still inappropriate, and on calling child support “extortion”, which it is not, in the vast majority of cases. I had to support four kids for years while caring for them full time as a single parent, with no support from their mother, who went underground and moved from state to state to avoid paying legitimate child support of $50.00 per month (per child), plus 50% of their medical expenses, which were minimal. It costs WAY more than $100/month to raise a child, not counting the extra expenses of single-parenting, such as child care. Ask any single parent whether child support is “extortion”. I have no doubt that it can be abused, like anything, but calling for eliminating it because of such rare abuse would be like eliminating kitchen knives because they are sometimes used to commit crimes. Child support is necessary, and eliminating it would victimize children far more often than it would correct abuse.
The key to your thinking is “reasonable”, and of course there is nothing wrong with “reasonable” child support. I would think that for someone to call child support “extortion” there must have been some UNREASONABLE aspect to his experience with this.
As you said, it costs a lot more than $100 dollars a month to raise a child.
But it also doesn’t cost in excess of $5,000 a month to raise a child either. Or $10,000. Or more. That would be where the extortion comes in.
Like I said, you need to have understanding for things beyond your own experience.
I am sure there have been cases of abuse, even extreme abuse. But I’m conversant with hundreds of cases, and such punitive awards are really very rare. The fact is though, that the best way to raise a child, as well as the cheapest, is in an intact family. Anything less is going to cost more. Or as I tell those I counsel, “The big winners in any divorce are the lawyers, and the big losers are the children. Always.”
In Canada, for example, it is calculated based on percentage of income and what is in the bank accounts. It doesn’t matter that if the marriage was intact, the father would not be spending that much raising a child. Upon divorce, that is the calculation whether it makes sense or not. Farmers who are land rich but cash poor are even forced to sell the family farm that has been in the family for generations. It doesn’t even matter that he owned it before marriage.
But yes, you are right, the biggest losers are always the children.
And as far as lawyers go, I tend to agree with Brigham Young: “I say, may God almighty curse corrupt lawyers this time henceforth, and let all the Saints in this house say, Amen for they are a stink in the nostrils of God and angels.” JC Vol. 3 240
We agree! Best lawyer joke ever (in my opinion): A lawyer decides to look into making a deal with the devil, so he summons the Devil and asks for details. The conversation goes like this:
Devil: Well, it’s really very simple. I agree to give you great wealth, power, and fame during your life, and you agree to sell me your immortal soul.
Lawyer: I don’t get it. What’s the catch?
*laughing. so . much*
Oops! My quote from Brigham Young (he has a lot of lawyer jokes) was from JD (Journal of Discourses) not JC…which is something my typing fingers made up.
There was a talk, a BYU Devotional by the Dean of BYU Law School – “Faith to Forgive Grievous Harms: Accepting the Atonement as Restitution.” by James R. Rasband.
He made a couple of lawyer jokes: “Indeed, before you become too critical of lawyers, listen to the words of my good friend Jim Gordon: “It is true that some lawyers are dishonest, arrogant, greedy, venal, amoral, ruthless buckets of toxic slime. On the other hand, it is unfair to judge the entire profession by a few hundred thousand bad apples.” Such quips can be a bit tough for those of us who are attorneys, but how much worse can it get, given the number of us whose parents, when we decided to go to law school, made sure to scrape off their car the “Ask me about my children” bumper sticker?”
His talk was helpful for my situation. Perhaps it will also be helpful for yours.
Quotes:“Forgiveness requires us to consider the other side of the Atonement—a side that we don’t think about as often but that is equally critical. That side is the Atonement’s power to satisfy our demands of justice against others, to fulfill our rights to restitution and being made whole. We often don’t quite see how the Atonement satisfies our own demands for justice. Yet it does so. It heals us not only from the guilt we suffer when we sin, but it also heals us from the sins and hurts of others.
It is critical to understand that forgiving others is not just a practical virtue. It is a profound act of faith in the Atonement and the promise that the Savior’s sacrifice repays not just our debts to others but also the debts of others to us.
In our live-and-let-live society, we may believe that being forgiving is just etiquette and good manners. It is not. We may think that forgiveness requires us to let mercy rob justice. It does not. Forgiveness does not require us to give up our right to restitution. It simply requires that we look to a different source. The non-judgmental worldly phrases “don’t worry about it” and “it’s no big deal” are not illustrations of the doctrine of forgiveness. On the contrary, when a person sins against us, it can be a very big deal. The point is that the Atonement is very big compensation that can take care of very big harms. Forgiveness doesn’t mean minimizing the sin; it means maximizing our faith in the Atonement.
My greatest concern is that if we wrongly believe forgiveness requires us to minimize the harms we suffer, this mistaken belief will be a barrier to developing a forgiving heart. It is okay to recognize how grave a sin is and to demand our right to justice—if our recognition triggers gratitude for the Atonement. Indeed, the greater the sin against us—the greater the harm we suffer—the more we should value the Atonement.”
Actually, it DID happen to me– not the slasher part, which was in 1922, long before “no fault” divorce was heard of outside of Utah. But I lived the rest of it. I did all my own legal work, with zero legal training, because I could not afford a lawyer, and won custody of our young daughters, in a rural county where no father had EVER been awarded custody of his children. My ex-wife ran off with her 17 year old boyfriend while I was laid up with a broken leg, then stole food stamps from me, with which she bought candy bars costing less than a dollar, so she could use the change to buy beer. She also ran up bills in the local stores, which I had to pay to preserve my credit, even though the divorce decree specifically said she was responsible for all her own debts. Been there. Bought the tee shirt. And I can well understand Jeremy’s anger. Doesn’t make it right though.
My wife and I have a long-standing tradition. If one of us comes and says, “I made a mistake,” the other replies, “I forgive your,” BEFORE they know what the mistake was. The deal is, you have to MEAN IT. Then the first person can confess what the mistake was, and since forgiveness has already been given, we can work on solving the problems created by the mistake together, without anger or shame, as partners. It’s a win-win situation. Please note, the problem is not minimized, just the negative emotions. When true repentance exists, true forgiveness is WONDERFUL.
So VERY Excellent you two function in the true repentance realm! I look forward to finding a woman who actually repents.
There are lots of such women around. Good hunting!