The reality is, it is not Christianity that is misogynistic, IT IS THE JEWISH CULTURE THEN THAT WAS MISOGYNISTIC. But Christ came to introduce us to a new life which he exemplified by showing the highest form of respect to women. We will delve into this later on. I would like to state this blatantly, one of the oldest acts of feminism is recorded in the bible. The fight for the rights of women started thousands of years ago. It was a very successful one seeing that the laws of Israel had to be amended because a bunch of young ladies who knew their rights, stood up to fight for it.  I speak of the daughters of Zelophehad – all five of them. There are a lot of lessons in their story that present-day feminists can learn. These young girls, upon realizing that they were being denied access to their father’s property after his death (because of their sex)  rose up and went straight to the highest authority of Israel – Moses – to demand what was duly theirs. Moses took the matter to God and God said “What the daughters of Zelophehad are saying is right”. Hence, they received properties amongst the relatives of their father and a new law was established. The point is, they didn’t go accusing Moses of being sexist – seeing that the law was above Moses himself. These ladies didn’t challenge Moses’ authority. They simply made an appeal, yet their actions yielded overwhelming results for them and the many other women like them. This is indeed feminism.

Nevertheless, throughout the bible we see so many instances where women are treated unfairly because of their sex. But let’s not go cherry-picking in the bible. The issue is, it is a bad academic exercise to pinpoint the misfortunes of women in the bible and use it as the foundation to argue out the fact that the bible is misogynistic. That is wrong.

Christianity derives its essence from the life and teachings of Christ. So to determine whether the Christian doctrine in itself is misogynistic, we need to look at the life of Christ and how he treated women. Jesus indeed made a deliberate attempt to go against the status quo set for someone of his status in his relations with women. First and foremost, he allowed his feet to be washed by Mary (a known whore). This is such a big deal considering who Jesus was and his purpose on this earth. Undoubtedly one of the most outstanding events fueled by patriarchy in the bible is the story of the woman who was about to be stoned by an irate mob. Apparently, she was caught committing adultery ‘alone’… all by herself. This is how patriarchal the people were. They didn’t think the man she was in bed with was as guilty as she was so they let him go and decided to stone only her. But Jesus stood up for the rights of this woman and turned the law against the mob. Being convicted by their own conscience and knowledge of the law, they left her alone. Even on the cross, Jesus displayed his love and respect for women. While hanging there, Jesus told his mother ‘woman, behold thy son’ and to John he said ‘behold your mother’. This little gesture implies that Jesus entrusted His mother into the caring arms of John before he died. As a Christian gentleman I am supposed to emulate this lifestyle in every way possible. The gospel of Jesus Christ compels me to respect women and fight for their rights.

One of the most controversial chapters in the bible, so far as sexism and misogyny is concerned is 1 Timothy 2. Militant critics are of the view that Paul’s pastoral letter to Timothy expresses some level of contempt towards women when he commanded them to remain silent and also forbid them to usurp spiritual authority over the men in church. I find people’s assumption that Paul promotes misogyny in this chapter to be very inconsistent with other Pauline writings. The apostle was a leading advocate of gender equality within a culture that was popularly known for its heightened hatred towards women. In Galatians 3, Paul makes it crystal clear that there’s no such thing as male or female in Christ’s family. That is, men and women are of equal importance in the eyes of God. A chunk of the New Testament informs us that Paul actually team-taught alongside various women, commending them with the highest form of respect for breaking their backs for the sake of the Gospel. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul stated that a husband had NO authority over his own body, but his wife DID and vice-versa. Now, that’s a very heavy pronouncement. This is Paul championing gender equality again by demanding mutual respect between both sexes in marital homes – especially concerning sexual activities. Just in case you missed it, the ‘so-called’ chauvinist, in Romans 16, makes a unique reference to Phoebe a sister in Christ, as a deacon. It was such a big deal in those days, that a woman could be a deacon just like Paul, Timothy and Apollos – who had presiding authorities over churches. Seems like the ‘sexist apostle’ is digging his own grave, right? Be reminded that we are examining these facts in the 1st century context where women were heavily despised!  

We see time and time again that Paul’s teachings were in sharp contrast with the promotion of sexism. What then do we make of Paul’s admonition to Timothy concerning women? 2 Timothy 3:6-7 and 1 Timothy 5:11-13 give us a clue as to what Paul intended to communicate to the people. The women of Ephesus then were deeply associated with paganism before they got converted to Christianity. As a result, they were probably spiritually immature. It then makes sense if Paul wasn’t going to risk anything by putting them on the forefront to promote the Gospel. Moreover, there were false teachers around who were ever ready to pounce on any of these women to teach them false doctrines—the very thing Paul was trying to avoid. In summary, I believe Paul was addressing a specific problem that plagued a specific church (the Church of Ephesus). He wasn’t making a general rule, nevertheless, any other church going through the same problem can apply this solution in their case. So if you should ask me, this ideology that Paul was sexist falls flat because the arguments to support such fallacious ideas do not in any way fit the teachings of the Bible. Proper exegesis reveals to every reader that NO passage in the Bible encourages people to oppress women. Rather the bible encourages wives even to strive hard in economic ventures. The woman in Proverbs 31 is a superhero; she has a stable job and still has her family at heart. This appears impossible in today’s world, but the bible encourages women to work hard in their careers while caring for their families.

I would like to say this quickly. More often than not people call out religious leaders for propagating sexist ideologies in their sermons and opinions expressed on other platforms. But why doesn’t anybody question evolutionism for its sexist ideologies? I honestly want to know how a woman can be a feminist and an evolutionist at the same. Especially because Charles Darwin claims that “… males are more evolutionarily advanced than females”. Which means by nature, men are ahead of their female counterparts intellectually and physically.

While it may seem like a greater portion of scripture records several masculine accomplishments, the Bible does extremely well in capturing equally significant events involving women. God appointed powerful women like Deborah and Esther to lead the Jews during Israel’s dark and spiritually-barren period. Jesus (God in flesh) revealed His true identity as the Savior of the world to the woman at the well, much to his disciple’s chagrin. The most important historical event of this world (the Resurrection of Christ) was revealed FIRST to a group of women. The prophet Isaiah, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, alluded God’s tender love towards His people to that of a MOTHER who comforts HER children. What a powerful positive feminine image! Time and space wouldn’t allow me to prove to you more that the Bible doesn’t oppress women but rather celebrates them. Sexism has never been God-orchestrated because in the beginning, He [God] created human beings—male and female—in His own image to reflect His nature. The Bible, God’s Word, will forever respect the intrinsic worth of both men and women. It is a word that is settled forever.

Written by: Elvis Sampson and Elikplim Sabblah

References: Galatians 3:28, 1 Corinthians 7:4, John 4, Isaiah 66:13, Numbers 27 (Daughters of Zelophehad), 1 Timothy 2.

Charles Darwin nevertheless, came up with a theory that involves a very interesting mechanism called Natural Selection. Natural Selection refers to the process by which a member of a specific species of organisms develops some kind of advantageous features which the other members do not possess; this organism then transfers this trait to its offspring. So the other members of this species who do not have these special traits will eventually die-off as time goes on. This is simply because the advantageous traits usually come in to aid survival, reproduction etc. therefore the organisms that do not have it will eventually die-off. Natural selection communicates a sense of ‘the survival of the fittest’. It also professes that, fairly complex organisms evolved from somewhat simplistic ancestors. For example an organism that develops wings among its fellow members of the same species is bound to pass on the trait to its offspring. Therefore there will come a time when only its offspring will survive because they inherited this special trait from it. It is like what we see in movies like X-MEN; we see human beings developing special super powers; they are called mutants. If this were to happen in the real world, then it is obvious that these mutants would live longer than the average man. Simply because they would have special traits that could help them survive dangerous circumstances. Therefore these mutants would mate and transfer these traits to their offspring. And as generations pass, there will be a total wiping out of the human race – better yet, members of the human race who aren’t mutants.

 
I saw in a documentary once that snakes are believed to have evolved from 4-legged ancestors. It turns out to be a widely held assertion because I have come across it in other write-ups too. I find that very amazing! The fact that scientist believe that the snake evolved from a 4-legged ancestor. It amazes me because, I was taught this very fact way back in Sunday school. In Genesis 3:14, God cursed the serpent when he said ‘…cursed are you above all LIVESTOCK’. He goes on to say that ‘… on your belly you shall go…’ .The serpent once had 4 legs, hence it being referred to as a livestock. Then the curse caused it to become a creeping animal. Once again, we see a collision of science and scripture, yet the former will never give the credit to the latter for making the assertion first.

One of the strong bases on which the theory of Evolution rests is the fact that the process of Natural Selection takes a long time to fully materialize. So all what has been said about Natural Selection above is only possible over a very long period of time. Nevertheless, Darwin himself said if it could be proven that an organism came into existence without going through numerous, successive, slight modifications then his theory would absolutely break down. This affirms what has been mentioned earlier that his theory completely rests on a long process of numerous, slight modifications in organisms. If there is ever an organism that is known to have come to being without going through such a process, it would be called an ‘irreducibly complex system’. The interesting thing about an irreducibly complex system is that, it is a system composed of multiple parts which are necessary for the system to function. And the entire system cannot function if one part is missing. This brings to mind organs in the human body such as the eye. If we claim the human eye had to go through a process of evolution, then we are simply saying that for several years, there were generations of men (or creatures) who walked the face of the earth blind. Because, if their eyes evolved gradually, it means at some point their eyes didn’t have some parts. And since with the eye every single part helps in vision, then probably they were blind. Charles Darwin himself says:

‘To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.’
Prof. John Lennox also makes a very important argument that I would like to cite here. He said the human genetic code is the longest word recorded in human history. It is a 3.4 billion-long word which has been arranged systematically. When you discover your name written in the sand, it is absolutely normal for you to assume that a being of intelligence made an input. You look at your 10-letter-long name written in the sand, and you immediately wonder WHO it is that wrote it there. Here we are, as humans, with a 3.4 billion-long code in all of us yet we are expected to believe it all happened by chance. There is certainly something wrong somewhere. Molecular biologist Michael Denton states that:
‘Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory … made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man…’

My favorite part of the quote is where he says the bacterial cell is far more complicated than any machinery built by man. Think about the most outstanding and complex machine in the world, Denton claims the bacterial cell is more complicated than it. So if human beings created those machines, isn’t it right to assume that there must be a personality behind Creation? Isn’t it rather absurd to assume that it all happened by chance? All evolution is trying to tell us is that, over a long period of time, a laptop could come into existence without anybody inventing it. Even if that is possible, what explains the origin of the operating system the laptop runs on? That is why I believe in the creation story in Genesis 1. In the beginning GOD…

I call Evolution ‘Evilusion’ because I see it as an evil illusion that deters humans from giving honor and praise to GOD. I believe in God. The universe is far too complex to have happened by chance. The cells in our body are far too complex to have come to being as a result of a random unguided process. GOD’s Not Dead, He is surely alive.

An elimination of origin is tantamount to an omission of destination.

Nevertheless, some philosophers and scientists who are atheists have managed to move us a step back by prompting the posing of the question of whether or not God exists instead of who He is. I must say that, philosophically ‘God is dead’ is rather a weak statement which goes on to betray the intentions of those who say it. If He is dead, then it means He once lived. And if He once lived, then He was probably everything He said He was, which includes: eternal, all powerful and omniscient. Therefore if you claim He is dead, you just halfheartedly accepted his existence (or at least, that He once existed). Anyway, that’s rather on a lighter note.

How do we face facts as humans? When I go to the beach and see ‘Elikplim Sabblah, kindly meet me behind the rocks on the far end of the beach’ written boldly in the sand, it instantly triggers this question in my head – ‘who wrote this?’. It is only normal for us to pin a human being or a personality to anything which expresses a certain level of intelligence. Nobody in their right senses would ask ‘how did this happen?’ when they see their full name written in the sand. Which would mean the writing in the sand appeared just like that – without an agent. Funnily enough, this is the line of thought that some of the smartest brains of our time hold: that the universe with all its splendor and majesty appeared on the scene and created everything else. Philosophically it doesn’t even make baby sense. It’s only normal to allude the expression of intelligence to a personality but some scientist choose to allude it to an event. So all through history, many set out to prove a mechanism while vehemently refuting the existence of an agent manning it. The argument they put up is that, one’s full name scribbled in the sand at the sea shore could have been written by the waves that hit the sand at the shore and not a person.

Imagine two people seated in the back seat of a Ford car, driven by Henry Ford himself. One claims that the fact that the car moves on four wheels and has the ability to stop, it must have created itself, because there couldn’t possibly be a being who could invent such a machine. The other says, since the driver of the car is called ‘FORD’ as well as the car, then the rumors are probably true: he could be the one who invented the car, especially because he is the sole-distributor of that brand of cars. The first man is an atheist and the second, a believer. The issue isn’t about the fact that believers merely allude everything to God to save them from the cumbersome ordeal of thinking. NO. Rather, the universe appears too systematically arranged and purposefully designed to have come to being by a random unguided process. Hence as a rebuttal, atheist-scientist often retort, ‘If you say God created the universe then who created God?’. Isn’t it ironic that they believe the universe created itself? So then we pose the same question to them: ‘if the universe created itself and everything else, then who created the universe?’

The presence of pain, suffering and evil in the world is seen as one of the greatest arguments against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing and ever-present God. For if God knows everything and He wields all power why would He sit back and watch the world drowning in misery and do nothing about it? There is evil in this world because God created human beings and not robots. God created beings that reason; beings that have a WILL because He prefers the worship of a being who does so because he loves HIM (God) and not because he has been hardwired to do only that. Your sense of worth as a spouse may diminish when you realize you got married because your partner didn’t have an option. Same way, God gave man a will to choose to either serve him or not so that those who do serve Him, do so out of total reverence for him and not because they are robots that have no other function or option.

There is pain in the world because we live in a fallen world. The world God intended for man, sin made us disqualified for it. Eden was a place of eternal bliss, joy and peace. Yet our sin which largely communicated reverence to another being other than God, made us fall short of it. But the good news is, Calvary has made us eligible occupants of such a place – God has worked everything out to get us back to that sort of environment. Many also ask why God will place the human race in a world filled with dark forces and evil. This is neither here nor there, because when you think about it procreation sort of puts man in God’s position, so far as creation is concerned. So if you claim God is evil for placing human beings in a world filled with diseases, terrorism and evil, then guess what, you are equally evil for having babies. We all know there is a certain level of evil in the world, yet some of us have kids and others intend to have some. Even we who cannot vouch for the safety of our offspring are willing to bring them to life in a world like this, how much more he who holds the world in his hands?

Sometimes I just wish God would reveal himself to all mankind and just save us – his children – from having to defend his honor to people who doubt his existence. That would save the day, won’t it? Ha! If your 24 year old son walks up to you demanding a paternity test, regardless of the striking resemblance and character-traits both of you share, it will take a certain level of insecurity to make you actually take that test. I am saying if your child demands enough reason to be convinced you are his father, it will take insecurity on your part to actually want to prove it to him. Especially if there is enough proof already. I believe strongly that this is God’s position on the matter; he doesn’t have to show up to show that He is. Just as Henry Ford needn’t interrupt the argument going on in the car he invented because he knows who he is and what he did. God’s not dead, He is alive and today, I joined nature to scream it out loud.