The Irony of This Book
It appears that James Davison Hunter, author of To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, may be somewhat biased against groups and organizations that are fighting for the rights of the marginalized in our country. In fact, he basically says that America has gone to “hell in a handbasket” (my words), and this “decline of American culture is the responsibility of people, groups and organizations with a secular worldview.”[1] One of the many groups and organizations he names is the National Organization for Women. This is concerning to me because he is pointing to an organization that has been advocating for equal treatment of women and many other marginalized people for years as being one of the reasons “the soul of America is dying”.[2] Being that my research topic is all about advocating for women to be treated as equals in leadership, this got my attention and caused me to look further into this organization that he is calling out as contributing to the demise of America.
Ironically (his word), The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest organization of feminist grassroots activists in the United States that was started to primarily champion an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will guarantee equal rights for women. On their website they state:
“NOW is an intersectional, multi-issue, multi-strategy organization that takes a holistic approach to women’s rights. Our official priorities are winning economic equality and securing it with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will guarantee equal rights for women; championing abortion rights, reproductive justice along with other women’s health issues; opposing racism; fighting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in all areas, including employment, housing, health services, and child custody; and ending violence against all women, no matter race, age, or socio-economic class.”[3]
The irony for me is that he is pointing to an organization that is primarily fighting for the equal rights and protection of women and other marginalized groups as one of the reasons for the “decline of our American culture”. I can think of far worse things that have contributed to the demise of the American culture, and it is sad how many in the church are more concerned about organizations like these, than with groups and companies that are hurting and taking advantage of these people.
After the author talked about the Christian Right, he went on to talk about the Christian Left. He stated that “Christian progressives tend to lean toward the idea of solidarity among equals – across the boundaries of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and social class.”[4] He says they often cite the passage in Matthew 25 about how we are to treat “the least of these”. Ironically (there’s that word again), Christians on the left are often criticized for being too progressive or secular when in reality they are functioning more like Jesus towards the outcast in society than many of their more conservative counterparts. Also in this chapter, he states that these politically progressive Christians were concerned about movements such as women’s suffrage and the female seminary movement.[5] Of course, I had to further explore these. Most people are aware that the women’s suffrage movement was nearly a 100-year fight to win the right to vote for women in the United States.[6] What I wasn’t as familiar with was the female seminary movement, which I first thought pertained to my current understanding of the term seminary (ie: Portland Seminary). What I discovered was that this was a movement in the early 1800s “supporting academic education for women, and the seminaries were part of a large and growing trend toward women’s ‘equality’. In the early nineteenth century the word seminary began to replace the word academy. The new word connoted a certain seriousness. The seminary saw its task primarily as professional preparation. The male seminary prepared men for the ministry; the female seminary took as its earnest job the training of women for teaching and for Republican motherhood.”[7] This was very interesting to my topic of research and how higher education for women began.
In the chapter entitled Old Cultural Wineskins, the author highlights the fact that the leaders of conservative churches and denominations have held out hope that they could win back the larger culture where Christianity would reign again. He states their strategy was twofold: to evangelize unbelievers; and to launch a direct attack against the enemies of the Christian faith and worldview. One of the issues they fought against, among many that he mentions, is feminism. Once again, this idea of people standing up for the equal treatment of women should not be fought against by the church. The problem is…radical feminists have given the term and the meaning a bad name, just like radical Islam’s have to Islam. Feminism is defined as “the belief that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities”[8] I am proud to be called a feminist because I am unabashed about advocating for equal treatment of women and I feel like Jesus would join me as a feminist if He walked the planet today. When women can’t find solace and support in the church for their equal role in the body of Christ, I think we end up sending the wrong message, and the church ends up being behind the culture. Paul said it best when he said “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[9]
Hunter’s solution of the “theology of faithful presence” is exactly what Jesus lived when he was on this planet. He says it beautifully, “For the Christian, if there is a possibility for human flourishing in a world such as ours, it begins when God’s word of love becomes flesh in us, is embodied in us, is enacted through us and in doing so, a trust is forged between the word spoken and the reality to which it speaks; to the words we speak and the realities to which we, the church, point.”[10]
________________________________
[1] James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (New York: Oxford, 2010), p. 116.
[3] https://now.org/about/who-we-are/
[4] James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (New York: Oxford, 2010), p. 133.
[6] https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/the-fight-for-womens-suffrage
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_seminary
[8] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
[10] James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (New York: Oxford, 2010), p. 241.
About the Author
Jake Dean-Hill
Currently a Marriage & Family Therapist in private practice. Ordained minister with 10 years of prior full-time church ministry experience and currently volunteering with a local church plant. Also working with companies as a Corporate Leadership Coach.7 responses to “The Irony of This Book”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jake it’s interesting you sometimes prefer to use the word feminist and other times egalitarian. In your blog you wrote about how the church sometimes sends the wrong message. I think for better or worse, the word feminism, now (unintended) sends the wrong message. I think also think the main point of disagreement hunter had with NOW was the abortion issue. Are there feminist groups that are not pro-abortion?
To clarify my position though, we are in agreement that woman should have equal everything.
Hello Jake,
I’d call myself a feminist too, but there really is a dark side to everything. One is abortion which I can’t support, but it always tends to be conflated into the feminist agenda, and because of this much of the church can’t support NOW.
And then this…. We were reading the Saturday paper this morning, and this full-page article (see below) explored some new ground. Imagine Bio-Bags replacing wombs. The philosopher states, “It should be an option to address the ‘injustice’ that the female uterus is still a necessary part of reproduction.” It is literally horrifying to me.
http://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs
I think it’s a good reminder for all of us that even as we advocate for change, we tend to drag along our sin behind us. We all have a dark side, even feminists.
Hi Jake,
You are an excellent writer, and I am always interested in what you have to write.
I love that you connected this book so well to your topic. When I read your Blog, I thought of other groups in America who have made lists and been painted as “terrorist” or “hateful” and I was floored. Maybe that is what you are seeing with the groups the author picked on?
Extremists on both sides give many other groups a bad name. Keep writing, Brother!
Jake.
I find it so interesting how we can read the same book and our heart and mind focuses on things that are totally different. I know it is just a language game but I like Kyles use of egalitarian over feminism. Probably because of the radicalization of some individuals.
I too found the theology of presence something that drew me in. Being Shalom as a means of change really has me reflecting on how and when to practice that.
Jake,
Always good to have your perspective as you consider women’s issues in light of all that we are reading. I did not recognize Hunter’s negative discussion of NOW and appreciate you pointing it out. I think his overall perspective is bigger than any one organization or movement as it seems to me he sees all of them using Christianity as a means to push their particular agenda. Is there anything in his statements regarding NOW that you agree he got correct?
Jake, Thanks for your insight on Hunter. I did not read the sections on NOW and so did not catch his perspective on their group. I also appreciate your investigation of the idea of the seminary and how it began. Here’s another term for you that you may already know, “third wave feminist.” I think the idea of feminism goes over poorly with older generations and particularly men or conservative women because the previous generations of feminism action and because the term speaks specifically to and about women (the feminine) and that throws people off because they are not included or seem to not care about men if men are not mentioned. Ironic.
I am not sure if you read much of the end of the text but I think Hunter does a better job of providing solutions in a general sense in the third section, specifically the Faithful Presence chapter which you mentioned.
Hey Jake, I appreciated both your critique and your final affirmation of the book. You have caused me to question and look at the book again with a more critical eye. Perhaps I’ve been so beat up from my church trying to lead us toward anti-racism, that I might have been blindly lulled by the comfort of an apolitical approach. Perhaps it’s impossible, but yet, you’re right about Jesus’ approach being “faith presence.” And this is much of what you do on a one-on-on basis. Thank you for this: “The irony for me is that he is pointing to an organization that is primarily fighting for the equal rights and protection of women and other marginalized groups as one of the reasons for the “decline of our American culture”