FEMINISM-WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR?

In our class of Trinity, taught by the amiable Fr. Lawrence Hammawa, we discussed much about the feminist concept of the trinity. We how the much celebrated feminist- Elizabeth A. Johnson, proscribed that the dominating masculinity found in the bible and the church’s hierarchy, be done away with. She conceived God as a loving mother. You know, I have no problem whether God be a man or woman. And to be frank, I know that God doesn’t have a problem either, for this is not the first time people have construed God according to their own situation- the poor see him as a rich God, the lonely see Him as a loving friend, the widow see Him as a loving husband, the oppressed see Him as a liberator etc. All these conceptions do not bother God in the slightest, all that matter to God is that we know that He loves us and will do anything for us in love. This fact of man taking the order and lead in all things have actually not gone down well, in some quarters amongst the females. The truth about it all is that there is actually no fighting or discord. Why do I say this?

You see, there are two accounts of creation; there is that of Genesis 1, and 2. In these two conceptions of creation, one thing that cuts across is that, man was first created. Feminist see these as a ploy to put man before or higher than woman. Whether they think like this or not, it is harmful only to the extent that this can be used to create the already widening gulf between the man and the woman in life. In Genesis 1, it is said that God created man. Mankind, humanity, Adam: ““Let us make people* in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life—the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals,* and small animals.”So God created people in his own image; God patterned them after himself; male and female he created them (Gen1:26-27). In some other biblical versions, instead of people, it uses mankind, in some other versions, the used name is humanity. אָדָ֛ם (Gen 1:26 WTT), is the Hebrew rendition of the word that has been analyzed so far. And the Hebrew word means, man, Adam or mankind. In other words, it points to something that masculine. And yet the text developed further in verse27, that “male and female he created them”. As such it is evident that man, not generic, was not only created, but woman was created as well. Thus we can say that man and woman were created. We should not forget that the Jewish tradition did not regard women that much. In fact they did not regard them, as much as the Muslim world does. But if in their great distaste for the woman, they were able to indicate that God created man and woman in the same instant, it goes a lot to indicate how very misdirected we are about this struggle against masculinity by the women.

The second account of the making of man differs a lot from the first in that, it shows that man is the essence of the human kind. It indicates that woman is a product of man: “But still there was no companion suitable for him. So the Lord God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep. He took one of Adam’s ribs* and closed up the place from which he had taken it. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib and brought her to Adam. “At last!” Adam exclaimed. “She is part of my own flesh and bone! She will be called ‘woman,’ because she was taken out of a man.” (Gen2:20-23). The use of the word “rib” is more than what it signifies. It is not just the physical rib of man that was taken out, but it was an integral part of man that was taken out to make woman. It is the essence of man that was taken out to make a woman. It was himself that he as seeing in the woman. It was another him, and there was to be no contradiction in him. He was a unit, but with the making of the woman, he became a unity. Note that man greatly appreciated this and thanked God for such wisdom. Feminists may say that this account posits a sort of subordination. I would add here that the there is no subordination. And they will add, why would it not be the other way round- man taken out of woman? The vital point to note here is not who was taken out of whom, or who was created first. The essential point is that man was never complete without the woman, and vice versa. The point to note here is that man can never be fulfilled without his companion and this goes to put the woman at a very important place in the life of man.  For she is not just the person that completes man, she is man, and man is she. He cannot be what he is in this life without the woman. The woman thus has a pride of place in the life of man.

The account of the fall, presents the woman in a very bad light. And it brings out the wisdom of the inspired writers. For in reality, man’s only weakness has been and is the woman. The woman is like an Achilles’ heel, for man, having the power to do and undo, a power that comes with great responsibility, one that is actually known. For if the women actually knew the good they could do with this power of theirs, the world will be better off. Man fell not at the promptings of the devil, but at that of the woman. But man had no option; he did not doubt his wife, since she was himself in flesh and blood. He could not just doubt her. So if she had fallen he had to fall with her. How is the wisdom of the ancient writers made manifest? The answer is Mary. How were they able to know that it is a woman that will enable God to become flesh thereby undoing the first sin of man? The answer is that, they were inspired.

Down through the ages, it is a fact that women have been marginalized, in many traditions and societies. It should thus be asked, was this the will of the creator? No. God has always rejected all forms of oppression, for this is not a mark of His nature. The recent female struggle is in a good light, but should not be done in exaggeration. No amount of apology can undo the injustices committed to women in a male dominated society, true. We should not forget that man is not free from, and has never been free from error, yes we have made lots of mistakes and our ability to man amends is what makes us rational. The good thing is that there is an on-going women liberation and empowerment, but extreme positions should be watched.

As regards the men and women, there are varying functions, functions that come from their specific makeup. Man is man and woman is woman, this is a fact that is very much dogmatic and cannot be compromised, even though science is making us think anti-creation wise. Just like the trinity, there is no distinction between the man and the woman, they are the same. For in the trinity, there is the immanent and the economic trinity. The latter is what distinguishes the persons of the trinity. But the fact of the persons, three persons, being One in the Godhead, is still very prominent; they are three persons, but One God. Even with the rendition of the father as the unoriginated Origin, and the Son as the only begotten, and the Spirit as the one who proceeds from the father and the Son, there is yet no distinction. They are referred to as the Father, Son and Spirit, but there is not distinction between father and son and spirit, a distinction in the absolute. God is a Father, Son and Spirit, and yet one. They have performed differently in the salvation history, yet they are one. Get it, in the trinity; even though they differ in personality, they are Yet One God. They have specific functions to play, of which, One amongst the three participates actively, like Jesus, participated actively in redemption. This does not mean that the Father and Spirit were not in action, for they participated, passively, in passive action. God is One in creation, redemption and sanctification, HE is One.

Man and Woman, may differ in constitution and makeup, but there is no distinction, there is no superior or inferior in importance, but a community, a unity, a relationship, one that is complementary. The issue of who should dominate should not arise. The issue of whether one’s function is of more importance should not arise, for in all functions, they are still the same. There are peculiar functions that distinguish both, but they yet constitute one humanity. The feminist move has brought forth this realization, but it is gradually leading to a wrong conception in the story of human relations. The man is not more important than the woman, and the woman is not either than the man. They are both important. We ought to remember that in the order of creation, to maintain order, someone needs to be in charge. Humanity is in charge of creation. And yet in humanity, between the man and the woman, there is one that bears the responsibility of the lot- is it man or the woman? It is with respect to who is in charge that many years of subjugation of the woman, and in recent times the uprising of the feminist movement has gained grounds. In dealing with this question of who is the leader, we should not forget that between the man and the woman, no one is more important than the other, for in leadership, the leader is merely the first amongst equals. But thus concept of leadership between man and woman has opened the room for discord amongst them.

My belief is that man was put in charge by God, but not as an avenue to oppress and suppress the woman, but to take responsibility as part of his divine functions, just as the woman has her own responsibilities. The fact of leadership has always been given to the man, but this does not mean that the woman cannot be a leader. Remember that they are a unity, thus whether man leads or not, it is inconsequential, for if man leads the woman leads with him, if she leads he leads. This situation is one that should not provoke any discord. But humanity watch it, if you foster this thing to the extreme, then you will pave the way for evil to dominate.