COLUMN: It should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following my articles in this site that I have consistently referred to the biblical God in the male gender. In doing so, I have guided myself by the fact that this is the way the Bible consistently refers to him. There, he is also referred to as the “Father.” But a recent article I read on radical feminism drew my attention to the fact that such a practice of calling God in the male gender is repugnant to radical feminism, particularly to the radical feminist movement which has been associated with “Goddess worship.”
In passing, I feel the need to mention that concerning gender and sex (or sexuality), I do make distinctions between these two. A Webster Dictionary definition of sex is “Either of the two divisions, male or female, into which persons, animals, or plants are divided, with reference to their [biological] reproductive functions.” Since the biblical God is a spirit, he does not possess sex in this dictionary and biological sense. But he does possess gender. This observation is based on the fact that he is consistently referred to in the Bible by the use of male pronouns and as Father.
I must confess that it is not certain to me at this time what is the most current status of the Goddess movement, whether it is getting stronger or weaker in its influence, or whether it is stagnant. But in any case, I at least believe the movement is still active and its philosophy and agenda is of concern to me. It is of concern to me because I have learned of its affinity with the anti-male philosophy of radical feminism, which I see as being very much alive and determined to throw its socially destructive influence and weight around. For these reasons, it has seemed inevitable that sooner or later I would be compelled to assert my own convictions here concerning the anti-male philosophy of both the Goddess movement and radical feminism.
My understanding of the “Goddess” movement is that the gist of its reason for being is the thinking or philosophy that if the world were to worship a female god (a Goddess) rather than an exclusively or totally violent, male God, as the God of the Bible is perceived to be, this world would truly be a peaceful place. So the dream sought to be realized, it appears to me, is for females to actively work and struggle hard in a revolutionary way against all male powers and symbols until finally a new world will emerge where the female Goddess is worshipped rather than a male God. From this, it appears to me that what is in fact being sought is a replacement of all male domination with female domination.
I also get the feeling that those who follow or have pursued Goddess “religion” appear not to show so much concern as to whether or not the Goddess they speak of is a myth. Instead, their delight seems to be more about the anti-male, anti-biblical theology symbolism that the entire concoction represents and the convenient vehicle it is as a rallying point for female (or feminist) revolutionary activity. The movement seems to be spearheaded by feminist forces which in fascist, revolutionary style are bent on not resting until they bring the already dysfunctional male-female relationships in this country to a more thorough dysfunctional level where men and women will no longer be allowed to be distinctly men or women. Instead, and in defiance of the order that the biblical God has ordained for men and women, it will be “politically correct” and fascistically required that all human beings no longer consider themselves either female or male but only androgynous “he-shes.” What appears to be sought is the total abolishment of gender and sexual distinctions.
The new social world these people envision is one where gays, lesbians and drag queens will be the leading social paradigms. This is so because these people are being viewed as the most successful in blending what is male and female within one individual and thus blending (or blurring) into single beings all male-female distinctions (the head of this “camel,” which includes same-sex marriages, is already inside our social tent and the federal courts and liberal politicians are paving the way, greasing it for a full unimpeded entry).
Thus, the Goddess/radical-feminist revolution is and has been ongoing and it is bent on subverting completely, turning upside down on its head, anything in the past that was considered normal between men and women. With the dysfunctional influence this revolution has had on American women and with this being so rampant in this country, it should not be surprising if worthy and decent young males in America are having a tough time finding an equally worthy and decent mate in this country.
II – RADICAL FEMINISM
The socially destructive, pathological, highly dysfunctional and postmodern feminism that is referred to as “radical feminism” is just that, radical. It stands against what it perceives to be an ever-present threat of male domination. In their paranoid disposition, these females are ever poised to resist anything that even barely hints, suggests or indicate to their pathological dispositions that a lurking male domination is at work. In the minds of these revolutionaries, nothing is too sacred. Thus religion and religious concepts, such as God as male or God as Father, become fair targets of paranoid feminist revolution and resistance. In the liberal wing of the United Methodist Church, and according to reports I have seen, much headway and infiltration of this feminist revolution appears to have already taken place.
For the sake of imparting information on what exactly is the order which the biblical God has ordained for man and women, the following is given:
1. Concerning the creation of human beings, God first created the male and he was called “man.” The Bible also refers to this man as “Adam.” But the words “man” and “Adam” are both based on a Hebrew word which can mean or represent either a single individual or the human species, which would include male and female. Thus in the Bible it is said, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27 NASB).
2. So the first human being God created, though he was a male, this male contained within him the potential of God producing from him what today we would call a female “clone.” This is made clear when it was said in Gen. 1:27 cited above that in creating the male, or “him,” God virtually created a male and female, or ‘them.” In this sense only of potential female clone from the first male can one say perhaps that the first male was androgynous (i.e., having male and female elements). But for the sake of helpful companionship and reproduction, God took a further step beyond creating the one male, the first human being.
3. I understand that among some species of living organisms, a mate is not required for reproduction. But obviously, this is not what God ordained for the human species. After creating the first male, the first human being, and for the sake of helpful companionship and reproduction, God cloned from the first male the first female. Thus we read in the Bible how God went about doing this in a style that anticipates by thousands of years the mechanics and techniques of modern anesthesia and chest surgery as well as what we now know about “cloning”:
“(God saw that) for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then [God] took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2:20-23 NASB). It was probably at this point, that the sexually differentiating male and female reproductive systems also came into being. Before this point, the one man was probably like the angels, sexually neutral, with his penis strictly as part of a urinary system. I mention this not to be crude, but because it seems inevitable and to be anticipated that someone will ask, or at least seriously wonder about such things and want an answer.
Clearly then, from this biblical authority we note that if God had NOT intended for the human sexes to exist separate and distinct as male and female, having separate and distinct functions and roles to perform, he would have left the first male uncloned. We also note from this biblical authority that in cloning the woman from the man, God made the woman what in effect was a “modified man” who came out (or was derived) from man. According to this authority, women are therefore modified men.
Thus women were made in the image of man in the immediate sense, but in the image of God in the ultimate sense (“in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them”). Stated in a different fashion, we can say that because women came out of man in the immediate or direct sense, women possess intellectual, physical and biological aspects and abilities similar to men, and this, for the simple reason that they were “cloned” or derived in their being from a male, though created directly by God through cloning from an already existing male. Even the name “woman” is derived from man (“she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man”).
But radical feminism and the Goddess movement are determined to defy and turn on its head this order which God has ordained for the sexes.
III – GOD AS DOMINANT MALE
Yet, notwithstanding any headway radical feminism can make to erase gender distinctions, the gender of Almighty God of the Bible remains MALE. So given that this God is Supreme and Dominant over all of human and universal existence, such a human and universal existence is and always will remain under MALE DOMINATION and there’s not a single thing that any or all feminists of the world, radical or otherwise, can do about it. But does this mean that proud male chauvinism and male domination is thereby legitimized or justified? Not at all, for such things are just as socially destructive as radical feminism and the Lord God of existence resists, frustrates and opposes the proud male chauvinists just as much as the proud feminists (who are in fact female chauvinists themselves) and gives favor only to those who humble themselves.
As it is, both human males and human females are under God’s divine male domination. Neither the man nor the woman is favored one over the other, though they are of different order of being and function. Such differences necessarily leads to different roles (e.g., literally speaking, fathers cannot be biological mothers and mothers cannot be biological fathers). Yet, after all is said and done, regardless of the differences and distinctions between men and women, both have equal value before God the Divine Male.
So, because God favors the humble, the man is required not to be proud because he is male, as is the gender of the biblical God. Instead, the man is required to humble himself, and in that humility, to be ever mindful of a responsibility he carries to be respectful to women. But, by the same principle of divinely required humility, the woman as well is not free to exalt herself in pride and treat the male as something inferior and/or useless, or as an adversary they must put down and conquer. Instead, they are required of God to treat the male with the same respect they have the right to expect from men.
So I believe what should prevail between men and women is a spirit of egalitarianism where mutual respect, mutual cooperation and cordial good will exists between them. High-handed or domineering treatment is to cease between men and women. Life is hard enough without having to be engaged continually in a futile, never-ending “battle of the sexes” that ultimately no one can win. If a peaceful accommodation between men and women is not pursued, dysfunctional relations between men and women will continue and can only get worse.
[tags]author John Garrison, goddess worship, radical feminist revolution, eNewsChannels articles, male domination[/tags]
