The ontological link between Feminism and Homosexuality
What struck me as I prepared for this article is that the struggle for truth is both inside and outside the church. If we don't understand what is going on outside the church, we won’t understand what is going on inside the church.
Over the last forty years, a systematic drive to erase the distinctions between male and female has affected our nation in at least two ways: 1) turning humans into a pseudo-creator and 2) paving the way for homosexuality by redefining gender identity.
Regretfully, the church at large has not been immune to such things. We watched as insubordinate leaders in the North American Division imposed female headship in the church regardless of the expressed will of the world body. On the heels of this cultural shift, comes the hard-charging homosexual movement. Could there be a link between them?
Most proponents of feminist ordination vigorously deny any connection between feminism and homosexuality. It is to them that I dedicate this article, because I believe it is clear that homosexuality and feminism share an ethical trajectory. Feel free to draw your own conclusions after reading.
The creation and existence of male and female as two distinct components of the human family is essentially a mathematical reality. Both are needed for survival. Take away either male or female and the species ceases to exist. However, while both genders are needed for propagation there is an even deeper spiritual intention for their differentiation and existence. Male and female illustrate – through their wholeness – the distinctiveness and harmony of the Godhead. In other words, male and female marriage is an imperfect yet necessary reminder of divine order, purpose, and destiny on Earth.
God sets the boundaries of human existence in Genesis 1-3. Humans are made in His image and created male and female. They are given dominion over the earth. They are purposed to find meaning and morality by doing His will as revealed in His words. They are to replicate (procreate) themselves through the institution of marriage, establishing a container through which the Creator’s blessings flow through a family. They are perfectly positioned at two opposite ends of the gender binary.
The gender binary is the classification of sex and gender into two distinct, opposite and disconnected forms of masculine and feminine. Gender binaries exist as a means of bringing order to human existence, and reflecting the individuality and union of the Godhead. Thus it is God who establishes the gender binary, and blessed us with the words “very good.” Think of it as a horizontal line with a zone on each end.
Feminism attacked this gender binary by calling it “oppression.” The objection is that categorizing males and females into social roles causes people to feel they have to be at one end of a linear spectrum and identify themselves as man or woman. They view this as discriminatory. They redefined the spectrum by moving females towards the opposite end and by encouraging males to move towards the female end of the binary. Mysteriously, feminists despised masculinity in males, but coveted it for themselves. Feminism also despises femininity, a virtue that God places great value upon (1 Peter 3:4).
So, the founding motive of feminism was to redefine a rigid linear gender spectrum in favor of an amalgamation of roles, and to reconstruct an individual’s self-perception and behavior. Homosexuality attacks the gender spectrum by rejecting the union of two opposite genders and redefining sexual behavior. This is accomplished by a homosexual emotionally relocating themselves to the opposite end of the binary, a breach brought about by feminism’s dislocation of the gender anchor pins. Feminism loaded the gun, and homosexuality pulled the trigger.
Both movements regard the biblical family unit as an enemy that must be defeated. To quote Linda Gordon, a feminist writer: “The nuclear family must be destroyed.” To change society, they had to change the families. It was believed by these revolutionaries that the nuclear family was the cause of oppression and they began to scratch away at the emotional surface of family life. Families were depicted as a war zone where men were the enemy. Thus feminism became an ideological resting place for lesbianism. I am convinced that feminism's assault on the family is either directly responsible for, or an aggravating factor, in every single social problem of the modern Western world.
Feminism positions itself as the ideology that cares about the rights of GLBT people. If you take a class on women’s studies or gender studies, you will learn about the concept of intersectionality, which claims that all kinds of oppression – whether based on gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. interact.
Though feminism occasionally claims that they do not press a radical homosexual agenda, they do. They often foster ridiculous fears of men in the minds of vulnerable women, they present divorce as the first (and best) solution to a woman's problems, and they foster an entire industry (the Domestic Violence Industry) devoted to severing women from men and making those same women dependent upon radical feminism, psychiatrists, and the state. And of course, it is a common feminist project of the day to "reclaim" such words as "queer" and to agitate in favor of gay marriage and gay rights generally.
You get the idea. Add to the above that feminism's assertions of men and women's sameness are called "mindless" by scholars and that even feminist "scholars" themselves admit that the Domestic Violence Hysteria is junk science, and you have a pretty thick soup of mental retardation. It is starting to make sense why feminists, homosexuals, and other liberals, do not want their beliefs scrutinized and challenged. Notice these prophetic words:
One of the great upheavals of the age is the changed and still changing status of women in society. It’s inconceivable that the institution of marriage will not be drastically transformed by this process. British parliament report – 1970
Through its two core beliefs, sexual liberation, and functional gender egalitarianism, feminism passes the revolutionary baton to the homosexual agenda where it races off towards Sodom.
“The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society – the family," says the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto. It is fascinating to me to see the lessening of femininity within the aggressive women’s movement, the lessening of masculinity within the gay movement, and the bold and brazen flaunting of homosexuality throughout our nation and around the world through “Gay Pride.” Narrow Way Ministries Director Ron Woolsey said:
The gay agenda in my lifetime has gone through quite a metamorphosis, (paralleling and “skirt tailing” the Women’s Liberation movement to a large extent, both within society and within the church). First, wanting to just be left alone and tolerated, now acceptance and equal rights are demanded.
Today, there is a never-ending push for legislation to entrench homosexuality within all levels of society, to give themselves every freedom, advantage, and privilege available, while silencing any expression of opposing opinion, biblical or otherwise. This is affirmative action on steroids.
The ultimate goal of the archenemy, though not understood by many activists themselves, is the destruction of the institution of marriage and the family unit as God established it to be in the beginning, with its patriarchy and heterosexuality.
A 2013 speech by Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community, includes a theory that many supporters of traditional marriage have speculated about for years: “The push for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry – it is about diminishing and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the 'traditional family.'”
Not only is there an ontological link between feminism and homosexuality, there is a connection to evolution in both of them. The most basic question in this controversy comes down to this: Has God created human beings as male and female with a revealed intention for how we are to relate to each other? The secular world is now deeply committed to confusion on these matters. Denying the Creator, the secular worldview understands gender to be nothing more than the accidental byproduct of blind evolutionary process. Therefore, gender is reducible to nothing more than biology and, as the feminists famously argued, biology is not destiny (Simone de Beauvoir).
This radical rebellion against a divinely-designed pattern of gender has now reached the outer limits of imagination. If gender is nothing more than a biological accident, and if human beings are therefore not morally bound to take their gender as meaningful, then the radical gender theorists and homosexual rights advocates are correct after all. For, if gender is merely incidental to our basic humanity, then we must be free to make whatever adjustments, alterations, or transformations in gender relationships that we desire. This thinking runs deep in both feminism and homosexuality.
Another aspect of modern thinking is postmodernism. That is, postmodernists argue that our notions of what it means to be male and female are entirely due to what society has constructed as its theories of masculinity and femininity. The feminist argument is reducible to the claim that patriarchal forces in society have defined men and women so that all the differences ascribed to women represent efforts by men to protect their position of privilege. The homosexual argument is that gender is fluid, so each person must be free to construct their own “reality” as an internal construct. Under this kind of thinking, the idea of a Creator who defines right and wrong becomes untenable. Man becomes his own “creator.”
Of course, the pervasiveness of this theory explains why radical feminism must necessarily be joined to the homosexual agenda. For, if gender is socially constructed, and therefore differences between men and women are mere social convention, then heterosexuality becomes nothing more than a culturally-privileged form of sexuality.
The utopia envisioned by ideological feminists would be a world free from any concern for gender—a world where masculinity and femininity are erased as antiquated notions, and an age in which the categories of male and female are malleable and negotiable. In the postmodern view, all structures are plastic and all principles are liquid. The influence of previous ages has molded us to believe that men and women are distinct in significant ways, but our newly liberated age promises to free us from such misconceptions and fabricate a new world of transformed gender consciousness.
It is an undeniable sacrament of the left, and of feminism particularly, that women and men are equal. This is such a common assertion that it has become like your living room furniture – you no longer question it, nay, you barely even notice it any more.
However, this is something that is staunchly denied by 6,000 years of human history. Nobody ever believed such nonsense until the 1960s (when, I remind you, people's minds were being addled by drugs) when it became a part of a gospel-like social dogma pushed by people whose ideas have fashioned the world we live in. A world that is undeniably worse by every meaningful measure of social deviance and moral chaos.
An example: A few years ago the pastor of Eden Baptist Church in Cambridge (Roy Clements), left his wife for a homosexual relationship with another man. He now has a website in which he defends his actions using arguments from the Bible. He says that the very same arguments that are used to support evangelical feminism work just as well to support his view that homosexual relationships are acceptable for Christians. This is not a danger which “might” happen sometime in the future. It is something that is happening right now, before our very eyes.
- Feminism led to a denial of Scripture’s authority.
- By claiming that the polar opposites of male and female were discriminatory, feminism ripped up the stakes that held the gender binary in place. This paved the way for sexual redefinition—homosexuality. Gender identity became fluid; sexual identity became exchangeable (Romans1:25-27).
- Both demonstrate rebellion towards God’s created order - Genesis 1: 27
- Both regard the biblical family unit as an enemy.
- Both homosexuality and feminism claim oppressed minority status.
Implications for the Church
- The denial of anything uniquely masculine.
- The acceptance of God as our Mother.
- To the degree that we adopt evangelical feminism, to that degree we become editors of the Bible, carving it up to conform to the carnal nature.
- The inevitable approval of homosexuality.