Interview with Mary Kassian Part 1

[This is Part One of my interview with Mary Kassian, author of The Feminist Mistake. The Introduction and first chapter can be read at Crossway's site. You can find out more information about Mrs. Kassian's ministry at http://www.marykassian.com/. Read my review here. Part Two will be posted tomorrow.]

In your book you start off with what you see as the first step for Feminism: "Naming Self." Our culture thrives on the idea that we ought to be free to do whatever we please. In seeking this freedom to name ourselves how are we stepping outside the bounds of Scripture?

In the very first chapter of the Bible we are told, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen. 1:27 ESV). Being created in the image of God indicates that we are not free to define ourselves as we choose. Our responsibility, rather, is to reflect the glory of God - to honor his image in the manner in which he specifies it ought to be honored. Many people believe that that are free to do whatever they please. But God disagrees. He confronts those with this attitude with the accusation: "You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me" or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?" (Isa. 29:16 ESV) The clear message here is that claiming the right to name oneself is an affront to God. He is the Creator. He is the One with understanding. He is the Potter - the one who dictates what "shape" our lives ought to take.

What's the difference between what you describe as "Naming" and what Adam did with the authority God granted him in Genesis 2:19-20?

God granted Adam authority to name. In other words, Adam did not claim the right to name for himself. His "naming" simply fulfilled the directive of his Creator. It is also important to note that responsibility was part and parcel of the delegated authority. "The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it." (Gen. 2:15 ESV). Thus, even though man had the right to name creation, he did not have the right to do whatever he pleased. Adam was responsible to his Creator to "work" and "keep" creation. He was God's delegate, and thus accountable to God for his actions. Adam's "right" to name was only within the parameters that God established. This is very different than the "naming" feminism advocates. Feminism claims that women can claim the right to name themselves, their world, and God - free of any external parameters. According to feminism, a woman has the right to make the rules.The next phase of Feminism you describe is "Naming the World."

During my undergraduate studies I noticed that a number of "Women's Studies" classes were listed as G.E. options. In a nutshell, what is it that students are learning in these classes and why is it harmful?

Women's Studies classes are a very effective tool for brainwashing students in feminist philosophy. The reason these classes are harmful is that they go way beyond a mere dissemination of information. The goal, rather, is to convince the students that women's experience (as viewed through a feminist lens) is the only legitimate source of truth and value. The classes are structured to encourage students to challenge, deconstruct and reject any semblance of a Judeo-Christian world-view. In other words, the goal is not education, but rather a systematic process of "conversion" to a feminist worldview. To this end, the classes employ a number of unconventional teaching devices and techniques, including "consciousness raising" (CR). As the National Women's Studies Association noted, women's studies is an "educational strategy: a breakthrough in consciousness and knowledge" whose purpose is to "transform individuals, institutions, relationships, and, ultimately, the whole of society."

In talking about the third phase, "Naming God," you describe a number of occult practices that have been embraced by Feminists. Are these practices normative for Feminists or does what you describe only apply to a few Feminists who are extreme?

This is a difficult question to answer, because I believe that feminism has been so thoroughly mainstreamed into our culture that we are all (to one extent or another) feminists. I believe that the occult has also been popularized and mainstreamed. Auras, karmas, horoscopes, meditation, yoga - many popular expressions of spirituality are laced with vestiges of the occult. Just think of the book, "The Da Vinci Code." New Age and occult spirituality are all around us. Certainly there are some hard-core feminists who are also hard-core occultists, involved in overt witchcraft practices. But there are also many women, (who may or may not call themselves feminists), who, in embracing a metaphysical pop spirituality, have also unwittingly embraced the occult.

One page 277 you claim that Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) "appears to be drifting away from orthodoxy." What, fundamentally, is the problem with CBE?

Members of Christians for Biblical Equality have, in the past several years, begun proposing ideas that are quite unorthodox, theologically. For example, Mimi Haddad, the president of CBE, maintains that it is entirely appropriate for us to call God: "Mother," "Mother/Father," or "Heavenly Parent." Gilbert Bileziekien, another CBE supporter, has argued against the orthodox belief that Jesus the Son of God is equal yet subordinate to the Father. He maintains that Jesus only submitted himself during the incarnation, and was not eternally submissive. CBE theologians argue against this foundational doctrine of the Trinity because it supports the possibility of a complimentarian framework. If equality and role difference are present in the Trinity, and male and female are created in God's image, then it follows that male and female can be equal and yet have different roles. Thus, some CBE theologians argue that the Father and Son only temporarily assumed roles for the sake of redemption (their roles are not eternal) the Son does not eternally submit to the Father. Other CBE theologians have argued that it was not necessary for Jesus to be incarnated as a male - were it not for culture, he could have just as easily been born a woman. Theologically, this does not mesh with the need for Christ to be the "last Adam," (a male) in order to secure salvation: "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. (1 Cor. 15:22,45). CBE is also heavily supportive of gender-neutral Bible translations, which blur important theological distinctions. For example, neutering the term "sons of God" to read, "children of God," obscures a believer's personal identification with Jesus Christ - THE Son of God.

A number of widely respected people are on the CBE Board of Reference - including Gordon Fee, Richard Foster, Craig Keener, and Ruth Tucker. Should we be more critical of their other work because of their relationship with CBE?

I believe we should be "critical" of everyone's work - mine included. No one is exempt from having "blind spots" when it comes to understanding and applying God's Word. Fee, Foster, Keener, and Tucker have made important contributions to theology. I believe these believers are not correct with regards to their stance on what the Bible teaches on male and female, but that does not automatically negate the value of the rest of their work. I encourage all believers to search the Scriptures in order to determine which parts of an author's work are in line with God's Word, and which aren't. God's Word is infallible - but contemporary authors and theologians are not.