Into the Mainstream¹

The women . . . had neither adopted nor rejected feminism. Rather, it had seeped into their minds like intravenous saline into the arm of an unconscious patient. They were feminists without knowing it.²

In 1989 a publisher approached twenty-seven-year-old writer Danielle Crittenden to write a book about why feminism had lost its appeal, particularly to women under thirty. These were the "daughters of the revolution," those on whose behalf liberation had been sought but who appeared to be "rather ungratefully bored by the whole thing."³

Crittenden, in order to understand the state of the feminist movement, drove around eastern Canada and the northeastern United States interviewing young female students—mostly at universities. She found that most young women ardently reacted to the label "feminist"—"as if it were an orange bell-bottomed pantsuit found at the back of their mother's [sic] closets."⁴ Few of these women had read Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique or any other feminist pop classic for that matter. Nor did they belong to any feminist organizations. But, according to Crittenden, they were feminists nonetheless:

The young people of their generation had been made the laboratory mice for the numerous social experiments of the past 20 years: infant day care and no-fault divorce; textbooks illustrated with little girls flying planes and little boys doing the vacuuming; coed shop classes instead of home economics; the frank discussions about condoms with high school gym teachers. Their brains, meanwhile, had been irradiated with a mishmash of feminist cultural messages, from the proudly menstruating teenage heroines of Judy Blume novels to the supportive articles about single mothers in the Sunday life-style section to the audience applause on Donahue for the woman who left her husband and three kids in Minnesota to realize herself as a potter in Santa Fe. 

The women I interviewed had neither adopted nor rejected feminism. Rather, it had seeped into their minds like intravenous saline into the arm of an unconscious patient. They were feminists without knowing it.⁵

Over the past few years, "The Decline of Feminism" has been the tedious subject of afternoon talk shows and long, emotive articles in women's magazines. But the apparent lull in activism should not be interpreted as a decrease in feminism's overall social power. As a popular movement, feminism seems in decline only because it has been so wildly effective. All the major institutions of society—businesses, government, universities—have absorbed feminism's tenets. There are women's studies departments at universities, women's directorates, status of women councils, sex-harassment boards, and board of education committees on "gender-free" curricula in the school system. Ideas that were once considered radical or bizarre are now conventional. Feminism as a movement appears to be in decline only because it has been so thoroughly integrated into our cultural mind-set. Recently officials at the National Action Committee on the Status of Women said the thirty-two-year-old Canadian feminist organization was broke. But prominent feminist Judy Rebick is not dismayed, for she recognizes that today's young women "are feminists whether they call themselves feminists or not."⁶ The philosophy of feminism hasn't declined. On the contrary, it is more "alive" than ever before. Feminism hasn't died—it's just gone mainstream.

Mainstreaming the Agenda

The social and political agenda of the feminist movement expanded as the philosophy of the movement evolved. Women initially wanted to overcome their biological differences in order to be equal with (i.e., the same as) men. They thus sought legal freedom for abortion, changes in marriage and divorce law, tax reform, universal daycare, pay equity, affirmative action in employment, and changes in language.

In the second phase of development, their agenda expanded. Women were becoming proud of their differences. They shifted attention from naming themselves to naming their world. They emphasized female strengths—women's capacity for love, acceptance, peace, and empathy—and added issues such as nuclear disarmament, militarism, homosexual rights, aboriginal rights, women's art, women-centered politics, and feminist interpretive law to the list.

Finally feminism moved into a third phase of spiritual awareness. Esoteric metaphysics, which asserts woman's divine connectedness with nature, motivated feminist women to direct their energy toward saving the earth. Ecological awareness, pollution, animal rights, and rain forest preservation were, therefore, added to the feminist agenda.

By the time feminism had reached its third phase of development, its earlier goals were well on their way to being realized. North American society had moved toward accepting and integrating the feminist view of abortion, daycare, divorce, sexual liberty, and affirmative action into common policy. The agenda of the second phase had also progressed toward mainstream integration. At that point the movement lost its distinction. Further distinction was lost as third phase feminists turned their attention to other problems that could not be categorized as "belonging to women."

Feminists are becoming difficult to identify, not because they do not exist, but because their philosophy has been integrated into mainstream society so thoroughly that it is virtually indistinguishable from mainstream. This is not to say that there has been a decline in feminism. Far from it! Organized secular feminist groups still exist. They are in large measure funded by government dollars and justify their existence (and their funding) by addressing the remaining legal and social barriers for the phase one and two feminist agendas.

Some of the key issues addressed by the National Organization for Women in 2004 were

• Abortion Rights/ Reproductive Rights (Opposing fetal rights legislation, protecting Roe vs. Wade, supporting RU-486 Mifepristone)
• Affirmative Action
• Constitutional Equality (Equal Rights Amendment)
• Economic Equity (Pay Equity)
• Fighting the Right
• Judicial Nominations
• Lesbian Rights
• Media Activism
• Protecting Title IX
• Violence Against Women
• Women in the Military
• Promoting Young Feminism

NOW's five official priorities for 2004 were the passing of an equal rights amendment to the U. S. Constitution, opposing racism, advocating for abortion and reproductive rights, supporting lesbian and gay rights, and ending violence against women.

In feminism, as in any major social/political/religious movement, the radical end of the philosophy provides the driving impetus. Furthermore, the thoughts that are radical at one point become the accepted, integrated norm for future generations. The feminist philosophy proposed by first phase feminism—radical as it was—has now become conventional wisdom. Phase two woman-centered analysis is also broadly accepted by society. Furthermore, the feminist spirituality—that seemed so brash when introduced in the late 1970s—has progressed from being viewed as radical and deviant to being included in the spectrum of normative belief.

Mainstreaming Feminist Spirituality

The mauve and gray seminar room is filled with women dressed in business coordinates. An oblong table, draped with lace cloth, is positioned on a slightly raised platform in the center of the room. Were it not for the tall candles, the heady aroma of incense, and the music emanating from sophisticated stereo speakers, this would appear to be nothing more than a respectable professional conference or executive business meeting. But the table looks suspiciously like an altar, and the lyrics sung by the flute-accompanied female chorus intimate the true purpose of this gathering:

Oh, great spirit, earth, sun,
sky and sea.
You are inside and all
around me.

The anthem softly echoes over and over again, until a woman—smartly dressed in a black skirt and coordinating pink and black jacket—takes her place in a director's chair in front of the altar.

"This is the third Women's Empowerment Night," she says. "We will start with the closed-eye process."

On cue, all the women in the room close their eyes while the music picks up again, and a new choir sings:

Goddess of grace, goddess of
strength,
keeper of the creative force. . . .
Goddess of Love, I long to be
one with you.
Teach me to be a goddess too.⁷

This snapshot is not of a leather-fringed, metal-studded, or nude countercultural group of social misfits partaking in some ritual in a hidden enclave. All these women, aged twenty-five to forty-five, are highly educated middle- and upper-class professionals. They have each paid admission to enter this respected center of education. The Omega Centre of Self-Discovery, with its bookstore and seminar rooms decked out with tweed and chrome armchairs, is on the edge of Toronto's high-rent Yorkville district, across the road from a Mercedes Benz service center and two minutes from the posh department store Holt Renfrew.

The Women's Empowerment Night is one of thousands of events that take place every day across the continent. The Big Sisters Association does exercises in "brain gym" at their annual conference. The Cancer Society runs "creative visualization" classes. The Y.W.C.A. sponsors women's empowerment retreat weekends. Law classes at universities educate prospective lawyers in women's concerns and help them contact their "deep selves." Feminist spirituality has gone mainstream.

In 2003 The Da Vinci Code, a book "re-imagining" Mary Magdalene and her role in Christianity, topped the New York Times best-seller list for thirty-six weeks, with 4.3 million copies in print. The Da Vinci Code is revisionist fiction that challenges the traditional "male misreading" of biblical texts. The book is essentially a feminist attempt to extract a useable "her-story" from the Bible and other existing historic documents. Relying on the Gnostic Gospels, which the compilers of the New Testament denounced as heretical, the book claims that Mary Magdalene was actually Jesus' intimate female partner. After the Resurrection, she became a leader within the church and a rival of the apostle Peter. According to this revisionist history, Mary Magdalene had a greater understanding of the teachings of Jesus than his male apostles did. Her importance was suppressed by the patriarchal authorities who favored a males-only clergy.

The implication of The Da Vinci Code is that gender warfare lies at the heart of Christianity and that if Mary's faction had triumphed, the history and structure of the church would have been radically inclusive of women. It is significant that this book, which so clearly promotes feminist theology, has been so embraced by mainstream culture. Most men and women reading the book wouldn't dream of calling themselves "feminists." But the philosophy the book espouses is feminist through and through.

An article in Newsweek, reflecting on The Da Vinci Code phenomenon, announced that God was having "woman trouble."⁸ Across the continent, women of all faiths are exploring "fresh research" and "new insights" about women's historical role and importance in the Christian faith. They are demanding their right to be part of formulating church doctrine and theology. A slew of literary interpretations of women's Bible stories, such as Anita Biamant's 1997 bestseller, The Red Tent, are hitting the popular market. These events are having a marked effect on religion. Worshipers in every denomination are beginning to accept the feminist precept that patriarchy has shaped doctrine and that Christian doctrine—even the very canon of Scripture—needs to be revised to include the long-suppressed female point-of-view. Newsweek cites the example of a twenty-six-year-old female college student, attending a Baptist church, who reported that The Da Vinci Code raised troubling questions for her about how women's contributions to early Christianity were suppressed by church leaders. "My faith was really shaken." She told Newsweek, "I started doing a lot of research on my own." Learning more about the neglected female perspective of Christianity made her feel "closer to God."⁹

Even the music industry has been affected by feminist spirituality. In 2002 Columbia Records released an album by country music icon Travis Tritt that croons, "God must be a woman."¹⁰ Though it may not be identified as such, feminism is a new mainstream religion in our culture.

Mainstreaming the Image

Girl power. Powerpuff Girls. Gun-toting, butt-kicking tomb raider. Terminatrix. Sex and the City. Hollywood has totally inundated us with feminist images of what it means to be a woman. The Hollywood/feminist paradigm portrays girls as the aggressors. Women are beautiful, sexual, uninhibited, independent, powerful, and above all—in control. According to the image, today's woman pursues, seduces, uses, and discards men according to her own personal whims. As country/pop icon Shania Twain confidently vows, "I'm gonna getcha, baby—I'm gonna getcha good!"

Today's woman is entitled to have it all: what she wants, when she wants, and how she wants it. She has absolutely no need of men, though if she so desires, she may use them to cater to her own sexual desires. Today's woman knows and exercises her rights. No one tells her how to act or what to do! She is a woman—a goddess—and that gives her the right to decide for herself what is right.

Millions of viewers watching MTV's 2003 Twentieth Annual Video Music Awards witnessed firsthand the implications of this paradigm. Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera opened the show dressed in skimpy white bridal corsets, singing Madonna's classic hit "Like a Virgin." Madonna, wearing a black tuxedo, then stepped out of an oversized wedding cake. During the performance, Madonna suggestively caressed the other two female singers. The performance culminated with Madonna giving Spears and Aguilera an extended, open-mouthed, erotic kiss. The underlying pulse of lesbian sexuality was unmistakable. Though undoubtedly a publicity stunt, the act epitomized the feminist concept of what it means to be a fully liberated woman.

Just a few months later, during the Superbowl XXVIII half-time show, the general viewing public was subjected to another sexually charged image of the liberated woman. Janet Jackson, dressed in a tight, black leather gladiator outfit, stood center stage in a spread-leg dominant stance, suggestively inviting Justin Timberlake, the servile-yet-sexual male, to cater to her. On cue Timberlake tore the cut-out of her gladiator outfit, revealing Jackson's bare breast, adorned with a shiny silver sun goddess nipple ornament. The imagery is not insignificant.

The mantra of Helen Reddy's 1970 smash-hit song—"I am strong, I am invincible, I AM WOMAN! (Hear me ROAR!)"—has now been integrated into popular culture and into the collective female psyche. Women definitely have, in the words of the popular Marlboro ad, "come a long way, baby!" Today's young women are domineering and demanding. They use their "girl power" to dominate, lure, control, use, and punish men. The "National College Health Risk Behavior Survey," undertaken by the federal Centers for Disease Control just prior to the new millennium, indicated that sixty-seven percent of female and fifty-six percent of male college students were sexually active in the three-month period leading up to the survey, with five percent of women and ten percent of men reporting they had engaged in sex with three or more partners in that period of time.¹¹ What is astonishing about this study is that the sexually active women outnumbered the sexually active men by more than ten percent.

Woman's liberation has empowered women to be brash and bold and sexual without inhibition. The girls have gone wild—much to the delight of Joe Francis, owner of Mantra Films, who in 2002 sold $90 million worth of Girls Gone Wild videos. A camera crew patrols an area in search of women who agree to expose their bodies and even perform sexual acts in exchange for a T-shirt. There is no shortage of female volunteers. Exposing the body is a mark of female pride and power. Today's young women cater to a pornographic culture. They wear less and take it off more often. And it is their personal decision to do so. Ultimately, therefore, the trend is merely an example and outworking of feminist thinking.

"A new generation of feminists has stepped up to the plate," proclaims a full-cover feature in my morning paper.¹² The new feminist is sexual as well as independent—epitomized by Sarah Jessica Parker in the TV series Sex in the City and Uma Thurman in the movie Kill Bill. Today's feminists can wear navel-baring T-shirts and proclaim themselves as "Hotties" or "Porn Stars." Young girls are taught that the ultimate expression of "girl power" is exhibited in a girl's sexual prowess and unabashed pride in her body.

The feminist ideal espouses a woman's need for a career. In the past, homemaking was regarded as a noble and viable occupation, but now women who do not pursue higher education are deemed to have wasted their potential. Paid employment is regarded as the only type of work with significant social worth. Work in the home and caring for children has been devalued—relegated to the domain of the menial. Pushing women out of the home into the workforce was feminism's way of giving women more choice. But it has, in essence, given them less. It has created an economic culture in which few women are able to choose to stay home to nurture their families. For some, the economic reality makes this choice virtually impossible. But according to the feminist ideal, a woman can have it all—a high-powered career, happy, well-adjusted children, and a healthy marriage (having a husband is, of course, optional). She can climb the corporate ladder, help her children with homework, drive them to extra-curricular events, pursue personal hobbies, develop professionally, volunteer in the community, connect with friends and family, and have the time and energy left over to stay fit, sexually attractive, and sexually active. After all, she is strong and invincible. She is woman.

A Change in Default

Nowadays, proposing that men are more suited to provide for their families or to be in such occupations as the military, law enforcement, fire fighting, or chief executive officers of corporations—or that mothers are more suited to nurture young children—would be tantamount to cultural heresy. Suggesting to young women in grade school that they dress modestly and refrain from being the initiator in girl-guy relationships would be met with wide-eyed disbelief. Intimating that affirmative action and gender quotas are harmful to the workplace or that textbooks should be filled with images of fathers as providers and mothers as caregivers would be met with incredulity.

Even within the church, those who believe that God has given men and women unique roles are regarded as outdated, anachronistic throwbacks to a less-enlightened era. And not only has the church been feminized with regard to gender roles, but it is also beginning to promote the feminist perspective with regard to the nature and character of God. "Inclusive" images of God are becoming more and more commonplace. At Cornerstone, an annual festival of the Christian arts, attended by 27,000 evangelical youth, Mimi Haddad, president of the evangelical organization Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), proposed that God could be called "Mother" as well as "Father."¹³ Her radical, unorthodox suggestion was met with scarcely a blink. The "default setting" of cultural belief has changed. We all—to one extent or another—are "feminists without knowing it."

The mainstreaming of feminist thought has profound implications for the church. Over the past ten years, the ordination of women (and homosexuals) to the office of elder/bishop/pastor, inclusive language, womanist liturgy, feminist theology, and feminist hermeneutics have become commonplace. Even the evangelical church has witnessed popularization of the ordination of women, inclusive language, and most recently challenges and changes to historic Trinitarian doctrine. But by far, the most noticeable shift in the church in the past ten years is in the "default" understanding of male and female roles. In generations past, individuals generally understood and accepted that God assigned the male a unique spiritual role in the governance and guidance of the home and church. Distinctive, complementary roles for male and female were supported in both thought and practice. By default, complementarity was regarded as the right, good, and natural order of creation.

The feminist tsunami changed all that. Feminism maintains that equality necessitates role interchangeability—a woman cannot be a man's equal unless she can assume the same role as he. This philosophy of egalitarianism is well on its way to thorough acceptance in the evangelical church. Egalitarianism maintains that there is no unique position of spiritual authority reserved for men in the church or home. Women can and ought to assume all positions freely.

Egalitarianism is the "default setting" of the new millennium. In the past, people in the church were complementarian until they volitionally decided to be egalitarian. Now, for the most part, they are egalitarian until they volitionally decide to be complementarian. What this means for the evangelical church is that the biblical pattern of complementarity is no longer the standard. Whereas in the past, complementarity could generally be "caught," the new cultural milieu dictates that it must now be "taught." The default belief of the average churchgoer has changed.

The Ripple Effect

It is a quiet reform movement that is unstoppable. In two or three generations from now it won't even be an issue.
Gilbert Bilezikian
(Evangelical Egalitarian Theologian)

We are entering into an era in which feminist precepts are largely accepted by default. This has profound implications for the evangelical church. In the past, the feminist agenda was pursued by a small but radical group of theologians devoted to the cause. But now the agenda is being furthered by pastors and theologians who would not consider themselves feminists at all and who would, in fact, be quite aghast to be labeled as such. There is, for example, a well-meaning attempt to "update" the church's language: "Patriarchal" hymns and liturgies are being purged. Christian publishers enforce strict "gender-inclusive" language guidelines upon their authors. Some Bible publishers are even changing their translations to make them more gender-inclusive than the original text—for example, Today's New International Version of the Bible. These changes at first glance appear small and justified. However, I believe that those who adopt feminist philosophy—even unwittingly—are placing themselves on the side of a divide that will lead far away from the Christianity of the Bible. Feminism is a watershed issue. It is to the evangelical church of the new millennium what liberalism was to the church in decades past.

A Watershed Issue

The Continental Divide is an imaginary line running north to south along the uppermost ridge of the North American Rocky Mountains. When the snow falls on the ground, it lies on the ridge in a seemingly unbroken unity. However, the unity is an illusion, for upon melting, the snow will flow in opposite directions—west to the Pacific Ocean or east to the Atlantic. At first the snow lies side by side, but then, based on the slightest difference in position, it ends up in separate oceans—thousands of miles apart. A clear line can be drawn between what seems at first to be the same or at least very close but ultimately ends in a very different position.

I believe that this illustration is an accurate description of the situation in evangelicalism today. Feminism is, to the evangelical church, a watershed issue. In order to introduce feminist concepts into Christianity, basic beliefs regarding the inspiration and authority of Scripture need to be adjusted. Christians who accept feminist precepts may appear very close in doctrine and theology to those who do not, but if they follow the precepts consistently, the process of time will see them at a destination far from traditional evangelical belief. Just like the snow that lies side by side, the two current philosophies of evangelicalism—egalitarianism and complementarianism—will melt and flow into separate valleys, rivers, and finally into distant oceans thousands of miles apart.