The Feminist Gaze and the Wisdom of God
Why Using Jesus to Rob Paul to Rob Jesus Robs Us All
In order to gain the respect of respectable modern liberals, at some point “the done thing” is to disrespect the teachings of the Apostle Paul.
This really is a non-negotiable if you want to make any progress in the modern world. Not all of his teachings, mind you; just the “problematic” ones, especially those which substantively embarrass the modern liberal dogmas of feminism (may they be forever praised, amen!).
Whenever someone regrettably finds out about something Paul said which contributes to said embarrassment, or—heaven forbid!—they talk about it out-loud (or even—feminism have mercy!—they attempt to apply such teachings in real life!) the standard procedure is twofold:
Pivot seamlessly to “the way of Jesus”. This must be done in a vague and abstract way. The aim is to imply that Jesus believes in love in a way that Paul does not (being sure to avoid all mention of that chapter that occurs somewhere in between those two very embarrassing chapters in 1Corinthians 11 and 14). If you present something Paul says as “unloving” according to canonical feminist dogmas (may they be forever praised, amen) the respecter of respectable liberalism will imply that you must choose between the authority of Jesus Christ the Incarnate Son of God, and a bolshy guy called Paul with clear misogynistic tendencies and a quick temper.
If the vague appeal to “the way of Jesus” does not seem to land, the next trick is to specify some particular event where Jesus said or did something kind or affirmative to a woman and to extrapolate from said event the evidence of an “acorn” of what Jesus really wanted to communicate about the roles of women in the Church, irrespective of whatever was later said about it in the rest of the New Testament. The goal here is to suggest that, because Jesus did not say everything Paul said, and because Jesus was obviously not misogynistic, then he must be against whatever Paul said about women, thus rendering pointless anything “additional” that the fallible-and-probably-a-bit-misogynistic Paul said which Jesus was not recorded as having also said within the four gospel accounts.
It’s not easy to get away with either of these strategies consistently, of course, because many of the things we believe about who Jesus is, theologically speaking, were articulated by the Apostle Paul. Furthermore, we also know that the reason Paul ultimately went on to say the things He said in all those letters was because he had an encounter with Jesus, the very person who sent Paul on His mission to turn away from persecuting the Church but to edify it instead, which Paul did via the letters he wrote (including all the embarrassingly unfeminist things he said about women).
In light of these obvious dilemmas, the more subtle respecters of respectable liberalism (or, “conservatives” who do not yet realise they are actually more committed to defending feminism than defending the Bible) can try another tactic. They can say that Paul is not actually “out of sync” with Jesus at all, but rather, in spite of what he said in those letters, that both he and Jesus believe more or less whatever the people of our present liberal generation currently happen to believe about the inherent social and theological respectability of feminist dogma (may it be forever praised and never disrespected, amen).
With this more subtle approach to undermining Biblical authority, people are more likely to believe you to be consistent (despite the more technically “consistent” approach being to undermine Paul’s teachings in entirety). It will already cost them some of their social status to challenge your position, and they can be politely reminded that it might seem, to some, that they are trying to make the message of the Bible misogynistic, “the same way it has been used misogynistically for thousands of years, to oppress women,” etc., etc..
You could then ask them why they would want to side with historic woman-oppressing monsters who used the Bible to justify all sorts of horrors, rather than the more reasonable liberals of your own generation who simply want to follow the way of Jesus, the way of love, the way of inclusion, the ones who don’t want to oppress women. This perennial juxtaposition will keep most of the potential challengers at arm’s length for a good while.
However, if any pious types persist in using logic, or more innocently confess to still feeling confused and unpersuaded as to how it can be possible to conclude that both Jesus and Paul agree with 21st century feminism without undermining the authority of both Paul and Jesus simultaneously, there is a further trick you might try.
