Is Christianity or the Bible misogynistic?

This is a response to an article of the same name by Matt Slick at CARM.

https://carm.org/is-christianity-or-the-bible-misogynistic

Wiki describes misogyny as:

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It is a form of sexism that can keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the social roles of patriarchy. Misogyny has been widely practised for thousands of years. It is reflected in art, literature, human societal structure, historical events, mythology, philosophy, and religion worldwide.

But Slick has an agendas, so he uses his own definition.

Misogyny is a hatred of and distrust of women.

In Slick's world having contempt for all women is not misogymy. Being prejudiced against girls and women is not misogyny. Keeping women at a lower social status is not misogyny. Why is that?

Well, I would suggest that as a Christian he has been raised to believe that women really are less than men, and that it is therefore perfectly reasonable to treat them as inferior, as long as you do it in a patronising and condescending manner and not with hatred and mistrust.

In fairness, Slick does say:

Therefore, the validity of misogyny depends upon the subjective preferences and presuppositions of the person who approaches the Scriptures, not on any universal truth. But not only that, critics must be careful with their ethnocentricity and not judge another culture by their own subjective preferences.

So arguably he is admitting that people have different views, though I wonder if this is him trying to moderate the passages in the Bible, and not how own position.

Anyway, he addresses some Bible passages, and I will look at some of hs responses.

1 Corinthians 11:3, ” But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”

Headship is not misogyny. In biblical theology, the male represents the descendants (federal headship) and is the one who has the responsibility of leadership. This is not a hatred for women. If anything, it is a protection for them.

So the woman is to be inferior to the man, but in Slick's view that is not misogyny because it is not hatred of women. Indeed, he promotes this as a positive - it means the poor, feeble woman get protected by the strong man!

Far from showing the Bible is not misogynistic, what he is doing is proving that he is himself.

1 Corinthians 14:34, “Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says.”

The cultural context is important because it sheds light on the meaning of the text. In the culture of that day, men and women had certain social orders. Women were dependent upon their husbands for protection and provision, and their speaking in the context of the church, where males and females were separated, would be an act of public independence demonstrating a rebellion against the social norms. 

So males and females were separated in the church. Does he mean the women had their own services with no men present? And no woman was allowed to speak at it? Must have been a very short service!

Or does he mean woman all sat together in one area for a service, while he men sat in another? That seems to make more sense, but so what? How does that justify a command for them to stay silent, but not the men in their section?

He says "in the culture of that day", which is an admission that the laws of the Bible are specific to the culture that wrote them. So much for objective morality!

And that he is saying "in the culture of that day" also seems an admission that we would not consider it acceptable in our culture.

He also says that had to observe the social norms, but that is nonsense. Christians were martyred because the refused to observe the social norms (specifically refusing to worship the Emperor).

Finally, if the critic is not satisfied with this explanation, so be it. But what gives him the right to assert that another culture’s norms are not as good as his own? If he says it’s because we are more modern, then he would be saying because our culture is newer, it is better. This, of course, is not logically true.

Looks like Slick is waving the white flag. Now he is saying, sure it is misogynistic, but that is a good thing. It is our culture, which says women are equal, that has it wrong, in his view.

1 Timothy 2:12–13, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.”

Notice that Paul bases the issue of authority to the created order of God. This is not a cultural norm. Furthermore, the next chapter states in 1 Timothy 3:15 that Paul is giving instructions on how people are to behave in the church, not society. The critic has no right to judge what should and should not be done in the Christian church. He certainly has a right to disagree and voice his opinion, but such disagreement is nothing more than his opinion.

Slick is doubling down on his view that the misogynistic Christian culture is preferred, and it is our culture that is wrong.

Sure, it is my opinion that a culture where women are equal is superior, but that does not help his claim that the Bible is not misogynistic - what he says here is tacitly admitting that it is.

Revelation 14:4, “These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.”

The “defiling themselves with women” deals with illicit sexual activity, fornication. It is not talking about a husband having sexual relations with his wife as being defilement. The Scriptures never considered sexual union as being anything other than holy.

Slick is reading into the passage something that is not there - possibly because he is married and wants to think he will be included!

The salient bit here is "they have kept themselves chaste". Chaste does not mean no sex except with your spouse, it means no sex at all. If you have sex with your wife, you have not kept yourself chaste.

There is a second point here about Rev 14:4 - it is exclusively about men.

God will save 144,000 men who are untouched by women... and zero women. Because in the Bible, women are the lesser.

Look at the two genealogies of Jesus; a single unbroken chain of men from David to Jesus. Look at the various genealogies in the Old Testament. All men, zero women. Still unconvinced? Go read Number 26.