Feminism vs. Adventism: Why the Conflict?

Why did Mrs. White say that feminism "cannot be in harmony" with Adventism?

Feminism, the current movement that seeks to uproot sexism and discrimination from every facet of life, is almost assumed in today's society, especially among career and educated classes. Feminism seems to make sense. It presents a gospel of equality that holds out the possibility of fulfillment to those otherwise unable to come to full "human" stature. But feminism has some worrisome facets that are rarely noted.

Long ago Ellen White warned that "those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 421). In this warning, women's rights (the feminist movement of the 19th century) and the third angel's message are described as incompatible, with one key reason being differences on the role relationship of men and women. Mrs. White appealed to Scripture to properly define that relationship. Further, in the context of a discussion on feminist dress reform,1 she warned that feminism had certain links with spiritualism,15 and that Seventh-day Adventists must not be branded as spiritualists by their use of the reform costumes.

Just how could spiritualism and women's rights possibly be related? And what does such a relationship have to do with the role relationships of men and women? An examination of feminism's historical background reveals some surprising answers, and can alert us to some frightening aspects of feminism today.1213

Women's Rights Issues

It is naive to think that universal suffrage was the main issue of nineteenth-century feminism. Perhaps obtaining the vote was the main external focus of activity, but even then women realized that the vote would not satisfy all their aspirations. More basic was the issue of the role of women. Activists felt that as long as women were seen in a proscriptive role, they would not be able to realize their full "human potential". Thus, front-line feminists have inherently been at war 1) with marriage and child-rearing, which dictate confining roles, and 2) with organized religion, which has traditionally defined the monogamous, nurturing, differentiating role that feminists say has blocked their "full realization of human potential" and made woman a slave to man through submission and obedience.

On Marriage

Nineteenth-century feminists, like feminists today, did not always speak exactly alike. On the question of marriage, feminists held three different basic stances:

Silence

Because the role of women in marriage was a highly volatile topic among a Christian people, some feminists who might otherwise have taken a public position on the matter chose not to become involved.

Reform

Some feminists felt that the concept of marriage was acceptable, but that roles within marriage were problematic. Why should the woman be subordinate to the man? they asked. Shouldn't wives be equal to their husbands?

Free Love

Some feminists despised marriage, advocating free love instead. They questioned, Why should a woman be chained for the rest of her years to one man?

To nudge a Christian society into a discussion of feminism's radical ideas took years. Lucy Stone represents the "silent" group. She saw the problems a woman faced under the "slavery of matrimony," with no recourse, inasmuch as divorce was totally at the option of men. But reaction to early discussion of the issue was so heated that, rather than risk public alienation toward other reforms she was more interested in, Lucy Stone backed down on this one. Her stance fit our Category One—silence, non-involvement.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the first president of the National Women's Suffrage Association, illustrates Category Two—the reform position, wanting to do away with the "inequalities" in marriage. In 1853 she wrote to her long-time colleague and co-reformer, Susan B. Anthony: "I do not know whether the world is quite willing or ready to discuss the question of marriage. I feel, as never before, that this whole question of women's rights turns on the pivot of the marriage relation, and, mark my word, sooner or later it will be the topic for discussion."2 It was not that Mrs. Stanton wanted to do away with marriage altogether; rather, she called for full equality within marriage, insisting that she was "only against the present form that makes man master, woman slave."3

Of course, basic to the distinctive "role" models in marriage—the husband as the head, the wife as submissive counterpart—were the Biblical injunctions that Christendom upheld. "Women were quick to see that theology, reinforced throughout centuries of church history, had provided the main argument for woman's subjection by insisting that woman was man's divinely-ordered subordinate and convicted introducer of sin into God's perfect world."4 Stanton learned to attack "ecclesiastical barriers with a vengeance, sparing few words of consolation or sympathy and never hesitating in disregard for the traditionally sacred. Like the proverbial bull in the china shop, Stanton shattered devoutly held beliefs, challenged the sincerity of opponents' arguments and, at times, discredited the biblical record itself."5

Woodhull and Claflin

The third group, which we characterized as being against the institution of marriage, can be represented by Victoria C. Woodhull and her sister Tennie C. Claflin, Wall Street brokers for Cornelius Vanderbilt. It is a matter of great interest to us today that these two women were spiritualists. Victoria Woodhull even became President of the National Association of Spiritualists.10 Though not as prominent as some other feminists, during the 1860s and 1870s they were among the few women's rights activists mentioned in Adventist periodicals.11 Woodhull and Claflin propounded freedom from marriage altogether. People, they said, should be able to love whomever, whenever, and however they desired. These two women hoped for a new era of free love. They resented the custom that let men have as many lovers as they wished, while women were confined at home, regarded as too pure for promiscuity. The sisters desired to tear away all reservations.

In a talk given at Vineland, New Jersey, entitled, "The Scarecrows of Sexual Freedom," Woodhull portrayed a "loveless and indissoluble marriage" as "legalized prostitution". She declared openly: "They say I have come to break up the family. I say amen to that with all my heart.... In a perfected sexuality shall continuous life be found. Such to me, my brothers and sisters, is the sublime mission of Spiritualism, to be outwrought through the sexual emancipation of woman, and her return to self ownership, and to individualized existence."6 Shocking to the Victorian mentality of the last century were Woodhull's additional remarks: "If I want sexual intercourse with one hundred men I shall have it...and this sexual intercourse business may as well be discussed now, and discussed until you are so familiar with your sexual organs that a reference to them will no longer make the blush mount to your face any more than a reference to any other part of your body."7

But in the 1860s, Adventist periodicals did not stand idly by. They said little about the suffrage issue, yet they said much about the roles of men and women, fathers and mothers. They made extensive use of Scripture, and often gave examples of family situations violating or upholding Biblical roles.8 But interestingly, it was not in discussions of marriage roles that Adventist periodicals mentioned the Woodhull-Claflin sisters; it was in discussions of spiritualism.9

True Equality

Aren't we all equal anyway? Before God we are all exceedingly precious, and indeed, God is "no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34) because we are all "one in Christ Jesus;" therefore "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female" (Gal 3:28). But because the worth of male and female is the same does not mean that male and female are the same. There are still differences between the sexes, and differences always dictate difference in function and role. People are of equal worth (ontological equality), but varying functions dictate the roles they fill. And herein is the basis for the Scriptural view of the headship of the male. Yet in Scripture not only women are enjoined to be submissive, but men are too. Indeed as Christians we are to submit ourselves to one another, not to think ourselves better than we are. The whole gospel is centralized in the trip down, not the climb up.

Core of the Gospel

Humility is at the core of the gospel, and Jesus' lessons on humility were myriad. He portrayed service as a key to the life of faith (Luke 17). The servant who works all day only to return home dead tired is expected to serve his master's needs before returning to his own home, with no special thanks. He is expected to serve, because this is his job description as a servant.16 Today's psychology resents such servant behavior in the name of "self-worth". Hardly a Christian now believes in allowing others to trample on his rights, just to say "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". The independent, assertive person is "out for Number One." We strive for leadership and vie for position.

Submission

No one wants to be labeled inferior. But there is a difference between inferiority and Biblical submission, which is voluntary, a giving of oneself; submission is the basis of the gospel. It is love. The converted Christian's response to God is a constant "Yes," an "anything you say, God, is all right with me". There is an inward struggle, of course, to put oneself aside, to elevate Jesus as Lord of one's life and not be content with mental acknowledgment that He died. "Must Jesus bear the cross alone, and all the world go free? No, there's a cross for everyone, and there's a cross for me." Crosses are for dying on, for the end of me, the end of "Number One".

This kind of submission unifies, because it yields. Insistence on equality, on the other hand, is the root of anarchy, of divisiveness. Feminism has exposed our distaste for subordination and our lust for equality. At worst, feminism leads to no authority, no submission, no harmony, and to domestic anarchy and divorce, as well as to ecclesiastical schism and disunity. And no wonder that it does! Some of its roots, as Ellen White perceptively warned, lie deep in the self-seeking wickedness of spiritualism.14