Women Could Never Have Colonized the World

Feminism010915Maybe the world should not have been colonized. But regardless of the morality of England, Portugal, France, and some others trying to spread their culture and govern lands outside their own, that could never have been done by women.

What would make me bring up a topic that to so many is offensive? Currently, I’m reading a great history of southern Africa at the same time that I am privately meditating on 1 Corinthians. The history of southern Africa has more unexpected plot twists and characters than most adventure movies. The men who dug for Diamonds at Kimberley, the Zulu warriors who stood with spears against men with guns, and the politicians (on all sides) who clamored for more land, authority, and money evidenced amazing levels of masculine tendencies.

Take just one example: Cecil Rhodes arriving in South Africa around the age of 17 with a few months’ living expenses in his pocket. From that beginning, in 20 years he becomes the richest man in Africa. Though he was often unscrupulous and certainly did not respect the Africans, his vision for the continent brought railways, telegraph lines, hospitals, and schools into the country now called Zimbabwe.

It has been repeatedly obvious as I move through these continent-changing events that God has not given that conquering drive to the fairer sex. Of course, not all men have Rhodes’ ambition either, but a good number do as the history attests. Colonization required a huge number of people who have a level of ambition that is dramatically higher than the average amount possessed by people who have or can give birth. If feminists read history, could they deny this?

The second literary influence on this inflammatory article (that should probably be expanded into a book) is the 11th chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians that we’re working through at our church right now. He says that men must be submissive. They obey Jesus Christ, and that is good, true, and beautiful. He says that wives must obey their husbands, and that too is good, true, and beautiful. But who gives much attention to his final sentence in 11:3, “And the head of Christ is God”? Everyone shows submission to the head placed over him because in so doing, he reflects the Captain of our Salvation, the Author and Finisher of our Faith, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who gladly submits to His Head.

Submission and headship are beautiful because through these means God has once more indelibly signed His name into the painting that is the world such that all men can view—nay, cannot escape except through extreme rebellion—the reminder that the Son willingly comes to do His Father’s will. He finishes that work even at the cost of His life. And feminine submission points that way.

Conversely, feminism points the other way. Anything that points away from the glory of Christ’s work for His people deserves to get a verbal beating every now and then. Feminism is not only unrealistic because it doesn’t fit real life as seen in history, but it is also non-Christian because it denies male headship through which God wants us to understand vital truth about the Trinity and salvation.

As I read about South Africa, both vices and virtues that are peculiar to men stand out on nearly every page. They plot, murder, and steal in ways that we never expect to read about in a woman’s life. We all know women are sinners, but not usually those kinds of sins. The Bible has one Jezebel, but many Ahabs. While a rare female may be full of aggression, initiative, and power, great historical epochs happened because many thousands of men had those traits.

Colonization showcased sickening sins as well as amazing feats of heroism, but women just aren’t that kind of bad or good.

 

This entry was posted in Hermeneutics, Inconsistency and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.