Brian Baxter *
April 2004
Not content with pointing out alleged flaws in evolutionary theory, creationists often apply their pseudo-scientific approach to many other fields of human knowledge and endeavour. Some of these, like archaeology and astronomy, are outside my competence, but I would like to argue here that creationists offer a quite distinctive theory of male-female relationships. This theory is based on the Christian fundamentalist stipulation that women are to be ’submissive’ to male authority figures such as fathers and husbands, but goes considerably further.

Creationist organisations such as Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Creation Research publish and promote material on a wide range of topics other than creationism itself. The fundamentalist world-view which underpins their pseudo-scientific ideas is just that: a particular way of looking at the whole world - indeed, the entire cosmos - in all its aspects. There is thus a creationist view (or, sometimes, views) on just about anything you can imagine.

Needless to say, bodies like AiG are extremely hostile to all manifestations of the feminist movement - and I mean every single one! AiG emphasises male ‘headship’ over women and mutters darkly about opposition to its cause by ‘known feminist agitators’. (Prayer News, Oct. 1986, 2)

However, John Mackay, Director of the rival Creation Research group, is in another class altogether. Writing about ‘the declared feminist desire to be able to clone humans, so [women] could dispense with men’, Mackay offers us this insight into the science of cloning:

Can you imagine the results of feminist-controlled cloning? A planet full of cloned female offspring whose similar physical characteristics would react identically to the same conditions, i.e. get sick at the same time, have the same monthly syndrome, wear the same face, like the same colours and fashions. Such feminist clones would bore themselves to death at the same predictable age. (Creation News, August 1997, 5)

I note in passing that Mackay is a former secondary school science teacher.

Pastor Vernon S. Grieger

If you’re interested in learning more about the proper place of women in the world, Mackay will sell you a little book by Lutheran Pastor Vernon S. Grieger of Queensland. The book is called Earthly Images of the Heavenly Bride: Women and the Church, and I assume it sold reasonably well as I am quoting here from the revised edition. Grieger establishes both his general position and his scientific credentials at the outset:

All modern scientific research into the sexual differences between men and women lead[s] to one conclusion: the overwhelming majority of [these differences] have their origin in biology and are determined before birth. So conclusive and so unanimous is the scientific evidence for this truth that feminist philosophy has now been relegated to ‘flat earth’ status. It can appeal only to those totally ignorant of the facts, trendy politicians, image-conscious popular church leaders, or hidebound ideologists. (4-5)

Grieger goes on to explain that his entire book will be based upon Scripture:

…[I]t will be taken for granted that the Creation account of Genesis is the factual and historical truth of God … Those who accept the evolutionary origin of man from animals or who treat the account of the creation of man and woman as myth will no doubt regard what follows as nonsense. (7)

Male dominion over women

Pastor Grieger regards male dominion over females as the basis of his argument about ‘women’s nature’:

It seems to be most vital … for women to see themselves as being created from man, as the Scriptures assert, for it is in her dependence upon man and not her independence from him that the true glory and dignity of woman lies. Only in this dependent relationship does she attain her true personhood, contrary to the assertions of humanist philosophy. (10-11)

Having spent some time asserting that ‘women are different in almost every way from men’ (16) and that the ‘natures’ of the sexes are ‘opposite’ (17), Grieger then embarks on an excursus based on the work of the late creationist Dr A.E. Wilder-Smith, a mainstay of AiG’s earlier incarnation, the Creation Science Foundation:

…[T]he problem is: how could a female (XX) being - Eve - be produced from Adam’s male (XY) rib cells by means of vegetative reproduction (i.e. by cloning) without requiring a new creation? Here is a possible solution to the problem. As Adam did, every human male possesses in his somatic cells the chromosomes XY; hence if the Y chromosome were destroyed in an original rib cell … the X chromosome would double itself … This new XX cell would develop into a woman (not a man), who would in all other aspects be just as perfect (or imperfect) as Adam himself … We are no longer entitled to smile at the story of Adam’s rib … (Wilder-Smith Basis for a New Biology, as quoted in Grieger, 22)

Having thus enlightened us on technical matters, Grieger begins to develop his rationale for the eternal subjection of women to men. This is as it should be, as: ‘Woman did lead in the Fall and this resulted in a special curse from God’. (29) Apparently, in the pre-Fall state of innocence, ‘women would have been able to bear children with less pain or with a pleasurable pain. The Fall spoiled this so that now she can bear children only with pain and suffering.’ (33)

Moving right along to the New Testament, Grieger introduces the key term which fundamentalists regard as governing female attitudes towards the male, namely, ’submission’. Women are ‘to have an obvious feminine reserve and submissive spirit which, according to Paul, shrinks even from asking questions publicly.’ (49) Men, on the other hand, should never appear passive, as a wife ‘is enhanced, honoured and glorified by [her husband's] caring strength and responsible leadership. It is only in such a relationship that she can be truly feminine with all her charms as she was designed, and find proper fulfilment as a woman.’ (52) If her husband is a real man, he will respond by ‘dressing her in neat, attractive clothes … Unfortunately many husbands, lacking this virile, masculine love of Christ, think that this is none of their business and leave it entirely to their wife …’ (53)

Feminism

The modern fly-in-the-ointment is, of course, the Women’s Liberation Movement - ‘a complete tragedy, a total fraudulent deception. It tries to liberate from the enlightened spirit of the Christian faith into the darkness and slavery of the fallen ways of the sinful flesh.’ (Pastor Melvin J. Grieger The Paradoxical Nature of Woman, as quoted in V.S. Grieger, 60) And how may we recognise these fallen ones?

It is no mere coincidence that such battling and restless females are usually ugly and bitter looking individuals, at least in the experience of the present writer. Neither jewellery nor expensive clothes, nor the other extreme of studied dowdiness can cover up the turbulent, disgruntled nature of their frustrated and sick souls. (61)

Grieger continues to develop these themes throughout the remainder of his book, regularly harking back to his point of departure, God’s will for the sexes at the Creation. Some of his views are peculiarly repugnant e.g.:

There also seems to be evidence for the belief that rapists and incestuous fathers are to some extent a reaction against domineering women and overbearing mothers in early youth. If this is so then there could well be a vicious circle of degrading reaction: effeminate and incestuous fathers producing feminist and lesbian daughters, who in turn produce sexually irresponsible and incestuous sons. (99)

He also propounds the bizarre view that all humans are female in relation to Christ - ‘What a sublime privilege to be chosen by the heavenly Bridegroom … to be His own Bride, adorned in the glorious bridal dress and jewels of His perfect righteousness …’ (102) - and that in some mysterious fashion this renders women pastors guilty of ’spiritual lesbianism’ - ’something utterly abhorrent to the Lord’! (98) He concludes the book with this exhortation:

We must learn to sing again the praises of that most glorious womanly virtue of contentment in and dedication to her task of making her home a haven of peace and joy for her husband and family … (103)

Above Rubies

While it is tempting to dismiss Grieger’s work as that of an uninfluential religious crank, it has been enthusiastically promoted by other Religious Right organisations, including the anti-feminist Above Rubies magazine. (March 1991, 16) While this publication is not outspokenly creationist, it has cooperated with groups like the Creation Science Foundation in the past (CSF Prayer News, Aug. 1990, 2) and the very fact that it is happy to recommend Grieger’s book, plus its pervasive biblical literalism, indicate a strong identification with the creationist cause.

Above Rubies (AR) was founded in New Zealand in 1977 by Nancy Campbell, a pastor’s wife. She moved base to Australia in 1982 and then to the US in 1991. The magazine now has a print run of about 130,000 and boasts readers in over 90 countries. (AR, Sept. 2002, 2)

Perhaps it is worth expanding a little on the nature of Campbell’s generally implicit commitment to a creationist world-view. Like other ultra-conservative, literalist Christians, she cannot escape entanglement with the creationist outlook despite the fact that her main focus lies elsewhere. Here are a couple of snippets from a recent op-ed piece of hers:

God is the originator of life … Adam called his wife Eve which means ‘the life-giving one’. Eve was the prototype of all women to come. Our primary purpose and greatest privilege as married women is to give life. Oh I know there are many women who will resist this statement, but in doing so they deny whom God created them to be. (AR, Sept. 2002, 8)

References to the behaviour of a literal Adam and Eve festoon the pages of this magazine. Special creation is simply a ‘given’, for these people.

AR hammers the ’submission of women’ theme into the ground, constantly reiterating God’s displeasure with any other attitude. Nancy Campbell again:

Submission is a kingdom [of God] principle. The word ’submit’ does not belong in Satan’s kingdom … The key word in Satan’s kingdom is ‘independence’. It was the spirit of independence and ‘I’ll have it my way’ that caused Satan to be cast out of heaven, and he continues to corrupt the world with this same spirit today. It may feel good at the time but independence always brings destruction. This is why we now have such an epidemic of divorce. (AR, Feb. 2000, 13)

So are women supposed to submit to abusive fathers and husbands? An anonymous article entitled ‘Don’t Give Up Hope!’ seems to answer this question in the affirmative:

[After some years of marriage] my husband became violent. He had always emotionally abused and threatened me, but only a couple of times had he physically hurt me. Until one night! I didn’t leave him but wanted to more than ever … As my pastor prayed for me, it suddenly dawned on me that I had to go through this suffering for my husband’s sake, for his salvation … Previously I had prayed about forgiveness, but I hadn’t really forgiven deep down, until this day. This same day my husband phoned my pastor and I realised that my unforgiveness [sic] had held him in bondage … (AR, Feb. 1998, 6)

Sometimes, the magazine’s articles on the topic of submission border on the absurd. Val Stares, the AR Director for Australia, describes her desperate efforts to offer her husband total submission, illustrating her story with drawings of a woman standing under a broom inscribed with the words ‘My husband’s authority’. First, she depicts herself bending to fit under the broom, and then kneeling, but apparently the Creator God isn’t satisfied. Only when Val is lying flat on the floor beneath the broom has she fulfilled the requirement of true submission:

Yes, I had to lay down my life! To get my marriage back into its rightful order, I took this position. I placed myself there. No one made me. It took sacrifice and I had to lay down all my own rights. But I desired to be where God wanted me to be … One word of warning - submission is a daily practice, not a one-time act. I have to daily check my attitude and the humility of my heart. Is my life daily laid down for my best friend, my husband, Bill? (AR, Feb. 1997, 7)

For what it’s worth, Bill himself seems quite a reasonable sort of bloke. All of Val’s angst stemmed from his casual reply to some request of hers: ‘Oh, please yourself. You usually do.’ What Dr Freud would make of all this, I shudder to think.

Conclusion

It comes as no surprise to learn that groups and individuals espousing creationism are also anti-feminist, but the depth of feeling apparent in the writings of Mackay, Grieger and Campbell is truly startling. There is something totalitarian about the incessant demands for female submission contained in the works of these authors, let alone some of their other prescriptions (and proscriptions):

Just because you are married does not give you licence to do kinky things … Don’t bring death to your bed. Most contraceptives either kill newly formed life, or kill the sperm that holds the potential of future life … Keep your bed holy. (Nancy Campbell, AR, Feb. 2000, 14)

Politicians keep asking what they’re teaching children in the public schools. I’d like to know what they’re teaching them in the fundamentalist schools.

References

Above Rubies, various issues
Above Rubies website - www.aboverubies.org
Creation News, Aug. 1997
Creation Science Foundation Prayer News, various issues
Grieger, Vernon S. (1992) Earthly Images of the Heavenly Bride: Women and the Church (rev. ed.) (Luther Rose Publications)

(This article was originally published in The Skeptic Autumn 2004 (Vol. 24, No. 1).
Republished with permission.)