Gender And Theology Flashcards
What is the unholy trinity?
Daly argued that female oppression is a product of the cultural and historical impact of Christianity’s unholy trinity of rape, genocide and war. One patriarchal divine person (God) combines sexism, racism and classism to create a three-headed monster that has to be fought. It brings up questions about how Christianity can be justified when it’s God reinforces beliefs and views that would be condemned in the modern day.
What is a benefit to Mary Daly’s approach to the unholy trinity?
The benefit of Mary Daly’s post-Christian approach to the unholy trinity of rape, genocide and war is that it, in the most blunt way, is the moving away of the sexist, racist and classist pillars that Christianity is built on. It wants to see women moving away from religion as it is, in her view, another tool to enforce the oppression of women. She wants the best for women and wants complete abolishment of Christianity and other religions that enforce the patriarchy because it is so prominent in today’s world. To change the culture means leaving Christianity.
What is ‘quintessence’?
Daly uses the word ‘quintessence’ to describe the being in which we live, love and create. Quintessence is the highest essence, the spirit that permeates all nature, giving life and vitality to the whole universe. Quintessence can be damaged or partly blocked by many things, including violence, pornography and poverty, but it can be rediscovered in nature. Daly argued that there should be a turning away from the maleness of God and the fixed nature of sacred places towards the spirit of quintessence, which is found in the whole universe in nature.
What are the problems with criticisms against Daly?
The challenges raised against Daly are fairly successful but they are very surface level and there are more examples in the Bible backing up what Daly is saying than those that refute it.
What did Simon Chan say about God being the ‘Father’?
Simon Chan argues that the Christian idea of fatherhood, as it is embodied in the Trinity, is unique. The Apostle’s Creed says: ‘I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker if heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord’. This relational concept of God (as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) is different from a simple ‘God is a male’ idea. It has a dynamic element of multiple persons in a relationship.
Chan also argues that using male language for God does not create masculine qualities for God. He notes that Isaiah 54:5 - 7 refers to God as the husband who acts with ‘deep compassion’, and deep compassion is not a stereotypical masculine characteristic.
“The term father, then, excludes not feminine qualities, but rather the idea of a distant and impersonal deity, which is precisely the picture of the supreme being still seen in many primal religions”. - Simon Chan
What did Elizabeth Schindler Fiorenza argue?
Elizabeth Schindler Fiorenza argues that the Bible supports women’s struggle against patriarchal biblical sexism because it contains examples that directly challenge patriarchal norms, such as the passages where Jesus breaks sexists customs (Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 5:25-34 and John 4:1-42). Daly’s approach to interpreting the Bible is mistakenly narrow.
What does Ruether argue about the David Messiah and Jesus?
The David Messiah is a conquering warrior who liberated people from their enemies and reigns over them in a new kingdom. The Messiah is chosen by God (Son of God) and is a representative of his people before God (Son of God) and is a representative of his people before God (Son of Man) so there is a maleness associated Christ: ‘the Messiah can only be imagined as a male’.
Ruether argues that Jesus was not the traditional warrior Messiah that was expected. The traditional Messiah is no way an incarnation of the divine or a redeemer, one who forgives sins through redemptive self-sacrifice. ‘He is expected to win, not to suffer and die’.
Jesus rejects the nationalist revenge mythology of the Davidic Messiah, and envisions a time on earth where basic human needs are met, and all people dwell in harmony with one another and with God without the need for a strong, domineering leader to protect them.
He dismisses the power of the Roman ruler Pontus Pilate and warns his disciples about lording power over others. He washes the feet of his disciples and says leader be servants of their people. Ultimately, Jesus gives up his life for others.
“Relation to God liberates us from hierarchy relations and makes us brothers-sisters of each other. Those who would be leaders must become servants of all”. - Ruether. People are freed not through acts of military bravery, but by following the servant King and becoming servants of God.
The Messiah concept should instead represent the self-sacrificing, redeeming, servant Messiah who is connected to the female notion of wisdom. Christianity should not bundle the maleness of the historical Jesus of the Davidic military Messiah into the Christian concept of Messiah; it removes the female from the concept of God.
What does Ruether say about God’s wisdom?
‘Sophia’ is Greek for ‘wisdom’, and in the ancient world wisdom was personified in female form as a goddess. Ruether argues that early Christians continued to refer to ‘Sophia’ as divine wisdom. Christianity has merged the notion of a divine wisdom, that unites the cosmos with the divine, into the notion of a messianic king, who brings a new age of redemption. The idea of female wisdom has become obscured behind the patriarchal veil of the male Messiah, Jesus.
For Ruether, divine wisdom is closely linked to Jesus Christ and wisdom is referred to in female terms. The Messiah is not therefore, simply a male part of God but is also the incarnation of wisdom, which is female.
Are Simon Chan’s criticisms of Ruether successful?
The challenges raised to Ruether by Simon Chan are mostly unsuccessful because Ruether does not seek to redefine understanding of God as a man. She’s just saying that there is evidence of God having female attributes associated to the Greek goddess ‘Sophia’ and we shouldn’t dismiss them completely. She does not rewrite the Christian story to give more prominence to women at all. She doesn’t look to downplay the ‘maleness’ of God found prominently in the Bible and phrases like ‘almighty Father’ in the Eucharistic prayer, but to bring up God’s ‘femaleness’ equal to his ‘maleness’. Chan accepts that feminine images are used to describe God’s love, such as the frequent images of God protecting and comforting his children (for example, in Isaiah and Hosea), but he notes that God is never called ‘mother’ and that this was unique in ancient times. Most other ancient religions had a Goddess at their centre sometimes alongside a male God, including the goddess Asherah in Canaan, the goddess Isis in Egypt and the goddess Tiamat in Babylon. Many of these goddess-worshipping cultures were also patriarchal, and not equal or matriarchal. Chan argues, therefore, that using female language for God does not make society less patriarchal, and using male language for God does not cause a society to become patriarchal.
“Even today, many societies devoted to goddess worship remain oppressive toward women. Devotion to the Kali in Hinduism, for instance, has never resulted in better treatment of women, even among Kali devotees”. - Simon Chan.
Are Ruether and Daly still Christians?
It is definitely valid to call Ruether and Daly Christians (Daly less so) because they still believe in Christianity and just want reform. Daly is difficult because she is definitely a Christian (a post-Christian) but her measures for change are so drastic and run so deep through Christianity that what she wants is unrealistic. She wants reform so the Church is no longer a form of oppression which is good but she wants to take God’s maleness away which most would argue is a key part of the faith. Ruether is a Christian; she just wants God’s ‘femaleness’ recognised which in my opinion is not controversial at all she as she makes some good points without massively affecting Christianity itself.
Can Christianity be claimed to be irredeemably sexist?
Christianity can be somewhat claimed to be irredeemably sexist because there is more evidence in the Bible that supports patriarchal attitudes than defies it. For example, a letter by Paul to the Christian community in Corinth contains the following quote: “the head of the women is a man For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man”. Some say it is better to interpret the love of God in ways that do not carry the sexism found in the Christian story, with its male Messiah, male apostles and male dominated Church.
The reason why I say it can be said that Christianity is irredeemably sexist because the way to get rid of it is to interpret the Bible in a different way, something more hard done than said. For some they just can’t get over some of the blatant sexism that there is.
How can Christianity be claimed not to be irredeemably sexist?
How ever sexist it may be it can be argued that it is not irredeemably sexist because there is an option of interpretation that one can take, for example, as Fiorenza says, Christians read the Bible through different lenses:
(1. For some, the Bible is divine revelation of timeless truth. If scripture is read in this way, then it seems to be sexist.
2. Others see a historical framework to understand what the actual facts were and, therefore, read the sexism in a historical context.
3. Some view the Bible as both divine revelation and a historical framework, and seek interpretation through a dialogue between these factors and people. The Bible reflects aspects of the sexist culture of the time, but it also contains moral messages that challenge the sexism of the time.
4. Another approach is to liberate the process of interpreting the Bible from those who have power in society and give it to those that have traditionally been silenced. This means allowing different people with different voices to read and make sense of the Bible, not just male members of the clergy or male theologians).
Fiorenza argues that while sexist attitudes can shape the interpretation of the Bible, the Bible can also inspire anti-sexist attitudes with, for example, passages where Jesus breaks sexist customs such as those that involve not touching women or speaking to them. Fiorenza remains a Catholic and believes that there is a continuity in the religious tradition; that a feminist theologian need not reject or break away from the Christian tradition, but can work to better understand the Christian message, free from sexism.
Does the gender of the Messiah matter?
The gender of the messiah does not matter to the salvation at all, even if women are the descendants of Eve and are thus subject to being accused for the problem that the Messiah had to come and save people from. The death of Christ and his descent into hell was to ensure that the divine experienced all aspects of death so that all could be saved. Jesus offers salvation to all, and this is not limited by gender. Female salvation is assured. It is more important that God became human, than God became male.
“Men can’t grow spiritually”
This is not true at all. Men can grow spiritually too. The link between women and mother-nature is surface level at best and it does t exclude men. If God being male should not exclude females than nature being ‘mother-nature’ should not exclude males.
What is the hermeneutic of suspicion?
Rosemary Radford Ruether believed that the the role of feminist hermeneutics is to find a way for women to reclaim central Christian principles from patriarchy. In other words, feminist theologians have to find methods of extricating the valuable core of Christianity from its misogynistic history. In common with most liberal feminist theologians Ruether believed that:
- The Bible is not all the word of God (it contains God’s word but also contains the words of humans which reflect their world view).
- Interpretations are not neutral but are subjective and contextual.
- Feminist theology should be done from the starting point of experience.
Therefore, Ruether begins with a hermeneutic of suspicion, questioning both the text itself and the way it has traditionally been used.
