MOCKS: Feminism/gender paragraph: Ruether’s golden thread argument Flashcards
FOR
Ruether views Jesus as a liberator of women – she thinks his actions were aimed at freeing people from oppression.
Ruether accepts Daly’s point that the Bible is full of sexist passages, which suggest God is not in favour of liberation, but she argues that it is also full of positive ‘pro-feminist’ passages, especially those involving Jesus.
Jesus saved a women from being stoned for adultery (countering the patriarchal punishment of the time) & healed a woman who had been menstrually bleeding for 12 years (also going against the patriarchal view that menstruating women were unclean) He told Martha to get out of the kitchen.
Ruther’s point is that the Bible has some pro-feminist passages and some sexist patriarchal passages – so they can’t both be the genuine word of God!
So, the sexist parts of the bible must have been written by humans influenced by the patriarchal culture of the time. So, we should get rid of the sexist parts of the Bible.
The pro-liberation passages Ruether calls the ‘golden thread’ and claims it alone is the genuine revelation.
Ruether’s approach is more convincing than the standard liberal approach – because she recommends that we actually jettison (get rid of) the sexist passages.
Counter
However, there are passages where Jesus indicated that he was non-political – had no interest in political liberation or changing society.
‘My kingdom is not of this world’ – Jesus’ focus is the kingdom of heaven, not earthly kingdoms.
Also: Jesus was asked whether the Jews should pay an unjust tax which had been forced on them by the romans. Jesus answered by pointing out that the coins had Caesar’s face on them – saying ‘Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s’
Jesus was saying to pay the tax, which suggests that he did not see political injustice as God’s concern. Jesus seems to see a disconnect between politics and religious matters.
So, Jesus can’t be viewed as a liberator who aimed to change society.
Evaluation
When we consider the totality of Jesus’s statements – it looks more like he was recommending spiritual equality, not social equality.
As Galatians says – there is no male nor female, for all are ‘one in Christ’. Feminists like Ruether think this is suggestive of a feminist theology. However it’s only claiming that the equality is ‘in christ’ – i.e, spiritual equality. The more balanced interpretation is that it’s not recommending social equality. After all, Genesis says we were created male and female. Galatians can’t be denying that. It must be reminding us of our spiritual equality, but therefore not recommending social equality. Nor, it seems, did Jesus.
If Jesus were really in favour of being a liberator and overturning patriarchal norms, he could have simply said so. We shouldn’t need to turn to complex interpretations of his behaviour if he was simply and clearly a liberator.
Healing the mensturally bleeding woman was just a display of Jesus’ divine miraculous power as the son of God. Saving the adulterous woman was just a sign of Jesus’ divine warrant to update our moral laws.
It is too hopeful a stretch to interpret these passages as showing Jesus to be a liberator.
