 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 8/13/2001 8:07 AM (GMT -6) |   | Feminist theology, Part I
“Soon as I found out God was white, and a man, I lost interest.” — Shug [as in ‘sugar’], in Alice Walker’s The Color Purple
Who told Shug God was a white guy?
Well, maybe she got such a crazy idea from Aristotle, who held that “it is necessary to regard the female status as a deformity.” He believed that women, who are “weaker and colder by nature,” are the beginning of the category of monster, because they have “deviated from the generic type [i.e. men].” “While the body is from the female, it is the soul that is from the male, for the soul is the reality [substance] of a particular body.”
Following Aristotle, Christian theology has traditionally held that God is imaged either solely or most fully by men. Augustine believed that women could only image God spiritually (De Trinitate) and although Aquinas believed that both men and women imaged God, he added that the image itself was male, since man is “the beginning and end of woman” (Summa). While in Church tradition men are associated with spirituality, transcendence, and will, women are associated with physicality, carnality, and nature. For example, Tertullian had these nice things to say about women: “You are the devil’s gateway.…How easily you destroyed man, the image of God. Because of the death which you brought upon us, even the Son of God had to die.”
These presuppositions about men and women are not restricted to early church fathers—consider this contemporary father, Karl Barth: “Properly speaking, the business of woman, her task and function, is to actualize the fellowship in which man can only precede her, stimulating, leading, and inspiring.…To wish to replace him in this, or to do it with him, would be to wish not to be a woman.…What other choice has she [than to be second] seeing she can be nothing at all apart from this sequence and her place within it?”
They’re not just limited to Christian theology, either: “I thank thee, O Lord, that thou has not created me a woman,” Orthodox Jewish daily prayer. “A woman must never be free of subjugation,” The Hindu Code of Manu. “Creator of the heavens and the earth, He has given you wives from among yourselves to multiple you…Nothing can be compared with Him,” Holy Koran of Islam.
Perhaps even more discouraging than the spattering of nasty things theologians have historically had to say about women, is the neglect. Did authors like these really intend to include women in their use of “man” for every person, “mankind” for all of humanity, and “Him” for God? How were women supposed to know they were welcome? It is not surprising that women get the distinct impression that theology was written exclusively by men for men.
These are just a few reasons why so many women like Shug aren’t interested in worshiping the Big Guy in the Sky. Many feminists consider religion irredeemable (e.g., Mary Daly has declared the Death of God the Father) and abandon it altogether or create their own alternative faith communities. But some choose to stick around in the hope that they will be heard in spite of the overwhelming historical strikes against women, and the ongoing resistance to their participation beyond support-roles and mere tokens of paternalistic generosity.
“And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” — Micah 6:8
Edited by - pia†desideria on 08/13/2001 1:12:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 8/13/2001 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Feminist Theology, Part II
There was a point in college where I was reading Plato (Book X of his Republic, in which he explains why he’s not a fan of poetry) and Virginia Woolf (her essay on “Shakespeare’s Sister,” in which she speculates on what we could learn from Shakespeare’s sister if we had any record of her—or any other woman from his society for that matter) at the same time. What would happen if Virginia Woolf took the place of that annoying little henchman that asks all the questions in Plato’s writings? I wrote a little ditty about how that conversation might go. I think it illustrates some of the criticisms and concerns voiced by feminist theologians.
——————————
Plato: Well, then, shall we begin our inquiry regarding Sophocles’ Antigone following our usual manner? Though I have always from my earliest youth had an awe and love of Sophocles which even now makes the words falter on my lips, his poetry merely serves to water womanly passions rather than drying them up. Imitation is far removed from the truth, and is also the companion and friend and associate of a principle within us which is equally removed from reason, and that has no true or healthy aim. Antigone’s sentiment for her treacherous brother led her to defy the authority of the state. Therefore this play is an excellent example of why poetry is dangerous and should be banned.
Woolf: [sarcastically] How much thinking old gentlemen such as yourself have saved us! How the borders of ignorance shrink back at your approach!
Plato: Thank you. So then the imitative poet who aims at being popular is not by nature made, nor is his art intended, to please or to affect the rational principle of the soul; but he will appeal rather to the lachrymose and fitful temper, which is easily imitated—
Woolf: I disagree.
Plato: What?…Who are you? What have you done with my trusted companion, Glaucon?
Woolf: He’ll be fine. I would like to ask you some questions about your mother and your sisters.
Plato: I was making a point here. We were discussing the inferiority of poetry due to its imitative and emotional nature and—
Woolf: Please, I quite disagree with your conclusions. It would be better to draw the curtains, to shut out distractions; to light the lamp; to narrow the enquiry and to discuss not opinions but facts, to describe under what conditions women in this society live.
Plato: What? Glaucon! Where are you? Help!
Woolf: Calm down, old man! I only want to ask some questions—
Plato: This is outrageous. These subjects are of no consequence and are not worthy of discussion. Your mind is better suited to scandal than philosophy. Please go away.
Woolf: I’m not going anywhere. But if it makes you too uncomfortable to discuss the women in your society, let’s continue our discussion of poetry. I myself am an author and a critic, and perhaps I can offer a defense of my art.
Plato: Very well then, let’s back up and review a little bit. Whenever a number of individuals have a common name, we assume that there is one corresponding idea or form:—do you understand me?
Woolf: Of course.
Plato: Let us take, for our present purpose, any instance of such a group; there are beds in the world—many of them, are there not?
Woolf: Of course. I fail to see their relevance to poetry, however.
Plato: I’m getting to that—The maker of a bed makes it for our use, in accordance with the idea—that is our way of speaking in this and similar instances—but no artificer makes the idea itself: how could he?
Woolf: What is the point of all this speculation about the nature of beds and bed-making? We agreed to discuss poetry, and you begin by speaking of beds and what it means to build a bed. This seems a very peculiar place to begin.
Plato: Patience! I am trying to show that there are three possible kinds of beds—one existing in nature, which is made by God, as I think that we may say, another which is the work of the carpenter, and a third which is the work of the painter, fashioned after the work of the carpenter which is itself an imitation of what exists in nature. Therefore, if the tragic poet is an imitator, he too is thrice removed from the king and from the truth; and so are all other imitators.
Woolf: I’ve never heard such a convoluted argument—I’m trying not to laugh! I don’t think that discussing poetry will get us very far if you insist throughout on correlating the writing of poetry to painting pictures of beds. But speaking of beds, tell me, what would it take for a woman in your society to get a room of her own?
Plato: What? Now it seems you are the one asking peculiar questions. Why waste a perfectly useful room on a woman?
Woolf: Tell me, how important is it for you to have this room to hold your discussions with Glaucon and your other students? What if you had to conduct your discourses in the street or in the midst of meal preparations or while tending to your children?
Plato: You are implying that I could possibly perform the mundane tasks that occupy women according to their disposition and that a woman could possibly discuss philosophy and formulate conclusions about the nature of the ideal State. Now I am trying not to laugh. You have demonstrated the absurdity of this idea by your own inability to follow my analogy of the three kinds of beds and the conclusion that poetry is thrice-removed from reality. It is a perfectly logical argument, but I don’t hold it against you that you failed to grasp it. After all, you are a woman.
Woolf: If you want to talk about poetry, let’s talk about Dionysian and Apollonion elements of tragedy, the difference between fancy and imagination, the fusion of feelings and emotions into art emotion, the tension between tradition and the individual poet, the role of the conscious and the unconscious mind—but beds? I did not fail to follow your argument, I was simply bored by it.
Plato: How am I to develop any argument at all if you keep interrupting me at every turn and refusing to grant my points?!
Woolf: Ah, now we are getting somewhere. How does it feel?
Plato: What?
Woolf: How does it feel to lose your beloved Glaucon who asks all the right questions and who agrees with all your answers? How does it feel to try to make your point with someone who neither cares for nor agrees with what you have to say? How does it feel to have to fight for it every step of the way? Surely a woman could draw conclusions at least as good as yours if she had as much time on her hands and if she were surrounded by people who agreed with every word she said. Are men so brilliant by nature or because you have privileges that no woman in your society will ever enjoy? Now, tell me about the women in your society—
Glaucon: Plato! Master!
Plato: Glaucon!—Where have you been?
Glaucon: That woman locked me up, beat me and flung me about the room!
Plato: What!?
Woolf: I had help.
Plato: What!? Who?
Glaucon: Master, your sister helped her!
“And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” — Micah 6:8
Edited by - pia†desideria on 08/13/2001 3:19:01 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/13/2001 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | I've been absorbed in Evdokimov's chapter "The Charisms of Women."
Male and Female He created them--a unity.
. . .
Perhaps a side topic--the sacrament of marriage from an Ethisists view
(Stanley Harakas' book "Living the Faith")
quote:
John Crystostom wrote of marriage:
"And indeed from the beginning God appears to have made special provision for this union; and discoursing about the two as one, He said this, 'Male and female created He them' (Gen. 1:27)
For there is no relationship between man and man so close as that between man and wife, if they be joined together as they should be . . . For there is a certain love deeply seated in our nature, which imperceptibly to ourselves knits together these bodies of ours. Thus even from the very beginning woman sprang from man, and afterwards from man and woman sprang both man and woman.
Do you perceive the close bond and connection? . . . Thus, (God) framed the whole from one beginning, gathering all together, like stone in a building, into one. .. For there is nothing which so welds our life together as the love of man and wife."
The Orthodox marriage ceremony has three (3) pledges instead of the two
"Do you ____ take ____ to be your _____".
Here is the third:
"...do You Yourself, O Sovereign Lord,
stretch forth your hand from your holy dwelling place,
and join together this Your servant (name)
and this Your servant (name),
for by You is a wife joined to a husband."
More, but from Harakas:
"And, although marriage is "a universal human institution,
its primary understanding is sacramental."
"The sacrament of marriage intends to convey the presence of
the Holy Spirit to the shared life of the couple."
"the sacrament is primarily introducing the natural (yet fallen)
relationship of marriage into the fulfilled realm of the Kingdom
of God. The sacrament provides a vision of a full and complete
marital relationship precisely because it is related to God and
His Kingdom."
"Marriage is a way of life, a dynamic expression of freely
given love, a call of a specific human being, of the man or the
woman, to travel the way of perfection. It is a way by which a
person makes real his grace-filled and prophetic this-worldly
presence and responsibility. Thus marriage is not a closed or
individualistic mode of life. It is a potential for those called
to it to realize in substance and practice that which we ought
to become, being enflamed by love.
"...there is a bodily and spiritual union of one man and one woman."
"It is in marriage that the vast majority of believers
(versus celibacy) will seek to manifest their own humanity
as persons growing in the image and likeness of God. ...Their
individualism and self-centeredness can be addressed and at least
partially overcome in the intimate community of family members.
In this the family will reflect the life of the persons of the
Trinity -one essence, yet a plurality of persons in communion.
Marriage, precisely as a sacrament, thus relates the human to the divine.
Also....Listing five basic purposes of marriage:
1) birth of children and nurture,
2) mutual help,
3) meeting of sexual needs,
4) growth in moral, personal and spiritual unity
as the image of God and the Church in the home,
5) the communion of love.
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 8/13/2001 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Feminist Theology, Part III
My intention in highlighting the nasty things theologians have said about women was to show the real neglect and real need that feminist theologians address. Although there are truly inspiring exceptions to the status quo along the way (e.g. Clement of Alexandria listed women he admired such as Judith, Esther, and many female poets, painters, historians, and philosophers—including one trained by Socrates and two who studied with our friend Plato), lingering on history for too long tends to lead to despair (Simone Weil laments that “History, therefore, is nothing but a compilation of the depositions made by assassins with respect to their victims and themselves”). But one of the things I find most attractive about feminist theology is its strong sense of hope. I will say more about this later. pia
“And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” — Micah 6:8
Edited by - pia†desideria on 08/13/2001 5:14:16 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/13/2001 9:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"Left to himself, man would be lost in the infinity of his abstractions, in perfecting techniques of humiliating others. Degrading the other, he becomes degraded himself, creating a world corresponding to his own dehumanized vision. Man places himself in agony.
Man established himself in the world by his tools. Woman does this by the gift of herself....."
(in The Charisms of Woman/In the World...Of the Church, Evdokimov, p.236)
Pia, 'hope you don't consider me tread'n on your territory. I've been holding on to the above quote 'cause I thought that YOU might like it. ...Just look'n for the right place. 
PotOnWheel
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 08/13/2001 2:24:22 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/13/2001 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | "There is neither Jew or Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The hope of the gospel...that one day we will all simply be one before God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/13/2001 10:27 AM (GMT -6) | | I am excited about the clarity with which you articulate some the serious issues involved with a feminist critique with out being co-opted into the normative "form" that is still so much a part of the problem!
YOU ROCK PIA! 
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/13/2001 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Too cool, Pia. Modes was right. 
"Every voice has a right to be heard. But, speakers, for GOD'S sake, be mindful of your tone and words!" --Sir Mephistopheles | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/13/2001 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Pia:
Here is one other portion, from immediately before the other.
quote:
"One can grasp her salvific power if one understands that it was not at all because she was the "weaker sex" that Eve was tempted. On the Contrary, she was lured precisely because she represented the principle of religious integration of human nature. Attentive in her heart, she immediately succumbed and docile Adam followed behind, claiming that "the woman offered me the fruit," putting up no resistance whatever, not even asking the most basic of questions about what he was offered." (Ev./ Char...Woman, p.236)
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 8/13/2001 11:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Feminist Theology: Part IV
Popular contemporary culture tends to caricature feminists as godless, anti-family, men-hating, baby-killers. While I’m sure you could find some examples to support some of these charges, they are not representative. Feminist theologians—especially womanists (African American feminists—see bell hooks’ Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center for an excellent example, I really think evangelicals can appreciate and appropriate what she has to say about the family…if any of them ever read her)—are concerned with the well-being of the whole society, not just their own self-interests. While feminism began in the women’s suffrage movement, which sought equal voting rights with men, feminists are no longer interested in measuring their success by white male standards, which would merely perpetuate the patriarchy that established those standards in the first place.
In 1960, Valerie Saiving made the bold claim that, "To the extent that contemporary theology has, in whole or in part, described the human condition inaccurately [i.e. as essentially masculine], to that same extent is its doctrine of love in question." Male theologians’ misrepresentation and/or nonrepresentation of women is not just bad for women—it’s bad for theology. Theology is simply inaccurate to the extent that women have been excluded from participating in its development.
In her excellent book on feminist epistemology (Compelling Knowledge: A Feminist Proposal for an Epistemology of the Cross), Mary Solberg says: "we are perhaps best advised to start from the less favored positions—those whose peculiar partiality has a good chance of alerting us to the distortions we cannot see when we are comfortably ensconced, or entrenched, in them." As women, feminists see some of the distortions that are badly in need of correction from their less favored positions. But as predominantly educated, white, bourgeois people, feminists also understand the importance of listening to critiques of their own position. That is why, for now anyway, feminists aren’t too concerned with univocality even though their movement is often criticized and discredited for this “inconsistency” (feminists have a kind of "by any means necessary" approach to methodology: i.e. marxist, post-structuralist, liberationist, "anti-Christian," Christian, etc. For a survey of some different feminist approaches, see Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion, ed. Carol Christ [neo-pagan/ex-christian] and Judith Plaskow [Jewish]).
One thing all feminists have in common is their insistence "upon a congruence of theory at once with method and with sociopolitical practice" (Catherine Keller). There is another revolutionary movement that insists on the same congruence—it’s known as evangelicalism. I think that evangelicals and feminists would certainly find some cause for concern, but also some valuable insight and healthy critique—perhaps even a powerful partnership, if they had the courage to engage one another.
pia
p.s. I will get to some actual bona fide theology eventually.…
“And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” — Micah 6:8
Edited by - pia†desideria on 08/13/2001 5:51:00 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/13/2001 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Great Word Pia. I often wonder how much of the classical depiction of God's perfection as consisting of total control,independence, impassibility, immutibility, etc. is the result of MEN doing all the theologizing (most of them in monistaries fighting natural sexual urges). I also wonder to what extent the current revisioning of these attributes, in a more Hebraic direction, is the result of the fact that first the first time in Christian history, women are starting -- but only starting -- to be listened to.
As a white male in the western church, I believe men must own up to our past (which is different than taking individual responsibility for the corporate past) and ask for forgiveness from women. Mysogony is as bad as racism, rebellion, or "the sin of witchcraft" (I Sam.15).
Doc
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/13/2001 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg:
Of all the women who's theologizing is actually recorded in scripture, who's is among your favorites? (Who's do you listen to especially?)
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 8/14/2001 4:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc: I often wonder how much of the classical depiction of God's perfection as consisting of total control,independence, impassibility, immutibility, etc. is the result of MEN doing all the theologizing (most of them in monistaries fighting natural sexual urges).
Pia: Feminists are quite adept at deconstructing the classical depiction of God’s perfection. For example, Keller writes: "In the history of Christian thought the Aristotelian metaphysics quite consistently triumphs over scriptural metaphors, which portray a God sometimes sorrowing and raging in the vulnerability of love.…No tenet of Christian theology has stood so firmly—and with so little scriptural justification—as the divine unchangingness.…One may read much of theological history as a conscious and convoluted attempt to compress the warming intuition that God is love into the cold, hard diamond of divine immutability. Impervious to effects or affects caused by the world, the absolute separateness of deity has symbolized the separative aspirations of a Mankind created in His image."
But feminist critiques of classical theism don’t stop there. They extend to the deification of the heroic masculine ego. Rosemary Radford Reuther charges: "Christianity, as the heir of both classical Neo-Platonism and apocalyptic Judaism, combines the image of male, warrior God with the exaltation of the intellect over the body." And Mary Daly says that "The primordial, universal object of attack in all phallocratic wars is the Self in every woman" [an allusion to Tiamat, the "female thing," as she is referred to in the Enuma Elish, whose grisly defeat was ritually celebrated by Babylonians who cried, "May He still conquer Tiamat!"]. And Keller, "When the warrior sets the terms of transcendence and human subjectivity, the normative self is masculine."
Fellow Spiritual Warriors, I would like to hear your responses to the following critique by Catherine Keller: "There is nothing unique about the masculine and misogynist divine warrior.…misogyny and heroic masculinity are indistinguishable.…The ancient images of the divine warrior provide the mythic loam out of which history could fashion the bricks of the Hebrew Torah, Christian doctrine, and Greek metaphysics. These images form a common foundation upon which the later synthesis of classical with biblical thought erects itself. In this sense the monster-defeating misogynist deity aligns the otherwise divergent cultures of Athens and Jerusalem. Might this deep-seated warrior image explain the perturbing fact that however else these and other cultures seem to vary, a theological and social structure of male dominance rises as our planet’s great cultural universal?"
This oughta be interesting,
pia
“And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” — Micah 6:8 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/14/2001 5:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Pia-
Keep talking. I’m soaking it up. In time my questions will come gushing out like a broken Hoover Dam. But for now I’m just taking it in.
Here are a few interesting additions (no reflection of my own ideas mind you!):
“St. Jerome and St. Augustine not only exhorted excellent matrons and most noble virgins to study, but also, in order to assist them, diligently explained the abstruse meaning of Holy Scripture and wrote for tender girls letters replete with so much erudition that nowadays old men who call themselves professors of sacred science can scarcely read them correctly, much less understand them.” Thomas Moore
“I wish that men were as resolute as women.” Anne Javouhey
“It is a dangerous thing to associate with women, who but harm him who wishes to belong to God. One must avoid them and associate with them only when obedience demands.” Joseph of Copertino
“I still can’t understand why it’s so easy for a woman to get excommunicated in Italy! All the time people seemed to be saying: “No, you mustn’t go here, you mustn’t go there; you’ll get excommunicated.” There’s no respect for poor, wretched women anywhere. And yet you’ll find the love of God much commoner among women than among men, and the women at the Crucifixion showed much more courage than the Apostles, exposing themselves to insult and wiping our Lord’s face.” Therese de Lisieux
“If I had been a man I would have been a great preacher.” Teresa of Avila
And my personal favorite…
“Look at me. God’s mercy has preserved me to this day in bodily virginity, but I confess that I have not escaped from the imperfection of being more excited by the conversation of young women than by being talked at by an old woman.” Dominic
Affectionately,
White Western Male
“Christianity is all for practice, and so much time as is spent in quarrels about it is a diminution to its interest. We inquire so much what it is that we have but little time left to be Christians.” Jeremy Taylor | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 8/15/2001 5:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, if anyone has a response to the critique of the warrior deity I quoted in my last post, I’d very much like to hear it. It’s been bugging me lately. I’m working on a response of my own, but I’d like to hear what others have to say. Plus I’m short on time. pia
“And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” — Micah 6:8 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/15/2001 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | I think Pia has laid out some important and persuasive stuff here. Let's hear from some of you who have concerns or issues with the material. As Pia noted, there is more constructive theological work to come as well, but dealing with some of the presups issues here is needed as well.
If nothing else emerges to talk about, here are some questions that might be of some interest to some folks:
Pia is there an alternative image for God other than warrior that you or other feminists prefer? Additionally, how much weight should be put on any one image for God? If multiple images are used (I am jumping ahead of myself a bit here) what does this do to the idea of a "meta-narrative"? Should we have mulitple meta-narratives (meaning holding more than one together in creative tension) or do we abandon the attempt at a totalizing schema altogether? I ask these things because if we allow the challenge to stand against the current meta-narrative(s) it stands to reason that there will need to be something to replace it with, or at least an explanation why it should not be replaced (meaning it should simply be abandoned). I guess I am dragging you into the constructive side of feminism, sorry if that's premature. Perhaps the problem is even more basic (maybe "more concrete" is better) than how we image God, per se. Is there a difference in how feminists image "the problem" out of which religions arise?
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
churchmouse522
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 163
| Posted 8/15/2001 6:39 AM (GMT -6) | | OK, Pia, I'll bite and reveal the depth of my ignorance.
It seems to me that the depiction of the Christian God as a "warrior deity" EXCLUSIVELY is somewhat simplistic and myopic. The Bible offers many ways to image God precisely because it is impossible to contain God in any one of these images. God is our father, mother, friend, savior etc...And Jesus certainly does not fit into the warrior mold. And the warriors in the Bible are not exclusively male either. We have figures like Deborah too. I would not want to discredit the warrior motif in scripture because I think it gives us valuable information about God and our own place in the world. But women can and should be warriors too. Why does that have to make masculinity normative?
I love this thread, and the contributions so far. Pia, you really do rock.
Mouse
"If we agree to search for Truth, we do violence to that search any time we silence a voice." Modes of Thought | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/15/2001 7:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Pia-
I’m so completely blown away here (in a good way!) I don’t even know where to begin. Before I even try to get involved I’d like you to answer two questions for me: 1) What is “feminism”? (And what is a “feminist”?); and 2) Is there any difference at all between theological feminism and political feminism? That is, can a person agree with much, if not most or all, of what theological feminism is saying without agreeing with what political feminism is saying. I mean, like, do I have to join NOW (National Organization of Women).
About the “warrior deity” thing. I’m missing something. You’re talking about the Bible’s description of God as a “warrior,” right? Theological feminism is asking us to dump this metaphor altogether? Not to interpret it or speak about it? To simply declare that as illegitimate, masculine chauvinism it tells us nothing truthful or accurate about God? If this is actually what feminist are saying, then…oh, never mind.
Last question. I gathered from your earlier on that masculine pronouns were never in fact intended to be generic (by either men or women) and so they necessarily exclude women. The question is, if you as a woman heard that a “man-eating” lion was on the loose, would you therefore feel safe to wander outside? I’m actually interested in the dynamics of your answer. Not just trying to be a smart-bottom.
Honestly, humbly, and skeptically yours,
Western White Male
PS I really liked what churchmouse said.
“Christianity is all for practice, and so much time as is spent in quarrels about it is a diminution to its interest. We inquire so much what it is that we have but little time left to be Christians.” Jeremy Taylor
Edited by - TGB on 08/15/2001 12:42:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/15/2001 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Pia -- I hope this helps a bit:
My answer would be: " JUST SAY NO! "
On the theme of ACTING rather than REACTING. . .the two themes which Rosemary Radford Reuther mentions are: "classical Neo-Platonism" and "apocalyptic Judaism." She and the feminist era theologians are not the only ones to take on these masked foes. So if one does criticism outside of input from history (in a historical vacuum?) then one is bound to merely react. And in reacting one is inevitably shaped by what one is trying to shape. Right? Well, only in an ideal situation can one succeed in not reacting at all. So, one uses history as a council to measure by. (Add judgment, prayer..., etc.)
To cut to the chase....."apocalyptic Judaism" is handled wonderfully in John Zizioulas' Being as Communion. It is a widely and well respected book. One of the EARLY (!) things that Christian theology had to wrest itself from was the history-bound view that equated Jerusalem and geographical Israel with the Kingdom. As we follow Zizioulas, History is connected with Christology, and Eschatology with Phnumatology. (I've read elsewhere--the solid fact--that Pneumatology and Mariology were both developed relatively late, at about the same time.) The Spirit is often paired with the feminine (NOT female!) aspects of God, associated with the Holy Spirit. (I want to use wiggle-room-words like "associated" because I want to be careful!) Lots of very, very interesting pages later Zizioulas uses a packed phrase that I find easy to remember: "Pneumatologically conditioned Christology." My point: Find out how the Church, lead by the Holy Spirit ALREADY has done a wonderful job dealing with this problem. DON'T follow in the assumption that something is "new under the Sun." and don't take the first answer someone gives you--particularly, no not necessarily, the salesperson that points out the need. (That would be an old sales trick.) Explore the Pneumatological traditions of the Church. Explore the complementary (if not superior) traditions of feminine spirituality and charisms through the history of the Church. A hint, Mary is the feminine charism par exelance (sp?) and John the Baptist the masculine. The male offers (the transfigured form of acquiring?) and the female embraces in worship. Start with this:
quote:
The Didascolion, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, ontologically links the feminine to the mystery of the Holy Spirit. "The deacon has the place of Christ and you must love him. You should honor the deaconesses as having the place of the Holy Spirit." This is why in the symbolism of the liturgical assembly the woman is called the "altar" and represents prayer. The image of the soul in adoration, woman is the human being who has become prayer. In the well-known fresco of the basilica of St. Callistus, man extends his hand over the bread of offering and it is the one who offers sacrifice, the bishop who does this, who presides at the Liturgy. Behind him we see the praying one, the woman in prayer, a pure and total self-offering. In her charism of protection she raises all of life, the world, all people up to God. She does this in the sign of the Spirit who "broods over" or covers all creation as the Hebrew word in the creation narrative of the book of Genesis suggests, the sign of the Paraclete, the Advocate and Councilor." (Evdokimof, p.237, In the World, Of the Church)
Also Evdokimov:
quote:
........Mary Magdalene is "Equal to the Apostles
........The father-warrior is symbolized by the bow.....but the lyre is a sublimated bow with several strings....so...The masculine warrior and killer can be brought into harmony by woman and changed into the bearer of life, culture, worship, a celebrant in the Liturgy of praise.
........Man creates science, philosophy, art, but distorts all of these by his fearful objectification of "organized truth." Woman on the other hand, is opposed to all objectification, for her strength lies not so much in creation but in giving birth. It is by her being that she herself the criterion which corrects every abstraction in order to being value back to the center, to manifest correctly what the masculine creativity intends.
........Man is ecstatic, going out of himself in the projection of his own genius beyond himself in mastering the world. Woman is enstatic in being turned in toward her own being towards being itself. Woman operates on an ontological level. hers is not to be a verb, but esse, the essence, the very heart of a creature.
The other one, "classical Neo-Platonism" has been dealt with vigorously throughout the history of Eastern Christian thought. You cannot think with NO categories and terms. Name-calling and dismissive moves go nowhere. The Cappadocians TRANSFORMED Hellenic thought and culture. Not perfectly, and sometimes as much as was possible at the moment. But again, NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. The Pagan view compared to the Cappadician development of the hypostasis as what you and I know as person (NOT the prosopon of Aristotle) shows the contrast.
A BIG example is the non-inhalation, non-mixing, non-dominance of the doctrine of the Incarnation. Afterwards, especially thanks to the vision of St. Maximus the Confessor (Lars Thunberg's book is great), the whole understanding of salvation as being a participation in the divine live (theosis) directly models that hypostatic relationship which Christ inaugurated for us! THAT AIN'T NEO-PLATONISM!!!!!!!
ACT, and don't Re-act.
PotOnWheel
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 08/15/2001 1:17:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/15/2001 8:35 AM (GMT -6) | | FMEO -- For Modes Eyes Only. (though I an included too)
Modes asked Pia, and has probably been well trained to ask: 'Additionally, how much weight should be put on any one image for God? If multiple images are used (I am jumping ahead of myself a bit here) what does this do to the idea of a "meta-narrative"? Should we have mulitple meta-narratives (meaning holding more than one together in creative tension) or do we abandon the attempt at a totalizing schema altogether? I ask these things because if we allow the challenge to stand against the current meta-narrative(s) it stands to reason that there will need to be something to replace it with, or at least an explanation why it should not be replaced (meaning it should simply be abandoned). I guess I am dragging you into the constructive side of feminism, sorry if that's premature. Perhaps the problem is even more basic (maybe "more concrete" is better) than how we image God, per se. Is there a difference in how feminists image "the problem" out of which religions arise?'
But lets use Evdokimov as a lense to loik at that. quote:
* Man creates science, philosophy, art, but distorts all of these by his fearful objectification of "organized truth." Woman on the other hand, is opposed to all objectification, for her strength lies not so much in creation but in giving birth. It is by her being that she herself the criterion which corrects every abstraction in order to being value back to the center, to manifest correctly what the masculine creativity intends.
* Man is ecstatic, going out of himself in the projection of his own genius beyond himself in mastering the world. Woman is enstatic in being turned in toward her own being towards being itself. Woman operates on an ontological level. hers is not to be a verb, but esse, the essence, the very heart of a creature.
Like I say (in the words of the Marx Bros., or 3 Stooges?), "I resemble that remark!"
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 8/15/2001 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the comments, Modes, Mouse, POW, and Tom. This will be fun. I wish I had more time, but since I don’t I’m going to start with Mr. Smart-Bottom Male’s questions, because he’s the inspiration (instigation?) for this thread (Look out…).
Tom asks: I gathered from your earlier on that masculine pronouns were never in fact intended to be generic (by either men or women) and so they necessarily exclude women. The question is, if you as a woman heard that a "man-eating" lion was on the loose, would you therefore feel safe to wander outside?
pia responds: Well, you could say that in a sense they were intended to be generic—but by men who believed the "generic" or normative human, or human essence, was necessarily masculine, and who subsequently built this belief into their systems. This was surely the case with Aristotle and the early church fathers, and even though most of us no longer hold this explitly—i.e. we now "know better"—the underlying presuppositions have persisted unchallenged. The normative self (or for Latin fans, the norma normans non normata ) in western philosophy/theology has always been masculine.
Your question about the "man-eating" lion is a good illustration. Of course I know better than to interpret "man-eating" so literally that I conclude that my gender somehow makes me exempt from being eaten. This sort of hyperliteralism is something the politically correct have in common with fundamentalists who believe that the male gender somehow is better equipped for ministry based on literalist interpretations of gendered language in the Bible.
Before I move on from the hyperliteralist fallacy, let me share some of my experience (although personal experience tends to be dismissed as emotionally manipulative and/or inappropriate material for making a point, it is cool with feminists). Even though I "knew better" than to think God was a Guy, from my earliest memories I always pictured "Him" as a manly man, and it felt devious and irreverant to do otherwise. For example, since I was a little girl my favorite scripture has always been Psalm 131. Even though this psalm explicitly says, "like a weaned child with its mother," I always imagined God as male when I pictured it. Not only that, but I pictured the "weaned child" as a little boy. It never occured to me to do otherwise. I’m sorry, but that’s just messed up. Sure we know that God is an ultra-transcendent spiritual essence so therefore "He" is way above gender (please catch the irony in this!), but since patriarchal presuppositions are so deeply embedded in our culture, God cannot be conceptualized as anything other than "Him" by our theologians or our little girls.
While feminists certainly tend to insist on political correctness, feminist theologians challenge masculine language for God because of the deep-seated presuppositions behind it. Just changing the way we talk about what it means to be human is not enough—we need new ways of being humans that don’t privilege some men (patriarchy does not just privilege men above women, but also some men above other men) over the rest of the planet.
pia
“And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” — Micah 6:8 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/15/2001 2:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Pia -- a heads up"
Despite some latecomer attempts to usurp the meaning of Father in heaven into a power play, at its source it is not. I'm sure there exist reactive attempts to neuter the Trinitarian vocabulary. But there are really reasons why the Fountainhead of the Trinity is Father and not "mother," and it important to pay attention to why making it gender-ish-ly neutral would rob something meaning-filled of all meaning. There is a nice balance in the masculine and feminine attributes of God and in his Church. My considered thought is that to acknowledge where the masculine is true (and to understand why) then the fulness of the feminine will open up in its rich fulness. Remember that the MOST honored non-deity human is a woman. "more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim." When invited to "level the playing field" into gender neutral territory LOTS is lost. The point of the gospel is to transfigure us into God's image. The unity of male and female, lost in the fall, is what "being transformed by the renewal of (our ) minds" is to be about. And we need good, and accurate roll models.
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 8/15/2001 4:30 PM (GMT -6) | | No worries, POW, I am not advocating neutrality. In fact, I would be very suspicious of any claim to neutrality, because so far in our culture they inevitably turn out to be masculine. The so-called “generic” substantial/essential self is a case in point. Neutral? I think not. If you have any doubts about this, read Aristotle.
I would advocate something more along the lines of what Mouse said—variety. But with this variety comes responsibility—to the revelation we have been given, to those who have received it and those who have yet to receive it, and to the one who is revealed.
pia
p.s. BTW, Thanks for the note about Theotokos. Jaroslav Pelikan will be speaking here in the cities next summer at an eculmenical conference on Mary. Care to join us?
“And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” — Micah 6:8 | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 8/15/2001 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Briefly:
Tom: Theological feminism is asking us to dump this metaphor [God as warrior] altogether?
pia: Some would gladly dump it (Mary Daly puts it to death). Liberationist feminists who are interested in justice for the oppressed would be the most likely to retain it. And evangelical feminists—if there are such strange, convoluted creatures  —who have a high view of scripture would also hang on to it—Jacob-style. I can’t see how any feminist would retain it uncritically, however.
Tom: Not to interpret it or speak about it?
pia: No, even the ones who dump it would not prohibit interpretation or discussion of the warrior deity, if only for the sake of deconstructing it. Those who retain it would certainly relativize it.
pia
“And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” — Micah 6:8 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2001 3:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Pia: p.s. BTW, Thanks for the note about Theotokos. Jaroslav Pelikan will be speaking here in the cities next summer at an eculmenical conference on Mary. Care to join us?
POW: That would be very nice. I'll consider it--even write a note by my potterswheel! (Pelikan recomended Meyendorff's book "Christ in Eastern Christian Thought as being "Perhaps the only satisfactory study in a western language of the crucial development of Christology. Have you picked it up to "brows?")
A link on a singularly important act of free will --a "yes" BTW -- can be followed to:
. It has an interesting examination on what actually qualifies as free will. Much relevance for one's own devotional life and walk with the Lord.
PotOnWheel
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 08/16/2001 08:21:12 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| 78 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:26 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|