Religious Indoctrination Irish Style (Part 2)

So what exactly is religious indoctrination? Well first of all it’s important to note that such a thing wouldn’t have been possible prior to the rise of modern science that properly began in the seventeenth century with Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism. Most notably, the rise of science precipitated the development of secularism in the Western world. In particular, the new power over nature effected by machine production had a profound impact on religious and theological thought. Natural phenomena that had previously been attributed to the inexplicable workings of a divine mind were now known to be governed by laws that could be harnessed and used for the benefit of humanity. Philosophers were enabled to imagine humanity as self-sufficient, no longer dependent upon an all-powerful deity. Their opinions soon spread to the general public and were quickly assimilated. Belief in a God or gods became optional in the West and with it the possibility of atheism.  Prior to this great leap in understanding of material reality brought about by science, religion was as much about superstition and magic as it was about genuine spirituality. Indoctrination into belief in a transcendent dimension of existence was unnecessary, since nature itself was thought to be permeated with its own magic and mystery.

In the modern era therefore religious indoctrination is associated with the presupposition that there is a supernatural dimension to existence, and that a God or gods exist.  Denominational religious education that focuses  on faith formation is often criticised for being a form of religious indoctrination.  In Ireland most schools are denominational, with Catholicism being the biggest denomination due to our history as a nation. To understand what the specifically Irish form of religious indoctrination is, a quick look at the historic rebellion of Martin Luther will put us on the right path.

As is well known, it was Luther’s criticism of Church corruption that sparked the Wars of Religion and the Reformation, although the appetite for reform had been growing in Europe during the previous centuries. He was brought up during the outrageously corrupt papacy of the Borgias at a time when Christianity was characterised by a strong emphasis on hell, damnation and how to avoid it. During the medieval era in Europe Christianity was rather like what Islam is now, a political and powerfully cultural force as well as a religious one. The safest route to salvation was held to be the religious life, at that time considered vastly superior to all forms of lay existence. Luther, a sensitive child, suffered from religious terrors. As a young man he showed no desire to enter the religious life; he was exceptionally clever and enrolled to study law at the university of Erfurt. His father, a miner, expected that the young Martin would do well and support him in old age. Fate, however, intervened and Luther’s life took a dramatically different course. Returning to university after a weekend visiting his family, Luther was struck by a bolt of lightning. Terrified that he would die, he prayed to St. Anne, the patron saint of miners, to save him, and promised to enter the religious life if she did. Having survived the lightning bolt, Luther swiftly entered a strict Augustinian order and began to study for the priesthood. His religious terrors did not leave him however, and he was dogged by a constant sense of unworthiness before God.  Years of spiritual struggle followed, which even included a trip to Rome to gain an indulgence.

Luther was eventually saved from his torment when his confessor and the vicar of his Augustinian order encouraged him to study theology and take the chair of Scripture at the university of Wittenberg  At that time Bible study was not an important part of theological formation and it was inaccessible to the vast majority of Christians due to the fact that it was written in Latin. His studying of the Bible would change Luther’s life for ever, and was the catalyst for his posting of his 95 theses on the Castle Church door at Wittenberg. But it was his encounter with the humble, compassionate and socially radical Jesus that reassured Luther and healed him of his spiritual travails.  It also caused him to cast a critical eye on his Church, which now struck him as falling very far short of the Christian ideal epitomised by Jesus, since it instilled fear rather than love. Perhaps most of all, Luther developed a heightened awareness of the hierarchical nature of the Church especially in relation to the clerical-lay divide. At that time the monastic/clerical state – largely due to the requirement for  celibacy – was considered to be both spiritually and morally superior to the lay one, which gave rise to an elitist clerical caste and a passive, religiously inferior laity.  Luther’s encounter with the Bible also convinced him that every individual Christian should have access to it and via the text to God, without the need for a priestly intermediary. This powerful conviction led him to translate the Bible into German (creating modern vernacular German as he did so) and to abolish, in his reformed version of Christianity, celibacy and along with it religious orders both male and female. Liturgical celebration became a Service rather than a Mass, the priestly celebrant a minister or pastor, and there was a greater emphasis on the word of God and the preaching of it than on the Eucharist. Luther still held to the real presence of Christ, but his theological approach was that this occurred due to the action of the entire congregation rather than the celebrant alone. Drawing on scriptural texts such as 1 Peter 2:5 (“You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation…”)  Luther in fact declared the priesthood of all believers. The idea that every Christian believer is a priest means that there is no hierarchy with regard to a person’s role in life; laypersons and clergy have equal rights and responsibilities to proclaim the good news of the  Gospels. God calls us all according to our gifts so it is not necessary to work in ordained ministry to bear witness to Christ.

Long before he initiated all of these changes, however, Luther’s calling out of the Church hierarchy on the corrupt practice of selling indulgences along with his new theologies brought him to the attention of Pope Leo X and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. When he refused to recant his writings, he was excommunicated by the Pope and declared an outlaw of the Empire by Charles. This meant in effect that anyone who wanted to could kill him without threat of punishment. Fortunately for Luther he had a powerful ally in his sovereign Elector Friedrich the Wise of Saxony; the latter staged a false kidnapping of Luther and the beleaguered monk was enabled to recover from his trauma in Wartburg Castle where he remained for about a year. In standing up to the two most powerful men of the era at the risk of his life and reputation, Luther had certainly embraced the risks that authentic Christian faith can entail.

Vatican 2 was, in many ways, a belated recognition of Luther’s reforms. This can be seen above all in its new emphasis on Christology, on the importance of the Bible  in religious education, its abandoning of the Latin Mass in favour of Masses said in the language of the people, and in its permitting the laity to be ministers of the eucharist and to hold the host. Prior to Vatican 2, only the priest was allowed to touch the host, which meant placing it on the tongue of the recipient. Lumen Gentium, a document of Vatican 2, highlights the importance of the role of the laity in the Church and emphasises the priesthood of all believers. The main difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches on the matter is that the many of the latter reject the ordained priesthood. Overall, the trend initiated by Luther in the medieval period harks back to the early Church, when there was no clear demarcation between priests and bishops on the one hand, and laypeople on the other. The former tended to live in the same way as everyone else, tending to their livelihoods, marrying and rearing families. It was only when the Church became the state religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine that strict demarcation between both classes emerged along with elaborate ecclesial structures.

Due to its mix of Christian denominations, the U.S. is perhaps the best present day example of what Luther had in mind. My first trip there was an eye-opener for me as well as something of a culture shock. The sight of lay preachers on tv – even female ones – almost made me feel that I had arrived on another planet. Protestant denominations like Methodism, for example, have male and female lay preachers,  a revolutionary development that goes back to its founder, Wesley; In the States evangelical Christianity also fields lay preachers and then, of course there are the televangelists. These ministers can be attached to a Church or self-proclaimed, and many of them – like Billy Graham, Gerry Bakker and Jerry Falwell – become very famous, even if not always for the most wholesome of reasons. There are also famous female televangelists,  such as Joyce Meyer, Marilyn Hickey and Aimee Semple McPherson. The latter, who became famous in the early 20th century, was a pioneer, especially in the use of modern media, and even founded her own Church. Founding one’s own Church in America is not unusual; indeed most of the first black churches founded before the 19th century were begun by free blacks.

My visits to the US, which included two summers spent at Fordham, a Jesuit University in the Bronx, introduced me to a kind of dynamic Christianity that I had never before encountered. This includes the Catholic denomination also; as one of my lecturers, the leading religious education theorist Gabriel Moran explained to us, in the US Catholicism has been so influenced by the denominational mix in the country that it is something of a hybrid in practice. No doubt the strict separation of Church and State where religion is concerned has also contributed to the unselfconscious, non-pious enthusiasm regarding Christianity that I found so refreshing and so different to what I was used to here in Ireland where proclaiming and/or preaching about one’s religious beliefs  is considered to be the exclusive province of professional religious and is generally restricted to liturgical settings.  To understand the difference between here and somewhere like the US, you only have to think of the sensation caused when Marty Morrissey recently gave an inspirational talk  at a Knock novena, an event that became a national talking point and sparked a great deal of outrage. In the US, no one would have batted an eyelid at such an occurrence.

As should by now be clear, religious indoctrination where Christianity is concerned relates, not to the religion itself, but to Christian ecclesial institutions when they become ends in themselves. As Christians, our faith should be in Jesus of Nazareth and not in an institution. Jesus himself lived simply and dressed as others did. Is there really a need for the elaborate costumery that characterises some  Christian denominations, most notably perhaps Catholicism? Whenever  I see yet another newspaper article on the Church that is illustrated by pictures of red hatted and elaborately dressed cardinals I feel like saying “With all due respect to the good and necessary administrative and liturgical work that you do, could you move aside please? This isn’t really about you, we’re here to see someone else”.

As regards the legalistic straitjacket of rules and norms which is as closely associated with Catholic Christianity as are its elaborate ecclesial structures, in this area too the Church is very far removed from the simplicity of the Nazarene. Jesus delivered an uncomplicated message which can be briefly articulated: love others, be kind to the less fortunate, stand up for the underdog, be peaceful, honest, humble and forgiving. He saw himself as a reformer of the ultra legalistic Judaism of his era, and preached against the tyranny of overly strict rules. This is not to say that Jesus was an anarchist or dismissed rules as unimportant, in  his own words he had come ‘not to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it’. This means living by the spirit, not the letter of the law, avoiding petty restrictions,  and knowing when it can be transcended and when exceptions can be made. It also means that the emphasis is a positive one; doing unto others as you would have them do unto you will make negative ‘thou shalt not’ rules  redundant.

In Ireland,  as a result of our colonial history which involved the oppression of the overwhelmingly Catholic population, the Church gained far too much political power and influence for its own good after independence was achieved. There has also always been an institutional opposition to theological speculation here, the powers that be preferring a passive, acquiescent laity. The Irish Universities Act of 1908 prohibited any state funding to be directed towards theological studies depriving generations of Irish people of any intellectual engagement with theology. Most European countries provide financially for faculties of theology and in the US college students are expected to take either philosophy or theology as a minor. Imposed intellectual passivity along with a homogenous religious environment, has engendered a strong perception here of the institutional Church and Christianity as one and the same thing. The backlash now occurring against it is not against Christianity as a religion, but against an institution that for too long had too much power.

 Change however, despite perceptions, is well underway. Although we have yet to see ‘the age of the laity’ heralded by Vatican 2 emerge in any meaningful way, the tide is turning. A whole generation of young people has grown up in Ireland with a religious education programme that emphasises the person of Jesus, and in an environment that is no longer theocratic and overly authoritarian. The backlash now occurring will die out with the present baby boomer generation. By then, the lack of vocations throughout the Western world will have created an existential necessity for lay involvement in the Church, and this trend will contribute to the changes already occurring in the Irish Church. Who knows what the shape of the future Church will be? One can only hope that it will be simple and non-censorious like its founder, with clergy and laity united as one people of God. It should go  without saying that women will have to have a far stronger presence in the Church of the future, but  this will probably be the greatest battle of all and the most crucial one.

 Such a transformation would dispense with any form of religious indoctrination. For a Christian Church that is truly representative of Christianity, indoctrination  is impossible. A Christian has to be prepared to take social risks if necessary and even share in the contempt suffered by Jesus himself if called upon to do so. The emphasis will turn to the person of Jesus and the question of his divinity.  (“Who do you say that I am?” Peter answered “God’s Messiah” ). Religious adherence will then result from critical reflection for those who need it, and choice as well as faith.

Advertisements

My Take on the Stephen Fry/Blasphemy Affair

StephenFry

I happened to see  the controversial “Meaning of Life” programme in which Stephen Fry went on a rant about the nature of God. His rebellion was against the idea that he should be expected to believe that there is an all powerful, all knowing, all good God in a world that is full of suffering and evil. He was in fact addressing (albeit somewhat angrily) what is known in moral philosophy and philosophy of religion as ‘the problem of evil’. Philosophy defines two types of evil, natural evil and moral evil. The former relates to the suffering caused by natural disasters, illness and death, the latter to ‘man’s inhumanity to man’ so to speak. The view of the Deity criticised by Fry is known as theism, and is common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It maintains that despite the existence of evil, God is indeed omniscient, omnipotent and beneficent. This concept of God contrasts with, for example, Deism which is the view (believed by Einstein on the basis of his scientific research) that there is a God who created an ordered universe, set it in motion, and then left it to its own devices. The Deistc God takes no personal interest in us as individuals or as a species. Polytheistic religions such as Hinduism don’t have the same problem in explaining evil due to their belief in reincarnation and the fact that their gods, like humans, are a mixture of good and evil. Evil and suffering are caused by humans to one another, and as punishment for bad deeds they may have done in past lives. Spiritual effort will lead to a state of blissful enlightenment known as moksha that enables the enlightened individual to endure suffering, and which will also break the cycle of rebirth back into this world.

The point is that an important function of religion is to make life meaningful for people and help them to cope with the various evils and traumas that  inevitably beset every human existence. One of the clearest markers of the very earliest members of our species in the archaeological record is the burial of their dead alongside symbolic artefacts that intimate belief in an afterlife. Religion existed as a phenomenon from the beginning, undoubtedly precipitated by grief at the loss of loved ones and the hope of meeting them again in another realm.  Theistic religion attempts to reconcile the existence of evil with belief in a beneficent deity by using the free will argument. This is that God willed the world to be a good and peaceful one, but he also gave us free will, which means we can choose to do evil. As the saying goes, God created a world with enough for every man’s need, but not enough for every man’s greed. Judaea-Christianity describes the primal moral choices made by the earliest humans in metaphorical terms as the ‘fall’ of Adam and Eve.

The ‘problem of evil’ has always been debated and discussed by theologians and philosophers, and has never been more relevant than it is now in our contemporary Western culture where science can explain so many phenomena previously thought  to be explicable only in terms of a God or gods. Up until the scientific era  religious belief was inextricably linked with superstition, and spirituality with magic.  The rationalisation of Western consciousness through science has removed much ignorance and superstition and made belief in a supernatural dimension to existence optional. The problem of evil is therefore more relevant than ever to religious belief and is undoubtedly a major cause of atheism in contemporary Western culture. The reaction to Stephen Fry’s articulation of it is a very convincing argument for me in favour of introducing philosophy as a compulsory subject in secondary school curricula.  The fact that an important philosophical topic that is discussed everyday in universities around the world – including Irish Catholic ones – could lead to a possible prosecution for blasphemy in a supposedly civilised European country is surely a wake up call for us here. The introduction of philosophy into our education system might also have the bonus of enabling us to achieve a  more informed understanding  of Christianity as a religion rather than as an institution, and  to remedy the current somewhat unbalanced focus on Church scandals and abuses of power that are a betrayal of Christianity and have caused too many people to confuse the institution with the religion. As things stand, the charge of blasphemy against Stephen Fry risks making a laughing stock of us and will certainly give the comedian material for many years to come.

 

 

For International Women’s Day: More Confessions Of a Politically Incorrect Feminist Theologian

image

 

As I explained in previous posts, the difficulties involved in being a feminist in a religious, patriarchal environment can at times seem insurmountable. And, while I have found it quite easy theologically to reconcile the maleness of Jesus and the Father God with even the most radical of feminist principles, as my theological studies progressed I found myself completely abandoning one of them and capitulating to a form of what, in relation to feminism, would be considered extreme political incorrectness.

In the context of the Judaeo-Christian tradition of hospitality, and Christian teaching on what the ‘Kingdom of God’ will be like, something that I had resented and avoided as much as possible began to assume a different appearance: namely, what is known in feminist theory as ‘women’s traditional work’. There are three main strands of feminism, each with its own theory of why women are oppressed and how this oppression should be overcome. These are liberal feminism, socialist feminism and radical feminism. We’re going to have to take a little detour through feminist political theory before I can explain its relevance to theology.

Liberal feminism’s view of the role of women in society has been shaped by liberal, capitalist theory generally, which in turn has its roots in the work of philosophers such as Descartes, Rousseau, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Mill and, latterly, Rawls. Liberal philosophy and political theory came to the fore during the eighteenth century Enlightenment with its intellectual and physical revolutions, although it emerged initially from the confrontation between capitalism and feudalism that began in the seventeenth century. The rising merchant class had revolted against restrictions placed on travel, manufacture and finance by the feudal system, and against the claim of monarchs to authority by divine right.

Liberalism is grounded in the notion that human beings are essentially rational agents; indeed from Aristotle to the medieval era, the notion of rationality as a defining feature of human nature has been prominent in the Western philosophical tradition. The liberal ideals of freedom, equality and justice for all are based on the conviction that all individuals have an equal potentiality for reason. The liberal perspective on reason, however, presents liberal feminist activism with serious problems. This is because, influenced by Descartes’ famous dictum “I think, therefore I am”, liberal theorists assume that rationality is the defining human characteristic, while the body is inferior to our mental capacities and not a part of the human essence (what makes us human).

This has led to a mind/body dualism in Western society in which occupations requiring ‘mental’ labour are perceived as superior to those requiring mainly physical labour. Non-liberal feminists (socialist and radical feminists for example) criticise the mental/manual distinction since it leads to a dismissive and even contemptuous attitude towards women’s work, which is traditionally physical work carried out in a domestic setting. The elevation of the mind at the expense of the body also militates particularly against women, since it reinforces the hostility toward the body apparent throughout the long Western philosophical tradition. In that tradition women, because of their child-bearing capacities, have always been more closely associated with nature (particularly non-human animal nature) than men, who are identified with culture and mind. Indeed, it is doubtful that any woman could, as Descartes did, base an entire philosophical system on the dictum “I think, therefore I am”. For most of history most adult women have had little time to think. The liberal denigration of the body and its corresponding stress on the importance of a disembodied reason is generated by a male conception of reality; it contains an inbuilt androcentric bias to the effect that women are inferior to men.

Liberals treat morality and rationality as synonymous, and base their political theory on desires which they identify as universal. The most important of these is that, since humans always inhabit environments of relative scarcity, they will be motivated by the desire to gain as large a share as possible of the available resources. Hobbes and Locke maintain that humans are motivated by the desire for almost unlimited acquisition, and Locke regards this desire as moral and therefore rational. Liberal theory also asserts that people generally try to maximise their individual wealth, status and prestige, and that this is rational, and therefore moral. As a result, liberal political theory can be said to contain an implicit assumption of the existence of a universal egoism.

From a Marxist, as well as a feminist perspective, socialist feminists question the liberal account of rationality. Firstly, Marx considered the body to be of equal importance to the mind, and physical labour just as important as mental labour, meaning that there is no sharp distinction or relative importance between mind and body. Secondly, Marxists believe that rationality is most effective when it is operating at the societal and collective rather than the individual level; finally, in Marxist theory  competitive individualism is considered irrational precisely because resources are limited. Marxists believe that humans have a boundless capacity for cooperation, but that this capacity is suppressed and discouraged by a political system which protects and legitimates human selfishness. Under socialism, of course, the means of production would belong to the country as a whole; such a revolutionary societal transformation would, according to Marx and Engels, give rise to new developments in human nature. Cooperation would replace competition, egoism would be replaced by generosity, and work would become a vehicle of self-realisation rather than a burden. This general increase in human well-being would also have a trickle-down effect into the family; working men, for example would no longer ape their bosses and behave like petty tyrants towards their wives. Marxists also strongly dispute the liberal ethos that conceptualises human happiness in terms of wealth and social prestige.

Liberal feminists believe, however, that in contemporary society the treatment of women violates the three main principles of liberalism: equality, liberty and justice. Their main grievance is that women are unjustly discriminated against on the basis of their sex; they argue that since rationality is the essential human quality, and since women are also rational agents, women are as capable as men in all fields, and must not be discriminated against on the grounds of sex. They argue that women are, in fact, subjected to several forms of discrimination, the most obvious of which is legal discrimination. Liberal feminist activism has therefore been directed mainly at the repeal of laws perceived as unjust towards women, and the passing of laws which formally grant women equal rights to men with regard to the franchise, education and job opportunities. However, liberal feminists also believe that most discrimination is informal and based on custom. Informal discrimination is typically manifested both in assumptions that women are not suited to certain sorts of work and, conversely, that they are particularly well-suited to other sorts of work. They maintain that feminist progress notwithstanding, even in contemporary society there are strong expectations – often shared by women themselves – that women should take primary responsibility for the work involved in raising children and running the home. These assumptions are carried over into the labour force, where women are expected to provide all sorts of nurturing and menial services to men, women and children. Liberal feminists, influenced by the male philosophical perspective, believe that the work typically performed by women in both the private and public spheres is of little value, since it services the body as opposed to the mind. They conclude that women can be liberated from their oppression only by entering the public sphere and successfully competing with men for highly-paid jobs in business, in the professions and in academia. They fully buy into the liberal capitalist agenda of universal egoism and the equating of happiness with wealth, status and prestige.

Throughout its three hundred year history, the goal of liberal feminism has been the achievement of formal equality in law for women. It was hoped that once all legal barriers were removed, women would rapidly gain substantive equality with men, and any residual prejudice could be overcome by rational argument. While it is undoubtedly true that the liberal strand of feminism has been the most effective in transforming the lives and expectations of women, socialist and radical feminists argue  that liberals have gone as far as they can within the existing political system in improving the lot of women. They question the liberal conviction that public legislative campaigns can change private attitudes; the fundamental problem for liberal feminism, as they see it, is its failure to challenge the mental/manual distinction which structures the world of work in contemporary society. The liberal feminist desire for what amounts to an androgynous society devalues women’s traditional work, and accepts the androcentric bias of liberal philosophy in which male values are normative. In maintaining the mental/manual distinction liberal feminist theory, they argue, actually helps to rationalise and perpetuate women’s oppression and domination.

Socialist and radical feminists conclude therefore that women’s oppression cannot be ended without a revolutionary transformation of contemporary political systems, albeit that socialist feminist theory is also androcentric to a certain extent. In Marxism, as in liberalism, the solution for women’s oppression is for women to enter the workforce. This is because Marx and Engels argued that women’s subordination results from the institution of class society and has persisted into the present because the unwaged labour of women suits the interests of capital. As to the historical origin of women’s oppression, Marx and Engels make the assumption that in every society there has always been a sexual division of labour “which was originally nothing but the division of labour in the sexual act”. This ‘natural’ division of labour is replicated in the split between household work, carried out by women, and the work involved in producing the means of subsistence, which is traditionally the sphere of men. For Marx and Engels the sexual division of labour is related to the biological constitution of men and women, and therefore biologically determined. Under a socialist regime, the ‘natural’ gender distinctions of the private sphere could be abolished in the market place by drawing women into paid employment in the sphere of production. This would make women independent of men and ultimately transform the ‘sexual division of labour’ in the home. Thus the Marxist solution to the problem of women’s oppression is ultimately the same as that of the liberal approach: androgyny in the public sphere.

Socialist feminism has expanded upon this by arguing that the family should be taken out of the private domain and become an institution primarily under the control of the state; in classical Marxism the family is considered to belong to the private sphere. To effect this theoretical change, socialist feminists have attempted to  redefine the family as an economic unit, or – in Marxist terminology – a system of production. Socialist feminists justify this by arguing that humans have material needs other than food, shelter and clothing. Equally fundamental to human survival are the social and individual human needs for the bearing and rearing of children, for sexual satisfaction and  emotional nurturance.  Since these needs are fulfilled by human labour, the system developed to satisfy them must be a system of production, even if it does not always produce tangible results.

Socialist feminists also point to the fact that the means of  satisfying these needs have, throughout history, been distributed and exchanged through the social institutions of marriage and prostitution; such transactions involve, either overtly or covertly, payment with money. Traditionally, wives are financially supported by their husbands in return for housework and the raising of children. Socialist feminists conclude that sexuality and procreation, areas considered in all previous political theory as ‘natural’ and biologically determined, fall within the domain of Marxist political economy and can therefore be transformed through collective decision-making regarding changes in social practice. Sex, as well as gender, they argue, is socially constructed. This is of vital importance to socialist feminists, who believe that women’s oppression can only be ended when ‘the division of labour in the sexual act’, reconstituted in male-female relations throughout the whole of society, is itself abolished.

The political goal of socialist feminism is therefore to destroy “the social relations that constitute humans not only as workers and capitalists but also as women and men…Women and men will disappear as socially constituted categories”. This goal will be achieved by the abolition of normative heterosexuality, marriage and the family as traditionally understood.

It was however twentieth century radical feminism, the most recent of the three strands, that popularised the use of the term ‘patriarchy’. Radical feminism also appropriated the Marxist notion of class, arguing that women are a class defined by sex. The definition of women as a class carries the implication that men gain material benefits from their domination and exploitation of women; within the sex-class system, the ruling class is called ‘the patriarchy’, a term originally used by anthropologists to refer to primitive nomadic societies. Radical feminists use it in a broader sense to refer to a universal system of male domination. Their critique of patriarchy has not only become a focus of academic research, but has also been assimilated into public consciousness via the media and best-selling works of non-fiction and fiction such as  Marilyn French’s The Women’s Room. Radical feminists maintain that owing to the universality of women’s subordination, it is the first and fundamental form of domination. It is also the cause of and model for all other types of oppression. They conceive patriarchy as “a total system of domination. Through imperialism, racism, and class society, groups of men seek to dominate each other. Most of all, however, they seek to dominate women….”

The radical feminist political solution to the evils of patriarchy is a drastic one, involving the separation of women from men in order to facilitate the development of a ‘womanculture’. In contrast to liberal and Marxist feminist goals, the ‘womanculture’ would celebrate female values and female qualities such as nurturance, empathy, intuitiveness, flexibility and spontaneity. This would be in marked contrast to the patriarchal culture which typically has prided itself on military prowess, sexual aggression, analytical thinking and emotional ‘cool’. While there is much to recommend the idea of a ‘womanculture’, it would surely be far better for radical feminists to challenge the dominant patriarchal conception of reason, emotion and the relationships between them and instead to develop new conceptions of these relationships in order to transform patriarchy rather than abandon it.

Each of the three strands of feminist theory described above has made important contributions to the understanding and overcoming of women’s oppression: liberal feminism has, thus far, been the most effective, while socialist feminism has been the most culturally influential in challenging our presuppositions about gender. Meanwhile, radical feminism has checked the excesses of the other two strands by rejecting androgyny and gender deconstruction and celebrating what is distinctly feminine.

Now that we have looked at these feminist perspectives on women’s traditional work, it is time to turn from political notions of the ideal society to the predominant values of the Kingdom of God preached by Jesus. In all of the ways in which the Nazarene tried to describe what the Kingdom would be like, the ‘banquet’ parables are, for me, the most evocative. The Old Testament background for these parables is found in Isaiah 25: 6-9 which describes a lavish banquet prepared by Yahweh:

 

On this mountain the Lord of the hosts will make for all peoples

a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines,

of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wines

strained clear.

And he will destroy on this mountain

the shroud that is cast over all peoples,

the sheet that is spread over all nations;

he will swallow up death forever

Then the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces…..

 

The derivative Gospel story of the Great Banquet (Lk. 14: 15-24 par) must be considered as part of a significant collection of parables set within chapters 14-16 of Luke’s Gospel that are either given within the context of Jesus’ table talk, or inspired by his love of table fellowship; they reveal that the virtues associated with hospitality, especially generosity, humility, and inclusivity, are relevant to salvation and will characterise the warmer, kinder world of the developing Kingdom which will focus on relationships rather than power or prestige. In the Kingdom, everyone will be physically and emotionally satisfied, because everyone will have a place at the table; plenty to eat and drink, conviviality, no loneliness, no one who is considered an outsider. Hospitality and its myriad pleasures are most associated with women, and therefore taken for granted; not all that important in the world at large as compared to, for example, politics, business or the military, which are largely male domains. In God’s Kingdom, however, the female sphere as traditionally understood will be more important and transformative than the male one. Indeed it is within this feminine, domestic context that all differences will be overcome and a universal love and harmony will be achieved. Of the three strands of feminism, therefore, it is radical feminism with, firstly, its insistence that all forms of oppression are interlinked and, secondly, its celebration of the female genius, that is closest to the biblical evocation of the Kingdom of God. The Gospels also validate radical feminism’s insistence that androgyny is not the way forward for women in their attempts to overcome oppression.

This is not to say that women must be confined to their traditional roles; the hope is that the feminine gifts for relationships, nurturing, and conflict resolution will be as transformative in the public sphere as they have been quietly powerful in the sphere of domesticity. Yet the real key to women’s liberation will lie, surely, not in getting women to ape men, but in getting men and, even more importantly, women themselves to appreciate their own gifts rather than take them for granted. What radical feminism calls the ‘womanculture’ must not develop in isolation from the ‘manculture’ but be woven seamlessly into it in a way that will transform existence. How can such a seemingly miraculous transformation occur? I would argue that political activism, while certainly necessary to overcome prejudice in all of its manifestations, is not enough for a task that will demand of us the generous love of neighbour depicted in parables such as the story of the Good Samaritan: the overcoming of the hatreds and suffering caused by prejudice and bigotry is a religious as well as a political matter. The Banquet parables depict an inclusive world in which all who accept God’s invitation into his/her Kingdom are loved and cherished. They bring to mind St. Paul’s Christian manifesto which is radical and revolutionary  beyond anything dreamed up by Marx: “….for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew nor Gentile, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26-28).

And so, as a result of my studies in biblical theology, I gained a new perspective on the kind of work I had previously despised and began to immerse myself in the – for me – new found joys of homemaking and domesticity in general. I could do this safe in the knowledge that despite appearances, women’s work in all its forms is somehow transforming the world: no matter how thankless and taken for granted it may often seem in comparison to much more highly valued male achievements, God is using it for his/her purposes in building up the Kingdom. God ensures that not one iota of the love and sacrifice that characterises women’s traditional work goes unnoticed or is wasted; it is all being taken up and constantly incorporated into the developing Kingdom of God. If, indeed – as Christianity teaches – God can bring good out of evil, how much more can he/she bring infinite goodness out of our finite, limited efforts at love and sacrifice. Somehow, in a way that we can’t yet understand, women’s traditonal work has an essential role – even, I would suggest, the most important role- in the building up of God’s Kingdom, in which male and female qualities and virtues will be truly complementary and equally treasured and effective in both the public and private spheres. Right now, it is hard to imagine what such a world might look like, but it certainly won’t be one in which the desire for wealth, status and prestige predominate as now, suppressing the development of harmonious and joyful relationships.

 

Coda: The history of political feminism begs some important questions, especially in an evolutionary context. Christian tradition talks about some sort of one off ‘primal sin’ that is the cause of all the world’s problems. Due to developments in science, specifically evolutionary biology, we now know, however, that the Genesis story is in large part mythological. Evolutionary theory in fact supplies plausible answers to the causes of women’s oppression, with the debate centering on whether male domination is primarily a cultural or genetic phenomenon. My own research has convinced me that it is mainly cultural and therefore at least partly rectifiable through politics and the social sciences generally. From a theological perspective, of course, there is another question: is there a spiritual dimension to the world’s prejudices and hatreds? Within the theological context of origins it may be asked whether or not moral decisions were made by early humans that had a detrimental effect on our cultural evolution.

Evolution, which is relevant theologically to both creation and morality, is one of those fascinating meeting points between religion and science where common ground has caused much controversy. Many of today’s leading theologians are currently exploring this common ground, especially in relation to evolution and behaviour. Significant progress is being made in this interdisciplinary area –  which is the hottest and most cutting edge field of research in the academic humanities – although as yet there has been no doctrinal change or adjustment even in institutional Christianity which is favourably disposed towards evolutionary theory. I am pretty sure, from my readings in both theology – as in the biblical stories discussed above – and in evolutionary biology, that there is indeed a spiritual dimension to the world’s travails.

Resources: Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (Totawa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld, 1983), pp. 64, 135, 255.

“Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” in Marx and Engels, Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1968), pp. 182-183.

Niamh Middleton “Sacramental Spirituality: The Feminine Dimension” in Spirituality (Dublin: Dominican Publications), Vol. 21, pp. 156-159.

Niamh Middleton: “Faith and Feminism Can Make Strange Bedfellows” in On Religion, Issue 12, Autumn 2015, p. 6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Confederate Flag and the Fight to End Racism

If you don’t understand the interconnections between all forms of prejudice, if you don’t understand what ‘white privilege’ means, you will when you read this.

Grace Ji-Sun Kim

flagHere is my latest Huffington Post “The Confederate Flag and the Fight to End Racism”. This piece was co-written with Rev. Jesse Jackson. Feel free to share…..

In the wake of the devastating terrorist attack on June 17, 2015 at Emanuel African Methodist

View original post 1,162 more words

Marriage Equality, Pope Francis and Mary McAleese

rainbow IrelandThe resounding ‘yes’ to marriage equality that resulted from Ireland’s referendum on the subject has provoked a great deal of comment, much of it on the implications for Catholic Church authority in Ireland. Some commentators are suggesting that the rejection of Church teaching on homosexuality, despite the Bishops’ request for a ‘no’ vote, is the sound of the death knell for the institutional Irish Church; Mary Hunt certainly sees it as the death knell for “a top-down, clergy-heavy model of church….” Other commentators have pointed to a somewhat surprising fact of which I, for one, was ignorant until now: this is the link between the political acceptance of same-sex marriage and Catholicism. Frank Bruni, in his New York Times article on the referendum ( On Same–Sex Marriage, Catholics are Leading the Way) remarks that Belgium, Canada, Spain, Argentina, Portugal, Brazil, France, Uruguay, Luxembourg and now Ireland – all countries with a Catholic majority – are ‘in the vanguard’ of those 20 nations that have legalised marriage between two men and two women. For Bruni, this is a sign that Catholics are not so much defying Church authority as following their informed, Catholic Christian consciences. Cynthia Garrity-Bond, a feminist theologian and social ethicist makes a similar point in her “Ireland’s Same-Sex Referendum & The Necessity for Reconstructing Sexual Ethics in the Catholic Church” when she says that the ‘yes’ vote is a manifestation of the sensus fidei (sense of the faithful); the latter is “a spiritual instinct that enables the [non-ordained] believer to judge spontaneously whether a particular teaching or practice is or is not in conformity with the Gospel and with apostolic faith”. If Bruni and Garrity-Bond are right (and I find myself in agreement with them) this is not a case of religion versus politics, but of religion and politics in reciprocal, positive relationship. In the Irish case there were, I believe, other factors that influenced the sensus fidei: these were Pope Francis’s more flexible and personal approach to Church moral teachings, which permitted a breaking of ranks in the priesthood on the issue; several well-known and influential priests came out in favour of a ‘yes’ vote (see, for example, the Independent article Ireland’s Same-Sex marriage vote). Behind the Argentinian Pope’s more sensitive attitude is the influence of liberation theology, by which he admits to having been profoundly affected. Liberation theology emerged from the Latin American experience of poverty and political oppression; its main influence is Marxist philosophy and, in particular, a key Marxist insight: this is that the prevailing world view or system of knowledge of a society in any particular time or place supports the interest of the ruling class by justifying and concealing the reality of domination. In Marxism, all existing claims to knowledge are therefore considered to be ‘ideological’: they are distorted representations of reality that create a ‘false consciousness’. A related claim of Marxist epistemology is the claim that people who are oppressed have a clearer view of reality than their oppressors. Pope Francis has certainly shown himself to be on the side of those who suffer from various forms of oppression, and while there has as yet been no doctrinal change, his inclusive statements and refusal to judge a person’s sexual morality have been as influential in Ireland as they have elsewhere. Even more influential in the Irish context, however, was the input of former Irish President Mary McAleese, a lifelong devout Catholic who, when her term as President was over, went to Rome to study for a doctorate in canon law. The reason she gave for this is her desire to understand why Church canon law never helped the victims of abuse in any of the cases she had studied; when she was President, McAleese herself went to great lengths to be kind and supportive to those who had been abused by Church personnel. While initially sceptical of McAleese as someone who has always appeared to be a successful pillar of the establishment, I have grown to admire the ex-President tremendously over the years. Unlike many of those who achieve power and influence, McAleese has never grown smug or arrogant; she consistently shows empathy for those who are abused or oppressed, and her solidarity with women is especially noteworthy. She has criticised the hierarchy for refusing to allow women to become priests, and in 1998 was told by Cardinal Bernard Law, Archbishop of Boston, that he was “Sorry for Catholic Ireland to have you as President”. More recently she has declared that the upcoming Synod on the Family is ‘bonkers’ due to the fact that a celibate male caste will be discussing and pronouncing on matters of which they have absolutely no experience. In response to a questionnaire seeking feedback on marriage and the family circulated worldwide on behalf of the Pope, McAleese posed the following question: “How many of the men who will gather to advise you as pope on the family have ever changed a baby’s nappy? I regard that as a very, very serious question”. One of McAleese’s sons is gay, and she gave several moving interviews during the referendum campaign that described his teenage struggles in coming to terms with his sexuality and the bullying he had to endure. All of this was made even more traumatic by the fact that Justin was an altar boy and committed Catholic, who discovered in adolescence that his Church considered him to have a tendency towards ‘intrinsic evil’. Her declaration that she would be voting for equality is considered to have influenced older voters and conservative Catholics to vote ‘yes’. Mary McAleese’s testimony to her son’s experiences as well as her admonishment of the hierarchy for refusing to take women’s experience into account in their Synod on the Family put me in mind – and not for the first time – of two great feminist theologians and the theological category that they pioneered. Rosemary Radford Ruether and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza are two Catholic-identified theologians who have preferred to work within rather than outside the Christian tradition. Their work shows influences of both post-modernist philosophy, and liberation theology’s Marxist analysis. They expanded the theological category of experience to emphasise women’s experience and the human experience of oppression, with particular emphasis on women’s experience of oppression. Their basic argument is that in patriarchal Christian cultures women’s voices and experiences were not heard or considered when canonical texts were being chosen and moral doctrines formulated; their theological category seeks to transform the way in which Scripture and Tradition are interpreted. Both theologians argue that women’s experience must be the ultimate norm in accepting, rejecting, or otherwise criticising texts, traditions and norms. Both recommend the establishment of ‘women-churches’, similar to the communidades de base of liberation theology, as locations from which to engage in praxis. Praxis is a Marxist concept that refers to human rational activity that is directed towards the transformation of the world; it encompasses physical work, political revolution, criticism and theoretical activity. Schüssler Fiorenza, for example, has attempted to develop a theological hermeneutics grounded in the ideological suspicion of Marxist critical theory. Her hermeneutics adopts an advocacy stance for women, critiquing the androcentric bias of, for example, previous biblical scholarship and seeking to uncover women’s contribution to the early Christian churches. In Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation (p. x) she states that her aim is “to develop a feminist biblical hermeneutics…..a theory, method or perspective for understanding and interpretation……in doing so….. [to] contribute to the feminist articulation of a new scholarly paradigm of biblical interpretation and theology”. Like Schüssler Fiorenza, Rosemary Radford Ruether takes women’s experience as the critical principle of feminist theology, although her focus is more on women’s experience generally than on the experience of oppression. Women’s experience has been largely absent from theological reflection in the past; as a result, the use of women’s experience in feminist theology “explodes as a critical force, exposing classical theology as based on male experience rather than on universal human experience”. The latter sentence has always struck me as a perfect description of McAleese’s impact within the Irish ecclesial context. I have been reminded of my college studies on the work of Schüssler Fiorenza and Ruether many times in relation to McAleese’s various confrontations with the hierarchy. Though religious and a canon lawyer, she is not a theologian, and probably has no idea that there is a formal theological category to describe what she is attempting to do; yet the resonance of her actions with feminist theology is hardly mere coincidence. The fact is that gains for women brought about by mainstream feminism are allowing women’s voices to be heard in increasing numbers in the public sphere; McAleese’s voice was not the only influential female one to be heard during the referendum campaign. The powerful testimony of young Irish Times journalist Una Mullally and television journalist Ursula Halligan on their experiences of growing up gay in Catholic Ireland also caused a major stir. Halligan, devoutly religious as a young girl, actually came out publicly during the campaign at the age of 54. The impact and example of such women highlights the prophetic aspect of the work of theologians such as Schüssler Fiorenza and Ruether. Their work offers theological support and validation for such interventions which, in turn, provide a real life illustration of their theoretical formulations. Interestingly, the critical and praxical theological category of women’s experience is perhaps one whose time has come, as a result both of feminist progress and the fact that the present Pope has an understanding of and appreciation for liberation theology, which has been a major source of inspiration for feminist theology. The Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, remarked that the overwhelming ‘yes’ vote is a ‘reality check’ for the Church. There is now every hope that the Irish referendum will be a force for positive change where Church teaching on human sexuality is concerned. It is already being reported that the referendum’s implications will be on the agenda of next October’s Synod on the Family in the Vatican. Moreover, McAleese’s input in particular has been vindicated, and this vindication casts a favourable light on her past protests against patriarchal pomposity and arrogance within the Church as well as lending weight to any future pronouncements she may make. If change comes, it will surely be thanks in no small part to lay Irish Catholicism in general, and to the persistent activism and growing influence of lay woman Mary McAleese in particular.   This article was originally published at http://www.fsrinc.org/blog/irish-marriage-equality-referendum-liberation-theology-and-womens-experience