> Thus, I *do* tend to see the following posting to be at least as offensive
as using
the word "cult" to describe a religion that is not one's own
Silke I can see that this is a sensitive area. But I don't see specifically
what is offensive in this case. Perhaps if we explore that together it would
be extremely helpful to ensuring this kind of offence doesn't arise.
Outsiders to a faith need to understand where the flashpoints of sensitivity
lie, which is why I wrote to reassure the point on 'cult' - that I do not at
all find it offensive unless other indicators align it so.
> > I find Scripture far too chock
> > full of poison for women to deliberately try to read it positively. I
can
> > see why it might be valuable to do that if I were stuck with it as the
> text of my own faith though, and Christian women do valiant work making
the
> best of a bad job.
Christian feminist theologians seem to me to be in broad agreement that
where Scriptures refer to women they do so in a predominantly misogynistic
way, at least to the overt reading. Hence my term 'poisonous' which I meant
as a direct spiritual food analogy.
Christian feminist theologians then go on to look at how to read between the
lines, how to extract whatever hopeful or positive interpretations are
possible for the texts. This is done by painstakingly deconstructing the
surrounding misogynistic or male-dominant context (Luisa Calderon supplied a
beautiful example of contextualising my objection under the Ephesians thread
here.)
From an outsider's view this is important and valiant work in making the
best use of poor and scanty materials offered women from historical sources.
Bringing historically obscured divine teachings into a form we can accept
and respect in our own time is vital, or else there would have to be far
more Post-Christians than there are.
My point was really that
a) the texts as they stand are predominantly inimical to women
b) I am not happy with the idea of deliberately reading them in an
optimistic spirit. I should rather see them interrogated ruthlessly, bared
to the blaze of feminist judgement, then reinterpreted where that is
possible, to support the flourishing of women - and men.
c) Given that this is hard and stressful work I salute the Christian women
and men who do it. They have a tough job that I naturally feel thankful I
don't share. One has to balance the relative challenges of being harassed/
persecuted by the dominant discourse as I am, and the endlessly patient work
of teasing out and reclaiming what is salvageable from a patriarchal faith.
Neither is easy.
Finally, I feel that there is frequently an unsaid taboo against speaking
out against the horrific misogyny in Christianity, precisely because it has
been the dominant faith. It ensured with great political effectiveness that
we were all scared of it. A lot of people in Religious Studies and elsewhere
still have to mute their criticisms on this in order to keep their jobs.
One dangerous effect of this is that most Christians I think have a highly
inaccurate idea of how their faith is perceived because political fear
prevents others telling them!
I think we cannot go forward if we pretend that this is a nicer situation
than it is.
In particular although post-modern analysis is strategic in getting critique
stated, it can also flatten inequality into a "me yellow, you blue" banality
of difference. This is not the original subversion envisaged by Foucault et
al, but a conservative agenda to pacify protest by making it appear that we
are heard (cf. "public consultation" exercises).
I am truly sorry to be thorny food for some Christian stomachs. I deeply
wish things were different too, and I all the more respect those who can
meet me on open ground.
In trust
Shan Jayran
ONLINE EVENTS NOTICEBOARD RELIGION & GENDER
www.ovular.co.uk
Associate Lecturer, University College Chichester
Ovular - online education
|