Posts
On pages 44-45 of White Women's Christ and Black Women's Jesus, Jacquelyn Grant refers to three approaches within feminist theology, enumerated by Elizabeth Fiorenza.
The first approach believes that "There are some gifts which are unique to the feminine person and would enhance the quality of leadership in the church."
The second approach "acknowledges and critically analyzes the oppressive sexist structures of the Christian church and tradition while at the same time rediscovers the liberating tradition and elements of Christian faith and community." Elizabeth Fiorenza puts herself in this category, and my understanding of her work is that she hearkens back to a stage at which the Jesus movement was egalitarian, before it became patriarchal.
The third approach "views Christianity as essentially patriarchal and therefore unable to be an adequate religious expression for the conscious woman." This approach is post-Christian. On page 47, Dr. Grant says that Mary Daly "rejects any level of Christian 'truth' as authority".
I think that these approaches will come up again in Dr. Grant's book. I appreciated her discussion because I, too, have wondered if Christianity is redeemable. Should I accept the entire Bible as inerrant---including those parts that are not egalitarian, or that portray God as unfair, or as unloving? Should I only accept the parts of the Bible that are consistent with high human ideals---such as love and compassion? Or is Christianity so inherently corrupt that I should completely chuck it?
Where I am right now is that I continue to seek and to find inspiration in the Bible. And I tend to focus on God as unconditionally loving, rather than a God of conditional love---one who expects us to accept him as a monster just because he's bigger than we are.
