Posts
In Jacquelyn Grant's White Women's Christ and Black Women's Jesus, three items caught my attention:
1. On pages 67-68, Dr. Grant states: "What could it mean to say that God became incarnate in the man, Jesus? In no other human being did this miraculous event occur. This occurrence was not only one to be marvelled at by Jesus' contemporaries, but it is the critical event (reality) in all of Christian history. This being the case, feminists ask what can be said about a religious expression which makes its supreme deity totally represented in one male figure through whom everyone must pass in order to be saved?"
2. On page 74, Dr. Grant refers to the view that a hierarchy of God, then Jesus, then men, then women (with some other things in between) is patriarchal and sexist. A passage that is used to support such a hierarchy is I Corinthians 11:3, which states (in the translation that Dr. Grant uses): "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God."
A professor once said that she was speaking to a group of evangelicals who believed in women being submissive. She told them that one of their proof-texts for that view---I Corinthians 11:3---supports Arianism as well! She related to her class that they did not like hearing that!
But I'm not sure if that text supports Arianism---unless one wants to make a big deal about "God" and "Christ" being distinguished as two separate entities in that verse. One can believe that Christ is subordinate to God the Father within the hierarchy, and yet (unlike Arians) hold that God the Word is co-eternal with God the Father. Actually, I've read and heard conservative Christians claim exactly that. Marc Driscoll made the point that Jesus obeys and submits to his Father.
3. Dr. Grant also quotes prominent Roman Catholics who say that only males can be priests, for the priests---when giving communion---represent Jesus, who was male. When I was an undergraduate, a fellow religion major wrote her thesis on this topic, and I think that she said that some Roman Catholics argued that the male priest represents Jesus as the husband of the church---and only a male priest can represent a husband. A professor then replied that people who argue such do not conclude that only women can take communion!
I may be mangling that interaction, but it occurred a long time ago!
