Feminism and Theology, Essay Example

There is an extremely close connection between feminism and religion and this may emanate from the fact that the root of all gender-based bias arose from organized religions (Ruether, 2011). This is because most significant religions with an exception of some ancient ones evolved during that time when women came second to men. The intuition behind this assertion is that scrutiny of the traditions together with traditions practices and theological outpourings of all the principal religions will reveal some form of bias and discrimination against women. Women empowerment started sometimes back in the initiation of calls for equality among male and females. This is because from man’s creation time it is evident that the creator gave man dominance over all other living things with women included. This meant that women were to be under the power of their men counterparts, and from this began the inequality between men and women that persist to this time. Feminism comprises of a considerable number of movements and beliefs that aim at defining, establishing, and defending equal rights for women in political, economical, and social aspects of life (Bellis, 1994). Feminist theology is a movement arising from several religions that aim to reconsider the beliefs, practices, and theologies of those religions from a feminist perspective. Women should not always yield to the pressures of religion just because of the position religion has bestowed upon them since time immemorial, but they should rise to the occasion and stop the reliance on patriarchal structures and blind acceptance of those patriarchal structures.

The role of religion in any feminist life is always tricky because so many of the religions tend to rely on patriarchal structures and the blinded suitability of those structures. Many religions contradict with policy issues that are of utmost importance to feminists. The intuition behind this is the fact that when a feminist accepts religion it does not mean that she has come to a personal conclusion, which  is to say that what people consider as fundamental tenants of a religion are compatible with the feminist views. This is despite the misinterpretation that religious leader’s accord the policy issues, especially those regarding reproductive rights or those roles of women,  in the family in political and social circles. For instance, Parker and Brock (2002) challenge the traditional Christian theology where they argue that commitment of love and service come first before theology. The two try to demystify the religious beliefs that have been present for some time now as regards gender and violence that take advantage of religion. Parker and Brock (2002) argue that many Christian women have remained in abusive relationships because of the teachings of the gospel. This is where women believe that their suffering is an essential part of their spiritual growth when in reality it is impinging on their rights. They, therefore, assert that a deviation from the centrality of the image that a divine parent is that who requires the death of his child for healing from intimate violence is adequate. This makes the fundamental Christian doctrine of Jesus Atonement inherently dangerous and destructive for Christians especially women (Bellis, 1994). This is because almost all religion has always lacked the desired outlook towards women, and this has continued to encourage the blossoming of individual. However, instead of man focusing on the individual self, they began looking at women through the prism of stereotyped roles that came forth for the sustenance of a male dominated society. Parker and Brock (2002) are against this male dominated structures where in almost all leading religions, have males as the dominant figure in terms of authority and leadership such as the clergy.

The power of evil is inherent in women’s experiences as they continue to stand as the impure ones, and this enables the understanding this evil just through listening to women. Therefore, the promotion of universal equality of all human beings truly hides the actual inequality, not in the present, but the history and culture of man (Gebara, 2002). This hiding mostly affects more women than males, more blacks than whites and more deprived than the wealthy (Gebara, 2002).

According to Gebara the evil that women experience arises from their lack of ownership, power, education, and worth where the underlying difficulty for these women is the hand that fate has dealt them, which is the evil of simply being female and unfortunate. This shows that evil for women resides in their daily lives as they fight for continued existence and the desolation they suffer at the hands of society’s unfairness. This is quite evident among the catholic women who, through the ecclesiastical culture of obedience that employ the model of Mary, the church demands that women be submissive (Gebara, 2002). This force of guilt the church imparts on women force them to be submissive under any condition, and this is the source of the injustices of gender and violence in families just as Parker and Brock (2002) have reiterated. This shows how identity with Christ can both be a positive motivation to courage and love as well as unhealthy especially to women who suffer in masochism and alienation. Therefore, it is evident that some religious models do hinder women’s wellbeing, and it is an opportune time that the models change. One of the suggestions Gebara (2002) puts forth is the de-emphasis of the cross as the central and supreme symbol and Incase focus more on the relatedness. This is because the focus on suffering adds to the suffering of women rather than lightening their burden. This is profound when she asserts that poor women can still find salvation in respect to their individual and collective bodies, and not just because of some remote coming kingdom whose statutes rely on the beliefs and practices that discriminate against women.

Ruether (2011) emphasizes the assertion by Gebara that the church has continued to discriminate women on grounds of salvation, and this is when she asserts that there is a discriminatory interpretation of women’s redemption in early Christianity. In as much as the arrival of Jesus ministry lead to a theology that assumed baptism resulted in no male or female, Paul and other Christian leaders argued that the achievement of the redemption was only spiritual. This subordinated women who even today, still face the discrimination, and it is the time it changes because salvation in women is both spiritual and physical (Gebara, 2002). Womanizm is more than feminism and that it is more colorful, exuberant, and audacious than the white counterparts or wealthy fellows (Bellis, 1994). This then implies that womanizm is not good for the development of any woman, and this is because it lays its foundation in the cultural and traditional past that is characteristic of male dominated structures.

Reading the gospel and acting towards its teaching is not in itself destructive, but the different misinterpretations and misunderstandings come with theology leads to destructive practices and beliefs. Women should not allow themselves to suffer just because of what the gospel teaches, but because of what they believe is right. This is because religion was the source of all the inherent discrimination in the society where women were to be submissive to their men. It is time that women stand up for equality and question the existing patriarchal society, for the evil, inherent in the society regarding women discrimination is manmade.

References

Bellis, A.O. (1994). Helpmates, harlots, and heroes: Women’s stories in the Hebrew Bible, Louisville, Kentucky, Westminster John Knox Press.

Gebara, I. (2002). Out of the depths: Women’s experience of evil and salvation. Minneapolis, Minnesota, Fortress Press.

Parker, R.P. and Brock, R. N. (2002). Proverbs of ashes: Violence, redemptive suffering, and the search for what saves us. Boston,  Beacon Press.

Ruether, R.R. (2011). Women and redemption: A Theological history. Minneapolis, Minnesota, Fortress Press.