Mary Daley's feminist theology- does she have a point?

-


"If God is male, then male is God" Mary Daley (Beyond God the Father 1973)




Daley's argument is that all the major figures in Christianity are men, for example, the Pope, the Bishop, the Disciples, God, Jesus Christ and many other figures and roles in Christianity and thus, Christianity is a male religion and suffers from the influence men have on it. Daley speaks of the 'unholy trinity' of Rape, Genocide and War which are at the centre of Christianity because Christianity is a religion based on empowering men. She points to the Old Testament conquests of the Israelite people as an example in Scripture of where the unholy trinity is shown, where women, men and children were murdered and where (in some cases) women were the spoils of war for many of the warriors in the Old Testament.




Daley wrote in 'Beyond God the Father' 1973-

"If God in "his" heaven is a father ruling "his" people, then it is in the "nature" of things and according to divine plan and the order of the universe that society be male-dominated."



Throughout the rest of Daley's work 'Beyond God the Father' she attacks different aspects of general Christian teaching. She attacks the fall, Jesus Christ by stating that Christ as a male "legitimises male superiority", ethics as a 'morality of victimisation' arguing Christian ethics was developed by men and for men, and she also discusses the role women play in Christian history.



If I was to sum up Mary Daley's theology is one sentence, I would say it is a critique of the male influence on Christianity and not of Christianity itself. 



So, here's the BIG question? Does Mary Daley have a valid point?


In Daley's works she makes some very ambitious claims, for example, the whole concept of Christian history being filled with Rape, Genocide and War. 

Firstly, the primary figure in Christianity, Jesus Christ, did not "come to be served, but to serve", was a peaceful person who commanded his followers to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39) and instead of promoting rape, genocide or war commanded humans to be meek and kind (look to Matthew 5 specifically verses 1-12). 

Secondly, the claims Daley makes about the Old Testament also seem a little ambitious. Although the Israelite people did involve themselves in war under the command of God, this war was always against wicked peoples such as the Canaanites who practised child sacrifice (see Jeremiah 19:5), were violent and would be a considered morally abhorrent society today.


Isn’t it the role of a wholly just God to punish evil if it has developed in a society into the sacrifice of the most innocent in the name of an alternative higher power?


Daley’s claim about women being the spoils of war in biblical history also appears a little mistaken. It’s true that the Israelite people took younger women as part of the prize of winning a victory over enemies (see Deuteronomy 20:14), but there is no suggestion these women were raped or ill-treated by the people of Israel. The practice of raping the women of the enemy is a wickedness practised by the enemies of God in the Old Testament which are condemned for their wicked behaviour and punished by God. I suggest reading the account of Judges 4 where Sisera was killed by the people of God, Sisera raped the women of the enemies he defeated but was killed by Jael in Judges.


The passage of Judges 4 leads on well to my next issue with the argument Mary Daley provides. Daley claims that it is men who practice the rape, genocide and war of biblical history. I would highly encourage Daley to read Judges 4:17-22 where Jael (a woman) drove a tent peg through the skull of Sisera, an action of war and violence carried out by a woman and not a man. Daley’s general claim that men are behind the supposed rape, genocide and war in Christianity appears to be very ambitious considering it was a woman who forced a giant tent peg through the head of a man and not another male.


Evaluating Daley’s argument about Jesus Christ-

Daley’s argument on God incarnate is that the male gender of Christ Jesus “legitimises male superiority”. This argument could provide some basis for a man feeling superior as Daley is correct that Jesus was a man. However, many of the qualities Jesus’ exercises and commands his followers to exercise would be regarded as female qualities, therefore doesn’t it seem logical to conclude that Jesus’ female qualities show the deep value women are to society? In the eyes of most Christians Jesus is the ultimate role model and therefore Christians should infer that what women have to offer is immense and that there is much men must learn from women if men are to become more like Jesus Christ the role model.

Daley’s theological perspective is certainly one to make everyone reconsider their assumptions. She challenges much of what many Christians take for granted and does effectively show that women have every right be involved in the future of Christianity.

Johnstheology.blogspot.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The question of knowledge? Plato, Aristotle and Kant-

-
A fitting place to start if we are discussing whether we can have true knowledge of anything, is Plato and Aristotle. The two crusaders for finding out what true knowledge is and where we can find true knowledge and yet, the two scholars who held drastically contradictory views on the issue of epistemology (the study of knowledge). Plato’s understanding of knowledge- We can take a grasp of Plato’s theory of knowledge if we explore his analogy of the cave. Plato was convinced of objective truth, he saw the immaterial World of forms (W.O.F) as the place where true knowledge can be gained and therefore placed little value on the experiences of sense-perception (experiences we have using our senses such as sight and smell). These were the assumptions behind Plato’s analogy of the cave which he gives in his great work ‘Republic’. The analogy of the cave was Plato’s way of arguing that we cannot trust our senses. The prisoners were bound in the cave, they were blind to the true wor...
Read more

Intuitionism- A good way of understanding ethics?

-
Intuitionism- A good way of understanding ethics?  Basic intuitionism is based on the premise/idea that moral propositions are self-evident . What does it mean for a proposition to be self-evident? A self-evident proposition is one that doesn’t require evidence, justification or an argument to be accepted (this does not mean that there is not evidence for this though). Therefore, when intuitionists argue that moral propositions are self-evident, they argue that we know some things are wrong, and we do not need justification to argue that it is wrong because the proposition that “murder is wrong” is self-evident.  This means that we can recognise a “good” or a “bad” action when we see it, but that we cannot define what “good” is. For example, the intuitionist would not need a reason to understand the holocaust was a morally abhorrent thing because the intuitionist argues that we all know what is wrong. Some significant intuitionists- Price Price argues that ...
Read more