Feminist theology attempts to re-frame Christianity to allow oppressed groups access to God, who, it turns out, does not privilege the male, white, middle class and heterosexual humans after all

The Anglican Church is experiencing internal angst – again. For those looking in, the endless debates about gender and human sexuality seem unreasonable, outmoded and downright unjust.

Challenges that rattle the “divine order” are difficult for the church. For centuries doctrine has been fixed on notions of a “natural” order; God made man, then woman as the second sex, and he made them heterosexual.

As Rosemary Radford Ruether, a brilliant theologian of the feminist movement, reminded us, Christianity has always absorbed cultural change to match people’s real lives – thankfully. Yet Christian doctrine seems to be continually out of step with social progress.

On the other hand, feminist theologians of the 1970s and 1980s have a message that is still relevant today. If religious symbols or doctrines do not match people’s experiences and identities, the symbols and doctrines need to change. The more fundamental the change, however, the more painful it appears to be.

Diverse theologies are, no doubt, part of the training for the priestly caste, but both the hierarchy and the lay population of the worldwide Anglican Church may well be missing out on the discussion of feminist theology happening at the margins.

Changing what seemed fixed
Feminism has produced some startling and radical theologies over the years, making it possible for women to claim their place in the Anglican Church hierarchy as priests and bishops.

Christian feminists are working to subvert the patriarchal dogma of Christianity from within, dealing with some awkward, misogynist biblical passages and some awkward traditionalists. Read Mary Daly or Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and it becomes possible to imagine Christian symbols in ways that are not oppressive.

Feminist theology attempts to re-frame Christianity to allow oppressed groups access to God, who, it turns out, does not privilege the male, white, middle class and heterosexual humans after all. Queer theology, like feminist theology, operates at the boundaries of the Church, though there is much more hope, acceptance and optimism at the grassroots.

Christian theology widely asserted that women were inferior, weak, depraved, and vicious. The logical consequences of this opinion were worked out in a brutal set of social arrangements that shortened and crushed the lives of women.

Feminism started a theological ball rolling. As a result the worldwide Anglican Church has seen dramatic, if uneven, change. In the 1960s, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, said with confidence that it would take “millions and millions of years” for women to be ordained in the Church of England. Those millions of years turned out to be just 30.

In that time, feminists worked tirelessly to talk the church out of its most blatant sexist dogma. The same process is happening for the LGBTQ Christian community. Of course, sexual identity is much more than being able to be married in church, but it would be an outward sign of theological transformation.

For those who identify as Christian and are part of any group that could be considered marginal, the importance of feminist theology cannot be overstated. We now have ways of seeing religious myths and symbols separately from the dominant masculine heterosexual perspective. Christ can be imagined as female, lesbian, gay, queer, black – blowing the symbol wide open.

In 1975, Mary Daly gave feminists the task of challenging all religious symbols that result in discrimination and oppression. For her, the women’s movement is in the business of raising consciousness so that religious beliefs negating a person’s identity can (and must) be changed.

This is important, as Mary Daly puts it, because, “Christian theology widely asserted that women were inferior, weak, depraved, and vicious. The logical consequences of this opinion were worked out in a brutal set of social arrangements that shortened and crushed the lives of women.”

People who are not heterosexual, living in communities where traditional Christian dogma influences socially oppressive views, may well relate to this statement.

Feminist theology has the capacity to change Christian spirituality into a liberating force. Daly spoke loudly from the revolutionary atmosphere of second wave feminism in the 1970s, believing the women’s movement was “the greatest single hope for survival of spiritual consciousness on this planet”. Feminism, she said, would be the saviour of the human species. Perhaps feminism could, at the very least, be the antidote to schism over same-sex marriage?

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

The post Can Feminists save the Anglican Church? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There was concern that the communion – a group which brings together Anglican churches across the globe – would split up if it could not agree on a position on same-sex marriage. While the US church has embraced same-sex marriage for some years, more conservative congregations, particularly in Africa, remain vehemently opposed.

It is very unfortunate that to preserve the communion from breaking up, the majority got together and slapped sanctions on the US branch of the church for supporting same-sex marriage. At the meeting, it was decided that US church leaders had made a “fundamental departure” from the faith in accepting same-sex marriage.

Perhaps with the aim of deterring other churches from following its example, the US province has been demoted to observer status for three years. It won’t be able to participate in the Anglican Consultative Council or ecumenical and interfaith activities.

If the church leaders are truly committed to “healing the hurt” caused by this row, they should perhaps consider the not insignificant section of its followers that will be hurt by the outcome of their meeting. Many LGBTI Anglicans and those who support them across the globe will have been left feeling at best overlooked and at worst utterly rejected by their church.

A sad message

The Archbishop of Canterbury might have saved his communion from splitting but potentially at the expense of having put on hold truthful engagement with those who differ on issues of sexuality.

The primates seem to have used disciplining as a tool to bring the episcopal church into line. The latter has embraced same-sex marriage, changing its cannon laws to accommodate and be faithful to its members. According to the primates in the communique, important cannon laws cannot be changed unilaterally and without catholic unity. Such actions will invite consequences, as explained by Welby in the press conference.

It’s to be welcomed that the primates have at least acknowledged their differences on the issue of sexuality, rather than behaving as though Anglican doctrine on marriage was a finished matter.

Since the consecration of the openly gay priest Gene Robinson as an Episcopal Bishop in 2003, the Anglican Communion has struggled to come to terms with the changing nature of marriage.

Some US churches became more and more liberal, while the more evangelical and conservative sections continued to hold the view that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.

That tone seems to have changed in the current primates’ debate, where the “exclusive” idea has not been mentioned. Nevertheless, the conservative perception of marriage has prevailed. The sanction levied against the US church for its attempts to be inclusive makes second-class Anglicans of its members.

The fact that they will not be allowed to be elected in the internal committees and excluded from decision making as equals questions the very nature of the disciplining process in the Anglican Communion. If the primates are truly committed to “restoration of relationship, and the rebuilding of mutual trust”, they should have thought and acted differently.

Restoration does not come from exclusion. The primates seem to have acted out of fear, even while the Episcopal Church acted out of love in changing its cannon laws.

Michael Curry, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, responded poignantly to the primates sanctions, saying:

“Our commitment to be an inclusive church is not based on a social theory or capitulation to the ways of the culture, but on our belief that the outstretched arms of Jesus on the cross are a sign of the very love of God reaching out to us all. While I understand that many disagree with us, our decision regarding marriage is based on the belief that the words of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians are true for the church today: All who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, for all are one in Christ.”

The primates could have used this opportunity to initiate a communion-wide consultation, so that the Anglicans could have had more say in this matter.

The Scottish Episcopal Church, for example, has successfully initiated such a practice in the form of what it calls the cascade process. This approach, which aimed to give a voice to ordinary Anglicans on the marriage debate, was widely supported by congregations. It is hoped that this would eventually lead to amending the cannon laws in the Scottish Episcopal Church.

Using the instrument of communion for mutual learning and betterment of each other’s lives could have been a better option than slapping sanctions on the US church. Every day many LGBTI Anglicans across the world are discriminated against and their lives threatened. Sadly this seems to have failed to occur to the primates. The Anglican Communion prides itself in learning from its diversity but unfortunately not at this juncture.

The mistrust the primates refer to in the statement released after their meeting is wholly brought about by lack of appreciation of the dynamic nature of God’s love among all Christians, including Anglicans.

Sometimes those who fail to see the image of God in others, particularly those who differ from themselves, fail to acknowledge the unbound nature of God. The recently concluded primates' gathering has gone about doing business in a democratic manner but singularly failed to reflect the inclusivity and hospitality practised by millions of Anglicans.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

The post Together, but at what price? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a decision that is sure to rattle the Israeli government, the pension board of the United Methodist Church which has seven million members in the US has blacklisted five Israeli banks for human rights violations. According to a statement issued by the Board on Tuesday, the banks knocked off its investment portfolio are guilty of financing settlement construction in Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel.

Pro-Palestine voices within and outside the Church have hailed the boycott decision as a major step forward in the Boycott, Divest and Sanction campaign (BDS), an international effort to pressureise economically over the Palestinian issue. Meanwhile, a section among the church members are opposed to the divestment campaign and also claim that in any case the church remains invested in other Israeli companies. M. Colette Nies, a spokeswoman for the pension board stated that pension fund remains invested in “approximately 18 Israeli companies that meet our investment criteria.”
The excluded banks are Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, First International Bank of Israel, Israel Discount Bank, and Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank. Also blacklisted is an Israeli construction concern, Shikun & Binui, which is heavily involved in settlement construction.

The Israeli banks on the United Methodist Church’s black list are among 39 companies from several countries that have been excluded from the pension board’s portfolio for not meeting its Human Rights Investment Policy guideline adopted in 2014.

The pension board’s decision is in sync with other American church groups among whom divestment is gaining momentum. Liberal Protestants see the divestment movement as a tool to pressure Israel over its policies toward Palestinians. In July 2015, the United Church of Christ voted to divest from companies with business in the Israeli-occupied territories. The Presbyterian Church (USA) had voted similarly in 2014.

While there was no immediate comment from Israeli officials, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel sees the divestment movement as a campaign to destroy Israel. The Israeli government invests a lot of time and resources in combating the decision of academic institutions, businesses and church organizations to divest from Israeli companies over the issue of Israeli settlements and the occupation of Palestinian lands.

Among the first to welcome the pension board’s decision was Tikkun magazine, the largest circulation voice of liberal and progressive Jews (and the winner of the Best Magazine of the Year Award from the Religion Newswriters Association in both 2014 and 2015)  

The magazine issued a statement stating, “Although we at Tikkun do NOT support a general boycott of Israel, and wish to see Israel remain strong and its security intact, we welcome the action of the United Methodist Church Pension Fund. The action of the UMC Pension Fund is narrowly focused on boycotting and divesting from Israeli and other firms that help perpetuate Israel’s Occupation of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the construction of “Jewish-only” settlements. The Occupation of the West Bank with its attendant oppression of the Palestinian people is not only a violation of the highest values of the Jewish people, it is also the Israeli activity that most threatens to turn Israel into a pariah state and thereby weaken its ability to protect its citizens from the real threats it may face from surrounding hostile powers and forces. For that reason, we support all efforts to boycott the products produced on the West Bank in Israeli “Jewish only” settlements and to disinvest from Israeli and global corporations and institutions that help make the Occupation possible. The Jewish people in centuries to come will thank those friends of Israel, like the United Methodists, Presbyterians USA, and the United Church of Christ, who are doing all they can to reverse Israel’s self-destructive policies in the West Bank while distancing from the BDS movement that aims not only at the Occupation of the West Bank but at the totality of Israel and the Israeli people.”

The post US church with 7 million members blacklists 5 Israeli banks appeared first on SabrangIndia.