1) "In the past decade or so right-wing fundamentalist movements around the globe have insisted on portraying emancipated women as signifiers of Western decadence or of modern atheist secularism, but they have presented masculine power as the expression of divine power. Whether it is possible to transform androcentric exclusivist forms of religion and whether religion will contribute to the global struggles for a more democratic world order will depend for the most part on whether it will engage feminist and liberationist theologies for articulating a different spiritual vision in this situation of globalization." page 8-9

      2) "Because feminist discourses continue to use the term "patriarchy" in the sense of gender dualism, I introduced in But She Said the neologism "kyriarchy," meaning the rule of the emperor/ master/ lord/ father/ husband over his subordinates. With this term I mean to indicate that not all men dominate and exploit all women without difference and that elite Western educated propertied Euro-American men have articulated and benefited from women's and other "nonpersons" exploitation. As a consequence, the hermeneutical center of a critical feminist theology of liberation cannot simply be women. Rather, it must be constituted and determined by the interests of women who live at the bottom of the kyriarchal pyramid and who struggle against multiplicative forms of oppression. The term "kyriocentric," in turn, refers to ideological articulations that validate and are sustained by kyriarchal relations of domination." Page 14

      3) "That classical christological doctrines were shaped by imperial interests is generally recognized. The Roman emperor Constantine, whose military victories had recently reunited the empire, summoned the first Christian council at Nicea on May 20, 323 C.E. In his opening speech he stated that he considered the "disunion in the Church an evil more terrible and more grievous than any kind of war" and went on to exhort the assembly of bishops to "banish all causes of dissension" and to "solve controversial difficulties according to the law of peace." This imperial "law of peace" did not value or tolerate differences, disagreement, or diversity but imposed rules and standards of uniformity that could be enforced by the state. Similarly, the decision-making process of the Council of Ephesus (431), which Leo of Rome called the "Robber Synod," was totally under imperial control." page 20

      4) "The Chalcedon doctrine of christology is not "unnatural." It is political. It shaped and was shaped by the imperial politics of meaning that legitimated kyriarchal domination and exploitation." page 22

      5) "At the behest of the imperial court, the Council Fathers not only inscribe these dualisms doctrinally as oppositions but also forbid anyone to say or think otherwise under threat of expulsion and damnation." page 23

      6) "Whether feminist theological discourse will change Christian belief systems and practices depends to a large extent on whether feminist scholars are able to develop a theory of feminist subject and replace the kyriarchal space of the feminine with a political counterhegemonic space where critical practices for change can become operative." page 24

      7) "Critical cultural and liberationist studies in turn have challenged feminist theoretical gender analysis not to abstract from their sociopolitical function and so reinscribe the cultural ideal of the "Lady."

      This critique of the basic categories of feminist analysis has introduced a crisis into feminist self-understanding and the practices of the feminist subject. In order to mark this crisis in my writing I introduce here a particular spelling of "wo/men" that seeks to indicate that women are not a unitary social group but rather are fragmented and fractured by structures of race, class, religion, heterosexuality, colonialism, age, and health. I do not think that feminists can relinquish the analytic category "women" entirely and replace it with the analytic category "gender" if we do not want to marginalize or erase the presence of women in our own feminist discourses.

      Among the various feminist theories, I have found Rosemary Hennessy's work most helpful for critically reflecting on this categorical crisis in feminist discourse." page 24-25

      8) "If what becomes cultural or religious "common sense" is engendered by a process through which those in power establish and maintain their rule, then christological dogmas must be understood as the result of a political process through which the imperial church, under the pressures of the political interests of the Roman emperors, came to dominate. Christological discourses must be investigated to determine how much they continue this kyriarchal process and how much they interrupt it." page 26

      9) "When I speak of the ekklesia of wo/men as the hermeneutical center of feminist biblical interpretation and christological construction, I do not speak of a women's church that excludes men. Nor do I speak of one group of women as a unitary entity or mean to argue for women's integration into the kyriarchal institutions of the church. Nor do I want to restrict the notion of the ekklesia of wo/men to the interpretive theological community that articulates christological discourse. Rather, the "reality" and vision of the ekklesia of wo/men is a hermeneutical, discursively constructed articulation that seeks to make conscious that cultural "common-sense" patriarchal religion and malestream democracy have been exclusive of women, be they human or divine.

      Theologically, the expression "ekklesia of wo/men" asserts that "salvation" is not possible outside the world or without the world. G*d's vision of a renewed creation entails not only a "new" heaven but also a "renewed," qualitatively different earth freed from kyriarchal exploitation and dehumanization. To articulate ekklesia, i.e., the assembly of full citizens, means to name an alternative reality of justice and well-being for all, without exception.

      In contrast to fundamentalist or liberal modern theologies, feminist liberation theologies of all colors do not see the threat of secularization as the greatest problem for faith today. Rather the greatest problem consists in the fact that life on earth is jeopardized by the multiform practices of dehumanization, violence, exploitation, and extinction. Like other liberation theologies, feminist liberation theologies shift their focus from the modern question, How can we believe in G*d? to the question What kind of G*d do Christians proclaim? and Do religious faith and community make a difference in the struggle for the well-being of all in the global village? Are the Bible and christology used to sustain hegemonic kyriarchal discourses or are they deployed to reconfigure them so that they support wo/men's struggles for liberation and transformation? Which christological articulations legitimate the status quo and which promote G*d's intention for the welfare of every wo/man?" pages 27-28

      10) "First, in my book In Memory of Her I argued that feminist historical reconstruction must begin with the assumption of women's presence and agency rather than with the precon-structed kyriarchal discourse of women's marginality and victimization. Such an argument seeks to shift the "burden of proof" to kyriocentric hegemonic biblical scholarship that contends that women were not active and present in the development of early Christian life and theology. . . .

      Such a change of theoretical framework or hermeneutical "binoculars" makes it possible to understand early Christian beginnings as shaped by the agency and leadership of Jewish, Greco-Roman, Asian, African, free and enslaved, rich and poor, elite and marginal men and wo/men. Those who hold the opposite view that, for instance, slave wo/men were not active shapers of early Christian life would have to argue their point. Shifting from a kyriarchal preconstructed frame of reference to that of the ekklesia of wo/men we can no longer argue that, for instance, women might or might not have been members of the communities that produced the hypothetical Sayings Source Q. If one cannot show definitely that women were not members of this group, one needs to give the benefit of the doubt to the textual traces that suggest that they were. Rather than taking the grammatically androcentric text at face value, one must unravel its politics of meaning." page 29

      11) "Feminist theory has explicated that the Western sex/gender system operates simultaneously on four discursive levels: first, on the social-political level; second, on the ethical-symbolic level; third, on the biological-natural level; and finally, on the linguistic-grammatical level." page 35

      Regarding the first level, the social-political level: "Aristotle argued that the freeborn, propertied, educated Greek man was the highest of moral beings and that all other members of the human race were defined by their functions in his service. Modern political philosophy continues to assume that propertied, educated elite Western man is defined by reason, self-determination, and full citizenship, whereas women and other subordinated peoples are characterized by emotion, service, and dependence. They are seen not as rational and responsible adults but as emotional, helpless, and childlike. In short, in order to function kyriarchal societies and cultures need a "servant class," a "servant race," or a "servant people," be they slaves, serfs, house servants, kulis, or mammies. The existence of such a "servant class" is maintained though law, education, socialization, and brute violence. It is sustained by the belief that members of a "servant class" of people are by nature or divine decree inferior to those whom they are destined to serve." page 37

      Regarding the second level, the ethical-symbolic level: "The modern bourgeois ethos of "femininity" prescribes that "good" wo/men perform unpaid services in and outside the family with selfless love, nurturing care, and patient loving-kindness. The ethos of "true womanhood," romantic love, and domesticity defines wo/men's nature as "being for others" in actual or spiritual motherhood. Whereas men are measured by the masculine standards of self-assertion, independence, power, and control, wo/men are called to fulfill their true nature and destiny through self-sacrificing service and loving self-effacement. The cultural socialization of wo/men to selfless femininity and altruistic behavior is reinforced and perpetuated by the Christian preaching of self-sacrificing love and humble service." page 38

      "Women's recent access to professional ministry and theology is resisted by male clerics because the ministry is culturally typed as "feminine." Hence, male clergy fear that the church will be totally feminized and become a "woman's church" if women join the ranks of male clergy." page 38

      Regarding the third level, the biological-natural level: "Although "maleness" and "femaleness," as well as "man" and "woman," are figuratively categories and symbolic constructs of the cultural sex/gender system, the appear to be "natural" or "factual" sex differences in commonplace discourse and everyday understanding. The oppression of women is not achieved by force but through individual socialization and public discourses. Like education, religion has a major role in the discursive construction and symbolic legitimization of such sex/gender relations as heterosexuality. For instance, biblical religion has applied the metaphor of patriarchal marriage relationships to the relation between G*d and the individual soul as well as between Christ and the community." pages 38-39

      Regarding the fourth level, the linguistic level: "A theology that asserts biological sex/ gender differences as natural and God-given can do so because its readings of Scripture and tradition engages in a linguistic-symbolic process of "naturalizing" grammatical gender." page 40

      12) Mary Daly in Beyond God the Father quotes Elizabeth Cady Stanton:

      "Take the snake, the fruit tree, and the woman from the tableau, and we have no fall, no frowning Judge, no everlasting punishment- hence no need of a Savior. Thus the bottom falls out of the whole Christian theology. Here is the reason why all the biblical researches and higher criticisms, the scholars never touch the position of women." page 44

      13) "Male stream theology insists that the Bible proclaims G*d as male and reveals his incarnation in the man Jesus of Nazareth and that such an assertion does not deny women's dignity and invaluable contributions to church and society. Rather, it simply upholds the particularly of G*d's historical revelation in Jesus Christ. To be a Christian requires one to believe that masculine G*d-language and the historical maleness of Jesus constitute the ultimate revelation. Such a politics of essential revealed gender difference is not only advocated by the Vatican today but also found in some feminist discourses. It argues that women and men are of equal worth or even that women represent human qualities and relations more fully. Women and men are essentially different by nature or by divine order of creation. Apologetic Christian feminist attempts to prove that Jesus was a feminist or to ascribe to him androgynous status and to claim that he was the perfect man who integrated his masculinity and femininity remain caught up in the androcentric-patriarchal framework of Western culture. The question "Can a Male Savior Save Women?" makes sense only when contextualized in a frame of reference that assumes that femininity and masculinity are ontologically predetermined natural or revealed differences.

      Post-Christian feminist scholars in religion rightly have objected to such a Christian feminist apologetics, but they often presuppose the same theoretical framework of gender essentialism and historical positivism. Like Cady Stanton, they assume, without critically questioning their own presuppositions, that at the heart of the christological system is an intrinsic connection between original sin and female gender as well as between redemption and male gender; therefore they cannot but reject Christian faith as intrinsically misogynist. A feminist Christian response in turn is justified in pointing out that such a post-Christian reading resorts to fundamentalist literalism when it insists on the biological-cultural maleness of the historical Jesus. By rejecting christological doctrine without questioning its theological-cultural framework, post-Christian theological discourses are in danger of reproducing and reinscribing rather than destablizing the patriarchal politics of christology that the oppose." page 44-45

      14) Quoting Rosemary Radford Ruether: "In this sense Jesus as the Christ, the representative of liberated humanity and the liberating Word of God, manifests the kenosis of patriarchy, the announcement of the new humanity through a lifestyle that discards hierarchical caste privilege and speaks on behalf of the lowly." page 46

      "As other feminist theologians have frequently pointed out, Radford Ruether's concept of "new humanity" does not challenge the Western cultural sex/gender system and its androcentric language, according to which the male Man is the paradigm of being human whereas women is either his inferior or complementary "other." " page 47

      "Any feminist use of the concept "humanity" that does not radically displace the Western kyriarchal frame of reference, which understands gender as a biological given and masculinity as the paradigm for being human, is bound to reinscribe the sex/gender system in feminist terms. Most importantly, it neglects to address the issue that Christian women read the Gospels as stories about Jesus, the great hero and exceptional man, to whom they can relate in culturally feminine terms with love and sacrificial service. In other words, stories about Jesus the liberator continue to function for religiously inculcating feminine romance attitudes and to legitimate kyriarchal relations of dominance and submission. " page 47

      15) "The African American theologian Jacquelyn Grant rightly has critiqued the dualistic sex/ gender framework of "white" European and European-American feminist christological discourses as an approach tainted by racism. She distinguishes between three types of feminists: biblical or evangelical feminists, feminist liberation theologians, and rejectionist feminists, who repudiate biblical tradition and faith. Grant argues that all three directions in feminist theology have unintentionally promoted a white supremacist frame of reference, insofar as they universalize the experience of European-American women and do not take the experience of women of color or poor women into account. Although liberation theologians such as Letty Russell, Carter Heyward, and Rosemary Radford Ruether analyze racism and classism, in Grant's judgment they nevertheless remain caught up in the dominant European-American gender framework. He summarizes the position of Russell and Radford Ruether as follows:

      The historical Jesus was a man, but men do not have a monopoly upon Christ, and Eve was a woman but women do not have a monopoly on sin. For "Christ is not necessarily male, nor is the redeemed community only women, but new humanity, female and male." The maleness of Jesus is superseded by the Christness of Jesus. Both Russell and Ruether argue that the redemptive work of Jesus moves us toward the new humanity which is in Jesus Christ. But whereas Russell still holds to the unique Lordship of Jesus, Ruether raises the possibility that this Christ can be conceived in nontraditional ways- as in sister. " pages 47-48

      16) "Although in these struggles wo/men may experience moments of liberation, on the whole no woman is free and liberated unless all women without exception are liberated from kyriarchal oppression." page 48

      17) "In contrast to post-Christian feminists and Christian gender feminists who assume an essential or natural gender difference between women and men, feminist liberation theologians in general have asserted that it is Jesus' historical practice and humanity that is theologically important, not his manhood." page 49

      18) "If Christian proclamation and theology are to become credible in feminist terms, I would argue with Grant, all theologies - and not only white feminist theology - must be challenged to develop effective and powerful critiques and visions in the struggle to transform patriarchal structures. Scripture, tradition, theology, and christology must therefore be critically analyzed and tested for their ideological-political functions in legitimating or subverting kyriarchal structures and mind-sets of domination." page 49

      19) "Isabel Carter Heyward in the United States and Mary Grey in Europe, among others, have sought to create a paradigm shift in feminist christological discourse from a "heroic individualistic" or "heroic liberationist" christology to a christological construction that privileges right relation, connectedness, mutuality, and "at-one-ment." " page 50

      20) "What Cathie Kelsey has pointed out with respect to Nakashima Brock's work can also be applied to other feminist christologies of relationality:

      Brock's construction embraces many of the basic patriarchal gender constructions and calls them feminist. It is feminine to be concerned about relationality, so we have a feminist theology of relationship. It is common for women to be victims, so we have a feminist theology in which everyone is a victim. Women develop supportive groups among themselves, so we have a feminist theology in which the feminist community is the catalyst for healing. This construction intuitively feels "right" because it reappropriates patriarchal constructions of middle-class Euro-American women's experience, but it only renames these constructions, it does not challenge their appropriateness.

      The cultural discourse of femininity inculcates "relationality" in two ways, either as romantic love or as women's personal responsibility for maintaining right relations." page 55

      21)"The myth of "true womanhood" serves not only sexist but also racist and classist interests." page 58

      22) Regarding Sojourner Truth's 'Ain't I a Woman' Speech: "Her experience of exploitation and domination compels her to formulate two christological arguments with reference to the Bible, a book that she herself could not read because slaves were prohibited from learning to read and write. Both her criticism of the myth of femininity and her christological arguments are rooted in her own experience that Jesus alone heard her in the hour of her greatest exploitation and dehumanization when slavery robbed her of her children. This religious experience of liberation, which is unique and cannot be replicated, empowers her to articulate two counterarguments. These counterarguments anchor the articulation of christology in the revelatory struggle of women for survival and well-being.

      Third, in her counterarguments Sojourner Truth points out, on the one hand, that the incarnation of Christ must be correctly understood as the collaboration of God and a woman. On the other hand she stresses that redemption from sinful structures can be experienced only when women come together and organize for turning the "world rightside up" again." page 59

      23) "Whereas feminists who reject Christianity as totally patriarchal argue that christology engenders androcentric identity constructions and religiosity deepens women's patriarchal self-alienation, Christian feminist theologies have sought to prove that this is not the case and to articulate a different christology within the traditional Christian theological framework." page 60

      24) "The reflections of liberation theology are no longer compelled by the modern question of whether G*d exists but rather are moved by the question of what kind of G*d Christians proclaim in a world of oppression." page 60

      25) "Only a feminist christological approach concerned with justice and well-being for all can overcome the dualistic either-or alternative of feminist Christian or post-Christian theology. Only an approach that critically scrutinizes its own presumptions, methods, interests, and social functions and their kyriarchal implications is able to lay open its own christological constructions for public discussion." page 61

      "Hence, its criteria of validation cannot be derived simply by observing the methodological procedures of biblical studies or by complying with the theological principles of dogmatics." page 62

      26) "I find it especially disturbing, therefore, that the tendency to define Jesus as unique over and against Judaism remains even in feminists who do not make use of the Jesus-was-a-feminist argument, who are quite aware of Christian anti-Judaism, who are freely critical of Christian sources, who have gone very far in deconstructing Jesus' divinity. . . It seems as if the feminist struggle with patriarchal christologies leads back into the trap of anti-Judaism. If Jesus is not the Messiah and the incarnate son of God on any traditional interpretation of these terms, then how does one articulate his uniqueness in a way that makes sense out of remaining a Christian. . . Can Christians value Jesus if he was just a Jew who chose to emphasized certain ideas and values in the Jewish tradition but did no invent or have a monopoly on them?" page 67 - this quote is entirely taken from Judith Plaskow, "Feminist Anti-Judaism and the Christian God", Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 7, no. 2 (1991):106.

      27) "If religious traditions and communities are to articulate a spiritual vision and theological knowledge that can help fashion a cosmopolitan ethos of justice and well-being, they cannot continue to relegate women to the margins of religious institutions and discourse." pages 68-69

      28) "Christian feminist concerns with Jesus and the proclamation of "Jesus the feminist" remain tinged with anti-Judaism, I suggest, because they have their roots in kyriarchal church practices and liberal theological apologetics." page 73

      29) "Since the position of biblical studies as an academic "hard" (read masculine) science is precarious to say the least, biblical scholarship is compelled to demonstratively profess its high scientific, "stiff" standards and advocate an objectivist, value-detached mode of inquiry in order not to be relegated to the "soft" sciences. Accordingly, the ethos of positivist biblical scholarship does not allow critical reflection on its own ideological bias of anti-Judaism or antifeminism. Although biblical scholarship has officially established itself as an objective academic discipline against the doctrinal authority and hegemony of the church hierarchy, it nevertheless still employs a systematic theological frame of reference. This frame of meaning defines the task of biblical scholarship as critically elaborating either the historical revelation of G*d in the person of Jesus Christ or the christologies of Christian Testament writers. Since the concepts and theoretical frameworks of the discipline called biblical "New Testament christology" are rooted in a doctrinal theological framework, the interests of this discipline conflict not only with the value-neutral ethos of biblical historical or literary scholarship but also with biblical scholarship's positivist claims to scientific methods of inquiry." page 73

      30) "Insofar as biblical scholars seek to construct christological discourses at all, they have as their goal to maintain Christian religious and Western cultural identity as preconstructed kyriarchal identity and to elaborate such identity formations in doctrinal-historical, spiritual-imaginative, literary-social, or historical-apologetic terms." page 74

      31) "For instance, as I am writing this, the pope has issued a statement in which he repeats that the Roman Church cannot ordain women because Jesus ordained only men. Such a declaration flies in the face of all serious biblical scholarship, which has shown that Jesus did not ordain anyone!" page 74

      32) "Feminist biblical christological discourses cannot but serve coercive, often anti-Jewish, interests if they hide their interpretive character and advance one possible historical-theological reading as the single normative criterion for being Christian. This attempt to secure Christian identity with the help of historical- or literary- critical christological readings of the Bible not only obscures that its hermeneutical strategy imports the presuppositions and ethos of positivist or scientific interpretive frameworks into biblical-theological discourses. It also reproduces and reinscribes cultural masculine/feminine identity as Christian identity because it does not question the preconstructed sex/gender frame of meaning. For that reason, it stands in danger of ossifying Western kyriarchal identity constructions as Christian." pages 75-76

      33) "Christian scholars refer to dogmatic standards as binding and argue that a feminist hermeneutics is "propagandist" in order to establish the theological authority and normativity of their own confessional scholarship on the historical Jesus." page 81

      34) Pages 80-81 contain a nice discussion on how the anti-feminist forces undermine the work of feminist Christian theologians.

      35) "The Newest Quest's stance of liberal relativism, its refusal to reflect on its own ideological or theological interests, and its restoration of historical positivism corresponds to political conservatism." pages 86-87

      36) "Moreover, the abundance of books and articles on the historical Jesus proves that the judgment of Albert Schweitzer is still correct; after all, scholars and writers inescapably fashion the image of Jesus in their own image and likeness. At best they can glimpse the historical shadow of Jesus, but how they capture "his picture" will always depend on the "lens" they use or the reconstructive model they adopt." page 88

      37) "My own work has sought to spell out an alternative reconstructive model that can simultaneously address some of the questions raised by decades of historical Jesus research and make explicit its own hermeneutical perspectives and theological interests." page 88

      38) "Undergirding this argument are four basic assumptions: First, anti-Judaism is contrary to a Christian feminist theology of liberation because an anti-Jewish perspective does not recognize that Jesus and his first followers were Jewish wo/men. . . .

      Second, who Jesus was and what he did can be glimpsed only in the interpretation and memory of the Jesus movement probably as one among several first-century Jewish movements.

. . .       Third, this emancipatory movement of Galilean wo/men must be seen as a part of the various basileia and holiness movements that in the first century sought the "liberation" of Israel from imperial exploitation. . . .

      Fourth, the emerging Galilean Jesus movement probably understood itself as a prophetic movement of Sophia-Wisdom." pages 89-90

      39) "This Roman form of imperial domination and exploitation is eloquently described by the Jewish scholar Ellis Rivkin:

      The Roman emperor held the life or death of the Jewish people in the palm of his hand; the governor's sword was always at the ready; the high priest's eyes were always penetrating and his ears were always keen; the soldiery was always eager for the slaughter. . . . The emperor sought to govern an empire; the governor sought to hold anarchy in check; the high priest sought to hold on to his office; the members of the high priest's Sanhedrin sought to spare the people the dangerous consequences of a charismatic's innocent visions of the Kingdom of God, which they themselves believed was not really at hand. . . For he had taught and preached that the Kingdom of God was near at hand, a kingdom which were it to come, would displace the kingdom of Rome. By creating the impression that he . . . would usher in the Kingdom of God. . . he had readied the people for riotous behavior. The fact that the charismatic of charismatics had taught no violence, had preached no revolution, and lifted up no arms against Rome's authority would have been utterly irrelevant. The High Priest Caiphas and the Prefector Pontius Pilate cared not a whit how or by whom the Kingdom of God would be ushered in, but only that the Roman Emperor and his instruments would not reign over it." page 93

      40) The Jesus movement "envisioned an alternative world free of hunger, poverty, and domination." page 93

      41) "Although Segal does not specifically mention women, except for prostitutes, his description of "status inconsistency" and his ascription of "low esteem" to those who joined the Jesus-people is also typical for wo/men in Greco-Roman cultures." page 94

      42) "In the rhetoric of the Gospels, we are able to trace early Christian apologetic attempts to make the Christian movement politically safe in the eyes of the Roman empire. This rhetoric of depoliticization engendered anti-Jewish interpretations of Jesus' suffering and execution and forged Christian political adaptation to Greco-Roman patriarchal structures of dominance that opened the door to the imperial Roman co-opation of the gospel." page 96

      43) "In such a reconstructive rhetorical model, Christian self-identity is not tied to its previous stages of kyriarchal anti-Jewish formations and their sociocultural contexts but must be negotiated again and again for every-body and every wo/man in the global village in light of the messianic basileia/commonweal vision of justice and well-being." page 96

      44) "With other feminists she [Regula Strobel] argues that traditional theologies of the cross promote the understanding of G*d as a sadist who demands for his own satisfaction the death of his only child." page 101

      "The notions of innocent victimhood and redemption as freely chosen suffering enable militarist and capitalist societies to persuade people to accept suffering, war, and death as important ideals for which people have died in the past and for which it is still worthy to die." page 102

      "Strobel rightly maintains that to willingly suffer violence always serves kyriarchal interests, even when such suffering is understood as redemptive." page 102

      "Pointing to the Gospel narratives, she [Williams] contends that humankind is not redeemed through Jesus' death but through his ministry and life." page 104

      "Feminist theologies have underscored the pernicious impact of a theological and christological symbolic system that stresses that God sacrificed his son for our sins." page 106

      "Moreover, Christine Gudorf has pointed out that, contrary to Rene Girard's thesis, the sacrifice of surrogate victims does not contain and interrupt the cycle of violence." page 106

      45) KINGAFAP-King-God-Almighty-Father-All-Powerful-Protector

      "In this frame of reference G*d is pictured as a powerful king enthroned in splendor who receives homage and atonement for offenses against his majesty, rules by word of command, and stabilizes the cosmic order. This Almighty, All-powerful, and often terrifying King is also called Father. He is the creator, merciful Lord, and Father, who is the sole (male) parent of the crown prince, his Son, Jesus Christ. Since evil enemies have invaded the Father's kingly realm of creation, the crown prince obediently surrenders his royal power and privileges and at his Father's command becomes human. The royal prince is killed by the enemy powers, Sin and Evil, but lifted up to the glorious abode of his Kingly Father. He leaves behind his humble and suffering station as one of humanity and waits on his throne until he can come back in glory to slay his enemies and judge humanity. Meanwhile the Father-King and Son-Prince send their Spirit down to earth to help their followers and to teach only them the revelation of KINGAFAP and the story of the Only Son of G*d, Humiliated Slave but Prince, the enthroned Christ who rules with KINGAFAP.

      The Christian symbol system of Kingly Father, Princely Son, and Exclusive Spirit has no room for a female figure, be it mother, consort, sister, or daughter, nor for a female personification like Shekinah or Sophia. It envisions the Divine in terms of control and rule and imagines divine transcendence as absolute, distant, and completely foreign to the world." pages 106-107

      46) Pages 111 - 113 explore how suttel changes in the wording of biblical stories over time radically alter their meaning :

      The resurrection story: "God raised him from the dead" or "he was raised from the dead" became "Jesus rose from the dead." (God acting on Jesus becomes Jesus performing the action himself.)

      Sin and Jesus' death: "It was a sin to kill Jesus and Jesus died because men sinned." became "Christ died for our sins." which became "Christ died for us." which became "Christ died to save us from sin."

      "Jesus's resurrection is here understood as the vindication of the righteous one." page 112

      47) In early Judaism,

      "1. The death of the martyrs is interpreted as a means to end G*d's wrath and punishment of Israel. . . .

      2. For most ancients violation of the world order meant the offense of divine power and consequent punishment by them. Only satisfactory atonement could prevent or end such punishment. . . .

      3. The notion of atonement is to be carefully distinguished from the notions of reconciliation and justification. Reconciliation signifies the repair of a disturbed relationship between G*d and Israel. . . .

      4. A fourth interpretation of Jesus' death is expressed in Mark 10:45, which stresses that Jesus came to serve and to give up his life as a ransom for many. . . . "Ransom" can refer to the redemption of an inheritance, or to the rescuing of family members from servitude or from other difficulties, to the redemption of the firstborn among male children from being sacrificed, or to buying the freedom of slaves. . . . Jesus is understood here as an envoy who, so to speak, used his ife as a payment for setting people free from bondage and oppression." pages 114-115

      "Since G*d was absent in the execution of the Just One, the women's presence under the cross is a witness to this absence. " page 125

      "This narrative valorizes a compassionate practice of honoring those unjustly killed." page 125

      "The empty tomb does not signify absence but presence; it announces the Resurrected One's presence on the road ahead, in a particular space of struggle and recognition such as Galilee." page 126

      "Only if one positions feminist christological articulations within the ambiguous open space of the "empty tomb" and the open-ended "road to Galilee" can we evaluate critically those feminist discourses that understand G*d or Christ as present in the suffering and victimization of wo/men." page 127

      49) "Some of the earliest traditions of the Jesus movement understood the mission of Jesus as that of a prophet of Sophia sent to proclaim that the Sophia-G*d of Jesus is the G*d of the poor, the outcasts, and all those suffering from injustice." page 140

      "This Sophia lament is not directed against all of Israel or Judaism as a whole but only against the governing authorities in the capital." page 142

      "Although the polemical rhetoric of Paul in 1 Corinthians misconstrues the arguments and beliefs of the Corinthian wo/men, it nevertheless indicates that the early Christian missionary movements in urban centers of the Greco-Roman world understood Jesus in terms of Sophia-Spirit." page 149

      "... the Corinthian wo/men prophets understood themselves and other apostles as standing in a long line of Sophia' emissaries." page 150

      "In this latter view Paul insists on Christ's death as a model whose downward path unto death and subordination to G*d must be imitated. It is Paul who asserts the revelatory authority of a few - and especially of himself- as the only "father" of the community. His rhetoric of cajoling and threat bespeaks his own tenuous status in the community of Sophia and not his actual kyriarchal power. Such kyriocentric rhetoric, however, paved the way for the transformation of the radical democratic ekklesia of Sophia-Spirit into a "school of the wise" built on the exclusivist revelatory discourses between "father(s) and son(s)." page 150

      "As we have seen, in contrast to Jewish and Gnostic Wisdom literature only a very few direct traces of Divine Wisdom are found in Christian canonical writings." page 155

      "As I have argued throughout this chapter, I find the early "Jesus messenger of Sophia" traditions theologically significant because they assert the unique particularly of Jesus without having to resort to exclusivity and superiority." page 157

      "Jesus as sage and prophet of Sophia provides us with two christological images. One presents Jesus as a wise teacher, who in his concrete life relates to our ongoing quest for a gracious G*d. . . . The other insight is that Jesus' teaching is meant not only for hearing but also for being acted upon." page 157

      50) "Malestream mariology and cult of Mary, feminist theologians point out, devalue women in three ways: first, by emphasizing virginity to the detriment of sexuality; second, by unilaterally associating the ideal of "true womanhood" with motherhood; and, third, by religiously valorizing obedience, humility, passivity, and submission as the cardinal virtues of women." page 164-165

      "Because the biblical references to Mary are spotty at best, the "historical Mary" remains even more illusive than the "historical Jesus." " page 169

      "As long as the ecclesial structures of oppression and the kyriocentric theologies that have determined the official articulation of dogmatic mariology continue to exert their power, feminist theological reinterpretation cannot develop transformative power." page 174

      "Only when Mary is no longer the exception but rather has become the rule for the socioecclesial status of women can her cult be credible and her image develop transformative power for solidarity, justice, and liberation." page 174

      "Although mariological doctrine has always insisted on the theological subordination of Mary, popular piety and devotion has rendered quasi-divine honors to the mother of G*d." page 175

      "As Judith Plaskow demands for Jewish theology, Christian feminists must argue that theology overcome its "fear of the Goddess." G*ddess cults are no longer a threat to Christian faith today since the worship of the G*ddess holds sway only over a tiny minority group with little political power. The threat to Jewish and Christian monotheism consists much more in the misuse of monotheism for religiously legitimating patriarchal domination." page 178

      51) "Since G*d radically transcends human experience, no human language, not even that of the Bible, can speak adequately about the Divine." page 179

      "Since G*d is the G*d of liberation and well-being, an affirmative theological strategy (via affirmativa) can positively ascribe to G*d all the utopian desires of liberation and well-being of which countless people dream and hope." page 179

      "Since the Christian G*d tends to be understood mostly in masculine terms as father and son, this affirmative strategy of speaking about G*d has the special task of introducing new female symbols and images of wo/men into the language about G*d." page 179

      52) "Just as language about Jesus Christ does not introduce a masculine element into the Trinity, Marian symbolic language must not be used to ascribe femininity or motherhood to a G*d whose essence is defined as masculine. Just as references to the lamb of G*d do not introduce animalistic features or speaking of G*d as light does not suggest an astral element, so also anthropomorphic G*d-language must not be misunderstood as maintaining femininity or masculinity as an attribute of the Divine." page 180

      53) ". . . neither the rejection of masculine G*d-language nor speaking about G*d positively as G*ddess suffices. Divinity is always greater and always more than human language and experience can express. This "excess" of the Divine calls for a conscious proliferation and amplification of images and symbols for G*d derived not only from human life but also from nature and cosmological realities." page 180

      54) "The last theological strategy, the via practica, attempts to derive G*d-language and Marian symbolism from the praxis and solidarity of antipatriarchal liberation movements in both church and society." page 180-181

      55) "In line with biblical studies, feminist scholars have suggested that despite their differences, the Gospels agree that Jesus is the child of Mary. Against all patriarchal custom Jesus is called in Mark 6:3 "the son of Mary," which the Gospel of Matthew modified with the designation "the carpenter's son' (Matt. 13:55) and Luke corrected with "son of Joseph." The infancy narratives of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke also concur that Mary became pregnant in the period between betrothal and completed marriage. And finally, the Matthean and Lukan Gospels also know that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. This information has lent itself to two different feminist interpretations." page 185

      "Those feminist scholars in religion who hold that divine agency does not miraculously replace male agency in conception either believe that Mary was seduced by Joseph or someone else during the time of their betrothal, or they point to the persistent rumor found in Jewish and Christian ancient literature that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier." page 186

      "The "dangerous memory" of the young woman and teenage mother Miriam of Nazareth, probably not more than twelve or thirteen years old, pregnant, frightened, and single, who sought help from another woman, can subvert the tales of mariological fantasy and cultural femininity." page 187

      56) "Against the allurement of literalist certainty and the enticement of playful excess, I have argued that the road of a critical feminist christological inquiry must be variegated, inclusive, and open-ended but still remain engaged and committed." page 187

      57) "I have argued that the very early, still open-ended Jesus' traditions might be helpful for articulating feminist interreligious christological discourses today." page 187

      58) "Instead of assuming that a "feminine" style of thinking or a mode of theologizing from "the woman's perspective" promotes liberationist christological discourses in the interests of wo/men, I have argued that we need to explore critically how even such discourses can perpetuate kyriarchal mind-sets." page 188

Books that I noted in the footnotes:

      David W. Odell-Scott, A Post-Patriarchal Christology, American Academy of Religion series 78, Altanta, Scholars Press, 1991

      Jane Schaberg, The Illegitimacy of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987)

      Mary Hembrow Snyder, The Christology of Rosemary Radford Ruether: A Critical Introduction , Mystic, Conn., Twenty-Third Publications, 1988

      Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Discipleship of Equals: A Critical Feminist Ekklesia-logy of Liberation , NY: Crossroad, 1993

Books on Jewish women in the Greco-Roman World:

      Judith Romney Wegner, Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the Mishnah (NY: Oxford U. Press, 1988)

      Amy Jill Levine, ed., "Women Like This": New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (Atlanta: Scholars press, 1991)

      Cheryl Ann Brown, No Longer Silent: First-Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women (Louisville: Westminister/ John Knox Press, 1992)

      Ross Shepard Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings: Women's Religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (NY: Oxford U. Press, 1992)

Books about Sophia and Divine Wisdom

      Elaine Pagels The Gnostic Gospels (NY: Random House, 1979)

      Asphodel P. Long, In a Chariot Drawn by Lions: The Search for the Female in Deity (London: Women's Press, 1992)

Return to Booknotes Menu

e-mail sunshine@pinn.net