• Home
  • About
  • Metaphysical Farms
  • Contact

Gender Work

Lest Blood Be Shed

Cultivating community so that we may join in our human community in a way that is sustainable and filled with love for all creation. More »

Gender Work December 28. 2004


Recently I've heard and/or read lots of people attempting to confront socially constructed gender roles. In some cases they completely deny all gender distinctions. I'm wont to agree with some caveats. What I've been reading usually centers greatly around Galatians 3:28 though there are definitely secular sources for this discourse in feminist and queer studies.

It would seem in Galatians Paul is saying that in our baptism we lose our social identity as well as all the trappings that come along with that identity. This little discussion comes right after Paul rails against the Galatians for attempting to live by the law and not by the Spirit of the Lord. "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." It seems all Paul does in the follow verses is to take the freedom from the law to its faithful conclusion. It is not only that we are no longer under the "supervision of the law" but we are also free from the trappings of societal norms/laws. In Christ and in our faith in Christ we are no longer bound by nationality, class (cast), and gender. This is a liberating theology for everyone especially all of those in our community who do not naturally tend to a specific gender. How liberating it must be for a hermaphrodite or transgendered to hear these words of oneness and acceptance. Even a female or male oppressed by society's patriarchy can feel the freedom the comes from these words. Further, the queer community whom some would say are the antithesis of gender norms in our society today can claim (and have) these words as their own. Feminist theologians speaking to gender issues and patriarchy also have used this liberating theology to claim community when it is being denied to them. We are being called to live life without division or hierarchy!

Unfortunately, this liberating theology in some understandings has been taken to a binding theology. In what I find to more of a silencing of voice than a liberating of spirit, some have begun to claim we need what amounts to removing all diversity from our midst. Not only are we to remove our social gender but we are not to claim experiencing God in our sexual gender. This is more of an argument of whether we can have unity without uniformity. Diversity without division. I say we can! Our personal experiences of Gender do not need to be denied to obtain the oneness in faith of which Paul was speaking. The feminist does not need to deny his struggle with social structures that identify him as female and lowly. Neither does the queer need to deny her experiences as a gay male to obtain the community in Christ of which Paul speaks.

All of our experiences of God are valid and need not be denied in vain attempts at human effort (read the law) to bring about equality. If our focus is on Christ, all of our experiences will inform our faith and we will grow ever closer to Christ and in doing so we will draw closer in oneness . So claim your oppression under patriarchy and call upon us to focus on the equality inherent in creation, claim your oppression under social norms and call upon us to focus on loving kindness, claim your oppression under national/ethnic dividing lines and call upon us to focus on the dignity of every human being, claim your oppression under poverty and call upon us to free our hearts from want and greed for in all of this 'there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.'

| Top Exits (0)

Vote for articles fresher than 14 days!
Current karma: 2, 1 vote(s) 1088 hits
David  Tuesday, December 28. 2004 @ 09:06
12 Comments Link to entry

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

First you acknowledge that we are free from the bounds of gender, class, nationality... all those things that are so often outside of our free will. But then you seem to exalt these bindings as "diversity" and that we shouldn't actually be free from them, that they should be integrated into who we are.

I guess it just seems to me like the philosophy you've arrived at is so vague that it can say anything - that, in fact, I could use it to justify the Catholic stance on homosexuality.

(just my raw thoughts. sorry if they come off as insensitive, i wanted to get them out as accurately as possible)
#1 Justin (Homepage) on 2004-12-28 11:16 (Reply)
I can see how you would come to that conclusion from my entry. Thank you for the critical look into what I've presented. I did not intend to do with my words what you see in them. I'm not exalting the bindings themselves but the experiences we have in life because of the bindings. If we look critically at these experiences of our bindings as we focus on Christ in faith and Spirit, I believe these bindings will fall away without needing to deny our very selves and our lives in the process. We would lose much if we denied our experiences as such. We can encounter Christ in the most oppresive situations and those experiences can inform not only our faith but the faith of others as we tell our story. The bible is full of this type of diversity, this type of unity of faith with a diveristy of experience.

Secondly, you could use it to justify the Catholic stance on homosexuality or patriachy or classism or etc. but would you? Would the Spirit of Love and the agape found in Christ lead you to oppress people?

Again thanks for your thought! :-)
#1.1 David (Homepage) on 2004-12-28 11:33 (Reply)
The thing is, I honestly do not believe the Catholic stance is unhealthy whatsoever. There may be some crappy implementations, but the fundamental stance I find no fault with.

"I believe these bindings will fall away without needing to deny our very selves and our lives in the process."

As always, communication & vocabulary is a very tricky thing. A big portion of this disconnect could be resolved if we were simply in agreement over what exactly falls in the category of "bindings" and what exactly falls in the category of "our selves".
#2 Justin (Homepage) on 2004-12-28 12:17 (Reply)
"There may be some crappy implementations, but the fundamental stance I find no fault with."

I may or may not take issue with this statement. So before I do I would feel more comfortable if you would explain how you see and explain the "fundamental stance" and how it could mis-implemented as well as how it should be implemented.

Communication and vocabulary are always tricky and will always fail us. We are always surrounded by mist and darkness when we speak because we are not conveying ideas but merely symbols for close approximations of those ideas. So, as far as "what are our bindings?" and "what are our selves?" entail is in and of itself a dissertation (if not a really lengthy essay). But I would say (without explaining myself in the aformentioned manner) that all of our gender social roles are bindings of power and of sexual fiction as well as all of our societal structures of hierarchy are bindings. Basically anything and everything that exudes "power over" (even if that is not its intent) instead of "power with." How we define our selves is yet another sticky matter. I would venture to say most of our theological bemusings tend to deal greatly with this question and its affects on creation. I mean we are talking about it right now and this discussion started out about the spiritual role of gender in faith.

Thanks for your input!
#2.1 David (Homepage) on 2004-12-28 15:09 (Reply)
The simplest way I've always understood it to be, is, that homosexuality is a physical handicap. It's not a judgement on a person's worth or value, because of course all are equal in the eyes of the Lord. But it's an issue of being physically incomplete.

It's like somebody who was born a kleptomaniac, or asthmatic. The restrictions they must live with in their life may be considered oppressive to somebody who doesn't see the bigger picture. How dare we tell the klepto that he can't just take whatever he pleases? It's in his nature!

Forgive me for the terribly short definition. Let me know where I can elaborate.
#3 Justin (Homepage) on 2004-12-28 16:57 (Reply)
Could you elaborate? You equate homosexuality with a physical handicap, then compare it to kleptomania, which is a mental malady. You also mentioned astma. So is it a physical handicap or a mental one in your line of reasoning?

I also think you are comparing to very dissimilar things, unless you rely on homosexuality being a disease for your argument. Kleptomania is a mental diseases, and can be treated medically. Asthma is a physical disease, which, again, can be treated medically. Homosexuality is not something that can just be treated, whether to be cured or for an individual to "suffer less from it."

I'll acknowledge there are some in the psychology field that have attempted to "reform" homosexuals into heterosexuals, however, I think this is a misguided attempt, and the majority of that field would agree with my thoughts. *note, not saying I'm an expert, but I do intend to reference experts in that thought*
#3.1 David M (Homepage) on 2004-12-29 09:29 (Reply)
I have responded to the notion of handicap/disability being somehow deficient or imperfect in the following entry:
http://lestblood.imagodirt.net/archives/78-Conversations-with-the-Disabled-God.html

To respond more directly to the question of homosexuality (I for one do not see it as a disability that needs to be "healed" or "restrained" and I think david m pointed out some of the critical flaws in your argument/analogy so I won't go into that); there are basically 5 analogies for moral positions on homosexuality. You seem to fall somewhere between 2 and 3. These analogies come from the book Heterosexism: an Ethical Challenge by Patricia Jung and Ralph Smith.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=lestbloodbesh-20&path=tg/stores/detail/-/books/0791416968/glance/

1. Immorality
Theological Axiom: A paradigmatic sign of the brokenness of the world.
The anthropological Axiom: Evil
Personal Culpability: Lots
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving, and faithful homosexual unions are evil; sexual reorientation is required
Derivative Moral Rules: No Blessings of unions; no ordaining of any gay person

2. Alchoholism
Theological Axiom: A greater sign of the brokenness of the world
The anthropological Axiom: Disease
Personal Culpability: Little
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving, and faithful homosexual unions are more evil than lifelong and total abstinence
Derivative Moral Rules: No blessing of unions; ordain only closeted gay people committed to lifelong and total sexual abstinence

3. Blindness
Theological Axiom: A lesser sing of the brokenness of the world
The anthropological Axiom: Defect
Personal Culpability: None
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving, and faithful homosexual unions are less evil than lifelong and total abstinence
Derivative Moral Rules: May or may not bless unions; may or may not ordain chaste, closeted gay people

4. Color Blindness
Theological Axiom: Not quite the fullness of God's original blessing
The anthropological Axiom: Imperfection
Personal Culpability: None
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving, and faithful homosexual unions and lifelong and total abstinence both fall short
Derivative Moral Rules: Bless unions privately; ordain chaste, closted gay people

5. Left-handedness
Theological Axiom: Part of God's original blessing
The anthropological Axiom: Variation
Personal Culpability: None and irrelevant
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving and faithful homosexual unions are good
Derivative Moral Rules: Publicly bless unions; ordain chaste, uncloseted gay people

These analogies are the result of a large study conducted by the authors in various situations. The reveal (in the book) that there is a sexual ethic in our society that is based on what has been constructed as "ideal" or a normalized ethic (see how this is bad theology in the above response to disability) Heterosexism is revealed to be a system of prejudice that both grows out of and supports this ethic. It produces various forms of discrimination, particularly those against gay and lesbian people, that cannot be justified in the public square (or in a critical reflection within theology). After reviewing the source of heterosexim in society, theology, and the biblical witness, the authors suggest that offering a plurifom rather than a uniform sexual ethic will result in a more responsible and viable dialogu on the theical questions that emerge when we move beyond heterosexim.

I think it would be a good read for you Justin. (maybe selfishly because...) I would love to hear your reflections on the book as well as your critical response to it.
#3.2 David (Homepage) on 2004-12-29 16:49 (Reply)
Yeah, I realized after I posted that "mental handicap" would have been more accurate. As you know, there is the nature versus nurture discussion. I think there are valid cases in both camps, that both types do occur.

The "nature" cases would be considered a disease or a birth defect. Trying to reform this is a losing battle, trying to swim upstream against genetics itself. But I don't think that means you let it run your life. Rather, you take precautions, just as somebody with high cholesterol must watch their cholesterol intake. The basis of this reasoning is in the understanding of this as a mental ailment.

The "nurture" cases do in fact allow for reform. There is a lot of rhetoric to wade through, amidst all the statistcal studies of psychological behaviourism. The most complicated situations, though, are those with a bit of both types.
#4 Justin (Homepage) on 2004-12-29 10:51 (Reply)
Thank you for elaborating. I personally disagree with the assessment, but I'm tuckered out on arguing about this so I'll let it stand that we disagree. :-)
#5 David M (Homepage) on 2004-12-29 13:09 (Reply)
We are not free from gender, class and nationality. This is our identity and we can't be set free from these boudaries.
#6 Micky (Homepage) on 2005-12-02 05:08 (Reply)
If we recognize the "boundaries," as you obviously do, we can see that they are social constructed. They are a fiction created by our civilization. Meaning that they can be crossed and I think should be broken. Moreover, it is in Christ that all these boundaries become meaningless. They fall away as new roles of love and grace are given to us for fulfilling in the world. It is our struggle to bring about justice and justice only comes when we remove all divisions while maintaining our diversity. Modern people are too afraid of paradoxes.
#6.1 David (Homepage) on 2005-12-02 11:09 (Reply)
http://veniaminov.blogspot.com/2005/12/this-is-what-it-means-to-be-catholic.html
Here's my kinda boundary-crossing diversity.
#6.1.1 Justin Walters (Homepage) on 2005-12-02 20:03 (Reply)

Add Comment

Enclosing [B][/B] marks text as bold ([B]some words[/B]), underscore are made via [U]some words[/U], italics are made via [I]some words[/I], hyper-links are made via [LINK]URI[/LINK].

Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

 
 
 
 

Google Ads

YouTube Videos

Loading...

I'm currently reading

Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the PrisonMichel Foucault. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison.

The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle PaulWayne A. Meeks. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul.

The History of Sexuality: The Care of the SelfMichel Foucault. The History of Sexuality Vol. 3: The Care of the Self.

Book of Common WorshipPresbyterian Church (USA). Book of Common Worship.

Places of Interest

Archives

September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
Recent...
Older...

Creative Commons

Creative Commons License - Some Rights Reserved
Original content in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Syndicate This Blog

XML RSS 2.0 feed
ATOM/XML ATOM 0.3 feed
ATOM/XML ATOM 1.0 feed
XML RSS 2.0 Comments
XML OPML 1.0 feed

© David DeLauro | Impressum Design by ceejay | Powered by Serendipity | Login