Feminism (More Reading Notes)

Here's some more notes from my readings, this time taken from Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza. These are responses to her work in Prejudice and Christian Beginnings and Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation.

Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza invites us to consider religion (in this case, Western Christianity) from a socio-historical feminist perspective. Rather than operate out of a purely dualistic male/female system, she proposes that we function out of the schema of the Kyriarchy. Based on the ancient Greek and Roman system of social hegemony, the Kyriarchy allows us to view systems of oppression not only in terms of male/female, but also in terms of race, age, social position, etc and the way all of these attributes coalesce in modern (or postmodern) society. She delineates between these groups that one is placed in by virtue of birth (structural positions) and the way that one fulfills the role expected of their structural position by society (subject position). She proposes an emancipatory social movement (informed by Liberation Theology) where an Ekklesia of Women functions to bring about social change that does not bring women up to the level of men, but dismantles the entire Kyriarchal structure, while also living as if the Kyriarchal structure does not exist. (As I like to call it, realized feminist eschatology).

I rather enjoyed these readings, because I thought that Fiorenza does a good job of illuminating that fact that women are not exclusively oppressed in the American democratic hegemony. She attempts to construct a worldview that incorporates all systems of oppression in both the ancient and modern world. However, I feel as if she is unintentionally limiting herself by couching everything in the language of antiquity. "Land-owner," and "freeborn," have no real relevance to us today, even if they did inform our current social structures, I fear that by using this rhetoric she unintentionally may obscure modern issues. I liked this reading, and I'm interested to see how we expand it to non-Judeo Christian faith systems.

7 Influential Religionists and My Responses to Them (More Stuff from Schoolwork)

Hello Reader, today I am again recycling some of my work for school, this time from my "What is Religion?" class with Dr. Steven J. Friesen. Unfortunately for you all, you can not read any source material that I am commenting on, but it is all taken from Daniel Pals books "Eight Theories of Religion" and "Introducing Religion." These are not terribly in-depth responses, but brief summations of some popular theories and my responses to them.

WZ Smith and JZ Smith

Our past two readings, by WC Smith and JZ Smith deal with the word "religion" and it's adequacy and inadequacy in defining the breadth and depth of human spiritual phenomena. WC traces the etymology of the word, starting with the Latin "religio" which he translates as piety or ritual action. WC contends that it was not until modernity that the word came to take on the connotations that we currently utilize. As such, he rejects religion as a thing in itself and suggests that scholars instead attempt to define religious phenomena as "faith" or "piety." JZ Smith eschews the etymology of "religio" and instead traces the discourse of the word "religion."

He begins by asserting that religion is a word that scholars and intellectuals ascribe to a set of human behaviors and beliefs, and then traces the development of what specific behaviors and beliefs have been called "religion." He also asserts that religion is an anthropological category. This is done mostly through a comprehensive list of books written on comparative religion, starting with the early explorations of the Americas and the observance of "pagan religion."

Unlike WC, JZ has no real coherent thesis outside of the fact that the word religion serves as a useful horizon for religionists in attempting to define the objects of their study.

I found that WC Smith's article was both more entertaining and more thought provoking than JZ's. While I recognize that WC focuses on a very western construction of religion and that the word "religio" is not the only source for our modern conception of religion, I feel like he does make a very valid observation that the word "religion" as we currently understand it is insufficient for defining what we use it to define. I also agree that there may not be such a thing as "religion" as it is understood as a universal concept that can be divided into discrete units. As for JZ, I found his article unremarkable. He did not present any ideas that I found novel or noteworthy, and I was confused as to what point he was really trying to make. Perhaps I will be illuminated in class.

(On JZ Smith, he essentially takes a functionalist approach, saying that the word "religion" carries whatever connotation that we ascribe to it. He also wants religionists to be aware that they operate from a specific (read: Western) schema and that this schema affects how we view other expressions of religious activity around the world.

EB Tylor and JG Frazer

Tylor and Frazer propose a theory that religion arises out of primitive magic and animism. In their theory, primitive peoples associate performing certain acts or rites with events in nature, and that by performing this magic, they can force the natural world to do this or that. The theory is developed to say that religion arises out of these ideas of animism and magic when the primitive peoples realize that their magic is not working, and in an attempt to explain why, decide that nature is controlled by capricious gods who can only be swayed by prayer/sacrifice/etc., but not controlled through spells.

First off, from what I read, the "research" in the Golden Bough would be insufficient for a wikipedia article, much less a modern academic paper, that said, I think that Tylor makes a very good point in that ancient religion was science. It was an attempt to explain how the world worked with the knowledge available. But, that's about where my agreement with the two men ends. Both Tylor and Frazer seem terribly dated with their concept of intellectual evolution. The language they (please note that "they" mostly applies to Frazer, as we didn't really read anything Tylor wrote) employ is almost offensively imperialistic and pejorative. He seems to imply that the primitive peoples faculties for reason were insufficient, and in fact compares them rather frequently to "dullards," ignoring the fact that many ancient societies were able to create very elaborate calendars, sophisticated irrigation systems, and even well reasoned moral codes -- not to mention beautiful works of art and literature. It also fails to at all address the phenomena of religious experience and the personal encounter with the divine that most religious people claim to have.

I think that they start off on a good path, with religion as a primitive science, but it's ultimately derailed by, quite frankly, racist imperial notions of moral/intellectual evolution and a complete disregard for the personal spiritual experience found amongst religious peoples. I also find that neither men seems to address the religious systems that existed in their times and how they relate to the primitive

WEB DuBois and Sigmund Freud

WEB Dubois analyzes religion specifically as it relates to the American black community. He claims that the black church serves a social function that creates a place where an ostracized group can come together and function as a community. He also claims that this began when the nature of American chattel slavery disintegrated the traditional family life of slaves.

I think Dubois raises interesting points about the role of religion in the black community. However, he is so functional and so specific, that his analysis fails to really be any sort of theory on religion, rather it is a mostly sociological idea.

Freud posits that religion arises from some primeval memory of the "first sacrifice," where primitive man killed and ate their patriarch in a fit of jealousy. Feeling remorse for this act, they imposed totems and taboos on themselves, affectively reinstating the father-figure they so despised. He also states that religion in its current incarnation comes from the need for humans to feel safe in a hostile environment. By projecting the idea of a loving and protective father figure into existence, humans can more easily cope with the trials of life.

Freud's analysis, much like Frazer and Tylor, relies on the construction of a rather fanciful narrative to have any real merit. As it stands, there does not exist any real evidence of Freud's "cannibal savage" much less any evidence of some sort of universal primeval memory in humanity of the "first sacrifice." Also, he seems to contradict himself when he claims that religion originated out of an ambivalence to the father figure but now exists because of an attempt to recapture the love and feeling of security received from the father by a child. Also, Freud seems unable to distinguish between the individual and society. His claim that ancient humans were to moderns as children are to adults is laughable and likely a product of Victorian bias more than any sort of scientific enquiry.

Karl Marx

In the most basic sense, Marx's theory on religion resembles Freud's. Religion is a harmful illusion that needs to be removed for humanity to advance. Marx reaches this conclusion through a very detailed and expansive interpretation of humanity and human history, tied chiefly to economics. Religion is an expression of the alienation that the oppressed worker feels. Through religious activity, the oppressed is able to take comfort in future promises of heaven, punishment for the wicked, etc. Since Marx's ideas require action, religion is a hinderance because they do not move the worker toward revolution.

As far as the theorists that we have studied who use a historical narrative to explain religion, I think Marx's is actually the most internally consistent and convincing. However, Pals ably points out several contradictions in his theories. He failed to address some that I would like to point out, that I feel deal more directly with Marx's views on religion that Pals' critiques did.

First, by making the claim that there is some sort of insurmountable narrative to history, that the proletariat must eventually act to overthrow the ruling class, Marx is asserting what one can only justifiably call an illusion. Marx may think this is the way things operate, and he may be able to back up this idea with some evidence, however, barring this revolution actually happening, it is only reasonable to call his idea an illusion.

Secondly, by even positing that there is this inescapable economic fate, I think that Marx succumbs to what he accuses Hegel of. Turning economic revolution into an unavoidable truth gives it an existence outside of the material world. By making an idea an absolute, it seems that one naturally deifies it.

Lastly, if all thinkers naturally aid the ruling class, where does Marx fit in?

Emile Durkheim

Like, Freud and Marx, Durkheim uses a reductionist philosophy when approaching religion. He attempts to explain religious phenomena in light of Sociology. For Durkheim, religion is inseparable from the sphere of sociology because religion itself is the veneration of society.

Durkheim rejects the individualistic claims of the other religionists that we have studied and instead posits that all aspects of human culture have arisen through a group structure. In his narrative, religion did not come from the solitary primitive philosopher, rather, it grew out of a tribal dynamic.

He says that most primitive peoples separate all of life into two categories, sacred and profane. The sacred is venerated (and represents what Marx might call the superstructure) and the profane (everyday individualistic stuff) is to be kept apart from the sacred.

Like Frazer, Tylor, and Freud, Durkheim bases most of his claims on the study of Totemism in Australia. He claims that the primitive peoples who venerate the totem, don't actually venerate the totem itself, but that it is a symbol for something greater. Durkheim calls this something greater the "totemic principle."

The totem is also a symbol of the tribe.

Durkheim then proposes that since the totem is the symbol of the tribe and the totem also represents the totemic principle, then the totemic principle is therefore the tribe.

In short, society and God are one and the same.

Through this, Durkheim asserts that one can explain the entirety of religious phenomena as manifestations of a worship of society.

I admired Durkheim's dedication to a scientific approach to his theory and was actually following him for most of the way (while be aware that he was only studying one specific peoplegroup) until he decided that the totemic principle was inherently society. I don't quite understand how he drew that specific conclusion. I understand his theory well enough up until that point and then when working under that assumption, but the leap that God (or divinity or what have you) is some sort of manifestation of devotion to the tribe doesn't make much sense to me.

Apart from that, I have the standard issues with Durkheim that I've with most of our recent guys. Too reductionistic, scientifically dubious, relies on a constructed narrative, narrow in research but broad in application, and doesn't really account for the individual religious experience or the depth and breadth of human religious experience across the globe.

Max Weber

Weber, like D, approaches religion from the perspective of a sociologist. Unlike D, he believes that religion exists as an entity that exists both separate from and entwined in society. He postulates that purely religious motives can have an influence on society. The example that he uses is the "protestant work ethic." He claims that capitalism developed out of the protestant reformation. First, by declaring all work vocational, Luther allowed laity to see their everyday labors as religious activities. Then, when Calvin introduced predestination, success in the religious activity of business became a way that one could determine their salvation. Weber postulates that success in business functioned as an ascetic movement within society, where believers built up wealth through traditional religious observances of temperance, thrift, and restraint. Coincidentally, this proved to be an excellent way for obtaining wealth and modern capitalism developed.

He claims that religion is a feeling (I forget his exact wording, but it was very similar to D's "effervescence") that the individual experiences that brings them into a different (and ostensibly better, since the individual seeks out this feeling) plane of reality.

He claims that religious sentiment develops differently for different people (I should state, that Weber stresses the individual much more than D). For the rural farmer, religious sentiment may arise as a way of overcoming the hardship of working the land and everyday foibles. For the intellectual, religious sentiment allows them to imbue their life with meaning, rather than succumb to some sort of existential nihilism.

I like what I have read of Weber so far. He does kind of talk himself into a hole in regards to his attempts to make valueless judgments, but the fact that he is aware of this bias is a huge leap forward from some of his contemporaries. I have to confess that my lack of issue with W probably stems from my existing beliefs. I think he is right to posit that religious sentiment is something that exists separately from society, and therefore I am less likely to try to poke holes in his argument. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that men can do something purely from religious motivation.

His explanation of why men are religious also is more in line with my own belief, if a little bit reductionistic.

This is probably my most positive reaction to a theorist so far, but that is probably because he has been the most complimentary to religion so far.

Of course, my ambivalence toward his writing may not arise purely from my religious stance, but also from the fact that his worldview of valueless observation corresponds most readily with the post-modern intellectual environment that I live in. I think that for a good post-modern, to be reductionist is a sin, so it's possible that I may disapprove of some of the other theorists regardless of my religious principles.

Mircea Eliade

Like Weber, Eliade attempts to construct a theory of religion that does not succumb to the reductionist tendencies of some of the other writers that we have studied. For Eliade, one must study religion on the terms of its practitioners, it cannot be reduced to a manifestation of economics, psychology, anthropology, etc. Religion has to do with humanity's encounter with the sacred (the transcendent and supernatural) and the race's desire to experience the sacred feeling as frequently as possible.

This begins in the archaic religions with the use of symbols that are manifestations of the sacred idea. The rock as the sacred as eternal and unchanging. The moon as the sacred as constantly renewing. He also states that archaic religion is mainly the desire of the worshipper to return to the original and perfect divine state, or paradise.

He then goes on to say that out of Judaism, there arose the idea of the sacred at work in history. This allows the

worshipper to expand their conception of the sacred to include all things, because God is present at all moments and in all places.

Once again, I find myself agreeing with the more post-modern view of Weber and Eliade that we must confront religion on its own terms. However, I feel like Eliade does not do as good of a job as Weber in describing religion as a "thing in itself." I feel like by linking the sacred to specific places and objects he doesn't really delineate between his idea and the totemism that runs rampant in the Victorian religionists. He also suffers from parallelomania.

God in the Dock (CS Lewis)

"I believe that many who find that 'nothing happens' when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand." - CS Lewis, from God in the Dock

Satan Part 2 (Satan in the Book of Enoch)

Author's note: This multipart work comes from a comprehensive essay I am writing for my Bible as Literature class. I am just posting the unrevised copies immediately as I finish them. Please forgive any stylistic errors, as I have not reviewed the piece. Feel free to make comments or ask questions, as they can only help to improve my essay.

Yours,

kyle a gregory

The Book of Enoch is divided into three parts. According to R. H. Charles, 1 Enoch was composed throughout the 3^rd and 1^st centuries BCE. The dating of the two later sections is debated, however, the consensus is that they were both composed after the 1^st century CE. (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 547-548). 1Enoch relates the story of Enoch (mentioned in Genesis 5 as “walking with God”) as he is granted a vision of the heavens.

1 Enoch 6-8 (in parallel to Genesis 6) a band of 200 angels, led by Semjaza and Azazel, bind themselves with a curse and descend from Heaven in order to fornicate with homely human women. The inbreeding creates a race of giants that threaten mankind. The angels are also said to teach humans magic and divination, how to make metal armor and weapons, how to ornament themselves with make up and jewels, and the value of the metals of the Earth. 1 Enoch 8:2 says, “And there was great wickedness and much fornication, and they sinned, and all their ways were corrupt.”

1 Enoch 9 tells of how the holy angels in Heaven – Michael, Gabriel, Surjan, and Urjan – witness the actions of the fallen angels and hear the cries of mankind. They ask God what should be done and lament that the fallen angels have “revealed to (mankind) these sins.”

These passages in 1 Enoch 8 and 9 provide us with an example of fallen angels corrupting mankind, in the same way that Satan, in the modern conception, is said to corrupt an individual. They reveal sins to humanity that had been heretofore undiscovered. The fall of the angels and their corruption of mankind seems to mirror the downfall of the King of Babylon (the morning star, or lucifer) in Isaiah 14, whom Christian writers come to associate with Satan. The connection between the King of Babylon, Lucifer, and Satan will be addressed later in this paper.

1 Enoch 10 offers God's response to the questions of the holy angels. He first sends a messenger to Noah, warning him about the coming flood and destruction of humanity and the giants. He then tells the angel Rufael to, “Bind Azazel hand and foot and put him in the darkness; make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael and put him there. And lay upon him rough and pointed rocks, and cover him with darkness that he may remain there forever, and cover his face that he may not see the light! And on the great day of judgment, he will be cast into the fire... And the whole Earth was defiled through the example of the deeds of Azazel; to him ascribe all the sins. ” (1 Enoch 10:4-6,8). The fallen angel trapped under the earth awaiting his eternal judgment seems to provide us with several enduring images of Satan. The fallen angel trapped in the darkness under the desert seems to parallel Dante's Satan bound in ice in Hell. The idea that on the day of judgment Azazel will be cast into the fire appears to influence the later author of Revelation who writes that, “The devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” We're also provided with another example of the fallen angel being responsible for influencing mankind to sin.

Chapters 10 and 11 concludes with an apocalyptic vision of all the fallen angels being bound until the end of days, when they will be cast into the fire. After they have been destroyed and final judgment rendered, the Earth will be a righteous place where all men worship God as just. It will be a land of peace and plenty. This, too, echoes the Book of Revelation in the Christian New Testament.

1 Enoch 12-15 detail Enoch's role in the story of the fallen angels. The angels in Heaven instruct Enoch to go down to Earth and prophesy to the fallen angels about the Lord's commands. Upon hearing what God has planned, the fallen angels lament and ask Enoch to petition for their souls. So, Enoch prays that they may find mercy from God. Unfortunately for the fallen angels, Enoch learns that their judgment is final, and they will not be allowed to return to Heaven. God also declares to Enoch, “And now the giants, who have been begotten from body and flesh, will be called evil spirits on the earth, and their dwelling-places will be upon the earth. Evils spirits proceed from their bodies; because they are created from above, their beginning and the first basis being from the holy watchers, they will be evil spirits upon the earth, and will be called evil spirits. But the spirits of heaven have their dwelling-places in heaven, and the spirits of the earth, who were born of the earth, have their dwelling-places on earth.” (1 Enoch 15:8-10). While it is not explicit in the text, it seems reasonable to believe that these evil spirits that dwell on Earth could be interpreted as demons. Since they are spiritual beings bound to the earth, it is possible that they could continue the nefarious influencing of humanity that their forefathers began. This may be the source of the belief (seen in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters) that the fallen angel Satan has a legion of demons at his command, who work to corrupt human souls.

While the Book of Enoch does not fully consolidate many of the common beliefs about Satan, it does provide us with pre-Christian examples of ideas like Satan being a fallen angel, evil spirits roaming the earth, and a lake of fire where the rebellious angels are punished for eternity that serve as components of Satan mythos. We will return to the Book of Enoch when we explore the development of the Satan mythos in the writings of early Christians in the New Testament.