I have been holding off on my last blog for this course, and I am glad I did because after taking yesterday’s midterm, I would like to write about the connections between authors we have met so far and how they have affected my life and views, of late. . We began with Bell Hooks, who I initially disliked because her book seemed to obvious, who noted that feminism is feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression; it is a push for gender justice. The enemy is not man, but sexism and patriarchy. The goal is not to oppress man, but to raise consciences of men and women, alike, to the realization that sexism is a real threat that must be opposed. Alice Walker further raises our conscience by noting her experience with the church. She talked about her view of the church through eyes that watched her mother do so much for the church but receive so little power or voice in that structure. Men were pastors and authorities with the training to interpret the Bible. She emphasizes the fact that we all come from different places in life and have had different experiences. She, as an African-American woman, has had different experiences that cause her to relate to the divine differently. We also learned the term womanist: when individuals are shaped by the perspectives and experiences of life as women of color, especially African-American women. Liberation theology, she notes, speaks of how Christ spoke for the poor and suffering and suffered, alike, with them. The strange thing for her, though, is that Christianity isn’t necessarily a religion that supports women, even though Christ made it a point to be among the oppressed and struggling. Hooks and Walker, if you will allow me to use a metaphor of baking feminist bread, assemble the wet and dry ingredients, ready to be mixed.

Phyllis Trible begins to closely inspect and mix the ingredients used to make our feminist loaf. She begins by rereading Genesis, noting that men and women were not gendered in the beginning. Instead, they were created as androgynous beings that were neither male nor female, but were something in-between until the fall, when she proposes they were gendered as ‘Ish/‘Ishshah. She also spins the sin of Eve to be something that seemed strange to me: Eve was the wise, intelligent one who understood the implications of the forbidden fruit (gain of knowledge) and talked Adam into eating it with her. He was simply the simpleton who ate it. Her feminine exegesis reworks this story to restore feminine power; if humankind were created in the image of God, neither would have dominance over the other. Her Texts of Terror is another exegesis that serves, simply, to state that we are still dealing with important issues like rape, sexism, and extreme patriarchy in the world today and that certain texts, like Judge 19, must be brought into modern sermons so that individuals are forced to confront these very real threats.

Isasi-Diez, Moon, and Saiving knead the dough, reminding us of a difficult and important stage of making this bread that we tend to overlook, especially if we usually just buy sliced bread (my metaphor for accepting patriarchy blindly or seeking to work within its framework). Isasi-Diez believes, fully, in the work/struggle for justice and power in a feminism that is primarily led by wealthy, white, protestant women. They do not allow her to have a space on the feminist countertop in the kitchen. She calls for a share of the power and for Latinas and other minorities to be liberated from the feminist movement. She asks that their voices be heard and that they be granted a little space in the kitchen. Saiving wants us to redefine sin because for so long it has been defined in male terms and urges individuals to become selfless. She wants women to feel the struggle and to recognize that it is OK to be individual and to feel the experience of self. Moon, lastly, speak of the Sacred/Profane (this/not this) split. The church wants to say that it is sacred and should keep politics out because they are “everyday” or profane. Homosexuality is the way she illustrates this; when she interviews individuals, many come to the conclusion that politics and church should remain separate because it is easier. However, it is not just. We MUST bring the two into conversation for a better society where all have access to God and social rights, alike. The body, whether it is male or female, is important and we must consider it in the Church.

Mary Daly, Carol Christ, and Sallie McFague all seem to be tired of white bread baked by white men in stuffy robes and each take a portion of the dough to make new pastries. Mary Daly asks us to consider if the language of God as a male Father is problematic. She believes it is because God should be transcendent and cannot be constructed in human terms, especially gendered. God should not have a gender at all, according to Daly. Christ wants to throw the white bread dough away and make pumpernickel bread! She envisions us re-gendering God as “Mother” and if the church is not willing to do so, she suggests women branch off into their own group of those who are willing to use this female-centered language. Religion centered on a male God, according to Christ, keeps individuals bound by patriarchy and sets up men as gods. McFague wants to make yeast rolls, let some of the dough become sourdough starter, and finally make cinnamon rolls, just to see which turns out the best. She looks at metaphors and models (metaphors with staying power) of God and says that the current model of God the Father or King (monarchical) are ineffective because they are androcentric and out-of-date and individuals can no longer relate to them. She suggests we use new models and metaphors that make more sense in today’s context: Mother, Lover, and Friend.

The last step in our journey led us to views that encourage us to be careful of not baking too much bread and using up all of our ingredients in the world’s kitchen. We learn about what it means to be an ecofeminist, or an individual that subscribes to a social and political movement which points to the existence of common ground between environmentalism and feminism, as defined by Mary Gray. Ecofeminists argue that a strong parallel exists between male oppression and subordination of women in families and society and the degradation of nature by similarly masculine attitudes and methods.

Perhaps we have not all agreed with each of the smaller principles of each of our feminist theologian friends, but I have certainly learned to think about things very differently. Feminism has a more concrete definition in my mind, I understand what we are doing in theology from a feminist standpoint, and have also been forced to think about the environment in a different way. Perhaps it is time we all start playing with different models of God and realizing which work best for us, and why. Each of us come from different experiences and access the divine in relation to those experiences. However, feminism IS for everybody and we must find how to make feminism work in each of our lives.