Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Some Caroline Walker Bynum
Here's a fantastic lecture by Caroline Walker Bynum regarding the 'stuff' of religious miracles in the Middle Ages. If you have an hour to kill, you're in for a treat!
A Softer, More Feminine Christ
We (and by 'we,' I mean Western folk) think in binary. Light/dark. Good/evil. Man/woman. Gay/straight. Harry Potter/Voldemort. Thinking of things on a continuum is a stretch for some after thinking this way for so long, which -I think - is a reason why people take issue with the idea of a feminine Christ figure. There's no ambiguity in terms of the sex of the Christ figure, but gender poses questions. Gender, after all, is merely a social construct. What it means to be masculine or feminine today meant something different 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 years ago - and, of course, there doesn't historically seem to be much wiggle room or grey area in the Western tradition. Females were/are expected to live up to societal standards for women and males were expected to live up to societal standards for men. Of course, it would be anachronistic to apply current standards to historical figures. But what about roles that haven't changed throughout the ages?
Julian of Norwich, who I discussed briefly in my last post, discussed at length in her writings the idea of Christ as woman and mother after her visions of him on, what she assumed, was her deathbed. It's not uncommon for people to seek similarities to those who play a sizable role in their lives - or, in Julian's case, to look for the feminine and womanly in Christ. Consider the blood of Christ - he shed blood to give new life. Sound familiar? A woman's menstrual cycle signals her life-giving ability. Additionally, women shed blood during labor. These facts did not go unnoticed by Julian of Norwich or other intellectual women of the time. These thoughts are recorded in their writings - in The Showings of Julian of Norwich, for example.
Additionally, Julian's theology was controversial in regard to her belief in God as mother. Some scholars believe this is a metaphor rather than a literal belief or dogma. In her fourteenth revelation, Julian writes of the Trinity in domestic terms, comparing Jesus to a mother who is wise, loving, and merciful. Julian's revelation revealed that God is our mother as much as He is our father. On the other hand, some scholars assert that Julian believed that the maternal aspect of Christ was literal, not metaphoric; Christ is not like a mother, He is literally the mother. Julian believed that the mother's role was the truest of all jobs on earth. She emphasized this by explaining how the bond between mother and child is the only earthly relationship that comes close to the relationship one can have with Jesus. She also connects God with motherhood in terms of (1) the foundation of our nature's creation, (2) the taking of our nature, where the motherhood of grace begins and (3) the motherhood at work, and writes metaphorically of Jesus in connection with conception, nursing, labor, and upbringing.
These are, indeed, revolutionary writings considering the time period and author. Why were they permitted? By virtue of her position in the church, Julian of Norwich could seemingly write whatever she wanted. She was an anchor, that is, she lived in an anchorhold on the side of St. Julian's Church in England. She devoted her life to contemplation. Julian lived an ascetic lifestyle and devoted herself to Christ. By removing herself from domestic life, severely restricting her food intake (thus, stopping menstruation), and developing her intellect, among other things, she was able to effectively become genderless. Her writings had more authority and were tolerated by the Church.
Whether or not Julian's efforts were intentional or not, perhaps they enabled her to envision a more androgynous Christ figure, a Christ figure whose qualities were either both manly and womanly or neither. It would be anachronistic for me to apply the term, "feminist," to Julian -although she has greatly influenced feminist theology- but this notion is dripping with the ideas of negative and positive androgyny. Personally, I'm of the camp that preaches that traits have no gender; women can certainly be aggressive, men can certainly be passive, we think this way because of social conditioning, etc. Now, I think it's a huge leap to say that this is exactly what Julian of Norwich was writing about, but her ideas about Christ as mother may certainly have influenced future ideals of what gender entails.
Julian of Norwich, who I discussed briefly in my last post, discussed at length in her writings the idea of Christ as woman and mother after her visions of him on, what she assumed, was her deathbed. It's not uncommon for people to seek similarities to those who play a sizable role in their lives - or, in Julian's case, to look for the feminine and womanly in Christ. Consider the blood of Christ - he shed blood to give new life. Sound familiar? A woman's menstrual cycle signals her life-giving ability. Additionally, women shed blood during labor. These facts did not go unnoticed by Julian of Norwich or other intellectual women of the time. These thoughts are recorded in their writings - in The Showings of Julian of Norwich, for example.
Additionally, Julian's theology was controversial in regard to her belief in God as mother. Some scholars believe this is a metaphor rather than a literal belief or dogma. In her fourteenth revelation, Julian writes of the Trinity in domestic terms, comparing Jesus to a mother who is wise, loving, and merciful. Julian's revelation revealed that God is our mother as much as He is our father. On the other hand, some scholars assert that Julian believed that the maternal aspect of Christ was literal, not metaphoric; Christ is not like a mother, He is literally the mother. Julian believed that the mother's role was the truest of all jobs on earth. She emphasized this by explaining how the bond between mother and child is the only earthly relationship that comes close to the relationship one can have with Jesus. She also connects God with motherhood in terms of (1) the foundation of our nature's creation, (2) the taking of our nature, where the motherhood of grace begins and (3) the motherhood at work, and writes metaphorically of Jesus in connection with conception, nursing, labor, and upbringing.
These are, indeed, revolutionary writings considering the time period and author. Why were they permitted? By virtue of her position in the church, Julian of Norwich could seemingly write whatever she wanted. She was an anchor, that is, she lived in an anchorhold on the side of St. Julian's Church in England. She devoted her life to contemplation. Julian lived an ascetic lifestyle and devoted herself to Christ. By removing herself from domestic life, severely restricting her food intake (thus, stopping menstruation), and developing her intellect, among other things, she was able to effectively become genderless. Her writings had more authority and were tolerated by the Church.
Whether or not Julian's efforts were intentional or not, perhaps they enabled her to envision a more androgynous Christ figure, a Christ figure whose qualities were either both manly and womanly or neither. It would be anachronistic for me to apply the term, "feminist," to Julian -although she has greatly influenced feminist theology- but this notion is dripping with the ideas of negative and positive androgyny. Personally, I'm of the camp that preaches that traits have no gender; women can certainly be aggressive, men can certainly be passive, we think this way because of social conditioning, etc. Now, I think it's a huge leap to say that this is exactly what Julian of Norwich was writing about, but her ideas about Christ as mother may certainly have influenced future ideals of what gender entails.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)