Words

The Roman philosopher Seneca wrote

I will not relinquish old age if it leaves my better part intact. But if it begins to shake my mind, if it destroys my faculties one by one, if it leaves me not life but breath, I will depart from the putrid or the tottering edifice. If I know that I must suffer without hope or relief I will depart not through fear of the pain itself but because it prevents all for which I would live.


Anne Langbein was my friend. She was witty, poetic, wise, and affectionate; she made the BEST shortbread in the world, had a beautiful rose garden and a conservatory full of healthy, verdant tropical plants of a thousand shades. She had two lovely and devoted grown daughters who were both doing well in their personal and professional lives, and who each had great kids who knew that they were loved. Anne was a potter, and made some gorgeous bowls and urns. She gave me one, and it's one of my most precious possessions.

I met Anne when I was working as a care-giver for Presbyterian Support Services in Wellington. For some clients I helped with personal care such as showering, dressing, preparing and helping with dinner, for others I did housework, grocery shopping and the like. Anne was one of the latter, I collected her groceries every week, did the ironing, swept and mopped the floors, did the dishes and cleaned the bathroom. She was a hard task-master, she was so fussy about me getting the ironing right, making me redo the sheets, towels and handkerchiefs over and over again til I had them perfect, and I did it without so much as a groan even though I thought ironing them as a bit silly, I would have done anything for her.

Anne had Motor Neuron Disease, and couldn't do these things for herself anymore. I pray that no one reading this ever gets Motor Neuron, or anything similar, it was horrible to see her slowly losing the ability to write, to water her plants, to speak, even to swallow. She was so distressed at having to give up her gardening and pottery, it broke my heart. I'm in tears writing this now, she was so brave, and so resolutely cheerful for the sake of the people around her. She'll always be one of my personal heroes, I'll always remember her and I'll always be grateful for the time I had with her.

Anne was tortured by the disease, as everything she loved doing slipped away from her, and she had to rely on others for even the most basic things like using the toilet, lifting a glass of water to her mouth and closing her mouth so that she could swallow, after having been fiercely independent and self-sacrificing her whole life. She tried to commit suicide several times but was physically unable to do it, she asked her daughters to help her when it became to much to bear, but of course they couldn't because of the legal repercussions and the psychological trauma this would bring, and Anne knew this and felt utterly wretched that she'd put them in that position. Eventually, mercifully, she died unaided, but she and her family went through years of hell first, needlessly, because our society prohibits assisted suicide and treats as criminals those who out of compassion help others to die.

For the funeral, Anne's family made all of the dishes that she was known for, faithfully following her carefully handwritten recipes, the pride of place going to the shortbread, which no one else could ever make exactly right. They each stood up that sunny afternoon in her beautifully-tended rose garden and talked about how she used to make them laugh, reciting her funny little housework rhymes and her witticisms, sharing their most treasured memories of an absolutely wonderful and unique woman, a woman who went out of her way to help others, who never wanted to be a burden on anyone, who made everyone she met feel special. I couldn't help thinking that even though she couldn't say a word by the end, she let us see her soul. I have never felt as honoured to be part of someone's life.

I miss you, Anne. Thank you for everything you did, for being strong, for caring so much. I wish it had been easier for you.


Kill a fly in Spring
And you've done a splendid thing,
Kill one in July
And you've only killed one fly.

- Anne

Comments!! I Heart Comments!!

The following is an email I received about an old essay I posted on this blog about the role of women in early Christianity, and my response.

I sent an email to the address mentioned on your profile page then I saw this email addy so I'm guessing this is the right one.
I read this: http://liminald.blogspot.com/2009/05/role-of-women-in-early-christianity.html
and I don't agree with the conclusion, I don't see any evidence for jesus preaching equality between men and women and I was wondering whether you could elaborate on that.
RW

Hi RW,

Thanks for your email. The piece you refer to is an old essay of mine for a philosophy paper at Massey University called Sex, Gender and Religion. Unfortunately we have word limits on the essays and I couldn't make space to elaborate on the teachings of Jesus in regards to women, my focus being on women's place in Christian communities in the time after his death. I believe this is the section that could have been expanded:

"Certainly the retention in early Biblical texts of such accounts as these, and of Jesus praising women for putting spiritual growth and learning ahead of domestic responsibilities (thus rejecting the equation of a woman with her domestic, sexual and reproductive roles) demonstrates the early Christian community’s awareness of the centrality of the message of equality in Jesus’ teachings (Swidler, 1971:182-183)."

The papers by Brown (1988), Heine (1986) and Swidler (1971), which I cite at the bottom of the essay, were particularly helpful, Leonard Swidler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Swidler) goes into some detail about the messages about women's place in society that were central in the teachings of Jesus. He makes particular note of the gospel story of Mary and her sister Martha, how Martha busied herself with household chores - fulfilling her 'womanly' duties - while Mary sat at the feet of Jesus eager to learn. Sure, it was religious education, but there really wasn't any other sort in Israel at the time. The point being, Mary is praised, and Martha criticised. The message of the story can be interpreted as being that spiritual growth and education supersede social roles.

Another account in the gospels (Mark 5:24-34, Luke 8:43-48, Matthew 9:20-22) is of Jesus being touched by an 'unclean' woman, that is, a woman who was ritually unclean due to her hemorrhaging or prolonged menstruation. An 'unclean' woman was subject to all sorts of social restrictions, about the company she could keep, where she could go in public and so forth, to say nothing of the social stigma, and this woman, with her perpetual 'uncleanness', had suffered more than most. She hoped for healing, and by touching Jesus she had broken the laws regarding ritual cleanliness and had made him 'unclean' also. But Jesus did not rebuke her for this, he said that her faith had made her well, demonstrating explicitly that faith, or spiritual cleanliness, was more important than ritual cleanliness, and implicitly stating that a woman's menstruation was not valid reason to exclude her from social or religious life. again, the message is couched in religious tems, but the message is clear that there should be no barriers to participation in social and religious life, which for the Jews of the time were one and the same.

Again and again throughout the gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry we find him aligning himself with the poor, the 'unclean,' the outcasts, whether Samaritans (a race whom the Jews particularly despised), Gentiles, (who the Jews regarded as heathens and hated for their occupation of Israel), beggars, tax collectors (seen as blights on society), the lame and blind and those afflicted with leprosy (all of which made a person 'unclean' and unfit for participation in social/religious life) and women, the most systematically excluded and restricted underclass in that society. The central message of Jesus was therefore one of equality for all -- a profoundly social message that sadly is often overlooked in contemporary Christian teaching.

I'll leave it at that, but again, thank you for your interest, and please feel free to email back or post comments on the blog - I love feedback :)

Danny

Chess

God's Plan doesn't extend to Health Care

Norm: Does God answer your prayers?

Chris: Yes, of course. I have a strong personal relationship with God. I pray to him many times each day. Jesus hears my prayers and, through his grace and the grace of the Holy Spirit, my prayers are answered. I am blessed every day by God.

Norm: So if you prayed to Jesus for something, would he answer your prayer?

Chris: Yes. Of course. Jesus promises in the Bible that he answers prayers. We see prayers being answered constantly.

Norm: Why pay for health insurance if you can pray and God will cure you? Why do people need doctors, prescriptions and hospitals?

Chris: Sometimes it is not God's will to answer prayers.

Norm: But in John 14:14, Jesus says, "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." James 5:15 says, "The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well." Why would God ignore your prayers?

Chris: God is not some Santa in the sky. He does not answer prayers like that.

Norm: Didn't you just say that God answers prayers? In the Bible, doesn't Jesus promise to answer prayers?

Chris: God does answer prayers. I can show you millions of examples of God answering prayers. I have 20 books on my shelf at home filled with answered prayers.

Norm: Then why do you need health insurance?

Chris: Because, sometimes, it is not God's will to answer a prayer.

Norm: Why do you say that? "The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well" is completely unambiguous. But when you pray for a cure, in a lot of cases nothing happens. Doesn't that mean that Jesus is lying?

Chris: No. Jesus is perfect so Jesus cannot lie. When God does not answer a prayer, it is not part of his plan.

Norm: So you go to the doctor anyway?

Chris: Yes. Of course I do.

Norm: Aren't you defying God's will? Aren't you ruining God's plan?

Chris: No. God does not intend for me to be sick.

Norm: Then why doesn't God answer your prayers and cure you himself?

Chris: There is no way that we can understand the mysteries of our Lord.


*Reprinted from the brilliant website, Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

Baloney Detection Kit

Pilfered, with much love and respect, from http://www.thegayatheist.com/2009/06/baloney-detection-kit-how-to-be-good.html

The Role of Women in Early Christianity

by DannyR

Anyone who investigates women in the New Testament gets a dusty answer: some names are mentioned, and in a few cases a little more than that. The authors of the biblical writings have no interest in biographies; as men, moreover, they are more interested in their own history (Heine, 1986:55).

All the many contradictory positions on the place of women within Christianity have their foundations in the Bible, and much of the interpretive work that shaped these positions were based on texts written in the first four centuries C.E. (Drury, 1994:31). In seeking to understand the roles of women in the Christian tradition, it is first necessary to uncover their origins in the early Church and the social contexts of its beginnings. In the following, ‘women’s roles’ will refer to those duties performed by, but not necessarily those exclusive to women, while ‘early Christianity’ encompasses the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the subsequent era of Pauline theology and the Pastoral Epistles, and finally the era of Gnosticism (Heine, 1986:11).

This essay will trace the evolution of women’s roles through this early period of Christian history, paying particular attention to the Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions against which Christianity initially was a reaction, demonstrating that despite its revolutionary origins, the Early Church eventually followed its forbears in relegating women to subservient roles.

Jesus of Nazareth led one of a number of ‘renewal movements’ within Judaism that was condemned as heretical by the religious authorities of the time (Heine, 1986:55). The first Christian women were, like their male counterparts, called by Jesus to leave their families and follow him in his ministry. Heine (1986:61) notes that ‘following’ in all Biblical texts connotes “complete participation in the conviction and activity of the travelling preachers,” thus, women became disciples of Jesus to engage in religious practice from which they had been excluded under Jewish law (Swidler, 1971:180). Theirs was a life of homelessness, dependent for their survival on the gifts they received from those they preached to and from their families, and such wealth as they brought with them, which was shared. Three women are named among these followers – Mary Magdalene, Susanna and Johanna – and “it is quite in keeping with the lifestyle of Jesus and his followers that these women… should have supported the Jesus group by giving them provisions” (Heine, 1986:59-60).

Women’s practice in this primordial Christianity stood in stark contrast to their roles in Jewish society of the time, in which they were decidedly inferior – along with slaves and children, women were considered unfit to testify in legal proceedings, and were not permitted to study the Torah, read aloud in the synagogues or lead the assembly in any manner (Swidler, 1971:178). Women held no responsibilities of any significance at prayer and were restricted to the outer court of the temple at Jerusalem, and rabbinical teachings discouraged their leaving the house (except to visit the synagogue) and sought to limit women to particular ‘female areas’ of the home (Swidler, 1971:178-179). Women’s roles were thus reduced to the bearing and raising of children, and further, Jewish women were always answerable to a man, whether her father or husband, or “if a widow, the dead husband’s brother” (Swidler, 1971:178) A Jew could have multiple wives, a Jewess only one husband, she could be divorced with ease by her husband, but could not herself initiate separation (Swidler, 1971:178).

Contempt for women was by no means restricted to Judaism. While Rabbis thanked God that they were not born gentile, female or ‘ignorant’ (Swidler, 1971:178), Hellenistic men gave thanks that they were born neither animal, nor woman, nor barbarian, and thus “much as these men differ in ethnic character, they are united in gratitude that they have the ‘right’ sex” (Heine, 1986:85). Indeed, even secular philosophers such as Aristotle declared the inherent superiority of men over women (Drury, 1994:35). In the wider Roman Empire in which Christianity developed, the reproductive function of marriage was of great importance, due to much loss of life through war and disease, and short life expectancy, thus marriage was encouraged at a young age, and women were expected to bear a number of children. Furthermore, the secular Roman world was at that time making the regressive transition from the marital egalitarianism and liberty of the Republic to the patriarchal marriage form exemplified by Augustus and his household and thus, given this tide of misogyny, it is hardly surprising that women in particular, both Jew and gentile, were attracted to the nascent Christian religion (Heine, 1986:93).

In the period following the death of Jesus, Christian emphasis shifted from the early ideals of ascetism and homelessness to the establishment of faith communities in order that families should no longer be “torn apart over belief” (Heine, 1986:93-94). Women’s roles within Christianity were redefined in this period by the apostle Paul who, in preaching to non-Jewish communities to create the ‘Israel of God’ (Brown, 1988:49), nevertheless insisted that all who entered the new faith should live according to Jewish custom, with all its rabbinical bias against women (Heine, 1986:95). He propounded his belief that women should be veiled and silent in communal gatherings (Brown, 1988:52), justifying this subordinate, inferior status by appealing to the Creation account in Genesis 1-3, in which God is said to have created women “after men and from men and for men” as companions or helpers (Drury, 1994:34).

But perhaps Paul is not so misogynistic as he is commonly made out to be – he certainly “met women of acknowledged status who were actively engaged in mission and the building up of the community independently of him… not only does he nowhere question working with these women but he confirms, values and at times stresses it – more often and more explicitly than any other author in the New Testament” (Heine, 1986:86). Almost a quarter of the “active collaborators” named in Paul’s writings are women – among them, Euodia and Syntyche, hinted to be martyrs and missionaries like himself, and Phoebe, whom he appears to regard as a deacon in Cenchreae, even including in Romans 16 a ‘letter of commendation’ for her missionary work (Heine, 1986:87-89). His contemporaries, also, record in ‘The Acts of the Apostles’ that Mary, mother of John Mark, and Lydia, a wealthy merchant, each lead a Christian house community; that Tabitha’s charity work was deemed so valuable that Peter raised her back from the dead so she might continue it, and that the four daughters of Philip of Caesarea were prophetesses of renown (Heine, 1986:89). Prisca (or Priscilla) is recorded as having co-founded a Christian community in Ephesus with her husband Aquila, and as participating in the teaching of converts and visitors (Heine, 1986:43). Indeed,

Despite the none too lavish sources, we can construct a vivid picture of community life at the time of the women involved: their influence extended from Caesarea to Rome. Mothers, wives, sisters… and young girls worked at spreading the new faith and building up the communities. Their functions ranged from the highest to the ‘lowest.’ They worked as apostles, deacons, community leaders, teachers and prophets. They travelled as missionaries and did charitable work; they preached, taught, gathered the believers together and sewed clothing for the women. There were well-to-do women among them who shared what they had and kept open house, and there were poor women and slaves… in all this they were no different from men and fellow Christians (Heine, 1986:89-90).

Certainly the retention in early Biblical texts of such accounts as these, and of Jesus praising women for putting spiritual growth and learning ahead of domestic responsibilities (thus rejecting the equation of a woman with her domestic, sexual and reproductive roles) demonstrates the early Christian community’s awareness of the centrality of the message of equality in Jesus’ teachings (Swidler, 1971:182-183).

Yet even within the early Christian church, there was much disagreement over such issues, and the Pastoral Epistles of the New Testament, “not written by Paul, although they explicitly mention Paul as their author” (Heine, 1986:15) demonstrate this ambivalence toward women. Drury (1994:31) asserts that the teachings of these mostly “celibate male writers” with “fears about their own sexuality” have been used to assign women a secondary or inferior status in the later Christianity, while D’Angelo (2001:399) notes that the writers of the Pastoral Epistles “prescribe submission to a husband… forbid women to have rich clothing, braided hair, teaching, authority over men and early celibacy… and require silence in the assembly.” In fact some early Christian communities such as the Essenes, continuing in the earlier ascetic tradition of the first followers of Jesus, went so far as to exclude women completely, considering them disruptive in that they ‘caused’ jealousy and conflict in men by arousing men’s sexual lust (Brown, 1988:38-39). The Gnostic groups were largely among these.

Gnosticism, “a religious attitude and practice which seems to derive the motives for its views from many different religions and world-views” (Heine, 1986:108-109), was strongly influenced by the philosophical writings of secular philosophers such as Aristotle, who considered every baby girl “a failure, less than the ideal, useful only for her ability to bear children” (Drury, 1994:35). While in some Gnostic sects women certainly held positions of prestige (Heine, 1986:8), influential writers such as Thomas Aquinas, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian in other sects expressed considerable hostility toward women (D’Angelo, 2001:405-406; Drury, 1994:35-36; Heine, 1986:35) and to all “womanliness” or sensuality (Brown, 1988:36). Clement, whose writings would be highly influential in later Christian thought, expressed his belief that the souls of men and women are indeed equal in virtue, but that women’s bodies mark them out for a role in childbearing specifically (Heine, 1986:33-35), and asserted that a woman’s role is to “get what is needed out of the provision store, tread mill the mill, do the cooking so that it tastes good to the husband, make the bed, get the drinks… [and] to have children so that the city and the inhabited world do not go under for want of men;” they are to “bathe for purification and for their health, men only for their health” (Heine, 1986:35). And thus, the message of liberation for women from patriarchal oppression that was so central to the message of Jesus (Swidler, 1971:179) was undermined, and Christian thought returned to its androcentric roots, setting a decidedly anti-feminine tone for the Christian tradition and limiting women’s roles to reproduction and household management for centuries to come.

To conclude, understanding the roles of women in the early Church allows us to comprehend the evolution of those roles and thus their many incarnations today, but we must also understand that women’s roles in the early church were even then shaped by historical forces and the social and cultural contexts of the time. This essay has traced women’s roles from their revolutionary origins in early Christianity, exploring the background against which they developed, demonstrating in so doing that the influences of Pauline and Gnostic theology effectively reinstituted the patriarchal status quo that existed in Judaism and the secular Roman Empire prior to the advent of Christianity, thus undermining the emphasis placed on sexual equality by the first followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

References
Brown, P. (1988). From Apostle to Apologist: Sexual order and sexual renunciation in the Early Church. In ‘The body and society: Men, women, and sexual renunciation in Early Christianity’, pp.33-64. New York: Colombia University Press.

D’Angelo, M. R. (2001). Veils, virgins, and the tongues of men and angels: Women’s heads in Early Christianity. In Elizabeth A. Castelli and Rosamond C. Rodman (eds.) ‘Women, Gender, Religion: A reader, pp.389-419. New York: Palgrave.

Drury, C. (1994). Christianity. In Jean Holm and John Bowker (eds.), ‘Women in Religion.’ pp.30-58. London: Printer Publishers Ltd.

Heine, S. (1986). Women and Early Christianity: Are the feminist scholars right? London: SCM Press Ltd.

Swidler, L. (1971). Jesus was a feminist. Catholic World, 212, pp.177-183.

Feminism: Its History and Ongoing Influence on Religious Studies

by DannyR

“It is increasingly recognized that feminist theories have not only constituted a most influential scholarship within academia, they have also had a profound impact on the subjectivities of countless women worldwide. This has led to immense personal and political transformations, the consequences and direction of which are still unfolding” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p3).

Feminism has always been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both politics and religion, from its beginnings in the eighteenth century through to the political turmoil of the 1960s, and into the more reflexive postmodern period. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases and allowing women to reinterpret and criticise religious texts, and this has in turn allowed men to become aware of their own gendered natures and religious subjectivities, sometimes to the detriment of the feminist enterprise. The following charts the history of feminist thought as it pertains to the study of religion, concluding that it is a field of enquiry that continues to develop in scope and subtlety.

In order to understand the impact of feminism on religion, it is first necessary to understand what is meant by each term. Feminism is a perspective that exposes and questions the privilege and prestige accorded to men (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3), being traditionally focused on inequalities founded on biological sex but having given rise to the relatively new concept of gender and genderedness (King, 1995, p.12). Alice Schlegel defines gender as the cultural perception, construction and expectations of the sexes, as opposed to actual biological sex (King, 1995, pp.12-13). Defining religion is more problematic, for as King notes (1995, p.10) the term can apply to either a “historically and culturally evolved,” “cumulative” tradition or to a subjective, transcendental experience.

Feminism as a recognizable political and intellectual movement first appeared against the backdrop of Industrialisation in Europe and America (Osto, 2008, p.4), though its origins can be traced back to the eighteenth century writings of Mary Wollstonecraft (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.2) among others. This first wave of feminism was largely concerned with the rights of women to vote and achieving equality in the eyes of the law (Osto, 2008, p.4) but the growing awareness of sex inequality was reflected in religious scholarly circles by the publication of such discourses as Elizabeth Candy Stanton’s The Women’s Bible in 1895 (Giddens, 1997, p.449), in which the author propounds her view that man and woman had been created equal, that the Bible did not reflect this equality and did not therefore reflect the values of God, but rather the views of the committees of men who periodically revised the Biblical texts.

Having declined somewhat after the First World War, the feminist movement regained momentum in the 1960s (Giddens, 1997, p.516). This second wave was characterised by an emphasis on solidarity, intense political activism around employment, reproductive and sexual rights, and the push for the inclusion of Women’s Studies programmes in universities (Osto, 2008, p.4). Central to this activism was the development of the concept of patriarchy, the way in which “masculine values” are built into the very workings of “most organizations” at all levels of management (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.146). The seemingly all-pervasive power of patriarchy led some feminist scholars to name it a religion in itself, “the prevailing religion of the entire planet,” and to declare all world religions merely sects (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, pp.32-33). Yet even in the 1970s some feminist scholars noted that this concept of worldwide patriarchy disregarded historical context, was “monolithic” and “dismissive of women’s resistance and agency” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.147).

Thus in its third wave, beginning in the 1980s, feminism became decidedly theoretical and postmodern in character, rejecting essentialism and shifting its focus from gender inequalities to constructions of gender – or, put another way, the existence of a variety of masculinities and femininities (Osto, 2008, p.4). No longer could women be considered a “homogenous group,” as increasingly it was recognized that sexual preference, race, class and age all contribute to the shaping of subjectivity (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, p.11; Armour, 1999, p.7). It is this more nuanced approach to gender that has allowed religious discourse to blend the masculine with the feminine in its conceptions of divinity, or in some cases to transcend gender altogether, rather than simply substituting the male for the female (King, 1995, p.15). Anne E. Carr, among others, asserts that the task of this third, mature stage of feminism is the building of general theories and the establishment of a “unifying framework” for these more integrative and inclusive analyses (King, 1995, p.20), though this has met with some resistance from separatist feminists such as Mary Daly (King, 1995, p.14).

The challenge posed by feminism has given rise to a number of different responses by men, from the “avidly anti-feminist… such as the Christian Promise Keepers, through to a possibly more accommodating mythopoetic movement” in which men may acknowledge their own gendered natures and spiritual subjectivities (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, pp.4,283). Another such response is the advent of masculinities studies within the academy, which some consider the completion of the feminist project (King, 1995, p.14). If men’s traditional perception of feminism as “about women,” and the lack of discussion around gender in men’s writing “has served to make men invisible, particularly to themselves” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.4), the move toward studies of masculinity, then, constitutes some recognition by men of the validity of women’s experience. A chief criticism of this movement, however, is that where ‘masculinities’ and ‘femininities’ are studied separately the gender dichotomy is in fact reinforced, the genders polarized further (King, 1995, pp.14-15).

Feminism continues to evolve in European, American, and Australasian countries, and is beginning to have an impact in Asia, Africa and the Middle and Far East (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). The backlash against feminist critique has been at times severe, leading Whitehead and Barrett (2001, p.3) to posit that the resurgence of religious fundamentalism around the world may be a response by men to the “changing positions and expectations of women.” They note that “in terms of sustaining unequal material advantage, opportunity, status and privilege, men have much to lose with the rise of feminist thinking” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). However, the authors are quick to see the opportunities for men in the exchange – empathy, quality in relationships, reflexivity, emotional wellbeing and balance in their lives (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). Such analyses owe their very existence to the insights born of the feminist perspective.

To conclude, from its inception feminism has been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both the political and religious arenas, developing through periods of activism into a discipline concerned with the construction of general theories of gender, becoming ever more reflexive and nuanced in its analyses of patriarchy and subjectivity. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases, and this has resulted in the development of reflexive men’s studies and further opportunities for its own growth. As King (1995, p.12) observes, while “progress in the study of religion is slow … there is no doubt that the perspective of gender is of increasing importance in theoretical and empirical studies.”

References
Armour, E.T. Deconstruction, feminist theology, and the problem of difference: Subverting the Race/Gender divide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Biezeveld, Kune & Mulder, Anne-Claire, (eds.), Towards a different transcendence: Feminist findings on subjectivity, religion and values. Bern, Germany: Peter Lang, European Academic Publishers, (2001).

Giddens, A. Sociology, 3rd Edn. Cambridge: Polity press, 1997.

King, Ursula, (ed.), Religion and gender. London: Blackwell, 1995.

Osto, D. 135.207/307 Sex, Gender and Religion Study Guide. Palmerston North: Massey University, 2008.

Whitehead, S.M., Barrett, F.J. (eds.), The masculinities reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press, 2001.

Nihilism -- CHAFF 2008

I found a quote on the net somewhere that said nihilism is where you go when you can’t find anything to believe in.

According to Wikipedia it’s “the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.” It’s often defined as belief in nothing, but from what I’ve read that’s not entirely true... we should say faith in nothing to be more accurate. Faith is a firm belief in something where there isn’t or can’t be any supporting evidence. Nihilists see faith as dangerous because when we’re relying on faith we aren’t using our faculties of common sense, reason and critical analysis. According to Nietzsche (you know him – the “God is dead” guy – life of the party), faith is simply “not wanting to know.”

Not wanting to know? Crazy, right? Well, yeah. But understandable maybe. Who wants to know anyway?? It’s a big scary world out there, it’s hard to understand sometimes, so of course most of us would rather just accept on faith whatever sounds like a fair explanation. It gets exhausting asking questions all the time and never having any certainty, and realistically, nobody’s going to be able to think through absolutely EVERY issue and read EVERY book. Especially in the modern Western nations. I’m not really surprised that in the most technologically advanced and modernized societies, like the USA, Australia and New Zealand, so many people believe in a cosmic zombie who communicates with them each individually by means of telepathy... our lives are a lot more sped up and full of stress and hassle in comparison to the rest of the world. We just don’t have the time to think things through.

Sometimes I think that if any of us could see how complicated the world really is it would be enough to drive us mad. But what the nihilists are getting at is that though it’s comforting to just think we know the answers without having to ask the questions, we’re fooling ourselves, and making things worse for ourselves and others in doing so. How? Well, let’s just pull a random example out of our collective arse, shall we? AIDS is killing thousands of people every day, and causes immeasurable human suffering, all around the world but especially in poorest nations. People get AIDS by becoming infected with HIV, most often through transmission of sexual fluids, and this can be prevented by using condoms during sex. There’s more to it than that, but that’s good enough for our purposes. We could fix the problem and alleviate a lot of the suffering if people wore the damn condoms, but faith has stuck its beak in and convinced a whole lot of those people that the father of the aforementioned cosmic zombie, who lives up in the sky and watches everything they do (the dirty perve) will throw them in a lake of fire to burn forever if they wear condoms when they fuck. And other well-meaning faithful people, mindful of the imperilled souls of those people in the populations where HIV is rampant, are kindly puncturing the condom packets before the poor sods even get them, just to be sure that no latex stands between souls and salvation. Faith makes us do dumb things, so nihilism begins to look like an attractive alternative. It’s the rejection of any belief that relies on faith, whether religious or secular.

Another defining characteristic of nihilism is the rejection of the idea that things have a final purpose. Nihilists believe everything is random, that there is no preordained final destination or revelation. In other words, you’re not going to heaven. It doesn’t exist and what’s more, it’s pointless to live your life in some sort of preparation for it. So go on, masturbate, get drunk, call your mother a herpes-riddled crack-whore... it doesn’t matter. You won’t get punished for it in the hereafter (though your mum might burn all your stuff and kick you out on the street). In a nutshell, nihilists reject the teleological arguments offered by most religions. Teleology is the idea that the universe functions a bit like a machine according to some sort of god-given plan or design, and it’s not restricted to the world of religion either. A common, almost sacred belief among people in the secular West is that you and your significant other were ‘made for each other,’ or if you haven’t got one at the moment, that she or he is out there somewhere waiting for you, that it’s ‘meant to be.’ Well the nihilists have got news for you... there was nothing inevitable about you finding that one particular person, there was no plan, no destiny, it was all just chance, and you only think it’s something magical and special because it feels nice, but you fail to see that you probably would have felt the same about almost anyone else. They might remind you ever so politely (or more likely, somewhat sharply) that everyone else is feeling something pretty similar for their own special-someone, you’re just too blind to see it, so shut the fuck up. Nihilists also reject Marxism, Buddhism, and any other set of beliefs that rely on teleology. There is no destiny, there can be no progress.

Nihilism is virtually synonymous with scepticism. There are two main branches: social or existential nihilism, and political nihilism. Let’s start with the existential variety. It’s passive, influenced by eastern philosophy and mysticism, and concerns itself primarily with isolation, human suffering and the futility and hopelessness of existence. It’s bloody depressing. Most people, when you mention nihilism, will think this is what you mean. In the face of all the meaninglessness and randomness, the only coping mechanism is detachment – just stop giving a shit. Don’t do anything for anyone, don’t bother with worthy causes, just don’t care, because ultimately it’s a waste of time.

Now, don’t confuse existential nihilism with depression, though that certainly follows on from it a lot of the time. Personally I’m inclined toward depression when I’m feeling worthless. When I ask someone out or let them know I’m interested and they say “Fuck no, I need space, I’m not ready for a relationship just now, you’re sweet and everything, let’s just be friends, STOP STALKING ME!!!”, I usually take it to me mean that I’m not tall enough, attractive enough, smart enough etc, and I inevitably begin saying to myself: “What’s the point in trying anyway, I may as well stay in my room, give up my hopes and get used to being by myself.” But kids, that’s not quite full blown existential nihilism, because I’m not saying that there’s no point in anyone trying to get laid, only that there’s no point in me trying. Important difference. Even at my most whiny and self-loathing, I would still agree that most people can and should try to find happiness in the whole love and romance thingy.

Political nihilism, the other main branch of nihilism, is active, revolutionary and at once destructive and creative. It’s about social structures and authority. Political nihilism states that things are in such a bad state that the only real option left to us is to smash them up, and whether or not we can rebuild we will at least have done some good. Being a political nihilist is about being in the here and now... rejecting all religious and philosophical debate and all the metaphysical circular reasoning that it ultimately leads to. It’s about challenging all the assumptions we base our values on, even equality and justice. There’s no future goal that we’re aiming for, no reformed society that’s more tolerant or diverse or equitable or prosperous, or at least no goal that’s more important than the present. It’s about realising there’s no life but this one, and making the most of it. It’s about taking responsibility..... if there’s no higher power then your success or failure is up to you, and you alone. Another nihilism quote I found sums it up nicely... “Each human life has the potential, but unless one strives to be a god, they are only a worm.” We can do anything... it’s up to us whether we repeat the patterns of our forbears, killing and subjugating each other for material gain and dominance and letting our masters profit at our expense, or whether we control our lives and reap the benefits for ourselves.

It’s true that nihilism, like anarchism, is usually equated with violence and terrorism, and there’s certainly historical justification. Nihilists generally reckon that violence is not inherent in their philosophies, but I’m inclined to think that if nihilism is your philosophy you’re more likely to be aggressive. Nihilists say there is nothing above man, there is no objective moral, ethical reality, but is that really the case? The argument can be made that we carry our moral absolutes with us, encoded into our brains. I think it’s genetic, we’ve survived as a species because we know instinctively how to interact with each other. We’re a social species, we have survived because we can cooperate, and we know, each of us, how to do this, how to avoid conflict. Something in our brains, other than fear of repercussions, tells us a behaviour is wrong. Why else, for instance, would all these religions around the world have come up with such basic moral tenets as don’t kill each other? Don’t torture people for fun?? And remember to put the trash out???

Just because there’s no ultimate point to anything, and even though nothing I actually accomplish is going to last forever, that doesn’t mean there’s no sense in doing it anyway, does it? In fact, doesn’t that make human endeavour a more precious and amazing thing? Think about it, out of all the randomness, out of all the meaninglessness, we are able to create something that has meaning for ourselves and others. That meaning might be quite arbitrary, we each might see the same thing quite differently, but isn’t that kind of beautiful in itself? There might not be any reason, in the big scheme of things, for me to get out there and make a noise about discrimination, pollution or the suffering of others, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t do it. It will mean something to me, I’ll be taking control, making something out of the nothingness, making the world what I want it to be. And maybe, just maybe, someone else will see the world the way I do.

And that’s meaning enough for me.

Danny Rudd