Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    More from:
Humans Brutalizing Humans: Necessary Images in the Christian Religion?
By Delores Williams, a member of the faculty at Drew University Theological 
School

One of the most troubling emphases in Christendom is the ritual of the 
eucharist in which believers eat the bread (symbolic of Jesus' broken body) 
and drink the wine (symbolic of the blood Jesus shed on the cross, 
supposedly for our sins).  In addition to the cannibalist insinuations in this
ritual, the accompanying ritual-word as it is spoken in many churches, puts
great emphasis upon the sacrifice Jesus made in dying for human sin.  The
question that always comes to my mind if whether this emphasis upon dying-
sacrifice has implications for women's oppression.  Since many women are 
conditioned to sacrifice "all" for their family's well-being, I wonder if this
"sacred sacrifice", achieved through brutalization of Jesus' body, can
encourage battered women to stay in battering situations, thereby sacrificing
themselves for some "higher purpose" like family unity?
    

    More from:
Humans Brutalizing Humans: Necessary Images in the Christian Religion?
By Delores Williams, a member of the faculty at Drew University Theological 
School

... in Christian imagery, the wilderness should
replace the cross as a symbolic meaning pointing to Jesus' victory over sin.
If Christians can think of their redemption as modeled not by Jesus on the
cross but by Jesus refusing the temptations Satan offered him in the
wilderness, more human volition is involved in redemption than the death on the
cross indicates.  That is, redemption becomes more realistic in light of the
way we experience it, for we do have the power to resist or assent to sinful
temptations, just as Jesus did in the wilderness.  Also, Jesus' resistance to
what Satan offered him in the wilderness is what we have to resist if just and
right relation is to happen between humans and between humans and the natural
world.  Just as Jesus resisted the injustice of monopolistic ownership, of the
misuses of power and refused to destroy life (his own), humans are confronted
with these same kind of temptations in their daily lives.  What Satan offered
Jesus in the wilderness can accomplish other needed goals of the religion.  For
instance, the wilderness imagery allows more meaningful and unoppressive
relation and dialogue between Christians and others who have been scapegoated
by Christian societies -- i.e., the Jews, blacks, women, Muslims and other
cultural and racial minorities.  Judaism, black-American religion, Islam, all
have important wilderness events and meanings in their histories.  Many of
these religions point to some redemptive act(s) happening in the wilderness.
Thus the wilderness, rather than the cross, connects Christians in a positive
way with their Jewish heritage.

There is much more that can be said about the ethical significance of this
lifting-up of more humane and non-brutal images within the Christian religion.
 perhaps it is enough to end here by urging Christians to take seriously the
social implications of the imagery and symbolic meanings central to the
religion and ask the question:  "Can this image or symbolic meaning be used to
support brutality and suffering in any form?" 

	I sometime wear a Jerusalem Cross.  It is distinguished by a single
large cross surrounded by 4 smaller crosses representing each of the 5
wounds that Christ sustained while on the cross.  This symbol was emblazoned
upon the shield of many a Crusader during the Middle Ages.

	The word crusader literally means "cross bearer".  But, the Crusaders
of the Middle Ages made a terrible mistake.  They used the cross in the same
way the Romans did; to punish and to exterminate undesirables, unlike Jesus
who used the cross to bring healing and reconciliation.

	Occasionally, someone will remark about how handsome the cross
I wear is.  This bothers me because I know if Jesus had been born in more
modern times, I might be wearing a symbol depicting an electric chair on a
chain around my neck.

Peace,
Richard

    Wow Nancy.  Thanks for entering this.  I find the excerpts 
    extremely thought provoking although I have no time at the 
    moment to comment further.
    
    Perhaps later...
    
    Karen

    I read the following a long time ago and it has helped me in letting
    go of the shame-based, guilt-based symbol of the cross:

    	As a symbol, use a circle with a short cross within, or a rainbow
    	or a glowing sun, anything which denotes life or growth or unity.
    	Your symbol of the crucified body on a cross must end unless you
    	realize it is your human personality that must die to your soul.
    	Then and only then does this symbol serve you at all.
    
    Ro
    

    
    
    Thanks again Nancy for entering these excerpts.  Good food for
    thought.
    
    Carole

        The author of the article fails to 'review' the Ressurection of
    Jesus from death and the cross. To Christians, the cross is not a call
    to brutalize anybody but quite the opposite. We see what sin can do
    and the high price that had to be paid for all sin through Jesus' 
    suffering and death.
    
        The cross is not an agent of guilt if one truely surrenders our
    sins to God, through Jesus on the cross. It is through giving them to
    Jesus and recognizing that he lovingly died for our sins that we can
    be free from them and have redemption. If we 'hang on to our sin' by
    trying to atone ourself or failing to face them squarely as sin then
    we will not have peace.
    
        It is admirable to try to resist Satan as did Jesus in the
    wilderness, but not one person is capable of living a totally sinless
    life; therefore, the cross is necessary.
    
        The cross should be a source of joy to Christians if we have truely
    surrendered our sins to Jesus. The cross should fill us with
    contemplation of the love of God for us and it should strengthen us to
    bear our own crosses.
    
        The article certainly did a fine job of trying to strip Jesus as
    Christ from religion and substitute in it's place another form of
    "self-help-Jesus-is-ok-as-a-role-model" belief. 
    
    Peace through Jesus,
    Mary
    

Re:  174.0

  >In the course of its development, the Christian religion gave this 
  >cross redemptive value, conferring upon it symbolic status pointing
  >to God's way of acting in history to save sinful humankind.  

Just to point out (in case it isn't obvious) that it was not "the
Christian religion" which gave the cross redemptive value, it was God
Himself (if you are willing to accept the Biblical claim that the Bible 
is a revelation from God).  This, of course, puts the symbol in a
*much* different light than a man-made religious symbol.  It is a
God-given symbol with a God-given interpretation that we are to
respect and pass on.
    
  >If God, the Father, intended the death on the cross of Jesus, his innocent 
  >son, then child abuse by fathers might not be taken as seriously as it 
  >need be in Christian societies.

Bunk.

  >In the history of Christian theologizing...

replace this with "In God's revelation in the Bible"

Collis

The history given in the Bible, without the interpretation given by the
Bible, can be made to mean anything.  The death of Jesus can only be said
to cleanse us from our sins because God has revealed that this indeed
is what happened at that event.

Articles such as this show the consequences of rejecting God's revelation
and replacing it with human wisdom.

Collis

    Collis,
    	that is one of several possibilities. Not everyone accepts the
    Bible the same way that you do. Not everyone understands the Bible to
    say the same things that you understand it to say. There are those who
    would be more than willing to use the Bible and its symbiology to
    justify any travesty they feel suitable. The Bible has been used to
    justify the enslavement of Negroes. It has been used to justify the
    murders of women accused of being witches. It has been used to justify
    the genocide visited upon the jews. It has been used to ... (fill in
    the blanks). The people who used the Bible so badly, did they reject
    God's revelation and replace it with human wisdom ?  No. Those who
    helped to redress these evils done in the name of God were those who
    studied the teachings of Christ with a human wisdom and rejected the
    traditional errors. Would you have it that these attrocities should
    continue rather than be subjected to human wisdom and reinterpretation?
    I would thing not, but I could be wrong.

Re:  174.10

  >The people who used the Bible so badly, did they reject God's revelation 
  >and replace it with human wisdom ?  No. 

I respectfully disagree.  If they are using God's revelation, then
they indeed were fulfilling God's Will in what they did which they
obviously were not.  (Or God is not truly the loving, caring, merciful 
God of justice that the Bible so often proclaims.)

They did indeed replace, for whatever reason (including ignorance)
God's revelation with human wisdom.  Our errors, failings and shortcomings,
however, do not reflect on God - they reflect only on ourselves.

Collis

    re:.11
    	And just how sure are you that your understanding of God's
    revelation, as revealed in the Bible, is correct in all ways ?  How
    sure are you that you do not mis-understand something based on your
    human "wisdom" ?  Would you base your certainty on your belief in God's
    love and justice ?  Shall I refer you back to that very active string
    where you are among those who insist that homosexuality is a sin with
    no alternative ?  You are very certain, there, that God agrees with
    your homophobic attitudes. Slave owners were certain, even in the face
    of the challenges of the Unitarian William Ellery Channing, that the
    Bible supported their anti-black attitudes. 

    I'm inclined to believe that the brutal images within Christianity are
    there because aspects of life are brutal, as well as sublime.  Remove
    those images and watch your religion fade into irrelevance.
    
    DR

    
    Slave owners, practicing homosexuals, wife beaters, adulterers, thieves,
    coveters.....etc., will all be before the Throne of God one day.
    
    That which we do not submit to the Lord through repentance and
    conversion in this life will be before us in the presence of the Lord,
    and we will need to give an account.
    
    Consider THAT conversation concerning the justice of such actions!
    
    Rather than ask the question of another, "How sure are YOU that YOUR
    interpertation is correct?", it might be much better to ask oneself,
    " How sure am I, in the presence of the Lord, that MY interpertation
    on this matter is correct."
    
    Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Follow him with an openness
    and surrender, allowing him control over the behavior in question,
    and He will prevail. Prayer is not enough; it must be accompanied by
    an openness and surrender allowing the Holy Spirit to make whatever
    changes are in God's Will. True peace and wellness of being will 
    follow.
    
    Peace through Jesus,
    
    Mary
    
    
    

    The author of the base note seems eager to discard fundamental elements
    of Christianity on the pretext that some people might 'get the wrong
    idea' about what God wants from us in the area of behavior. This seems
    almost laughingly ludicrous.
    
    I can just picture it, the parish priest's nightmare : the Greatly
    Misguided Bible Study Group. This week we will be studying "Wife-
    beating, God's Will for a Peaceful Family".
    
    A while back Ted Turner (owner of CNN and other Cable stations)
    proposed a new Ten Commandments to replace God's because His hadn't
    worked. Ted had a better list. The author of the article on Brutalizing 
    Images feels certain Christian images are harmful and so proposes some
    recommended revisions...
    
    I'm sure the Lord is taking these recommendations into serious
    consideration!  :^)
    
    Peace,
    Mary
    
      

Re: .14  Mary

As Mike Morgan would say: "More threats from the God of Love".

				-- Bob

    I find it offensive personally to include practicing homosexuals
    with slave owners, wife beaters, adulterers etc.
    
    I think it should read, slaves, beaten women, homosexuals, those
    abused by family or society, *and* slave owners, wife beaters, thieves,
    homophobes, etc... all of us will stand before the Throne of God
    one day.
    
    One of the elements in the original is out of place (kind of like
    one of those pictures you are given in intelligence tests where they
    ask you to pick out the one that doesn't belong.)
    
    Bonnie

Re:  .11

Dave,

Of course known of us knows for sure.  We can only believe we know.

I accept the Bible's claims as stated for numerous reasons mentioned
many times.  This does not mean I always interpret it correctly or
that God always reveals His meaning to me.  However, God has given
us all a mandate to abide by His teachings to the best of our ability
and that is what I attempt to do (and fail at).

Collis

Bonnie,

Your argument is not with Mary as much as it is with Paul as Mary is
only parroting Paul (as best as she understands Paul).  I'm truly sorry
if this offends you for I wish no one to take offense at what the Bible
says.

Collis

    Collis
    
    I am not taking offense at what the Bible says, I *am* having 
    a serious problem with how some people chose to interpret it.
    
    Bonnie

My mistake.  Please forgive me.

Bonnie,


	I really think when you included homosexuals in with those who are
being abused you hit the nail on the head. :-)


Glen

    Thankyou, that was the point of my objection..
    
    Bonnie

    Here's a quick something you can do to help prevent and stop domestic
    violence.
   
    Super Bowl Sunday - which this year is January 31, here in southern
    California at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena - is the single worst day for
    domestic violence in the USA.  There is an increase of as much as 40%
    in the volume handled by domestic violence shelters on this day.  
   
    To try to stem this tide of violence, the Women's Action Coalition
    (WAC) of Los Angeles is supporting the campaign by Fairness and
    Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) to convince NBC (the network carrying the
    game) to carry two Public Service Announcements on domestic violence
    during the Super Bowl this year.  Anna Quindlen of the New York Times
    wrote a fine editorial in the 1/17/93 edition of the Times supporting
    this effort as well.  

    WAC is suggesting that letters/faxes be sent asap to NBC.    Here is a
    sample letter:
   
    Dick Ebersol 
    President, NBC Sports 
    NBC 
    30 Rockefeller Plaza 
    New York, NY  10112
   
    Dear Mr. Ebersol:
   
    We (I) support FAIR's request that you air two Public Service
    Announcements on domestic violence during the Super Bowl game.  The
    Super Bowl is one of the most widely viewed television events of the
    year; it is also the day, according to women's shelters, when calls for
    help increase by as much as 40%.
   
    Your broadcast of the Super Bowl will reach a huge audience.  By your
    airing PSAs, NBC will be bringing to a national audience the critical
    and important issue of domestic violence.
   
    Sincerely,
   
    To reach NBC by FAX:  212-664-5835.
   
   
    Thanks for helping - you may save someone's life, or skeletal
    structure, or eyesight.  Please feel free to cross-post this anywhere.
   
    Jennifer        [email protected]
   

I think I heard on the news last night that NBC has agreed to run the spots.

	... at least for one PSA.  Don't remember two being mentioned.

re.24

Wow. Quite revealing this national pastime of ours...

ace