Abstract
The coping strategies adopted by feminists interested in maintaining allegiance to existing religious frameworks often pose a serious threat to the authority of canonized texts, undermining belief in their divine origin. Responses which substitute traditional notions of fixed, neutral and absolute truths with postmodern views regarding the function of language, the revelatory role of historical context, and the redeeming powers of cumulative interpretation may resolve this issue on a theological plane. Nevertheless, awareness of the contingent nature of our understanding of the divine word cannot – on its own – guarantee religious passion or adherence to the type of firm standards and commitments required by institutionalized religion. Religious feminists who share these concerns must resolve this educational dilemma by transposing their tensions with patriarchy into the very core of their religious life. It is only within the context of existential attachment to the distinctive practices of a particular faith community that the “reality,” “truth,” and binding nature of our spiritual convictions are assured.
This chapter is an expanded version of my presentation at the 2008 conference entitled “Gender and Religion: Authority, Power, and Agency,” sponsored by the Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study at Harvard University.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Ross (2004).
- 3.
All of the negative commandments (prohibitions) of the Torah apply equally to men and women, aside from those that are related to obvious biological differences. The same is true with regard to most of the positive mitzvoth (divine commandments that involve taking action), except for a few important distinctions, which serve to exclude women from various legal and social privileges, and from playing a central role in the tradition’s legislative and interpretive process. For further explication, see Ross (2004, pp. 14–22).
- 4.
For further explication of the cultural-linguistic approach, see Lindbeck (1984).
- 5.
For an eloquent elaboration of this notion, see Phillips (1971, pp. 131–142).
- 6.
Frimer (2007).
- 7.
Ross (2008).
- 8.
Frimer (2007, p. 73).
- 9.
For some examples, see Frimer (2007, pp.71, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 106).
- 10.
Finkelman (2004).
- 11.
Hampson (1996).
- 12.
Daly (1985, pp. 11–12).
- 13.
See item #3 of the guest post written by EJ (the initials of an active blog commentator who prefers to be known as “Evanston Jew”): Brill (2010). My account in the following paragraph is part quote, part paraphrase and amplification of his initial observation.
- 14.
As phrased, for example, in her assertion that “It is possible to say that Christian beliefs are ‘symbolically true’. But if one does not believe them to be symbolically ‘true’ but false to one’s belief in human equality, there is no point in having made this sideways move.” See Hampson (1996, pp. 45). Two likely explanations for the differences in our approach to tradition may be the fact that Judaism is far more embedded than Christianity in a total way of life, inextricably establishing our identity, and that Judaism has always managed to retain a considerable degree of latitude in relating to its norms and symbols, developing a rich array of mechanisms for redemptive interpretation.
- 15.
Walzer (1993, p. 8). I am indebted to Deborah R. Weisman (see n. 13) for both references to Walzer in this article.
- 16.
Weisman (2007), p. 89.
- 17.
Kook (1985, pp. 92–93).
- 18.
Bibliography
Brill, A. (2010). EJ and Rawls. The book of doctrines and opinions: Notes on Jewish theology and spirituality [blog]. 25 December. Available at http://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/ej-and-rawls/. Accessed 12 June 2011.
Daly, M. (1985). Beyond god the father: Toward a philosophy of women’s liberation. Boston: Beacon.
Finkelman, Y. (2004). Review essay: A critique of Expanding the palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and feminism by Tamar Ross. The Edah Journal, 4, 2. Available at http://www.edah.org/backend/coldfusion/journal_images/ACFFA6.pdf.
Frimer, A. A. (2007). Guarding the treasure: Review of Expanding the palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and feminism by Tamar Ross. B.D.D.: Bekhol Derakhekha Daehu – Journal of Torah and Scholarship, 18, 67–106.
Gellman, J. I. (1993). A Hassidic interpretation of the binding of Isaac: Rabbi Leiner of Izbica. In A. Sagi & D. Statman (Eds.), Bein Dat Le-musar (pp. XXIII–XXXIX). Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University.
Gellman, J. I. (1994). The fear, the trembling, and the fire: Kierkegaard and Hasidic masters on the binding of Isaac. New York/London: University Press of America.
Hampson, D. (1990). Theology and feminism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ch. 1.
Hampson, D. (1996). After Christianity. London: SCM Press. Ch.4.
Kook, A. I. (1985). Olat Reiyah II (2nd ed.). Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook.
Leiner, Y. (1995). Mei Hashiloah I, II. Photo-print ed. Bnei Brak: Mishor.
Lindbeck, G. A. (1984). The nature of doctrine: Religion and theology in a postliberal age. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
McKay, H. A. (1997). On the future of feminist biblical criticism. In A. Brenner & C. Fontaine (Eds.), A feminist companion to reading the bible: Approaches, methods and strategies (pp. 67–83). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Phillips, D. Z. (1971). Religious beliefs and language games. In B. Mitchell (Ed.), The philosophy of religion (pp. 121–142). London: Oxford University Press.
Ross, T. (2004). Expanding the palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and feminism. London/Hanover: Brandeis University Press/University Press of New England.
Ross, T. (2006). A Bet Midrash of her own: Women’s contribution to the study and knowledge of torah. In H. Kreisel (Ed.), Study and knowledge in Jewish thought (pp. 309–358). Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press.
Ross, T. (2008). Guarding the treasure and guarding the tongue (Shemirat Halashon): Response to Aryeh Frimer’s review of Expanding the palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and feminism. B.D.D.: Bekhol Derakhekha Daehu – Journal of Torah and Scholarship, 19, 93–124.
Walzer, M. (1993). Thick and thin: Moral argument at home and abroad. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Weisman, D. R. (2007). What we are and who we are: Educating for the universal-particular dialectic in Jewish life. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Languages and literatures in Jewish education: Studies in honor of Michael Rosenak (pp. 79–96). Jerusalem: Hebrew University/Magnes Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ross, T. (2013). The Implications of the Feminization of Theology: Deconstructing Sacred Texts as an Educational Issue. In: Gross, Z., Davies, L., Diab, AK. (eds) Gender, Religion and Education in a Chaotic Postmodern World. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5270-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5270-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5269-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5270-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)