Last week, my friend Phil Christman (don't call him Chris Philman) asked his blog readers to define gender and how it relates to their personal conception of the Big Picture (you know, the who, what, why of human existence). I meant to respond sooner, but I got distracted by my copious listening to the ultra-hip Rev. Gary Davis. Also, truth be told, I've been a bit gendered-out since last fall. I'll attribute my recent avoidance of gender theory to post grad-school burnout and my efforts to shake off the bad ju-ju from Bowling Green's black swamp of death.
Actually, I think that the *real* reason that I've stayed away from the gender theory is that I was having trouble relating it to my conception of who I am and what life is all about, which, for better or worse (mostly better) is based in orthodox Christianity. Put simply, I was having trouble reconciling what I was learning with what I already knew. For instance, how does one reconcile a feminist blurring of gender lines with the seemingly binaristic presentation of gender in the Bible? What can the Bible teach me about intersexed people? And then there's the biggest question of 'em all (which is going to be of enormous significance over the coming years): How does one define a Christian sexual ethic?
I don't know if I have a good answer to these questions, but things are clearing up thanks to a couple of things I've read and heard over the past few months. The first thing that threw me back into the gender-theory saddle was an excellent lecture given by Elaine Storkey at the University of Western Ontario. She made a good case that the scriptural presentation of gender is not rigid and binaristic after all. In fact, there's quite a bit of gender deconstruction going on in the New Testament ("In Christ there is no male or female" etc.). That's cool, in a hip sorta poststructuralist feministy kinda way.
Also, I recently read an essay by Mary Fulkerson McClintock, who teaches theology and women's studies at Duke (you know, the school that I won't be studying at next fall... grr.). The essay is highly influenced by lesbian feminist theology (who knew those words could be put together?) and asserts that the Church needs to discuss matters of sexuality and gender with historical and linguistic precision. That seems quite obvious, but as anyone can plainly see, the Church does not have a history of doing so.
So, I've started thinkin' that God isn't for a hierarchical organization of gender. Truth be told, I've always kinda thought that, but now I've got a lot of ammunition to back it up. This has also made me a bit reluctant to define gender at all, for fear of reifying historical categories.
Yet, hierarchical gender difference remains, and I can't stick my head in the sand, 'cause something needs to be done about it. I think Patricia Hill Collins and bell hooks have some fantastic ideas, mostly rooted in a Marxist materialist sensibility. Judith Butler too, except I don't know what the hell she's talking about most of the time.
Actually, I think that the *real* reason that I've stayed away from the gender theory is that I was having trouble relating it to my conception of who I am and what life is all about, which, for better or worse (mostly better) is based in orthodox Christianity. Put simply, I was having trouble reconciling what I was learning with what I already knew. For instance, how does one reconcile a feminist blurring of gender lines with the seemingly binaristic presentation of gender in the Bible? What can the Bible teach me about intersexed people? And then there's the biggest question of 'em all (which is going to be of enormous significance over the coming years): How does one define a Christian sexual ethic?
I don't know if I have a good answer to these questions, but things are clearing up thanks to a couple of things I've read and heard over the past few months. The first thing that threw me back into the gender-theory saddle was an excellent lecture given by Elaine Storkey at the University of Western Ontario. She made a good case that the scriptural presentation of gender is not rigid and binaristic after all. In fact, there's quite a bit of gender deconstruction going on in the New Testament ("In Christ there is no male or female" etc.). That's cool, in a hip sorta poststructuralist feministy kinda way.
Also, I recently read an essay by Mary Fulkerson McClintock, who teaches theology and women's studies at Duke (you know, the school that I won't be studying at next fall... grr.). The essay is highly influenced by lesbian feminist theology (who knew those words could be put together?) and asserts that the Church needs to discuss matters of sexuality and gender with historical and linguistic precision. That seems quite obvious, but as anyone can plainly see, the Church does not have a history of doing so.
So, I've started thinkin' that God isn't for a hierarchical organization of gender. Truth be told, I've always kinda thought that, but now I've got a lot of ammunition to back it up. This has also made me a bit reluctant to define gender at all, for fear of reifying historical categories.
Yet, hierarchical gender difference remains, and I can't stick my head in the sand, 'cause something needs to be done about it. I think Patricia Hill Collins and bell hooks have some fantastic ideas, mostly rooted in a Marxist materialist sensibility. Judith Butler too, except I don't know what the hell she's talking about most of the time.