Critically compare Daly’s and Ruether’s teaching on God (34/40, Grade A)

Fundamentally, both Ruether and Daly are trying to promote and subsequently rectify the same issue of gender inequality within Christianity. However, they have rather different perspectives and approaches to the issue as, while Ruether focuses on reforming the Church to make it less patriarchal and sexist, Daly holds a more radical and extremist view and is seeking total female dominance. With regard to their teachings on God, it is evident that there are various similarities as they both ultimately disagree with the fact that God is referenced in male terms, yet on a more specific level they have different goals when it comes to the future of the Church and its teachings on God.

Good introductory paragraph that hints at major similarities and differences between them. Note the command words ‘critically compare’ – we need to think carefully how we ‘critically’ compare, rather than just point to differences. Both scholars started life as Roman Catholics. Beware of phrases like ‘extremist view’ as these don’t add much to the analysis: extreme for whom? In what sense?

Firstly, Ruether takes issue with the idea that God is male and believes that this has allowed for the institutionalisation of patriarchy within the Church. According to her, the Church has lost its egalitarian roots as by saying ‘God the father’ patriarchy is denoted and this seems unjust for women. Instead, Ruether teaches that we must also address God using some feminine language and she supports this with scripture as often there is the idea of the Goddess as the source of life. For instance, in Isaiah, God is depicted as a Mother going through childbirth as it says “now I will cry out like a woman in labour”. Furthermore, Ruether claims that there is this concept of ‘Sophia’ in the Holy Spirit as a form of Wisdom, adding to the need for a female aspect of God. This is somewhat similar to Daly’s teaching on God as she believes that a male God has been used to justify the marginalisation and mistreatment of women in the Church and as such this view of God must be changed. However, Daly takes it one step further in that she believes that God must be castrated and cannot not be referred to in either male or female terms, but rather replaced with an authentic human existence. She uses terms like “the transvaluation of Christianity” and “female be-ing” to suggest that there is no need for an objective God, and in removing him, women will have more power within society. From this, it seems evident that the key difference between these two feminists stems from their diverse attitudes towards men as generally Ruether seeks equality while Daly sees women as the better sex. This is an important criticism of Daly as her teachings on God can be seen to be too exclusive and biased as it promotes lesbian separatism. As a result, one could argue that Ruether’s approach is more reasonable as it acknowledges the need for male and female co-operation.

Good detailed AO1 knowledge here. Synoptic links could be made to the person of Christ as liberator – the one who touched lepers and generally sided with outcasts. The paragraph is rather long: paragraphs need to be organised around units of thought.

One of Daly’s prominent teachings on God is that he forcibly impregnated the Virgin Mary who is “the total rape” victim. For Daly, this image has legitimised the abuse of women by the Church over the centuries. In addition, she had the view that God had been used to justify the destruction of women’s spiritual nature and as such we must break free from this self-imposed cultural imprisonment of religion. Daly puts emphasis on the fact that only women possess the ability to remove these false ideas about God, and refers to it as the Apollonian veil which prevents people from accomplishing their creativity and imagination. This is quite dissimilar to Ruether who argued that theological language referring to God must be based on the apophatic assumption that God is beyond language and therefore gender. Yet, often theologians tend to use male-gendered language to emphasise God’s transcendence and female language to emphasise God’s immanence. So, while we can use gendered language in analogies and symbols of how humans experience God, Ruether promotes the overall use of more inclusive language. However, it is evident that Ruether did not always stick to this idea as she was more partial to the idea of a Goddess which would compromise the sovereignty of God and reduce the credibility of her teachings.Furthermore, one could argue that she over analyses the situation and perhaps she is making more of an issue than there needs to be.

The candidate needs to remember refer back to the question and make explicit the critical comments, evaluating as he/she goes along.

Another key teaching on God comes from Ruether and addresses the concept of whether or not a male saviour can save women. On the one hand, she argues that with Jesus (the Word of God/Logos) being historically male, women would have to adapt to a male mindset in order to be saved. Similarly, Jesus was promoted as a triumphal king and as a result Churches felt justified in only having male officials who could represent this figure. On the other hand, Ruether believes that salvation was available to women once radical tradition is rediscovered as she suggests that the maleness of Jesus isn’t relevant. According to her, we should view Jesus as simply a ruler who sought to restore all human relations, particularly focusing on the marginalised which included women at that time. As a result, it seems clear that Ruether was more interested in how Christianity could be reformed to cater for women. This isn’t quite the case for Daly who saw little benefit in reforming the Church as she completely rejects the Catholic Church as fundamentally sexist and patriarchal. This is another key difference between their teachings on God as they have different visions for the future of Christianity.

A link could be made of Simone de Beauvoir’s influence on Ruether. The key image in the Bible for Ruether is similar to the liberation theologians (here we might make a cross-reference), the Exodus story where God is revealed as the great redeemer/provider. Emphasis could also be placed on God as fount of justice (see the book of Isaiah for further key texts).

In conclusion, while both feminist theologians are looking to remove the gender inequality within the Church, they have rather different views on how this should be accomplished. They both highlight the idea that in order to gain this social change they need to use extreme measures, however perhaps in Daly’s case this has lead to the distortion of her message. Overall, it would seem that Ruether’s approach is more equipped to bring about a change in Christianity regarding equality whereas Daly’s approach is somewhat irrational in the way she demonises men, alienating them, which ultimately seems counterproductive.

Critical comparison is slightly ‘added on’ at the end here. Perhaps as a tactic it may be better to have three areas of critical comparison in view in the opening paragraph, which are then fully evaluated in the bulk of the essay. The final paragraph could then be used to sum up the elements of this critical comparison – back to my initial point, that to compare is descriptive and to ‘critically compare’ is evaluative. perhaps more might have been made of the differences between Ruether and Daly – after all, Daly is essentially a post-Christian feminist whereas Ruether’s aim been to reform the thinkign fo the Catholic church rather than leave it behind.

AO1 Level 6 (14 marks)
AO2 Level 5 (20 marks)
Overall 34/40 85% Grade A