The Black Womanist Liberation Theory - Assignment Example

Religion Feminist It was during the mid 1980s when the term of black womanist liberation theory first came on to the scene. Quite understandably, it is a feminist theology formed by black feminist belonging mostly to field of academics. Despite the fact that it drew itself from the black liberation theology and the feminist theology but criticized both of them since they failed to represent the poor black men, feminist theology focusing too much on white women and neglecting black African American women and the black liberation theology was pro-men and avoided women (Bradley, pp. 206-207). The underlying idea behind the black womanist liberation theory is the liberation, freedom and respect of black women and all other people from all ages, genders, races, sexual tendencies, and ecologies. Moreover, black womanist theologians highlight that the unique experiences of their female ancestors have an immense importance in relation to the idea of God and survival in this world (Kamitsuka & American Academy of Religion, pp. 12-18). From example, notable black womanist theologian Jacquelyn Grant while presenting her critique on the white feminist theology and its racism expressed that black women are the ones that have felt and experienced Jesus more closely as anyone else because of the fact that their suffering have made sense Jesus as their co-suffer (Isherwood & McEwan, pp. 68-70). Since Jesus represented the divine incarnation of the Almighty, therefore they are in turn more closely to the creator of the world. Jesus opted for himself the life of despair, tyranny, inequality, weakness, and misery and the same has been the case with the black women, and they are blessed to be a part of the same situation in which Jesus lived his life to give a message to the World (Kamitsuka & American Academy of Religion, pp. 12-18). Therefore, the claim of the black womanist theologians is to own their history, learn from it and aim at creating at a better tomorrow for their upcoming generations (Bradley, pp. 206-207). However, the white feminist theology focuses more on oppression of females in general. This theology aims at recreating the role of women as religious authority in their respective religions to earn respect and power, removal or gender related or more specifically male related elements from the concept of God making it more acceptable to females (Isherwood & McEwan, pp. 68-70). Furthermore, highlighting and glorifying the role and image of females as mothers and wives that are the key stones of the society and the lives of the people around them and trying to explore, and discover the representation and image of females in the sacred texts like that of Mary in bible. This theology strongly discourages the treatment of women in general as a tool for sexual satisfaction, childbearing or some house cleaner (Kamitsuka & American Academy of Religion, pp. 12-18). It is important to note that while trying to accomplish these goals and such board purposes, white feminist theology have often avoided minority groups within itself like black women (Bradley, pp. 206-207). As mentioned earlier in the paper that despite the fact that the black womanist theology criticizes white feminist theology on certain grounds and opposes it still it draws itself from the same. Therefore, the black womanist theology shares the above-mentioned goals of white feminist theology but they are more specifically aimed for the black women. However, when white feminist movements is too much focused on the religions authority, prestige, pride and power, the black womanist theologians have broaden their horizon to other issues as well (Kamitsuka & American Academy of Religion, pp. 12-18). However, some elements in these theologies make them incompatible with the Christian scripture and do not appear to be beneficial to the American society. For example, black womanist theologian Doreen Hazel has repeatedly said that the “Kingdom of God is not the private property of Christians but for whole of the mankind” (Isherwood & McEwan, pp. 68-70). It appears to be very tolerant, open and board minded statement but this is something where the white feminist theology and black womanist theology contradict. More importantly, it is something where the Christian scripture and black womanist theology face each other since the Bible says that Jesus is the only salvation and the only way to the Almighty. Besides, another difference between these theologies is regarding the endorsement and support of sexual behaviors. Black womanist theology has sexual behaviors and movements that the other does not support (Bradley, pp. 206-207). Quite clearly, it is the black womanist theology which appears to be the nearest in creating an oppression free and peaceful society. Despite the fact that its name suggests that it would be focusing only against the oppression and for the rights of black women but in the recent decade it has expanded its area of theology and goals to all other minorities. This movement appears to be preaching and practicing tolerance and acceptance of diversity, embracing and clearing pluralism and avoiding the clash of ignorance amongst civilizations. The same is the key towards creating a better society and a better tomorrow (Isherwood & McEwan, pp. 68-70). Anthropology According to experts, anthropomorphism in its simplest sense is the attribution of human characteristics and emotions to non human beings (Saler, pp. 159). When studying the history of religion, Anthropomorphism takes the form of Anthropotheism, which refers to the practice or idea of depicting or looking at God in the human image while assigning to him certain human forms, characteristics, appearances, and traits (Mitchell, Thompson & Miles, pp. 23-24). Important here to note is that despite the fact that many religions strongly condemn and discourage the linking of human attributes to the God since He is omnipotent and omnipresent being and any attempt to constrict Him in an image is senseless. One of the reasons is that because He is above all human thoughts and ideas but still many of the religions and their followers have been engaging themselves with anthropomorphism (Whitehouse & Laidlaw, pp. 51-59, 112-115). In fact, religions embrace anthropomorphism on purpose and not by choice. It can be said that it is a universal trait of almost all religions. The concept or presence of God is the main idea of every religion and the main driver or source of the all activities and rituals that their followers perform (Saler, pp. 159). For example, people to go Church to please and they refrain them self from harming others due to the fear of God. Ultimately, the goal is to eliminate distance between the follower and his God (Burkert & Raffan, pp. 89-93). However, the problem arises when the followers develops an intense to know, to see, to feel and to understand more about his God, the same God which is beyond human thought and comprehension (Mitchell, Thompson & Miles, pp. 23-24). In addition, even if some superhuman, for example a divine messenger or prophet knows about God, he would still fail to explain the same to his followers his being a human is the biggest barrier towards recognizing God. This is when religions get into anthropomorphism. Many authors have repeatedly highlighted it as the result of “perceptual strategy” (Saler, pp. 159). Just as cats are prone to see small crawling wire as tail of a rat, just as sea urchins would run away from any dark shadow thinking that it would be some big enemy fish attacking, in the same way, humans would also interpret their external environment with “models generated by their pressing interests” (Whitehouse & Laidlaw, pp. 51-59, 112-115). Quite understandably, what has influenced humans the most has been always other humans. Moreover, it is in the human nature that they would prefer to have false information rather than having no information. Often Islamic and Jewish writers and scholars criticize Christianity for anthropomorphism; however, they fail to realize that this is present in their own very religion. For example, when Quran tells his followers that “listen to God, Feel the God and love the God”, in some way or the other it is moving towards what they condemn (Burkert & Raffan, pp. 89-93). Moreover, Shia Muslims who are a minority in Muslims express the divine presence of God in the form of their Imam Ali and subsequent Imam saying that Imams are the representation or depiction of God on earth, similar to what Christians thought about Jesus Christ (Whitehouse & Laidlaw, pp. 51-59, 112-115). In addition, authentic Islamic literature tells that when one of Prophets rejected to feed a person because he was found attributing human characteristics to God, the God instructed him not to do so since every one has the right to express and imagine God in the way he or she can (Saler, pp. 159). As mentioned above, most religions, which have, either accepted or endorsed anthropomorphism is due to need and not by choice. Therefore, quite understandably, it causes problems for the theologians of religions towards the end of the day. For example, the earliest philosopher who made a critique about anthropomorphism was Xenophanes and he was of the opinion that anthropomorphic views of humans about God are just a reflection about them and fail to explain and uncover the true nature of God (Mitchell, Thompson & Miles, pp. 23-24). For example, a Chinese is more likely to see as someone with a flat face, small nose and short heighted however, an Ethiopian is more likely to see God as dark-skinned, thin and having huge eyes (Burkert & Raffan, pp. 89-93). However, these are just their images rather then the true image of God. Even Plato in his republic criticized anthropomorphism because this practice pollutes and molds the real picture of God, which should not happen since recognizing him is the mission of human beings (Whitehouse & Laidlaw, pp. 51-59, 112-115). Lastly, when God takes a human shape, he loses his power and supernatural characteristics to some extent. For many followers, the vague and indefinableness of the God makes him “the God”, when he loses the same, there is a chance that he would ultimately lose his title of God as well (Mitchell, Thompson & Miles, pp. 23-24). Works Cited Bradley, Anthony B. Liberating Black Theology: The Bible and the Black Experience in America. Crossway, 2010. Isherwood, Lisa, & McEwan, Dorothea. Introducing feminist theology. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001. Kamitsuka, Margaret D, & American Academy of Religion. Feminist theology and the challenge of difference. Oxford University Press, 2007. Mitchell, Robert W., Thompson, Nicholas S., & Miles, H. Lyn. Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals. SUNY Press. 1997. Burkert, Walter, & Raffan, John. Greek religion: archaic and classical. Wiley-Blackwell, 1987. Saler, Benson. Conceptualizing religion: immanent anthropologists, transcendent natives, and unbounded categories. Berghahn Books, 2000. Whitehouse, Harvey, & Laidlaw, James. Religion, anthropology, and cognitive science. Carolina Academic Press. 2007. Read More