Women Intellectuals are Helping Us Understand History
I'm grateful I have lived long enough to enjoy the perspective of female scholars who take on the task of revisiting history. Several decades ago my wife, H. Elaine Lindgren, a sociologist, said she was suspicious of books about women who were part of the homesteading movement. They generalized that men thrived on the experience while women sat in their homestead shacks and cried. Elaine reviewed correspondence and interviewed women who were still alive and found most of them to had thrived. It appears men suffered despair as often as women. She published a book still in print after several decades, Land in Her Own Name.
A wonderful recent book, Victoria: The Queen, by the first woman scholar to have written about her, Julia Baird, portrays Victoria as more formidable than previous male scholars. So often she has been viewed as obsessed with proper English dress and customs. The new book plots her life and challenges as a Queen who ruled an empire for several decades.
Susan Jacoby, Strange Gods; A Secular History of Conversions, provides a dispassionate review of famous and influential conversions to the faith. I just now rereading her analysis of Constantine, the dictator of the Roman Empire who not only converted to Christianity but wrote books referred to today an important contributions to Christian literature. Constantine's conversion around 300 CE to Christianity is thought by many to be the major event in history that sprung the faith from small to large. His conversion made large fortunes available to build Christian communities and fund Christian Churches. There was violence against Pagans which went unpunished.
Jacoby's review of Constantine's book, Confessions, notes the problems Constantine had with sex. He had a mistress while young and fathered a child. But, he rejected the mistress and apparently the child. He lived a life of celibacy after that.
Jacoby's view is that Constantine thought of women as the temptation to sin alluded to in the Bible. He implied his own sin ultimately happened because of his mistress. She conclude's Constantine's view of women influenced male church leaders in the centuries since then to keep women in some branches of the faith from the pulpit.
I hope more women bring new and fresh perspectives to history and religion.
True scholars are helpful regardless of anything outside their mind. Hair color, weight, gender, religion, skin color, language are irrelevant - except as something experienced - in the production of scholarly work.
ReplyDeleteDoes one care about the gender of the movie producer or director if the movie is entertaining, informative or inspirational? Author and book? Does one ask at the restaurant to have their meal only prepared by a man, or a woman? No, they pick from the menu.
well said. revisionist scholarship is to be welcomed when it brings to light aspects of history that, for whatever reason, have been ignored, overlooked, distorted, whatever. but beware of ideologically charged scholarship that only piles more errors on top of any previous historical scholarship.
DeleteConstantine, Constantine's writings, his philosophy, his practices, even his name have no bearing or presence in our doctrines, theologies, or dogmatics. and I have studied all of them all in great depth. He is simply not a factor.
ReplyDeleteHave you confused Constantine with Augustine? Your post seems to fit the Augustine story, not the Constantine story (at least as I know the Constantine story).
ReplyDeleteNo
Deletethat question was directed at Jon. in any case, I don't know why you say that Constantine is "not a factor". do you not use the Nicene Creed in your liturgies? apart from that, C is certainly a pivotal figure in western history. moreover, my question stands unanswered: Jon's account points to Augustine rather than Constantine. for example, I can't believe that Constantine ever led a "celibate" life.
DeleteUnknown @ 7;11; In fact, it is you who is confused. if I was "confused", I would not have said what I said about Augustine. Re-read my post, then yours. I said; re. Constantine; "even his NAME have no bearing or PRESENCE in our doctrines theologies or dogmatics." Augustine, among many fathers and doctors of the church are. including those in error to prevent the farther spread of error.
DeleteIn case you are not aware, there are three Augustines. #1 the playboy who's mother Monica constantly prayed for. #2 the Augustine who partially espoused Gnosticism. And the #3 fully developed, fully Christian Augustine, with warts. While not perfect, who is? Not me. Or you?
Ps re. Augustine and Gnosticism, include manichaeism in his phase #2. After nine years, he dropped that and moved to phase #3. and remained there.
DeleteYou must remember there were other errors floating around at the same time, most notably Arius and Arianism. which in time was also revealed to be another heresy. Today's modern manifestation of Arianism are the Jehovah's Witnesses. Those were heady years and full development of doctrine didn't happen over night.
Dogma can be a horrible word if abused,, but I thoroughly enjoy dogmatics, and polemics.
Re the Nicene Creed; History clearly states that Constantine arranged the event, even with much pomp, but then stepped down and let the religious iron it out. The cause of the event was the presence of Arianism. So, no, he did not participate in the formulation of the Creed, and did not recieve credit for it's formulation.
DeleteRe. Constantine's celebacy; I don't know, or care.
The primary reason for the development of the Nicene AND the Athenasian Creeds was to combat the heresy of Arianism. (anti trinity), and other lesser errors.
DeleteYes, I know all that stuff. you are not telling me anything new. BTW I think that there are a lot of neo-Arians around today. and they are not all JW's. and a reminder. this exchange started because I sensed that Jon had C confused with A.
ReplyDeleteUnknown; Then next time tell us who you are talking to.
Delete@ 4;40 Un- re. neo-Arians. Oh sure. In fact the LDS is a modified form of Arianism, with a healthy dose of Gnosticism. As for the others, there probably are, but not as organized.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Jon is confused/ confusing.