Share This :

View article (PDF)

Several years ago while serving as a pastor in Raleigh, NC, I saw an unforgettable bumper sticker. Emblazoned in white letters on a purple background was the following message: "Forgive me for not being in church this Sunday. I was too busy practicing witchcraft and becoming a lesbian." This intentionally provocative statement illustrates a profound fact about the worldview of radical feminists-their counter-Christian morality is strongly rooted in paganism, an important point for us to understand lest we mistakenly assume all radical feminists are irreligious. In reality, many if not most radical feminists are quite religious. However, their religion is pantheistic and not theistic in nature.

The purpose of this article is to summarize the world-view of radical feminism and its approach to abortion, to suggest some possible public policy implications, and then to offer a brief theological critique. In speaking of radical feminism and its approach to abortion, I am differentiating between first, second, and third generation feminists. First generation feminism was seen in the suffrage movement here in the United States. The second phase of feminism was the "women's liberation" and sexual liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Radical feminism is the "third wave" and is explicitly pagan in nature. In order to demonstrate the challenges of radical feminism, I have selected Rosemary Radford Ruether, Mary Daly, and Ginette Paris as primary examples. At key points I will refer to other feminists in order to amplify particular emphases.

I. Rosemary Radford Ruether 

For twenty-five years, Rosemary Radford Ruether taught at Garrett Evangelical Seminary, a United Methodist School. She recently took a position at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkley. Ruether herself has self-identified as a Roman Catholic, though she clearly rejects basic teachings of the church. A graduate of Claremont Graduate School, Ruether's thought has evolved from a feminist theologian who opposed patriarchy to one who aggressively embraces a counter-Christian worldview.1

In Sexism and God Talk (1983), Ruether combines a higher-critical view of scripture, a pagan worldview, and a socialist economic analysis into a feminist critique of society. She accepts the findings of the Documentary Hypothesis and argues that Patriarchy is most prevalent in the "J" or "Yahwist" source. She says, "Although the predominantly male images and roles of God make Yahwism an agent in the sacralization of patriarchy, there are critical elements in Biblical theology that contradict this view of God."2 Instead of the "patriarchal" Yahweh, Ruether urges women to worship the "goddess":

An ecological-feminist theology of nature must rethink the whole Western theological tradition of the hierarchical chain of being and chain of command. This theology must question the hierarchy of human over non-human nature as a relationship of ontological and moral value. . . . The God/ess who is the primal Matrix, the ground of being-new being, is neither stifling immanence nor rootless transcendence. Spirit and matter are not dichotomized but are the inside and outside of the same thing."3

Thus, for Ruether the "goddess" designates the divine or ultimate reality. She then moves from this foundation to what can best be described as a socialist-feminist economic critique of the West and the United States in particular. She concludes, "We seek a democratic socialist society that dismantles sexist and class hierarchies, that restores ownership and management of work to the base communities of workers themselves, who then create networks of economic and political relationships."4

Elsewhere, Ruether argues for a hermeneutic informed by Liberation Theology. According to Ruether, the key to proper interpretation of Scripture is for women to become critically aware of the falsifying and alienating experiences imposed on them by male-dominated culture. Thus, "Women's experience, in this sense, is itself a grace event, an infusion of liberating empowerment from beyond the patriarchal cultural context, which allows them to critique and stand out against. . . androcentric interpretations of who and what they are."5

A prolific author, Ruether's thought has continued to develop and can now be best described as a form of "ecofeminism," a combination of the radical ecology movement and feminism. Ecofeminism as a movement posits that destruction of natural resources is closely related to the religion of patriarchy, which they see as hopelessly violent and exploitive. In contrast, feminine images of God encourage a kinder and gentler approach to environmental management. Thus, ecofeminists believe they can save the earth by worshiping the earth as a goddess.6 Ruether's most expansive presentation of ecofeminism is found in Gaia & God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing (1992). "Gaia" is the name for the Greek earth goddess. The term itself was adopted by biologist James Lovelock in the early 1970's to describe his thesis that the entire earth is a living system behaving as a unified organism.7In Gaia and God, Ruether rejects the traditional Christian categories of creation, judgment, sin, fallenness, and redemption and suggests instead that we utilize the categories of creation, destruction, domination, deceit, and healing.

How does Ruether's worldview affect her approach to abortion? In "A Community Prayer for Choice," Ruether expresses her conviction that abortion is a right women should have and they should make the choice whether or not to abort based on their own convictions. In this prayer, Ruether posits that abortion is a case of rights in conflict-the mother's, society's, and the pre-born child. These conflicts make Ruether "sad" and "angry that we are faced with such choices."8 Echoing common abortion rights rhetoric, Ruether goes on to say:

We are surrounded by many children who came into the world without the most minimal opportunities for love and development. We do not want to create life in that way. We want to create life that is chosen, life that is cherished and can be sustained and nourished.9

In summary, Ruether believes children without certain unstated "minimal opportunities" should be aborted. Presented in this manner, abortion can become an environmental issue for ecofeminists since an expanding population is viewed as a primary threat to the earth itself.

II. Mary Daly

Daly was raised a Roman Catholic and spent her professional life teaching at a Roman Catholic School (Boston College), but has advocated a neo-pagan approach to theology. Her educational dossier includes three doctorates.10 For most of her career, Daly refused to allow men to take her "Feminist Ethics" class because she felt they negatively affected class discussion. She was sued by a male student in 1998 who claimed his civil rights under Title IX had been violated by Daly's "women only" policy. This led to her dismissal/retirement. There is much debate over whether Daly resigned or was fired in early 1999 by Boston College. Ultimately, the two sides settled out of court in February, 2001.

Daly's book Beyond God the Father (1973) is the seminal book for radical feminist theology. Like other feminists, she identifies patriarchy as the great evil in the world and states, "The biblical and popular image of God as a great patriarch in heaven, rewarding and punishing according to his mysterious and seemingly arbitrary will, has dominated the imagination of millions over thousands of years."11 Furthermore, patriarchy is the origin of artificial sex roles/distinctions: "The roles and structures of patriarchy have been developed and sustained in accordance with an artificial polarization of human qualities into traditional sexual stereotypes."12 Daly also argues that patriarchy perpetuates male dominance and violence: "The character of Vito Corleone in The Godfather is a vivid illustration of the marriage of tenderness and violence so intricately blended in the patriarchal ideal."13 Daly seems to have argued in the past that androgyny is the ultimate goal of feminism, though her thought is hard to follow and very fluid on this point. Apparently, she thought androgyny was a good ideal in 1973, but changed her mind by 1985. Perhaps she can be described as supporting a blending of sex-roles in 1973 while she moved to a position where all sex roles are obliterated. In 1973, she said, "The becoming of androgynous human persons implies a radical change in the fabric of human consciousness and in styles of human behavior."

Daly argues that women should abandon the masculine noun "God" when referring to the ultimate spiritual reality and should instead refer to the Deity as "Be-ing," a verb. Mary Kassian emphasizes that much of Daly's anger comes from inequities she perceived in the Catholic church. According to Kassian, "Daly's journey is ending far from where it began. Spinning her own definition of reality-based on the goddess she has found within-Daly has woven a system of be-ing that is antithetical to the God of the Bible."14 Daly moved in a decidedly more pagan direction in Gyn/Ecology (1978) where she explicitly ties feminist ethics to worship of nature. In this work Daly excoriates men as "lethal organs" of a "rapist society". Furthermore, men feed parasitically on female energy and invent evil technologies to compensate for their inability to bear children. Women who don't share her views are mocked as "honorary white males." Daly also claimed that she no longer had any use for the words God, androgyny, and homosexuality. She argued that each of these terms was unalterably burdened by patriarchal connotations.15

According to Daly, the account of the Fall in Genesis perpetuates women's subordination. She describes Genesis 3 as an exclusively male effort in a male-dominated society which succeeded primarily "in reflecting the defective social arrangements of the time."16 Furthermore, she claims the story makes subjection of women justified because she had her origin in man and "was also the cause of his downfall and all of his miseries."17

For Daly, liberalizing of abortion laws is crucial to women's liberation. Daly said anti-abortion laws at that time (1973) were reflective of the patriarchal domination and the systemic evil of patriarchy. She said, "At this moment in history [1973] the abortion issue has become a focal point for dramatic conflict between the ethic of patriarchal authoritarianism and the ethic of courage to confront ambiguity."18

In Gyn/Ecology, Daly argues that many men are "pro-life" because they have "fetal identification syndrome." By this, she means that men identify with the fetus because they see in the fetus their own role as "controller, possessor, inhabitor of women."19 Furthermore, men identify with the fetus because they both drain female energy. Daly offers her own analysis of the subconscious fears of men and says, "Since this perpetual fetal state is fatal to the Self of the eternal mother (Hostess), males fear women's recognition of this real condition, which would render them infinitely ‘unwanted.'"20 Hence, from Daly's perspective, men who oppose abortion are really struggling with their own dependence on feminine energy and obsession with dominating women. Essentially, she argues men have a fear that if women stop wanting babies, they may also stop wanting men!

III. Ginette Paris

Ginette Paris holds a Ph.D. from the University of Montreal and now teaches mythology and archetypal psychology at Pacifica Graduate Institute in California, a graduate school dedicated to Jungian and mythological studies. The Jungian influence in Paris's thought cannot be understated for Jung himself advocated a new kind of paganism. Richard Noll offers a succinct summary of the pagan influence on Jung when he says Jung's "earliest psychological theories and method can be interpreted as perhaps nothing more than an anti-Christian return to solar mythology and sun worship based on Romantic beliefs about the natural religion of the ancient Aryan peoples."21 Likewise, Paris boldly argues for a blatant paganism as was first seen in her 1988 work, Pagan Meditations.22

Paris clearly connects her pagan beliefs with abortion rites in The Sacrament of Abortion (1992). She begins her work by saying that she has "drawn inspiration throughout this book from a guiding image, the Artemis of Greek mythology."23 Paris goes on to state that Artemis is the appropriate image for women to worship when addressing the issue of abortion because in classic mythology, Artemis offered both protection and death to women, children, and animals. Building on her Jungian background, Paris then asks if the image of Artemis reflects a form of feminine power:

Why these apparent contradictions . . . personified in a feminine divinity? Is it a way of saying that a woman's protective power cannot function properly if she does not also possess full power, namely, the power over death as well as life? Her image belongs to us as well as to antiquity, because like all fundamental images of the human experience, which C.G. Jung called ‘archetypes,' she never really ages but reappears in different forms and different symbols.24

Jeffrey Satinover argues that the Jungian "archetypes" Paris refers to are a modern variant of mystical, pagan polytheism in which the multiple "images of the instincts" (Jung's archetypes) are worshiped as gods.25

According to Paris, the ethics of ancient goddess religions affirm that it is "morally acceptable that a woman who gives life may also destroy life under certain circumstances."26Since good and evil essentially disappear as discernable categories in Jungian thought, it is not surprising that Paris moves on to say, "It is not immoral to choose abortion; it is simply another kind of morality, a pagan one."27 Consistent with her "value neutral" spin on abortion, Paris argues that new rituals are needed to complement the new pagan spirituality, especially in the area of abortion: "Our culture needs new rituals as well as laws to restore abortion to its sacred dimension, which is both terrible and necessary."28 The focus of these new rituals should be Artemis herself who should be worshipped through abortion: "Abortion is a sacrifice to Artemis. Abortion is a sacrament for the gift of life to remain pure."29 Lest we miss the force of Paris' argument, she states elsewhere, "Obviously, everyone has a right to his or her religious beliefs, but what if mine are Pagan?"30

IV. Implications and Brief Critique

Ruether, Daly, and Paris represent three radical feminists on a continuum of paganism.31 All three link goddess worship, earth worship, and ecological concerns into a comprehensive approach that affirms unrestricted access to abortion as a fundamental right. Of the three, Ruether has the most ties remaining with the church and wants to bring feminist reforms to liturgy. Daly represents someone who has openly left the church in favor of a blatant paganism. Paris has apparently never sought to work from any form of orthodox grid and is the most explicitly pagan of the three. Two key issues seem to emerge from these radical feminist arguments for abortion rights. First, what are the public policy implications for such arguments and, secondly, what critiques can be made of these arguments?

A. Public Policy and Radical Feminism

Abortion rights in the United States emerged from earlier cases involving contraception, most notably Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the first instance in which the Court acknowledged a Constitutional "right to privacy."32 Soon after Griswold, Roy Lucas published his seminal article in The North Carolina Law Review in which he argued that Griswold established a precedent for a right to abortion as a "privacy" issue.33 In the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, Justice Brennan appealed to the right to privacy discovered in Griswold. After almost twenty years of vocal opposition, many thought that Roe would be overturned in 1992 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Optimism was especially high among pro-life activists after twelve years of Supreme Court appointees from Reagan and Bush. In reality, Casey upheld the core finding of Roe, but shifted abortion rights from a debated "right to privacy" supposedly discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment to the more explicit liberty interests found in that amendment.

When one looks closely at the Supreme Court decisions involving abortion and other reproductive issues over the last forty years, one philosophical principle emerges as the driving force behind abortion rights: autonomy. Specifically, a radical notion of autonomy devoid of any concept of transcendent moral accountability. This is most clearly seen in the famous passage from the Casey decision where the Court said,

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the state.34

Larson and Amundsen offer a trenchant analysis of this statement when they say, "The justices obviously wrote this with abortion in mind, but by trying to state a general principle, they created a limitless category."35 Indeed, the category is limitless, for the paragraph from Casey was cited by the Ninth Circuit Court in Compassion in Dying v. Washington (1996) when they affirmed a Constitutional right to assisted suicide. Most recently, the Court cited this paragraph in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the most significant challenge to traditional marriage to date. It seems that the Court believes the primary purpose of government is to permit each autonomous individual to decide for himself or herself what is good, true or beautiful. Beck-with and Koukl argue that the Court genuinely believes that it is neutral and nonjudgmental since it considers alternative lifestyles as equal. In reality, this is "nihilism with a happy face."36

What does the legal history of abortion have to do with the public policy implications of radical feminism? This radical form of autonomy advocated by the Court is consistent with the ethical approach of radical feminism. The public policy goal of radical feminism is absolute reproductive autonomy. For example, Feminist author Christine Overall argued in 1990 that the procedure known as selective reduction is central to a woman's reproductive autonomy. Selective reduction is the process of selectively aborting certain fetuses in a woman who does not want to carry multiple children to term. The procedure itself is an outgrowth of artificial reproductive technologies which place multiple zygotes within a woman in an attempt to increase the chances of implantation and a full term pregnancy. Stating her case for selective reduction, Overall says,

Fetuses do not acquire a right, either collectively or individually, to use a woman's uterus simply because there are several of them present simultaneously. Even if a woman is willingly and happily pregnant she dos not surrender her entitlement to bodily self-determination, and she does not, specifically, surrender her entitlement to determine how many human entities occupy her uterus.37

Thus, women not only have the right to access to artificial reproductive technologies, they also have the right to choose which children resulting from these pregnancies should live.38

Radical feminism understands the current culture, including public policy, to be hopelessly influenced by patriarchy. Thus, the overthrow of all vestiges of patriarchy is at the core of the "meta" goals of radical feminism. In order to achieve this goal, radical feminism indeed demands that society provide abortion to those who seek it as a social good on the path to destroying patriarchy. Thus, beyond the negative right not to be interfered with in reproductive choices, we move towards a public policy which demands a positive right to have abortion services provided. In the name of personal autonomy, other citizens are coerced into participation via tax-supported abortions. In a striking bit of irony, the principle of autonomy is thus used to justify coercion of the non-compliant, the very antithesis of autonomy.

B. A Brief Critique

Radical feminism is basically pantheistic in its worldview. Though not exhaustive, I will offer a brief theological critique of radical feminism at three levels. First, I will attempt to evaluate some of the ethical implications of goddess-based pantheism. Then, I will explore the distorted sexuality that informs the goddess-based worldview. Finally, I will critique the autonomy-driven public policy theory of radical feminism.

Radical feminism blurs the distinction between the creature and creator, a key theological error of ancient Near Eastern religions. In fact, the current debate with radical feminists mirrors the struggle with paganism the Israelites faced. As Bill Arnold notes, "The worldview expressed in Genesis 1-4 is not just different from its counterpart in the literature of the ancient world; it is opposed to it."39 Fundamental to the biblical worldview is a cosmology which affirms the world is neither "divine" (pantheism) nor an extension of the divine (panentheism). The doctrine of creation ex nihilo is closely related to the truth of God the Father found in Scripture as opposed to God as "mother" in pagan religions. Though I disagree with Grenz and Kjesbo's overall egalitarian exegesis of Genesis 2, they accurately summarize the worldview differences between God the Father as creator versus cosmologies which postulate a "mother god" creator when they say:

God is ultimately transcendent, creating the world as a reality outside Himself. In emphasizing male images, the ancient Hebrews set their understanding of God apart from that of the surrounding nations. Rather than a Mother Goddess who brings forth creation as a child is brought forth from the womb, the Old Testament writers teach that God created by fiat a universe that is external to God.40

Grenz and Kjesbo make an accurate critique of feminist theologies at this point. Feminine images of God tend towards pantheistic or panentheistic worldviews because the mother god "gives birth" to the world. In contrast, by emphasizing God as Father, the Bible highlights the theistic worldview and the fact the universe is not a part of God or an extension of God, but is a reality created by God that exists outside of Him and is under His providence.

By blurring the distinction between creature and creator, radical feminism encourages generational conflict, sexual chaos, and violence. Paul makes clear the dangers of worshipping creation in Rom 1:18-32. Romans 1:25 in particular stresses the tragedy of nature worship: "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." As a result, sexual chaos followed (Rom 1:26-27) as well as intergenerational conflict ("Disobedient to parents," Rom 1:30) and violence ("envy, murder, strife," Rom 1:29). Why is this so? Because pantheistic and panentheistic worldviews make humans a god, the ultimate statement of autonomy. This is the type of radical autonomy that is at the heart of the historic, space-time fall. R.C. Sproul states, "They [Adam and Eve] reached for autonomy, stretching greedy arms toward the throne of God, only to fall headlong into the abyss of evil."41

Though radical feminists profess to be wise, they have actually become fools (Rom 1:22). The thrust of Rom 1:18-32 is that pagan worldviews weaken people so they become less, and not more, capable of directing their own lives.42 Radical feminism loses any sense of ethical direction because it makes a divinity out of fallen human nature. The serpent's lure to "be like God" is a recurring refrain in human religious experience. To borrow an idea from C. S. Lewis, the pantheistic expression of current radical feminism is "congenial to our minds not because it is the final stage in a slow process of enlightenment, but because it is almost as old as we are. "43 In the long run, pantheism does not elevate humanity; it only degrades. In his criticism of pantheism, Lewis stresses its downward spiral when he says, "So far from being the final religious refinement, Pantheism is in fact the permanent natural bent of the human mind; the permanent ordinary level below which man sometimes sinks . . . but above which his own unaided efforts can never raise him for very long."44

Radical feminism encourages a distorted form of sexuality that denies the goodness of God's creation and God's commands. Goddess spirituality naturally leads towards abandoning all sexual restraint. For example, one popular variant of goddess spirituality is found in Wicca. In her work, Philosophy of Wicca, Wicca devotee Amber Laine Fisher plainly states the implications of goddess worship for sexual ethics:

Goddess religion and goddess spirituality endeavor to release us from the taboos of sex and sexuality, to untie our hands, freeing us from certain paradigms or ideals that we are taught to accept as ‘normal.' The general Western public fears homosexuality, fears sadomasochism, fears poly amorous relationships. For whatever reason (and there are many), we as a society have deemed these types of behavior as socially unacceptable or at the very best ‘fringe' -and for what reason? Who are we to decide what is normal, what is healthy, what is appropriate for someone else?45

Fisher misses the point that we do not define appropriate boundaries for sex. Trapped in her pantheistic prison, she is unable to acknowledge that God, who has revealed himself in the Bible and through Jesus Christ, defines sex. Throughout Scripture, sexual ethics receive priority. For example, among the works of the flesh mentioned in Gal 5:19-21, the first three (porneia, akatharsia, and aselgeia) seem to emphasize loose sexual relations. Timothy George contends that the reason these come first is that they display more graphically the self-centeredness and rebellion against God's norm that mark all other works of the flesh as well. George says, "Acts of sexual immorality, though often done in the name of love, are really the antithesis of love which is the foremost fruit of the Spirit."46

Taken to its logical extreme, the worldview of radical feminism has disastrous public policy implications. Public policy in the United States and the West in general has been based on the concept that moral absolutes exist, though debate has been fervent at times about what those absolutes are. This view of law flows from a monotheistic worldview. Since there is one God, there can only be one standard of moral evaluation. In contrast, pagan societies are polyvalent. Satinover summarizes the societal implications for this worldview when he says, "No single moral standard governs the lives of men, and except by the power of force, no god, and no corresponding set of human values, is superior."47 Satinover goes on to argue that such societies become inegalitarian as different groups participate in factional competition.

Radical feminist demands for abortion are a grave portent of how a violent society based on pagan values might look. With abortion on demand, the weakest and most defenseless are targeted for destruction and become a kind of "synecdoche" for the way other people in society can expect to be treated. Leviticus 18:21 reminds of us of another time when, much like Ginette Paris, some desired to sacrifice children for their own pantheistic purposes: "You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD." Molech was a pagan Canaanite deity whose worship was connected to a cult of the dead involving divination and to some extent child sacrifice.48 Evidence indicates that children were incinerated as part of worship to this god, though it is not clear if they were killed first.49 Note that infanticide is irrevocably tied to a pagan worldview. This same pagan worldview is at the heart of radical feminist abortion arguments.

Summary 

Radical feminism is based on a worldview that is antithetical to biblical Christianity. The ethics of radical feminism lead naturally to sexual chaos, intergenerational conflict, and violence. Should such a worldview pervade public policy, society will become less egalitarian, more prone to use force in order to suppress dissent, and violent towards the weakest and most defenseless.


Endnotes

1 Ronald Nash places Ruether in the category of anti-evangelical feminism, but I contend that her thought is really anti-Christian and pagan. See Ronald Nash, Great Divides: Understanding the Controversies that come Between Christians (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993) 65-76.

2 Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God Talk (Boston: Beacon Press, 1983) 61.

3 Ibid. 85.

4 Ibid. 231.

5 Rosemary Radford Ruether, "Feminist Interpretation: A Method of Correlation," in Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Letty Russell (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985) 114.

6 For more information on ecofeminism see the website of Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual at www.hers.com/water.

7 See James Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979).

8 Rosemary Radford Ruether, "A Community Prayer for Choice," [cited 26 Sep 2003]. Online: www.syrf.org/syrf/sacredresource.htm. This prayer has been endorsed by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

9 Ibid.

10 Daly's homepage can be found at www.mdaly.com. She self-identifies as a "positively revolting hag."

11 Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward of Philosophy of Women's Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1978; new reintroduction, 1985) 13.

12 Ibid. 15.

13 Ibid. 16.

14 Mary Kassian, The Feminist Gospel: The Movement to Unite Feminism With the Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 1992) 233.

15 Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1978) xi.

16 Daly, Beyond God the Father, 46.

17 Ibid. 47.

18 Ibid. 110.

19 Daly, Gyn/Ecology 59.

20 Ibid.

21 Richard Noll, The Jungian Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994) 136.

22 Ginette Paris, Pagan Meditations: The Worlds of Aphrodite, Artemis, and Hestia (Dallas: Spring Publications, 1988).

23 Ginette Paris, The Sacrament of Abortion (Dallas: Spring Publications, 1992) 1.

24 Ibid. 2.

25 Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996) 239.

26 Paris, The Sacrament of Abortion 53.

27 Ibid. 56.

28 Ibid. 92.

29 Ibid. 107.

30 Ibid. 57.

31 Grenz and Olson apparently do not see Ruether in quite as radical a light as I myself do, for they say that Ruether's goddess is "only a hairsbreadth from the nature-personification Mother Goddess of the radical feminists who worship the earth and themselves." Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson, Twentieth Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992) 233. I see no ambiguity on the matter: Ruether's ecofeminism is plainly pagan.

32 The concept of a "right to privacy" originated in Justice Harlan's dissent in Poe v. Ullman (1961).

33 Roy Lucas, "Federal Constitutional Limitations on the Enforcement and Administration of State Abortion Statutes," North Carolina Law Review 46.4 (June, 1968) 755ff.

34 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), section II. Available in electronic format at www.caselaw.lp.com/scripts, [cited 11 June 2003].

35 Edward Larson and Darrel W. Amundsen, A Different Death: Euthanasia and the Christian Tradition (Downers Gove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998) 211.

36 Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 128.

37 Christine Overall, "Selective Termination of Pregnancy and Women's Reproductive Autonomy," The Hastings Center Report 20:3 (May/June 1990) 10.

38 In fairness, Overall is critical of the cavalier approach of the artificial reproductive technology industry.

39 Bill T. Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 49.

40 Stanley Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995) 148.

41 R.C. Sproul, "You Shall Not Be Gods," in Playing God: Dissecting Biomedical Ethics and Manipulating the Body, ed. R.C. Sproul, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997) 53.

42 James D.G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38a, Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word, 1988) 72.

43 C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1960) 82.

44 Ibid. 82-83.

45 Amber Laine Fisher, Philosophy of Wicca (Toronto: ECW Press, 2002) 185. In some modern forms of witchcraft, sexual techniques are used to alter one's state of consciousness. See Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon (New York: The Viking Press, 1979) 154.

46 Timothy George, Galatians, in New American Commentary, vol. 30 (Nashville: Broadman, 1994) 392.

47 Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth 232.

48 E. Ray Clendenen, "Religious Background of the Old Testament," in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, Kenneth S. Matthews, and Robert B. Sloan (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994) 298.

49 Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, in New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 259.

Print Friendly
Rocket Republic