ment theology at the University of NotrenDame. Even more fentastic, the acknowledgmentnpages of both works list numerousnother church colleges and divinitynschools who have courteously invitednthese women to their lecture halls, theren”In Memory of Her is an intense, scholarly study a huge and complicated task, herenundertaken courageously.”n—Commonwealnto put Christ to public shame by crucifyingnHim afresh on a feminist rood. PresumablynRuether and Fiorenza have collectednhonorariums somewhat in excessnof 30 pieces of silver (adjusted for inflation)nfor performing this service.nThe reasons for which Judas Iscariotnbetrayed his Lord are obscure, but nonone need wonder why these two writersnreject Him: He is male, and the promotionnof feminism is not the central tenetnof His gospel. Consequendy, the doctrinenof the Incarnation must be evisceratednon the feminist altar. Ruether explicitiynrepudiates “the mythology aboutnJesus as Messiah” and informs the readernthat “we can encounter Christ in thenform of our sister.” We must thereforenavert our eyes from Christ’s suffering onnthe cross to behold instead the ” ‘passionndrama’ of female crucifixion on the crossnof male sexism.” Fiorenza is caught up innthe same babbling spirit She quotes withnapprobation Carol Christ’s declarationnthat the feminist woman perceives “thensaving and sustaining power … in herself”nand therefore “will no longer looknto men or male figures as saviors.” Fiorenzanalso enthusiastically hails Elizabeth CadynStanton as a true spiritual leader, citingnas nearly scriptural Ms. Stanton’s opinionnthat from the feminist perspective therencan be “no fell, no frowningjudge, no Inferno,nno everlasting punishment,—nhence no need of a Savior.”nr*or authors who have denied Jesus’nunique divinity and saviorship, otherndoctrines centering on Him are easy tonjettison as well. The physical resurrection,nidentified by Paul as the keystonenof Christian hope, is unequivocally dis­n18inChronicles of Culturencarded by Ruether, who argues for “agnosticism”non this question and j^ainstnthe immortality of the spirit:nConsciousness is the interiority ofnthat life process that holds the organismntogether. There is no reason to thinknof the two as separable.nThis heresy apparentiy did not troublenFiorenza at all when she wrote her Msomenblurb for the dustcover. Nor is thisnsurprising, since in Fiorenza’s book, Christnis “resurrected” only in the divine “SophianSpirit” (the feminist substitute for thenHoly Ghost), who comforts God’s peoplen”fix)m Christ’s death to Her return in glory.”nGod the Father naturally feres no betternthan His Only Begotten Son. Ruethernopens her book with a vignette depictingnHim as a foolish and vain tyrant, whilenFiorenza lauds those involved in “castrating”nHim by rewriting the languagenof Scripture. Christ’s merely mortal disciplesnare likewise shown no mercy: Peternappears as a self-serving fantasizer innRuether’s tome, while Paul is rendered anbacksliding chauvinist in an imaginativen”epistie” proudly displayed by Fiorenzanas the work of one of her students. Mary,ntoo, is horribly distorted when seennthrough the dark glass of feminism: Ruethernthose who attack Christian doctrine cannnonetheless retain its “ethical substance,”nthese books dispel it by scorning thenChristian “identification of sin with angernand pride and virtue with himiility andnself-abnegatioa” In the neoethics of feminism,nanger is “liberating grace,” pridenis virtue, and the self is the primary focusnfor a valid life. Of course, the reputationnfor cunning and intelligence which Satannhas established over the centuries sincenhe deceived the first woman would benin serious peril if this grotesque foolishnessncould be attributed to his directncommission. Thanks to the regents ofnNotre Dame University and Garrett-nEvangelical Seminary, who are kindlyncertifying these women as “Christian”nteachers, the Prince of Darkness hasnnothing to fear.nFiorenza wishes to obliterate then”structural-patriarchal dualisms betweennChristian and Jewish women… betweennthe church and the world, the sacral andnthe secular.” Likewise, Ruether aversnthat insigjits gained from Judeo-Christianityn”do not have a privileged relation tonGod over those that arise from Judaism,nIslam, and Buddhism.” The question thennis: Why do feminists who despise Christianitynchoose to hold positions as oflScialnteachers of Christian theology? The answernis not simply their obviously cloudednmental faculties. First is expedience:nsince feminist paganism has yet to winnthe support necessary to erect its ownnuniversities and seminaries, why notn”Kosi-marv Kadtord RiicthiTV’.vw/« ami (iocl-Tiilk i> lirnih- Christian theology. . ..nIlie hiblc itself thus proviik-s the resources for her fi-niinist crilique of religion.”n—Commoniivatn”Scxisin untl (.i(Hl-‘l’ulk is a significani eontrihution to the eonliniiing lask of educatingnChristians …. the book is well worth n-ading.”n—Americanslyly questions both Christ’s divine parentagenand Mary’s chastity by styling hernas one who made “her own choices aboutnher body and sexuality without regardnfor her future husband”—^^parentiy in anBethlehem singles’ bar. And if there wasnever any serious doubt about whethernnnpreach the good news of feminism atnChristian institutions which offer theirnresources without requiring a shred ofnorthodoxy? The second reason for choosingnsuch employment is subversion.nJudeo-Christianity built Western culture,nincluding its “sexist” institutions. If then