VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE DEPARTMENT OF RELIGION

A METHOD FOR GENDER ANALYSIS OF SERMONS

HOMILETIC ANALYSIS (REL 3010)

PROF. JOHN S. McCLURE

BY

LIS VALLE

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

DECEMBER 2013

  i

CONTENTS

I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

II. The Method ........................................................................................................................ 2

Conceptualization ............................................................................................................... 2

Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 12

III. The Method at Work ......................................................................................................... 13

The Sermon ...................................................................................................................... 13

Analyzing the Sermon ...................................................................................................... 18

Articulating Preached Ideologies ..................................................................................... 21

Examining Personal Commitments .................................................................................. 21

Appendix A: Gender Analysis Worksheet ........................................................................ 24

Appendix B: Gender Analysis of “Doers of Beautiful Things” ....................................... 25

Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 26

  1

I. Introduction

The following method for gender analysis of sermons allows the preacher to examine the

ways in which one’s rhetoric is explicitly or implicitly reinforcing ideologies of domination and

women’s subordination. We may think of ourselves as firm believers of gender equality. At the

same time, we may also reject the idea of preaching feminist sermons because we need to be

preaching the gospel and not feminism. Because there are many ideologies interacting in society

and in the sermon, ideas about gender and social structures are coming through our sermons,

even when we are focusing on the gospel, on doctrinal aspects or spiritual formation. Intentional

thought on ideologies related to gender and social structures can be helpful to ensure that our

preaching matches our self-identification around these issues. For example, while preaching the

gospel we may be knowingly or not promoting perpetuation of ideologies of domination and

women subordination, even if we believe in gender equality. The method proposed will help us

perceive our “blind spots.”

While our particular theological and ideological stances give preference to gender

equality and may be labeled as liberal or progressive, we believe the method can be used by any

preacher and does not in itself require a particular worldview. Rather, the method should make

more explicit the particular ideologies coming through sermons so that the preacher may decide

if they align with denominational, congregational, and personal beliefs, whatever those may be.

First, we will draw from feminist rhetorical theory and ideological criticism to elaborate

the method. Then, we will describe the procedures for using the method. Finally, we will apply

the proposed method to a sermon to get a better sense of how the method works.

  2

II. The Method

a. Conceptualization

This integrated method for gender analysis of sermons was developed for a preaching

workshop in the Synod of Boriquén (Puerto Rico) of the Presbyterian Church (USA). This

method is based on feminist rhetoric theories and ideological criticism. Drawing from these we

will elaborate the categories of speech, agency, representation, domination, and love as lenses for

the analysis of our sermons.

The proposed method provides a gender analysis of our language and symbols in

preaching in order to establish how are we, in the Presbyterian tradition in a Caribbean context,

still in a masculine model or not. It will be the main focus of a preaching workshop in an event

organized by the Synod of Boriquén for clergy and lay leaders of congregations. Participants will

be able to examine their own preaching to establish their operative gender ideologies. Based on

their findings they will be able to affirm, strengthen, or adapt their commitments.

The purpose of this method is to help the preacher understand how his or her sermons

construct a world and what that world looks like when it comes to gender identities and roles.

For certain feminist rhetorical theories, the study of rhetoric goes beyond persuasion towards

understanding. Karen A. Foss and others tell us, “Our goal for studying rhetoric also has changed

from our initial understanding of the notion. It no longer is to learn how to persuade others;

rather, it is to understand how people construct the worlds in which they live and how those

worlds make sense to them.”1 In using this method undergirded by that particular framework, the

preacher may come to understand the world his or her sermons are constructing and how that

world makes sense to him or her and the congregation.

                                                                                                               1 Karen A. Foss, Sonja K. Foss, and Cindy L. Griffin, Feminist Rhetorical Theories (Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Pub., 1999), 7.

  3

Feminist rhetorical theory as groundwork for this method is useful because it focuses on

the work developed by rhetorical theorists who are “offering coherent and systematic

explanations of the ways symbols work to create, exchange, and negotiate meaning.”2 Preachers

use symbols to create, exchange, and negotiate meanings in their sermons. When those symbols

work to create, exchange, and negotiate meanings related to gender, feminist rhetorical criticism

has much to offer for the analysis of discourse. Granted, feminist rhetorical criticism is

undergirded by a commitment to equality and respect for life in an effort to end sexist

oppression. However, its tools can help in identifying the absence or presence of a commitment

to equitable treatment for women. At the same time, because the very nature of feminism is

rooted in choice and self-determination, it does not prescribe one official position.3

Similarly, ideological criticism is helpful for its interest in how discourse structures are

used in the creation and reiteration of ideologies. In developing this method for gender analysis

we prefer the approach of Teun A. van Dijk who defines ideologies “in a general, non-pejorative

sense (and not necessarily as false, or distorted ideas).4 In addition, ideological criticism is

needed because the construction of gender differences usually responds to broader ideological

systems, such as the ways in which society is structured. Related to this, van Dijk uses the work

of Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci conceptualized the relationship between ideology and society in

terms of ‘hegemony,’ which “subtly works through the management of the mind of the citizens,

for example by persuasively constructing a consensus about the social order,” instead of being

considered the imposition of the dominant ideology of the rulers.5

                                                                                                               2 Karen A. Foss, Sonja K. Foss, and Cindy L. Griffin, Readings in Feminist Rhetorical Theory (Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004), 2. 3 Foss, Foss, and Griffin, Feminist Rhetorical Theories, 3. 4 Teun Adrianus van Dijk, Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, 1998), 313. 5 Ibid., 3.

  4

According to Sonja K. Foss, bell hooks is even more specific about the relationship

between ideas around gender and society at large. Foss explains, “The purpose hooks envisions

for rhetoric is to facilitate the eradication of the ideology of domination that pervades Western

culture. . . . Hooks calls the current system that promotes domination and subjugation white

supremacist capitalist patriarchy, a label that suggests interlocking structures of sexism, racism

class elitism, capitalism, and heterosexism.”6 Thus, feminist rhetorical theories and ideological

criticism work hand in hand to uncover normative ideologies that perpetuate the subjugation of

women, among other oppressed groups.

Drawing mostly upon the work of Foss, hooks, and van Dijk, this method for gender

analysis of sermons intertwines their approaches to focus on how speech, agency, representation,

domination, and love, create and negotiate meanings in sermons. These categories will be used

specifically to analyze the stories used in sermons, whether they are self-referential, illustrations,

fictitious or not, and even the particular interpretation of biblical stories used in the sermons.

Speech

The presence or absence of speech from particular characters in the stories we tell is

indicative of a particular perception of those characters. The identity or humanity of a person can

be suppressed by the absence of speech. The presence of speech may be an indicator of agency

but further analysis is needed to determine the nature and content of the speech and the

consequences of speaking for particular groups. In her essay “Talking Back,” bell hooks share

her own experiences with speech while growing up. She learned very early in her life that

speaking to others as equals, which she calls ‘talking back’ may result in punishment or labels,

like being compared with other family members or warned that she would be considered crazy.

                                                                                                               6 Sonja K. Foss, Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp, Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 3rd ed (Long

Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2002), 270.

  5

She also learned that women did not speak the same way when they were among other women

than when there were men in the room.7

Ada María Isasi-Díaz also addresses the need for speech as an indicator of subjectivity,

rather as object of oppression. She does this in her development of mujerista theology,

particularly as an element of a mujerista anthropology. According to Isasi-Díaz, Latina women’s

repeated use of the phrase ‘allow me to speak,’ indicates how their voices has been ignored and

how their presence has been erased by historical accounts. According to her analysis, people find

in speech an opportunity to be protagonists and agents of their own history.8

The insights about speech from bell hooks and Isasi-Díaz are helpful to examine our

sermons with critical questions about the presence, nature, content, and consequences of speech.

The same questions may be asked in relation to male and female characters in the story being

analyzed in order to compare the portrayal of gender difference.

First, in relation to presence or absence of speech, the preacher may ask if a character

speaks or not. Do oppressed or dominated people speak in the story? Why are they able to speak?

Why are they silent? Are the marginalized speaking as subjects or as underprivileged other?

What voices are privileged? What voices are silenced?9

If the characters speak, then we may examine the nature of their speech. Are they

struggling to emerge from silence into speech? Are they struggling to change the nature and

direction of their speech? Are they crafting a speech that compels listeners? Are they showing

evidence of their desire to be heard? We may ask additional questions to determine if the nature

of their speech is defiant. In what ways, if any, women in this story “talk back”? Do they speak

                                                                                                               7 bell hooks, “Talking Back,” in The Production of Reality: Essays and Readings on Social Interaction, by

Jodi O’Brien, 4th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2006). 8 Ada María Isasi-Díaz, Mujerista Theology: A Theology for the Twenty-First Century (Maryknoll, N.Y.:

Orbis Books, 1996), 128–133. 9 Foss, Foss, and Trapp, Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 272–273.

  6

as an equal to authority figures? Do they dare to disagree? Do they have an opinion? Do they

speak when they are not spoken to?

Then, we may ask questions around the content of their speech. Are they questioning

authority? Are they raising issues that are not deemed appropriate subjects for women to

address? Are they addressing issues typically considered to belong to the private sphere or

typically labeled as women’s issues?

Finally, we may look at the consequences that speech brings to the speaker. What

happens when women speak? Are they punished? Are there any acts in the story intended to

silence women? Are they threatened with madness or considered to be crazy? Are they labeled in

any particular way as a result of their speech?

Agency

While speech on itself has been considered an indicator of agency, there are other notions

of agency that are more encompassing. In her study of the piety movement among Muslim

women in Egypt, Saba Mahmood succinctly described two traditional notions of agency within

feminist theory and proposes a different approach. Mahmood considers that feminist scholarship

emphasizes a politically subversive form of agency therefore ignoring “other modalities of

agency whose meaning and effect are not captured within the logic of subversion and

resignification of  hegemonic terms of discourse.”10 Mahmood discusses two perspectives within

feminist theory in relation to agency and embodiment. The first one is the subjection of women’s

bodies to masculinist or patriarchal valuations, images, and representational logic. Then,

following Judith Butler and Gayatri Spivak, Mahmood summarizes the second perspective as the

                                                                                                               10 Saba Mahmood, Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, 2nd. ed. (Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 2012), 153.

  7

perception of “subjectivity as a sign of the abject materiality that discourse cannot articulate.”11

Saba rejects both perspectives considering that reality is too complex to only fit one of these two

models. She states, “Rather, I believe that the body’s relationship to discourse is variable and that

it seldom simply follows either of the paths laid out by these two perspectives within feminist

theory.”12 She will expand the notion of agency inviting us to “think of ‘agency’ not simply as a

synonym for resistance to social norms but as a modality of action.”13 This will lead to “some

interesting questions about the kind of relationship established between the subject and the

norm.”14

Following Mahmood’s typology of agency and drawing upon similar notions of agency

in bell hooks and Isasi-Díaz, we may examine our sermons with critical questions about the

agency of the characters in the stories we tell in our sermons. How is agency portrayed in the

sermon? Does agency subvert or resignify the hegemonic discourses of gender?15 Are the

characters reproducing subordination?16 Are their representations supporting or countering the

dominant ideology?17 What are the modalities of agency they are enacting to face suffering? Are

they enacting survival or defiant modalities of existence as a strategy to manage suffering?18 Are

the oppressed creating a meaningful life for themselves while letting the oppressor believe they

are dominating?19 What is the relationship established between the subject and the norm?20

                                                                                                               11 Ibid., 159. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid., 157. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., 153. 16 Ibid., 156. 17 Foss, Foss, and Trapp, Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 276–277. 18 Mahmood, Politics of Piety, 167–172. 19 Ada María Isasi-Díaz, La Lucha Continues  : Mujerista Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004),

161. 20 Mahmood, Politics of Piety, 157.

  8

Representation

In addition to speech and agency, polarization and characterization play a role in how

women and men are represented in the stories we tell in our sermons. Polarization refers to

presenting people in opposite sides of any given spectrum. In her development of a more

thorough critique, bell hooks refers to this phenomenon as “the question of positive or negative

representation,” or whether the oppressed are portrayed through good or bad images.21 Similarly,

Van Dijk explains how discourse structures may be in line with ideological polarization, “such as

self-serving positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation.”22If characters are

portrayed in such polarized terms, they may be perceived as “flat” characters or caricatures

and not as complex human beings. Therefore, polarization is related to characterization.

The characterization of people in our stories refers to the level of complexity we

assign to the person when describing him or her. Two examples will serve as models for

critical reflection in our portrayal of gender identity in our sermons, motherhood as

metaphor for the construction of theology as used by Marcia W. Mount Shoop, and the

notion of defamiliarization as proposed by bell hooks.

Mount Shoop uses motherhood as a metaphor for constructive theology. She explores

how maternal bodies, maternal relationships, and maternal subjectivity inform the

theological notion of re-membering or constituting the body of Christ. She does not assume

that motherhood is intrinsically tied to womanhood. Rather, motherhood serves to develop

theological concepts that can be appropriated by any person regardless of gender or social

orientation and regardless of having experienced motherhood. What is most significant in

her approach is that she uses well-known metaphors like the nurturing or life-giving nature

                                                                                                               21 Foss, Foss, and Trapp, Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 276. 22 Dijk, Ideology, 317.

  9

of motherhood but she also presents clever insights, like interconnection. Furthermore, she

uses what could be perceived as negative aspects of motherhood, like vulnerability and

disharmony in the lived body. In the process, she elaborates both the joys and the difficulties

of motherhood, the bliss of actively participating in the generation of life and the challenges

of giving birth and waking up in the middle of the night to feed the baby. She rejects a flat

understanding of sacrificial love for the well-being of the child. Instead she embraces the

balance needed to take care of one self so one can take care of the baby. In her elaboration,

she emphasizes how maternal bodies both resist and affirms society values and the

privatization of maternity in Western culture. She presents motherhood in all its complexity,

with the good and the bad, the positive and the negative.23

On the other hand, in her essay “Back to the Avant-Garde: The Progressive Vision,”

bell hooks proposes defamiliarization as a strategy to resist stereotyping in discourses.24 She

defines defamiliarization as “the taking of a familiar image and depicting it in such a way

that we look at it and see it differently.”25 For example, she mentions that mainstream

cinema’s dominant representations of black women have been as “mammy or ho,” as

nurturing mother or as prostitute, hypersexual, or promiscuous, who is usually raped.

Defamiliarization will challenge the storyteller, whether a filmmaker or a preacher, to

present positive images of sexuality, like “the naked black female form in a pro-sex

narrative that does not begin with rape as the central metaphor of our existence and as the

boundary of our sexual landscape” or “images of elderly black women” or “a radical visual

                                                                                                               23  Marcia W. Mount Shoop, Let the Bones Dance: Embodiment and the Body of Christ (Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 101–117. 24 Foss, Foss, and Griffin, Readings in Feminist Rhetorical Theory, 63–70. 25 Ibid., 64.

  10

conceptualization of black heterosexual relationships.”26 Other examples of

defamiliarization include a homeless black man who speaks in Japanese or a traditional

mammy-maid who talks back to the screen requiring the audience to really look at her and to

stop rendering her as invisible.27 Defamiliarization is a tool for preachers to find stereotypes

in their sermons and to characterize the persons in their stories in a more complex and full-

fleshed manner.

Building on these ideas of polarization and characterization we may ask critical questions

regarding our stories in sermons. How are oppressed people represented in the sermon? Are they

completely good or completely bad?28 Does the story supports ideological polarization? In other

words, does it work as a self-serving positive self-presentation and a negative other-

presentation?29 Are people represented as caricatures or in their complexity?30 What characters

are portrayed in caricatures and which ones are represented as full-fleshed human beings? Are

experiences typically lived by women (like motherhood) portrayed only in positive ideal images,

negative undesirable images or both?31 How is defamiliarization at play in the sermon?

Domination

Particular characterizations of women as passive, oppressed, or subjugated are usually

tied to an ideology of domination. According to bell hooks, this ideology features a “belief in a

notion of superior and inferior, and its concomitant ideology – that the superior should rule over

the inferior.”32 Pursuing this notion of an ideology of domination we may ask critical questions

about the stories in our sermons. Is domination manifest in the sermon? Is there a notion of                                                                                                                

26 Ibid., 69–70. 27 Ibid., 63–64. 28 Foss, Foss, and Trapp, Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 276–277. 29 Dijk, Ideology, 317. 30 Foss, Foss, and Trapp, Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 280. 31 Mount Shoop, Let the Bones Dance, 116–118. 32 Foss, Foss, and Trapp, Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 270. Quoting hooks in Talking Back:

Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black (Boston, MA: South End, 1989), 5-9.

  11

superior and inferior in the sermon?33Is the ideology of domination accepted, challenged or

rejected? Is inferiority accepted as an inherent trait?34 What hierarchies are valorized? What

groups are exercising power over others?35 How are oppressed people portrayed in the sermon?

How do other groups respond to them?36

Love

To replace the ideology of domination hooks envisions a culture of love. Foss explains,

“By love, hooks does not mean a sentimental longing for another person or the domination and

possessiveness that often are linked to love. Rather, love is a politicized force that enables

movement against dehumanization.”37 Under this understanding people have a choice to love,

which means a choice to connect or to find oneself in the other.38 Foss further explains that love

involves particular rhetorical practices: primary is mutual recognition (subject to subject; not

subject to object); also, care, affection, respect, commitment, and trust, as well as honest and

open communication.39

Following this notion of a culture of love opens up a series of questions we may ponder

for critical reflection about our sermons. Is there love in our stories? Is there a politicized force

that enables movement against dehumanization? Do the characters exercise a choice to love?

Which characters exercise this choice? In what ways do the characters choose to connect with

the other? In what ways do the characters find themselves in the other?

                                                                                                               33 Ibid., 270–271. 34 Ibid., 275. 35 Foss, Foss, and Griffin, Readings in Feminist Rhetorical Theory, 65. 36 Foss, Foss, and Trapp, Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 276. 37 Ibid., 272. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. Quoting Hooks, Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations (NY, Routledge, 1994), 54.

  12

b. Procedures

Using this integrated method of gender analysis, the preacher may analyze the

sermons in a four-step process: (1) selecting the sermons; (2) analyzing the sermons; (3)

articulating preached ideologies; and (4) examining personal commitments.

i. Selecting the sermons

Choose 3-5 sermons that you have preached in the last year in which there are female

characters in the scripture text you used or in which you included illustrations or stories with

female characters whether they were real or fictitious.

ii. Analyzing the sermons

Use the concepts developed in the previous section and ask the critical questions for

each one of the stories in each sermon. Jot down your findings in “Integrated Method of Gender

Analysis of Sermons – Worksheet” (Appendix A). Use one worksheet per sermon.

iii. Articulating preached ideologies

Carefully examine your conclusions regarding how male and female characters are

portrayed in your sermons according to their speech, agency, representation, domination, and

love. Identify the ideology implicit in your sermon. Reflect on the function of your ideology in

the sermon.40 Some questions may help with that task. What is your sermon suggesting is normal

or accepted behavior? What are the listeners encouraged to believe? What behavior is

encouraged through the sermon?

                                                                                                               40 Sonja K. Foss, Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 4th Edition (Long Grove, IL: Waveland

Press, 2009), 217–220.

  13

iv. Examining personal commitments

Consider the way you will proceed in future sermons. Ask yourself if the ideology

implicit in the sermons matches your professed ideology and that expected by your congregation

and denomination.

III. The method at work

We will apply the proposed method to a particular sermon that may be representative of

sermons preached in Puerto Rico within the Presbyterian tradition. This sermon seems to be rich

in material for gender and ideological analysis.

The Sermon

The Reverend Arelis Cardona is the pastor of a small Presbyterian Church in Santurce,

Puerto Rico. This church is located in a working class neighborhood where many people of

color, poor, or immigrants from the Dominican Republic live. She serves part-time as a pastor

and serves full-time as Director of the Office of University Chaplaincy in the Inter American

University of Puerto Rico, Metropolitan Campus.

She preached this particular sermon at a Pentecostal church as their guest preacher in a

monthly service they transmit on the radio. This one is an urban church of about 200 people,

which is considered big within the Presbyterian community in Puerto Rico. According to Rev.

Cardona, the congregation is composed mostly of working class members but with spectacular

temple and facilities. In her opinion, they would never expect a feminist sermon, but it was a

great blessing, particularly for the women who attended. The preacher respected the tradition of

the invited church of ministering or doing an “altar call” after the sermon, and experienced, in

her words, “a beautiful response.” The event was the last Sunday of March of 2011, close to the

International Working Women’s Day.

  14

Sermon summary

Hacedoras de cosas hermosas (Doers of Beautiful Things)

The sermon begins with a succinct summary of the story read in Mark 14:1-9

highlighting that the woman irrupts a dinner and silently do this deed which was criticized by

many but that Jesus approved. While her motivations are not accounted in the gospel we can

reflect on our motivations. The preacher asks, “What moves you to action? What have been the

reactions of those who see you and judge you? Whose approval are you looking for?”41

The preacher states that looking at the story from the perspective of the celebration of

International Working Women’s Day, it has implications for women who labor for the church.

These women follow the example of the unnamed woman in the text. The story is so important

that it appears in all four gospels.

The preacher then proceeds to compare Mark with the other gospels. First she names

what Mark says in contrast with the other ones. She points out that in Mark the woman is

unnamed, she anoints Jesus’ head, they are in Simon’s house – who used to be a leper, and the

criticism comes from the people in attendance. Then the preacher lists four similitudes among all

the gospels: the anointment, the costly ointment, the criticism, and Jesus’ approval. She uses

these similitudes as a framework for her reflection.

The preacher asserts that historically women have been criticized, rejected, and

marginalized. This marginalization manifests in negative comments, exclusion, limitation of

their participation, or assigning them minimal or the vilest tasks. Then the preacher rehearses the

criticism in the story and highlights that it is coming from the disciples, from Scribes, and

Priests. Interestingly enough, while the text reads, “But Jesus said,” the preacher said, “Before

                                                                                                               41 Arelis Cardona. Hacedoras de cosas hermosas / Doers of Beautiful Things. Sermon manuscript. San

Juan, PR, 2011.

  15

them, Jesus raised his voice: Let her alone!!!! Why do you trouble her? She has performed a

good service for me.” Then she repeats this last verse but using a different Bible version. The

preacher says, “Or like the New International Version better translates it, “She has done a

beautiful thing to me (from the Greek, Kalon ergon).”42

The preacher proceeds to describe how the woman brought beauty. She builds on a Bible

commentary, and describes the bottle as made of a translucent mineral reflecting sunlight and the

ointment as a nice smell and used for relaxation or honoring of the dead when preparing their

bodies for burial. The preacher also refers to the woman as bringing the beautiful finesse of

anointment, the important ritual used to recognize and legitimize kings.

The preacher jumps to verse eight and reads it, “She did what she could.” She interprets

this verse as an allusion to the limitations of the woman: was not invited, was not a decision

maker, she had no ascribed power, and she could not even come in to listen to Jesus’ teachings in

the closed circles of men. To be able to honor Jesus she had to ask herself, “What do I have

available? What can I do? What risks can I take?” Because of the way she responded to these

questions and the actions that accompanied those responses, Jesus recognized her as doer of

beautiful things.

After concluding that this beauty was reflected in the woman’s face, the preacher reflects

about the source of beauty. She names external and physical appearance as the usual explanation.

Then she shares an article that she read in a magazine in a plane about what makes women feel

beautiful. Different women named different things like her husband telling her “you have made

me a very happy man,” or being able to stay active and healthy at 60, or motherhood, or even

accepting one’s own ugly feet. The article motivated her to ponder what makes her feel beautiful.

She eventually concluded, “I felt that God was telling me that doing [His] will and obeying                                                                                                                

42 Cardona, 3. My translation. Emphasis added.

  16

[Him] was what made me feel beautiful. The experience was so sublime that some tears fell

down my cheeks.”43

Once at her destination, after a long day of difficult meetings, she walked by a woman

who appeared to be homeless and was yelling at people. When they made eye contact the woman

yelled, “You are so beautiful. You look beautiful. You are so beautiful.” Then shouted even

louder “God bless you.” The preacher interpreted that it was God reminding her that doing God’s

will makes her beautiful!

Both the unknown woman - who seemed crazy, she wrote in parenthesis - and the

unnamed woman in Bethany are doers of beautiful things, according to the preacher. They both

did what they could and unknowingly were used by God. Emphasizing that the woman in

Bethany was preparing Jesus to be buried, the preacher established this as the first of the

sequence of events that mark the passion. Thus, she concluded, the woman offered Jesus a

moment of comfort for his spirit and body for his last days. The preacher states that the woman

unknowingly anointed Jesus as if he was chosen to be King but that her audience knew the

stories and could recognize the implications of her actions. Then she compares the public actions

of the woman in Bethany with the secret and private actions of Nicodemus and Joseph of

Arimathea. Quoting a commentary, the preacher establishes the woman’s actions as a gift and an

act of compassion that deeply moved Jesus.

The preacher states that the woman offered the best and most costly thing she had to

honor the King. She also risked her reputation and dared to be criticized by approaching and

                                                                                                               43 Cardona, 4. My translation. There are no male pronouns in the Spanish sentence in reference to God. The

possessive pronoun tied to the noun ‘will’ is in neutral form but it would not be translated as ‘its’ because it is used for a person and not an object. The verb ‘obey’ is not tied to a pronoun but was used in third person male, even though a third person neutral form of the verb is possible.

  17

touching the one who needed it. She was willing to pay the consequences of her actions. She was

a doer of beautiful things indeed, said the preacher.

The preacher then affirms that today there are other women who boldly depart from the

place that has been defined for them in order to bless others. Then she tells the story of María

Aguinda, a Quichuan woman who lost her husband and sons to cancer caused by pollution. She

and other women sued Chevron for ecological damage and deaths caused by an oil spill in 1993.

The court, earlier the month when the sermon was preached, finally determined that the oil

company owed the plaintiffs 9.5 million dollars. María Aguinda was not motivated by the

money, since it would not give her family back, but she was motivated by justice, “Before they

die, they will have first to pay for the damages and the dead animals, and clean the river, the

water, and the soil.”44 María too is a doer of beautiful things, said the preacher.

The preacher then highlights that Jesus announced that this unnamed woman would be

remembered for what she did. The preacher assured the congregation that “all of us who act

moved by the Spirit” will be remembered. She invited the congregation to ask themselves the

same questions the unnamed woman maybe did, “What to I have available? What can I do?

What risks can I take?”

The preacher summarized the teachings and challenges in the story: to not give up, to

remember that is Jesus’ approval the only one needed, to remember that criticism will always be

there, even within the church family because they cannot understand what we need to do in order

to bless others. Jesus calls us to come out of our comfort zone in order to comfort others, to share

the beautiful message of the gospel through our touch and compassion, to communicate the new

life that Christ brought. Since Holy Week was approaching, the preacher said it was a perfect

season to do these things, empowered by the Spirit of God, do things that will be remembered.                                                                                                                

44 Cardona, 5-6. My translation.

  18

The sermon concluded with an altar call offering prayers for people who wanted the boldness to

do like the unnamed woman of Bethany.

Analysis of the sermon

We identified four stories suitable for gender analysis in this sermon: (1) the unnamed

woman who anoints Jesus in Bethany; (2) the story of the pastor reading a magazine in an

airplane; (3) the pastor’s encounter with a seemingly homeless woman; and (4) the story of

María Aguinda. We used the questions offered in section ‘II.a’ of this paper to analyze the

sermon. (See Appendix B) We did the exercise in relation to the main character of each story, all

of which were women. A more in depth use of this method would require repeating the exercise

in relation to the male characters in the stories.

In the story of the unnamed woman who anoints Jesus in Bethany speech is absent, yet

her internal reflections are articulated by the preacher. The nature of her internal speech is that of

resistance as the woman struggles to emerge from silence. She has an opinion and is looking for

a way to express it. The content of the internal speech consists of strategizing for questioning the

accepted behavior for women in public in her society. The consequences of her actions are two-

fold as the dinner guests criticize her but Jesus affirms her. Her agency is subversive as she

risked her reputation to break into a dinner and engaged in disruptive and unsanctioned behavior.

There is no polarization in her representation. Jesus deems her to be good, the guests deem her to

be bad, and she shows the ability to reflect critically about her own behavior. For these reasons

she is characterized as a full-fleshed human being. The ideology of domination is acknowledged

and challenged because the woman behaves as if she was equal to men, but men responded

negatively to her actions, with the exception of Jesus. There is a love culture in this story because

the woman chose to connect with Jesus and comfort him, risking social rejection.

  19

In the self-referential story of reading a magazine in an airplane, speech is absent.

However, just like with the unnamed woman of Bethany, internal reflections are articulated. This

internal speech is active. The preacher was searching for her opinion on the topic she was

reading about, namely what makes women feel beautiful. In her internal speech, the preacher

formulates her opinion, which rejects normative understandings of beauty and finds affirmation

in doing God’s will. The consequences are that she cries overcome by this sublime experience.

Her agency is one of resignification. She negotiates the meaning of ‘beauty’ and concludes that

the source of it is not physical, not even in fulfilling assigned roles for women, or in the

cultivation of the self, but the source of beauty is found in God. There is no polarization in this

story. She is not portrayed as good or bad. She depicts her indecisiveness as she considers if

reading the story or not. She shares her initial disinterest and her eventual awe. She is not a

caricature but a full-fleshed human being. The ideology of domination is absent in this story.

There is no apparent hierarchy or domination of one group over another. There is a culture of

love in this story as she chose to connect with the women featured in the magazine article. They

all found their sense of beauty in internal and contextual experiences. They all rejected the

normative notion of beauty tied to physical traits.

In the story of the unknown apparently homeless woman speech is present. The nature of

her speech is disruptive. She yells in public and this simultaneously compels others to listen and

is not appropriate by normative standards. The content of her speech is unexpected. She affirms

the beauty of another woman who is also a stranger. She utters a blessing. Because she is yelling

she might be labeled as crazy. The preacher acknowledges this while subtly questions it by

placing the phrase in parenthesis. Another consequence of the unknown woman’s speech is that

the preacher feels affirmed. The agency in this story is that of resignification. The presumed

  20

homeless and crazy is portrayed as fully human and even more, as God’s voice and God’s

presence. There is no polarization in this story. This woman is not completely good or

completely bad. Identifying her as good or bad is relative as it depends on the acceptance or

rejection of normative standards of public behavior. Consequently, she is a full-fleshed human

being pictured in all her complexity. The ideology of domination is rejected in this story. The

woman, while maybe homeless and perhaps crazy is not depicted as inferior but as equal. It

could be argued that she is depicted as superior to the extent that she is God’s instrument for a

moment. There is a culture of love in this story. The unknown woman is humanized. Both the

woman and the preacher chose to connect with each other as they made and sustained eye

contact. The preacher offered details to recreate the moment.

In the story of María Aguinda speech is present. The nature of her speech is very active

and subversive. She compels listeners through a lawsuit and an interview with the media that

allows her story to reach the preacher. Her speech travels beyond the borders of her country. The

content of her speech is equally subversive. She questions the authority of a multinational oil

corporation and with it the way that capitalist ideologies are valued over ecological concerns.

The consequence of her speech is that justice is served. The multinational corporation will have

to pay the plaintiffs a substantial amount of money for damages, for their losses, and they will

have to clean the water and soil that they polluted. The agency in this story is that of subversion.

María openly defies the oppressor and succeeds. There is polarization in this story. María is

depicted as completely good. She is a hero, but not a caricature hero. She is a full-fleshed hero

who suffered the irreparable loss of her loved ones. The ideology of domination is challenged in

this story. The power of multinational corporations and their domination of nature are

challenged. Winning the lawsuit jeopardizes the hierarchies in the story. There is a culture of

  21

love in this story. The lawsuit was filed by many members of the community who chose to

connect with each other to share their pain of losing people and to share their quest for justice.

Articulating Preached Ideologies

The method of gender analysis revealed a feminist ideology permeating the sermon.

Women have speaking parts even when speech is absent. Their speech usually adapts, questions,

or rejects norms. Their agency is that of resignification or of subversion. For the most part, there

is no polarization in the stories and women are always full-fleshed and complex human beings.

The hegemonic ideology of domination is either absent, challenged or rejected. There is always a

choice to connect with the other and a politicized force that enables movement against

dehumanization. The sermon encourages women to consider the risks they can take in order to be

active agents and creators of their history even if that means transgressing the norms around

gender roles. The sermon promotes gender equality and seeks to end the oppression generated by

the hegemonic ideology of domination.

Examining Personal Commitments

The preached ideology definitely aligns with the preacher’s professed feminist ideology.

This allegiance is appropriate and accepted within the Presbyterian Church (USA) that is

comprised of a broad spectrum of theological identification, while seemingly privileging liberal

stances. In other words, the Presbyterian Church (USA) in its denominational stances

communicates a progressive and liberal standpoint but in its midst there are many congregations

and groups that self-identify as conservative. Officially, the Presbyterian Church (USA) does

ordain women and expects the use of inclusive language from its officers and leaders.

While the Presbytery of San Juan, where this preacher serves, is part of the Presbyterian

Church (USA) and thus expected to engage in equal treatment of male and female leaders, in

  22

practice treatment is not that equal. Usually inequality is subtle, thus the need for this method of

gender analysis, demonstrated in the proportion of female/male clergy, and double standards

when it comes to job interviews, ordination processes, and even jokes in hallway conversations.

The preacher has obviously considered what tools she has available and what risks she can take

as her own sermon suggests. Her stances probably face even more resistance in the ecumenical

forums in which she moves as chaplain of a university, where other denominations may not

recognize women’s ordination as valid. Her local congregation evidently accepts her feminist

ideology as they have been in a thriving pastoral relation for several years. Anecdotic evidence

suggests that parishoners who reject gender equality left the congregation when she started her

ministry there.

The exercise of using the gender analysis method with her sermon was limited. Repeating

the exercise with other characters, particularly male ones, and with additional sermons is

necessary to have a more accurate picture of the nuances of the preacher’s feminist ideology.

Considering that this sermon was preached close to International Working Women’s Day and in

a Pentecostal church, it is worth asking if the selection of stories respond to this particular

context. This context may have increased the proportion of female characters and protagonists,

as well as the references to the Holy Spirit. Having said that, some preliminary observations may

be shared regarding depiction of men and race.

In the two self-referential stories the only male character seems to be the preacher’s

husband. In the sermon she does not mention that they were traveling together when she read the

magazine but she states that they were walking together when they encountered the unknown

woman. In the first instance he was invisible and in the second he was silent. Of course, there

could be compelling reasons for these decisions in the telling of the stories, thus the need to use

  23

the method for more in depth analysis of male characters and for analyzing several sermons in

search for patterns.

Along the same lines, the male characters in María’s story are dead – her husband and

sons. The male characters in the story of the unnamed woman of Bethany are negatively depicted

as they criticize the woman. Even in this depiction their speech is more assumed or implicit than

present. This pattern of men being invisible, silent, or bad has Jesus as its only exception. Jesus

affirms the subversive actions of the unnamed woman. He also speaks and the preacher

emphasizes Jesus’ speech in support of the woman who anointed him.

Regarding race, the only person whose race is mentioned is one of the women featured in

the magazine article. She was of “Chinese descent,” to use the preacher’s words. It is significant

that what makes this young woman feel beautiful is having made peace with her ugly feet. The

preacher mentioned that there was a picture of her feet in the article and in her opinion they were

indeed ugly. In a way, this woman joined the trend of rejecting the reductionist perception of

beauty as being physical. However, this detail in the story raises our suspicion because there are

stereotypes in mainstream media about the Chinese culture breaking the feet of women or

making girls wear small shoes to inhibit growth, and similar ideas that require further study. In

addition, we have learned elsewhere that mentioning the race of one individual singling him or

her out is a subtle form of race discrimination.

With all these considerations in mind, – contexts where the preacher serves,

representation of male characters and people of other races – if they were to be corroborated by

the analysis of several sermons in search for patterns, the preacher may consider how to affirm,

strengthen, or adapt her commitments. She might contemplate depicting more complex and full-

fleshed male characters and be mindful of ascent or rejection of race stereotypes.

  24

APPENDIX A

Integrated Method of Gender Analysis of Sermons – Worksheet

Scripture story Story/illustration 1

Story/illustration 2

Story/illustration 3

Character Speech

Presence Nature Content Consequences

Agency

Representation Polarization Characterization

Domination

Love

  25

APPENDIX B

Integrated Method of Gender Analysis of Sermons – Worksheet

Scripture story Jesus Anointed at

Bethany

Story/illustration 1 The magazine

article

Story/illustration 2 the homeless

“crazy” woman

Story/illustration 3 María Aguinda

Character Unnamed woman who anoints Jesus

The preacher The homeless “crazy” woman

María Aguinda

Speech Presence

Absent, but internal reflection is articulated

Absent, but internal reflection is articulated

Present

Present

Nature

Struggling to emerge from silence

Process of formulating an opinion

Yell; compels listeners; not appropriate in public

Compels listeners; lawsuit; interview

Content

Strategy for questioning accepted public behavior

Rejects normative understandings

Unexpected; defamiliarization; notions of beauty; blessing

Capitalism; ecological issues; justice

Consequences

Criticized; affirmed

Sublime experience; cries

Labeled as crazy; pastors feels affirmed

Justice is served

Agency

Subversion Resignification Resignification Subversion

Representation Polarization Characterization

No Full-fleshed human being

No Full-fleshed human being

No Full-fleshed human being

Yes Full-fleshed human being

Domination

Acknowledged and challenged

Absent Rejected Challenged

Love

Yes Yes Yes Yes

  26

Bibliography Cardona, Arelis. Hacedoras de cosas hermosas / Doers of Beautiful Things. Sermon manuscript.

San Juan, PR, 2011. Dijk, Teun Adrianus van. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, 1998.  Foss, Karen A., Sonja K. Foss, and Cindy L. Griffin. Feminist Rhetorical Theories. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999.  ———. Readings in Feminist Rhetorical Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004. Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. 4th Edition. Long Grove, IL:

Waveland Press, 2009.  Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. 3rd

ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2002.  hooks, bell. “Talking Back.” In The Production of Reality: Essays and Readings on Social

Interaction, by Jodi O’Brien. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2006.  Isasi-Díaz, Ada María. La Lucha Continues  : Mujerista Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,

2004.  ———. Mujerista Theology: A Theology for the Twenty-First Century. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis

Books, 1996.  Mahmood, Saba. Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject. 2nd. ed.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.  Mount Shoop, Marcia W. Let the Bones Dance: Embodiment and the Body of Christ. Louisville,

KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.