What do you think?
Rate this book
After Christianity
In a penetrating analysis Dr Hampson shows that Christianity cannot be true, for it requires a particular revelation which we can no longer think possible. Moreover its situatedness in past history makes Christianity necessarily sexist. In our religion, she argues, our relation to the past must be what it is in every other sphere. Dr Hampson gives a 'reading' from a feminist perspective of major paradigms of past theology: transcendent monotheism; covenant, sacrifice and incarnation; and God conceived of as Trinity. She demonstrates that the masculinist construal of 'woman' and of femininity has been pivotal to the whole, while it has been fatal to women. In what is the heart of the book, Dr Hampson proceeds to explore how, drawing on our experience of that dimension of reality which is God, we should conceptualize what God may be. A final chapter is devoted to a discussion of the ethical context of the lived life within which such a spirituality may flourish.
- GenresTheologyChristianity
326 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 21, 2023
Daphne Hampson’s After Christianity is a multifaceted and intellectually demanding book that really requires a longer review than this. I confine myself to critiquing the author’s feminism and rationalism. Hampson has abandoned Christianity and formulated her own gender-neutral theism. She suggests that the male doctrine of the Trinity involves a specifically male spirituality predicated on the nature of male genitality (the trinity of penis and two testicles (p. xxi)). She argues that the myth of Christianity has done harm to women, by the misogyny embedded within it. Its function has been to legitimize patriarchy to men. Thus, the dominant male has become the norm for humanity (pp. xvff).
Facts are that women instinctively long for the strong and dominant male. A young woman is like a Jane looking for her Tarzan. At bottom we are really this primitive (cf. Marie-Louise von Franz). Among indigenous peoples we see the same pattern: men acquire the more important positions in society. It was not the male patriarchy that established this order, as Hampson thinks — it was Mother Nature. In fact, if women had not preferred men with a drive for accomplishment, such as gaining power and riches, then the male species would have evolved into drones, and civilization could not have survived.
Lust for power, riches and glory is called original sin. Christianity aimed at ameliorating its damaging effects, e.g., the way in which men tend to see women as second rate humans. But Christianity held no hope of eradicating original sin. After all, we could not sustain our lives in this “fallen” world without being sinful. Human nature cannot be negated. Women will always continue looking for the “strong man” and men will try and live up to this ideal.
We think in terms of Father Heaven and Mother Earth, not in order to oppress women but chiefly to satisfy women’s (and men’s) longing for male authority. Or else they would only look for this authority in earthly men, who are always corrupt. So this is part of the reason why we still have male pronouns to denote the Divine. It has the opposite function than Hampson thinks. She says:
Hampson critiques the myths of Christianity, such as incarnation, virgin birth and resurrection, thinking that such beliefs cannot be sustained in our scientific age. But faith must have as object that which transcends the worldly and the rational, or else believers cannot achieve emancipation from worldliness, which is what serves to make them truly human. We ought to be “fools for Christ”, as Paul says. This is a well-known theme in comparative religion (cf. Mircea Eliade).
Hampson’s new theism involves a dialogical relation with God, envisaged as a mindlike or spiritual dimension of reality, responsible for “the presence of power and love in the world” (p. 113). The spirit, which is always near, allows mental and physical healing (p. 226). It seems to me that she only lifts away the theological framework and introduces nothing new. But religion without (foolish) myth cannot work.
The author makes a valuable critique of certain modern theologians, showing that they aren’t truly Christian. Certain of them don’t even have a Christology proper. Hampson is a good theologian. Her other book, Christian Contradictions, is a masterpiece. But she relies too much on inferior theologians and intellectually bankrupt feminism. Despite all, the book is worthy of a read. I give it three stars.
Facts are that women instinctively long for the strong and dominant male. A young woman is like a Jane looking for her Tarzan. At bottom we are really this primitive (cf. Marie-Louise von Franz). Among indigenous peoples we see the same pattern: men acquire the more important positions in society. It was not the male patriarchy that established this order, as Hampson thinks — it was Mother Nature. In fact, if women had not preferred men with a drive for accomplishment, such as gaining power and riches, then the male species would have evolved into drones, and civilization could not have survived.
Lust for power, riches and glory is called original sin. Christianity aimed at ameliorating its damaging effects, e.g., the way in which men tend to see women as second rate humans. But Christianity held no hope of eradicating original sin. After all, we could not sustain our lives in this “fallen” world without being sinful. Human nature cannot be negated. Women will always continue looking for the “strong man” and men will try and live up to this ideal.
We think in terms of Father Heaven and Mother Earth, not in order to oppress women but chiefly to satisfy women’s (and men’s) longing for male authority. Or else they would only look for this authority in earthly men, who are always corrupt. So this is part of the reason why we still have male pronouns to denote the Divine. It has the opposite function than Hampson thinks. She says:
Indeed, this is the man women are longing for, in their right brain hemisphere. However, in their left hemisphere, which is more analytical, they are feminists. Women are very conflicted, today. She continues:
Male egoism has indeed frequently been at the expense of women, as men have seen women only in relation to themselves and not as having their own subjectivity and independence. (p. 114)
I’m inclined to agree. On the other hand, had it been designed by women, then it would have had no structure at all. It seems to me that women require rigid male structures more than men do, because they have a pronounced tendency to become ecstatic about the latest trend, as exemplified by Beatlemania and Hitler cult.
[T]he paradigms of Christian theology reflect the hopes and aspirations, the needs and the fears of men. Its modes conform to structures typical of the male psyche. (p. 119)
Western religion must be understood as that over-arching framework through which men have projected their understanding of reality. (p. 169)
Hampson critiques the myths of Christianity, such as incarnation, virgin birth and resurrection, thinking that such beliefs cannot be sustained in our scientific age. But faith must have as object that which transcends the worldly and the rational, or else believers cannot achieve emancipation from worldliness, which is what serves to make them truly human. We ought to be “fools for Christ”, as Paul says. This is a well-known theme in comparative religion (cf. Mircea Eliade).
Hampson’s new theism involves a dialogical relation with God, envisaged as a mindlike or spiritual dimension of reality, responsible for “the presence of power and love in the world” (p. 113). The spirit, which is always near, allows mental and physical healing (p. 226). It seems to me that she only lifts away the theological framework and introduces nothing new. But religion without (foolish) myth cannot work.
The author makes a valuable critique of certain modern theologians, showing that they aren’t truly Christian. Certain of them don’t even have a Christology proper. Hampson is a good theologian. Her other book, Christian Contradictions, is a masterpiece. But she relies too much on inferior theologians and intellectually bankrupt feminism. Despite all, the book is worthy of a read. I give it three stars.
January 16, 2014
This is a good book. Though as I began reading I was apprehensive by the appearance of metaphysics, it turned out that the book can be understood by people without any previous knowledge of the subject. This is a great book for examining the still-very-needed feminism in our society. Also exploring a post-Christianity perspective, it purports a faith without a set hierarchical tradition. It is well worth a read.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews