Part 3 — Christian Responses

 

113

Feminist theology

 

Christ, cosmos and the human condition, according to feminist theologians

Karen Campbell-NeIson

 

Karen Campbell-Nelson presented this paper to the WSCF Asia-Pacific regional women's meeting in Singapore in June 1985.

 

There are a number of difficulties in giving a presentation on feminist » theology. One is knowing where to begin, because there are so many issues that demand our attention and reflection. And because there is such a wide range of feminist theologies — some Christian, some not — one author alone cannot be representative. What I have chosen to do, since this is intended to be an introduction, is to give a brief overview of one woman's feminist theology, which can help us see what is new and different about theology done from a Christian feminist perspective. The feminist I have chosen is Rosemary Radford Ruether, because she has been a formative influence on my own approach to theology, and I feel comfortable discussing her theology. She is also one of the more systematic feminist theologians — she looks at traditional theological categories (such as creation, sin, salvation), but from a radically different starting point. By examining a few of these categories and comparing some traditional male views with those of Ruether, it will be easier, I hope, to familiarise ourselves with the concerns and insights of feminist theology. I have taken some of the main points from Ruether's article "Feminist Theology and Spirituality," in an anthology of feminist writings entitled Christian feminism: visions of a new humanity1. This, in turn, is a synopsis of some of the major points in Ruether's Sexism and god-talk: toward a feminist theology2.

Before continuing, let me add that, as do most published feminist theologians to date Ruether writes from the perspective of a white, well educated, middle class woman. It is certainly relevant to ask what value this may have for women living in the overwhelmingly poor, non-white countries of Asia. I believe it is relevant for all women interested in theology to be acquainted with the theological reflections of their feminist sisters, whoever and wherever they are, for that is one way in which bridges of solidarity can be formed. But I also believe that each of these same women has a responsibility to engage in her own theological reflection — to give theological meaning to her experiences. In this way our bridges of understanding can reach further

 

114

 

 

115

 

and become stronger. Thus I hope that a brief introduction to Ruether's theology will help us see our potential, as feminists, to transform and humanise traditional theology. There are several good points that Ruether makes in her agenda for feminist theology. Feminist theology should:

Be "a critique of the sexist bias of theology itself

Construct a new base from which to theologise (making use of alternative traditions, discovering new theological methods, etc)

Help us experience the Divine in new places and ways

Be engaged in the search for a mature and responsible humanity. Perhaps above all else, Ruether stresses the validity of women's experiences as a starting point for theology. For too long, women's experiences have been completely ignored by theologians — to the point that their theologies exclude women. It is time women claimed a right to theologise based on our own understanding and experience of the Divine.

 

Language for Cod

Although many traditional theologies claim that language for God is simply metaphorical and not to be taken literally, God is almost exclusively referred to in male terms. The image of God as a great patriarch is so prevalent that males have become the normative representatives of God. But there is no justifiable reason why males should have priority in our language of God. Also, we need to use language other than names for parents (God as Mother, Father or Parent) so that we do not always put ourselves in the position of being dependent children. There are other ways of relating to God which have their own appropriate metaphors: Holy Wisdom, Divine Healer, Liberator, Guide and Comforter, that can help us establish images for the Holy One.

 

Cosmology (study of the cosmos)

There are a couple of different ways of depicting patterns of history and social orders. One model is a pyramid with God on top, followed by angels, humans, and the "natural order". The human layer of this pyramid is, in turn, characterised as a pyramid, so that the social "order" mirrors the divine "order", with men, masters, and whites ruling over women, slaves, and people of color (see picture 1). What is best and desirable in this world will "trickle down" from the upper to the lower layers of the pyramids.

Another model focuses more specifically on historical movement, assumed in this case to be a straight line headed toward perfection — that is, history is inherently progressive. There are two ways to think of this historical spectrum. Ruether calls one "evolutionary" — this view is held by those who see historical progress culminate in Christ, and in the redemption available through the event of his life. The other Ruether calls "revolutionary" — historical progress towards perfection culminates in revolution (see picture 2). In both instances there are favoured agents in this so-called progress of history: white, Christian males (all others fall somewhere behind them on the historical jet to perfection).

For feminists, it is difficult to accept these models. Women do not need men to rule over them any more than nature needs humans to rule over it. The "Great Chain of Being" fosters relationships of exploitation, not of love and

 

116

 

care. As for the second model, a linear model of history moving towards the perfect is unacceptable precisely because of the fact that men define and control this "perfection". Ruether has formulated an alternative model of cosmology as a response to these criticisms. According to her, there are processes inherent in nature that can continually renew life. However, these processes have been disrupted because we have used our gift of intelligence to exploit, rather than to serve others and the earth. We have sinned. Ruether believes that, through different historical contexts, humanity can follow circles of continuous conversion that will draw it back to centres of just and "liveable" relationships (see picture 3).

 

Christology (study of Christ)

What is important about Christ is the incarnation, and what is important about the incarnation is that God became human. So often, in traditional theology, Jesus' gender is used to suggest that "maleness is more appropriate to God than femaleness". Indeed, this is basically the theological argument adopted by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic and other churches in their refusal to ordain women.

But, as Ruether asserts: "The historical accidents of Jesus' person — maleness, Jewishness, social class — do not suggest that God is more incarnate into these particularities than into others". Rather, the fact of the incarnation encompasses humans of all races and genders. Christ is not a justification for existing patriarchal or hierarchical social structures, but rather someone after whom we can pattern ourselves in order to create a new and liberated humanity. And here, no doubt, Ruether must sound a bit heretical to many "recognised" theologians, for she claims that Jesus as a past, historical person is not the only model we have for Christ. Jesus did not proclaim himself but rather a future of liberated humanity, and because he was faithful to this vision of God's will he must indeed be considered Christ. But we too are called to that vision and have a responsibility to recognise other models of Christ in our midst, in this day and age.

 

Anthropology (study of humanity)

As with cosmology, there are two traditional models — in this case, they explain the relationship betwen men and women. The first model, popular before the eighteenth century in Europe, is a hierarchical model not unlike the human pyramid in picture 1. In this model, males have the best qualities of both mind and spirit while females are viewed as servants and the followers of male leaders. Around the start of the eighteenth century, there was a gradual shift in the means of production in Europe. The home became no longer the main centre of production; women, who remained in the home, acquired new, more specifically domestic, roles. At the same time, religion became more of a private matter. Thus, another model: one which Ruether calls the com- plementarity model. Under this model, men and women have distinct personal characteristics and distinct spheres of influence which complement one another. Whereas men are more aggressive, egoistic, materialistic, rational, and secular; women are more passive, altruistic, self-sacrificing, nurturing, and religious. In such a model it is only fitting, then, that men have

 

117

 

responsibility in the "real" world of work outside the home and women are considered best suited to keep the home fires burning. This model further suggests that man and woman can most ideally complement one another when they are joined in that perfect union of holy matrimony.

Ruether doesn't introduce her own model, but criticises these two, as well as another model promoted by radical feminists. This is the complementarity model turned inside out so that it becomes a model of opposition between men and women. Radical feminists often mistakenly claim (or at least give the impression that they claim) that women are morally superior to men. Women tend to be naturally good and integrated human beings; men tend to be naturally evil and schizophrenic, not having resolved the dualisms in their lives.

Although Ruether recognises that, by being excluded from power structures, woman has been forced to develop "those qualities that are necessary, not only to balance, but to transform the distorted tendencies that appear in those who exercise power," she is quite careful not to idealise woman. She stresses that both men and women sin and are in need of redemption.

 

Redemption (salvation)

Not only does the orthodox Christian tradition conceive of the redeemer as normatively male; it regards redemption as a repudiation of the "lower" sphere (in which sex, a "base desire", and the female body play a prominent role). In this form of redemption sexuality disappears. But Ruether affirms the goodness of sexuality and rejects a definition of redemption that calls for personal conversion. As long as sin and salvation only deal with private matters, structures of injustice will continue unchecked.

Ruether defines redemption as the quest for the good self that must go hand in hand with the quest for the good society — the two cannot be separated. So, for example, in the quest for the good society we seek ways by which ownership and management of work are in the hands of the workers. But we must also recognise that these workers must have more than their own self-interests at heart if justice is to be realised. Redemption demands conversion at both the social and personal levels.

These, then, are a few examples of how one feminist has rethought traditional theological categories in such a way as to redefine women — as no longer marginal and passive subjects of theology, but active agents of it. It is through such active engagement that we, too, can transform theological agendae of the future.

 

Notes

1. WEIDMAN, Judith L. (ed), Christian feminism: visions of a new humanity. Harper and Row, New York, 1984

2. RUETHER, Rosemary R., Sexism and God-talk: toward a feminist theology. Beacon Press, Boston, 1983.