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.