|
VOW
|
A Feminist Ethic of Care and God’s Words of Care by Viola Larson Feminist philosophers and theologians are attempting to formulate an ethic of care as an alternative to ethics based only on abstract principles. They are responding to the failure of Enlightenment ethics. There are two ways in which Enlightenment ethics fail. The first is the failure to address ethics at a personal level. Abstract principles have no connection to the private actions of the individual isolated from others. In such a case ethics would be based simply on their emotional state. Such states might lead to an individual ethic of self-inflicted pain rather than one of self-respect. The second way Enlightenment ethics fail is due to its foundation in rational philosophy. Advocates of rational philosophy often equate human goodness with intelligence and reason; they tend to ignore emotions equating them with the irrational and/or unreasoning forces of nature. Conversely, such contemporary thinkers as Carol Gilligan argue that mature moral thinking encompasses tension and complication due to the finitude and complexity of humans. Additionally, Gilligan and most feminists who are interested in an ethic of care are attempting to add human emotional responses to ethical equations.1 A feminist ethic of care is ethics based on concrete human relationships. It is an ethic that includes differences in culture as well as human complexity and human finitude. Such an ethic also includes the individual concrete self in evaluation. Feminists are interested in such an ethic since it could include as ethical not only decisions about fairness and justice but such acts as nurturing children, caring for the earth and personal growth. It would lift up community and encourage risk taking for the sake of community. Including the concrete individual in the evaluation allows the person making the ethical decision the right to consider their own worth and value their own integrity as part of the decision. Also, cultural uniqueness is valued and preserved when ethical decisions are made using concrete individuals rather than abstract universals. Any ethical system not validated by abstract principles must be validated in some other way in order for ethical mandates to be justified. There are many problems connected to the philosophical positions used to validate an ethic of care.* However, many religious feminists are using feminist theology as grounds for a feminist’s ethic of care. I focus on three feminist theologians, Sharon D. Welch, Rosemary Radford Ruether and Mary Daly. Although their approaches and terminologies are different they hold the same theological conclusions. However, while their ethical values are admirable their theologies do not validate an ethic of care and, in fact, do harm to those values. The Concrete Person and Human Action as Divinity In an attempt to give importance to the concrete person the three theologians have equated human action with divinity. They reject the biblical understanding of God’s revelation of Himself and instead see human experience as the revealer of deity. Welch, wishing to emphasize the powerlessness or finitude of humanity and humanity’s need of community, love and resistance to evil, sees deity in just those terms.2 Rosemary Radford Ruether wishes to emphasis the full humanity of women as well as an organic community committed to equality for all including the natural world. Her deity is “the primordial matrix” of matter/energy who is the total self of the universe.3 Mary Daly, who seeks for a new identity for women, views deity as “verb” and understands the Feminist Movement as the unfolding of God. In such cases, whether deity is personal or impersonal, humanity becomes the means for deity’s self- identity. In such a scenario individuals, differing cultures and communities may demonstrate the kind of care feminist theologians are writing about but their action becomes only a means in an unfolding of deity. Furthermore, any good thing raised to the state of divinity, without the attribute of perfection, can become evil. In such theology since God does not stand outside of the human experience providing a standard of good who is to say which actions are divine and therefore caring; there is no way of judging good or evil. Many feminists have, in fact, endorsed feminist separation as a cultural incarnation and have failed to see it as a portent of evil. Self, Relationships and the Problem of Evil In an attempt to safeguard self, community and the relationships within the community as good, Feminist theologians have run aground on the problem of evil. They essentially treat a part of humanity as scapegoats or ultimately necessitate a final negation of the self. This is so because they hold to a theology of immanence that places the whole issue of evil squarely on humanity. That is, they equate God with creation therefore evil must be dealt with by humanity alone. Some very radical Feminists theologians equate men with evil and encourage women to separate from them. Mary Daly for instance equates men with “unwanted fetal tissue” and writes of women, “Left undisturbed, we are free to find our own concordance, to hear our own harmony, the harmony of the spheres.” 4 Most feminist theology, however, is more complex and its solutions more sophisticated. Many Feminist theologians equate deity with the authentic self. They equate the individual self, which is unique, with that part of humanity that is alienated from community, nature and the authentic self. Letting go of evil means relinquishing individual self for the sake of the authentic self that is seen as divine. Although Feminist theologians have tried to formulate a theology that gives women a positive identity they unintentionally have created a theological system in which the human desire for uniqueness and self-worth are equated with evil. Individuals are compelled in the end to relinquish the self to a supposedly greater or higher good such as the community or even “the great matrix of being.” Ruether, in fact, equates the physical death of the individual, (which she considers the complete loss of the self), with the overcoming of “egoism” in relation to the community.5 Grounding Feminist ethics On God’s Word “Knowledge about God given by God” as a foundation for feminist ethics is important since it means that definitions about God are only valid if they are defined in and by the being of God. That is, what God is, is the true meaning of such words as father or eternality. (Ephesians 3:14,15) From those valid definitions ethical mandates can be measured. When feminists contend that definitions of God as omnipotent, omniscient and transcendent trap humanity in the role of oppressor they fail to understand the significance of the words “God’s revelation.” They understand that human tyranny often develops when persons hold too much power and project that understanding onto the orthodox image of God. Karl Barth comments on just this misunderstanding in The Knowledge of God And The Service Of God According To The Teaching Of The Reformation. Barth writes: We have not to draw our knowledge of who God is from what we think we know about eternity, infinity, omnipotence and invisibility as conceptions which bound our thought. On the contrary, we have to draw our knowledge of eternity, infinity, omnipotence and invisibility from what we can know about God, from what God has said to us about Himself.6To learn the meaning of such words as power or absolute or even father by observing humanity is too often to learn a lie not only about the words but also about God. Instead, knowledge about God given by God truly defines good and evil. God who is good and who is love is the standard against which evil can be discerned, protested, and resisted. His goodness and love are qualities that a feminist ethic of care can image. God reveals himself to humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. In the humanity of Jesus, in His actions and attitudes, God defines such words as power and weakness, care and harm, death and life. In his death Christ gives power to weakness by overcoming death with his resurrection. In his revelation of who God is Christ also gives identity to individuals. Dorothy Sayers probably expressed a women’s view of Jesus’ attitudes toward women best. She wrote: Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the cradle and last at the cross. They had never known a man like this Man -- . . . .Who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious. There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about women’s nature.7
The third reason for grounding feminist ethics on orthodox principles is the biblical understanding of grace. Grace, according to orthodox understanding, is given to humanity because of Christ’s life, death on the cross and resurrection. That is God’s goodness offered as an unexpected and undeserved gift to humanity. This gift of God puts humanity on an equal basis, deals with human evil and gives a stable reason for taking risks. Biblical grace entails a community of caring individuals. Within the community grace validates an ethic of care. I will address each of these subjects in turn. 1. Equality Each person is alienated from God as well as creation. Grace is given because humanity is alienated. Orthodox theology places men and women in equal positions as those alienated and those called to receive grace. The Biblical mandate is equality; “there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28b) While many male church leaders in various denominations still insist on women accepting inferior roles in church government and ministry, there are both biblical and historical reasons for rejecting such teaching.8 Women are called to a full and equal life in Christ. A feminist ethics of care, which includes equality, can be grounded on orthodox principles. 2. Human Evil Orthodoxy and the biblical text insists that humanity is flawed – all of humanity. But grace is the biblical answer for humanity. Grace means there is both mercy and forgiveness for those who acknowledge their own personal evil. There is also a reason to name, protest against, and resist evil in any form. While Jesus was kind and caring to the poor, the sick, and those who acknowledged their need, he was often angry with those who used and despised others. But his anger was always expressed as a call to repentance for the evildoer. Because of grace both anger and love are ethical emotions found in orthodox principles. Feminist ethics, which include emotional responses such as anger and love, can safely be founded on orthodox principles. Additionally, the orthodox answer to the problem of evil affirms the importance of the self. There can be no loss of the individual personality; no final absorption into the energy of a primal matrix. In orthodoxy God is separate from creation but deeply concerned with creation. God cares for the individual, the community and all of creation. While the biblical text calls for Jesus’ followers to “deny themselves” (Matt. 16:25) this is a call to obedience and relationship. Paradoxically, in orthodoxy denying the self means keeping the self. In The Screwtape Letters, the author, C.S. Lewis, clarifies this subject in a humorous manner. (The speaker, an arch-demon, is writing to his nephew about humans and their relationship to God. The demon refers to God as the Enemy.) Lewis writes: Of course I know that the Enemy also wants to detach men from themselves, but in a different way. Remember always, that He really likes the little vermin, and sets an absurd value on the distinctness of everyone of them. When He talks of their losing their selves, He only means abandoning the clamor of self-will; once they have done that, He gives them back all their personality, and boasts (I am afraid, sincerely) that when they are wholly His they will be more themselves than ever.93. Risk Taking Taking risks is basic to Christian discipleship. However, those who follow Christ can take risks because in the present they are eternal in Christ. No risk taken for Christ is ever lost however defeated the risk taker might be. Mary Slessor is an example. A Scottish missionary of the nineteenth century, she served in Calabar, West Africa. Slessor cared for babies abandoned because they were twins or were cutting their teeth the wrong way. She settled fights between feuding tribes and prevented “the appalling punishments the chiefs were in the habit of doling out to minor wrongdoers.” She ran a school and dispensary. Slessor died having experienced great suffering including being covered with boils and going bald. After her death a civil war in West Africa destroyed all that she had accomplished except for the memory of her spiritual nurture which would cause later Christian work to flourish. More importantly, Slessor's work and the risks she took, still have meaning with Christ and His Church. 4. Community The orthodox principle of grace insures a community of caring people. In fact, the biblical community is a risking community connected to ancient covenants and peoples. The biblical text demands that the Church look back to the faithfulness of ancient people. They are to remember such men of faith as Noah and Abraham. Likewise, they are to remember such women of faith as Rahab the prostitute, and Shiphrah and Puah, the Hebrew midwives who saved the babies of the Hebrew slaves. But more than a remembrance of the wisdom, tenacity or faithfulness of the ancient Hebrews the community of grace is to remember the faithfulness of God to those people. They are to remember that God caused Abraham to be the father of many nations, that God saved Rahab’s family and she became an ancestor of Christ, and God gave Shiphrah and Puah families of their own. (Joshua 6:25, Matt. 1:5, Exodus 1:20) Care within the community is an ethical mandate that is important to orthodoxy and is also grounded in grace. All of Christ’s activity can be seen as care. Jesus is the example. Teaching the truth, caring for the sick, holding a child, flogging the money changers and serving the discouraged disciples breakfast were all caring acts. When He washed the feet of the disciples he told them “if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” (John 13:14) Leaders in the community are called to be servants, and ultimately all disciples are called to be servants both within and outside the community. At the same time, the biblical text does not insist on domestic servanthood for women. Christ himself praised Mary for sitting at his feet learning although her sister Martha protested that she should help with domestic chores. (Luke 10:38-42) Although Dorcas cared for those around her by sewing clothes for the poor (Acts 9:36-40), Phoebe ministered as a deacon in the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1) and Euodia and Syntyche “struggled beside” Paul in the work of the gospel.” (Phil. 4:2-3) Furthermore, care for others and for creation is mandated so that care
within the community extends outward to others and nature. Both the Hebrew
and Christian texts are rich with pictures of God’s love and pleasure with
his creation. For instance, the last five chapters of Job resound with
God’s pleasure in the animals he has created, while the New Testament states
that God not only feeds the sparrows and ravens but also never forgets
them. (Luke 12:6, 24) More importantly the biblical understanding of redemption
includes the redemption of nature. (Romans 8:19-21) Indeed grace embraces
all under the ethic of care. Even the individual discovers an ethic of
care in orthodoxy since grace creates a relationship between the person
and a personal God. The individual in fellowship with God finds a reason
for ethical action whether alone or in community.
About the Author: Viola Larson has a BA in Philosophy and in Religious Studies, and a
Masters
___________
* for a complete discussion of these problems as well as a larger article see "A Feminist Ethic of Care Based on Biblical Principles" at http://www.naminggrace.org/id52.htm 1 Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s
Development, 32d ed., (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
1993), 103.
|