Home

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Feminism

Viewpoints

Quarterly Newsletter

Letters to the Editor

Mission

The Persecuted Church

Ecumenical Connections

How You Can Help

The VOW Budget

Contact VOW
 

Christianity Emptied of Compassion
A Critique of Four Primers
about Feminist Theology
by
Viola Larson

Four primers published by The Women’s Ministry Area deal with the theology of women who feel alienated and marginalized. The authors stress how some women look back to memories of their community’s past lived in slavery and degradation. They stress how some look to the memories of ancestors who were abused in the brothels of San Francisco and other disreputable places in the Western United States. The authors emphasize the feelings of those who simply feel put off by men who do not believe women should be in ministry. They write about those who, although Americans, feel displaced and unwelcome.

 
Most Christians would look at the above list of needy women and go to the scriptures for answers to such tremendous concerns. Yet, the authors of these books give the impression that Christian doctrine and even the biblical text are the cause of such distress. Their efforts are focused on finding a way around two thousand years of Christianity without losing the name Christian.

At least two of these primers, The Womanist Theology Primer: Remembering What We Never Knew: the Epistemology of Womanist Theology by Katie G. Cannon and Coming Home: Asian American Women Doing Theology by Unzu Lee, totally fail to deal with the essentials of Christian theology, that is, such topics as the Trinity and the incarnation. Toward a Liberating Faith: Introduction to Mujerista Theology by Magdalena L. Garcia does mention the incarnation. However, generally the authors of these primers focus on methodology, histories of oppressive patriarchies and the needs of the ethnic groups for which they are writing.

The first primer published, Toward a Liberating Faith: a Primer on Feminist Theology by Isabel Rogers, deals with some particulars but hardly in a straightforward way. She begins her primer by describing the oppressiveness of patriarchy. Two of the other authors, Garcia and Lee follow Rogers, explaining that feminist theology was developed to counter male bias. Rogers begins with the male Hebrew society. Garcia, like Rogers, focuses on the bias of the Hebrew text. Rogers goes on to show the patriarchal bias of some of the church fathers. She focuses on several church fathers in particular; Lee generalizes referring to Rogers’ primer.

In attempting to cover each primer fairly, I will first look at how Rogers and Garcia deal with the Hebrew Bible.  Second I will look at how Rogers and Lee deal with the church fathers. Third I will explore the different types of feminist theology presented by these books. Finally I will explain how a certain kind of deception permeates all of the primers.

The Hebrew Bible and Women

Rogers’ complaints against the patriarchy of the Hebrew Bible can be seen from several of her statements: “Both Hebrew and Graeco-Roman societies were male-centered and male dominated; women most often did not count as persons to be taken seriously. Most of the Biblical documents reflect this male focus,” and, “A woman had few rights in Israel. She could be punished for sexual infidelity, but he would be punished only if he violated another man’s rights.” Added to this is Rogers’ insistence that “adultery was forbidden, not so much because it was the breaking of a relationship as because it was taking another man’s property.”(2)

 Notice that equating the patriarchy of the Hebrew and Graeco-Roman societies with each other and then with the text of the Hebrew Bible sets the parameters for discussing the meaning of the text. But this can only be effective if one considers the text simply a human product rather then a text inspired by the Holy Spirit. Right at the start, Rogers misses the point of scripture; the God of the Hebrews is the subject of the Hebrew Scriptures. And God as subject counterbalances the patriarchy found in the text.

God’s covenant with Israel is of utter importance. Within that covenant the Lord of Israel sets boundaries for the protection of his people, both men and women. Also, scripture depicts how fallen humanity mistreats one another, including the mistreatment of women and men by each other. The scriptures do not condone the treatment; rather they faithfully and truthfully insist the reader see humanity as terribly marred.

Also, like all ancient peoples, the Hebrews thought in terms of community and God gave them laws which addressed the individual within a community. Because of the holiness of God, the Hebrews, as the people of God, were to be holy. For example, in Leviticus, the eighteenth chapter, God gives Israel commandments that are meant to turn them away from the sins of Egypt and the sins of Canaan. The words of this chapter speak against many differing forbidden sexual and idolatrous acts which have to do with relationship not ownership.

For example, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s blood relative. This has to do with relationship and two reasons are stressed for such a law; it is lewd and not only will the people be defiled but also the land. The theology of the Hebrew Bible places God and his holiness above all and judges relationships with that holiness, even a people’s relationship to the land.

The same can be said for the tenth commandment, a commandment which Rogers uses to reinforce her idea that the demand that men not commit adultery has to do with rights. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:17) Professor Joe M. Sprinkle turns the meaning toward the scriptures’ subject, God. In this case the text is concerned with God’s purposes for his people.  As Sprinkle puts it, to covet is to sin against the purposes of God since it leads to stealing and depriving others of “the blessings and tangible benefits that God meant his people to enjoy.” This means such sin is against both man and woman and is not about either male or female rights. 1

In her primer, Garcia asks the question, “How can we resolve the contradiction between the God who creates and the text that destroys?” She then goes on to assert so many accusations against the Hebrew Bible that it is possible to answer only a few in this article. Garcia lists Genesis 2:18-25 and states, “[Women] occupied a position subordinate to that of men because supposedly the male had been created first.”

But, although some men interpret these verses in Genesis in such a manner, the Bible does not. Paul when writing about the dress codes for women as they pray and preach does state that “man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” Yet, he goes on to say, “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.” (1 Cor. 11:8; 11-12)

This same subject matter is taken up again in 1 Timothy 2:9-15, but this time it seems Paul is addressing certain women in the church who were authoritarian, immodest and seemingly involved in some kind of false teaching. All of this is alluded to in the text since Paul lays down rules for the women based on modesty, and submissiveness and connects this to Eve’s deception and women’s bearing of children.

Some scholars have suggested that the women were involved in some early form of Gnosticism or what is referred to as insipid or proto-Gnosticism. Gnostics believed that salvation was based on knowledge rather than the sacrifice of Christ and this meant that salvation belonged to an elite group giving some an authoritarian mindset. And since most Gnostics believed the material world was evil and humanity consisted of divine sparks held captive in human bodies, childbirth was discouraged. 2

Garcia goes on to write, “[Women] were considered inferior to men in every respect and were like any other object of their possession.” She, like Rogers, cites Exodus 20:17. But the reader remembering that the Hebrew Bible is about God and his relationship to Israel, and realizing that God’s relationship with Israel includes both men and women, will find it important to look at all of the scriptures and all of the stories about women. It is also important to understand how the Lord of the scriptures relates to the women in the stories.

 One of the more telling stories of God’s gracious dealings with women has to do with the parents of Samson. The father’s name is Manoah but the mother’s is not given. Nevertheless the story reveals a God who speaks with and uses a woman he has gifted with intelligence and common sense. God calls her to the vocation of motherhood and uses her to help a husband who is a bit of a buffoon. The story is really very funny but also very beautiful.

The Angel of the Lord appears to the woman telling her of a son that is to be born and giving her instructions since the son will be a Nazirite. The husband insists on seeing the Angel of the Lord, but the Angel of the Lord chooses instead to appear the second time to the woman. She goes and finds her husband who then insists the angel’s instructions be repeated over again. Following this replay, Manoah wants to serve dinner to the visitor; he also asks the visitor’s name, but instead is told to make a sacrifice to the angel who explains that his name is “Wonderful.”

While the sacrifice is burning the Angel of the Lord ascends in the smoke. Manoah realizes, as does the reader, that this is a theophany of Yahweh. Manoah fears for his life because he has seen the Lord. Finally, at last, he listens to his wife who says, “If the Lord had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would he have shown us all these things, nor would he have let us hear things like this at this time.” (Judges 13: 23)

The Church Fathers and Women

Rogers takes up her complaint against the Church Fathers by suggesting that they tended to take their cues from Paul rather than Jesus. She then complains about the Greek philosophers' influence on the church fathers.  But Rogers, while right about several outlandish statements by some church fathers is confused about Augustine, one of the strong proponents of justification by faith. Rogers writes, “Look, for instance at Augustine, the great fifth Century figure who inspired the thinking of both Luther and Calvin. It was Augustine’s conviction that a woman does not reflect the image of God except through a relationship with a man.” (3)

Rogers has taken a quote of Augustine’s out of context and does not understand the point he is trying to make. Augustine is working on a philosophical problem which has to do with the Trinity and the Platonic view of the mind. What Roger’s refers to is a quote in which Augustine restates 1Corinthians 11:7-9. However, in his conclusion, Augustine states that that part of humanity which reflects God “not only men but also women possess.”3

 
While Rogers makes a distinction between church doctrine and some of the more outlandish statements of the church fathers, Lee, in her booklet, links orthodox doctrine to their philosophical wanderings. She concludes that Christian theology as it was shaped and stated in the past is simply the result of reflections, “based on these assumptions and practices [the particularities of the church fathers that is, their gender, class, etc.].” Lee does not believe that the great doctrines of the church are based on biblical truth.

Going further Lee writes, “Furthermore, this theological heritage is, to a great extent, a set of truth claims that have been upheld by the institutional church as truth because they served the political interests of the church in its historical context.” (5) She next lists various questions that she sees various people asking about theological statements including, “Who benefits from certain theological claims and who does not?” (5) From this follows the listing of various kinds of theology Lee sees growing out of contemporary theological questions grounded in different cultures’ experiences.

Fragmenting Feminist Theologies

Feminist theologies tend to fragment since they are grounded in experience rather than biblical revelation. And although Lee gives two examples of women doing theology with Jesus, the Samaritan woman and the Syrophoenician woman, her examples are not meant to teach scriptural truth but to help the reader understand how to do theology.

Lee proceeds from her examples to an explanation of liberation theology which under girds most feminist theology. To understand most feminist theology a clear understanding of liberation theology is needed. In an article on liberation theology I have explained that one of the important aspects of liberation theology is the concept that knowledge acquired from cultural experience leads to action, what is called “praxis,” and the action precedes reflection on theology. “One acts for the poor and oppressed and then reflects on the meaning of the action in the light of God’s word. This is in opposition to reflecting on God’s word and then allowing its light to shine on the needs of the poor as well as the action of those who are assisting the poor.”

 “Additionally, many liberation theologians insist one only encounters God in action on behalf of the poor and oppressed or even simply, one is encountered by God in the poor and oppressed. This can be seen in the movie The Mission. Robert De Niro plays a degenerate slave trader who has killed his own brother. In repentance he carries his pack of armor up the steep terrains of the jungle where a young tribe’s member finally releases him from his burden. For the Evangelical Christian the young South American Indian becomes a metaphor for the work of Christ who has both saved the slave trader and reconciled him to his former enemy. For the Liberation Theologian the encounter with the young man is the actual means of salvation. The slave trader can only find release in the actions of a potential slave.” 4

Lee, quoting from the book Doing Theology in a Divided World: Papers from the Sixth International Conference of the Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians, writes, “To liberation theologians, the purpose of doing theology is ‘to be a service to life and to human services,’ and the ultimate criterion of the truthfulness of any theological claim is ‘orthopraxis’ rather than orthodoxy [That is, right action rather than right doctrine].”(9) To explain Lee’s meaning further, rather than seeing revelation as truth informing theology which then demands right action, right action affirms or even forms the truthfulness of theology.

One can see from the above explanation on methodology that each ethnic theology must find truth in the cultural needs and experiences of its particular group. Feminist theology shaped by the feminism of the late twentieth century (second wave feminism), was formed from the experiences of Anglo-American women in the late twentieth century and reflects their experiences.

A good example of how a different culture might perceive Anglo-American feminist theology can be seen in the movie Spanglish, in which a Hispanic immigrant and her daughter live and work in the home of an Anglo-American family. The Anglo-American wife is in some sense caricatured as very individualistic, aggressive, and materialistic. According to the views of many ethnic feminists she is an unsuitable role model for the young Hispanic girl.

 Needless to say, seeing truth as only that which meets cultural needs has yielded a dizzying array of theologies. But it also tends to create a homogeneous view of each culture characterizing each ethnic group in a stereotypical manner which could eventually lead to scapegoating. Forgotten is the view that all Christians are citizens of heaven and members of the same kingdom.

               Exploring the Different
            Types of Feminist Theology

Womanist Theology : Cannon’s primer on Womanist theology, (African-American), is different than the others since she tends to focus on pedagogy and even supplies a lesson plan or syllabus. Cannon, like Lee refers to liberation theology and provides several concepts which she believes aids in the theological work of African-American women.

One of her concepts is tied to her use of African-American women novelist and the view that Afrrican-American women’s bodies are the texts to read. Referring to Toni Morrison, a recipient of the Nobel Prize for her novel, The Beloved, Cannon writes, “heteropatriarchs have worked out, have worked on, have inscribed their death-dealing theologies on the canvas, that is on the flesh of Black people.” (14)(Italics the authors)

Another concept Cannon uses, and this also is aided by Morrison, is the idea of embodied theos [god]. This has to do with the experiences of a particular people in a particular place. (15)  From this comes the idea of memory as an aide in doing womanist theology. In the end Cannon equates knowledge of God “as doing justice.” (17) African-American theology, as seen by Cannon is simply a repudiation of traditional theology which she sees as the cause of repression of African-American women. Along side of this is the radical liberation view, Cannon’s understanding of embodied theos, that God‘s revelation is found in the ethnic, or cultural group.

Mujerista Theology : Garcia, quoting Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz, a radical Catholic feminist, writes, “Therefore, the source and starting point for mujerista theology is precisely the daily lives of Hispanic or Latina women with all their traditions because ‘we firmly believe that those religious understandings are part of the ongoing revelation of God, present in the midst of the community of faith and giving strength to Hispanic women’s struggle for liberation.’” Here again we see revelation given by both ethnicity and culture.5

Gracia again quotes Isasi-Diaz, “’For mujerista theologians it is clear that theology is not so much about God as about how we understand and relate to God. And that is precisely one of the reasons of our insistence on the lived-experience of Latinas as the source of our theology.’”6 Also, again, here one sees the insistence that action comes before and is the basis for truth in this form of feminist theology. The Christian gospel is reduced to revelation in culture and ethnicity plus action for ethnicity and culture.

Asian American Theology : Lee, after writing abut the oppression of Asian women and how they always feel like foreigners in America, writes about what it means to express the good news of Jesus Christ as Asian women, and how they understand it in their “particular context.” (18) In a large list of how to “engage” in “theological inquiry,” one syncretistic suggestion is that they “draw on several sources, including lived experience, Christian tradition, the Bible, cultural symbols and images, folklore, intellectual discourses on the theological topic of interest, and Asian and Asian American traditions.”(19)

Lee also places action at the forefront of theological reflection using several Asia-American theologians, among them Rita Nakashima Brock, a radical feminist who rejects almost all the biblical truths held by Christians through the centuries. Lee refers to Brock’s suggestion that help for Asian-American women attempting to preserve their self-integrity is to be found in spaces between “oppression and liberation, sin and salvation, brokenness and wholeness. …”7

The way to maintain such integrity for Asian-American women, according to Brock, is to “look for spiritual resources by turning to traditional Asian women’s survival strategies, East Asian nondualistic metaphysics[a religious view that sees reality as one including God, that is pantheism], and spiritual practices, myths and stories of strong as well as victimized women, and Asian American women’s writings.”8(27) Since the Asian-American community is a widely diverse community the syncretistic span of spiritual resources for both shaping theology and doing theology seems to be extensive and mostly unorthodox.

The Deception that Permeates
All of the Primers

Although, undoubtedly, not intentional, by not making clear statements on the essential tenets of the faith, all the authors of these four primers have avoided alienating and alarming others in the church. Conversely, by not affirming biblical truths they have also failed to offer any real solution to those women who suffer from the kinds of alienation written about in the booklets. Directing others toward unbiblical practices, false religion and a faith devoid of redemption either shows a lack of Christian faith or a lack of compassion. Although the authors have started from women’s experiences they have not applied the saving and transforming work of Jesus Christ to those experiences. And in reality their methodology leads to a different faith.

Rogers, in her primer, uses Mary Daly, an extremely radical feminist who has rejected Christianity for paganism and the occult, as an example of someone whose theology is, of course, unchristian. She then proceeds to introduce the theology of Rosemary Radford Ruether, also a radical feminist but one who calls herself a Christian, as a theologian who can be trusted. Rogers then uses Ruether’s book Sexism and God-Talk as a reference to explain what it means for Jesus Christ to be male.

 Attempting to show the difference between Daly’s views on the incarnation (Daly rejected the incarnation) and the supposed Christianity of Ruether, Rogers writes, “Rosemary Ruether claims that what is crucial about Jesus is the fullness of his humanity—humanity as God intended it to be. He was a human being who rejected false ideas about the importance of social status and the structures of domination and submission, and called us to be servants to each other.” (8) As can be seen, Ruether’s views on the incarnation are not faithful to the Bible or the Confessions.

Not only does the paraphrase Rogers uses not speak of Jesus Christ as both God and human, in Sexism and God-Talk, Ruether denies that Jesus is the unique Christ.9 Likewise, Rita Nakashima Brock, one of the theologians used by Lee (see above), denies the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross, in fact she holds that such teaching “is the deepest betrayal of Christianity ever perpetrated.”10 Brock also denies the uniqueness of the incarnation. The fact is few of the theologians being used in these booklets hold orthodox views about the essentials of the faith.

In all of these primers little is said about the great doctrines of the Church. It is uncertain if these authors acknowledge a steadfast Lord who cares for them.  Nothing is written about how their lives are shaped and formed by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Nothing is written about how the Holy Spirit has comforted them in their sorrow; nothing about the written word of God as a means of finding, at last, faithful guidance in the midst of alienation. Jesus Christ, Lord of the church, the wonderful truths of his life, death and resurrection are missing from the words of these authors. In these primers Christianity loses its compassion which is in Jesus Christ.