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
 

In this section I will explore the difference between radical feminist theology and biblical faith. Because feminist theology is based on women’ experience it is fragmenting into many experiences, thus many theologies. In order to study and understand what radical feminists believe one ought to own a library of books by feminists. I do! But I will in many cases, in this section use Dictionary of Feminist Theologies1 Since the articles are written by mostly radical feminists, and the publisher is Westminster John Knox Press, a Reformed press, it seems to me, to be the best example of what defines radical feminist theology. But I will also make use of other material especially if it is written by those claiming to be in the Reformed tradition, or recommended by those leaders in the Presbyterian Women’s Ministry Area. If I am using Dictionary of Feminist Theologies I will simply put the page number in parenthesis within my text.

In the eighties, as a member of a ministry called Apologetics Resource Center, I went, at request, with a  Christian woman to visit her friend who was being taught by two Jehovah’s Witnesses. We sat talking about what it means to be a Christian. I explained what Christians mean when they talk about the Trinity; a belief Jehovah’s Witnesses do not hold since they reject the deity of Jesus Christ and see the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force. At one point the woman I came with simply exploded with a joyful witness of her own past conversion experience. Her face and smile, glowing with God’s love, was used by God to move her friend away from the false teaching of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and into a relationship with Jesus Christ. The woman used her experience to lead another to Christ. So how is that different from radical feminists who interpret scripture from women’s experience? Both have an experience that shape their religious faith but they are polar lengths apart. The woman who led her friend to Jesus talked about her conversion experience but that conversion came from scripture, was based on scripture, and supported scripture. It was not theologically or experientially different than the confessions, creeds and scriptures of the church. Her experience was centered in the word of God.

Radical feminists begin their theology using women’s experience as a starting point. Both Christian theology and scripture are reinterpreted using women’s experience. Cynthia Campbell in her booklet, Theologies Written from Feminist Perspectives: an Introductory Study explains that “feminist theologians urge that the experience of women must now influence thought about God and human condition.” Campbell gives three reasons for the use of experience when doing theology. She writes:

First, feminists assert the experience of being female is significantly different from the experience of being male. Second, they argue that the experience of women is basic to a full understanding of what it means to be human. Third, feminists suggest that the record of this experience has been lost (some would say censored or removed) from Christian tradition and must be recovered so that a full view of that tradition can be obtained.2

Along side of a theology of experience is the feminist’s emphasis on patriarchal systems of rule in society, home and particularly in the text of the scripture. Some feminists believe the Bible to be simply a book composed by humans and believe that men have erased or lessened the role of women in the text. Others believe the Bible carries within it words that can be used by God to form theology but also texts which are so flawed, because of patriarchy, that they must be ignored or changed in some manner. For instance in the 2006-7 Horizons Bible Study, “In The Beginning: Perspectives on Genesis,” the author makes this statement, “The study recognizes that there are stories embedded within larger stories, that there are characters whom have been ignored, and there are voices in the text that are muted, if not outright silenced.”3 Seeking a theology which bypasses what is perceived as oppressive in the scriptures and wishing to find what is believed lost, that is an alternative theology based on a feminine deity, radical feminists make use of various texts and movements to do theology. After listing a few of the images and concepts acceptable in the Bible, Elizabeth A. Johnson goes on to list other outside sources: “In ancient paganism, as well as in countercultural movements in Christian history such as Gnosticism or Shakerism, feminist theologians find glimpses of alternatives suppressed by Western patriarchal religion: female deity or women’s messianic equality. (129)” Radical Feminist theologians are not timid about placing outside sources on a par with or above scripture. Therefore, looking at many of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith I will note how radical feminists use experience in interpretation and how their constant battle with what they perceive to be the over-riding sin of humanity, oppression of women by men, influences their theology. And the question will be asked “Is radical feminist theology Christian?”

The Being of God:

In orthodox Christianity, God is understood to be both transcendent and immanent. That is God is both other than creation (transcendent) but involved at a personal level with creation (immanent). For instance, Isaiah 40 not only pictures God as a shepherd who tends his flock and carries the lambs “in his bosom,” but he is also seen as one whose “understanding is inscrutable.” Biblically, God in his self is beyond human understanding unless he reveals himself through revelation. The final revelation is, of course, his Son Jesus Christ. “All things have been handed over to me [Jesus Christ] by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27)”

Radical Feminist theologians choose between pantheism, (Everything is God) or panentheism (Creation is God but God is more than creation). Panentheism, the most prevalent view among feminist theologians, is understood by seeing creation as God’s body and God as the head of the body. In panentheism creation influences God as much as God influences creation. This means that God is really only immanent. For instance, Sallie Mcfague writes, “While the Holy Spirit has often been seen as the immanent side of God, feminists see God as basically and radically immanent and the Holy Spirit as a central, if not the primary, ‘name’ for God. (147)” In the same context the Holy Spirit is also seen as a force, power or energy and is often referred to as “it.” God’s sovereignty and personal-ness is lost. Sometimes an attempt is made to keep God’s transcendence by redefining the term. Transcendence becomes a subset of immanence. Fredrica Harris Thompsett mentions several feminists and their redefinitions. For instance, she paraphrases Carter Heyward and Beverly Harrison who redefine transcendence to mean, “a power shaped through religious intuition and spiritual resourcefulness, a power that overcomes alienation from others, affirming mutual relation as creative and redemptive. (302)” Notice that the definition, besides being obscure, is still impersonal, human centered and based on experience. The important point to note here is that for radical feminists God is never seen as other. God is not that which one bows to in reverence, fear and awe.

The Trinity:

The biblical foundation for Christianity lies in the understanding that God is Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Or to put it another way God is one subsisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The persons in the Godhead are co-eternal and co-equal. They are also in relation to each other. Their distinction lies in the fact that they are Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That is who God is in his very being. One may not talk about the relationships within the Trinity without the personal distinctions that are the reason for the relationship, that is, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One may not talk about the distinctions within the Trinity without the revelation that God gives of those distinctions through his Son Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of himself, his Father and the Holy Spirit as one, “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about me. (John 15:26)”

Radical Feminists either deny the Trinity or redefine the Trinity in an attempt to lift up women in opposition to what they understand to be a male bias with regard to the names of the Trinity. They often bypass all that Jesus states about the Father or all that the Father states about his Son. Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki states that, “A major challenge to feminist theologians is to extricate male terms from the Christian naming of God as Trinity. (304.)” She then goes on to explain how many feminists reject the male names but make use of the understanding of relationality in their reformulations of the Trinity. Among those who emphasize relationality, many, like Elizabeth Johnson, seeing all names as metaphors, replace Father, Son and Holy Spirit with such names as “spirit, wisdom and mother. (305)” Going even further some radical feminists replace the biblical God altogether with a gendered female deity who is modeled after women. For instance, one book listed under “Recommended Reading,” on page 25 of July/August 2005 Horizons, is A God Who Looks Like Me. The author of the book after affirming the importance of a wise old crone goddess who changes as women change, several pages later writes in a liturgical piece, “For Mother-God so loved the world that she sent into its midst The Divine Girl-Child. Whosoever believes in her goodness, listens to her wisdom, and celebrates her power will be awakened to the abundance of gifts within them. (Adapted from John 3:16)”4 Once again, as above, the unchanging God, who deserves the reverence of Christian believers is mocked by the use of idolatrous images of the divine, and God’s holy word is changed to say what it does not say.    

Christology:

“Jesus is Lord” is the first creed of the Church seen often in salutations to the church as in Romans 1:17. The church for two thousand years has understood Jesus Christ to be fully human and fully God. He is the unique, incarnate Son of God. All of the ecumenical creeds state the same. The Presbyterian Book of Confessions has no creed which in any way suggests that Jesus Christ is less than human or less than God. “We acknowledge and confess that this wonderful union between the Godhead and the humanity of Christ Jesus did arise from the eternal and immutable decree of God from which all our salvation springs and depends. (The Scots Confession 3.07, The Book of Confessions PCUSA)” The scriptures name as Antichrist and liar “the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ. (1 John 2:22).”

Radical Feminists hold differing views about Jesus Christ, most of which do not measure up to biblical Christianity. But here the river is wide so to speak! Some womanist theologians, (African- American women theologians), give greater honor to Jesus Christ than other feminists theologians. As Kelly Brown Douglas puts it, “From a womanist perspective, Jesus Christ means that God is real. Christ brings God down to earth.” Douglas goes on to explain that for the womanist theologian Jesus Christ is “a friend and confident,” a “co-sufferer,” a “healer and provider” and a “liberator. (38-39)” (All emphasis is by author.) Here however Jesus Christ is still defined by women’s experience and Jesus is seen as Christ because of his relationship to the African-American community in their oppression rather than Christ and Son because of his relationship to the Father.

Other feminist theologians tear apart the biblical understanding of Jesus Christ. Rosemary Radford Ruether states, “Christ, as redemptive person and Word of God, is not to be encapsulated ‘once-for-all’ in the historical Jesus.”5 Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza holding feminist and liberation theology together emphasizes the feminist view that Jesus was the product of rape and views him and his mother as prophets of the Kingdom of God.6 Elisabeth A. Johnson states that the “biblical symbol Christ” cannot be restricted to the historical person Jesus,”7  Francine Cardman paraphrases the text from Rita Nakashima Brock’s book Journeys by Heart: A Christology of Erotic Power, “Any notion of Jesus as savior or hero (including liberator) is rejected … Neither does she consider Jesus to be the Christ. Rather, Christology is centered in community and relationship. (42)” Most feminist’s views of Christology, some in a mild way, many blatant in all ways, are a continuing reemergence of historical heresies. This includes the adoptionism of Paul of Samosata who believed that Jesus was adopted by God because of his obedience and so received the anointing which allowed him to become Christ, and a heresy of the medieval/ Reformation periods which involved a whole community of people being anointed by the Spirit to become Christs. They were sometimes called Ranters, sometimes Brethren of the Free Spirit, and took for themselves the title and office of Christ. As with radical feminists today they did not believe in a unique incarnation.8

Sin and Atonement:

The writers of the biblical text insist that because of the disobedience of the first man and woman humanity is fallen and in need of salvation. (Romans 3:23; 5:12) Humanity is under the wrath of a holy God, because of sin, and incapable of saving themselves. In Reformed doctrine this is referred to as total depravity. The sins which humans commit, whether individually or as a corporate body, are symptoms of humanity’s sinful nature. The atonement is the biblical explanation of how God acted to save humanity. That is, Jesus’ death on the cross was for our salvation, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath to come. (Romans 5:8, 9)” Nothing could be simpler, yet more profound, Jesus Christ died for our sins. See (Mark 10: 45; Luke 24:25-27; Eph 5:1, 2; Heb. 9:11-28; 1 Peter 1: 17, 18; Rev. 5:9)

Campbell when writing about redemption from a feminist perspective places liberation and feminist theology together and writes, “The emphasis is not on the essential helplessness of humanity but on the way in which human power and dignity are restored. Redemption is understood, then, as empowerment or becoming able to take responsibility for one’s own life.”9 Many radical feminists not understanding the Trinity see the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as child abuse. Two books, recommended by the Presbyterian Women’s ministry area, Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk, by Delores S. Williams and Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us by Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker, suggest that redemption or the atonement has nothing to do with Jesus’ death on the cross. Sallie Mcfague brings the Holy Spirit into the equation and writes, “The holy spirit’s (sic) work is not the forgiveness of sins for those who accept the atoning death of Jesus Christ but identification with the spirits of the oppressed, from the ‘the spirit of Amazon rainforests’ to the spirits of exploited women. (147)” Toinette M. Eugene referring to John15:15; Luke 7:34 and 2 Cor.5:15 writes, “These texts, so interpreted from a broadly feminist perspective, suggests that Jesus did not come to redeem humans by showing them God’s love manifested in the death of God’s innocent child on a cross erected by cruel, imperialistic, patriarchal power. Rather, the texts suggest that the Spirit of God in Jesus came to show humans life. (238)” In almost everyway conceivable radical feminists reject both the biblical understanding of human sin and the redeeming and atoning death which Jesus Christ offered in his sacrifice on the cross.

Radical feminists fail to affirm the foundations of Christianity. They refuse to accept the otherness of God and so find God in their own personality and actions. They twist the biblical understanding of the Trinity even at times replacing Father, Son and Holy Spirit with goddess language and images modeled after their own gender. They often deny that Jesus is the unique Christ, thus denying the true divinity of Jesus Christ. They change the meaning of human sin and blatantly disparage the cross of Jesus Christ turning Christ’s sacrifice into child abuse by the Father. If one were to ask if individual radical feminists in the mainline churches are Christian, the answer would have to be “Only God knows.” But if one were to ask is radical feminist theology Christian the answer must be a resounding “no!” The church must stand against this insidious teaching slipping into every crack and cranny of its structure. The church must also love, pray for, tend to and proclaim the cross of Christ to every woman caught in this theological web that denies the truths which would allow them to flourish within the saving love of Jesus Christ..