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.6
To 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
*Grace*
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.9
3. 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
in History with a concentration in the Humanites. She is a freelance writer
and teacher on new religious movements and the founder of Naming the Grace
Ministries. (www.naminggrace.org. Her published articles include, “Identity:
A ‘Christian’ Religion for White Racist” and “Wicca: Searching For Identity,
Meaning and Community in the Lonely Shadows of Witchcraft.” She is an
inactive Elder in the PC(USA). She and her husband, belong to Fremont
Presbyterian Church in Sacramento.
___________
*End Notes*
* 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.
2 Sharon D. Welch, A Feminist Ethic of Risk, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press
1990), 178-79.
3 Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology,
10th Anniversary edition, (Boston: Beacon Press 1993), 48, 71.
4 Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, ‘New
Intergalatic Intro. (Boston: Beacon Press 1990), 83, 22.
5 Ruether, Sexism, 257-58.
6 Karl Barth, The Knowledge Of God and the Service of God According to the
Teaching of The Reformation, tran. By J.L. Haire and Ian Henderson, The
Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Aberdeen in 1937 and 1938,
(Great Britain: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1939), 33.
7 Dorothy L. Sayers, Are Women Human?, intro by Mary McDermott Shideler,
Taken from Dorothy L. Sayers, Unpopular Opinions, (np 1947; repr. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans 1992), 47.
8 For biblical reasons see Richard & Catherine Clark Kroeger, I suffer Not A
Women: Rethinking I Timothy 2:11-15 In Light of Ancient Evidence, (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House 1992); Ben Witherington III, Women In The
Earliest Churches, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
59,ed.G>N> Stanton, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1988): any copy
of Prisilla Papers published by ‘Christians For Biblical Equality”, St.
Paul, MN. For historical reasons see Janette Hassey, No Time For Silence:
Evangelical Women in Public Ministry Around the Turn of The Century, (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House 1986); any copy of Prisilla
Papers.
9 C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, (Old Tappen, New Jersey: Lord and King
Associates, Fleming H. Revell 1976), 70.
10 Carol Christian & Gladys Plummer, _God and One Redhead: Mary Slessor of
Calabar,_ (London: Hodder and Stoughton 1970) 184. Mary Slessor, see her
letters at, http://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/centlib/slessor/letintro.htm.
Joanna Trollope, _Britannia’s Daughters: Women of the British Empire,_
(London: Pimlico, Random House 1983), 194-199. W.P. Livingstone. _Mary
Slessor of Calabar: Pioneer Missionary_, tenth edition, (London: Hodder and
Stoughton 1918).