A Critique of four Primers about Feminist Tehology
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 Gods
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 humanityhumanity 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.
———————————
1Joe M. Sprinkle, _Dictionary of The Old Testament: Pentateuch_, T. Desmond
Alexander, David W. Baker, Editors, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press
2003), 844.
2 This is a large subject and I wish to give the reader several excellent
titles, Ben Witherington 111, _Women in the Earliest Churches, _First paper
back edition,(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991) 117-127; Catherine
& Richard Clark Kroeger, _I Suffer Not a Woman_: _Rethinking 1 Timothy
2:11-15 In Light of Ancient Evidence_, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House
1992).; Stanley J. Grenz with Denise Murkjesbo, _Women in the Church: A
Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry, _(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press
1995). _Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy,
_Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Gordon Fee, Editors (Grand
Rapids: InterVarsity Press 2005).
3 Augustine, _On the Trinity_, Gareth B. Matthews, editor, Stephen McKenna,
trans., _Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy_, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 2002), Book 12, Chapter 7.
4 For a an orthodox view of liberation theology see my article, ‘Liberation
Theology and Whippoorwills” at [1]
http://layman.wpengine.com/Documents/Doc0258.aspx. [1]
5 Here Magdalena L Garcia is quoting, Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz, _En La LuchaIn
the Struggle: A Hispanic Women’s Liberation Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1993) _1.
6 Ibid., 175.
7 Unzu Lee is quoting from, Rita Nakashima Brock, ‘Interstitial Integrity:
Reflections toward an Asian American Woman’s Theology,” _Introduction to
Christian Theology: Contemporary North American Perspectives, _ed. Roger A.
Bedham (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998) 190.
8 Ibid., 187-192.
9 Rosemary Radford Ruether, _Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist
Theology, _10th Anniversary Edition, (Boston: Beacon Press 1993), 138.
10 Rita Nakashima Brock, ‘Re-imaging Paradise,” found at
http://www.voicesofsophia.org/Resources.html.