by
Sylvia Dooling
This morning, the Presbyterian News Service released an on-line column
entitled ‘Breaking the Silence: Chief of women’s ministries program
envisions new global women’s theological conference.” [1] I am writing in
response to a number of statements made in that article.
To begin with, it says that Mary Elva Smith, Director of the Women’s
Ministries Program Area, envisions another global women’s conference which
she hopes ‘will restore the validity of feminist theology in the church.”
According to Ms. Smith, a ‘backlash” against the _Re-Imagining God
Conference_ of 1993 has silenced feminist theologians around the world. Her
goal is not to create another _Re-Imagining_ uproar, but rather to allow
women theologians to make an appropriate contribution to ‘the wisdom of the
larger church.”
My question, as you might guess, is which is it? Does Ms. Smith want to
promote women theologians, or feminist theologians? After all, they are not
necessarily the same thing.
In fact, I question the validity of any kind of theology that takes human
experience, a politico-economic hypothesis, or a philosophical assumption as
its starting point.
Theology, by definition, is the study of God. Reformed theology begins with
the doctrine of God, and is informed by the Word of God. It is not merely
human speculation. Why? Because when theological inquiry begins anywhere
else but the divine disclosure, it arrives inevitably at conclusions that
are contrary to what God has revealed about himself in Scripture and
ultimately in Jesus Christ. Relative to this point, I refer you to a
wonderful and timely article [2] that was published on the VOW site
following the 213th General Assembly. Written by The Rev. Tracee Hackel,
Vice President of Voices of Orthodox Women, it explores the relationship
between Reformed Theology and contemporary theologies of women.
Should women theologians be encouraged to study, teach, and lead in the
church? Clearly! Are the theological insights of women needed? Of course!
Should women be silenced merely because they are women? Never! But, to say
that is a long way from endorsing something called feminist theology a quest
for spiritual and mystical insight that begins not with revelation, but with
very limited and incomplete human experience, and that too often ends in
neo-paganism.
Second, I want to analyze Ms. Smith’s statement that she would love ‘to
build a bridge between such polarized groups as Voices of Sophia, a liberal
caucus that coalesced in defense of Re-Imagining, and Voices of Orthodox
Women, a conservative group that supports traditional interpretations of
doctrine.” However, before even attempting such a rapprochement, she
suggests that it probably isn’t possible because the disagreements are so
strong that it makes ‘authentic listening” hard.
She’s probably right. So much for bridge building.
But that’s OK. As I have stated before, the goal of VOW is neither to
dialogue nor to negotiate with other special interest groups in the PC(USA).
Our purpose is to encourage members of the church to think seriously and
thoughtfully about the programs and resources of the Women’s Ministries
Program Area, and to hold the denomination accountable for their content.
Our goal is reformation. Our prayer is that one day all women and men will
be taught the historic faith of the church. Our objective is to lift up the
plain meaning of the Word of God as authoritative, and the theology of the
Confessions as subordinate authority.
But our goals notwithstanding, it appears that Ms. Smith is attempting to
marginalize VOW by casting it as the polar opposite of Voices of Sophia. If
she can do that, she will have successfully placed herself and her program
area in the much desired ‘middle” of the church. Politically, of course, it
is a clever tactic. But it is terribly inaccurate. The women and men who
make up the VOW network are faithful and loyal Presbyterians. We participate
in PW; we are deacons and elders in our congregations; we teach Sunday
School and lead youth groups; we pray for the peace, purity and unity of the
church; and we are active in its higher courts. Obviously, we are not the
“fringe” radical right of our denomination, and to suggest that we are is
neither helpful nor accurate.
I encourage Mary Elva Smith, as she has promised to do, to be faithful where
God leads, to be a good listener, and to stand firm so that women and men of
the church can use their gifts to the glory of God. But, I also encourage
her to remember that while we are called to be both reformed and always
reforming, reformation is not synonymous with change for the sake of change.
The little particle ‘re” suggests that it is to our roots to which we are
called to conform our Biblical and theological heritage, the faith once for
all delivered to the church. Said conversely, to be reformed is neither to
be conformed to the world, nor to attempt to push the faith of the church
through the extrusion mold of our own human experience.
[1] http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/01290.htm
[2] http://layman.wpengine.com/Documents/Doc0020.aspx