Discussions with
Rosemary Radford Ruether Reader[1]
One of the
important methods of feminist Christian theologians to create feminist critical
consciousness in the church is to deconstruct the foundations – the faith story
(systematic theology) - that justify and sanction the patriarchal church. They re-narrate
the faith story. Here we present once such re-narration of our faith story that
“we are redeemed by the blood of Christ, who was sacrificed as a ransom for our
sins”. Feminists have problems with this Christology. We do this by discussing “Created
Second, Sinned First: Women, Redemption, and the Challenge of Christian
Feminist Theology” by Rosemary R. Ruether (1936- ), a world renowned feminist
theologian. In this discussion, we open up the patriarchal biases in the
traditional Christology and the Soteriology, discuss them and learn the
feminist renarration of the faith story - Christology.
 |
| courtsey: theprogressivecatholicvoice.blogspot.com |
In
Christian theology what do feminists do? We believe they fight female
insensitive and discriminatory (patriarchal) passages or narrations and
practices?
Here we need to clarify
the terms patriarchy and the feminism. It is naïve to identify patriarchy with
mere male domination, instead it is the whole system of domination, Ruether
writes, “patriarchy is a multi-layered system of domination, centered in men’s
control of women, but including class, race, and generational hierarchies,
clericalism, war, and the domination of nature. […] Elizabeth Schussler
Fiorenza has coined the phrase ‘kyriarchy’ (the rule of the Lord) for this
system of top down power firmly rooted in the religious hierarchy.” Hence the
problem with patriarchal bias in theology is not just some insensitive and discriminatory
passages and practices, which are included, but the whole lot of violent,
dominant, hierarchical and dualistic understanding of reality. Feminist Christian
theology fights, therefore, not just mere male domination of women, but all the
consequent unjust system of thought. So, Ruether phrases it as “overcoming all
forms of patriarchy.”
What
is the - feminist’s - problem with Christian understanding of redemption as
achieved in and through Jesus Christ? Traditional doctrine says that we are
fallen through the sin of our first parents. We lost grace. It is restored in
the passion, death and resurrection of Christ.
A careful reading
of the traditional doctrines of redemption and original sin, would betray the
subtle gender biases inherent in them. In the doctrine of original sin the sin
enters through a woman. Redemption is wrought by a man, Christ on the cross. Here
begins the inferiority and subordination of women to men. Ruether writes, “In
the classical Christian paradigm, women, in order to be redeemed, must
subordinate themselves to men, because women, to paraphrase I Timothy 2.11-15,
were created second and sinned first.” Feminists, therefore, are suspicious
about the traditional doctrine of redemption.
In its
reconstruction, feminist theology first rejects the story of fallen soul in the
doctrine of redemption. It believes that despite our pitfalls we are basically
good and the humanity grows in this goodness. Thus, it would easily set aside
the necessity of a mediator to restore our original state of grace. Ruether
writes, “Feminist theologians reject the classical notion that the human soul
is radically fallen, alienated from God, and, unable to reconcile itself with
God, in need of an outside mediator. Instead human self is defined through its
primary identity as image of God. This original goodness and communion with its
divine ground of being continues to be the true nature of women and men”.
Your
explanation, “we do not need a mediator”, jeopardizes the rationale of the
church in the world which is founded and sustained in the Christ Event. How
then do you understand Jesus Christ? What is his role in the salvation of the
world (our salvation)?
Jesus in
feminist theology is an inspiration, source and a model to be emulated. It
strip Jesus of all the dogmatic accretions to conceive and experience him as
the divine in history committed to creating an egalitarian society despite
oppositions. He gets killed in the process; however death fails to silence him.
He continues to live on in the church which heralds that good news
(Jesus-story). Ruether writes, “Jesus’ role become quite different in feminist
theology. His is a root story for the redemptive process in which we must all
be engaged, but he does not and cannot do it for us. No one person can become
the collective human whose actions accomplish a salvation which is then
passively applied to everyone else. Jesus’ story can be a model for what we
need to do for ourselves and with one another.”
The whole person
and the message remains a touchstone for feminists who continue to celebrate
and work for the redemption “in memory of him”. In fact Christian feminists
still stick to church because of their attachment to Christ. They revisit Jesus
story again and again to strengthen their theology and life. Ruether writes,
“The Jesus story continues to be a model for Christian feminists because it
exemplifies the redemptive paradigm of feminist liberation: dissent against
oppressive religious and political structures, taking the side of the
oppressed, particularly women, living egalitarian relations across gender, race
and class, and pointing toward a new time when these hierarchies will be
overcome, and anticipating redeemed relations in a community of celebration
here and now.”
How
then do you make sense of the Christ’s suffering on the cross? God so loved us
that he sacrificed his only son for our redemption. Is not our struggle to
realize the egalitarian society our participation in his suffering; our share in
this great big sacrifice?
 |
| courtesy: whypain.org |
Most Christian
feminists question the focus on suffering and cross as central for
redemption/redemptive activity. They explain that Jesus’ suffering on the cross
was not one of passive or victimized suffering but one that was inflicted
because of his life of protest against injustice and solidarity with the
poor/the marginalized. Therefore they reject the traditional importance to ‘suffering’
as having redemptive value. In fact, they would critique such an understanding as
manipulative tool of the higher-ups to sustain the discriminative order. Therefore
they would allow suffering as only a risk factor that is involved in our
efforts to establish the egalitarian society. Ruether writes, “some want to ask
what kind of suffering is redemptive? [Victimized passive suffering is not redemptive].
What is redemptive is extricating ourselves from unjust suffering and changing
ourselves from unjust suffering and changing the conditions that cause it. It
is not Jesus’ suffering and death that are redemptive, but rather his life of
protest against injustice and solidarity in defense of life. This is the Jesus
we need to imitate. Suffering is a factor in the liberation process, not as a means of redemption, but as the
risk one takes when struggling to overcome unjust systems whose beneficiaries resist
change.”
But
why Jesus, what compels you to be anchored to Jesus’ story? Is not the ‘male
factor’ of Jesus a problem for feminist theology? How do you construct the
whole thought on one who is after all a man?
Though there are
two questions, cynically targeting our rootedness in Jesus highlighting his
maleness and hinting at the possibility of finding women models, its intent is one:
to project ‘Christian Feminism as self-contradictory. “Why Jesus”, there is no
option. We belong to Jesus tradition. Moreover, he has lead such an integral
human life with genuine love for others and deliberate choice for the
marginalized. He can thus be our touchstone and our model. This does not blind
us to other such lives in history as our inspiration. Thus we note first, the inter-religious and
global (transnational) openness of feminist theology. Ruether writes,
“Christian symbols are one resource among others, along with Shamanism and
Buddhism, as with Korean Christian feminist Chung Hyun Kyung, or along with
indigtenous Latin American and African religions, as with Elsa Tamez and Mercy
Oduyoye. […] Feminist liberation theology is a human project, not an
exclusively Christian project.”
Second, there is
the list of contemporary women who have lived a Christ-like life. They are
equally regarded as models who incarnate Jesus in the contemporary society through
their lives. Ruether writes, “Christian feminist theology […] goes beyond
telling the Jesus story as one of a ‘good man who really cared about us,’ and
dares to parallel the Jesus story with the stories of women liberators. […]
Thus some Christian feminists begin to life up female Christ figures of their
own cultures.” In this article Ruether refers to the story of Eku, a Fante
woman of Ghana, who led her people to a new land where they could find a good
life, at the risk of her life as mentioned in the writings of African Christian
feminists.
About the
question of Jesus’ maleness the answer is direct that maleness is only an
accident like the details of his historicity. Ruether writes, “Jesus’ maleness
is declared to be one ‘accident’ of his historical reality among others, like
being Jewish, a first century Galilean.” Besides, they negate the patriarchal
theology that makes maleness as normative for full human life and being the
image of God. Everyone is created in and image and likeness of God. Divine
transcends names and forms. (Ruether does not say this.)
Thus if
summarized the feminist renarration of Jesus-story and the story of our
redemption is that we live in the state of goodness and communion with the
divine. The sin of the world is the unjust, inequal and discriminatory world on
the basis of race, gender, caste, creed and economic status. We sin when we
participate in it. Jesus became word incarnate to restore the just and
egalitarian society. He got killed in the process, yet he continued to live on
in his disciple and in the church. He is our inspiration, encouragement and
model. We continue to incarnate him in the contemporary society collaborating
with everyone who works for the just world.
[1] I use discussion genre for this assignment. I am the Rosemary Ruether
Reader. My primary source is Rosemary’s article “Created Second, Sinned First” Conscience Vol. XVIII, No. 1, Spring
1997. My exposition of her feminist critique is substantiated with direct
quotes from the article.
No comments:
Post a Comment