It's 'One in Christ: Mutuality Week' on Rachel Held Evans' blog and she's challenging other bloggers to discuss similar issues. A friend and fellow blogger contributed beautifully on her blog, and many others have taken the challenge. I'm also enjoying Julie Clawson's series on Discovering Christian Feminism. Though I'm still stumbling around with my own Christian feminism, trying to find the words for my convictions, I thought I'd share excerpts from a paper I wrote while taking a Christianity and Feminism course this past winter. This course only served to get my feet wet in the teachings and interpretations of Christian feminism, but I hope this will contribute in some (small) way to this fabulous discussion going on in the blogosphere.
Christianity and Feminism: Christ as Feminist Leader, the Church as Socio-Political Movement
‘
Following Christ’ requires concrete, specific action, not merely adherence to the tenets of a given religious organization. Rosemary Radford Ruether declares that we must see
Christ as a “liberator, not in the spiritual sense but in real terms in the political and social realm” (“Introductions” 33). His own ministry could be interpreted as a socio-political movement that Christians must continue in our own time. Leondard Swidler asserts that
Jesus is a feminist, “a person who is in favor of, and promotes, the equality of women with men, who advocates and practices treating women primarily as human persons (as men are so treated) and willingly contravenes social customs in so acting” (17). I would like to take Swidler’s definition even further to assert that Jesus was a feminist, not only in his advocacy of women, but in his advocacy of the equality of all peoples. In this way, I argue that Christ embodies “Womanism” in his teachings and actions on earth.
Womanist theology, as defined by Linda Moody, emphasizes the “interconnectedness of the human race,” and “does not allow the categories of sexism, classism, and racism to become separated” (qtd. in Johnson 198). Christ came to earth as a model to God’s children of “full humanity,” and more specifically what it means to be a follower of God (Swidler 42). For much of his life on earth he spent his time not with the lawmakers and rulers, but with the oppressed, sick, and poor, praising the “lowly and outcast for responding to his message while the reigning authorities stay encapsulated in their systems of power” (Isherwood 34). Much of his time with the poor and oppressed he lifted them up, healed them, and assured them that all are seen as equals in the eyes of God. When Jesus teaches the Beatitudes his first blessing is to the “poor, for yours is the kingdom of God [...those who] hunger now [...] will be satisfied” (Luke 6:20-21). He preaches, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” (Matt 19:21). These examples from Scripture make a call for Christians to become humbled and follow Christ, a calling for all peoples to be viewed and treated equally in the eyes of God.
Image of God
Unfortunately, certain Christian interpretations have equated the ‘image of God’ with men; Christ came bearing the outward physical appearance of a man, so many have argued that men are the superior sex. Mary Daly explains, “the underlying assumption in the minds of theologians down through the centuries has been that the divinity could not have deigned to become incarnate in the ‘inferior’ sex, and the ‘fact’ that ‘he’ did not do so reinforces the belief in a masculine superiority” (59). However, I argue that
perhaps man needed a more explicit example of what a follower of God should be, perhaps needing more guidance in the area of humility, grace, and mercy, traits that have been traditionally associated with women and the feminine.
The Faithfulness of Women in Jesus' Time
When we look at the teachings of Christ, many times he praises women for their faithfulness, and reprimands men for their selfish actions. This is exemplified when Jesus visits a doubtful Pharisee in his home. When a woman
who had lived a sinful life in that town learns that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them. (Luke 7:36-38).
This sinful woman shows unbelievable faith in Christ, humbling herself at his feet, while Simon questions him and says, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is – that she is a sinner” (7:39). Jesus tells him that this woman’s faith is what saves her, and that she is forgiven all her sins, “go in peace” (7:50).
In stark contrast to the faith shown by this woman, the disciples doubt Christ when they are at sea, waking him to tell of the raging storm. Calmly, Jesus asks them, “Where is your faith?” (8:25). Another example of a woman’s strong faith is when the sick woman touches Christ in the crowd and is healed. She shares Christ’s instant miracle, to which He replies, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace” (8:48).
In each of these examples, women are faithful followers of Christ, while men constantly question Him. Perhaps Christ’s male appearance is for the sake of these unfaithful, unbelieving men; he is a more obvious model for them to follow since women already have much faith.
Another critique of the patriarchal emphasis on Jesus’ ‘male-ness’ focuses on Christ’s androgyny. According to this argument, despite his physical appearance, Christ took on both “so-called” feminine and masculine qualities, providing Christians with an androgynous model for living as “authentic humans, [rejecting] the false division of traits by sex” (Swidler 42).
Christ depicted both “feminine” and “masculine” traits so that “we [as followers] will come to know, and love, our true, integrated self and will thereby be able to see our oneness with all our fellow humans (and most especially the oppressed), with all nature, and ultimately with the Source of all” (Swidler 42). Not only did he challenge the sexual norms, he rejected the societal norms of his time by teaching the “Good News” to all people – women (Luke 38-42), men (Matt 14:22-33), tax collectors (Luke 19:1-10), adulterers (John 8), prostitutes (Luke 8:1-3), criminals (Luke 23:32-43), and Gentiles (Matt 15: 21-25). Each group of people fills different roles in the social hierarchy created by man, and in each of these Biblical examples Christ does not adhere to cultural or societal rules. Instead, “[He] was committed to social and political action, the undoing of social evil and aspirations that are expressed in the Lord’s Prayer, where the kingdom is imaged on earth and signaled by the meeting of basis needs for all” (Isherwood 36).
He challenged the social norms of his day, specifically, in the way that he treated women.
Breaking Down the Hierarchical Barriers
During his time, men were not permitted to speak to women, or touch them, because their sex was seen as “easily seduced, weak, and without much understanding” (qtd. in Swidler 21). But Christ explicitly defies these rules in his attitude toward and interaction with women. Christ spoke to women and “taught them the Gospel, the meaning of the Scriptures, and religious truths in general;” he appeared to women after healing the sick and rising from the dead, allowing them to bear witness and evangelize in his name (Swidler 23). He defied violations of the law in speaking directly to the Samaritan woman at the well, and touching the “unclean” woman, allowing them both to share with others the “Good News” that he was the Messiah (Swidler 26-7).
There are no instances when he treats women, the poor, or the oppressed as less than equal in God’s eyes. Instead, his most aggressive judgments are given to the merchants in the Tabernacle where he overturns the tables (Matt 21:12-14) and the Scribes and Pharisees who held themselves above others, rather than humbling themselves before God (Matt 23:13-33). Christianity, as a social movement, should see Christ’s actions as examples for the treatment of women, the oppressed, and the poor. As Christ reprimands the hypocritical Pharisees who view themselves as superior, he is explicitly teaching against man-made social hierarchy that was religiously sanctioned.
In his rejection of social hierarchy for the sake of welcoming a coming kingdom, Jesus’ teachings are directly compatible with the ideas of Womanism and feminism. As Isherwood points out, “The kingdom is not here even though there are moments when the transcendent becomes present in an anticipatory way through justice, liberation, and reconciliation” (36).
Christ hopes he and his followers – all Christians – will transform the world, allowing glimpses of the kingdom to come through justice and liberation – not only in our practices and actions, but equally so in our understanding of the biblical texts.
If Jesus serves as exemplary figure for the equal treatment of all, preaching the inclusivity of the kingdom of God, then perhaps we can consider a more egalitarian view of the Genesis story, specifically the interpretation of Eve in the Christian tradition.
Genesis - Someone to Blame: Eve and all women
Historically, Eve is depicted as the sole cause of humanity’s Fall. However, I argue, along with many feminist theologians, that the figure Eve represents, in certain ways, a positive image of woman. Phyllis Trible, suggests that “we reread [Genesis 2-3] to understand and to appropriate” the circumstances and particulars surrounding the Fall (74). Trible asserts that there was no distinction between the sexes until the split of the androgynous first human. The word “‘adham is a generic term for humankind,” and so ‘adham is basically androgynous: one creature incorporating two sexes” (74). Still, some argue that once the split was made between the sexes, the woman was the second creature created, making women subordinate. However, Trible points out that when considering order, “the last shall be first and the first shall be last” (Matt 20:16). If making this argument, woman is a more complex creature, “the last and truly the crown of all creatures,” created after animals and man (75).
Though oftentimes misinterpreted Eve can be seen as the stronger of the two, because she “is both theologian and translator. She contemplates the tree, taking into account all the possibilities [...] By contrast, the man is a silent, passive, and bland recipient [...] His one act is belly oriented, and it is an act of quiescence, not of initiative” (79).
Eve’s strength need not be see as a superiority over Adam; I maintain that both man and woman rejected God and are therefore culpable. However, it does mean that Eve’s actions are much more complex than have been traditionally understood. Rather than embodying the wicked temptress who willfully listened to the serpent and therefore caused the downfall of all humanity, Eve displays an emotional complexity that should be valued. Similarly, it should be understood that man and woman were equally present and aware of their consequences in taking the fruit, for God spoke to both in the Garden of Eden saying, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:16-7). Readers must not continue to misinterpret and find false evidence for the inferiority of women; rather, an understanding must emerge wherein Genesis reinforces the equality of men and women.
Genesis’ teaching of gender equality can be taken a step further to enforce the equality of all peoples with no room for hierarchy or inferiority. André LaCocque takes Trible’s defense of Genesis further than gender equality, and asserts that all humans are part of a “common universal spirit” and “one familial cell.”
The socio-political movement of Christianity, therefore, should not work under any kind of hierarchy or “subsequent divisions” since these are perversions of God’s Creation.
James H. Cone asserts that certain Christian movements - particularly Black Theology - is already living out the socio-political activism of Jesus. Black Theology was born from the civil rights movement, and became a movement within the Christian faith to right the wrongs of racial discrimination.
While Black Theology primarily focuses on equality of race, it provides a valuable example of a social and politically active Christian community that works for the equality of all. Similarly, the Christian faith movement should right the wrongs of all injustices, striving to “not only pray for justice but also become actively involved in establishing it” (46). Christians cannot actively establish justice within the stuffy, confined walls of church sanctuaries that close their doors to people who might not believe the same way; instead these ideas must be taken out into the world, becoming an “expression of hope and a tool of struggle for liberation” of all people who are treated unjustly (Cone 37).
Call to Action
The socio-political Christian movement must fight the “injustices” of viewing certain people as inferior and treating them as less than others as defined by the perverse social hierarchy of our culture. Christians need to create a dialogue among Christian family and friends on how best to create this socio-political movement seeking to eradicate injustices against people, critically asking whether the current organized religious system is even conducive to justice for all people, since the church, itself, is based on hierarchy. Furthermore, the Christian socio-political movement must break down the present social hierarchies – especially in the churches – and instead view and treat all peoples as equal children of God, all equal parts of humanity created in God’s image.
