Reading Reflections: "Sexism and God-Talk" by Rosemary Radford Ruether
"Feminist theology that draws on Biblical principles is possible only if the prophetic principles, more fully understood, imply a rejection of every elevation of one social group against others as image and agent of God, every use of God to justify social domination and subjugation. Patriarchy itself must fall under the Biblical denunciations of idolatry and blasphemy, the idolizing of the male as representative of divinity. It is idolatrous to make males more 'like God' than females. It is blasphemous to use the image and name of the Holy to justify patriarchal domination and law. Feminist readings of the Bible can discern a norm within Biblical faith by which the Biblical texts themselves can be criticized. To the extent to which Biblical texts reflect this normative principle, they are regarded as authoritative. On this basis many aspects of the Bible are to be frankly set aside and rejected." (Ruether, 23)
My reflections:
There are many questions that one comes to immediately upon reading this excerpt from Ruether...1. How much authority does/should the Bible have, which leads to questions like: What is scripture, what does it mean to say "the Word of G-d", and what does it mean to say that scripture is "inspired by G-d". 2. Does the metaphor, "Father, Son, and H-ly Sp-rit", serve as a reasonable means to give some understanding to G-d as a community of oneness? 3. Does viewing G-d as a male encompass the whole of G-d as "being" iself? 4. Is G-d in the Hebrew text viewed as solely male, and therefore responsible for the concept of "patriarchy"? 5. Would a G-d who created all of humanity in G-d's own image want distinctions made between the social order of males and females? 6. Can feminists readings of the biblical texts be indiscriminatatory?
My intent is to provide constructive criticism for Ruether's claims. I must begin, though, by saying, "Amen"! I have really been awakened by Ruether's feminist theology; I have found the reading to be refreshing and exhilarating. Ruether does a fantastic job addressing some key biblical texts that have haunted me, as a woman, for many years. Still, I am forced to keep myself in check...Ruether's claims, at times, push the wagon over slippery slopes.
The questions I stated above come from notes in the margins of Ruether's book that I made along my reading path. The following is a response to my own questions...I would enjoy receiving constructive comments.
1. How much authority does/should the Bible have? I view scripture as an assortment of many different genres...there are histories, etiologies, parables, wisdom literature, prophecies, allegories, and testimonials. Scripture as "inspired by G-d" means that those who were writers and authors invoked the pen with all the passion, experience, and thoughtfulness one could have for G-d. This does not mean these authors were G-d manifested, but instead were faithful and sometimes not so faithful human beings attempting to convey a message about their own theology. This means scripture is not flawless (considering a whole slew of literary and scribal biases); there are mistakes. In addition, I do not hold to a "sola scriptura" (scripture alone) theology. In light of tradition, reason, and experience I evaluate scripture as authoritative. So, I would have to agree with Ruether on this point..."many aspects to the Bible are to frankly be set aside and rejected". I would like to make note of the fact that I value the words, instructions, experiences, and commands of J-sus Chr-st over any other portions of scripture.
2. Does the metaphor, "Father, Son, and H-ly Sp-rit", serve as a reasonable means to give some understanding to G-d as a community of oneness? Yes and No. There can be no true metaphor for G-d; as Paul Tillich and Joe Jones would say, "a symbol must always point beyond itself". There can really be no metaphor or symbol for G-d that would completely satisfy, but the "father/son" metaphor is as close to understanding G-d as we can get. The problem is that for women this is an exclusive metaphor. What do we say to the woman who is oppressed (mistreated, abused, disrespected) by a man all her life...namely her father...how do we explain to her that G-d is her father and that he wants the best for her? How do we explain to women that G-d came in the flesh as a male to redeem humanity when in history the full humanity of women had never been known (Ruether, 19)? Can a male savior redeem women? I am constantly disturbed by the Church's inability to recognize woman as fully human...there has been an interpretation of the scriptures that man reigns over woman because the scriptures support this theory...there is patriarchy, slavery of women, discrimination of women as a constant thorn that penetrates the heart of the humanity of women. Can a male savior redeem a dehumanized woman?
3. Does viewing G-d as male encompass the whole of G-d as "being" itself? First, we must not view G-d as "a" being, but as "being" itself (another thought from Paul Tillich). If we can see that G-d is being, then we can see that we cannot compare G-d to mere "beings". G-d transcends all of humanities concepts of G-d. G-d transcends gender. G-d transcends race. G-d transcends time and space. We cannot equate G-d to being just male; but from a G-d who created all of humanity in G-d's image...both male and female we are made.
4. Is G-d in the Hebrew text viewed solely as male, and therefore responsible for the concept of "patriarchy"? We must admit that the Hebrew text mostly explores G-d as male, though there are remote attempts to explore feminine qualities of G-d (passages that use the Hebrew, El Shaddai, for instance). The writers of the Hebrew text, mostly writing long after the events of history taking place and as reflections of oral tradition, paint a clear picture of the dominate male roles...namely found in patriarchial tales. A critical analysis does reveal that there are many strong biblical women...Esther and Ruth certainly come to mind. But, even these strong woman are dominated men, as expressed in their stories. The patriarchy of the Hebrew text leaves a lasting impression of male dominance and inequality.
5. Would a G-d who created all humanity in G-d's own image want distinctions made between the social order of males and females? Simply...no! J-sus' teachings and example answer this question. So, some questions come to mind...Were there female disciples in the time of Chr-st? Were there female writers of biblical and extra-biblical texts? Why were these texts dismissed from the Canon? How is the text from Galatians, "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians--you are one in Chr-st J-sus" (Galatians 4:28, NLT) read and interpreted in light of the whole of scripture?
6. Can feminists readings of the text be indiscriminatory? Realistically, no. We all view scripture through the lens we are given, but in light of the fact that scripture is so drastically masculine a feminist reading of the texts should be a very valuable commodity to those who strive to bring equality and to remove oppression from faith communities.
This is just a brief overview of some of my thoughts. I encourage others to pick up a copy of Ruether's book. I think it will challenge your embedded theology and promote a sensitivity toward women that even women need to grasp.
Peace be with you, Renee
No comments:
Post a Comment