Download PDF - The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Jesus’ masculinity as a tool for the subordination ofwomen surfaces in the ecclesial reality of a maledominatedministerial leadership. Although sheoverstates her case a bit by claiming that “much ofthe history of the doctrine of Christ clearly deniesthe relevance of Jesus’ maleness, uplifting only thatJesus is a human being,” Sondra Stalcup divulgesa (perhaps the) critically important objection onbehalf of feminist theologians:[I]t is in fact the maleness of Jesus thathas been used by the official church tocontinue the subordination of women bylimiting their roles—most obviously, bydenying women ordination to the priesthoodor representative ministry. Feministsdid not create the problem of Jesus’maleness, the official church did by usingit inappropriately as a barrier, as a dividingline against women. 19<strong>The</strong> rejection of women from representativeministry as priest or pastor is evidence of the sociallocation of this problematic usage of Jesus’ masculinityagainst women. That is, feminists argue, in“an ecclesial community where official voice, voteand visibility belong by law only to men,” 20 women’ssubordination grounded in “the maleness ofChrist as imaged through the centuries has damagedwomen’s self-esteem by relegating [them]to second-class citizens.” 21 Thus, “[t]he belief thatthe Word became flesh and dwelt among us as amale indicates that thanks to their natural bodilyresemblance, men enjoy a closer identification withChrist than do women. Men are not only theomorphicbut, by virtue of their sex, also christomorphicin a way that goes beyond what is possible forwomen.” 22This male-dominated theology, that relegateswoman to inferior status in both creationand redemption, has enjoyed considerable revivalin recent years as the keystone of the conservativereaction to the movements for women’s ordination(primarily in the Roman Catholic, Anglican,and Orthodox traditions), 23 but finds particularhistorical support from the theology of ThomasAquinas. 24 Rosemary Radford Ruether argues thatAquinas’s position that the male is the normativeor generic sex of the human species places womenin an inferior status. Aquinas argues that womenwere inferior to men, and in essence, defective.Thus, for Aquinas, “it follows that the incarnationof the Logos of God into the male is not a historicalaccident, but an ontological necessity.” 25 We mightargue, however, that the problem with Aquinas isnot his Christology, but rather his anthropology.Anne Carr clarifies Ruether’s problem with Aquinas’sChristology:Little of this argument occurs in Aquinas’treatise on Christology but is derivedfrom his discussions of human natureand sacramental priesthood. Like the restof the tradition, his Christological statementsare general, and emphasize thefullness of the divine and human naturesin Christ. Yet when Aquinas’ anthropologyis incorporated with his Christology,the distortion is clear: the Christologicalemphasis on the truly human is skewedby androcentric bias. 26So, the fact that Jesus was a man is used tolegitimize men’s superiority over women in thebelief that a particular honor, dignity, and normativityaccrues to the male sex because it was chosenby the Son of God “himself ” in the incarnation.Indeed, Johnson sharply avers, thanks to their sex,men are said to be more conformed to the imageof Christ than are women. In the end, “women’sphysical embodiment thus becomes a prison thatshuts them off from full identification with Christ,except as mediated through the christic male. Forthis mentality, the idea that the Word might havebecome female flesh is not even seriously imaginable.”27Inadequate Metaphor/SymbolAs seen above, the claim has been made byfeminist theologians that the “maleness” of Jesusvalidates the oppression of women. Mary Daly’sscathing insight cuts to the heart of the issue forfeminist Christological exploration: “If the symbol[of a masculine Christ] can be ‘used’ [to oppressJBMW | Spring 2008 29
women] and in fact has a long history of being‘used’ that way, isn’t this an indication of someinherent deficiency of the symbol itself?” 28 Sincethe Christ symbol (as masculine) has been usedagainst women, Daly is not alone in asserting thatthe symbol should be changed to become moreamenable to women.<strong>The</strong> biblical referents for Jesus as “Son” andGod as “Father” must not be taken to reflect anyreality about who God is, it is argued, but shouldbe taken metaphorically to help us understand Godin the terms of our own language. Thus, feministssay, the maleness of the historical Jesus has nothingto do with manifesting a male “Son” who, inturn, images a male “Father.” Since the symbol ismerely metaphorical, feminists posit that the divine“Father” is equally “Mother,” and the “Son” is equally“Daughter.” Yet even the parental metaphor is lackingaccording to Ruether: “Perhaps the parentallanguage for transcendence and immanence itselfshould be relativized by some metaphor other thanparent and child to better state this relationshipbetween God transcendent and God manifest increation and history.” 29 Further, the title “Son ofGod” is an inadequate metaphor for divine immanence,since it has been taken literally and seen asfurther indication that the Logos is male. <strong>The</strong>senotions of the maleness of God, in turn, affect theChristian interpretation of the imago dei. 30Barbara Darling-Smith presents a metaphoricalChristology as a solution to this problem.“Through metaphors we make connectionsbetween unlike things; metaphors undercut literalismbecause a metaphor, as a new and unconventionalinterpretation of reality, means that thetwo objects both are and are not like each other.” 31Sallie McFague also prefers a metaphorical theology,since “all talk of God is indirect: no words orphrases refer directly to God, for God-languagecan refer only through the detour of a descriptionthat properly belongs elsewhere.… <strong>The</strong> point thatmetaphor underscores is that in certain mattersthere can be no direct description.” 32So, through metaphorical theology feministsare able to perceive Jesus as a “parable of God.”Darling-Smith says, “As opposed to incarnationalChristology, which sees Jesus as ‘the Godhead,veiled in flesh,’ parabolic Christology is not Jesusolatry.…It rejects any idolatry or any identificationof a finite creature with God, including Jesusof Nazareth, who both is and is not God.” 33 Since aparabolic approach says Jesus is and is not God, itrelativizes Jesus’ particularity, viz., his maleness, atthe same time that it universalizes the God whomJesus metaphorically represents. 34<strong>The</strong> feminist move toward a metaphoricalChristology is a strategy against the traditionalChristological commitment to a patriarchal worldview.<strong>The</strong> masculine Christ symbol is part and parcelof the androcentric perspective offered in the Bible.Feminists claim that “since the records about Jesusgathered in the New Testament were written andcollected by men for men (so it is claimed), and thecanon ratified by hierarchical androcentric politicalmaneuvering, women’s voices were excluded fromthe canon.” 35 For this reason the Christ symbolis deficient and needs revision. Johnson contends,“Given the intrinsic link between the patriarchalimagination in language and in structures, to liberateChristological language from a monopoly ofmale images and concepts is to create a necessary,even if not sufficient, condition for further changein the church’s consciousness and social order.” 36Another reason why the symbol is deficient isthat traditional Christology is built upon an androcentricimage of deity. Isherwood notes, “WhileChristianity has never claimed that God was literallymale, the Hellenistic underpinning has led tomany assumptions about the nature of God andnormative humanity. <strong>The</strong>re has been an unspoken,yet enacted, androcentric bias, which has reducedthe place of women and men in the world, holdingthem as it does to very outmoded and reductivenotions of humanness.” 37 Since the man Jesus is confessedto be the revelation of God, the Christ symbolpoints to maleness as an essential characteristicof divine being itself. This is exacerbated by exclusiveuse of father and son metaphors to interpret Jesus’relationship to God. 38 Perhaps the only option forfeminist Christology is to castrate Christianity andrelease it from its patriarchal trappings. 3930 JBMW | Spring 2008
Page 5 and 6: Odds & EndsWill The</strong
Page 7 and 8: sions agencies—both domestic and
Page 9 and 10: LettersThe Editor:
Page 11 and 12: authority. Difference and equality
Page 13 and 14: Essays & PerspectivesPursuing Manho
Page 15 and 16: and don’t seek help.” No. Do th
Page 17 and 18: are bogged down with a wife and six
Page 19 and 20: exception of teaching or having aut
Page 21 and 22: elder? Churches ought to take these
Page 23 and 24: guidance about how we are to serve
Page 25 and 26: can, the paedo-baptist, has often s
Page 27 and 28: emain quiet.” Elsewhere, in 1 Cor
Page 29: strong social gospel, they were inc
Page 33 and 34: Jesus’ particularity (his Jewishn
Page 35 and 36: Rita Nakashima Brock asserts that
Page 37 and 38: logians seems attractive because of
Page 39 and 40: Jesus became a human being in order
Page 41 and 42: Christian/secular), (2) reformist (
Page 43 and 44: Method Mistake: An Analysis of theC
Page 45 and 46: he ties it to the unity of God’s
Page 47 and 48: theology must judge any philosophic
Page 49 and 50: From the Sacred DeskThe</st
Page 51 and 52: We know this does not mean that all
Page 53 and 54: etween a husband and his wife to re
Page 55 and 56: Timothy 2:12 is not some arbitrary,
Page 57 and 58: Reassessing Junia: A Review ofEldon
Page 59 and 60: in which varying approaches to divo
Page 61 and 62: Annotated Bibliography forGender-Re
Page 63 and 64: an elite group of leaders above the
Page 65 and 66: inequality in property ownership an

Download PDF - The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?