Academic Engagements With Course Materials

What are the major issues in Letty Russell’s Introduction?

In Letty M. Russell’s Introduction to the series of theological essays in Liberating the Word

, she expresses a need for a discussion of ways in which women and men can “liberate the word to speak the gospel in the midst of the oppressive situations of our time.” Engaging in such a discussion, she writes, will provide “fresh insights” into ways to find “nonsexist interpretations” of Biblical passages and stories. This discussion is needed she believes, because feminist scholars have found “a bias in all Biblical interpretation” and those scholars call for “clear advocacy of those who are in the greatest need of God’s mercy and help: the dominated victims of society.”

And so, it is clear in the first few pages that Russell — and the material to follow — take issues with the Bible, but she is fully aware of the fact that it was written “in the context of patriarchal cultures.” And moreover, Russell’s Introduction alerts the reader to what is also to be found in the book, controversy vis-a-vis the Bible, as the pages turn.

What are the major issues for Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza?

Fiorenza begins her essay (“The Will to Choose or to Reject: Continuing Our Critical Work”

) with a poem by Emily Dickinson — in which the poet show “great pride and self-confirmation” in terms of “transcending the patriarchal condition” and moving “from unconsciousness to consciousness” (p. 125). This poem, and her interpretation of it, is a prelude for Fiorenza’s view that some women (“as self-identified women”) have no choice but to “leave behind” the “patriarchal biblical religion” and instead create “a new feminist religion” on the fringe of “patriarchal religion and theology.”

In portraying the best of all worlds for women and their need for religion, Fiorenza utilizes the word “ekklesia” (Greek for “public gathering” where citizens are free to choose their own “communal well-being”), which can also be translated as “women-church,” or, as a “political-oppositional term to patriarchy” (p. 126).

And what does “patriarchy” mean to Fiorenza? She insists that it isn’t just a word to define (and protest against) male power over females. She wants readers to know she isn’t she isn’t just writing about “male oppressors and female oppressed.” Rather, her view of “patriarchy” is as a basic descriptive model for “feminist analysis” and encompasses not only “sexism but also racism and property-class relationships” (p. 127).

For example, in a patriarchal religion, “all women are bound into a system of male privilege and domination” — that’s a given, in her definition. And she doesn’t seem overly angry about that fact, though it clearly needs addressing, in her view, beyond what has been said and thought about it in the recent past.

But beyond that view, she writes that “impoverished Third World women constitute the bottom of the oppressive patriarchal pyramid.” She sees her feminism in terms of a universal view, in which it is important for women to “identify as women” and therefore overcome the arbitrary separation between white women and black women, rich and poor women, Jewish and Christian women, and so-forth.

That having been said, on page 129 she launches into what appears to be an attack on the Bible; the original focus or concern of feminists, with reference to the Bible, she says, is that “the Bible was used to halt the emancipation of women and slaves.” And today, the “political Right” carries on that crusade against progress for women by attacking feminists in the “political, economic, reproductive, intellectual, and religious spheres” — and they do it by quoting the bible in order to lobby against shelters for battered women, among other things.

What are the options suggested by Fiorenza; what do I think of her viewpoints?

Fiorenza offers four points in terms of suggestions for women: one, that women who love the Bible can’t be written off as “un-liberated,” and there are stories in the Bible that don’t promote raw male authority over women; two, there should be careful review of Biblical texts, a test, to determine which have “feminist liberating content” and which do not; three, a new theology needs to be created, in which the Bible in order to fight back against conservatives using Scripture against the women’s movement; four, text must be found and embraced which keeps alive the victories of biblical women who “acted in the power of the spirit”; and five, the Bible should be understood as a “structuring prototype of women-church, rather than as a definite archetype.”

My thought is that Fiorenze has given a great deal of time and effort into reviewing much of the Bible for passages, lessons and parables that offend today’s women; I wonder what she believes today about the conservative Christian movement, which is far more politically potent then it was in 1985, when this book was published. Indeed, I would think that the path today’s feminist should follow is not so much continuing to be repulsed by ancient Biblical writings, but rather, to get organized against the continuing marriage of “church and state” that conservative Christians pursue and fine-tune. When a presidential campaign — responding to a conservative Christian movement — promotes issues like a constitutional amendment against “gay marriage,” rather than raise other far more important issues like poverty, health care, global warming, it speaks volumes about what progressive movements should be paying attention to.

What are the major issues for Elsa Tamez?

Elsa Tamez, in her essay — “Women’s Re-reading of the Bible”

— believes she sees in the Bible’s texts “clear, explicit cases of the marginalization or segregation of women” (174) in many places. The part of the Bible that promotes “old-time antiwomen customs of Hebrew culture” has been declared sacred (175), she writes. And perhaps more serious, because Biblical passages have had the stamp of God (“thus is written the word of God), the Bible has “been used to reinforce the position of inferiority” that women have been placed in “for centuries.”

The fact that the “inferiority of women” has become “sacred law” through the Bible’s tenets, and that some Biblical texts actually “legislate the marginalization of women,” is repugnant to Tamez. There is, “on occasion,” she writes (176), no other way to interpret the [Bible] except as a putdown of women.”

And although she also believes that when “First World radical feminists” reject the Bible, it is “an exaggerated reaction,” she nonetheless puts forward the notion (177) that it is “about time to reformulate the principle of Biblical authority.”

What are the options suggested by Tamez; what do I think of her viewpoints?

Tamez (178) suggests women should be “gaining distance” from the texts that are most familiar, and read the Scripture — in particular those passages that are not ingrained in the consciousness of the faithful — from a woman’s perspective. The fresh passages will hopefully contain “new women-liberating aspects”; and thus, women, “as victims of sexist oppression,” will see “with less difficulty those aspects that directly affect them” (179). Her viewpoints, while valid for the most part, assume that women could actually intellectually remove themselves from the “sexist” and patriarchal tone of the Bible, which is stretching credulity. But what might work better is for a group of female theologian-scholars to actually re-write many important parts of the Bible, and publish their work as an alternative to the Bible. And rather than it being what some would perceive as an attack on the Bible, which would not be well-received by many Christian men and women, it could be a polished and pertinent serious of non-gender-focused stories from the Bible; and those stories would be told with the proper philosophical and theological emphasis, as inspiration to men and women of faith.

What are the major issues for Simon S. Maimela?

This writer’s initial concern (141) — in “Black Theology and the Quest for a God of Liberation”

— is the fact that “black theology” is making an attempt to be a “critical reflection on the historical praxis in which powerful white Christians dominate and oppress powerless black Christians.” And in a general way, Maimela believes that black theology has as a goal, to “inspire and arm oppressed blacks in their struggle for liberating transformation of unjust racist social structures in which they live.”

Maimela beats the drum of militancy against the fact that the “Christian faith has been and continues to be used as an instrument of legitimizing” the economic and social domination over blacks by “white people.” (His protest sounds very similar in tone to the writing of Fiorenza, who argued that the Bible legitimizes the oppression of women.) Black Christians have become “suspicious,” Maimela writes, of white theologies that have “unashamedly have given tacit support to the privileged status of white people in relation to people of color.”

On page 146 Maimela asserts that “white theology” often overlooks the political and economic interests of “oppressed persons of color,” and therefore, “white theology” is “a theology of oppression, serving the interests of white oppressors.” And somehow, Maimela continues, this theology of oppression builds a case for concept of an “authoritarian” God who “establishes different social classes in every society.” In other words, Maimela is viewing the Christian church mainstream as perpetuating the belief that God doesn’t care about the oppressed people of color, and also the belief that God accepts injustice as par for the course.

What options does Maimela offer; what do I think of his issues and options?

On the other hand, Maimela writes that critics of liberation theology (AKA, in support of black theology) miss the point that God’s love is “unconditional” (149) and that God “accepts the unacceptable, the rejected, and the worthless.” God is in fact, Maimela states, the liberator of slaves, and there needs to be “alternative Biblical and theological models (visions)” with which the struggling black masses can be “encouraged and empowered to become subjects of their own history and destiny.”

And meantime (157), Maimela suggests that black theologians “must simply tell foes and admirers alike that the oppressed black community needs an alternative theology”; and that black theologians “must take upon themselves the responsibility of searching for new ways of talking about God’s presence in the world.” This then will potentially build a new theology that leads to “black liberation, self-realization, and fuller humanization.”

Many of Maimela’s issues are valid; it’s true that in the rich communities and neighborhoods, the Christian church, no matter what denomination, tends to cater to the beliefs and values of the wealthy, and tends to look the other way at poverty, racism, homelessness, drug addiction and the other problems inherent in struggling urban areas. But that does not mean that all members of the richer congregations are uncaring racists. It does not mean we must all invent new ways to come to terms with God and his Word.

Writers like Maimela have good points to make, but it might be more beneficial to the overall level of understanding of all Christians, of all ethnicities and economic status, to find a middle ground where Christians can bond their common values, where they may work together towards solutions for the world’s most pressing problems (such as tsunami relief), blending together and combining energies as a team, not as a series of distinctly different groups of separate and unequal Christians.

What are the major issues for J. Severino Croatto?

Croatto writes (140) that there could be as many variations on interpreting the Bible as there are theologies, and in that fact, the Bible “seems quite distant from our new problems.” And that said — in his essay, “Biblical Hermeneutics in the Theologies of Liberation”

— he asks, in effect, how does the Bible fit into the theology of and for “oppressed peoples of the Third World?”

He offers four way to approach the problem of how the Bible — which seems quite distant from the “real world” problems of poor people — can become relevant in the Third World (141-142): one, relegate the Bible “to a secondary role,” as literature reflecting “the past”; two, search for some relationship between what is happening to us, and what the Bible reports about the human condition; three, attempt to “rediscover” the cultural and historical background against which the Bible was initially written; that way, readers can more easily understand the context under which the Bible was written; and four, look at the Bible hermeneutically, or interpretively, with an eye towards carefully examining the language used, and realize it was actually written down from spoken words in most cases.

Croatto (144-145) goes to great lengths to fully examine the technicalities of language relative to how the Bible was written, and how the spoken word was then received by a writer, who interpreted what was said and transcribed the message as best he or she could. His discussion of semiotics (“a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics … ” — Merriam-Webster Online) becomes rather tedious, and even esoteric. Indeed, Croatto’s lengthy description of the “process of the [Bible’s] production” is apparently not meant for the lay person interested merely in how to interpret the Bible, but rather, for the scholar or the theologian, to add to the discourse on the Bible’s relevancy.

What options does Croatto offer; what do I think of his issues and options?

While Croatto’s essay is somewhat difficult to follow, and he seemed to move from discussing liberation theology to semiotics and semantics without a clear transition in tone and meaning, he does write a very cogent line on page 154. “Semiotics teaches us that the message of a text is not in a fragment of its report, but in its totality, as a structure that encodes a meaning.” Taking that line, and changing it a bit, one could deduce from Croatto and other scholars that indeed the message in the Bible is not found in a “fragment” of its volumes and chapters, but rather in the “totality” of its combined stories.

What are the major issues for Ernst Troeltsch?

In his book, The Absoluteness of Christianity and the History of Religions

, Troeltsch takes an historic view, far more philosophical and reverent towards Christianity than the previous writers reviewed for this paper — and more focused on pluralism, the understanding that there are many faiths that view God as the supreme being, and the degree to which one faith (denomination) tolerates others.

Troeltsch’s work is referring in many forms and through many examples to the “historical uniqueness of Christianity” (p. 48); but though he clearly sees Christianity as the true religion in and of history, he postulates on page 49 that “There exists, in reality, only one religion, namely, the principle or essence of religion, and this principle of religion, this essence of religion, is latent in all historical religions as their ground and goal.”

Troeltsch refers to Christianity as “the absolute religion,” and Christianity — “this universally latent essence” — has appeared throughout history “in untrammeled and exhaustive perfection.” The author goes to great lengths, and writes in sometimes complicated yet deeply theoretical / philosophical passages, to explain that history shows all religions are “relative truths” and Christianity must be interpreted “in relation to these relative truths as the absolute and completed form of religion.”

He explains (52) that man is “cut off from the light of knowledge by the darkness of sin,” but the “manifestation” that is required to lift man up from that darkness is “divine” (e.g., created by or of God). Christianity, in the author’s view, is that “manifestation” which is recognized “as divine precisely because it transcends and nullifies all likeness to human events.” In other words, in lay terms, it appears that he is saying that if one perceives that Christianity as a “miracle” (and Jesus being born to a virgin and later being raised from the dead is a miracle), that is a “guarantee” of one being a believer.

Believing in miracles related to God is accepting “supernaturalism,” and also it entails accepting the “absoluteness” — albeit, on page 53 he explains that Christians have only receive “a down payment and a pledge of the truth”; and “anxiety, guilt, and sin have been overcome but that the divine light with its perfect clarity has sent only one of its rays into the midst of a vast, profound darkness.”

Finally, to understand what Troeltsch is writing, on pages 53-54 it seems clear that through knowledge a human has the ability to discover relating to God is finite, but that cursory knowledge “tangled reality becomes crystal clear”; “absoluteness” then is the “self-realization of god in the human consciousness.”

What options does Troeltsch offer; what do I think of his issues and options?

Troeltsch offers two great theories to explain the “absoluteness” of Christianity in relations to the other religions. One theory relies on the absolute “miracle of an inner renewal that transcends all natural powers,” and the other is that the true “essence” of religion is Christianity — an “idealistic-evolutionary theory” which attempts to rule out every means of “isolating Christianity from the rest of history on the basis of miracle.” My viewpoint is, if one does not believe in the miracle of Christ’s birth, of his many miracles witnessed by numerous people, and the miracle of his ascension from the dead, then Christianity won’t work for that person in any event.

It’s interesting for august theologians to postulate and speculate on why Christianity is or isn’t the “absolute” religion, but in the end, religion — and of course Christianity — is a very personal issue, and not one that requires accepting anyone’s opinion, any scholar’s research, or even any denomination’s dogma at all. Believing is merely a matter of accepting God, and if one is a Christian, one accepts God through Jesus Christ.

What are the major issues for John B. Cobb?

John Cobb

notes that Troeltsch eventually “abandoned” (162) the notion that “religion comes to its fruition and fulfillment in Christianity,” and that Karl Barth was the leader in the kerygmatic theology movement. Barth’s kerygmatic theology promoted the idea that those interested in “Christian theology” should not also be interested in religion, because “religion is a human phenomenon”; but since theology “witnesses to what God has done in Jesus Christ” — this is not a “human phenomenon” and “cannot be studied by historians” and “cannot be argued or proved” — they should know the difference between the two.

The implication of Barth’s views (163) is that “Christianity as a religion is on exactly the same plane as all other religions,” and thus the structures of religious life “can be neglected” because the “real drama is between God and individual persons.”

Cobb describes the thinking of Karl Rahner (the “single most influential” Catholic theologian of the 20th Century) (165-66): “People can be saved whether or not they are related to the Catholic Church or consciously accept Jesus Christ.” Those saved under this theme are called “anonymous Christians.” Rahner’s view is very pluralistic, given that the “official Catholic theology” tends to put forward a “lingering arrogance” that the Catholic Church has anything at all to learn from other religions.

What options does Cobb offer; what do I think of his issues and options?

Cobb’s bottom line when it comes to pluralism is that it has taken Christians “a long time to recognize that there are other movements in the world that are bearers of authentic contributions to salvation that differ from our own.”

It would seem to a thinking person — a person who is not caught up so completely in dogma that he or she can’t consider anything outside their own church beliefs and values — that if God is truly a merciful, loving God, then God will not deny a Muslim who has lived a good and balanced life, a place in heaven, any more than God would deny a Jew, a Catholic, a Hindu or a Buddhist a place in paradise. Christians, along with all other world faiths — no matter where they live or what ethnicity they reflect — should at least have the common ground of knowing they believe in the same God.

What are the major issues for Diana Eck?

Diana Eck’s article in the Harvard Magazine

is very enlightening reading, especially for those interested in the “before” and “after” of the events of September 11, 2001, in terms of religious plurality Because what Eck is describing is a very idealistic, open-minded, multi-cultural and diversity-driven concept which was part of her life and times almost exactly five years before Islamic terrorists — trained and funded by Osama bin Laden — crashed commercial airplanes into New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.

Eck writes that when the 1965 immigration act removed “the legal legacy of racism that had been built into immigration legislation from the first Chinese exclusion act in 1882,” the door was again open for people (in particular students) from all nations and ethnicities to come into the United States. Universities (in the early 1990s) became, she writes, “the microcosms and laboratories of a new multicultural and multi-religious America … [and] Harvard’s issues, America’s issues, have become, increasingly, a fresh recasting of many of India’s issues, the world’s issues: race, culture, religion, difference, diversity, and whether it is possible to move from diversity to pluralism.”

What options does Eck offer; what do I think of her issues and options?

She says that she knew in 1990 that “… The shape of traditional fields of study was inadequate to this new world,” and the “new world” she spoke of was that new door opening in the early 1990s which seemed so positive and hopeful in terms of the realm of diversity and pluralism she saw and studied. But today, following the events of the past 5 years — terrorism, hatred towards Muslims by Americans and hatred towards Americans by Muslims, continuing incidences of anti-Semitism and acts of racial hatred — one wonders what Eck has to say.

Personally, this article has both hope and doubt built into it, but the important point is that the average student, the average investigative person who cares about the way in which the world’s citizens honor and worship God, depends upon scholars such as Eck, Tamez, Maimela, and Fiorenza and even deep thinkers like Troeltsch, to bring the great theological issues into a mainstream context for discussion and understanding.

How might these issues or positions impact congregational life and/or the Pastoral ministry?

These issues — in particular the anger feminist Christians and black Christians feel towards much of what is written in the Bible — are not going to disappear any time soon. Nor will they be solved any time soon. The impact they will have on the ministry, and on the life of a congregation, can be positive, if leaders in churches of all faiths have the courage to approach these issues honestly, openly, and to be good listeners no matter how radical or raging some of the feedback might be from churchgoers.

Meanwhile, in conclusion, it seems important to mention that Christians in wealthy communities — and “First World” nations — should not cast aspersions or scorn upon their Christian brethren in low-income communities and Third World nations. There should be a community of believers joining hands to love and support one another, and though that is an idealistic concept, nothing short of striving towards it is acceptable, if Christians really understand — and live according to — the true legacy of Jesus Christ.

References

Cobb, John B. Jr. 1984. The Meaning of Pluralism for Christian Self-Understanding. In Religious Pluralism, ed. L.S. Rouner, 161-179. Notre Dame, Indiana: University

Of Notre Dame Press.

Croatto, J. Severino. 1983. Biblical Hermeneutics in the Theologies of Liberation. In Irruption of the Third World: Challenge to Theology, ed. Virginia Fabella and Sergio Torres, 140-167. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.

Eck, Diana L. 1996. Neighboring Faiths: How Will Americans Cope with Increasing Religious Diversity?” Harvard Magazine 99 (September — October): 38-

44.

Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schussler.1985. The Will to Choose or Reject: Continuing Our

Critical Work. In Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Letty M. Russell, 125-

136. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Maimela, Simon S. 1991. Black Theology and the Quest for a God of Liberation. In Theology at the End of Modernity, ed. Sheila Greeve Davaney, 141-160.

Philadelphia: Trinity Press International.

Russell, Letty M. 1985. Introduction: Liberating the Word. In Feminist Interpretation of The Bible, ed. Letty M. Russell, 11-18. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Tamez, Elsa. 1989. Women’s Rereading of the Bible: The Rediscovery of the Bible. In With Passion and Compassion: Third World Women Doing Theology, ed. Virginia

Fabella and Mercy Amba Oduyoye, 173-183. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.

Troeltsch, Ernst. 1971. Background of the Problem of the Absoluteness of Christianity. In The Absoluteness of Christianity and the History of Religions, 45-62. Richmond, VA:

John Knox Press.

Letty M. Russell, Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985), 11.

Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, “The Will to Choose or to Reject: Continuing Our Critical Work,” in Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Letty M. Russell (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985), 125-136.

Elsa Tamez, “Women’s Rereading of the Bible,” in With Passion and Compassion, ed. Virginia Fabella and Mercy Amba Oduyoye (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988), 173.

Simon S. Maimela, “Black Theology and the Quest for a God of Liberation,” in Theology at the End of Modernity, ed. Sheila Greeve Davaney, (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), 141.

J. Severino Croatto, “Biblical Hermeneutics in the Theologies of Liberation,” in Irruption of the Third World: Challenge to Theology, ed. Virginia Fabella and Sergio Torres (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1983), 140-168.

Ernst Troeltsch, “Background of the Absoluteness of Christianity.” In The Absoluteness of Christianity and the History of Religions, (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1971), 132, 45.

John B. Cobb Jr., “The Meaning of Pluralism for Christian Self-Understanding,” in Religious Pluralism, ed. L.S. Rouner (Richmond, Virginia, 1984), 161.

Diana Eck, “Neighboring Faiths: How will Americans Cope with Increasing Religious Diversity?” Harvard Magazine 99 (1996): 38.