No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2014
Abstract
Rightly understood, christology is feminism's strongest ally. The historical context for this investigation is the emergence of the “second stage” of feminism (Freidan) which challenges feminist theology to move beyond criticism to construction in dialogue and mutuality with men (Part I). A critical review of feminist christological work (Daly, Heyward, Ruether) points towards the liberal view of Jesus and a “therapeutic” view of soteriology. In view of the methodological elusiveness and the inescapable maleness of the historical Jesus and in view of the radical nature of sexism as systemic evil, these biases may indicate weaknesses (Part II). Drawing upon some recent reformulations of the trinity (Jenson, Moltmann, Congar), the paper proposes that a trinitarian christology will directly address the soteriological requirements of feminist theology and will provide a model of God which centers in mutuality, equality and freedom, and thus avoids oppressive, male qualities (Part III). Finally the implications of this christology are drawn to the practicalities of the feminist/masculinist debate.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The College Theology Society 1984
References
1 Swidler, Leonard, “Jesus Was a Feminist,” The Catholic World 212 (January 1971), 177–83.Google Scholar
2 Collins, Sheilla D., “Feminist Theology at the Crossroads,” Christianity and Crisis 41 (Dec. 15, 1981), 342–47.Google Scholar
3 Ruether, Rosemary Radford, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology (Boston: Beacon, 1983), p. 125.Google Scholar
4 Daly, Mary, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's Liberation (Boston: Beacon, 1973), pp. 69–71.Google Scholar
5 Grant, Jacqueline, “Feminist Theology as a Theology of Liberation,” Women in Religion: A Supplement to the West Virginia Edition of the Women's Yellow Pages, ed. Daugherty, Mary Lee ([P. O. Box 6614] Charleston, WV [25302]: 1980), pp. 45–52.Google Scholar
6 Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 173–90.Google Scholar
7 The understanding of “therapeutic” used here draws on Rieff, Philip, The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud (New York: Harper and Row, 1968).Google Scholar The issue deserves much fuller development than can be given here. For an interesting exploration of one aspect of the issue see Hunter, Rodney, “Moltmann's Theology of the Cross and the Dilemma of Contemporary Pastoral Care,” in Hope for the Church: Moltmann in Dialogue with Practical Theology, trans. and ed. Runyon, Theodore (Nashville, Abingdon, 1980), pp. 75–92.Google Scholar
8 Heyward, Carter, The Redemption of God: A Theology of Mutual Relation (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1981).Google Scholar
9 Ibid., p. 56.
10 Ibid., p. 55.
11 In keeping with this perception, Heyward states her preference for the teachings of Jesus over those of Paul (ibid., p. 33).
12 Ibid., p. 22.
13 Ibid., p. 32.
14 Ibid., p. 25.
15 Ruether, Rosemary Radford, To Change the World: Christology and Cultural Criticism (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 5.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., p. 29.
17 Ibid.
18 Sobrino, Jon, Christology at the Crossroads: A Latin American Approach, trans. Drury, John (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1978), pp. 274ff.Google Scholar
19 In the work of Hans W. Frei we find a careful accounting of the complex identity of Jesus as it emerges when the synoptic gospels are read as identity descriptions; see Frei, Hans W., The Identity of Jesus Christ: The Hermeneutical Bases of Dogmatic Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975).Google Scholar
20 Ruether, , Christology, p. 54.Google Scholar
21 Ibid.
22 Earlier in the book Ruether speaks in a way that would support the tendency to distinguish the Christ even from the life of Jesus. “[Jesus] continues to disclose to us, then, the Christ, the messianic humanity, whose fullness of meaning we begin to glimpse in him and also in the signs of hope in our times, but whose ultimate arrival is still as much ahead of us in our day as it was ahead of him in his day” (ibid., p. 5). Here the Christ is an eschatological reality which can be identified with Jesus in only an anticipatory and provisional sense.
23 Collins, p. 346; Ochs, Carol, Behind the Sex of God: Toward a New Consciousness Transcending Matriarchy and Patriarchy (Boston: Beacon, 1977), pp. 136–39.Google Scholar
24 Moltmann, Juergen, The Trinity and the Kingdom (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981);Google ScholarJenson, Robert W., The Triune Identity: God According to the Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982);Google ScholarCongar, Yves, “Classical Political Monotheism and the Trinity,” God as Father? Concilium 143, ed. Metz, Johannes-Baptist and Schillebeeckx, Edward (New York: Seabury, 1981), pp. 31–36;Google ScholarRahner, Karl, The Trinity, trans. Donceel, J. (New York: Herder, 1970)Google Scholar and Jungel, Eberhard, The Doctrine of the Trinity: God's Being is in Becoming (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976).Google Scholar See also Word and World: Theology for Christian Ministry, 2/1 (Winter 1982), “The Triune God.”Google Scholar
25 Berkof, Hendrikus, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1977), pp. 17–21;Google Scholar Congar, p. 35.
26 Moltmann, pp. 16-20.
27 Jenson, chap. 4.
28 Ibid., pp. 106-107.
29 Cooke, Bernard, “Non-Patriarchal Salvation,” Horizons 10/1 (Spring 1983), 22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 26. The “Abba” experience of Jesus has gained added notice in recent theological reflection. Although Jesus' use of “Abba” cannot be regarded as absolutely unique, it is widely regarded as a special characteristic of Jesus' own life and teaching. Jeremias, Joachim, The Prayers of Jesus (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967), pp. 95–98Google Scholar, and New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (New York: Scribner's, 1971), pp. 61–68;Google ScholarSchillebeeckx, Edward, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (New York: Seabury, 1979), pp. 256–69, 652–69.Google Scholar I should add my agreement with Jeremias' note to the effect that “the fact that the address ‘Abba’ expresses a consciousness of son-ship should not mislead us into ascribing to Jesus himself in detail the ‘Son of God’ christology…” (New Testament Christology, p. 67). My claim is not that Jesus himself held a Son of God christology, but that his human experience of the intimacy of his relation with God was grounded in the unique relationship of the trinitarian Son with the Father.
30 Jenson, p. 143.
31 Moltmann, pp. 219-22.
32 Ibid., pp. 162-66.