THE CROSS AND WOMEN

Feminist theology constitutes a revolution in theology, and it remains to be seen whether it will activate a revolution in the history of Christianity. If this type of theology addresses the spiritual experience of women, pays attention to it, follows its course, and encourages women’s struggle for dignity, Christianity—which until now has primarily processed the spiritual path of men and clergy—will evidently change.

In the best-case scenario, this transformation will result in a genuine social and cultural contribution. Such influence is still far off, but feminist theologians do not rest and continue to believe in its possibility. The intellectual production of liberation theology for women is enormous, highly creative, and thought-provoking.

The most critical feminist theologies have focused on the very concept of the Christian God. Some theologians have stepped outside of Christianity, finding the male representation of divinity to be irreducible. Since referring to God as Father and Son is not inconsequential, they argue that the Trinitarian confession establishes Christianity as a patriarchal and androcentric religion harmful to women.

Other Christologists have taken a different route. They have incorporated the gender perspective into another semantic field, resolving the highlighted difficulty by embracing Jesus’ project, which consists of proclaiming the Kingdom of God—a liberating project for the oppressed of all kinds (Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Madrid, 2000). From this perspective, no one in the Church should invoke male gender as a basis for assigning women a particular or even honorable place. Can women not be priests because the apostles were men? Feminist theologians use gender theories precisely to unmask such arguments.

In light of the above, it is crucial to examine what “salvation” means in Christianity and how it occurs.

Liberation theologies have preferred the term “liberation” to describe a salvation rooted in history, without dismissing the salvation Christianity affirms for the “beyond.” Even if Christianity is freed from the machismo of its Trinitarian vocabulary, it is imperative to review how Christ’s cross is understood to save/liberate. In theology, Christian devotion, and the Church’s liturgy, the opposite understanding has often prevailed. Examining closely what is said about Christ’s cross is fundamental to liberating both women and men from an oppressive version of Christianity.

Feminist Christologies have worked to denounce soteriologies that have facilitated the abuse of women. Christ’s suffering has been used to justify their suffering. Women, particularly over the last millennium, have been encouraged to find in the crucified Christ the strength to patiently endure injustices and indignities imposed on them by men—especially clergy. Joane Carlson B. and Rebecca Parker assert:

“Christianity has been a primary force—in the lives of many women, the principal force—for shaping our acceptance of abuse.” They continue: “Christianity is an abusive theology that glorifies suffering” (New York, 1989).

Women have found in Christ’s wounded, scarred, and bleeding body a principle of identification that, instead of liberating them from oppression and awakening their awareness of innocence, has served to keep them in their pitiful condition and allowed continued exploitation. For this reason, it has been the merit of feminist theologians to recover the connection between Jesus and women. If women can cling to the crucified one for comfort and companionship, it is because Jesus was nailed to the cross for taking on the consequences of violence against humanity and for seeking to dignify and integrate women into a society that marginalized them. This Jesus can indeed inspire hope in women, as well as rebellion to fight for their vindication.

To this end, feminist Christologists have insisted on returning to Jesus’ history. Elizabeth A. Johnson expresses it as follows:

“Jesus’ characteristic behavior of partiality toward the marginalized included women at every moment as the most oppressed of the oppressed in each group. Treating women with kindness and the respect due to their human dignity, Jesus healed, exorcised, forgave, and restored women to Shalom. His table community was inclusive, and women—both sinners and those counted among ‘his own,’ as Luke called his followers—shared the joy of the coming Kingdom of God” (New York, 1990).

What to do with the word “sacrifice”?

From a feminist perspective, invoking the cross as a sacrifice has sacrificed women. The word is odious to mothers, wives, and women in general. It could be said that the term—belonging to a religion two thousand years old—is tolerable if it serves to express that the only authentic sacrifice is that of love. Jesus paid dearly for this; it cost him his life. He gave himself completely, “sacrificed” himself to liberate the women of his time in Palestine. The cross, therefore, cannot be equivalent to offering a sacrifice to the deities of the Neolithic. Instead, contemplating Jesus’ wounded hands and feet should remind us of the historical reasons for his crucifixion and inspire Christian women in their liberating struggle for crucified women worldwide.

With this in mind, theology owes feminist theologians progress in orthodoxy. This new understanding of the mystery of Christ still has much work to do in showing that those who, being women, have been treated as guilty, are actually innocent. For the correct, orthodox belief is that the crucified, rather than representing sinners, was the advocate of victims such as the sick, prostitutes, foreigners, and all sorts of marginalized women whom the religious experts of Jesus’ time excluded.

There is a long way to go.

If some women rebelled and left the Catholic Church, others might rebel and stay. It is unlikely that the male ecclesiastical hierarchy will understand the need for major changes in the Church. Christian women who wish to remain Christian will have to force the hand of Church authorities and move forward with them, despite them, or against them.

Comments are closed.