OK, so I always thought that folks like Dr. Carter Heyward were operating with inconsistent conceptual frameworks, that they would face severe crises of faith when faced with suffering and contradiction. But after reading her article, getting angry, then getting over it, I wonder if she isn't being more consistent with her beliefs than I am with mine (which are different, I should add). The wonderful things about people like Carter is that they show me so clearly that salvation really, really is all by God's grace. In many ways, she seems more concerned about justice, more compassionate, and more honest than I am... but if I was forced, I don't think I could say that she's one of God's children. Yikes.
My question is a simple one. What does she have to say that the church should hear? (Not what does she have right, but what should we hear her saying... or should we just never, ever listen to people like this?)
Posted by nickles at October 30, 2005 05:52 PM | TrackBackNow Bob, you comment on Evan's blog about women upsets me. Like men aren't just as manipulative and misleading. Now, I can't think of examples, but its not just our fault. I know you know that, but just think remember that the next time you want shed responsibility -- you could have stopped Eve from eating the apple, but NO she was just too beautiful to deny. Nothing new under the sun friend. Nothing new under the sun.
Posted by: Carrie at October 31, 2005 08:49 AMI thought Bob was being facetious, subverting chauvinism by showing how preposterous it really was.
Posted by: funke at October 31, 2005 09:50 AMI figured he was being facetious, but behind every jest there is an element of truth.
Posted by: Carrie at October 31, 2005 03:09 PMWell, you're both right. I was definitely being facetious.
Now if you have about five minutes, you're both prime candidates for reading the article I referenced in this post and for responding intelligently. I'm really wanting some adivce on it - in fact, the first time I read it, I thought the author was being facetious, subverting feminism and liberal/fringe theology by showing how preposterous it really was... but she's not.
Posted by: bob at October 31, 2005 03:16 PMHere are my responses.
-->She describes herself as "an active, indignant and optimistic teacher and priest with a ragged-edged commitment to justice for all oppressed people." Why don't we all have commitment to justice for all oppressed people? (Also, how do you define 'oppressed'?)
-->"I am learning that...our we-ness literally creates my I-ness and that this is a very great good. It is the foundation of what it means to be human, what it means to be 'in the image of God.'" Don't we, as Reformed Christians, agree with this statement? God made us in his image, and he declared that (in Genesis) to both the male and the female. And does anyone remember that Covchapel years ago, when Anadit Mangalwadi's dad came and lectured and talked about how our 'image-ness' grows when we marry and have kids? It's related to the one and the many that Dr. K often discoursed about.
-->I don't understand why, throughout the essay, Dr. Heyward increasingly used the female pronoun, till she was referring to God as 'the goddess.' Well, I do get it; it flows from her feminist-ness--but I don't understand why she can't make a feminist argument without de-masculinizing Jahweh.
Read this paragraph and then my responses: "Through the work primarily of feminist christians, I have been led to Sophia/Wisdom, to 'Christa/community,' to Hagar the slave woman, to Jephthah's daughter and those who fight back on her behalf: images that are redemptive because they are dark, images of black or marginalized women, vilified, trivialized, rejected, silenced -- and resisting their oppression and that of their sisters. As our historical imaginations unfold, we may begin to recognize in these images a call to struggle against injustice and to celebrate our woman-lives."
-->How can you be led away from Jesus, the Christ, to Sophia...to "Christa"? Aren't we Christians intended to grow closer and closer to Christ alone?
-->I like her point about God being revealed in the dark times. We all suffer, and we relate to stories like Hagar's, who was not seen, who was starving, who was about to die in the desert, when God visited her and called himself "El Roi," the god who sees. God sees us! There's no corner or pit so dark that he can't see us. As Corrie ten Boom reported Betsie saying, "There's no pit so deep that God is not deeper still." This is one of my favorite parts of relating to God: he sees me and knows me. Even the rotty, dank, dark parts of my soul.
-->BUT we're all dark and oppressed, not just the 60% of earthlings who are women.
-->I guess she advocates for women because the oppressively patriarchal society automatically advocates for men.
-->This insight might reveal what she thinks oppression is. She thinks oppression is temporal, and since women have no cultural support/advocation, she's obliged to advocate for women, esp. women of color, like Hagar, who are invisible. (Dear women of color who might be reading this and getting mad at my presumptuousness, I just picked up the tone and terminology of Dr. Heyward. I don't intend to be hurtful or arrogant toward you, like I know what your oppressed lives are like. Or even that they are oppressed. [Sigh. Multicultural conversations have so many, many potholes and snafus inherent in them. Ok, let me shut up and go on with the comment...])
Moving on.
"A goddess whose tender, outraged presence heals and strengthens abused women is entirely different from the God in whose name troubled fathers and priests sometimes rape girls and boys." Oh man. I'm just flummoxed by all the presuppositions in this sentence. Where to even start unraveling this one? Here's how I would rephrase this: "A tender, outraged Presence, the Christ on the Cross, heals and strengthens disenfranchised and abused people and is entirely different from the God in whose name troubled fathers and priest sometimes rape girls and boys, ignore lonely singles, patronize and insult struggling gay men who want to do the right thing, and invade Jerusalem, advocating the extermination and torture of thousands, millions of Arabs." [YEAH. How was that for a politcal, hyper-presuppositional statement? Hoo-ah.]
"...theological justification for this violence in [the Church's} teachings about male headship, women's subordination, and the sinful character of sexuality." Oh my. Dr. Heyward, how do you interpret Eph. 5? Do you subordinate yourself to Scripture, or is that part of the offensive subordination-to-men? Dr. Heyward, calling wives to submit to their own husbands is not the same thing as subordinating all women. Dr. Heyward, what does the supposedly-sinful nature of sexuality have to do with this? Can't you forgive people, institutions, and esp. people in your past who have made this mistake? I'm sorry you've been taught that sexuality is sinful. Scripture says otherwise...but we haven't yet clarified whether or not you submit to Scripture's authority.
"I am learning that I cannot teach christian theology constructively unless I am aware that, historically, the church has done much to damage women, Jews, people of color and the whole inhabited earth; and unless, as a christian, I am learning how our doctrine, discipline and worship continue to reflect and contribute to this abuse of power." Ok, I have a lot (about 90%?) to agree with you here. We have done much to damage women, Jews, people of color, and the earth itself. We should be behaving with love and respect. We should be exerting dominion over the earth, not using it...and that distinction can be applied to every authority/subordinate relationship. God never intended for husbands to use wives, but for them to care for their wives. On so on... I do not agree with this part of this sentence: the presupposition that the church by its very practices and standards is inflicting violence upon women, minorities, and the earth, requiring the church to radically rethink everything it does. (I assume she means, for starters, ordaining anyone who wants to be, regardless of salvation, appropriateness, gender, and blatant sinfulness. Sigh. What a lot of presuppositions are tied up in that statement, too.)
"I am becoming increasingly resistant to participating in, much less leading, liturgy from which dark, erotically empowering, woman-loving images of God are absent or concealed." So, you want to include Athena? Ungit? Fertility goddesses with many engorged breasts and large, pregnant bellies? I'm totally mystified. And another thing about this statement: Why equate darkness with eroticism with femaleness? (For me, eroticism is not related to the dark, to hiding and feeling dirty that I gave in to my darker urges. For me, eroticism is related to light, to cleansing, to relational love, to exclusivity with my husband.) Those three--darkness, eroticism, and femaleness--don't belong together.
"During these ten years, my understanding of God has been, to quote radical feminist Mary Daly, 'gyn/ecologized.' I believe that God is indeed our power in mutual relation. I see more vividly than before that our redemption requires that this power come to us, and through us, in healing and liberation, advocacy and friendship, love and sisterliness, in the most badly broken and frightening places of our life together and as individuals."
-->Um, God didn't gyn Himself. He calls himself male. That's not intended to be exclusive or derogatory to us. Any time you feel that it is--is your mistake.
-->God did intend for us to be in relationship. In community. It's called 'the Church.' The 'bride of Christ.' That's the true way we can 'be there' for each other: in the way He intended. (I learned that by subordinating myself to Scripture. Don't you trust what He said in Scripture? Don't you trust Him?)
-->God is close to the brokenhearted. Please draw close to Him.
Whew! I'll sum myself and my responses to Dr. Heyward with this: Don't you trust Him? Is there any 'him' you trust?
Dr. Heyward, there is only one way to eternal life: through unity with Christ in his death and resurrection. There is no other way. Please, please, come home.
Posted by: Krista at November 2, 2005 04:24 PMWooot! What a whale of a comment! Good job.
I wanted to say a few more things along the same lines, Krista, most about our reactions to oppression, about the Church's history, and about the darkness-eroticism-femininity link.
The way we (American Christians) react to oppresstion and injustice is usually centered around our pocketbook. When things are bad, we appeal to American Christians to give. I find it fascinating that Dr. Heyward has quite intentionally placed herself in a position of feeling for the victims of oppression, and has fought to remain in that place for a long time. How much does she understand what it means to be in solidarity with the hurting? How much does she understand participation in the sufferings of Christ? I'm not sure, but she seems to be in a place of potentially understanding these things more than I do. How can she experience these things -- from Nicaragua to the gay rights movement -- without being utterly dependent upon the grace of salvation by faith in Jesus? I know I couldn't do that, so she must be made of sterner stuff than me, to rely only upon self and community and her personal concept of deity when faced with that much emotion.
Interesting that you said you 90% agree with one of Dr. Heyward's statements about the flaws of the Church. I felt the same way. Of course, Dr. Heyward probably construes male headship and teaching exclusive truth as acts of oppression when we would tend to celebrate those things. But she's right to say that the Church has an imperfect track record. I wish I knew more church history. But having said that, I think it's fair to say that this can be encouraging. It's encouraging to learn that the Church throughout the ages has gotten things wrong. It's encouraging to learn that the Church has been full of sinners from the very beginning. It's encouraging to know that the same Holy Spirit who holds us in check and seals us for heaven has always guided the church and testified about Jesus through the Scriptures. Like Heyward, we must be aware of the sins and shortcomings, but unlike her, we trust the Spirit to preserve and proclaim truth and right practice in our midst. (This means being humble, by the way.) Christ is the head of the Church. There will not be a new Church along with a new heavens and a new earth, but a renewed OLD church, full of people like Polycarp and Augustine and Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Desmond Tutu and Watchman Nee and Corrie Ten Boom and Bob and Carrie and Krista and Sarah and perhaps some of the other people who might comment on this very post. Maybe even Carter.
And on a slightly lighter note -- because I need to be lighter when talking about feminism -- I think Dr. Heyward finds a certain amount of power in the idea of old feminine symbols. It lends a level of history and credibility to the belief that women are powerful, beyond our own time-bound and often wrong-headed experience of gender. OK. I'll allow that. And just to explain how I think she might be thinking, old very often means dark. And hidden often means dark. And within often means dark. So, as she considers old symbols of the female, she's perhaps thinking of older references to female genitalia: old, often hidden, very much within -- so of course she would think "dark," as well. And as for eroticism, is there ever a moment (I ask truly because I do not know) when a woman feels more powerful than when she is seductive and beautiful? Aren't these two adjectives sometimes only iterations of eroticism? Surely they don't have to be, but I think a broken understanding of self can make them thus.
I am now reminded of one of Krista's opening comments, about being made in God's image. Ultimately, I sense that Heyward's argument and perhaps her raison d'etre stem from a broken sense of self and her heartfelt need to repair these breached walls. Her idea of image-bearing humanity cannot focus clearly upon a God who is holy, masculine, omniscient, and omnipotent -- her stance of solidarity with the poor and resistance to patriarchy and authority makes her uncomfortable with this focus. So instead, she focuses upon community, which is for her the prime source of I-ness. For us, however, the we-ness of community isn't a prime source -- it flows from our understanding of God as triune and from our understanding that good community involves regular confession, repentance, and worship (things no one can properly do alone). At this point, we can be realists and borrow from Derrida, et al by suggesting that her sense of I-ness will continually unravel because it has been cut from a faulty cloth. A certain amount of truth has been lost in the translation from source cloth (community) to Carter Heyward's personal cloth. This is always true, I think of human definitions and translations which flow from older human d & t which flow from other human d & t -- sin detroys meaning in every articulation, but by broken bit. We have a leg up on Derrida and Heyward, however, since we can see the threads and strands of meaning not as a constantly deconstructing matrix but as a loop. Unlike Dr. Heyward, our prime sense of I-ness and we-ness comes from an understanding of God-ness, our prime tapestry. Of course we lose when we depend upon one another and one another's definitions, because the sin in the system gobbles up the meaning we try to convey -- but may we not loop back to the Scriptures? Can we not depend upon the Holy Spirit to preserve truth? And if these things are true, then we don't need to keep patching our senses of self with bad theology.
OK, I'm rambling. I'll have to hit the post button and then read this later to see if it made any sense -- or y'all can do that for me. Wuick prayer request: my friend Kim is the one who sent this article to me. She's a Christian and a public health student on a campus where Dr. Heyward profeses (works as a professor? how do you say that in one word?). It's a rough environment. Thanks Kim. Bon courage avec les profs et les etudes!
Posted by: bob at November 3, 2005 10:16 AM*Quick*
Posted by: bob at November 3, 2005 10:19 AMIt would be cool if Dr. Heyward herself came here and posted. How could that be accomplished? Would she even want to, seeing as how we are Biblically-submissive scholars?
Posted by: Krista at November 14, 2005 04:23 PMI think she would rise to the occasion, but I don't think she would neccessarily want to do so. In the best of all possible situations, the discussion would challenge and maybe even overturn her misconceptions about Biblically-submissive scholars. In the worst, her suspicions about the Biblically-submissives would be confirmed.
And here's an unrelated question (not to distract from the discussion at hand): when I use an adjective like submissive and turn it into a plural noun, what should I do to an adverb like Biblically that until just a moment ago modified the adjective submissive? Now it's modifying the word submissives, which is technically a noun. Oh dear! Someone call the Grammar Police!
Posted by: bob at November 15, 2005 11:31 PM'Submissives' is being used as a noun, but it's still a verb, making it a gerund. So it takes an adverb as a modifier, because it's still a verb, even though it's doing a noun's job.
Posted by: Krista aka Grammar Police Officer at November 17, 2005 11:06 AM