THE
PATRIARCHAL CUTLURES AND TRADITIONS IN THE
BIBLE: A CRITIQUE
At the outset
on this great occasion of the Silver Jubilee of Women’s ordination in CSI, I
would like to congratulate the Church of South India for being one of the first
Churches in India to ordain women in ministry.
I congratulate the women belonging to the Church particularly those who
have received their ordination for God’s ministry during the 25 year period.
I am happy to
be part of this great celebration and I share the joy of my women co-workers in
the CSI at this event. I hope we find
more and more committed and dedicated women who come forward for God’s ministry. Ordination, however, is not our ultimate aim,
our purpose of entering in the ministry, debarment in God’s ministry on gender
ground is to be rejected as devil, and at the same time the debarment that is
still existing should not be allowed to have any control in our commitment to
serve God. We should be firm in our
commitment and dedication to God, though traditions and cultures bound us, but
they should not bind our mind and heart, our commitment. We should feel and enjoy the liberation God
gives us through our Savior and liberator Jesus.
The topic that
is given to me was Critique of Traditions and Cultures in the Bible, which I
reshape it ‘The Patriarchal Traditions and Cultures in the Bible: A Critique’.
The Bible contains various pictures – positive and negative - of women. While there are a number of references that
picture women positively, it is unfortunate that we often picked up the
negative pictures to suit to our negative ideology about women. There are at least three tiers in which
women’s subordinate status and role in the church and society has been
reinforced – androcentrism of biblical texts, traditional theology and
traditional interpretation.
It is
generally agreed by all feminist theologians that biblical traditions and
Christian theology are written shaped and formulated mostly by men in the
male-dominated contexts, they are patriarchal. What Phillis Bird states is
quite right that the Bible is a man’s book where women appear mostly as
adjuncts of men. The biblical writers’ androcentric concern and presentation
can be seen throughout the Bible – both OT and NT. As such the Bible abounds in
male languages and imagery.
Christian
theology has been shaped and formulated with patriarchal mindset by male
theologians. Early theologians who are the shapers of theology such as Augustine
and his followers such as Thomas Aquinas and others in the Medieval period and
Karl Barth and other in the modern period, who did not regard women as full
human beings, as inferior to men and not made in God’s image, passed on male
theology which ignored and excluded women from one century to another. Traditional patriarchal theology which
Christians regard as the only Christian theology has been inherited that what
both men and women regard as Christian theology has been exclusive and
patriarchal. As they regard maleness as the normative form of humanity, the
writers claim universality when they write theology. Feminist theologians agree that so long as
the male, the half (or less than half of humanity) is taken to represent
humanity what has been shaped and written in Christian theology has been
distorted in such a way that it cannot be read correctly. Fiorenza rightly states, “The Christian
marginality of women has its historical roots in the patriarchal beginnings of
the church and in the androcentrism of Christian revelation.”1
Biblical
interpretations too have suffered serious male injunctions as male interpreters
have harmoniously associated with sexism, faith and culture that it was not
before long that feminists have started to question it. As much as traditional
theology perpetuates women’ subordination and determines their inferior status
and role, biblical interpretations have reinforced women’s culturally bound
subjugation. The interpretation of the
creation story and the story of the fall has done much harm to women. That ‘women is created to be a helper for
man’ makes interpreters to conclude with the idea that therefore woman is a
servant to man and subordinate to him.
Likewise, the interpretation of the story of the fall in Genesis 3
condemns woman as originator of evil, source of all sins into the world. Unfortunately, early theologians often headed
in such biased interpretations. The first century Latin Church leader
Tertullian has brought out this negative comment on Eve, the first woman:
You are the
devil’s gateway. You are the unsealer of
that forbidden tree. You are the fist
deserter of the divine law. You are she
who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image man. On account of your desert, that is death,
even the Son of God had to die.2
Later
hermeneutics and commentators continue to uphold male righteousness and female
sin. The Jewish commentator, Cassuto maintains that the serpent is female and
the cunning of the serpent in reality is the cunning of a woman.3 Mckenzie connects woman’s moral weakness with
her sexual attraction and holds that the latter ruined both the man and the woman.4 Thus male interpreters understand woman as
responsible not only for the origin of evil in the world, but makes female to
“represent the qualities of materiality, irrationality, carnality and finitude,
which debase the manly spirit and drag it down into sin and death.”5 In this way women are blamed for mistakes and
wrong things done as imitators of Eve as Ruether rightly concludes “the
scapegoating of Eve as the fall of Adam makes all women as her daughters,
guilty for the radical impotence of ‘man’ in the face of evil which is paid for
only by the death of Christ”.6
It is quite
evident that as the Bible is written, theologized and interpreted by male from
patriarchal mindset, the texts, theology and interpretation no doubt contain
androcentrism and misogynism. The patriarchal texts, Christian theology and
traditional interpretation together are very much responsible in shaping and
influencing culture that marginalize women.
In the writings and interpretations women’s history and experience have
been ignored, as such they are responsible for perpetuating patriarchal
attitude through ages both in the church and society.
As states
sanctifications of patriarchy are undoubtedly part of biblical texts. However it is to be noted that while
patriarchy abounds, biblical tradition also contains resources for the critique
of both patriarchy and its religious sanctification. These resources may be
used for denouncing the patriarchal traditions as R.R. Ruether asserts, “they
are to be stripped, thereby of their religious covering and exposed for what
they are; as idolatry, blasphemy, the misuse of divine name to sanction
injustice and the failure of a significant portion of biblical writer.”7 Some
examples may suffice.
1. The
tradition preserved in the creation stories of both Genesis 1 and 2 provide
excellent resource for critique of patriarchal traditions. The term ‘adham’ which derived from the
etymology of a feminine material ‘ground’ gives inclusive picture of man and
woman as reflecting the whole human being intended by God. The fact that the ‘adham’ of male and female
composition reflects God’s image and God’s likeness opposes traditional
theology that claims man and not woman as created in God’s image. It is to ‘adham’ which comprises male and
female that God entrusts other creations which is in opposition to the cultural
hold that man alone has responsibility to authority and domination. Similarly, the second account of creation story opposes the
traditional interpretation that uphold man’s superiority over woman thereby
determining the latter’s subjugation and subordinate status. A ‘helper’ tradition is not subordinate, but
it is a status of high dignity, the status of God. Traditional and cultural values that regard
men as superior to women have helped male interpreters to claim that women
being ‘helpers’ are simply to function like servants, therefore, they are
subordinate to men. While the text is interpreted androcentrically, the text
itself provide critique for that androcentrism.
The word helper in Hebrew 'ezer’ or participial noun ‘ozer’ which does
not connote any subordinate position, rather is a term that has dignity and
high status, the function of ‘ezer’
belongs to God. God has given that
function to the creature who is to be the co-equal and partner of man. The woman as an ‘ezer’ of man meets the need
of the man just as God is a helper par excellence to Israel.
2. The exodus tradition that upholds the
liberative work of Moses and Aaron downplays and ignores the important role
that women play in the salvation history.
The same tradition however,
records the important role played by a group of women preparing the ‘saviour’s
to play his role. Without the intervention of brave women such as Shiprah,
Puah, Moses’ mother and Moses’ sister Moses could not have achieved his
job. Moreover, the fact that God is on
the side of the poor who does not tolerate infliction of oppression of any form
on any ground criticizes patriarchal oppression of women. Exodus tradition
ignores women, yet the same tradition provides resource for critique of that
very tradition that excludes women.
3. The language of God and Jesus as King and
Lord reflect male language that permeates throughout the two testaments. It
portrays God as male in so far as the language is concerned. It may be understood in two ways; to undercut
and criticize the lords of this world and/or to reinforce the legitimacy of and
propagate the lordship of men. However, the exclusive male language and
metaphor which reflects leadership relationships of power and domination used
for God can be rejected by the use of
the image of servanthood. God and Christ as servants means leadership of
service rather than dominion. “I came not to be served but to serve” declares
Jesus. The image of servant-hood contradicts the image of power and domination
embedded with kingship or lordship.
Similarly, the
prophetic tradition denounces oppressive economic and political power as the
prophets identify themselves with poor people against the wealthy landlords and
merchants of the cities. In the prophetic tradition, the community of God is
also seen as an enslaved and oppressed people over against the powerful rulers
of the ancient near east. The prophetic
God is the God who does not represent
the powerful, but is the God who vindicates the oppressed who is seen as
overthrowing unjust society by turning it upside down. Jeremiah speaks of a new era which will be a
time when everything will be created anew on earth, the woman will protect the
man (Jer. 31:22). It will be a time of
harmony and equality.
3. In the Gospels we find Jesus’ critique of
religious tradition and cultural norms in his interpretation of messianism as
well as in his actions. Jesus rejects
the chauvinistic understanding and kingly image of the Messiah. Lordship and
power struggle does not have
place in Jesus life and ministry.
Disciples are told not to be like Gentiles who try to exercise power and
domination over others. Jesus’ rejection of power-dominion model of the society
is thus vividly expressed in his own words. “It shall not be so among you, but
whosoever would be great among you must be your servant, even as the Son of Man
came not to be served but to serve . . .” (Matt 20:26-28). “The critique of
false power relationship is at the very heart of the gospel.”8
4. Jesus’ critique of the cultural norms and
religious traditions that regard women unclean is vivid in his healing action
of the woman who suffered from hemorrhages for twelve years. According to the religious law Jesus would
have undergone purification rite as the woman touched him and made him
‘unclean’. Jesus rejected the cultural
norms that oppressed women by publicly declaring that she touched him and was
healed of her hemorrhages, he did not undergo purification.
Whereas a number of Biblical traditions are
androcentric and perpetuating women’s oppression and discrimination, they also
provide critique for patriarchal injunctions.
The examples of Jesus, his radical and revolutionary action against the
Jewish social and religious norms become resources for critique of patriarchal
injunctions that oppressed women not only in his own time but even in our time
today. Jesus was on the side of the
oppressed, he restored them to their
rightful place and empowered them.
Patriarchal injunctions that debar women to full time ministry with
leadership roles should not discourage women from actively participating in
God’s continuing ministry.
_________
Dr. R.L. Hnuni
is the Principal of Academy of Integrated Christian Studies (AICS), Aizawl,
Mizoram. She got her D.Th in Old
Testament from SATHRI. She taught at
Eastern Theological College, Jorhat for 18 years. She is presently a member of the Coordination
Committee, and of the Committee on Academic Administration (CAA), and the
Honorary Treasurer of the Senate of Serampore College.
http://www.womenutc.com/rlhnuni.htm
(13.02.2013)
