Flickr - Latest Photos
Submission and power in Christ
I haven't forgotten about Sarah Coakley, my Theologian of the Month. I'm halfway through Powers and Submissions. It's tough reading, so I guess I've been putting off trying to blog it. But since it's the middle of the month already, I better get started.
Coakley wants to reappropriate power and submission as positive concepts, in opposition to feminists who argue that submission is never positive for women and that power is always corrupt. She denies that there is an opposition between these two concepts. She turns to contemplative prayer as the practice that embodies both power and submission as "a graced means of human empowerment in the divine which the feminist movement ignores or derides at its peril."
In her first chapter, she looks at the passage in Philippians 2 (otherwise known as the Christ Hymn) and quotes a feminist theologian who states "for women, the theme of self-emptying and self-abnegation is far from helpful as a paradigm." Coakley wants to defend kenosis (self-emptying) "as not only compatible with feminism, but vital to a distinctively Christian manifestation of it [that] embraces the spiritual paradoxes of 'losing one's life in order to save it.'"
She then traces the history of the interpretation of that passage, which is a bit difficult to follow. Basically, is it a theological or ethical issue? Is the passage about Christ's pre-existence or about his servanthood on earth? Does Christ temporarily relinquish his divine powers while on earth or only pretend to? Does he choose "never to have certain (false and worldly) forms of power or does he reveal divine power to be 'humble' rather than 'grasping'? These are issues and questions raised by interpreters throughout the centuries.
"Where the question of gender then insidiously inserts itself into this scholarly divide is in the willingness... to construe forms of 'weakness,' 'passivity' or 'vulnerability' (all traditionally demerits for the male, but manifestly present in Jesus' passion) as either normatively human or even revelatorily divine...if Jesus' 'vulnerability' is a primary narrative given, rather than a philosophical embarrassment to explain away, then precisely the question is raised whether 'vulnerability' need be seen as a female weakness rather than a...human strength."
If Christian feminism represses all notions of vulnerability, then it fails to embrace the power of the cross and resurrection. Coakley uses contemplative prayer as an example of positive submission and self-empowerment. The hymn in Phillippians is an invitation into the church (it was probably used in worship) and not a mere theological speculation on Christ's nature. This spiritual discipline of "silent waiting on the divine" is "profoundly transformative, 'empowering' in a mysterious Christic sense...it marks one's willed engagement in the pattern of cross and resurrection, one's deeper rooting and grafting into the body of Christ." This self-emptying is not a self-abnegation at all, but a grafting of one's self into God.
Wow. Great stuff. If kenosis is incompatible with feminism, then how can
feminism be compatible with following Christ?
Daniel [neotheologue@godsfamily.com]
Well, there are different kinds of feminism. Dr. Coakley is arguing that
kenosis is vital to the feminism she supports (see the third paragraph).
Look at postmodernism. There are some forms of postmodernism that are
incompatible with Christianity, but many theologians have acknowledged it
does speak to our situation and have reappropriated some of its language
and concepts. Same with feminism.
Plus, you can understand why feminists are nervous about the language of submission, which has been used to oppress women for centuries. That understanding of submission is not what Coakley supports (nor do I). But she doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so she shows how kenosis and being vulnerable before God is a form of strength, because you must lose your life in order to save it.
I understand Coakley's point; what I'm disparaging is the fact that it
needed to be made. It seems incredibly obvious to me. Of course, I'm a
white, thirty-something, lower-upper-middle class American with all my
hair, so my perspective is probably skewed. But to me Jesus was about
giving up one's "rights" (or even allowing them to be taken from you) for
the greater good of others. If that means I begin to perceive myself as a
"doormat," then the problem I have is not with Jesus, nor with those who
are walking all over me, but with my own perception.
I'm not in favor of the oppression of women any more than I'm for the oppression of people of other races, nationalities, or creeds. I just don't see "fighting for my equality" as something Jesus would have approved of. Of course, I'm talking on an individual, personal level here. Our mandate to work for social justice requires us to seek equal rights for women, just as it does for everyone else.
Daniel [neotheologue@godsfamily.com]
I think I understand what you mean but I'm hesitant to agree. Some
theologians do find the language of "rights" incompatible with
Christianity. But I always get squirmy around this because I LIKE my right
to vote. I can't believe I'm defending individualism. But there are
situations in which I would fight for my individual rights. So if someone
told me, for example, you can't vote because you're a woman, I don't see
how allowing that right to be taken away has anything to do with following
Jesus. Can we separate social justice movements from rights? Is the
language of rights too linked to an Enlightenment political individualism
to be useful to Christians? If so, how do we rethink this?
"If that means I begin to perceive myself as a "doormat," then the problem I have is not with Jesus, nor with those who are walking all over me, but with my own perception." I can't agree. If someone is trying to walk all over me or take advantage of me, then the problem is not my perception but the person who's oppressing me. When I hear "walk all over" I think of someone who is trying to denigrate my self, which is found in God, so that's also a sin against God.
I think where we have to draw the line in surrendering "rights" is at the
point of "the good of others." As I wrote above, Jesus was about giving up
his rights for the good of other people. He humbled himself so that we
might be exalted. Thus, giving up your right to vote wouldn't be a
Christlike kenosis under most conditions. On the other hand, giving up
your "right" to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy for the good
of the unborn child is an incredibly kenotic decision.
Regarding being a doormat...given your "theology of submission" you expressed in your second paragraph, what do you make of Matthew 5:38-41? Remember that the cultural context here is insult ("strikes" in 39 is better translated "slaps"), petty vindictiveness ("wants to sue you" in 40 is a Greek imperative, "is bent on suing you"), and slave-like humiliation ("forces you" in 41 translates the same verb used of Simon of Cyrene in Matthew 27:32 where he was pressed into service to carry Christ's cross).
According to your theology, Jesus is teaching us to sin in this passage by allowing others to denigrate the image of God in me...or do I misinterpret you?
Daniel [neotheologue@godsfamily.com]
Ah, good question. Neo, you are right to bring up that passage. In
Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus tells us to not allow someone to denigrate us. The
person hitting me or taking my cloak is sinning against me and God. But,
when Jesus says if someone hits you on the right cheek turn the other also,
that is not lying down and being a victim. This is what I was taught about
the meaning of that verse. If a person hits you on the right cheek, in
Jesus' culture that was how you hit a slave or lowly person. When you turn
your cheek, you are forcing them to hit you as an equal. Of course, you're
still being hurt, but you are confronting their sin of violence and
injustice. Jesus does not ask us to be doormats but to be peacemakers. So
Neo, you are right in that a non-Christian could look at my turning the
other cheek and say, "You are being a doormat," and I would say, "No, you
are perceiving it wrong. By choosing to go the extra mile, I am following
Jesus by not returning evil for evil. In fact, I am robbing that person who
is trying to sin against me of their oppressive power over me."
So I agree with you, but surely there are circumstances in which the problem is not perception. What about an abused woman or child? Surely we would not say, the problem is with your perception of the situation. That's more what I was thinking of in my last comment. But thank you for the challenge.
GOD IS THE SPIRIT OF LIFE AND LOVE.
He DOES NOT want what HE CREATED
which is
humanity to be SEPARATED from him & DESTROYED.
Since HE IS
THE ONLY ONE who can get rid of the CONDEMNATION of SIN brought on by
DISOBEDIENCE in our lives he knew that HE had to do something about this
PROBLEM and SAVE US.
But how can A SPIRIT RELATED to humanity and
to
our human wants, needs, issues and problems?
In order for HIM to do
this, GOD in his infinite wisdom had to MANIFEST HIMSELF and MAKE HIMSELF
KNOWN to US and he had to do it in a way
that he could RELATE to
US.
So HE created another HUMAN FORM which was born
of HIS OWN
PERFECT SPIRIT (NOT A MAN'S FLESH PRODUCING SPERM);
AND HE CALLED IT HIS
ONLY BEGOTTEN SON;
AND HIS NAME IS JESUS!
JESUS reveals his devine
power by humbling himself, serving others, being kind and
compassionate, loving and giving of himself
and by being OBEDIENT
TO HIS FATHERS WILL.
His Fathers will was his purpose. TO GET RID OF THE
CONDEMNATION OF SIN FROM US SO THAT WE COULD BE JOINED TO GOD AGAIN AND
MADE PERFECT.
Jesus knew that he had to give himself to sin and and be
killed in order to finish it.
Stacey Blankenship [statone@thearchway.com]