2.2. CONTEMPORARY HERMENEUTICAL APPROACHES
2.2.1. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza: Principles of feminist biblical interpretation
Elisabeth Fiorenza is a major contributor to feminist biblical scholarship. Scholars (1987:410) have observed that the key elements of feminist biblical approaches employed by Fiorenza include: a hermeneutic of suspicion that questions patriarchal texts in the bible, a hermeneutic of proclamation that focuses on texts supportive of women, a hermeneutic of remembrance focusing on the retrieval of that which gives hope to women from biblical texts, and a hermeneutic of creative actualisation that seeks to encourage women to look at the bible and to create a perception of what it means to live as a woman in the Christian tradition today.
The methodological approach proposed by Elisabeth Fiorenza begins with a critical engagement of predominantly male interpretive models which are both Eurocentric and androcentric. She draws on hermeneutical and rhetorical theory to show that value-neutrality is not possible in scholarship. She insists that the biblical scholars’ ability to understand the meaning of the text is defined by pre-understandings that they cannot simply cast off (Fiorenza 1999:59). Fiorenza (1999:60) employs a hermeneutic of suspicion towards the biblical text. She insists that biblical texts have served not only noble causes but have also been used to legitimate the subjugation of women and the natural world, and to promote colonial dehumanisation. For this reason, biblical scholarship must take upon itself the responsibility not only for interpreting the biblical text in its historical context, but also for evaluating the construction of its historical world and symbolic universe.
Fiorenza (1999:60) goes on to note that presuppositions do not inhibit interpretation but enable it to provide a conceptual framework which facilitates engagement with the text. This being the case, Fiorenza argues that the claims of different interpretations, competing for attention in the critical arena, must be negotiated in a new way. Fiorenza (1988) states that biblical scholars have to be held accountable for the consequences of the methodologies they use. She notes:
[58]
If scriptural texts have served not only noble causes but also to legitimate war, to nurture anti-Judaism and misogynism, to justify the exploitation of slavery, and to promote colonial dehumanisation, then biblical scholarship must take the responsibility not only to interpret biblical texts in their historical contexts but also to evaluate the construction of their historical worlds and symbolic universes in terms of a religious scale of values (Fiorenza 1988:15).
Fiorenza’s methodological approach exhibits a radically democratic feminism in which she advocates the freedom of all people (wo/men) from cultural or political oppression by kyriarchal structures and systems. She understands kyriarchy not simply as gender-based dualism but as
“more comprehensive, interlocking, hierarchically and ordered structures of domination evident in a variety of oppressions such as racism, poverty, heterosexism and colonialism” (Fiorenza 1999: ix).
She proposes interpretive moves that simultaneously interact and engage with both the biblical text itself and the contemporary reader who attempts to interpret it. These moves include a hermeneutics of experience and social location whereby the critic reflects upon how his/her experience with the biblical text is shaped by his/her socio-political context. This is linked with an analytic of domination by means of which the text’s role in promoting or supporting social structures of domination and subordination can be systematically analysed. A hermeneutics of suspicion questions the underlying presuppositions and ideologies both of interpreters and biblical texts by querying ideological or theological ‘truths’ which they might take for granted.
In this manner she insists that texts are not objective or factual reports of the past but rather politically engaged responses to particular circumstances. And so, they represent the views of the writers or redactors who were predominantly men. By critically scrutinising the canonisation process itself, the methodology goes beyond neo-orthodox models and liberation theology. No longer can one simply turn to the canonical Christian texts for insights or even imperatives for present social and political struggles. Rather, the formation of the biblical texts becomes a terrain of ideological and historical contestation.
[59]
A hermeneutics of ethical and theological evaluation assesses the values of texts and interpreters according to an external scale of values. A hermeneutics of remembrance and re-construction attempts to recover both the victimisation and accomplishments of those marginalised or repressed by the text or by the history of its interpretation. A hermeneutics of imagination both inspires and complements such a reconstruction, seeking “to generate utopian visions that have not yet been realized and to ‘dream’ a different world of justice and well-being” (Fiorenza 1999:53). The mutual complementarity of Fiorenza’s “moves” is demonstrated by her insistence that the hermeneutics of imagination must itself be subject to a hermeneutics of suspicion because the imagination engaging with kyriocentric texts is itself culturally located.
Further significant points in Fiorenza’s methodological approaches need to be mentioned. First, she sees the biblical texts as ideological products fundamentally bound up with the values and interests of kyriarchal social structures. She poses that the impact of a hermeneutics that involves suspicion and evaluation of the biblical text does not entail rejection and disengagement, but rather prompts continued grappling with the text as it is read in changing contexts (Fiorenza 1999:51). A second point: Fiorenza’s pursuit of a radically democratic vision of biblical interpretation in which all interpreters engage with the bible on a level playing field, is a profoundly theological one. The relation of power and domination that in her view underpins much biblical interpretation is structural sin.
It must also be noted that the interpretive dance envisaged by Fiorenza, describes an ongoing hermeneutical spiral in which readers and texts constantly re-engage with one another as interpretive contexts change. The community of faith is shaped by its interaction with the bible but it is an active partner in that shaping, exercising spiritual discernment and judgement, as all members of the community whose experiences are affected by the text or its interpretation are heard, valued and weighed. In short, this methodology requires that readers of the biblical text recognise both the subjectivity of their own interpretive perspective and the validity of that of others, and bring their differing interpretations into mutual dialogue. The result, she suggests, is a hermeneutical dance in which interpreters and texts are in constant motion, engaging, disengaging and re-engaging (Fiorenza 1999:89).
[60]
West (1985:1-5) observes that Fiorenza’s methodology insists that the hermeneutical approach idealises the biblical and prophetic traditions by refusing to come to terms with the oppressive androcentric elements of these traditions. In his view, the idealisation results into romanticist claims about the “liberating” effects of recuperating past prophetic traditions. The model contains ambiguities that invite more theological critique.
West (1985:1-5) further notes that the model proposed by Fiorenza attempts to counteract post- Christian claims that the bible is irredeemably patriarchal. This apologetic attempt, as Fiorenza sees it, seeks to preserves the liberating elements of the biblical text within a patriarchal husk or framework. On this basis, Fiorenza criticises Mary Daly's methodological approach that aims at showing Christianity as irredeemably patriarchal. Fiorenza insists that the weakness of the approach is that it sees Christian practices as mere patriarchal enactments. Since the model focuses primarily on sexist language and sado-ritual repetitions of Goddess repression and murder, it provides shock effects to the ordinary readers who are not feminists. Furthermore, the approach does not pay attention to socio-economic structures of oppression and feminist opposition to these structures. Rather, it opts for marginality, “Otherworld sisterhood” and
“sacred space” which reinforce the peripheral status imposed upon women in patriarchal society.
Fiorenza then calls for the construction of a new vision and methodology that leads to the creation of feminist life-centers that generate alternative ways of naming reality and modes of women's empowerment. She further suggests that new models and languages in feminist discourses must be constructed.
Fiorenza’s (1999) methodological approach is in line with views of feminist biblical scholars that portray the revelatory criteria for theological and biblical evaluation and appropriation of the past and present as trans-biblical – that is, the interpretation is linked to the biblical text yet substantively beyond it. At times ecofeminist biblical scholars like Ruether exclude the biblical text and offer as only way out Christian women's struggle for liberation from patriarchal oppression (Ruether 1986). This has attracted criticism from some Christian scholars who insist that feminist theology distorts the Christian identity. Hogan (1995: 107) argues:
[61]
To what extent can a theologian who gives priority to women’s experiences and practice over and against texts and traditions, considered to be foundational and thereby preeminent, be considered Christian? Would not the identity of Christianity be too fragmented if each group claimed priority for their experiences, over Scripture and tradition, and yet called themselves Christian? Is there not a core which must remain, regardless of experience, if one wishes to call oneself Christian?
The bone of contention here is that the approach taken by feminist biblical scholars and theologians to adopt the experience of women as starting point, eliminates the authority of scripture and Christian tradition. The approach is also seen as eliminating any possibility for self- criticism. However, feminist theologians and biblical scholars only use women’s experience as a lens to define what is life-giving and what is life-denying in the bible and the Christian tradition.
While Fiorenza locates her methodological approach within the ecclesial setup where she sees
“ekklesia as the public assembly of free and equal citizens in the power of the Spirit”, her methodology is significant for the reading of the biblical text in the context of the ecological crisis. Its critique of anthropomorphism and androcentrism in the biblical text is empowering to women and the natural world.