Inviting Ourselves to the Table’ – the Contributions of Feminist Ecclesiology and Feminist Theology
2.2. Feminist Ecclesiology
If ecclesiology is the study of the Church and the Church consists of women and children and men, then ecclesiology should be inclusive. However, traditional ecclesiology has remained a patriarchal concept of what or who the Church is. One of the earlier definitions of ecclesiology, as mentioned in the previous section, points out that this term is one that evolved and at one stage was related more to a church building and its decoration
34 Luke 8:54 – “Child, get up!”
39 rather than to its nature or its functions. In a dictionary of theology, published twenty years later, the term was used to describe church doctrine, which has remained predominantly androcentric. In a more recent publication, the Dictionary of Third World Theologies, editedby Fabella & Sugirtharajah (2000:72-78),ecclesiology is discussed in the context of liberation theology, with specific reference to Asian, Latin American and African ecclesiologies. Here it is emphasised that ecclesiology needs to be contextual – people are church where they are located and within the culture which they live. African feminist theologians add to this supposition that gender justice in the Church demands further investigation. They declare that traditionally hierarchical and patriarchal approaches to being church need to be redeemed by more flexible and open discussions about women’s roles in the church and an acknowledgement that women simply are church.
Traditional ecclesiology has been used to determine who should be included and who should be excluded and in this section I explore how feminist ecclesiology has entered the debate. In her ground-breaking book, Introducing Feminist Ecclesiology, Watson (2002:5) confesses that
[f]irst of all, feminist ecclesiology is responding to a situation of profound ambiguity. In writing formal ecclesiology from a feminist perspective, I am entering a conversation to which I have not been invited. Surveying the mainstream ecclesiological literature, I cannot think of many major books written by women.
Watson is fearless as she enters this male domain and explores various aspects of ecclesiology in her book. She presents sound arguments on how a feminist theological perspective begins to make sense of the study of the Church and she opens the door even though she admits that she has invited herself into this discussion. When feminist theologians break new ground, such as this, they not only open the door for the much needed scholarship but they also provide an opportunity for others to explore and engage in the debates that affect them deeply.
The Christian Church, broadly speaking, has been in existence for approximately two thousands years and its present hierarchical structures have evolved within a patriarchal system and framework. Feminist biblical scholars and theologians, point to house churches operating under the able leadership of women deacons, such as Lydia in Philippi (reference in Acts 16) and Dorcas in Joppa (reference in Acts 9). In the first two centuries of the Church’s existence women were prominent leaders but by the 4th Century CE the
40 patriarchal system and exclusive male leadership were once again shaping its structures and its creeds.35
Torjesen also did a study on ‘Research: Controversies over Women's Leadership in Early Christianity’, for which she won the North American Patristics Society Award for
‘Best First Article’ in 1986.36 This discussion is important in the reconstruction of church organisation. Her research shows that women were fully involved in church leadership and gives credibility to the pursuit for full inclusion today. Torjesen (2008) also contributed an article, entitled ‘Clergy and Laity: Christian Elites and Christianizing the Elites’ to The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Here she discusses clericalism, which Radford Ruether and Oduyoye also raise as an additional concern, directly related to the quest for women’s ordination. Gender and religion research has to take cognisance of what some scholars have termed ‘the elitism of ordination’ (see Torjesen’s (2008) article).
Schüssler Fiorenza (1983/1994:84) reminds us that
… early Christian women as women were part of a submerged group, and as Christians they were part of an emergent group that was not yet recognized by the dominant patriarchal society and culture.
This explanation is helpful in understanding why the Christian Church reverted to patriarchy, and became entrenched in hierarchical systems, even though the teachings of Jesus seemed to offer an alternative model of being church. It has taken many centuries for scholars to begin to recognise that the dominant patriarchal system and culture is unhelpful for half of the human race. For many ordinary people in the pew, this journey of discovery has not even begun. In some churches and societies, leaders are becoming aware of gender injustice and the need for change with regard to hierarchical structures. Much of this, though, is still only expressed in goals, visions and academic writing but at least it is being expressed. The theme for the 2011 Annual Conference of the MCSA was ‘An Invitation to a Round Table’. This is clearly a hope, a vision or a goal. I cite two examples to show that this is not thus far a reality. Firstly, same-sex legal unions are not yet recognised by the MCSA – a lesbian clergyperson was discontinued in 2010 for entering into such a
35 See Karen Jo Torjesen’s (1993) book When Women Were Priests: Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity.
36 Curriculum vita of Karen Jo Torjesen, 12/1/2010. Claremont Graduate University. California
<http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1037.asp> [Accessed 10 August 2011].
41 relationship with her partner, and secondly, the gender policy on equitable representation of women, youth and men has hitherto not been implemented.
Feminist ecclesiology, according to Watson (2002:3) “acknowledges women’s being church, celebrates it and regards any understanding that does not recognize women as church as incomplete”. Feminist ecclesiology, therefore, is a tool with which gender exclusive practices within the Church are examined and the foundation upon which egalitarian church governance is re-established. Watson (2002:7) also states that women
… cannot be contented with simply being assured that they are part of the church as a spiritual body; their presence and participation has to be expressed in the very structures in which the church as the embodiment of the Triune God manifest itself here and now.
Many conventional church leaders believe that Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:2837 was made in the ‘spiritual body’ context of which Watson speaks, meaning that in heaven or in the eyes of God women and men are equal but here on earth ‘the husband is the head of his wife’.38 Leah Gcabashe (1995:8) declares that in South Africa
[w]omen have experienced a political liberation (whatever its limitations and drawbacks), but to what extent have they been liberated culturally, spiritually and theologically? After all, those cultural practices are an integral part of the practice of an individual’s faith as they define the moral standards that underpin that faith, belief or spirituality.
In asking this question, Gcabashe acknowledges that full liberation for women did not automatically come with the new political dispensation in 1994 for South African Black people. She goes on to say that
… time is not a factor the various religious orders can cite as an excuse for their inability to make a real difference to the lives of the majority of their congregations or followers. The old order of unequal power relations, so typical of the patriarchal social order and, as some argue, of the Apostle Paul’s interpretation of the role and position of women in the church, remains largely unchanged (Gcabashe 1995:8).
Russell (1993:67) points out that engaging in conversation is characteristic of feminist leadership.39 We shall explore new models of being church in chapter five but it is important here to examine some of the principles of feminist leadership. Feminist leaders operate comfortably in networks, our approach is usually relational, we encourage
37 ‘… there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.’
38 See the Bible: 1 Corinthians 11:3.
39 Feminist leadership is not to be confused with women’s leadership.
42 connecting with one another, we are flexible, intimate, personal and often passionate.
Feminist leadership forms circles and acknowledges the value of a narrative approach, which is evident in the work and publications of the members of The Circle. We also encourage contextual analysis, as each situation is different – there is no ‘one size fits all’
in feminist leadership. Although Russell (1993:67) cautions against biological stereotyping of women’s leadership qualities, she nevertheless acknowledges that these are valid. What she believes is more helpful, though, and for which she pays tribute to “Phyllis Trible’s article, “Bringing Miriam Out of the Shadows,” as she works with the texts of Exodus 1, 2 and 15 and Numbers 12 and 20” is to examine examples of women’s leadership – either in local communities or in the Bible (Russell 1993:67). We read in these passages of Scripture, to which Trible refers, how Miriam took the lead in worship after the Israelites had crossed the waters during their flight from Egypt. As this incident was important enough to be recorded in the Bible, so we have the opportunity to continue letting it have significance as we use Miriam’s example to develop our own ecclesiology. Women are, therefore, encouraged to use major events (or any event) as an opportunity to take the lead and to make a gracious contribution to the life of the Church. There does seem to be a more fluid approach to doing and being church, from a feminist perspective, than there is in merely working in traditionally rigid and hierarchical structures – most often directed from the top down.
Russell (1993:67-68) believes that “leaders are made for people and not people for leaders”. She takes her cue from the words in Mark 2:27 in the Bible, in which Jesus is recorded to have said: “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath”. This argument supports the efforts of all those who seek to re-author the story of the Church. If church structures support the institution of the Church, rather than existing for the people within the Church, who in fact are the Church, then its ecclesiology falls short of its mandate. Russell (1993:68) furthersuggests that feminist leadership
… is a matter to be arranged as a way of expressing the calling and mission of the people. Thus it is situation-variable and changes in different contexts, but as a gift of the Spirit to the church communities in their service of the world, it is exercised in diakonia with the communities.
It is important to understand this approach to ministry because many people, who come up against rigid institutional decrees, laws and even constitutions, are disillusioned. They are
43 disillusioned because they believe the Church should actually be a place of healing, transformation and reconciliation. The MCSA, as an institution, is governed by its Laws and Discipline and because it has a long-standing reputation and heritage of being involved in social justice, this institution seems to grow from strength to strength despite its lip service to gender justice.
The final chapter of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza’s (1983/1994:344) book is entitled
‘Epilogue – Toward a Feminist Biblical Spirituality: The Ekklēsia of Women’ and here she promotes the concept of building
… a feminist movement not on the fringes of church but as the central embodiment and incarnation of the vision of church that lives in solidarity with the oppressed and the impoverished, the majority of whom are women and children dependent on women.
Watson (2002:52) aligns herself with this concept and reminds us that the term ekklēsia is Greek for “the assembly of full citizens with the right to vote and participate in decision- making” and is a preferred term to ‘church’, which is after all derived from the Greek kyriake, meaning ‘house of the Lord’. Schüssler Fiorenza (1997:63), in her chapter entitled
‘Discipleship of Equals: Reality and Vision’, points out that the
… translation process which transformed ekklēsia/democratic assembly into kyriake/church indicates a historical development that has privileged the kyriarchal/hierarchical form of church over that of a democratic congress or discipleship of equals.
This change from ekklēsia to church indicates an innate negation of what the term ‘church’
(as expressed in the Christian context) could be. It attempted to merge the notion of the patriarchal hierarchical structure (kyriake) of the household with the idea of the democratic assembly (ekklēsia) of liberated people, which highlights an egalitarian form of organisation embodying impartiality and companionship. Watson (2002:52) attempts to show that “ecclesiology is a form of theological discourse which is highly gendered and works with imagery that is alienating to women if not reread and reframed in a feminist critical way”. This thesis seeks to do just that. Traditional ecclesiology will be re- examined in chapter four, from a feminist critical perspective, and the discrepancies between ecclesiological practices and the gender policy in the MCSA will be pointed out.
Although Watson, Radford Ruether, Schüssler Fiorenza and Russell have examined traditional ecclesiology from a feminist perspective and, therefore, have developed a
44 feminist ecclesiology, their scholarship is mainly from a Western perspective. Next follows a discussion on how African women theologians are exploring feminist ecclesiology in an African context.