2.2. CONTEMPORARY HERMENEUTICAL APPROACHES
2.2.2. Rosemary Radford Ruether: Ecofeminism
[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.
[62]
possibility of an ecological re-reading of the creation stories of Genesis 1-3. Critical of the role of Christianity and western society in the subjugation of women and the natural world, she interprets the Spirit of God in creation as an image of the regenerative power of trees, oceans and human bodies (Primavesi 1991). Admittedly, the effects of deforestation witnessed in the past decades call for a divine prohibition of the human use of the natural world. The work done by Rosemary Radford Reuther is a good representation of the methodologies developed by ecofeminists.
Following the feminist claim that contexts are patriarchal and androcentric, Ruether demystifies mainstream biblical scholarship by revealing its captivity to androcentrism which has downplayed the marginalisation of women and the natural world in the past and continues to do so in the present. Further, she discloses the oppositional women's culture that was concealed by patriarchal interpretations of the biblical text. Ruether moves from this “hermeneutics of suspicion” towards proposing an alternative interpretive model for unearthing and understanding the voice of women and the natural world in the biblical text. This hermeneutical strategy dismisses the doctrinal exegetical model by rejecting its ahistorical claim of revelational immediacy in the bible.
Drawing on resources from the ANE, Ruether (1983, 1996) introduces the concept of God/ess arguing that the source of human beings is the cosmic womb. She insists that a patriarchal composition, interpretation and appropriation of the biblical message has suppressed the femininity of God. Ruether therefore proposes the term God/ess as a critique of male-dominated theological language. For Ruether, the God/ess is immanent and present among creation as opposed to a patriarchal transcendent God emphasized by a patriarchal interpretation of the bible.
Ruether (1983) demonstrates that a patriarchal Judeo-Christian tradition has downplayed the existence of the feminine attributes of God in the ANE. She thus draws on matrilineal and feminine values from the ANE.
Ruether (1983) argues that there are four factors that lead to sin. First, a distorted relationship between humans and the God/ess. Second, a distorted relationship between a human being and a fellow human being. Third, a distorted relationship between humans and the earth. Lastly, a distorted relationship between a human being and itself. To have a harmonious community
[63]
human beings should strive for right relationships with the God/ess, fellow human beings and the natural world. In her analysis of the bible, Ruether criticises the dominion motif in the myths of origin where human beings are purported to have been given rulership over other forms of life.
Related to the dominion motif is the concept of “progress” that in her view has resulted in the oppression of women by men. Finally Ruether (2011) proposes a new model in the concept of the biblical Jubilee. This model advocates for a periodic suspension of debts and farming to return the social and natural world to a state of harmony.
Ruether’s hermeneutical model has been critiqued by both male and female theologians. Many have criticized her for challenging patriarchal oppressive structures in society by exalting traditional religions and practices in the ANE. Nonetheless, her contribution is positive as regards the understanding that the biblical text does not have one voice. It is a product of certain communities in history and as such it is a product of political, social and religious contestation.
While we do not need to throw out the bible and go back to traditional practices in the ANE, we need to retrieve those ecological and gendered values in the biblical text that were inspired by traditions in the ANE but that have been downplayed by patriarchal male interpreters and redactors of the biblical text. More significant is the need to look for resources in our communities that may inform an ecojustice reading of the biblical texts.
Drawing on Fiorenza, West (1985:1-5) argues that feminist scholars like Ruether have appropriated liberation themes without critically examining the problems of the hermeneutical models they adopt. On this basis, he critiques the methodologies adopted by Phyllis Trible and Rosemary Ruether. He considers the notion that the bible has simultaneously patriarchal language and non-patriarchal contents as problematic (West 1985:1-5), because it implies ambiguities in the interpretation of the text.
However, it should also be noted that Rosemary Radford Ruther’s hermeneutical and methodological formulations need to be analysed without losing sight of her broader concerns.
Any major challenge to prevailing paradigms in scholarship must build upon the profound and persuasive insights generated by predominantly male mainstream scholars, yet call into question their uncritically accepted presuppositions, prejudgments and prejudices that deny women and
[64]
the natural world the fullness of life. Ruether adopts this strategy with great effectiveness. She accepts the starting point of biblical historical criticism: the acknowledgement of biblical texts as neither verbally inspired revelation nor doctrinal stipulation but rather as historical responses within the context of religious communities over time and space.
The strength of the methodology employed by ecofeminist biblical scholars lies in their critique of patriarchy in the biblical text and the prevailing western patriarchal interpretive models. Their attempt to seriously analyse the historical context within gender systems as well as highlight the ideological conflicts within the canonization process is admirable. However, Ruether’s methodology sometimes leads her into feminist history about Christian women rather than to Christian feminist historical reconstruction. A hermeneutic that wishes to promote liberation should provide a critique of both ideologies in the text and the Christian tradition.