Christologies

 

Many feminist theologians argue that the model of sin offered by Reinhold Niebuhr et al limits our Christology to an atonement model whereby Christ suffers as the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins. Historically, Christianity has focused upon the redemptive value of suffering. Indeed, 1 Timothy 2:14-15 "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty" has been understood in this context. Women's status and subjugation is an atonement for transgression.

 

Mary H. Schertz, "God's Cross and Women's Questions: A Biblical Perspective on the Atonement," Mennonite Quarterly Review 68 (1994) pp. 194-208.

 

"Frequently -- to their own detriment -- women have internalized the motifs of suffering that have sometimes been glorified in Christian faith and have accepted suffering as their lot. For this reason many feminists resist the notion that suffering is or can be redemptive."

 

Schertz looks at Luke's answer to the question of why Jesus has to die?

 

Jesus had to die because the kingdom he proclaimed was not a realm founded upon or maintained by violence. ... In reflecting upon the narrative of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, Luke views this necessity in light of the continuity between the kingdom Jesus proclaimed and the story of God's faithfulness to the people of Israel. In both cases the sovereignty of God requires an ultimate loyalty that transcends the human limitation of death as well as the human fear of death. However, this covenantal orientation toward the royalty of God is founded upon an assent to life rather than an assent to death.

 

1) Luke 4:43 Jesus: "It is necessary for me to proclaim the kingdom of God to the other cities also because I was sent for this purpose." Luke does not describe the purpose of the incarnation as Jesus coming to die for the sins of humanity. Divine necessity is a call to ministry, not death.

 

2) Luke 9:22 "It is necessary for the Son of Humanity to suffer many things and be tested and rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and be raised on the third day."

 

3) Luke 13:33 "It is necessary for me to go today and tomorrow and the day following; for it is not imaginable that a prophet should be killed outside Jerusalem."

 

4) Luke 19:5 Jesus looks up at Zacchaeus in the sycamore tree and says, "It is necessary for me to stay in your house today" The divine necessity compelling Jesus is an impetus of mission, specifically the mission of the Son of Humanity to seek and to save the lost one (19:10).

 

5) Luke 24:7 The angel remind the women at the tomb that Jesus told them it is necessary for him to be betrayed into the hands of sinful people and be crucified and rise on the third day. Luke 24:26 On the road to Emmaues Jesus asks whether it was not necessary that Christ suffer these things and come into his glory. Luke 26:44 Jesus reminds the disciples that it is necessary for everything written about him in the scriptures to be fulfilled.

 

The divine necessity recognizes the reality of human tragedy. Despite Jesus' commitment to the mission of God, there is no escaping human resistance to that mission. ... In this regard Jesus is in continuity with the prophets who were resisted when they reminded Israel that God reigned. Now, in the event of the resurrection, another layer of reality is made known. Deeper and more foundational than the tragic reality of human resistance is the hope represented by God's faithfulness. Jesus is raised.

 

It is not suffering that redeems in Luke's Gospel. Perhaps more accurately, it is not suffering alone that redeems. It is the mission of God that redeems.

 

Schertz then asks whether it is necessary for disciples to suffer.

 

Luke 9:22 "If any one wishes to come after me, let her or him let go of the self and take up her or his cross every day and follow me." This is not the language of divine necessity but the language of invitation. The notion of taking up the cross every day renders the cross a symbol for mission rather than for suffering. The assumption of God's mission demands the kind of ultimate loyalty that allows one to set aside one's fear of death.

 

Luke 12:11-12 18:1 It is necessary for the disciples always to pray and not lose heart. Thus in the Gospel the divine necessity as it relates to disciples is limited to trust in God, not suffering.

 

Suffering is an occupational hazard in mission, but it is not limited to suffering.

 

Luke's View of the Atonement

 

The suffering and death of Jesus is salvific because in suffering and dying Jesus held true to the nonviolent kingdom of God that he lived to proclaim and to enact.

Redemption is freedom from such suffering and, in the name of Jesus who proclaimed liberty, we must proclaim and enact justice.

 

ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ

 

Rachel Reesor, "Atonement: Mystery and Metaphorical Language" MQR 68 (1994) 209-218.

 

Ressor argues that our understanding of atonement conjures up the image of an angry God who needs to be appeased by blood. She looks to an older meaning of the word that is more closely related to reconciliation, "at-one" "to set at one", "unite."

 

The Male Savior

 

Rosemary Radford Ruether asks the question, "Can a male savior save women?"

 

From Augustine through to recent Papal Bulls issued by Pope Paul, theologians have frequently argued that the savior must be male.

 

Confession of Chalcedon 433

 

Christ is pronounced to be

a) perfect God - perfect man

b) con substantial with the father in his Godhead and with us in his manhood

c) made known in tow natures without confusion, change, division or separation

 

We will return to this discussion with reference to a male priesthood.

 

In the contemporary discussion, Jesus' maleness seems to be taken as something neutral. If Jesus were a woman, then gender would become the immediate focus rather than personality.

We have not allowed race, nationality or religion to be as great a stumbling block as we have allowed gender to be.

 

Feminist theologians tend to argue that if we move away from a sacrificial model of christology that focuses upon Jesus' perfection to notions that look at the relationship between Jesus and Christ, then Jesus' maleness is no longer a defining feature of our christology.

 

As Elizabeth Johnson puts it, "The heart of the problem is not that Jesus was male but that more males have not been like Jesus."

 

Rosemary Ruether and Letty Russell focus upon salvation as liberation from patriarchy or any forms of oppression - Jesus as the political messiah who rejects power structures in his society - Roman and Jewish. This christology tends to down play the notion of "once and for all." Jesus is separate from Christ. He is a manifestation of a concept that is incarnated repeatedly through history by whomever struggles against oppression.

 

R. N. Brock and P. Wilson-Kastner - brokenness of life calls for healing

Jesus is the heart we look to his actions in his life his teaching and healing. This Christology emphasized the church as the body of Christ rather than a Trinitarian Christology.

 

Elisabeth Moltmann Wendell - Yes Jesus actions in his life his teachings and healings are important. They point to the values expressed in Jesus' life but his death on the cross stand sin continuity with those values. The cross stands for Jesus co-suffering his co-identity with the victims of violence, oppression, sickness etc.

Mary Daly rejects the notion of a male savior and argues that salvation is the power to name and define one's own reality as a woman. Women become creators rather than creatures.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Another approach.

Is the problem with atonement theology in part the result of a limited understanding of the purpose of sacrifice. Is sacrifice always about vicarious suffering and removal of sin?

If we look at the language of the Eucharist and consider the purpose of the sacrifice of first fruits and the communion meal, the significance of the incarnation takes on other nuances. Jesus is the infusion of the divine into the world, the breaching of the division between the mundane and the divine. Paul's language in Romans 8:18-25 ties the incarnation to the act of recreation. The redemptive significance of the incarnation shifts from death to life, from the experience of individual humans to the experience of all of creation. The language of the body of Christ takes not more importance for it comes to signify redeemed creation. If as Hebrews puts it, sin is killing Jesus over again, violations against the created order are tantamount to crucifixion. The incarnation calls for radical responsibility for both human social order and the environment.

This sort of christology anticipates the emphasis upon environmental ethics frequently found in feminist theology.