Horizons

http://journals.cambridge.org/HOR

Additional services for Horizons:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism

Geoffrey R. Lilburne

Horizons / Volume 11 / Issue 01 / March 1984, pp 7 - 27

DOI: 10.1017/S0360966900032990, Published online: 09 September 2014

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0360966900032990

How to cite this article:

Geoffrey R. Lilburne (1984). Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism. Horizons, 11,
pp 7-27 doi:10.1017/S0360966900032990

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/HOR, IP address: 137.99.31.134 on 16 May 2015

 CHRISTOLOGY:
IN DIALOGUE WITH FEMINISM
Geoffrey R. Lilburne
United Theological Seminary
ABSTRACT
Rightly understood, christology is feminism's strongest ally. The
historical context for this investigation is the emergence of the "sec-
ond stage" of feminism (Freidan) which challenges feminist theology
to move beyond criticism to construction in dialogue and mutuality
with men (Part I). A critical review of feminist christological work
(Daly, Heyward, Ruether) points towards the liberal view of Jesus and
a "therapeutic" view of soteriology. In view of the methodological
elusiveness and the inescapable maleness of the historical Jesus and
in view of the radical nature of sexism as systemic evil, these biases
may indicate weaknesses (Part II). Drawing upon some recent refor-
mulations of the trinity (Jenson, Moltmann, Congar), the paper pro-
poses that a trinitarian christology will directly address the
soteriological requirements of feminist theology and will provide a
model of God which centers in mutuality, equality and freedom, and
thus avoids oppressive, male qualities (Part III). Finally the implica-
tions of this christology are drawn to the practicalities of the
feminist/masculinist debate.

There is some irony in the fact that christology has been seen by
many as the principal impediment to the recovery of the full sense of the
feminine in Christian theology. It is claimed that whereas Jesus of
Nazareth showed uncommonly accepting attitudes to women, and may
even be spoken of, somewhat anachronistically, as a "feminist,"1 yet the
dogmatic elaboration of Jesus as the Christ by the early Church fathers
has encompassed the "patriarchalizing" of the earliest Jesus tradition.
Thus, in the interest of feminist theology, the historical Jesus is once
again exhumed for scholarly attention and adaptation. The irony of the
situation resides in the fact that the historical Jesus is incorrigibly male,
whereas the Christ of faith is open to a richer articulation in terms of the
inclusiveness of the divine character. It will be the proposal of this paper
'Leonard Swidler, "Jesus Was a Feminist," The Catholic World 212 (January 1971),
177-83.

Geoffrey R. Lilburne, Associate Professor of Theology, United Theological Seminary

(Dayton, OH 45406), is a native of Australia and a candidate for ordination in the Uniting
Church in Australia. He studied anthropology, history and theology in Australian univer-
sities be/ore coming to the United States to pursue graduate studies in religion at Yale
University Divinity School and Emory University. He has a special interest in the
"globalizing of theological education," and led a Study Tour of Italian Base Communities
for United Methodist Theological students in the Summer of 1982. Previous publications
deal with the theologies of Paul Tillich and Karl Barth.

HORIZONS 11/1 (1984), 7-27

8 HORIZONS

that it is precisely in the area of christology, understood as the elabora-

tion of the complexly human and divine identity of Jesus Christ, that
feminism may find its strongest ally.
In developing this proposal, I wish to make a contribution to the
dialogue taking place within and outside of feminist circles. In order to
be true to the dialogical character of the undertaking, I will begin with
some observations about the historical context of the present discussion.
Next, I will review the voices in the recent feminist discussion of chris-
tology, pointing to some trends and unresolved questions. Finally, I will
make some concrete proposals in the form of a contribution to an ongo-
ing dialogue, seeking to address the unresolved questions we face and
thus to advance the discussion in some new directions.

I. Historical Context

A new stage has been reached in the context of the North American
debate of feminist theology. As I speak with feminist friends in different
theological and political contexts I sense a new mood, and this impres-
sion is borne out as I read literature of the movement. We are indeed
entering "a second stage," to use Betty Friedan's helpful term, which
grows out of a new situation and which poses new challenges and new
questions. Without tracing all the references, we can list a few of the
characteristics of this "second stage." Most significantly, it seems that
the stage of criticism pure and simple is past. Some will mourn its
passing, for it had its usefulness and its advantages. Criticism allowed
for some much needed venting of frustration and anger. More important,
it made allies of all who opposed the enemy. Up to this point, feminist
theology has been blessed with the sort of love of togetherness which the
word ^sisterhood" still summons up for many. This togetherness repre-
sented a widely ranging alliance in opposition to patriarchal theology
and all it stood for. Further, it gave voice to women's experience, experi-
ence which had been systematically excluded from the theological de-
bates of Christendom. By doing this, the first stage of criticism also
helped awaken awareness of other silent voices in the theological forum.
A new day has been declared in which hopefully none of the mar-
ginalized can again be denied a voice in the articulation of the Christian
faith.
Beyond criticism lies the task of constructive statement. In place of
the important but preliminary and negative work of criticism comes the
fundamental and positive task of constructing a "post-patriarchal" un-
derstanding of the Christian faith. But in moving on to this task, new
difficulties are encountered. At the same moment as feminist theology
seeks to move to construction, it must acquire a sense of discrimination
which will be directed towards itself. That is, on the road to construction
Lilburne: Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism 9

feminist theology encounters self-criticism. This combination of

a concern for constructive statement and a spirit of self-
criticism marks a recent article by Sheilla Collins. 2 Collins
gives an insightful reading of the state and prospect of feminist
theology and begins the task of discriminating the various voices within
the movement. This task of discrimination does not serve merely a
classificatory interest, but seeks to discern which voices are helpful in
the task of construction and which voices seem to be speaking out of
private concerns removed from the ongoing life of the Christian com-
munity. In discerning the diversity within the feminist movement,
feminist thinkers are facing the painful fact that some position should
and will prevail and others should and will fade out of the picture. Given
the historical commitment of the movement to the oppressed and mar-
ginalized, such a realization is laden with dangers and ambiguity; hasty
and "definitive" judgments are to be avoided. Noteworthy, however, is
the extent to which Collins is willing to undertake this task arid to
relegate some of the radical feminists and the movement of spiritual
feminism to the fate of a lost cause. This judgment is in accord with
Friedan's contention that the second stage of the movement must move
beyond some of the "radical" features of the first stage.
So much for "observations" of feminist theology from one who in
one sense must always remain an outsider. Let me move now to a few
comments as an "insider," that is, as one committed to the task of
formulating a post-patriarchal theology and of furthering the movement
for human liberation. In these tasks I wish to claim my full status as an
insider and a member of a dialogue which concerns feminists and
"masculinists." In looking at the opportunities and challenges of the
new stage of feminist theology, two issues strike me. First, in the new
mood of self-criticism, discrimination and construction, the need and
the opportunity for dialogue are posed very pointedly. Self-criticism
needs a community of support and objectivity if it is to avoid over-
harshness and recriminations, on the one hand, and self-deception, on
the other. Further, the task of construction calls for the ingenuity and
cross fertilization of views that a community of mutual concern can
bring. I do not propose that men alone can bring this community, but I
would suggest that they need to be a part of it. A community of criticism
and constructive statement which excluded half the human race, as has
been so well demonstrated, would be doomed to a lamentable narrow-
ness. Although one can sympathize with those feminist thinkers who
have difficulty trusting males, it seems that the time has come in the
development of feminist theology where the dialogue should no longer
exclude the voice of men.
2
Sheilla D. Collins, "Feminist Theology at the Crossroads," Christianity and Crisis 41
(Dec. 15, 1981), 342-47.
10 HORIZONS

Second, the task that faces us calls for wider definition. If feminism
is to avoid marginalization, it must seek a definition of the project of
human liberation which pushes beyond the concerns of First World
women. Not only must the concerns of women in other parts of the
globe—and especially the Third World—be tapped, but the involvement
of men in all parts of the globe must be summoned. The task of theologi-
cal construction requires a global framework if it is to avoid the ab-
solutizing of local particularities. Seen in this light, the project of human
liberation is complex and diverse to the point where defining it with any
precision is almost impossible. Can a definition that will have global
appeal and local relevance be fashioned? At the very least, it will take a
great combining of resources, women's and men's, if this crucial step
into the second stage is to be achieved.
These comments about historical context are not removed from the
immediate conditions of our own social and political situation. The
defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment and the continuing realities of
discrimination in the job market should concern us all. As we look at
these facts, we must face the sobering possibility that the women's
movement as we have known it may face a certain historical eclipse.
Although the tides of economic evolution may not be turned back, we do
face the possibility that the potentials of the movement for the evolu-
tion to a new stage of human consciousness and liberation of the human
spirit may indeed be lost. The tragedy of such a loss would be very deep,
all the more so as we face the perils of a renewal of militarism which
threatens civilization as we know it. These objective facts and dangers
serve only to underline the urgency of sustaining the spirit of the
feminist movement and of furthering the dialogue it has initiated. In
developing a persuasive definition of the more inclusive task which
faces us, christological clarification is one immediate and crucial ele-
ment.

II. Feminist ChristologicaJ Investigations: A Critical Review

I will begin by pointing to some areas of consensus in the present
debate. These are three: first, that the received concept of God is pa-
triarchal and thus oppressive for women; second, that the doctrinal
elaboration of the person of Jesus Christ has assimilated Jesus to this
patriarchal tradition and thus is equally oppressive for women; and
third, that in the Jesus of history we find the example and inspiration of
one who resisted patriarchy and opened up for all people, women and
men, the possibility of liberation from their oppression. These areas of
consensus must be the beginning point for any dialogue with feminist
christology. However, they cannot form the end point, for each conclu-
sion not only presupposes answers to prior questions, but also raises
new sets of questions. In particular, I will show first that the whole issue
Lilburne: Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism 11

of christology not only presupposes certain answers to the question of

God, but also raises critical new questions for "theo-logy," and more
particularly, Christian "theo-logy"; second, that the question of
soteriology is addressed and in some ways begged in the feminist chris-
tologies examined. These two issues, then, will form the framework upon
which my own contribution to the dialogue will be developed.
Behind the concerns, widely articulated in the feminist theology,
for inclusive language and inclusive ecclesiastical practice lies a fun-
damental consensus that the received concept of God is exclusively male
and thus oppressive for women. The God of lordship and domination is
seen as a patriarchal concept, modeled on notions of tribal leadership
and kingship. When this concept is allied with that of the victorious
warrior, as it is in some aspects of the faith in Yahweh and in certain
understandings of messiahship, the oppressive element is brought to the
fore. A ready alliance is seen between this concept of God and the
categories of Greek metaphysics which portray God as the source of a
vast chain of being. This concept, like that of kingship, is inherently
hierarchical and leads to distinctions between degrees of being and
non-being relative to proximity to the apex. These notions are seen as the
basis for the exclusion of certain persons, most notably women, from full
participation in the life of Christian society and thus from access to its
spiritual and physical privileges and responsibilities.
This patriarchal concept of God is widely spoken of as that feature of
received Christianity which is most offensive to women. Given its of-
fense, it is a concept which can have no soteriologicaJ function for
women and increasing numbers of men. Although we may question
whether the account given represents a totally accurate reading of the
traditional concepts of God, in outline it may be accepted as providing
the essential background for the debate about christology.
The second and third areas of consensus emerge from a particular
use of the modern distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ
of faith. Feminist theologians characteristically employ this distinction
in such a way that the doctrinal interpretations of the Christ are seen to
be fundamentally oppressive, while the praxis of Jesus is seen to be
singularly liberating. We shall deal with the Christ of doctrine first, as
this is seen to be a major impediment to women's meaningful participa-
tion in the Christian mythos and life-style. The early dogmas about Jesus
can be shown to grow out of the patriarchal understanding of God. Thus
Jesus' messianism and divinity result in an assimilation of the Christ
figure to the hierarchical and exclusive nature of the patriarchal concept
of God. With adoption of Christianity as the religion of imperial Rome,
the Messiah's rule is identified with that of the Christian emperor.
Integrated with Greek metaphysical notions of the chain of being, Jesus
is seen as the ruler of a vast cosmic order which is reflected in the earthly
12 HORIZONS

institutions of imperial society and hierarchical church. Rosemary

Ruether writes: "Christ has become thePantocrator of a new world order.
Christology becomes the apex of a system of control over all those who in
one way or another are "other" than this new Christian order."3 Here the
sources of the oppressive and alienating aspects of Christian practice are
traced back to the christological elaboration of the person of Jesus.
Mary Daly writes that doctrines concerning Jesus manifest oppres-
sive distortions which result from and in turn confirm sexual hierarchy.
Such doctrines as the "second person of the trinity," the "assumption of
human nature" and the "hypostatic union" are seen as idolatrous, pa-
triarchal distortions which are dehumanizing in their effects. In Daly's
view, Jesus' total uniqueness and super-eminence needs to be sur-
mounted in Christian thought and practice by the discovery that "the
creative presence of the Verb can be revealed in every historical person
and culture." While Jesus' person does have charismatic and revelatory
power, this fact should not be used to remove him from the sphere of
human life and common experience, from his accesibility and relevance
for us, women and men.4
This concern is echoed in the words of Jacqueline Grant. Conclud-
ing her discussion of the person of Jesus, she makes the following claim:
If Jesus Christ is to serve as the paradigm for Christian theology, it is
to be in the sense that it is through this event Jesus Christ that we are
directed toward the (a) truth. Jesus as the "son" of God is no more
important, but Jesus as the messenger of God is paradigmatic.5

Jesus' paradigmatic status should be kept central in any christology and

that will naturally have consequences for the understanding of Jesus'
person, consequences which Grant is not unwilling to draw. Attempts to
understand the person of Jesus which remove him from the applicability
and relevance of a paradigm must be discarded. For Grant, Jesus as "the
son of God" fails this test in a way that "the messenger of God" does not.
The basis for this judgment is not immediately apparent. Presumably, as
son of God, Jesus is so removed from the human sphere that he can no
longer bear direct relation to our human experience. Thus we cannot
realistically use him as our model or paradigm.
In these writings we can see that there is a fundamental concern
with soterioJogy in feminist theology. Only a Jesus who is relevant and
applicable to human experience, and particularly to women's experi-
3
Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist TheoJogy
(Boston: Beacon, 1983), p. 125.
4
Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's Liberation
(Boston: Beacon, 1973), pp. 69-71.
'Jacqueline Grant, "Feminist Theology as a Theology of Liberation," Women in
Religion: A Supplement to the West Virginia Edition of the Women's Yeilow Pages, ed.
Mary Lee Daugherty ([P. O. Box 6614] Charleston, WV [25302]: 1980), pp. 45-52.
Lilburne: Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism 13

ence, can possibly save. Any understanding of Jesus' person which

removes him from the scene of human living and suffering is no longer
able to mediate the salvation Christians have always found in him. This
soteriological concern acts as a norm for christological reflection in that
itrules out certain traditional understandings of Jesus' person. Although
soteriology has always been a central norm in christology, there is some
irony in the way it is used in feminist theology. It was precisely a concern
with soteriology which led the earliest Christian theologians to insist
upon Jesus' divine status: "How could Jesus save if he were not God?"
would be their question.6 The question of Jesus' applicability to human
experience was balanced by the question of Jesus' ability to save.
Soteriology had to be concerned with both questions, a fact that contem-
porary, "therapeutic" notions of soteriology have lost sight of.7 The
ground for feminism's reversal of the ancient teaching lies in a funda-
mentally different understanding of the way in which God saves, and
that in turn reflects another understanding of who God is in relation to
humanity. The soteriological and the theo-logical issues draw together
here, as we shall observe in relation to the work of Carter Heyward.
In Carter Heyward's work we find a clear affirmation of soteriologi-
cal concern characteristic of feminist theology. This concern shapes
Heyward's portrait of Jesus in such a way that any ascription of divinity
to Jesus is precluded. "Jesus matters only if he was fully, and only,
human," she writes.8 Any attempt to put upon the particular human
figure the status of "the unique and esential lordship" must be combat-
ted, for such an attempt would have the effect of "lifting him above
human experience and stripping us of our responsibility to make God
incarnate in the world."9 While Heyward's "fully human" echoes the
phrase of the Chalcedonian definition, her significant "and only" seems
to rule out dialogue with this definition.
Although this figure is "fully and only human"—and presumably
human identity descriptions and historical accounts would suffice to
render an account of him—still Heyward sees an urgent need to reimage
Jesus. The need for reimaging arises from the soteriological function that
Jesus can play. "I want to reimage Jesus because I see in what he did the
6
Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine,
vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1971), pp. 173-90.
7
The understanding of "therapeutic" used here draws on Philip Rieff, The Triumph
of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud (New York: Harper and Row, 1968). The issue
deserves much fuller development than can be given here. For an interesting exploration of
one aspect of the issue see Rodney Hunter, "Moltmann's Theology of the Cross and the
Dilemma of Contemporary Pastoral Care," in Hope for the Church: Moltmann in Dialogue
with Practical Theology, trans, and ed. Theodore Runyon (Nashville, Abingdon, 1980),
pp. 75-92.
8
Carter Heyward, The Redemption of God: A Theology of Mutual Relation (Ann
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1981).
"Ibid., p. 56.
14 HORIZONS

human capacity no less ours than his." 10 What comes to expression in

Jesus is the human capacity to make God incarnate in the world. Al-
though this capacity is the possession of all persons, it has been lost sight
of and the reimaging of Jesus is necessary if we are to be put back in touch
with the capacity and the responsibility it brings.
One may recognize in this outline similarities to the liberal
nineteenth century christologies.11 Just as these accounts place Jesus
firmly in the human sphere and point to the special, but not unique,
character of his relation to God, so Heyward points to the quality of Jesus'
experience of God. She speaks of "Jesus' faith in Yahweh as God, one
with whom he was in intimate immediate relation."12 The measure of
this soteriology is now clear. Jesus saves us by recalling us to capacities
we have neglected. He shows us what we can do and may be, and by
serving as the exemplar of the truly human, he saves us from oppression
and enables us to incarnate God in our world. What this salvation will
look like is sketched for us. Primarily it involves our liberation from
bondage to heteronomous definitions of reality, identity and natural
order.13 Breaking free of these bonds, in the energy and release of intense
interpersonal relationships, we will experience and enact the love of
God in conformity to the pattern of Jesus:

. . . our voluntary participation in making right-relation among our-

selves constitutes our love of God. To love humanity is to befriend
God. The human act of love, befriending, making justice is our act of
making God incarnate in the world.14

Heyward's words recall to us the power and joy released in intimate

personal relationships, yet her statement is tinged by a sunny optimism
which belies the, at times, grim realism of the biblical writers.
On the basis of a certain biblical and worldly realism, we must ask
some hard questions on this christology. While Heyward holds consis-
tently to her soteriological concern, her account is fundamentally
shaped by her assumption that human persons have the natural ability to
incarnate God in the world. Yet this assumption too is based on a
particular reading of the human dynamics of the experience of salvation.
According to this view, divine nature and human nature are not radi-
cally distinguished in the belief that such a distinction becomes alienat-
ing and oppressive. Yet is that necessarily so? Other Christian percep-
tions have suggested precisely the opposite, namely, that only by being
the Other who had drawn near in Jesus could God save us from our
10
Ibid., p. 55.
"In keeping with this perception, Heyward states her preference for the teachings of
Jesus over those of Paul (ibid., p. 33).
12
Ibid., p. 22.
"Ibid., p. 32.
"Ibid., p. 25.
Lilburne: Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism 15

radical predicament, often defined by the word "sin." Aside from the
question of whether the majesty of God is safeguarded in Heyward's
account, there is the question, rather pressing in the present debate,
whether this account does full justice to the human experience of evil.
As we focus upon sexism, in particular, we discover that its man-
ifold evils are rooted in human behavior in structural and systemic ways.
We experience it as a power that is in some ways beyond our control, so
that our efforts at renovation and transformation result in at best incre-
mental gains and at worst new forms of the old disease. It seems this
reality has not been given full acknowledgment in Heyward's soteriolog-
ical christology. In light of this discussion, can we simply identify the
human experience of interpersonal love with the incarnation of God? At
this point Heyward's optimistic view of the human situation recalls a
pre-twentieth century vision, and we doubt that it has done justice to the
twentieth century experience of evil and human iniquity. Her soteriolog-
ical concern is developed in a one-sided way so that it is in danger of
eliminating the ground for any hope of human salvation. In seeking to
keep Jesus relevant and applicable, she has fashioned a savior whose
ability to save from radical evil is questionable.
Many feminist theologians, including Rosemary Ruether, Dorothee
Solle, and Letty Russell, have turned to liberation theology to draw
sustenance for a feminist christology. The importance of this lies, I
believe, in the greatly refined attention liberation theology gives to the
whole question of soteriology. In the theologies of Latin America and
Asia there can be no optimistic passing over the complexity of evil and
no naive vision of salvation. Here there can be no mistaking the easy and
ultimately empty hope of Western "therapeutic" for the hard and strong
word of the gospel. Liberation theologies are concerned centrally to
speak of concrete forms of liberation from the very real, structural and
systemic expressions of evil and bondage in our everyday world. Thus
they form a particularly rich and appropriate resource for the issues of a
feminist christology. Let us turn our attention now to the work of Rose-
mary Ruether, whose continued engagement with the issues of christol-
ogy is impressively documented in her collection of essays, To Change
the World: Christology and Cultural Criticism.
In speaking of our need "to construct a redeeming vision of an
alternative humanity and world," Ruether points to "the teachings and
liberating praxis of Jesus" which:
prove to be a focal point for this critical and transforming vision.
Jesus discloses the transformatory and liberating patterns of relation
to each other and, through them, to God, not only for his situation,
but also in ways that continue to speak to our situation.15
15
Rosemary Radford Ruether, To Change the World: Christology and Cultural Criti-
cism (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 5.
16 HORIZONS

Beginning with the life and praxis of Jesus, Ruether moves beyond a
focus on the historical Jesus to seek a new grasp of the Christ. This is
particularly seen in her treatment of the cross.
For Ruether the cross of Jesus contains elements of human example
and of divine disclosure. At the human level it shows us the extent to
which persons now working for liberation may be called to suffer and the
limitless quality of sacrificial human living. However, the cross points
beyond that and qualifies in an essential way the liberating work of God.
It functions to defuse issues of theodicy and tells of a compelling new
vision of the action of God. "In Jesus' cross God abandons God's power
into the human condition utterly and completely so that we might not
abandon each other. God has become part of the struggle of life against
death."18 Not only is God active in the event of Jesus' crucifixion, but, in
keeping with the earliest Christian affirmations, God is, in some sense,
the subject of this act. Further, in this act the identity of the subject, God,
is thrown into question. "Perhaps this whole concept of God as omnipo-
tent sovereign is thrown into question by the death of Christ; the martyr-
dom of the just."17 A radical revision of the identity of God is suggested
by the enactment of God which occurs in the crucifixion. But perhaps
this is to say too much. For if we say God is in some way the special
subject in Jesus' life, then we run the danger of elevating Jesus beyond
normal human experience, of not to the commonplace then at least to the
accessible aspect of human experience. There is a tension here, for in her
concern to avoid the alienating and hierarchical implications of the
dogmatic tradition, Ruether must check what seems to be the movement
of her own discourse towards a heightening of the "specialness" of
Jesus' relation to God. This tension is familiar to readers of liberation
theology.
It is characteristic of liberation christologies that they point to his-
torical Jesus as the one upon whom christological reflection must be
based.18 However, in elaborating the liberating praxis of Jesus, such
christologies soon move beyond the historical Jesus and actually appeal
to another figure, the figure whose identity is mapped by the synoptic
Gospels. This "synoptic Jesus" is a far more complexly identified person
than the historical Jesus. Quite aside from the notorious methodological
and substantive problems associated with the quest of the historical
Jesus, the bare figure with whom we are usually left seems far removed
from the concrete oppressions and strivings which form the context for
contemporary theologies of liberation. By contrast, the synoptic Jesus is
one whose accessibility and concreteness make him relevant to our
concrete need. However, the synoptic Jesus is a figure for whom human
"Ibid., p. 29.
"Jbid.
18
Jon Sobrino, ChristoJogy at the Crossroads: A Latin American Approach, trans. John
Drury (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1978), pp. 274ff.
Lilburne: Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism 17

predicates will not suffice, for the synoptic gospels each use the liberat-
ing praxis of Jesus to point to his unique status as Son of God. In the
coincidence of a human life with the willing and acting of God, Jesus'
complex identity emerges in the synoptic accounts.19
Liberation christologies reflect the pattern and the inner structure of
the synoptic portraits of Jesus. While the liberating praxis of Jesus has for
them its obvious human and political component, it is invariably iden-
tified with the liberating intentions, power and activity of God. The
nerve of liberation theologies resides in this, that God is the God of
liberating power and action. What liberation christologies see with a
clarity born of their firm grasp on concrete reality is that the "liberating
praxis" of Jesus cannot be understood without a clear identification of
Jesus' intentions and actions with those of God and without plumbing
the peculiar relationship Jesus bore to God.
Ruether's engagement with just this complex of issues is seen in her
carefully reworked essays, "Christology and Feminism: Can a -Male
Savior Save Women?" The soteriological concern of feminist christol-
ogy finds expression in Ruether's search for an appropriate designation
or image for Jesus. Rejecting the imperial Christ and the androgynous
Christs, Ruether turns to the "prophetic iconoclastic Christ," who is also
spoken of as the "messianic prophet" and the "messianic person." The
life and teaching of this messianic prophet is aimed at the reversal of the
existing orders and the establishment of a new order. Yet so radical is
this reversal that "neither existing lords nor existing servants can serve
as a model for this servanthood, but only Christ, the messianic person
who represents a new kind of humanity." 20 By representing a new kind
of humanity, the messianic person accomplishes what no existing model
has achieved and opens the way to liberation and true humanity for all
persons. Further, in the liberating praxis of the messianic person a new
meaning of servanthood is indicated. The significance of this new mean-
ing is that "God as liberator acts in history to liberate all through opting
for the poor and the oppressed of the present system."21
It is well to remind ourselves that Ruether is here speaking of none
other than Jesus' liberating praxis and pointing to Jesus' cross, lest we
should be tempted to regard these predications as belonging only or
separately to the Christ.22 For Ruether, at least in this essay, the Christ or
19
In the work of Hans W. Frei we find a careful accounting of the complex identity of
Jesus as it emerges when the synoptic gospels are read as identity descriptions; see
Hans W. Frei, The Identity of Jesus Christ: The HermeneuticaJ Bases of Dogmatic Theology
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975).
20
Ruether, Christology, p. 54.
21
Ibid.
22
Earlier in the book Ruether speaks in a way that would support the tendency to
distinguish the Christ even from the life of Jesus. " [Jesus] continues to disclose to us, then,
the Christ, the messianic humanity, whose fullness of meaning we begin to glimpse in him
and also in the signs of hope in our times, but whose ultimate arrival is still as much ahead
18 HORIZONS

messianic person is identical with the Jesus whose liberating praxis and
whose cross are the focus of her reflection. Although she points through
the praxis and the cross of Jesus to the subjecthood, the power, and the
activity of God, still all these statements are literally predicated of the
human figure of Jesus of Nazareth. This is important in view of our
central concern to inquire more closely after the nature of Jesus' special-
ness and the particularity of his relationship to God.
While we need to respect Ruether's caution with respect to any
divine ascription of the person of Jesus, we cannot fail to note that where
she wishes to speak of Jesus' work, her language suggests a certain
uniqueness of his person. This uniqueness lies not only in the provision
of a radically new model for humanity (i.e., and accessibly repeatable
human uniqueness], but also in the intersection of Jesus' liberating
ministry with the liberating work of God (i.e., a possibly transcendent
and non-repeatable uniqueness). Ruether points us to intersections be-
tween the intentionality of Jesus and the purposes of God, between the
acts of Jesus and the saving activity of God. If we were to grant certain
recent accounts of the nature of personhood, namely, that it is consti-
tuted and described in terms of distinctive patterns of intentional-action,
then we would be in a position to place considerable significance upon
the intersection of two personal patterns of intentional-action. Indeed,
we would ask whether this did not represent something closely akin to
the Chalcedonian definition of two natures persisting in one person, or
two actions in one identity.

III. DiaJogicaJ Proposals

From the preceding critical review we have reached a sense of the
questions calling for further clarification and elaboration. First, there is
the need for greater clarity in the specification of the "God-relation" in
which Jesus lived. This is necessary in part because the focus on the
liberating praxis of Jesus both evokes a sense of the quality of his
uniqueness and calls for some special grounding in the liberating acts of
God. Second, the need to specify Jesus' God-relation requires a reexami-
nation of the understanding of God upon which any statement of the
human divine relationship must rest. Earlier feminist theologians, and a
recent writer like Heyward, begged this question by all too uncritically
rejecting most traditional forms of God talk as alienating and oppressive.
In rejecting one concept of God, care must be taken not to discharge any
value the concept may have. Third, there is a need to specify more clearly
the content of the soteriological norm upon which feminist theology,
quite frankly, seeks to build its christology. To these matters we now
turn our attention.
of us in our day as it was ahead of him in his day" (ibid., p. 5). Here the Christ is an
eschatological reality which can be identified with Jesus in only an anticipatory and
provisional sense.
Lilburne: Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism 19

Specification of the soteriological norms must include a clear sense

of the nature and extent of the evil and sin from which we are to be saved.
Feminism's clear exposure of the manifold nature of sexism, its struc-
tural and systemic pervasiveness, is surely a sound starting point in this.
If sexism is more than a peccadillo, and feminism has surely convinced
us that it is, then it is a sin of major proportions. Further, this sin is only
part of a wider structure of oppressive evil. Who can deliver us from this
law of sin and death? I would propose in this context that the earliest
Christian impulses should at least be considered. Only God can deliver
us from the evil that lies so close at hand and yet is so concealed in its
deepest roots. At this point the liberation theologians of the third world
should set our direction. In the struggle against sexist oppression, we too
need that power which transcends us and whose victory rises above the
vacillations and reversals of our personal good intentions and actions.
Yet in proposing this line of approach, we come near to violating the
central soteriological norm of feminist theology. Invoking the tarnished
name of God, we run the risk of mere alienation and a fatalistic passivity
in the face of a very concrete and down to earth need.
I would suggest that the safeguarding of the soteriological norm
depends not upon whether or not we call upon the name of God, but
upon the concept of God which we employ. If we mean that only the
patriarchal God can save us from the sins of patriarchy, then clearly we
have committed a most insidious violation. But if God is the God of
mutuality and relationship, then no such violation need occur, in fact,
precisely the opposite. If God, too, lives in relationship and knows of the
possibility and pain of fractured relationships and the anguish of false
subordinations and repressions, God's name can quite properly be in-
voked salvifically in this context. Yet does God live in relationship? Not
if God is the One, beyond all relations. But if God is the Three whose very
mode of existence is relational, an affirmative answer is not only possi-
ble, but clearly called for.
The problems of traditional Christian soteriology reside in the fact
that it seeks to express the historical dynamic of salvation in terms of a
God who is by nature aloof from relationship and standing outside of all
time and change. In particular, this aloof and timeless God can only be
related obliquely and, almost accidentally, to the saving life and liberat-
ing praxis of Jesus of Nazareth. In the life and ministry of Jesus we see a
very temporal and concrete activity. This activity, in its very temporality
and particularity, has suggested to millions through the centuries the
paradigm of a liberation which relates to the truly temporal and particu-
lar conditions of their own existences. But now we want to articulate that
power and energy, that purposing and power to enact, which we see
present in this life, and the voices speaking to us become confused and
contradictory. Not that which overwhelms and renders us passive, but
20 HORIZONS

that which lifts us up and charges us with energy to face the complexities
and ambiguities in a certain faith in the power of goodness must be our
hope. If our age has problems associating this kind of energizing power
with God, then surely the fault lies not with God but with the concepts
through which we try to grasp God's essence.
Where feminist theology has ventured to speak of the post-
patriarchal God, it has spoken clearly of the God who is concrete, em-
bodied and immanent.23 This understanding of God surely has christo-
logical overtones and implications. In its refusal to speak of an abstract,
disembodied or utterly transcendent God, feminism has not only re-
jected traditional theism but has thereby also refused to accept a chris-
tology adapted to an existing theistic tradition. Feminist theology has
opened the way for fashioning a new christoJogically identified under-
standing of God. Although the agreement is widespread that the God
feminism seeks is to be the concrete, embodied, and incarnate God, few
have drawn the implication that it is supremely in Jesus Christ that God
is so identified. The christologically identified God, I would propose, is
the incarnate God and may indeed be the liberating of God which
feminism seeks.
Adoption of this proposal would have immediate implications for
the soteriological concern of feminist theology. Rather than seeking the
foundational power and authority of the liberating praxis of Jesus in a
preexisting and alien concept of God that is patriarchal, the very con-
cept of God could be refined and specified by careful attention to the
pattern and movement of Jesus' own ministry. Soteriology would then
be grounded in the concrete history of liberating activity associated with
the event of Jesus Christ, and it would be delivered from the emptiness of
simply urging relevance and applicability as sufficient norms. But
where would such reflection lead us? To what concept of God would the
logic of Jesus' existence point?
Recently a number of theologians have been urging a reexamination
of the understanding of God as triune.24 Proponents of this persuasion
point out that the understanding of God as triune arose specifically out of
reflection on the saving history of Jesus Christ and the lively power of
Jesus' Spirit in the history of the early church. To be sure, trinitarian
reflection soon left its soteriological moorings, as it ventured into the
23
Collins, p. 346; Carol Ochs, Behind the Sex of God: Toward a New Consciousness
Transcending Matriarchy and Patriarchy (Boston: Beacon, 1977), pp. 136-39.
24
Juergen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1981); Robert W. Jenson, The Triune Identity: God According to the Gospel (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1982); Yves Congar, "Classical Political Monotheism and the Trinity," God as
Father? Concilium 143, ed. Johannes-Baptist Metz and Edward Schillebeeckx (New York:
Seabury, 1981), pp. 31-36; Karl Rahner, The Trinity, trans. J. Donceel (New York: Herder,
1970) and Eberhard Jungel, The Doctrine of the Trinity: God's Being is in Becoming (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976). See also Word and World: Theology for Christian Ministry,
2/1 (Winter 1982), "The Triune God."
Lilburne: Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism 21

mysteries of platonic and neo-platonic speculation. It has been widely

argued that the philosophically powerful concept of the "logos," as
elaborated by Greek philosophy, was too strong to resist and its adoption
as the central christological category skewed reflection away from focus
on the Spirit and indeed away from the earliest soteriological under-
standing of the trinity.25 Can we retrace these steps and arrive at a
soteriologically shaped understanding of the God of Jesus Christ?
Moltmann claims that the categories of abstract monotheism are
alien to the God of the saving history experienced in and through Jesus
Christ.26 Jenson points to the revolutionary work of the Cappadocian
theologians of the Eastern church, a work which in the West neither
Beothius, Augustine, nor Aquinas could fathom.27 In Jenson's view, the
Cappadocians alone of early trinitarian theologians allowed the impera-
tives of the evangelical history of salvation to shape radically their
appropriation of the categories of Greek philosophical thought. By press-
ing the concepts of substance and its distinctions in the direction, of a
historical understanding, they "horizontallized" what had hitherto
been understood as vertical relationships. That is, the type of absolute
qualitative distinction implied in the Greek distinctions of substance
(ousia), etc., were set within the relativities of history and evangelical
history became the key for opening the soteriological content of the
philosophical concepts employed.

The Trinity as such is now understood to be the Creator, over against

the creature, and the three in God and their relations become the
evangelical history's reality on the Creator-side of the great biblical
Creator/creature divide. Across the Creator/creature distinction no
mediator is needed. "Creator'V'creature" names an absolute dif-
ference but no distance at all, for to be the Creator is merely as such to
be actively related to the creature.28

Jenson is claiming that understood horizontally, understood histor-

ically, the relations of the triune God are indeed open to the history of
human salvation and liberation. God transcends us as that future which
calls us forward into a life of freedom and liberation.
Could it be that in these Trinitarian concepts we have the concept of
God which will answer at the one time feminist theology's call for a
soteriologically fashioned concept of God and a concept which will
uphold for us a model of mutuality and non-subordination? Certainly
the understanding of God as triune has a number of suggestive applica-
"Hendrikiis Berkof, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1977),
pp. 17-21; Congar, p. 35.
26
Moltmann, pp. 16-20.
"Jenson, chap. 4.
28
Ibid., pp. 106-107.
22 HORIZONS

tions to the need expressed in the present debate for a non-hierarchical,

post-patriarchal understanding of Jesus Christ and His salvation.
First, in the relation of Jesus to the One he characteristically called
"Abba," Father, we have a model which challenges patriarchal under-
standings of relationship. The "Abba" sense of father points to the
intimacy and mutuality of close and loving family bonds. Bernard Cooke
has recently argued that "Abba" was the one word available to Jesus to
challenge the patriarchal distortions of "father" in the tradition he
inherited. This usage points to the experience of Jesus in which he knew
himself to be grasped by the unconditional and intimate love of God.
This experience radically transformed Jesus' self understanding so that
he was no longer able to think of himself as masculine in patriarchal
terms. Growing from this transformed self-understanding was Jesus'
liberating attitude and praxis on behalf of the outcast and oppressed.

Jesus' experience of being loved by God, his "Abba," forces him out
of any of the patriarchal prejudices of his culture and grounds his
scandalous attitude towards women and non-Jews.29

We need to exercise caution lest we pack too much into a single

experience of Jesus, which must be reconstructed from the gospel ac-
counts. However, if this understanding of God as "Abba" is set within
the context of a wider understanding of Jesus' person and mission, its
significance is deepened. Moltmann suggests that Jesus' use of "Abba"
points to the intimacy and mutuality of the inner trinitarian relationship.
Here we find a model of relationship founded in differentiation and
mutuality, in equality and accountability. This relational model is not
inherently hierarchical and oppressive. To conceive God in this way
must have profound effects upon the ways in which we image and enact
our own relationships. If God is no longer a ruling Lord or a dominating
One, then we may find help in moving beyond such stereotyped and
hierarchical patterns in our own self-imaging and relating.
Further, the concept of the trinity opens to us the understanding of
God in ways which move beyond the static implications of much of the
29
Bernard Cooke, "Non-Patriarchal Salvation," Horizons 10/1 (Spring 1983), 22-31, at
26. The "Abba" experience of Jesus has gained added notice in recent theological reflec-
tion. Although Jesus' use of "Abba" cannot be regarded as absolutely unique, it is widely
regarded as a special characteristic of Jesus' own life and teaching. Joachim Jeremias, The
Prayers of Jesus (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967), pp. 95-98, and New Testament Theology:
The Proclamation of Jesus (New York: Scribner's, 1971), pp. 61-68; Edward Schillebeeckx,
Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (New York: Seabury, 1979), pp. 256-69, 652-69. I
should add my agreement with Jeremias' note to the effect that "the fact that the address
'Abba' expresses a consciousness of son-ship should not mislead us into ascribing to Jesus
himself in detail the 'Son of God' christology..." (New Testament Christology, p. 67). My
claim is not that Jesus himself held a Son of God christology, but that his human experience
of the intimacy of his relation with God was grounded in the unique relationship of the
trinitarian Son with the Father.
Lilburne: Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism 23

classical tradition. Yet contemporary trinitarian theology need not be

bound by these ancient positions even, or especially, in their trinitarian
forms. Jenson suggests that the asymmetry of the trinitarian relations in
the ancient formulations needs to be recognized as "the place where the
traditional doctrine of God does indeed reflect male chauvinism." The
two roots of this asymmetry, the need for the mediation of time and
eternity and the apprehension of God as fundamentally located at the
Beginning rather than the End, are overcome with the twin assertions of
the Cappadocians' historicizing of the substance distinctions of classical
Greek philosophy and the notion of the trinitarian identity as es-
chatological rather than as timelessly eternal. A new concept of trinity
now begins to emerge in which the relations flowing from the Father to
the Son, defined by "begets," and from the Father and the Son to the
Spirit, defined by "breathes," are balanced by relations flowing back to
the past from the eschatological future of the trinity. These reverse
relations are suggested to be as follows: the Spirit "witnesses" to the
Son; and the Spirit and the Son "free" the Father from mere persistence
in his pretemporal transcendence. In this view of the trinity, the pre-
eminence of the Father as the "Unoriginated" is matched by the preemi-
nence of the Spirit as the "Unsurpassed."30
Second, the understanding of God as triune answers important
questions relating to the liberating praxis of Jesus. It is clear that Jesus'
ministry is a ministry involving the fullest identification with mar-
ginalized and oppressed humans. In no ways does Jesus put himself
above those to whom he ministers, yet his presence is both freeing and
empowering, lifting them out of their helplessness without imposing
new patterns of dependency or domination. What is the logic of this
human and humanizing ministry? I would suggest that it is the logic of
the freedom of divine relationship. In free relationship the need of the
one is met by the gift of the other and yet these modalities do not become
hardened into roles or offices. The freedom of the relationship allows for
that true mutuality in which need gives way to strength, capacities are
potentiated in relation to the other, and we discover the arresting truth
that in our weakness we are strong and in our strength we are weak. This
is not to claim that Jesus entered into relations of full mutuality with all
women and men to whom he ministered. It is to say that the full mutual-
ity the Son experiences in the inner trinitarian relationship forms the
ground and basis for Jesus' freedom in ministry.
Jesus' freedom went beyond the realm of human relationship. In
encountering the structures of his day which variously oppressed and
impeded the lives of those with whom he lived and ministered, he
pronounced judgment and showed a new way of freedom. This too was
costly ministry. Again, however, it can be seen to flow from the power of
30
Jenson, p. 143.
24 HORIZONS

the trinitarian relationships. Jesus found his personal identity in relation

to the Father who not only loved the Son in a relationship of freedom,
mutuality and accountability, but loved the world concretely in the
outpouring of his own life and being. The context of this life-giving
activity of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the God of the world,
provides the grounding for the extraordinary freedom, availability and
power of Jesus in ministry. The creative use of trinitarian concepts
enables us to move beyond the alternatives of either restricting our
understanding of Jesus to the "merely human" or removing him from the
locus of human life.
Third, the understanding of God as trinity opens the way for a new
understanding of human experience in relation to God. The Christian's
experience of God has always been the sphere of a doctrine of the Holy
Spirit. Moreover, Paul speaks of the Spirit as experiencing for us and in
us our weakness so that the Spirit enables us to give voice to our
condition, in sighs too deep for words (Rom 8:26). Similarly, the Spirit
enables us to cry "Abba," so that we are enabled to participate in the
intimacy of the relationship between the Father and the Son (Rom 8:15;
Gal 4:6). Christian discipleship then takes on a new dimension; it be-
comes an invitation to participate as Jesus' sister or brother in the
familial relationship he enjoys with the God. If the trinity is reconceived
historically, following Jenson's reading, then the life of the trinity must
be regarded as open, moving out into history to embrace us all. While
respecting the essential distinctions between the divine identities and
our human identities, there is the vision here of human participation and
inclusion in the very life and being of a God, of dynamic, historical
relationship. Moltmann finds this movement to be suggested in the
progression of biblical terms which designate the human relations to
God. Thus in the trinitarian history of God we may see ourselves first as
slaves of the Father, then as adopted children and heirs with Christ, and
finally as friends through the ministry of the indwelling Spirit.31
In the frame of this trinitarian understanding of God and of Jesus
Christ, we find support for many of the emphases which feminism has
drawn to our attention. Jesus is no more elevated beyond our reach into a
kingly other; our participation as women and men in the identity of Jesus
and the ongoing exemplification of the liberated personhood is
safeguarded. Finally, we may point to possibilities for the further de-
velopment of the concept of God along trinitarian lines. The trinity
points to the intimacy, mutuality and equality of relationship as the
central concept for God. Although the trinity has hitherto been de-
veloped in exclusively male (and ornithological!) categories, it is surely
open to wider interpretation. Just as Jesus' maleness was not essential to
his saviorhood, neither is fathering essential to the understanding of the
31
Moltmann, pp. 219-22.
Lilbume: Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism 25

First Person of the trinity. The core notion here is parenting, bearing and
begetting. God may be as much the fatherly Mother as the motherly
Father.32 Within the concept of parenting there is also the matter of the
development of a child into a fully equal, independent and responsible
adult. The trinity points to patterns of differentiation which do not
involve hierarchy and modalities of relationship which do not entail
dominance. This may be the concept of God we most need as we move
into a time when differentiation and mutuality are the key goals of our
personhood as women and men.
The details of this reappropriation of the trinitarian doctrine obvi-
ously need more work. In particular, the diversity of traditional under-
standings of the trinity need to be recovered, if Moltmann's claim be
granted that abstract monotheism in the earliest tradition acted to
squeeze out authentic trinitarian thinking. There may be much more
there than has been realized. Irrespective of the results of such critical
inquiry and of the final assessment of this trinitarian model, we can say
quite emphatically that it lies in such reappropriations of the doctrine of
God that christology will find its post-patriarchal expression. Only by
pushing its christological thinking in the direction of its theo-logical
implications can feminist theology find in christology its ultimate ally.
But feminist theology will be true to its own best instincts if it lets its
theological thinking be christologically shaped.
Lest these considerations seem unduly academic and abstruse, it
would be well for us to conclude with reference to the struggle against
sexism and the feminist/masculinist debate with which we began this
article. In the soteriological focus of our discussion of christology, there
is a root which may address the difficulty, the pain and the hope of our
dialogue. Here a peculiar and difficult balance must be struck between
the necessary and appropriate denunciations of male sexism and the
forgiveness and encouragement we need to tranform inherited patterns
of behavior. Further, balance is called for in the debate of female sexism.
Can we at the one time acknowledge the historical realities of a dispro-
portionate suffering of women at the hands of men and the existence of
errors on both sides which call for mutual forgiveness and mutual
encouragement on the way to an equalitarian relationship? Such a de-
bate could all too easily become rancorous and self-defeating. The vision
of mutuality we uphold is tenuous enough in a world of dominations,
and dialogue is threatened on every side with one-sided and forceful
impositions. These various dangers can be avoided, I believe, when the
categories of a trinitarian soteriology are raised and applied to our
situation. For the balance that is called for here is peculiarly resident in
the soteriological dialectic of sin and grace, and that dialectic is pre-
served in a trinitarian understanding of God.
32
Ibid., pp. 162-66.
26 HORIZONS

Such a soteriology would not need to diminish the magnitude of the

problem to uphold hope and to mediate confidence. Rather, it would
point to definite ways of dealing with a sin which is acknowledged to be
radical and which calls for radical treatment. While condemnation and
self-righteousness would be excluded, uncompromising repentance and
ethical transformation would be called for. A christology such as we
have outlined would point us to the loving, forgiving and transforming
power of God as our only sure foundation in the renewal we need. A
trinitarian soteriology would point to the cross of Jesus as the place
where love, forgiveness and transformation begin, and would speak of
the forgiving love of God, the freedom from condemnation in Jesus
Christ and the power of the Spirit for ethical transformation, The meet-
ing with sin is not static or once for all, but rather points to a processive
relationship in which there is a continual engagement with the grace of
God.
A trinitarian soteriology would stress the historicity of God's en-
gagement with humanity, just as it would stress our own historicity in
the concrete process of ethical transformation. This process is not some-
thing we merely talk about; essentially, it is that which we do as we seek
to restore and reform fractured relationships and as we work for justice
in the workplace, the political sphere, and the home. Such an ethical
transformation is undertaken in partnership with God the Son, who has
won a victory for us which will not be complete until our victory is
accomplished. In this struggle, the grace of God encounters us concretely
in the Spirit who strives with us and who raises us beyond slavishness
and childishness so that we become truly the friends of God. Here hope
and responsibility meet; here repentance and the power of a new life
embrace one another. Beyond this, we see in the mutuality and reciproc-
ity of the triune God the ground and the power of the mutuality and
reciprocity we seek to realize in our own lives.
As a man in dialogue with women on the issues of sexism, I would
accord to myself and to others the status of a "repentant sinner" on the
path of ethical transformation. Understood in the context of the soteri-
ology outlined, mutual forgiveness and kindness may prevail, even as
we work with deep and wrenching emotions and as we expose anger and
grief too long suppressed. Forgiving, as the old time preachers were
wont to say, is not forgetting; but forgiveness does offer the reality of
beginning afresh and the liberating freedom of having relinquished
grievances against one another. In the relationships of imperfectly liber-
ated women and imperfectly liberated men, we shall need to forgo the
luxury of "old scores" to settle, while at the same time calling each other
to accountability, mutual criticism, and a community of growth and
support. If our differences are to become enriching and the sharing of our
deepest emotions mutually rewarding, a spirit of repentance and for-
Lilburne: Christology: In Dialogue with Feminism 27

giveness will be necessary. In this way, I believe, we can dialogue with

dignity and respect, even as we grieve over the errors of our past and
groan in eager longing for the coming day of liberation.