THE PATRIARCHAL CUTLURES AND TRADITIONS
IN THE BIBLE:  A CRITIQUE

R.L.Hnuni

At the outset on this great occasion of the Silver Jubilee of Women’s ordination in CSI, I would like to congratulate the Church of South India for being one of the first Church in India to ordain women in ministry.  I congratulate the women belonging to the Church particularly those who have received their ordination for God’s ministry during the 25 year period.

I am happy to be part of this great celebration and I share the joy of my women co-workers in the CSI at this event.  I hope we find more and more committed and dedicated women who come forward for God’s ministry.  Ordination, however, is not our ultimate aim, our purpose of entering in the ministry, debarment in God’s ministry on gender ground is to be rejected as devil, at the same time the debarment that is still existing should not be allowed to have any control in our commitment to serve God.  We should be firm in our commitment and dedication to God, though traditions and cultures bound us, but they should not bind our mind and heart, our commitment.  We should feel and enjoy the liberation God gives us through our Savior and liberator Jesus.

The topic that is given to me was Critique of Traditions and Cultures in the Bible, which I reshape it ‘The Patriarchal Traditions and Cultures in the Bible: A Critique’. The Bible contains various pictures – positive and negative- of women.  While there are a number of references that picture women positively, it is unfortunate that we often picked up the negative pictures to suit to our negative ideology about women.  There are at least three tiers in which women’s subordinate status and role in the church and society has been reinforced – androcentrism of biblical texts, traditional theology and traditional interpretation.
It is generally agreed by all feminist theologians that biblical traditions and Christian theology are written shaped and formulated mostly by men in the male-dominated contexts, they are patriarchal. What Phillis Bird states is quite right that the Bible is a man’s book where women appear mostly as adjuncts of men. The biblical writers’ androcentric concern and presentation can be seen throughout the Bible – both OT and NT. As such the Bible abounds in male languages and imagery.
Christian theology has been shaped and formulated with patriarchal mindset by male theologians. Early theologians who are the shapers of theology such as  Augustine and his followers such as Thomas Aquinas and others  in the Mediaval period and Karl Barth and other in the modern period, who did not regard women as full human beings, as inferior to men and not made in God’s image, passed on male theology which ignored and excluded women from one century to another.  Traditional patriarchal theology which Christians regard As the only Christian theology has been inherited that what both men and women regard as Christian theology has been exclusive and patriarchal. As they regard maleness as the normative form of humanity, the writers claim universality when they write theology.  Feminist theologians agree that so long as the male, the half (or less than half of humanity) is taken to represent humanity what has been shaped and written in Christian theology has been distorted in such a way that it cannot be read correctly.  Fiorenza rightly states, “the Christian marginality of women has its historical roots in the patriarchal beginnings of the church and in the androcentrism of Christian revelation.”1
Biblical interpretations too have suffered serious male injunctions as male interpreters have harmoniously associated with sexism, faith and culture that it was not before long that feminists have started to question it. As much as traditional theology perpetuates women'’ subordination and determines their inferior status and role, biblical interpretations have reinforced women’s culturally bound subjugation.  The interpretation of the creation story and the story of the fall have done much harm to women.  That ‘women is created to be a helper for man’ makes interpreters to conclude with the idea that therefore woman is a servant to man and subordinate to him.  Likewise, the interpretation of  the story of the fall in Genesis 3 condemns woman as originator of evil, source of all sins into the world.  Unfortunately, early theologians  often headed  in such biased interpretations. The first century Latin Church leader Tertullian has brought out this negative comment on Eve, the first woman:

You are the devil’s gateway.  You are the unsealer of that forbidden tree.  You are the fist deserter of the divine law.  You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack.  You destroyed so easily God’s image man.  On account of your desert, that is death, even the Son of God  had  to die.2

Later hermeneutics and commentators continue to uphold male righteousness and female sin. The Jewish commentator, Cassuto maintains that the serpent is female and the cunning of the serpent in reality is the cunning of a woman.3  Mckenzie connects woman’s moral weakness with her sexual attraction and holds that the latter ruined both the man and the woman.4  Thus male interpreters understand woman as responsible not only for the origin of evil in the world, but makes female to “represent the qualities of materiality, irrationality, carnality and finitude, which debase the manly spirit and drag it down into sin and death.”5  In this way women are blamed for mistakes and wrong things done as imitators of Eve as Ruether rightly concludes “the scapegoating of Eve as the fall of Adam makes all women as her daughters, guilty for the radical impotence of ‘man’ in the face of evil which is paid for only by the death of Christ”.6

It is quite evident that as the Bible is written, theologized and interpreted by male from patriarchal mindset, the texts, theology and interpretation no doubt contain androcentrism and misogynism. The patriarchal texts, Christian theology and traditional interpretation together are very much responsible in shaping and influencing culture that marginalise women.  In the writings and interpretations women’s history and experience have been ignored, as such they are responsible for perpetuating patriarchal attitude through ages both in the church and society.
    As states sanctifications of patriarchy are undoubtedly part of biblical texts.  However it is to be noted that while patriarchy abounds, biblical tradition also contains resources for the critique of both patriarchy and its religious sanctification. These resources may be used for denouncing the patriarchal traditions as R.R. Ruether asserts, “they are to be stripped, thereby of their religious covering and exposed for what they are; as idolatry, blasphemy, the misuse of divine name to sanction injustice and the failure of a significant portion of biblical writer.”7  Some examples may suffice.

1. The tradition preserved in the creation stories of both Genesis 1 and 2 provide excellent resource for critique of patriarchal traditions.  The term ‘adham’ which derived from the etymology of a feminine material ‘ground’ gives inclusive picture of man and woman as reflecting the whole human being intended by God.  The fact that the ‘adham’ of male and female composition reflects God’s image and God’s likeness opposes traditional theology that claims man and not woman as created in God’s image.  It is to ‘adham’ which comprises male and female that God entrusts other creations which is in opposition to the cultural hold that man alone has responsibility to authority and domination.  Similarly, the  second account of creation story opposes the traditional interpretation that uphold man’s superiority over woman thereby determining the latter’s subjugation and subordinate status.  A ‘helper’ tradition is not subordinate, but it is a status of high dignity, the status of God.  Traditional and cultural values that regard men as superior to women have helped male interpreters to claim that women being ‘helpers’ are simply to function like servants, therefore, they are subordinate to men. While the text is interpreted androcentrically, the text itself provide critique for that androcentrism.  The word helper in Hebrew 'ezer’ or participial noun ‘ozer’ which does not connote any subordinate position, rather is a term that has dignity and high status,  the function of ‘ezer’ belongs to God.  God has given that function to the creature who is to be the co-equal and partner of man.  The woman as an ‘ezer’ of man meets the need of the man just as God is a helper par excellence to Israel.   

2.  The exodus tradition that upholds the liberative work of Moses and Aaron downplays and ignores the important role that women play in the salvation history.  The same tradition  however, records the important role played by a group of women preparing the ‘saviour’s to play his role. Without the intervention of brave women such as Shiprah, Puah, Moses’ mother and Moses’ sister Moses could not have achieved his job.  Moreover, the fact that God is on the side of the poor who does not tolerate infliction of oppression of any form on any ground criticizes patriarchal oppression of women. Exodus tradition ignores women, yet the same tradition provides resource for critique of that very tradition that excludes women. 

3.  The language of God and Jesus as King and Lord reflect male language that permeates throughout the two testaments. It portrays God as male in so far as the language is concerned.  It may be understood in two ways; to undercut and criticize the lords of this world and/or to reinforce the legitimacy of and propagate the lordship of men. However, the exclusive male language and metaphor which reflects leadership relationships of power and domination used for God can be rejected  by the use of the image of servanthood. God and Christ as servants means leadership of service rather than dominion. “I came not to be served but to serve” declares Jesus. The image of servant-hood contradicts the image of power and domination embedded with kingship  or lordship.

Similarly, the prophetic tradition denounces oppressive economic and political power as the prophets identify themselves with poor people against the wealthy landlords and merchants of the cities. In the prophetic tradition, the community of God is also seen as an enslaved and oppressed people over against the powerful rulers of the ancient near east.  The prophetic God is  the God who does not represent the powerful, but is the God who vindicates the oppressed who is seen as overthrowing unjust society by turning it upside down.  Jeremiah speaks of a new era which will be a time when everything will be created anew on earth, the woman will protect the man (Jer. 31:22).  It will be a time of harmony and equality.

3.   In the Gospels we find Jesus’ critique of religious tradition and cultural norms in his interpretation of messianism as well as in his actions.  Jesus rejects the chauvinistic understanding and kingly image of the Messiah.  Lordship and   power struggle does not have place in Jesus life and ministry.  Disciples are told not to be like Gentiles who try to exercise power and domination over others. Jesus’ rejection of power-dominion model of the society is thus vividly expressed in his own words. “It shall not be so among you, but whosoever would be great among you must be your servant, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve . . .” (Matt 20:26-28). “The critique of false power relationship is at the very heart of the gospel.”8 

4.  Jesus’ critique of the cultural norms and religious traditions that regard women unclean is vivid in his healing action of the woman who suffered from hemorrhages for twelve years.  According to the religious law Jesus would have undergone purification rite as the woman touched him and made him ‘unclean’.  Jesus rejected the cultural norms that oppressed women by publicly declaring that she touched him and was healed of her hemorrhages, he did not undergo purification.
    Whereas a number of Biblical traditions are androcentric and perpetuating women’s oppression and discrimination, they also provide critique for patriarchal injunctions.  The examples of Jesus, his radical and revolutionary action against the Jewish social and religious norms become resources for critique of patriarchal injunctions that oppressed women not only in his own time but even in our time today.  Jesus was on the side of the oppressed, he restored  them to their rightful place and empowered them.  Patriarchal injunctions that debar women to full time ministry with leadership roles should not discourage women from actively participating in God’s continuing ministry.

_________

Dr. R.L. Hnuni is the Principal of Academy of Integrated Christian Studies (AICS), Aizawl, Mizoram.  She got her D.Th in Old Testament from SATHRI.  She taugh at Eastern Theological College, Jorhat for 18 years.  She is presently a member of the Coordination Committee, and  of the Committee on Academic Administration (CAA), and the Honorary Treasurer of the Senate of Serampore College.