Jenda: A Journal of Culture and African Women Studies (2003)

ISSN: 1530-5686

IMAGES OF MOTHERHOOD: CONFLICTS AND CREATIVE NEW THINKING WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Karin Sporre

Motherhood in Christianity

What images of motherhood are presently being articulated within the Christian tradition? What new images are emerging? In this article I will explore these questions and relate the images so identified to the agency of women. My objective is to uncover images that can be liberating for women, not just the usual portrayals of subordination. I will focus on three texts drawn from different global contexts. The first is from Sri Lanka, the second from South Africa, and the third is from Sweden. I share Lyotard's (1979) view that, at a time when different parts of the globe are coming together, it is important to bring diverse "narratives" into dialogue with one another.1

The first text, from Sri Lanka is written by a man, and the last two, from South Africa and Sweden, respectively, are the works of women. The Sri Lankan text written, by Father Tissa Balasuriya, is about Mary, the mother of Jesus. This book has brought Balasuriya into serious dispute with his church. What makes a book so controversial, as to lead to the excommunication of an old man from the Catholic Church that he has served both as a priest and as representative theologian in interfaith dialogues? What are the points of conflict between his book and the official teachings of the church? With regard to the second text, what images of motherhood pertaining to Mary would a South African woman theologian from a Protestant context bring to the fore today? What is her point of emphasis as she develops her thinking and builds on the work of other feminist theologians? Finally, within the Nordic context, how does a woman philosopher of religion articulate women's experiences of giving birth and early motherhood? What new images of women does she develop? I will explore these and other questions, especially as they relate to women's agency.

I chose the first text to demonstrate the kinds of conflicts that occur within the Catholic tradition when a new interpretation arises; the second text to show how a new interpretation can deepen the existing dogmatic thinking within the Christian tradition; and the final text to exemplify how within a more secular societal context, women name and give meaning to experiences of giving birth and becoming mothers. All three texts exemplify the crucial power of naming. The analysis will centre on the images of motherhood as they relate to issues of resistance and the agency of women.2

In my earlier work, I studied the conditions of women's agency under oppression.3 In my article "Älska ingen mer än du älskar dig själv". Om etik, förtryck och motstànd," - "'Don't you love nobody bettr'n you do yo'self.'— On ethics, oppression and resistance," I summarize some of my findings.4 Crucial to the understandings of oppression by the feminist and womanist5 theologians whose texts I examined is the idea that unequal power relations give rise to oppression. Relationships are unequal when one side dominates the other, relationships being understood both on individual as well as collective, structural levels. Oppression also influences moral issues. When you are oppressed, the one(s) in power cannot exert their power over you, but they can also define moral situations and prescribe certain actions. To resist this force is to affirm one's own dignity and to question those in power. Through this resistance, those who are oppressed restore their own value and strive towards their own human fulfilment. In the process, they realize their own human potential. Those who resist have followed the edict by African- American ethicist Katie Cannon: "Don't you love nobody bettr'n you do yo'self."6 The point is that for the oppressed to compromise their own interest for the benefit of others and to claim to love others more than they love themselves may be seriously detrimental.

Mary, Eve, and Oppression

Texts about Mary the mother of Jesus play a prominent role in this paper, as two out of my three chosen authors deal with interpretations of Mary. Images of other mothers within the Christian tradition or even in the present day could have been chosen. But the choice of texts about Mary and the central place they have in this study can be defended for two reasons. Within the Catholic tradition, Mary plays a crucial role in devotion and identification for both women and men. Although this is not true to the same extent in the Protestant and orthodox traditions, given the scarcity of women within the Christian tradition, Mary is a symbol and object of identification for women, whether consciously or not. She is one of the few female figures women can identify with. In these times when gender issues are so prominent in society and scholarship, this role has special importance.

The subject of Mariology is complex. Many studies build on as well as question the history of interpretations and learning within the Christian faith tradition.7 Although treading on this hallowed ground demands utmost care; a number of feminist and other theologians have during the last decades debated the complicated role models that Eve and Mary represent for women in the Christian tradition.8 Eve, branded through the centuries as the woman who brought sin into the world when she offered Adam an apple (as told in Genesis 3), has been called the "Devil's gateway,"9 among other perjorative names. Jesus' mother Mary, on the other hand, has been exalted as the "pure" woman. The stress on her purity, especially the prevailing idea that her virginity was permanent and life-long, has made her a most complicated role model for Christians or other women to follow. To be both a mother and virgin, feminist theologians assert, presents a contradictory image to which it is impossible for women to aspire. In addition, such an ideology-laden depiction serves patriarchal purposes.

A Text from Sri Lanka

The text Mary and Human Liberation, by Fr. Tissa Balasuriya first appeared in 1990 in a double issue of the quarterly review Logos, published by the Centre for Society and Religion in Colombo, Sri Lanka, of which Balasuriya was founder and director. The review was normally distributed in 600 copies. After the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church denounced the text, however, interest was so great that it was published anew in 1997 in the form of a book. The book contained a number of statements from different authorities in the Roman Catholic Church, reflecting the critical process in the church which led to Balasuriya's excommunication in 1997.10 In the volume, Balasuriya states his purpose thus:

I attempt in this book to offer a reflection from a Third World situation in which, in addition to poverty, women's exploitation and social injustice, there is also a plurality of religions and cultures, and a considerable degree of secularity.11

Two points of emphasis are apparent here. First, Balasuriya wants to take seriously the poverty and exploitation of the people, and particularly women; and secondly, he wants to take into consideration the issues that dialogue with other religions and ideologies demand in the contemporary world situation. The consequent excommunication of Balasuriya lasted a year, after which he and the Catholic Church reconciled. However, the pronouncements in the document of reconciliation do not cast much light on the issues debated. In my discussion of Balasuriya's book, I will start by giving a brief overview of the criticism he has received and then move on to his own writing. However, given the limited scope of this article it is not possible for me to recount in the detail the complexities of his conflict with the church.

In June 1994 the Catholic Bishops Conference of Sri Lanka (CBCSL) issued a statement on Mary and Human Liberation. In the concluding paragraph, referring to the Balasuriya text, the bishops recommended that the faithful of their church "refrain from reading this book as it could be detrimental to their faith."12 Earlier in their statement, they said, referring to the book, "As responsible Pastors, we have sadly to state that this presentation is not compatible with the Faith of the Church."13 Further, they said it contained "serious deficiencies."

In their statement, the bishops summarize their criticism of the text. First, they state that Balasuriya ascribes less value to the tradition of the church as a source of revelation than he does to biblical texts, which they claim he understands to have greater revelatory value than tradition. Secondly, they question his definition of "adequate theology" when he formulates criteria according to which Christian theology should be rational and "in keeping with the core-values of other religious persuasions." This, according to the bishops, minimises the validity of faith as a gift from God. Thirdly, they question his presentation of original sin, which they believe bring seriously into doubt the divinity of Christ, Christ's role as redeemer, and the privileged position of Mary in the history of Salvation. Finally, among the "glaring errors" of the book they note that the author often gives the impression that the basic role of religion is "to ensure humanistic and social liberation of mankind and help it reach that goal."14

With these pronouncements on Balasuriya, the conflict escalated. The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), led by Cardinal Ratzinger, issued a statement in July of the same year. Initially they compliment Balausriya's good intentions, especially his desire to offer a view of "the Blessed Virgin that illuminates her values of mature and responsible womanhood." They pointed out, however, that this could be done without undermining essential points of Christian faith. In their statement they then criticize the following in Balasuriya's text (I now quote their headlines): "Methodological deficiencies," "Statements regarding the Revelation and its sources," "Christological problems," "The doctrine of original sin", "Ecclesiology," and "Marian doctrine."15 This statement was the first step in a process led by officials in the Vatican in Rome which ended on January 2, 1997, when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a notification concerning Balausriya's text and concluded by stating that he had deviated from the integrity of the Catholic Faith and could no longer be considered a Catholic theologian. He had, in their words, "incurred excommunication."16

During this extended process, Balasuriya had not been involved in a dialogue and was not given a chance to discuss and defend his text in meetings, neither with the bishops in Sri Lanka nor with the CDF in Rome. Although he had responded to their charges, his missives had gone unanswered. As part of the process, the CDF wrote a special profession of faith which Balasuriya was asked to sign, but he declined. Instead he sent them another signed profession of faith, this one formulated by the former pope, Paul VI. In Balasuriya's view, the authorities reading of his text show evidence of "misunderstandings, misrepresentations, distortions and falsifications," which he carefully noted and discussed in his response. He did grant, however, that language problems and translation errors might also explain some of these misunderstandings.17

Careful study of the documentation in Balasuriya's book along with all associated statements and letters makes clear that Balasuriya dealt with extremely sensitive issues that are very precious and central for the church. It also makes clear that in times of conflict or where interpretations of texts may differ, Christian theologymay become extremely focused on exact meaning and significance of certain words. The conflict is to a large extent about where the boundaries of Christian faith are, and who sets them. What kind of freedom of thinking exists for those who wish a renewal of the tradition?

I have briefly described the main criticism against Balasuriya. How does he himself state his case? How does he want to renew Christian tradition? To answer these questions let us consider the structure of his book. Balasuriya starts and ends his text with the theme of devotion for Mary. In the first chapter he describes the role and significance of Mary in Catholic popular devotion. The book ends with a reflection about Mary in a series of meditations, where he builds on the interpretations of Mary and theology, thus opening the way for a different Mariology. In the preface he states:

I am conscious of treading on ground that is delicate, and capable of arousing strong reactions among some Catholics. My intention is not to dilute Marian devotion but to help make it more meaningful and truly fulfilling for everyone.18

His self-stated agenda is to help Marian devotion to develop, and to become more responsive to the needs of devout women and men. He continues by focussing on dogma and theology:

God is infinite and not fully comprehensible by our finite human minds. Our human language can never totally exhaust the Divine. Hence, all that we say of God is understood metaphorically and analogically. We can speak of the Divine only in human terms, of the Absolute only in relative language, of the Eternal only in temporal expressions.19

Here Balasuriya expresses a view not uncommon among theologians today or through history when he expresses the limits of human language in its speech about God. In the same context he also states that Christian dogmas from past centuries are generally expressed in the language, philosophies, and metaphors of those days.20 Balasuriya concludes his preface by quoting a passage by the present pope, John Paul II, where the concern of both is to question occasions when the church has applied its truth by violence. Balasuriya applies this to his own book, which he sees as a challenge to Christians to ask themselves what went wrong during centuries of violence toward and disregard of others, women included.21

Balasuriya builds his understanding of Mary upon Biblical texts, the most important one of them being the Magnificat, the words of Mary in Luke 1.46-55. A part of it reads:

He [God] has shown the strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud-hearted, he has cast down the mighty from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, sent the rich away empty.22

This text of the Magnificat is crucial in Balasuriya's interpretation of Mary, whom he calls Mary of the Magnificat.23 In the text he sees reflected the image of a woman devoted to the struggle of the poor and downtrodden among a people oppressed by the Romans. Further, to a large extent he interprets Jesus and his disciples as a group eager to promote more justice in their society, regardless of all the problems that such struggle might bring. Balasuriya notes that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is often described in the Bible as being with Jesus and his followers. Because she kept Jesus company, Balasuriya asserts that Mary was a woman who knew and understood the conditions of political struggle and who shared in the community her son and his friends formed. It is not surprising that when the time came for Jesus' suffering, she was present through it all, which was not true for the male disciples. Mary also suffered as the mother of the condemned and later the crucified Jesus. Balasuriya also places her in the community of followers of Jesus after his death as well. He describes a mother, present with her son, sharing his concerns and commitments. In so doing, he draws on the experiences of what women as mothers ordinarily do and ascribes these to Mary by quoting from biblical texts.24 This interpretation contrasts with interpretations of Mary where her obedience and submission to God are stressed.

Mary, Jesus, and the Construction of Dogmas

Balasuriya's interpretation of Mary is based on biblical texts and describes her life as very close to Jesus. Considering the dogmas concerning Mary within the Catholic Church, the same is true: the interpretations of Mary's life are closely linked to the development of the Christological dogmas.

Before Balasuriya enters into the discussion of dogmas he discusses theological reflection in a methodological chapter.25 Theology is understood to be an ongoing process. Balasuriya also draws attention to the underlying presuppositions and ideologies that are unique to the traditions being considered. The idea of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, the pope, and his Cardinals in Rome, for example, is not recognized by Christians of the Protestant or orthodox tradition. In this same chapter, Balasuriya creates a critical discussion from which he formulates two criteria for evaluation of Christian theologies. His first criterion is that "any theology that is authentically derived from God in Jesus must be loving, respectful and fulfilling for the whole of humanity of all places and times."26 In this criterion he stresses the relationship between an understanding of God and demands that a theology must love, respect, and strive towards fulfilment for all of humanity, not only serve a particular group. His second criterion builds on the premise that all that is good in the world comes from God and so he concludes that "everything that is truly humanizing and ennobling in any religion or ideology is so ultimately from the divine source, and must be respected as such."27 Here he creates a condition through which goodness in the world can be regarded as coming from a divine source, whether a person is of the "right" faith or not. The action speaks.

Balasuriya also discusses myths and their validity. He then formulates three areas of validity: first, that a myth have positive consequences for a particular group of people; second, that a myth provides coherence within a particular belief system that a myth contributes to or not; and third, that a myth contribute to the continuing evolution of human consciousness, which means the continued development of knowledge and values over time.28 Balasuriya also points out that Western thinking to a large extent is constructed as the either/or thinking of binary oppositions: if a thing is this, it is not that—whereas Eastern thinking to a large extent tries to hold opposites together.29

Original Sin

Against this background, Balasuriya then discusses traditional Catholic dogmas, original sin, and Mariology. Starting with original sin, he describes this complicated thought construct. Basic in the rendering of this doctrine is that after what is called the Fall, that is when Eve and Adam upon her initiative had eaten from the fruit in paradise, the human relationship to God is dramatically changed. Humans are now, metaphysically speaking, in a sinful condition, and their (damaged) relationship with God can only be restored by a redeemer not affected by (original) sin. This sinful condition is transmitted to all human beings at conception. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, possibilities exist for human beings to be in a renewed relationship to God. Baptism is said to be what takes away the condition of original sin.

Balasuriya states as his position that he has no problem with original sin, neither "in the sense of human proneness to evil, which we all experience, nor with the concept of the collective sinfulness of a society, nor with an environment that has a corrupting influence on people."30

However, the construct becomes problematic for him when: "human beings are born into a situation of helpless alienation from God because of the primary original sin of the first parents."31 From this teaching he distances himself. One of his arguments is that the Christian tradition has through the centuries, and even up till now interpreted the text in Genesis 3 about Eve and Adam as a historical fact, whereas other parts of the beginning of Genesis are interpreted as myths. Another argument, crucial to Balasuriya, is that to Asian understandings, it is contradictory to the image of a just and loving God that people could have lived centuries before Jesus without any possibility of redemption.32 Balasuriya also finds little proof in the Old and New Testament for this understanding of Original Sin. Not in the Old Testament, nor in the words of Jesus, but only in two Pauline passages (Romans 5.12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15.21-22) is a connection made between the fall of Adam and the human sinful condition.33 The support of biblical texts for this dogma, therefore is weak.

Balasuriya argues further against Original Sin also because of the destructive consequences this dogma has had for a group of human beings, namely women. This he notes becomes part of Christian theology particularly after Augustine (354-450). With this interpretation the Fall and Eve's part in it by male theologians, women are regarded as temptresses, the accomplices of Satan and destroyers of the human race. Balasuriya states that male theologians and clergy have been responsible for perpetuating this denigration of women, sometimes simultaneously with praise of Mary.34

Mariology

Within the Catholic Church, the doctrines on Mary have become far more elaborated through the centuries than within the rest of the Christian tradition. The central and first dogma is from the 5th century and the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). Mary is then declared Theotokos, mother of God. This is understood to mean that God sought and got Mary's consent for the incarnation of his divine son. As the church had not split at this historic point into orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churche, this basic doctrine is held by most churches. Balasuriya sees this doctrine to be the grounds for the other doctrines on Mary, her virginity, her holiness, her immaculate conception, and her assumption into heaven.35

Speaking of virginity Balasuriya makes clear that the traditional understanding of Mary as a virgin, before, during, and after the birth of Jesus has to do with the teaching of original sin. As original sin was expected to infect the new human being through procreation, the Son of God, Jesus, had to be preserved from this human sinful condition. His conception had to be understood as happening between God and Mary, where God was understood to perform the part ordinarily played by males. The birth was then further understood to be miraculous, with Mary remaining a virgin, a condition she is said to have retained all through her life.36 These beliefs were put forward so as not to compromise her holiness by any involvement with human sexuality given the negative value ascribed to human sexuality by this theology, for which such understanding of original sin is crucial.37

In 1851 the Catholic Church declared that Mary from the first instance of her own conception was preserved "from all stains of original sin", this through "a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God."38 Balasuriya further shows how this understanding of Mary as free from all stains of sin rests on very old and not fully accurate translations of texts of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek into Latin. The doctrine of Mary the immaculate had been going on for many centuries and been formed through those discussions when it was established in 1851. By 1950, Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary into heaven to be true. There exist no Biblical texts about the death of Mary, so this doctrine has no Biblical support. The declaration reads: "at the end of her earthly life, Mary ever virgin, the Immaculate Mother of God, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."39

Balasuriya's comment on this doctrine is in line with Catholic theology, which holds sin, sexuality, and death to be closely linked. The dogma is elaborated as the following: sin is the condition of human beings; original sin is transmitted to a child-to-be through sexual intercourse; and based on the interpretation of the Fall of Adam and Eve, death follows the sinfulness of human beings. Consequent upon this line of thinking, Mary's lifelong virginity, the Immaculate Conception, and the mothering of the divine made her immune from death,40 a development that would have compromised her purity and holiness.

Balasuriya also discusses Mary as mother of all humankind. If the idea of Mary as a true mirror of justice is to be acceptable to non-Christians, Christ cannot be seen as the unique mediator between humanity and God, but as one of many. Therefore Mary, and other human beings, can serve as living examples, with their lives and the good within them, of God's goodness, grace, love and justice.41

Reflections

In Balasuriya's stimulating book, he has taken on an intellectual challenge given his two central presuppositions—that human beings, especially women, suffer under exploitation, and that there exist other religions and ideologies that view the world differently than Christians. These two conditions must be taken seriously in any attempt to formulate theology. Balasuriya has deep knowledge of the Christian tradition and argues his case clearly, taking into consideration theological findings from past centuries. He has also taken up the criticism from feminist theologians, and treating them seriously and with respect.

The images of motherhood present in his texts are diametrically opposed. The traditional one of Mary as silent, passive, non-sexual, subservient, and confined to the home is confronted by Balasuriya's view of her as an active woman, politically-aware and involved, supporting her son through much pain and suffering. I believe that Balasuriya sees her as an earthly struggling woman, whose sexuality he wants to return to her. I find this stimulating and challenging. It is as if he wants to restore this woman, not just as an individual, but as a role model. In this way he shows how women can be given back their agency, sexuality, and respect, by other women and men alike. Balasuriya does this even as he actively struggles with the challenges posed to Christianity by other faiths with differing ideologies. He also points out how the traditional image of Mary has assisted the Church, and its male clergy, to present itself as the unique source of salvation and grace. He links this to the ways in which Western power and ambitions of domination have influenced the Christian Church. Balasuriya's ultimate aim in this work is to contribute to social transformation and renewal.

Balasuriya's work is very timely. Dialogue between religions and ideologies concerning differences in worldviews are ever more necessary today. His careful work with all aspects of Marian doctrines is crucial because it reveals the process by which women have been denigrated. Interpretations like his can contribute to the elevation of women, and can facilitate a climate in which women's rights, and the restoration of their sexuality, become the agenda of a growing number of people.

A Text from South Africa

Balasuriya's work provided a good introduction to the traditional Catholic dogmas concerning Mary. This will serve as valuable background as we now turn to the next text, written by Lyn Holness, a South African systematic theologian. In her unpublished Ph. D. thesis from 2002, Christology from Within: A Critical Retrieval of the Humanity of Christ, with Particular Reference to the Role of Mary,42 she has taken on the task of developing a Christology, as she expresses it, "from within." However as we have already noted, the understanding of Jesus as Christ can also be very closely linked to the understanding of Mary. So it is, in the Christology developed by Lyn Holness, as her title indicates.

Holness' Hermeneutical Position

In the beginning of her thesis, Holness states her hermeneutical position. She starts with her experiences of being a mother, and moves on to the importance of feminist theology as a renewal of the Christian tradition during the last decades. Furthermore, Holness discusses the epistemology one could develop as a nurse, and finally, the experience of living in South Africa.43 In her work, this hermeneutical position informs the questions she puts forth in her choice of texts. These sites become crucial for the Christology she develops, and consequently for her understanding of Mary. Holness understands the task of the systematic theologian to be one of carefully examining and developing theology. In such an undertaking, she sees imagination as an important resource. Holness' profession of faith and her presentation of the importance of religion in her society, are noteworthy. It is not customary in Sweden for those pursuing religious studies or theology to state their faith or lack thereof.44 Such constructive tasks as Holness sets for herself within systematic theology are rare in a Swedish context.45

Holness starts her thesis with an overview of the theological discussions concerning Christ since the eighteenth century and the Enlightenment. Those discussions have later been named the Quest for the Historical Jesus. The focus of this academic study has been to try to get to know as much as possible about the historical person Jesus, who after his death was called Christ by those who came to make up the Christian Church. Holness, however, is interested in the humanity of Jesus, or rather Christ. That question has not been much focused upon in the Quest for the Historical Jesus.46

In her study, Holness goes back into the Christian tradition, to the council of Chalcedon (AD 451). In that council, the early Church struggled with how to defend its claim that the historic person Jesus could be said to be a representation of God, to be both human and divine at the same time.47 Holness goes even one step further back into the Christian tradition to Ireneaus (c. AD 120-190) from Asia Minor, who was a bishop in Lyon from 177. In his time gnosticism was strong. Inspired by Greek thinking, it tended, in short, to separate the divine from the human, to hold apart what Christianity was trying to hold together.

Against this background Ireneaus developed his theology, explaining how in Christ, human and divine had come together. In his defense of this position, Ireneaus developed the concept of recapitulation, which for Holness becomes crucial.48 The idea behind Ireneaus' notion of recapitulation is that for Christ to be authentically human, he must have assumed into himself all aspects of that same humanity. He must, so to speak, have experienced "every stage of what it is to be human."49 Ireneaus connects this thought to the task of Christ to redeem humanity. For that to be possible, that Christ must have lived an authentic human life. This does not only refer to the life of people who have come of age, but also to childhood, which plays a crucial role when Ireneaus deals with this particular question. In Ireneaus' theology, he stresses how the human is in a process of growth and becoming; already from birth being in the likeness of God, then through life to become the image of God. Further in his theology the conflict between God and evil is emphasized. Sin, according to Ireneaus, is the breaking of the process of becoming the image of God, the loss of childlike innocence which was the condition of the human being at birth, and the end of the growth process. To be freed in Christ, then, means to continue to grow and so to resume the contact with the source of life as Holness' interprets Ireneaus.50

In the sixth and last chapter, Holness formulates her own theology. Before turning to that, I would like to draw attention to one of Holness' findings in chapter 3. She describes how in the times of Ireneaus, among the Gnostic groups who were his adversaries, the idea existed that "Mary's hymen remained intact at Christ's birth."51 Further, this group pontificated that Mary suffered no birth pangs, and that the birth required no effort from her, the child "passing through her as water passes through a tube."52 Ireneaus strongly opposed such ideas. He believed that their purpose was to diminish the humanity of Christ, which ran counter to Ireneaus' theological approach.

A Christology from Within

In her concluding chapter, Holness pulls together the threads and develops her Christology "from within." Christologies have for long been described as "from above" or "from below." What does Holness mean by a Christology from within? In my preliminary reading of her text, that seemed unclear to me. She seemed to be mixing Ireneaus with interpreters of him, i.e. not first presenting Ireneaus himself, then moving on to interpreters or later theologians who developed his thinking, but rather moving back and forth in her text between them all, irrespective of centuries. Her actual purpose and method seemed unclear. I then visited a friend outside the city of Falun, my home town. This friend lives in an eighteenth century farm house. Upon entering the house my friend told us about the three images carved into the centuries-old wooden door. The first image represented the entrance to life, the coming out of a woman's womb. The second was an image of life itself. The third represented the end of life by showing the end of one of the coffins that have been used for centuries for burial in Sweden. Looking at this old door, with its three images that in stunning concentration summarized human life, I came to see the concerns of Holness in her thesis more clearly. By reflecting her preoccupation with human existence and its basic conditions - birth; then life moving in a direction towards fullness and to maturity; and with a closing in death— the door pointed to the underlying thought structure in Holness' thesis. Her Christology is an attempt to understand Christ's humanity from within life itself, from the existence of human beings.

Through my encounter with this door, I was able to perceive a number of things:

  1. 1. The epistemology of the nurse regarding people's "naked" equality when sick, that is, without the trappings that life usually allows.53

  2. 2. How the concern with birth and images of motherhood also deals with the womb, which may be abhorrent to some feminists and interpreted as not political enough.

  3. 3.How the relationality between human beings as the framework that the lives of human beings are held within, forms the background of authentic human life, into which Holness wants to assimilate the sometimes too "divinised" Christ.

It became clear that for Holness, a white South African and a person of faith, being a mother was of utmost importance. At the same time, black mothers could see their children denied the possibilities of adequate growth towards maturity. Holness' desire to heal the ravages of apartheid, her wish that all the brokenness that the struggle within and against apartheid represented, could somehow be redeemed meant focussing not on a Christ whose divinity was emphasized, but by a Christ who had lived it all, and who therefore could redeem from within life itself.54

And Mary.

In this Christology from within, what is the position of Mary? What place is she given in Holness' work? In a concluding methodological postscript she states: "all theological discourse is, in the end, an attempt to articulate our understanding of God, and especially of God-in-relation-to-us, in categories that are meaningful to human experience."55

Here Holness links theological discourse with human existence and states its need to be meaningful to experiences of human beings. From this she concludes that speech about God needs constant reassessment.56 Her work contributes to such a reassessment. It began as a search for the humanity of Christ but soon took her, a Protestant, to a study that ends, to her surprise "with Mary as a focal point in this understanding, signifying a shift from previous attempts to interpret Christ's humanity without her."57 So what did she find when Christ is coupled with Mary?

In her Christology from within, Holness' first theme is genealogies. In tracing such relationships, she first notes how Jesus' birth through Mary, through a womb, signifies that he is linked to all of humanity.58 She further notes that much focus within Christian tradition has been on the notion of salvation history. She questions whether this historical emphasis of Christianity as well as the assumed maleness of God, not the least in the Old Testament, partly represents efforts to eliminate the fertility cults of the goddess. What has been lost in this is a view of life as regenerative, as connected to natural cycles, Holness states. She regards that to be of importance and in line with an African life view.59 With the help of the biblical text in Matthew Holness points to the fact that the birth of Jesus is related to what can be named anti-tradition "the line of the weak, the victim, the oppressed, in some cases the sinner".60

Her second theme questions why the shedding of blood by women never have redemptive significance in the biblical texts. The blood shedding of Christ (a man) at the cross, Holness argues, could parallel the shedding of blood by Mary (a woman) when she gives birth to Christ. This forms a new perspective to be included in the new Christologies. Holness argues for this using the text of Philippians 2. There it is described how in giving his life, Christ "emptied himself"61 how "he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross."62 Because of this, God exalted him. This experience of emptying oneself, of giving oneself up for the sake of others, could be seen to have a parallel in the process of giving birth, Holness argues. She quotes a description of giving birth as a literal giving of oneself. It is further stated that the more one gives oneself over to the event of giving birth, the more strength one receives, and the easier it becomes. However, drawing a parallel between giving birth and Christ's giving his life on the cross is not new. It can be traced to the early Church fathers and also to medieval mystics.63 Including such a parallel in a Christology would also, Holness argues, redeem the destructive history whereby, for example, ritual taboos against women's shedding of blood have made them unclean for long periods of their lives. She points out that women have lost their lives while giving birth, menstruation has been associated with discomfort, and women and girls have been violated through sexual abuse. Incorporating Mary's giving birth into the Christological paradigm would mean that all this shedding of women's blood would be part of redemption, and women would thus be redeemed.64 Holness then gathers hymnological examples of how the redeeming life-giving event, the death of Christ, has been mirrored in women's giving birth. She also introduces a painting of Salvador Dali, the Crucifixion, where in one image with layer over layer, both the events of Christ on the cross and a woman giving birth are brought to the viewer.65

The third concern of Holness is embodiment. She finds it remarkable that a religion like Christianity, which has at its centre the event of God becoming human, has been able to be so ambivalent toward bodies, and consequently toward embodiment. This has led to the persistent denigration of bodies reflected in the detachment of the self from the body. Holness contrasts this to interpretations of Christ where it is underlined that he was his body, and also to Mary's assent to become the mother of God. The author emphasizes that it was not only through Mary's body that she mediated Christ's humanity as if she was just a vessel for a foetus; it was her whole self. In Holness' words: "She was engaged in mediating the Incarnation physically, emotionally, and with her will – that is, as a whole person."66

The fourth and final theme Holness puts forward in her Christology is relationality. In developing this theme, she underscores that from a biological perspective, Christ can be seen as part of humanity, linked back all the way to Adam and Eve through his biological tissue. One of the theologians she quotes traces this link reaching back to stardust. This relational aspect Holness sees as an all-embracing one.67 She also points to the ethical aspect of human relationships, how all human beings relate to others and exist in relationships, and where the encounter with the another human being carries ethical implications.68 Furthermore, with regard to relationality, Holness states that she does not want to undermine ontological understandings of the relationship between Christ and God, but rather she emphasizes relationality to retrieve the relational. However, in doing this, she states that Jesus' connection to Mary, was more than a symbol; it was an actual relationship. It was the relationship "that had significance for the person he was to become."69

To summarize, Holness establishes that the Incarnation includes Christ's birth by a woman, what it means to be embodied, and lastly, what it means to live in relation. For Holness these express three different aspects of recapitulation—of the full humanity required for Christ's possibility to redeem. If not for Mary and her being in relationship to Christ, it would not be possible to understand Christ in relationship to all humanity.70

Lyn Holness' work creates bridges linking the dogmatic conflicts and struggles in the early church to today's challenges. Her work has surprised me time and again, particularly in the way she builds up the "from within." In doing this she has created unexpected links between dogmatic thinking and human experiences within art and music. She starts her quest for a humanity of Christ in a search for meaning to what may easily seem meaningless, the almost endless suffering of people of different ages under apartheid. The destruction of so many lives, for some to death, for others though life itself, meant loss of possibilities, suffering, brokenness, and memories that were difficult to reconcile within oneself. For Holness, such experiences needed to be part of what Christ could redeem. This brought her to the Quest of the Historical Jesus, to Chalcedon, Ireneaus, and back into our own times.

The patriarchal construction of Christian dogma, with God named as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has been described by feminists as highly problematic because of the domination of male gender it produces.71 What I understand Holness to be doing is to loosen this up by challenging male exclusiveness. Compared to the text dealt with earlier by Balasuriya, the conflicts are not so clear-cut in Holness' text, as she operates more from a "both/and" approach. The tasks to me seem both different and still the same. The differences: Balasuriya is confronting the past tradition and restoring a new image of Mary—more accessible and considerate of women. Holness is expanding the tradition by including Mary's shedding of blood in giving birth as part of the redemptive paradigm. In so doing, she offers a new Christological paradigm which in itself is more open to the existence of women—of their lives and experiences. It may on the surface seem as if Mary may be reduced to be an instrument for a renewed Christology, for a new focus on Christ. This is not however, the case. Rather, what Holness suggests is a wider understanding of redemption wherein women's activities and agency are included. At this point I see her approach and Balasuriya's coming together. Both are concerned with an open Christology, open to all people, for Holness women in particular and for Balasuriya women as well as people of other faiths and ideologies. However, I judge Holness' suggestion for a new Mariology to advance dogmatically beyond that of Balasuriya in that it explicitly brings women's shedding of blood into the redemptive paradigm. In Balasuriya's Mariology, Mary remains a mother, an instrument in giving birth to the son. In Holness' new understanding of redemption, Mary's or the woman's act of giving birth, is declared redemptive in itself.

A Text from Sweden

The text from Sweden differs from the other two in that it is not grappling with dogmatic issues within Christianity, but is still much concerned with images of motherhood. It deals with the event of giving birth and how women can give adequate meaning to that event, freed from patriarchal understandings of women and their agency. Her purpose is to contribute to the understanding of and give meaning to the life conditions of women during their fertile years. The author, Kristen Grönlien Zetterquist, wrote her Ph. D. thesis at the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Uppsala University, and drawing on earlier studies in Philosophy of Religion particularly regarding meaning creating processes. Her work is in Swedish, and its title is Att vara kroppssubjekt. Ett fenomenologiskt bidrag till feministisk teori och religionsfilosofi72, ("Being a Body Subject. A Phenomenological Contribution to Feminist Theory and Philosophy of Religion").

Societal Images of Motherhood

Initially Grönlien Zetterquist points to problems of motherhood expressed in media e.g. when motherhood is described as a painful reality in which women are torn apart by conflicting demands, or when images of motherhood are difficult to reconcile with other demands of society, conditions of working life and so on.73 She also articulates how the activity of being a mother does not seem to fit with the ideals of feminist thinking and theory which are fairly wide-spread in the society. 74 Even though good day- care-centres for children exist, heavy responsibilities still remain for many women, and it can be tough to reconcile the duties of working life with the pressures placed on women to care for children and other family members. This is part of the background to Grönlien Zetterquist's thesis, which centres around the fertile years of Swedish women and how they are given meaning.

Grönlien Zetterquist approaches her task as a philosopher. Crucial to her method is the asking of questions. She also employs a phenomenological theoretical background inspired by Martin Heidegger, and in the latter part of the thesis, by Merleau-Ponty. When Grönlien Zetterquist initially situates her inquiry within feminist theory, she points to the conflicts between essentialism and social constructionism.75 However, drawing on the work of Simone de Beauvoir and a contemporary interpreter of her texts, Toril Moi, Grönlien Zetterquist chooses to move a step beyond that conflict. She does so in pointing to the simultaneous existence in Beauvoir's work The Second Sex of women both becoming women through social and cultural processes and also being women through the situation of their bodies—a becoming and a being. Grönlien Zetterquist criticizes the gender-bound use of immanence and transcendence in de Beauvoir's work, where immanence is tied to women and transcendence to men and their activities. Grönlien Zetterquist also discusses different understandings of women's subjectivity and criticizes a social constructionist one for focussing too much on the consciousness of persons and neglecting their bodies. She also draws on the work of a Norwegian feminist philosopher who has pointed to the gender bias in the writings of Plato.76

By posing questions and seeking to answer them, Grönlien Zetterquist makes careful use of two narratives, first a literary one and second an interview with an experienced midwife. From these narratives, Grönlien Zetterquist gathers meanings attributed to the event of giving birth, but also observes the lack of meaning attached to experiences of fertility and other experiences of life by women. Throughout the volume, Grönlien Zetterquist with her method gives a most interesting gender analysis of the novel Lifsens rot, by Sara Lidman.77 In that analysis she interprets the events in the book as the resistance of the protagonist Rönnog against acts and verbal expressions of patriarchy. In opposition to this worldview, Rönnog needs to negotiate her own behaviour and actions. Grönlien Zetterquist also finds situations where the strategy of resistance is not adequate. These situations require a deepened understanding. A different understanding of the subject, the agent, is needed.78

Giving Birth

In Swedish society giving birth almost always takes place in hospitals, and the event may be fairly medicalised. Grönlien Zetterquist also points out that the images meeting a woman who is to bear a child within the Western patriarchal cultural context may idealise women giving birth, or devalue the event of giving birth, or leave the woman without any understandings of reality with which to interpret the event. In the latter case, the woman experiences a cultural silence surrounding the event. How can she then give it adequate meaning?79

To approach this with her phenomenological method, Grönlien Zetterquist in her third chapter analyses the interview with the midwife. She then arrives at three pairs of concepts which she develops from the narrative: active and passive, body and mind, and lastly, state and force. In the conceptual pair active and passive, Grönlien Zetterquist gathers experiences from the actual process of giving birth—how a woman has to be at the same time actively cooperating in the process with her consciousness, but also passive and actively listening to her body and its knowledge of how birth takes place. In this her body and mind cooperate, not so that the mind is steering, nor that the body can dispose of the mind, but rather how in the consciousness of the woman the knowledge "I am delivering" is crucial, together with the active listening to the knowledge of the body as well as that bodily activity in itself. This Grönlien Zetterquist describes as a process where activity and passivity, where mind and body cooperate in a complex process. Therefore the concepts as such cannot be mutually exclusive, it is not either passivity or activity, not either body or mind, but rather simultaneous activity where it still is meaningful to keep the concepts separate, so as to see different aspects. Grönlien Zetterquist also finds that the narrative of the midwife describes birthing as both 'a state' and with 'a force,' that is, with a direction. Consequently, it is both a state for the woman to be in as well as a force forward to be experienced, which gives an experience of becoming, simultaneously both being and becoming. When Grönlien Zetterquist discusses her findings, she summarizes them in the two concepts, work and life act. That is Grönlien Zetterquist's way of giving name to the event of giving birth.80

A Body Subject and an Ontology

Grönlien Zetterquist brings together her findings, here summarized very briefly, to create a new understanding of the subject. In doing this she is rejecting a Cartesian understanding of the subject where mind and body are split, and where the mind or consciousness is superior to the body, which is subordinated. Instead she develops a complex understanding of a body subject, where bodily experiences are recognized and "in dialogue" with the consciousness which is also part of that same body. Such a construction of a body subject also helps her interpret certain bodily experiences in the novel, where a conscious resistance of patriarchal acts seems to be undercut by bodily reactions. These Grönlien Zetterquist interprets as bodily reactions, where old memories of patriarchal experiences are revived. In a new analysis, this is spelled out and can be so understood and handled. For Grönlien Zetterquist it is crucial to state, in opposition to: "I resist therefore I am" a different phrase, namely: "I am, therefore I can resist and create." This Grönlien Zetterquist prefers because it does not prioritise the becoming at the expense of the being, which someone coming from a social constructionist position might do. Rather, it constructs a subject that oscillates between body and consciousness, integrating what has traditionally been set apart.

The ontology Grönlien Zetterquist formulates and which she hopes would assist women in giving birth and in ascribing meaning to experiences of their fertility, starts in a phenomenological interpretation of existence. Grönlien Zetterquist exemplifies it in dialogue with the novel she returns to time and again in her book. There, a newborn child is said to come out of the darkness knowing something about her mother she did not know about herself. Grönlien Zetterquist interprets this to mean that in giving birth, and in meeting the child, the mother sees human life and the existential conditions for it. However, the woman also needs theoretical frameworks to understand this experience. Theoretical meaning must exist simultaneous with phenomenological interpretation of events. A phenomenological approach here assists the theoretical.81

Reflections

It has been difficult to give adequate description to such a complex and condensed text as Grönlien Zetterquist's. The beauty of her philosophical language, full of metaphors and imagery, has been impossible to convey—it needs to be read. What made me want to include this text, however, is that it struggles with the experiences of women's fertility from within a feminist point of view. Among feminists in the Swedish context, fertility has not been a readily accepted subject for scholarly discourse, even though women's bodies have been both subject to oppression and the starting point for a more affirming kind of treatment. The focus in Swedish scholarship has been the injustices perpetrated on women.

The background against which Grönlien Zetterquist carries out her work is that motherhood is denigrated, idealised, or neglected; that is, experiences of it are not part of the public arena. She wants to make it public, to create new understandings, give new meaning, and to do so, from within women's life experiences. She challenges the immanence ascribed to women by Simone de Beauvoir and the passivity that has been ascribed to women throughout history, not the least within the Christian tradition. She also challenges Songe- Möller, the Norwegian philosopher, and the platonian raising of the male mind to exclusive heights of rationality while women are left behind in the dark. The exclusion of women from rationality, and the historical tendency to attire philosophical activity in male clothes, do not scare her. Right there she begins her challenging and thought-provoking philosophical adventure. If women's sexuality has been denigrated in history, Grönlien Zetterquist teases out new significance out of women's descriptions of their own experiences, and offers it both to women and to men. She provides a new understanding of human subjectivity and views of life beyond patriarchy. In so doing, she remains faithful to what is articulated from within women's experiences.

Conclusion

The three texts considered here express three tendencies which cut across the quite different approaches and subjects of the authors. First, they strive to liberate women's sexuality, for women themselves from centuries of denigration within patriarchal thought constructs. Balasuriya does so in his consistent struggle with the Catholic tradition. Grönlien Zetterquist does so when she continuously asks what experiences are important to women, and how they name such experiences. The second tendency I see is the emphasis on "from within" which Holness and Grönlien Zetterquist share. I find in their work an openness towards human existence and its struggle with understanding life, life in its fullness, even including death. They strive to accommodate their own conceptualisation to the experiences and name-giving of others in this respect. The third tendency, which Balasuriya, Holness, and Grönlien Zetterquist all share but apply in different ways in the context in which they develop their own work, is the tendency to take seriously and to make space for women's agency. Their agenda is to undo thought patterns which limit women's agency, to criticize thinking which circumscribes women and ascribes to them passivity and submissiveness as the only appropriate cultural behaviours. It is elevating to find such powerful concern for women's agency as something from within, in these three texts from different parts of the globe.

References

Balasuriya, Tissa: 1997. Mary and Human Liberation. The Story. The Story and the Text, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.

Cannon, Katie, G: 1985. Resources for a Constructive Ethic in the Life and Work of Zora Neale Hurston, in Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 1:1, s 37-51.

Daly, Mary: 1973. Beyond God the Father, Boston: Beacon Press.

Fabella, Virginia, M.M., and Sugirtharajah, R.S., eds: 2000. Dictionary of Third World Theologies, MaryKnoll: Orbis Books.

Grenholm, Carl-Henric, and Fredriksson, Linda, eds: 1978. Religion, könsdiskriminering och kvinnokamp, Uppsala: Teologiska institutionen.

The Holy Bible, 1990. New Revised Standard Version, Nashville: Cokesbury.

John Paul II: 2000. Theotokos: Woman, Mother, Disciple: A Catechesis on Mary, Mother of God. Boston: Pauline Books and Media.

Lidman, Sara: 1996. Lifsens rot. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois: 1997. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Radford Ruether, Rosemary: 1983. Sexism and God-Talk. Towards a Feminist Theology, Boston: Beacon Press.

Russel, Letty M., and Clarkson, J. Shannon, eds: 1996. Dictionary of Feminist Theologies, Louisville: Westminster Press.

SCB, Statistiska Centralbyràn: 2002. Pà tal om kvinnor och män. Lathund om jämställdhet, Stockholm.

Songe-Möller, Vigdis: 1999. Den greske drömmen om kvinnens överflödighet. Essays om myter og filosofi i antikkens Hellas. Oslo: Cappelens Akademisk Forlag as.

Sporre, Karin: 1999. Först när vi fàr ansikten - ett flerkulturellt samtal om feminism, etik och teologi. Stockholm: Atlas.

—————. 2001. "Älska ingen mer än du älskar dig själv", in Det nya motstàndet. Om regnbàgar mot förtryck, ed. Ingemar Lindberg, Stockholm: Agora.

Walker, Alice: 1983. In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens. Womanist Prose. London: The Women's Press.

Grönlien Zetterquist, Kirsten Grönlien: 2002. Att vara kroppssubjekt. Ett fenomenologiskt bidrag till feministisk teori och religionsfilosofi. Uppsala: Studia Philosophiae Religionis, Nr 23. Unpublished material:

Holness, Lyn: 2002. Christology from Within: A critical retrieval of the humanity of Christ, with particular reference to the role of Mary, PhD thesis, presented at the University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

© Copyright 2003 Africa Resource Center, Inc.

Citation Format

Karin Sporre. (2003). Images of Motherhood: Conflicts and Creative New Thinking Within and Outside the Christian Tradition. Jenda: A Journal of Culture and African Women Studies: Issue 4