A reading for Christianity class. The PDF the professor provided was a poor scan of a 1990 book, so I converted it to text. I just finished reading it. It’s about liberation theology and black women. Womanism. Christ as a black woman.
Subjectification as a Requirement
for Christological Construction
JACQUELYN GRANT
CONTEXT AND COMMITMENT
As a collective “I,” Black women have been saddled with labels and definitions. They have been called matriarchs; they’ve been blamed for the ills of the Black community; they’ve been considered sexually promiscuous; and to facilitate the needs of whites, they were reduced to maids, mammies, and other service workers. Zora Neale Hurston conveys through the words of one of her characters in Their Eyes Were Watching God’ that Black women function as the mules of the world, that is, they carry the burdens of the world. They are among the poorest of the poor and among the most oppressed of the oppressed. This is my context.
Black women have moved beyond these definitions by defying time and space. This tradition has been known as the strong Black woman tradition. It is the one which we now call the womanist tradition.
My commitment is to the unearthing of the lost, forgotten, or ignored traditions of Black women, so that we might be able to develop more holistic theologies which are truly reflective of liberation of humanity. Within the development of the theological arms of both the Black liberation movement and the feminist liberation movement, the particular experiences of Black women have not been represented.
Hull, Scott, and Smith critique these two movements in the very title of their book, All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave.2 Who are these brave women? Mari Evans describes them as she names herself in this way:
I
Am a Black Woman
tall as a Cypress
Strong
beyond all definitions still
defying place
and time
and circumstances
Assailed
impervious
indestructible
Look
on me and be
renewed
CONSTRUCTION
When Jesus asked the disciples the question, “Who do you say that I am?” (Mark 8:29), he began what was to become an endless debate and discussion on a central doctrine in Christian theology. The one who posed the question was Jesus of Nazareth. Historical and biblical records give us limited details about who Jesus of Nazareth was. We know of him from birth to twelve years of age and then from age thirty to thirty-three. We have records which bear out certain data.
Yet when Jesus asked this question, could he have been referring to something other than biographical details? Perhaps he was confronting the disciples with the question, “Who am I to you? What’s the significance of my work for you?” “Who do you say that I am?” focuses the question on the ones giving the answers—the disciples.
Recognizing this possibility, then, we must at some point focus our attention on the disciples. This subjectification of the disciples relocates the central subject of this passage. No longer is itJesus, but the one (s) who answer.
If so, it is important to discuss the context in which Jesus is encountered by people, for this context shapesthe answers to Jesus’ question. When John asks Jesus, “Are you the one or shall we look for another?” the subject is called upon to identify himself. Jesus in turning the question around to
the disciples makes them the subjects. ‘ Qdopj1sy that I am?” This
uestion is posed anew in each new generationnd in each conteyt. just as the disciples were alled to aner toTheubjects, so we must also- e su~tects.
Historically the power to be subjects has beewçaefully and conveniently kept out of the hands of nonwhites and to a lesser extent out of the hands of women. The continual objectification of Blaks and women in recent history has meant that essentially they have been defined by the (political and
theological) status quo. It has been within this status quo that many theologians have presumed, in the interest of truth and universality, to answer the christological question in a once-and-for-all fashion, that is, for all times and for all peoples. Consequently, they taught Blacks that Jesus meant docility, meekness, and mildness in the face of the physical brutalities of racial oppression. Then when white people (subjects) answered Jesus’ question for Black people (victimized objects): they said Jesus was the one being honored when Black people obeyed their earthly masters and accepted their prescribed roles as servants in the society.
At the same time these same self-proclaimed subjects taught women that Jesus’ maleness meant that he was to carry out the patriarchal mandates of all times—that women are to subject themselves to male authority, for God chose to reveal himself in a male person—Jesus the God man.
In more recent years Blacks and women have forged movements designed to take control of their lives by becoming the primary definers, the subjects, in theological and other discussions. This is particularly significant in that both the Black experience and women’s experience represent realities from the underside of history—that is, they are non-normative experiences. They represent experiences in which one normally would not expect to find subjects in the christological debate. White male theologians representing the normative experience—the topside of history—have customarily assumed the subject role in this debate.
The experience of Black women is one of triple jeopardy; their lived reality is at least three times removed from the so-called normative culture, placing them on the underside of history. Though Black women are victimized by racism, sexism, and classism, I will focus primarily on racism and sexism, both of which have consequent implications for social class. In this section we will give glimpses of some perceptions of Jesus Christ from the underside.
The Subjectification of Black People
Since the beginning of their presence in the United States, Black people have been objects of control for the service of the needs and desires of white people. Institutional slavery rendered them less than human, and even when a measure of humanity was given them, they (Black men) were counted as only three-fifths of a white man (a fraction of a man) and that was only for political (specifically for apportionment) purposes. In actuality they were still considered nonhuman.
History records some of the varied attempts of Blacks to iffirm their human dignity, from David Walker’s appeal in 1829 to James Forman’s Black Manifesto in 1969. At various historical moments Blacks have raised the issue in its theological context. Each of these political and theological statements is part of the struggle of Blacks to become subjects—that is, masters of their own destiny. They recognized that this would not be easy. In bare political terms it meant that in order for Blacks to gain control of their own destiny, whites had to be disempowered. And as Frederick Douglass pointed out, no one gives up power without a struggle. This meant therefore that the insurrections and other rebellious acts of Harriet Tubman, Denmark Vesey, and many others were attempts to break the power base to the white establishment and in effect to become subjects.
The passing of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to e Constitution were steps in the subjectification of Black people, but as istory demonstrates, Blacks were still legally disenfranchised, economically impotent, socially dehumanized, and religiously insignificant. The battle to become subjects continued. In the 1920s and 1930s, Carter G. Woodson identified the problem as more than just political, economic, and social control of Blacks by whites. He descrihowwñtes maintained that control through effective oppressiveiniseducatiofl of Blacks. This miseducation has manifested itself both in the political and the religious life, so that white people controlled Black minds through oppressive educational systems and religious symbols. Woodson argued for self-reliance and self-determination. Though the odds were against it, he believed it possible.4
The Civil Rights and Black Power movements of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s were direct actions designed to change the power balance in the United States. That period represented a consistent challenge for self-reliance and self-determination and for political, economic, and social freedom. In other words, to some degree Blacks were finally becoming subjects.
Who Do Black People Say Jesus Christ Is?
It is the thesis of Black theologians that christology is constructed from the interplay of social context, scripture, and traditions.5 The significance of social context is addressed in the first chapter ofJames Cone’s book, God of the Oppressed. Cone crystallizes the issue in the following way: “The focus on social context means that we cannot separate our questions aboutJesus from the concreteness of everyday life. We ask, ‘Who is Jesus Christ for us today?’ because we believe that the story of his life and death is the answer to the human story of oppression and suffering. “6
The social context for Black christology is the Black experience of oppression and the struggle against it. Christology is irrelevant if it does not take this into account, because historically christology has been constructed in the context of white superiority, ideology,nd domination. Christ has functioned to legitimate these social and political realities. Essentially, Christ has been white. For “white conservatives and liberals alike Christ is a mild, easygoing white American who can afford to mouth the luxuries of ‘love,’ ‘mercy,’ ‘long-suffering,’ and other white irrelevances, because he has a multibillion dollar military force to protect him from the encroachment of the ghetto and the ‘communist conspiracy. “‘7
To counteract this historical and theological trend, what the late Bishop Joseph Johnson called “the tragedy of the white Christ,”8 Black theologians have called not only for a new departure in theology but more specifically for a new christological interpretation. This white Christ must be eliminated from the Black experience and the concept of a Black Christ must emerge.
The claims for the Blackness of Christ are argued by Black theologians in several different ways. Albert Cleage’s position leaves no room for guessing his meaning. Postulating actual historical Blackness, Cleage argues that Jesus was a BlackJew.9 From Cleage’s perspective it is simply impossible to believe thatJesus could have been anything but Black, given the established fact of “the intermingling of races in Africa and the Mediterranean area. “10 James Cone (see chapter 7) finds that Blackness clarifies the incarnation in its specificity.” Wilmore finds the meaning of “the Black Messiah” to be “the relevance of the Person and Work of Christ for existence under the condition of oppression.”12 Rejected, despised, and acquainted with grief—both biblically and on the contemporary scene—this is the christological symbol: God loves the outcast. 13
00, –L- – ‘-‘ ‘-‘
The Subjectification of Women
If Blacks were objectified as slaves and chattel, women have been objectified as sexual commodities and relegated to domestic affairs, specifically the upkeep and maintenance of the family. As such, women’s reality was defined by men and accommodated by both men and women for the purpose of securing patriarchal structures in both public and private areas. In nineteenth century American life, this culminated in the notion of the “true woman.”” Barbara Welter says of this concept of true woman, “Women were inherently more religious, modest, passive and domestic.”5 Barbara Andolsen continues the thought, “Women were also nurturing, pure, sweetly persuasive, and self-sacrificing.”16 For women, biology was indeed destiny: women were constrained to the private sphere and were to be content with family affairs, specifically motherhood and wifely duties. Their place was in the home.
Women began to move toward self-definition in the context of the women’s movement for liberation in the nineteenth century. They recognized that the patriarchal structures under which women lived functioned for the empowerment and independence of men and the impotence and dependence of women. Hence, women began to organize around issues such as suffrage, wages, personhood, and marriage. Though all of the issues were interrelated, suffrage captured the attention of the majority of women in the movement from 1848 to the 1920s when the nineteenth amendment, giving women the vote, was passed.
In the area of religion, though women were thought to be innately more religious, they were not permitted the authority to define religion. The
212 JACQUELYN GRANT
church with remarkable success resisted the impact of the women’s movement. The resistance took the form of teachings on the virtues of womanhood, lauding the feminine qualities of women as godly and God given. Nancy Cott described the indoctrination which women received regarding their role in the church and family. Women populated the church by a majority as early as the mid-seventeenth century. They were kept in line, however, by the constant teaching that they had special “female values.” Being seduced by the minister’s teachings that they were of “conscientious and prudent character, especially suited to religion,” women became well indoctrinated in what was expected of them. 17
In spite of their ecclesiastical and religious oppression, however, women from time to time did challenge the church about its role in perpetuating such oppression. The speeches of Sarah and Angelina Grimké, directed to Christian women and advocating the equality of the sexes, elicited angry reactions from the clergy. One church body responded to the work of the Grimké sisters with a proclamation that God condones the “protected” and “dependent” state of women. The General Association of the Church wrote the following: ‘The power of woman is her dependence, flowing from the consciousness of that weakness which God has given her for her protection, and which keeps her in those departments of life that form the character of individuals and of the nation.”8 In spite of these kinds of “divinely inspired” attacks, women began to claim and articulate revelations to the contrary. Sarah Grimké affirmed that the appropriate duties and influence of women are revealed in the New Testament. In her words, “No one can desire more earnestly than I do that woman may move exactly in the sphere which her creator has assigned her; and I believe her having been displaced from that sphere has introduced confusion into the world.”9 Grimké felt that the New Testament in its untarnished form can be used as a guide for women. Having been contaminated by the interpretations and translations of men, the Bible and commentaries thereupon have been distorted especially with regard to women.
t’,1 741.4..I
Who Do Feminists Say That Jesus Christ Is?
Twentieth-century women were aware of the significant oppressive impact of religion and theology in their lives. This is perhaps why religion and theology have been consistently addressed in the contemporary women’s movement. More importantly, they specifically recognized the special functions ofJesus Christ in the maintnance of the subordinate status of women. For this reason women began to see themselves as subjects to whom Jesus directed the question, “Who do you say that I am?” The question has been answered in many different ways. Three answers are explored here.
Recognizing the relationship between the patriarchal structures of the church and society and the male presence in the divine, some seek to
SUBJECTIFICATION AS A REQUIREMENT 213
empower women by affirming the female presence in the divine. Consequently, they argue thatJesus Christ was and is an androgynous person, embracing both masculine and feminine traits. In Jesus we find the reasonableness, self-confidence, and security often associated with the masculine person. In addition we find the emotions, peacefulness, and humility often associated with the feminine person. They see Jesus as “emphatically androgynous. “20 Some say thatJesus Christ was and is a femi-nist.2′ He is believed to be so because of his documented actions and reactions toward women.
Many feminists have interpreted Jesus’ frequent affirmations of women (Luke 7:36ff., Mark 9:20ff.,John 4:5ff., Matt. 28:9ff., etc.) and other actions ofJesus as a rejection of patriarchy and an affirmation of women’s experi-ence.22 Swidler concludes his analysis by reiterating that “it should be clear that Jesus vigorously promoted the dignity and equality of women in the midst of a very male-dominated society; Jesus was a feminist and a very radical one. Can his followers attempt to be anything else—de imitatione Christ,?”23
Rosemary Ruether addresses the topic of feminist christology in an article entitled “Feminism and Christology: Can a Male Savior Help Women?”,24 in the same article revised under the title “Feminism and Christology: Can a Male Savior Save Women? ,,21 and in her book, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology.26 In the article, Ruether puts the primary critical question in its most simple, yet profound, way. Given the realities of what maleness and femaleness mean in the church and in society, the question brings into focus elements of the very basic conflict in contemporary male/female relationship. Traditional understanding of the “nature of man” consisted of a dualism that kept man as “protector.” Woman’s sphere was limited in order to maintain consistency with this social dualism. Women have begun to challenge the motives of such an arrangement—that is, they have questioned whether men have been protecting women, or, in fact, protecting the “sacredness” of their privileged position. A male christology, developed in the context of a Christian theology which itself perpetuates the socio-theological dualism, is met with the same suspicion by feminists. If the male Christ has like investments in the socio-theological status quo, then he cannot be trusted to help women. Thus Ruether asked, “Can a Male Savior Help Women?”
When published in her book To Change the World, the question becomes more pointedly theological and specifically soteriological: “Can a male savior save women?” Salvation in a patriarchal system would be comparable to accepting one’s designated place in the order of creation. This male Christ figure would merely put its stamp of approval upon the patriarchically defined place of women. It is here where Ruether prepares the way for her liberation approach to christology when she poses the question, “Can Christology be liberated from its encapsulation in the structure of patriarchy and really become an expression of liberation of women? ,27 In both
214 JACQUELYN GRANT
essays Ruether provides a positive response to the question. In her first essay, the concepts of service and conversion are elevated. Service must not be confused with servitude. In her view, “service implies autonomy and power used in behalf of others.”” We are all called to service. Our conversion is to accept this call by abandoning previous, inaccurate notions of being called to hierarchical and oppressive leadership and power. The new christology which is to be developed, then, is one of “conversion and social transformation.”29 Ruether affirms the “liberating praxis” emphasis of liberation theologians, saying that “a starting point for feminist christological inquiry must be a reencounter with the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels, not the accumulated doctrine about him but his message and praxis “M This way we are able to see the ways in which Jesus challenged the customs and laws of his time regarding women. Ruether stops short of saying thatJesus Christ was a feminist for his time, but she does claim “that the criticism of religious and social hierarchy characteristic of the early portrait ofJesus is a remarkable parallel to feminist criticism.”” He seems to promote a more egalitarian form of relationship—lineal rather than vertical—perhaps one of brother and sister. Jesus elevated many who were at the bottom of the social hierarchy to a new level of equality. This trend is espcially evident in his relationship to women.
There is a dynamic quality to the redemptive process. This dynamism not only exists between the redeemer and the redeemed community but also within the redeemer itself. For “the redeemer is one who has been redeemed, just asJesus himself accepted the baptism ofJohn.”32 AsJesus is paradigmatic, we become so when we liberate others as we have been liberated ourselves. Recognition of this dynamism moves us away from the traditional “once-for-all” notion ofJesus. Because the redemptive process still continues, we can experience the Christ as the historical Jesus and we can experience “Christ in the form of our sister.”” This means that neither Christ nor humanity is imaged solely as male.
The historical Jesus was a man, but men do not have a monopoly upon Christ, and Eve was a woman but women do not have a monopoly upon sin. For “Christ is not necessarily male, nor is the redeemed community only women, but new humanity, female and male.”34
ubjecAs both Blacks and women have struggled from place of objects to sub-jects,ts, they have more and more begun to answerJesus’ question for themselves. “Who do you say that I am?” You are the Black Messiah, the Liberator, the Redeemer. You are the Christ, the Savior, the Sister.
r
The Subjectification of Black Women
Even in the midst of the struggles for liberation, Black women still found themselves objectified indeed by white men, but also by Black men and white women. In the Black movement women were intimidated into believing that sexism was not a reality in the Black community. Consequently, for
SUBJECTIFICATION AS A REQUIREMENT 215
some time most Black women did not publicly address sexism. In the women’s movement, Black women were ignored in significant ways; consequently most Black women ignored the movement. In other words, in the subjectification process, essentially invisible Black women were left to fall through the cracks.
While Black women did not accept that imposed invisibility quietly, they did fall through the cracks. For example, though neither the Bill of Rights nor the amendments to the Constitution ensured Black women (or Black men, for that matter) their rights, this did not totally prevent the rise of activism among Black women. Womanists such as Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Fannie B. Williams, Ida B. Wells, Mary McLeod Bethune, Fannie Lou Hamer, and others were present to challenge in one way or another the racism, sexism, and classism of their day, often at great cost to themselves. Being active both in the abolition/anti-racism movement and the women’s liberation/anti-sexism movement meant that these women were doubly burdened, doubly taxed, and twice removed from the seat of power by virtue of being victims of both racism and sexism. In actuality they were thrice removed from any real sense of self-control, for their control in the early days was in the hands of white men and women and more recently also in the hands of Black men.
For them, becoming subjects meant engaging in three battles: 1) the battle against the ever-pervasive racism of the dominant culture; 2) the battl3 against the sexism of the dominant male culture; and 3) the battle against the sexism of nondominant cultures, including Black men. Though the subjectification process has become less evident in Black women’s communities, we can still discern its presence as they attempt to live out their response to the question “Who do you say that I am?”
Who Do Womanists Say That Jesus Christ Is?
Black women have said and continue to say thatJesus Christ is one of us. When we see Jesus Christ, we see both the particularJesus of Nazareth and the universal Christ of faith. In Jesus Christ, we see an oppressed experience and at the same time we see liberation. When we see Jesus Christ, we see concreteness and absoluteness, for in Jesus Christ, the absolute becomes concrete.
Black women can identify with thisJesus Christ because the Jesus Christ reality is so akin to their own reality. For it is in the context of Black women’s experience that we find the particular connecting with the uni-1 versal. By this I mean that in each of the three dynamics of oppression which characterize their reality, Black women share in the reality of a broader community: they share race suffering with Black men; with white women and other Third World women they are victims of sexism; and with poor Blacks and whites, and other Third World peoples, especially women, they are disproportionately poor. To speak of Black women’s tri-dimen-
216 JACQUELYN GRANT
/sional reality, therefore, is not to speak of Black women exclusively, for there is an implied universality which connects them with others.
Similarly, there was an implied universality withJesus Christ, which made him identify with others—the poor, the women, the stranger. To affirm Jesus’ solidarity with the “least of the people” (Matt. 25:31-46) is not an exercise in romanticized contentment with one’s oppressed status in life. For the resurrection signified that there is more to the life ofJesus Christ than the cross. For Black women, the resurrection signifies that their triply oppressive existence is not the end. It represents the context in which a particular people struggle to experience hope and liberation. Jesus Christ thus represents a threefold significance: first, he identifies with the “little peo-ple”—Black women—where they are and he accompanies them in their struggles.’ Second, he affirms the basic humanity of these, “the least,” and in affirming them he empowers them to gain “more.” Third, he inspires active hope in the struggle for resurrected, liberated existence. Christ’s empowerment effects liberation.
Identification with “Little People”
To locate the Christ in the experiences of Black people as Black theology has done is a radical and necessary step. An understanding of Black women’s reality challenges us to go further. Christ among the least must also mean Christ in the community of Black women. William Eichelberger was able to recognize this as he further particularized the significance of the Blackness ofJesus by locating Christ in a Black women’s community. He was able to see Christ not only as Black male but also as Black female: “It is my feeling that God is now manifesting Himself, and has been for over 450 years, in the form of the Black American Woman as mother, as wife, as nourisher, sustainer, and preserver of life, the Suffering Servant who is despised and rejected by men, a personality of sorrow who is acquainted with grief.”36 Granted, Eichelberger’s categories for God and woman are very traditional. Nevertheless, the significance of his thought is that he was able to conceive of the divine reality as other than a Black male messianic figure. The possibility that Christ is in the experiences of Black women highlights the notion that Christ accompanies the people in their pain and suffering and loneliness.
In the experiences of Black people, Jesus was “all things.”” Chief among these, however, was the belief in Jesus as the divine cosufferer, who empowers them in situations of oppression. For Christian Black women in the past, Jesus was their central frame of reference.A’hey identified with Jesus because they believed that Jesus identified with them. As Jesus was persecuted and made to suffer undeservedly, so were they. His suffering culminated in the crucifixion. Their crucifixion included rape, their babies being sold, and their men being castrated. ButJesus’ suffering was not the suffering of a mere human, for Jesus was understood to be God incarnate. As Harold Carter observed of Black prayers in general, there was no differ-
SUBJECTIFICATION AS A REQUIREMENT 217
ence between the persons of the Trinity, Jesus, God, or the Holy Spirit. All of these proper names for God were used interchangeably in prayer language. Thus,Jesus was the one who speaks the world into creation. He was the power behind the church.
Black women’s affirmation ofJesus as God meant that white people were not God. One old slave woman clearly demonstrated this as she prayed: “Dear Massajesus, we all uns beg corer [you] come make us a call dis yere day. We is nutting but poor Ethiopian women and people ain’t tink much ’bout we. We ain’t trust any of dem great high people for come to we church, but do’ you is de one great Massa, great yoo much dan Massa Likum, you ain’t shame to care for we African people. “38
This slave woman did not hesitate to identify her struggles and pain with those of Jesus. In fact, the common struggle made her know that Jesus would respond to her beck and call: “Come to we, dear Massajesus. De sun, he hot too much, de road am dat long and boggy [sandy] and we ain’t got no buggy for send and fetch Ooner. But Massa, you ‘member how you walk up Calvary and ain’t weary but tink about we all dat way. We pick out de thorns, de prickles, de brier, de backslidin’ and de quarrel and de sin out of you path so dey shan’t hurt Ooner pierce feet no more.”” As she is truly among the people at the bottom of humanity, she can make things comfortable for Jesus, even though she may have nothing to give him—no water, no food—but she can give tears and love. She continues: “Come to we, dear Massajesus. We all uns ain’t got no good cool water for to give you when you thirsty. You know, Massa, de drought so long, and the well so low, ain’t nutting but mud to drink. But we gwine to take de ‘munion cup and fill it wid de tear of repentance and love clean out of we heart. Dat all we hab to gib you, good Massa.”” Isn’t it interesting that the women here have faith thatJesus will join them in the drought (presumably a metaphor for their condition)? In spite of the mud (again a metaphor for their possessions), you will find rightness of heart, love, and repentance.
Affirmation of Humanity
For Black women, the role ofJesus Christwas demystified as they encountered him in their experience as one who empowers the weak. Jesus Christ dwells with the people in their survival struggles, and the Christ projects faithful followers forward into meaningful liberation praxis. In this vein, Jesus was such a central part of Sojourner Truth’s life that all of her sermons started with him. When asked by a preacher if the source of her preaching was the Bible, she responded, “No honey, can’t preach from de Bible—can’t read a letter.”41 Then she explained: “When I preaches, I has jest one text to preach from, an’ I always preaches from this one. My text is, When I foundJesus!”42 In this sermon Sojourner Truth recounts the events and struggles of her life from the time her parents were brought from Africa and sold “up an’ down, and hither an’ yon”43 to the time that she met Jesus within the context of her struggles for the dignity of Black people and
218 JACQUELYN GRANT
women. Her encounter with Jesus brought such joy that she became overwhelmed with love and praise: “Praise, praise, praise to the Lord! An’ I begun to feel such a love in my soul as I never felt before—love to all creatures. An’ then, all of a sudden, it stopped, an’ I said, ‘Dar’s de white folks that have abused you, an’ beat you, an’ abused your people—tink o’ them!’ But then there came another rush of love through my soul, an’ I cried out loud—Lord, I can love even de white folks!”44 This love was not a sentimental, passive love. It was a tough, active love that empowered her to fight more fiercely for the freedom of her people. For the rest of her life she continued speaking at abolition and women’s rights gatherings, condemning the horrors of oppression. In this regard, she was a true incarnation of the Christ.
Empowerment for Liberation
James Cone argues that the christological title “the Black Christ” is not validated by its universality, but, in fact, by its particularity. Its significance lies in whether or not that christological tide “points to God’s universal will to liberate particular oppressed people from inhumanity.”” These particular oppressed peoples to which Cone refers are characterized in Jesus’ parable on the LastJudgment as “the least.” The least in America are literally and symbolically present in Black people. 4′ This notion of “the least” is attractive because it descriptively locates the condition of Black women. “The least” are those people who have no water to give, but offer what they have, as the old slave woman says in her prayer. Black women’s experience in general is such a reality. Their threefold oppression renders their particular situation a complex one. They are the oppressed of the oppressed, and therefore their salvation represents “the particular within the particular.”
The Christ understood as the stranger, the outcast, the hungry, the weak, the poor, makes a traditional male Christ less significant. Even our sisters, the womanists of the past, had some suspicions about the effects of a male image of the divine, for they did challenge the oppressive use of it in the church’s theology. In so doing, they were able to move from a traditional oppressive christology, with respect to women, to an egalitarian christology. This kind of christology was operative in Jarena Lee’s argument for the
right of women to preach. She argued “the Savior died for the woman as well as for the man. ,4′ The crucifixion was for universal salvation, not just
for male salvation or, as we may extend the argument, notjust for white sal-
vation. Because of this Christ came and died, no less for the woman than for the man, no less for Blacks than for whites. “If the man may preach because
the Savior died for him, why not the woman? Seeing he died for her also. Is he not a whole Savior, instead of half one?—as those who hold it wrong for a woman to preach seem to make it appear.”” Lee correctly perceives that
there is an ontological issue at stake. IfJesus Christ were a Savior of men, then it is true the maleness of Christ would be paramount. But if Christ is a Savior of all, then it is the humanity—the wholeness—of Christ which is sig-nificanL
SIJBJECTIFICATION AS A REQUIREMENT 219
Sojourner Truth was aware of the same tendency of some scholars and church leaders to link the maleness ofJesus and the sin of Eve with the status of women. She challenged this notion in her famous speech “Ain’t I Woman?”
Then that little man in black there, he says women can’t have as much rights as men, ’cause Christ wasn’t a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman. Man had nothing to do with Him. If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them. 49
CONCLUSION
I would argue, as suggested by both Lee and Sojourner Truth, that the significance of Christ is not his maleness, but his humanity. The most significant events of Jesus Christ were the life and ministry, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. The significance of these events, in one sense, is that in them the absolute becomes concrete. God becomes concrete not only in the man Jesus, for he was crucified, but in the lives of those who will accept the challenges of the risen Savior—the Christ. For Lee, this meant that women could preach; for Sojourner Truth, it meant that women could possibly save the world; for me, it means that today, this Christ, found in the experience of Black women, is a Black woman.
At last! Black women are indeed becoming subjects. More and more they are resisting the objectification by those whose histories and herstories continue to render them invisible. And so to the question, “Who do you say that I am?” Black women say that you are the one who is with us and among us in our community as we struggle for survival. You are the one who not only is with us, but you are one of us. “Who do you say that I am?” You are the Christ, the one who affirms us, the one who accompanies us as we move from mere survival to redemptive liberation. ‘Who do you say that I am?” You are indeed the Christ.
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]