Theology Today - Vol 32, No. 3 - October 1975 - ARTICLE - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

222 - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?
By Katharine Doob Sakenfeld

"The church in the past has tended to hear 'God' the most loudly in the various passages which endorse the status quo with all its divisions and classes … Thus religion brings up the rear in social change, and a misused Bible functions as a millstone … Perhaps there was a time when in God's history there was a place and a demand for subjection of women. But in our own historical circumstance, God's demand may be (and I believe is) quite different. "

If there is one area in which the incredibly wide spectrum of theological thought and tradition would find general agreement, it is probably in the recognition of the Bible as the unique written testimony to God's word for humankind, the touchstone by which all statements concerning God, the world, women and men, and their interrelationships, should be tested. But the centrality of the Bible has been both bane and blessing. It has meant incredible splintering and fragmentation, as those who could not agree about the interpretation of biblical teaching on a given question divided time and again into opposing camps. It has meant continuing and difficult struggle over the not-so-easy question of how one decides what the Bible says on a given issue. But this consensus on the centrality of the biblical message has also brought periods of refreshment and renewal as ancient words have had impact on the changing concerns of women and men who read them.

As in many other areas of religious concern, so also in the understanding of the role of women, the biblical message has been, and continues to be, regarded as both bane and blessing. From the perspective of feminist theologians the Bible has served in the past primarily as burden, and so some will argue that what has been so long a millstone should be thrown off from around our necks. Others, however, and I would count myself among them, would argue that the

Katharine Doob Sakenfeld is Assistant Professor of Old Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. A United Presbyterian minister, she holds a B.A. from the College of Wooster, an M.A. in sociology from the University of Rhode Island, a B.D. from Harvard Divinity School, and the Ph.D. from Harvard University.

223 - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

Bible speaks to and for women not of subjugation, but of freedom and liberation. It is not by throwing off the millstone of the Bible itself that we will learn what it might be like to be free. We must throw off the millstone of our misconceptions about the message of the Bible. Does the Bible as a whole really teach the subjection of women to men as the will of God? Or is this a longstanding misconception which has made the Bible burdensome to many? A serious effort to reassess the biblical tradition typifies the approach of many contemporary thinkers who are dealing with the concerns of women from a theological perspective.

If the Bible is to become anew a word of promise rather than remaining a burden, we must do two things. First we must re-read and re-study the texts with a real effort to set aside what we think they say, to see whether or not they say something different. And second, we need to wrestle with the issues of interpretation. How does the Bible speak to our own time? Are there normative statements, and how do we know which they are? Let's begin by trying to take a fresh look at familiar texts and then return to the problem of seeking God's word for our own situation.

Let us turn first to the place of woman in the creation narratives. In the first two chapters of Genesis, the Bible provides us with two complementary stories about the creation of the world. The details of the stories vary, but their theological emphases are supplementary, not contradictory. Each in its own way teaches that woman was created equal to man. In the story of Chapter 1, animals and people are created on the sixth day; the very last item created is human beings. Let us look at Genesis 1:26-28, from the RSV, but with certain modifications to make the intent of the Hebrew text clearer:

26. Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27. So God created humankind in [God's] own image, in the image of God [God] created [humankind]; male and female he created them. 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful (pl. verb) and multiply (pl. verb), and fill (pl. verb) the earth and subdue (pl. verb) it; and have dominion (pl. verb), over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

The word I have translated "humankind" here is the Hebrew word ádam. Traditionally, as in the RSV, it has been translated "man," but here the word is clearly used in its generic sense, as is clear from its immediate specification as "male and female (zakar ûn^eqebâ) he created them." Hence "humankind" expresses the meaning more precisely, and it is immediately clear that male and female are created

224 - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

together and equally in the image of God. There is no subordination expressed or implied. The words zakar ûn ^equbâ indicate sexual or anatomical differentiation, nothing more obscure.

Notice further that both male and female participate equally in their assignment within creation. There is no dominion of male over female, but only of both together over the creatures. This is seen clearly in verse 26 ("let them have dominion") and in verse 28 (God "blessed them" and "said to them be fruitful, have dominion"). So in summary we have here a view of male and female created together in the image of God, created together and equally for dominion, created last at the consummation of creation, and pronounced "very good."

As we turn to the story in Genesis, Chapter 2, we find that the sequence of creation is man, garden, animals, and woman. The narrative continues with the story of the serpent and the fall. Here, of course, is the source of the traditional interpretation of the double weakness of woman-created second and sinned first. But a closer look at the text calls each of these derogatory statements into question. ¹ Remember that we are dealing here with narrative, not with doctrinal statement or formal theological argument. The narrative is not always logical (especially concerning the forbidden tree or trees), and it does not try to answer every question. Thus we must consider the overall intention of the narrator, as well as smaller details.

The passage dealing with the creation of the woman begins in Chap. 2:18. God realizes that the man needs a "helper fit for him" (to use the RSV translation) and so God creates the various animals and brings them to the man for naming. But none qualifies as a "helper fit for" the man. The first question we need to consider is the meaning of the Hebrew cezer kenegdo ("helper fit for him") which of course has traditionally been taken to imply "suitable assistant" and hence to reinforce the idea of subordination of woman which is supposedly implicit in her last place position in the story. But a careful examination of the word ^cezer in the Old Testament immediately calls this interpretation into question. The word occurs about twenty times, and except for here, God's help is the only effective ^cezer, God is the only helper whose help avails. A familiar example is Psalm 121: "Whence cometh my help? My help cometh from the Lord who made heaven and earth." So the word does not automatically imply subordination at all. The animals in Genesis 2 apparently qualify as ^cezer, and presumably are subordinate because they are named; in Old Testament

¹ For another exegetical treatment of the place of woman in Gen. 2-3, see Phyllis Trible, "Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 41 (1973), esp. pp. 35-42. 1 am in agreement with most of Trible's observations on the passage, except that her interpretation of Adam as an androgynous being at the beginning of the story is not convincing to me. See further the work of Phyllis Bird, "Images of Women in the Old Testament," in Religion and Sexism, ed. by Rosemary Reuther (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), esp. pp. 70-75.

225 - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

culture, to name something meant to control and subordinate it. But the animals are not ^cezer, k^enegdô, a help "fit" for the man. The Hebrew word translated "fit" is a word which regularly and clearly implies correspondence, opposite, or counterpart. Equality or reciprocity is what is called for, a being who corresponds so that the scales are balanced, so to speak.

And so God puts the man into a coma (tardemâ--not ordinary sleep at all) and uses a rib to build a woman. God acts, the man is out of it. God builds (architectural term) the rib taken from the man into a woman, just as God formed (like a potter) the dust taken from the ground into the man. The source of the rib from the man does not indicate inherent subordination of woman to man in creation, any more than the source of the dust from the ground indicates that the man is inherently subordinate to the ground in the created order.

The sources of man and woman, in their created state, are part of the larger narrative design. Rib of man and dust of ground prepare the reader for the state of affairs in the fallen world. But here, in the intention of God's creation the woman is the man's equal, she is help like unto himself, she is set apart from the animals. The Hebrew pun 'îsh-'ishshâ (man-woman) introduces only sexual differentiation, not subordination. The technical naming-formula used for the animals is not used here. And thus in the overall structure of the narrative the woman is the consummation of the creation, as the man is the opening event. Their equality and their joint overseeing of the garden and its creatures are emphasized by the story design. The relationship of the woman and the man as k^enegdô, counterparts, is carried through in the narrative structure in their positions at the end and beginning of the story.

It is remarkable that in a patriarchal society the idea of a good creation involving human equality was even thought of. The story teller could have narrated the creation in such a way that woman was clearly subordinate to man, as the story has been read in the past. But the narrator sees the subordinate role of women in culture not as ordained in the goodness and blessing of God, but as a result of human rebellion. And so we come to the story of the Fall in Chapter 3.

Although the serpent addresses the woman, the Hebrew makes it clear that the man and the woman are standing together during this episode. All of the you verbs are plural in the Hebrew narrative. And at the end of verse 6 the original clearly states "and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." Some ancient versions (Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint) read, "and they ate" even more a joint action.

We may ask why the narrator has the serpent address the woman. The traditional answer is that the snake knew who, by inherent nature, could be enticed to sin most easily. But the biblical narrator never

226 - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

says that. It could be because the woman only heard of God's command indirectly (we are never told how she knows what God said). It could be because she was traditionally, in the culture, responsible for preparing food. It could be because the woman was regarded as the imaginative, thoughtful one, the one who aspired to wisdom, or the decision-maker. Notice how the man simply takes the fruit without a word of question or objection all along. He is there the whole time, remember. Their eyes are opened in the same instant. Together they make aprons; together they hide from God. When God confronts the man, the man seems to blame the woman but actually blames God. The woman in turn points to the serpent. And then come God's pronouncements. Notice that only the serpent is cursed, not the man or woman. And notice that judgment comes equally upon the woman and the man. The result of eating from the tree is twofold for humankind: for the woman, it is subordination to her husband from whom she was taken, and pain in childbearing; for the man, it is subordination to the ground from which he was taken, and pain in tilling the soil. The remainder of the chapter encapsulates the carrying out of these judgments on the couple. First, in verse 20 the man names his wife "Eve," this time using the naming formula, implying subordination the formula not used in the creation story. Second, in verse 23, man is thrust outside the garden to till the ground from which he was taken.

Now the narrator assumes that the pattern of the culture is the pattern within which life does and must operate. So the narrator understands the descriptive given, the status quo, as God's decree but not as God's true intention for humankind. God's true intention was expressed in the equality of creation of male and female and in the garden which provided food without toil. The undoing of God's intention came about through the joint action of disobedience of the man and woman, and the current state of affairs is the descriptive result. Once again it is remarkable that in a patriarchal culture, the creation of humankind is described as sexually differentiated but not subordinated. In that context, the narrator sensed that subordination had not been God's intent. Thus it is extremely doubtful that we should read the story of the Fall in Genesis 3 as saying that subordination is right in the sense of desired forever by God, even though in an effort to explain how matters came to be in their unhappy current state, the narrator does describe the situation as imposed by God.

III

By New Testament times, the actual status of women in Jewish culture, and especially in Palestinian Judaism, had become far more restricted and subordinate than it apparently was in much of the earlier Old Testament period. A rabbi was urged not to speak very often with his wife, much less to any other woman. A Jewish man was expected to thank God daily that he had not been born a woman. Women could

227 - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

not participate aloud in any act of public worship; they were required to sit separately. They did not count toward the necessary quorum of ten for synagogue worship. It was better to burn a scroll of the Torah (which was never done- scraps too worn to use were saved in a separate, sanctified receptacle) than to allow a woman to study it. The hedges of men's man-made culture had moved the extent of women's subordination far beyond anything even hinted at in the statement of Genesis 3. Other rabbinic statements were even more extreme: "When a boy comes into the world, peace comes into the world: when a girl comes, nothing comes …. "²

It was into this world-view that Jesus was born and reared, and in this light the gospel record of Jesus' treatment of women seems remarkable, sometimes even astonishing. The gospel narrators, with the possible exception of Luke, do not seem to have had any special stake in presenting stories of Jesus' relationship to women, or in inventing such traditions. To the contrary, there was probably, if anything, a tendency to suppress such incidents. Now it may be true that Jesus' actions differ from the cultural pronouncements just sampled because the role of the itinerant popular preacher was rather different from that of the rabbinic schools. ³ It is true that the official disciples were twelve males, symbolic representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel for the messianic age to come. No women helped at the preparation of the last supper. Nonetheless, the persistent recollection of the stories of Jesus and women seems to me to stand out all the more sharply against this background. Theologically speaking, Jesus represents the new humanity. The record of Jesus' earthly ministry is important because it brought the possibility of wholeness to women and men alike.

But since so much has been written about Jesus and women, I move on to a consideration of Paul and other New Testament epistles. Here we come up against the rock hardest to shatter. Here are found the biblical statements about women which have had the maximal influence on our culture, or at least on church teaching and heritage. And here also are the texts which are the most difficult to explain or re-interpret as not really teaching subordination of women. Some, frankly, cannot be rehabilitated. It is for this reason that many presentations of this type treat Genesis, then Paul, and finally go back to Jesus as the true radical liberator. "Follow Jesus, not Paul," is the word. Now there is something to be said for this approach, but I have chosen to take what for me is the harder path, treating the epistles last, because only in this way can we squarely confront the problem of proof-texting, the problem of a sub-canon within the canon, the problem of laying aside whatever we don't like.

² This quotation and the other examples are among those cited by Leonard Swidler in "Jesus Was a Feminist," Southeast Asia Journal of Theology, 13/1, 1972, pp. 102-03.
³ Krister Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women, tr. by Emilie T. Sander, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 26.

228 - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

It is with Paul and the other epistles' treatment of women that it is most imperative to understand cultural context. It is also here that we are most sharply challenged in the task of translating a specific message for specific peoples of ancient days to a message for Christian women and men for today. Thus we must try to be open and clear about our "hermeneutics," that is, our principles of translation of meaning from then to now. I would like to suggest three guidelines which must, in my view, operate together in some sort of balance to help us in this task.

A first guideline, one very often used in dealing with women's issues in the Bible, stems from the observation that there are statements in the Bible which seem to transcend the normally expected cultural biases of the authors. It is argued that these should receive special note as potentially normative for us. In order to identify such statements, the scholar must study the culture of the given period until what is different can be recognized and separated from what merely reflects the ancient social environment. The difficulties with this approach, when used unguardedly, are twofold. First of all, the kernel of "timeless truth" which remains after the chaff is stripped away usually turns out to be very much like what the scholar hoped to find. There is an inevitably heavy degree of subjectivity at work. At the same time, we begin to see that the whole notion of kernel and chaff as distinguishable is not really viable. All statements are made in relationship to one's culture and situation. God did not grab the author's pen at selected moments. Now, I would still stand by this guideline as one which may be used carefully, in conjunction with the next two. We should be on the alert when we find Paul speaking against established rabbinic practice. But we should be forewarned that this observation is not a guarantee of a timeless divine norm for our own lives. We must be careful to consider how and why the statement is made; we must beware of falling into countering anti-feminist proof-texting with just another form of proof-texting.

This latter caveat serves as an introduction to a second guideline, namely, a constant concern for intentionality of the passage. We must try always to seek out, never to lose sight of, the intention of the text as a whole, in its setting. Many biblical statements were intended for specific situations (for example, to stretch a narrow view of freedom or to restrain an overbroad one), and that should be kept clear in order to avoid taking smaller sections out of context. This guideline helps us understand how Paul can marshal detailed arguments in such different and contradictory ways in different letters. It can help us appreciate his apparent inconsistency in the treatment of women's issues.

A third and crucial guideline, one which emerges from the first two, is the central witness of the Bible itself that God is involved in the human struggle and thus that God is dealing with us in our changing

229 - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

human situation. God is revealed to us in historical circumstances, and as those circumstances change, God's demands may change, God's word to us may change. We can see examples of such change within the Bible itself. In the Old Testament God first commands a vegetarian diet and then later alters this command to allow meat eating. In the New Testament the most conspicuous example is probably Jesus' clear mission to Judaism, followed by Paul's effort against this memory to persuade the apostles of the theological validity of and even necessity for a mission to the Gentiles as well. Thus we may extrapolate theologically and suggest that history lives and continues. We should not simply regard the history of the New Testament period as a frozen entity, as the one typical example from which come eternally valid principles.

With these guidelines in mind, let us turn first to Paul's most popular text so far as feminist theologians are concerned, Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not 'male and female'; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." In this passage, Paul is arguing against those who claimed circumcision was necessary to salvation. He argues rather that salvation rests upon the reception of justification and the Spirit through baptism. We have already mentioned that Paul worked vigorously toward the establishment of practical equality between Jew and Greek. His mission to the Gentiles was predicated on this equality. His attitude toward institutional slavery is more difficult to assess and is perhaps ambiguous, though the New Testament generally lacks any strong thrust toward the freeing of slaves. The same can be said of the male-female relationship. But at least in this interpretation of baptism, Paul envisions the restoration of equality of male and female in the already inaugurated kingdom, and he insists that any value judgments based on sexual differentiation are now set aside.

Within his own contacts with the churches, however, Paul does not place his emphasis on pressing the women's issue as far as some of us might have liked. In fact he seems to do somewhat the opposite, as in I Corinthians 14:33b-36, where he prohibits women from speaking in assemblies, or as in the very difficult text in I Corinthians II which deals with head covering for women who do pray and prophesy in worship. Yet notice already the tension between these two pieces of advice from Paul. And there is further internal tension within Chap. 11, where first he argues that the woman was created for the man (vs. 9), then suddenly seems to reverse himself and emphasize their interdependence (vs. 11). These passages illustrate the importance of studying carefully Paul's particular intentions and the larger structure of his argument in each context. Thus, Chap. 14 concerns reproof for generalized disruptiveness and interruption in public worship wherein it may have so happened that women were especially at fault. Chapter

230 - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

11 deals with other aspects of dignified worship and suggests that we ought not to take Paul over literally in Chap. 14.

To sharpen further our perspective on these Pauline texts, we need to review Paul's own cultural and theological context. Trained under Gamaliel, knowledgeable in all points of the law, he grew up in the same context we have described as Jesus' milieu. A woman was "a nothing," particularly insofar as worship and leadership were at stake. How remarkable, then, is any discussion at all of women's role in worship! How remarkable is any rejection of value judgments based on sex!

But more than this, a recognition of Paul's theological framework helps us to understand his attitudes. Paul was expecting the eschaton, the imminent end of the world, the immediate second coming. He recognized that a decisive new era had already been inaugurated in Christ, under which the old rules of the law were no longer a means to salvation. But even this present age would soon come to a close. This expectation seems to have put a double pressure on Paul against change in the practical status of women (or of slaves, for that matter). On the one hand, there was a desire for attractiveness of the faith, so that many should desire to become a part of the new Christian community. Rocking the social boat could not help there. At the same time, there was the correlated thought that change in social structures would not seem to make much difference if the end of the present world was near at hand. Various texts testify to both of these perspectives (I Cor. 10:31-11:1, on the former; I Cor. 7:17-24, on the latter). And in this light we should once again be surprised at Paul's attitude toward women. In worship, at least, the earliest church was remarkably free by comparison to Judaism. More important, the statements in Galatians 3:28 and I Corinthians 11:11-12 certainly point beyond what was implemented in the first century church. They are not timeless norms, but they speak to our time. If we allow ourselves to be boxed in by the social system or church structure of first century Christianity, we will be unable to hear these words; in fact, we will be unable to hear any fresh word for our own time.

Let me comment generally on the historical situation which I believe evoked the various subordination-of-women texts in the deutero-Pauline and catholic epistles. In the development of the first century church after Paul, as the end of the world did not come and eschatological urgency began to recede, there was a tendency toward re-Judaizing of the Gentile church, a tendency toward increasing imitation of the synagogue with its male elders appointed to preserve pure teaching. In this situation, the desire to make the church attractive no longer had such good theological underpinnings but nevertheless probably increased and in fact was augmented by a growing concern for prudence-a desire to make clear to the authorities that the new religion was not revolutionary. Women's freedoms (to the extent that they had been present) do not seem to have survived this pressure. It is

231 - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

this growing social conservatism which is reflected in the later New Testament writings relating to women's status. This is especially the case in the more or less Christianized lists of rules for domestic life (Col. 3:18ff., Eph. 5:22ff., Titus 2:5ff., 1 Peter, 2:18ff.). These were lists of status-directed behavioral advice which were already in existence and were culturally widespread in the ancient world. In these biblical letters, they were adapted and "legitimized" by adding to them a Christian-sounding religious rationale. Thus they were not a uniquely Christian assessment of the role of women and should not be allowed to overrule the larger biblical emphasis on equality as God's creative intention.

The church in the past has tended to hear "God" the most loudly in the various passages which endorse the status quo with all its divisions and classes. The restrictive duty-lists of an ancient culture have been given more attention than the proclamation of new creation in Christ. Thus religion brings up the rear in social change, and a misused Bible functions as a millstone, actually hindering the coming of the Kingdom. Perhaps there was a time when in God's history there was a place and a demand for subjection of women. But in our own historical circumstance, God's demand may be (and I believe is) quite different. What clues do we have for suggesting that the implementation of full equality for women has biblical sanction and is not just wishful reading of selected kernel texts as eternal norms? How do we know that we are not simply taking what we like and leaving what we don't?

I would suggest that a basic answer lies in one central concern that appears again and again in the biblical tradition as a whole. The Bible teaches in many ways that God will bring judgment upon any human social structure that oppresses or stereotypes a portion of humankind. In situations of oppression, the God who defends the widow and orphan is generally found standing alongside the powerless, alongside those who wonder what it would be like to be free. Thus the liberation of women, as the liberation of any other group stereotyped and restricted as to full personhood in the social community and before God, is to be expected as part of God's plan which we are called to implement. We must emphasize that the theological excuse of Genesis 3 for the subordination of women is no longer valid in the Christian era, whether it is interpreted as judgment or as explanatory description of an existing status quo. This is the vital significance of Paul's understanding that the new creation has already broken into this present age. The community in Christ is freed from the judgment of history begun in Genesis 3, and the restoration of God's original intention for humankind has already begun. Thus the understanding of women and men together in the image of God takes on new meaning as we recognize our in breaking freedom from the old order. It is this new quality

232 - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

of the present life stemming from the Christ-event which somehow was missed by Luther, Calvin, Barth, and so many great theologians of the past. It is this gift of freedom for now, not only for Paradise, which is all-important.

In the light of this broad focus on freedom let me suggest a few themes which may speak to our understanding of the image of God in our own situation.

First, we should reconsider the character of the God in whose image we are. The anthropomorphic imagery used in the Bible is largely masculine, but not completely so. God provides clothing for Adam and Eve, and for those in the wilderness (Neh. 9:21). God is pictured by implication as mother and nurse of the Israelites (Num. 11:12). Deutero-Isaiah pictures God as a woman in labor as a new act of redemption is given birth in the world (Isa. 42:14b). God's concern for people is like that of mother for child (Isa. 49:5; cf. 66:9; 66:13). Jesus in one parable pictures God as a woman searching for a lost coin (Lk. 15:8ff.) The point here is that despite male language (which does create problems), the God of the Bible is neither male nor female. The use of imagery of activities from both traditional roles cannot be used to validate role stereotyping, but rather the character of God validates various role combinations. Israel reinforces this whole conception in the insistence that God has no consort. Human sexual differentiation should be understood as an expression of God's goodwill toward creation, but not, therefore, as a clue for understanding the whole universe.

Second, the God of the Bible is one who again and again chooses the unlikely person (from a human standpoint) for doing particular tasks. Most often this is seen in the bypassing of the first-born-but the principle has theological potential for our proper expectation that God will choose to use women (since we, by our standards, don't expect it) in situations where they have not served before.

Third, the Hebrew concept of nephesh, person, is suggestive. God's breath in a plastic human form makes it a living person. I don't want to wander out into a quagmire of psychology and anthropology, but the biblical concept of person stands over against our tendency to polarize the intellectual (associated with male and master) over against the physical (associated with female and slave). This dichotomy tends to pervade all aspects of life; but it is possible that a better biblical understanding of person as a unified whole has a place in undercutting these stereotyping tendencies.

In conclusion, I should re-emphasize the theme of liberation human liberation. This is the most conspicuous and overriding concern of the Bible from beginning to end. But it belongs in the sociopolitical sphere, not just in the realm of private thought, not just in our so-called spiritual lives. The Exodus story speaks powerfully to

233 - The Bible and Women: Bane or Blessing?

every liberation movement in the Judeo-Christian culture. But freedom from oppression should not be looked upon as the opportunity for women (or any other group) to annihilate the supposed enemy. In the last analysis, God's victory is achieved when all are liberated: Blacks, Latin Americans, others of the Third World, Jews, men. God's victory is achieved only when all are fully responsible before God, serving God freely, seeking their own identity before God and among humankind without any institutional or stereotypical restrictions on that seeking.

The breadth of this understanding of liberation and of freedom should not go unnoticed. For every woman longing to escape the drudgery of home, there may be another longing to quit a job and spend time on some other activity. Who knows how many men may secretly long for more time with their children! Liberation does not mean that we can all do only what we please all the time. It means that our choices are made in the light of our responsibility to God's kingdom, not in response to social pressures and stereotypes. The Kingdom of God has often been summarized by the expression "already-not yet." In one sense, the Kingdom has already been inaugurated with the coming of Christ. At the same time, it is not yet fully here and we pray "Thy kingdom come." This situation of tension requires us "to live now as if." We are free-and in fact are called upon-to dare to take risks, to serve as a sign of the Kingdom, to live now as if it were already here. Salvation means new life in this world as well as life in the world to come.