294 - A Jewish Feminist View

A Jewish Feminist View
By Annette Daum

Interreligious dialogue, as currently conducted, can best be described, metaphorically, as a dance-a dance choreographed and performed by men-by men who control not only the steps but the process, the content, the form, and the focus of the dance.

Because men have a vested interest in exclusivity, both theologically and institutionally, the dance, at best, takes the form of a minuet in which each side approaches the other very delicately. They, barely touch, back away as if burned by a poker, take two steps forward, one step backward, do a fancy turn, and try again. Dazzled by the footwork, the people in the pews watch and wait for the next turn, not perceiving the way the limitations inherent in the form control the interaction between Jews and Christians, between men and women.

I

Traditionally based on scholarship and theology, the dialogue process automatically limits the participation of women, for scholarship and ordination have been reserved for men in both Judaism and Christianity. Institutionally, progress in understanding each other's faith traditions is in the hands of an elite group of men operating from a base of religious triumphalism which marginalizes the "Other," a process that also results in the marginalization of women in both traditions.

Key theological concepts developed by men which impact heavily upon women within each faith tradition are discussed largely if not solely by men. One such concept included on the agenda of almost every dialogue is "Covenant." Writing in the Union Seminary, Quarterly Review, Deborah McCauley and I noted that:

For Jews and Christians, affirming each other's covenantal validity, mutuality, and autonomy is the most difficult and the most important theological issue in contemporary Jewish-Christian dialogue….

While affirming -in principle" the inclusiveness of Christianity's and Judaism's separate and distinct traditions about their covenant relationship with God (meaning that the one's covenant does not necessarily exclude the "Other's"), the exclusiveness of Jews' and Christians' historical selfunderstanding of their covenant with God dominates and undermines many recent efforts to engage in interreligious dialogue on covenant.

Annette Daum is Coordinator. Department of Interreligious Affairs. Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and Associate Director of the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism. She serves as Editor of Interreligious Currents and is co-convenor of the Task Force on Jewish-Christian-Feminist Dialogue in connection with the Feminist Theological Institute.

295 - A Jewish Feminist View

A model pamphlet, Covenant or Covenants?, published by the Los Angeles Priest-Rabbi Committee (1979), exemplifies the dilemma.

Both Jewish and Catholic discussions of Covenant focus on election and the exclusive nature of the Covenant relationship with God. The pamphlet states: "Christians were righteous Gentiles by virtue of their adhering not simply to the Noachide laws, to which they remained obligated, but to the tenets of Christianity, which represents a more encompassing religious system." This step toward mutual affirmation is qualified (one step forward, one step backward) by the addition of the statement that "it must be emphasized that the traditional Jew cannot conceive of God entering into a Covenant with another special group of humans."

The Catholic section reasserts traditional Christian understanding and interpretation of the New Covenant as universalist in nature in comparison to the so-called particularism of the Jewish Covenant. The conclusion perpetuates the dilemma, stating that "Neither explanation of the Covenantal bond completely excludes other covenants between God and humaity." In much the same manner, women, while not completely excluded from the Covenantal relationship with God within their respective religious traditions, are nevertheless not yet affirmed as equals within each tradition. (Women were also excluded from the Dialogue itself.) The dialogue dance will have measured success until participants can affirm and accept the "Other's" Covenantal relationship as defined by each faith tradition for itself.

A subsequent experience as a participant in an informal dialogue between representatives of the Central Conference of American Rabbis and Fundamentalist evangelicals reinforced this conviction.

Both Jewish and Christian presentations on Covenant made me acutely aware of how marginal I am as both a woman and a Jew-as a woman within Jewish tradition and as a Jew from the Fundamentalist perspective. The Jewish presentation focused on the importance of circumcision as a sign of the Covenantal relationship with God in Rabbinic tradition. Eventually, this ritual, exclusive to men, became equated with the Covenant itself. This growth in importance is attributed by some authorities to Rabbinic reaction to Christian attacks on circumcision, particularly to Pauline teachings that "circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing." In the Jewish presentation, the following description of the importance of circumcision in Rabbinic tradition went through me like a knife: "Perhaps circumcision is so important because it so aptly expresses the notion of partnership between man and God. Bereshit Rabbah 11:7 states that God's creations are improved by man. Man upholds his part of the Covenant by making God's creation ready for use. Circumcision symbolizes this teamwork as man's body only becomes perfect after circumcision improves it. Thus the world can only be improved, thought the Rabbis, if man works to improve it."'

Where does that leave me, as a devout Jewish woman, in relationship

296 - A Jewish Feminist View

to God'! In men's battle to differentiate themselves, theologically, the inevitable result was concentration on male ritual and symbolism, in which men have the normative relationship to God in a way that further excludes and marginalizes women. I was somewhat ameliorated by the thought that for Jews it is the Covenant at Sinai which is regarded as most crucial-a Covenant in which women are specifically included, although clearly not yet on equal terms.

The presentation from the Fundamentalist perspective, which recognizes the Jews as being in Covenantal relationship with God only through the Abrahamic Covenant, was unnerving in a different way. The Mosaic Covenant, crucial for Jews, was abrogated by the New Covenant through Jesus. While Fundamentalist theology may not, of itself, be anti-Semitic, the failure to accept the Jews' own self-definition of the centrality of the Mosaic Covenant in Judaism marginalizes the Jewish Covenantal relationship with God, placing the Jew in the position of "Other," of being in a lesser relationship with God. The Jew then becomes somehow less of a human being in the eyes of those following such theology, which can in turn lead to anti-Semitic attitudes.

The same truimphalist process that marginalizes the "Other" also relegates women to second-class status. As a Jewish woman, I am marginalized by both traditions so that the men in both may, maintain the unique relationship they claim to God. Since Christians consider themselves to be in a Covenant relationship through Jesus Christ, there is a strong possibility, that growing emphasis on salvation through a male figure contemporaneous with the growing differentiation between Judaism and Christianity resulted in the same process-the marginalization of Christian women of that same time period.

The effort to obtain unity within each faith tradition as it engages in the dialogue process necessitates sacrifices to the most conservative elements within each tradition, further limiting the degree of progress in understanding.

II

Writing in the January 1984 edition of THEOLOGY TODAY, Eileen Flynn criticizes the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' Pastoral Letter, "The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response." for preparing the document from an almost completely masculinist perspective as well as an exclusivist Catholic view. Although women are expected to act upon the guidelines, less than a handful were involved in the consultation process. While the Pastoral Letter was explicitly directed toward the greater society, specifically Jews and Muslims as well as the Catholic faithful, only Catholic religious leaders were involved. The final document reveals the great effort that was made to compromise with more conservative elements in order to obtain as broad a consensus as possible. In the process, advertently or inadvertently, gains made since Vatican It in Catholic-Jewish understanding, particularly regarding the treatment of Sacred Scripture, were sacrificed.

297 - A Jewish Feminist View

Triumphalism triumphs when references to the "Warrior-God" of the "Old Testament" (not even "Hebrew Scripture") are followed by a statement that there is no concept of a Warrior-God in the New Testament.

Theological one-upmanship is unnecessary in an otherwise noteworthy document. The Pastoral considers economic justice as an essential foundation for peace, addressing this issue in terms of Third World concerns. Expressions of concern regarding oppression of the poor, economic exploitation, and neglect of the aged were couched in general terms without the specific recognition that the majority of human beings affected are women, a fact that would undoubtedly have been noted if women were involved.

The Bishops' linkage of the abortion issue with nuclear disarmament sharply differentiates Catholics from other religious groups concerned with this issue and separates women from each other, making it more difficult to forge an effective interreligious coalition to address the most crucial moral dilemma of this decade. Had women been consulted, connections might have been perceived such as tying a campaign to end the feminization of poverty (by supporting ERA and the Economic Equity Act) to a reduction in funding the nuclear arms race. This would not only foster greater interreligious cooperation, but could serve to decrease the incidence of abortion by decreasing the need. Hopefully, the forthcoming Pastoral Letters on Economic Justice and the one on Women will address these issues.

Dialogue between Jews and Catholics on the subject of abortion is particularly frustrating for Jewish feminists. In order to obtain the same unity, among Jews that exists among Catholic participants, consensus is too often reached by placating the more traditional Jews, depicting Jewish Law as more restrictive regarding abortion than an in-depth study of Halakhah justifies. Jewish participants sometimes agree to base this view on an alternate translation of Genesis 9:6 (used only by Orthodox Jews) which is not accepted by most scholars. nor authorized in the Jewish Publication Society translation of the Torah. This verse, in context, has nothing to do with abortion. It is, rather, part of the Noachide Laws, developed centuries ago, applicable to strangers (non-Jews) living in a land controlled by Jewish authorities. Use of the Noachide Laws today to apply to abortion treats women as "strangers," further estranging them from their own tradition. Rarely is there recognition of the bottom line, that for most Rabbinic authorities the life and health of the mother takes precedence over the potential life of the fetus. (Fundamentalist Protestants use a mistranslation of another verse, Ex. 21:22, as the basis for their prohibition of abortion.)

Such a misleading presentation of Jewish perspectives on abortion raises expectations of Jewish support among Catholic hierarchy, which cannot be fulfilled, leaving Catholic participants ill-prepared to understand the reasons for the high percentage of support for freedom of choice in the Jewish community. In a "Consultation" on this subject,

298 - A Jewish Feminist View

co-sponsored by the Synagogue Council of America and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the only female participants were a Catholic nun and myself. The other discussants were all clergy (male). As I sat listening to men describe what God had revealed to them on the subject of abortion, I suddenly realized that I was the only person in the room who had ever borne a child, who might ever be faced with the human experience of making such a choice. What, I wondered, would God have revealed on the subject of abortion if women had been involved in the development of that theology?

Unfortunately, even when women are included in the dialogue, the price of admission is bonding to a male agenda. Women who are intelligent, articulate, sometimes even challenging in dialogue with other women when introduced to a male arena too often become passive. deferring to "authority" (male) figures.

III

Interreligious dialogue among feminists takes place separately and apart from normative Christian-Jewish dialogue and is largely confined to addressing the question of "How to survive as a feminist in a patriarchal tradition?" Feminists tend to focus on different aspects of theology. When examining the concept of Covenant, feminists focus on responsibility and inclusiveness rather than election and exclusivity. They are exploring the impact of male-dominated Covenantal theologies on women and men in both traditions, seeking to gain equality within their respective traditions so that they may carry out their coresponsibilities within the Covenantal relationship. Recent research in the field of psychology may provide some insight into the reasons why feminists are more likely to focus on responsibility than election, thus bringing a new perspective to the dialogue process.

Carol Gilligan (Harvard Graduate School of Education) in A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Harvard University Press, 1982), describes her research on apparent differences in the moral perceptions of men and women. Her research was conducted specifically to include women, for she claims that recent psychological theories of moral development were formulated with little or no invovlement of women. Gilligan interviewed children, then men and women, re-interviewed the same people some years later in Graduate school or professional and family life. She asked her subjects what they thought of themselves as being-how they, defined themselves, then asked them to resolve a certain constructed moral dilemma. She found that boys defined themselves by exclusivity; that they resolved moral situations by the application of articulated principles on an intellectual, scholarly level. Girls and women saw themselves in terms of human relationships. Gilligan concludes that there is a special female moral mode which pays attention to human context and human responsibilities rather than separation of self and abstract principle. We must be careful to understand that Gilligan's research does not mean that women are

299 - A Jewish Feminist View

innately different from men. Gilligan presents, rather, a challenge to theories that propose that man's experience, culturally-induced, is the highest moral level achievable. Women's experiences. also culturally induced, may also reflect the same "high level" from a different perspective and must be included in the dialogue process to make this a wholistic experience capable of creating better understanding among people of faith. Gilligan's research does not mean that women are incapable of abstract reasoning. Women, admitted to the dialogue, must, however, not be confined to abstract theological discussion. Men, who are certainly capable of considering human relationships, must expand the dialogue to include women's experiences so that the impact of theology on the living experiences of women and men can be better understood.

The ability of feminists to make such a positive contribution to Interreligious Dialogue may be jeopardized by the anti-Judaic attitudes inadvertently perpetuated by Christian and post-Christian feminists. In their anxiety to prove that Christianity is not innately sexist, with a few exceptions such as Rosemary Ruether, they, have unquestioningly incorporated the anti-Judaism of the Suffrage movement into the very framework of their platform. Feminists today, isolated from the mainstream of Christian-Jewish relations, apparently remain as ignorant of Jews and Judaism as Elizabeth Cady- Stanton was when she wrote The Woman's Bible a century ago. Feminists today continue to recommend this work for its feminist insights without warning that the document must be approached cautiously in view of the blatant anti-Semitism which pervades the work. They remain largely unaware of modern biblical scholarship or progress made in understanding each other's faiths since Vatican II. Christian feminists, unaware that Jews interpret Hebrew Scriptures differently from Christians, often blame the misogymy in Christianity on Judaic roots. One popular argument, that Jesus was a feminist in opposition to the Jews of his time, requires an anti-Judaic triumphalist attitude to support it, necessitating the rejection of the thesis, agreed to by most scholars today, that Jesus stood very much in the Pharasaic tradition of his time. Unfortunately, the support for women expressed by Jesus and other Jews of his time period was not incorporated as the majority opinion within either Judaism or Christian

IV

A unique opportunity to eliminate anti-Semitism and sexism in lectionary readings was recently missed when the National Council of Churches failed to implement the unanimous recommendation of the initial Planning Board that a Jewish consultant be added to the Lectionary Committee. Since a Task Force on Equality of Women in Judaism (an official committee of the Reform movement) was also working on the elimination of sexist language, and since Hebrew Scriptures represent such a large segment of lectionary readings, the

300 - A Jewish Feminist View

addition of a Jewish consultant would have enhanced the work of both groups, enabling them to pool resources and information.

The Appendix, describing the principles upon which the Lectionary is based, indicates a sensitivity to racist language, avoiding such terms as "slave" (although the biblical usage does not connote the modern meaning) and "darkness," where used as a metaphor for sin and evil. Neither the Introduction nor the Appendix notes that Jesus was a Jew, out of the Pharasaic tradition, although the readings contain references to the Phariseess as a "brood of vipers." There is no commentary correcting the portrait in the Gospel of Matthew which depicts Pilate as an innocent placator (despite his history as a bloodthirsty ruler) regretfully delivering Jesus to be crucified at the behest of a Jewish mob crying "Jesus' blood be on us and our children." In substituting the name of Jesus for the pronoun "His" in that verse, the Committee may inadvertently provide fuel to fire the charge of deicide which has caused centuries of persecution of the Jewish people. Readers also remain unaware of the many, statements since Vatican II by the Catholic Church and mainline Protestant denominations which reject the notion of Jewish responsibility for deicide. The result of the exclusion of Jewish feminists was the preparation of yet another document which perpetuates anti-Judaic Scriptural reading uncorrected for yet another generation.

What is needed is a synthesis of Jewish-Christian dialogue with feminist insights into Judaism and Christianity so that together we can develop a common witness that affirms the best that is within our religious traditions. To foster this synthesis, Deborah McCauley and I became co-convenors of the Task Force on Jewish-Christian-Feminist Dialogue, Feminist Theological Institute.

Because of our Covenantal relationship with God, we are called to join forces to move beyond theology; to eliminate anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism; to address the problems pervasive in this interdependent world-problems of hunger and poverty, war and peace. This cannot be done while we are still engaged in a war dance with one another-as Jews and Christians or as men and women.