Compete a la Dirección de Comercialización y Promoción del Financiamiento Indígena: Objetivo

As an important critique of feminist theology, some feminist theologians note that white feminist theologians tend to assume that the white woman’s perspective is a

universal one.43 These critics argue that these white feminists are not only universalizing the experience of white women, they are silencing the voices of non-white women.

Women of color were quick to point out that while feminist theology contained a sustained and significant analysis of the function of sexism within the

contemporary and historical Christian context, it did not explore the other dimensions of oppression, such as racism, classism, and ethnic prejudice. “Women of color have been critical of white feminists for universalizing their experience and thereby ignoring the experience unique to them. Social location plays a significant role in the liberation of women. No true liberation exists unless the difference of race, class, age, and sexual orientation make in people’s daily lives is heeded.” Some feminists of color contend that by ignoring these oppressive elements feminist theologians inadvertently perpetuated them within their work.44

Theologians from a wider variety of social locations have begun to explore the experiences of, among others, black, Latina, Asian, and lesbian women. And this

theological work has expanded our understandings of what it means to be a human person in relationship with God. Because of this important critique, theologians now recognize                                                                                                                

43 _{Serene Jones, Feminist Theory and Christian Theology: Cartographies of Grace (Minneapolis: Fortress}

Press, 2000), 26-27. Jones provides a helpful definition: “Defined most broadly, essentialism/universalism refers to any view of women’s nature that makes universal claims about women based on characteristics considered to be an inherent part of being female. The notion of universality highlights the all-pervasive scope of essentialist claims about women’s nature, namely, the belief that features of womanhood cover women’s lives in every place, age, and culture without exception.’”

44 _{Gonzalez, Created in God’s Image, 91-92. Gonzalez is quoting Anne M. Clifford, Introducing Feminist}

“the challenge of articulating a theological perspective that gives voice to women, while not unintentionally silencing some women through a limited notion of women’s

identity.”45

In particular, the ways that the imago Dei symbol has been taken up by white feminist theologians is, in some ways, problematic. Karen Teel notes that these white feminist theologians are actively exploring the ethical implications for our claims that all people are created in the image of God.46 For Teel, these theological explorations are important because they recognize the brokenness of the world – that the image of God in some people is not being honored and that to be in the image of God means working to end this. However, she notes that they also reveal something troubling:

This call to the powerful to image God by standing in solidarity with the

oppressed may indeed be one possible way for people who are privileged to live out the image of God. But what about the people who are weak, infirm,

oppressed, violated? [Few theologians] speak to the moral situation of people who are oppressed or discuss how oppressed people image God. In this

perspective, do people who are oppressed image God by caring for each other, or for themselves? Or, more disturbingly, are we to conclude that being oppressed renders people unable to image God? Although surely [theologians] do not intend it, [they] imply that although everyone may passively share in the image of God, only privileged people can image God actively, because we are the ones who can choose to “protect and care for the weak, infirm, and oppressed.”47

45 _{Gonzalez, Created in God’s Image, 96.}

46 _{Teel, Racism and the Image of God, 45-46. For example, Kathryn Tanner writes: “To be created in the}

image of God means… to have a particular vocation, one of fellowship and communion with God in which one uses all ones’ powers to glorify God and carry out God’s purposes… Like the shepherd kings of antiquity, they mediate God’s blessings, as best they are able, both to their own kind and the rest of creation – for example, replenishing the earth and helping it to body forth bountifully, furthering the prospects for human community by protecting and caring for the weak, the infirm, and the oppressed” (Kathryn Tanner, “The Difference Theological Anthropology Makes,” Theology Today 50 (January 1994): 573-574). Similarly, Hilkert asserts that “the ‘image of God’ in human persons is revealed as an image desecrated, the image of Christ crucified. Only if human communities and individuals rise up in indignation, protest, solidarity, and action on behalf of those whose basic human dignity has been violated can the image of God also be revealed as compassionate love in solidarity with us even unto death” (Hilkert, “Cry Beloved Image,” 202).

Teel’s point is not to suggest that white feminist theologians are trying to claim that only some people can fully image God – something that these feminist theologians have been fighting against throughout their work. Rather, she is concerned with how easy it is for people in a place of privilege to forget their own privilege and power and, inadvertently, reproduce the same oppressive tendencies that feminist theology is trying to discard.