Thinking about Feminist Leadership

Because women's biblical studies have focused for too long on the canonical authority of the Bible, a feminist political interpretation for transformation must become canonically transgressive. . . . Because the ethos of a feminist critical interpretation is inclusive, ecumenical, and multicultural, it may not limit its scope to canonical writings, accept the authority claims of the canon, or focus exclusively on the teachings of the Bible.¹

—Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza

Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza was a presence throughout my theological education. I did not choose biblical scholarship as the focus of my studies, but theology. But that choice did not matter: Elisabeth would be a presence for any religious scholar with feminist leanings.

I focus here not on Elisabeth's scholarship as such or even her impact on incoming, developing feminist scholarship in religious studies. Instead, I want to talk about something that is often neglected and more often misrepresented: feminist leadership. Feminist leadership is to be informed, first, by indisputable commitment to women. Of course, more than just a verbal commitment to women is needed; practical issues are involved. As contrast, we in the United States just experienced a presidential election. One of the vice presidential candidates was a woman, a governor, who some called a feminist. The candidate's legislative record did not demonstrate any of the usual leanings toward feminism, such as equality, protection of women, or justice. In fact, her record tracked her setting up policies that are antiwoman and pro-patriarch. In other words, in the end, feminism is demonstrated in leadership—through action, not in labels, not in words.

I began this essay with a quotation from Elisabeth that succinctly outlines a shape and direction for feminist biblical scholarship. I use the points from this brief excerpt to map out a direction and methodology for those who want to lead as feminists. Let me clarify. In the excerpt, Elisabeth is writing about feminist interpretation of the Bible. Yet it must be understood that this interpretive process is inherently political. Established Western canonical structures—whatever the discipline—have been locked into white male frameworks. Elisabeth coined the term kyriarchal to underline the wedding of male power in society with religious thought. This marriage enforces Western imperialist canonical structures in which the middle class, specifically property-owning white males, receive preferred citizenship. Men charged themselves to begin seeking some of the authentic Truth that further supported its vision of itself. This is the structure of empire. As Joerg Rieger has explained, "empire seeks to extend its control as far as possible, beyond the commonly recognized geographical, political, and economic spheres, to include the intellectual, emotional, psychological, spiritual, cultural, and religious arenas. The problem with empire is, therefore, that no one can escape its force field completely."² Organized religions, then, do not escape the burden of empire but become partners in its maintenance.

Deconstruction of established canons is never neutral because the status quo is challenged. Every person or group involved in liberation work must find ways to work over, under, around, and through the constructions that have fed oppressions. This is transgressive of the canons. Yet to make changes for justice is slow, tedious, thoughtful work. Change cannot be achieved by violence or by opting out of the system. More important, we cannot take incremental advances for granted, despite the fact that many scholars are quick to believe that since they themselves did not experience injustices, oppression must have ended. Ultimately, to take this route is to remove oneself from struggle for justice and to accept the status quo. This is not transgression but compliance.

So what are those who lead as feminists, womanists, or mujeristas to do? Elisabeth's quote lays out at least two methods to deal with the political realities of biblical studies. Because of the political aspects of feminist biblical studies, I also apply these methods to feminist leadership.

1. Feminist leadership aims for transformation.

As the previous discussion of political and imperial dimensions of the status quo indicates, to achieve transformation, transgressing canons is imperative. It follows that feminist leadership needs to be canonically transgressive. For...