Empowering Memory and Movement: Thinking and Working across Borders

31. The Cross as a Central Christian Symbol of Injustice

31 The Cross as a Central Christian Symbol of Injustice In “The Death of Christianity,” Lawrence Swaim argues that the doctrine of substitutionary atonement “makes God out to be a vengeful, homicidal deity who can be satisfied only with the death of his son.”1 He eloquently elaborates how the doctrine of blood atonement is a product of Roman imperial power, injustice, and terrorism and presents the cross as a sign of conquest that has shaped Christian identity and ecclesiastical might throughout the centuries.2 Urging us to embrace a counter-story of Jesus’ life, Swaim goes on to suggest that we replace the symbol of the cross with the image of “a woman holding a child.”3 Since the cross sends a message that violence can be redemptive, he argues, Christians must jettison the doctrine, story, and symbol of the cross. I do not think that we should drop the symbol of the cross, either from the story of Jesus or as a central Christian symbol. We need the symbol of the cross as a public sign of imperial injustice and murder, a symbol that challenges state and ecclesiastical powers and empowers victims. Hence, it is necessary to retell the story of Jesus in terms of justice and not just in terms of internalized love. 1. Lawrence Swaim, “The Death of Christianity,” Tikkun 27, no. 4 (2012): 2–27. 2. This essay was first published as “The Cross as a Central Christian Symbol of Injustice.” Tikkun 27, no. 4 (2012): 30–32. 3. In the Roman Catholic tradition the image of Mary with her son is a central symbol that reinforces the cultural image of the “White Lady.” The pure virgin and sinless mother is the image of submissive femininity. Hence, to replace the symbol of the cross with a feminine image does not challenge kyriarchal—that is, emperor, lord, slave master, father, husband, elite educated male—domination. 483 Feminist Debates on the Cross What is not obvious at first glance is that Swaim’s argument adopts the critical debate on the the*logy of the cross that has taken place in feminist the*logy and studies in religion. (Please note that my use of an asterisk in “the*ology” is not a typo but rather a way to speak about G*d neither in masculine [theology] nor in feminine [thealogy] gender terms.) To my knowledge, Mary Daly was the first feminist the*logian to point out the significance of the discourse on sin, cross, and salvation in Beyond God the Father: The qualities that Christianity idealizes, especially for women, are also those of the victim: sacrificial love, passive acceptance of suffering, humility, meekness, etc. Since these are the qualities idealized in Jesus “who died for our sins” his functioning as a model reinforces the scapegoat syndrome for women.4 Subsequent feminist Christological discussions have underscored the problematic character of Christian beliefs in cross and redemption.5 One example of this feminist the*logical discussion is Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse. In the introduction to this book, Joanne Carlson Brown and Rebecca Parker argue that Christianity has been a primary force in shaping our acceptance of abuse. They write: Christianity has been a primary—in many women’s lives the primary force—in shaping our acceptance of abuse. The central image of Christ on the cross as the savior of the world, communicates the message that suffering is redemptive. . . . Our suffering for others will save the world. The message is complicated further by the theology that says, Christ suffered in obedience to his father’s will. Divine child abuse is paraded as salvific. The child who suffers without even raising a voice is loaded with the hope of the world. Those whose lives have been deeply shaped by the Christian tradition feel that self-sacrifice and obedience are not only virtues but the definition of 4. Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation (Boston: Beacon, 1973), 77 5. For a more comprehensive development of my argument, see my book Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet. Critical Issues in Feminist Christology (New York: Crossroad, 1995), 97–128. 484 | Empowering Memory and Movement a faithful identity. The promise of resurrection persuades to endure pain, humiliation and violation of our sacred rights to selfdetermination , fullness and freedom.6 After reviewing the classical doctrines of atonement and discussing modern the*logies of suffering and the...