Toward A Planetary Community: Rosemary Radford Ruether’s impact on Liberation Theology

Brief Overview of Liberation Theology

The development of liberation theology is traced to the 1960’s scholarship of Catholic priest and theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez, culminating in his 1971 book A Theology of Liberation Theology: History, Politics, and Salvation. This is often considered the foundational text in the field. Gutiérrez developed a theology of liberation as a response to the societal marginalization of economically marginalized peoples in Latin America. How do marginalized classes reflect on their social conditions, and what resources and symbols are available for their liberation? This question lies at the center of liberation theology and its development of salvation influenced by the ministry of Jesus and its Good News to the poor. The influence of the ministry of Jesus on the development of liberation theology is not merely symbolic, but incorporates both a theory and praxis in unity, similarly to what can be reconstructed from the accounts of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus, in fact, is also a symbol of liberation for the economically and socially marginalized because of his defiant stance toward the agents of oppression through solidarity and compassion.

In many ways, liberation theology reflects on the human condition, in particular economic suffering and oppression, and attempts to facilitate a context of intellectual and spiritual awareness that acts as a transcendental rebuke to material conditions. It questions the economic and political systems that perpetuate poverty for lower socioeconomic groups who get caught in the violent cycle of poverty. The preferential option for the poor advocated by liberation theologians is a profound call to seek radical approaches that address the root problem of economic oppression. A radical solidarity with the poor brings about salvation for all humanity. It is a salvation that already presupposes that nothing in the universe is isolated or alienated in regard to human fellowship and solidarity. In this regard, liberation theology is a new way of doing theology that centers the transformation of liberation for all persons, in particular the marginalized who are prevented from a dignified life due to their economic status. Gutiérrez says about liberation theology that it: “is open—in the protest against trampled human dignity, in the struggle against the plunder of the vast majority of humankind, in liberating love, and in the building of a new, just, and comradely society—to the gift of the Kingdom of God.” ⁴ In many ways, liberation theology presents a rebuke to hierarchical and institutional forms of exploitation resulting from a combination of colonial conditioning and capitalistic exploitation.

Despite the disproportionate burden borne by women in economically disadvantaged communities, liberation theology did not, according to Ruether, adequately address the concept of gender; rather it is “virtually ignored,” removed from theological reflection. ⁵ Reuther was not alone in her critique, with, Catholic religious thinkers like Ivone Gebara and other theologians from the global South like Mercy Amba Oduyoye, Marienne Katoppo, Sun Ai Park, and Elsa Tamez challenged the male-centric emphasis of liberation theology. Voices from the global South are vital in expanding toward a feminist liberation theology that represents their views about human and women’s liberation, especially regarding the relationship between gender equality and climate change. The proposal to congregate as a Women’s Commission within EATWOT was accepted in the late 1980s.

Feminist theologians like Ivone Gebara and Elsa Tamez expand on the concept of the preferential option for the poor that includes an analysis of ecological degradation where poor populations in Latin American countries are forced to live out their days with few resources, lack of public facilities and climatic instability. Concern for environmental poverty must become part of the conversation in liberation theology if we are to view the totality of human existence, God, and nature. While many scholars have engaged with liberation theology on these issues, Reuther builds upon the key concept of liberation theology to address one of the perceived key failings of the theory, expanding the meaning of liberation beyond humans to include the natural world. This expansion comes in the form of Reuther’s concept of “liberated personhood.”

Reuther and Feminist Views on Liberated Personhood

This section examines how Ruether develops the concept of liberated personhood from a feminist theological perspective. Ruether combines feminist theological critique with historical and textual analysis to highlight how a feminist interpretation of what constitutes personhood is both “liberated,” in the sense of free from the principles of oppression, and also holistic, in that it is flexible enough to extend beyond human persons to also include the environment. “Liberation” is expanded to its most logical conclusion, to include everything and everyone up to and including the environment in which we live.

For the 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, the UN Women in partnership with United Nations Charter on Climate Change prepared an assessment that progress of gender equality will be worked on and achieved by 2030. According to the United Nations, the empowerment of women and girls is a major indicator for climate sustainability, nevertheless gender equality has been slow to materialize and most likely the recommended standards will not be met by the indicated deadline, the UN Women assessment reports. ⁶ The liberated personhood concept in Ruether’s feminist perspectives applies to the current status of women in the global South where many marginalized communities are being affected by extreme weather patterns caused by climate change.

Ruether embarks on a feminist theological retrieval of prophetic-liberating traditions that goes beyond human-centered views about personhood. Ruether seeks initially to deconstruct the tradition of Christian anthropology that attempts to present prophetic-liberating elements of biblical traditions as modes of patriarchy. Ruether’s retrieving of this tradition is based upon an interpretation of its doctrine of divinity of all persons, without distinction. There is an inherent contradiction in the idea that a tradition which espouses equality as a central aspect of its doctrine should discriminate based on gender. This contradiction itself justifies the reclamation of the tradition by feminist theological criticism for the benefit of all peoples and communities. Given Ruether’s emphasis on the role of nature and the environment on liberation, her work thus incorporates a sense of liberated personhood that transcends human-centered interpretations of personhood.

Nonetheless, Ruether also presents the historical reality, that inherited patriarchal cultures and social systems have shaped female subjugation resulting in the mistreatment of women and the mistreatment nature. ⁷ In order to develop a more diverse and egalitarian consciousness, the mutually beneficial relationship between gender orientations must be cultivated. Patriarchal views and representations of God are historically influential in Christian and other religious traditions. The male image of God and his perspectives are considered normative humanity, thus excluding the feminine aspect of the Divine. In this way, Ruether’s engagement with this issue is also reflects how many of her fundamental arguments relating to specific scholarly issues invite further interrogation of more fundamental undercurrents of thought. For example, linguistic analysis would suggest that by its very definition, “Divine” is in no way subject to limitations imposed by language. That one form or gender be embodied as God exclusively suggests that our gender definitions apply to this form of Being.

For Ruether, a key element of her thought is the emphasis on a feminist view of personhood that involves liberative practices. In this sense, her impact on liberation theology is both theoretical and praxiological. Liberated persons cannot be purely theoretical; rather social re-imaginings are necessary to re-center society in ways that facilitate furthering the application of extended concepts of liberation. The feminist visions of society that have occupied thinkers like Ruether are now more of a necessity than a utopian liability. We remain at the mercy of industries undergirded by patriarchal principles antithetical to nature.

The conditions for the implementation of such egalitarian norms within society remain unrealized. Ruether explains how women cannot find liberation within the existing social systems with the exception of the elite few; women, she says “can only rise to liberated personhood by the most radical and fundamental reshaping of the entire human environment in a way that redefines the very nature of work, family and the institutional expressions of social relations.” ⁸ In this sense, we can see from Ruether’s work that a key distinction must be made between incidents of gender equality and a systematic commitment to gender equality. Her thought here both transcends the idea of gender through the concept of “liberated personhood,” and also acknowledges the historical and cultural reality of gender oppression through its realistic appraisal of how modern society functions currently. It is a matter of debate whether we have seen any sign of a systematic realignment of gender inequality and oppression on a global scale since Ruether first began analyzing these issues.

Ruether pinpoints the idea of hierarchy as a key constituent of the system of patriarchy. An assumption inherent in patriarchy is the assignment of exclusive rights of highest status to the individual man; what is needed then is both a holism and an equality; hence Ruether advocates for and sees a new communal social ethic that rejects patriarchal hierarchical principles that situate women and nature at an inferior level to men. This “inferiority” is a presupposition of patriarchy, and includes, inter alia, injustice on the epistemic, physical and social levels. As race, economy and political conditions all play a role in further reducing the power of women, suggesting a concept that elevates the female principle and function in society as part of further elaborating an inclusive ethical and epistemological model is necessary. This concept is that of “liberated personhood.” In this sense, we can see how Ruether’s initial engagement with liberation theology enhanced its already inherent democratic and equalitarian principles, and expanded them to include liberation as a basic right for all humans and extended to human environments.

Ruether sees these new social conditions as driven by the realignment of a second aspect of patriarchal oppression, the tendency to valorize and justify the results of all processes and interactions if based on a sense of competition, or a competitive spirit. The enactment of masculinity in society seems to have confused competition with subjugation. It is possible to have healthy competition; many sports played in the right spirit provide one such example. The sense, however, that one has not been truly competitive, truly victorious, until one’s opponent is rendered inoperative or into a lesser position one way or the other, is not a necessary component of the idea of competition. Ruether identifies this extreme sense of competition as an aspect of male socialization that has a negative impact on society at large. This viewpoint of extreme competition has become more prominent in recent years, aiding by social media, and reflects how patriarchal principles that are currently contributing to various forms of societal breakdown have in fact been present in patriarchy all along. It is with regard to such principles that Ruether suggests certain aspects of patriarchy must be specifically rejected: “Women should not buy into the masculine ethic of competitiveness that sees the triumph the self as predicated upon the subjugation of the other. Unlike men, women have traditionally cultivated a communal personhood that could participate in the success of others rather than seeing these merely a threat to one’s own success.” ⁹ The vision Ruether presents in its place is one of the feminist principle as holistic, tenderly embracing all life without discrimination, and refusing to fixate on the densely packed and culturally embedded principles of oppressive patriarchy; in summary, Ruether states the following:

Women must be spokespersons for a new humanity arising out of—the reconciliation of spirit and body. This does not mean selling short our rights to the powers of independent personhood. Autonomy world- transcending spirit, separatism as the power of consciousness-raising, and liberation from an untamed nature and from subjugation to the rocket-ship male-all these revolutions are still vital to women’s achievement of integral personhood. ¹⁰

In a very real sense, Reuther is here embracing the prophetic tradition from the perspective that many of the required changes are touted more in hope of progress rather than in expectation of success given the deep influence of patriarchy on most aspects of modern society and culture. Nevertheless, it is within the power of women to develop their own personhood with integrity and vision.

Building Communities of Liberation

The second key element of Reuther’s feminist methodology is the concept and praxis of building communities of liberation. This idea is expressed through Reuther’s integration of a call for a feminist retrieval of the early stories of Christian communities. Much of what is most relevant in these stories for the modern worshiper is the idea that nature and human are a harmonious whole. Thus, the second method for building community is achieved through consciousness-raising processes that result in ecological living. These two elements are distinct yet also work in conjunction with each other. Once established, it is possible to envisage these two aspects as working in harmony to reinforce each other. In order for such a radical shift in societal emphasis to occur, a complete overhaul of how norms and values are orientated to both individuals and communities is required. Reuther suggests this when she says the changes required would expose how: “church, school, and workplace, and even our home, are not autonomous. They are dependent parts of a larger systems that operate, to a large extent, to tie them to present wasteful ways.” ¹¹ The systems identified for change by Reuther in reference to patriarchy are also key areas of reform for society in response to the climate breakdown.

Hierarchical and patriarchal structures within the Church must be challenged from a feminist perspective. The manner in which the Church interacts with the community is through hierarchies of knowledge and rank. This idea is also prevalent in schools, families and workplaces. For Reuther, it is possible to transform these structures through the influence of a reformed and renewed ministry with a new and inclusive definition of “church” as “community,”

church means redemptive community, the continual recreation of communities of equals, men and women across class and race. Not only male domination but also clericalism must be dismantled. In communities of redemptive liberation, ministry and community are dynamically interconnected, not set up as a clerical caste ruling over a silenced, disempowered laity. The church is called to be a place where the redeemed community of equals is tasted and celebrated in nascent form. It is called to be the place where a struggle is carried out against the ongoing systems of domination that rule the world and the church, a place where we can also heal from our inner compulsions to lift up ourselves by dominating others. ¹²

Ruether’s analysis of community constructs liberationist perspectives that support uncommon conclusions and ways of thinking about community and liberation; in other words, seemingly revolutionary perspectives are in fact based on common sense and direct results. Stronger community ties are key in producing the conditions required for further deepening an awareness of living in ecological harmony. The word “church” can denote both a building where communities congregate, but also an idea that embodies a sense of inclusivity beyond the human, expanding toward all creation.

Ruether research on this issue remains relevant in the context of climate breakdown. Communities may well need to establish their own food security as larger industrial food manufacturers struggle with output, costs and supply chain issues. Rural areas in particular risk being cut-off from food security swiftly and relatively without warning. The impact of climate change on rural areas around the world exposes how integral the interconnected of nature and human societies is to our survival. In her attempts to expand key concepts of human respect and dignity to the natural world, Ruether also challenged the kind of patriarchal discourse that facilitates nature exploitation.

What does it mean to form community in the present context? For Ruether, the ministry of Jesus can help guide Christians today who are interested in working toward just social and ecological relations. She argues that the prophetic-liberationists traditions found in Christianity must be considered as feminist resources for liberation, community, and equal social relations.

On this point Ruether says,

This more inclusive prophetic liberating view was partly present in Christianity’s beginnings. Although marginalized and repressed, it never entirely disappeared. Movements that expressed this liberating vision of Christianity continued alongside the dominance of patriarchal Christianity, partly in separate groups and communities, partly interpenetrating dominant Christianity. Elements of this liberation perspective were so pervasive in the early church as an integral part of many of its key struggles that they remained embedded in the New Testament texts. Women’s movements throughout Christian history have continually rediscovered and renewed versions of these liberated readings from the New Testament itself. ¹³

Here Ruether has expanded beyond the initial iteration of liberation theology as a Jesus-centered movement, instead emphasizing the historical reality of feminine engagement within early Christianity. The fact what women within a patriarchal system found creative and intelligent ways in which to marry community with consciousness-raising practices designed to encourage harmony with nature and respect to all humans is indeed a liberating model easily modified to deal with problems faced by women in society today. Making efforts toward an ecological ethics within the Church is one method by which a feminist liberation Church could emphasize a new paradigm. Another is mentioned by Reuther herself who suggests such a Church could “sponsor projects, such as a battered-women’s shelter or rape hotline, that show its commitment to justice for women.” ¹⁴

Ruether’s analysis highlights the important contribution of religious and secular communities that develop egalitarian views that then subsequently influence their economic, gender, and political relations. How does Ruether define communities of liberation? The call for an ecological culture is at the center of the type of praxis Ruether affirms has transformative results. For example, she describes three elements that involve the search for an ecological culture and community. These three praxiological methods described below direct us to the types of communities such as,

(1) the rebuilding of primary and regional communities, in which people can understand and take responsibility for the ecosystem of which they are a part; (2) just relations between humans that accept the right of all members of the community to an equitable share in the means of subsistence; and (3) an overcoming of the culture of competitive alienation and domination for compassionate solidarity. ¹⁵

Each of these three elements constitutes a basic principle for communal responsibility for the maintenance and care of the natural world. There is a sense of implicit reduction of the emphasis on the individual and their expression of their selfhood. It may be the case that the communal good must take priority, especially if we seek to expand our understanding of key concepts that are originally proposed in the human context to the non-human realm.

Communal Earth Ethics

Ecofeminist theology takes into account spiritual and ethical practices that call for compassion for all living species. These ethical considerations go beyond human-centered. environmental analysis. For example, Ruether says,

The material substances of our bodies live on in plants and animals just as our own bodies are composed from minute to minute of substances that once were part of other animals and plants, stretching back through time to prehistoric ferns and reptiles, to ancient biota that floated in the primal seas of earth. Our kinship with all earth creatures is global, linking our material substance with all the being that have gone before us on earth and even in the dust of exploding stars. ¹⁶

The above passage demonstrates the concept of interconnectedness between human biology and other life forms at the level of material substance. What can be said about liberation in light of the deeper ecological kinship among all life forms? Human liberation, such as establishing egalitarian gender relations, must also consider liberation for the environment via the construction of ecologically sustainable practices. The consideration for ecological liberation is particularly important in the urban environment, where non-human life forms are routinely made invisible, where the needs of other species are ignored, and where “nature” is paved and covered with cement.

In many ways, the feminist liberationist perspective Ruether developed in her scholarship had an inevitable progression that includes consideration for the environment; evolving into an ecofeminist theological lens that considers the mistreatment of nature, yet constructs an ecofeminist perspective that details transformative healing practices rooted in love for communities of life as a means of ameliorating the damage. In Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Healing (1992) Ruether explains how the praxis of communal liberation relates to ecological well-being and how this is made possible when humans assume responsibility of guardianship of the environment. She proposes a covenantal vision based on the just relations with fellow beings and other life forms in the covenant of creation. ¹⁷ This connects to Ruether’s broader project of human liberation since it speaks to unjust social relations between gender and economic classes; the same alienation that powers these relations is also present in how humans mistreat their environments, under the adverse influence of alienation from ecological interconnectedness. The concepts of a communal earth ethics are constructed from the values Ruether champions such as sustainable mutuality, reciprocity, and a deeper awareness of inter-communal ecological processes within both theory and praxis.

Conclusion

Ruether’s scholarly engagement with liberation theology, its key concepts and applications, is one of the formative influences on her intellectual work. The extent of Ruether’s engagement in turn helped expand the key concept within liberation theology, the idea of liberation itself, into contexts that had previously been ignored. I have illustrated the roots of Ruether’s engagement with liberation theology, and showed her key legacy lies in the expansion of the concept of liberation beyond the boundaries previously indicated by liberation theologies.

Ruether’s analysis of liberation theology and the concept of liberation focuses on three key conceptual developments, the ideas of liberated personhood, communities of liberation, and communal earth ethics as a blueprint to more just relations among fellow humans and other life forms. The prophetic elements found in the Christian tradition served as a foundational spiritual community where all persons can be seen as equal. The liberative practices Ruether champions are grounded on foundational truths about the divinity of personhood “which seek to make all the ways in which people relate to each other-sexually, socially, economically-into expressions of love and mutual aid rather than of competition and exploitation.” ¹⁸ Ruether proposals for human liberation have implications for the environmental challenges in the present context. Many scholars interested in climate change are seeking alternatives to systems of ecological healing and sustainability. The systems of domination largely responsible for environmental degradation resulting in climate breakdown are in the process of undergoing unprecedented challenge, and Ruether provides a blueprint for expanding the meaning of liberation in human and ecological societies to help provide an alternative to patriarchy and discrimination.