Christendom is old, and arguments about who Jesus was, what he did, and why are just as old.
Each of the gospel writers focuses on different elements of Jesus’ life and ministry. Unfortunately, for much of the history of theological discourse about Jesus, women and other marginalized groups were excluded from the conversation.
That began changing in the late-20th century when Latin and Black liberation theologies forced their way into the discussion. Since then, we have been forced to consider alternative views of the text regarding Jesus’ ministry. Talk of salvation was pulled from having significance on the other side of death to also having significance in this life. We started to notice things like the writer of Luke’s gospel did not connect salvation to Jesus’ death on the cross. Salvation was, very much, about what happens here and now. Jesus declared Zacchaeus saved “this day” while Jesus was alive and because of Zacchaeus’ act of making financial restitution to those he wronged (Luke 19:1-10).
Womanist theologians like Delores Williams and Renita Weems raised the possibility that viewing Jesus’ death as the point of his work has been harmful to people, especially women. We should, instead, focus on his life and the work he did. And perhaps, his death was the political response to the liberation work Jesus performed for three years.
During this Lenten season, I reflect on the harm done by excluding voices like mine. I am the descendant of ancestors who were taught that if they behave like good slaves, God will reward them after they die. They were told this by people who enjoyed rewards like freedom in this life. I consider women who were told their voices were not worth hearing even though Jesus spent his time elevating their voices. I’m thankful the theological discourse is moving forward. I’m hopeful for where we land when this still relatively small chorus of voices grows and their ideas become familiar.
I hope.
You must be logged in to post a comment.