WATER Teleconference with Linn Marie Tonstad
“The
Sexuality of God”
Wednesday,
September 11, 2013
1-2 PM EDT
Mary E. Hunt Notes
WATER thanks Professor Linn Marie Tonstad for a provocative
and insightful teleconference on her forthcoming work. The following notes
attempt to capture the heart of the presentation and subsequent conversation.
Professor Tonstad began by saying
that she initially saw the Trinity as less than useful from feminist and queer perspectives.
But on closer examination, she discovered that many people considered the
Trinity a useful site for dealing with matters of truth, social relations,
equality, and the like, a way to move beyond theologies that are hostile to
relationships. In fact, the Trinity might be a “magic doctrine that can be used
creatively.”
Other feminist scholars have seen
the Trinity as a male club with the Holy Spirit as a third rate member. Mary
Daly’s insistence on how masculinity and hierarchy are maintained by language
about Trinity comes to mind. The homosociality of the Trinity can be
problematic. Concerns about hierarchy are obvious. But Linn became convinced
that feminist scholars had not yet grappled adequately with the specific ways
in which masculinity and homosociality are maintained in trinitarian theology.
Linn’s effort is to read
contemporary Trinitarian theologies against the grain from feminist and queer
starting points. The major difference is that some theologians think that
“persons” have to be distinct, one withdrawing to make room for another, as if
they can’t be in the same place at the same time. Metaphors of distance can be
problematic. “Penetrating” borders, persons “broken open” are all part of the
discourse. Postmodern thinking about persons is quite different. Rather than
valuing personal autonomy, contemporary people value vulnerability; instead of
seeing individuals it is persons in relationship that matter.
Dr. Tonstad critiques the work of
Anglican scholars Sarah Coakley and Graham Ward. Coakley argues that a feminist
can make room for God in herself by praying silently on her knees, an approach
Tonstad thinks sets up humans in competition with God. She critiques Ward
similarly. He argues that the Trinity is about loving difference, each person
emptying itself to make room for the other. Masculinist ways of understanding
God, especially through the Cross, are left uncriticized while Father and Son
language persists. She acknowledges that Ward and others would say that they do
not mean any of their language to be taken literally, but symbol systems are
not innocent. Linn encourages overliteral readings to demonstrate just how this
works.
She wants people to rethink the
Trinity. She describes an “Ecclesiology of Abortion” as a useful way to break
the hold of nature and reproduction dynamics. Thus people refuse the notion of
reproduction in ordinary time. The church becomes a sign of failure and judgment
rather than of faithfulness.
Such an approach shakes up the theological conversation
making it hard for systematic theologians to ignore the moves of feminist and queer
colleagues. It is an invitation to engage more carefully with some of the technical
distinctions where some of most dangerous moves are maintained.
Questions and Discussion
1. Some
students at Wake Forest Divinity School inquired about what language could be offered
instead of “penetration.”
Dr.
Linn suggested words like “co-presence,” and “co-locality” to talk about
Eucharist and Resurrection. The Body of Christ can be present without
penetration/shattering. Eucharist is “impanation,” literally Jesus taking on a
bread body. All of these suggest new forms for the divine without moving “the
other” aside.
2. A
colleague from Boston spoke about a nun (Editors’ Note: Sister Jeannette
Normandin) who was vehemently attacked by Roman Catholic Church officials for,
among other things that irked authorities, participating in the baptism of a
child in which the masculinist formula was left aside and more inclusive language—Creator,
Redeemer, Sustainer—was used. What are the implications of new forms of
Trinitarian thinking for prayer and liturgy?
Discussion
revolved around reproductive ecclesiology. But it may not be enough to change
the language of the Trinity without also thinking about who can use the words.
In this case, a layperson was acting in ways normally reserved for a priest.
3. Another
colleague raised the question of what to do with maiden, mother, and crone
language/imagery.
Dr.
Linn allowed as to how she is favorably disposed to it and encourages other
naming structures as well. But just feminizing God does not solve fundamental
problems.
4. One colleague
asked about the “Arithmetic of God” wondering why Dr. Tonstad stays with threeness
rather than twoness or fourness, for example.
Linn
responded that God in Christ with Spirit lures the church/world on to greater
intimacy. But she affirmed that God is finally not countable though there is a
narrative logic to threeness in Christian scripture.
5. A
caller was confused by the final chapter that Linn described.
Linn clarified
that the Body of Christ is lost to the institutional Church that tends to
assume that it has and controls the Body of Christ. She cited Matthew 25 as a
text that points to affirming the divine in all people, including those who are
on the margins. She urges people to “minister indiscriminately” rather than
trying to control the Body of Christ. She counsels to avoid language of Christ's
headship and the Church as his body. The Bride/Bridegroom language is equally
fraught.
6. Another
concern was raised about how this theology might play out in queer friendly, women
friendly places.
Linn
mentioned the Institute for Art, Religion and Social Justice at Union
Theological Seminary (http://artreligionandsocialjustice.org/htmllive/). She
mentioned the work of AA Bronson and Carlos Motta on queer spirits and queer
rituals (http://aabronson.com/art/; http://www.wdw.nl/event/ritual-of-queer-rituals/) Rather than theologians
telling people how to create ritual out of an ecclesiology of abortion, an
effort to interrupt order of the normal, it is better to learn from what is
already happening in Women-Church, the Metropolitan Community Churches, etc.
Experience then becomes matter for theological conversation.
7. A
graduate student asked Linn what queer theologians/theorists have influenced
her thought:
Dr.
Tonstad mentioned:
a. Marcella
Althaus-Reid Indecent Theology.
Theological Perversions in Sex, Gender and Politics and
The
Queer God
b.
Judith Butler Gender
Trouble and Bodies that Matter
c. Lee
Edelman No
Future: Queer Theology and the Death Drive
d. Kent Brintnall Ecce Homo: The-Male-Body-In-Pain as
Redemptive Figure.
e. Sara
Achmed Queer
Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others
f. Judith
Halberstam In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives
She
concluded that new queer work is just beginning to trickle into Christian
discourse in systematic theology. Her work is a good example of that beginning
to happen.
______________________________________________________________________
WATER
thanks Linn Tonstad for graciously sharing her scholarship. The audio recording
may be found at http://inmylifetime.typepad.com/files/9.11.2013-linn-marie-tonstad.mp3 .
Our next teleconference will be with Nancy Sylvester,
founding director of the Institute for Communal Contemplation and Dialogue on
Wed. October 9, 2013, 1 PM EDT. All are welcome so please join us.
Information
on all WATER activities can be found on our web site at www.waterwomensalliance.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment