A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original article appears below. Nancy Cocks lives in Vancouver.
The phone rang on March 20. “You’re quoted on the front page of the Globe,” the voice cackled. My best friend from high school had heard from her sister that her old school mate had made the front page. I groaned and added, “Misquoted.”
We went on to laugh about distant memories as editors of the high school newspaper. “Well,” she added, “now you’ve had your fifteen minutes of fame. Back to oblivion.”
I only wish! I am grateful to the editors of Channels for a few column inches to set in perspective a remark I made about current issues in feminist theology for readers who may have seen the remark and yet know little about the context in which I spoke.
The article in which my name appeared was written by the religion editor of the Globe and Mail who was following up controversy sparked by a conference held in the United States last fall, entitled “Re-Imagining… God, Community, the Church.” At the time I was interviewed, I had not read anything about the conference, a fact of which the interviewer was aware. I had only heard a whisper of the controversy. So we talked generally about the ways in which the work of scholars has an impact on the worship and pastoral life of focal congregations, sometimes negatively and sometimes positively.
The interviewer finally pressed back to his theme for the article which focused on the appropriation of the figure of Wisdom, or Sophia, at the conference. He asked what place Sophia takes in my scholarship. My response, which was paraphrased and somewhat distorted in the Globe article, outlined the work of scholars, feminists and others, on the biblical “lens” wisdom literature provides on the identity of Christ. “Some feminists,” I added, “think that the idea that Jesus Christ substituted for humankind on the cross and atoned for what we do is abusive. It suggests that those in power are able to punish those with less power.” I noted briefly that this argument is made especially in relation to patterns of abuse in families, an area in which churches do not have a good record of pastoral response.
The ways in which my remarks have been interpreted astonished me. First, because I was quoted in between people who were at the conference, many readers assumed I was there. While this was not stated, people jumped to that conclusion. Other readers concluded that I was reporting my own opinions, rather than explaining a point at issue among religious feminists. I received one rather bizarre call from a woman looking for a temple of the goddess in Vancouver. When I explained that the people known to me quoted in the article are Christian, she was disappointed, having “given up on that Jesus thing” twenty years ago. I also received two strange letters, both from men, one urging me to renounce Christianity as misogynist, the other blaming me and other nameless feminists for every social ill under the sun.
What proved more hurtful to me were the reports of rumours and accusations circulating in presbyteries about the School at which I teach and my credibility as a theological educator. Of course, none of these accusations came to me directly. They circulate, still I expect, on the infamous Presbyterian grapevine. And still, only two presbyters have had the courtesy to call and ask me what I really said and what I really think.
This is not the place for a critical consideration of the current debates about Christian feminists, an excursus on wisdom literature, or an overview of atonement models. However, I hope that readers who find the topics in the Globe article upsetting would engage in the research necessary to have a truly critical consideration of the issues. My point in writing is to challenge us as a church community to think critically about how we read and form opinions – of issues and of each other.
Too often, I fear, (and now I know) we draw conclusions about each other by rumour and by inference, rather than by communicating with each other. We attribute attitudes and opinions to others according to reputation rather than through dialogue. When I spoke to Presbytery on this matter, I pointed out that “evangelicals” are caricatured in the media as often as “feminists.” So we ought to know that journalists are not always clear or fair. Surely in the community of Jesus Christ we owe each other the opportunity to say directly what we mean and what we believe.
At the Vancouver School of Theology, my responsibility includes teaching feminist theology. I do this in various ways, but always with a critical eye. I challenge my students, as I challenge myself, to think deeply about how we know what we know and to listen carefully to the perspectives from which others speak. I believe that the Holy Spirit honours such attentive listening with the gift of wisdom which is not simply the confirmation of what we already think.
Attentive listening prepares us to be attentive pastors and wise believers who can discern the wheat from the chaff in a Globe article or a situation of family trauma. Therefore, I stand open to change what I think – about feminist topics as well as other models of interpretation. But only the Holy Spirit can change what I believe and I still believe that the one whom we know as Christ is the power of God and the wisdom (sophia) of God (1 Cor. 1:24).
I also pray that Andy Warhol was right and that my fifteen minutes are up!