Letty M. Russel's Model Of Authority

Reading the Bible from a feminist perspective is hindered by what Letty M. Russell interprets as the “hit parade of authority” (Russell, 138). This authority is that the Bible is understood to be the Word of God. Understanding its authority in this way enables readers to accept biblical contradictory, sexism, and racism (Russell, 140). More often than not, this authority obstructs feminist interpretations. Russell suggests that a feminist model of authority is inclusive in allowing feminist interpretation. The authority paradigm that does not align with feminists is authority viewed as domination. This domination is the kind found in a patriarchal society and refuses admittance of perspectives that do not fit into the normal (Russell, 143). The feminist model of authority is an authority as partnership which involves the participation in “the common task of creating an interdependent community of humanity and nature (Russell, 144). Authority of partnership is authority exercised within a community. Community is a very important aspect to Christianity. As people of God, we are one body, and benefit from each other. Humans are social creatures and require health interactions to survive. The domination
authority of patriarchy is toxic to both the superior and subordinate. It creates an environment that lacks community. Such an environment effects how one interprets the Bible. Russel’s work provides a new sense of authority, authority of community, but she omits how this new authority can be used to interpret scripture.
Can we conclude that the Bible was written during a time of domination authority, and therefore is irrelevant? Or does this change how we read scripture, to read forgotten stories about women and bring them to the surface. Katharine Doob Saakenfeld is more straightforward in her article “Feminist Uses of Biblical Materials” in addressing ways that Christian feminists can approach and engage with scripture. The three ways she suggests are: looking at texts to counteract famous antiwomen texts, looking at the Bible as a critique to patriarchy, and using texts to learn from women who are oppressed because of their
gender. In Saakenfeld’s work, I found most the third approach to engage with scripture the most interesting. These texts of the Bible “address the condition of women as persons oppressed because of their sex and as persons yearning to be free (Saakenfeld, 62). This strategy falls into the category of hermeneutics of remembrance. To me, hermeneutics of remembrance is important because the past should be remembered and reflected on. It does not do the world any good if the past is ignored and all the negative things and stuff we are embarrassed of is hidden under the carpet. As Phyllis Trible said in Texts of Terror, that this stuff must be reflected upon so we “pray that these terrors shall not come to pass again” (Saakenfeld, 62). Books written about feminist theology all have to address the issue of how to interpret the Bible. There are also many ways to read the Bible through feminist hermeneutics. What my reflections has touched on was Letty Russell’s new model of authority, and Kathrine Saakenfeld’s three ways to engage with scripture. Both of these women view the Bible differently than the typical patriarchal stance and engage with the reader in a community of equality.