Introduction
The study of human ancestry and the development of human culture is at the heart of anthropology. The Christian doctrine of humanity, known as theological anthropology, is typically summed up as the following: humans were created in God’s image but fell into sin and now have the opportunity to be saved.[1]. The Bible and ancient customs serve as its primary inspiration. From a religious tradition’s claims, theological anthropology develops an understanding of the human person. In Christian theological anthropology, Carbine argues that in their constant efforts to realize their potential, human beings embody and express the dynamic unfolding of the created Spirit. Carbine states that this dynamic shows that humans are not, at our core, ruggedly individualist, assertive, selfish, self-made, or self-sufficient. Theologians consider how God interacts with humanity. The Christian understanding of God necessitates a theory about God’s self-revelation, which is central to Christian theology. Christian theologians from various historical periods and backgrounds have looked at different facets of human experience to understand multiple historical periods and locations and have looked at other aspects of human experience to understand better how God communicates with humanity. This paper aims to investigate relativity’s role in theological anthropology. The goal is to glean information that can help shape theological thought among deaf women. This research will look at relativity’s history and theoretical underpinnings in theological anthropology. Scripture, history, reason, and experience are all examples of such resources. Many schools of thought among theologians use various methods to analyze and interpret revelation. This paper looks forward to knowing what and how Rosemary Carbine bases her beliefs on the evolution and foundations of relativity in theological anthropology.
Deaf women are the primary focus because of the intersectionality problems that plague this population. Intersectionality is the recognition of differences within groups of people who share a common identity regarding gender, sexuality, religion, race, and other categories of identity. That is, people’s perceptions of social structure vary slightly from one another because the intersection of their identities reflects the convergence of overlapping oppressions. Gender and disability are two intersectional issues that have a pronounced impact on the deaf community. With the help of a relational theological and anthropological perspective, we can gain insight into the problems faced by deaf women and the solutions that can be implemented to meet their needs better. We disagree with the view that other forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, and homophobia, are secondary to deafness. Rather than simply “adding” gender to deaf women’s identities, our primary goal is to learn more about the complex web of power dynamics they have navigated throughout their lives. One population that has historically had less access to God’s Word is the deaf community. Given its association with androcentric theology, even the word “God” carries a degree of risk.[2]. Some feminist thinkers consider this word a generically masculine form of naming divine reality because it usually indicates a male deity or one conceived of as male. As a result, the full breadth of feminist insight cannot be conveyed. Women who are deaf are doubly marginalized because society views deafness as a disability, making them both a minority and a target for discrimination.
The meaning and implications of a relational turn in theological anthropology
Carbine’s illustration frames the function of feminist theological anthropologies in terms of a relational dynamic that challenges the view that humans are fundamentally selfish and self-interested. In Carbine’s argument, such theologies move beyond paradigms of personhoods embroiled in the categorical struggle of injustice, racism, sexism, and genderism. It is because of their focus on intersectionality, interculturality, interstitial, and the “multiplicative effects” of all structural and ideological oppressions on the human experience resulting from power relations. [3].
Relationality, as discussed and articulated in various women’s liberation theologies, allows us to form bonds of mutual respect and solidarity that are open to all. These theologies begin examining what it means to be human by looking at women’s experiences in various social contexts. Feminist theologians highly value relationships and relationality, but they ignore that these connections are Kyriarchically typified. Kyriarchy is a term that more accurately describes the intertwined, mutually reinforcing relations between sexual identity, class, gender, culture, race, religion, and other markers of identity that determine the relative advantages and disadvantages men and women experience in different social contexts.[4]. It also shows how these relationships contribute to the establishment and maintenance of privilege for some men and women at the expense of the majority, who remain on the margins and lack power. This kyriarchal pyramid, however, should be viewed not as a fixed structure but rather as a dynamic web of power dynamics.
Questions about the nature, expression, and embodiment of our connections to God, to one another, and the cosmos arise as we consider the Divine relational essence that Carbine perceives to be at the core of our being. It is because the foundations upon which these relationships are built are constantly shifting as the participants grow and change as caring and sinning human beings. According to Rosemary Carbine, feminist theologies in anthropology seem to be stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Because of their inability to generalize from women’s experiences to broader human ones, as she claims, these groups need to be more capable of pursuing a genuinely transformative agenda. The difficulty arises when anthropology fails to include both men and women in its universalizing narrative. It is because it is un-based on a single-nature model that does not divide people or perpetuate the myth that men and women do not experience marginalization. Carbine argues that relational anthropology can serve as a foundation for studying humankind because it “move(s) through situatedness and particularity to throws light on the constants. The light on the constants make up a portrait of what it means to be human.” Also, it “embraces an all-inclusive vision of those constants that permeate women’s and men’s experiences without losing an emphasis on the radically particular nature of their situations.”[5].
Carbine’s relational anthropology “encompasses the complexity of women’s experiences,” she writes; “enfolds men,” and so guides feminist theology toward its universally transformative aim. The recognition that sexism is just one of many interlocking structures that perpetuate oppression serves to both broaden and include men in the conversation. Achieving this goal necessitates seeing sexism as just one of many systems working together to keep people down. Rather than reducing pressure to a single ‘ism,’ it allows for the voices of people who have been silenced due to classism, racism, naturism, and sexism. Hence, feminist theologians cannot solely focus on women’s experiences because doing so would obscure the fact that all people are susceptible to oppression similarly. They cannot simplify the diversity of women’s experiences into a single narrative because doing so would deprive women of their autonomy and obscure the myriad ways women fight back, negotiate, rearrange, and reorder their quest for freedom.
Cardinal Ratzinger made a further insightful remark about the importance of relationships to understanding who we are as individuals. In his article, Ratzinger describes how the concept of the person develops due to the clash of human philosophies and Christian faith throughout history[6]. As a result, the concept of Christian faith as derived from interaction with Scripture can incorporate human thought. Ratzinger argues that the idea developed not just from the philosophizing of humans but also the interaction between philosophy and the givens of faith, especially the Bible. Ratzinger, in particular, raises two issues regarding the origin of the idea of a person. From the beginning, the questions “What is God?” and “Who is Christ?” pushed their way to the forefront of Christian thought. Cardinal Ratzinger argues that the Spirit is relational and can “see itself and the other”[7]. Ratzinger also draws on the Bible, where the early Christians encountered this idea. Similarly, they discovered that the events unfold in a conversation and that God, oddly enough, has a dialogue with himself in the third person. A couple of examples would be God’s statement in Genesis 3: “Adam has become like one of us” and the phrase, “Let us make man in our image and likeness.”[8] As Ratzinger points out, Christ’s role as the new Adam points humanity in the right direction. However, Ratzinger also explains that becoming more like Christ is an unending process. On the other hand, the human being is evolving toward immortality, with historicity serving as the defining characteristic of the human person. He says that God is conceived of as a dialogical being, and the concept of the person is an expression of dialogue. In it, “I,” “you,” and “we” all refer to God, who is described as the “being those lives in the word.” Understanding God in this way sheds new light on who we are as human beings.
The ancient Jewish tradition provides further evidence for the significance of a relational shift. According to Schwarz, old Jewish tradition shared the pagans’ view that women were subservient to men. But as Schwarz points out, Jesus did have female disciples, which runs counter to commonly held Jewish beliefs at the time. Jesus’ actions, demonstrated by his acceptance of female disciples, point to a relational shift in which he, as a triune member, seeks to establish a personal relationship with women, a demographic previously barred from religious participation. The biblical witness and the development of Christian anthropology over the centuries are given special attention in this overview of the field by Hans Schwarz. Christian anthropology is finally affirmed in light of competing options and contemporary scientific evidence. Schwarz first explores the complicated issue of human freedom, then explores humanity as a community of men and women in both this world and the next, and finally explores the unique place humans hold in the universe. Schwarz outlines what it means to be human by consulting many sources, including the Bible, while retaining a solid biblical orientation. Human Being by Schwartz will pique the interest of readers who wonder how we can still have meaningful conversations about human freedom, human sinfulness, and human beings as the divinely-created God’s children despite mind-blowing scientific discoveries. In addition, Paul emphasizes the importance of baptism “in the one Spirit” and “into one body.” He writes that “Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, are all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Consequently, Schwarz interprets the message and understands that both men and women have an equal opportunity to worship God. This change in how we relate to one another demonstrates that people of all faiths, backgrounds, and ethnicities must have a personal relationship with God. Our relational nature stems from our divine origins; God is relational. We were created to have meaningful connections with God and with one another.
The experiences that individuals have are of primary interest in relational theological and anthropological theology because they have the potential to shape their beliefs. Hierarchies in our society serve to e[9]empower some people while marginalizing others. There is a power imbalance when interpreting God’s word, with more influence going to groups with more cultural clout. But God’s strength is revealed in the fact that He can bring about His will in any circumstance, actual or hypothetical, by whatever means He so chooses, for the sake of His glory. God’s will and glory are at the heart of His omnipotence. While acknowledging the existence of societal differences, relational theological and anthropological theology also recognizes the need to ensure that these differences contribute to greater unity within the body of believers rather than causing divisions. Last but not least, a Trinitarian perspective on theology and anthropology is possible, elevating the concept of the person as central to any account of humanity. From a Trinitarian vantage point, people aren’t self-contained entities who are understood independently of others but are instead understood in the context of their relationships. Our species evolved to interact with one another in groups. From a Perichoretic viewpoint, the Trinity represents an ever-present fellowship of coequal persons engaged in reciprocal love relations within God, which overflows into acts of creation, redemption, and sustenance between God and the world. Religious and political ramifications exist of these Perichoretic connections in spheres of life outside the kyriarchy.
The term “feminist theology” refers to a body of thought that views God and the universe through the lens of gender equality and the conscious solidarity of women everywhere. Their goal is to highlight the humanity of women and how sexism and inequality in relationships undermine that humanity[10]. Feminist theology, according to Elizabeth Johnson, is predicated on women’s inherent dignity and their ability to exist apart from men[11]. Christian feminist theologian Elizabeth Johnson asserts that women, in their own right and apart from personal identification with men, are entitled to the fullness of their religious heritage. Equalizing access to God’s grace and the duty to minister and share in God’s glorification is a topic that has received attention from Christian feminist theologians like Johnson. [12]. Feminist theology, as defined by Johnson, seeks to remove obstacles that have prevented women from approaching God in patriarchal societies. In other words, for the Johnsons, the point of feminist theology is not to make women complete participants in a patriarchal system but to abolish that system altogether[13].
Feminist theology, in Johnson’s view, has been instrumental in articulating and documenting the rejection of traditional church teachings and interpretations. Thus, Johnson’s feminist theology clarifies that women’s theological identity and historical experiences have diverged[14]. Sexism and other ideologies counter God’s word, as exemplified by the Golden Rule. According to my reading of the statement, the goal of feminist theology is to facilitate the identification of areas in Christian and church practice that deviate from the law of God and to encourage the adoption of practices more in line with God’s will. Johnson argues that how we talk about God reflects how we have been taught to think about God. So, we must also alter their language to alter how people think. The point is that God is gender-neutral, so either masculine or feminine language helps describe him. The issue goes further than that since the Mystery and Spirit of God go beyond such binary gender categories. Also, to transition from gendered to relational, Carbine and Johnson aspire to the idea that every person is made up of a set of universal anthropological constants or relations. The two theologians look for liberating insights in discussions of the Trinity, God as a living being, and God’s relationship to a broken world.
Feminist theologies similarly emphasize the value of taking a relational stance. Feminist theological anthropologies provide a critical reappropriation and reconstruction of the concept of relationality, which is essential to relational anthropology. Humans, the authors argue, were designed as relational beings so that they might stand in for God, Who exists in constant and eternal relationship. Women’s liberation theologies have examined how relationality can foster egalitarian connections and inclusive solidarity. [15]. The authors’ theological reflections on what it means to be human are grounded in women’s experiences in vastly different social contexts. Feminist liberation theology, which views the world and the church from the periphery, can see that patriarchy and androcentrism, two forms of sexism, permeate every level of society and the church. As a result, those bonds have been shattered and damaged by this social sin. Feminists construct their theory of change around the idea that all human relationships are actively and persistently distorted and de-created by structural and personal sin and that the divine gift of the grace of love continually heals all human relationships. According to Carbine, a portrait of humanity is illuminated by a relational anthropology that moves through situatedness and particularity. Similarly, it emphasizes the radically unique circumstances of both women and men without sacrificing an inclusive vision of the underlying similarities between their experiences.
Women have wanted a less structured religious experience where hierarchies do not impose restrictions on women engaging creatively with God because official structures have limited women’s participation in the church [16]. In this paper, we will take an ethnocentric stance, which is the belief that one’s own culture is inherently superior to all others and the practice of judging other cultures about one’s own. Second, we shall adopt a cultural relativist stance to understand the situation from the deaf women’s perspective. Feminist theology joins the theological attempt at a historical juncture where language about God is being reshaped to include inherent connectedness to the outside world, alliance with human flourishing, care for the poor that is both compassionate and liberating, and a more excellent mystery[17]. Feminist theology, on the other hand, introduces a new level of care to the discussion by using language that has not been used before to talk about God’s mysteriousness as seen through the eyes of women and by giving an in-depth analysis of the sexism present in both the classical canon and the modern world, we can see how each of these sources contributes and most reconstructive efforts to date.
When deciding between single and dual-nature anthropology, feminist and ecofeminist perspectives are put in a precarious position. According to the theory of “single nature,” men and women are fundamentally the same but manifest differently. While on the surface, this theory appears to promote gender equality, in practice, it serves to reduce women to the same level of normalcy as men and their experiences and values. Dual-nature anthropology, which suggests that women and men are fundamentally different and do not share the exact nature, is the more comprehensive option. However, it has been used to perpetuate the division between the sexes on the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different, thus ignoring the diversity of women’s experiences.
We have argued that the theological anthropology problem is resolvable by emphasizing a relational approach to humanity. Doing so gives feminists a framework that starts from specificity but grows into a universal debate. Because of its emphasis on individuals as persons in the community, held accountable to other humans and the earth itself, relational theological anthropology is also ecofeminist. The last thread to weave into the discussion is the responsible relationship that humans should have with the planet. An ethic of solidarity is the only viable option. A position of solidarity, like the relational anthropology that inspired us to think about it, does not pretend that everyone’s experiences are the same or try to paint everyone in the same light. Instead, it allows for flourishing while maintaining that dualism and opposition are impossible on a holistic level and that individuals must instead exist in a relationship with one another. Solidarity is not “simply a generalized feeling of goodwill and benevolent care of the Earth” but rather a stance that requires action.
Johnson argues that classical tradition is deeply ambiguous in its meaning for female well-being from a feminist theory, which recognizes the inherent worth of females, women as imago Dei. It has supported generations of mothers and grandmothers in their faith. However, it has also contributed to the exclusion and subordination of women. While I agree that classical thought should be scrutinized, I also feel compelled to give it a fair hearing to glean some insight that could be useful in the future. His method is similar to religious dialogue in that it posits that God can be seen in all that is true and holy. The following discussion may be interpreted as a defence of this specific feminist theological perspective whenever the term “feminist theology” is used. We will talk about how the success of deaf women living in hostile environments is central to the mission of feminist religious discourse. Protecting these social outcasts would require reconfiguring existing ideas and methods. More humane living for all people, with all other people, and with the earth itself is achievable through a complete transformation of all societies.
Women theologians are nearly unanimous in pointing out its flaws and ruling it out as a viable long-term option. This strategy is in the works of many male theologians attempting to address the sexism problem. However, it has the advantage of diverting attention away from the misogyny that has plagued Christian anthropology and the doctrine of God. There are a few main reasons for this. The androcentric structure persists despite the inclusion of Femto-typical traits. Given that God is still pictured as the ruling man, albeit with softer characteristics, the feminine is integrated in a subordinate way into an overall masculine symbol. As evidence, consider the following: “God is not exclusively masculine, but the feminine-maternal element must also be recognized in Him.”
God’s presence can be seen when His Spirit is present. Feminist theology can help define a connection with God that better reflects women’s lived realities, for instance. When God’s Spirit is present, people can feel it [18]. Therefore, the Spirit may have various effects, including liberation, resistance, hope, wisdom, courage, justice, and energy, based on the history of oppression of women[19]. The unique perspectives of women in their interactions with God can be taken into account using a deductive method. Women today are liberated from the historical norm of basing their evaluation of God’s impact on their lives solely on how the Spirit affects men. As a result of this shift in relationships, women in today’s hierarchical and patriarchal societies are better able to recognize the unique ways the spiritual realm can affect them. God’s word becomes more accessible through the inductive method, which benefits women and all members of society. By taking this approach, we can meet the spiritual needs of a wide variety of people without resorting to logical arguments about the nature of God’s relationship with humanity. A theology that serves the needs of all community members can be developed with the help of lessons learned from the experiences of deaf women and other social groups.
Given Johnson’s commitment to women’s experience, it is challenging to imagine a better place to launch into the story than at the point where the presence and absence of God shape human existence in all its complexity. [20]. Therefore, the Spirit, God’s livingness that is both subtle and powerfully abroad in the world, is where this investigation begins, not the unity of divine nature or even the “first person” of the Trinity. As a result, a theology of the triune God emerges from a spiritual perspective. She explains how women’s spirituality has traditionally taken many forms, including prayer, poetry, caring for family and friends, working the land, and embracing the joys and sorrows of daily life. Their observant participation in church life has revealed it to them. Women have experienced the strength and the pain of bearing and birthing new life and caring for it, even to the point of exhaustion or death. It has traditionally been their responsibility to restore the balance of life by providing for its material and spiritual needs. Women of Spirit have always found ways to defy societal expectations placed on them and have even challenged the status quo openly when moved to do so by a prophetic calling. It is all traditionally thought of as Spirit territory.
As the ones tasked with traditionally regenerating and giving birth to new life, she recognizes that women, or what she calls Women of Spirit, have appropriate experiences that reflect an understanding of pain, power, and caring. Johnston places the struggle against confinement experienced by women within the canonical realm of the spiritual. Women of Spirit have always found ways to defy official restrictions on their lives, even taking on powerful institutions in a public show of defiance inspired by prophecy. It is all traditionally thought of as Spirit territory. This whole field of women’s religious experience—from the mundane to the transcendent—comes to the fore when women criticize the patriarchal God and the hierarchical arrangement of the world that “he” authorizes. According to Johnsons, God is one way of speaking, beginning with the interpreted understanding of the Spirit and working through the living triune in light of the lessons learned from women’s religious lives on the periphery of society. These shifts are motivated by the structure of women’s spiritual experience on the edge of society. Other than being consistent with women’s knowledge, there are several benefits to taking this route. It provides a springboard for discussing the triune God that is more aligned with the human experience of salvation.
Johnson compares the struggle for free, unrestricted expression of the Spirit through the body to the fight, public manifestation of the Spirit through the language. Because of the ‘universal presence of the Spirit of God,’ she believes there to be a liberating force whose language is the presence or absence of peace, energy, justice, etc. According to Johnson, the Spirit’s compassionate and liberating power is so all-encompassing—what the Bible refers to as the “finger of God”—that almost no part of reality is safe from its influence. Amid profound ambiguity, often apprehended more in darkness than light, the Spirit’s presence is mediated through the praxis of freedom. Human hostility and collectively evil systems undermine and violate it. To refer to God’s ongoing transcendent engagement with the world, in theology, Johnson uses language from the Spirit, Holy Spirit, and Spirit of God, which is one of several options found in the Bible. The term refers to the Creator Spirit at the centre of the world. This power does not originate from human initiative but rather underpins and surrounds it in a relationship that makes everything else possible. [21]. Because the Spirit itself eludes concrete depiction, this naming seems especially apt to symbolize divine evasiveness and the fact that no human concept can ever circumscribe it.
Then Johnson makes his concluding remarks. She begins by describing God as Spirit, consistent with particular schools of thought in existentialism, history, religion, logic, theology, and feminism. Johnson begins this kind of discussion, looking for a way to talk about God’s mystery from a feminist theological stance, armed with insight from women’s experience, Scripture, and Christian tradition. An encounter with the enigma that is God is the source of all religious symbolism and the doctrinal elaboration that surrounds it. In all its varied events, history is a mediator between humans and the living God, whose presence and absence they experience. It is because the mystery believers refer to as God extends beyond and encompasses all there is, just as the horizon extends beyond and includes all other horizons. Christian language has traditionally given the name Spirit to this active traceable evidence of God’s presence in one’s everyday life. There is genuine inclusivity in the range and depth of expertise that can mediate a sacred mystery. Events with overtly religious connotations like worship, preaching, sacraments, and prayer are not the only ones to be considered mediators of the divine, though they are certainly among the most common. Spirit-Sophia can draw near and pass by any aspect of human life because the mystery of God underpins the entire world.
The events of history facilitate the revelation of God’s mystery. People’s experiences with the mysterious presence or absence of God are mediated by the unique histories of the societies in which they live.[22]. The statement implies that the collective memories of its members will shape a particular population group’s understanding of God’s presence. “He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,” reads the second half of Luke 4:18. The Spirit influences the people based on their pasts, as shown here. As this verse demonstrates, the people of Israel’s past experiences informed their expectations of how God’s Spirit would move in their lives. Israel’s history as a persecuted nation fueled their hope that God’s Spirit would set them free. Because of Israel’s long history of sin, the Holy Spirit sees it as his primary mission to redeem his people from their sins and restore their fellowship with God. Furthermore, the Spirit of God is not mediated by any particular events, as the Creator and Giver of Life serve as the primary mediator of this dialectic Spirit.
Since spiritual language is a product of human experience, it is shaped by various life events from infancy to old age. In describing the Spirit’s deeds, Johnson highlights the common ground between feminism and this language by emphasizing the Spirit’s “free-flowing, life-giving, nonviolent power that connects, renews, and blesses” (10). Through the lens of feminist theology, Johnson provides a penetrating analysis of how the paternal metaphor has interacted with patriarchal values of dominance and authoritative rule to produce language about God that places women in a subordinate position and prevents them from experiencing the awe and wonder of the divine. Reclaiming the strength and fragility of mothering as a metaphor for God would be beneficial, even if this were not the case. Birthing and raising children is not a uniquely male experience but rather one that is profoundly female on a biological and psychological level. Humans receive life and nurture from their mothers in various ways, and the ensuing complex relationship is profoundly formative to both individuals and society.
According to Johnson’s further elaboration, Holy Wisdom is the first source from which the entire cosmos sprang, the uncreated, ever-present wellspring from which everything comes into being. This inconceivably alive thing is the source of life for all other organisms because she is, initially and eternally, the power of being within all beings. She quotes Job 38:29, which describes God the Mother as “the womb from which the ice came forth, and who has given birth to the hoarfrost of heaven.”[23]. Johnson creates life without expecting anything in return and unconditionally loves every living thing.
Johnson emphasizes that there is no single defining religious experience. No single faith tradition should be given privileged status as the only valid means by which humans can communicate with God. The complexity, abundance, threat, misery, and joy of life itself, she argues, become primary mediators of the presence and absence of divine mystery because Spirit is the creator and giver of life. The experience of the Spirit takes place wherever we encounter the world and ourselves. It occurs through the mediation of beauty and joy or in contrast to powers that crush. Today’s spiritual language has its roots and home in this vast panorama of human experience.
The importance of one’s own and other people’s experiences in laying the groundwork for a connection with the divine is evident through a relational approach. The Spirit is also mediated on the level of the macro systems that structure human beings as groups, greatly influencing consciousness and patterns of relationship. Similarities exist between the relationship model most prized by feminist thought and how we talk about the Spirit as the power of mutual love proceeding. The force that propels all existing things toward other living things is love. When two people genuinely care for one another, it dismantles the dominance dynamic that can arise from their material differences. When framed as a process of mutual love, God as Spirit undermines patriarchal power structures and heralds a shift toward equality and cooperation as the pinnacle of human flourishing. [24]. The Spirit, as the creative dynamic of mutual love, actively moves, impels, attracts, connects, and sets up a solidarity of reciprocal, liberating relations across the world and within herself and creation.
Conversations between biblical and classical teachings on the Spirit and feminist theological insights yield intriguing theological outcomes. When the Spirit’s actions are portrayed as those of a female actor, new ways of talking about God become possible. Simultaneously, such language provides depth to feminist discourse about God by focusing on the vast scope of the divine’s activity. When considering the full range of the Spirit’s activities, the fallacy of theological attempts to equate women and the Spirit solely through so-called feminine traits becomes more apparent.
Johnson brings up a crucial point when she says that women have the freedom to be creative, relational, recreative, nurturing, and justice-making. What the Holy Spirit brings is a symbol of completeness, not just the first half of each pair, which is valuable in its own right but is far too often held up as the only ideal of a woman’s existence. Women and men alike can benefit from the Spirit’s model of wholeness, and language about the holiness of God is better off when it follows this model. It may be the most far-reaching effect of considering the Spirit first and from a feminist perspective, as it would be the first step in undermining the dominance of the patriarchal image of God that is so damaging to the mystery of God and the well-being of the human community. Discordant ideas about God and the nature of the Holy Spirit are combined in a unified language about the compassionate and liberating Spirit. Because of this, theologians see the divine as distant and patriarchal, and the interpretation of women’s nature is skewed in a way that makes them less than fully human. It is because the Spirit’s actions are all-encompassing, and the range of human experiences that correspond with them is equally vast. Since we have already discussed the Spirit, it would be natural to conclude that there is nothing else to say about God. However, this is different from how things worked in the Christian era. God is God in another sense, in that God merges into the materiality of creation itself and thereby animates, renews, liberates, and graces it.
Johnson notes that during Pentecost, when the Spirit fills the community with wind and fire, women are an integral part of the circle in the upper room. They spread out as a team in the name of the gospel, using their talents and dedication to spread the Good News all over the Sophia Empire. She tells the story of Jesus-Sophia, which she argues must include the experiences of those closest to him, both men and women. In other words, this will also work for women who are hard of hearing. [25].
Women and the elderly are in the anointing of the Holy Spirit. It is reflected in the language of feminist theology when discussing Christ. Christ’s maleness is not essential to who He is, but His Spirit’s redemptive humanity is. Johnson argues that it is now self-evident that Aquinas’s categorical rejection of the maternal in theology is grounded in a misguided extrapolation of biological assumptions to a metaphysical level. [26]. It’s a biological theory that has absolutely no basis in the real world at this point. The philosophical assessment of women, particularly in their maternal function that resulted from this view, has remained, even though the physical foundations have long since disappeared. Almost all statements made by male theologians and the official magisterium assume this premise, which ascribes specific “roles” to women based on the order of nature. Though women’s receptivity is often described positively as “active,” those stuck in a dualistic anthropology cannot fathom the possibility that women themselves may take the lead and be the person whose actions galvanize the response of others.
Conclusion
How Christians treat all of creation is heavily influenced by their theological understanding of the human condition. How we interact with the world around us is shaped by our beliefs about ourselves, the world, and God. As a result, it stands to reason that the opposite is true: theology is revealable through action. Much evangelical theology reveals a framework that can completely obscure the importance of non-human life while prioritizing certain humans and ignoring others. It follows a misunderstanding of the imago Dei doctrine. It also leads to an attitude that reinforces an unhelpful tiering of creation based on the value of humans.
Central to Christian theology is a theory about God’s self-revelation, which is necessary for a proper understanding of God. Christian theologians from many eras and backgrounds have mined different aspects of the human experience to shed light on past generations. They come from varied academic and professional perspectives, all of which help them better comprehend how God speaks to humankind. To that end, this paper will explore relativity’s function in theological anthropology. This research aims to understand better how deaf women’s theological perspectives develop. Examining the roots and theoretical foundations of relativity in theological anthropology is the focus of this study. Theologians come in many different “schools of thought,” each with its unique approach to studying and understanding revelation. This paper is interested in Rosemary Carbine’s views on the history and premises of relativity in theological anthropology and hopes to learn more from her.
Carbine seeks to demonstrate how such anthropologies have critically reconstructed understandings of relationality in contrast to hierarchies, ideologies, and dualities that hurt identity and are also divisive and dehumanizing. Racism, militarism, and globalization are examples of negative interactions arising from hierarchical and kyriarchal systems that promote an ideal image of God at the expense of other members of society. Since women are created in God’s image regardless of where they are or what they’ve been through, Carbine argues that feminist theologies share a common foundation with the liberation movement. So this is where they’re at, and they will keep going in mutually expressive solidarity to advance equality in all directions from here.
Her thesis is that relationality can exist without implying hierarchy, subordination, or dehumanization. Relationality, discussed and articulated in various women’s liberation theologies, allows us for more equitable and all-encompassing forms of connection and solidarity. These theologies begin with women’s lived experiences in different social contexts to theorize what it means to be human. Therefore, it is not about totalizing definitions of identity but about comprehending the critical and constructive features that lead us into pluralized expressions of solidarity-based relationships and utilizing our capacity for imaginative God-talk. As a result of making we claim to be a divinely ordained and, therefore, established link between these names and representations of Deity, this kind of God-talk stifles the unfathomable mystery of God as depicted in Christian thought. Subsequently, it dehumanizes people of colour, particularly women, by denying them the opportunity to reflect God’s image in Christ and the dominant culture.
Her chapter is a detailed analysis of how various feminist theologies have addressed the topic of relationships. Her research suggests that the feminist movement drives a shift toward a more universal, cosmic paradigm. Additionally, the hope of experiencing the totality of humanity is based on the fact that we discover far more in common with one another than we do with our differences. Carbine would argue that her work focuses on the practical experiences and challenges women face today but that the lessons apply to everyone. Concerning Catholic social teaching and through a theological or politico-religious reconceptualization of the image of God, Carbine’s approach in this chapter and her theology offers an alternative relational notion of the person. Her worries centre on how theology can be prophetic in the creation of communities rather than reducing people to categories like “man,” “woman,” “disabled,” and “black.” Even though she acknowledges that social constructions categorize us, she argues that these categories shouldn’t limit theology. She believes, however, that the religious, political image of God is a part of the solution rather than a part of reinforcing the classifications.
As Johnson points out, we need to perform a crucial retrieval if we want our discussions of the Spirit as a gift to have a liberating effect. Earlier, we saw how feminist theological anthropology has critically examined women’s propensity to give of themselves without reservation, finding that this tendency is the result of cultural nurture, if not nature. While selflessness is admirable when it is a conscious choice made by an adult, it can be harmful if it prevents women from finding their inner strength and centre so they can give to others. Concern for women’s authentic personhood as human subjects requires placing the metaphor of gift within the broader framework of freedom. Instead of collapsing into harmful and erroneous essentialisms, we have argued that adopting a model of relational anthropology allows for a diversity of experiences and perspectives. Seeing one’s self in a relationship of accountability with all creation, leading to a dynamic of care and solidarity, is the only correct Christian model of engagement with the whole of life.
References
Butler, Jennifer. “On Being in Relation with All Created Things (an Ecofeminist, Evangelical, Theological Anthropology),” 2012. https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=seminary_masters.
Hinsdale, Mary Ann, and Stephen Okey, eds. T&T Clark handbook of theological anthropology. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.
Johnson, Elizabeth A. She who is: The mystery of God in feminist theological discourse. Crossroad Publishing Company, 2017.
Ratzinger, Joseph. “Concerning the notion of person in theology.” Communio 17, no. 3 (1990): 437-454.
Schwarz, Hans. The human being: A theological anthropology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013.
[1] Hinsdale, Mary Ann, and Stephen Okey, eds. T&T Clark handbook of theological anthropology. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021. P.71
[2] Johnson, Elizabeth A. She who is: The mystery of God in feminist theological discourse. Crossroad Publishing Company, 2017. P.33
[3] Hinsdale, Mary Ann, and Stephen Okey, eds. T&T Clark handbook of theological anthropology. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021. P.73
[4] Ibid. P. 73
[5] Butler, Jennifer. “On Being in Relation with All Created Things (an Ecofeminist, Evangelical, Theological Anthropology),” 2012. P. 71.
[6] Ratzinger, Joseph. “Concerning the notion of person in theology.” Communio 17, no. 3 (1990): 437-454. P.439
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] Hinsdale, Mary Ann, and Stephen Okey, eds. T&T Clark handbook of theological anthropology. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021. P.75
[10] Johnson, Elizabeth A. She who is: The mystery of God in feminist theological discourse. Crossroad Publishing Company, 2017. P.1
[11] Ibid. P. 6.
[12] Ibid
[13] Ibid. P. 25
[14] Ibid
[15] Hinsdale, Mary Ann, and Stephen Okey, eds. T&T Clark handbook of theological anthropology. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021. P.72
[16] Johnson, Elizabeth A. She who is: The mystery of God in feminist theological discourse. Crossroad Publishing Company, 2017. P.71
[17] Ibid
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid
[25] Ibid
[26] Ibid 44
write