Words of Fire

by Beverly Guy-Sheftall

  I want to begin with the question: “Where are black women in black theology?” They are, in fact, invisible in black theology, and we need to know why this is the case. Because the black church experience and black experience in general are important sources for doing black theology, we need to look at the black woman in relation to both in order to understand the way black theology has applied its conception of liberation. Finally, in view of the status of the black woman vis-à-vis black theology, the black church and the black experience, a challenge needs to be presented to black theology. This is how I propose to discuss this important question.

  THE INVISIBILITY OF BLACK WOMEN IN BLACK THEOLOGY

  In examining black theology, it is necessary to make one of two assumptions : (1) either black women have no place in the enterprise, or (2) black men are capable of speaking for us. Both of these assumptions are false and need to be discarded. They arise out of a male-dominated culture, which restricts women to certain areas of the society. In such a culture, men are given the warrant to speak for women on all matters of significance. It is no accident that all of the recognized black theologians are men. This is what might be expected, given the status and power accorded the discipline of theology. Professional theology is done by those who are highly trained. It requires, moreover, mastery of that power most accepted in the definition of manhood, the power or ability to “reason.” This is supposedly what opens the door to participation in logical, philosophical debates and discussions presupposing rigorous intellectual training, for most of history, outside the “woman’s sphere.” Whereas the nature of men has been defined in terms of reason and the intellect, that of women has to do with intuition and emotionalism. Women were limited to matters related to the home while men carried out the more important work, involving the use of the rational faculties.4 These distinctions were not as clear in the slave community. 5 Slaves and women were thought to share the characteristics of emotionality and irrationality. As we move further away from the slave culture, however, a dualism between black men and women increasingly emerges. This means that black males have gradually increased their power and participiation in the male-dominated society, while black females have continued to endure the stereotypes and oppressions of an earlier period.

  When sexual dualism has fully run its course in the black community (and I believe that it has), it will not be difficult to see why black women are invisible in black theology. Just as white women formerly had no place in white theology—except as the receptors of white men’s theological interpretations—black women have had no place in the development of black theology. By self-appointment, or by the sinecure of a male-dominated society, black men have deemed it proper to speak for the entire black community, male and female.

  In a sense, black men’s acceptance of the patriarchal model is logical and to be expected. Black male slaves were unable to reap the benefits of patriarchy. Before emancipation they were not given the opportunity to serve as protector and provider for black women and children, as white men were able to do for their women and children. Much of what was considered “manhood” had to do with how well one could perform these functions. It seems only natural that the post-emancipation black men would view as of primary importance the reclaiming of their property—their women and their children. Moreover, it is natural that black men would claim their “natural” right to the “man’s world.” But it should be emphasized that this is logical and natural only if one has accepted without question the terms and values of patriarchy—the conept of male control and supremacy.

  Black men must ask themselves a difficult question. How can a white society characterized by black enslavement, colonialism, and imperialism provide the normative conception of women for black society? How can the sphere of the woman, as defined by white men, be free from the evils and oppressions that are found in the white society? The important point is that in matters relative to the relationship between the sexes, black men have accepted without question the patriarchal structures of the white society as normative for the black community. How can a black minister preach in a way that advocates St. Paul’s dictum concerning women while ignoring or repudiating his dictum concerning slaves? Many black women are enraged as they listen to “liberated” black men speak about the “place of women” in words and phrases similar to those of the very white oppressors they condemn.

  Black women have been invisible in theology because theological scholarship has not been a part of the woman’s sphere. The first of the above two assumptions results, therefore, from the historical orientation of the dominant culture. The second follows from the first. If women have no place in theology it becomes the natural prerogative of men to monopolize theological concerns, including those relating specifically to women. Inasmuch as black men have accepted the sexual dualisms of the dominant culture, they presume to speak for black women.

  Before finally dismissing the two assumptions, a pertinent question should be raised. Does the absence of black women in the circles producing black theology necessarily mean that the resultant theology cannot be in the best interest of black women? The answer is obvious. Feminist theologians during the past few years have shown how theology done by men in male-dominated cultures has served to undergird patriarchal structures in society.6 If black men have accepted those structures, is there any reason to believe that the theology written by black men would be any more liberating of black women than white theology was for white women? It would seem that in view of the oppression that black people have suffered, black men would be particularly sensitive to the oppression of others.

  James Cone has stated that the task of black theology “is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the light of oppressed black people so they will see the gospel as inseparable from their humiliated condition, bestowing on them the necessary power to break the chains of oppression. This means that it is a theology of and for the black community, seeking to interpret the religious dimensions of the forces of liberation in that community.”7,8 What are the forces of liberation in the black community and the black church? Are they to be exclusively defined by the struggle against racism? My answer to that question is No. There are oppressive realities in the black community that are related to, but independent of, the fact of racism. Sexism is one such reality. Black men seek to liberate themselves from racial stereotypes and the conditions of oppression without giving due attention to the stereotypes and oppressions against women, which parallel those against blacks. Blacks fight to be free of the stereotype that all blacks are dirty and ugly, or that black represents evil and darkness.9 The slogan “Black is Beautiful” was a counterattack on these stereotypes. The parallel for women is the history of women as “unclean,” especially during menstruation and after childbirth. Because the model of beauty in the white male-dominated society is the “long-haired blonde,” with all that goes along with that mystique, black women have an additional problem with the Western idea of “ugliness,” particularly as they encounter black men who have adopted this white model of beauty. Similarly, the Christian teaching that woman is responsible for the fall of mankind and is, therefore, the source of evil has had a detrimental effect in the experience of black women.

  Like all oppressed peoples, the self-image of blacks has suffered damage. In addition they have not been in control of their own destiny. It is the goal of the black liberation struggle to change radically the socioeconomic and political conditions of black people by inculcating self-love, self-control, self-reliance, and political power. The concepts of self-love, self-control, self-reliance, and political participation certainly have broad significance for black women, even though they were taught that, by virtue of their sex, they had to be completely dependent on man; yet while their historical situation reflected the need for dependence, the powerlessness of black men made it necessary for them to seek those values for themselves.

  Racism and sexism are interrelated just as all forms of oppression are interrelat
ed. Sexism, however, has a reality and significance of its own because it represents that peculiar form of oppression suffered by black women at the hands of black men. It is important to examine this reality of sexism as it operated in both the black community and the black church. We will consider first the black church and secondly the black community to determine to what extent black theology has measured up to its defined task with respect to the liberation of black women.10

  THE BLACK CHURCH AND THE BLACK WOMAN

  I can agree with Karl Barth as he describes the peculiar function of theology as the church’s “subjecting herself to a self-test.” “She [the church] faces herself with the question of truth, i.e., she measures her action, her language about God, against her existence as a church.”11

  On the one hand, black theology must continue to criticize classical theology and the white church. But on the other hand, black theology must subject the black church to a “self-test.” The task of the church, according to James Cone, is threefold: (1) “It proclaims the reality of divine liberation. ... It is not possible to receive the good news of freedom and also keep it to ourselves; it must be told to the whole world....” (2) “It actively shares in the liberation struggle.” (3) It “is a visible manifestation that the gospel is a reality.... If it [the church] lives according to the old order (as it usually has), then no one will believe its message.12 It is clear that black theology must ask whether or not the black church is faithful to this task. Moreover, the language of the black church about God must be consistent with its action.13 These requirements of the church’s faithfulness in the struggle for liberation have not been met as far as the issue of women is concerned.

  If the liberation of women is not proclaimed, the church’s proclamation cannot be about divine liberation. If the church does not share in the liberation struggle of black women, its liberation struggle is not authentic. If women are oppressed, the church cannot possibly be “a visible manifestation that the gospel is a reality”—for the gospel cannot be real in that context. One can see the contradictions between the church’s language or proclamation of liberation and its action by looking both at the status of black women in the church as laity and black women in the ordained ministry of the church.

  It is often said that women are the “backbone” of the church. On the surface this may appear to be a compliment, especially when one considers the function of the backbone in the human anatomy. Theressa Hoover prefers to use the term “glue” to describe the function of women in the black church. In any case, the telling portion of the word backbone is “back.” It has become apparent to me that most of the ministers who use this term have reference to location rather than function. What they really mean is that women are in the “background” and should be kept there. They are merely support workers. This is borne out by my observation that in many churches women are consistently given responsibilities in the kitchen, while men are elected or appointed to the important boards and leadership positions. While decisions and policies may be discussed in the kitchen, they are certainly not made there. Recently I conducted a study in one conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, which indicated that women are accorded greater participation on the decision-making boards of smaller rather than larger churches.14 This political maneuver helps to keep women “in their place” in the denomination as well as as in the local congregations. The conspiracy to keep women relegated to the background is also aided by the continuous psychological and political strategizing that keeps women from realizing their own potential power in the church. Not only are they rewarded for performance in “backbone” or supportive positions, but they are penalized for trying to move from the backbone to the head position—the leadership of the church. It is by considering the distinction between prescribed support positions and the policy-making, leadership positions that the oppression of black women in the black church can be seen more clearly.

  For the most part, men have monopolized the ministry as a profession. The ministry of women as fully ordained clergypersons has always been controversial. The black church fathers were unable to see the injustices of their own practices, even when they paralleled the injustices in the white church against which they rebelled.

  In the early nineteenth century, the Rev. Richard Allen perceived that it was unjust for blacks, free and slaves, to be relegated to the balcony and restricted to a special time to pray and kneel at the communion table; for this he should be praised. Yet because of his acceptance of the patriarchal system, Allen was unable to see the injustice in relegating women to one area of the church—the pews—by withholding ordination from women as he did in the case of Mrs. Jarena Lee.15 Lee recorded Allen’s response when she informed him of her call to “go preach the Gospel”:He replied by asking in what sphere I wished to move in? I said, among the Methodists. He then replied, that a Mrs. Cook, a Methodist lady, had also some time before requested the same privilege; who it was believed, had done much good in the way of exhortation, and holding prayer meetings; and who had been permitted to do so by the verbal license of the preacher in charge at the time. But as to women preaching, he said that our Discipline knew nothing at all about it—that it did not call for women preachers.16

  Because of this response, Jarena Lee’s preaching ministry was delayed for eight years. She was not unaware of the sexist injustice in Allen’s response. “Oh how careful ought we be, lest through our by-laws of church government and discipline, we bring into disrepute even the word of life. For as unseemly as it may appear nowadays for a woman to preach, it should be remembered that nothing is impossible with God. And why should it be thought impossible, heterodox, or improper for a woman to preach, seeing the Saviour died for the woman as well as the man?”17

  Another “colored minister of the gospel,” Elizabeth, was greatly troubled over her call to preach, or more accurately, over the response of men to her call to preach. She said: “I often felt that I was unfit to assemble with the congregation with whom I had gathered.... I felt that I was despised on account of this gracious calling, and was looked upon as a speckled bird by the ministers to whom I looked for instruction ... some [of the ministers] would cry out, ‘you are an enthusiast,’ and others said, ‘the Discipline did not allow of any such division of work.’ ”18 Sometime later when questioned about her authority to preach against slavery and her ordination status, she responded that she preached “not by the commission of men’s hands: if the Lord had ordained me, I needed nothing better.”19 With this commitment to God rather than to a male-dominated church structure, she led a fruitful ministry.

  Mrs. Amanda Berry Smith, like Mrs. Jarena Lee, had to conduct her ministry outside the structures of the A.M.E. Church. Smith described herself as a “plain Christian woman” with “no money” and “no prominence.” 20 But she was intrigued with the idea of attending the General Conference of 1872 in Nashville, Tennessee. Her inquiry into the cost of going to Nashville brought the following comments from some of the A.M.E. brethren:“I tell you, Sister, it will cost money to go down there; and if you ain’t got plenty of it, it’s no use to go”; ... another said:

  “What does she want to go for?”

  “Woman preacher; they want to be ordained,” was the reply.

  “I mean to fight that thing,” said the other.

  “Yes, indeed, so will I,” said another.21

  The oppression of women in the ministry took many forms. In addition to not being granted ordination, the authenticity of “the call” of women was frequently put to the test. Lee, Elizabeth, and Smith spoke of the many souls they had brought to Christ through their preaching and singing in local black congregations, as well as in white and mixed congregations. It was not until Bishop Richard Allen heard Jarena Lee preach that he was convinced that she was of the Spirit. He, however, still refused to ordain her. The “brethren,” including some bishops of the 1872 General Conference of the A.M.E. Church, were convinced that Amanda Berry Smith was blessed with the Spirit of
God after hearing her sing at a session held at Fisk University. Smith tells us that “... the Spirit of the Lord seemed to fall on all the people. The preachers got happy....” This experience brought invitations for her to preach at several churches, but it did not bring an appointment to a local congregation as pastor or the right of ordination. She summed up the experience in this way: “... after that many of my brethren believed in me, especially as the question of ordination of women never was mooted in the Conference.”22

  Several black denominations have since begun to ordain women.23 But this matter of women preachers having the extra burden of proving their call to an extent not required of men still prevails in the black church today. A study in which I participated at Union Theological Seminary in New York City bears this out. Interviews with black ministers of different denominations revealed that their prejudices against women, and especially women in the ministry, resulted in unfair expectations and unjust treatment of women ministers whom they encountered.24

  It is the unfair expectations placed upon women and blatant discrimination that keeps them “in the pew” and “out of the pulpit.” This matter of keeping women in the pew has been carried to ridiculous extremes. At the 1971 Annual Convocation of the National Conference of Black Churchmen,25 held at the Liberty Baptist Church in Chicago, I was slightly amused when, as I approached the pulpit to place my cassette tape recorder near the speaker, Walter Fauntroy, as several brothers had already done, I was stopped by a man who informed me that I could not enter the pulpit area. When I asked why not, he directed me to the pastor who told me that women were not permitted in the pulpit, but that he would have a man place the recorder there for me. Although I could not believe that explanation a serious one, I agreed to have a man place it on the pulpit for me and returned to my seat in the sanctuary for the continuation of the convocation. The seriousness of the pastor’s statement became clear to me later at that meeting when Mary Jane Patterson, a Presbyterian Church executive, was refused the right to speak from the pulpit.26 This was clearly a case of sex discrimination in a black church—keeping women “in the pew” and “out of the pulpit.”