‘May it never be said … that we merely stood by’

“Internationally renowned scholar and teacher of Christian social ethics and feminist theory, Beverly Wildung Harrison, died in Transylvania County Community Hospital in Brevard, North Carolina, on December 15, 2012.”

That’s from the tribute posted this week by Union Theological Seminary, where Dr. Harrison taught from 1967 until 1999. There’s a brief tribute at Feminism and Religion, “Mourning the Loss of Beverly Wildung Harrison.” And Caryn Riswold has a remembrance, and some excerpts from Harrison’s writing, appropriately titled “God Bless the Revolution.”

Here’s a bit more, from Harrison’s influential essay, “The Power of Anger in the Work of Love,” from her 1985 book Making the Connections.

There is much more to be said about the environment of the work of radical love within a feminist moral theology that takes its signals from what is deepest and best in women’s historical struggle. Certainly, more also needs to be said about the depth of sin and evil in the world. It is important to remember that a feminist moral theology is utopian, as all good theology is, in that it envisages a society, a world, a cosmos, in which, as Jules Girardi puts it, there are no “excluded ones.” But feminist theology is also mightily realistic, in that it takes with complete seriousness the radical freedom we human beings have for doing good or evil. Since we acknowledge that we have, literally, the power to person-each-other into love — that is, into relationship — we can also acknowledge our power to obliterate dignity, respect, care, and concern for humanity from our world. All of that is within our power.

Far more than we care to remember, though, the evil that we do lives on, after us. The radicality of our vision of love gains its urgency from that very knowledge. The prophets of Israel were right to insist, long ago, that the sins of the fathers (and the mothers) live on in us, corroding and destroying the power of relation. This is why our human moral task sometimes seems overwhelming. We live in a time when massive and accumulated injustice, acted out over time, encounters answer in the rising anger of those whose dignity and life are being threatened by collective patterns of privilege that have to be undone. In a world such as this, actively pursuing the works of love will often mean doing all we can to stop the crucifixions, resisting the evil as best we can, or mitigating the suffering of those who are the victims of our humanly disordered relations. In the midst of such a world, it is still within the power of love, which is the good news of God, to keep us in the knowledge that none of us were born only to die, that we were meant to have the gift of life, to know the power of relation and to pass it on.

A chief evidence of the grace of God — which always comes to us in, with, and through each other — is the power to struggle and to experience indignation. We should not make light of our power to rage against the dying of the light. It is the root of the power of love. So may it never be said of any of us feminist theologians that we merely stood by, ladylike, when that power of love was called for or that we sought refuge in an Otherworld when we were needed here and now, in the line of march.

"Like it says in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God..." therefore it's ..."

Romans 13 and the Gettysburg Address
"Given that the word "Southern" in front of a denomination name pretty much means "We ..."

Romans 13 and the Gettysburg Address
"Republicans don't have a a good understanding of small-r republican government.EDIT: for instance, Donald, small-r ..."

Romans 13 and the Gettysburg Address

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • A chief evidence of the grace of God — which always comes to us in, with, and through each other

    So, uh… what does it say about me that my first thought on reading this was to remember Pitch Black, the scene when Riddick comes back.

  • Madhabmatics


    *stuffs u in locker*

  • Lliira

    Being a feminist historian, I’ve read some mighty dense tomes in my day. Feminist historians are nowhere near as difficult to understand as Marxist or, worst of all, Freudian historians, but things can get pretty confounding all the same. Historians are much better at writing clearly and concisely than they used to be, but we still have to plunge into stuff written by historians in 1982 and decipher it. So I am embarrassed to say that I have literally no clue what she is saying here:

    “Since we acknowledge that we have, literally, the power to person-each-other into love — that is, into relationship”

    Huh? It sounds like New Age gobbledygook, but obviously she wasn’t a New Age gobbledygook type of person, so… huh? Maybe I’d have a clue if I read the whole essay?