An Introduction To Feminist Theology
By Nicola Slee
Feminist theology, or more properly, theologies, has emerged in modern times as a challenge to the male bias in religion and society as a whole. Although feminist theology has many significant roots in pre-modern history, it has only emerged as a fully conscious movement with its own literature, spokespersons, principles and methods in the past three or four decades. Influenced and empowered by the secular women's movement of the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement in the United States and liberation theology from Latin America, the first critical feminist theological work emerged from the States at the beginning of the sixties and from there spread to Europe and the rest of the globe. We should not assume that the foundations of feminist theology are exclusively white and western. As Kwok Pui-Lan points out, ‘the emergence of white feminist theology in the contemporary period… was embedded in the larger political, cultural, and social configurations of its time’ (Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology, 2002, p. 26). At any rate, within a few decades, feminist theology has become a global movement situated in many settings, and drawing on many different political, philosophical and religious roots to express its concerns and convictions.
Key concepts and principles of feminist theology
There is no one feminism or feminist theology. Feminist theologians come from many different faith traditions, cultures, backgrounds and academic persuasions. Nevertheless, there are certain fundamental principles: broad, underlying convictions which most, if not all, feminists hold, and which underpin and shape feminist theology in its many different guises. All of these are the focus of much critical debate, but it is essential to have some grasp of them if you are to understand what feminism and feminist theology is about.
The structural injustice of sexism
According to feminism, human community is characterised by a basic structural injustice, a distorted relationality between the sexes, such that men as a group have power over women as a group. This basic inequality has characterised all known history, is universal and is enshrined in language, culture, social relations, mythology and religion. The most fundamental feature of this distorted relationality is a pervasive dualism which makes a sharp distinction between perceived male and female roles, characteristics and areas of responsibility, valuing those identified with the male as inherently superior to those identified with the female. For example, masculinity is identified with rationality, power and initiative, whereas femininity is identified with emotion and intuition, weakness and passivity. This dualism is established in the social relations assigned to men and women – men dominate in the public sphere, women in the private, for example – but is ratified at the level of mythology, ritual and theology. The patriarchal God upholds and is at the apex of this dualistic system. God is associated with the male and identified with masculine characteristics such as those already mentioned, and is cast over and against the female.
A key consequence of sexism is androcentrism - the bias of society and culture towards the male, the assumption that the male is norm. Androcentrism functions at every level of human culture and society: in its history, traditions, language, arts, professions, and so on, all of which have been controlled and monopolised by men. A consequence of androcentrism is that women are systematically excluded and obliterated from historical traditions and contemporary thought-forms, and thus rendered invisible to themselves and others.
Sexism and androcentrism are twin features of patriarchy, a much-used concept in feminism which refers to the system of oppression, injustice and exploitation that operates between the sexes. Patriarchy (literally, the power of the fathers) refers to the social system in which sexism operates, a system which is organised entirely on the basis of male domination of women.
The grounding of theology in women's experience
All theology is done on the basis of experience, whether this is acknowledged or not. Most theology in the past has been done almost exclusively from the perspective of male experience; men have been those who have written, taught and preached about the meaning of faith, and women have been excluded from such offices and opportunities that would have allowed them to study the faith. Nevertheless, theology has been ‘gender-blind’: it did not recognise the partiality and bias of its pronouncements, but offered them as universally valid and applicable to all humanity. By insisting on doing theology from the perspective of women's experience, feminists are both calling attention to the androcentrism of previous theology and seeking to redress the imbalance of a religious tradition in which the dominant forms of thought and expression have been owned and controlled by men.
In a much-quoted passage, Rosemary Radford Ruether expresses this principle as follows:
The critical principle of feminist theology is the promotion of the full humanity of women…. Theologically speaking, whatever diminishes or denies the full humanity of women must be presumed not to reflect the divine or an authentic relation to the divine, or to reflect the authentic nature of things, or to be the message or work of an authentic redeemer or a community of redemption. (Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk, 1983, pp. 18-19)
Listening and looking for difference
The need to extend the notion of 'women's experience' beyond simplistic assumptions of an undifferentiated unity of all women everywhere leads to the formulation of this principle. This has become a prominent commitment within recent feminist theory, rooted in the assumption that no matter how much like another human being one person may be, there is always difference present and there is always potential for these differences to change over time. What this means for feminist theology is well expressed by Linda Hogan:
A theology based on women's experience and praxis must of necessity acknowledge and learn to value difference…. A theology based on an understanding of women's experience and praxis, which is sensitive to racial, class and sexual differences among women, must recognise women's 'different primary emergencies' (From Women’s Experience to Feminist Theology, 1995, p. 167).
In other words, feminist theology must beware of making any generalised statements about the meaning of God, the church or Bible for women, since any one woman will be speaking from one particular situation and vantage point, and cannot speak on behalf of all women.
Commitment to liberating and empowering women
Theology must not be isolated in the ivory tower of academia but must take root in the streets and the homes of ordinary women and men, and must be orientated to the transformation of society; and particularly to the liberation and empowerment of women. Theology which has, in the past, fuelled and legitimised women's oppression must now become a tool and resource for women's empowerment. What makes theology feminist according to this principle is not merely the subject matter or content (i.e., theology about women) or the gender of the theologian (i.e., theology by women) but the commitment to doing theology with the specific goal of empowering and liberating women (i.e., theology for women).
This is an edited extract of chapter 1 of Faith and Feminism: An Introduction to Christian Feminist Theology by Nicola Slee (Darton, Longman and Todd, 2003). The book serves as a fuller introduction to feminist theology. This text is designed as a basic but reasonably thorough introduction. See also Nicola’s reading list on the WATCH website: https://womenandthechurch.org/resources/recommended-reading/
Dr Nicola Slee is Director of Research at the Queen’s Foundation for Ecumenical Theological Education, Birmingham. She is the author of numerous texts, including Praying Like a Woman (SPCK, 2004), Women’s Faith Development: Patterns and Processes (Ashgate, 2004), The Book of Mary (SPCK, 2009) and Seeking the Risen Christa (SPCK, 2011). She is an honorary Vice-President of WATCH (Women and the Church), and an Anglican laywoman.
THE IRISH TIMES - 21.8.2017
THE IRISH TIMES - 21.8.2017
A most interesting and much needed piece on Feminist Theology. I trust this topic will elicit a good, positive and calm exchange of views, some which will be controversial others irrational and irrelevant to the topic. In all my years in ministry it is obvious to me that the Church community is primarily kept together by women who are imaginative, faithful, Spirit filled and have a greater sense of caring. When and where possible, I encourage the role of women and allow meaningful roles be given to them. The women I have encounterrd are the quiet prophets whose witness is evident. In a sense, the women I work with alongside men are natural givers , carers and visionaries. Feminism per se tends all too frequently to divide and tear apart the constructive, life giving relationship between men and women. There is a very aggressive feminism that hurts both men and women, a feminism that often places men in a lower capacity. Feminist theology, if truly guided by the Holy Spirit will and should be different. It will see the mutuality of men and women. It will empower women to live out Bsptismal callings, not competitively agsinst men but in a shsred vision of what is best for all God's people. Some of the grestest wisdom I've been given has come from women. Parishes sre enhanced and enriched by women. Women are ddeeply instinctive about knowing the right response to give in particilar situations. Feminist theology, guided by the Holy Spirit will give a balanced, calmer, psprayer filled envisioning of what God is asking of us all at this time! Let's welcome in a conciliatory way a new debate, much needed, on the role of women who deserve more than tokenism. Let feminist theology bring respect to this reflection. The topic does not need ranting and nonsensical blogging or abuse, insult or prejudice.
ReplyDeleteExcellent comment. Your distinction between rampant homophobic feminism (which I saw regularly in former work setting), and true feminism of equality and mutuality, is timely and apt. But I fear the distinction may be lost on some who feel threatened by the concept of equality, or perhaps have only experienced the homophobic aspect.
DeleteMMM
That was a perceptive and thoughtful response with a lot of insight coming from personal experience. Thank you.
DeleteNot clear whether you (Anon @ 11:24) are referring to Anon @ 07:47's comment or my reply to it.
DeleteThis is an example of the comment I've repeatedly made about the difficulty of following anonymous comments and those not making it clear what is being replied or referred to. It's not pedantic: just seeking clarity and avoidance of error!
MMM
To poster MMM
DeleteI am poster 11.24
I was replying to 7.47 but happy enough to apply "perceptive and thoughtful" to your comment at 11.20 without difficulty!
Thanks both for the clarification and the compliment.
DeleteMMM
Jesus was a Man, He is a Man, He is also God. He also called God Father. I am sensing a trend here. Man, Father. Let's take it from the horses mouth.
ReplyDeleteI think God will surprise you when you meet Her.
DeleteGod did not become man... Jesus did .Pat
DeleteSo u or I do not know if God is sexed to any orientation
He cd be gay or bisexual
09:35, there is no sexual (in the physical sense) in God, because... I needn't finish my sentence, need I?
DeleteSo called Femenist Theology is one of the most divisive developments in theology since the reformation. The language employed by feminist theologians seeks tho present the natural sexual differentiation between man and woman as though there was some gigantic invisible wall to be destroyed. It ignores the noble rule and function that women have and are playing in the life of the church. It is clear that an anti-man or more correctly homo phobic (in its proper meaning( agenda is ast work. Yet another device to show division and conflict, and one we can do without.
ReplyDeleteNot all Feminist Theology is as you say.
DeletePeople always fear the new... They are fearful of anything that threatens their traditional position of supremacy.... yes?
Delete@8.46
DeleteI'm afraid you are not correct on a variety of fronts. I'll confine my remarks to just two.
There is no 'proper sense' in which 'homo phobic' means anti-man.
Homo is the Latin word for a human being, whether male or female. If you want to translate the substantive/noun male into Latin the word is vir.
Differentiation does not necessarily imply division. Maritain speaks about deeper differentiation for higher unity.
Why are u differentiating between the sexes pat
ReplyDeleteGet a grip
Theology is theology is theology
It never was sexual
I'm so disappointed with your recent blogs
Don't be disappointed.
DeleteWe are on a journey towards better understanding.
Common Sense is the best denominator. We use words like he and she because that is how we think. There is more beyond this and humanity is more than the sum of it's parts. Favouring one gender over another misses the point. Everyone is a person and that is how we should see and value them. Gender is part of who we are.
ReplyDeleteRevealing that Fr Ray Donovan talks about power, status and the top table.
ReplyDeleteWhat does it reveal (to you)?
DeleteThat he sees ordination in such terms.
DeleteThere is no gender-neutral pronoun in Hebrew, (such as, in English, 'one' in place of 'he' or 'she') though ancient Jewish writings did try to express such neutrality in relation to God through an unofficial linguistic confection.
ReplyDeleteAncient Jewish society was monotheistic AND patriarchal. Unfortunately, the latter made inevitable the expression of God's nature as masculine rather than feminine.
Others, down the centuries, have tried to restore balance to our understanding of God's nature; one such was Julian of Norwich, who referred to God also as 'Mother'.
The continued and deliberate skewing of God's gender (which, not being human, God doesn't possess anyhow) represents a patriarchal politics which has no place in our time.
MC, excellent comment.
DeleteI AM REFUSING TO PUBLISH COMMENTS CALLING MC NAMES AND GOADING HIM INTO RESPONDING IN KIND.
ReplyDeletePat, why are you protecting Magna from deserved opprobrium? He is insufferable. The abuse he hurls at priests is appalling and he believes he has every right to incite hatred of priests and bishops.Come on, get real about this nasty piece of humanity. As has been said so often here, Magna is perniciously crass and "mood swings" so dangerously that he plays loose with the truth. You should dissallow him from further damaging your integrity by tolerating his vile and bitterness. He does no service to the issue being discussed today: the essential and necessary role of women in Church and society. He debases serious issues with a pretentious learning.
Delete12.42 Spot on Pat. Stirring the pot only clouds the issue
DeleteI'm giving up on this blog. You have your tongue way too far up MC's arsehole for my liking Buckley.
DeleteI'm hoping that by not publishing comments insulting MC that he will not submit insulti either, which I'm sure he will.
DeleteI assure you, 14:51, my learning is not pretentious, but here, on this blog, sometimes purposely understated.
Delete@ 17.31
DeleteHa ha, Pat! Loved your Freudian slip... ding ding.... dead on!!
Pat Jesus stood to piss. That's enoughfor me.
ReplyDeleteWhat a vulgar comment, but spot On!!
DeleteLol, dont offend Pats delicate theology!
DeleteHate to put a spoke in your sexist wheel, but German men customarily sit to 'pee'.
DeleteGender custom (sociologically received roles for males and females) and gender genetics are two entirely, and inorganically related, fields.
You may wish to look again at your glib and silly comment.
Excellent reprimand for 12:43's ignorance.
DeleteNonsense. I lived in Munich for 7 years and such a statement is without foundation. Don't imagine be than an authoritative tone adds to a false assertion. Auf Deutschland Männer pissen beim Stehen.
DeleteAre you referring to my post, 14:12? If so, you should have made that clear.
DeleteAs for what I said, I merely repeated what I read somewhere or other. How do you know it's nonsense? Are you privvy to every German male's toilet habit?
I've never met a cheerful, light-hearted feminist theologian.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to be cheerful when you're oppressed.
DeleteHow sad. You are not a theologian though magna.
DeleteThe Lord loves a cheerful giver 2 Corinthian 9:7. Last time I looked membership of the Catholic Church is voluntary. There are plenty of other religious bodies to choose from instead of staying miserabley in the Catholic Church and gurning all the time, as the ACP guys do.
DeleteYou've never "met a cheerful lighthearted feminist theologian"
DeleteClearly, you need to get out more..!
13:43 and 13:47, I'm not sharing a thread with the biblically literate, am I? You wouldn't know Ecclesiastes, then. Chapter 3 vs 1 and 4:
Delete'For everything there is a season...a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance...' .
Even Jesus wept, at the sight of those weeping for the dead Lazarus. (Note he did not weep
because Lazarus was dead, but at the sight of those weeping for him. A highly significant distinction this.)
The Lord loves honesty. If one needs to weep, then one needs to weep. Christianity isn't slowly about giving...in the sense you clearly mean. Weeping when one needs to weep is a form of giving, too: it's called 'honesty'.
The feminist theologians I've met are such wisecrackers as Debra Snoddy, Sr Joan Chittister, various Mercy sisters who haven't been troubled by a novice in decades, and in the political sphere Mary Robinson (such a hoot)and Mary McAleese (what a japester).
DeleteYe gods! From whence was this "feminist" list dug up? You are cracking us up.. �� LOL
DeleteMagna, I was interested in your interpretation of John 11:35 ("Jesus wept"). I think, though, that it is also arguable that the passage in question can be interpreted in other ways. For instance, in the passage, Jesus is moved to anger by the weeping of the crowd - ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι. Embrimomai, the root of enebrimesato (ἐνεβριμήσατο), is a word associated with the expression of anger (cf. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed). His reaction to the weeping of the crowd was anger. His reaction to seeing the tomb of Lazarus causes him to weep - εἶπεν· Ποῦ τεθείκατε αὐτόν; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· Κύριε, ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε. ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. His weeping, it would seem, is brought about by the sight of the tomb more so that the weeping of the crowd. It's also, I think, interesting that the weeping of Jesus is described using a different word (ἐδάκρυσεν) than that used to describe the weeping of Mary and the crowd (κλαίουσαν, κλαίοντας). Klaio (κλαίω) is usually specific to mourning (cf. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed), whereas dakruo (δακρύω) is not specific to mourning and denotes the welling up of tears, and evocative more of sadness than mourning. I think, for me, Brodie* (regardless of his later issues) had a strong interpretation by seeing these two emotional reactions - anger and sadness - as being tied together: anger at the continued lack of faith of the people, sadness at the consequences of the lack of faith, i.e. death, repesented by the tomb of Lazarus.
DeleteI think, more broadly speaking, that your point about the expression of emotions is well made.
*The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, by Thomas L. Brodie
Thank you, Fred, for your wonderfully literate reply. I'm in seventh heaven!
DeleteHere's the 'but': interpretation of this gospel scene should not be solely reliant upon Greek text, but upon the scriptural round (and indeed upon one's experience and understanding of the risen Christ).
For any one to claim definitive understanding of Jesus' reaction here is an arrogance beyond words. And I make no such claim. So you were right to suggest an alternative point of view. Thank you so much.
I believe the Greek indicates that Jesus wept not from anger (though the Greek does express anger), but from the pain that cones from ontological ignorance: human limitation.
Thank you Fred for illuminating the meaning of the Greek, which of course is always the best way to understand it. You also show your academic worth by citing your sources.
DeleteNo doubt as a scholar with several doctorates, Magna will easily be able to produce a source for his own interpretation beyond 'I think'.
20:09 I agree that it would make an unappetising dish. But isn't it funny that the modern Sisters, who adopted the spirit of Vatican II strenuously and arguably in full don't have any novices. LOL. But the traditional sisters do. Not sure that the great experiment worked.
DeleteThe ACP 'lads' as you call them (and lassies) have made a far greater contribution than most groups (I imagine your good self included) to enabling theology engage with modern culture. Long may the likes of Brendan Hoban and Seamus Ahearne continue to do so.
Delete22:05, I don't know which texts you have been reading (or think you have been reading), but I never used the words, 'I think...'
Delete@ 00:07
DeleteThought not.
22:05
Did u see Jesus
ReplyDeletepiss ???
Most older males sit to pee
Some actually can't stand
And some little boys sit to pee.
Sorry to burst yourbubble
Ha ha! Shall I tell you about Saudi Arabian meň?..how they cope in those long white gowns!!
DeleteLol. Very high-powered theological debate I have just stumbled upon here today.. no?
DeleteIf beater of masking comments on how little boys pre. You could be misconstrued add having an unhealthy interest.
Delete@14.41.
DeleteI think we need a translation to get the best from your 'profound' (LOL)comments!!
Sorry Magna to see a poster call you,especially as he typed he was a priest
ReplyDeleteAlso sorry that Pat didn't print my posts berating him about not having a Sunday mass..he really did disappoint.
Also pat you looked tired in that photo
Women must tire u out with their constant chatter and energy
Btw I'm a woman
Thank you.
DeleteFr Pat Sheehan being moved to Glengormley. Diocese changes on the way
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this discussion on feminist theology. I believe it is much needed in the Roman Catholic Church. I also believe we have much to learn from our Anglican brothers and sisters.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Pat we could also hear of your understanding of Eucharistic theology? There has been much confusion over the past number of days for what is the most central part of our faith.
Why did you enjoy a blog about feminist theology
ReplyDeleteAren't you being sexist ?
Isn't theology just that...theology
Indeed, imagine the reaction if masculinist theology was proposed? The farce is that implying that all women think alike or have common interests on the basis of being women is itself sexist, in the way that Womens's Studies can be.
DeleteI was thinking about this earlier.
DeleteI can see nothing wrong with a Masculinist Theology.
In fact the whole notion of what constitutes masculinity, manhood etc, could do with rethinking and reevaluation - in general and in the context of God.
Pat, you hop seamlessly from one topic to another. It's very annoying as you fail to intelligently answer genuine questions and comments. You leave so much hanging in the air, incomplete, confusing and misleading. It appears to me that you have an agenda. When you present blogs re: Catholic Priests, Bishops and the Catholic Church (from your interpretation only) you unleash joyfully a tsunami of vitriol and abuse. But when serious topics are raised, you allow them to be taken over by bloggers who turn them to their own agenda - uttering irrelevant and inane comments. I think you should exercise greater discernment.
DeleteI didn't notice any discussion..
DeleteEven Nicola Slee said that more properly it was...theologies
ReplyDeleteSo go figure
Nope!
DeleteTrue the Rc church is limited in its thinking
ReplyDeleteI'm all for a broad spectrum of Christianity
But to make a song and dance about a woman preacher and actually believe yous were having a Eucharist on Sunday
The mind boggles.
My mind isn't boggling; it has better things to do.
DeleteMagna at 13.26. You are so right. It's hard to be cheerful when you're oppressed! Explains much about yourself. What causes you to be oppressed because you are so "cheerless" and full of anger as evidenced in your comments so frequently? Tell us - we may may be able to help you. When we exercise charity, compassion and reasonableness in our dealings with others, when we give them due respect, when we show tolerance in our differences, when we acknowledge our genuine searching for truth, when we choose to do good for others in imitation of Christ (as Christians), when we see our common humanity, when we look kindly on each other (not condescendingly), generally we find our way to inner peace and joy, content in the truth of God's redeeming and merciful love.
ReplyDeleteDespite your (sometimes obscure) verbosity, I think well of you.
DeleteSe do leim
ReplyDeleteI don't think that feeling oppressed has any relation to non cheerfulness
Anyways u must be a walking saint.
My mind boggled Magna
Just couldn't take in all that goings on at the oratory on Sunday...sorry
When you read through all today's comments in quick succession it's unintentionally like a comedy script. Great craic altogether! Try it if you don't believe me.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you didn't mean to omit it and that you intended implicitly to include it, but I'd like to add that God has become present in the world in children also.
ReplyDelete22.11
ReplyDeleteNo intention of reading this blog though the comments
If that's the best u have o offer......goodnight