by Kate Hanch
I received some feedback from people wanting to know more about Christian feminisms. Oftentimes, Christian feminisms are harmfully characterized or dismissed as secondary. I hope to provide a brief survey about why I think Christian feminist theologies are vital to the Christian faith.
Just like there are many denominations and streams of theologies, there are multiple Christian feminisms. My professors, along with the plethora of voices coming from Christian feminisms, continue to remind me of this reality. Thus, it’s probably best to say “Christian feminisms” over “Christian feminism.” My voice isn’t representative of a singular Christian feminism.
For many Christian feminisms, language matters. Oftentimes, we use certain language, pronouns, metaphors, etc., without realizing far reaching ramifications. Language forms thought and culture, and vice versa. Only using male language to describe the divine limits imaginative possibilities of who the Triune God is, and could close minds to the working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of God’s people. The bible gives us a multiplicity of metaphors in describing God, and ultimately, as Sallie McFague reminds us, all language is metaphorical. While some metaphors don’t need to be discarded altogether, they need to be utilized with care and discernment, subverting harmful interpretations.
While men can’t be feminists, they can be sympathetic to feminist causes. This might seem offensive to some. But, as Mary Hinsdale notes, men don’t have the lived experience that could make them a feminist. The caution in men claiming to be feminists is the history of patriarchy and misappropriation of women by men. If men claim the title for themselves, they could begin to identify it based upon their own experiences, and unintentionally uphold some values that keep harmful patriarchal structures in place. Men can learn from Christian feminists, advocate for Christian feminist causes, teach Christian feminisms in their churches and schools, and study the work of Christian feminism.
Christian feminisms have political ramifications. By political, I mean that they function to critique larger structural systems. For example, Christian feminisms may question lack of affordable child care or quality maternal health. In the church, Christian feminisms query liturgical practices or church governance, especially when they limit the roles of women in the life of the church and inhibit the flourishing of all.
Just because one is a Christian woman, one is not necessarily a Christian feminist. Christian feminism is something that’s claimed, and it’s a commitment to the flourishing of women.
Christian feminisms aren’t just for the academics or clergy. Christian women who may be wary of the designation of Christian feminisms may do things that reflect Christian feminisms’ values, such as advocate for the homeless or make meals for the sick. I know of a church where the older women in the congregation spearheaded efforts to make the church more green. They advocated for people to bring their own coffee cups to worship, and brought real plates and silverware for potluck dinners and community gatherings. While they wouldn’t identify as Christian feminists, their concern for the earth (and future generations) reflect Christian feminists’ commitment to the flourishing of all humanity.
Women have been a part of theological construction and guiding the church since the days of Jesus. While it would be anachronistic to apply Christian feminist titles to women in history, women have had valuable roles to play in theological construction. In the 11th century, Hildegard von Bingen strongly influenced the pope, wrote hymnody still utilized today, and risked excommunication to provide pastoral care. Seventeenth century Mexican nun Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz wrote theological poems and essays, and advocated for the education of women. Sojourner Truth’s legacy of preaching as an itinerant, advocating for abolition and women’s rights, and working to provide jobs and assistance for African Americans is astounding in the 1800s United States. Her famous “Aren’t I a Woman” speech continues to have lasting influence.
Christian feminisms continue to go grow as critiques and challenges arise. Christian feminisms do not occupy a static space. Critiques serve as a growing edge for Christian feminisms.
Christian feminist theologies cannot be seen as an appendage to mainstream theologies. ALL THEOLOGY IS CONTEXTUAL but not relative. Being aware of one’s context allows the consideration of one’s biases, and, with the help of the Holy Spirit, allows one to speak, act, and think about the Triune God in ways that are care-full and just. To identify Christian feminist theologies as appendages to, for example, Paul Tillich or N.T. Wright, implicitly upholds patriarchal structures where men are the dominant voices and women are supplementary. Of course, these theologians can and should be consulted, but with the awareness and reality that they are only one out of many voices who give witness to the Triune God.
A Few Resources reflecting Christian Feminisms (Again, this is a partial list and doesn’t necessarily cover the diversity of Christian feminisms)
New Feminist Christianity: Many Voices, Many Views. (I recommended it in the last blog post).
Aquino, Maria Pilar and Maria Jose Rosado-Nunes, ed. Feminist Intercultural Theology: Latina Explorations for a Just World.
Kwok Pui-lan, Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Theology.
Kelly Brown Douglas, What’s Faith Got to do With it?
Elizabeth Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse.
Online resources:
“The Future of Catholic Feminist Theology”, a lecture on YouTube with Prof. Mary Hinsdale.
Faithinfeminism.com This site explores multiple faiths’ intersection with feminism, and is not limited to Christianity.
@Kate: Very informative and helpful. I hadn’t really thought about men using the word “feminist” in a way that could co-opt it, but that is a insightful point that I’m glad you shared.
“If you don’t know history, then you don’t know anything. You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is part of a tree. ”
Madame Kate Hanch I would like to thank the reading of this text. And I take this opportunity to extend my hand and offer you a suggestion about one book wrote by Edouard Schuren – The Great Initiates. In this book you will can view the origin of the feminism christian and much more since of the remote times with another names and persons behind of them. All the best.
Kate, I appreciate this conversation. I too only seek to be sympathetic toward Christian feminists. The dialogue is indeed inviting.
What Christ a feminist?
I don’t claim to be a feminist, though I empathize with those working that garden. I know I struggle to avoid over-simplifications, so, I’ll put this in the form of questions. Since feminists consider words to be very important, shouldn’t we take special care in how we use the word Christian? If Paul’s words in Gal. 3:28 are considered God’s words, that “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” don’t they mean a bit more than they can if males can’t be Christian feminists? (I realize the passage is rooted in a patriarchic tradition btw) Christian feminism doesn’t simply intend to transcend scriptural tradition altogether does it? Isn’t the logical implication in this case (if males can’t be Christian feminists) that either men can’t be feminists or feminists can’t be Christian? To put it simply: can a religious spiritual movement that excludes nearly half of those who claim the name of Christ be Christian? Words do indeed have great meaning.
I’m curious about hyphenated labels, so I’m very curious about the idea of a ‘Christian feminist’. I’m not hostile to the idea par se, but believe ‘truth bears scrutiny’ so would like to better understand how this works rationally.
I can understand the debate about whether or not a man can be a feminist since that begs questions about the definition of ‘feminism’. Some feminists might abide restrictive definitions that exclude males, whereas others place the emphasis on what feminism means as a world view. Nevertheless feminism is still a ‘world-view’. The idea of ‘world-view’ arises from ‘worldly-view’ so debates about whether or not a male can be a feminist does not hinge upon the idea that it is impossible for a man to hold views (such as views on social equality) which are deemed feminist.
More fundamentally though, is a question about whether the Christian label and the feminist label are compatible and can be hyphenated. Christianity claims to be something more than a ‘world-view’. Christ’s own claims were that Christianity is a ‘countra-world view’ (because Christ exposed its evil [John 7:7; 15:18-19])
Christ gave us the Gospel. The Gospel, according to Christ, is contra-worldly and supposedly supra-natural. Human feminists (of the 19th/20th century) gave us feminism. Feminism is obviously worldly and absolutely natural. Can these two unlike things actually mix?
I’m assuming a Christian feminists would say ‘yes’ this is defensible. However even if it is defensible on the grounds that there might be ‘intellectual overlap between the two’ the Gospel’s purpose is to solve the problem of separate between God and those created in His image, whereas feminism’s purpose is more down-to-earth (solve an imagined problem between genders). Why is hyphenation necessary?
Does Christ’s message need improvement by having feminism added to it? Or perhaps its that feminism need improvement by having Christianity legitimize it? Either way the hyphen says that one is not complete without the other.
(Conditional) If Christ were a feminist, and Christianity was Christ’s message, Christian feminism could be simply called ‘Christianity’ since feminism was automatically implied. That feminism is denoted with a hyphen suggests that it isn’t automatically implied. If feminism was a Christian doctrine by default (despite its obvious emphasis on ‘humanism’) no one would have to preface it with “Christian-“.
On the whole, I offer comments, not to be critical, but to better understand the synthesis between apparently different perceptions (or no hyphen would be needed). Either these two perspectives overlap, in which case the goal of feminism matches Christ’s goals of reconciling God to His saints, or they don’t. If they don’t doesn’t that present a case where the Christian cannot serve two masters?
@rrwilson147: this is related to the ongoing tension between universality and particularly. The witness of scripture and the doctrine of the trinity speak to both. I find that when differences are not named or when they are lumped into a universal category, nothing really changes. To paraphrase a bumper sticker, I will drop the term Christian feminist when patriarchal attitudes and structures no longer exist.
@katehanch13: don’t think I quite follow what you are alluding to with the “universality and particular[it]y” dynamic. It seems to me that Christianity as The Universal can with some effort be particularized as feminist (despite its partriarchic narrative), but that particular strands of feminism (ie., at least those that exclude males as proper participants) can’t be universalized. Am I mistaken?
BTW, I mentioned this “Christian-feminist” idea that males can’t be considered valid feminists to my daughter tonight, and as a mature secular feminist she was a bit surprised and definitely disagreed with the idea as not corresponding with her experience.
@rrwilson147 I think you’re on the right track with the universal/particular dynamic. The universal truth of the Christian message does not erase, but celebrate differences. Paul’s analogy of the body and the church is a helpful one here. The idea that men can’t be feminists is an old one. It doesn’t mean that men can’t be influenced or advocate for Christian feminism, and it doesn’t mean that feminists exclude men altogether (Elizabeth Johnson, for example, utilizes Augustine and Aquinas in her work), but it does mean that we must be careful with titles and appropriations. To make a comparison, many churches claim to be egalitarian, but fail to actually live out that practice, maybe asking a woman to preach once a year out of tokenism. Are they really egalitarian? Do they have that “lived experience” that makes them such?
Dr. Hinsdale, in her YouTube lecture mentioned above, explains it much better than me. (I think it’s during the Q&A time).