Paul BurkhartMale Feminist Theology: a Vision; a Proposal

I sat in my first ever counseling appointment in an office that was connected to my first

seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Not having met my assigned

counselor before, I now settled into the chair across from the center’s newest staff member: a

young, unmarried white male who had been in my Hebrew class. His only counseling training

was at John MacArthur’s incredibly conservative school in California. I walked him through my

chronic social anxiety issues. He asked about my family. I told him about my rough childhood

with parents always fighting, and my Southern Baptist Church’s offering no support. My mother

had eventually stopped going to church altogether (but maintained her faith) because of the

endless line of congregants and pastors giving empty platitudes, keeping distance and telling her

things might change if she just “submitted” more and had more sex with my Dad. As I was

telling this story, the counselor stopped me mid-sentence:

“Wow, I can totally see it. Your anxieties and difficulties come from your childhood

being raised in a household where there was a loss of biblical authority and the destructive spirit

of feminism.”

He gave me a “prescription” to pray every day over the next two weeks and journal about

it before coming back (yes, seriously). I never went back.

But let’s rewind a bit. A few months before this session, I found myself standing on the

side patio of the administrative building with a classmate of mine, talking. Recently, I had

started questioning my long-entrenched view of male-dominated leadership and

complementarianism, and I didn’t know how to process it. I asked my friend—himself going

through changes and maturations more profound than my own—his thoughts. He told me that he

definitely saw in Scripture a progression, a trajectory leading to more and more inclusion of

women into leadership. He said that this was most evidenced by Baptism. To read the

Testaments together, one can see how, for thousands of years, circumcision was the single

biggest identity marker for the people of God. It was the sign that you were a full, visible,

participating member of God’s chosen people. It was also, perhaps, the single most “male-

exclusive” sign one could possibly have. We are so far removed from the first century; we

cannot have any grasp on just how dramatic it must have been for this sign of God’s covenant to

move from circumcision to baptism—as universally applicable of a sign as you could get!

And it was in this moment that things started to shift; as I saw the movement in Scripture

of a radical inclusion of women in light of Jesus, where previously there was none. It was here

that the battle line was drawn, and I have not gone back since.

So yeah. Like I said. I didn’t go back to the counselor railing against feminism and a

“lack of biblical authority” being my “problem”.

And yet the process is not done. One can change their mind on issue, but true progress is

when we pull that one strand of yarn to see how it necessarily shapes and affects the rest of the

knot. When it comes to women in the church, if one’s consciousness has truly been raised to the

issue, then they must see how far and deep and wide patriarchy’s reach goes—even into our

theology itself. As liberation and feminist theologians have reminded us time and time again,

there no such thing as a “neutral” theology (Japinga 1999, 18). All theology arises out of the

experience, personality, culture, and time of the theologian. There is no “objective” or “standard”

theology from which “feminist theology” is a diversion. When we talk like that, what we have in

mind is more akin to “white theology” or “male theology”.

So what does a straight white cisgender male who wants to support the cause of feminism

do with his theology? What does feminism have to say when a man, like myself, steeped in

nothing but Western androcentric theological constructs wants to have a theological method that

is inclusive of the feminist experience and critique? What sort of theology can a man do that

doesn’t simply appropriate the theology of women into his own, as one more patriarchal act of

theological colonialism? In the pages to follow, I want to make an attempt to set forth a male

feminist theological method.

Our project must begin with an exploration of the theos of our theology: “God”, which is

the name that Christians give to the underlying mystery of the universe (Fletcher 2005, 102-104).

Because this Divine One is ultimately a profound mystery, the reality is that our understanding of

this God (even in spite divine revelation) will be fragmented, partial, and paradoxical at times.

Therefore, it is my contention that while attempting to stay true to the revelation we have been

given we should feel a radical freedom to cast and recast our theological articulations—the facets

of the theological diamond through which we minister and worship—in whatever terms that

serve the realities of God’s Kingdom in the context in which we find ourselves now. And the

current context in which we find ourselves is one in which God’s daughters have been oppressed,

abused, marginalized, silenced, and kept out of our traditions—both ecclesially and scripturally.

Thus men who desire to take on a male feminist theological method should feel the freedom and

the responsibility to employ what Cristina Traina calls the “preferential option for women”,

wherein we prioritize the voices and experiences of women within our ways of knowing,

including in our theology (41). In this paper, we will go through the cardinal doctrines of

Christian faith, ending with a section on the ethical implications of these theological

articulations.

Passion: A Theology of God, Creation, and Humanity

A Suffering & Reconciling God

As a male feminist, I hold to a God that suffers in the Divine nature and character from

eternity past. This has been proposed before, and the primary critique is that it is an “Open” or

“Process” view of God in which the God who is biblically described as “never changing” is

subjected to the cataclysmic change of suffering (Brown and Parker, 14-19). But the view

offered here is not an Open view. God’s nature and work (an expression of this nature) is

inherently telic. It has a goal towards which it is moving. But it is a “movement” that could be no

other way. It is who God has been, is, and forever will be. What is the “shape” of God’s nature?

It is suffering unto life and shalom. God’s very nature is one that begins in suffering and leads to

new life within itself, not unlike the female process of childbirth. This Divine “shape” overflows

into to Trinitarian begetting, procession, and perichoresis, as well as the Divine creative, “new

life” impulses of Creation, election, Incarnation, Resurrection, and New Creation.

Some critics of this view say that if this is God’s Nature, it doesn’t hold any resources for

liberating women from their oppression. But this is why we need to say that God’s suffering

nature is not “simply” suffering—it is “Suffering-Unto-Shalom”. We must not say one without

the other. This God seeks to bring all things into Communion and solidarity with her own telos

of life and shalom.

For a male feminist, theology must start from this place where the suffering of women is

not something “foreign” to the otherwise distant, Kingly God. This conception of God cannot be

identified with patriarchal identifications of power at the expense and marginalization of others

(Johnson 2001, 134-135). A male feminist theology must begin with a God who—within her

nature—experiences solidarity with women, not “merely” or “incidentally” as a result of other

subsequent acts or sovereign decisions.

A Dying & Rising Christ

Just as the Godhead itself is Suffering-Unto-Life, so are each of its members. The Son is

the lamb that has been slain since eternity past (1 Peter 1:18-21; Revelation 13:8). The Cross of

Jesus is an expression of the eternal truth of the Suffering God breaking into our world; it is not a

worldly experience “added to” the Divine Nature (now this would be an Open view!). In Christ

and the Incarnation, God is shown as one who identifies with and sides with the marginalized,

and those that suffer under the powers and principalities of the world (Kwok 2005, 168-171). It

shows how God comprehensively embraces human weakness and fallenness within history, and

not just in a set of intentions or ideas. A further insight from this is that Scripture repeatedly says

that this world was created “through” Jesus, this dying and suffering (and rising) Child.

Therefore it bears those very marks of suffering and death (unto new life). The marginalization

and oppression of women are not anomalies, but are actually them partaking in the Divine

Sufferings-Unto-Shalom echoing throughout creation. Remember: partaking and communing in

this Divine Nature does not end with suffering, injustice, and oppression, but rather life, justice,

and shalom. A male feminist sees in Christ a God who defers to the marginalized, and assumes

that those peoples are the first and primary recipients of the effects of Christ’s work and

salvation. The male feminist shows the same priority in ministry.

A Grieving & Comforting Spirit

This Suffering-Unto-Shalom nature of God is found even in the Spirit. From eternity

past, we see this Spirit has been fluttering over chaos itself (Johnson 1993, 44). She is found

wherever there is need for life, creative energy, or restoration (41-45). This Spirit is the means by

which God brings the life of Creation and Humanity into Communion with the Suffering-unto-

Life God. What God the Parent ordained, the Child accomplished, the Spirit makes real within

the nitty-gritty of on-going human life and suffering. The Spirit is the Person of God most

acquainted—most near—to the heart and depth of human, societal, and creational pain, suffering,

and injustice. Where there is pain and injustice, this is where the life of the Spirit is most richly

felt. This Spirit grieves, groans, and suffers along with the world—especially women and other

marginalized peoples. But just as with the other members of the Godhead, this suffering does not

stay there. The descriptions of the Spirit as both Creator and Comforter show the all-

encompassing communal and mutual reality of the life of the Spirit in the world. She is in all

things and brings all things into the Divine experience. She brings healing, life, creation, and

communion to the world She created and the people whom She has constituted. By definition,

then, the Spirit is most known and (in a sense) is most Herself in those places and communities

that need the most comfort and creative energy in the midst of chaos. A male feminist, then,

carries the assumption that the Spirit is most tangible, most at work, and most deeply known in

communities of suffering and marginalization, namely women.

Further, a male feminist also sees the doctrine of Scripture as part of the doctrine of the

Spirit, and not of God the Father. Typically, Systematics start with God and his unknowability,

and then moves to his revealing acts in Creation, Scripture, and Jesus. But this over-emphasizes

the abstract, “other-worldly” ways God is known, over and above the embodied, grounded ways

God speaks. This emphasis keeps theology—and other sources of Divine revelation and

authority—disconnected from both Creation and women: two things that are often intimately

associated with each other in both the Bible and philosophy (12-16). Male feminists must treat

Divine revelation as part of the doctrine of the Spirit in order to emphasize the “breathedness” of

Scripture. We do this to focus in on the active role the Spirit plays in using Scripture to reveal

God—not by displaying God purely in himself, but through the words of people responding to

him in real life and community (Plaskow, 36-52). God never arrived in the world in her full

“God-ness”. Rather, the Spirit is God’s breath within Revelation. Seeing it this way emphasizes

the “bottom-up” nature of Scripture. Clothed in cultural forms, the Spirit uses Scripture in

various communities in various ways to show God differently (Kwok, 2005, 74-82; Hill-Fletcher

2005, 82-96). Taking this articulation of the Spirit as a guide, the male feminist sees the

oppression of women as an imperative for creative action and comforting solidarity with them.

A Groaning & New Creation

The world, having been created by and through a suffering God, participates in the life

and structures of sin and injustice as well. It is no coincidence that Creation has been thought of

as having a solidarity and identification with the feminine. The rocks cry out, the trees clap their

hands, and all creation knows its creator, and this Creator is a Spirit who is woven into the depths

of pain and oppression. Those who know pain and oppression are also those closest to the earth

(Hinze 2001, 47-52). There is a mutual solidarity that oppressed peoples experience with this

Creation, and that Creation itself expresses for those people (Johnson 1993, 29-40). And yet,

looking into the history promised for the cosmos, we see a New Creation. The labor pains will

give way to birth (Romans 8). And as Creation is ushered into New Life, it will bring those with

whom it shares its deepest painful mutuality: the sufferers and victims of the world, especially

women.

Within this Creation, there also exists (in Paul’s wprds) “powers and principalities” that

are made evident in corporate entities (like societies, culture, and the Church) and institutions

within society. Sin and injustice gets expressed from within the structures that humans create to

order their relations. The problem is, their attempts to order relations is not unto life and shalom

(moving against the very rhythm and Nature of God), and therefore these structures formed from

the created world by humans lead to the oppression of the earth and other communities,

especially women. God’s work in this world is intended to bring it into a Newness of Life—even

by way of and within these structures and institutions. Christians are meant to live as the “future”

people of God, in the present.

Taking these things in mind, the male feminist refuses to create the false distinction or

hierarchy between humanity and creation. He seeks a mutuality among all persons and the world.

He actively works against the structures and systems that keep women enslaved and seek to

express his mutuality with them and the earth in his deference and preference to their voice.

A Broken & Freed Humanity

Within cosmic history, we can see how human relations became so dysfunctional.

Brought about by Evolution, a process driven by death and “the will to power”, we see very real

natural sex differences between biological men and women (Jones 2000, 27-29). Early on in

hominid development, we see how these physical disparities have led to violence against and

silencing of women. On this foundation, we have whole civilizations built by and for a

perpetuation of these male power structures. Governments and religions end up being written,

edited, and transmitted by men, for men, in patriarchal cultures. This has marginalized women

from much of human ordering, especially in those places of greatest societal concern, including

the Church (Japinga 1999, 75-78). A male feminist theology can have a range of opinions on

whether gender identity is essential or constructed (84; Jones 2000, 22-23). But in my view,

humanity has real natural and biological limitations that are not mere accidents. At the very least

they have necessary implications for how societies construct gender identities. For this reason, I

find a “strategic essentialist” view is most helpful (42-48). It identifies how gender has been

socially constructed, but does so in a way that pragmatically and constructively critiques rather

than simply deconstructing to the point of meaninglessness and disempowerment. It critiques

what we have while acknowledging it’s all we have to go on (Japinga 1999, 80-84).

Another feminist insight to remember though, is that whatever humans are in and of

themselves, our “selves” change over time and are formed and constituted in their relation to one

another—one’s very being is dependent on mutual social embodiment (Fletcher-Hill 2005, 95-

99). Further, feminist perspectives, having been denied the sort of power and privilege that can

narrow and distort one’s view of human life, can actually give us what can be considered the

fullest and truest account of humanity as a whole—not just women (Traina 40-41). To attend to

feminism is to attend to one’s own soul and being, no matter your gender identity.

A male feminist also participates in personal and communal lament over the situation of

women in history and Christian tradition (Plaskow 28-36). A male feminist assumes the validity

and reality of female perspectives on their experience. He understands that he is unable to know

her experience fully and can only defer to it. He seeks not to critique or assess feminism for any

other reason than to embrace it all the more deeply, to understand it all the more well, and enact

it all the more comprehensively. Socially, a male feminist seeks the full expression of women’s

humanity in all places of society in which they have been silenced or disempowered. He will

create space for them, but will not relate to them on the basis of his power and privilege. He will

attempt to become increasingly conscious of this privilege and will seek to move against it.

Peace: A Theology of Sin & Salvation

Sin

Just as with one’s theology of God, there are a myriad of views on sin that are ultimately

faithful to Scripture. And yet, depending one’s context and communal needs, different emphases

are more important at some times than others. Thinking in terms of a male feminist theological

method, sin should be defined as “anything that goes against the ground of one’s being, which is

the ‘Suffering-Unto-Life-and-Shalom God’”. The view on Scripture articulated above allows for

maintaining a high authority of Scripture while still assenting to the scientific consensus on

biological evolution. If that is the case, then on the topic of sin’s “origin”, one can say that there

was no “Fall”, no “historical Adam” in whom we all sinned, and no “fault” of Eve that has

carried through the generations. Rather, in line with the Suffering-Unto-Shalomic God through

whom the world came to be, we can say that Creation was started in a state of “un-shalom” (this

is not a moral statement; it is not that the world was created in sin, just that it began in a different

state than it will end), and “history” is the process by which God is guiding this world and

humanity into ever-increasing communion with him, which is New Life and Shalom. Therefore,

“sin” is any personal, societal, creational, or even cosmic thing that works against this telos—this

end for which all things came to be. A male feminist, then, moves away from “sin” in a legal

sense and begins identifying it among human relations, structures, and cultures.

Atonement

How does God respond to human sin and depravity? Through the atoning work of Christ.

We first freely admit that Atonement is a multi-faceted mystery (Japinga 1999, 126). And yet,

individuals must at times and in certain modes consciously give priority to certain views over

others, no matter their preference, in order to serve the needs of the Kingdom. A male feminist,

in service to the needs of women in God’s world, must see the atoning work of Jesus as a process

by which he brings all suffering and brokenness into communion with himself, but only so that

in the mysterious alchemy of the Cross, it might be changed into flourishing shalom and

liberating life. In other words, the Cross translates the painful life of the world into the very life

of God, thereby making injustice, sin, death, pain, marginalization, and oppression into the very

places where (by the Spirit) liberating, Resurrection Life can show through. Death and

oppression do not have the last word. (125-125).

The Doctrine of the Church can be placed under this heading. In this view, the Church is

a community that models this atonement, seeking to turn personal and societal death and chaos

into life and shalom by expressing absolute solidarity with suffering and pain and—trough their

own cruciformity—being the place in which that “alchemy” now takes place. This leads to

security, comfort, and unconditional acceptance (Russell 48-55) within the community of faith.

Atonement is moving pain onto the path to life. The church does this through validation,

empathy, and solidarity. It also does it by exalting women to places of esteem in the community

and consciously and prophetically moving against the structures, systems, culture, and policies

that perpetuate patriarchal injustice.

Praxis: Scripture & an Ethics of Liberation

Scripture: Hermeneutical Methods

Due to the history of the biblical text and the way that the Spirit has chosen to reveal God

through human words—even patriarchal ones—it is not a simple process to interpret and apply

Scripture and classical theology in today’s day and age. We find Lynn Japinga’s chapter on

“Feminist Perspectives on the Bible” to be of immense help in demonstrating the dual impulses

that all feminists—even male ones—must employ when approaching Scripture: trust and

suspicion (1999, 35-53). Further, we also hold to Monica Schaap Pierce’s summary of Japinga’s

methodology in her lecture given on January 7th, 2015 entitled “Feminism and the Bible”. First,

we must maintain a certain suspicion of the patriarchal nature of the text, working to become

conscious of the ways that women have been excluded from the textual tradition. Second, we do

acts of remembrance, in which we focus on and exalt those stories of women that we do find in

the Bible. Lastly, we work for acts of retrieval, where we look into Christian history to find

empowerment and voice for marginalized women.

Ethics: Social Critical Realism

For a male feminist, applying these theological principles in everyday life, means one

must navigate between two primary ethical concerns: autonomy and mutuality (Farley 2006,

211-215). A male feminist ethical method has met the consideration for autonomy when it has

created space for women, deferred to their experience of reality and society, and given voice to

their concerns that have been silenced in all other places and times. Mutuality is accomplished

when women’s voices are included in conversations that would otherwise be male-dominated,

when men actually embody solidarity with women, and when feminist concerns are prioritized in

a communal context.

As for a way of discerning ethical issues that serve feminist ends, I propose following the

three-fold division of feminist ethical methods articulated by Cristina Traina (24-48). I start with

a Liberalist telos and goals: holding fast to the idealistic, utopian, and (perhaps,

even) naïve strain within me that believes there are higher principles by which to judge “the

good” and “the right”. In this sense, I think all Christians must be ethical Liberals to some extent.

We hold to a transcendent moral imperative that is in spite of the “facts on the ground”. The

imperative is bigger than history, situation, or culture. Yes, it’s been abused. But through on-

going discussion and engagement, we can refine this.

And yet, like I said, this is ultimately idealistic and unrealistic. This is why, even as I

cling to that hopeful zeal, I must have a Naturalist grounding. My liberalism must be tempered

by hardened realism, by way of philosophical Naturalism. This says that I can have as many lofty

assumptions about The Good and The Right, but in the end, even those pursuits and the

definitions thereof are limited by Nature. We have limits and realities that smack us in the face as

we strive for more. We must acknowledge we are limited and finite. We cannot exceed the

bounds within which we are set.

Lastly, even as I do this dance between Liberalism and Naturalism, I occasionally need to move

over to a Social Constructivist critique in order to keep my conclusions provisional and open to change.

The ethical method I propose for male feminists would be this: pursue the goals of Liberalism

within the bounds of Naturalism; and as we do so, continually engage in Social Constructivism

to critique our own conclusions. The Liberalism gives life and transcendence to a potentially

deterministic and injustice-perpetuating Naturalism, while the Social Constructivism keeps the

entire enterprise fresh.

Practice Makes Imperfect?

To conclude, I would like to make what I hope is a prophetic call. Having articulated a

male feminist theological vision and some ideas for applying it philosophically, I want to end

with a call to men who desire to take on the cause of women. I want to do this through some

incredibly practical, grounded suggestions to start the path forward.

As individuals, male feminists will actively seek spaces in which they act restoratively

and reparatively to bring healing in the places of injustice. They will participate in

consciousness-raising techniques for themselves and others in order to bring awareness of this

reality to those still seeped in their own power and privilege. Again, this will include continuing

to raise their own awareness. One of the largest critiques of male feminists today is the fact that

they become just as patriarchal and unjust in their confidence that they “get it” while others do

not. Male Christian feminists will engage in talking about the Divine in feminine terms. They

will do this neither ironically, nor with an implied wink-and-a-nod to their own enlightenment,

but as genuine worship to their God. To this end, and more importantly, they will actually

engage with the Divine Herself in feminine terms. Not only their public speech, but also their

private prayers, journaling, devotionals, and religious thoughts and meditations will consciously

engage God in feminine language, listening to and for the feminine voice of God to us.

As male feminists live and move and work societally, they will work on multiple fronts

for the cause of women. Culturally, they will perform active and conscious resistance against

norms and mores that perpetuate patriarchy. Politically, they will do prophetic engagement with

feminist priorities. This may mean advocating or voting for political issues that they themselves

disagree with, but respect the space of women to decide for themselves. Economically, male

feminists should use their money and social engagement toward supports for women and

families.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there is much work to do in the Church. Male

feminists leading in a church context should have conscious, overt, purposeful, and public

inclusion and priority of women in every single role in the church. If there are not qualified or

desiring women, then the openness to do so should be full-throated and well-known. There

should be explicit overturning of usual gender binaries by men in theology and ethos. For

example, “men’s retreats” might not have the usual “sports, drinking, smoking, etc.” that is

expected of masculine, patriarchal culture; when talking about theologically “masculine” topics

like judgment and sovereignty, perhaps using feminine names for God during the discussion

could open up these theological ideas. Male Christian feminists should express corporate,

institutional solidarity with feminist concerns and issues, both local and global. There should be

inclusive language in both worship and theological articulation. The Bible translations used in

the Church’s life, the songs they sing, and the liturgies they use, should be self-consciously

inclusive and diverse in their language for the Divine and humanity. And lastly, male feminists

in a Christian context should be conscious of the terminology they use for speaking of their

fellow Christians who are women, considering the ethical foundations above. For example, “Co-

Heirs” or “God’s Daughters” would stress their autonomous reception of the full benefits of

Christ and his church, while “Sisters” would stress the mutuality and familial relationality and

solidarity that exists among male feminists and women.

In this essay, a male feminist theological method including ethical applications has been

articulated and discussed. The hope is that this would be the beginning of a robust discussion by

women and men wanting to be in solidarity with them about how God might work in, for, and

through them all for the good of all humanity, ushering their suffering selves into the New Life

of shalom and equality.

Works CitedBrown, Joanna Carlson, and Rebecca Parker. "For God So Loved the World?" 1-30. n.d.

Farley, Margaret. "Framework for a Sexual Ethic: Just Sex." In A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, by Margaret Farley, 207-233. New York: Continuum International Pub. Group, 2006.

Hill-Fletcher, Jeannine. "We Are All Hybrids." In Monopoly on Salvation?: A Feminist Approach to Religious Pluralism, by Jeannine Hill-Fletcher, 82-137. New York: Continuum, 2005.

Hinze, Christine Firer. "Dirt and Economic Inequality: A Christian-Ethical Peek Under the Rug." Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics. 2001. 45-62.

Japinga, Lynn. Feminism and Christianity. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999.

Johnson, Elizabeth A. Women, Earth, and Creator Spirit. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1993.

Johnson, Elizabeth. "Naming God She." Princeton Seminary Bulletin 22, no. 2 (2001): 134-149.

Jones, Serene. "Women's Nature?" In Feminist Theory and Christian Theology, by Serene Jones, 22-48. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000.

Kwok, Pui-Ian. "Engendering Christ: Who Do You Say that I Am?" In Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Theology, by Pui-Ian Kwok, 168-185. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

Pierce, Monica. Feminism and the Bible. January 7, 2015. http://vimeo.com/115933633 (accessed January 7, 2015).

Plaskow, Judith. "Torah: Reshaping Jewish Memory." In Standing Again at Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective, by Judith Plaskow, 25-74. 1990.

Russell, Letty M. "Hot-House Ecclesiology: A Feminist Interpretation of the Church." 2001. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1758-6623.2001.tb00072.x/pdf (accessed January 14, 2015).

Traina, Cristina. "The Shape of Feminist Moral Discourse." In Feminist Ethics and Natural Law: The End of Anathemas, by Cristina Traina, 24-55. n.d.