Feminist theology has affected Christology in several ways according to this paper. The feminist movement began in the 1940s-50s advocating for greater rights and roles for women in both secular society and religious institutions. This led religious feminists to argue that traditional gender roles in the church were oppressing women and preventing them from exercising their spiritual gifts. They called for a reevaluation of women's roles and status in the church. While some denominations resisted these calls for change initially, most eventually began allowing women to take on more leadership positions including ordination, which significantly altered traditional views of gender roles and hierarchy within the church.

1. HOW FEMINIST THEOLOGY HAS AFFECTED CHRISTOLOGY
BDOC 459 ROUGH DRAFT
Jane Vanderburgh
March 26, 2015

2. Introduction
As a female Bible major, I often cringe whenever I hear the words
“feminist” and “theology” used in conjunction with one another. People often
twist these words to mean things that are not true or in accordance with their
original definition and to mean something that will fit their agenda or their
ideology. The word “feminist” simply means a person who advocates for women,
whether male or female. In some regard, I feel that all women are feminists in that
definition of the term—very few women would claim that they are anti-women or
believe in gender inequality. However, there are many ways to contort this
meaning, which is broad and typically good-natured to begin with, that can make
it narrowed and with ulterior motives. For instance, people often use the word
“feminist” to label something or someone in a negative connotation or use it as an
insult towards someone. Or, even worse, they use it to push their own personal
agenda to the extreme.
In this paper, I will be discussing one of two things—how the feminist
movement began in America, and how that movement potentially affected
theology or, more specifically, Christology. It can be, as previously stated, good-
natured in its beginning, it has often been misconstrued into a wrongful or even
heretical scheme. The feminist movement has had a positive impact on Western
society in countless ways, but it has also forever changed culture in such a way
that women can never return to their former place.

3. History of the Secular Feminist Movement
Feminism finds its roots in the 1940s and 1950s; it was coming off a time
period in which men were predominately absent, thanks to the Second World
War, which resulted in a boost of female pride. Posters of Rosie the Riveter
saying, “We can do it!” impacted women everywhere as they searched for a
renewed purpose. Ideas began to evolve and women became radical in believing
they were equal to men and deserved the rights that men found themselves
automatically receiving. As time went on, women became more and more restless
with their alleged appointed place in society. Feminist writings began to emerge
from Europe as well as America, and the movement began gaining strong
momentum. A European philosopher named Simone de Beauvoir published a
book entitled The Second Sex in 1953. It was not an immediate bestseller but
quickly gained attention in the mid 1960s as the ultimate liberator of women1. She
argued that women, as an entirety, were subjected to second-class citizenship of
the world and were viewed as an inferior species. She also claimed that women
were made to fit a mold that had been established and enforced by men and was
called “the eternal feminine”2. Newspaper articles published in the late 1950s-
early 1960s told of a syndrome that reporter Betty Friedan claimed women
experienced. It encompassed a variety of symptoms, including dissatisfaction,
yearning, emptiness, and a longing for a greater purpose. This so-called syndrome
became known as trapped housewife syndrome and Friedan claimed it was very
1 Mary Kassian, The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on
Church and Culture (Wheaton, Good News Publishers, 2005). 18.
2 Ibid. 20.

4. common among women3. American author Kate Millett described “the problem
without a name” (CITATION) as patriarchy, and she used it to describe the
societal dominance of men and the submissiveness of women in the late 1960s4.
As more and more authors began to speak out and voice their opinions on female
submission and inferiority, it gained more and more attention. These writings
would be widely distributed for common use to rally up the women to stand proud
for what they believe in and how they planned to take back their rightful place as
a equal partner to males.
Overall, these women, who were key figures in the early feminist
movement in society, felt that women were called to a greater and higher purpose
than being the ultimate housewife or the ultimate mother. They wrote of
discontentment, anxiety, purpose, and destiny. They were determined there was
something more for women than to sit at home and be submissive to their
husbands all day. However, these were the secular feminist views. It is surprising
to see that the feminist wave in church establishments and various denominations
was rising at the same time the secular wave was.
History of the Religious Feminist Movement
In the early 1950s, as Simone de Beauvoir was gaining recognition for her
book The Second Sex, an American named Katherine Bliss was administering a
survey entitled The Service and Status of Women in the Church with direction
from the World Council of Churches. It reported some fairly surprising news—
3 Ibid. 23.
4 Ibid. 27.

5. women were actively involved in the community outreach and upkeep of the
church family, but were limited to smaller leadership roles within a
congregational setting, such as teaching a Sunday school class or serving on the
missions committee. Women were not leaders in areas of administration, church
growth, preaching, or teaching, even though survey results indicated many of
these women were in fact gifted and capable of performing in some of these areas.
Bliss concluded the survey by arguing for a re-evaluation of gender roles
in the church by saying, “we must begin to ask seriously what the will of God is
concerning the diversity of gifts of men and women and concerning the spirit in
which they are to serve together their common Lord” 5 . It did not receive
nationwide recognition until the early 1960s when the civil rights movement was
garnering national attention as well. Many used Bliss’s survey results as an
argument for reformation of gender roles and to, as Bliss suggested, conduct a
serious re-evaluation of women’s roles. Articles in the Journal of Pastoral
Psychology at this time were touching on the trapped housewife syndrome
epidemic 6 . Mary Daly, another outspoken, prominent figure in the feminist
movement, observed that “a layman may be a member of the laity by choice; a
woman is this by necessity”7. Dr. William Douglas, one of the authors of the
journal articles on this subject, claimed that women were patronized for saying
they felt called to ministry because it is not, as defined by society, in their gender
to do so. He said women wanted a stronger input in churches of the day and did
5 Ibid. 29.
6 Ibid. 30.
7 Ibid. 30.

6. not wish to spend their time serving behind the scenes or in the kitchen. 8 A
periodical titled Christianity and Crisis requested that there be “fairness for the
fair sex” in a article in 19629. The Union Seminary Quarterly Review asked for a
radical new order to discover ways in which women could revive their roles and
status within the church in 1964 10 . That same year, the World Council of
Churches, the same group under which Katherine Bliss conducted her survey,
published a pamphlet titled “Concerning the Ordination of Women” and pleaded
with churches to reconsider their traditions and law for the sake of equality. An
editorial in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies in 1967 asserted that the question
of women’s roles in the church was “the ecumenical question of the decade”11.
Catholics quickly joined in the conversation as well, and sooner it became clear
among Methodists, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians,
Catholics, and Baptists that the second gender needed an evaluation and liberation
in the church12.
Interestingly enough, there was a religion affiliation that resisted this
controversial topic, and many might argue they still resist it today. Evangelical
Christians, as a majority, disapproved of this being a sensitive subject within the
church. An article in Christianity Today from 1971 claimed, “women possess
second-class citizenship in the Kingdom of God”13. Though some bypassed this
8 Ibid. 30.
9 Ibid. 31.
10 Ibid. 31.
11 Ibid. 31.
12 Ibid. 31.
13 Ibid. 31.

7. and agreed with other denominations, others resisted this wave of potential
change and would like to still resist it today.
Once these various denominations and churches recognized there was
potentially a gender problem within their midst, the next obvious question
emerged—what do we do about it? Author William Douglas offered two
alternatives. First, he suggested that churches could try to “recapture the New
Testament pattern which appears to be lost in contemporary Protestantism”14.
These churches could try to return to their roots and do away with a hierarchy
within their congregation and establish a priesthood among all believers and
observe no distinction between the ministers and the laity. Secondly, he offered
the option of clinging to the church’s current structure but allowing women to
enter these ordained roles so they have the option to not be a part of the laity if
they feel called to do otherwise15. Naturally, this would be much easier said than
done—he was asking some churches to do away with their structure that has
mostly been successful for hundreds of years. If not that, he was asking churches
to completely rearrange this structure, and their mindsets, to allow women to
become ordained and serve above men. Most believers opted to agree with
Douglas’s second option, in that it was only one significant change and it was not
to the system that had worked for them thus far16.
Meanwhile, while Douglas attempted to correct churches, other Christian
feminists aligned themselves on a trajectory that was parallel to secular feminists.
14 Ibid. 31.
15 Ibid. 31.
16 Ibid. 32.

8. Overall, they sought to tear down gender barriers in roles within the church and
recognize that ministerial roles could be gender neutral. They simply believed that
women were able to do everything a man could do, and this included leadership
roles within the church. They were so strong-willed in their desire to bring women
out of oppression into leadership roles that they did not turn to Scripture to search
the Word for validation for their beliefs. They were so headstrong in striving for
gender equality that they seemed to ignore whether these new roles would be in
alignment with any Biblical principles or patterns. Christian feminists chose to
blindly see the church as sexist and proposed an immediate response to that,
rather than attempting to see if they were following scriptural guidelines or not17.
Defining Feminist Theology
The ultimate question feminist theologians have had to address in the
recent decades since their boom is, what is feminist theology? There seem to be
three specific strands of feminist theology, which range from normal to the
extreme. It could be someone arguing for more equality or leadership in the
church for women, or theology number one. Theology number two is posing the
question—is Jesus male or is Christ male, or can we even separate the two
beings’ genders? And, if Christ is deemed male, how can this male savior save
women18? Finally, theology option number three, is a rather radical approach to
feminist theory—these proponents are calling for a gender-neutral language, both
17 Ibid. 32.
18 McGory Speckman, “Feminist Notions in Christian Portraits of Jesus:
Implications for a Gender Inclusive Christology”, Acta Patristica et Byzantina,
12 (2001) 158.

9. in the Bible and in church settings, to recognize that God identifies with male and
female alike. This would mean referring to him as “Leader” or “Ruler”, rather
than “Father”, since the latter implies a male gender. This paper will go in depth
to these three explorations of what feminist theology might contain and if there is
a clear right or wrong direction to be heading in.
Gender Equality in the Church
Many Evangelical Christians today would argue that either there must be
more gender equality in their churches or that plenty equality has already been
made. It has been a very strong argument about progressive and conservative
churches and faith systems alike, but more prominently since the 1960s when the
secular feminist movement took full force in popular culture.
One of the most well known religious feminist writers would be Mary
Daly. She published a book titled The Church and the Second Sex in 1968. It
caused an uproar—she was fired from her teaching position at a Jesuit college
because they felt it was too progressive and violated their beliefs. Feminists took
this as a personal attack as to undermine their movement and picketed the college
to support Daly and her views19. Regardless of her career status, or lack thereof,
she prevailed and became a strong leader for the religious feminist movement into
the 1970s. Daly did not view the church’s current system as overall hopeless and
wrote that it was indeed redeemable.
19Mary Kassian, The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on
Church and Culture (Wheaton, Good News Publishers, 2005). 41.

10. She began her arguments by saying that religion had always been using as
a tool to oppress women, especially during the Middle Ages. To keep women in
an eternal position of servitude, she argued, was a “powerful trump in [the
church’s] hand”20. She accused the church of conveying, or at least not denying,
the idea that men were superior to women. In pagan religions before the
establishment of Christianity, many cults worshipped mother-goddesses of
various backgrounds. Simone de Beauvoir had argued that that Christianity
continued this mother-goddess idolatry by some denominations’ venerability of
the Virgin Mary. Daly continued this argument by claiming that churches wished
their women to view the Virgin Mary as the ultimate housewife who was passive
and submitted to the men in her life without question21. She also said that the
church encouraged this mindset in order to keep women in this position of
servitude and inferiority in the passive role of housewife22.
Perhaps most controversial, Daly persisted that the church’s moral code
even violated women and was extremely harmful to them. She argued that too
much influence from Hebrew tradition and Greek philosophy had shaped the
views of those writing the Bible, and so they twisted some of the stories or
contexts to be male-superior and female-inferior. She argued that the Bible read
as “man is the embodiment of pure spirit, while woman was the embodiment of
the accursed flesh”23. This carried into present day thinking, Daly claimed, into
the mindset that it was the woman’s job and duty to keep her marriage together
20 Ibid. 43.
21 Ibid. 43.
22 Ibid. 44.
23 Ibid. 44.

11. and whole. She was to be a faultless and virgin bride, but her husband to be was
not necessarily punished for his previous sexual escapades. A promiscuous
woman might face severe penalties, if not death, for her actions, whereas a
sexually active man might be viewed as a true man for participating in the same
actions24.
Finally, Daly’s fourth argument she made within her book was that the
inclusion of women from leadership roles in the church led to natural feelings of
inferiority among women. She believed that women had been conditioned to
feeling inferior and the pressure to submit to men in any circumstance. The
biggest shortcoming she faced here was that “all of God’s representatives here on
earth—the pope, the bishop, the priest, the pastor—were male”25. Regardless of a
woman’s religion, according to Daly, the head of that faith orientation was male.
Therefore, it was natural for those women to feel inferior when they have no
leadership examples of women or role models to aspire to emulate as men do.
Once Daly and finished taking apart the church for its shortcomings
concerning women, she preceded to build it back up. She wrote that the believed
the church would be the “vehicle that would bring about women’s liberation”26
and that they were capable of providing the means necessary to build women back
up to an equal status. Five years after she published The Church and the Second
24 Ibid. 45.
25 Ibid. 45.
26 Ibid. 46.

12. Sex, she wrote a book titled Beyond God the Father in which she attempt to marry
the ideologies of feminism and religion and saw them as interchangeable27.
Despite Daly’s arguments and whether the church agreed or disagreed
with her thoughts at the time, it is very clear to see that she was striving to come
to a resolved outcome in the situation and proposed solutions on how to go about
that, rather than simply deeming the church and feminist theology a lost cause.
It is evident how impactful Greek philosophy was upon the early church—
reading Acts 17 is enough of an example to use that those who were influential
first believers were very familiar with Aristotle, Plato, and their contemporaries.
Perhaps this is where we sense the gender bias among men and women. Greek
thought had a very low view of women that could have easily influenced the New
Testament. A common reading of the creation story in pre-feminism times would
have been that, since Adam was created first and Eve was created from Adam, she
is meant to be a secondary role or of a lesser status28.
Other questions feminist theologians who adhere to option number one
might ask themselves questions such as
Does the fact that women have been marginalized, silenced, and
oppressed by the Christian churches throughout most of their history mean that
Christianity as such is bad for women, or is it possible to write theology in a way
that advocates the full humanity of women in the image of God? Is it possible to
write a theology in which women are seen as those without whom the body of
27 Ibid. 46.
28 Natalie Watson, Feminist Theology: (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2003). 26.

13. Christ is incomplete? Could the message of Christianity in fact be interpreted in a
way that advocates women’s experience and equality?29
While some of these are rhetorical questions with no legitimate answer,
they all raise one key point—is it even possible? Have we become so engrained in
our traditions and our standards that the possibility of changing them is far-
fetched at best? It is important to remember Mary Daly’s thoughts here—the
church is redeemable30. One scholar raises an important point in acknowledging
that, even if gender equality is taken in its entirety, male and women are still
different. Instead of arguing and fighting over who can and can’t perform which
role, we should celebrate the differences that make us male and that make us
female and learn to work together in order to produce the most desired effect31.
Some of this first feminist theology is neither here nor there. Though it is
important, I feel as though every Christian, for the most part, would agree that
women are not the same as men, both physically and mentally. However, instead
of chastising one another for these differences and scolding the other sex for their
short comings, we should celebrate and worship that we have a creator who was
good enough to make us different so that we can be strong where the other lacks
and vice versa. Though topics and discussions on women’s role in the church are
important and, especially in certain circumstances, might be urgent and needed
immediately, there are also greater things at hand than discussing whether a
woman should be allowed to lead a song or a prayer when we are gathered as the
29 Ibid. 27.
30 Mary Kassian, The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on
Church and Culture (Wheaton, Good News Publishers, 2005). 46.
31 Natalie Watson, Feminist Theology: (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2003). 28.

14. body of Christ. Women are invited to partake of the body of Christ, just as men
are. There should be no different in how they choose to worship or serve that
body of Christ as well.
Can a Male Savior Save Women?
Men are just capable of misinterpreting scripture as women are; there is no
claim that either gender is superior at understanding God’s Word over the other.
However, an interesting question arose within the last century or two, based upon
overwhelming theological facts and ideologies that have been, predominantly
speaking, introduced by males. Some theologians began to claim that since Jesus
was male; Christ is male and is a savior to males. Some went as far to the extent
of claiming women, as an entire gender, “are not included in the saving act of
Christ”32. Author Jennifer Illig claims that the role of feminist theologians is to
push back this mindset that women are unsaved members of the body of Christ
and rise to an equal status with men, as we are in God’s eyes. She argues that yes,
although we possess biological differences, our God views us as his creation,
neither as male nor as female. He is not a dominating or overbearing overlord but
rather an intimate and loving being that invites men and women into a
relationship with him. Illig points out how often Jesus used women in his
ministry, both in parables and miracles or simply involving them in his teachings.
After all, who were the people to first discover the empty tomb? Would God have
allowed the inferior gender or second class citizens to discover the tomb unless he
32 Jennifer Illig, “Feminist Christology: Remembering Jesus, Re-Envisioning
Christ,” Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa 31 (2007): 33.

15. was trying to make a point that the current, worldly way to handle women is
completely upside down? Jesus challenged the view of women multiple times
throughout scripture, such as allowing them to study and learn from him, as
recorded in Luke 10:38-42, when women could not learn under a rabbi at the
time. Mark 7:24-30 and Matthew 15:20-28 record the same story of a women who
challenges Jesus to heal her daughter because she knows she is not one of the
“lost sheep of Israel”. A woman is the person who anoints Jesus with oil,
signifying the preparation of death but also recognizing him as the Messiah. The
women stayed at the cross until Jesus had died, and as previously mentioned,
women were the ones who found the empty tomb. Surely then, Illig argues, Jesus
came to save women as well as men if he chose to involve them and purposively
include them as often as he did. Women were seen as the milestones or
connecting points between Jesus’ ministry, death, burial, resurrection, and the
foundation of the Christian church—clearly these was not reserved for the
“second best”33.
Illig does make a point that many progressive Christians could learn from
today. Even though women were actively involved in Jesus’ ministry and the
advance of the Gospel throughout the world, women are not recorded as being
their equals within the church body. The early communities of Christians sought
to live as freely and equally as they were able, but they still adhered to Jesus’
teachings that taught against women have equal authoritative or leadership status
in a church. Jesus chose twelve apostles; they were not assigned to him, nor did
33 Ibid. 35-36.

16. he pick them randomly. So, then, did he not have the chance to choose a woman if
he wanted to? Although we cannot put words in Jesus’ mouth, we can assume he
did not place women among his apostles because he knew they were already
viewed as “lesser than” men. He wanted to choose the “superior race” in their
culture, but even then he chose the lowly, the scum of the superiors. Why? He
wanted to make a point that the kingdom of God welcomed everyone; male,
female, high in authority, low in influence, rich, poor, etc. By choosing women to
be among his twelve, he might have been written off immediately as being
another religious teacher gone astray. But choosing twelve men who had less than
favorable jobs and were not among the favorites of their community? Now he had
people intrigued. Now he had his audience with which to transform the world
with.
However, this is all much easier said than done. Even by the close of the
first century, at the most seventy years removed from the burial and resurrection
Jesus, Christians were misinterpreting scripture to believe that women were saved
in a different way than man and submissiveness played a key factor in their
salvation. They used 2 Peter 2:13-15 to illustrate their argument; Adam was
created first, Eve second. Eve sinned first, Adam second. Eve could only salvage
her relationship with God and redeem herself to her former equal status through
childbirth and subordination and that they “persevere in faith and love and
holiness, with self-control”. Some early Christians began to claim this passage
was evident that women were not automatically saved through Jesus’ blood and
God’s grace, but they also had to work at it themselves in order to achieve

17. salvation. For men, however, since they did not sin first and they were created
first, they did not have to “do anything extra” to please God and win his favor
back 34 . As the centuries continued, Christ’s image became more and more
associated with his gender while he was a human on earth and he became
“represented” on earth through religious men in a position of power. Therefore,
many believed that Christ was male and was only concerned with male
salvation35.
Augustine, a Christian writer from the late fifth-early sixth centuries,
wrote that although a soul is non-gendered (and that soul is what is the image of a
non-gendered God), the body that soul inhabits does have a gender. As with many
others of his time, he accepted that, since male was created first, he was a superior
being than the woman, who was created second as a “after thought”. Augustine
did not think that sin is what caused the superiority of male over female—creation
order is what caused that, but the difference in the two genders was only
worsened after the sin was committed and its consequences began36.
Thomas Aquinas wrote in the thirteenth century that
Christ has to be male because the male represents the fullness of the image of God, in
himself, and as ‘head’ of woman… Since woman cannot represent headship—eminence,
leadership—either in society or in the church, it is ontologically necessary that Christ be
male37.
It is interesting to note, however, that both Aquinas and Augustine
maintain the idea that there will be no gender hierarchy in heaven and women, as
34 Ibid. 37.
35 Ibid. 38.
36 Ibid. 39.
37 Ibid. 39.

18. part of creation in the image of God, will be able to stand equally next to men in
worship in heaven. Despite this belief, they continued to maintain there was
gender inequality and superiority/inferiority on earth, but none in heaven38.
So what can be done about Christ as a male? Or Jesus as a male? Illig
writes that some feminists take one look at how Christianity has been used to
oppress and confine women to specific social standings and they throw their
hands up and declare “Christianity to be hopelessly irredeemable”39. Christology
has often been the weapon of choice of those who wish to oppress women and
take them out of any leadership positions they might hold within the church.
There are some feminist theologians who chose to see Christ’s message,
not as one of submission and dominance but one that calls all people—Galatians
3:28—to wholeness and unity in Christ40. This “brand” of feminist theology is
called feminist liberation theology. They don’t believe that Jesus or Christ himself
is the root of the problem, but rather how people have interpreted, or
misinterpreted, his teachings and message throughout the centuries41.
38 Ibid. 39.
39 Ibid. 39.
40 Ibid. 40.
41 Ibid. 40.

19. Bibliography
Illig, Jennifer. "Feminist Christology: Remembering Jesus, Re-Envisioning Christ." Journal of
Theta Alpha Kappa 31,no. 1 (2007): 33-51.
Kassian, Mary A. The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminismon Church and
Culture. Rev. ed. Wheaton,Ill.: Crossway Books, 2005. 336.
Speckman, M. "Feminist Notions in Christian Portraits of Jesus: Implications of a Gender
Inclusive Christology." Acta Patristia Et Byzantina 12 (2001): 158-78. Accessed
February 18, 2015. New Testament Abstracts.
Watson, Natalie. Feminist Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company,
2003.