Is Theological Education Captive of/ Critic of/Enhancer of the Respective Cultures in which it is Rooted?

Abstract

A case will be made in this presentation for the viewpoint that feminism is a means to free theological education from cultural captivity, to provide a vehicle for theological education to sustain a critique of the larger culture, and also to enable theological education done from a feminist perspective to contribute to the creative enhancement of the culture. It is essential, therefore, if feminism is to bear this much freight in the discussion, to define it carefully at the outset. The definition noted above was penned by Phyllis Trible, a North American feminist and professor of Old Testament. Amongst her several well-known works is God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality in which she states, “By feminism I do not mean a narrow focus upon women, but rather a critique of culture in light of misogyny. This critique affects the
issues of race and class, psychology, ecology, and human sexuality. Beverly Harrison has extended the insight that feminism takes on the task of ideology critique. She contrasts the “hard” feminism of this genre, i.e., a feminism that deals with a broadbased and comprehensive analysis of the interlocking patterns of racism, classism and sexism, with “soft” feminism. Soft feminism is defined as culturally captive to capitalist values. Its goals are equal pay for equal work, increased day care, job training, etc. Soft feminism provides little cultural critique and seeks to integrate women into the existing system to share “a bigger piece of the pie.”

PDF