Rightly understood, christology is feminism's strongest ally. The historical context for this investigation is the emergence of the “second stage” of feminism (Freidan) which challenges feminist theology to move beyond criticism to construction in dialogue and mutuality with men (Part I). A critical review of feminist christological work (Daly, Heyward, Ruether) points towards the liberal view of Jesus and a “therapeutic” view of soteriology. In view of the methodological elusiveness and the inescapable maleness of the historical Jesus and in view of the radical nature of sexism as systemic evil, these biases may indicate weaknesses (Part II). Drawing upon some recent reformulations of the trinity (Jenson, Moltmann, Congar), the paper proposes that a trinitarian christology will directly address the soteriological requirements of feminist theology and will provide a model of God which centers in mutuality, equality and freedom, and thus avoids oppressive, male qualities (Part III). Finally the implications of this christology are drawn to the practicalities of the feminist/masculinist debate.

This article attempts a brief sketch of the modern Jewish views of women. To explain modernity, however, it must first survey the major biblical and talmudic themes. Although both the Bible and talmudic materials are densely layered, one quickly sees that the dominant, official texts gave modern Jewish women an ambitious heritage. Only with the Breslav Conference of Reform Judaism in 1846 did a clear call for Jewish women's equality with men in institutional religion sound forth. Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati became an American rallying point among the Reformed, but the Conservative and Orthodox hung back. In recent times sympathetic religious lawyers have attempted halakahic reforms, but Jewish feminists feel that much remains to be done in such realms as divorce, religious ritual, and Israeli civil law.

Both inside and outside the classroom, many discussions of ethical topics reach an impass because of an underlying ethical subjectivism. This essay examines the limitations, discoveries, and contributions of four forms of this subjectivism: (1) liminal egoism, (2) emotivism, (3) privatism, and (4) relativism. The essay critiques popular expressions of the assumption that one cannot make arguments about the objective rightness or wrongness of human action. It argues that the positive emphases of each form can be included in an objective ethic. Such an ethic is stimulated by subjectivism to affirm (1) the uniqueness of the self, (2) the character-forming and cognitive nature of the emotions, (3) the proper place of subsidiarity, and (4) the legitimacy of certain types of pluralism.

The intensified efforts in recent years to bring definitional clarity to the field of religious education involve not simply elucidating the role of theology but also exploring the function of religious studies. A proposal is made in this essay that both theology and religious studies make different and necessary contributions to religious education, though neither subsumes it. The context for this argument is established by means of an initial review of the literature of religious education regarding the varied perspectives on the role of theology and then by attention to the relationship of theology and religious studies. The concluding section consists of three propositions specifying a conceptualization of the field of religious education with distinct functions for theology and religious studies.

As theologians are increasingly employing the social sciences in their work, it is incumbent upon them to examine the way the term religion is employed in these disciplines. This paper explains the common types of definition employed (the substantive and functional varieties) and critiques each from the perspective of contemporary theology. Both are found deficient in ways highly significant for theologians. This paper argues that it is inappropriate to attempt to establish any single definition of religion as normative. While the posture adopted appears to lay to rest any attempt to generate “grand theory” about religion it is not inconsistent with the canons of science as understood in current philosophy of science discourse.

When I undertook to teach a course on spiritual direction in 1976 I discovered that there were practically no books in English available on the subject. John McNeill's classic work in comparative history had been reprinted. Merton's little essay, already fifteen years old and more monastic in approach than was suitable for my students was still available. Jean Laplace's substantively excellent, but somewhat old-fashioned and clerical, treatment of the subject had just been translated from the French. With these exceptions, almost all useful material on the topic of spiritual direction was in the form of articles on specific aspects of this ministry appearing with increasing frequency in periodicals devoted to spirituality and religious life.

With the appearance the following year of Kenneth Leech's very fine study, Soul Friend, perhaps still the best overall treatment available, a veritable publishing phenomenon began. In the last five years dozens of full-length books and a number of long essays as well as various collections of articles on spiritual direction have appeared. In what follows I will attempt to describe and evaluate this phenomenon by briefly commenting on a number of recent books on the subject of spiritual direction.

As I was about to begin my teaching career at Arizona State University in 1977, I shared with one of my colleagues at another university that I was going to teach a course on women in the Christian tradition. He jokingly responded, “Well, that should take about ten minutes. What are you going to do the rest of the semester?” Accepting what I perceived as a well-intentioned challenge, I have occasionally sent him a syllabus for one of the two courses on women and religion which I regularly teach in alternate semesters. Although continuing research, new publications, and insights gleaned from previous classes demand that I change the courses slightly each semester, a perennial frustration remains: the sixteen-week semester is barely adequate for an in-depth study of relevant reading materials, pertinent issues raised, and questions demanding response.

The two courses I alternately teach are “Women in the Christian Tradition” and “Women, Religion, and Social Change” (World Religions). The first I have taught regularly since my arrival at Arizona State (my area is History of Christianity). The second developed as a consequence of a stimulating and provocative team-teaching effort with Diana Paul at Stanford University where I was invited to teach for Winter and Spring quarters, 1980-81. We team-taught the course, “Women, Religion, and Social Change.”

Trying to answer the question, “How can a teacher of systematic theology incorporate the insights provided by feminist thinkers?”, we faced several major problems and made a few rather arbitrary choices. Ultimately it is impossible to separate systematic theology from biblical or historical studies or distinguish it satisfactorily from the study of spirituality or morality. What we say here, then, must be complemented by the other essays in this series. Besides, the impact of feminist thought on Christian theology is not a peripheral or additional thing; incorporating feminist theology into systematics does not mean only an addition of topics. Rather, the research and reflection of feminist scholars demand revision of our basic approach to doing theology; they recast the basic evidence on which we must reflect; they challenge the presuppositions and methodology with which we previously approached the classic topics of theology.

What we are talking about is not how to teach a special branch or brand of theology, but simply teaching systematic theology more adequately and critically, trying to lead students to understand accurately and personally what is meant by “grace” and “salvation” and “Jesus as the Christ” and “Church” and “God.” In our trying to reach this goal, present-day feminist thought has proved a rich and indispensable resource—this we will try to explain in relation to four large areas of what generally is thought of as “systematic theology.” Rather than sketch a course in “Systematic Theology from a Feminist Perspective,” which would be both interesting and valuable, we will try to indicate ways in which the entire content of theology needs to be changed by feminist understandings.